- Email: [email protected]
Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations
JBR-09036; No of Pages 6 Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations☆ M. Angeles Iniesta-Bonillo ⁎,1, Raquel Sánchez-Fernández 1, David Jiménez-Castillo 1 University of Almería (ceiA3), Ctra. Sacramento, s/n, 04120 Almería, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 February 2016 Received in revised form 1 March 2016 Accepted 1 April 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Perceived sustainability Value Satisfaction Tourism Multigroup analysis
a b s t r a c t This study explores the relationships between visitors' perceived sustainability of a tourist destination and their perceived value of and satisfaction with the trip. Perceived sustainability is a multidimensional construct made up of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions. By using survey data and structural equation modeling, this study tests and cross-validates the model in two tourist destinations: Cullera (Spain) and Oristano (Italy). The results, which support all the hypotheses and offer a robust model whose basic structure is invariant across samples, enhance the understanding of perceived sustainability as a key factor in the development of more competitive and market-oriented tourist destinations. The findings extend sustainability literature by covering previously ignored outcomes that demonstrate how perceived sustainability tends to be a universal factor for explaining perceived value and satisfaction in the context of tourist destinations. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction Tourist destinations often rely on tourism as their principal source of economic development. However, development that is not properly planned can have destructive effects on natural resources and local communities. As a result, sustainability is a critical factor in the growth and competitiveness of a tourist destination (Mazanec, Wöber, & Zins, 2007). The World Tourism Organization estimates that the number of international tourists will reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO — World Tourism Organization, 2011). Meeting this growth in a way that concurrently reinforces economic growth, social welfare, and environmental protection is the challenge facing the tourism sector. However, as Buckley (2012) asserts, typically, sustainable tourism has limited success due to poor implementation, in both developed and developing nations worldwide. Consequently, much of the tourism industry remains alarmingly unsustainable (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010). This fact suggests that, despite efforts to promote more sustainable tourist destinations, room for improvement exists in most countries (United Nations, 2012).
☆ The authors are grateful to the contributions from Professor Amparo Cervera, University of Valencia, and Professor Gilbert Swinnen, Hasselt University for their careful reading and suggestions on revising this essay. The authors are also deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This research was funded by the European Union, Project No. IB/1.3/561 “Newcimed: New Cities of the Mediterranean Sea Basin”. The European Union is not responsible of the content of this paper. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo), [email protected] (R. Sánchez-Fernández), [email protected] (D. Jiménez-Castillo). 1 University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento, s/n, 04120, Almería, Spain.
Despite the large volume of research on the topic, and the remarkable importance of sustainability in tourism, its definition is flexible enough to allow a variety of approaches and interpretations of the concept (Cernat & Gourdon, 2012; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010). As a result, no agreement on a universal list of indicators enabling the comparison of sustainability levels in different tourism destinations exists, because of the multivariate character of sustainability, together with the difficulty in aggregating the considerable amounts of information required (Fernández & Rivero, 2009). Furthermore, the analysis and measurement of sustainability becomes more complex owing to the difficulty of studying the market and tourist perceptions. Following Hult (2011), a strategically based marketing view of sustainability distinguishes sustainability from corporate social responsibility, in that the former follows a market orientation that involves customers. Therefore, sustainability can be a strategic resource that leads to competitive advantage (Dwyer, Edwards, Mistilis, Roman, & Scott, 2009) and, ultimately, to superior performance (Ketchen, Hult, & Slater, 2007), but only through a market-based approach. The present research attempts to fill the gap in the literature regarding how perceived sustainability of destinations affects tourist perceptions from a market orientation perspective. Specifically, the authors develop a model in which visitors' perceived sustainability predicts their perceived value of and satisfaction with the trip, and test the model using the structural equation modeling approach. The study adopts the concept of perceived sustainability as a multidimensional construct made up of environmental, socio-cultural, and economic sustainability dimensions. Furthermore, in order to test the robustness of the model, the authors re-examine the model in a different destination and with a new sample of visitors. The findings should help researchers and practitioners in the tourism industry improve their knowledge
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071 0148-2963/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
2
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
about the perceived sustainability of destinations, to develop their market offerings and marketing strategies more efficiently, and to show the significant implications of the valuation of the tourists' experience of the destination's sustainability. 2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses 2.1. Conceptual framework Sustainability is more than a recent trend. In the tourism industry, the Brundtland Commission provides the original definition of sustainable development in Our Common Future as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED — World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and, subsequently, the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2012), expand on this definition by creating principles for sustainable development that operationalize the concept of sustainability and its application to development. Thus, sustainable tourism development satisfies present tourists' and host regions' demands, while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. Consensus on the conceptualization and measurement of sustainability does not exist yet (Buckley, 2012; Ko, 2005). Some authors develop sustainability indicators for specific geographical areas (e.g. Cernat & Gourdon, 2012; Ko, 2005). Other researchers apply multidimensional approaches, considering various numbers of dimensions, such as three—economic, social, and environmental (Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2014); four—economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and institutional (Cottrell, Vaske, & Roemer, 2013); or even seven—environmental, cultural, political, economic, social, managerial, and governmental (Bramwell et al., 1996). Many authors, as well as international organizations (e.g. United Nations, 2012; UNWTO — World Tourism Organization, 2011), define sustainable development on the basis of its constitutional components and argue that the definition explicitly conveys the existence of three principal aspects: environmental, socio-cultural, and economic (Farsari, 2012; Jamrozy, 2007; Ramgulam, Raghunandan-Mohammed, & Raghunandan, 2013). According to these arguments and following the sustainable tourism development paradigm that has traditionally underscored the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of sustainability (Spangenberg, 2002), this study adopts the threedimensional approach. First, the environmental dimension is the component on which sustainable tourism literature originally focused (e.g. Collins & Flynn, 2008; Hunter & Green, 1995), which relates to natural capital and the condition of renewable and non-renewable resources. Second, the sociocultural dimension focuses on human–environment interactions and the protection of socio-cultural resources of local communities and host areas, which emphasizes the cultural interaction and the activities necessary to develop a cultural exchange in the tourism sector (Pearce, 1995). Finally, the economic dimension of sustainability implies meeting the economic needs of the population, producing a maximum output in order to achieve a high standard of living within the constraints of the existing capital (Mbaiwa, 2005). Sustainable development of a tourist destination has the potential to affect all aspects of its management, operations, and levels of value creation, implying the necessity to implement a market-focused orientation. At least two research streams point to such a link: institutional theory (Scott, 1987) and stakeholder theory (Maignan, Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2005). Institutional theory examines how elements linked to social structure (e.g., schemas, rules, norms, and routines) are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time as authoritative guidelines for social behavior (Scott, 2005). Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) asserts that an organization can take care of its responsibilities (or act sustainably) by acting in line with the demands of all its stakeholders, including customers. Taken together, both theories
