visitor attraction satisfaction benchmarking project · visitor attraction satisfaction...

VISITOR ATTRACTION SATISFACTION BENCHMARKING PROJECT

Brent W Ritchie, Trevor Mules and Sue Uzabeaga


ii

Technical Reports The technical report series present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be of value to industry, government and researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre’s Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. We'd love to know what you think of our new research titles. If you have five minutes to spare, please click on the link below to complete our online survey. Sustainable Tourism CRC Tech Report Feedback

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Ritchie, Brent. Visitor attraction satisfaction benchmarking project / Dr Brent Ritchie; Dr Trevor Mules and Sue Uzabeaga. ISBN: 981921521133 (pbk.) 9781921521140 (pdf) Notes: Includes index. Bibliography. Subjects: Tourism—Australian Capital Territory—Canberra—Public opinion. Public opinion—Australian Capital Territory—Canberra. Consumer satisfaction—Australian Capital Territory—Canberra. Other Authors/Contributors: Mules, Trevor. Uzabeaga, Sue. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. Dewey Number: 338.479109947

Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2008 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to: General Manager, Communications and Industry Extension or Publishing Manager, [email protected] First published in Australia in 2008 by Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd Edited by Kelly Van Asperen Printed in Australia (Gold Coast, Queensland) Cover designed by Sin Design

Acknowledgements The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program, funded this research. Special thanks go to the National Capital Attractions Association and the attraction partners who provided cash and in kind support for this project. Thanks should also go to Australian Capital Tourism who provided additional financial resources to support this project. Thank you to the referee who provided comments on the draft report which have substantially improved the report.

http://sustainabletourismcrc.cmail3.com/l/424209/s4i6d21/www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=cCMy_2fyZbjAjkr2Vy5LopCg_3d_3d�

mailto:[email protected]�


iii

CONTENTS SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________________________ VI OBJECTIVES OF STUDY ___________________________________________________________________ VI METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________________________________ VI KEY FINDINGS __________________________________________________________________________ VI

Socio-Demographic Profile _____________________________________________________________ vi Travel and Attraction Behaviour_________________________________________________________ vii Importance-Satisfaction with Attraction Facilities and Services ________________________________ vii Importance-Satisfaction with Attraction Experiences_________________________________________ vii Overall Satisfaction, Loyalty and Critical Incidents__________________________________________ viii Individual Determinants of Visitor Satisfaction and Loyalty ___________________________________ viii Visitor Satisfaction and Loyalty Segmentation ______________________________________________ viii

FUTURE ACTIONS _______________________________________________________________________ IX CHAPTER 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND____________________________________________________ 1

UNDERSTANDING VISITOR SATISFACTION _____________________________________________________ 1 APPROACHES TOWARD VISITOR SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT____________________________________ 2 AN IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING APPROACH_____________________________________ 3 SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________________ 5

CHAPTER 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ 6 RESEARCH METHOD ___________________________________________________________________ 6

STUDY AND SURVEY DESIGN_______________________________________________________________ 6 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION ________________________________________________________________ 7

Analysis Techniques ___________________________________________________________________ 8 Internal Reliability and Validity __________________________________________________________ 9

LIMITATIONS __________________________________________________________________________ 10 SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________________________ 10

CHAPTER 3 ___________________________________________________________________________ 12 RESULTS _____________________________________________________________________________ 12

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ____________________________________________________________ 12 Gender and Age _____________________________________________________________________ 12 Marital and Employment Status _________________________________________________________ 13 Children ___________________________________________________________________________ 13 Household Income____________________________________________________________________ 13 Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 14

TRAVEL AND ATTRACTION BEHAVIOUR _____________________________________________________ 14 Visitor Origins_______________________________________________________________________ 14 Previous Destination Visitation _________________________________________________________ 15 Main Purpose of Visit _________________________________________________________________ 16 Length of Stay _______________________________________________________________________ 17 Attraction Visitation __________________________________________________________________ 17 Previous Attraction Visitation___________________________________________________________ 18 Length of Stay _______________________________________________________________________ 19 Group Composition and Size ___________________________________________________________ 20 Attraction Information Sources__________________________________________________________ 21 Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 21

IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION WITH ATTRACTION FACILITIES AND SERVICES _________________________ 22 Importance-Satisfaction Scores__________________________________________________________ 22 IPA Analysis ________________________________________________________________________ 24 Gap Analysis ________________________________________________________________________ 38 Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 44

IMPORTANCE-SATISFACTION WITH ATTRACTION EXPERIENCES ___________________________________ 44 Importance-Satisfaction Scores__________________________________________________________ 44 IPA Analysis ________________________________________________________________________ 47 Gap Analysis ________________________________________________________________________ 52


iv

Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 58 OVERALL SATISFACTION, LOYALTY AND CRITICAL INCIDENTS____________________________________ 59

Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty_________________________________________________________ 59 Critical Incidents_____________________________________________________________________ 60 Unhappy and Bad Experiences Recorded__________________________________________________ 61 Happy and Good Experiences Recorded___________________________________________________ 61 Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 62

CHAPTER 4 ___________________________________________________________________________ 63 RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL DETERMINANTS OF SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY______________ 63

OVERALL APPROACH TO ANALYSIS_________________________________________________________ 63 OVERALL SATISFACTION _________________________________________________________________ 64 INTENTION TO RETURN __________________________________________________________________ 64 RECOMMEND TO OTHER PEOPLE ___________________________________________________________ 65

Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 65 CHAPTER 5 ___________________________________________________________________________ 66 RESULTS: VISITOR SEGMENTATION AND SATISFACTION_______________________________ 66

SEGMENT 1: EDUCATION SEEKERS _________________________________________________________ 66 SEGMENT 2: HERITAGE SEEKERS___________________________________________________________ 66 SEGMENT 3: FAMILY FUN SEEKERS _________________________________________________________ 67 SEGMENT 4: SENIOR REPEATS _____________________________________________________________ 68

Summary ___________________________________________________________________________ 72 CHAPTER 6 ___________________________________________________________________________ 73 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS _____________________________________________ 73

INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________________________________ 75 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________________________________ 76 APPENDICES ________________________________________________________________________ 78 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ________________________________________________________ 78

SECTION ONE: VISITATION PATTERNS_________________________________________________ 79 SECTION TWO: YOUR ATTRACTION VISIT ______________________________________________ 80 SECTION THREE: ATTRACTION FACILITIES AND SERVICES ______________________________ 81 SATISFACTION _____________________________________________________________________ 81 SECTION FOUR: ATTRACTION EXPERIENCES AND LOYALTY _____________________________ 82 SATISFACTION _____________________________________________________________________ 82

APPENDIX B: DELPHI RESULTS ____________________________________________________________ 85 APPENDIX C: POSTCARD SURVEY INVITATION ________________________________________________ 88 APPENDIX D: STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES—FACILITIES AND SERVICES _____________________________ 90 APPENDIX D: STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES—FACILITIES AND SERVICES _____________________________ 90 APPENDIX E: STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES—EXPERIENCES________________________________________ 92

REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________________ 94 AUTHORS ___________________________________________________________________________ 96

List of Tables Table 1: Measures of Reliability/Validity ______________________________________________________ 10 Table 2: Sample Age Distribution____________________________________________________________ 12 Table 3: Sample Total Household Income (A$) Per Annum ________________________________________ 13 Table 4: Sample International Origins Compared with IVS________________________________________ 14 Table 5: Sample Domestic Origins Compared with NVS __________________________________________ 15 Table 6: Previous Destination Visitation Levels of Non-Local Visitors _______________________________ 15 Table 7: Non-Local Main Purpose of Travel ___________________________________________________ 16 Table 8: Sample Length of Stay _____________________________________________________________ 17 Table 9: Attraction Visited and Survey Completed About__________________________________________ 17 Table 10: Sample Previous Attraction Visitation Levels___________________________________________ 18 Table 11: Sample Length of Stay ____________________________________________________________ 19 Table 12: Sample Group Composition (%) and Average Group Size_________________________________ 20 Table 13: Sample Attraction Information Source Usage __________________________________________ 21 Table 14: Sample Assessment of Attribute Importance (%) ________________________________________ 22


v

Table 15: Sample Assessment of Attribute Satisfaction (%) _______________________________________ 23 Table 16: Sample Rating No Opinion/Did Not Use (%) ___________________________________________ 24 (n=2677-3418) __________________________________________________________________________ 24 Table 17: Paired t-Test on Attraction Facilities and Services ______________________________________ 38 (n=2603-3382) __________________________________________________________________________ 38 Table 18: Statistical Differences by Visitor Characteristics (Summary Table) _________________________ 39 Table 19: Sample Assessment of Attribute Importance (%) ________________________________________ 45 Table 20: Sample Assessment of Attribute Satisfaction (%) ________________________________________ 46 Table 21: Sample Rating No Opinion/Did Not Use (%) ___________________________________________ 47 (n=2244-3344) __________________________________________________________________________ 47 Table 22: Paired t-test on Attraction Experiences _______________________________________________ 52 (n=2053-3344) __________________________________________________________________________ 52 Table 23: Statistical Differences by Visitor Characteristics (Summary Table) _________________________ 53 Table 24: Sample Overall Satisfaction with Attraction Visit _______________________________________ 59 Table 25: Sample Likeliness of Return Visit (if possible) __________________________________________ 60 Table 26: Sample Recommend to Other People _________________________________________________ 60 Table 27: Sample Unhappy/Bad Experiences at the Attraction _____________________________________ 61 Table 28: Sample Happy/Good Experiences at the Attraction ______________________________________ 62 Table 29: Results of Regression for Overall Satisfaction __________________________________________ 64 Table 30: Results of Regression for Intention to Return ___________________________________________ 64 Table 31: Results of Regression for Likelihood of Recommending___________________________________ 65 Table 32: Attraction Visitor Segments and Characteristics based on Cluster (Segment) Analysis __________ 69 Table D:1: Statistical Differences in Mean Importance and Satisfaction Scores by Visitor Characteristics ___ 90 Table E:1: Statistical Differences in Mean Importance and Satisfaction Scores by Visitor Characteristics ___ 92

List of Figures Importance-Performance Grid Example_______________________________________________________ vii Figure 1: Importance-Performance Grid Example________________________________________________ 4 Figure 2: Sample Age Distribution (%) _______________________________________________________ 12 Figure 3: Study Sample Total Household Income (A$) Per Annum (%)_______________________________ 13 Figure 4: Sample Domestic Origins (%)_______________________________________________________ 15 Figure 5: Previous Destination Visitation Levels of Non-Local Visitors (%)___________________________ 16 Figure 6: Non-Local Main Purpose of Travel (%) _______________________________________________ 16 Figure 7: Attraction Visited and Survey Completed About (%) _____________________________________ 18 Figure 8: Sample Previous Attraction Visitation Levels (%) _______________________________________ 19 Figure 9: Sample Length of Stay (%) _________________________________________________________ 19 Figure 10: Sample Group Composition (%) ____________________________________________________ 20 Figure 11: Sample Attraction Information Source Usage (%) ______________________________________ 21 Figure 12: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Mean Score Cross Hairs (Facilities and Services)_____ 26 Figure 13: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Median Score Cross Hairs (Facilities and Services) ___ 26 Figure 13: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Median Score Cross Hairs (Facilities and Services) ___ 27 Figure 14: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Mean Score Cross Hairs for Attraction A (Facilities and Services) _______________________________________________________________________________ 28 Figure 15: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Mean Score Cross Hairs for Attraction B (Facilities and Services) _______________________________________________________________________________ 29 Figure 16: Statistical Differences Based on Socio-Demographics Resulting in (Quadrant Movements)______ 40 Figure 17: Statistical Differences Based on Origins (Resulting in Quadrant Movements) ________________ 41 Figure 18: Statistical Differences Based on Previous Visitation and Children in Travel Party (Resulting in Quadrant Movements)_____________________________________________________________________ 42 Figure 19: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Mean Score Cross Hairs (Experiences) _____________ 49 Figure 20: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Median Score Cross Hairs (Experiences)____________ 50 Figure 21: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Mean Score Cross Hairs for Attraction A (Experiences) 51 Figure 22: Importance-Performance Analysis Using Mean Score Cross Hairs for Attraction B (Experiences) 52 Figure 23: Statistical Differences Based on Socio-Demographics Resulting in (Quadrant Movements)______ 55 Figure 24: Statistical Differences Based on Origins (Resulting in Quadrant Movements) ________________ 56 Figure 25: Statistical Differences Based on Previous Visitation and Children in Travel Party (Resulting in Quadrant Movements)_____________________________________________________________________ 57 Figure 26: Sample Overall Satisfaction with the Attraction (%) ____________________________________ 59 Figure 27: Sample Likelihood to Repeat Visit and Recommend Attraction (%)_________________________ 60


vi

SUMMARY

Objectives of Study The aim of this project was to develop and test a method to benchmark and monitor visitor satisfaction at attractions, with the potential to further refine and apply this approach to attractions in other urban destinations. The objectives were twofold. First, to understand the satisfaction levels and loyalty of attraction visitors, to identify experience gaps and facility issues that may need further research or management attention. Second, to examine differences in visitor satisfaction levels by visitor types and segments. This would provide more detailed insights into levels of satisfaction and loyalty to assist managerial decision making.

Methodology A survey was designed to examine visitor ratings of both the importance and satisfaction with attraction facility and experience attributes with 10 built attractions in the Australian Capital Territory. Questions on overall satisfaction, intention to repeat visit and recommend were combined with qualitative open ended comments on experiences that visitors felt were good/bad or those that they were happy/unhappy with. Previous research, an industry workshop and a Delphi approach were used to generate and rank a list of relevant attributes to be included in the survey. A data collection process lasted for 13 months across the 10 built attraction partners through a combination of field workers and in-kind attraction support to recruit visitors on random nominated days. The attractions were all national institutions and the majority (seven) were free entry attractions, while three had entry fees. From the seven that were free entry, two of those charge visitors for entry into special exhibitions. All but four attractions were located in the Parliamentary Precinct while the others were located 10 to 15 minutes’ drive away. Respondents were asked to complete a web based survey; approximately 15% that were unable to complete a web based survey completed a postal survey. Follow ups were undertaken with visitors and a total of 3,569 useable completed surveys were collected at the end of April 2008, recording a useable response rate of 43%.

Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) was combined by the use of more advanced statistical analysis to examine differences by visitor socio-demographics and travel characteristics, while segmentation was undertaken using the importance rating of the individual attributes.

Furthermore, regression analysis was undertaken to examine the individual determinants of visitor satisfaction and loyalty. A random sample of 10% from the open ended comments was used to summarise the main themes and these are presented in this report.

The internal reliability (consistency) of the scale items was high, with the individual attribute scales correlating highly with overall satisfaction, intention to return visit and recommend (convergent validity). However, the predictive validity between the overall satisfaction scale and intention to repeat visit (if possible) was lower compared to intention to recommend the attraction to friends and family.

The main limitations of the study included that the research measured visitor satisfaction after their visit and did not attempt to measure their pre-visit expectations. Furthermore, the attributes designed for the research were developed from consultation with managers and not visitors, which could be significant if it was found that those attributes chosen were not as important as other attributes. Finally, the research was carried out over a clearly defined time period with national attractions in Canberra and visitor satisfaction levels may be different if measured again in the future or measured in different types of attractions located elsewhere.

Key Findings

Socio-Demographic Profile • Sixty percent of respondents were female with 44% aged between 35 and 54 years of age. • The vast majority (77.3%) were couples, employed in either full or part time employment, while 21%

were retired and 14.3% were studying or undertaking home duties. • Nearly 30% had children aged under 14 years living at their house for at least half of their time. Half of

those adults with children living with them were aged between six and 14 years old. • Over 90% of visitors surveyed were Australian, with over one third of Australian visitors from the local

area (ACT/Queanbeyan), and approximately 28% from ‘other New South Wales.’ • From the 7.3% that were international visitors, the majority were from the United Kingdom and other

countries.


vii

Travel and Attraction Behaviour • A total of 52.5% of non-local visitors had visited Canberra once in the last three years (this visit),

followed by 31.7% between two and four times, while 72% had visited once in the last 12 months. • The main purpose of a visit was to visit specific attraction(s) by 37% of non-local visitors, followed by

visiting family (19.2%). • Average length of stay was 3.8 nights. • A total of 72.2% of attraction visitors had visited the attraction once in the last 12 months (on this visit),

stayed for on average 2 hours and 30 minutes, with the majority either travelling as an adult couple or a family group—parents and children.

• The most used attraction visitor information sources were previous experience (42.7%), followed by friends and relatives (26.7%) and a travel book, guide or brochure (18.5%).

Importance-Satisfaction with Attraction Facilities and Services • An IPA chart is presented below for illustrative purposes.

Importance-Performance Grid Example

Concentrate here

(Quadrant A)

Keep up the good work

(Quadrant B)

Low Priority

(Quadrant C)

Possible overkill

(Quadrant D)

• Visitors placed the highest importance on the ‘clear explanation of displays’ followed by ‘quality of

service’ and the ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’. • They were most satisfied with ‘overall atmosphere’, the ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’

as well as ‘helpful human guides’. • The IPA analysis and chart mapping indicated that only two attributes were in quadrant A (concentrate

here) including ‘parking facilities’ and ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’. • The majority of the attributes were in quadrant B (keep up the good work). • A gap analysis between the importance and satisfaction scores was undertaken and the scores were

different between nine from 14 attributes. • The largest positive gap (where satisfaction was larger than the importance score) was for ‘electronic

displays’ followed by ‘interactive displays.’ • Three attributes had a negative gap (with the satisfaction score being lower than the importance score)

including ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’, ‘parking facilities’ and ‘clear explanation of displays.’

• The largest number of differences with respect to visitor characteristics was due to gender, followed by local origins and travel party. Although there were a large number of differences between visitor characteristics, none of these meant that scores on the IPA charts moved into quadrant A.

Importance-Satisfaction with Attraction Experiences • Visitors placed the highest importance on ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ followed by

‘overall experiences at this attraction’ and the ‘educational experiences for my children’. • They were most satisfied with the ‘overall experiences at this attraction,’ ‘a chance to discover or learn

something new’ as well as ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’. • The IPA analysis and chart mapping indicated that only two attributes were in quadrant A (concentrate

here) including ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’. The majority of the attributes were in quadrant B (keep up the good work).

Impo

rtan

ce ra

ting

Performance (satisfaction) rating


viii

• However, changing the IPA chart cross hairs using the overall median scores, instead of the mean

scores, meant no attributes moved into quadrant A, but ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ moved onto the importance grid line between quadrant A and C, while ‘a unique experience’ moved onto the satisfaction grid line between quadrant A and B.

• A gap analysis between the importance and satisfaction scores was undertaken and the scores were different between eight from 11 attributes. The largest positive gap (where satisfaction was larger than the importance score) was for ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’ followed by ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’ and ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’.

• No experience attributes received a negative gap. • The largest number of differences with respect to visitor characteristics was due to gender, followed by

visitation level and travel party. • However, unlike attraction facilities/services results where none of the IPA attributes moved into

quadrant A, several did related to visitor experiences. • Males, non-local visitors, first time visitors and visitors without children were all less satisfied with the

ability of the attraction to provide ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’, moving this attribute to quadrant A (concentrate here).

Overall Satisfaction, Loyalty and Critical Incidents • Overall, high levels of visitor satisfaction and high levels of recommendation to others were also

recorded with 55.2% of visitors very satisfied and over 64% noting that they would definitely recommend an attraction visit to others.

• A total of 11.4% of visitors had experienced a problem at the attraction during their visit and the majority (64%) reported these problems to attraction staff.

• However, nearly 30% who did report the problem to staff had it resolved to their satisfaction. • The majority of visitors had no unhappy/bad experiences, while the most frequently cited unhappy or

bad experiences were related to the closure of some parts of the attraction for refurbishment or construction, lack of information and parking issues.

• A number of happy/good experiences were recorded by visitors, with the most frequently cited comments relating to the great (interactive) displays and layout of the attraction, followed by the guides at the attraction and overall enjoyable experiences. Many of the comments about the guides referred to their outstanding customer service and personal interaction with visitors.

Individual Determinants of Visitor Satisfaction and Loyalty • The variables ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’, and ‘overall

experiences at this attraction’ were significant predictors of overall satisfaction and loyalty, while ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘a unique experience’ show up as significant in two out of the three regression models.

• Visitors’ overall ratings of facilities/services and experiences appear to act as an overall determinant of visitor satisfaction and loyalty, suggesting the influence of an overall assessment within visitors’ experience.

Visitor Satisfaction and Loyalty Segmentation • A segmentation analysis of visitors based on the importance they place on attraction facilities/services

and experiences was also undertaken. • The results indicated four distinct segments that differ in their socio-demographics, travel behaviour,

satisfaction rating and overall satisfaction and loyalty. • They were labelled the ‘Education Seekers’ who comprised 37.8% of the sample, the ‘Heritage

Seekers’ (33.9%), ‘Family Fun Seekers’ (24.4%) and the ‘Senior Repeats’ (3.9%).


ix

Future Actions The most important recommendations from this research for managers include:

• Examine in more detail why ‘parking facilities’, ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’ and ‘clear explanation of displays’ may be a potential issue, resulting in lower satisfaction and higher importance scores from visitors.

• These issues should be examined in more detail for certain groups (those with children and first time visitors) who rated these aspects as being an issue as well as the ‘Family Fun Seeker’ segment, who rated some of these lower and were more likely to be travelling with children.

• Examine in more detail why ‘fun and enjoyment’, ‘to better understand the Australian identity’, and possibly ‘a unique experience’ may be a potential issue, resulting in lower satisfaction and higher importance scores compared to all experience attributes.

• Focus on developing and promoting more fun and enjoyable experiences at visitor attractions, especially for males and the ‘Family Fun Seeker’ segment in particular.

• Locals placed more emphasis on ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ than non-locals, so management actions for this attribute should focus on this particular group.

• Managers should consider product development or marketing activities that can enhance or promote spending quality time with others for males, non-local visitors, and those without children, especially to increase repeat visits.

• Managers should consider what specific actions can be undertaken to increase overall ratings for those items that act as significant predictors of overall satisfaction and loyalty, with a focus on segments with a lower overall satisfaction or loyalty than others.

• Deliver staff training to deal with visitor complaints. There is a need to recognise and reward staff, particularly guides.

• Explore why the ‘Senior Repeats’ have the lowest overall satisfaction but the most likely to return visit, and why the ‘Family Fun Seekers’ have lower overall satisfaction levels, are the least likely to recommend and had lower levels of repeat visits.

• Individual attraction managers should compare the overall results in this report to individual attraction reports and consider reasons for similar/dissimilar results. This will help external benchmarking.

• Further research (including qualitative research) may have to be undertaken to examine in more detail the underlying reasons for some of the findings.

• Continuing this research for internal benchmarking purposes on an ongoing period will enable managers to compare results and monitor changes in key visitor groups/markets.

