TOURISTS’ PERCEPTION OF ATTRIBUTES OF DESTINATION - THE CASE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA –

Vesna BABIĆ-HODOVIĆSchool of Economics and Business

Trg oslobodjenja – Alija Izetbegovic 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovinavesna.babic-hodovic@efsa.unsa.ba

Eldin MEHICSchool of Economics and Business

Trg oslobodjenja – Alija Izetbegovic 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovinaeldin.mehic@efsa.unsa.ba

Amra KRAMOSchool of Economics and Business

Trg oslobodjenja – Alija Izetbegovic 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovinaamra.kramo@efsa.unsa.ba

Emina RESICSchool of Economics and Business

Trg oslobodjenja – Alija Izetbegovic 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovinaemina.resic@efsa.unsa.ba

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the attributes of tourist destination image and perception of those attributes for BH destination, measured by tourist visited Bosnia and Herzegovina.

During the process of making decision about tourist destination people want to visit, they use criteria in order to eliminate or lower different risks. Those risks are previously influenced by specific characteristic tourist supply has and the problems of intangibility, inseparability, perishability and heterogeneity of tourist offer. All or some of them one can find in other service industries and that’s the reason why service companies have to learn how to handle them. We wanted to explore how tourists evaluate main destination attributes and which factors influence on tourists’ perception process. Based on numerous previous studies we analyzed and pre-test procedures we had formed main dimensions important for creating positive image of B&H as tourist destination.

Using them we had prepared questionnaire for tourists leaving B&H and implemented the research during the pick summer season (July-August 2004). In the paper we presented part of results we’ve got, especially those about tourists’ perception, influencing factors and intention for return on destination. During the analyses we tested hypothesis that demographic factors, together with bihevioristic ones influenced on the level of tourists’ evaluation of attributes we had been measuring. At the same time we tested hypothesis that the level of satisfaction, measured by identified attributes would influence tourists’ intention for the repeat visit to B&H.

Keywords: attributes of tourist destination image, perception of attributes, tourists evaluation

Introduction

Tourism is a part of the service sector whose unique characteristics (intangibility, inseparability, variability, perishability, lack of ownership and active customer participation in service encounter) intensify the perceived risk compared to goods (Gronroos, 1990; Lovelock, 1996; Mithcell & Gretorex, 993, Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996, Babic-Hodovic, 2001). That is the one of the main barriers for starting first service encounter, means for decision of first service purchase. In addition to the before mentioned attributes, the tourism product is exposed to particular factors, such as bad weather, unfriendly locals, airport personnel on strike, inedibility of local food, terror, crime, unrest, disease, and natural disaster. These factors raise the level of perceived risk by tourists (Mansfeld, 1992; Pizam & Mansfeld, 1996, Roehl & Fesenmaire, 1992; Sonmez, 1998; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998a, Tsaur, Tzeng & Wang, 1997; Witt & Mountinh, 1995). It means that for tourist demand, except the standard supply dimensions, which are unknown and untested in advance, physical and physiological safety of tourists create additional dimensions influencing on tourists’ risk perception. The perceived risk is very important dimension of decision making process of choosing destination, as well as destination image (Fuchs, Reichel, 2006). The perceived level of risk and decision process is influenced, on the other hand, by the image of the destination, previously learned information as well as by tourists' characteristics and behavior. At the same time, perception of the most important dimension, the attractiveness of tourist’s destination, will determinate a total perceived quality and the intention for returning. Because of that it is important to identify whether tourists’ behaviorist characteristics influence on the attractiveness of destination, as well as, whether total perceived quality of each dimension influence on the positive word of mouth and repeated visit. Theoretical, as well as practical, sources have approved that creation of destination image depends on the tourists’ service quality and tourists’ satisfaction. At the same time those dimensions are influenced by the tourists’ characteristics and behavior, and cultural background.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a tourist destination, has relatively rich natural and cultural attractions, but there are not sufficiently valorized. This is partly consequence of former Yugoslavia's tourists attraction allocations and past tourists’ preferences, as well as, war activities, and mostly as a result of subjective factors, i.e. improperly created and conducted activities on attracting tourists.

Therefore, creating matching marketing strategy to enter international tourist market and sufficiently attractive appeals towards potential tourists of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the main problem that this destination is facing today. Accordingly, it's important to establish how tourist perceive key dimensions of attractiveness of tourist destination after visiting B&H, and to determine is there any difference in perception that is conditioned with different demographic and behaviorist tourists' characteristics. Services quality

One of the main dimensions of creating destination image or positive word of mouth of some destination is a level of tourism service quality perceived by tourists and visitors. The definition of measurement, of „quality service“, has led to the development of service quality models. There is a consensus among these numerous quality service models that the dimensions of perception, expectation, and satisfaction are defined by the customer and not by the service provider. This consensus leaves a little apparent need, at least at

this stage, to question the framework (Berry, Parasuraman, & Zeithaml, 1994; Cronin, Jr & Taylor, 1994; Reeves & Bedhar, 1994).

Further more, perceived quality is interpreted as the direction and the degree of difference between expectations and perceptions. Therefore, knowing what customers expectation is the most important step in defining and delivering quality service. (Martin, 1995) Being a little bit wrong about what customers expect or which criteria customer use in judging the quality of service can mean that customers' business is lost, money is wasted, and survival in a fiercely competitive market is jeopardized (Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry, 1990).Based on those prerequisites we had been planning to test relationships between the level of previous information, measured through the number of visits, as well as the source of information, tourist had been using to make decision about tourist destination and attributes of destination, tourists’ had evaluated after their visit to B&H.

The characteristics of tourists

The characteristics of tourists are important factors when the researcher analyzes satisfaction with destinations (Huh,Uysal, and McCleary, 2006). Therefore, demographic, socioeconomic and behavioral indicators are generally used in tourism research to profile by age, gender, income, marital status, occupations, and education or ethnic background (Yavuz, 1994). Based on the findings of cited studies we have decided it was important to include demographic and travel behavior characteristics of tourists in our study. The demographic characteristics included age, country-of-origin, travel behavior characteristics included travel companion, type of tourism influence, their traveling decisions and sources’ information about the destination.

