Do Tourism Providers Know their Visitors?
An Investigation of Tourism Experience at a Destination
Georgia Zouni,
PhD Candidate of Tourism Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece
Tel: 30 210 4142000
Fax No.: 30 210 4142328
e-mail: gzouni@unipi.gr
Athanassios Kouremenos,
Professor of Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece
Tel: 30 210 4142000
Fax No.: 30 210 4142328
e-mail: akour@unipi.gr
Abstract
Even the sticking out positivists researchers (Grönroos, 2001; Gummesson, 1994, 2001, 2006;
Iacobucci & Ostrom 1999; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000, 2004) recognize the insufficiencies
of traditional services research methodology and claim that the dominant models of service
quality’s measurement have failed to conceive the customers’ prospective (Schembri &
Sandberg, 2002). Whereas the customer is considered to be the focal point at contemporary
Marketing and Services Marketing area, customer’s perspective is claimed to be missing from
the dominant theory (Grönroos, 1993, 2006a). This article explores the potential for a modified
gap analysis to serve as an alternative marketing tool. A research framework is constructed and
tested using data produced by two survey efforts (tourists and tourism services providers) in a
heritage destination. The purpose of the present study is to provide in favour of this gap as an
effective marketing tool for a better understanding of customer’s prospective.
Keywords: Tourism Marketing, destination experience, gap analysis, marketing research,
heritage

Do Service Providers Know their Visitors?
An Investigation of Tourism Experience at a Destination
1. Introduction
The main objective of this study is the investigation of the gap/ distance between the evaluated
experience of tourists and providers’ estimation of this evaluation. The implicit assumption of
this investigation is that the possession of spherical knowledge of visitors’ perceptions is
essential for the effective participation of local factors (main destination stakeholders) in the
successful operation, the sustainability, and the long-term viability of tourist destination.
Destination competitiveness can be improved through precise matching of evaluations between
the most direct involved parts of destination, tourists (that represent the demand of tourism) and
tourism professionals (that represent tourism supply).
This paper is organised as follows. Firstly, it examines some recent literature and discusses
both, the theoretical concept of destination experience and its measurement. Then, it describes
the sample and measures employed in the empirical study. It is followed by the reporting of the
empirical research results. Finally, it concludes by identifying certain implications.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Tourist Destination Experience
Destinations are amalgams of tourism products, offering an integrated experience to consumers
(Buhalis, 2000). Destination components have been the subject of the development of several
typologies from researchers (Medlik & Middleton, 1973; Burkart & Medlik, 1981; Laws, 1995;
Cooper et al. 1993; Gunn, 1988; Middleton, 1988; Buhalis, 2000). Matched with demand
components they, both, generate tourist experience. Tourists consider destination as a brand
name that is constituted by a collection of suppliers and services. During their interruptions
“they consume” destinations as a comprehensive experience, without often realising that each
element of product is produced and regulated by the individual institutions (Buhalis, 2000).
The quality of experience involves not only the attributes provided by a supplier, but also
attributes brought to the opportunity by the visitor or recreationist (Ryan, 1995). The quality of
experience is a psychological outcome or emotional response. Satisfaction is measured by how
well leisure activities are perceived to fulfil the basic needs and motives that stimulated the idea
to participate in the activity (Crompton & Love, 1995, p.12). Tourists' overall experience is
composed of numerous small encounters with a variety of tourism principals, such as taxi
drivers, hoteliers, waiters, as well as elements of the local attractions such as museums, theatres,
beaches, theme parks, etc. Their overall impression develops their image of a destination after
their visit.
It has long been recognised that the visitor experience is at the heart of the destination product
(Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; Swarbrooke, 2002, Vitterso et al. 2000, Jennings & Nickerson
2006) and that company viability depends on recognising it and managing it accordingly
(Richards, 1999). Despite that recognition, the majority of researchers agree that tourism
experiences have, to a considerable extent, been under-researched (Larsen, 2007; Connell &
Meyer, 2004). According to Buhalis (2000) there are few textbooks examining destination
marketing (see Heath & Wall, 1992; Goodall & Ashworth, 1988; Gartrell, 1994; Pike, 2008)
and even fewer illustrate destinations as an experience provider for tourists and locals (Ryan,
1997, 1991; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Korca, 1998; Lawson et al.,1998; Mason & Cheyne, 2000,

Andriotis, 2000, 2002) or other destination stakeholders (Martin et al. 1989; Sternquist Witter,
1985; Saleh & Ryan, 1991, Fyall et al. 2007). The present article attempts to contribute to the
discussion on the tourist experience measurement in the context of a destination both
conceptually and empirically.
2.2 Measurement of Destination Experience
The measurement of destination experience adopts generally the assumptions and principles of
the perceived service quality measurement, as proposed by services marketing literature. For
instance, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry’s (1985) expectation perception gap model (Duke &
Persia, 1996), Oliver’s expectancy disconfirmation theory (Pizam & Milman, 1993), Sirgy’s
congruity model (Chon & Olsen, 1991), performance-only model (Pizam et al., 1978) have all
been used for measuring tourist satisfaction with specific tourist destinations.
But these approaches have some limitations when applied in tourism destination research field.
A measurement problem derives from destination product integration and complexity, when
customer assessment and satisfaction cannot be achieved separately by independent businesses,
but requires a whole network of providers within a destination. A holiday destination offers a
complex chain of service experiences, which may include service encounters during
organisation of the trip, distribution of travel information, transport, accommodation, catering,
and various leisure activities. Most service providers are small and medium-sized tourism
enterprises which have a wide range of strengths and weaknesses whilst they are also
characterised by their independent nature (Buhalis & Cooper, 1998). Hence, the
competitiveness of each player is often interrelated and almost indistinguishable from one
another. Thus, destination marketers have to focus on the quality of the entire tourist experience,
not only that of the core (accommodation and catering) service providers. Co-ordinating quality
management among tourism and hospitality businesses is a challenge for most destinations with
today’s increased competition.
Moreover, many studies into the nature of holiday experiences are both positivistic and
empirical in nature (Ryan, 2000). . Schembri and Sandberg (2002) note that predominantly,
service quality researchers seek to objectively measure the quality of service perceived by
consumers. However, while a consumer orientation is typically emphasised within an objective
measurement of service quality, it fails to achieve a genuine understanding of what quality of
service means to consumers. Ryan (2000, p. 119) argues that tourist experiences are essentially
individualistic, although it is possible to discern consensual realities.
The majority of services marketing scholars nowadays vote for an interpretative ontology in
consumer research (see Gummesson 2001, Hirschman 1984; Hirschman & Holbrook 1992,
Zimmerman & Szenberg 2000, Suddaby 2006). Moreover, many of them tend to use mixed
models Tashakkori & Teddlie 1998) in customer research, i.e. customer value (Khalifa 2004,
Payne & Holt 2001, Woodall 2003) and customer orientation research (Avlonitis & Gounaris
1997, Baker & Sinkula 1999). Indicative of this tendency is the fact that a distinguished body of
academics tends to support that “…In the end, all research is interpretive, and all interpretation
is a combination of the systematic and objective as well as the intuitive, emotional and
subjective” (Gummesson 2006, p. 175)
Another methodological problem steams from the nature of tourism phenomenon. Because the
nature of travel is about pleasure, fun, and satisfaction and tourism experiences may be
particularly prone to customers overrating their experiences, it is anticipated that the “gap”
between costumer experiences and providers’ experiences would be positive (Vogt &
Fesenmaier, 1995, p. 766). Stated in another way, it is hypothesized that tourists will rate the
service delivery more favourably than providers’ rating of tourists experiences.