The most important recommendations from this research for future development of a visitor satisfaction benchmarking methodology include:

• Further research should continue to allow comparison of these research findings and testing of the IPA approach to measuring and monitoring visitor satisfaction at attractions, and possibly extend this to specific categories of attractions (and in time other sectors of the tourism industry).

• Consider a 7-point scale instead of a 5-point scale in questions to capture more variability in attractions. • A greater range of attributes could be included in future research (perhaps with the involvement of

visitors not just managers). • The use of ‘overall’ questions in the survey instrument were important for predicting overall

satisfaction and loyalty, and thus should remain in future research, but are difficult for managers to act on.

• A small percentage of attributes was identified as predictors of overall satisfaction and loyalty. Future researchers should consider including other questions that could act as predictors including questions on respondent mood, emotions and level of engagement at the attraction.

• Although the use of median cross hair scales in the IPA charts were used due to skewness in the data, they made few differences to the placement of attributes. However, in instances where the data is skewed this approach should be used.


1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In recent years the area of visitor satisfaction has become a priority research area for Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC), with developing tools and models to better measure and monitor visitor satisfaction in Australia becoming increasingly important. STCRC researchers have worked with Tourism Research Australia to develop a consistent approach to measuring and monitoring visitor satisfaction at a destination level, which to date has been rolled out in over 30 destinations throughout Australia. At a destination level STCRC researchers have discovered a lack of consistent satisfaction measurement and monitoring by operators (including accommodation, attraction and tour operators) in a way that allows sector based comparisons and benchmarking to occur. This study seeks to address this deficiency by developing and testing a consistent approach to measuring and benchmarking visitor satisfaction at attractions. A better understanding of satisfaction with the visitor attraction services, facilities and experiences will allow for improvements to relevant services, facilities and experiences at an individual operator level and also at the destination wide level. Attractions can be defined from both ideographic and organisational approaches (Lew 1987). An ideographical typology can be created to identify the types of attractions, which can be rather heterogeneous, and according to Dybedal (1998) can comprise:

• particular objectives and places to see such as cultural features (monuments, museums, historic or sacred places) and natural features (spectacular scenery, viewpoints, nature parks and landmarks);

• activity and recreation attractions such as leisure parks, sports facilities, heritage centres, shopping malls (which require at least a days visit), ski and beach resorts, holiday camps and spas;

• events including festivals, sport events etc.

A tourist attraction, according to Leiper (1990 p. 178), is a ‘system comprising three elements: a tourist or human element, a nucleus or central element, and a marker or informative element. A tourist attraction comes into existence when the three elements are interconnected’

This study sought, therefore, to develop and test a method to benchmark and monitor visitor satisfaction at

attractions, with the potential to further refine and apply this approach to attractions in other urban destinations. The objectives were twofold. First, to understand the satisfaction levels and loyalty of attraction visitors to identify experience gaps and facility issues that may need further research or management attention. Second, to examine differences in visitor satisfaction levels by visitor types and segments. This would provide more detailed insights into levels of satisfaction and loyalty to assist managerial decision making. The STCRC office based at the University of Canberra undertook this study, supported by the National Capital Attractions Association, 10 built attraction partners and Australian Capital Tourism.

The next sections of this report begin by briefly outlining visitor satisfaction research, issues over measuring

visitor satisfaction and the use of importance-performance analysis as a way to benchmark and monitor visitor satisfaction. Chapter 2 of the report presents the methodology used for this project, while Chapters 3 to 5 outline the results of the project. Finally, conclusions and recommendations will be outlined covering future actions to improve visitor satisfaction at a destination and sector level, and recommendations to improve future research tools in assisting satisfaction measurement and benchmarking. These recommendations may be applicable and of interest to tourism destinations with a large number of built attractions.

Understanding Visitor Satisfaction Visitor satisfaction is a major factor in determining repeat visitation and/or the propensity for recommending the destination or attraction operator to others. Kozak and Rimmington (2000 p. 261) suggest that ‘previous research findings demonstrate that there is a significant relationship among tourist satisfaction, intention to return, and positive word-of–mouth’.


2

Visitors are increasingly becoming more demanding and desire value for money and the provision of quality products and services. Consequently, customer satisfaction has undoubtedly become a fundamental goal of service-oriented businesses. The underlying reason for this premise can be found in its importance for economic success. There are a number of benefits that come from measuring visitor satisfaction. These benefits include: measuring the ‘health’ of the industry for strategic planning purposes; understanding the customers’ reaction to a product; encouraging both new and repeat visitation and comparing different sectors within the industry to determine areas that may need improvement.

Therefore, having a clear understanding of the causes and nature of visitor satisfaction and dissatisfaction can

assist in the promotion and development of tourism destinations and enterprises. Over the last few decades there has been an increased need for finding an appropriate methodology to measure visitor satisfaction experiences for individual tourism destinations and enterprises. Visitor attitudes toward an experience may be determined by the importance attached to an attribute and an evaluation of the extent to which the object of the attitude possessed that particular attribute (Fisbein 1967 in Ryan & Cessford 2003). However, as outlined below, the concept of visitor satisfaction is a multi-dimensional and complicated concept with many potential issues associated with its measurement. The following section examines some of these key issues, however readers are directed to Ryan and Cessford (2003) for a more extensive analysis of these issues in the context of developing a visitor satisfaction monitoring methodology.

Approaches Toward Visitor Satisfaction Measurement The measurement of visitor satisfaction lies within the general area of consumer satisfaction within the disciplines of marketing and psychology. The marketing literature of consumer satisfaction is heavily influenced by the notion that satisfaction is measured by the difference between a consumer’s expectation of a product or service, and the actual performance of a product or service. There has been considerable research to determine the factors that influence customers’ satisfaction and how it is measured. These theories or concepts suggest that customers’ satisfaction can be measured. Ryan (1995, p. 41) suggests that ‘if tourist satisfaction is seen as the congruence of need and performance, then dissatisfaction can be perceived as the gap between expectation and experience’, suggesting that some type of gap analysis (between motives or expectations and performance or experiences) is required in tourist satisfaction research. According to Pearce (2005) this is the dominant tradition used to understand consumer satisfaction and is known as the expectancy or confirmation/disconfirmation theory, where the consumer is deemed to be satisfied if performance exceeds expectations (positive disconfirmation), dissatisfied if performance falls short of expectations (negative disconfirmation), and neutral if performance equals expectations (Oliver 1980, 1997). Kozak and Rimmington (2000) discuss in detail specific approaches that have been applied in researching customer satisfaction in the tourism industry including:

• Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry’s expectation-perception SERVQUAL gap model; • Oliver’s expectancy/disconfirmation theory; • Sirgy’s congruity model; and, • performance only models.

One of the issues with the SERVQUAL model is that it is predominately about service quality, which is only

one part of client satisfaction, which also includes non-quality dimensions (Oliver 1997). Performance (or satisfaction) only models suggest that it is the quality of the product or experience which is the most important determinant, and view satisfaction as a post hoc attitude. Some researchers have found that performance only approaches have had better success than expectation based approaches at predicting future visitor behaviour (Crompton & Love 1995). However, as Pearce (2005) rightly notes, performance based measures often do not provide the context for interpretation, as there is no measure of importance or expectations, making managerial decisions based on performance only problematic.

Furthermore, many researchers (Ryan 1995, Pearce 2005; Reisinger & Turner, 2003) have identified key

drivers that may assist our understanding of visitor satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth including past experience, cultural background, visitor motives, level of learning as well as engagement in the activity. The importance of critical incidents may also shape overall satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth (Ryan 1995). There has been a good deal of empirical research aimed at determining the factors or drivers that influence the disconfirmation measure of satisfaction. Some of this research has emphasised various attributes of the performance (such as restaurant service, accommodation quality, etc.), while others, particularly in psychology, have emphasised the role of emotional and personal characteristics. Factors such as culture, experience with the product/destination, peer group acceptance, desires, mood when surveyed, and ability to complete surveys may influence the measurement of visitor satisfaction (Weber 1997).


3

Pearce (2005) suggests that most consumer satisfaction research follows either an instrumental or expressive component of satisfaction. Instrumental components of satisfaction refer to the physical products or the means to the travellers’ goals, while the expressive components refer to the psychological and experience attached to more holistic and less tangible features. Pearce (2005) suggests that consumer satisfaction studies are mostly instrumental, which may not translate as effectively in tourism or visitor related studies. Postivity bias may be another issue that could affect visitor satisfaction measurement. Because of the nature of tourism visitors may provide high ranking scores of satisfaction, either because people are generally happy on holiday or due to social desirability (they want researchers to think they are happy with their experience). As Ryan and Cessford (2003 p. 467) suggest, because of constraints on time and cost, visitors will engage in value displacement ‘ … and will down-grade the importance of that which is unsatisfactory in terms of its contribution to the overall holiday experience’. This has several possible issues for researchers.

• Firstly, this may require good survey design by considering extending survey question scales to capture variability, or surveying respondents before their visit alongside post-visit evaluation.

• Secondly, this may require more context specific interpretation of the results to consider low satisfaction if someone scores the experience below 60% to 70% or under a score of three from a 5-point satisfaction scale.

All of these considerations have led some researchers in consumer satisfaction to question the reliability of

measuring visitor satisfaction. As Pearce (2005) explains, expectations are not so relevant or applicable for services that vary substantially or those that are only consumed occasionally (such as holidays or attraction visits). Furthermore, due to the nature of tourism a visit is made up of a number of recreational experiences, visitors may play several roles in a visit and different aspects of the visit may have greater weighting as a determinant of satisfaction, according to Ryan and Cessford (2003). There may be a fundamental difference between the quality of the performance/experience and the consumer’s satisfaction with the performance, as other variables (such as cultural background, level of involvement etc) may affect or predict overall satisfaction, as discussed above. Moreover, Pearce (2005) notes that the relative importance of specific components of the visitor experience are often not included or linked to overall satisfaction in performance only visitor studies. He suggests that each component attribute should be assessed and the satisfaction within that component should be separately measured so it can provide useful information for managerial analysis and action. Furthermore, the comparison of attribute assessment across attractions would provide useful information for managerial decision making, both at an individual attraction level and at a destination level.

An Importance-Performance Benchmarking Approach As discussed above, there is some debate about the appropriate measurement of visitor satisfaction, and the application of consumer behaviour satisfaction measurement models to the consumption of services (such as tourism and visitor attractions). However, researchers generally agree an overall satisfaction question should be complemented with measurement of the relative importance of individual attributes and their respective satisfaction from consumers, and potential gaps between the two examined. In some instances researchers have suggested that importance rather than expectation measures provide more advantages because of the rate of revisitation may be unknown or expected to be less than other services, and therefore expectations may be less important to managers (Crilley & Price 2006), or they may be difficult to measure in tourist or visitor satisfaction research (Pearce 2005).

Importance-performance analysis (IPA) approaches have been used in the past to graphically illustrate ‘the gap’ between the importance and satisfaction of individual attributes in a way that is both easy to understand and interpret through the use of matrices (Duke & Persia 1996), providing diagnostic value and potential benchmarking for managers. The researcher can plot the interaction between the product/service attribute importance scores and the performance scores on an action grid comprising four distinct quadrants (see Figure 1). The quadrants are separated by cross hairs represented by the mean scores for the overall importance and the mean scores for the overall performance. According to Crossley and Xu (1996) and Oh (2001) the possible strategies and actions for the 4 quadrants include:

1. Quadrant A concentrate effort here (to improve the performance) because the plots indicate an above average importance and a below average performance (satisfaction) rating. The organisation may need to focus on improving its performance.

2. Quadrant B keep up the good work has both an above average importance rating and an above average performance (satisfaction) rating. The organisation should stress these strengths in their marketing.

3. Quadrant C low priority (possibly ignore) because the plots indicate below average importance rating, but also below average performance (satisfaction) rating. These attributes may require less resource allocation and consideration by management because of their ranking.


4

4. Quadrant D possible overkill (unappreciated performance) because the plots indicate a below average importance but an above average performance (satisfaction). However, as Ryan and Cessford (2003) note, managers may develop marketing messages to encourage visitors to attach more importance to these attributes, or management could switch funding from these items to address more important issues, such as those in other quadrants.

Figure 1: Importance-Performance Grid Example

Concentrate here

(Quadrant A)

Keep up the good work

(Quadrant B)

Low Priority

(Quadrant C)

Possible overkill

(Quadrant D)

Source: Modified after Matilla and James (1977).

It should be noted that IPA is most useful as a diagnostic tool to provide evidence or data for managerial decision making. Performance-importance analysis was first used in the late 1970s by Martilla and James (1977), and over the last two decades it has been used in many difference contexts, including in:

• the evaluation of park facilities (Mengak et al. 1986; O’Leary et al. 1987; Hollenhorst et al. 1992; Wade & Eagles 2003);

• national park concessionaries (Burns 1988); • marketing (Guadagnolo 1985), • tourism policy (Evans & Chon 1989; Chon et al. 1991); and, • wildlife planning and management (Wright et al. 1991).

More recently the adoption and wide use of statistical tests and computer technology has meant that

performance-importance analysis has lost favour by some researchers. However, authors in the heritage management context discuss this technique as a possible visitor management tool (Hall & McArthur 1998), and it has been recently used to assess the importance and performance of destination attributes in Ireland (O’Leary & Deegan 2005) and in Australia through the Tourism Research Australia destination visitor survey program. This approach has a number of advantages over other forms of satisfaction monitoring:

• It provides an easy to use diagnostic tool which can be used to benchmark destinations and entities over

time and between each other. It is flexible, whereas models like SERVQUAL require consistency across companies and industries (Duke & Persia 1996). IPA can be adapted for varied purposes and survey attributes changed as required.

• It is easy to use and understand with results presented visually using mean scores and the cross hairs consist of overall mean scores on each axis, so it is useful for managers (Bennett, Dearden & Rollins 2003).

• It can identify areas which need further research and management attention (through anchoring with importance ratings) without sophisticated statistical analysis techniques.

• Disadvantages and issues commonly cited for this technique include: • Because mean scores are used, individual differences can be obscured giving a false impression and

possible bad decision making by managers which could affect all visitor groups or segments (Vaske et al. 1996).

• IPA lacks statistical testing ability and the ability to examine the prediction of the specific attributes or drivers of overall visitor satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth.

• The underlying premise of IPA was based on pre-consumption perceptions of an organisation (Martilla & James 1977) and not research asking about importance after the experience.

• There is a functional relationship between importance and performance, which may result in high correlations between these variables and possibly high importance scores with limited variation, as the attributes ranked are already important in their own right (Oh 2001). This can affect placement in the quadrant and possible misinterpretation by managers, with a bunching in the top right hand corner of the quadrant.

Impo

rtan

ce ra

ting

Performance (satisfaction) rating


5

However, several of these limitations can be addressed by using more advanced statistical analysis (such as factor or cluster analysis and regression) in conjunction with IPA. Some tourism and visitor researchers have combined the practical and user friendly approach of IPA with these advanced analysis techniques (Vaske et al. 1996, Duke & Persia 1996, Hudson & Shephard 1998, Ritchie 1998, Yu & Weiler 2000). The use of factor or cluster analysis on importance measures (motivations) can be used to segment visitors into groupings based on what is important to them (Crilley & Price 2006), while travel behaviour and visitor characteristics have also been used to segment visitors and their respective IPA scores (Wade & Eagles 2003), providing greater insight for managerial decision making.

The integration of expectations in IPA research and analysis has also been attempted. Pre-visit and post-visit IPA analysis was conducted by O’Leary and Deegan (2005), who discovered that the placement of pre-visit performance expectations or post-visit performance in the IPA grid was not affected, and only seven from 17 attributes were statistically different (with the largest gap being only – 0.25 from a 5-point scale). The extra resources and practical limitations in researching visitors pre-visit levels of importance or performance may be an issue for researchers and managers. Research has also demonstrated that the bunching of attributes on IPA grids may not necessarily occur and many examples show a spread across three to four quadrants (see Ritchie 1998, Wade & Eagles 2003, O’Leary & Deegan 2005 for examples).However Ryan & Cessford (2003) contradict Oh (2001) by demonstrating that the importance and satisfaction scores from their study correlated poorly with each other.

The visual presentation of the results (using IPA charts) can provide an opportunity for benchmarking both importance and satisfaction measures in a visually appealing way through the use of diagrams, so managers can view changes over time or between each other, assisting decision making and resource allocation. As Ryan and Cessford (2003 p. 496) state

… the use of importance-evaluation matrices permit field officers to have a better understanding not only of levels of satisfaction, but whether those levels relate to things that visitors regard as important. It is therefore recommended that an importance-evaluation paradigm be adopted [in visitor satisfaction monitoring]. Moreover, Pearce (2005) suggests that the monitoring of satisfaction over time by organisations is an

example of internal benchmarking, while external benchmarking can occur if consistent measures and comparisons between organisations are implemented. In this study, discussed in more detail in the next chapter, IPA analysis was used to measure and monitor visitor satisfaction with 10 built attractions in the ACT to examine issues with the sample overall as well as individual attractions using IPA graphs to visually present the data. The use of IPA as a possible tool to benchmark visitor satisfaction between attractions in the ACT and also individually (internal benchmarking), was also assessed as part of the project. The use of advanced statistical techniques to examine the drivers of overall satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth were also used, along with advanced statistical techniques to examine differences between key visitor segments and groups.

Summary This measurement of visitor satisfaction is crucial for monitoring the overall satisfaction of visitors, their intention to repeat visit and recommend an attraction visit. However, it is recognised that the measurement of visitor satisfaction is complex, multi-dimensional and may be influenced by a wide range of factors (including previous experiences, culture, and even mood). The dominant approach in measuring consumer satisfaction has emphasised the gap between expectations and performance of individual attributes as well as the overall satisfaction and loyalty of consumers. However, for experiences such as tourism or an attraction visit, expectations may be less relevant and difficult to accurately measure, and a post hoc approach after the experience may be a better approach to measure satisfaction and limit researcher intrusion. Furthermore, research has tended to be dominated by the measurement of instrumental or functional attributes, excluding the use of less tangible attributes (such as experiences). This research developed an importance-performance approach to benchmarking visitor satisfaction at attractions, assessing the importance and performance of a range of important tangible/instrumental attributes and experience/less tangible attributes, alongside overall satisfaction and loyalty measures. It also chose an IPA benchmarking approach so that results could be presented visually helping managerial decision making. The use of IPA in conjunction with more advanced statistical analysis was used to reduce some of the criticisms of this approach, but also to add value to the research through better understanding the underlying drivers or determinants of visitor satisfaction and loyalty, as well as to examine satisfaction and loyalty between groups or segments of visitors. The approach to this research is outlined in the next chapter.


6

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHOD

This section of the report outlines the design of the study and the survey instruments used to collect data on the satisfaction of visitors to built attractions in the ACT. It also discusses how the surveys were implemented and the sample size on which the results are based. Finally, this section outlines how the data were analysed, the internal reliability of the question scales used in this research as well as the study limitations.

Study and Survey Design As discussed in the previous chapter, although there is criticism and a range of issues in measuring visitor satisfaction, the need for relevant data and benchmarking is important for attraction managers. The aim of this particular project was to develop and test an approach to measuring and monitoring visitor satisfaction at attractions. The researchers suggested that the advantages of using IPA as a tool to measure, but also allow external and internal benchmarking, was one of the major reasons why it was chosen to be tested. Furthermore, many of the disadvantages of using this technique could be limited by including more advanced statistical techniques in conjunction with IPA, providing benefits for managers as well as researchers. Finally, this project was following the approach of Tourism Research Australia who is using IPA to examine destination satisfaction through their destination research program.

The visitor survey (see Appendix A) was designed with a number of sections to directly address the research objectives. The survey comprised five sections. The first section of the survey collected data on respondents’ visitation patterns to the ACT including:

• their origins • previous destination visitation levels • main purpose and length of stay. These questions were asked to create a profile of visitors, with non-local visitors only being asked about their

visit levels, purpose and length of stay. Attraction managers were adamant that local visitors should be included in the research as they represent about one third of all attraction visitors. Their loyalty and positive word of mouth are critical for Canberra’s VFR (Visiting Friends and Relatives) market. Section 2 asked visitors about their attraction visit. First, it asked respondents about the attraction that they were recruited at and were asked to complete their survey about. This would help in benchmarking visitor satisfaction across individual attractions to provide overall individual reports to the participating attractions. In this section they were also asked about previous visitation levels to the attraction, travel party size and composition as well as length of stay and sources of information used. It was expected that questions and attributes from the first two sections could be used to examine whether a relationship exists between visit characteristics and satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth (which was reported in the previous chapter). Most of the profile questions were adapted from the Tourism Research Australia destination satisfaction research to provide consistency.

Section 3 and 4 of the survey comprised the main satisfaction questions. As discussed in the previous chapter, previous studies have emphasised that an overall visitor satisfaction question should be complemented by analysis of the satisfaction with different attributes of the experience, to indicate what visitors may be satisfied or dissatisfied with. Furthermore, as Pearce (2005) notes the relative importance of components of the visitor experience are often not included or linked to overall satisfaction in visitor studies. Therefore, the importance of each individual attribute was measured alongside visitor satisfaction levels for each attribute. Ryan and Cessford (2003) found that in their study there was no conclusive difference between allowing respondents to rank together the importance and satisfaction of each attribute in the survey compared with ranking the importance of attributes separately before completing a ranking of their individual satisfaction levels. Other studies have suggested that overall service quality dimensions (or instrumental measures) should be complemented with expressive measures including experience dimensions or open ended qualitative comments, to provide more holistic and less tangible attribute measurement. It is for these reasons that Section 4 on visitor experiences was introduced and that qualitative open ended comments on good/happy and bad/unhappy experiences were included in Section 3. Furthermore, this was why respondents were asked whether they had encountered any problems, reported these problems and whether they were resolved to their satisfaction in Section 4.


7

A series of attributes for Section 3 and 4 were developed through using previous visitor satisfaction research conducted by researchers at the University of Canberra (Cegielski et al. 2005) coupled with industry workshops and a revised Delphi approach to rank the attributes. As Oh (2001 p. 625) suggests, ‘involving managers and consumer panels in the early process of IPA research is desirable, especially for developing a set of strategically important attributes’. An extensive list of attributes for Section 3 and 4 of the survey representing the core facilities/services and attraction experiences wads developed. A total of 31 attributes was identified by the industry workshops for Section 3 and a total of 13 for attraction experiences, which were used to comprise part of Section 4. The facilities and services ranged from displays, staff, food and retail outlets and other ancillary services. It should be noted that although many of the attractions were national institutions, many were quite different (botanic garden, war memorial) and so agreement on the core attributes in the survey required time and care. The list was developed and sent out for industry partners to rank, using a revised Delphi approach. The Delphi approach is a way to get industry experts to agree, or come to a consensus about complex and subjective issues (Garrod & Fyall 2005). A two round Delphi approach was used, with the initial round comprising the first ranking and the second round allowing industry partners to re-rank or change their responses after viewing the overall results of the first round. Partners were asked to rank the attraction facilities/services attributes to provide their top 15 (from 31) and for the experiences their top 10 (from 13). The initial attributes generated from the industry workshop and the results of the two rounds are illustrated in Appendix B. Considering the responses and the desire to have a short survey, a total of 13 attributes was selected for the facilities/services section of the survey and a total of 10 for the experiences section of the survey. An overall question was also provided at the bottom of each attribute list, to provide a macro level assessment of facilities/services and experiences, as well as the overall satisfaction question in Section 4 of the survey. It should be noted that managers noted that it was difficult to have any managerial control over food and beverages in their attraction as this service was outsourced, so this may be why it was not rated highly and included in the survey.