suggest that for a destination to enhance its sustainability, merely implementing sustainability initiatives is inadequate and that customers should be involved and value these policies. Building on this suggestion, Daub and Ergenzinger (2005) propose the term “generalized customer” to denote people who not only care about the consumption experience, but are also actual or potential members of stakeholder groups that companies need to consider. Viewed in this way, generalized tourists are likely to evaluate destinations from a sustainability point of view, which involves a more holistic perspective of the tourism experience. From this perspective, the proposed conceptual model links perceived sustainability with other concepts that contribute to the understanding of how tourists experience a destination. Specifically, this study focuses on examining the relationships between perceived sustainability, perceived value, and tourist satisfaction. The analysis in the literature on the effects of perceived sustainability on these variables is limited (e.g., Cottrell et al., 2013). Hence, the present study discusses the proposed relationships in the next subsection. 2.2. Research hypotheses Although the concept of perceived value attracts increasing interest in the literature, researchers' definitions and measures of the concept vary (Holbrook, 1999; Woodruff, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988). The conceptualization of value as a trade-off between “get” and “give” promotes a universal interest in the composite nature of perceived value (e.g. Bradley & Sparks, 2012; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006). In particular, the literature defines the perceived value of a destination as the process by which a tourist receives, selects, organizes, and interprets information based on the various experiences at the destination, to create a meaningful picture of the value of destination experience (Prebensen, Woo, Chen, & Uysal, 2012). Some researchers emphasize that sustainability-driven organizations create unique idiosyncrasies that positively affect their standing in the marketplace and deliver value to customers (Closs, Speier, & Meacham, 2011; Hult, 2011; Peloza & Shang, 2011). For customers who care about sustainability, the sustainability level of the company elevates or diminishes the value of its product (Choi & Ng, 2011). From these arguments, certain studies assume that the extent to which tourists understand the sustainability of a destination may predict their perceptions after visiting the specific place (e.g., Pulido-Fernández & LópezSánchez, 2014); in particular, such understanding can affect the perceived value tourists derive from this experience. Thus, the present study hypothesizes as follows: H1. Tourists' perceived sustainability of the destination has a positive influence on their perceived value of the trip. Despite the growing interest in the concept of sustainability in the tourism industry, few studies attempt to empirically document the relationship between sustainability and tourist satisfaction. Some studies define tourist satisfaction as the individual's cognitive–affective state derived from a tourist experience (Rodríguez & San Martín, 2008). In a pioneering study on marketing, Luo and Bhattacharya (2006) confirm the influence of corporate social responsibility on customer satisfaction. In another study focusing on the concept of sustainability, Cottrell and Vaske (2006) find that all sustainability dimensions (they considered economic, social, environmental, and institutional dimensions) were significant predictors of tourist satisfaction in a national park. A similar study by Cottrell et al. (2013) indicates that those four dimensions influence resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism development. Yet, Huayhuaca, Cottrell, Raadik, and Gradl (2010) conclude that only some dimensions of sustainability (i.e., the social and the institutional dimensions) have a significant effect on resident satisfaction. The present study examines the context of sustainability for tourist destinations by investigating the relationship between the dimensions of
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
3
to ensure content validity. Appendix A contains a list of the items retained after a scale purification process. 4. Results 4.1. Measurement model validation
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
sustainability and the tourists' satisfaction with their visit to a destination. Accordingly, the study proposes the following hypothesis: H2. Tourists' perceived sustainability of the destination has a positive influence on their satisfaction with the trip. On the other hand, the concept of perceived value is a source for understanding the fundamental role of satisfaction in developing longterm relationships with customers (Lai, Griffin, & Babin, 2009; Wang, Lo, Chi, & Yang, 2004). Although the distinction and the link between value and satisfaction is somewhat critical due to the natural affinity between both concepts (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996), an increasing number of studies recognize that satisfaction is positively influenced by perceived value (e.g. Hume & Mort, 2010; Yang & Peterson, 2004). In the tourism industry, extant research confirms that perceived value is a reliable predictor of tourist satisfaction (Chen & Chen, 2010; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006; Sun, Chi, & Xu, 2013). Additionally, in the restaurant industry, several authors validate the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction (e.g. Chang, 2013; Ryu, Lee, & Kim, 2012). Based on the above review, the present study proposes the following hypothesis: H3. Tourists' perceived value has a positive influence on their satisfaction with the trip. Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual model and the research hypotheses.
3. Method 3.1. Data collection and sample This research collected data between June and August 2013 by conducting a survey of tourists using a structured questionnaire. The authors selected a total of 187 tourists visiting the tourist destination of Cullera, Spain (a city with around 24,000 inhabitants) using a convenience sample. The sample consists of 54.1% men and 45.9% women of multiple nationalities. The majority of respondents traveled for leisure purposes (86.3%).
The authors use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the threedimensional specification of the perceived sustainability concept and estimate the model with EQS v6.1 statistical software, using covariance matrix with raw data as input. The CFA indicated an effective correspondence with the data after scale purification (S-B χ2(32) = 51.418, p = 0.016; CFI = 0.985; NNFI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.057; IFI = 0.985). The study estimates a unidimensional model for this concept for comparison purposes. A chi-square difference test suggested that the unidimensional model provides a significantly poorer fit to the data (279.772 ΔS-B χ2 increase with 3 additional df, p b 0.001). These results encourage the use of the higher-order factor at the general level in this study. Subsequently, this study estimates a global measurement model using the CFA procedure to assess construct unidimensionality, reliability, and validity. Items retained after scale purification load significantly on the expected constructs (standardized loadings ranged between 0.87 and 0.99; minimum t-value = 15.35), which provides evidence of convergent validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The fit indexes suggest a good fit of the measurement model (S-B χ2(153) = 136.083, p = 0.234; CFI = 0.996; NNFI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.022; IFI = 0.996). The reliability of the measurements is calculated using Bagozzi and Yi's (1988) composite reliability index and Fornell and Larcker's (1981) average variance extracted (AVE) index. For all the measurements, both indices are higher than the evaluation criteria of 0.6 for composite reliability and 0.5 for the AVE (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The AVE for each construct surpasses the shared variance between the construct and other constructs in the model (square of the correlation between the two constructs), which provides evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). 4.2. Hypotheses test The study applies structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses in the research model. Results show a good fit to the data (S-B χ 2(129) = 138.580, p = 0.266; CFI = 0.996; NNFI = 0.996; RMSEA = 0.020; IFI = 0.996) and explain 47% and 57% of the variance in perceived value and satisfaction, respectively. Economic sustainability (γ = 0.822, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.676), socio-cultural sustainability (γ = 0.922, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.850), and environmental sustainability (γ = 0.864, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.746) effectively represent first-order dimensions of the reflective higher-order construct of perceived sustainability. The hypothesized direct relationships are statistically significant and in the predicted direction, strongly support the proposed model. As predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2, the results suggest that perceived sustainability positively relates to perceived value (γ = 0.685, p b 0.001) and satisfaction (γ = 0.326, p b 0.01). The relationship between perceived value and satisfaction is positive and highly significant (β = 0.492, p b 0.001). Therefore, the results support Hypothesis 3.