Moreover, the new marketing thoughts (i.e. relationship marketing, the network approach, and
the service-dominant logic) provide a different conceptualization of the whole tourism
consumption experience. In these paradigms, the assumption is that customer defines quality
(Gronroos 1993, Parasuraman et al. 1988, 1985, Buzzell & Gale 1987), so the assessment of the
quality is based on the customer himself (Iacobucci & Ostrom 1999, Gummesson 2001, Clark et
al. 2007). Edvardsson, Thomasson and Øvretveit (1994) note: “quality is like beauty, it is in the
eye of the beholder. It is the experience and expectations of the customer” (p. 1). This approach
emphasises the reason why quality must be measured from the perspective of the customer
(Edvardsson et al. 2005a, Zeithaml et al. 2006). This issue of customer’s perspective on
measuring service quality and experience is discussed in the next paragraph.
2.3 Customer’s Perspective on Measuring Destination Experience
In order to deliver consistently the quality of good service the destination management is
required to view quality the way the customer does. Iacobucci and Ostrom (1999) point out
relatively: “Up to the point that the research for the quality must reflect the market…we believe
that the voice of the consumer is important” (p. 298).
Schembri and Sandberg (2002) point that the dominant models of service quality’s
measurement have failed to conceive the customers’ prospective as far as the quality of services
is concerned. Whereas the customer is considered to be the focal point at contemporary
Marketing and Marketing of services, an outstanding body of academics claim that service
quality research does not sufficiently conceive the perceptions of customers for the quality of
services (Edvardsson et al. 2005, Enquist et al. 2007, Bitner et al. 2006, Vargo & Lusch 2004).
A tangible proof of the above finding is many prominent editors who evoke the traditional
approach at the research of customers’ attitude (see, for example Gummesson, 1998, 2004,
2007; Grönroos, 2006a, 2006b; Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2004; Edvardsson 2005). Hence, it is claimed that the alternative approaches at the research of
service quality should be examined (Arnold and Fischer, 1994) and in particular towards the
direction of the proposal of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) that the organizations must aim to
integrate the experience of the customer as a standard.
Parasuraman et al. (1985) pioneered a conceptual model of “Gap Analysis” in service quality.
One of the significant gaps is the difference between consumer expectations and management
perceptions of consumer expectations. Within tourism industry though, the host must not only
ask “what do I think the tourist needs” or “do I think the tourist enjoyed his/her visit to my
community”, but also attempt to put himself/ herself in the position of the tourist and then
attempt to answer those same questions (Petters & Waterman, 1982). These perspectives (i.e.,
the customer’s evaluation and the provider’s estimation of the customer’s evaluation) may be
similar or different depending on the extent to which the service provider accurately
understands the nature of the needs and wants of the parties involved.
A pioneer academic attempt in services marketing of measuring service quality taking customer
experience as a standard was the research of Brown and Swartz (1989) under the title “A Gap
Analysis of Professional Service Quality”, who studied medical care services for the exploration
of the customer evaluation and estimation of the supplier. Brown and Swartz (1989) put
professionals to answer according to what they believed that customers would answer and
afterwards they compared the results with the evaluation of visitors themselves for the
experience of service. Apart from subjects that measure diagnostic practices, the grades of
visitors were higher than the level that the doctors expected that customers would answer.
Despite the recognition of this gap from many authors in service marketing (see Candido &
Morris, 2000), only one study examined this gap ever since, doing this in tourism trade sector
(Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1995). This document describes a study that measures the perceptions of

