Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32

7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32

1/13

http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0047287510362779

2011 50: 121 originally published online 19 March 2010Journal of Travel ResearchBob McKercher and Basak Denizci Guillet

Are Tourists or Markets Destination Loyal?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 19, 2010OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 7, 2011Version of Record>>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.ttra.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/19/0047287510362779.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/19/0047287510362779.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/19/0047287510362779.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ttra.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://jtr.sagepub.com/


2/13

Journal of Travel Research50(2) 121132

2011 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0047287510362779

http://jtr.sagepub.com

Are Tourists or MarketsDestination Loyal?

Bob McKercher

1

and Basak Denizci Guillet

1

Abstract

This study asks whether individual tourists are destination loyal or whether markets can be considered as loyal? Whileloyalty research has focused on the individual, a strong body of evidence suggests that individual tourists revisit internationaldestinations rarely. Yet overall arrivals from mature markets are largely stable, suggesting some form of loyalty. The proposition

of whether individuals or markets are loyal was tested by examining year-on-year visitation and repeat-visitation intentionsof Hong Kong residents to 11 popular destinations. The study identified low individual repeat visitation intention, but overall

market stability. Moreover, the profiles of actual and intended visitors were virtually identical. By contrast, the profiles ofvisitors to different destinations were substantially different. The study concludes, therefore, that markets are broadly loyal.

The findings have significant implications for destination marketing organizations and also raise questions about tourism

loyalty research.

Keywords

destination loyalty, repeat visitation

Introduction

Are individual international tourists destination loyal? A

substantial body of destination loyalty literature has been

developed based on the presumed validity of this proposition.

Yet a competing body of theoretical work supported by

empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The concept of a loyal

consumer seems to be at odds with the belief that variety seek-

ing is an underlying dimension of travel (Castro, Armario, and

Ruiz 2007; Pearce and Lee 2005). The European Travel Com-

mission (2006) has noted a sharp decline in both destination

and product loyalty as the number of opportunities increases

and travel costs fall, while arrival figures, discussed elsewhere

in this article, indicate that repeat visitors represent a minority

of pleasure tourist arrivals from all but the most proximate of

source markets. Pan, Chon, and Song (2008) also remind us

that tourists are now more activity and interest based than des-

tination based. If tourists are not loyal, then, one would expect

volatility in visitor numbers. Yet arrival figures from mature

outbound markets to established destinations change little overtime, with the exception of periodic shocks caused by exter-

nalities (UNWTO 2005, 2008). As a result, some form of

loyalty behavior must exist at a more macro level. This article

examines the proposition that markets or market segments,

more so than individual tourists, are loyal by examining the

travel patterns of Hong Kong residents to 11 popular destina-

tions. It tests the proposition by comparing actual with intended

visitors to the most popular destinations frequented by Hong

Kong residents. The unit of analysis is the country, or in the

case of Europe other than the United Kingdom, the continent.

Loyalty

Loyal customers are defined as frequent, repeat purchasers

who feel a sense of belonging to an organization and who are

reluctant to change even in the presence of similar offerings

from other firms (Henry 2000). Shoemaker and Lewis (1999)

and Reichheld (2002) note the importance of attitudinal

loyalty, where a strong emotional bond occurs between the

customer and firm, which in turn attaches possessive feel-

ings toward that company. Such customers are unlikely to

switch over small price or service differences and moreover

will often display a level of empathy toward the firm and

its employees not seen in other customers. The consumer

behavior literature stresses the importance of building a loyal

customer as the foundation of product or enterprise success,

for loyal customers provide a solid base of regular, heavy

users who generate a reliable revenue stream. They are also

thought to be the most profitable user group, with the costs

of retaining them substantially less than those associated

with attracting new consumers (Haywood 1989; Rosenbergand Czepiel 1984; Oppermann 2000). The belief exists that

the loss of loyal consumers can threaten the very livelihood

of an organization.

1The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Corresponding Author:

Bob McKercher, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong

Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Email: [email protected]

http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/


3/13

122 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)

Loyalty is seen to exist along a continuum ranging from

consumers who show no or low loyalty to the deeply loyal

person, with each having a combination of weak or strong

attitudinal and behavioral measures (Day 1969; Dick and

Basu 1994; Gounaris and Stathakopoulos 2004). The more

loyal person has positive attitudes and high repeat propensity,

while weakly loyal people may still be frequent purchasers,but are not as committed to the product. Weakly loyal indi-

viduals may also be infrequent repeat purchasers. A lack of

loyalty may be attributed to a lack of interest, negative atti-

tude toward the brand or positive attitude toward a competitor

(Rowley and Dawes 2000).

Operationalization of the loyalty construct has proven

challenging, in particular because of difficulties involved in

disaggregating the loyal consumer from the consumer who

engages in habitual buying patterns (Bowen and Shoemaker

2003; Henry 2000; Shoemaker and Bowen 2003). Henry

(2000) argues that loyalty exists only when the customer stays

with a company because the value provided by the company

surpasses that of all other competitors. Loyalty can be mea-sured using feelings and attitudes in the forms of preference,

liking, motivation, trust, or behavior patterns such as actual

repeat business and positive word of mouth (Jacoby and

Chestnut 1978; Backman and Crompton 1991; Backman and

Veldkamp, 1995; Pritchard and Howard 1997; Petrick 2004).

Repeat purchase intention is one common metric used to

measure loyalty (Machleit, Allen, and Madden 1993; Kahn

and Schmittlein 1992).

Destination Loyalty and Tourism

Most destination loyalty research is framed conceptually

within the broader product and service loyalty literature

(Oppermann 1998, 2000; Pritchard and Howard 1997), in

spite of the recognized unique features of tourism. Desti-

nation loyalty measures include willingness to recommend,

intention to return, and actual repeat visitation propensity

(Castro, Armario, and Ruiz 2007; Chen and Gursoy 2001;

Chi and Qu 2008; Kim and Crompton 2002; Niininen, Szivas,

and Riley 2004; Oppermann 2000; Pritchard and Howard

1997; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Demographic variables such as

education, gender, age, and travel behavior are believed to

influence loyalty (Homburg and Giering 2001; Skogland and

Siguaw 2004). Typically, most destinations use either repeat

visitation or repeat visitation intention to define loyal cus-tomers, since these data can be gathered relatively easily in

standard departing visitor surveys conducted by destination

management organizations (DMOs). Both measures are used

in this study.