3.2. Measurement items 4.3. Robustness analysis: cross-validation of the model The survey includes measures of the three dimensions of perceived sustainability, perceived value, and satisfaction. The authors measured the three proposed dimensions of sustainability, adapting the scales of Andereck and Vogt (2000); Byrd, Bosley, and Dronberger (2009); and Tsaur, Lin, and Lin (2006); perceived value, using a scale adapted from Chen and Chen (2010); and satisfaction, using a four-item scale adapted from Kao, Huang, and Wu (2012). To measure all these survey items, the authors used a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), and pretested the questionnaire and revised items
The preceding analyses provide information about the internal reliability and validity of measures and the model structure. Although this information is both important and necessary, what is also relevant to examine is whether the results remain constant under different conditions. Such a ‘robustness analysis’ is insightful due to showing whether inferences from a particular study can be applied to situations beyond the immediate context, thus increasing the scope of a theory's prediction. Accordingly, the study re-examines the model by collecting new
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
4
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
data from different individuals and in a different context: the city of Oristano, Italy, with a population of approximately 32,000. In this case, the authors collect 168 valid questionnaires, and respondents are 57.1% men and 42.5% women, at an average age of 41.27 years old. Once again, the majority of respondents travel for leisure purposes (61.3%). A study involving Cullera and Oristano is interesting because of the underlying differences between the two cities in terms of the type of tourism activity that they develop: Cullera is a summer vacation destination for families, while Oristano is an eco-tourism destination. This fact provides the study with a cross-tourist offering perspective and contributes to the cross-validation of the model. In cross-national studies, collecting data from matched samples (i.e., samples that are alike with respect to demographic characteristics) in order to make valid comparisons is important. To test for differences between samples, the study performs comparison tests for gender and age, which reveal no significant differences (p N 0.1). The study uses multigroup structural equation analysis for systematic comparisons among path coefficients of the different samples, that is, to test whether the structural coefficients differ across the examined cities (e.g., Calantone, Kim, Schmidt, & Cavusgil, 2006). First, the study assesses the applicability of the three-dimensional specification of the perceived sustainability concept to the second sample. After a scale purification showing that the measurement instrument remains identical across the samples, the results of a CFA suggest a good fit of the measurement model (S-B χ2(32) = 57.788, p = 0.00346; CFI = 0.951; NNFI = 0.932; RMSEA = 0.069; IFI = 0.952). Subsequently, the study estimates the global measurement model. The results also indicate a good fit (S-B χ2(125) = 229.087, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.938; NNFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.071; IFI = 0.939). Results for measurement reliability and convergent and discriminant validity are also satisfactory. Once a will-fitting baseline model has been established for each sample separately, the final models are then combined in the same file to form the ‘configural model’ (Byrne, 2008). Configural equivalence (i.e., the number of factors and their loading pattern are the same across the two samples) is tested using a multigroup CFA. The configural model results in a satisfactory fit to the data (S-B χ2(250) = 333.979, p = 0.0003; CFI = 0.981; NNFI = 0.977; RMSEA = 0.044; IFI = 0.982). Subsequently, the study tests metric invariance (i.e., the extent to which an instrument is equivalent across independent samples) by constraining the matrix of factor loadings to be invariant across the two samples. The fit of the configural model provides the baseline value against which this specified invariance model is compared (Byrne, 2008). A nonsignificant increase in chi-square between the configural model and the model of full metric invariance (16.053 ΔS-B χ2 increase with 13 additional df, p = 0.246) exists. This result shows that the content of each item is perceived and interpreted in the same way across the samples. With the acceptable measurement model, the authors perform a multigroup structural analysis to estimate a two-sample simultaneous structural model. The model fits the data well (S-B χ2(258) = 340.359, p = 0.00044; CFI = 0.982; NNFI = 0.978; RMSEA = 0.043; IFI = 0.982), thus the authors proceed to test the hypotheses, which are supported for the new sample. Specifically, as per Hypotheses 1 and 2, perceived sustainability is positively related to perceived value (γ = 0.656, p b 0.001) and satisfaction (γ = 0.488, p b 0.001). Additionally, perceived value positively affects satisfaction (β = 0.492, p b 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 3. The dimensions of perceived sustainability significantly represent this higher-order construct: economic sustainability (γ = 0.900, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.810), socio-cultural sustainability (γ = 0.869, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.755), and environmental sustainability (γ = 0.827, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.684). The next step involves a comparison of the causal relationships across the two samples. All regression weights are made equal across the samples (fully restricted model). A chi-square comparison shows a non-significant deterioration when all paths are equal compared with the baseline model (9.0963 ΔS-B χ2 increase with 5 additional df, p = 0.105), providing no support for suggesting that paths are significantly
different across the samples. Therefore, a priori, the hypothesized effects are robust across the different samples and contexts. Lagrangian multiplier (LM) tests in EQS identify paths that could be significantly different across the samples (i.e., p b 0.5). The results suggest that only the relationship between perceived environmental sustainability and the higher-order construct of perceived sustainability show significant difference across samples (4.684 ∇χ2 decrease with 1 additional df, p = 0.030). Therefore, the equality constraint on this path can be relaxed. Overall, the results show the robustness of the conceptual model across different samples and with data referring to different cities. These findings have implications for research that will be discussed in more detail in the following section. 5. Discussion and implications This study addresses a highly pertinent and timely issue related to sustainability in the tourism sector, developing a theoretical model that relates tourists' perceived sustainability with their perceived value and satisfaction with the trip. The research builds on and extends previous research in several ways. First, the study reveals that economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability are representative dimensions of the general concept of perceived sustainability, in line with previous research that supports the multidimensionality of this construct (e.g. Farsari, 2012; Jamrozy, 2007; Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2014). Second, several authors suggest that, in general, sustainable development for a company creates value for customers (e.g. Choi & Ng, 2011; Peloza & Shang, 2011). However, although sustainability is linked to customer responses, this is the first study to examine the relationship between perceived sustainability and perceived value. This is important not only due to extending the sustainability literature by covering a previously ignored outcome of sustainability, but also because the extent to which perceived sustainability is beneficial to tourist destinations is determined by how much perceived sustainability builds value to tourists. Third, this work extends the research stream on the outcomes of perceived sustainability demonstrating that this multidimensional concept contributes positively to tourist satisfaction. In addition, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction validates previous studies in the tourism context (e.g. Chang, 2013; Chen & Chen, 2010; Sun et al., 2013). Finally, the robustness analysis performed in this research contributes to the generalizability of the proposed model, studied across different samples and applied to different contexts simultaneously. Results of analyses reveal that the model fits to the data and that its basic structure is invariant across samples; therefore, the overall framework does not change across destinations. This result implies that perceived sustainability tends to be a universal factor for explaining perceived value and satisfaction in the context of tourism destination. The findings of the present study also hold implications for organizations in the tourist sector. First, many addressable challenges to move sustainability initiatives forward exist. Many institutions often equate sustainability with environmental initiatives; however, they must realize that the concept of sustainability is broader, and they certainly need to include dimensions involving economic and socio-cultural aspects. This broader definition is insightful for destinations that aim to improve their standing in the marketplace and deliver greater value to visitors and other stakeholders. The results of this study suggest that organizations need to take all three dimensions of sustainability into account when developing indicators and standards, as together they represent a comprehensive approach for evaluating perceptions of sustainability in a tourist area. Tourist destinations can obtain competitive advantages by investing in sustainability. Indeed, sustainable development policies can represent a robust promotional strategy, particularly in the current environment in which tourists increasingly have strong social concerns. Second, if organizations bear in mind the findings which show that tourists' perceived sustainability increases their perceived value of and satisfaction with the trip, they will likely understand better why sustainability matters. Targeting visitors who support destinations'
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
sustainability orientations and strategies would be an important factor for success in the market (Choi & Ng, 2011). Furthermore, corporations and governments should facilitate an increase in value and satisfaction by taking measures to enhance sustainability in destinations. These findings should also give tourism organizations the arguments to justify the costs associated with sustainable issues. Third, the finding that perceived value contributes positively to satisfaction suggests that ignoring perceived value in a tourism experience may cause lower tourist satisfaction. Therefore, tourism organizations need to consider tourist evaluations of the destinations they promote in a holistic manner (not only satisfaction), and to understand that antecedents are important for understanding tourist experience. 6. Limitations and future research directions Finally, several limitations inherent to the research give rise to directions for future research. First, the analysis is based on perceptual data, which can be subject to bias, and consequently the findings must be interpreted with caution. Besides, although this study considers the most widely accepted dimensions of sustainability, no general agreement on the composition and nature of this construct exists. Hence, future studies should examine the different components of sustainability, to achieve the successful development and implementation of sustainable tourism policies. In addition, although this study could have measured perceived value multidimensionally (e.g., Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006), the single scale this study adopts is one of the most widely used measures in the literature. Future research that adopts a multidimensional scale of perceived value will expand the proposed model and will certainly add to the understanding of the tourist experience. To conclude, additional research should also address more insights into the relationships among perceived sustainability and other different perceptual or behavioral constructs in a tourism experience, such as attitude towards the destination, overall image, behavioral intention, or loyalty. Although the study crossvalidates the proposed model, further research that widens the sample frame across different tourists and destinations is likely to improve the value of the results.