tourists and retailers for the levels of services in a tourism trade destination (shopping village).
Vogt and Fesenmaier (1995) in their study found that service providers do not understand the
level at which customers evaluate their experience and tend to underrate the customer
experience, confirming thus Brown and Swartz’s (1989) research results.
The purpose of this research is to examine to provide in favour of this gap as an effective
marketing tool for a better understanding of customer’s prospective by empirically testing it in
the context of a tourism destination experience. Recognizing the fact that tourist experiences are
together individualistic and objective (Ryan, 2000), present study employs a mixed
epistemological approach. Specifically, present study adopts the interpretive ontological
assumptions that previous relevant studies only implied (Brown & Swartz, 1989; Vogt &
Fesenmaier 1995), and employs the positivist methodological guidelines.
According to this study’s ontological assumptions
Whereas in the traditional rational research approach the research subject, which is
quality of experience, is considered to be separated from the research object, which is
the consumer,
In the suggested interpretative approach the research subject (service quality), is
considered to be indivisible from the research object (consumer).
Moreover, this study employs the research methodology proposed by the quantitative approach.
Quantitative research is the systematic scientific investigation of properties and phenomena and
their relationships. So, this study adopts quantitative research techniques (survey) to gather data
from the study populations.
This paper reports the findings of this mixed method study conducted in accordance with both
interpretative and positivist principles. In taking this alternative, a better understanding of the
degree of service providers’ conceptualisation of service quality experienced by consumers in a
tourism destination is aimed. Specifically, the gap investigated in this study can be schematized
in the following equation:
Gap = tourists experiences - providers perceptions of customer experiences
3. The Study
3.1 Study field
Olympia is one of the most famous and visited destinations in Greece. Its cultural significance
for Greeks and humanity in general stems from the fact that in this spot the ancient Olympic
Games used to be held, a festivity which was not only important to this region but the rest of
Greece and the entire world as well. Olympia is a small village of 1870 residents and covers a
surface of 3.4 kilometres. The village of Olympia offers a variety of tourism services apart from
historic and cultural attractions.
3.2 Research Methodology
Primary data was obtained from tourists and service providers in Olympia in two separate
survey efforts.
3.2.1 Sampling procedures

Tourist study population was determined using EUROSTAT and WTO guidelines for
conducting and processing a visitor surveys in destinations. In detail, tourists’ sample was
composed by national and international tourists, aged more than 15 years old, who visited
Olympia and its Archaeological Site and Museum- the main historical attractions of the
destination.
On the other hand, tourism services provider population was determined using Tourism
Satellite Account (TSA) approved by World Tourism Organisation. Specifically, services
providers’ sample was obtained from lists of the local chamber of commerce. The list provided
had problems of duplication among sampling units or inactive enterprises. Duplicate tracts were
identified via field research of the researchers and were handled appropriately. In detail, from a
list of 182 tourism providers the active list (minus duplications and inactive companies) is 112
tourism enterprises in the destination. These 112 companies comprised the providers sample
frame for this study. Providers were defined as owners or managers of tourism services
enterprises in the destination.
Problems related with the sampling frame -missing data, clusters of elements and blank foreign
elements as mentioned by Kish (1965) - were identified and treated. Homogeneity of the
samples investigated was both assumed and tested in the first steps of the research. It was
assumed because of the relatively harmonized views, experiences (if any) and knowledge of
Olympia among tourists (foreign visitors) in the area. As far as the providers are concerned,
because of the small area and population of the village, all providers of tourism services offered
in this destination (attractions, hospitality, food and transport services, travel agencies’ services
and tourism trade) have numerous chances in a tourist season to meet, serve and exchange info
with the tourists and thus well formed and established opinions. In addition, Levine statistical
tests of homogeneity of variance have been carried out in early stages of data analysis with
excellent results.
3.2.2 Questionnaire design
Performance-only approach provided the basis for the service evaluation task, due to limitations
of disconfirmation approach (Churchill & Suprenant, 1982; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Erevelles &
Leavitt, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Bouman & Van Der Wiele, 1992; Carman, 1990; Athanassopoulos
et al., 2005). Reasons for using performance only measure in this study steam from Kozak &
Rimmington’s (2000) arguments concerning the respective merits of the expectations and
perceptions approaches onto destination context.
An eight-page structured questionnaire developed after extensive literature review, Delphi
technique with experts, pre-testing and experimental techniques (double loop-template process).
Study variables coincide with total consumption system variables proposed by Woodside and
Dubelaar (2002, p. 120). Service evaluation items were intended to represent five service
quality dimensions (i.e., tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, access). Some items
were slightly modified as suggested by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and were followed by other
researchers (Carman, 1990; Hamilton et al., 1988; MacKay & Crompton, 1990) to resemble the
business operation under study. For the selection of the relevant destination attributes and
dimensions the present study adopts Tribe and Snait (1998) proposed procedure.Questionnaire
was translated in six languages (depicting the mix of tourist demand in the destination).
3.2.3 Measurement
The measurement scales for this study were developed based on the literature review and
relevant theories, previous empirical studies and results, and observations and experiences of
the given phenomena. A symmetrical 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree” was used to rate attributes of tourism services. Only in the case of satisfaction
measurement an asymmetrical 4-scale was used since it is recognized that most respondents
were likely to rate service satisfaction positively (Crompton et al. 1991). Reliability of this
measurement instrument was tested and confirmed.

The general hypothesis of the study is:
Ho there is no difference between tourists’ destination experience and providers’ estimate
of tourists’ experience.
T-tests and chi square tests were performed to evaluate the difference in means
between tourists' and providers perceptions (Ho).
4. Analysis of findings
A total of 268 usable questionnaires (response rate of 71%) were collected from tourists of
destination over the course of two months. On the other hand, the service provider self-
completion survey achieved a 76.5% response rate or 95 usable questionnaires.
4.1 Profile of tourists
The majority of tourists that visit the study destination is British and French (1 out of 3 visitors),
of both sexes, young people aged from 19 to 29 (32.5%), university graduates and postgraduates
(50.4%) and of middle-up monthly income (1500-3000 euros).
Destination providers hold a faulty perception of tourists’ demographic characteristics (except
for tourists’ sex). We would detect a relative depreciation of visitors educational and income
level in providers’ estimations.
4.2 Tourist Travel Patterns
Most people travel in Ancient Olympia as pairs, while almost half of them (44.8%) have visited
again the country, while a statistically important percentage of them (22.8%) have visited the
destination. Half visitors have booked their travel via travel agencies, while a 40.3% of them
have closed this travel alone. They planned their travel for a period of 1 to 6 months. Service
providers seem to hold a relative precise knowledge of destination tourists’ travel patterns as
their answers generally coincide with those of tourists. Gaps were detected in the case of

