Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259

International Conference on Strategic Innovative Marketing, IC-SIM 2014, September 1-4, 2014,
Madrid, Spain

Examining the structural relationships of destination image,

perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius
P. Ramseook-Munhurruna,*, V.N. Seebalucka, P. Naidooa
a
Department of Tourism, Leisure and Services, School of Sustainable Development and Tourism, University of Technology, Mauritius

Abstract

Tourists’ perceptions of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty are vital for successful destination
marketing. The literature on travel and tourism reveals an abundance of studies on destination image, perceived value and tourist
satisfaction, however their relationships with destination loyalty have not been thoroughly investigated in small island
destination. Consequently, the aim of the study was to investigate the relationship among destination image and perceived value
and to empirically test the constructs that are likely to influence tourist satisfaction, which in turn affect tourist loyalty. The
conceptual model was developed on the basis of existing theoretical and empirical research in the fields of marketing and
tourism. The empirical data was collected in an island tourism destination - Mauritius. A total of 370 questionnaires were
returned and the data were analysed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The theoretical and managerial implications
were drawn based on the study findings, and recommendations for future researchers were made.
© 2015
© 2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedby by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of I-DAS- Institute for the Dissemination of Arts and Science.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of I-DAS- Institute for the Dissemination of Arts and Science.
Keywords: destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction, destination loyalty, Mauritius

1. Introduction
Destination image has become a popular area of investigation among tourism researchers as it has been found to
influence destination choice, satisfaction, and post-purchase behaviour (Chon, 1990; Um & Crompton, 1990;
Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Oppermann, 2000; Bigné, Sánchez, & Sánchez, 2001; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003; Chen &
Tsai, 2007; Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Prayag, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014). Destinations are

* Ramseook-Munhurrun, P. Tel.: (230) 207 5250; fax: (230) 34 669.

E-mail address: pmunhurrun@umail.utm.ac.mu

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of I-DAS- Institute for the Dissemination of Arts and Science.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1198
 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259 253

compelled to enhance their images in order to increase tourism receipts, income, employment and government
revenues among other contributions of international tourism. Destination image is therefore seen as a critical factor
in tourists’ final evaluation of a destination (Cai, Wu, & Bai, 2004; Castro et al., 2007) and their future behaviour
(Bigné et al., 2001; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). A review of the tourism literature shows that destination image and its
relationship with satisfaction and behavioural intentions have attracted much academic interest (Chen & Tsai, 2007;
Chi & Qu, 2008; Prayag, 2009). Understanding and predicting tourists’ intentions to revisit specific destinations are
important. Despite the increased interest in destination image, the interrelationships between the attributes of
destination image, tourist satisfaction and tourist behavioural intentions in the context of an island destination have
not been sufficiently researched. It is therefore important to extend the findings of destination image to different
destination settings to broaden the understanding of these causal relationships.
In the marketing literature, perceived value has been characterised as key to explaining consumer behaviour
(Ostrom & Iacobucci, 1995; Oh, 2000; Petrick, 2004). Yet perceived value of tourist destination is not well explored
(Petrick, 2004; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Pandža Bajs, 2013). The current study thus extends the existing destination
marketing literature by presenting an integrated model that could shed new light on the understanding of the
antecedents and consequences of destination image towards tourist perceived value, satisfaction and destination
loyalty.
By understanding the causal relationships between destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and
loyalty, destination tourism managers would better know how to build an attractive image and improve their
marketing efforts to maximize the effective use of their resources. This study therefore proposed a model which
investigated the relationships between destination image, perceived value and tourist satisfaction to predict loyalty
in an island destination. The theoretical model was tested with structural equation modelling (SEM).