Appendix A. Measurements
Economic sustainability ES1 I have observed that the municipal area is making investments to attract tourists. ES2 I have seen that the municipal area has good basic infrastructures. ES3 I consider that the tourist services at the destination provide good value for money. ES4 I think that the economic benefits of tourism in the municipal area are greater than the economic costs of tourism. Cultural sustainability CS1 I think the municipal area values its historical heritage (monuments, etc.). CS2 I think the municipal area values its cultural heritage (festivities, traditions, etc.). CS3 I think that local cultural and historical heritage resources and authenticity are being preserved due to tourist activity. Environmental sustainability ES1 I think the level of pollution in the municipal area is acceptable. ES2 I think the level of smells in the municipal area is acceptable. ES3 I think crowd levels are acceptable even at the height of the tourist season. Satisfaction S1 This trip has exceeded my expectations. S2 I really enjoyed this trip. S3 I really liked this trip. S4 It is worth coming here. Perceived value PV1 Considering the money I spent, it is worth visiting this destination. PV2 Considering the time I spent, it is worth visiting this destination. PV3 Considering the effort I made, it is worth visiting this destination. PV4 Overall, it is worth visiting this destination.
5
References Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents' attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27–36. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Bradley, G. L., & Sparks, B. A. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of consumer value. A longitudinal study of timeshare owners. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 191–204. Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G., Prat, A. G., Richards, G., & van der Straaten, J. (Eds.). (1996). Sustainable tourism management: Principles and practice. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 528–546. Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30, 693–703. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882. Calantone, R. J., Kim, D., Schmidt, J. B., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). The influence of internal and external firm factors on international product adaptation strategy and export performance: A three-country comparison. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 176–185. Cernat, L., & Gourdon, J. (2012). Paths to success: Benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 33, 1044–1056. Chang, K. C. (2013). How reputation creates loyalty in the restaurant sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25, 536–557. Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29–35. Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 269–282. Closs, D. J., Speier, C., & Meacham, N. (2011). Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: The role of supply chain management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 101–116. Collins, A., & Flynn, A. (2008). Measuring the environmental sustainability of a major sporting event: A case study of the FA Cup Final. Tourism Economics, 14, 751–768. Cottrell, S. P., & Vaske, J. J. (2006). A framework for monitoring and modeling sustainable tourism. Electronic Review of Tourism Research, 4(4), 74–84. Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., & Roemer, J. M. (2013). Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 42–48. Daub, C. H., & Ergenzinger, R. (2005). Enabling sustainable management through a new multi-disciplinary concept of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9–10), 998–1012. Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., & Scott, N. (2009). Destination and enterprise management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30, 63–74. Farsari, I. (2012). The development of a conceptual model to support sustainable tourism policy in North Mediterranean destinations. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 21, 710–738. Fernández, J. I. P., & Rivero, M. S. (2009). Measuring tourism sustainability: Proposal for a composite index. Tourism Economics, 15, 277–296. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39–50. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield: Pitman Publishing Inc. Gallarza, M. G., & Gil Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students' travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27, 437–452. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism: The cultureideology of consumerism and its implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 116–129. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge. Huayhuaca, C., Cottrell, S., Raadik, J., & Gradl, S. (2010). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 3, 125–141. Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 1–6. Hume, M., & Mort, G.S. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 170–182. Hunter, C., & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment: A sustainable relationship? London: Routledge. Jamrozy, U. (2007). Marketing of tourism: A paradigm shift toward sustainability. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1, 117–130. Kao, Y. F., Huang, L. S., & Wu, C. H. (2012). Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2), 163–174. Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Slater, S. F. (2007). Toward greater understanding of market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 961–964. Ko, T. G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach. Tourism Management, 26, 431–445. Lai, F., Griffin, M., & Babin, B. J. (2009). How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research, 62, 980–986. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1–18.