tourists’ travel party composition and that was one of the factors that influenced the decision of
visit.
Travel Patterns Tourists most Tourists Tourism Providers
frequent answer
(%) Ranking (%) Ranking
Travel Party Composition Travel as a couple 31.3 1 14.7 2
Prior visit to Greece Yes 52.2 1 71.7 1
Prior visit to Olympia No 76.6 1 92.4 1
Days stayed at Olympia 1 to 2 days 56.7 1 83.2 1
Booking form Via travel agency 51.5 1 85.1 1
Trip planning period 1 to 6 months 30.3 1 70 1
Factors influencing decision to Word of mouth 21.3 1 17.3 4
travel
4.3 Tourist Behavior In The Destination
Most visitors (75.4%) consider destination as only one of the main destinations visited during
their stay in the country. They reached destination by tourist coach or with private car (same
percentage 28%), while they intend to stay for 1 or 2 days (60%). The overwhelming majority
of visitors (88.1%) visit the historical places and attractions of destination, consolidating the
image of Olympia as a cultural tourist destination.
The majority of service providers seem to hold a relative precise knowledge of tourists’ tourism
behaviour at the destination such as in the case of travel patterns. Gaps had been detected in the
case of destinations visited before, activities during the stay, degree of acquaintance with
neighbouring destinations, future stay in the same lodging and finally, total expenses in
destination.
Tourists Behavior at Destination Tourists most Tourists Tourism
frequent answer Providers
(%) Ranking (%) Ranking
Destination(s) before Various 28.9 1 6.3 5
Visit reason Historic attractions 51.3 1 53.7 1
Attractions visited during Archeological site 97.7 1 94.7 1
Activities during stay Visiting museums 26.1 1 21.9 2
Places near Olympia they know Andritsena traditional 30.1 1 33.6 1
village
Places near Olympia they have Kaiafas thermal spa 22.5 1 10.8 4
visited
Destinations after Olympia Peloponnese 33.9 1 40.7 1
Accommodation type Hotel 75.3 1 85 1
Nights stayed at accommodation 1 night 69.8 1 95.3 1
Future stay in the same lodging Yes 70.7 1 40.5 2
Type of food service experienced Restaurants 39.6 1 54.2 1
Tourist trade type Souvenirs 20.9 1 34.9 1
Total expenses at Olympia Over 150 euros 53.7 1 13.7 3
Average Daily expences 30- 60 ευρώ 37.5 1 45.9 1

Olympia’s ranking among 2nd in ranking 41.1 1 78.7 1
competitive heritage destinations
4.4 Assessment of Destination Services
The most noticeable gap between visitors’ evaluations and service providers’ interpretation of
these evaluations were about accommodation services of the destination. Gaps were also
identified for half dimensions of attractions (access in the destination, access in attractions and
attractions’ cleanliness), and tourist trade shops’ cleanliness (see appendix for detailed
parathesis of statistical findings).
4.5 Satisfaction and Attitude towards destination
Statistically significant difference of means found between the two samples with regard to total
satisfaction from the attractions and the transport services in the destination.
Concerning attitude matters, Tourists hold positive attitude towards destination and residents.
Providers seem to hold a precise knowledge of tourists’ attitude except for price
competitiveness of destination. Finally, Likely to return to Olympia considers the 23.2% of
tourists and very likely a respectable 13.9% of them. Providers appear to bear knowledge on
this intention.
5. Discussion
Results point out that in a well established mature destination as Olympia, tourism service
providers seem to hold an accurate knowledge of tourist behavioural and attitudinal aspects but
hold a generally false estimation about tourist evaluation of tourism service performance (Table
1).
Table 1 – Gaps identified
Major Gaps Minor Gaps No Gaps
Travel Patterns
Travel behavior at
destination
Destination
services
assessment
Satisfaction
Attitude
Loyalty

Demographic
Profile
In most cases, tourists consistently rated service performance higher than providers’ estimation
of tourists’ evaluations, a finding similar to previous studies (Brown & Swartz, 1989; Vogt &
Fesenmaier ,1995).
Summarising, the research findings could be summarised below in three areas:
(1) Accurate estimations;
(2) Negatively biased perceptions (under-estimation) of tourists’ experience by service
providers; and
(3) Positively biased perceptions (over-estimation) of tourists’ experience by service provider.
The good matches between tourists’ experience and managers’ perceptions are:
(1) Tourism services providers of the destination seem to acquire a generally precise knowledge
of their tourists’ travel patterns, their behaviour at the destination and their future intentions (of
destination’s revisit and recommendation).
(2) In terms of destination assessment, providers seem to know their customers’ ratings about
food services, tourism trade (with the exception of shop’s cleanliness), and the intangible
attributes of destination attractions (Figures 1 to 4).
Figure 1 - Samples Perceptions of Attractions
(5-point Likert scale)
Samples Perceptions of Attractions
4.5
4 4.254.18
4.12
3.5 3.8 3.73
4.04
3 3.46 3.443.49 3.52
3.35
2.5
2 2.56
1.5
1 Tourists’ Assessment of
0.5 Destination Attractions
0
s
ice
ns
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’
n
s
ns
es
on
io
tio
rv
io
lin
at
cti
ct
Assessment of Destination
ac
Se
n
nd
st i
tra
tra
ttr
pt
rie
de
Attractions
at
at
fa
m
lF
of
o
o
ro
so
st
st
ne
lP
st
es
es
es
on
re
ne
in
cc
cc
te
rs
nl
on
A
In
A
Pe
ea
rs
Cl
Pe
Quality Indicators
Figure 2 - Samples Perceptions of Accommodation
(5-point Likert scale)