The degree of loyalty and the underlying likelihood of

tourists ever becoming loyal are still being debated. One

argument holds that tourists may show a high propensity to

be loyal. Tourism is something that must be purchased at a

distance, without the opportunity to pretest before buying. As

such, an elevated level of risk of a poor experience is associ-

ated with trying a new destination, whereas it is lessened

when returning to a known one. Risk aversion, therefore,

may induce loyalty (Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000).

Proponents of this argument identify brand equity, quality,

value and image as well as satisfaction, activity involvement,trust, and risk perception and high switching costs as factors

thought to influence loyalty directly or indirectly (Bowen

and Shoemaker 2003; Chen and Gursoy 2001; Chi and Qu

2008; Huang and Chiu 2006; Jang and Feng 2007; Lee, Graefe,

and Burns 2007; Yoon and Uysal 2005; Yuksel and Yuksel

2007). Others identified social (Morais, Kerstetter, and

Yarnal 2006) or demographic (Homburg and Giering 2001;

Skogland and Siguaw 2004) factors as playing a role, with

older customers and those who are less adventuresome pre-

sumed to have firmer destination loyalty than others.

But an alternate argument suggests loyalty may be low,

with the unique nature of tourism challenging the validity of

applying product theory to the destination. Andreassen andLindestad (1998) note tourism is an infrequent purchase,

with an international trip often being a once a year or less

frequent activity, making it difficult to determine loyalty with

any great degree of accuracy. Underlying travel motives of

wanderlust (Crompton 1979), novelty seeking, and self-

development (Pearce and Lee 2005) may push some people to

seek different destinations. Choice, limited travel barriers, and

low opportunity costs may also push variety seeking. A study

conducted by Castro, Armario, and Ruiz (2007) on visitation

to a Spanish city, for example, revealed that 70% of respon-

dents surveyed had medium to high need for variety in their

tourist experiences. Oppermann (2000) found that about 5%

of his sample of New Zealanders who had visited Australia

previously could be described as very loyal, having visited six or

more times in the previous 10 years. Niininen, Szivas, and

Riley (2004) found much higher loyalty rates in their study of

English tourists, with 59% visiting selected destinations three

or more times in a 5-year period and 16% visiting each year.

Previous studies attempting to examine this phenomenon

have faced significant sampling, definitional, conceptualiza-

tion and scale problems. Both Niininen, Szivas, and Riley

(2004) and Oppermann (2000) relied on a sample of fewer

than 150 people. They also encountered low response rates

to postal surveys, which likely induced some element of

response bias. Destination studies conducted by Castro,Armario, and Ruiz (2007) and Chi and Qu (2008) had larger

sample sizes but were limited to a single locale and a single

point in time.

The use of repeat visitor as a proxy for a loyal consumer

is even more challenging, for the application of who consti-

tutes a repeater is not time bound. As Oppermann (1999)

discusses, repeaters could include someone who returns to

the same destination often in the same year or someone who

http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/


4/13

McKercher and Guillet 123

visited once possibly many decades earlier. An examination

of departing visitor surveys conducted by many DMOs

found that most do not set a time limit on when the person

repeated (McKercher and Chan 2005). The United Kingdom

(VisitBritain 2005), for example, adopts a 10-year time hori-

zon, while Malta (Malta Tourism Authority 2006) asks if

people had visited previously at any time and whether theyvisited in one of their two most recent holidays.

Perhaps the greatest conceptual challenge, though, lies in

the concept of destination as product. The assumption

that destinations function as products lies at the core of

applying generic product theory. But is it valid? While desti-

nations can clearly be branded and promoted as singular

entities (Morgan, Pritchard, and Pride 2002), they are not

products per se. Instead, they are discrete geographic spaces

where an amalgam of products and experiences are concen-

trated. The UNWTO (2002) defines a local destination as

physical space that includes tourism products such as

support services and attractions, and tourism resource. It has

physical and administrative boundaries defining its man-agement, and images and perceptions defining its market

competitiveness.

Two further related questions arise. The first is what exactly

is the loyal tourist loyal to? The second is does an expression

of loyalty need to be geographically bound? Loyalty has

been examined at many scales, ranging from the firm to a

destination (Barsky and Nash 2002; Mattila 2001; Shoemaker

and Lewis 1999; Skogland and Siguaw 2004). Collectively,

this research suggests that tourism loyalty can exist on many

levels and need not be spatially bound. Someone who is loyal

to Club Med, for example, can express that loyalty in dozens

of resorts offering all styles of holiday experiences in more

than 30 countries. Such a person may be firm loyal but not be

destination loyal. Others may be vacation-style loyal.

People who prefer sea, sand and sun, golf, skiing, or

urban styles of vacations can express that loyalty in any

number of destinations around the world and at any number of

firms operating within each style of destination. These obser-

vations suggest that while destination loyalty may be a critical

concern for DMOs, it may not be as relevant to tourists, and

especially to international tourists.

Finally, the empirical evidence supporting destination

loyalty at an international scale is ambiguous at best. Table 1

highlights the share of first-time visitors to selected destina-

tions where either the pleasure market has been disaggregatedfrom the general tourist population or where the destination

attracts primarily pleasure-oriented tourists. The figures for

Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom repre-

sent the former instance, while those for Malta, Mauritius,

and South Africa represent the latter cases. Most pleasure

visitors from the majority of source markets are first-time

visitors, with the proportion of first-time visitors increasing

with distance. While a minority of arrivals from proximate

markets are first-timers (China, Taiwan, and Singapore in

relation to Hong Kong; Australia in relation to New Zealand;

European countries to the United Kingdom), the majority of

tourists from medium- and long-haul markets have never

visited before. This table suggests that destinations need to

replenish between 67% and 90% of arrivals from medium- to

long-haul markets each year if they are to retain their exist-ing volume of arrivals.

