Strategies for Creating Loyal Park Visitors: Ontario Provincial Park Case Study

Strategies for Creating Loyal Park Visitors: Ontario Provincial Park Case Study

Maria Legault

Project for REC/ENVS 433, Ecotourism and Park Tourism

April 1st, 2011

Project supervised by Dr. Paul F.J. Eagles and Teaching Assistant Yaw Agyeman

1

Table of Contents1.0. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

2.0. Literature Review.................................................................................................................2

2.1. Literature on Satisfaction..................................................................................................2

2.2. Literature on Commitment................................................................................................3

2.3. Literature on Loyalty........................................................................................................5

3.0. Data Analysis Results...........................................................................................................7

3.1. General Survey Results.....................................................................................................7

3.2. Results on Visitor Satisfaction..........................................................................................9

4.0. Discussion and Recommendations.....................................................................................16

5.0. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................18

6.0. Reference List.........................................................................................................................20

List of Tables

Table 1: Variables Involved in Three Different Approaches for Measuring Visitor Commitment 4Table 2: Group Type......................................................................................................................8Table 3: Top Four Park Visitation Motivation Factors, by Group Type........................................9Table 4: Age and Gender of ‘Family’ Category Respondents........................................................9

ii

Table 5: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Family’ Category.................10Table 6: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Family’ Category................10Table 7: Age and Gender of ‘Groups of Friends’ Category Respondents....................................11Table 8: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Group of Friends’ Category.11Table 9: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Groups of Friends’ Category..................................................................................................................................................... 11Table 10: Age and Gender of ‘Couples’ Category Respondents..................................................12Table 11: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Couples’ Category.............12Table 12: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Couples’ Category...........12Table 13: Age and Gender of ‘Individuals’ Category Respondents.............................................13Table 14: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Individuals’ Category........13Table 15: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Individuals’ Category.......14Table 16: Age and Gender of ‘Organized Group’ Category Respondents...................................14Table 17: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Organized Groups’ Category..................................................................................................................................................... 14Table 18: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Organized Groups’ Category...................................................................................................................................... 15Table 19: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Services.........................15Table 20: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Facilities........................16

List of Figures

Figure 1: Matrix of four different loyalty types based on psychological attachment to the activity and intensity of activity use.............................................................................................................7

iii

1.0. Introduction This research highlights strategies for creating loyal park visitors. Guiding questions for this

analysis include:

1) What motivates each group type to visit the Ontario Parks?;

2) What factors are influential in satisfying each group type?; and

3) How can managers attract and retain loyal park visitors?

Academic literature provides the theoretical basis for this research, while data are drawn from

the Ontario Park Interior User Survey questions #1, 5, and 9 through 12. By showing managers

how to satisfy customers, this research assists in the accurate dispersal of scarce financial and

personnel resources within a park setting (Backman, Backman & Malinovsky, 2000; Eng &

Niininen, 2005; O’Neill, Riscinto-Kozub & Van Hyfte, 2010).

Three primary motivations drive this analysis of visitor satisfaction and loyalty. First,

satisfied visitors can spread positive word-of-mouth referrals and generate political support for

the park (O’Neill et al., 2010). Second, a manager who has determined the desired facility and

service levels for each visitor demographic group will be better positioned to encourage repeat

visitation (O’Neill et al., 2010). A complete awareness of visitor preferences can also aid

managers in their efforts to limit the environmental damage caused by visitation (Eagles, 2001;

Ellis & Vogelson, 2002). Third, there is a dearth of research on visitor satisfaction and loyalty

levels in nature-based settings (O’Neill et al., 2010). Theories in this report are therefore based

on influential research in the general field of tourism, recreation, and leisure (e.g. Oliver, 1980).

From the literature research for this project, five primary hypotheses with regards to group

type motivation, satisfaction, and loyalty levels were created. These five include:

1. H1- Family groups will be visiting for relaxation and family bonding, and their low level

of activity specialization will mean lower expectations with higher satisfaction/loyalty

levels.

2. H2- Groups of friends will be visiting for adventure. This could lead to dissatisfying

conflicts with managers; however, they may have lower expectations and could be easily

satisfied with park services.

3. H3- Couples will be fairly wealthy, young, and well-educated individuals with high

expectations and therefore lower potential for becoming satisfied and loyal customers.

11

4. H4- Individuals will be well-educated, mature, and quite familiar with park operations.

Their experience with park management could have a variable affect on satisfaction and

loyalty levels.

5. H5- Organized groups will be motivated to visit the park for recreation; thus, their

satisfaction with the park will be based on the degree to which their safety and recreation

needs are met.

The outline for this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the literature

relevant to managers interested in improving service quality for park visitors. Section 3 consists

of a data analysis, while section 4 makes several recommendations for park managers based on

this analysis. Conclusions of this paper in section 5 propose possible changes to future surveys.