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
6
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9–10), 956–977. Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2014). Sustainability dimensions: A source to enhance corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 17, 239–253. Mazanec, J. A., Wöber, K., & Zins, A. H. (2007). Tourism destination competitiveness: From definition to explanation? Journal of Travel Research, 46, 86–95. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 26, 157–172. Pearce, P. L. (1995). From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange: Ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3, 143–154. Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 117–135. Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253–264. Pulido-Fernández, J. I., & López-Sánchez, Y. (2014). Perception of sustainability of a tourism destination: Analysis from tourist expectations. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 13(7), 1587–1598. Ramgulam, N., Raghunandan-Mohammed, K., & Raghunandan, M. (2013). Environmental sustainability in the 21st century: An assessment of Trinidad's business tourism market. Review of Business & Finance Studies, 4, 51–61. Rodríguez, I., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourism satisfaction: A cognitive–affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 551–573. Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Kim, W. G. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24, 200–223. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spangenberg, J. H. (2002). Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: Frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 2, 295–309. Sun, X., Chi, C. G. Q., & Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: The case of Hainan Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 547–577. Tsaur, S. H., Lin, Y. C., & Lin, J. H. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 640–653. United Nations (2012). Outcome of the conference. RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June. Available at http:// www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html. UNWTO — World Tourism Organization. (2011). UNWTO tourism and sustainability. (Retrieved from) http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/sustainability.pdf Wang, Y., Lo, H. P., Chi, R., & Yang, Y. (2004). An integrated framework for customer value and customer-relationship-management performance: A customer-based perspective from China. Managing Service Quality, 14, 169–182. WCED — World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source of competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153. Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customers—New approaches to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Oxford: Blackwell. Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 799–822. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means–end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations☆ M. Angeles Iniesta-Bonillo ⁎,1, Raquel Sánchez-Fernández 1, David Jiménez-Castillo 1 University of Almería (ceiA3), Ctra. Sacramento, s/n, 04120 Almería, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 February 2016 Received in revised form 1 March 2016 Accepted 1 April 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Perceived sustainability Value Satisfaction Tourism Multigroup analysis
a b s t r a c t This study explores the relationships between visitors' perceived sustainability of a tourist destination and their perceived value of and satisfaction with the trip. Perceived sustainability is a multidimensional construct made up of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions. By using survey data and structural equation modeling, this study tests and cross-validates the model in two tourist destinations: Cullera (Spain) and Oristano (Italy). The results, which support all the hypotheses and offer a robust model whose basic structure is invariant across samples, enhance the understanding of perceived sustainability as a key factor in the development of more competitive and market-oriented tourist destinations. The findings extend sustainability literature by covering previously ignored outcomes that demonstrate how perceived sustainability tends to be a universal factor for explaining perceived value and satisfaction in the context of tourist destinations. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction Tourist destinations often rely on tourism as their principal source of economic development. However, development that is not properly planned can have destructive effects on natural resources and local communities. As a result, sustainability is a critical factor in the growth and competitiveness of a tourist destination (Mazanec, Wöber, & Zins, 2007). The World Tourism Organization estimates that the number of international tourists will reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO — World Tourism Organization, 2011). Meeting this growth in a way that concurrently reinforces economic growth, social welfare, and environmental protection is the challenge facing the tourism sector. However, as Buckley (2012) asserts, typically, sustainable tourism has limited success due to poor implementation, in both developed and developing nations worldwide. Consequently, much of the tourism industry remains alarmingly unsustainable (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010). This fact suggests that, despite efforts to promote more sustainable tourist destinations, room for improvement exists in most countries (United Nations, 2012).
☆ The authors are grateful to the contributions from Professor Amparo Cervera, University of Valencia, and Professor Gilbert Swinnen, Hasselt University for their careful reading and suggestions on revising this essay. The authors are also deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This research was funded by the European Union, Project No. IB/1.3/561 “Newcimed: New Cities of the Mediterranean Sea Basin”. The European Union is not responsible of the content of this paper. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo), [email protected] (R. Sánchez-Fernández), [email protected] (D. Jiménez-Castillo). 1 University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento, s/n, 04120, Almería, Spain.
Despite the large volume of research on the topic, and the remarkable importance of sustainability in tourism, its definition is flexible enough to allow a variety of approaches and interpretations of the concept (Cernat & Gourdon, 2012; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010). As a result, no agreement on a universal list of indicators enabling the comparison of sustainability levels in different tourism destinations exists, because of the multivariate character of sustainability, together with the difficulty in aggregating the considerable amounts of information required (Fernández & Rivero, 2009). Furthermore, the analysis and measurement of sustainability becomes more complex owing to the difficulty of studying the market and tourist perceptions. Following Hult (2011), a strategically based marketing view of sustainability distinguishes sustainability from corporate social responsibility, in that the former follows a market orientation that involves customers. Therefore, sustainability can be a strategic resource that leads to competitive advantage (Dwyer, Edwards, Mistilis, Roman, & Scott, 2009) and, ultimately, to superior performance (Ketchen, Hult, & Slater, 2007), but only through a market-based approach. The present research attempts to fill the gap in the literature regarding how perceived sustainability of destinations affects tourist perceptions from a market orientation perspective. Specifically, the authors develop a model in which visitors' perceived sustainability predicts their perceived value of and satisfaction with the trip, and test the model using the structural equation modeling approach. The study adopts the concept of perceived sustainability as a multidimensional construct made up of environmental, socio-cultural, and economic sustainability dimensions. Furthermore, in order to test the robustness of the model, the authors re-examine the model in a different destination and with a new sample of visitors. The findings should help researchers and practitioners in the tourism industry improve their knowledge
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071 0148-2963/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
2
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
about the perceived sustainability of destinations, to develop their market offerings and marketing strategies more efficiently, and to show the significant implications of the valuation of the tourists' experience of the destination's sustainability. 2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses 2.1. Conceptual framework Sustainability is more than a recent trend. In the tourism industry, the Brundtland Commission provides the original definition of sustainable development in Our Common Future as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED — World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and, subsequently, the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2012), expand on this definition by creating principles for sustainable development that operationalize the concept of sustainability and its application to development. Thus, sustainable tourism development satisfies present tourists' and host regions' demands, while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. Consensus on the conceptualization and measurement of sustainability does not exist yet (Buckley, 2012; Ko, 2005). Some authors develop sustainability indicators for specific geographical areas (e.g. Cernat & Gourdon, 2012; Ko, 2005). Other researchers apply multidimensional approaches, considering various numbers of dimensions, such as three—economic, social, and environmental (Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2014); four—economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and institutional (Cottrell, Vaske, & Roemer, 2013); or even seven—environmental, cultural, political, economic, social, managerial, and governmental (Bramwell et al., 1996). Many authors, as well as international organizations (e.g. United Nations, 2012; UNWTO — World Tourism Organization, 2011), define sustainable development on the basis of its constitutional components and argue that the definition explicitly conveys the existence of three principal aspects: environmental, socio-cultural, and economic (Farsari, 2012; Jamrozy, 2007; Ramgulam, Raghunandan-Mohammed, & Raghunandan, 2013). According to these arguments and following the sustainable tourism development paradigm that has traditionally underscored the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of sustainability (Spangenberg, 2002), this study adopts the threedimensional approach. First, the environmental dimension is the component on which sustainable tourism literature originally focused (e.g. Collins & Flynn, 2008; Hunter & Green, 1995), which relates to natural capital and the condition of renewable and non-renewable resources. Second, the sociocultural dimension focuses on human–environment interactions and the protection of socio-cultural resources of local communities and host areas, which emphasizes the cultural interaction and the activities necessary to develop a cultural exchange in the tourism sector (Pearce, 1995). Finally, the economic dimension of sustainability implies meeting the economic needs of the population, producing a maximum output in order to achieve a high standard of living within the constraints of the existing capital (Mbaiwa, 2005). Sustainable development of a tourist destination has the potential to affect all aspects of its management, operations, and levels of value creation, implying the necessity to implement a market-focused orientation. At least two research streams point to such a link: institutional theory (Scott, 1987) and stakeholder theory (Maignan, Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2005). Institutional theory examines how elements linked to social structure (e.g., schemas, rules, norms, and routines) are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time as authoritative guidelines for social behavior (Scott, 2005). Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) asserts that an organization can take care of its responsibilities (or act sustainably) by acting in line with the demands of all its stakeholders, including customers. Taken together, both theories