Samples Perceptions of Accommodation
4.5
4
3.5 3.65
3.88
3 3.45 3.37 3.34 3.38 3.37 3.32
Tourists’ Assessment of Destination
2.5 2.8 2.93 2.93 2.78 Accommodation
2.68 2.68 2.6 2.54
2.51
2 2.11
2.42 2.42 2.4 2.25 Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’ Assessment of
1.5 Destination Accommodation
1.56
1 1.35
0.5
0
E x c u r s io n s
C le a n lin e s s
a r r a n g e m e n ts
F r ie n d lin e s s
T ran s fer
M e a ls
f a c ilitie s
a c c o m m o d a tio n
Q u a lity o f
C o m p e titiv e
p ro g ram s
P r o m p t S e r v ic e
P ers o n n el
F a c ilitie s
E x tr a f a c ilitie s
C o m fo rt o f
s e r v ic e
L o c a tio n o f
s le e p in g
P ers o n n el
p r ic e
Quality Indicators
Figure 3 - Samples Perceptions of Food Services
(5-point Likert scale)
Samples Perceptions of Food Service
4
3.5
3 3.55 3.48
3.26 3.13 3.32 3.39 3.2
3.35 3.28
2.5 2.89 3.02 3.03
2
1.5
1 Tourists’ Assessment of
0.5 Destination Food Service
0
s
s
ice
ty
e
ts
es
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’
es
ri c
rie
uc
in
rv
lin
ep
nl
od
va
Se
Assessment of Destination Food
nd
ea
iv
pr
od
pt
rie
Cl
tit
Service
od
m
Fo
lF
pe
ro
fo
m
ne
lP
of
Co
on
ne
y
rs
li t
on
Pe
ua
rs
Pe
Q
Quality Indicators

Figure 4 - Samples Perceptions of Tourism Trade
(5-point Likert scale)
Samples Perceptions of Tourism Trade
4.5
4
3.5 3.91
3.67 3.65 3.73 3.81
3 3.48 3.47 3.43 3.41 3.38 3.41
2.5 3.06
2
1.5
1 Tourists' Assessment of
0.5 Destination Tourism Trade
0
s
ice
s
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’
e
s
ty
es
es
ri c
ct
ri e
in
rv
lin
du
ep
Assessment of Destination
nl
Se
va
nd
ro
ea
iv
p
pt
ts
rie
Cl
tit
Tourism Trade
uc
of
m
lF
pe
ro
od
y
m
ne
li t
lP
Pr
Co
ua
on
ne
Q
rs
on
Pe
rs
Pe
Quality Indicators
(3) No statistically significant difference of means found between the two samples with regard
to the total satisfaction from the destination, accommodation, food services and tourism trade
satisfaction (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Samples Perceptions of Satisfaction
(4-point Likert scale)
Samples Perceptions of Satisfaction
4
3.5
3.46
3 3.12
2.5
2.91
2.78 Tourists’ Satisfaction
2.66 2.6
2.48 2.47 2.5 2.57 2.49
2
2 Providers’ Estimate of Tourists’
1.5
Satisfaction
1
0.5
0
de
ns
on
ns
s
n
ice
tio
io
tra
tio
ti
na
at
rv
ta
c
i sm
od
tra
or
se
ti
es
p
m
at
ur
od
ns
D
m
to
m
fo
tra
m
co
fro
m
m
fro
ac
m
fro
fro
n
fro
m
n
io
n
io
fro
n
t
io
n
ac
t
io
ac
io
t
isf
t
n
ac
ac
t
isf
io
ac
t
isf
isf
Sa
t
t
isf
ac
Sa
t
t
Sa
Sa
isf
t
Sa
t
Sa
S atisfaction attributes

In comparison with tourists’ stated experience, providers under-perceived the following:
(1) Destination providers hold a wrong estimate of tourists’ demographic characteristics (except
for tourists’ sex), depreciating visitors’ educational and income level.
(2) In terms of destination assessment, providers seem to underestimate most of their customers’
ratings about destination services. Specifically, all aspects of accommodation services, and most
of destination attractions (except for personnel prompt service delivery), food service (except
for food variety and competitive price) and tourism trade (except for product variety and
personnel friendliness) were underestimated by destination services providers in relation to
tourists’ evaluations.
(3) Tourism service providers underestimate tourists’ satisfaction from destination and from the
most of the destination service offerings (see, Appendix).
(4) Providers underestimate the fact that tourists answered that found the destination better than
expected.
Finally, there were four areas of over-perception by service providers:
(1) Tourist rate attractions’ personnel prompt service delivery, food variety and competitive
price, and tourism trade product variety and shop personnel friendliness were less than what
providers expected it to be for them.
(2) Tourism service providers overestimate satisfaction from tourism trade of destination.
(4) Providers overestimate almost all aspects of tourist’s attitude towards destination and
residents as they rate them higher than stated by tourists themselves. They also overestimate
future recommendations by tourists.
In order to investigate the perceptions of the providers and give reasons for the existence of the
particular gaps, it is necessary to adopt an epistemological frame that derives from social
theories and embraces qualitative issues as well tourism theories. Some of the reasons are:
Stereotypes about destination tourists’ characteristic: Olympia is a mature heritage destination
and providers bear some established stereotypes about destination tourists’ characteristics.
Social constructivism privileges the view that reality is socially constructed and puts great
emphasis on contextual issues, such as the social conditions in the particular destination, the
role of social institutions (government, education etc) and the specific historical and cultural
context of the destination (Fairclough, 1992)
The execution therefore of much more comprehensive and in-depth research is critical to
informing the development and communication of marketing strategies for the particular
destination. Future research that deals with all the aforesaid qualitative issues can complement
this study and maximize the effectiveness of marketing strategies adopted as a powerful
combination of quantitative and qualitative research output.
Senior management contact with tourists: In order to gain first-hand knowledge of tourists'
perceptions constant interaction between managers and tourists is required. Some past studies
(Coyle & Dale, 1993; Zeithaml et al, 1990) have suggested that managers traditionally have the
least contact with guests and do not get the opportunity to experience first-hand what their
guests want. In fact, the great majority of tourism professionals in Olympia are also contact
personnel due to the fact that most of the tourism enterprises in destination are middle-market
enterprises (MME).
6. Conclusion and Implications
A destination is a buddle of services and products and providers across these services and
products have conflicting and overall wrong impressions of the views and evaluations of their
visitors. This Gap analysis is critical because it may prove to be an extremely useful tool for
management to identify the service problems or service fail points in the tourism industry in
destination. In other words, assessment of Gap helps us to know whether management has clear

perceptions of what tourists experience the destination. Surveying both visitors and providers,
as part of a gap analysis, on a regular basis is an excellent way for a destination to be able to
reach each target market with a ‘comprehensive range of offerings’ and to propose and
‘integrated solution’ to customer needs and wants (Buhalis, 2000). Such an approach to is also
in line with the notion of “co-creation marketing” that involves both the marketer and the
customer interacting in all aspects of the design, production, and consumption of the service
(Sheth et al,. 2000). Because in co-creation marketing co-operation and communication are very
important, it is essential for the reality perceptions of both parties to be amply synchronized.