Eliot-White and Finn (1998) stated that the tourism product has seen a transition to a more customized, flexible and segmented entity. That transition is evident in the focus away from mass marketing toward one aimed at niche audiences of homogenous subgroups or market segments (Davis and Sternyuist, 1987). With the limited resources available for promotion, it is important for marketers to understand what characteristics of destinations are important to tourists and to identify segmenting dimensions that relate to those dimensions. Kerstetter, Cofer and Graefe (2001) supported the concept of visitor segments to different type of destination and the need to create programs and develop marketing strategies and campaigns to address the needs of the individual segments.

Accordingly, we have created a hypothesis that the type of tourism as the key motive for visiting B&H, length of stay at tourist destination, country of origin they coming from , age, and the people they are accompanied by during visit (through the need to create the image among representatives of relevant reference groups, that are important for tourists) would have a significant impact on perception of referred attributes, and in the second phase, would indirectly affect revisit decisions of tourist destination.

Destination image attributes

A destination image can be defined as “perceptions about a place as reflected by the associations held in tourist memory” (Cai 2002, p. 273). Such a concept serves to enhance destination marketing by providing potential tourists with prior-trip information that

allows them to identify a destination, differentiate it from competitors and build expectations about the likely holiday experience offered by the destination. (Murphy, Moscardo, Benckendorf, 2007) Furthermore, a destination image can assist tourists in consolidating and reinforcing their perception of the destination after their travel experience (Ritchie and Ritchie 1998). Building a destination (brand) image essentially means identifying the most relevant associations for the destination and strengthening their linkages to the destination brand (Keller 1993). Perhaps the greatest volume of marketing-related work discusses the management and formation of place image and many authors (Gunn, 1988, Chon, 990, Ward and Gold, 1994) have discussed image-related issues in destination marketing. A considerable amount of the work has attempted to conceptualize the components of destination image (Um and Crompton, 1990; Echtner and Ritchie, 1991; Gartner, 1996; Walmsley and Young, 1998). In particular, they have examined the three main influences on destination image formation, namely, promotional material, secondary experiences (e.g. the opinions of others) and the media (Gartner, 1993, 1996; Ross, 1994; Font 1996). The assumption of much of this destination image-formation literature is that these three key influences combined with personal or individual factors (Ashworth and Voogd, 1990) produce a destination image (Font 1996; Baloglu and McClearly, 1999). But at the same time there is significant influence of the personal tourists’ experience, for the creation post visit destination image.That means it is very important to identify the level of destination attributes tourists evaluate and the level of their satisfaction with those attributes. This is the first step in the process of creating destination image and brand. Our study attempted to identify level of tourists satisfaction with destination attributes identified as the element of tourism functional system (Dobre, Rusković, Čuvljak, 2004):

o Information component – promotional system (destination image and perception, promotion and marketing, information and publicity)

o Tourists – where do they come from and their characteristics (location characteristics, interests of specific activities and cultural background)

o Complete infrastructural capacities for traveling to and at the destination (traveling to destination, between different tourist sites, and to the accommodation capacities)

o Tourism destination attractiveness (everything tourists want to see, traveling stimulus, expected value)

o Tourism services (accommodation, food, shopping facilities…)

Based on the studies we have generated 8 synthetic attributes for our study. These attributes include urban amenity, hotel accommodation, security conditions, tourist sites/attractions, tourist information, customs & immigration, hospitality.

We wanted to measure the level of tourist perception each of them, as the dependable variable influenced by: number of visits, as the sign of previous experience with the destination, and sources of information tourist had been using, type of tourism had influenced their decision to travel, country of origin they coming from, as well as their ages and companion, they had been traveling with.

Tourist satisfaction

Tourist satisfaction is important to successful destination marketing because it influences the choice of destination, the consumption of goods and services, and the decision to return (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000). Therefore, our study focused on identifying the destination attributes, that influence on tourists’ satisfaction, and the factors influence those destination attributes, as well. The study is based on a consumer behavior model that postulates consumer satisfaction as a function of both expectations related to certain attributes, and judgments of a performance regarding those attributes (Clemons and Woodruff, 1992). Several researchers have studied customer satisfaction and have used customer satisfaction theories to assess tourist satisfaction with specific tourism destinations. Pizam et al. (1978) stated that it is important to measure consumer satisfaction with each attribute of the destination, because consumer (dis)satisfaction with one of the attributes leads to (dis)satisfaction with the overall destination. Rust, Zahorik and Keininghan (1996) explained that the relative importance of each attribute to the overall impression should be investigated because (dis)satisfaction can be the result of evaluating various positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, Kozak, and Rimington (2000) found destination attributes to bi critical to the overall satisfaction levels of tourists.

As logical conclusion of these theoretical and practical results, there is a need to testing whether is the mutual impact of identified and measured destination attributes and revisiting tourists’ intentions.

In our case, after evaluation of certain attributes and measured impacts of independent variables on every dimension, we have tested interdependence of certain destination attributes and revisiting intentions of tourists. It is the same in practice and in theory of marketing, particularly marketing of services the base precondition of positive word of mouth and building loyalty. Friends reference in this area are identified as the key information source (forwards given perceived risk), it’s important to evaluate destination attributes’ weaknesses.

Methodology of research

As it was mentioned in the introduction, the main problem is identification of key attributes which tourist preserve significant in the decision making process, in order to use them for creating marketing strategy for Bosnia and Herzegovina as tourist destination that is going to be applied in an introduction stage of entering the international tourist market. Ultimately, noticing the impact in which the features of potential tourists and theirs behavior has on evaluation of identified attributes is the next phase, important for differentiated marketing strategy creation.

The main purpose of conducted research was to identify the differences between demographic and psychographic tourists' characteristics among visiting tourists of B&H, existence and intensity of their impact on identified and measured attributes of destination image.

The derived goal of this research was to measure the impact of level of tourists’ satisfaction on decision of tourists to revisit destination (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Starting with the assumption that the tourist satisfaction is important to successful destination marketing because it influences the choice of destination, we wanted to test the importance of referred attributes and decision of return visits. Therefore, we have tested following hypotheses:

H1: Previous experience, i.e. uncertainty with the destination measured by the level of tourist’s number of visits at destination and sources of information tourist had been using for evaluation of alternatives and decision making would affect ratings of measured destination attributes.