Method

This study examines destination loyalty through a compari-

son of actual with intended visitors to 11 popular destinations

frequented by Hong Kong residents. The unit of analysis is

the country, or in the case of Europe other than the United

Kingdom, the continent (because of data aggregation needs

to ensure suitable cell sizes for analysis). The study relies on

secondary data analysis of annual pleasure travel surveys

conducted by The Hong Kong Polytechnic Universitys

School of Hotel and Tourism Management. The survey hasbeen operating since 2000 and to date, eight rounds have

been conducted with more than 9,450 residents interviewed.

Data were collected via telephone interviews, with collection

contracted to one of two local universities that employ a

computer-assisted survey team (CAST) system to select can-

didates. CAST uses a modified random-digit-dialing (mRDD)

strategy to generate a sample list of prospective respondents,

who were then contacted. As such, the sample approximated

the profile of the population. Interviews were conducted during

the winter and involve a sample of between 750 and 2,000

residents, depending on budget availability.

The survey instrument was designed to gather informa-

tion on pleasure travel in the preceding 12 months, future

travel intentions in the upcoming 12 months, motives and the

demographic profile of the respondent. In addition, begin-

ning with the 2004 survey round, respondents were asked to

rate, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, the importance of engag-

ing in pleasure travel every year and indicate their level of

agreement about the importance of a series of motivational

statements affecting their decision to travel.

Questions about recent pleasure travel activity were

divided into two parts for surveys conducted between 2000

and 2003 and three parts for surveys conducted afterwards.

All respondents were asked to indicate if they had traveled

into the immediate hinterland areas of Macau and Guang-dong Province in China, and if so, to identify the number of

overnight trips taken. Prior to 2004, they were then asked

about all other international travel, including trips elsewhere

in China. Since 2004, this section was divided into two parts,

travel to the China mainland and to other international desti-

nations. Respondents who traveled were asked to indicate

the total number of overnight pleasure trips taken and then

to provide details on their most recent trip, including



5/13


destination identity, length of stay, organization (package vs.

independent), and expenditure.

All respondents, irrespective of whether they had traveled,

were then asked about the likelihood of taking an overnight

pleasure trip in the upcoming 12 months. This metric is

measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from

definitely will not travelto definitely will travel. Those who

answer with a 4 or higher were asked to identify their likely

future main destination city and country. Less than half who

selected 4 (unsure) identified a future main destination. This

figure compared poorly with the three-quarters or more of

those who answered 5 to 7 (likely will, very likely will, anddefinitely will travel) who specified a destination. As such,

respondents who offered the equivocal answer (4) were not

included in this study.

Two cohorts of respondents are identified: actual visitors

and intended visitors. The Actual Visitor group includes

2,528 respondents who traveled internationally (outside of

the China mainland and immediate hinterland areas) over

the 8 years. The Intended Visitor group includes those indi-

viduals who indicated a positive response (5 to 7) to the

intent to travel question and who specified a main destina-

tion outside of the China mainland. This sample consists of

2,542 people composed of

187 Actual Visitors who intended to return to the

same destination the following year,

952 Actual Visitors who intended to travel to differ-

ent destinations, and

1,403 people who either did not travel or who

restricted their travel to the China mainland or Macau,

but intended to travel internationally in the coming

12 months and named a destination outside of China.

The total sample therefore consists of 3,931 cases, of which

1,139 appeared in both categories. Another 1,389 discrete

cases appeared in the Actual segment representing 54.9% of

that cohort, and 1,403 cases or 55.2% appeared uniquely in

the Intended segment. The two groups of respondents were

considered as discrete groups for analysis purposes.

The sample was derived by aggregating the eight survey

rounds. This technique had been used previously with the

Table 1. First-Time Visitors as a Share of Arrivals

Hong Kong

(vacation New Zealand United Kingdomovernight (Fully Independent (Holiday market 2004, Malta Mauritius South Africavisitors)a Tourists)b excluding expatriates)c (all arrivals)d (all arrivals)e (all arrivals)f

All 45%, including China Holiday 68% 42% 68%

Austria 75 44 81 83Australia 59 26 53 76 51Canada 62 64 47 60China 36 85 62 40 69France 79 43 91 72 70Germany 70 74 46 79 82 54Hong Kong 42 55Italy 77 53 82 91 69

Japan 60 72 57 74 70Korea 75 72 85Malaysia 51 37Netherlands 76 28 83 54New Zealand 69 50Scandinavia (or Sweden) 71 30 82 87 67

Singapore 24 50 58 92South Africa 67 36 60Switzerland 66 29 79 71Taiwan 38 49 69Thailand 37 24United Kingdom 74 59 46 84 46United States 63 67 47 78 63

aHong Kong Tourism Board (2007).bNew Zealand Ministry for Tourism (2008).cVisitBritain (2005).dMalta Tourism Authority (2006).eGovernment of Mauritius (2005).fSouth African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2007).



6/13


same data set (McKercher 2008) and is considered valid,providing the data are internally consistent. Consistency

was measured by comparing annual data for each cohort

using demographic variables, the importance of travel, travel

experience, and responses to motivational questions. Over-

all, the sets were internally consistent, with only minor

differences noted. Mean household incomes of actual vis-

itors for six short-haul destinations of Japan, Thailand,

Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan differed some-

what, but the income patterns were similar in all cases.

Household incomes dropped during periods of economic

hardship and increased during periods of GDP growth.

Small but statistically significant differences were noted in

age and income among people who intend to travel to Taiwan

and Japan.

Secondary data represent a valid data source for tourism

research providing the survey instrument and resultant data

satisfy reliability, sensitivity, fitness, and validity criteria for

the desired purpose (Pizam 1994; Churchill 1995; Saunders,

Lewis, and Thornhill 2000). Reliability and sensitivity crite-

ria relate to the extent to which data can provide consistent

results and subtle enough detail for the purpose of the research.

Fitness recognizes that data collected for one purpose may

not be relevant, timely, or suitable for another purpose.