References
Albrecht, K. and Zemke R. (1985), Service America! Doing Business in the New Economy,
Homewood: Dow Jones.
Andriotis, K. (2002), “Options in Tourism Development: Conscious versus Conventional
Tourism”, Anatolia, 13(1): 73-85.
Andriotis, K. (2000), “Local Community Perceptions of Tourism as a Development Tool: The
Island of Crete”, PhD diss., Bournemouth University, UK.
Armstrong, R. W., Mok, C., Go, F. M. and Chan, A. (1997), “The Importance of Cross Cultural
Expectations in the Measurement of Service Quality Perceptions in the Hotel Industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vo. 16, No. 2, pp. 181-190.
Athanassopoulos A., Gounaris S. and Stathakopoulos V. (2001), “Behavioural responses to
customer satisfaction: an empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 5/6,
pp. 687-707.
Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1997), “Marketing orientation and company performance”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, September, pp. 385-402.
Augustyn, M. and Ho, S. (1998), “Service quality and tourism”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 71-75.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The synergistic effect of market orientation and
learning orientation on organizational performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 411-27.
Bouman, M. and Van Der Wiele, T. (1992), “Measuring Service Quality in the car service
industry: building and testing an instrument”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 4-16.
Brown S. and Swartz T. (1989), “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 92-98.
Buhalis D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism Management,
Vo. 21, pp. 97-116.
Buhalis, D. and Cooper, C. (1998), “Competition or Cooperation? Small and medium-sized
tourism enterprises at the destination”, in Laws E., Faulkner B., and Moscardo G. (Eds.),
Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism, London: Routledge, pp. 324-346.
Burkart, A. J. and Medlik S. (1981), Tourism: Past, Present and Future, London: Heinemann.
Buzzell, R.D., and Gale, B.T. (1987). The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance.
New York: The Free Press.
Candido, C. and Morris, D. S. (2000), “Charting service quality gaps”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 463-472.
Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of SERVQUAL
dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Chon, K.S. and Olsen, M. D.(1991), “Functional and symbolic congruity approaches to
consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction in tourism.”, Journal of the International Academy of
Hospitality Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 2-25.
Churchill, G. A. and Suprenant, C. (1982), “An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, 4pp. 91-504.
Clawson, M., and Knetsch, J.L. (1966), Economics of outdoor recreation, Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cochran, W G (1977), Subsampling With Units Of Unequal Sizes (Chapter 11). In: Cochran,
W G (1977), Sampling Techniques, Wiley, 3rd Edition, pp. 292 – 324
Connell, J., and Meyer, D. (2004). Modelling the visitor experience in the gardens of Great
Britain. 7.3, pp 183-216.
Cooper, D., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D. and Wanhill, S. (1993), Tourism: Principles and Practice,
London: Pitman Publishing.
Crompton, J. L., and Love L. L. (1995), “The Predictive Validity of Alternative Approaches to
Evaluating Quality of a Festival”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 11-25.