H2: Demographic variables/characteristics of tourists, referring age and country of origin, will influence on the level of perception of destination attributes and therefore on the level of tourists satisfaction experience.

H3: Behaviorist dimensions, tourist behavior expressed by different types of tourism which presents traveling motive, duration of staying at destination, as well as with companion, would influence on ratings of measured destination attributes.

H4: Evaluation level, i.e. satisfaction of measured destination attributes will influence the level of satisfaction with the overall destination and tourist willingness to return to the same.

The research was conducted among staying tourists in Bosnia and Herzegovina after viding through structured survey by trained flight researchers at Sarajevo Airport in the morning, afternoon and during weekends in the period from July – August 2004. Our aim was to survey maximum number of foreign tourists in B&H during departure. We collected 1072 inquiries, from which 1000 are analyzed. The rest was eliminated because all measured dimensions were not graded.

Sampling and variables

The sample population for the study was composed of tourists who visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in August of 2004. The survey was conducted over a four-week period at Sarajevo Airport. Respondents were approached after passport and custom control, during the time when they wait for departure. They have been informed about the purpose of the survey in advance before they were given the questionnaire. They then were asked whether they would participate in the survey. Passengers of scheduled flights were interviewed. Charter flights taking BH citizens to Egypt, Tunis, or Turkey were omitted, since these passengers, as BH citizens, were not included as a target group.The study analyzed the level of tourists’ satisfaction with eight identified destination attributes. To develop an instrument for this study, previous literature was examined to identify instruments used with studies having similar objectives. A preliminary questionnaire was developed and pre-tested. Measured dimensions/attributes had been defining in the pre-test phase. That one had completed with the graduate students of School of Economics and Business Sarajevo. During several focus group sessions, they had identified 13 different dimensions. In the second phase, we down the number for the rationality purpose and the structure of model, we had been used. The questionnaire was translated from English into French, German and Italian by professional translators and then retranslated into English and Bosnian to assure accuracy of meaning.

The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section explored destination attributes affecting tourists’ satisfaction levels in relation to a destination. Respondents were requested to give a score (attitude) of the 8 attributes using a 3-point Likert-type scale ranging from bad to good. Another section of the questionnaire gathered the respondents’ demographic and travel behavior characteristics, including gender, age state of origin, educational level, past experience with the destination, length of stay, travel companion and sources information.

Research limitations

The crucial research limitation is connected to the fact respondents had participated in the research voluntarily. Some of them had refused to answer the questionnaire. There was possibility some of them were extremely dissatisfied with the tourist experience, and that was the factor influencing their attitude.

On the other side, research had realized at the Sarajevo airport. As the consequence, only tourists coming by plane were included in the sample. Looking at the structure of the tourists, visiting B&H,

Further, since dimensions/attributes of destination had identified through discussion of focus groups, formed of the students, not tourists, there was possibility the structure and form of them would be created on different way, if we include real tourists, not the students.

Results

Profiles of Respondents

Visitors who stayed in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a while and left in the August 1st – 31st

period are mainly younger people (aged 20-29 and 30-39), even 59.1% of the total. They included 60.4% males and 39.6% females.31.02% is aged between 20-29- By descending order, they are followed by 30-39 age group with 28.1%, and 40-49 age group with 19.1%. The share of the remaining age groups, those under 19, 50-59 and over 60 is 21.8%. The bar chart below gives a detailed review of the age structure of people surveyed.

Evaluation of destination attribute

Rating of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the eight characteristics offered gave following results. Over half of visitors (54.8%) rated the urban amenity as average, 30% as good, and 15.3% as poor. Thus, 85% of visitors believe the urban amenity to be good or average. Somewhat higher percentage of visitors (88.8%) believes that security in Bosnia and Herzegovina is good or poor and only 11.2% rated security as poor. Over half of visitors (54.3% and 53.5%) consider sanitary conditions and hotel accommodation as average. Sanitary conditions are considered as good by 25.7% visitors, and as poor by 20.0% visitors. Hotel accommodation was rated as good by 39.1% visitors and as poor only by 7.4% visitors. Thus, over 92% visitors consider hotel accommodation as good or average.

Tourist sites and attractions are considered good by 47.5% visitors, average by 43.6% and poor by 8.9%. Ratings for the quality of tourist information are almost identical as those for sanitary conditions. Tourist information was rated as average by 54.4% visitors, and as good by 23.6% visitors.Over half of the visitors (51.8%) rated customs & immigration as good, 37.8% as average and 10.4% as poor.No visitor rated hospitality as poor. 80.1% of visitors rated hospitality as good, and 19.9% as average. This characteristic got the best ratings by the visitors surveyed.We state that the good rating was, in most cases, given to hospitality (80.1%), customs & immigration (51.8%), Tourist sites (47.5%), security (40%), and hotel accommodation (39.1%). Less than 30% of the people surveyed rated other characteristics as good. Average rating was given to urban amenity, tourist information, sanitary conditions, and hotel accommodation by over half of visitors.The two characteristics that were rated the poorest are tourist information and sanitary conditions. One fifth of the people surveyed rated each of these two characteristics as poor. We believe that due attention should be paid to improvements in these two characteristics in particular.

Tourists’ characteristics and its influences on the attributes of destination

Using contingency coefficient for evaluating interdependencies of the

variables, we have found the significant relationship between the type of tourism as a motive for arrival on destination and the following destination attributes: urban amenity, security, sanitary conditions, customs and immigration, as well as country of origin and all aforementioned attributes. For other mentioned variables it can be concluded that they have insignificant interdependence.

Independent variable

Dependent variable

1) Urban amenity

2) Security

3) Sanitary conditions

4) Hotel accomodations

5) Torist sites/attract.

6) Torist information

7) Customs /immigrat.