suggest that for a destination to enhance its sustainability, merely implementing sustainability initiatives is inadequate and that customers should be involved and value these policies. Building on this suggestion, Daub and Ergenzinger (2005) propose the term “generalized customer” to denote people who not only care about the consumption experience, but are also actual or potential members of stakeholder groups that companies need to consider. Viewed in this way, generalized tourists are likely to evaluate destinations from a sustainability point of view, which involves a more holistic perspective of the tourism experience. From this perspective, the proposed conceptual model links perceived sustainability with other concepts that contribute to the understanding of how tourists experience a destination. Specifically, this study focuses on examining the relationships between perceived sustainability, perceived value, and tourist satisfaction. The analysis in the literature on the effects of perceived sustainability on these variables is limited (e.g., Cottrell et al., 2013). Hence, the present study discusses the proposed relationships in the next subsection. 2.2. Research hypotheses Although the concept of perceived value attracts increasing interest in the literature, researchers' definitions and measures of the concept vary (Holbrook, 1999; Woodruff, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988). The conceptualization of value as a trade-off between “get” and “give” promotes a universal interest in the composite nature of perceived value (e.g. Bradley & Sparks, 2012; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006). In particular, the literature defines the perceived value of a destination as the process by which a tourist receives, selects, organizes, and interprets information based on the various experiences at the destination, to create a meaningful picture of the value of destination experience (Prebensen, Woo, Chen, & Uysal, 2012). Some researchers emphasize that sustainability-driven organizations create unique idiosyncrasies that positively affect their standing in the marketplace and deliver value to customers (Closs, Speier, & Meacham, 2011; Hult, 2011; Peloza & Shang, 2011). For customers who care about sustainability, the sustainability level of the company elevates or diminishes the value of its product (Choi & Ng, 2011). From these arguments, certain studies assume that the extent to which tourists understand the sustainability of a destination may predict their perceptions after visiting the specific place (e.g., Pulido-Fernández & LópezSánchez, 2014); in particular, such understanding can affect the perceived value tourists derive from this experience. Thus, the present study hypothesizes as follows: H1. Tourists' perceived sustainability of the destination has a positive influence on their perceived value of the trip. Despite the growing interest in the concept of sustainability in the tourism industry, few studies attempt to empirically document the relationship between sustainability and tourist satisfaction. Some studies define tourist satisfaction as the individual's cognitive–affective state derived from a tourist experience (Rodríguez & San Martín, 2008). In a pioneering study on marketing, Luo and Bhattacharya (2006) confirm the influence of corporate social responsibility on customer satisfaction. In another study focusing on the concept of sustainability, Cottrell and Vaske (2006) find that all sustainability dimensions (they considered economic, social, environmental, and institutional dimensions) were significant predictors of tourist satisfaction in a national park. A similar study by Cottrell et al. (2013) indicates that those four dimensions influence resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism development. Yet, Huayhuaca, Cottrell, Raadik, and Gradl (2010) conclude that only some dimensions of sustainability (i.e., the social and the institutional dimensions) have a significant effect on resident satisfaction. The present study examines the context of sustainability for tourist destinations by investigating the relationship between the dimensions of
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
3
to ensure content validity. Appendix A contains a list of the items retained after a scale purification process. 4. Results 4.1. Measurement model validation
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
sustainability and the tourists' satisfaction with their visit to a destination. Accordingly, the study proposes the following hypothesis: H2. Tourists' perceived sustainability of the destination has a positive influence on their satisfaction with the trip. On the other hand, the concept of perceived value is a source for understanding the fundamental role of satisfaction in developing longterm relationships with customers (Lai, Griffin, & Babin, 2009; Wang, Lo, Chi, & Yang, 2004). Although the distinction and the link between value and satisfaction is somewhat critical due to the natural affinity between both concepts (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996), an increasing number of studies recognize that satisfaction is positively influenced by perceived value (e.g. Hume & Mort, 2010; Yang & Peterson, 2004). In the tourism industry, extant research confirms that perceived value is a reliable predictor of tourist satisfaction (Chen & Chen, 2010; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006; Sun, Chi, & Xu, 2013). Additionally, in the restaurant industry, several authors validate the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction (e.g. Chang, 2013; Ryu, Lee, & Kim, 2012). Based on the above review, the present study proposes the following hypothesis: H3. Tourists' perceived value has a positive influence on their satisfaction with the trip. Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual model and the research hypotheses.
3. Method 3.1. Data collection and sample This research collected data between June and August 2013 by conducting a survey of tourists using a structured questionnaire. The authors selected a total of 187 tourists visiting the tourist destination of Cullera, Spain (a city with around 24,000 inhabitants) using a convenience sample. The sample consists of 54.1% men and 45.9% women of multiple nationalities. The majority of respondents traveled for leisure purposes (86.3%).
The authors use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the threedimensional specification of the perceived sustainability concept and estimate the model with EQS v6.1 statistical software, using covariance matrix with raw data as input. The CFA indicated an effective correspondence with the data after scale purification (S-B χ2(32) = 51.418, p = 0.016; CFI = 0.985; NNFI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.057; IFI = 0.985). The study estimates a unidimensional model for this concept for comparison purposes. A chi-square difference test suggested that the unidimensional model provides a significantly poorer fit to the data (279.772 ΔS-B χ2 increase with 3 additional df, p b 0.001). These results encourage the use of the higher-order factor at the general level in this study. Subsequently, this study estimates a global measurement model using the CFA procedure to assess construct unidimensionality, reliability, and validity. Items retained after scale purification load significantly on the expected constructs (standardized loadings ranged between 0.87 and 0.99; minimum t-value = 15.35), which provides evidence of convergent validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The fit indexes suggest a good fit of the measurement model (S-B χ2(153) = 136.083, p = 0.234; CFI = 0.996; NNFI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.022; IFI = 0.996). The reliability of the measurements is calculated using Bagozzi and Yi's (1988) composite reliability index and Fornell and Larcker's (1981) average variance extracted (AVE) index. For all the measurements, both indices are higher than the evaluation criteria of 0.6 for composite reliability and 0.5 for the AVE (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The AVE for each construct surpasses the shared variance between the construct and other constructs in the model (square of the correlation between the two constructs), which provides evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). 4.2. Hypotheses test The study applies structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses in the research model. Results show a good fit to the data (S-B χ 2(129) = 138.580, p = 0.266; CFI = 0.996; NNFI = 0.996; RMSEA = 0.020; IFI = 0.996) and explain 47% and 57% of the variance in perceived value and satisfaction, respectively. Economic sustainability (γ = 0.822, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.676), socio-cultural sustainability (γ = 0.922, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.850), and environmental sustainability (γ = 0.864, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.746) effectively represent first-order dimensions of the reflective higher-order construct of perceived sustainability. The hypothesized direct relationships are statistically significant and in the predicted direction, strongly support the proposed model. As predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2, the results suggest that perceived sustainability positively relates to perceived value (γ = 0.685, p b 0.001) and satisfaction (γ = 0.326, p b 0.01). The relationship between perceived value and satisfaction is positive and highly significant (β = 0.492, p b 0.001). Therefore, the results support Hypothesis 3.