Crompton, J.L., MacKay, K.J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1991), “Identifying dimensions of service
quality in public recreation”, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.
15-27.
Cronin, J. and Taylor S. A. (1992), “Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and
Extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Dorfman, P.W. (1979), “Measurement and Meaning of Recreation Satisfaction: A Case Study in
Camping.” Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 483-510.
Duke, C. R. and Persia, M. A. (1996). “Consumer-Defined Dimensions for the Escorted Tour
Industry Segment: Expectations, Satisfactions, and Importance”, Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 77-100.
Edvardsson, B. (2005) ‘Service Quality: Beyond Cognitive Assessment’, Managing
Service Quality (15)2:127-131.
Erevelles, S. and Leavitt C. (1992), “A Comparison of Current Models of Consumer
Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 104-114.
Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and social change, Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Fick, G. and B. Ritchie (1991), “Measuring Service Quality in the Travel and Tourism
Industry”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 2-9.
Fyall, A., and Leask, A. (2007), “Destination marketing: Future issues — Strategic challenges”,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7, pp. 50–63.
Gartrell, R.B. (1994), Destination Marketing For Convention and Visitor Bureaus, Kendall/Hunt
Publishing.
Getz, D., and Jamal, T. (1994), “The Environment-Community Symbiosis: A Case of
Collaborative Tourism Planning”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2, pp. 152-173.
Goodall, B. and Ashworth, G. Eds. (1988), Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of
destination regions, London: Groom Helms.
Grönroos, C. (1993) Toward a third phase in service quality research: challenges and future
directions, in T. Swartz, D.E. Bowen and S.W. Brown (eds.), Advances in Services Marketing
and Management (Volume 2), Greenwich, C.T.: JAI Press, pp. 49-64.
— (2006a) ‘What Can a Service Logic Offer Marketing Theory?’ in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo,
S.L. (eds.) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog,Debate, and Directions, pp. 354-
364. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
— (2006b), "Adopting a service logic for marketing", Marketing Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2006,
pp. 317-333
Gunn, C. A. (1988), Tourism Planning (2nd ed.), New York: Taylor and Francis.
Gummesson, E. (1998), Implementation Requires a Relationship Marketing Paradigm, Journal
of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 26 (3), 242-249.
— (2004), “Invited Commentaries on “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing:
On the Service-Centered Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 68
(January), 18-27.
— (2006), “Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context and persona”,
Management Decision, Vol.44, No. 2, pp 167-79.
— (2007). “Life is a Network of Relationships - And So Is Tourism! Conference proceedings.
Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference (ATMC), Valencia, Spain.
Gunn, C.A. (1994), Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. (3rd ed.), Washington: Taylor
& Frances.
Hamilton, J.A., Crompton, J.J. and More, T.A. (1991), “Identifying the dimensions of service
quality in a park context”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 32, pp. 211-220.
Heath, E. and Wall, G. (1992), Marketing tourism destinations: A strategic planning approach,
New York: Wiley.
Hirschman, E. (1984). Experience seeking: A Subjectivist perspective of consumption, Journal
of Business Research, 12, 115-136.
Holbrook, M. & Hirchman, E. (1982). The Experiental aspects of consumption. Fantasies,
feelings, and fun, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140.
Jennings, G., and Nickerson, N.P. (2006). Quality Tourism Experiences. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Johns, N. and Tyas, P. (1996), “Investigation of the perceived components of the meal
experience, using perceptual gap methodology”, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Khalifa, Azaddin Salem (2004): Customer value: a review of recent literature and an integrative.
configuration. Management Decisions, 42/5, 645-666.
Korca, P. (1998), “Resident perceptions of tourism in a resort town”, Leisure Sciences, 20(3),
pp. 193-212.
Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), “Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-
season holiday destination”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 260-269.
Kouremenos, A. (2003), “Standardisation and Adaptation of Marketing Research in
International Markets: the case of Tourism”, Conference proceedings, 2nd Conference of Greek
Marketing Academy, Athens.
Lankford, S.V. (1994), “Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional
development”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 35-53.
Larsen, S. (2007), “The Psychology of the Tourist Experience”, Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), pp. 7–18.
Vogt, C.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1995), “Tourists and Retailers’ Perceptions of Services”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 763-780.
Laws, E. (1995), Tourist destination management: issues, analysis and policies. Routledge:
Routledge.
Lawson, R.W., Williams, J., Young, T., and Cossens, J. (1998), “A Comparison of residents
Attitudes Towards Tourism in 10 New Zealand Destinations”, Tourism Management, 19(3), pp.
247-256.
Lovelock, C.H. and Gummesson, E. (2004) “Whither Service Marketing? In Search of
a New Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives”, Journal of Service Research 7(1):20-
41.
MacKay, K.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1988), “A conceptual model of consumer evaluation of
recreation service quality”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 41-49.
Martin S.R., McCool S.F. and Lucas R.C. (1989), “Wilderness campsite impacts: Do managers
and visitors see them the same?”, Environmental Management, Vol. 13, pp. 623- 629.
Mason, P., and Cheyne, J. (2000), “Residents’ Attitudes to Proposed Tourism Development”,
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), pp. 391-411.
Medlik, S. and Middleton, V.T.C. (1973), Products’ Formulation in Tourism, in Tourism and
Marketing, Vol. 13, Berne:AIEST.
Mei, A., Dean, A. and White C. (1999), “Analysing Service Quality in the Hospitality
Industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 136-43.
Middleton, C. (1998), Marketing in Travel and Tourism, Oxford: Butterworth.
Murphy, P.E. (2004), Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps.
Channel View Publications.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A Cognitive Model for the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction
Decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, pp. 460-469.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,pp. 41-50.
Payne, A., Holt, S., Frow, P., 2001. Relationship value management: Exploring the integration
of employee, customer and shareholder value and enterprise performance models. Journal of
Marketing Management. 17(7/8), 785-818
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), “In search of Excellence”, New York: Warner Books.
Pike, S.D. (2008). Destination Marketing: An Integrated Marketing Communication Approach,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993), “Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 655-662.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y. and Reichel, A. (1978), “Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a
destination”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 5, pp. 314-322.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) The Future of Competition: Co-Creating
Unique Value with Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Richards, G. (1999). European cultural tourism: Patterns and prospects. In: Dodd, D. and van
Hemel, A., Editors, 1999. Planning cultural tourism in Europe, Boekman Foundation,
Amsterdam, pp. 16-32.
Ryan, C. (2000), “Tourist experiences, phenomenographic analysis, post-postivism and neural
network software”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 119-131.
Ryan, C. (1991), “Recreational tourism: A social science perspective”, London: Routledge.
Ryan, C. (1995), “Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts”, Problems, London:
Routledge
Ryan, C. (1997), The tourist experience: A new introduction, London: Cassell.
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991), “Analysing Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry using the
SERVQUAL Model”, The Services Industry Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 324-343.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), “Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 312-328.
Schembri, S. and Sandberg, J. (2002), “Service quality and the consumer’s. experience:
Towards an interpretive approach,” Marketing Theory, 2, 2, 189-205.
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S. and Triandis, H. (1998), “The shifting basis of life satisfaction
judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms”, Journal of Personailty and Social
Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 482-493.
Suddaby, Roy (2006), "From the Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not," Academy of
Management Journal, 49 (4), 633-642.
Swarbrooke, J. (2002). The Development and Management of Visitor Attractions. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods, No. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (Eds, 2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Tosun, C. and Jenkins, C.L. (1998), “The evolution of tourism planning in third world
countries: A critique”, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 101-
114.
Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998), “From servqual to holsat: Holiday satisfaction in Varadero,
Cuba”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Uysal, M. (1998), “The determinants of tourism demand: A theoretical perspective”, in
Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K.G. (ed.), The economic geography of the tourist industry,
London: Routledge, pp. 79-98.
Vitterso, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistad, O. and Vaagland, J. (2000), Tourist experiences and
attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (2), pp. 432–50.
Yuksel, A. and Rimmington, M. (1998), “Customer-Satisfaction Measurement”, Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 60-71.
Weiermair, K. (1997), “Service Quality and Its Management in Tourism Enterprises”, in Papers
de Turisme, Fundacion de Cavanilles de Altos Estudios Turisticos, Spain: University of
Alicante, Vol. 20, pp.54-68.
Witter, B.S. (1985), “Attitudes about Resort Area a Comparison of Tourists and Local
Retailers”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 14-19.
Woodall, T. (2003), “Conceptualizing Value for Customer — Attributional, Structural and
Dispo-sitional Analysis”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12, 2003, pp. 1–42.
Woodside, A.G. and Dubelaar, C. (2002), “A General Theory of Tourism Consumption
Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Empirical Exploration”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 41, pp. 120-132.
WTO (1999) Conducting and processing a visitor survey. Spain: Madrid: World Tourism
Organisation.
Zimmerman, A., and Szenberg, M. (2000), “Implementing international qualitative research:
techniques and obstacles “, Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal; 03: 3 2000;
pp. 158-164.