2. Conceptual background and hypotheses

Destination image can be defined as a tourist’s general impression of a destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991),
that is, it is ‘sum of beliefs, ideals and impressions’ that a visitor has toward a certain place (Kotler, Bowen &
Makens, 1996; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Kozak & Andreu, 2006; Assaker & Hallak, 2013). The image is a
portrayal of the visitor’s attitude towards a number of cues related to the destination attributes (Echtner & Ritchie,
2003). Destination image in the mind of the visitors plays an important role in their travel purchase decisions and
subsequently, stimulating their visiting intentions (Oppermann, 2000; Pike, 2004). The main elements considered by
visitors in a destination are natural and scenic resources, accessibility, cultural resources, security, night life and
entertainment, and quality/price ratio (Bigné et al., 2001; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008). Milman & Pizam
(1995) describe the destination image as consisting of three components: the product, for instance the quality of the
attraction; the second one as the behaviour and attitude of the destination hosts; and thirdly the environment:
weather, scenery, and facilities. Island destinations are immersed in images of the “exotic” associated including both
tangible and intangible elements such as pristine beaches, white sand, blue sea, rivers, landscape, biodiversity,
brown skin and colourful culture to attract Western visitors (Lockhart, 1997; Prayag, 2009; Seebaluck, Naidoo &
Ramseook-Munhurrun, 2013). Beaches are considered as one of the major attractions of the tourism industry and are
one of the most important motivators for tourists to visit island destinations (Philips & House, 2009; Prayag &
Ryan, 2011).
Most marketing strategies aim to create an image or reinforce positive images in the mind of the visitors within
the target market (Chon, 1990; Pike, 2004). Customer loyalty is an important goal in the consumer marketing
community as it is a key component for a company’s long-term viability or sustainability. Chen & Tsai (2007) found
that destination image indirectly influences satisfaction via the trip quality–perceived value path and has both direct
and indirect effects on behavioural intentions. Chi & Qu (2008) developed a conceptual model to explain destination
loyalty by examining the causal relationships among destination image, tourist attribute and overall satisfaction and
destination loyalty. Their results supported the proposed destination loyalty model, which advocated that destination
image directly influenced attribute satisfaction; destination image and attribute satisfaction were both direct
antecedents of overall satisfaction; and overall satisfaction and attribute satisfaction in turn had direct and positive
impact on destination loyalty. However, their study did not examine the effect of tourists’ perceived value on the
destination loyalty model. Based on the review, the first three hypotheses, therefore, would be:

H1. The higher the destination image, the higher the perceived value
254 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259

H2. The higher the destination image, the higher the tourist satisfaction
H3. The higher the destination image, the higher the tourist loyalty

Perceived value is defined as “the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product or service based on
perceptions of what is received and what is given” (Zeithaml, 1988). Similarly, Lovelock (2000) defined perceived
value as the trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived costs. Perceived value is considered as a key
construct in relationship marketing and for gaining competitive edge (Ravald & Gronroos, 1996; McDougall &
Levesque, 2000). Previous studies have recognised that perceived value and satisfaction as the antecedents of
behavioural intentions (McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000; Petrick, 2004; Chen & Tsai,
2007). Research studies suggested that perceived value may be a better predictor of repurchase intentions than
satisfaction (Oh, 1999; Cronin et al., 2000; Chen & Chen, 2010). The study of Lee et al. (2007) found that perceived
value is the best predictor of behavioural intentions. More recently, Pandža Bajs (2013) found that tourists’
perceived value directly affects their satisfaction, while satisfaction has a direct impact on their future behavioural
intentions toward the destination. Based on the above discussion, the fourth and fifth hypotheses, therefore, would
be:

H4. The higher the perceived value, the higher the tourist satisfaction
H5. The higher the perceived value, the higher the tourist loyalty