2.0. Literature Review

2.1. Literature on Satisfaction

Satisfaction can be broadly defined as an individual’s emotional response to service quality

and is critical in retaining park visitors (Eagles, 2001; Lee, Graefe & Burns, 2004; McMullan &

Gilmore, 2003; O’Neill et al., 2010; Silverberg, Backman & Backman, 1996). Oliver (1997)

defined it as the “the consumer’s fulfillment response” towards a consumable item (13). Service

quality is based on the customer’s assessment of park facilities and employee’s reliability,

knowledge, and empathy (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). The service quality gap (VS)

formula can be used to evaluate satisfaction; it is determined by subtracting the visitor’s

expectations (VE) from the visitor’s experience (VQ) (Eng & Niininen, 2005; McMullan &

Gilmore, 2008; Oppermann, 2000). Managers frequently make use of this formula in the

importance-performance analysis (IPA) technique, which provides quantitative measures for

rating consumer evaluations (Jaten & Driver, 1998; LaPage & Bevins, 1981; McMullan, 2005;

Pritchard & Havitz, 2006; Wang, 2010).

A complete understanding of visitor satisfaction also requires research on the visitor’s

characteristics, attitudes towards nature, and group interactions. This research is necessary

because of the two barriers to creating loyal park visitors. First, visitors with a high degree of

interest in specific facilities or recreation activities may regard the park’s natural environment as

substitutable (Backman et al., 2000; McMullan, 2005; Pearce, 2009). Second, individuals have a

2

broad range of possible destinations in which to spend their leisure time and money (McMullan,

2005). These two challenges, combined with the limited resources available to managers, require

the use of effective methods for retaining visitors (Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002).

A complete profile of the individual is important when attempting to create satisfied park

visitors. The basis for such a profile includes information on the visitor’s socio-demographic,

geographic, and psychographic characteristics (Eagles et al., 2002). The customer’s desired

participation frequency, desired recreational activities, and anticipated benefits from

participation also constitute critical information (Eagles et al., 2002). When combined with

research on commitment, this information can be used to create highly satisfied park visitors.

Understanding a visitor’s attitude towards nature is the second step in achieving visitor

satisfaction in a nature-based leisure setting. An attitude can be defined as the individual’s

cognitive evaluation of an entity with favour or disfavour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Buijs,

Elands and Langers (2009) identified how societal perspectives of nature are primarily based on

the relationship between humans and the environment. Their discussion highlights the

subjectivity of individual perspectives; these perspectives are strongly influenced by factors such

as ethnicity, past experiences with nature, and religious views (Johnson et al., 2004; Schwartz &

Howard, 1980). Managers able to identify visitor attitudes could more easily create a positive

cycle of park experiences for visitors (Kals, Schumacher & Montada, 1999; Kellert, 1997).

Group interactions can indicate the desired goals of individual park visitors. Society has

traditionally demanded parks as places for the preservation of both social and ecological

imperatives (Eagles & McCool, 2002). Within this dynamic context, groups of visitors interact

with and recreate their social and physical experiences together as they strive to achieve desired

end goals (Higging & Bridger, 1964; Kay 2008; Sayer 1997; Vollmer 2005). Understanding a

group’s physical, cognitive, and emotional goals can generate methods for satisfying individuals

because each member contributes to the evolution of the group over time (Mennecke, Hoffer &

Wynne, 1992; Wurzinger & Johansson, 2006).

2.2. Literature on Commitment

Commitment, a vital antecedent to visitor loyalty, has several characteristics which influence

its measurement. Defined as an individual’s emotional attachment to specific behaviours,

feelings of commitment increase with more time, money, and effort invested in a specific activity

(Buchanan, 1985; Han, Kwortnik & Wang, 2008). A committed individual will be more likely to

3

ignore other similar opportunities, gain psychological benefits from their involvement, and

develop a social identity based on their participation (Buchanan, 1985; Wang, 2010). Emotional

and cognitive factors are both influential in creating visitor commitment (Han et al., 2008).

Activities with rigid role expectations for participants tend to generate higher levels of

commitment, and this can be measured in various ways (Michels & Bowen, 2005).

Researchers can rely on either theories or variable sets when measuring visitor commitment.

Consumer involvement theory suggests that a visitor’s familiarity with an activity can influence

their associated motivation levels and behaviours (Pearce, 2009). Consequently, frequency and

intensity of park visitation becomes a reasonable measurement of commitment (Opperman,

1999). Visitor commitment can also be evaluated on the basis of a combination of variables.

Table 1 illustrates three different sets of variables which contribute to the commitment level of

visitors. In combination, each variable set illustrates the activity’s degree of role expectations

and each participant’s degree of resource investment in the activity.

