Moving beyond visitor satisfaction to loyalty in nature-based tourism: a review and research agenda

Abstract

Nature-based tourism is increasing worldwide and with it the opportunity to engage these visitors to support and advocate for the protection of natural areas. Loyalty research over the last decade provides a platform for action. Analysing loyalty as an important focus for nature-based tourism research and then proposing a research agenda are the aims of this paper. These aims are achieved by (1) reviewing the place of satisfaction and its relationship to loyalty in nature-based tourism research; (2) analysing recent loyalty and related behavioural intentions research; and (3) proposing a research agenda to further progress loyalty research. Conducting fieldbased experiments to determine the influence of improving service quality on loyalty and further investigating a suite of items of varying commitment for measuring loyalty (from recommending a destination to others to volunteering to work there) are pivotal to the proposed agenda. Also central are further elaborating and testing the measurement model for loyalty, with place attachment and pursuit of benefits, such as escaping from everyday life and appreciating nature, suggested as promising antecedents to loyalty. The importance of natural areas to society warrants urgent attention to the loyalty-centred research agenda detailed in this paper.

The Effect of Place Attachment on Pro-environment Behavioral Intentions of Visitors to Coastal Natural Area Tourist Destinations

“…Encouraging environmentally sustainable practices is of great appeal to managers given the global trend of competition for limited public land, money and resources (Moore, Rodger, and Taplin 2013). As a result there has been an increased awareness of how visitors can act as a means for environmental enhancement of natural areas (Weaver 2013).…”

A method for testing the effect of management interventions on the satisfaction and loyalty of national park visitors

“…Visitor loyalty is a more recent addition to these considerations (Kyle et al, 2004;Moore, Rodger, & Taplin, 2013;Weaver & Lawton, 2011). These efforts can be found in the tourism, recreation, and leisure fields, as well as in marketing and consumer behavior (Tian-Cole & Crompton, 2003).…”

“…Conceptual confusion between service quality and satisfaction has been a significant issue due to both being grounded in expectancy-disconfirmation theory (Baker & Crompton, 2000;Lee et al, 2004;Moore et al, 2013;Tian-Cole & Crompton, 2003). This theory 90 explains service quality as the gap between expectation and perception (Parasuraman et al, 1985) and satisfaction as the process of meeting or exceeding expectations (Oliver, 1980).…”

“…Since service quality and satisfaction share this common theoretical origin, overlaps in definition and an ongoing lack of consensus regarding their operationalization have proved problematic. Today, however, most researchers agree that the two concepts are distinct 95 (Lee et al, 2004;Moore et al, 2013;Tian-Cole & Crompton, 2003). Service quality is regarded as cognitively based, and is a specific judgment of services available (Baker & Crompton, 2000;Parasuraman et al, 1985;Tian-Cole et al, 2002;Tian-Cole & Crompton, 2003;Zabkar et al, 2010) while satisfaction is an evaluation of experiences (Crompton & Love, 1995;del Bosque & San Martin, 2008;Tonge & Moore, 2007;Zabkar et al, 2010).…”

“…Visitor satisfaction as a global attitude places it super-ordinate to service quality, suggesting investigation of the latter as an antecedent of the former (Baker & Crompton,135 2000; Lee et al, 2004;Tian-Cole & Crompton, 2003). Measurement of overall visitor satisfaction has been central to visitor research for protected areas (Bushell & Griffin, 2006;Crilley, Weber, & Taplin, 2012;Dorfman, 1979;Lee et al, 2004;Moore et al, 2013;Taplin, 2012b;Tian-Cole et al, 2002;Tonge et al, 2011).…”