Customer satisfaction has received much attention in the marketing literature. Satisfaction is defined as
customers’ judgments about products or service fulfilment (Oliver, 1993; 1997). One of the key elements of
destination marketing success is tourist satisfaction because it influences the choice of destination and the decision
to revisit (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Loyalty signals customers’ attitudes and behaviours
towards the products and services received and their repeat usage (Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999; Baker & Crompton,
2000). Past studies have confirmed the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty (Taylor & Baker,
1994; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Cronin et al., 2000). It is therefore important to examine the concept of image
and its relation to the satisfaction obtained in order to determine visitors’ intentions to revisit and to recommend the
destination (Bigné et al., 2001; Cai et al., 2004; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). A number of studies in the field of tourism
found satisfaction has an influence on tourists’ future behavioural intentions (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Petrick,
2004; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Prayag & Ryan, 2012). Positive travel experiences in term of services,
products and other resources provided by the destination could induce positive word-of-mouth (WOM)
recommendations as well as repeat visits (Oppermann, 2000; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Chi & Qu, 2008). Therefore, it
would be postulated that:

H6: The higher tourist satisfaction, the higher the tourist loyalty

The conceptual model of this study is proposed in Figure 1. The proposed model concurrently investigates the
relationships of destination image, perceived value, satisfaction and destination loyalty. The model also posits that
destination image, perceived value and satisfaction all have directional relationships with each other and also serve
as antecedents to destination loyalty. Each of the components in the model is defined as follows:

Destination image: the tourist’s subjective perception of the destination reality (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu,
2008)
Perceived value: the tourist’s overall evaluation of the destination based on benefits acquired (Bolton & Drew,
1991; Chen & Tsai, 2007)
Tourist satisfaction: the tourists’ overall evaluation and contentment felt of the destination experience, fulfilling
their desires, expectations and needs (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Echtner & Ritchie,
2003; Chen & Tsai, 2007)
Loyalty: the tourists’ intentions to revisit the destination and in their willingness to recommend it (Oppermann,
2000; Chen & Tsai, 2007).
 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259 255

Perceived
value
H1
H4 H5

Destination H3
Loyalty
Image

H6
H2

Satisfaction

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model of the study

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Questionnaire Design

A questionnaire was designed as the survey instrument including all constructs of the proposed model to
investigate the hypotheses of interest. The questions in the questionnaire were based on a review of the literature and
specific destination characteristics. A total of 23 items were extracted from previous research (Chen & Tsai, 2007;
Chi & Qu, 2008) and adapted to the research context. Perceived value was measured with three items relating to
functional value such as “visiting the place is reasonably priced”, “while visiting the place, I received good service”
and “visiting the destination is valuable and worth it” (Bolton & Drew, 1991; Chen & Tsai, 2007). Three items were
adopted to measure tourist satisfaction based on previous studies (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kozak &
Rimmington, 2000; Bigné et al., 2001; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Prayag &
Ryan, 2012) and adapted for this research. Destination loyalty was finally captured using 2 items: “tourists’
intention to revisit Mauritius” and “their willingness to recommend Mauritius as a favourable destination to others”
and the items were adapted for this study (Oh, 2000; Chi & Qu, 2008). Respondents were asked to indicate their
degrees of agreement with each item for each construct along with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree). Respondents’ demographic information including age, gender, marital status, occupation
and monthly income were also measured using the categorical scale. The survey instrument was revised and
finalised based on a pilot sample of 25 international tourists and feedback from two academics in the tourism field.
Hence, the content validity of the survey instrument was deemed as adequate.

3.2 Data Collection

The empirical research for the current study was conducted in the island of Mauritius. The island, covering 1,860
square kilometers (720 square miles) with 1.2 million inhabitants, is a well-known holiday destination for beach-
resort tourists in the Indian Ocean. It has a range of positive features upon which its tourism appeal is established
including its tropical climate with beaches, lagoon, tropical fauna and flora, as well as a multi-ethnic population.
Data were collected over a four-week period between September and October 2013. The study was conducted at the
international airport among 500 tourists originating mainly from France, United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Italy,
Switzerland, South Africa and India. Only departing tourists were surveyed as they would be in a better position to
express their views based on their experiences with several aspects of the destination. The international tourists were
approached and briefly explained the purpose of the research, and subsequently they were invited to participate in
the survey. Applying the convenient sampling technique, a total number of 500 questionnaires were distributed to
the tourists who were over 18-years old and keen to complete the questionnaire. A total of 370 usable samples were
obtained, resulting in a response rate of 74%.
The percentage of females was higher than males with 56.1% and 43.9% respectively although the tourists were
approached with no gender discrimination. However, when groups of mixed genders were approached, the female
256 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259