Table 1: Variables Involved in Three Different Approaches for Measuring Visitor Commitment

First Approach Second Approach Third ApproachIndividual’s past

experienceCentrality of activity

participation to individual’s lifestyle

Amount of money spent by individual on

equipment required for activity

Frequency of individual’s participation

Individual’s status in the activity and opportunity for advancement

Length of time spent engaged in the

activity

Number of years individual has

participated in activity

Psychological importance of activity in comparison to other

interests

Individual’s preference of

technique in the activity (i.e. level of

expertise)Participant’s age Resistance to change

in activityIndividual’s

preference for the setting of the activity

Number of times individual has engaged in this

activity compared to alternatives

Degree of independent ability in activity (as perceived

by participant)

Source: Buchanan (1985)

4

2.3. Literature on Loyalty

Although the concept of loyalty has evolved over time in response to research findings, loyalty

in Ontario Parks can be understood and enhanced by park managers. Oliver (1999) is a seminal

researcher on the topic of loyalty and has had his work referenced by multiple academics

(Brunner et al., 2007; Ha et al., 2009; Han et al., 2008; McMullan, 2005; McMullan & Gilmore,

2008; Yuksel, Yuksel & Bilim, 2010). Oliver (1997) defined loyalty as the individual’s “deeply

held commitment” to use a preferred entity repeatedly in the future (392). Prior to his research,

loyalty was narrowly defined as being repeated purchase behaviour; its drivers and moderators

were poorly understood within the research community (Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006).

This situation changed with Oliver’s (1999) model of loyalty, which included a linear

progression through the following four stages:

1. Cognitive (weakest stage): created by the clarity of the brand’s message, its accessibility

to the customer, and its centrality to their lifestyle (Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006)

2. Affective (emotional stage): created by the brand’s ability to appeal to and satisfy the

customer’s emotions; this stage is unstable because it is vulnerable to alternative brands

(Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006; Yuksel et al., 2010)

3. Conative (rational stage): created by the customer’s cognitive evaluation of the costs and

benefits of switching to other brands (McMullan, 2005)

4. Active (outcome stage): momentum generated by the previous three stages encourages

the customer to continue their purchase behaviour (McMullan, 2005)

Loyalty in the Ontario Parks is the customer’s willingness to return rather than make use of

comparable natural environments. Satisfaction is influential in creating the initial relationship

between the customer and organization, as well as driving the progression through each of the

above loyalty stages (Ha, Janda & Park, 2009; Yuksel et al., 2010). However, interactions

between satisfaction and loyalty levels can be moderated by customer characteristics such as age,

income, and education (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006). The Ontario Parks Interior User

Survey in 2008 provided a preliminary analysis of customer satisfaction and loyalty by asking

customers if their expectations for park services were met (Baker & Fesenmaier, 1997; Ontario

Parks, 2008).

There are several factors which are influential in enhancing visitor loyalty. First, place

attachment is when a location fulfills an individual’s desired activity goals or has symbolic

5

meaning to them (Yuksel et al., 2010). Place attachment can generate affective loyalty, which is

the customer’s favourable attitude towards the brand (Li, 2010). Second, an organization’s image

can affect behavioural loyalty by perpetuating the customer’s purchase behaviour (Li, 2010).

Image is created based on information and memories of service provision; thus, it formulates

visitor expectations and influences their satisfaction levels (Brunner, Stocklin & Opwis, 2007).

This highlights the complexity of visitor loyalty as a multi-layered process (Opperman, 1999).

To cultivate a sense of place and organizational image within parks, managers must undertake

relationship marketing, utilize diverse technologies, and measure consumer loyalty. Relationship

marketing draws connections between the customer, the organization’s brand, and the

organization’s staff (Morais, Kerstetter and Yarnal, 2006). Although the role of the provider in

this context has previously been ignored, recent studies have identified how special treatment of

the customer can create strong customer-provider relationships (Morais et al., 2006). Diverse

technologies can also assist in the development of customer loyalty by maintaining contact with

the customer once they have left the service location (Michels & Bowen, 2005). For example,

electronic newsletters could be sent to customers to remind them of their visit and encourage

repeat visitation (Michels & Bowen, 2005).

To measure consumer loyalty, managers must consider both emotional and behavioural

elements. Oppermann (1999) developed the matrix of four different loyalty types outlined in

Figure 1, based on the individual’s psychological attachment to the organization and their

visitation frequency. Figure 1 is limited in that it does not consider the impacts of situational

constraints (e.g. lack of time or money) on customer’s loyalty levels. Thus, conclusions reached

from evaluations based on this figure provide only a partial picture of customer’s organizational

loyalty. Consequently, a complete understanding of customer loyalty can only be garnered

through consideration of all factors discussed in this literature review. This is because

satisfaction and commitment are two vital precursors to the development of customer loyalty.

6

Figure 1: Matrix of four different loyalty types based on psychological attachment to the activity and intensity of activity use.

Source: Opperman, 1999

3.0. Data Analysis Results

3.1. General Survey Results Data from survey questions #1, 5, and 9 through 12 are used here to evaluate motivations for

park visitation as well as current levels of satisfaction within each group type. The service

quality gap (VS) analysis provides some of the most valuable information in the following

section. Recall that VS requires subtracting customer expectations from experiences; here, the

number of visitors ranking high importance and performance to the service is evaluated.