Validity refers to the degree to which the instrument can pre-

dict a criterion. While the data set used in this study satisfiesthese criteria, some limitations inherent with the use of this

set must be recognized. In particular, the survey instrument

adopts intention to return within 12 months as the single

measure of loyalty. As discussed earlier, repeat purchase

intention is a valid measure of loyalty even though intentions

do not always correspond directly to actions. In addition, the

use of a 12-month repeat time frame is recognized as being

short, given that many people may only take one or two

international trips a year.

In addition, Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) dataderived from Immigration Department departure statistics are

used to provide broader background on tourist flows and con-

text for this study. Departure statistics for the period 1999

to 2005 are included. The HKTB/Immigration Department

ceased maintaining such records after 2005, when Hong

Kong shifted to e-channels for resident departures. All depar-

tures are recorded, regardless of trip purpose, and so the figures

include business, pleasure, visiting friends and relatives, and

other travel purposes. It is estimated that about 78% of out-

bound travel to destinations other than China and Macau is

pleasure oriented (UNWTO 2006), with the proportion of

pleasure tourists highest among short-haul destinations and

relatively smaller in long-haul destinations.

Results

This section is divided into three parts. The first part deter-

mines whether Hong Kong residents can be considered as

destination loyal in aggregate, based on an analysis of HKTB/

Immigration Department figures. The second and third sections

analyze data collected from our own resident surveys. Section 2

examines individual destination loyalty through an analysis of

year-on-year repeat visitation intentions. Section 3 examines

segment or market loyalty by comparing actual and intended

tourists to the 11 selected destinations and further conducting abetween-destinations analysis of market profiles.

Over time, the relative ranking of destinations visited by

Hong Kong residents has changed little as shown in Table 2

(Kendals W test revealed c2 = 3.657, p = .57). Thailand

remains Hong Kongs preferred destination of choice, even

though it registered the greatest volatility in share change.

Japan and Taiwan compete to be the second and third most

popular destinations, with Singapore consistently ranking

fourth and South Korea generally coming in as the fifth most

Table 2.Volume of Hong Kong Visitors to Main Destinations and Popularity Rank of These Destinations

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Thailand 485,876 (1) 528,125 (1) 559,985 (1) 571,098 (1) 691,205 (1) 723,876 (1) 615,075 (1)Japan 465,183 (2) 460,283 (3) 484,510 (3) 521,200 (3) 479,804 (2) 586,380 (2) 578,140 (2)Taiwan 420,094 (3) 468,688 (2) 525,526 (2) 538,232 (2) 414,545 (3) 536,071 (3) 555,307 (3)Singapore 302,192 (5) 339,333 (4) 331,909 (4) 314,284 (4) 268,519 (4) 310,208 (4) 367,456 (4)

South Korea 313,003 (4) 278,708 (5) 277,106 (5) 253,266 (5) 200,028 (5) 220,040 (5) 233,828 (6)United Kingdom 177,757 (8) 185,540 (9) 172,086 (9) 191,159 (7) 192,728 (6) 215,499 (6) 238,044 (5)Malaysia 172,247 (10) 215,663 (7) 219,364 (6) 193,106 (6) 172,588 (8) 200,371 (7) 196,793 (9)United States 219,117 (6) 217,551 (6) 218,175 (7) 187,119 (9) 152,735 (9) 184,668 (9) 205,117 (8)Australia 199,039 (7) 201,287 (8) 205,679 (8) 190,950 (8) 178,834 (7) 192,386 (8) 224,236 (7)Canada 176,910 (9) 180,251 (10) 157,563 (10) 158,241 (10) 126,335 (10) 149,114 (10) 142,495 (10)Europe 129,681 (11) 137,949 (11) 151,660 (11) 155,471 (11) 129,790 (11) 158,115 (11) 150,996 (11)Total outbound 4,174,724 4,611 ,113 4,791,485 4,709,289 4,427,787 5,002,734 4,956,893

travela

Source: Hong Kong Tourism Board (2006).Note: Popularity rank in parentheses.a. Data include all departures but exclude travel to the China Mainland.



7/13


popular destination. The overall ranking of Australia, Canada,

and Europe has changed little as well. The United Kingdomseems to be gaining in popularity as the post-handover back-

lash is receding, while Malaysias popularity has changed

somewhat.

Volatility in departures can be attributed largely to exter-

nalities related to the Hong Kong economy and various

crises that have affected the region. For example, depar-

tures to the United States still have not recovered from 9/11,

while the decline in arrivals to Thailand in 2005 can be

attributed to a post-tsunami effect. Overall, departures grew

sharply between 1999 and 2000 and then remained largely

stable before declining substantially in 2003 because of the

combined impact of SARS and a deep economic recession.

The city entered a period of strong economic recovery in

2004, resulting in a jump in outbound travel, which stabilized

in the 2005.

But the stability in visitor numbers cannot be attributed to

high year-on-year repeat loyalty intentions on behalf of indi-

vidual consumers, as shown in Table 3. This table presents

summary statistics of the number and share of visitors who

intend to return to the same destination within 12 months of

their last visit. Results are presented in an aggregate form

because of the small cell sizes year on year. (Kruskal-Wallis

test revealed no significant differences in the proportion of

respondents intending to return each year.) Japan, the United

Kingdom, and the United States registered the highest year-on-year loyalty rate. But in each case, only 10% to 15% of

existing visitors intended to revisit the following year. Stated

another way, between 85% and 90% of them did not intend

to return. Most other destinations recorded revisit intention

rates of between 4% and 8%, with Korea registering the

lowest revisitation intention level of only 1%. Overall only

7% of tourists intend to revisit the same place the following

year, with almost none of the visitors to Korea, Malaysia, or

Singapore intending to return.

Low return intention levels mean that destinations must

replace virtually their entire stock of visitors each year.Research on inbound tourism for Malta (Malta Tourism

Authority 2006) suggests that Hong Kong is not an isolated

case, for similarly low numbers were reported here. Destina-

tions succeed, though, for as discussed earlier, overall visitor

volume is stable. Replenishment can come from one of two

sources: enticing new visitors or attracting previous but infre-

quent visitors to return.