3.2. Measurement items 4.3. Robustness analysis: cross-validation of the model The survey includes measures of the three dimensions of perceived sustainability, perceived value, and satisfaction. The authors measured the three proposed dimensions of sustainability, adapting the scales of Andereck and Vogt (2000); Byrd, Bosley, and Dronberger (2009); and Tsaur, Lin, and Lin (2006); perceived value, using a scale adapted from Chen and Chen (2010); and satisfaction, using a four-item scale adapted from Kao, Huang, and Wu (2012). To measure all these survey items, the authors used a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), and pretested the questionnaire and revised items
The preceding analyses provide information about the internal reliability and validity of measures and the model structure. Although this information is both important and necessary, what is also relevant to examine is whether the results remain constant under different conditions. Such a ‘robustness analysis’ is insightful due to showing whether inferences from a particular study can be applied to situations beyond the immediate context, thus increasing the scope of a theory's prediction. Accordingly, the study re-examines the model by collecting new
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
4
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
data from different individuals and in a different context: the city of Oristano, Italy, with a population of approximately 32,000. In this case, the authors collect 168 valid questionnaires, and respondents are 57.1% men and 42.5% women, at an average age of 41.27 years old. Once again, the majority of respondents travel for leisure purposes (61.3%). A study involving Cullera and Oristano is interesting because of the underlying differences between the two cities in terms of the type of tourism activity that they develop: Cullera is a summer vacation destination for families, while Oristano is an eco-tourism destination. This fact provides the study with a cross-tourist offering perspective and contributes to the cross-validation of the model. In cross-national studies, collecting data from matched samples (i.e., samples that are alike with respect to demographic characteristics) in order to make valid comparisons is important. To test for differences between samples, the study performs comparison tests for gender and age, which reveal no significant differences (p N 0.1). The study uses multigroup structural equation analysis for systematic comparisons among path coefficients of the different samples, that is, to test whether the structural coefficients differ across the examined cities (e.g., Calantone, Kim, Schmidt, & Cavusgil, 2006). First, the study assesses the applicability of the three-dimensional specification of the perceived sustainability concept to the second sample. After a scale purification showing that the measurement instrument remains identical across the samples, the results of a CFA suggest a good fit of the measurement model (S-B χ2(32) = 57.788, p = 0.00346; CFI = 0.951; NNFI = 0.932; RMSEA = 0.069; IFI = 0.952). Subsequently, the study estimates the global measurement model. The results also indicate a good fit (S-B χ2(125) = 229.087, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.938; NNFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.071; IFI = 0.939). Results for measurement reliability and convergent and discriminant validity are also satisfactory. Once a will-fitting baseline model has been established for each sample separately, the final models are then combined in the same file to form the ‘configural model’ (Byrne, 2008). Configural equivalence (i.e., the number of factors and their loading pattern are the same across the two samples) is tested using a multigroup CFA. The configural model results in a satisfactory fit to the data (S-B χ2(250) = 333.979, p = 0.0003; CFI = 0.981; NNFI = 0.977; RMSEA = 0.044; IFI = 0.982). Subsequently, the study tests metric invariance (i.e., the extent to which an instrument is equivalent across independent samples) by constraining the matrix of factor loadings to be invariant across the two samples. The fit of the configural model provides the baseline value against which this specified invariance model is compared (Byrne, 2008). A nonsignificant increase in chi-square between the configural model and the model of full metric invariance (16.053 ΔS-B χ2 increase with 13 additional df, p = 0.246) exists. This result shows that the content of each item is perceived and interpreted in the same way across the samples. With the acceptable measurement model, the authors perform a multigroup structural analysis to estimate a two-sample simultaneous structural model. The model fits the data well (S-B χ2(258) = 340.359, p = 0.00044; CFI = 0.982; NNFI = 0.978; RMSEA = 0.043; IFI = 0.982), thus the authors proceed to test the hypotheses, which are supported for the new sample. Specifically, as per Hypotheses 1 and 2, perceived sustainability is positively related to perceived value (γ = 0.656, p b 0.001) and satisfaction (γ = 0.488, p b 0.001). Additionally, perceived value positively affects satisfaction (β = 0.492, p b 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 3. The dimensions of perceived sustainability significantly represent this higher-order construct: economic sustainability (γ = 0.900, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.810), socio-cultural sustainability (γ = 0.869, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.755), and environmental sustainability (γ = 0.827, p b 0.001; R2 = 0.684). The next step involves a comparison of the causal relationships across the two samples. All regression weights are made equal across the samples (fully restricted model). A chi-square comparison shows a non-significant deterioration when all paths are equal compared with the baseline model (9.0963 ΔS-B χ2 increase with 5 additional df, p = 0.105), providing no support for suggesting that paths are significantly
different across the samples. Therefore, a priori, the hypothesized effects are robust across the different samples and contexts. Lagrangian multiplier (LM) tests in EQS identify paths that could be significantly different across the samples (i.e., p b 0.5). The results suggest that only the relationship between perceived environmental sustainability and the higher-order construct of perceived sustainability show significant difference across samples (4.684 ∇χ2 decrease with 1 additional df, p = 0.030). Therefore, the equality constraint on this path can be relaxed. Overall, the results show the robustness of the conceptual model across different samples and with data referring to different cities. These findings have implications for research that will be discussed in more detail in the following section. 5. Discussion and implications This study addresses a highly pertinent and timely issue related to sustainability in the tourism sector, developing a theoretical model that relates tourists' perceived sustainability with their perceived value and satisfaction with the trip. The research builds on and extends previous research in several ways. First, the study reveals that economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability are representative dimensions of the general concept of perceived sustainability, in line with previous research that supports the multidimensionality of this construct (e.g. Farsari, 2012; Jamrozy, 2007; Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2014). Second, several authors suggest that, in general, sustainable development for a company creates value for customers (e.g. Choi & Ng, 2011; Peloza & Shang, 2011). However, although sustainability is linked to customer responses, this is the first study to examine the relationship between perceived sustainability and perceived value. This is important not only due to extending the sustainability literature by covering a previously ignored outcome of sustainability, but also because the extent to which perceived sustainability is beneficial to tourist destinations is determined by how much perceived sustainability builds value to tourists. Third, this work extends the research stream on the outcomes of perceived sustainability demonstrating that this multidimensional concept contributes positively to tourist satisfaction. In addition, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction validates previous studies in the tourism context (e.g. Chang, 2013; Chen & Chen, 2010; Sun et al., 2013). Finally, the robustness analysis performed in this research contributes to the generalizability of the proposed model, studied across different samples and applied to different contexts simultaneously. Results of analyses reveal that the model fits to the data and that its basic structure is invariant across samples; therefore, the overall framework does not change across destinations. This result implies that perceived sustainability tends to be a universal factor for explaining perceived value and satisfaction in the context of tourism destination. The findings of the present study also hold implications for organizations in the tourist sector. First, many addressable challenges to move sustainability initiatives forward exist. Many institutions often equate sustainability with environmental initiatives; however, they must realize that the concept of sustainability is broader, and they certainly need to include dimensions involving economic and socio-cultural aspects. This broader definition is insightful for destinations that aim to improve their standing in the marketplace and deliver greater value to visitors and other stakeholders. The results of this study suggest that organizations need to take all three dimensions of sustainability into account when developing indicators and standards, as together they represent a comprehensive approach for evaluating perceptions of sustainability in a tourist area. Tourist destinations can obtain competitive advantages by investing in sustainability. Indeed, sustainable development policies can represent a robust promotional strategy, particularly in the current environment in which tourists increasingly have strong social concerns. Second, if organizations bear in mind the findings which show that tourists' perceived sustainability increases their perceived value of and satisfaction with the trip, they will likely understand better why sustainability matters. Targeting visitors who support destinations'
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
sustainability orientations and strategies would be an important factor for success in the market (Choi & Ng, 2011). Furthermore, corporations and governments should facilitate an increase in value and satisfaction by taking measures to enhance sustainability in destinations. These findings should also give tourism organizations the arguments to justify the costs associated with sustainable issues. Third, the finding that perceived value contributes positively to satisfaction suggests that ignoring perceived value in a tourism experience may cause lower tourist satisfaction. Therefore, tourism organizations need to consider tourist evaluations of the destinations they promote in a holistic manner (not only satisfaction), and to understand that antecedents are important for understanding tourist experience. 6. Limitations and future research directions Finally, several limitations inherent to the research give rise to directions for future research. First, the analysis is based on perceptual data, which can be subject to bias, and consequently the findings must be interpreted with caution. Besides, although this study considers the most widely accepted dimensions of sustainability, no general agreement on the composition and nature of this construct exists. Hence, future studies should examine the different components of sustainability, to achieve the successful development and implementation of sustainable tourism policies. In addition, although this study could have measured perceived value multidimensionally (e.g., Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006), the single scale this study adopts is one of the most widely used measures in the literature. Future research that adopts a multidimensional scale of perceived value will expand the proposed model and will certainly add to the understanding of the tourist experience. To conclude, additional research should also address more insights into the relationships among perceived sustainability and other different perceptual or behavioral constructs in a tourism experience, such as attitude towards the destination, overall image, behavioral intention, or loyalty. Although the study crossvalidates the proposed model, further research that widens the sample frame across different tourists and destinations is likely to improve the value of the results.