Services and facilities with negative values have a contingency of individuals not completely

satisfied with their experience. Managers should address these problems, with a particular focus

on issues identified by the largest group types. Table 2, below, shows the frequency of each

group type in the survey. The three largest categories were ‘Group of Friends’ (34.7%), ‘Family’

(26.8%), and ‘Couple’ (26.6%). Identifying gaps in service quality for these individuals would

allow managers to resolve issues and enhance overall satisfaction levels (Eng & Niininen, 2005).

7

Table 2: Group Type

Group Type Frequency Percent (%)Other 154 4.5Individual 132 3.8Couple 920 26.6Family 926 26.8Group of Friends

1198 34.7

Organized Group

110 3.2

Total 3440 99.6Invalid 15 0.4

Total 3455 100.0

The data analysis revealed that no relationship between group type and park visitation

motivations existed in survey results. A chi-squared test between group type and their reasons for

visiting the park did not identify one as being dependent upon the other; this may have been due

to the uniformity of visitation motivations. Table 3 provides a summary of the top four reasons

each group type visited the Ontario Parks. In brackets, there is a number indicating the

percentage of people who ranked that factor as being ‘Very Important’ in their decision to visit

the parks. Although these results indicate positive attitudes towards the environment, managers

cannot be expected to draw new visitors based on the general park merits of naturalness and

isolation (Buijs et al., 2009). Thus, satisfying existing customers becomes an even more

important task. The following section provides an overview of group characteristics and

evaluates this information in relation to the service quality gaps identified by each respondent

group. It is organized around the hypotheses for each group type and discusses the managerial

implications of current visitor satisfaction levels.

8

Table 3: Top Four Park Visitation Motivation Factors, by Group Type

Top Four Motivations

1 2 3 4

Family Natural Setting (90.5%)

Friends and Family (79.9%)

Solitude (76.8%) Relaxation (65.7%)

Group of Friends

Natural Setting (85.6%)

Solitude (70.7%)

Relaxation (63.6%)

Friends and Family (61.9%)

Couple Natural Setting (91%)

Solitude (83.4%)

Relaxation (75.2%)

Escaping Responsibilities

(66.3%)Individual Natural

Setting (92%)Solitude (86.2%)


(67.5%)

Camping (55.9%)

Organized Group

Natural Setting (92%)

Solitude (86.2%)


(67.5%)

Relaxation (65.6%)

3.2. Results on Visitor Satisfaction This report hypothesized that low activity specialization would create high satisfaction levels

in family groups. Data results supported this, although the age and wealth of family groups could

generate demand for certain services. Table 4 indicates that those aged 25 to 44 years were the

largest category in the family group. Other major categories were those aged 0 to 14 years (51%)

and males 45 to 64 years (29.4%). In agreement with the size and maturity of this group type,

survey respondents reported a high household income; those earning over $200,000 constituted

the largest category at 6.8% of the population. High income levels could mean that this group is

willing to pay more for adequate safety, access, and convenience facilities in the park. Managers

should also be aware of the needs of young children because of their impact on family leisure

spending decisions and their potential to become life-long park supporters (Oppermann, 1999).

Table 4: Age and Gender of ‘Family’ Category Respondents

Age Male (%) Female (%)0-14 24.2 26.815-24 15.7 15.925-44 28.2 32.145-64 29.4 23.065+ 2.4 2.3

9

Total 100 100 Families who responded to the survey were largely satisfied by their experience with park

services and facilities, as shown in Table 5 and Table 6. Staff treatment and park security, two

critical park services, were both rated positively by many individuals in this group. There were

fewer individual’s satisfied with staff knowledge and interior campsite facilities, suggesting that

park managers should respond to these concerns.

Table 5: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Family’ Category

Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated VS ResultsPark Staff Responsiveness 4.6

Attention Provided by Park Staff 4.1Park Staff Treatment 10

Staff Knowledge and Competency -1.1Park Security Levels 10.1

Table 6: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Family’ Category

Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated VS ResultsCondition of Interior Campsite -16.9

Condition of Trails and Portages 0.5Value of Information Provided for Trip 4.7

This report also hypothesized that groups of friends would be easily satisfied, but their youth

could cause them to engage in risky behaviours. It was thought that these risky behaviours would

bring them into conflict with managers and generate dissatisfying experiences (Wilson & Daly,

1985). The latter aspect of this hypothesis was not supported by the data results in Table 7. It was

found that the overwhelming majority of survey respondents in the ‘Group of Friends’ category

were males (47.3%) and females (50.2%) aged 25 to 44 years. The age category of 45 to 64 years

was also quite large for both males (25.8%) and females (21.1%). This suggests that, contrary to

the hypothesis, friends groups are more mature and therefore less likely to engage in risky,

disruptive behaviours.