Appendix
Assessment of Destination Services
Services Attributes 1** 2** 3** 4** 5** Mean SD
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Attractions
Tourists’ Assessment of Destination Attractions
Access to destination 2.4 11.5 9.9 56.0 20.2 3.80 .970
Access to attractions 1.6 .8 9.6 60.6 27.5 4.12 .731
Cleanliness of attractions .8 3.2 12.4 58.2 25.3 4.04 .761
Interest of attractions 1.2 1.6 10.9 43.1 43.1 4.25 .807
Personnel Prompt Service 6.9 8.9 30.4 40.9 13.0 3.44 1.049
Personnel Friendliness 4.6 7.9 33.3 39.6 14.6 3.52 .989
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’ Assessment of
Destination Attractions
Access to destination 6.7 8.9 18.9 63.3 2.2 3.46 .938
Access to attractions 5.4 19.6 71.7 3.3 3.73 .613
Cleanliness of attractions 18.0 34.8 25.8 15.7 5.6 2.56 1.128
Interest of attractions 1.1 14.1 50.0 34.8 4.18 .710
Personnel Prompt Service 3.2 9.7 24.7 59.1 3.2 3.49 .842
Personnel Friendliness 3.2 15.1 28.0 50.5 3.2 3.35 .893
Accommodation
Tourists’ Assessment of Destination
Accommodation
Location of accommodation 0.7 8.2 40.1 27.2 23.8 3.65 .956
Cleanliness 7.4 8.7 30.9 37.6 15.4 3.45 1.087
Comfort of sleeping arrangements 7.7 18.2 17.5 42.7 14.0 3.37 1.161
Meals 8.8 24.5 12.7 31.4 22.5 3.34 1.309
Facilities 12.5 28.6 19.6 32.1 7.1 2.93 1.183
Extra facilities 19.4 29.0 16.1 24.7 10.8 2.78 1.309
Transfer facilities 18.6 44.2 16.3 18.6 2.3 2.42 1.074
Excursions programs 22.5 37.5 22.5 10.0 7.5 2.42 1.174
Personnel Prompt Service 4.4 28.1 12.3 36.0 19.3 3.38 1.208
Quality of service 6.3 5.6 44.4 31.7 11.9 3.37 .986
Personnel Friendliness 3.8 2.3 28.5 32.3 33.1 3.88 1.024
Competitive price 7.2 28.0 9.6 36.0 19.2 3.32 1.267
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’ Assessment of
Destination Accommodation
Location of accommodation 10.0 27.5 35.0 27.5 2.80 .966
Cleanliness 2.4 26.8 46.3 24.4 2.93 .787
Comfort of sleeping arrangements 46.3 39.0 14.6 2.68 .722
Meals 9.8 36.6 29.3 24.4 2.68 .960
Facilities 14.6 36.6 31.7 17.1 2.51 .952
Extra facilities 36.8 28.9 21.1 13.2 2.11 1.060
Transfer facilities 62.5 21.9 12.5 3.1 1.56 .840
Excursions programs 76.5 14.7 5.9 2.9 1.35 .734
Personnel Prompt Service 20.0 45.0 10.0 25.0 2.40 1.081
Quality of service 22.5 37.5 32.5 7.5 2.25 .899

Personnel Friendliness 10.0 45.0 22.5 20.0 2.5 2.60 1.008
Competitive price 7.7 46.2 30.8 15.4 2.54 .854
Food Service
Tourists’ Assessment of Destination Food Service
Cleanliness 8.2 25.3 38.7 24.7 3.1 2.89 .973
Quality of food products 3.1 6.8 52.1 37.0 1.0 3.26 .734
Food variety 2.0 16.5 33.5 43.5 4.5 3.32 .873
Competitive price 7.0 22.4 38.8 24.4 7.5 3.03 1.024
Personnel Prompt Service 3.1 4.7 29.5 59.1 3.6 3.55 .776
Personnel Friendliness 1.0 10.4 35.2 46.1 7.3 3.48 .817
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’ Assessment of
Destination Food Service
Cleanliness 10.6 22.3 28.7 30.9 7.4 3.02 1.126
Quality of food products 8.6 19.4 31.2 32.3 8.6 3.13 1.096
Food variety 13.0 38.0 45.7 3.3 3.39 .755
Competitive price 6.4 19.1 33.0 30.9 10.6 3.20 1.073
Personnel Prompt Service 9.6 9.6 30.9 36.2 13.8 3.35 1.133
Personnel Friendliness 8.5 10.6 34.0 38.3 8.5 3.28 1.051
Tourism Trade
Tourists’ Assessment of Destination Tourism Trade
Cleanliness .5 .5 18.5 68.7 11.8 3.91 .599
Quality of products 1.0 6.0 42.5 45.0 5.5 3.48 .736
Competitive price .5 6.7 47.6 40.0 5.2 3.43 .717
Products variety 14.8 37.3 43.1 4.8 3.38 .794
Personnel Prompt Service 2.0 3.5 28.2 57.9 8.4 3.67 .761
Personnel Friendliness 2.5 4.4 21.7 60.6 10.8 3.73 .809
Providers’ Evaluation of Tourists’ Assessment of
Destination Tourism Trade
Cleanliness 2.2 32.3 26.9 34.4 4.3 3.06 .965
Quality of products 1.1 7.4 38.3 50.0 3.2 3.47 .729
Competitive price 4.3 55.3 35.1 5.3 3.41 .663
Products variety 1.1 10.5 37.9 47.4 3.2 3.41 .765
Personnel Prompt Service 1.1 1.1 31.2 65.6 1.1 3.65 .583
Personnel Friendliness 1.1 1.1 15.4 80.2 2.2 3.81 .536