A 5-point Likert scale was used for the satisfaction and loyalty questions in Section 3 and 4 to be consistent

with the Tourism Research Australia studies. Furthermore, as suggested by Ryan and Cessford (2003) non-response options were provided to respondents when ranking their importance and satisfaction with individual attributes. Although theoretically no response for ratings of importance could be recoded ‘not at all important’ the researchers decided to leave a no response option for importance, as this could be recoded at a later date if required. In Section 4 a question on overall satisfaction was asked bearing in mind all aspects of their visit experience, while to measure loyalty a question on a repeat visit (if possible) and intention to recommend to friends and family was used.

The final section (Section 5) consisted of questions on the profile of the respondent, including their gender,

age, marital and employment status as well as their income level. All of these questions were from the Tourism Research Australia destination satisfaction survey and are standard Tourism Research Australia questions. These questions would be used not only to examine the profile of respondents, but to examine whether differences existed in satisfaction levels and loyalty as a result of socio-demographics.

Survey Implementation The visitor survey study period commenced in March 2007 after a pre-test by researchers and attraction partners and finished in April 2008. A pilot study was not deemed necessary as the survey was based on similar survey research which had been significantly tested through cognitive testing and a pilot test (by Tourism Research Australia), and many questions were standard Tourism Research Australia questions.

The data collection procedure was based at the 10 built attractions that took part in this project which are listed in Section 2 of the survey. The attractions were all national institutions and the majority (seven) were free entry attractions while three had entry fees. From the seven that had free entry, two of those only charge visitors for entry into special exhibitions. All but four attractions were located in the Parliamentary Precinct while the others were located 10 to 15 minutes drive away.

A postcard was developed with a perforated edge outlining the nature of this research, the incentive prize (a

draw for $500 cash), and is outlined in Appendix C. Respondents were asked for their name and e-mail contact details on the perforated part of the postcard, which could be detached and provided to the field worker or attraction worker, while they could take the remainder of the postcard with the details of the research and prize as a reminder. For those respondents who did not have e-mail or preferred not to provide an e-mail address their postal details were collected and a postal survey was sent to their home address. Two types of procedures were implemented:


8

• First, on randomly selected days field workers were used to collect the details from visitors across the

nominated attractions for two days each month. • Second, attractions provided in[-kind support through distributing postcards to visitors at the attractions

on a nominated four days a month at information desks, by tour guides or at reception when paying entry fees. The attraction determined the most appropriate distribution method and staff were provided with guidelines and a briefing from the research team.

The project manager collected respondent details from attractions on a regular basis, providing regular

contact and monitoring of distribution levels. In some instances it was decided to reallocate field workers to assist attractions that were having difficulties recruiting respondents (due to staffing or resource issues) and allowing larger attractions or attractions with key contact points (say through entry fees) to collect respondent details themselves across nominated random days during each month. Therefore, a random sampling method was employed throughout the duration of the project.

Respondent details where then entered into a list management function within SurveyMonkey (a web based

survey tool) and respondents received an e-mail with the web survey URL for completion within one week of collecting their details. Postal surveys were sent out between 7–10 days from collection of respondent details. Follow ups were undertaken approximately two weeks later from those respondents who had not responded to the first request. Postal surveys were directly entered into SurveyMonkey and are included in the results. Approximately 15% of the sample requested and completed postal surveys. Respondents may have received more than one postcard and research invitation and may have completed the survey more than once. If this was the case respondents were told in the survey to complete all questions for the attraction at which they received the invitation. It was hoped that approximately 10% of all responses would be across the 10 attractions (a proportional sample) as benchmarking was the purpose of the research. However, some attractions had difficulty distributing postcards and one withdrew from the study after the first quarter and was replaced by another attraction. Attraction partners were provided with quarterly reports including an executive summary and top line data benchmarking themselves against the sample as a whole.

A total of 8,291 surveys were distributed by mid April and 3,929 surveys were completed or were returned

by late April indicating a return response rate of 47.4%. However, not all of the questions were completed by respondents leaving 3,569 useable surveys (or a useable response rate of 43%). Based on an estimated attraction visitor population size the results are confident to +/-3% margin of error at the 95% level of confidence.

Analysis Techniques The visitor survey data were downloaded from SurveyMonkey andentered into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and frequency and cross tabulations were undertaken. As Ryan and Cessford (2003, p. 477) note in discussing the use of IPA

…from a statistical perspective this multi-attribute mode of questioning offers many advantages, including an ability to:

• Test the rigour and internal consistency of scales and items through multi-discriminate analysis; • Test for statistically significant differences between sub-groups based on socio-demographic variables; • Create new groupings based on attitudes through cluster analysis; • Reduce subsequent scales based on identifying those items with most discriminatory power.

Therefore, the analysis linked the use of IPA with more advanced statistical techniques to improve the

validity and reliability of this approach. Furthermore, the examination of internal reliability and validity of the scales was an important part of testing this approach to measuring and benchmarking visitor satisfaction at attractions.

Some data, in the visitor profile and travel behaviour section of the results, were recoded to help better

understand satisfaction levels on attributes that attraction managers consider important (origins, travelling with children and repeat visitation). Statistical analysis was undertaken on these variables through independent sample t tests and only differences at the 95% level of confidence are reported in the results chapters. A linear regression analysis was applied to determine the ability of the individual facilities/services and experience attributes to predict overall satisfaction, and likelihood of repeat visitation and recommendation to others. The results of this analysis are outlined in Chapter 4.


9

As Ryan and Cessford (2003) suggest, more advanced analysis can be conducted on visitor segments and their respective satisfaction and loyalty levels. Furthermore, examining distinct segments and their characteristics alongside their satisfaction can provide valuable insights for attraction managers. Therefore the importance attitudinal ratings were used to cluster (segment) visitors into distinct groups. A furthest neighbour Wards hierarchical analysis was first undertaken to calculate the number of possible clusters based on visitor responses to the importance of both the facilities/services and experience attributes. However, due to the size of the sample SPSS had difficulty computing the cluster analysis. Therefore a random 10% of the sample was used to perform the cluster analysis. A random 10% was attempted three times, and each time four distinct segments were found. Once the number was found the researchers then used a k-means analysis to produce the cluster membership details for the full sample, which then allowed comparisons between the cluster (segments) and their overall satisfaction scores, intention to return and recommend a visit as well as their socio-demographics and travel characteristics. The results of this analysis are presented and discussed in Chapter 5.

As secondary data across the 10 attraction partners is difficult to determine, the representativeness of the

sample is unable to be verified. However, attraction managers have indicated that the proportion of their local visitors range from 30–40% (our results show 33%). Other measures include a reported similarity by gender and interstate origins. However, as many attractions do not undertake their own research, it is difficult to assess the accuracy of the sample, despite a random sampling procedure being implemented.

As well as this overall report, it should be noted that each of the 10 attractions received an individual report

outlining the results specific to their attraction alongside the full sample results, to aid their individual decision making and to assist future research and benchmarking efforts.

Qualitative comments from the open ended questions on aspects that respondents were happy/good or

unhappy/bad were analysed by randomly selecting 10% across the sample (approximately 350) and grouping the comments into similar themes. The same procedure was used for individual attraction reports (10% of their sample). This has been used in previous research (Ryan & Cessford 2003) and was suggested as a good balance between providing additional insights at a reduced time/cost for the research team.

Internal Reliability and Validity Five point Likert scales were used to measure visitors’ importance and satisfaction with individual attributes as well as with the questions measuring overall satisfaction, intention to return visit and recommend the attraction to family and friends. For quantitative research the reliability and internal consistency of individual attributes are often tested as well as testing the correlation between the overall satisfaction rating, loyalty and the individual attributes relating to satisfaction (to test inter-item reliability of the scales). Cronbach alpha scores for testing the item-total correlation between all of the individual items provided a .87 for the importance items and .93 for the satisfaction items, which show high reliability and exceed the minimum standard (.70), suggested by Nunnaly (1978).

Construct validity was examined by assessing the relationship of the scales with other constructs or indicators to examine convergent and predictive validity. To test for convergent (concurrent) validity, the survey included overall questions on visitor satisfaction, intention to return and recommend. The individual scale items were tested against the overall visitor satisfaction scale and received a .96 Cronbach alpha score, while intention to return scored .95 and intention to recommend to friends and relatives scored .96, all showing high reliability. Guttman Split-Half and Spearman-Brown scores for reliability between the overall satisfaction score and intention to return and recommend were performed and recorded a .52 for return to the attraction and .75 for recommending it. To assess predictive validity, the correlation between the overall satisfaction score and intention to return and recommend were examined by using a Pearson correlation coefficient.

The results are also indicated in Table 1, and overall show .38 for a return visit and .61 for recommending a

visit. The weak correlation between satisfaction and intention to return has been noted in previous studies (Ryan & Cessford 2003), due to difficulties in respondents undertaking a return visit. A test was therefore undertaken to see whether this differed by local visitors and overseas visitors. The correlation between overall satisfaction and intention to return was higher for local visitors (.43) than for international visitors (.30), while intention to recommend had a higher correlation from international visitors (.56) than for local visitors (.52). It appears that overall satisfaction is more highly correlated with intention to recommend than to revisit at a later date.


10

Table 1: Measures of Reliability/Validity

Measures Scores Reliability (internal consistency of the importance scales) .83 Reliability (internal consistency of the satisfaction scales) .97 Convergent validity

• scales with overall satisfaction • scales with intention to return • scales with intention to recommend

.96 .95 .96

Predictive validity • overall satisfaction with intention to return • overall satisfaction and intention to recommend

.38 .61

Limitations All research has limitations as a result of time and financial constraints. This research had several limitations that the reader should bear in mind, including the following points:

• Issues over the measurement of visitor satisfaction still remain and the approach undertaken in this project is not considered perfect. However, it does represent an approach that has support from managers as well as researchers. Other approaches (such as using expectations rather than importance dimensions or SERVQUAL) will yield different results, but they may not be as suitable to implement due to previously discussed issues over their use on visitors, tourism and their lack of flexibility.

• A pre-visit survey of expectations or the importance and expected performance was not undertaken. Firstly, due to the fact that many researchers believe measuring visitor satisfaction should be a post hoc activity; Secondly, due to difficulties in respondents completing a survey before entering an attraction. The data collection process was implemented in a way to not affect the visitor experience and was developed along similar lines to that implemented by Tourism Research Australia.

• In retrospect, perhaps consumers could have been involved in the identification and selection of important attributes, along with the industry as suggested by Oh (2001). The attributes chosen for Section 3 and 4 of the survey were those that were deemed most important by attraction managers only, and were not the original extensive list of 44. This list could have been extended or limited through visitor feedback and/or factor analysis in a pilot study to determine the most important attributes prior to the full implementation of the survey.

• This research was undertaken during a defined time period (March 2007 to April 2008) and provides a snapshot estimate of visitor satisfaction and loyalty levels at mainly cultural attractions in Canberra. Data should be collected on a more regular period (every 2–5 years) so validity and reliability can be checked as well as to enable longer term benchmarking.

• Caution should be exercised over the interpretation of the IPA grids and where attributes lie with respect to the four quadrants. Managers should use this research as a diagnostic tool to prompt further research or assist managerial decision making. It is not intended to fully explain why things may be rated the way that they are, although some open ended comments may provide additional insights, as may more detailed analysis through regression and cluster (segment) analysis.

Summary The section described in detail the design of the research process. A survey was designed to examine visitor ratings of both the importance and satisfaction with attraction facility and experience attributes. Questions on overall satisfaction, intention to repeat visit and recommend were combined with qualitative open ended comments on experiences that visitors felt were good/bad or those that they were happy/unhappy with. Previous research, an industry workshop and a Delphi approach were used to generate and rank a list of relevant attributes to be included in the survey. Socio-demographics and travel party characteristics were collected and used to understand differences in visitor satisfaction. A data collection process lasted for 13 months across the 10 attraction partners through a combination of field workers and in-kind attraction support to recruit visitors on random nominated days. Respondents were asked to complete a web based survey, and approximately 15% that were unable to complete a web based survey completed a postal survey. Follow ups were undertaken with visitors and a total of 3,569 useable completed surveys were collected at the end of April 2008, recording a useable response rate of 43%.


11

IPA was combined by the use of more advanced statistical analysis to examine differences by visitor socio-demographics and travel characteristics, and segmentation was undertaken using the importance rating of the individual attributes. Furthermore, linear regression analysis was undertaken to examine the individual determinants of visitor satisfaction and loyalty. A random sample of 10% from the open ended comments was used to summarise the main themes, presented in this report.

The internal reliability (consistency) of the scale items was high, with the individual attribute scales

correlating highly with overall satisfaction, intention to return visit and recommend (convergent validity). However, the predictive validity between the overall satisfaction scale and intention to repeat visit (if possible) was lower compared to intention to recommend the attraction to friends and family.

Finally, this section outlined the limitations of the study, which should be kept in mind by the reader when

reviewing the results.


120 5 10 15 20 25

85+

75-84

65-74

55-64

45-54

35-44

25-34

16-24

Chapter 3

RESULTS

This chapter begins with an outline of the profile of respondents who answered the survey before discussing their travel behaviour (profile) and attraction behaviour. The chapter will follow with an outline of visitor importance and satisfaction levels with attraction facilities and services using percentages, mean scores and IPA analysis coupled with open ended comments. It will then outline visitor importance and satisfaction levels with the experiences that the attractions may offer in a similar way to the previous section in this chapter, before examining respondents overall satisfaction and loyalty. Advanced analyses are located in Chapters 4 and 5.

Socio-Demographic Profile Study sample respondents were asked a number of socio-demographic questions to examine the nature of the sample. Data collected included gender, age, marital status, employment and income. The profile of visitors was also used, where appropriate, to examine differences in importance, satisfaction and loyalty, which are outlined later in this chapter.

Gender and Age Over 59.6% of total sample respondents were female compared with 40.4% of respondents who were male. As Table 2 and Figure 2 indicate, over 22.3% of respondents were aged between 35 and 44 years of age, while over 21.5% of respondents were aged between 45 and 54 years and 13.2% were aged 65 years or over.

Table 2: Sample Age Distribution

(n=3379) Age Frequency Percent 16–24 273 8.1 25–34 487 14.4 35–44 755 22.3 45–54 728 21.5 55–64 689 20.4 65–74 349 10.3 75–84 89 2.6 85+ 9 0.3

Figure 2: Sample Age Distribution (%)


130.51.1

2.9

5.3

6.9

11.8

18.5

15.4

9.9

5.5

10.6

11.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

$1-$4,199$4,200-$8,299$8300-$15599$15600-$25999$26000-$36399$36400-$51999$52000-$77999$78000-$103999$104,000-$129999$130,000-$149,999$150,000+Don’t know

Marital and Employment Status A total of 22.7% of respondents were single (never married, divorced, separated, widowed and not part of a couple), while 77.3% were part of a couple (married, defacto, living together). The vast majority (62.3%) of respondents were employed in full or part time employment, while 21.0% were retired and 14.3% were studying or undertaking home duties or not currently employed/looking for work. Occupation was not asked in this research as the ABS has already indicated that those who visit cultural attractions are more likely to hold professional or managerial occupations.

Children A total of 29.3% of respondents indicated that they had children aged 14 years of younger who live in their house for at least 50% of the time. While 43.9% of those stated that the youngest child was between 0–5 years while 56.1% indicated that the youngest was between 6–14 years. A total of 19.2% aged over 25 years had children aged between 15 and 24 years living with them. Furthermore, 25.4% of respondents indicated that they aged under 24 years and lived at home while 74.8% did not live at home.

Household Income Respondents were asked to identify their total household income per annum before tax. The results in Table 3 and Figure 3 demonstrate that over 33.9% of respondents had a combined household income of over A$52,000-$103,999. twentysix percent of respondents had incomes between A$104,999 and A$150,000, while only 4.5% of respondents noted that their total household income was less that A$15,559 per annum.

Table 3: Sample Total Household Income (A$) Per Annum

(n=3379) Weekly Annual Frequency Percent $1–$79 $1–$4,199 17 0.5 $80–$159 $4,200–$8,299 37 1.1 $160–$299 $8300–$15599 98 2.9 $300–$499 $15600–$25999 178 5.3 $500–$699 $26000–$36399 232 6.9 $700–$999 $36400–$51999 399 11.8 $1,000–$1,499 $52000–$77999 624 18.5 $1,500–$1,999 $78000–$103999 519 15.4 $2,000–$2,499 $104,000$129999 333 9.9 $2,500–$2,899 $130,000$149,999 185 5.5 $2,900+ $150,000+ 359 10.6 Don’t Know Don’t know 398 11.8

Figure 3: Study Sample Total Household Income (A$) Per Annum (%)


14

Summary Approximately 60% of respondents were female and approximately 44% were aged between 35 and 54 years of age. The vast majority (77.3%) were couples, employed in either full or part time employment, while 21% were retired and 14.3% were studying or undertaking home duties. Nearly 30% had children aged under 14 years living at their house for at least half of their time, and half of those with children living with them were aged between 6 and 14 years old. Household income varied amongst attraction visitors, with a large range across the income combined household income categories. A total of 33.9% of visitor households earned between $52,000 and $103,999, while 10.6% earned $150,000 or over per annum.

Travel and Attraction Behaviour Study sample respondents were asked a number of questions about their attraction visit and visit to Canberra if they were non-local attraction visitors. Data collected included visitor origins, and for non-local visitors destination visit levels, purpose of travel and trip length of stay. All visitors, including local attraction visitors, were asked about their attraction visit, including the attraction they visited and completed the satisfaction questions about; level of previous visitation; number and composition of visiting party; length of stay at the attraction and finally, information sources used to choose their attraction. The travel and attraction behaviour of visitors was also used, where appropriate, to examine differences in importance, satisfaction and loyalty, which are outlined within Chapter 4 and 5.

Visitor Origins A total of 92.7% of respondents in the sample were Australian compared with 7.3% who were overseas visitors. From those that were from overseas countries, Table 4 illustrates that 31.0% of the total international sample were from the UK, who comprised 29.9% of international overnight visitors (a much higher number than International Visitor Survey (IVS) statistics conducted by Tourism Research Australia captured in 2007). Furthermore, a number of international overnight visitors from the United States were surveyed (20.1% compared to 13.0% from the IVS) and New Zealand (14.1% compared to 9.0% from the IVS). Fewer respondents from China (0.5% compared to 10.0% from the IVS) and Other countries were surveyed (32.1% compared to 45.0% from the IVS). This is not surprising considering that the survey instrument was not translated into foreign languages, reducing the ability of some international respondents to complete the survey.

Table 4: Sample International Origins Compared with IVS

(n=261) Country of Origin Frequency Sample Percent International Overnight1 UK 81 31.0 29.9 (14.0) Other 78 29.9 32.1 (45.0) USA 52 19.9 20.1 (13.0) New Zealand 33 12.6 14.1 (9.0) Singapore/Malaysia/Hong Kong/Thailand 13 5.0 3.3 (9.0) China 4 1.5 0.5 (10.0)

1ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percent, based on the year ending December 2007.

With respect to domestic visitor origins, Table 5 and Figure 4 demonstrate that the largest proportion of respondents originated from the local area of ACT/Queanbeyan (34% of the sample), followed by other New South Wales (27.8%), Victoria (15.1%) and Queensland (10.5%). However, due to the nature of Canberra the local area was defined as ACT and Queanbeyan (part of NSW). Therefore, comparison with Tourism Research Australia NVS (National Visitor Survey) statistics including New South Wales is indicative only. Figures for other states and territories appear slightly higher especially for Victoria, South Australia and Queensland, compared to the NVS data.


15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Northern Territory

Tasmania

South Australia

Queensland

Western Australia

Victoria

New South Wales

ACT/Queanbeyan

Table 5: Sample Domestic Origins Compared with NVS

(n=3301) Domestic Origins Frequency Sample Percent Domestic Overnight1,2 ACT/Queanbeyan 1121 34.0 - Other NSW 918 27.8 35.4 (65.0) Victoria 498 15.1 24.5 (17.0) Queensland 348 10.5 17.9 (10.0) South Australia 178 5.4 9.2 (4.0) Western Australia 156 4.7 8.4 (2.0) Tasmania 68 2.1 Northern Territory 14 0.4 4.6 (2.0)

1ACTC comparable figures are provided in brackets alongside the sample percent, based on the year ending December 2007. 2NSW does not include ACT/Queanbeyan

Figure 4: Sample Domestic Origins (%)

Previous Destination Visitation As Table 6 and Figure 5 indicate non-local respondents were asked if they had visited the ACT in the last three years and the last 12 months. A total of 52.5% indicated that had visited only once in the last three years (suggesting that this was their only visit during this period), while 31.7% indicated they had only visited two to four times in the last three years. A total of 72% had visited once in the last 12 months followed by 23.3% indicating they had visited two to four times. On average non-local visitors had visited Canberra 4.5 times in the last three years, and 2.4 in the last 12 months.

Table 6: Previous Destination Visitation Levels of Non-Local Visitors

(n=2300-2444) Last 3 years Frequency Percent Once 1282 52.5 2 to 4 774 31.7 5 to 10 272 11.1 Last 12 months Frequency Percent Once 1656 72.0 2 to 4 536 23.3 5 to 10 65 2.8 11 or more 43 1.9


160 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Holidays

Stop over point

Business meeting or conference

Visit Friends

Attend an event or exhibition

Visit Family

Visit specific attraction(s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

One 2 to 4 5 to 10 >10

Last 3 years Last 12 months

Figure 5: Previous Destination Visitation Levels of Non-Local Visitors (%)

Main Purpose of Visit Non-local respondents were asked their main purpose of travelling to the ACT with 37.0% noting that their main purpose of visit was to visit specific attraction(s), while 19.2% suggested visiting family (see Table 7 and Figure 6). This was followed by 14.2% who indicated their main purpose was to attend an event or exhibition.

Table 7: Non-Local Main Purpose of Travel

(n=2448) Main Purpose Frequency PercentVisit specific attraction(s) 905 37.0 Visit family 470 19.2 Attend an event or exhibition 347 14.2 Visit friends 267 10.9 Business meeting or conference 215 8.8 Stop over point 93 3.8 Holidays 90 3.7 Other 61 2.5

Figure 6: Non-Local Main Purpose of Travel (%)


17

Length of Stay The average length of stay of all respondents was 3.8 nights (3.8 for domestic visitors and 5.3 for international visitors). The average length of stay from NVS data suggest an average of 2.7 nights for domestic pleasure/holiday, while for the VFR sector average length of stay was 3.4 nights. The IVS suggests that for the year ending December 2007 the average length of stay for pleasure/holiday sector was four nights for international overnight visitors, and for the VFR sector the average length of stay was 12.6 nights. A total of 52.3% of respondents stayed between one and three nights in the ACT, compared with 40.1% who stayed between four or more nights. Compared to available NVS and IVS data, the study sample appear to be staying slightly longer in the ACT (see Table 8).