10

Table 7: Age and Gender of ‘Groups of Friends’ Category Respondents

Age Male (%) Female (%)0-14 6.5 7.615-24 16.9 19.425-44 47.3 50.245-64 25.8 21.165+ 3.6 1.6

Total 100 100

Groups of friends were found to have relatively high satisfaction levels with their park

experience. Table 8 indicates their high satisfaction with park services; although Table 9 shows

that they found park facilities to be problematic, the number of friends dissatisfied was low

relative to other group types (see Table 20). Survey data indicates that almost all respondents had

visited an Ontario Park in the past, suggesting that high customer satisfaction could be

contributing to repeat visitation.

Table 8: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Group of Friends’ Category

Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated VS ResultsPark Staff Responsiveness 9.9Attention Provided by Park Staff 7.2Park Staff Treatment 13.5Staff Knowledge and Competency -0.8Park Security Levels 17.9

Table 9: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Groups of Friends’ Category

Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated VS ResultsCondition of Interior Campsite -14.8Condition of Trails and Portages -0.8Value of Information Provided for Trip 8.3

The third hypothesis of this report was that couples would be young and difficult to satisfy.

Although this was partially contradicted by the maturity of couples, they were found to have low

satisfaction levels. The largest age categories were males (57.3%) and females (57.3%) aged 25

to 44 years, followed by males (29.9%) and females (28.1%) aged 45 to 64. Table 10 shows the

frequency of males and females within the entire population, based on age category.

11

Table 10: Age and Gender of ‘Couples’ Category Respondents

Age Male (%) Female (%)0-14 1.0 0.515-24 9.3 13.025-44 57.3 57.345-64 29.9 28.165+ 2.5 1.2

Total 100 100

Respondents in the couple category were more difficult to satisfy. Based on other survey

data, their high income and education levels could be contributing to their high expectations for

their park experience. Table 11 and Table 12 reveal that couples were particularly negative

regarding staff knowledge and interior campsite conditions. Their dissatisfaction with staff

knowledge and information suggests that they could be better satisfied through the provision of

more and better interpretation activities during their park stay.

Table 11: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Couples’ Category


Table 12: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Couples’ Category

Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated VS ResultsCondition of Interior Campsite -19.3Condition of Trails and Portages -7.3Value of Information Provided for Trip -2

The fourth hypothesis of this report was largely supported by survey data and stated that

individuals would be mature and quite familiar with park operations. However, these variables

were found to have a positive influence on satisfaction levels, rather than the variable influence

anticipated in the hypothesis. As shown in Table 13, the two largest age categories were males

(50.9%) and females (45.5%) 25 to 44 years of age, followed by males (40.9%) and females

12

(27.3%) aged 45 to 64 years. The concentration of individuals in these two age categories,

combined with the high number of survey respondents who had previously visited an Ontario

Park, supports the hypothesis that individuals are life-long park supporters who are already quite

familiar with park resources.

Table 13: Age and Gender of ‘Individuals’ Category Respondents

Age Males (%) Females (%)0-14 1.8 4.515-24 5.5 18.225-44 50.9 45.545-64 40.9 27.365+ 0.9 4.5

Total 100 100

The ‘virtuous circle’ of tourism could be influencing survey respondents in the individual

category; this circle occurs when highly satisfied visitors continue to visit the parks to gain the

perceived benefits of their visitation experiences (P.F.J. Eagles, personal communication,

January 5th, 2011). Table 14 and Table 15 show the number of individuals satisfied with park

facilities and services. Satisfaction results shown here are relatively higher than other group

types, as revealed by Table 19 and Table 20. Many respondents in the individual category were

particularly positive towards staff treatment and park security; managers should therefore focus

on other problematic issues, such the condition of interior campsites.

Table 14: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Individuals’ Category


Table 15: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Individuals’ Category

Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated VS Results

13

Condition of Interior Campsite -19.3Condition of Trails and Portages -7.3Value of Information Provided for Trip -2

Organized groups were thought to be satisfied by the degree to which their safety and

recreation needs were met during their stay. However, satisfaction levels were found to be low

within this group. Unique to this group was a very consistent age and gender distribution, as

shown in Table 16; consequently, few conclusions could be drawn from these demographic data.

Table 16: Age and Gender of ‘Organized Group’ Category Respondents

Age Males (%) Females (%)0-14 16.8 20.115-24 28.2 30.625-44 28.2 28.545-64 23.6 18.865+ 3.2 2.1

Total 100 100

Not many respondents in the organized group category were satisfied with their park

experience, as shown by Table 17 and Table 18. This group may have been dissatisfied with their

park experience because their recreational needs surrounding park facilities were not met. It may

also have been that negative intra- or inter-group conflicts lowered their satisfaction levels. The

former refers to conflict within groups, while the latter refers to conflicts between groups

(Wurzinger & Johansson, 2006).