8) Hospitality

Number of visits 0,24 0,24 0,16 0,13 0,11 0,13 0,21 0,08Type of tourism as the motiv for travelling 0,31 0,39 0,31 0,26 0,22 0,29 0,32 0,23State of origin 0,39 0,37 0,38 0,35 0,30 0,32 0,36 0,34Days of staying at destination 0,11 0,13 0,06 0,06 0,22 0,14 0,11 0,09Company 0,11 0,12 0,09 0,09 0,07 0,11 0,14 0,14Age 0,09 0,15 0,10 0,10 0,09 0,12 0,14 0,11Information sources 0,13 0,09 0,08 0,10 0,08 0,13 0,14 0,13

Figure 1: Contingency coefficient

Because of that, we have applied chi-square test of variable dependence and concluded that the number of arrivals is significant for five measured attributes of destination: urban amenity, security, sanitary conditions, hotel accommodation and customs and immigration at the level 1%, (p=0,000) and 5%, (p=0,009) for hotel accommodation. Therefore, it can be stated that being previously informed about destination and experienced it is very significant when analyzing measured attribute. Complementary variable, sources of information which tourists use, shows much less influence on analyzed attributes: Significant with 5% (p=0,046) for urban amenity And significant with 10% (p=0,078; p=0,094 and p=0,062) for tourist information,

customs and immigrations and hospitality, respectively

With that in mind, it can be concluded that H1 is partially confirmed.

Of the following tested demographic variables: age and country of origin, results of chi-square test confirm significant influence of country of origin, and five measured attributes: Significant with 1% (p=0,000) for urban amenity, security and sanitary conditions, as

well as hotel accommodation (p=0,007) and Significant with 5% (p=0,011) for hospitality.

Contrary, age is significant for security on the level of 1%, (p=0,004) and on the level of 5% on customs and immigrations (p=0,027), which results with partially confirming H2, having confirmed the part regarding the influence of country of origin on perceived level of measured attributes.

Independvariable

Depen variab.

1) Urban amenity

2) Security 3) Sanitary conditions

4) Hotel accomodations

5) Torist sites/attractions

6) Torist information

7) Customs & immigration

8) Hospitality

Number of visits=61,84**

*(p=0,000)

=65,04*

**(p=0,000)

=29,25*

**(p=0,000)

=17,09*

**(p=0,009)

=13,70**

(p=0,033)

=17,62**

(p=0,07)

=47,55**

*(p=0,000)

=7,21

(p=0,302)

Type of tourism as the motiv for travelling

=22,38**

(p=0,013)

=37,65*

**(p=0,000)

=22,28*

*(p=0,014)

=14,46

(p=0,153)

=11,07

(p=0,352)

=18,89**

(p=0,04)

=23,54**

*(p=0,009)

=12,32

(p=0,264)

State of origin=183,12***

(p=0,000)

=172,21***(p=0,000)

=181,03***(p=0,000)

=140,16***(p=0,007)

=107,72(p=0,435)

=117,75(p=0,205)

=160,01***(p=0,001)

=139,86**(p=0,011)

Days of staying at destination

=8,4

(p=0,21)

=12,33*

(p=0,055)

=2,59

(p=0,858)

=2,11

(p=0,909)

=33,23**

*(p=0,000)

=13,83**

(p=0,032)

=7,74

(p=0,258)

=5,67

(p=0,461)

Company =12,42

(p=0,122)

=15,44*

(p=0,051)

=8,99

(p=0,343)

=8,56

(p=3,81)

=5,79

(p=0,670)

=11,87

(p=0,157)

=21,88**

*(p=0,005)

=20,71***

(p=0,008)

Age=7,97

(p=0,632)

=25,98*

**(p=0,004)

=11,51

(p=0,319)

=10,27

(p=0,417)

=9,41

(p=0,494)

=14,92

(p=0,135)

=20,26**

(p=0,027)

=13,41

(p=0,201)

Sources of information

=18,58**

(p=0,046)

=7,865

(p=0,642)

=7,06

(p=0,720)

=9,95

(p=0,445)

=5,84

(p=0,829)

=16,85*

(p=0,078)

=19,21*

(p=0,094)

=17,6*

(p=0,062)

Tourists behavior

Finally, when it comes to tourists' behavior, research results indicate next:

a) significant with the level of 1% type of tourism, which is a motive of arriving at security and customs and

immigrations, are significant with the level of 1% (p=0,000  and p=0,009 respectively) number of days of stay at destination on tourist sites/attractions significant at the level

of 1%, (p=0,000) company with whom is traveled to the customs and immigrations and hospitality at the

level of 1% (p=0,005 and p=0,009 respectively

Figure 2: test

b) significant at the level of 5%

type of tourism to urban amenity, sanitary conditions and tourist information (p=0,013 p=0,014 and p=0,04 respectively)

number of days of stay at destination, on tourist sites to tourist information (p=0,032)

c) significant at the level of 10% number of days of stay at destination, to security (p=0,055 = company with whom is traveled to security (p=0,051).

Results confirm the hypothesis 3 that demographic and behaviorist factors are significant to the measured attributes

Therefore, it can be concluded that analyzed variables influence measured attributes of the destination, and, along with that, influence experience of staying at the destination as the key dimension in forming organic image.

Destination attributes and customer satisfaction

During the stage two of the research, we measured the variable correlation „I will visit B&H again” as the key dimension which implies the impact of satisfaction on repeated purchase. Measured coefficient of determination (R square) 0,040 and p value variance analysis p=0,000 indicate that created model is of a certain significance.

Figure 3: Model Summary

Model R R SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the Estimate

1 ,199(a) ,040 ,030 ,40540

a Predictors: (Constant), hospitality, urbanamenity, hotelaccomodations, turistinformations, security, turistattractions, customsandimmigration, sanitaryconditions

Figure 4: ANOVA(b)

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 5,135 8 ,642 3,905 ,000(a)

Residual 124,084 755 ,164

Total 129,219 763

a Predictors: (Constant), hospitality, urbanamenity, hotelaccomodations, turistinformations, security, turistattractions, customsandimmigration, sanitaryconditionsb Dependent Variable: namjerapovratka

Therefore, models' significant variables are: tourist attractions customs and immigration hospitality

 However, only 4% of dependent variable is explainable by the independent variables included into the model, resulting with extremely high influence of other factors which will help one to choose the future visit location. This it totally understandable, having in mind that very often the key motive for tourist journeys is willingness to explore new destinations.