Table 8: Sample Length of Stay

(n=2446) Length of Stay Frequency Total Percent Domestic Percent International PercentDay Trip 186 7.6 7.4 9.2 One night 322 13.2 12.7 17.5 2 nights 517 21.1 21.3 19.5 3 nights 441 18.0 18.5 14.3 4 or more nights 980 40.1 40.1 39.4

Attraction Visitation Table 9 and Figure 7 indicate how many visitors agreed to participate in this research at a particular attraction. Visitors to the Australian War Memorial contributed a total of 15.9% of the overall sample compared with 14.2% from the Old Parliament House and 13.7% from the National Gallery of Australia. The National Archives of Australia commenced in the second quarter of the study, and the data also indicate that a small proportion of attractions may have had difficulties in distributing postcards vital for this research. Although the project aimed for a proportional sample (10%) across the 10 attractions it was decided not to delete data from the high responding attractions as responses may have been needed for further detailed analysis described later in the report in Chapter 4 and 5.

Table 9: Attraction Visited and Survey Completed About

(n=3569) Frequency Percent

Australian War Memorial 566 15.9 Old Parliament House 507 14.2 National Gallery of Australia 489 13.7 Australian National Botanic Gardens 404 11.3 National Museum of Australia 379 10.6 Questacon 372 10.4 Royal Australian Mint 315 8.8 National Capital Exhibition 263 7.4 Australian Institute of Sport 148 4.1 National Archives of Australia 126 3.5


18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

National Archives of Australia

Australian Institute of Sport

National Capital Exhibition

Royal Australian Mint

Questacon

National Museum of Australia

Australian National BotanicGardens

National Gallery of Australia

Old Parliament House

Australian War Memorial

Figure 7: Attraction Visited and Survey Completed About (%)

Previous Attraction Visitation Attraction visitors were asked how many times they had visited the attraction in which they completed the survey in the last three years and the last 12 months, and the results are displayed in Table 10 and Figure 8. A total of 57.4% indicated that this was their first visit in the last three years. A total of 72.2% had visited once in the last 12 months, followed by 25.3% indicating two to four previous visits in the last three years and 19.9% had two to four previous visits in the last 12 months. The average numbers of times that this attraction had been visited over the last three years was 4.8 times, while over the last 12 months respondents had visited it 2.4 times on average. This is in part due to the large proportion of visitors from the local area.

Table 10: Sample Previous Attraction Visitation Levels

(n=3565-3559) Last 3 years Frequency PercentOnce 2042 57.4 2 to 4 899 25.3 5 to 10 362 10.2 11 or more 256 7.2 Last 12 months Frequency PercentOnce 2575 72.2 2 to 4 708 19.9 5 to 10 190 5.3 11 or more 92 2.6


19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Once 2 to 4 5 to 10 10 or more

Last 3 years Last 12 months

19.4

0.3

74.4

5.9

> 5 hours

< 1 hour

>3 hours – 5 hours

1 hour – 3 hours

Figure 8: Sample Previous Attraction Visitation Levels (%)

Length of Stay As Table 11 and Figure 9 indicate a high proportion of visitors average length of stay was between one hour and three hours (74.4%). Over 5.9% of respondent’s average length of stay was for less than one hour and 19.7% average length of stay was for three or more hours. The average length of stay based on the mean score was 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes). Local visitors spent slightly less time at attractions compared to non-local visitors.

Table 11: Sample Length of Stay

(n=3213) Length of Stay Frequency Percent < 1 hour 189 5.9 1 hour – 3 hours 2391 74.4 >3 hours – <5 hours 623 19.4 >5 hours 10 0.3

Figure 9: Sample Length of Stay (%)


20

0.4

1.9

2.4

4.4

9.3

10.1

19

26

26.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Business associates travelling together- with spouse

Business associates travelling together- without spouse

(non-school) Sporting group /community group or club

School, uni, college group (includingsporting)

Friends or relatives travelling together -with children

Travelling alone

Friends or relatives travelling together -without children

Family group - parents and children

Adult couple (in a relationship sense;married/defacto)

Group Composition and Size Respondents were asked to note their attraction visit composition and the size of their group, with the results presented in Table 12 and Figure 10. The results indicate that 26.4% of respondents were in an adult couple (in a relationship sense; married/defacto), followed by a family group—parents and children (26.0%) and friends or relatives travelling together—without children (19.0%). The average group size was highest with those who were business associates travelling with or without their spouse (12.2 people), followed by travelling in school or sporting/community groups (8.4 people). The average group size for those who travelled with friends or relatives with children was 3.3 people. The high number of people travelling together as business associates may indicate conference or convention delegates.

Table 12: Sample Group Composition (%) and Average Group Size

(n=3566) Group Composition Frequency Percent Average Adult couple (in a relationship sense; married/defacto) 940 26.4 2.0 Travelling alone 361 10.1 1.0 Friends or relatives travelling together—with children 333 9.3 Family group - parents and children 928 26.0 3.3

Friends or relatives travelling together—without children 677 19.0 5.0 School, uni, college group (including sporting) 156 4.4 (non-school) Sporting group / community group or club 86 2.4 8.4

Business associates travelling together—without spouse 68 1.9 Business associates travelling together—with spouse 16 0.4 12.2

Figure 10: Sample Group Composition (%)


21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Motoring Associations

A travel agent

Advertising / travel articles or documentaries(TV, radio or print)

None

The internet

Tourist Office / Visitor Information Centre

Travel book, guide or brochure

Friends or relatives

Been there before

Attraction Information Sources Table 13 and Figure 11 indicate the key attraction information sources included previous experience with respondents having visited there before (42.7%) or used friends and relatives (26.7%), indicating the importance of word of mouth recommendation and repeat visitation. Travel books, guide or brochure were used by 18.5% of respondents followed by a Tourist Office/Visitor Information Centre (14.5%) and the Internet (14.4%).

Table 13: Sample Attraction Information Source Usage

(n=3569) Source Frequency Percent Been there before 1525 42.7 Friends or relatives 954 26.7 Travel book, guide or brochure 661 18.5 Tourist Office/Visitor Information Centre 517 14.5 The Internet 514 14.4 None 369 10.3 Advertising/travel articles or documentaries (TV, radio or print) 333 9.3 Motoring Associations 36 1.0 A travel agent 35 1.0

Figure 11: Sample Attraction Information Source Usage (%)

Summary This section outlined attraction and visitation behaviour (of non-local visitors) and illustrated that over 90% of visitors surveyed were Australian, with over one-third of Australian visitors from the local area (ACT/Queanbeyan), and approximately 28% from ‘other NSW.’ From the 7.3% that were international visitors, the majority were from the United Kingdom and other countries. A total of 52.5% of non-local visitors had visited Canberra once in the last three years (this visit), followed by 31.7% between two and four times, while 72% had visited once in the last 12 months. The main purpose of a visit was to visit specific attraction(s) by 37% of non-local visitors, followed by visiting family (19.2%). Average length of stay was 3.8 nights, slightly longer than NVS/IVS data. A total of 72.2% of attraction visitors had visited the attraction once in the last 12 months (on this visit), stayed for on average 2 hours and 30 minutes, with the majority either travelling as an adult couple or family group—parents and children. The most used attraction visitor information sources were previous experience (42.7%), followed by friends and relatives (26.7%) and a travel book, guide or brochure (18.5%).


22

Importance-Satisfaction with Attraction Facilities and Services This section presents the results related to the importance and satisfaction levels related to the attraction facilities and services. First, it begins by presenting the overall percentage results and the mean importance-performance analysis (including charts). Second, it presents a gap analysis between the importance-performance results and uses IPA (Importance-Performance analysis) charts to examine differences based on socio-demographics and travel characteristics, to further assist managerial decision making. A similar process is applied in the following section, which examines attraction experiences specifically.

Importance-Satisfaction Scores Table 14 indicates when visiting attractions (59.1%) respondents agree that ‘clear explanation of displays’ are very important while 56.7% stated that the ‘quality of service’ followed by 56.4% noting ‘overall, facilities and services at this attraction’ were very important. The attributes ‘value for money of retail goods’, ‘interactive and electronic displays’ scored higher ratings as neither important nor unimportant. They also were rated by approximately 13–15% of respondents as being not important or not at all important, indicating they were of lesser importance than other facilities and services.

Table 14: Sample Assessment of Attribute Importance (%)

Total Sample (n=3095-3418) Attribute

Not at all Important

Not Important

Neither Important Nor

Unimportant

Important Very Important

Clear explanation of displays 0.6 0.8 3.7 35.8 59.1

Quality of service 0.4 0.7 4.6 37.7 56.7

Overall, facilities and services at this attraction

0.3 0.5 2.8 40.0 56.4

Parking facilities 1.3 1.9 7.1 35.7 53.9

Appropriateness of displays 0.6 1.0 5.4 39.8 53.2

Overall atmosphere 0.2 0.6 3.2 43.1 52.8

Helpful human guides 1.1 2.6 9.1 35.4 51.9

Maps and information sources for the attraction

0.6 1.3 6.2 40.0 51.9

A range of displays 0.6 1.3 6.9 40.5 50.6

Good first impression/ Welcome

0.8 1.3 5.5 43.5 48.9

Front reception information 0.8 1.8 8.4 41.7 47.2

Value for money of retail goods

2.6 5.3 20.8 36.0 35.3

Interactive displays 3.8 9.3 24.2 34.4 28.3

Electronic displays 4.6 10.7 32.1 35.1 17.5


23

Table 15 illustrates respondents level of satisfaction with the attraction facilitates and services, indicating that they were very satisfied with the ‘overall atmosphere’ (64.2%) at the attraction, followed by ‘overall, facilities and services at this attraction’ (62.9%) and ‘helpful human guides’ (62.4%). Satisfaction with these attributes was closely followed by ‘good first impression/welcome’ (61.5%) and ‘appropriateness of displays’ (60.7%). Similar to lower levels of importance, lower levels of satisfaction and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied were recorded for ‘interactive and electronic displays’ as well as the ‘value for money of retail goods.’ However, it should be noted that these responses are only of those respondents that rated these attributes, and visitors were given an option of a ‘not applicable/did not use’ response, which is discussed next.

Table 15: Sample Assessment of Attribute Satisfaction (%)

Total Sample (n=2677-3418)

Attribute

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither Satisfied

nor Dissatisfied

Fairly Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Overall atmosphere 0.6 2.0 4.9 28.3 64.2

Overall, facilities and services at this attraction

0.6 2.2 5.0 29.3 62.9

Helpful human guides 1.1 2.6 11.4 22.5 62.4

Good first impression/ Welcome

0.8 2.2 6.8 28.8 61.5

Appropriateness of displays 0.6 2.3 6.5 29.8 60.7

Quality of service 0.5 1.7 8.6 29.4 59.7

A range of displays 0.8 3.1 8.4 28.6 59.0

Clear explanation of displays 0.9 2.7 7.0 31.5 57.8

Front reception information 0.9 2.3 11.9 30.0 55.0

Parking facilities 1.8 4.4 10.3 29.1 54.4

Maps and information sources for the attraction

0.8 3.6 11.4 33.1 51.2

Interactive displays 1.0 3.8 20.9 29.4 44.9

Electronic displays 1.1 3.2 23.1 31.1 41.5

Value for money of retail goods

1.3 5.1 24.9 32.7 36.0

The use of ‘no opinion’ for the importance of attributes and ‘not applicable/did not use’ for the importance

and satisfaction of attributes was to indicate the level of use and allow ratings for only those respondents that felt able to respond. As indicated in Chapter 2 the ability to provide respondents with a ‘no response’ option for attributes that they did not use has been deemed important by some researchers. Table 16 indicates respondents who did not have an opinion on the importance of facilities and services at the attraction visited and those that did not use the item. A total of 10.6% of respondents did not have an opinion on the ‘value for money of retail goods’ followed by 8.3% each who had no opinion on ‘electronic displays’ and ‘interactive displays’. The table also indicates that 22.7% of respondents did not use or stated ‘not applicable’ for their level of satisfaction for ‘value for money of retail goods’, while 19.7% chose this response for ‘electronic displays’ and ‘interactive displays’ (19.3%). This is particularly important to include these choices, not only to allow respondents to rate the attributes appropriately, but also under the circumstances of a project with multiple partners where some may not offer electronic displays for instance.


24

Table 16: Sample Rating No Opinion/Did Not Use (%)

(n=2677-3418)

Attribute

Importance Rating No Opinion

(n=3095-3418)

Satisfaction Rating Not applicable/did not use

(n=2677-3418) Value for money of retail goods 10.6 22.7 Electronic displays 8.3 19.7 Interactive displays 8.3 19.3 Helpful human guides 5.1 10.9 Parking facilities 6.7 10.0 Front reception information 4.2 8.6 Maps and information sources for the attraction 4.4 7.0 Appropriateness of displays 3.8 5.0 Quality of service 4.1 4.9 A range of displays 3.7 4.5 Clear explanation of displays 3.2 4.1 Overall, facilities and services at this attraction 3.4 2.0 Overall atmosphere 1.5 1.4 Good first impression/welcome 1.3 1.3

IPA Analysis Importance-performance charts are now described which visually present the data in the previous section to assist managerial decision making through placing the individual attributes in four distinct quadrants using mean (or average scores from all responses). As Figure 12 illustrates, only two attributes related to attraction facilities and services are in quadrant A (concentrate here), while nine are in quadrant B (keep up the good work) and three are in quadrant C (low priority). None are in quadrant D (possible overkill).

The two attributes in quadrant A include ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’ and ‘parking facilities’ as they have above average importance and scored below average satisfaction scores. Further research is required into why these have been rated lowly by respondents. Quadrant B has both above average importance and satisfaction for visitors, and the attractions should keep up the good work in these areas as they are clear strengths. Attributes in this quadrant included ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘good first impression/welcome’, ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’, ‘appropriateness of displays,’ ‘quality of service’, ‘helpful human guides’, the ‘range of, and clear explanation of displays’, and ‘front reception information’. However, ‘front reception information’ is located very close to the chart cross hair and should be monitored closely over time for possible movement into quadrant A. A low priority for managers (possibly to reallocate resources or monitor in case tolerance of the performance of these items is diminished over time), are found with the attributes in quadrant C. This includes ‘value for money of retail goods’ and both ‘electronic and interactive displays’.

As part of this project was to test the IPA benchmarking approach to measuring and monitoring visitor

satisfaction, it was decided to re-draw the IPA charts using the overall median scores (or the mid point of all scores) as cross hairs instead of overall means (average scores of all responses). Previous research indicates that IPA analysis scores can bunch if ratings are not part of a normal distribution, as visitors tend to rate attributes highly (Oh 2001). As interpretation of the IPA is related to where the cross hairs are positioned, it was decided to examine this issue in detail. A series of tests was conducted to examine the distribution of ratings for the attributes. The kurtosis and skewness tests showed that there was a departure from symmetry and a normal distribution in all attributes.1 Figure 13 illustrates the same results but with the use of overall median cross hairs (4.39 for importance and 4.42 for satisfaction, compared to overall mean scores of 4.28 for importance and 4.35 for satisfaction). Figure 13 shows that two additional attributes move from quadrant B (keep up the good work) to quadrant A (concentrate here), increasing the number of attributes in quadrant A from an initial two to four (from a total of 14). The attributes that moved into quadrant A were ‘a range of displays’ and ‘clear explanation of displays’. By moving the importance cross hair (using the median score), the attribute ‘parking facilities’ was placed on the median importance line, close to quadrant C. 1 The Kurtosis test should show a zero score for a normal distribution. The tests showed that a positive score in 12 of both the importance and satisfaction results, showing that the cases cluster and have longer tails than those in a normal distribution. The Skewness test should have a skewness value of zero to indicate a normal distribution. A value more than twice its standard error is taken to indicate a departure from symmetry. The results of these tests indicated that all had a standard error of twice the skewness value, with all of them being negative, indicating a long left tail.


25

As this was a satisfaction benchmarking project all partners received an individual report with their own

scores. Figure 14 and 15 show some of the variability between individual attractions. These figures are included to illustrate the variability between individual attractions. An individual gap analysis (discussed in the next section) was also carried out for each attraction with differences between the rating of individual attributes and their respective perceived gaps. Figure 14 for Attraction A indicates five attributes related to the facilities and services may require management attention, compared with two attributes for Attraction B with two sitting on the grid lines (see Figure 15).

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

26

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

Goo

d fir

st im

pres

sion

/wel

com

eO

vera

ll at

mos

pher

eEl

ectr

onic

dis

play

sIn

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ysA

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f di

spla

ysCl

ear

expl

anat

ion

of d

ispl

ays

A r

ange

of

disp

lays

Qua

lity

of s

ervi

ceH

elpf

ul h

uman

gui

des

Fron

t re

cept

ion

info

rmat

ion

Map

s an

d in

form

atio

n so

urce

s fo

r th

e at

trac

tion

Park

ing

faci

litie

sV

alue

for

mon

ey o

f re

tail

good

sO

vera

ll, f

acili

ties

and

ser

vice

s at

thi

s at

trac

tion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

2: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

ean

Scor

e C

ross

Hai

rs (F

acili

ties a

nd S

ervi

ces)

C

once

ntra

te h

ere

(Qua

dran

t A)

Kee

p up

the

good

wor

k (Q

uadr

ant B

)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

27

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

Goo

d fir

st im

pres

sion

/wel

com

eO

vera

ll at

mos

pher

eEl

ectr

onic

dis

play

sIn

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ysA

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f di

spla

ysCl

ear

expl

anat

ion

of d

ispl

ays

A r

ange

of

disp

lays

Qua

lity

of s

ervi

ceH

elpf

ul h

uman

gui

des

Fron

t re

cept

ion

info

rmat

ion

Map

s an

d in

form

atio

n so

urce

s fo

r th

e at

trac

tion

Park

ing

faci

litie

sV

alue

for

mon

ey o

f re

tail

good

sO

vera

ll, f

acili

ties

and

ser

vice

s at

thi

s at

trac

tion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

3: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

edia

n Sc

ore

Cro

ss H

airs

(Fac

ilitie

s and

Ser

vice

s)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

28

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

Goo

d fir

st im

pres

sion

/wel

com

eO

vera

ll at

mos

pher

eEl

ectr

onic

dis

play

sIn

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ysA

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f di

spla

ysCl

ear

expl

anat

ion

of d

ispl

ays

A r

ange

of

disp

lays

Qua

lity

of s

ervi

ceH

elpf

ul h

uman

gui

des

Fron

t re

cept

ion

info

rmat

ion

Map

s an

d in

form

atio

n so

urce

s fo

r th

e at

trac

tion

Park

ing

faci

litie

sV

alue

for

mon

ey o

f re

tail

good

sO

vera

ll, f

acili

ties

and

ser

vice

s at

thi

s at

trac

tion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

4: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

ean

Scor

e C

ross

Hai

rs fo

r A

ttra

ctio

n A

(Fac

ilitie

s and

Ser

vice

s)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

29

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

Goo

d fir

st im

pres

sion

/wel

com

eO

vera

ll at

mos

pher

eEl

ectr

onic

dis

play

sIn

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ysA

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f di

spla

ysCl

ear

expl

anat

ion

of d

ispl

ays

A r

ange

of

disp

lays

Qua

lity

of s

ervi

ceH

elpf

ul h

uman

gui

des

Fron

t re

cept

ion

info

rmat

ion

Map

s an

d in

form

atio

n so

urce

s fo

r th

e at

trac

tion

Park

ing

faci

litie

sV

alue

for

mon

ey o

f re

tail

good

sO

vera

ll, f

acili

ties

and

ser

vice

s at

thi

s at

trac

tion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

5: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

ean

Scor

e C

ross

Hai

rs fo

r A

ttra

ctio

n B

(Fac

ilitie

s and

Ser

vice

s)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)


38

Gap Analysis To examine whether a gap existed between the importance and satisfaction ratings of attraction facilities and services, a paired t-test was carried out and the results are illustrated in Table 17 below. The table indicates that in nine from 14 attributes the gap between the importance and satisfaction scores were statistically significant. The largest positive gap (positive disconfirmation) from the importance and satisfaction scores were from ‘electronic displays’ followed by ‘interactive displays’. Moreover, ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’, ‘parking facilities’ and ‘clear explanation of displays’ had a negative gap between higher levels of importance and lower levels of satisfaction (negative disconfirmation), according to the respondents. However, it should be noted that satisfaction was relatively high (over a four on average from a 5-point scale for most items).

Table 17: Paired t-Test on Attraction Facilities and Services

(n=2603-3382)

Importance Satisfaction Gap T Sig Good first impression/welcome 4.39 4.48 0.09 -6.082 0.000*

Overall atmosphere 4.48 4.54 0.06 -4.208 0.000*

Electronic displays 3.50 4.09 0.59 -22.723 0.000*

Interactive displays 3.74 4.13 0.39 -11.754 0.000*

Appropriateness of displays 4.44 4.48 0.04 -1.521 0.128 Clear explanation of displays 4.52 4.43 -0.09 6.750 0.000*

A range of displays 4.39 4.42 0.03 -0.703 0.482 Quality of service 4.50 4.46 -0.04 2.992 0.003*

Helpful human guides 4.35 4.42 0.07 -1.395 0.163 Front reception information 4.33 4.36 0.03 0.142 0.887 Maps and information sources for the attraction 4.41 4.30 -0.11 8.307 0.000*

Parking facilities 4.39 4.30 -0.09 7.419 0.000*

Value for money of retail goods 3.96 3.97 0.01 4.487 0.000*

Overall, facilities and services 4.52 4.52 0.00 -0.044 0.965 Note: * = p<0.01 indicating statistical significance between importance and satisfaction scores.

The final analysis applied to the IPA and gap analysis was to examine differences in respondents’ rating of

the importance and satisfaction attached to individual attributes and plot whether these made a difference on IPA charts to assist managerial decision making. As discussed in Chapter 2, some authors suggest plotting statistical differences on IPA charts to aid in decision making, as overall mean scores may mask differences between visitor groups (Wade & Eagles 2003). Statistical differences of ratings were examined by key visitor groups and differences are outlined in Table D:1 in Appendix D. Table 18 provides a summary of the key differences and indicates that the largest proportion of differences was due to gender followed by visitation level, local origins and visiting with children. Females tended to rate the importance of 10 attributes higher than males and gave 13 a higher satisfaction score, suggesting males are more critical of individual attribute performances. First time visitors were more likely than repeat visitors to rate 10 attributes as more important except for ‘overall atmosphere’ and ‘parking facilities’, and their satisfaction scores were only lower on three attributes and higher on ‘parking facilities’. Local visitors were more likely than non-local visitors to rate the importance of 12 attributes as lower, except for ‘parking facilities’. Their satisfaction scores for 12 attributes are also lower than non-locals. A total of nine attributes was rated higher by those with children compared to those without children, and they were more satisfied with ‘electronic and interactive displays’. Only three attributes were different by domestic and international origins as well as for marital status, with the importance of ‘parking facilities’ higher for domestic visitors and with couples more satisfied with ‘parking facilities’. The focus on ‘parking facilities’ for some of these groups is particularly important as the previous section identified that ‘parking facilities’ were one of the attributes located in quadrant A (concentrate here).