The third part of the analysis section examines if the pool

of actual and potential visitors is similar. If similar, then one

could argue that markets might demonstrate a level of des-

tination loyalty not witnessed by individual tourists. This

proposition is tested by comparing actual and intended visi-

tors within each destination through a chi-square analysis of

most demographic variables, the importance of travel, and

perceived travel experience and a t-test analysis of six com-

monly identified motives and household size.

As can be seen from Table 4, which highlights those cases

where statically significant differences at the .01 level were

noted for ease of interpretation, the profiles of actual and

intended visitors to each destination are virtually identical,

suggesting each destination does draw replacement visitors

from a similar psychodemographic pool of residents. Only

minor differences were noted in short-haul markets relating

to travel experience and age, where in each case, the intended

visitor had less travel experience and was somewhat youngerthan the actual visitor. In addition, the household income of

people who intended to visit Japan was lower than that of

actual visitors, while the household size of intended Taiwanese

visitors was larger than that of actual visitors.

The ratio of intended to actual visitors was also calculated

for each destination. Long-haul destinations and Japan recorded

intention/visitation ratios of greater than 1.0, while other

short-haul destinations and the United Kingdom had scores

of less than 1.0. Small changes in visitation numbers suggest

Table 3. Destination Loyalty, 2000 to 2008 (Intention to Revisit in the Upcoming 12 Months)

n Number Intending to Return the Next Year % Intending to Return the Next Year

Japan 478 71 14.9United Kingdom 91 11 12.1United States 149 16 10.7Europe 114 9 7.9

Thailand 474 37 7.8Canada 97 7 7.2Australia 141 8 5.7Taiwan 349 15 4.3Other (non-China) 221 7 3.2Singapore 104 2 1.9Malaysia 117 2 1.7Korea 193 2 1.0Total 2528 187 7.4

Source: PolyU Resident surveys.



8/13

127

Table4.

ComparingActualwithIntendedVisitors

Motive

Actual

Intended

Number

Number

Ratio

Family

M

eet

Levelof

ofVisitors

ofVisitors

Intended

Importance

and

Different

Increase

Travel

Household

Household

Market

(n=2528)

(n

=2542)

toActual

ofTravel

Friends

People

Relax

Escape

Discovery

Knowled

ge

Experience

Gender

Age

Education

Size

Income

Australia

141

166

1.1

8

Canada

97

103

1.0

6

Europe

114

199

1.7

5

Japan

478

687

1.4

4

*

*

*

Malaysia

117

82

0.7

0

Singapore

104

76

0.7

3

SouthKorea

193

156

0.8

1

*

Taiwan

349

301

0.8

6

*

*

*

Thailand

474

364

0.8

0

UnitedStates

149

165

1.1

1

UnitedKingdom

91

87

0.9

6

*

Source:PolyUResidentsurveys.

Note:Intention5orabove=likelytodefinitelywilltravel.Blankcellsindicatenosignificantdifferencesbetweenactualandintendedvisitorstothedestination.

*p=.0

1.



9/13


that destinations scoring greater than 1.0 may be aspirational

in nature, where desire does not necessarily translate into

visitation. Instead, they may be traded off for visits to places

that scored lower on the intention/visit scale.

Strong within-destination-market profile congruity con-

trasts sharply with the equally large between-destination

differences noted (Table 5). Actual and intended visitors

have been collapsed into one destination cohort for this

analysis, because of their similar characteristics. Different

destination cohorts were compared using one-way

ANOVAs, and a post hoc Scheffe test was used to identify

whether significant differences at the 0.05 significance

level existed between destination pairs in terms of six trip-

related motive variables, level of travel experience, and

importance of travel. For example, the cohort of actual and

intended visitors to Japan was compared with the cohort ofactual and intended visitors to all other destinations, and

likewise until all destination pairs were analyzed. For ease

of presentation, variables have been coded and only those

cases where significant differences were noted have been

included.

Substantial differences emerge in the demographic pro-

file, travel experience, and to a lesser degree importance of

travel and travel motives in virtually every destination

destination pair. The only destination pairs that showed no

differences were Australia and Malaysia, Australia and

Singapore, and the United States and Singapore. The great-

est number of differences by variable were with education

level (36 of 55 destination pairs), age (33 cases), household

income (25 cases), level of travel experience (21 cases),

average household size (16 cases), the motive of escape

(16 cases), gender (14 cases), and overall importance of

travel (13 cases). Relatively fewer differences were noted by

other motives (between 2 and 12 cases depending on the vari-

able). Discovery and self-development discriminated between

Europe and other destinations, while escape was a common

motivation variable separating the United States from other

destinations.