was delegated to complete the questionnaire as they were keener to respond as compared to males. The respondents’
age ranged from 18 to 58 years old and above and the majority of them were aged between “28 – 37” and “38 – 47”.
It was further observed that 56.7% of the respondents were on their first visit, 43.3% were repeaters among which
17.0% had visited the island twice and were on their third visit. It can be noted that the largest segment came from
United Kingdom (37.4%), followed by France (26.4%), South Africa (21.4%) and Australia (12.1%) and this is
primarily due the high frequency of flights departing for these countries at the time the survey was carried out.

3.3 Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using factor analysis (principal component analysis) with Varimax rotation to identify the
underlying dimensions for destination image and to examine its dimensionalities and psychometric properties. The
relationships of destination image, the evaluative factors (i.e. perceived value and satisfaction), and loyalty were
then empirically tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM.

4. Empirical results

To explore the dimensions underlying the destination image, exploratory factor analysis was used. Employing the
principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation, five factors with a cut-off factor loading of 0.5 and an
eigenvalue greater than one explained 53.3% of the variance of destination image scale (Hair et al., 2005). The
KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.875 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( χ 2 = 3206.67, p = 0.000) confirmed
suitability of the data for factorization. Table 1 presents the five factors which were titled ‘travel environment’ (four
items, α = 0.671, eigenvalue = 2.85, variance explained = 12.39%), ‘attractions’ (five items, α = 0.724, eigenvalue =
2.74, variance explained = 11.92%), ‘events’ (five items, α = 0.727, eigenvalue = 2.48, variance explained =
10.77%), ‘infrastructure’ (five items, α = 0.715, eigenvalue = 2.40, variance explained = 10.43%) and ‘sport’ (four
items, α = 0.698, eigenvalue = 1.78, variance explained = 7.74%).

Table 1. Factor Analysis of Destination Image

Factor/Item Factor Variance Eigenvalue Cronbach α
Loading explained (%)
Travel Environment (mean = 4.10) 12.39 2.85 0.671
Safe and secure environment 0.761
Clean and unpolluted environment 0.737
Friendly and helpful host community 0.795
Peaceful and restful atmosphere 0.633
Attractions (mean = 3.87) 11.92 2.74 0.724
Good and sandy beaches 0.876
Unspoiled wilderness and fascinating wildlife 0.729
Exotic places 0.662
Spectacular scenery and natural attractions 0.744
Scenic mountains 0.713
Events (mean = 3.61) 10.77 2.48 0.727
Distinctive history and heritage 0.621
Variety of entertainment 0.720
Tempting cultural events and festivals 0.675
Colourful nightlife 0.712
Large selection of restaurants and cuisines 0.794
Infrastructure (mean = 3.86) 10.43 2.40 0.715
Wide variety of shopping facilities 0.710
Wide selection of restaurants/cuisine 0.714
Wide choice of accommodations 0.761
No language barrier for visitors 0.695
Signs and indicators are properly displayed over the
island destination 0.687
Sport (mean = 3.65) 7.74 1.78 0.698
Exciting water sports and activities 0.771
Terrific place for hiking and picnicking 0.688
Opportunities for outdoor recreation over the island 0.767
Good facilities for golfing 0.744
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO-MSA)= 0.875; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity = 3206.67; p < 0.01
 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259 257