39

Table 18: Statistical Differences by Visitor Characteristics (Summary Table)

Difference Attributes Affected Description of Affect

Gender 14 attributes • All female importance scores higher than males for all attributes except electronic, interactive, appropriate and clear explanation of displays,

• All female satisfaction scores higher than males for all attributes.

Visitation Level 13 attributes • First time visitors importance scores higher than repeat visitors for 10 attributes.

• Lower importance scores than repeat visitors for overall atmosphere and parking facilities.

• First time visitors satisfaction scores lower than repeat visitors on 3 attributes including overall atmosphere, range of displays and overall satisfaction.

• First time visitors satisfaction scores higher than repeat visitors on parking facilities.

Local Origins 12 attributes • Local visitors importance scores lower than non-local visitors for all attributes except parking facilities.

• Local visitors satisfaction scores lower than non-local visitors for all attributes.

Visiting with Children 9 attributes • Visitors with children importance scores higher than visitors without children for all attributes

• Visitors with children satisfaction scores higher for electronic and interactive displays than visitors without children.

International Origins 3 attributes • Domestic visitors importance scores for a range of displays and parking facilities are higher than international visitors.

• Domestic visitors satisfaction for appropriateness of displays are higher than international visitors.

Marital Status 3 attributes • Single visitors importance scores lower than couple visitors.

• Single visitors satisfaction score for parking facilities is lower than for couple visitors.

However, although statistical analysis discovered that differences occurred in the rating of attributes by

socio-demographics and travel behaviour, from a management perspective it is not known whether these differences moved the individual attributes from one IPA quadrant to another. This issue was examined and only those statistical differences which resulted in movement between quadrants are presented in Figures 16 to 18. As indicated in these figures, although the overall sample indicated that ‘parking facilities’ and ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’ were located in quadrant A due to above average importance and below average satisfaction, ‘parking facilities’ were not a problem for some groups based on gender, martial status, origins and local/non-local respondents. However, they were still important for visitors travelling with children. ‘Maps and information sources’ were still in quadrant A and a potential issue for first time visitors, but less so for repeat visitors as this attribute moved into quadrant C. Furthermore, none of the statistical differences resulted in movements into quadrant A (concentrate here). Several attributes moved from either quadrant A or B into quadrant C or D. One of the largest number of attribute movements was associated with quadrant B to D as a result of lower importance scores for attributes such as ‘quality of service’ and a ‘range of displays’ which were not as important for local visitors, while ‘parking facilities’ and ‘front reception information’ were not as important to non-local visitors compared with local visitors.

Such data may help managers to decide what is important for individual groups or segments and make more

informed decisions concerning the allocation of resources.

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

40

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

6: S

tatis

tical

Diff

eren

ces B

ased

on

Soci

o-D

emog

raph

ics R

esul

ting

in (Q

uadr

ant M

ovem

ents

)

Gen

der

• ‘R

ange

of d

ispl

ays’

for m

ales

from

Qua

dran

t B

• ‘F

ront

rece

ptio

n in

form

atio

n’ fo

r mal

es fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Par

king

faci

litie

s’ fo

r mal

es a

nd fe

mal

es fr

om Q

uadr

ant A

•

‘Hel

pful

hum

an g

uide

s’ fo

r mal

es fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

Mar

tial S

tatu

s •

‘Par

king

faci

litie

s’ fo

r sin

gle

and

coup

les f

rom

Qua

dran

t A

Gen

der

• ‘F

ront

rece

ptio

n in

form

atio

n’ fo

r fem

ales

from

Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Hel

pful

hum

an g

uide

s’ fo

r fem

ales

from

Q

uadr

ant B

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

tC)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

41

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

7: S

tatis

tical

Diff

eren

ces B

ased

on

Ori

gins

(Res

ultin

g in

Qua

dran

t Mov

emen

ts)

Ori

gins

•

‘Ran

ge o

f dis

play

s’ fo

r int

erna

tiona

l vis

itors

from

Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘App

ropr

iate

ness

of d

ispl

ays’

for l

ocal

vis

itors

fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘A ra

nge

of d

ispl

ays’

for l

ocal

vis

itors

from

Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Qua

lity

of se

rvic

e’ fo

r loc

al v

isito

rs fr

om

Qua

dran

t B

• ‘H

elpf

ul h

uman

gui

des’

for l

ocal

and

non

-loca

l vi

sito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Fro

nt re

cept

ion

info

rmat

ion’

for n

on-lo

cal v

isito

rs

from

Qua

dran

t B

• ‘P

arki

ng fa

cilit

ies’

for n

on-lo

cal v

isito

rs fr

om

Qua

dran

t A

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Qua

dran

t D)

Ori

gins

•

‘Par

king

faci

litie

s’ fo

r dom

estic

and

inte

rnat

iona

l vis

itors

from

Qua

dran

t A

• ‘A

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f dis

play

s’ fo

r int

erna

tiona

l vis

itors

from

Qua

dran

t B

• ‘F

ront

rece

ptio

n in

form

atio

n’ fo

r loc

al v

isito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Map

s and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces’

for l

ocal

vis

itors

from

Qua

dran

t A

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

42

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

8: S

tatis

tical

Diff

eren

ces B

ased

on

Prev

ious

Vis

itatio

n an

d C

hild

ren

in T

rave

l Par

ty (R

esul

ting

in Q

uadr

ant M

ovem

ents

)

Vis

itatio

n L

evel

•

‘App

ropr

iate

ness

of d

ispl

ays’

for r

epea

t vis

itors

fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘A ra

nge

of d

ispl

ays’

for r

epea

t vis

itors

from

Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Hel

pful

hum

an g

uide

s’ fo

r firs

t tim

e an

d re

peat

vi

sito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

•

‘Fro

nt re

cept

ion

info

rmat

ion’

for f

irst t

ime

and

repe

at v

isito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

Tra

vel P

arty

•

‘A ra

nge

of d

ispl

ays’

for v

isito

rs w

ithou

t chi

ldre

n fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

Vis

itatio

n L

evel

•

‘Map

s and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces’

for r

epea

t vi

sito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant A

•

‘Par

king

faci

litie

s’ fo

r firs

t tim

e an

d re

peat

vi

sito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant A

Tra

vel P

arty

•

‘Par

king

faci

litie

s’ fo

r vis

itors

with

out

child

ren

from

Qua

dran

t A

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)


44

Summary With respect to attraction facilities and services, visitors placed the highest importance on the ‘clear explanation of displays’ followed by ‘quality of service’ and the ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’. They were most satisfied with ‘overall atmosphere’, the ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’ as well as ‘helpful human guides’ (for those that used them). The IPA analysis and chart mapping indicated that only two attributes were in quadrant A (concentrate here) including ‘parking facilities’ and ‘maps and information sources for the attraction.’ The majority of the attributes were in quadrant B (keep up the good work). However, changing the IPA chart cross hairs using the overall median scores, instead of the mean scores, meant that an additional two attributes moved from quadrant B to quadrant A and included ‘range of displays’ and ‘clear explanation of displays.’

A gap analysis between the importance and satisfaction scores was undertaken and the scores were different between nine out of 14 attributes. The largest positive gap (where satisfaction was larger than the importance score) was for ‘electronic displays’ followed by ‘interactive displays’. However, three attributes had a negative gap (with the satisfaction score being lower than the importance score) including ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’, ‘parking facilities’ and ‘clear explanation of displays.’ On the basis of these results managers should examine in more detail why ‘parking facilities’, ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’ and ‘clear explanation of displays’ may be a potential issue, resulting in lower satisfaction and higher importance scores.

This section also outlined differences in the ratings by visitor characteristics. The largest number of

differences with respect to visitor characteristics was due to gender, followed by local origins and travel party. Although there were a large number of differences between visitor characteristics, none of these meant that scores on the IPA charts moved into quadrant A. In fact several moved from quadrant A to other quadrants, suggesting that visitor characteristics may influence their ratings of facilities and services at the attraction, but that these do not make large differences to managerial decision making. However, it was interesting to note that the biggest movements between quadrants were due to origins and visitation levels. These subtle differences between groups should be kept in mind by managers when making decisions over attraction facilities and services.

Importance-Satisfaction with Attraction Experiences This section follows on from the previous section by presenting importance and satisfaction levels of attraction experiences. First, it begins by presenting the overall percentage results and the mean importance-performance analysis (including charts). Second, it presents a gap analysis between the importance-performance results and uses IPA (importance-performance analysis) charts to examine differences based on socio-demographics and travel characteristics, to further assist managerial decision making.

Importance-Satisfaction Scores Table 19 indicates what respondents consider to be very important experiences that they seek when visiting attractions. A total of 55.1% of respondents specified ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ and 54.7% ‘overall, the experiences at this attraction’ as being very important when considering their attraction experience. Of lesser importance to respondents was an opportunity to experience science, arts or culture as well as to use the visit as a place to spend time with other people (partner/family/friends).


45

Table 19: Sample Assessment of Attribute Importance (%)

Total Sample (n=2244-3340)

Attribute

Not at all Important

Not Important

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Important Very Important

A chance to discover or learn something new

0.2 0.6 5.0 39.1 55.1

Overall, the experiences at this attraction

0.3 0.3 3.2 41.5 54.7

Educational experiences for my children

3.9 3.1 12.5 27.9 52.6

An opportunity to experience Australia's Heritage

0.9 2.3 10.1 35.2 51.5

Something the children would enjoy

3.5 3.3 13.1 32.6 47.4

To better understand the Australian identity

1.8 3.1 13.4 35.6 46.2

Fun and enjoyment 0.7 1.6 8.3 44.8 44.6

A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends

1.4 3.4 15.0 38.1 42.0

A unique experience 0.7 1.6 14.7 43.5 39.5

An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture

1.0 4.0 18.8 39.8 36.3

An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday

2.2 3.8 20.2 41.1 32.7

Table 20 indicates level of satisfaction with attraction experiences when visiting the attraction. A total of

63.1% of respondents stated that they were very satisfied with ‘overall, the experiences at this attraction’. A total of 62.7% of respondents stated that they were very satisfied with ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’, followed by 56.8% who stated that they were very satisfied with ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’. However, a greater number of ratings of dissatisfaction or neutrality were recorded for opportunities to experience science, arts or culture as well as the visit being something that provide educational experiences or enjoyment for children. In the same format as the facilities and services questions, the experience questions included the option of ‘no opinion’ and ‘not applicable/did not use.’ Therefore, the satisfaction ratings in Table 19 and 20 are from those respondents that felt they could assess the importance and performance of these attributes.


46

Table 20: Sample Assessment of Attribute Satisfaction (%)

Total Sample (n=2053-3344) Attributes

Very

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Fairly Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Overall, the experiences at this attraction 0.6 2.1 4.4 29.8 63.1

A chance to discover or learn something new

0.4 1.6 5.1 30.2 62.7

An opportunity to experience Australia's heritage

0.6 2.3 12.1 28.1 56.8


0.7 1.8 12.2 30.2 55.0

A unique experience 0.6 2.4 11.7 31.5 53.7

Educational experiences for my children

1.8 3.0 18.4 24.5 52.4


0.8 2.2 13.8 31.0 52.1

Fun and enjoyment 0.9 2.5 12.8 35.8 47.9

Something the children would enjoy

2.1 3.6 19.6 27.3 47.4

An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture

0.6 2.6 20.3 30.5 45.9

An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday

1.2 3.6 24.2 32.7 38.3

Table 21 indicates that 34.0% of respondents did not have an opinion on ‘educational experiences for my

children’ when considering what experiences were important when visiting the attraction. A total of 30.0% indicated they were unable to provide an opinion on ‘something the children would enjoy’ and 22.3% for ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’. The table also indicates the level of ‘not applicable’ or ‘did not use’ for assessing their satisfaction with attraction experiences. A total of 39.6% stated that they had no opinion or could not rate ‘educational experiences for my children’. While 35.5% did not have an opinion or could not rate ‘something the children would enjoy’, followed by ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’ (27.5%). This may be based on respondents’ travel party; whether they were travelling with children, for instance, which is examined later this results section. Certainly, what is obvious is a higher level of ‘no opinion’ or ‘not applicable’ responses for the rating of attraction experiences compared with facilities and services, which may indicate a level of uncertainty about what types of experiences visitors are seeking generally. However, they were more certain about learning or discovering something new and having a unique experience.


47

Table 21: Sample Rating No Opinion/Did Not Use (%)

(n=2244-3344)

Attribute

Importance Rating No Opinion

(n=2244-3340)

Satisfaction Rating Not applicable/did not use

(n=2053-3344) Educational experiences for my children 34.0 39.6 Something the children would enjoy 30.0 35.5 An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday

22.3 27.5

An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture 8.6 13.6 Fun and enjoyment 7.4 9.5 To better understand the Australian identity 6.3 9.1 A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends

5.4 9.8

An opportunity to experience Australia's heritage 4.7 7.7 A unique experience 2.7 4.0 Overall, the experiences at this attraction 2.3 1.6 A chance to discover or learn something new 1.7 1.9

IPA Analysis Importance-performance charts are now described which visually present the data in the previous section to assist managerial decision making through placing the individual experiences in four distinct quadrants using mean (or average scores from all responses). As Figure 19 illustrates, only two experience attributes are located in quadrant A (concentrate here), while four are in quadrant B (keep up the good work) and 3 are in quadrant C (low priority). Only one attribute is in quadrant D (possible overkill).

The two attributes in quadrant A are ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ as these are experiences that had above average importance and scored below average satisfaction scores. Further research is required into why these have been rated lowly by respondents. Quadrant B has both above average importance and satisfaction for visitors, and the attractions should ‘keep up the good work’ relating in providing these experiences as they are clear strengths. Experiences in this quadrant included ‘overall experiences at this attraction’, ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’, ‘a unique experience’, and ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’. However, ‘a unique experience’ is located very close to the satisfaction cross hair and should be monitored closely over time for possible movement into quadrant A. A low priority for managers (possibly to reallocate resources or monitor in case tolerance of the performance of these items is diminished over time), are found with the experiences in quadrant C. This includes ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’, ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’ and ‘educational experiences for my children’. Quadrant D included ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’.

As part of this project was to test the IPA benchmarking approach to measuring and monitoring visitor

satisfaction, it was decided to re-draw the IPA charts using the overall median scores (or the mid point of all scores) as cross hairs instead of overall means (average scores of all responses). Previous research indicates that IPA analysis scores can bunch if ratings are not part of a normal distribution, as visitors tend to rate attributes highly (Oh 2001). As interpretation of the IPA is related to where the cross hairs are positioned, it was decided to examine this issue in detail. A series of tests was conducted to examine the distribution of ratings for the attributes. The kurtosis and skewness tests showed that there was a departure from symmetry and a normal distribution in all attributes.2 Figure 20 illustrates the same results but with the use of overall median cross hairs (4.01 for importance and 4.35 for satisfaction, compared to mean scores of 3.88 for importance and 4.33 for satisfaction). The figure shows that one experience attribute moved from quadrant B (keep up the good work) to quadrant D (possible overkill), increasing the number of experience attributes in quadrant D from an initial 1 to 2 (from a total of 11). By moving the cross hairs (using the median score), the attribute from quadrant A ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ was placed on the median importance line, close to quadrant C, while the 2 The Kurtosis test should show a zero score for a normal distribution. The tests showed that a positive score in 7 of the importance scores and 9 of the satisfaction results (from 11 in total), showing that the cases cluster and have longer tails than those in a normal distribution. The Skewness test should have a skewness value of zero to indicate a normal distribution. A value more than twice its standard error is taken to indicate a departure from symmetry. The results of these tests indicated that all had a standard error of twice the skewness value, with all of them being negative, indicating a long left tail.


48

attribute ‘a unique experience’ from quadrant B was placed on the satisfaction grid line suggesting it may be a potential issue for management attention. It should also be noted that ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ is positioned behind ‘overall, the experiences at this attraction’ on the two charts, which may make it difficult to see on the charts.

As this was a satisfaction benchmarking project all partners received an individual report with their own

scores. Figure 21 and 22 show some of the variability between individual attractions. These figures are included to illustrate the variability between individual attractions. An individual gap analysis (discussed in the next section) was also carried out for each attraction with differences between the rating of individual attributes and their respective perceived gaps. Figure 21 for Attraction A indicates only one attribute relating to attraction experiences may require management attention, compared with no experience attributes for Attraction B (Figure 22).

49

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

A c

hanc

e to

dis

cove

r or l

earn

som

ethi

ng n

ewO

vera

ll, th

e ex

perie

nces

at t

his

attra

ctio

nA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

A u

niqu

e ex

perie

nce

Fun

and

enjo

ymen

tTo

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

A p

lace

to s

pend

qua

lity

time

with

par

tner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

sA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

rts o

r Cul

ture

An

oppo

rtuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s ev

eryd

ayS

omet

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oyE

duca

tiona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 1

9: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

ean

Scor

e C

ross

Hai

rs (E

xper

ienc

es)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)

Kee

p up

the

good

wor

k (Q

uadr

ant B

)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

50

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

A c

hanc

e to

dis

cove

r or l

earn

som

ethi

ng n

ewO

vera

ll, th

e ex

perie

nces

at t

his

attra

ctio

nA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

A u

niqu

e ex

perie

nce

Fun

and

enjo

ymen

tTo

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

A p

lace

to s

pend

qua

lity

time

with

par

tner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

sA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

rts o

r Cul

ture

An

oppo

rtuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s ev

eryd

ayS

omet

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oyE

duca

tiona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 2

0: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

edia

n Sc

ore

Cro

ss H

airs

(Exp

erie

nces

)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

51

Figu

re 2

1: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

ean

Scor

e C

ross

Hai

rs fo

r A

ttra

ctio

n A

(Exp

erie

nces

)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

A c

hanc

e to

dis

cove

r or l

earn

som

ethi

ng n

ewO

vera

ll, th

e ex

perie

nces

at t

his

attra

ctio

nA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

A u

niqu

e ex

perie

nce

Fun

and

enjo

ymen

tTo

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

A p

lace

to s

pend

qua

lity

time

with

par

tner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

sA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

rts o

r Cul

ture

An

oppo

rtuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s ev

eryd

ayS

omet

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oyE

duca

tiona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

52

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

A c

hanc

e to

dis

cove

r or l

earn

som

ethi

ng n

ewO

vera

ll, th

e ex

perie

nces

at t

his

attra

ctio

nA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

A u

niqu

e ex

perie

nce

Fun

and

enjo

ymen

tTo

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

A p

lace

to s

pend

qua

lity

time

with

par

tner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

sA

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

rts o

r Cul

ture

An

oppo

rtuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s ev

eryd

ayS

omet

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oyE

duca

tiona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 2

2: Im

port

ance

-Per

form

ance

Ana

lysi

s Usi

ng M

ean

Scor

e C

ross

Hai

rs fo

r A

ttra

ctio

n B

(Exp

erie

nces

)

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)


52

Gap Analysis To examine whether a gap existed between the importance and satisfaction of attraction experiences, a paired t-test was carried out and the results are illustrated in Table 22 below. The table indicates that from eight out of 11 attributes the gap between the importance and satisfaction scores were statistically significant and a positive gap (positive disconfirmation) was evident. The largest positive gap from the scores was from ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’, ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’ followed by ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’. One of the attributes in quadrant A had a positive gap with the satisfaction score of ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ being statistically higher than its importance score. Interestingly, although a gap between the importance and satisfaction scores of the attributes related to children existed, these were not deemed to be statistically significant differences, and may be due to a large number of ‘no opinion/not applicable’ scores generating a higher number of missing values. This may have led to no statistical differences being recorded on these attributes despite a large apparent difference in the scores.

Table 22: Paired t-test on Attraction Experiences

(n=2053-3344)

Importance Satisfaction Gap T Sig A chance to discover or learn something new 4.42 4.53 0.11 -5.171 0.000*


3.99 4.37 0.38 -11.204 0.000*

A unique experience 4.11 4.35 0.24 -10.518 0.000*

An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture 3.80 4.18 0.38 -6.289 0.000*

An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage 4.18 4.38 0.20 -2.485 0.013*

Educational experiences for my children 3.13 4.23 1.10 -1.351 0.177 Fun and enjoyment 4.07 4.27 0.20 1.667 0.096 Something the children will enjoy 3.22 4.14 0.92 .447 0.655 An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday

3.32 4.03 0.70 -3.517 0.000*

To better understand the Australian identity 4.01 4.31 0.30 -6.115 0.000*

Overall, the experiences at this attraction 4.42 4.53 0.11 -5.527 0.000*

Note: * = p<0.01 indicating statistical significance between importance and satisfaction scores.

The final analysis applied to the IPA and gap analysis was to examine differences in respondents’ rating of the importance and satisfaction attached to individual experience attributes and plot whether these made a difference on IPA charts to assist managerial decision making. As discussed in Chapter 2, some authors suggest plotting statistical differences on IPA charts to aid in decision making, as overall mean scores may mask differences between visitor groups (Wade & Eagles 2003). Statistical differences of ratings were examined by key visitor groups and differences are outlined in Table E:1 in Appendix E. Table 23 provides a summary of the key differences and indicates that the largest proportion of differences was due to gender, followed by visitation level, visiting with children and local origins.

Females tended to rate the majority of the experiences as more important than males and gave all a higher

satisfaction score, suggesting males are more critical of the individual performance of experiences. First time visitors were more likely than repeat visitors to rate five experiences as more important, and their satisfaction scores were lower on all experiences except one. Visitors with children, compared to those without children, placed higher importance on all 10 experiences and were more satisfied with all experiences except ‘to better understand Australia’s heritage’. Local visitors were more likely than non-local visitors to rate the importance of half of the eight experiences as lower and rated their satisfaction with three lower also. Marital status resulted in five differences, with single visitors more likely to score the importance and satisfaction lower, except for the importance related to arts or culture. Only three experiences were different by domestic and international origins, with the importance of the experiences higher for domestic visitors, while domestic visitors more satisfied with opportunities for their children than international visitors.


53

Table 23: Statistical Differences by Visitor Characteristics (Summary Table)

Difference Attributes Affected Description of Affect

Gender 11 attributes • All female importance scores higher than males for all attributes except Australian heritage, identity and science experiences.

• All female satisfaction scores higher than males for all attributes.

Visitation Level 10 attributes • First time visitors importance scores higher than repeat visitors for 5 attributes.

• Lower importance scores than repeat visitors for attributes concerning children, spending time with partner/family/friends and to experience arts or culture.

• First time visitors satisfaction scores lower than repeat visitors on all attributes except to better understand the Australian identity.

Visiting with Children 10 attributes • Visitors with children importance scores higher than visitors without children for all attributes.