Appendix A. Measurements
Economic sustainability ES1 I have observed that the municipal area is making investments to attract tourists. ES2 I have seen that the municipal area has good basic infrastructures. ES3 I consider that the tourist services at the destination provide good value for money. ES4 I think that the economic benefits of tourism in the municipal area are greater than the economic costs of tourism. Cultural sustainability CS1 I think the municipal area values its historical heritage (monuments, etc.). CS2 I think the municipal area values its cultural heritage (festivities, traditions, etc.). CS3 I think that local cultural and historical heritage resources and authenticity are being preserved due to tourist activity. Environmental sustainability ES1 I think the level of pollution in the municipal area is acceptable. ES2 I think the level of smells in the municipal area is acceptable. ES3 I think crowd levels are acceptable even at the height of the tourist season. Satisfaction S1 This trip has exceeded my expectations. S2 I really enjoyed this trip. S3 I really liked this trip. S4 It is worth coming here. Perceived value PV1 Considering the money I spent, it is worth visiting this destination. PV2 Considering the time I spent, it is worth visiting this destination. PV3 Considering the effort I made, it is worth visiting this destination. PV4 Overall, it is worth visiting this destination.
5
References Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents' attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27–36. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Bradley, G. L., & Sparks, B. A. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of consumer value. A longitudinal study of timeshare owners. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 191–204. Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G., Prat, A. G., Richards, G., & van der Straaten, J. (Eds.). (1996). Sustainable tourism management: Principles and practice. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 528–546. Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30, 693–703. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882. Calantone, R. J., Kim, D., Schmidt, J. B., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). The influence of internal and external firm factors on international product adaptation strategy and export performance: A three-country comparison. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 176–185. Cernat, L., & Gourdon, J. (2012). Paths to success: Benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 33, 1044–1056. Chang, K. C. (2013). How reputation creates loyalty in the restaurant sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25, 536–557. Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29–35. Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 269–282. Closs, D. J., Speier, C., & Meacham, N. (2011). Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: The role of supply chain management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 101–116. Collins, A., & Flynn, A. (2008). Measuring the environmental sustainability of a major sporting event: A case study of the FA Cup Final. Tourism Economics, 14, 751–768. Cottrell, S. P., & Vaske, J. J. (2006). A framework for monitoring and modeling sustainable tourism. Electronic Review of Tourism Research, 4(4), 74–84. Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., & Roemer, J. M. (2013). Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 42–48. Daub, C. H., & Ergenzinger, R. (2005). Enabling sustainable management through a new multi-disciplinary concept of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9–10), 998–1012. Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., & Scott, N. (2009). Destination and enterprise management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30, 63–74. Farsari, I. (2012). The development of a conceptual model to support sustainable tourism policy in North Mediterranean destinations. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 21, 710–738. Fernández, J. I. P., & Rivero, M. S. (2009). Measuring tourism sustainability: Proposal for a composite index. Tourism Economics, 15, 277–296. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39–50. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield: Pitman Publishing Inc. Gallarza, M. G., & Gil Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students' travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27, 437–452. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism: The cultureideology of consumerism and its implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 116–129. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge. Huayhuaca, C., Cottrell, S., Raadik, J., & Gradl, S. (2010). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development: Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 3, 125–141. Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 1–6. Hume, M., & Mort, G.S. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 170–182. Hunter, C., & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment: A sustainable relationship? London: Routledge. Jamrozy, U. (2007). Marketing of tourism: A paradigm shift toward sustainability. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1, 117–130. Kao, Y. F., Huang, L. S., & Wu, C. H. (2012). Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2), 163–174. Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Slater, S. F. (2007). Toward greater understanding of market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 961–964. Ko, T. G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach. Tourism Management, 26, 431–445. Lai, F., Griffin, M., & Babin, B. J. (2009). How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research, 62, 980–986. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1–18.
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071
6
M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9–10), 956–977. Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2014). Sustainability dimensions: A source to enhance corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 17, 239–253. Mazanec, J. A., Wöber, K., & Zins, A. H. (2007). Tourism destination competitiveness: From definition to explanation? Journal of Travel Research, 46, 86–95. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 26, 157–172. Pearce, P. L. (1995). From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange: Ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3, 143–154. Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 117–135. Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253–264. Pulido-Fernández, J. I., & López-Sánchez, Y. (2014). Perception of sustainability of a tourism destination: Analysis from tourist expectations. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 13(7), 1587–1598. Ramgulam, N., Raghunandan-Mohammed, K., & Raghunandan, M. (2013). Environmental sustainability in the 21st century: An assessment of Trinidad's business tourism market. Review of Business & Finance Studies, 4, 51–61. Rodríguez, I., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourism satisfaction: A cognitive–affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 551–573. Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Kim, W. G. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24, 200–223. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spangenberg, J. H. (2002). Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: Frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 2, 295–309. Sun, X., Chi, C. G. Q., & Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: The case of Hainan Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 547–577. Tsaur, S. H., Lin, Y. C., & Lin, J. H. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 640–653. United Nations (2012). Outcome of the conference. RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June. Available at http:// www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html. UNWTO — World Tourism Organization. (2011). UNWTO tourism and sustainability. (Retrieved from) http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/sustainability.pdf Wang, Y., Lo, H. P., Chi, R., & Yang, Y. (2004). An integrated framework for customer value and customer-relationship-management performance: A customer-based perspective from China. Managing Service Quality, 14, 169–182. WCED — World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source of competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153. Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customers—New approaches to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Oxford: Blackwell. Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 799–822. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means–end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Please cite this article as: Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., et al., Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071