Discussion

This study tested the proposition that individual international

tourists from Hong Kong may not demonstrate a high degree of

destination loyalty but that the Hong Kong market, collectively,

is loyal. The study confirmed this proposition by demonstrating

consistency in the popularity ranking of destinations over time,

even though low year-on-year repeat visitation intention was

noted. However, the profile of actual and intended visitors to

each place was similar, suggesting that outbound markets in

totality are loyal, though individual tourists may not display the

Table 5. Differences between Target Destinations

Market

Thailand

SouthKorea

Malaysia

Singapore

Taiwan

United States

Canada

Australia

UnitedKingdom

Europe

Japan 5, 6, 8, 10,11, 12

6, 8,9, 12

1, 2, 8,9, 10

2, 4, 8, 9,10

2, 6, 7,8, 9, 10,12, 13

4, 7, 9 ,10,12, 13

3, 9, 10, 13 1, 6, 7, 9,10, 12

7, 9, 10,11, 12

2, 5, 7, 9,10,12

Thailand 9 1, 9, 10 4, 9, 10 2, 4,5, 9,

10, 11

4, 7, 9, 10, 11,12, 13

3, 4, 8, 9,10, 12, 13

1, 4, 7, 9,10, 11, 12

5, 6, 7,9, 10, 11,12, 13

2, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 12

SouthKorea

9 9, 10 11 4, 7, 9, 11,12, 13

8, 9, 10,12, 13

7, 9, 10, 12 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12

3, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 12

Malaysia 4 1, 7, 9 1, 4, 10, 13 8, 10, 13 10, 11, 12,13

1, 5, 7, 10,12, 13

Singapore 7, 9, 10 10 4, 11, 12 5, 10, 12

Taiwan 4, 7, 9, 10,12, 13

3, 7, 8, 9,10, 12, 13

1, 9, 10, 12 7, 8, 9, 10,12, 13

5, 6, 7, 10,11, 12, 13

UnitedStates

1 4, 9 , 11 4

Canada 8 4, 8, 9, 11 3, 5, 6, 7

Australia 9, 4 1, 5, 6, 10UnitedKingdom

10, 11

Source: PolyU Resident surveys.Note: 1 = motive: spend time with family, friends or relatives; 2 = motive: meet different people; 3 = motive: rest and relax; 4 = motive: get away fromdaily routine/role obligations/stress/troubles; 5 = motive: discover new places and/or things; 6 = motive: increase my knowledge; 7 = level of travelexperience; 8 = importance of travel; 9 = age; 10 = education level; 11 = gender; 12 = household income; 13 = household size. Significance levels of 0.05are represented in the table. Blank cells indicate no significant differences between destinations on selected variables.



10/13


same level of loyalty. Moreover, destinations replenish their

stocks of visitors from intended visitors who share similar psy-

chodemographic profiles to actual visitors.

Data limitations necessitated the analysis of aggregate

market profiles. The authors recognize that markets are not

homogenous. Instead they are composed of a series of seg-

ments. But because the range of segments attracted todestinations differs from destination to destination, the com-

posite profile of the market for each destination will be different.

For example, Destination A may draw visitors from seg-

ments a, b, c, and d; Destination B may draw visitors from

segment a, b, e, andf; and Destination C may attract visitors

from segments c, d, e, andf. More research on this proposi-

tion is required.

It is also equally recognized that discrete segments may

find competing destinations appealing. Thus, one segment

may show a preference for, say, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan,

while another may show a preference for Japan, Thailand,

and Australia. The data set did not permit more detailed seg-

ment analysis, but it suggests that members of individualsegments may cycle through destinations. The idea of

cycling has been inferred indirectly by studies of destination-

switching behavior (Uysal, Barrett, and Marsinko 1995) that

suggests some people do change destinations. For example,

one segment may visit Destination A one year, Destination B

on their next trip, and Destination C on their subsequent trip

before returning to Destination A, explaining why arrivals

from any segment may be relatively stable over time. Thus,

a destination may be part of a loyal destination set that may

be visited from time to time. Data shown in Table 1 suggest

such a set is more likely to occur among proximate, short-

haul destinations, rather than among long-haul destinations.

If so, then the challenge arises to shorten the cycle as much

as possible to maximize repeat visitation. Effective marketing

to position destinations uniquely and eliminate the perception

that other destinations may represent acceptable substitute

brands can help achieve this goal.

Conversely, the observed decline in repeat visitation

propensity and intention with distance is explained partially as a

function of distance decay. Greer and Wall (1978) illustrated

that the number of destination opportunities increases

exponentially with distance. McKercher and Lew (2003),

Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003), and Tideswell and Faulkner

(1999) noted further substantial differences in both travel

patterns and tourist behavior between long-haul tourists andshort-haul tourists. Long-haul tourists tend to engage in

longer-duration, multidestination trips and sought to have

multiple trip purposes satisfied. Alternatively, short-haul

tourists tend to take shorter-duration, single-destination,

single-purpose trips and show a strong preference for

package tour travel. Yeoman and Lederer (2005) further

discuss the aspirational nature of much long-haul travel and

how it is viewed as a rare, often once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.

Short-haul travel, by extension, is more common and

the motives are more escapist or recreation-oriented.

Significantly, McKercher and Lew (2003) identified a

threshold region between short-haul and long-haul travel

where little tourism activity occurs. This Effective Tourist

Exclusion Zone (ETEZ) represents a psychological as well

as a physical transition area. Tourists who transcend this zone

and engage tend to travel more to have exploration, knowl-edge building, and other deeper personal benefits met. Those

who restrict their travel to the destinations prior to the ETEZ

tend to travel more for recreational, escapist, and hedonic

reasons. It appears that many tourists will never cross this

threshold for a variety of pragmatic reasons, including time

availability and cost of travel, as well as psychological reasons

relating to the ability and/or willingness to enter a culturally

strange landscape.

This collective body of research suggests that long-haul

tourists are more likely than short-haul tourists to be variety

seekers, are less intimidated by cultural distance, and also

enjoy an exponentially larger array of destinations to satisfy

their wanderlust, explaining low repeat visitation levels. Theobverse applies to short-haul tourists. Their desire to seek

familiarly and to travel for reset and relaxation, coupled with

a smaller destination choice set, may explain higher repeat

visitation/intention levels observed. And so, while distance

does not define loyalty explicitly, it creates more opportunities

to visit more places. In doing so, it makes the jobs of DMOs

targeting long-haul tourists all that more important, for they

must compete against a much larger potential choice set of

destinations.

These findings have a number of implications for tour-

ism marketing practice and raise a number of questions

worthy of further research. First, as mentioned above, the

need for strong and financially well supported DMOs is

reinforced, for destinations must virtually replenish their

entire pleasure visitor population each year, or risk entering

into rapid decline. Oliver (1999) discusses loyalty as exist-

ing in four stages, cognitive, affective, conative and action.

Cognitive loyalty relates to the belief that one brand is pref-

erable over others while affective loyalty refers to positive

attitudes or liking based on satisfied consumption. Conative

loyalty reflects a deeper level of commitment by the cus-

tomer based on the development of behavioral intentions.

The final stage is action loyalty, which reflects transfer of

behavioral intentions to action and motivation to overcome

barriers related to that action. Affective and conative loyaltymay exist in tourism but do not necessarily translate to

action loyalty.