• Visitors with children satisfaction scores higher for all attributes except to experience Australia’s heritage.

Local Origins 8 attributes • Local visitors importance scores lower than non-local visitors for half of attributes.

• Local visitors satisfaction scores lower than non-local visitors for 3 attributes including to discover or learn something new, understand Australian identity and heritage.

Martial Status 5 attributes • Single visitors importance scores lower than couple visitors except to experience arts or culture which was higher.

• Single visitors satisfaction scores lower than for couple visitors for all attributes.

International Origins 3 attributes • Domestic visitors importance scores for all attributes are higher than international visitors.

• Domestic visitors satisfaction for educational experiences for my children and something the children will enjoy are higher than international visitors.


54

However, although statistical analysis discovered that differences occurred in the rating of attributes by

socio-demographics and travel behaviour, from a management perspective it is not known whether these differences moved the individual attributes from one IPA quadrant to another. This issue was examined and only those statistical differences which resulted in movement between quadrants are presented in Figures 23 to 25. As indicated in these figures, although the overall sample indicated that experiences such as ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ as being in quadrant A due to above average importance and below average satisfaction, ‘fun and enjoyment’ was not a problem for some groups based on gender and travel party (especially those with children who rated this highly). However, they were still important for visitors based on visitation levels and origins. ‘To better understand Australian identity’ was an experience still in quadrant A and a potential issue regardless of gender or level of visitation, but less of an issue for those visitors with children or local visitors, as this attribute moved into quadrant C for these groups. However, six of the statistical differences resulted in movements into quadrant A (concentrate here), with five from quadrant B (keep up the good work). Males, non-local visitors, those without children and first time visitors all rated their satisfaction with spending time with partner/family/friends lower, which moved this attribute into quadrant A from quadrant B. An opportunity to ‘experience arts or culture’ was more important to singles, while experiencing Australia’s heritage was more important to local visitors.

Such data may help managers to decide what is important for individual groups or segments and make more informed decisions concerning the allocation of resources.

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

55

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 2

3: S

tatis

tical

Diff

eren

ces B

ased

on

Soci

o-D

emog

raph

ics R

esul

ting

in (Q

uadr

ant M

ovem

ents

)

Gen

der

• ‘S

omet

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oy’ f

or m

ales

and

fem

ales

fr

om Q

uadr

ant D

Mar

tial S

tatu

s •

‘Som

ethi

ng th

e ch

ildre

n w

ill e

njoy

’ for

sing

les a

nd c

oupl

es

from

Qua

dran

t D

Mar

tial S

tatu

s•

‘A p

lace

to sp

end

qual

ity ti

me

with

pa

rtner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

s’ fo

r sin

gles

from

Q

uadr

ant B

Gen

der

• ‘A

pla

ce to

spen

d qu

ality

tim

e w

ith

partn

er/fa

mily

/frie

nds’

for m

ales

from

Qua

dran

t B

M

artia

l Sta

tus

• ‘A

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e ar

ts o

r cul

ture

’ for

sing

les

from

Qua

dran

t C

Gen

der

• ‘F

un a

nd e

njoy

men

t’ fo

r fem

ales

from

Q

uadr

ant A

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

56

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 2

4: S

tatis

tical

Diff

eren

ces B

ased

on

Ori

gins

(Res

ultin

g in

Qua

dran

t Mov

emen

ts)

Ori

gins

•

‘Edu

catio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren’

for

inte

rnat

iona

l vis

itors

from

Qua

dran

t C

Ori

gins

•

‘Som

ethi

ng th

e ch

ildre

n w

ill e

njoy

’ for

dom

estic

and

in

tern

atio

nal v

isito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant D

•

‘To

bette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y’ fo

r loc

al v

isito

rs

from

Qua

dran

t A

Ori

gins

•

‘A p

lace

to sp

end

qual

ity ti

me

with

pa

rtner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

s’ n

on-lo

cal v

isito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant

B

• ‘A

n op

portu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

’ for

lo

cal v

isito

rs fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

Ori

gins

•

‘To

bette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y’ fo

r non

-loca

l vis

itors

from

Q

uadr

ant A

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

57

3

3.54

4.55

33.

54

4.5

5

Satis

fact

ion

Ver

y di

ssat

isfie

dV

ery

satis

fied

Ver

yim

porta

nt

Not

at a

ll Im

porta

nt

Figu

re 2

5: S

tatis

tical

Diff

eren

ces B

ased

on

Prev

ious

Vis

itatio

n an

d C

hild

ren

in T

rave

l Par

ty (R

esul

ting

in Q

uadr

ant M

ovem

ents

)

Tra

vel P

arty

•

‘Edu

catio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren’

for

visi

tors

with

chi

ldre

n fr

om Q

uadr

ant C

•

‘Fun

and

enj

oym

ent’

for v

isito

rs w

ith

child

ren

from

Qua

dran

t A

• ‘S

omet

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oy’ f

or

visi

tors

with

chi

ldre

n fr

om Q

uadr

ant D

Vis

itatio

n L

evel

•

‘Som

ethi

ng th

e ch

ildre

n w

ill e

njoy

’ for

bot

h fir

st ti

me

and

repe

at

visi

tors

from

Qua

dran

t D

• ‘T

o be

tter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity’

for r

epea

t vis

itors

fr

om Q

uadr

ant A

Tra

vel P

arty

•

‘Fun

and

enj

oym

ent’

for v

isito

rs w

ithou

t chi

ldre

n fr

om Q

uadr

ant A

•

‘To

bette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y’ fo

r vis

itors

with

and

w

ithou

t chi

ldre

n fr

om Q

uadr

ant A

Vis

itatio

n L

evel

•

‘A p

lace

to sp

end

qual

ity ti

me

with

pa

rtner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

s for

firs

t tim

e vi

sito

rs fr

om

Qua

dran

t B

T

rave

l Par

ty

• ‘A

pla

ce to

spen

d qu

ality

tim

e w

ith

partn

er/fa

mily

/frie

nds f

or v

isito

rs w

ithou

t chi

ldre

n fr

om Q

uadr

ant B

Con

cent

rate

her

e (Q

uadr

ant A

)K

eep

up th

e go

od w

ork

(Qua

dran

t B)

Low

prio

rity

(Qua

dran

t C)

Poss

ible

ove

rkill

(Q

uadr

ant D

)

58

Summary With respect to attraction experiences visitors placed the highest importance on ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ followed by ‘overall experiences at this attraction’ and the ‘educational experiences for my children’. They were most satisfied with the ‘overall experiences at this attraction,’ ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ as well as ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’ (for those that felt they were seeking these experiences). The IPA analysis and chart mapping indicated that only two attributes were in quadrant A (concentrate here) including ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’. The majority of the attributes were in quadrant B (keep up the good work). However, changing the IPA chart cross hairs using the overall median scores, instead of the mean scores, meant no attributes moved into quadrant A, but ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ moved onto the importance grid line between quadrant A and C, while ‘a unique experience’ moved onto the satisfaction grid line between quadrant A and B.

A gap analysis between the importance and satisfaction scores was undertaken and the scores were different between 8 out of 11 attributes. The largest positive gap (where satisfaction was larger than the importance score) was for ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’ followed by ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’ and ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’. No experience attributes received a negative gap. On the basis of these results managers should examine in more detail why ‘fun and enjoyment’, ‘to better understand the Australian identity’, and possibly ‘a unique experience’ may be a potential issue, resulting in lower satisfaction and higher importance scores.

This section also outlined differences in the ratings by visitor characteristics. The largest number of differences with respect to visitor characteristics was due to gender, followed by visitation level and travel party. Unlike the differences described in the previous section, where none of the IPA mean scores moved into quadrant A, several related to visitor experiences did. Males, non-local visitors, first time visitors and visitors without children were all less satisfied with the ability of the attraction to provide ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’, moving this attribute from quadrant B (keep up the good work) to quadrant A (concentrate here). Single visitors placed more importance on ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’ moving this attribute into quadrant A (concentrate here). Furthermore, local visitors were less satisfied with the attraction being able to provide ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’, moving this attribute into quadrant A from quadrant B. Managers when making decisions over the development and marketing of visitor experiences should keep these subtle differences between groups in mind.


59

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

very dissatisfied

dissatisfied

neither satisfied or dissatisfied

satisfied

very satisfied

Overall Satisfaction, Loyalty and Critical Incidents

Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty Table 24 and Figure 26 demonstrate the overall satisfaction with the attraction experience was very high with 92.8% of visitors indicating that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their visit overall. Only 7.1% were neither satisfied or dissatisfied, while 2.5% were dissatisfied and 1.3% very dissatisfied.

Table 24: Sample Overall Satisfaction with Attraction Visit

(n=3398) Satisfaction Level Frequency Percent Very satisfied 1875 55.2 Satisfied 1279 37.6 Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 113 3.3 Dissatisfied 86 2.5 Very dissatisfied 45 1.3

Figure 26: Sample Overall Satisfaction with the Attraction (%)

Table 25 and Figure 27 demonstrate the overall likelihoods that the respondents would definitely or probably return to the particular attraction in the next 12 months was very high (70.2%). A total of 14.4% indicated that they probably wouldn’t return, while 3.6% definitely wouldn’t return in the next 12 months and 11.7% were unsure. The high number indicating a likely return visit is most likely a function of respondent origins, with a large proportion of respondents living in the ACT/Queanbeyan and New South Wales area.


60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

I definitely would

I probably would

I'm unsure

I probably wouldn’t

I definitely wouldn't

Return Likelihood Recommendation Likelihood

Table 25: Sample Likeliness of Return Visit (if possible)

(n=3398) Return Likelihood Frequency Percent I definitely would 1296 38.1 I probably would 1090 32.1 I probably wouldn’t 491 14.4 I'm unsure 399 11.7 I definitely wouldn't 122 3.6

Table 26 indicates that a high proportion of respondents would definitely or probably would recommend the

attraction they visited to other people (93.0%), which is a more reliable predictor of overall satisfaction. A total of 3.6% indicated that they would probably or definitely not recommend the attraction to other people, while 3.4% were undecided.

Table 26: Sample Recommend to Other People

(n=3398) Recommendation Likelihood Frequency Percent I definitely would 2200 64.7 I probably would 960 28.3 I'm unsure 117 3.4 I probably wouldn’t 85 2.5 I definitely wouldn't 36 1.1

Figure 27: Sample Likelihood to Repeat Visit and Recommend Attraction (%)

Critical Incidents Respondents were asked if they had experienced any problems with any aspect of the attraction. A high proportion had indicated that they had not (88.6%) and only 11.4% indicated they had. From those that did experience problems at the attraction, 64% did report these problems to attraction staff and only 29.2% of those that had experienced a problem and reported it had it resolved to their satisfaction.


61

Unhappy and Bad Experiences Recorded A random sample of 10% of all responses were undertaken to examine in detail the open ended comments on what visitors felt were unhappy/happy or bad/good experiences related to their visit. Table 27 below details comments from respondents who were asked to comment on what else they were particularly unhappy with or if they had any bad experiences at the attraction they visited. It should be noted that 44.9% of responses did not provide any experiences that they were unhappy with or felt were bad. From those that did note comments, 13.8% again commented that they had no bad experiences by stating ‘nothing it was a lovely day out’. The most common themes were ‘some parts were closed for construction or refurbishment’ and ‘lack of information’, followed by ‘lack of parking and pay parking’ and ‘the quality and variety of food, and expensive’.

Some specific comments made by respondents included: • it was closed for reconstruction • could only visit parts due to renovations which were a little disappointing • no warning that parking would be charged and that change was required • the parking was really restricted, I think that the parking lot should be extended • the food was not very nice, there was not much choice • we did not know until our arrival that the attraction was undergoing renovations for an extended period

of time and that therefore the main things we wanted to see were not open and would not be for a long time

• arrived at 10am, at opening time, and could not find a park anywhere I had to park miles away and walk which was very difficult to manage as I have a small child and it was raining

Table 27: Sample Unhappy/Bad Experiences at the Attraction

(n=356) Comments Frequency Percent No comment

160 44.9

Nothing it was a lovely day out 49 13.8 Some parts were closed for construction/refurbishment 27 7.6 Lack of information 25 7.0 Lack of parking and pay parking 20 5.6 The quality and variety of food, expensive and no gluten free options 14 3.9 Running out of time, trying to get the children to leave 12 3.4 Lack of interactive activities in exhibit, lacks cohesion 11 3.1 Entrance tired and needs revamping, poor layout 10 2.8 Unsupervised children 8 2.2 Expensive gift shops needs more variety 8 2.2 Signage should be improved 7 2.0 Poor facilities – toilets, no public phone 4 1.1 Overall experience did not live up to expectations 4 1.1 Lighting and hearing the commentary 4 1.1 The public transport aspect 3 0.8 Entry fee 2 0.6 Some of the recordings to displays not working 2 0.6 Staff were looking disinterested 2 0.6

Note: Percent does not add to 100% due to multiple responses.

Happy and Good Experiences Recorded Table 28 below details comments from respondents who were asked to comment on what else they were particularly happy with or if they had any good experiences at the attraction they visited which exceeded their expectations. It is interesting to note that 35.4% of responses were recorded as a ‘no comment’ as respondents did not complete this question or simply wrote ‘no comment’ or ‘nothing.’ The most frequent themes apart from no comment were ‘great interactive displays, well set out’, ‘exceptional and knowledgeable guides’, followed by ‘overall an enjoyable experience’. Respondents were also happy with ‘exceptional and knowledgeable staff’ and ‘great exhibits, exceeded expectations, good historical perspective’.


62

Some comments made by respondents included: • I particularly appreciated the discussions with the tour guides who offered more information than facts • we found the guides to be exceptional in every respect, the personal touch, politeness, dedication to

helping people, etc. were absolutely outstanding • we visited an exhibition and was pleasantly surprised to receive a guided tour where a guide allowed us

to handle her own personal photographs • we were absolutely enthralled throughout the tour, what a perfect match to the exhibition • our lady guide was very interesting, brought back memories of many years ago • lots of time spent with the tour guide who was very knowledgeable • it was very interesting and a pleasant place to take family and friends

Table 28: Sample Happy/Good Experiences at the Attraction

(n=356) Comments Frequency Percent No comment

126 35.4

Great interactive displays, well set out 70 19.7 Exceptional and knowledgeable guides a real credit to the establishment 40 11.2 Overall an enjoyable experience 36 10.1 Exceptional and knowledgeable staff 27 7.6 Great exhibits, exceeded expectations, good historical perspective 24 6.7 The architecture and layout of the building is outstanding, great location and surrounds

23 6.5

Terrific interaction with audience 16 4.5 Explanation/information in each room, good introductory video 15 4.2 Fantastic facilities -toilets clean, spacious, no queues, lockers, free use of strollers 13 3.7 Excellent welcome by staff/front desk 11 3.1 Quality of food and service at the restaurant/café 10 2.8 Good range of activities for all ages 9 2.5 The attraction was not crowded, the ability to move throughout most of the building 9 2.5 Free entry is superb enabling all to enjoy 9 2.5 The attraction was family/visitor friendly 6 1.7 Good parking, easy and shaded 5 1.4 Supplementary entertainment (a concert) was enjoyable 2 0.6 Access to personal records or possibility thereof 2 0.6 Note: Percent does not add to 100% due to multiple responses.

Summary This section outlined visitors’ overall satisfaction, loyalty and critical incidents with the attraction visit. The results indicate overall high levels of visitor satisfaction and high levels of recommendation to others. However, lower levels of intention to repeat visit were recorded, however, this is not surprising as for non-local visitors a repeat visit may not be possible. A total of 11.4% of visitors had experienced a problem at the attraction during their visit and the majority (64%) reported these problems to attraction staff. However, nearly 30% who did report the problem to staff had it resolved to their satisfaction.

The majority of visitors had no unhappy/bad experiences, while the most frequently cited unhappy or bad experiences were related to the closure of some parts of the attraction for refurbishment or construction, lack of information and parking issues. Certainly both the lack of information and parking issues were deemed issues from the IPA and gap analysis presented earlier. A number of happy/good experiences were recorded by visitors, with the most frequently cited comments relating to the great (interactive) displays and layout of the attraction, followed by the guides at the attraction and overall enjoyable experiences. Many of the comments about the guides referred to their outstanding customer service and personal interaction with visitors.


63

Chapter 4

RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL DETERMINANTS OF SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY

The project also sought to examine the individual determinants of overall satisfaction, intention to return and intention to recommend. Many researchers (Ryan 1995, Pearce 2005; Reisinger & Turner, 2003) have identified key drivers that may assist our understanding of visitor satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth including past experience, cultural background, visitor motives, level of learning as well as engagement in the activity. However, these past studies have only been partly successful in predicting the specific attributes that act as determinants of visitor satisfaction and loyalty. This section of the results outlines the testing of the influence of individual attributes on overall satisfaction and loyalty through the use of linear regression analysis, beginning with overall satisfaction.

Overall Approach to Analysis Linear regression was used to examine relationships between overall satisfaction, loyalty and individual satisfaction attributes. Regression is a technique which attempts to estimate relationships of the form:

Y = A + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + …

where Y is called the dependent variable, for example, overall satisfaction with a visit to the attraction; and the X variables are called explanatory or independent variables, for example, satisfaction with various aspects of the attraction. The equation above is a linear equation, and the regression method estimates values for each of the Bs known as regression coefficients. These measure the contribution that each X variable makes to the Y variable. Regression models were run for three dependent variables:

1. ‘Overall satisfaction with attraction visit’ 2. ‘Likelihood of returning to this attraction’ 3. ‘Likelihood of recommending a visit to friends/family’

In each case, the steps involved were as follows:

1. Run a linear regression of the dependent variable on all variables measuring satisfaction with facilities

and services. 2. Run a linear regression of the dependent variable on all variables measuring satisfaction with

experiences. 3. From steps 1 and 2, choose those variables which were significant at 5% or better in the regressions.

This step determines which variables were important in influencing the dependent variables. 4. Run a new regression of the dependent variable on the variables chosen in step 3. 5. Inspect the results from step 4 to see which variables continue to be significant at 5% or better. 6. Discard those variables which are no longer significant and re-run the regression with the remaining

variables.

Since all variables are on the same scale, the size of the regression coefficients enables the explanatory variables to be ranked in terms of the size of their impact on the dependent variable. The degree to which the X variables ‘explain’ the Y variable is measured by R2. For example, if R2 is 0.3 it means that 30% of the variation in the Y variable is explained by the relationship between the Y variable and all of the X variables. Clearly if R2 is 0.3 it means that 70% of the variation in the Y variable is explained by things not specified in the equation.

Each regression coefficient has an associated probability that its true value is zero, even if the data estimated a non-zero effect. If the probability of this is less than 5% we say that the coefficient is ‘significant at the 5% level’. If the probability is less than 1% we say ‘significant at the 1% level’. Conventionally, coefficients are accepted to be non-zero for 5% probability or less. We use the phrase ‘statistically significant’ to denote this. Occasionally, researchers may report a value at 10% probability, that is,. a 10% chance that the true value is zero.


64

Overall Satisfaction The results of this regression model are shown in Table 29. The R2 value of 0.43 indicates that 43% of the variation in overall satisfaction is explained by the model. As is commonly the case, a large proportion of the variation in overall satisfaction appears to be explained by serendipitous factors not captured in this research (such as critical incidents, mood or positivity bias). However, this figure is higher than other studies that have found individual attributes were responsible for between 17% and 38% of variance in overall satisfaction (Crilley & Price 2006; Ryan & Cessford 2003).

Table 29: Results of Regression for Overall Satisfaction

Independent variable (satisfaction with) Regression coefficient t value Constant 0.993 12.347 Overall atmosphere 0.119 5.732 Range of displays 0.037 2.739 Overall facilities and services at the attraction 0.148 7.006 A chance to discover or learn something new 0.149 7.269 A unique experience 0.044 3.087 Overall experiences at this attraction 0.269 12.961

The interpretation of these coefficients is that, for example, a unit increase in satisfaction with ‘overall

atmosphere’ results in a 0.119 unit increase in overall satisfaction with the attraction. Note that this represents an average result over all of the attractions in the survey. Results for individual attractions may be different. As implied by the t values, all variables in this model were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Since all variables are measured on the same scale, the results indicate that satisfaction with ‘overall experiences’ was the most important determinant of overall satisfaction, followed by ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ and ‘overall facilities and services at the attraction’. The impact of other variables is small despite being above zero.

Intention to Return The best fit regression model (i.e. the model with significant variables) for ‘intention to return’ included the satisfaction ratings for the variables ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’, ‘place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’, ‘fun and enjoyment’, and ‘overall experiences at this attraction’. No other attribute variables were statistically significant. The regression results are shown in Table 30.

Table 30: Results of Regression for Intention to Return

Independent variable (satisfaction with) Regression coefficient t value Constant 0.433 2.216 Overall atmosphere 0.110 2.007 Overall facilities and services at the attraction 0.117 2.111 A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends

0.159 3.365

Fun and enjoyment 0.095 1.975 Overall experiences at this attraction 0.294 4.881

All independent variable coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level. The R2 for this regression was 0.198,

meaning that only 19.8% of the variation in intention to return was explained by the independent variables. This is an average across all attractions and may not be true for individual attractions. The variable which has most impact on intention to return to the attraction is ‘overall experiences at this attraction’, such that a unit increase in this variable’s satisfaction rating causes the intention to return to increase by 0.294. The next most important is ‘place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’.


65

Recommend to Other People The best fit regression model for ‘likelihood of recommending’ included as independent variables the satisfaction rating with ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’, ‘unique experience’, ‘fun and enjoyment’, and ‘overall experiences at this attraction’. The results are shown in Table 31.

Table 31: Results of Regression for Likelihood of Recommending

Independent variable (satisfaction with) Regression coefficient t value Constant 1.051 9.093 Overall atmosphere 0.066 2.023 Overall facilities and services at the attraction 0.168 5.093 A unique experience 0.118 3.979 Fun and enjoyment 0.111 4.022 Overall experiences at this attraction 0.315 8.304

The R2 for this regression was 0.42, meaning that 42% of the variation in ‘likelihood of recommending’ was

explained by the variables. All variables in Table 35 are significant at 0.05 level. The most important independent variable is ‘overall experiences at this attraction’, with a coefficient of 0.315.

Summary It is interesting that the variables ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’, and ‘overall experiences at this attraction’ are significant in all three regression models, while ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘a unique experience’ show up as significant in two out of the three models. These are clearly the attributes that attraction managers should focus on to encourage overall satisfaction, intention to return and recommend. Furthermore, although a small number of attributes could explain between 19.8% and 43% of the variance in overall satisfaction, intention to return and recommend this is still fairly low, suggesting other factors not included in the research may be influencing overall satisfaction and loyalty (such as mood, expectations or positivity bias). Individual attraction regression models were also provided to attraction managers in individual attraction reports.

As ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘a unique experience’ were identified as potential issues in the visitor experiences section of this report, and they appear important determinants of satisfaction and loyalty, attraction managers should consider ways to encourage these experiences both on-site and in any pre-arrival materials. Furthermore, visitors overall ratings of facilities/services and experiences appear to also act as an overall determinant of visitor satisfaction and loyalty, suggesting the influence of an overall assessment within visitors assessment with their experience. Managers should not underestimate the influence of ‘the experience’ component to the visit, as overall experiences were the largest predictor of overall satisfaction, intention to return and recommend and many indicated positive gaps illustrated in Chapter 3.


66

Chapter 5

RESULTS: VISITOR SEGMENTATION AND SATISFACTION

Although the previous sections of this report examined differences in satisfaction and importance levels by visitor socio-demographics and travel characteristics, the research also decided to segment visitors by the importance they placed on individual facilities, services and experiences. As Ryan and Cessford (2003) suggest, more advanced analysis can be conducted on visitor segments and their respective satisfaction and loyalty levels. Furthermore, examining distinct segments and their characteristics alongside their satisfaction can provide valuable insights for attraction managers.

Therefore the importance attitudinal ratings were used to cluster (segment) visitors into distinct groups. A furthest neighbour Wards hierarchical analysis was first undertaken to calculate the number of possible clusters based on visitor responses to the importance of both the facilities/services and experience attributes. Four distinct segments were found based on the hierarchical analysis. Once the number was found the researchers then used a k-means analysis to produce the cluster membership details, which then allowed comparisons between the cluster (segments) and their individual attributes ratings, overall satisfaction scores, intention to return and recommend a visit as well as their socio-demographics and travel characteristics. It was also possible to indicate what attractions visitor segments were most likely to have visited, providing important destination level information for attraction managers.

Table 32 presents the four segments and summarises their respective differences. All differences outlined in the table are statistically significant to the 0.05 significance level. Only those that are statistically different are presented in the table, which indicate that several of the responses were similar across the segments. The differences between the segments have been summarised in the table (using terms highest, higher, lower and lowest) to aid and simplify interpretation. The remainder of this section discusses the key characteristics and differences of each of the four segments.

Segment 1: Education Seekers This segment comprises the largest membership of all of the segments (37.8%) and respondents were more likely to be from Australia, but outside of the local ACT/Queanbeyan area, most likely to be female aged between 35–54 years of age, part of a couple and working or conducting home duties.

This segment was the most likely to be travelling in an adult group with children and were most likely to be travelling for other reasons, and less likely to be visiting for a specific event or exhibition. They were also most likely to have used the Internet and/or a visitor information centre as sources of information for their attraction visit. They were also the most likely of all segments to visit Questacon and the Royal Australian Mint. They were also more likely to have visited the Australian Institute of Sport, the National Museum of Australia and the Australian War Memorial. They were less likely to have visited Old Parliament House and the National Gallery of Australia.

They consistently provided the highest importance and satisfaction scores for all facilities, services and experiences on their visit, and overall had the highest level of satisfaction, intention to return (if possible) and recommendation levels, compared with the other segments, although their overall satisfaction score was not that different to Segment 2. Clearly this is a segment that had their visit experiences exceeded. However, they did not differ from Segment 2 with respect to their satisfaction with ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘quality of service’, ‘helpful human guides’ (from facilities and services) and their satisfaction with experiences including an opportunity to experience, arts, culture, heritage; ‘to understand the Australian identity’ and ‘overall experiences at the attraction.’

Segment 2: Heritage Seekers This segment comprises the second largest membership (33.9%) and respondents were most likely to comprise international visitors and those from outside of the local ACT/Queanbeyan area. They were also the most likely of all segments to be first time visitors to the attraction, single, male, aged between either 16–34 years of age or between 55–74 years of age. Not surprisingly, based on their age categories, they were the most likely of all segments to be a retiree/pensioner or students.


67

This segment was the least likely to be travelling in a group with children, and most likely to be visiting specific attraction(s) and visiting friends, and most likely to use travel literature and documentation as sources of information for the attraction visit, including a travel book/guide/brochure and advertising/travel articles or documentaries. This is perhaps not surprising considering they comprised a higher proportion of visitors from outside the local area and international visitors. They were also most likely to be first time visitors to the attraction.

This segment was most likely to have visited Old Parliament House, National Gallery of Australia and the

National Archives of Australia. They were also more likely to have visited the Australia War Memorial. They were the least likely to have visited Questacon, and less likely to have visited the Australian Institute of Sport and the Royal Australian Mint.

They generally placed a higher level of importance on all facilities and services at the attraction visited,

except for ‘interactive displays’, ‘parking facilities’ and ‘value for money of retail goods’, which did not differ from the ratings of Segment 3, who placed higher importance on these items. This may be in part related to the type of attraction they visited and their socio-demographics (younger/older, retired/students) or travel characteristics (visiting without children to visit a specific attraction). Nevertheless, their importance ratings were generally high for attraction facilities and services. This segment generally had high levels of satisfaction for attraction facilities and services, but not as high as Segment 1. Furthermore, they rated their satisfaction with ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘quality of service’ and ‘helpful human guides’ in a similar way to Segment 1, while there were no differences between their scores on ‘electronic displays’ and ‘value for money of retail goods’ with Segment 3, suggesting lower levels of importance for these attributes.

However, the importance they placed on certain experiences was higher (but not as high as Segment 1) on

attributes to learn, and to experience arts, culture, heritage and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’. Their attraction visit was less to do with fun, enjoyment, spending time with others or understanding science compared with the other segments. Only Segment 4 had a lower rating of the importance on fun/enjoyment and science than this segment, while this segment had the lowest rating related to experiences with/for children. This is not surprising considering their socio-demographics. They also generally had a higher satisfaction rating of attraction experiences except for ‘fun and enjoyment’ and to understand science, which were rated in a similar (lower) way to Segment 3. Their lowest rating (similar to their importance scores) were for attraction experiences related to children, perhaps indicative of their socio-demographics and travel party.

Their overall satisfaction was higher than Segment 3 and 4 but similar to Segment 1, while they had the

lowest likelihood for all segments for a repeat visit but were more likely than Segments 3 and 4 to recommend a visit to others. This may be related to their higher proportion of non-local origins and the inability to return to the attraction in the future.

Segment 3: Family Fun Seekers This segment comprises the third largest membership of all of the segments (24.4%) and respondents were more likely to be from Australia, but most likely to be from the local ACT/Queanbeyan area, and more likely to be males aged between 35–54 years of age, part of a couple and working.

They were more likely to be visiting in an adult group with children and more likely to be in Canberra visiting family than to visit a specific attraction. They were more likely to be repeat visitors and to have used their own experience as an attraction information source. They were most likely to have visited the Australian National Botanic Gardens, and more likely to have visited the Australian Institute of Sport and the National Gallery of Australia. They were less likely than other segments to have visited the National Museum of Australia, Australian War Memorial and the National Archives of Australia.

This segment generally placed a lower importance on facilities and service attributes than Segment 1 and 2

but not as low as Segment 4. However, they had similar responses to Segment 2 with respect to the importance of ‘interactive displays’, ‘parking facilities’ and ‘value for money of retail goods’. Similar to their importance ratings they had lower satisfaction scores generally compared with Segment 1 and 2, except for ‘electronic displays’ and ‘value for money of retail goods’, which were rated in a similar way to Segment 2, while their satisfaction with service, human guides, ‘front reception information’, ‘general maps and information’ and ‘parking facilities’ were similar to Segment 4.

With respect to attraction experiences, this segment placed a higher importance on the ability to spend time

with others, fun and enjoyment, to understand science, and the ability of the attraction to provide educational and


68

enjoyable experiences for children. These were not rated as high as Segment 1 but certainly they were rated higher than Segment 2 and Segment 4. However, they placed a lower level of importance than Segment 1 and 2 on the importance of the attraction to provide educational opportunities, particularly related to arts, culture and heritage, despite more respondents in this segment visiting the National Gallery of Australia. This is most likely because of the socio-demographics and travel characteristics. This segment had higher level of satisfaction than Segment 2 and 4 with experiences for children, but lower levels of satisfaction based on the attraction providing ‘unique experiences’, ‘ability to learn or discover something new’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’. They rated some aspects related to satisfaction with experiencing arts, culture and heritage lower than Segment 1 and 2 but in a similar way to Segment 4.

Overall their satisfaction levels were lower than Segment 1 and 2, but not as low as Segment 4, and they

were the least likely of all segments to consider a repeat visit, and had a lower likelihood to recommend the attraction to others as a place to visit.

Segment 4: Senior Repeats This segment comprises the smallest membership of all of the segments (3.9%) and respondents like Segment 3 were more likely to be from Australia, and more likely to be from the local ACT/Queanbeyan area. However, unlike Segment 3 they were more likely to be females, most likely to be aged over 55 years of age, more likely to be single and either retired or a pensioner.

They were more likely to be visiting without children and more likely to be in Canberra for a specific event or exhibition. They were also more likely to be repeat visitors and more likely to have used their own experience as an attraction information source, and the least likely to use other information sources such as guidebooks, the Internet etc. They were more likely to have visited the Australian National Botanic Gardens, and least likely to have visited Questacon and the National Capital Exhibition. They were also less likely than other segments to have visited the National Museum of Australia.

This segment placed the lowest level of importance for all of the attraction facilities and services of all the

segments, and the lowest level of satisfaction for many of the attributes, including all of the display attributes. All other facilities and services were rated lowest, but in a similar way to Segment 3.

With respect of attraction experiences, this segment placed the lowest level of importance on ‘fun and

enjoyment’, learning something new, particularly related to arts, culture or heritage/identity or to understand science. Their satisfaction related to attraction experiences was similar to Segment 3 except that they rated their satisfaction with learning or discovering something new and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ lower than Segment 3. Furthermore, they placed lower satisfaction ratings on experiences with/for children, compared to Segment 3. However, they did not rate their satisfaction with these attributes as low as Segment 2. These ratings are most likely due to their socio-demographic composition and travel party.

Overall their satisfaction levels were the lowest, but surprisingly this segment had the highest intention to

revisit (possibly because they were local and could) but had a lower likelihood to recommend a visit to others, compared to Segments 1 and 2. Although their likelihood to recommend was lower than Segment 3, the difference was not statistically significant, but it may perhaps indicate an unwillingness to recommend their favourite attraction to others.

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

69

Tab

le 3

2: A

ttra

ctio

n V

isito

r Se

gmen

ts a

nd C

hara

cter

istic

s bas

ed o

n C

lust

er (S

egm

ent)

Ana

lysi

s3

Se

gmen

t 1 (3

7.8%

) Se

gmen

t 2 (

33.9

%)

Segm

ent 3

(24.

4%)

Segm

ent 4

(3.9

%)

Soci

o-de

mog

raph

ics

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

live

in A

ustra

lia

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

non-

loca

l vi

sito

rs (o

utsi

de o

f A

CT/

Que

anbe

yan)

•

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e fe

mal

e •

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e ag

ed 3

5–54

ye

ars a

nd le

ast l

ikel

y to

be

aged

ov

er 5

5 ye

ars

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

part

of a

cou

ple

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

wor

king

or

cond

uctin

g ho

me

dutie

s

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

live

ove

rsea

s •

Mor

e lik

ely

to b

e no

n-lo

cal

visi

tors

(out

side

of

AC

T/Q

uean

beya

n)

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

mal

e •

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e ag

ed b

etw

een

16-3

4 an

d be

twee

n 55

–74

year

s •

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e si

ngle

•

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e a

retir

ee/p

ensi

oner

or a

stud

ent

• M

ore

likel

y to

live

in A

ustra

lia

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

loca

l vis

itors

(f

rom

AC

T/Q

uean

beya

n)

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

mal

e •

Mor

e lik

ely

to b

e 35

–54

year

s •

Mor

e lik

ely

to b

e pa

rt of

a c

oupl

e •

Mor

e lik

ely

to b

e w

orki

ng

• M

ore

likel

y to

live

in A

ustra

lia

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

loca

l vis

itors

(f

rom

AC

T/Q

uean

beya

n)

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

fem

ale

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

aged

55

year

s an

d ov

er

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

sing

le

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

a re

tiree

/pen

sion

er

Vis

itor

trav

el b

ehav

iour

•

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e an

adu

lt gr

oup

trave

lling

with

chi

ldre

n •

Mos

t lik

ely

to b

e vi

sitin

g fo

r ot

her r

easo

ns a

nd le

ss li

kely

to b

e at

tend

ing

a sp

ecifi

c ev

ent o

r ex

hibi

tion

• L

east

like

ly to

be

an a

dult

grou

p tra

velin

g w

ith c

hild

ren

and

mos

t lik

ely

to b

e tra

velli

ng w

ith n

o ch

ildre

n •

Mor

e lik

ely

to b

e vi

sitin

g sp

ecifi

c at

tract

ion(

s) a

nd v

isiti

ng fr

iend

s

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

an a

dult

grou

p tra

velli

ng w

ith c

hild

ren

• L

ess l

ikel

y to

be

visi

ting

spec

ific

attra

ctio

n(s)

but

mor

e lik

ely

to b

e vi

sitin

g fa

mily

• L

ess l

ikel

y to

be

an a

dult

grou

p tra

velin

g w

ith c

hild

ren

and

mor

e lik

ely

to b

e tra

velli

ng

with

no

child

ren

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

atte

ndin

g a

spec

ific

even

t or e

xhib

ition

Att

ract

ion

visi

tatio

n be

havi

our

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

hav

e vi

site

d Q

uest

acon

, the

Roy

al A

ustra

lian

Min

t •

Mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

visi

ted

the

Aus

tralia

n In

stitu

te o

f Spo

rt,

Nat

iona

l Mus

eum

of A

ustra

lia

and

Aus

tralia

n W

ar M

emor

ial

• L

ess l

ikel

y to

vis

it O

ld P

arlia

men

t H

ouse

and

Nat

iona

l Gal

lery

of

Aus

tralia

•

Mos

t lik

ely

to h

ave

used

the

inte

rnet

and

a v

isito

r inf

orm

atio

n ce

ntre

for a

ttrac

tion

info

rmat

ion

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

be

first

tim

e vi

sito

rs to

the

attra

ctio

n •

Mos

t lik

ely

to h

ave

visi

ted

Old

Pa

rliam

ent H

ouse

, Nat

iona

l G

alle

ry o

f Aus

tralia

, Nat

iona

l A

rchi

ves o

f Aus

tralia

•

Mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

visi

ted

the

Aus

tralia

n W

ar M

emor

ial

• L

east

like

ly to

hav

e vi

site

d Q

uest

acon

•

Les

s lik

ely

to h

ave

visi

ted

the

Roy

al A

ustra

lian

Min

t and

the

Aus

tralia

n In

stitu

te o

f Spo

rt •

Mos

t lik

ely

to h

ave

used

a tr

avel

bo

ok/g

uide

/bro

chur

e an

d ad

verti

sing

/trav

el a

rticl

es e

tc fo

r

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

repe

at v

isito

rs

to th

e at

tract

ion

• M

ost l

ikel

y to

hav

e vi

site

d th

e A

ustra

lian

Nat

iona

l Bot

anic

G

arde

ns

• M

ore

likel

y to

hav

e vi

site

d A

ustra

lian

Inst

itute

of S

port,

N

atio

nal G

alle

ry o

f Aus

tralia

•

Les

s lik

ely

to v

isit

the

Nat

iona

l M

useu

m o

f Aus

tralia

, Aus

tralia

n W

ar M

emor

ial a

nd N

atio

nal

Arc

hive

s of A

ustra

lia

• M

ore

likel

y to

hav

e be

en th

ere

befo

re a

nd le

ss li

kely

to h

ave

used

ot

her i

nfor

mat

ion

sour

ces

• M

ore

likel

y to

be

repe

at

visi

tors

to th

e at

tract

ion

• L

east

like

ly to

hav

e vi

site

d Q

uest

acon

, Nat

iona

l Cap

ital

Exhi

bitio

n.

• L

ess l

ikel

y to

hav

e vi

site

d N

atio

nal M

useu

m o

f Aus

tralia

•

Mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

visi

ted

the

Aus

tralia

n N

atio

nal B

otan

ic

Gar

dens

•

Lea

st li

kely

to h

ave

used

the

Inte

rnet

, vis

itor i

nfor

mat

ion

cent

re, t

rave

l bo

ok/g

uide

/bro

chur

e fo

r at

tract

ion

info

rmat

ion.

Mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

been

ther

e

3 Not

e: a

n un

derli

ne in

dica

tes n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

this

attr

ibut

e fo

r thi

s seg

men

t and

the

segm

ent i

n th

e co

lum

n to

the

left.

An

italic

indi

cate

s no

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

is a

ttrib

ute

for t

his s

egm

ent a

nd th

e se

gmen

t in

the

colu

mn

to th

e rig

ht. F

or in

stan

ce, q

ualit

y of

serv

ice

was

rate

d hi

ghes

t by

segm

ent 1

com

pare

d to

3 a

nd 4

, but

not

segm

ent 2

. Seg

men

t 2 ra

ted

this

attr

ibut

e hi

gher

than

segm

ent 3

and

4. H

owev

er, s

egm

ent 3

and

4

wer

e no

t rat

ed d

iffer

ently

bet

wee

n ea

ch o

ther

, but

wer

e bo

th lo

w a

nd lo

wes

t com

pare

d to

segm

ent 1

and

2.

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

70

Se

gmen

t 1 (3

7.8%

) Se

gmen

t 2 (

33.9

%)

Segm

ent 3

(24.

4%)

Segm

ent 4

(3.9

%)

attra

ctio

n in

form

atio

n be

fore

. Im

port

ance

of

attr

actio

n fa

cilit

ies a

nd

serv

ices

Hig

hest

leve

l of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• go

od fi

rst i

mpr

essi

on/w

elco

me

•

over

all a

tmos

pher

e •

elec

troni

c di

spla

ys

• in

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ys

• ap

prop

riate

dis

play

s •

clea

r dis

play

s •

rang

e of

dis

play

s •

qual

ity o

f ser

vice

•

help

ful h

uman

gui

des

• fr

ont r

ecep

tion

info

rmat

ion

•

map

s and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces f

or

the

attra

ctio

n •

park

ing

faci

litie

s •

valu

e fo

r mon

ey o

f ret

ail g

oods

•

over

all f

acili

ties a

nd se

rvic

es

Hig

her

leve

l of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• go

od fi

rst i

mpr

essi

on/w

elco

me

•

over

all a

tmos

pher

e •

elec

troni

c di

spla

ys

• in

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ys

• ap

prop

riate

dis

play

s •

clea

r dis

play

s •

rang

e of

dis

play

s •

qual

ity o

f ser

vice

•

help

ful h

uman

gui

des

• fr

ont r

ecep

tion

info

rmat

ion

•

map

s and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces f

or

the

attra

ctio

n •

park

ing

faci

litie

s •

valu

e fo

r mon

ey o

f ret

ail g

oods

•

over

all f

acili

ties a

nd se

rvic

es

Low

er le

vel o

f im

porta

nce

with

•

good

firs

t im

pres

sion

/wel

com

e

• ov

eral

l atm

osph

ere

• el

ectro

nic

disp

lays

•

inte

ract

ive

disp

lays

•

appr

opria

te d

ispl

ays

• cl

ear d

ispl

ays

• ra

nge

of d

ispl

ays

• qu

ality

of s

ervi

ce

• he

lpfu

l hum

an g

uide

s •

fron

t rec

eptio

n in

form

atio

n

• m

aps a

nd in

form

atio

n so

urce

s for

th

e at

tract

ion

• pa

rkin

g fa

cilit

ies

• va

lue

for m

oney

of r

etai

l goo

ds

• ov

eral

l fac

ilitie

s and

serv

ices

Low

est l

evel

of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• go

od fi

rst i

mpr

essi

on/w

elco

me

•

over

all a

tmos

pher

e •

elec

troni

c di

spla

ys

• in

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ys

• ap

prop

riate

dis

play

s •

clea

r dis

play

s •

rang

e of

dis

play

s •

qual

ity o

f ser

vice

•

help

ful h

uman

gui

des

• fr

ont r

ecep

tion

info

rmat

ion

•

map

s and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces

for t

he a

ttrac

tion

• pa

rkin

g fa

cilit

ies

• va

lue

for m

oney

of r

etai

l goo

ds

• ov

eral

l fac

ilitie

s and

serv

ices

Satis

fact

ion

leve

ls w

ith

attr

actio

n fa

cilit

ies a

nd

serv

ices

Hig

hest

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

with

: •

good

firs

t im

pres

sion

/wel

com

e

• ov

eral

l atm

osph

ere

• el

ectro

nic

disp

lays

•

inte

ract

ive

disp

lays

•

appr

opria

te d

ispl

ays

• cl

ear d

ispl

ays

• ra

nge

of d

ispl

ays

• qu

ality

of s

ervi

ce

• he

lpfu

l hum

an g

uide

s •

fron

t rec

eptio

n in

form

atio

n

• m

aps a

nd in

form

atio

n so

urce

s for

th

e at

tract

ion

• pa

rkin

g fa

cilit

ies

• va

lue

for m

oney

of r

etai

l goo

ds

• ov

eral

l fac

ilitie

s and

serv

ices

Hig

her

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

with

: •

good

firs

t im

pres

sion

/wel

com

e •

over

all a

tmos

pher

e •

elec

tron

ic d

ispl

ays

• in

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ys

• ap

prop

riate

dis

play

s •

clea

r dis

play

s •

rang

e of

dis

play

s •

qual

ity o

f ser

vice

•

help

ful h

uman

gui

des

• fr

ont r

ecep

tion

info

rmat

ion

• m

aps a

nd in

form

atio

n so

urce

s for

th

e at

tract

ion

• pa

rkin

g fa

cilit

ies

• va

lue

for m

oney

of r

etai

l goo

ds

• ov

eral

l fac

ilitie

s and

serv

ices

Low

er le

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith:

• go

od fi

rst i

mpr

essi

on/w

elco

me

• ov

eral

l atm

osph

ere

• el

ectro

nic

disp

lays

•

inte

ract

ive

disp

lays

•

appr

opria

te d

ispl

ays

• cl

ear d

ispl

ays

• ra

nge

of d

ispl

ays

• qu

ality

of s

ervi

ce

• he

lpfu

l hum

an g

uide

s •

fron

t rec

eptio

n in

form

atio

n •

map

s and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces f

or

the

attr

actio

n •

park

ing

faci

litie

s •

valu

e fo

r mon

ey o

f ret

ail g

oods

•

over

all f

acili

ties a

nd se

rvic

es

Low

est l

evel

of s

atis

fact

ion

with

: •

good

firs

t im

pres

sion

/wel

com

e •

over

all a

tmos

pher

e •

elec

troni

c di

spla

ys

• in

tera

ctiv

e di

spla

ys

• ap

prop

riate

dis

play

s •

clea

r dis

play

s •

rang

e of

dis

play

s •

qual

ity o

f ser

vice

•

help

ful h

uman

gui

des

• fr

ont r

ecep

tion

info

rmat

ion

• m

aps a

nd in

form

atio

n so

urce

s fo

r the

attr

actio

n •

park

ing

faci

litie

s •

valu

e fo

r mon

ey o

f ret

ail g

oods

•

over

all f

acili

ties a

nd se

rvic

es

Impo

rtan

ce o

f at

trac

tion

expe

rien

ces

Hig

hest

leve

l of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• a

chan

ce to

lear

n or

dis

cove

r so

met

hing

new

•

a un

ique

exp

erie

nce

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e ar

ts

Hig

her

leve

l of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• a

chan

ce to

lear

n or

dis

cove

r so

met

hing

new

•

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

arts

or

cul

ture

Low

er le

vel o

f im

porta

nce

with

: •

a ch

ance

to le

arn

or d

isco

ver

som

ethi

ng n

ew

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e ar

ts

or c

ultu

re

Low

est l

evel

of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• a

chan

ce to

lear

n or

dis

cove

r so

met

hing

new

•

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

arts

or c

ultu

re

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

71

Se

gmen

t 1 (3

7.8%

) Se

gmen

t 2 (

33.9

%)

Segm

ent 3

(24.