Figure 5: Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) ,959 ,069 13,917 ,000

Urban amenity ,021 ,026 ,031 ,798 ,425

Security -,038 ,026 -,059 -1,460 ,145

Sanitary conditions -,003 ,026 -,005 -,120 ,905

Hotel accomodations -,035 ,028 -,051 -1,249 ,212

Turist attractions** ,059 ,027 ,089 2,193 ,029

Turist informations -,006 ,025 -,009 -,227 ,820

Customs and immigration**

,066 ,026 ,103 2,520 ,012

Hospitality*** ,090 ,032 ,110 2,780 ,006

a Dependent Variable: Intention to revisit B&H

Figure 6: D escriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. DeviationIntention to revisit 914 1,00 3,00 1,1805 ,42281Urban amenity 1051 1,00 3,00 1,8544 ,65663Security 1082 1,00 3,00 1,6719 ,66672Sanitary conditions 1079 1,00 3,00 1,9435 ,67389Hotel accomodations 1015 1,00 3,00 1,6828 ,60394Turist attractions 1067 1,00 3,00 1,6139 ,64459Turist informations 1053 1,00 3,00 1,9848 ,67531Customs and immigration 1072 1,00 3,00 1,5868 ,67220Hospitality 1085 1,00 3,00 1,2553 ,50302Valid N (listwise) 764

Research Implications 

Research results show the differences in perception of destination's attributes, depending on the tourists' country of origin, but moreover depending on the whether tourists are visiting the B&H for the first time or not.

 Influence of other factors such as type of tourism, number of days of stay, company, age and source of information is significantly lower, but in most cases evident.

 This implies the need to act to redefine negative organic image B&H still has in the public (especially abroad). Activities have to be focused, above all, to those sources of information which tourists find as not-enough-developed. Still, it's extremely important to act towards the target market segments of those countries that are, according to the results (appendix), on the lowest level, that is to advance dimensions that tourists marked as bad or average. Since hospitality got high grades by most of tourists, and since other two dimensions affecting the intention of repeated purchase are tourist attractions and customs and immigrations, it is necessary to pay special attention to valorize tourist attractions and simplifying procedures for entries and visas.

 According to the grades for certain attributes, special attention needs to be paid to tourist information and sanitary conditions dimensions. Because their low prices are on low level, activities that seem to be priority for improvement are sanitary conditions and information about the tourist destination, as well as offerings among potential tourists.

 Having said that, it can be concluded that B&H needs to implement on of the marketing strategies that is a characteristic for the beginning of the growth-phase in the destination's life cycle, with the intention of creating secondary demand or differentiation of tourist offer intended to certain target markets. With the data about influence of country of origin and number of arrivals, type of tourism, age and longevity of stay, it is needed to act to lower perceived risk of potential visitors. Because of the dominant role of oral propaganda as the source of information when it comes to choosing a destination, it is needed to continue activities on advancing measured attributes of attractions, since they are assumption for client's satisfaction and destination's positive image.

References

Baloglu, S., and McClearly, K.W. (1999). A model of destination image formation, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4):868-897.Cai, L., (2002), Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations, Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3):720-742.Chon, K.S., (1990), The role of destination image in tourism. A review and discussion, Tourist Review, 45(2):2-9.Clemons, S.D., Woodruff, R:B., (1992), Broadening the view of Consumer (Dis)satisfaction: A Proposed Means-End Disconfirmation Model of CS/D, American Marketing Association, (Winter), 413-421.Cronin, J. Joseph, JR. and Taylor Steven A., (1992), Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension, Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.Dobre, R., Rusković, P.Ž., Čuvljak, M. (2004), Menadžment turističke destinacije, Šibenik, 47.Font, X., (1996), Managing the tourist destination image, Journal of Vacation Marketing 3(2), 123-131.Fuchs, G., Reichel, A., (2006), Tourist Destination Risk Perception: The Case of Israel, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 14(2), 83-108. Gartner, W. (1996 fall), Image formation process, Journal of Travel Research 28 (2), 16-20.Gronroos, C., (1990), service Management and Marketing, Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Lexington Books.Gunn, C. (1988); Tourism planning, New York: Taylor and Francis.Huh, J., Uysal, M., McCleary, K., (2006), Cultural/Heritage Destination: Tourist Satisfaction and Market Segmentation, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 14(3), 81-99.Kerstetter, D.L., Confer, J.J., Grafe, A.R., (2001), An Exploration of the Specialization Concept Within the Context of Heritage Tourism, Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 267-274.Lovelock, C. (1996), Services Marketing, Englewood Cliffs. NY: Prentice HallMansfeld, Y. (1992), From Motivation to Actual Travel, Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 399-419.Martin, D.W. (1995), An Importance/Performance Analysis of Service Providers’ Perception of Quality Service in the Hotel Industry, Journal of Hospitality &Leisure Marketing, Vol. 3(1) 1995, 5-17.Mitchell, V.W., Greatorex, M., (1993), Risk Perception and Reduction in the Purchase of Consumer Services. The Service Industrial Journal, 13(4), 170-200.Murphy, L., MOscado, G., Benckendorff, P., (2007), Using Brand Personality to Differentiate Regional Tourism Destinations, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, August 2007, 5-17.Pizam, A., Neumenn, Y., Reichel, A., (1978), Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination, Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2), 314-322.Pizam, A., Mansfeld, Y., (1996), Tourism, Crime and International Security Issues, John Wiley & Sons.