The mean for each of the factors was also estimated. Cronbach’s coefficient for each factor was calculated and
subjected to reliability assessment. The factors were moderately reliable with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging
from a low of 0.671 for factor 1 to a high of 0.727 for factor 3 (Table 1). These five constructs measuring
destination image were thus included in the estimation of the measurement and structural models.
Since the destination image was developed from the literature, content validity is thus assumed. However, the
convergent validity of the scale was tested using CFA. The construct reliability (CR) and the average variance
extracted (AVE) were therefore computed for the latent constructs. All the four constructs exceeded the threshold
value of 0.70 and 0.50 for both the CR and AVE respectively. The results were as follows: destination image (CR =
0.79; AVE = 0.55), perceived value (CR = 0.81; AVE = 0.56), satisfaction (CR = 0.75; AVE = 0.53) and loyalty
(CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.56). The overall fit of the structural model is firstly verified by examining the χ 2 statistics. A
significant χ 2 statistic demonstrates an inadequate fit, but this statistic is sensitive to sample size (n = 370 in this
study) and model complexity (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore, rejecting the model only on the basis of this
evidence is not appropriate. Therefore, the ratio of χ 2 over d.f. has been recommended as a better goodness of fit
than χ 2 (Hair et al., 2005). The χ 2 /d.f ratio is 1.874 (below 3) with 59 d.f., indicating a good fit. The other
indicators of goodness of fit are GFI = 0.970, AGFI = 0.948, PGFI = 0.627, NFI = 0.940, CFI = 0.971, RMR =
0.021, RMSEA = 0.043). All the model-fit indices exceeded the respective common acceptance levels (Hu &
Bentler, 1999), indicating that the hypothesised model fits the empirical data well.
Structural equation modelling using AMOS was used to test the hypothesized model. This study examined the
structural model with one exogenous construct (i.e. destination image) and three endogenous constructs (i.e.
perceive d value, satisfaction and loyalty). The estimates of the structural coefficients provide the basis for testing
the proposed hypotheses. The destination image has a significant and positive effect on both perceived value and
satisfaction (γ1 = 0.83, t-value = 10.59, p < 0.01, and γ2 = 0.46, t-value = 3.17, p < 0.01, respectively), thus
supporting H1 and H2. However, the path of destination image on destination loyalty is not supported (H3).
Perceived value, as hypothesised, has a significant and positive influence on satisfaction (β1 = 0.65, t-value = 7.41, p
< 0.01), thus supporting H4. Due to its insignificance on structural coefficient, however, the hypothesis of perceived
value has a positive effect on loyalty is not supported (H5). Finally, satisfaction has a significantly positive influence
on loyalty (β2 = 0.86, t-value = 10.84, p < 0.01), supporting H6. The study shows that the path “destination image
perceived value satisfaction loyalty” can be established. Table 2 reports the results of the hypothesis
tests. The direct effect of destination image on perceived value (0.83) is greater than the effect on satisfaction (0.46),
while no direct effect of destination image on loyalty is found. With respect to indirect effects, the effect of
destination image on loyalty is mediated by satisfaction.

Table 2. Summary of hypotheses testing results

Path Structural coefficients Standard Error t-value Test results
H1: Destination Image Perceived value 0.83 0.092 10.59* Supported
H2: Destination Image Satisfaction 0.46 0.098 3.17* Supported
H3: Destination Image Loyalty 0.14 0.205 0.69 Not supported
H4: Perceived value Satisfaction 0.65 0.073 7.41* Supported
H5: Perceived value Loyalty 0.16 0.182 0.82 Not supported
H6: Satisfaction Loyalty 0.86 0.085 10.84* Supported
Note: * denotes p < 0.01