Table 17: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for ‘Organized Groups’ Category

Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated VS ResultsPark Staff Responsiveness -8.3Attention Provided by Park Staff 1.9Park Staff Treatment 3Staff Knowledge and Competency -11.4Park Security Levels 17.2

14

Table 18: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for ‘Organized Groups’ Category

Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated VS ResultsCondition of Interior Campsite -22.5Condition of Trails and Portages -13.5Value of Information Provided for Trip -5.6

Although the preceding data analysis is useful for a general understanding of park visitors, it

is necessary to evaluate summary tables to determine where managers should be distributing

their resources. The mean defines the average of the values, while the median indicates the

middle value (Bryman, Teevan & Bell, 2009). Both are valuable for better understanding the

information revealed by the available survey data. Table 19 provides a summary on group

satisfaction levels; it reveals that staff’s degree of knowledge and competency was negatively

perceived by most group types, while park security was the most positively regarded feature. The

organized group and couple categories had the fewest number of people satisfied, while group of

friends and individuals were the most satisfied. This analysis shows how many individuals were

not completely satisfied with critical aspects of their park experience.

Table 19: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Services

Family Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Group of Friends Visitors

Satisfied (%)

Couple Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Individual Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Organized Group Visitors Satisfied (%) Median Mean

Park Staff Responsiveness 4.6 9.9 3.4 9.3 -8.3 4.6 3.78

Attention Provided by Park Staff 4.1 7.2 5.1 5.6 1.9 5.1 4.78Park Staff Treatment 10 13.5 8.7 10.9 3 10 9.22

Staff Knowledge and

Competency -1.1 -0.8 -7.7 -3.4 -11.4 -3.4 -4.88Park Security

Levels 10.1 17.9 8.3 16.8 17.2 16.8 14.06Median 4.6 9.9 5.1 9.3 1.9Mean 5.54 9.54 3.56 7.84 0.48

15

The second summary table garnered from this research is Table 20, which reveals group

satisfaction levels with park facilities. It shows that interior campsites were the most problematic

for all group types; it also reveals that organized groups and couples were the most negative

towards all park facilities. The low level of activity specialization thought to occur within

families is here substantiated by their largely positive attitude towards most park facilities.

Table 20: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Facilities

Family Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Group of Friends Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Couple Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Individual Visitors Satisfied

(%)

Organized Group

Visitors Satisfied

(%) Median MeanCondition of

Interior Campsite -16.9 -14.8 -19.3 -8.1 -22.5 -16.9 -16.32

Condition of Trails and Portages 0.5 -0.8 -7.3 -9.3 -13.5 -7.3 -6.08Value of

Information Provided for

Trip 4.7 8.3 -2 -2 -5.6 -2 0.68Median 0.5 -0.8 -7.3 -8.1 -13.5Mean -3.9 -2.4 -9.5 -6.5 -13.9

4.0. Discussion and Recommendations

Several key managerial recommendations can be drawn from the above data analysis and

literature review. Managers should be aware of the issues associated with each group, especially

the dominant groups of friends, families, and couples, because dissatisfying experiences could

deter future visitation. Motivations for park visitation were found to be based on the natural and

isolated character of the parks, rather than on specific natural features. As this indicates that

managers may be challenged to market their park amenities to draw new customers, retaining

existing customers becomes an even more important task (Eagles et al., 2002).

From the findings of the data, several methods can be identified for retaining loyal park

visitors. Managers must contend with the high expectations of park visitors for their experience

16

by appealing to the demands of each unique group type. Although families regarded staff

treatment as positive, managers should provide staff training in interpretation to appeal to

younger generations of park visitors. Increasing the ability of staff to provide high quality

education experiences is important because: 1) service quality and satisfaction are partially based

on employee’s knowledge; and 2) youth are typically very receptive to educational experiences

surrounding nature (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). Enjoyable park experiences early in

life could also cause youth to become life-long park supporters.

Groups of friends visiting the parks were found to have very positive attitudes towards park

services and facilities, and were older than originally anticipated in the hypothesis. Their

maturity was expected to reduce the likelihood that they would engage in risky behaviours,

thereby increasing their desirability as frequent park visitors. According to the consumer

involvement theory, their motivations and behaviours are closely tied to their emotional

evaluation of park resources (Pearce, 2009). Consequently, managers should continue to

cultivate a strong sense of place at the Ontario Parks for groups of friends. Encouraging staff to

develop personal connections with groups of friends could assist in this goal. However, this may

require the parks to retain staff all year round, rather than relying on transient summer students

as the customer’s primary contact with park staff.

Respondents in the couple category were found to have negative attitudes towards park

services and facilities because of their high expectation levels. They were particularly negative

towards staff knowledge and interior campsite conditions. Managers could address this problem

by designing specific campsite facilities and information services targeted at couples which

appeal to their preferences for naturalness, solitude, and relaxation; these preferences were

identified by their stated motivations for park visitation. Interior campsites should be a particular

focus for managers, as these sites were found to have a negative impact on the satisfaction levels

of all group types.