Ritchie, J.R.B., Ritchie R.J.B., (1998), Destination Marketing, International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism Report, 40: 89-116.Roehl, W.S., Fesenmaier, D.R., (1992), Risk Perception and Pleasure Travel: An Exploratory Analysis, Journal of Travel Research, 30, 17-26.Ross, G:F.. (1994), The psychology of tourism, Melbourne: Hospitality Press.Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J., Keininghan, T.L., (1993), Return on Quality, Chicago, IL: Probus Publishing.Sonmez, S.V: (1998), Tourism, Terrorism and Political Instability, Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 416-456.Sonmez, S., Graefe, A., (1998a), Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Tourism Decisions. Annals of Tourism Research 25(1), 112-144.Tsaur, S.H., Tyeng, G.H., Wang, K.C., (1997), Evaluating Tourist Risks From Fuzzy Perspectives, Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 796-812.Ward, S.V., Gold, J.R., (1994), Introduction 1-17 in Gold, J.R. and Ward, S.V., (eds.) Place promotion: The use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and regions, Chichester, Wiley.Witt, S.F., Moutinho, L., (1995), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, Englewood Cliffs, NY. Prentice Hall.Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M., (1996), Service Marketing, New York: McGraw-Hill.Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Inc.Yavuz, N.F. (1994), A market segmentation study of visitors to North Cyprus through importance-performance analysis of destination attributes, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Figure 7.Demographic and Behaviorist factors

Urban Amenity Security Sanitary ConditionsHotel

Accommodations

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Gen

der

Male 30,9% 53,8% 15,3% 100,0% 45,0% 44,5% 10,5% 100,0% 26,2% 56,4% 17,4% 100,0% 37,8% 54,0% 8,2% 100,0%

Female 29,3% 55,0% 15,8% 100,0% 41,3% 43,3% 15,3% 100,0% 25,0% 50,7% 24,3% 100,0% 41,6% 52,2% 6,2% 100,0%

Age

Under 19 25,4% 64,4% 10,2% 100,0% 29,9% 47,8% 22,4% 100,0% 16,9% 52,3% 30,8% 100,0% 38,5% 56,9% 4,6% 100,0%

20 - 29 30,2% 53,8% 16,0% 100,0% 44,8% 41,5% 13,6% 100,0% 27,1% 51,8% 21,1% 100,0% 34,0% 58,1% 7,9% 100,0%

30 - 39 29,7% 55,4% 14,9% 100,0% 41,1% 51,6% 7,2% 100,0% 24,9% 57,5% 17,6% 100,0% 39,9% 51,6% 8,5% 100,0%

40 - 49 26,8% 55,1% 18,2% 100,0% 46,3% 43,4% 10,2% 100,0% 22,9% 56,1% 21,0% 100,0% 41,4% 51,3% 7,3% 100,0%

50 - 59 35,7% 52,2% 12,2% 100,0% 48,3% 43,2% 8,5% 100,0% 30,0% 52,5% 17,5% 100,0% 48,2% 47,3% 4,5% 100,0%

Over 60 36,6% 53,7% 9,8% 100,0% 56,1% 36,6% 7,3% 100,0% 33,3% 47,6% 19,0% 100,0% 38,5% 56,4% 5,1% 100,0%

Hav

e V

isite

d B

osni

a an

d H

erze

govi

na

befo

re?

(1) First time39,8% 49,6% 10,6% 100,0% 57,0% 39,0% 4,0% 100,0% 35,0% 51,5% 13,5% 100,0% 46,2% 49,2% 4,6% 100,0%

(2) 2 times42,3% 51,9% 5,8% 100,0% 60,2% 33,3% 6,5% 100,0% 27,4% 60,4% 12,3% 100,0% 43,0% 52,0% 5,0% 100,0%

(3) 3 times or more29,3% 57,8% 12,9% 100,0% 37,1% 51,4% 11,4% 100,0% 23,2% 53,9% 22,9% 100,0% 39,4% 52,7% 7,9% 100,0%

(4) Residence18,1% 56,6% 25,3% 100,0% 35,4% 46,2% 18,4% 100,0% 20,1% 55,3% 24,7% 100,0% 31,4% 58,4% 10,1% 100,0%

You

Are

Tra

veli

ng W

ith:

(1) Alone34,8% 50,4% 14,8% 100,0% 50,0% 40,7% 9,3% 100,0% 28,3% 54,1% 17,6% 100,0% 38,5% 54,2% 7,3% 100,0%

(2) Spouse26,7% 53,3% 20,0% 100,0% 40,0% 48,8% 11,2% 100,0% 24,6% 53,3% 22,2% 100,0% 38,3% 52,5% 9,3% 100,0%

(3) Family32,1% 52,6% 15,3% 100,0% 38,1% 48,9% 13,0% 100,0% 20,9% 54,7% 24,4% 100,0% 34,5% 58,4% 7,1% 100,0%

(4) Friends26,0% 60,6% 13,5% 100,0% 47,2% 41,1% 11,7% 100,0% 29,8% 53,0% 17,2% 100,0% 39,7% 52,0% 8,3% 100,0%

(5) Others28,6% 57,1% 14,3% 100,0% 40,5% 54,1% 5,4% 100,0% 26,3% 56,6% 17,1% 100,0% 46,6% 47,9% 5,5% 100,0%

Mos

t Use

ful I

nfor

mat

ion

Sou

rce

for

B&

H

visi

t: C

hoos

e O

nly

Tw

o

Magazine/ Newspaper 25,9% 59,9% 14,2% 100,0% 37,7% 50,9% 11,3% 100,0% 24,2% 50,2% 25,6% 100,0% 38,0% 55,0% 7,0% 100,0%

Guidebook 37,7% 50,6% 11,7% 100,0% 53,8% 39,7% 6,4% 100,0% 29,3% 53,5% 17,2% 100,0% 38,5% 52,7% 8,8% 100,0%

Web-site 30,3% 55,3% 14,3% 100,0% 42,3% 47,5% 10,2% 100,0% 25,6% 56,4% 18,0% 100,0% 40,2% 54,3% 5,5% 100,0%

Recommended by Friends 29,7% 53,7% 16,6% 100,0% 43,9% 44,5% 11,6% 100,0% 24,7% 53,1% 22,2% 100,0% 36,6% 55,0% 8,3% 100,0%

Travel Agency 24,7% 58,0% 17,2% 100,0% 45,6% 44,5% 9,9% 100,0% 22,4% 61,2% 16,4% 100,0% 34,8% 59,0% 6,2% 100,0%

Others 48,0% 44,0% 8,0% 100,0% 53,8% 42,3% 3,8% 100,0% 40,0% 52,0% 8,0% 100,0% 42,3% 50,0% 7,7% 100,0%