DMO marketing initiatives therefore must reinforce their

brands and maintain visibility in a cluttered marketplace to

entice the lapsed consumers and those who are unlikely to

return to revisit. In addition, they must also attract a continu-

ous supply of first-time visitors, representing more than 80%

of all arrivals in many instances, to replace those who will only

ever visit once. This task is too large for any single enterprise



11/13


in the destination to achieve alone. Moreover, the interests

of the destination may conflict with those of multinational

firms that operate in that and other destinations simultaneously.

Destination loyalty is less important to these organizations than

firm loyalty and indeed may be inimical to it.

The findings also highlight the importance of word-

of-mouth recommendations. Given that individuals may beunlikely to revisit, their role as destination advocates may be

more important than their own repeat propensity. It is worth-

while noting that Korea and Malaysia have witnessed a

relative decline in popularity ranking recently. The fact that

these countries have the lowest repeat intention rates may

not be coincidental. Indeed, low short-term repeat intention

may act as a barometer of destination health and likely word-

of-mouth impact.

The findings suggest that deeper research is needed into

the phenomenon of loyalty in international tourism. This

study raised the prospect that loyalty could exist on many

levels and that tourists could exhibit a high degree of loyalty

at one level that may not translate into observed loyalty atanother level. This study could not address this issue explic-

itly, but the findings of market rather than individual loyalty

suggests that different sets of dynamics may be at play. More

research into this issue is needed.

Methodologically, a time dimension needs to be included

when using repeat visitation as a proxy for loyalty. An open-

ended time frame can produce misleading results for any

previous visitors, regardless of the time between visits, may

be wrongly ascribed as being loyal. Others (Oppermann 2000;

VisitBritain 2005) used 10 years, which may be overly lib-

eral. Reliance on secondary data meant that this study had to

adopt a 12-month time frame, which arguably may be too

short. A 3- to 4-year loyalty window may be more suitable.

This time frame is often adopted by hotel companies to purge

infrequent clients from their databases.

Loyalty in tourism is an important construct whose

dimensions are still being investigated. This study suggests

that research into loyalty needs to extend beyond the indi-

vidual to the group or market segment. It also raised, but

could not test, the intriguing prospect of a loyalty hierar-

chy. In doing so, it challenged the applicability of a product/

service paradigm as the sole or primary conceptual model

to examine loyalty. Instead it suggests that the unique

nature of tourism may require a rethinking of the applica-

bility of standard product and service loyalty theory to thetourism context.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the

authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or

authorship of this article.

References

Andreassen, T. W., and B. Lindestad (1998). Customer Loyalty

and Complex Services.International Journal of Service Indus-

try Management, 9 (1): 7-23.

Backman, S. J., and J. L. Crompton (1991). The Usefulness of

Selected Variables for Predicting Activity Loyalty. LeisureSciences, 13: 205-20.

Backman, S. J., and C. Veldkamp (1995). Examination of the Rela-

tionship between Service Quality and User Loyalty.Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration, 13 (2): 29-41.

Barsky, J. and L. Nash (2002). Evoking Emotion: Affective Keys

to Hotel Loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly, 43: 39-46.

Bowen, J. T., and S. Shoemaker (2003). Loyalty: A Strategic Com-

mitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-

terly, 44 (5/6): 31-46.

Castro, C. B., E. M. Armario, and D. M. Ruiz (2007). The Influ-

ence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship between a

Destinations Image and Tourists Future Behavior. TourismManagement, 28: 175-87.

Chen, J. S., and D. Gursoy (2001). An Investigation of Tourists

Destination Loyalty and Preferences.International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (2): 79.

Chi, C. G. Q., and H. Qu (2008). Examining the Structural

Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and

Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach. Tourism Man-

agement, 29: 624-36.

Churchill, G. (1995). Marketing Research: Methodological Foun-

dations, 6th edition. Forth Worth: Dryden Press.

Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations of Pleasure Vacations.Annals

of Tourism Research, 6 (4): 408-24.

Day, G. S. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loy-

alty.Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (3): 29-35.

Dick, A., and K. Basu (1994). Customer Loyalty: Towards an

Integrated Framework.Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 22 (2): 99-113.

European Tourist Commission (2006). "Tourism Trends for Europe."

http://www.etc-corporate.org/resources/uploads/ETC_

Tourism_Trends_for_Europe_09-2006_ENG.pdf (accessed

February 17, 2010).

Gounaris, S., and V. Stathakopoulos (2004). Antecedents and Con-

sequences of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study. Journal of

Brand Management, 11 (4): 283-306.

Government of Mauritius (2005). Profile by Country of Residence

2004. http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/tourist/file/survey04/profile

_2004.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).

Greer, T., and G. Wall (1979). Recreational Hinterlands: A The-

oretical and Empirical Analysis. In Recreational Land Use

in Southern Ontario (Department of Geography Publication

Series #14), edited by G. Wall. Waterloo, Canada: Waterloo

University, pp. 227-46.

Haywood, K. M. (1989). Managing Word-of-Mouth Communica-

tions.Journal of Service Marketing, 3 (2): 55-67.



12/13


Henry, C. D. (2000). Is Customer Loyalty a Pernicious Myth?

Business Horizons, 43 (4): 13-16.

Homburg, C., and A. Giering (2001). Personal Characteristics as

Moderators of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction

and LoyaltyAn Empirical Analysis.Psychology and Market-

ing Journal, 18 (1): 43-66.

Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) (2007). Visitor Profile 2007Vacation Overnight Visitors. Hong Kong: HKTB.

Huang, H. H., and C. K. Chiu (2006). Exploring Customer Satis-

faction, Trust and Destination Loyalty in Tourism. Journal of

American Academy of Business, 10 (1): 156-59.

Hwang, Y., and D. Fesenmaier (2003). Multidestination Pleasure

Travel Patterns: Empirical Evidence from the American Travel

Survey.Journal of Travel Research, 32: 166-71.

Jacoby, J., and R. Chestnut (1978). Brand Loyalty Measurement

and Management. New York: John Wiley.

Jang, S. C. S., and R. Feng (2007). Temporal Destination Revisit

Intention: The Effects of Novelty Seeking and Satisfaction.

Tourism Management, 28: 580-90.