Individuals were found to have been largely satisfied by their park experience, and could be

life-long park supporters. It is possible that these individuals have entered the ‘active’ stage of

Oliver’s (1999) loyalty model, because they continue to return to the Ontario Parks without

prompting. Their visitation is likely being perpetuated by their ongoing investments of time,

money, and effort into park activities; consequently, regular reminders of their park experience

are the most effective method for maintaining their patronage (Buchanan, 1985; Han et al.,

17

2008). This could be done by sending out regular bulletins about recent park news via email

(Morais et al., 2006; Michels & Bowen, 2005). Due to the isolated nature of backcountry

experiences, safety could be a concern for some individuals (McCool & Braithwaite, 2009).

Managers should provide visible evidence of park safety to these visitors to assuage any fears

they might have, while still preserving the desired level of isolation and relaxation.

In contrast to those in the individual group type, organized group members were quite

dissatisfied with their park experience. As they perceived park safety to be satisfactory during

their visit, their dissatisfaction may have been caused by inadequate facilities and the impacts

this had on their recreational activities. It may also have been that intra- or inter-group conflict

lowered their satisfaction levels. Park facilities should be plentiful enough to avoid conflict over

these resources between groups. Further research is needed on the specific factors generating

dissatisfaction towards park services and facilities within this group type.

5.0. Conclusions

The purpose of the preceding analysis was to identify managerial methods for increasing

repeat park visitation. Satisfaction was a primary focus of the analysis because of its

contributions to visitor commitment and loyalty. Methods for attracting new visitors were not

discussed, as survey data did not reveal what motivated individuals to visit the park. The VS

analysis was used to measure satisfaction, and this information acted as proxy for more advanced

measurements of customer loyalty.

Based on the results of the VS analysis, there are several things managers can do to enhance

visitor satisfaction levels. First and foremost, staff knowledge requires attention. Retaining a

larger proportion of permanent park staff, rather than relying summer students, would have two

primary benefits: 1) training in education and interpretation services for staff would have a

greater impact on the park; and 2) there would be more customer relationship-building

opportunities, and these relationships would likely last longer. This would allow managers to

create a stronger sense of place for park visitors. Second, managers should send visitors regular

email bulletins containing park information to provide reminders of their park experience. Such

interaction could be beneficial for allowing a two-way exchange between managers and the most

dissatisfied park visitors. For example, managers could use the email bulletins to direct visitors

to the Ontario Parks blog (http://www.parkreports.com/parksblog/), where they would be

18

encouraged to interact with park staff and indicate desired improvements in their park

experience. Lastly, managers must attempt to address the problems with interior campsite

facilities. These were rated negatively by all group types. Future surveys could assist in this goal

by identifying the specific problems visitors had with park facilities.

The data was limited in its ability to compare group type to motivation, satisfaction, and

loyalty levels. This may have been because the design of the survey limited the utility of some

responses to this particular research project. For example, the focus on group type in the survey

was problematic when trying to determine the characteristics of individual group members.

Group goals were used to better understand the individual visitor; however, the limitations of this

technique mean that it could generate unreliable results (Mennecke et al., 1992; Wurzinger &

Johansson, 2006). To overcome this barrier, individual participant information, such as age and

gender, was carefully evaluated to create a participant profile for this research project.

In the future, the Ontario Parks could rewrite their survey questions with the ultimate goal of

developing a loyalty scale for visitation. The creation of such a scale would require: 1) secondary

research into existing scales, 2) evaluation of existing scales for validity and reliability, 3)

conducting a survey, 4) summarizing the responses to a number of questions, and 5) interpreting

individual scale scores within the context of other scores (McMullan, 2005). Future surveys

could also be improved by better establishing the goals of the research and using this to design

the survey (Bryman et al., 2009). This change would mean that the survey could provide a clear

socio-demographic, attitudinal, and group interaction profile of visitors. Such information is

critical in understanding the motivations and satisfaction levels of visitors, both of which are

vital antecedents to the development of customer loyalty.

19

6.0. Reference List

Backman, K., Backman, S., & Malinovsky, J. (2000). An assessment of service quality in a nature-based tourism setting. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 9-30.

Baker, D., & Fesenmaier, D. (1997). Effects of service climate on managers’ and employees’ rating of visitors’ service quality expectations. Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 15-22.

Brunner, T.A., Stocklin, M., & Opwis, K. (2007). Satisfaction, image and loyalty: New versus experienced customers. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1095-1105.

Bryman, A., Teevan, J.J., and Bell, E. (2009). Social Research Methods. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, T. (1985). Commitment and leisure behaviour: A theoretical perspective. Leisure Sciences, 9(4), 401-416.

Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113-123.

Eagles, P. (2001). International Trends in Park Tourism. EUROPARC 2001. Edition 4:17, September 2001. Retrieved on January 14, 2011, from http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~eagles/taskforce/inttrends.pdf

Eagles, P.F.J., & McCool, S.F. (2002). Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management. New York: CABI.

Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., & Haynes, C.D. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. A. Phillips (Ed.), prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme, World Tourism Union, and The World Conservation Union. Retrieved January 14th, 2011 from http://ecosynapsis.net/RANPAold/Contenido/MainPages/preAmac/articulosPDF/sustainable_tourism_in_pa_guidelines.pdf

Ellis, C., & Vogelsong, H. (2002). Assessing Indicators Relating to Overall Tourist Satisfaction of Ecotourism Developments in Eastern North Carolina. Proceedings of the 2002 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (p. 52-57). Retrieved on January 17th, 2011, from http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne302/gtr_ne302_052.pdf

Eng, T.Y., & Niininen, O. (2005). An integrative approach to diagnosing service quality of public parks. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(2), 70-80.

Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty model. Journal of Science Research, 8(4), 330-345.

20

Ha, H.Y., Janda, S., & Park, S.K. (2009). Role of satisfaction in an integrative model of brand loyalty: Evidence from China and South Korea. International Marketing Review, 26(2), 198-220.

Han, X., Kwortnik,R., & Wang, C. (2008). Service loyalty: An integrative model and examination across service contexts. Journal of Service Research, 11(1), 22-42.

Higging, G., & Bridger, H. (1964). The psychodynamics of inter-group experience. Human Relations, 17(4), 391-446.

Jaten, A., & Driver, B.L. (1998). Meaningful measures for quality recreation management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(10), 43-57.

Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, J.C., & Cordell, H.K. (2004). Wilderness values in America: Does immigrant status or ethnicity matter? Society and Natural Resources, 17, 611-628.

Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behaviour, 31(2), 178-202.

Kay, J.J. (2008).An introduction to systems thinking. In D. Waltner-Toews, J.J. Kay, and N.E. Lister, The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability (pp. 3-13). New York, USA: Columbia University Press.

Kellert, S.R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington: Island Press.

LaPage, W.F., & Bevins, M.I. (1981). Satisfaction Monitoring for Quality Control in Campground Management. Research Paper NE- 484. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on January 17th, 2011, from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp484.pdf

Lee, J., Graefe, A.R., & Burns, R.C. (2004). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intention among forest visitors. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 73-82.

Li, X. (2010). Loyalty regardless of brands? Examining three non-performance effects on brand loyalty in a tourism context. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 323-336.

McCool, S.F., and Braithwaite, A.M. (1989). Beliefs and behaviours of backcountry campers in Montana toward Grizzly Bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17(4): 514-519.

McMullan, R. (2005). A multiple-item scale for measuring customer loyalty development. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 470-481.

McMullan, R., & Gilmore, A. (2003). The conceptual development of customer loyalty measurement: a proposed scale. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis in Marketing, 11, 230-243.

21

McMullan, R., & Gilmore, A. (2008). Customer loyalty: An empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1084-1094.

Mennecke, B., Hoffer, J., & Wynne, B. (1992). The implications of group development and history for group support system theory and practice. Small Group Research, 23(4), 524-572.

Michels, N., & Bowen, D. (2005). The relevance of retail loyalty strategy and practice for leisure/tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1), 5-19.

Morais, D., Kerstetter, D., & Yarnal, C. (2006). The love triangle: Loyal relationships among providers, customers, and their friends. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 379-386.

O’Neill, M, Riscinto-Kozub, K., & Van Hyfte, M. (2010). Defining visitor satisfaction in the context of camping oriented nature-based tourism- the driving force of quality! Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(2), 141-156.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 65(5), 33-44.

Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.

Ontario Parks. (2008). Park User Survey Program: Interior User Statistical Summary- 2008. Obtained by Paul F.J. Eagles for ENVS/REC 433, Winter 2011, University of Waterloo, Ontario.

Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting destination choice- A discussion 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.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.

Pearce, P.L. (2009). The effects of prior and recent experience on continuing interest in tourist settings. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 172-190.

Pritchard, M.P., & Havitz, M.E. (2006). Destination appraisal: An analysis of critical incidents. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 25-46.

Sayer, A. (1997).Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4): 473-488.

Silverberg, K., Backman, S., & Backman, K. (1996). A preliminary investigation into the psychographics of nature-based travelers to the Southeastern United States. Journal of Travel Research, 35(2), 19-28.

22

Vollmer, F. (2005). The narrative self. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(2): 189-205.

Wang, C.Y. (2010). Service quality, perceived value, corporate image, and customer loyalty in the context of varying levels of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 27(3), 252-262.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 59-73.

Wurzinger, S., & Johansson, M. (2006). Environmental concern and knowledge of ecotourism among three groups of Swedish tourists. Journal of Travel Research 45(2), 217-226.

Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective, and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2), 274-284.

23

Strategies for Creating Loyal Park Visitors: Ontario Provincial Park Case Study

Documents

Transcript of Strategies for Creating Loyal Park Visitors: Ontario Provincial Park Case Study