Keywords: tourist attractions; quality; satisfaction; benefi ts; behavioural intentions; structural equation modelling.
INTRODUCTIONI t is generally believed that a leading factor responsible for the success of visitor attractions is satisfaction of visitors (Prentice, 1993;Swarbrooke, 1995;Middleton, 1996). However, empirical studies do not support this thesis explicitly.One of the fi rst theories explaining the process of events taking place during leisure activities was Brown's (1984) Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. For the fi rst time, attention was paid to the process of mutually determined events taking place during leisure activity. Brown said that an activity undertaken in specifi c conditions evokes experiences as a result of which specifi c benefi ts are achieved. On the basis of Brown's model and Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis, Prentice (1995) and Nowacki (2000) carried out studies of people who were visiting attractions. On the other hand, Moscardo (1996Moscardo ( , 1999 noted that the key factor for satisfaction of visitors is their state of mindfulness and knowledge acquired during the visit. It is caused by two groups of factors: exhibition factors (variety of exhibition, media, novelty, questions, multimedia and marking) and visitor factors (interest and fatigue). Both have a direct impact on mindfulness of visitors. Moreover, exhibition factors also have an infl uence on visitor factors, that is, interest and fatigue. Another factor that affects satisfaction is quality. However, as demonstrated by Jensen (2004) verifying Herzberg's theory (1996, in the conditions of visitor attractions, quality does not affect satisfaction directly but indirectly through perception of gained benefi ts.For managers of tourist attractions, visitors' future intentions towards the attraction, in particular the willingness to visit again, are more important than visitors' satisfaction. Baker and Crompton (2000), while studying the relations between quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions, found that although quality affects satisfaction and satisfaction affects intentions, perception of quality (as they defi ned it -service provider's performance) has a much stronger total effect on behavioural intentions than satisfaction. Moreover, the authors assumed a unidirectional infl uence of quality on satisfaction. At Gotleib et al. (1994), suggested that this relation is two-way: positive mood infl uences good assessment of the quality of infrastructure. Tomas et al. (2002) proposed a model integrating the above variables: quality, satisfaction, benefi ts and behavioural intentions. The quality of product was made up of educational factors, exhibition of animals, general information, staff, comfort, detailed information and quality of infrastructure. Benefi ts included factors of introspection, knowledge, spending time with family, escape, watching animals and spending time with friends. The scholars demonstrated the relation between the quality of product and behavioural intentions, b...