Jones, M. A., D. L. Mothersbaugh, and S. E. Beatty (2000). Switch-ing Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services.Journal of

Retailing, 76 (2): 259-74.

Kahn, B. E., and D. C. Schmittlein (1992). The Relationship

between Purchases Made on Promotion and Shopping Trip

Behavior.Journal of Retailing, 68 (3): 294-315.

Kim, S. S., and J. L. Crompton (2002). The Influence of Selected

Behavioral and Economic Variables on Perceptions of Admission

Price Levels.Journal of Travel Research, 41 (2): 144-52.

Lee, J., A. R. Graefe, and R. C. Burns (2007). Examining the Ante-

cedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting. Leisure

Sciences, 29 (5): 463-81.

Machleit, K. A., C. T. Allen, and T. J. Madden (1993). The

Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence

of Ad-Evoked Affect.Journal of Marketing, 57: 72-82.

Malta Tourism Authority (2006). Malta Market Profile Surveys

Q4 2006. http://www.mta.com.mt/index.pl (accessed January 4,

2009).

Matilla, A. S. (2001). Emotional Bonding and Restaurant Loyalty.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (6):

73-9.

McKercher, B. (2008). Segment Decay in Urban Tourism. Tourism

Management, 29: 1215-25.

McKercher, B., and A. Chan (2005). How Special Is Special Inter-

est Tourism.Journal of Travel Research, 44 (1): 21-31.

McKercher, B., and A. Lew (2003). Distance Decay and the

Impact of Effective Tourism Exclusion Zones on International

Travel Flows.Journal of Travel Research, 42: 159-65.

Morais, D., D. Kerstetter, & C. Yarnal (2006). The Love Triangle:

Loyal Relationships among Providers, Customers, and Their

Friends.Journal of Travel Research, 44: 379-86.

Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (2002). Introduction. In

Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Propo-

sition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride. Burling-

ton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 3-10.

New Zealand Ministry for Tourism (2008). Various Visitor Arrival

Statistics for 2007. Available from http://www.tourismresearch

.govt.nz/

Niininen, O., E. Szivas, and R. Riley (2004). Destination Loyalty

and Repeat Behavior: An Application of Optimum Stimulation

Measurement. The International Journal of Tourism Research,

6 (6): 439-47.Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty?Journal of Mar-

keting, 63 (4): 33-44.

Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination Threshold Potential and the Law

of Repeat Visitation.Journal of Travel Research, 37 (2): 131-37.

Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting Destination ChoiceA Dis-

cussion of Destination Loyalty.Journal of Vacation Marketing,

5 (1): 51-65.

Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism Destination Loyalty.Journal of

Travel Research, 39 (1): 78-84.

Pan, S., K. Chon, and H. Song (2008). Visualizing Tourism

Trends: A Combination of ATLAS.ti and BiPlot. Journal of

Travel Research, 46: 339-48.

Pearce, P., and U. I. Lee (2005). Developing the Travel CareerApproach to Tourist Motivation. Journal of Travel Research,

43: 226-37.

Petrick, J. (2004). Are Loyal Visitors Desired Visitors? Tourism

Management, 25: 463-70.

Pizam, A. (1994). Planning a Tourism Research Investigation.

In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook

for Managers and Researchers , 2nd edition, edited by J.

Ritchie and C. Goeldner. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wiley,

pp. 91-104.

Pritchard, M. P., and D. R. Howard (1997). The Loyal Travel:

Examining a Typology of Service Patronage.Journal of Travel

Research, 35 (4): 2-10.

Reichheld, K. (2002). Letters to the Editor. Harvard Business

Review, 80 (11): 126.

Rosenberg, L., and J. Czepiel (1984). A Marketing Approach

for Customer Retention.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1:

45-51.

Rowley, J., and J. Dawes (2000). Disloyalty: A Closer Look at

Non-loyals.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (6): 538.

Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill (2000). Research Meth-

ods for Business Students, 2nd edition. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice

Hall.

Shoemaker, S., and J. T. Bowen (2003). Commentary on Loy-

alty: A Strategic Commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 44 (5/6): 47-52.

Shoemaker, S., and R. C. Lewis (1999). Customer Loyalty: The

Future of Hospitality Marketing.International Journal of Hos-

pitality Management, 18: 345-70.

Skogland, I., and J. A. Siguaw (2004). Are Your Satisfied Cus-

tomers Loyal? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly, 45 (3): 221-34.

South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2007). Annual

Tourism Report. http://www2.southafrica.net/satourism/research/

research.cfm (accessed February 16, 2010).



13/13


Tideswell, C., and B. Faulkner (1999). Multidestination Travel

Patterns of International Visitors to Queensland. Journal of

Travel Research, 37: 364-74.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2005).

Yearbook of Tourism Statistics Data 1996-2003. Madrid, Spain:

UNWTO.

UNWTO (2002). WTO Think Tank Enthusiastically Reaches Con-sensus on Frameworks for Tourism Destination Success. Madrid,

Spain: UNWTO.

UNWTO (2006). Hong Kong: The Asia and the Pacific Intra-

regional Outbound Series. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO

UNWTO (2008). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 5 (2).

Madrid, Spain: UNWTO

Uysal, M., R. T. Barrett, and A. Marsinko (1995). An Examination

of Trip Type Switching and Market Share.Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 4 (1): 45-56.

VisitBritain (2005). First Time and Repeat Visitors to the UK. http://

www.tourismtrade.org.uk/Images/Repeaters04_tcm12-12495

.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).

Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal (2005). An Examination of the Effects

of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Struc-

tural Model. Tourism Management, 26: 45-56.

Yuksel, A. & F. Yuksel (2007). Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects

on Tourists Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty

Intentions. Tourism Management, 28: 703-13.

Bios

Bob McKercher is a professor of tourism in the School of Hotel

and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-

versity. His diverse interests in tourism research include a desire

to resolve apparent differences between theory and observed

practice.

Basak Denizci Guillet is an assistant professor in the School of

Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University. Her specialty area is finance, and she began her

career working in marketing, sales, and accounting in various

hotels.
http://jtr.sagepub.com/

Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32