Appendix

Figure 7.Demographic and Behaviorist factors

Tourist Sites/Attractions

HospitalityCustoms & Immigration

Tourist Information

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Gen

der

Male 51,4% 37,7% 10,9% 100,0% 78,9% 18,0% 3,1% 100,0% 46,3% 44,6% 9,1% 100,0% 21,9% 56,4% 21,6% 100,0%

Female 52,3% 37,7% 10,0% 100,0% 75,9% 20,8% 3,3% 100,0% 50,4% 41,7% 7,9% 100,0% 26,4% 51,1% 22,5% 100,0%

Age

Under 19 41,5% 47,7% 10,8% 100,0% 65,2% 27,3% 7,6% 100,0% 52,9% 32,4% 14,7% 100,0% 33,8% 50,0% 16,2% 100,0%

20 - 29 49,1% 36,2% 14,7% 100,0% 75,7% 20,4% 3,9% 100,0% 45,6% 45,0% 9,4% 100,0% 26,2% 54,3% 19,5% 100,0%

30 - 39 48,8% 40,9% 10,3% 100,0% 79,8% 17,2% 3,0% 100,0% 45,8% 45,1% 9,1% 100,0% 18,2% 58,4% 23,3% 100,0%

40 - 49 58,7% 33,8% 7,5% 100,0% 79,2% 18,4% 2,4% 100,0% 48,0% 44,6% 7,4% 100,0% 23,5% 53,1% 23,5% 100,0%

50 - 59 58,5% 35,6% 5,9% 100,0% 78,9% 19,5% 1,6% 100,0% 52,1% 39,5% 8,4% 100,0% 20,7% 52,6% 26,7% 100,0%

Over 60 58,1% 37,2% 4,7% 100,0% 86,4% 13,6% 0,0% 100,0% 50,0% 47,5% 2,5% 100,0% 33,3% 46,2% 20,5% 100,0%

Hav

e V

isite

d B

osni

a an

d H

erze

govi

na

befo

re?

(1) First time57,1% 37,0% 5,9% 100,0% 82,5% 15,0% 2,5% 100,0% 49,3% 46,3% 4,5% 100,0% 26,6% 57,4% 16,0% 100,0%

(2) 2 times54,2% 39,3% 6,5% 100,0% 79,2% 17,9% 2,8% 100,0% 49,0% 44,2% 6,7% 100,0% 25,5% 56,9% 17,6% 100,0%

(3) 3 times or more57,0% 35,0% 8,0% 100,0% 74,6% 22,4% 3,1% 100,0% 46,0% 44,9% 9,1% 100,0% 24,1% 54,5% 21,5% 100,0%

(4) Residence38,8% 41,8% 19,4% 100,0% 76,2% 19,8% 4,0% 100,0% 47,2% 40,0% 12,8% 100,0% 19,1% 51,5% 29,4% 100,0%

You

Are

Tra

veli

ng W

ith:

(1) Alone59,6% 33,7% 6,7% 100,0% 81,2% 17,1% 1,7% 100,0% 49,6% 43,8% 6,6% 100,0% 24,5% 56,9% 18,7% 100,0%

(2) Spouse51,2% 33,9% 14,9% 100,0% 74,1% 23,5% 2,4% 100,0% 44,6% 44,6% 10,8% 100,0% 18,0% 55,3% 26,7% 100,0%

(3) Family45,3% 43,0% 11,7% 100,0% 71,0% 23,7% 5,4% 100,0% 48,4% 41,1% 10,5% 100,0% 24,0% 50,7% 25,3% 100,0%

(4) Friends49,8% 39,7% 10,5% 100,0% 81,7% 13,6% 4,7% 100,0% 45,5% 44,1% 10,3% 100,0% 24,4% 51,7% 23,9% 100,0%

(5) Others56,9% 37,5% 5,6% 100,0% 82,9% 15,8% 1,3% 100,0% 44,6% 47,3% 8,1% 100,0% 23,6% 61,1% 15,3% 100,0%

Mos

t Use

ful I

nfor

mat

ion

Sou

rce

for

B&

H v

isit

: Cho

ose

Onl

y T

wo

Magazine/ Newspaper 49,1% 38,7% 12,3% 100,0% 75,0% 20,8% 4,2% 100,0% 52,3% 39,7% 7,9% 100,0% 25,8% 53,1% 21,1% 100,0%

Guidebook 52,3% 37,9% 9,8% 100,0% 80,1% 17,9% 1,9% 100,0% 51,6% 40,5% 7,8% 100,0% 17,5% 61,0% 21,4% 100,0%

Web-site 52,5% 37,0% 10,6% 100,0% 78,4% 19,0% 2,6% 100,0% 44,5% 44,9% 10,6% 100,0% 23,8% 54,5% 21,8% 100,0%

Recommended by Friends 52,8% 37,5% 9,8% 100,0% 80,1% 17,3% 2,6% 100,0% 47,8% 44,1% 8,1% 100,0% 21,6% 53,4% 25,0% 100,0%

Travel Agency 42,3% 45,1% 12,6% 100,0% 72,8% 21,2% 6,0% 100,0% 49,5% 42,3% 8,2% 100,0% 24,9% 52,5% 22,7% 100,0%

Others 62,5% 29,2% 8,3% 100,0% 88,0% 12,0% 0,0% 100,0% 60,9% 34,8% 4,3% 100,0% 37,5% 54,2% 8,3% 100,0%

Figure 8 State of origin

Urban Amenity Security Sanitary

ConditionsHotel

Accommodations

Total G

ood

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Germany 105 27,8% 55,7% 16,5% 100,0% 43,4% 44,4% 12,1% 100,0% 22,3% 56,3% 21,4% 100,0% 36,8% 52,9% 10,3% 100,0%

Sweden 74 32,4% 60,3% 7,4% 100,0% 45,3% 44,0% 10,7% 100,0% 20,0% 42,7% 37,3% 100,0% 35,7% 60,0% 4,3% 100,0%

UK 74 37,1% 54,3% 8,6% 100,0% 63,5% 33,8% 2,7% 100,0% 35,6% 57,5% 6,8% 100,0% 40,0% 55,7% 4,3% 100,0%

USA 69 39,7% 49,2% 11,1% 100,0% 46,3% 41,8% 11,9% 100,0% 29,4% 54,4% 16,2% 100,0% 44,4% 50,8% 4,8% 100,0%

Italy 57 40,0% 52,7% 7,3% 100,0% 37,7% 52,8% 9,4% 100,0% 24,1% 63,0% 13,0% 100,0% 32,7% 61,2% 6,1% 100,0%