5. Discussion and Conclusion

With the expansion of the global tourism industry, island destinations are competing in the international market
place. The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual model for destination image and validate its structure
in an island destination such as Mauritius. It is important to gain better understanding of international tourists’
perceptions of destination image, why they are loyal to a destination and why drives the loyalty. The exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses revealed that destination image is composed of five underlying dimensions (travel
environment, attraction, events, infrastructure and sport). This study provides strong evidence to support the notion
that destination image directly affects perceived value and satisfaction, while only satisfaction directly affects
loyalty. Therefore, the structural path between satisfaction and loyalty is consistent with the literature (Bigné et al.,
2001; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Prayag & Ryan, 2012). Chen & Tsai (2007) found no relationship
258 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259

between destination image and perceived value, this study confirms otherwise. This study does not establish any
significant direct relationship between destination image and loyalty, unlike the study of Zhang et al. (2014).
However, the current study shows that destination image indirectly influences loyalty through perceived value and
satisfaction respectively, as a moderating variable. This finding confirms the arguments of previous studies (Pandža
Bajs, 2013). In addition, tourists’ perceived value directly affect their satisfaction, while satisfaction has a direct
impact on their loyalty toward the destination. In this study, satisfaction is a mediator between the perceived value
and loyalty. Similarly, other studies in the field of tourism pointed out that satisfaction is a mediator between the
perceived value and loyalty (Lee et al., 2007; He & Song, 2008; Bradley & Sparks, 2012). These findings
demonstrate that tourists considered visiting Mauritius to be valuable and have made a correct decision to choose
this destination. Perceived value is thus found to play a significant role in affecting the level of tourist satisfaction.
The more valuable the tourists perceive their travel experiences in the island, the higher their satisfaction levels with
the destination, and consequently, influencing their intentions to revisit and their willingness to recommend the
island destination to others.
The current study shows that both destination image and perceived value are direct determinants of satisfaction.
The results of this study offer a better insight into destination image and tourist consumer behaviour by trying to
ascertain which constructs are most influential in the likelihood of revisiting and recommending a destination.
Destination managers and marketers in Mauritius should continually work on the destination image in terms of
quality of travel environment, attraction, infrastructure, event and sport, thus increasing the perceived value of the
island destination and ensuring that the tourists are highly satisfied. Island destination managers should take note of
the significant role of image and value in stimulating tourists’ satisfaction and their loyalty, which triggers tourists to
visit the destination again and also recommend the destination to others. Establishing high levels of tourist
satisfaction in island destination is important in order to create positive future behavioural intentions, thus improving
and sustaining the destination competitiveness. Consequently, destinations must chart out more efficient and
effective marketing strategies and service delivery to meet tourists’ expectations and needs aimed at improving the
tourists’ travel experiences.
This study has several limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, the results of this study cannot be applied
conclusively to other island destinations as the population for the study was limited to tourists who have visited
Mauritius. To be able to generalize the findings of this study, similar studies can be replicated in other island
destinations. Secondly, the measurement scales employed were adapted from existing scales created for tourism
destinations and the minor modifications might not be enough when applying them to an island destination.
Therefore, an exploratory analysis is necessary in this area. In addition, examining perceived destination image of
both the first-time and return visitors could be considered in future research. It would be important to examine how
first and previous travel experience can affect tourists’ perceptions of destination image and their effect on perceived
value, satisfaction and loyalty. Finally, tourist demographics are receiving increased attention in the destination
literature given that the demographics of the travel market are changing and may have an influence on destination
image and tourists’ behaviours. Therefore this study can be extended to investigate the effects of tourist
demographics on destination image and their behaviour.