France 49 48,9% 42,6% 8,5% 100,0% 72,9% 25,0% 2,1% 100,0% 41,3% 47,8% 10,9% 100,0% 48,9% 46,8% 4,3% 100,0%

Netherlands 49 39,6% 50,0% 10,4% 100,0% 37,5% 54,2% 8,3% 100,0% 22,9% 58,3% 18,8% 100,0% 47,6% 47,6% 4,8% 100,0%

Norway 36 18,5% 70,4% 11,1% 100,0% 35,3% 58,8% 5,9% 100,0% 12,9% 54,8% 32,3% 100,0% 41,9% 51,6% 6,5% 100,0%

Austria 29 29,6% 66,7% 3,7% 100,0% 42,9% 46,4% 10,7% 100,0% 35,7% 53,6% 10,7% 100,0% 65,4% 26,9% 7,7% 100,0%

Spain 26 42,3% 42,3% 15,4% 100,0% 50,0% 46,2% 3,8% 100,0% 32,0% 56,0% 12,0% 100,0% 56,0% 32,0% 12,0% 100,0%

Canada 21 38,1% 52,4% 9,5% 100,0% 23,8% 76,2% 0,0% 100,0% 23,8% 52,4% 23,8% 100,0% 50,0% 50,0% 0,0% 100,0%

Australia 18 26,7% 33,3% 40,0% 100,0% 33,3% 53,3% 13,3% 100,0% 23,5% 52,9% 23,5% 100,0% 53,3% 26,7% 20,0% 100,0%

Figure 8 State of origin

Tourist Sites/Attractions

Tourist Information

Customs & Immigration

Hospitality

Total

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Goo

d

Fai

r

Poo

r

Tot

al

Germany 105 51,5% 41,4% 7,1% 100,0% 20,4% 54,8% 24,7% 100,0% 63,4% 28,7% 7,9% 100,0% 86,3% 12,7% 1,0% 100,0%

Sweden 74 37,8% 51,4% 10,8% 100,0% 20,0% 56,0% 24,0% 100,0% 52,7% 40,5% 6,8% 100,0% 67,6% 29,7% 2,7% 100,0%

UK 74 41,1% 52,1% 6,8% 100,0% 16,9% 63,4% 19,7% 100,0% 58,9% 34,2% 6,8% 100,0% 86,3% 11,0% 2,7% 100,0%

USA 69 51,5% 40,9% 7,6% 100,0% 28,8% 56,1% 15,2% 100,0% 66,7% 30,4% 2,9% 100,0% 75,4% 21,7% 2,9% 100,0%

Italy 57 46,2% 46,2% 7,7% 100,0% 22,6% 58,5% 18,9% 100,0% 55,8% 32,7% 11,5% 100,0% 83,6% 16,4% 0,0% 100,0%

France 49 47,8% 45,7% 6,5% 100,0% 30,2% 60,5% 9,3% 100,0% 66,7% 29,2% 4,2% 100,0% 87,8% 6,1% 6,1% 100,0%

Netherlands 49 48,9% 40,4% 10,6% 100,0% 25,0% 56,3% 18,8% 100,0% 50,0% 45,8% 4,2% 100,0% 81,3% 16,7% 2,1% 100,0%

Norway 36 51,5% 45,5% 3,0% 100,0% 18,2% 57,6% 24,2% 100,0% 54,8% 35,5% 9,7% 100,0% 71,9% 25,0% 3,1% 100,0%

Austria 29 48,1% 44,4% 7,4% 100,0% 42,9% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0% 50,0% 35,7% 14,3% 100,0% 67,9% 28,6% 3,6% 100,0%

Spain 26 50,0% 36,4% 13,6% 100,0% 45,8% 33,3% 20,8% 100,0% 47,8% 34,8% 17,4% 100,0% 92,3% 3,8% 3,8% 100,0%

Canada 21 57,1% 33,3% 9,5% 100,0% 38,1% 57,1% 4,8% 100,0% 66,7% 33,3% 0,0% 100,0% 66,7% 33,3% 0,0% 100,0%

Australia 18 64,7% 35,3% 0,0% 100,0% 50,0% 25,0% 25,0% 100,0% 70,6% 29,4% 0,0% 100,0% 88,9% 5,6% 5,6% 100,0%

Independent variable

Dependent variable

1) Urban amenity

2) Security 3) Sanitary conditions

4) Hotel accomodations

5) Torist sites/attractions

6) Torist information

Number of visits=61,84***

(p=0,000)

=65,04***

(p=0,000)

=29,25***

(p=0,000)

=17,09***

(p=0,009)

=13,70**

(p=0,033)

=17,62**

(p=0,07)

Type of tourism as the motiv for travelling

=22,38**

(p=0,013)

=37,65***

(p=0,000)

=22,28**

(p=0,014)

=14,46

(p=0,153)

=11,07

(p=0,352)

=18,89**

(p=0,04)

State of origin=183,12***

(p=0,000)=172,21***

(p=0,000)=181,03***

(p=0,000)=140,16***

(p=0,007)=107,72

(p=0,435)=117,75

(p=0,205)

Days of staying at destination

=8,4

(p=0,21)

=12,33*

(p=0,055)

=2,59

(p=0,858)

=2,11

(p=0,909)

=33,23***

(p=0,000)

=13,83**

(p=0,032)

Company =12,42

(p=0,122)

=15,44*

(p=0,051)

=8,99

(p=0,343)

=8,56

(p=3,81)

=5,79

(p=0,670)

=11,87

(p=0,157)

Age=7,97

(p=0,632)

=25,98***

(p=0,004)

=11,51

(p=0,319)

=10,27

(p=0,417)

=9,41

(p=0,494)

=14,92

(p=0,135)Sources of information =18,58** =7,865 =7,06 =9,95 =5,84 =16,85*

(p=0,046) (p=0,642) (p=0,720) (p=0,445) (p=0,829) (p=0,078)