References
Assaker, G. and Hallak, R. (2013). Moderating effects of tourists’ novelty-seeking tendencies on destination image, visitor satisfaction, and short-
and long-term revisit intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 600-613.
Baker, D.A. & Crompton, J.L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K.W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897.
Bigné, J.E., Sánchez, M.I. & Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism
Management, 22, 607-617.
Bolton, R.N. & Drew, J.H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(March), 375–384.
Bradley, G.L., & Sparks, B. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of Consumer Value: A longitudinal study of timeshare owners. Journal of
Travel Research, 51(2), 191-204.
Cai, L.A., Wu, B. & Bai, B. (2004). Destination image and loyalty. Tourism Review International, 7(3–4), 153–162.
Castro, C.B., Armario, E.M. & Ruiz, D.M. (2007). The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination image and
tourists’ future behaviour. Tourism Management, 28(1), 175–187.
Chen, C-F & Chen, F-S (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism
Management, 31, 9-35.
Chen, C.-F. & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115–
1122.
 P. Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175 (2015) 252 – 259 259

Chi, C.G-Q & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An
integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29, 624-636.
Chon, K.S. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion. The Tourist Review, 45(2), 2 - 9.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. & Hult, G.T.M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural
intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Echtner, C.M. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2-12.
Echtner, C.M. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37–48.
Fakeye, P.C. & Crompton, J.L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10-16.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, R.L. (2005). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
He, Y. and Song, H. (2008). A mediation model of tourists’ repurchase intentions for packaged Tour Services. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3):
317-31.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.
Structural Equation Modelling.
Kozak, M. & Andreu, L. (2006). Progress in tourism marketing, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. & Makens, J. (1996). Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kozak, M. & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an Off-Season Holiday Destination. Journal of Travel
Research, 38: 260-69.
Lee, S.Y., Petrick, J.F. & Crompton, J. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioural
intention. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 402–412.
Lockhart, D.G. (1997). Islands and tourism: An overview. In D.G. Lockhart and Drakakis-Smith, D. (Eds.), Island tourism: Trends and prospects
(pp. 3-20), London: Pinter.
Lovelock, C.H. (2000). Service marketing (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall International.
McDougall, G. & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services
Marketing, 14(5), 392-410.
Milman, A. & Pizam, A. (1995). The Role of the Awareness and Familiarity with a Destination: The Central Florida Case. Journal of Travel
Research, 33, 21-27.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. Hospitality Management, 18, 67–82.
Oliver, R.L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(December), 418–
430.
Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: a behavioural perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 78 - 84.
Ostrom, A. & Iacobucci, D. (1995). Consumer Trade-Offs and the Evaluation of Services. Journal of Marketing, 59 (January), 17-28.
Pandža Bajs, I. (2013). Tourist Perceived Value, Relationship to Satisfaction, and Behavioural Intentions: The Example of the Croatian Tourist
Destination Dubrovnik. Journal of Travel Research, XX (X), 1-13.
Parasuraman, A. & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality–value–loyalty chain: A research agenda. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168–174.
Petrick, J.F. (2004). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25(4), 463–470.
Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organizations. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Philips M.R. & House C. (2009). An evaluation of priorities for beach tourism: case studies from South Whales, UK. Tourism Management, 30
(2), 176-183.
Prayag, G. (2009). Tourist’s evaluation of destination image, satisfaction and future behavioural intentions – The case of Mauritius. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26, 836-853.
Prayag, G. & Ryan C. (March 2011). The relationship between the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors of a tourist’s destination: the role of nationality- an
analytical qualitative research approach. Current Issues in Tourism. 14 (2), 128-139.
Prayag, G. & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment,
personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3): 342-356.
Ravald, A. & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19–30.
Seebaluck, V., Naidoo, P. & Ramseook-Munhurrun, P. (2013). Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions as a Tourism Development
Strategy in Mauritius. Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings. San Jose, Costa Rica, May 8-3 (2013), 8(2), 354-364.
Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: The future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
18, 345–370.
Söderlund, M. (1998). Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behaviour revisited: The impact of different levels of satisfaction
on word-of-mouth, feedback to the supplier and loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(2), 169 – 188.
Taylor, S.A., & Baker, T.L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in formation of
consumers’ purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163–178.
Um, S. & Crompton, J.L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432 - 448.
Yoon, Y. & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism
Management, 26, 45-56.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52 (July), 2–22.
Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L.A. & Lu, L. (2014). Destinati0on image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213-223.