4%)

Segm

ent 4

(3.9

%)

or c

ultu

re

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

•

educ

atio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren

• fu

n an

d en

joym

ent

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oy

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to u

nder

stan

d th

e sc

ienc

e ar

ound

us e

very

day

• to

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

• ov

eral

l exp

erie

nces

at t

his

attra

ctio

n

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

•

to b

ette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y •

over

all e

xper

ienc

es a

t thi

s at

tract

ion

Low

er le

vel o

f im

porta

nce

with

: •

a pl

ace

to sp

end

qual

ity ti

me

with

pa

rtner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

s •

fun

and

enjo

ymen

t •

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s eve

ryda

y L

owes

t lev

el o

f im

porta

nce

with

: •

educ

atio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

en

joy

•

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

•

to b

ette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y •

over

all e

xper

ienc

es a

t thi

s at

tract

ion

Hig

her

leve

l of i

mpo

rtanc

e w

ith:

• a

plac

e to

spen

d qu

ality

tim

e w

ith

partn

er/fa

mily

/frie

nds

• ed

ucat

iona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n •

fun

and

enjo

ymen

t •

som

ethi

ng th

e ch

ildre

n w

ill e

njoy

•

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s eve

ryda

y

•

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

•

fun

and

enjo

ymen

t •

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s eve

ryda

y •

to b

ette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y •

over

all e

xper

ienc

es a

t thi

s at

tract

ion

Low

er le

vel o

f im

porta

nce

with

: •

educ

atio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

en

joy

Satis

fact

ion

leve

ls w

ith

attr

actio

n ex

peri

ence

s H

ighe

st le

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith:

• a

chan

ce to

lear

n or

dis

cove

r so

met

hing

new

•

a pl

ace

to sp

end

qual

ity ti

me

with

pa

rtner

/fam

ily/fr

iend

s •

a un

ique

exp

erie

nce

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e ar

ts

or c

ultu

re

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e Au

stra

lia’s

her

itage

•

educ

atio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren

• fu

n an

d en

joym

ent

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oy

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to u

nder

stan

d th

e sc

ienc

e ar

ound

us e

very

day

• to

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e Au

stra

lian

iden

tity

• ov

eral

l exp

erie

nces

at t

his

attr

actio

n

Hig

her

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

with

: •

a ch

ance

to le

arn

or d

isco

ver

som

ethi

ng n

ew

• a

plac

e to

spen

d qu

ality

tim

e w

ith

partn

er/fa

mily

/frie

nds

• a

uniq

ue e

xper

ienc

e •

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

arts

or

cul

ture

•

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

Aus

tralia

’s h

erita

ge

• fu

n an

d en

joym

ent

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to u

nder

stan

d th

e sc

ienc

e ar

ound

us e

very

day

• to

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

• ov

eral

l exp

erie

nces

at t

his

attra

ctio

n L

owes

t lev

el o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith:

• ed

ucat

iona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

Low

er le

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith:

• a

chan

ce to

lear

n or

dis

cove

r so

met

hing

new

•

a pl

ace

to sp

end

qual

ity ti

me

with

pa

rtne

r/fa

mily

/frie

nds

• a

uniq

ue e

xper

ienc

e •

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

arts

or

cul

ture

•

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

Aust

ralia

’s h

erita

ge

• fu

n an

d en

joym

ent

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to u

nder

stan

d th

e sc

ienc

e ar

ound

us e

very

day

• to

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d th

e A

ustra

lian

iden

tity

• ov

eral

l exp

erie

nces

at t

his

attr

actio

n H

ighe

r le

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith:

• ed

ucat

iona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

Low

est l

evel

of s

atis

fact

ion

with

: •

a ch

ance

to le

arn

or d

isco

ver

som

ethi

ng n

ew

• a

plac

e to

spen

d qu

ality

tim

e w

ith p

artn

er/fa

mily

/frie

nds

• a

uniq

ue e

xper

ienc

e •

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

arts

or c

ultu

re

• an

opp

ortu

nity

to e

xper

ienc

e A

ustra

lia’s

her

itage

•

fun

and

enjo

ymen

t •

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

und

erst

and

the

scie

nce

arou

nd u

s eve

ryda

y •

to b

ette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y •

over

all e

xper

ienc

es a

t thi

s at

tract

ion

Low

er le

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith:

• ed

ucat

iona

l exp

erie

nces

for m

y ch

ildre

n

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

72

Se

gmen

t 1 (3

7.8%

) Se

gmen

t 2 (

33.9

%)

Segm

ent 3

(24.

4%)

Segm

ent 4

(3.9

%)

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oy

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

enj

oy

• so

met

hing

the

child

ren

will

en

joy

Ove

rall

satis

fact

ion

and

loya

lty

• O

vera

ll sa

tisfa

ctio

n hi

ghes

t •

Mos

t lik

ely

to re

turn

vis

it •

Mos

t lik

ely

to re

com

men

d vi

sit

• O

vera

ll sa

tisfa

ctio

n hi

gh

• Lo

wes

t lik

elih

ood

of re

turn

vis

it •

Mor

e lik

ely

to re

com

men

d vi

sit

• O

vera

ll sa

tisfa

ctio

n lo

wer

•

Low

er li

kelih

ood

of re

turn

vis

it •

Leas

t lik

ely

to re

com

men

d vi

sit

• O

vera

ll sa

tisfa

ctio

n lo

wes

t •

Mos

t lik

ely

to re

turn

vis

it •

Low

er li

kelih

ood

to

reco

mm

end

visi

t


72

Summary This section outlined a segmentation of visitors based on the importance they place on attraction facilities/services and experiences. The results indicated four distinct segments that differ in their socio-demographics, travel behaviour, individual ratings and overall satisfaction and loyalty. The largest and most positive segment was labelled ‘Education Seekers’, and they were most likely to be middle aged females travelling with children. This segment consistently provided the highest rating for all items and had the highest intention to return and recommend the experience. ‘Heritage Seekers’ were the second largest segment and were most likely to be younger or older males on their first attraction visit, specifically visiting an attraction or visiting friends. This is an interesting result as previous research on museum and heritage visitors indicates they are predominately female (Ritchie 2003). They were least likely to be travelling with children and most likely to have visited heritage attractions such as Old Parliament House, National Gallery of Australia and the National Archives of Australia. There ratings were generally high and their visit was less motivated by fun, enjoyment, spending time with others, but more motivated by learning, experience arts and heritage. They also had the least likelihood of a repeat visit (possibly because more were international or interstate visitors), but they were more likely than some of the other segments to recommend the visit.

The third segment was labelled ‘Family Fun Seekers’ as this segment was the most likely to be from the local area, comprising more middle aged males who were high repeat visitors using their previous experience to make visit decisions. They generally placed a lower importance and satisfaction on attributes, except for fun, enjoyment, spending time with others and providing experiences for children. This segment has overall a lower satisfaction score, lower likelihood of a return visit and were the least likely to recommend a visit to others. The final segment (‘Senior Repeats’) were most likely to be older, more likely to be repeat visitors, locals and travelled without children. This group were the most critical of all the segments except for experiences relating to children, where their rating was not the lowest. Surprisingly, this segment recorded the lowest overall satisfaction score of all segments yet they were the most likely to intend to revisit but had a lower likelihood to recommend. They were labelled as secretive as they may not want to tell others about their favourite visitor attractions, located close to their home.


73

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section of the report concludes by summarising the research design and results, before making some recommendations based on the research for attraction and destination managers as well as researchers interested in developing an attraction satisfaction benchmarking methodology.

This measurement of visitor satisfaction is crucial for monitoring the overall satisfaction of visitors, their intention to repeat visit and recommend an attraction visit. However, it is recognised that the measurement of visitor satisfaction is complex, multi-dimensional and may be influenced by a wide range of factors (including previous experiences, culture, and even mood). The dominant approach in measuring consumer satisfaction has emphasised the gap between expectations and performance of individual attributes as well as the overall satisfaction and loyalty of consumers. Furthermore, research has tended to be dominated by the measurement of instrumental or functional attributes, excluding the use of less tangible attributes (such as experiences). This research developed an importance-performance approach to benchmarking visitor satisfaction at attractions, assessing the importance and performance of a range of important tangible/instrumental attributes and experience/less tangible attributes, alongside overall satisfaction and loyalty measures. It also chose an IPA benchmarking approach so that results could be presented visually helping managerial decision making. The use of IPA in conjunction with more advanced statistical analysis was used to reduce some of the criticisms of this approach, but also to add value to the research through better understanding the underlying drivers or determinants of visitor satisfaction and loyalty, as well as to examine satisfaction and loyalty between groups or segments of visitors.

A survey was designed to examine visitor ratings of both the importance and satisfaction with attraction

facility and experience attributes. Previous research, an industry workshop and a Delphi approach were used to generate and rank a list of relevant attributes to be included in the survey. The data collection process lasted for 13 months across the 10 attraction partners through a combination of field workers and in-kind attraction support to recruit visitors on random nominated days. A total of 3,569 useable completed surveys were collected at the end of April 2008.

Approximately 60% of respondents were female with 44% aged between 35 and 54 years of age. The vast

majority (77.3%) were couples, employed in either full or part time employment, while 21% were retired and 14.3% were studying or undertaking home duties. Nearly 30% had children aged under 14 years living at their house for at least half of their time, and half of those with children living with them were aged between six and 14 years old. Household income varied amongst attraction visitors, with a large range across the income combined household income categories. A total of 33.9% of visitor households earned between $52,000 and $103,999, while 10.6% earned $150,000 or over per annum.

Over 90% of visitors surveyed were Australian, with over-one third of Australian visitors from the local area

(ACT/Queanbeyan), and approximately 28% from ‘other NSW’. From the 7.3% that were international visitors, the majority were from the United Kingdom and other countries. A total of 52.5% of non-local visitors had visited Canberra once in the last three years (this visit), followed by 31.7% between two and four times, while 72% had visited once in the last 12 months. The main purpose of a visit was to visit specific attraction(s) by 37% of non-local visitors, followed by visiting family (19.2%). The average length of stay was 3.8 nights. A total of 72.2% of attraction visitors had visited the attraction once in the last 12 months (on this visit), stayed for on average 2 hours and 30 minutes, with the majority either travelling as an adult couple or family group—parents and children. The most used attraction visitor information sources were previous experience (42.7%), followed by friends and relatives (26.7%) and a travel book, guide or brochure (18.5%).

With respect to attraction facilities and services, visitors placed the highest importance on the ‘clear

explanation of displays’ followed by ‘quality of service’ and the ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction.’ They were most satisfied with ‘overall atmosphere’, the ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’ as well as ‘helpful human guides’ (for those that used them). The IPA analysis and chart mapping indicated that only two attributes were in quadrant A (concentrate here) including ‘parking facilities’ and ‘maps and information sources for the attraction.’ The majority of the attributes were in quadrant B (keep up the good work). However, changing the IPA chart cross hairs using the overall median scores, instead of the mean scores, meant that an


74

additional two attributes moved from quadrant B to quadrant A, and included ‘range of displays’ and ‘clear explanation of displays’.

A gap analysis between the importance and satisfaction scores was undertaken and the scores were different

between nine from 14 attributes. The largest positive gap (where satisfaction was larger than the importance score) was for ‘electronic displays’ followed by ‘interactive displays’. However, three attributes had a negative gap (with the satisfaction score being lower than the importance score) including ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’, ‘parking facilities’ and ‘clear explanation of displays’. The largest number of differences with respect to visitor characteristics was due to gender, followed by local origins and travel party. Although there were a large number of differences between visitor characteristics, none of these meant that scores on the IPA charts moved into quadrant A.

With respect to attraction experiences visitors placed the highest importance on ‘a chance to discover or learn

something new’ followed by ‘overall experiences at this attraction’ and ‘educational experiences for my children’. They were most satisfied with the ‘overall experiences at this attraction’, ‘a chance to discover or learn something new’ as well as ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’ (for those that felt they were seeking these experiences). The IPA analysis and chart mapping indicated that only two attributes were in quadrant A (concentrate here) including ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity.’ The majority of the attributes were in quadrant B (keep up the good work). However, changing the IPA chart cross hairs using the overall median scores, instead of the mean scores, meant no attributes moved into quadrant A, but ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ moved onto the importance grid line between quadrant A and C, while ‘a unique experience’ moved onto the satisfaction grid line between quadrant A and B.

A gap analysis between the importance and satisfaction scores was undertaken and the scores were different

between eight out of 11 attributes. The largest positive gap (where satisfaction was larger than the importance score) was for ‘an opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’ followed by ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’ and ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’. No experience attributes received a negative gap. The largest number of differences with respect to visitor characteristics was due to gender, followed by visitation level and travel party. However, unlike attraction facilities/services results where none of the IPA attributes moved into quadrant A, several did related to visitor experiences. Males, non-local visitors, first time visitors and visitors without children were all less satisfied with the ability of the attraction to provide ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’, moving this attribute to quadrant A (concentrate here). Single visitors placed more importance on ‘an opportunity to experience arts or culture’ moving this experience into quadrant A. Furthermore, local visitors were less satisfied with the attraction able to provide ‘an opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage’, moving this experience into quadrant A.

The results also indicate overall high levels of visitor satisfaction and high levels of recommendation to

others. A total of 11.4% of visitors had experienced a problem at the attraction during their visit and the majority (64%) reported these problems to attraction staff. However, nearly 30% who did report the problem to staff had it resolved to their satisfaction.

The majority of visitors had no unhappy/bad experiences, while the most frequently cited unhappy or bad

experiences were related to the closure of some parts of the attraction for refurbishment or construction, lack of information and parking issues. A number of happy/good experiences were recorded by visitors, with the most frequently cited comments relating to the great (interactive) displays and layout of the attraction, followed by the guides at the attraction and overall enjoyable experiences. Many of the comments about the guides referred to their outstanding customer service and personal interaction with visitors.

It is interesting that the variables ‘overall atmosphere’, ‘overall facilities and services at this attraction’, and

‘overall experiences at this attraction’ were significant predictors of overall satisfaction and loyalty, while ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘a unique experience’ show up as significant in two out of the three models. These are clearly the attributes that attraction managers should focus on to encourage overall satisfaction, intention to return and recommend. As ‘fun and enjoyment’ and ‘a unique experience’ were identified as potential issues in the visitor experiences section of this report, and they appear important determinants of satisfaction and loyalty, attraction managers should consider ways to encourage these experiences both on-site and in any pre-arrival materials. Furthermore, overall ratings of facilities/services and experiences appear to also act as an overall determinant of visitor satisfaction and loyalty, suggesting the influence of an overall assessment within visitors assessment with their experience. Managers should not underestimate the influence of ‘the experience’ component to the visit, as overall experiences were the largest predictor of overall satisfaction, intention to return and recommend.


75

A segmentation analysis of visitors based on the importance they place on attraction facilities/services and experiences was also undertaken. The results indicated four distinct segments that differ in their socio-demographics, travel behaviour, individual ratings, overall satisfaction and loyalty. They were labelled the ‘Education Seekers’ who comprised 37.8% of the sample, the ‘Heritage Seekers’ (33.9%), ‘Family Fun Seekers’ (24.4%) and the ‘Senior Repeats’ (3.9%).

Industry Recommendations Based on the results of the research attraction and destination managers should, with respect to attraction facilities and services: • Examine in more detail why ‘parking facilities’, ‘maps and information sources for the attraction’ and

‘clear explanation of displays’ may be a potential issue, resulting in lower satisfaction and higher importance scores from visitors.

• Examine in more detail why low levels of retail use were discovered in the research compared to other attributes.

• Examine why repeat and local visitors generally scored attributes lower than first time and non-local visitors.

• It should also be recognised that satisfaction with ‘parking facilities’ or ‘maps and information sources’, which was a potential issue in the IPA analysis did not make it into the best fit model regression model as a predictor of overall satisfaction or loyalty.

• Issues concerned with ‘parking facilities’ may be due to some attractions undergoing refurbishment and renovation, coupled with limited daytime parking in the Parliamentary Triangle. These issues were of more importance to certain visitor groups (e.g. those without children did not rate ‘parking facilities’ as an issue compared to those with children, while for repeat visitors ‘maps and information sources’ were also not an issue compared to first time visitors). Also the importance of ‘parking facilities’ was rated higher, and satisfaction was lower for the ‘Family Fun Seeker’ segment, which were more likely to be travelling with children.

• Based on the location of attributes in quadrant C (low priority) less attention should be provided on ‘interactive/electronic displays’ and ‘value for money of retail goods.’

Based on the results of the research, attraction and destination managers should, with respect to attraction experiences: • Examine in more detail why ‘fun and enjoyment’, ‘to better understand the Australian identity’, and

possibly ‘a unique experience’ may be a potential issue, resulting in lower satisfaction and higher importance scores compared to all experience attributes. However, two attributes (‘a unique experience’ and ‘to better understand the Australian identity’) did receive a positive disconfirmation score. The ‘fun and enjoyment’ attribute was an important predictor of a repeat visit and recommendation to others, while ‘a unique experience’ was a significant predictor of overall satisfaction and intention to recommend. This could indicate a focus on developing and promoting more fun and enjoyable experiences at visitor attractions, especially for males and the ‘Ambivalent Family Fun Seeker’ segment in particular.

• Determine why there are major differences in scores across gender, visitation level, those who visited with children and local origins.

• Locals placed more emphasis on ‘to better understand the Australian identity’ than non-locals, so management actions for this attribute should focus on this particular group.

• Examine experience attributes that moved into quadrant A. The most common movement into quadrant A was as ‘a place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends’. For males, non-local visitors, first time visitors and those who travelled without children, this was an issue. Also, this attribute was the second highest predictor for intention to return visit, after ‘overall experiences’.

• Managers should consider product development or marketing activities that can enhance or promote this experience for these groups in particular, especially to increase repeat visits.

• Based on the location of attributes in quadrant C (low priority) less attention should be provided on ‘educational experiences for my children’, an ‘opportunity to understand the science around us everyday’ and an ‘opportunity to experience arts or culture’.

• Based on the location of attributes in quadrant D (possible overkill) more marketing emphasis for ‘something the children will enjoy’ should be provided to visitors with children, especially the ‘Education Seekers’ and the ‘Family Fun Seekers.’ This may increase the overall importance scores over time helping to move this attribute into quadrant B.


76

Based on the results of the research attraction and destination managers should, with respect to the overall results, consider: • Overall atmosphere and both overall facilities/services and overall experience attributes were significant

predictors of overall satisfaction and loyalty. Managers should consider what specific actions can be undertaken to increase these ratings (which would then result in increased satisfaction and loyalty). This is particularly important for those segments with a lower overall satisfaction or loyalty than others (the ‘Family Fun Seekers’ and the ‘Senior Repeats’). These attributes should be carefully monitored in future research to ensure no reduction in ratings occur (and thus overall satisfaction and loyalty).

• Staff training to deal with visitor complaints. A total of 11.4% of visitors experienced a problem and over half reported it to staff, with only 30% of those reporting it had it resolved to their satisfaction.

• Recognising and rewarding such staff, particularly guides, who visitors commented as providing them with happy and good experiences.

• The findings from the segmentation analysis and explore in more detail why the ‘Senior Repeats’ have the lowest overall satisfaction but the most likely to return visit, and why the ‘Family Fun Seekers’ have lower overall satisfaction levels, are the least likely to recommend and lower levels of repeat visits (yet they are the most likely to live locally).

• Individual attraction managers comparing the overall results in this report to individual attraction reports and consider reasons for similar/dissimilar results. This will help external benchmarking.

• Further research (including qualitative research) may have to be undertaken to examine in more detail the underlying reasons for some of the findings. The IPA approach acts as a diagnostic tool, but may not be able to provide underlying details or reasons for why certain attributes or experiences were rated a certain way.

• Continuing this research for internal benchmarking purposes for an ongoing period to compare results and monitor changes in key visitor groups/markets.

Research Recommendations A number of research recommendations can be made for future research and the development of an attraction satisfaction benchmarking methodology: • Further research should continue to allow comparison of these research findings and testing of the IPA

approach to measuring and monitoring visitor satisfaction at attractions. This could include attractions in other cities (such as Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane) and different types of attractions (cultural, natural, industrial) to enable benchmarking across categories as well as the attractions sector as a whole.

• Future research could also be used on other tourism enterprises (accommodation, tour operators, transport providers) following a similar approach.

• Surveys could be undertaken on a more regular basis and at different times of the year to capture the responses of different markets and should reflect the level of visitation by visitor groups, although it is recognised that this may be difficult for those attractions with limited secondary data.

• Future surveys could also try to capture attraction personnel responsible for different levels of service so that performance can be linked to a specific part of the operation.

• Future research should also try and examine differences between attractions that are free and those that operate an admission charge.

• As expected, the visitor attractions in Canberra received high levels of satisfaction and statistical tests demonstrated skewness in the data. Future research should perhaps consider a 7-point scale instead of a 5-point scale in questions to capture more variability in the rating the attractions. Future research in other cities may also illustrate whether this skewness was related to the unique range of quality attractions in Canberra or due to positivity bias from respondents.

• A greater range of attributes could be included in future research (perhaps with the involvement of visitors not just managers). The use of factor analysis could then be used to reduce these attributes into a smaller number for further testing and refinement.

• The use of ‘overall’ questions in the survey instrument were important for predicting overall satisfaction and loyalty, and thus should remain in future research, but are difficult for managers to act on. More detailed attributes may be required (with respect to ‘overall atmosphere’) or a model developed to examine what individual attributes may be connected to these overall questions.

• A small percentage of attributes were identified as predictors of overall satisfaction and loyalty (although they were responsible for predicting a larger proportion of variance compared to other studies). Future researchers should consider including other questions that could act as predictors including questions on respondent mood and emotions (see Chhetri et al., 2004 for instance). This might be better at identifying key determinants of overall satisfaction and loyalty which then have implications for managerial decision making.


77

• The IPA approach could be integrated with imaging or expectation questions to examine the role or impact of visitor image or expectations on overall satisfaction and loyalty (see Chi and Qu 2008 for instance).

• Although the use of median cross hair scores in the IPA charts were used due to skewness in the data, they did not make many differences to the placement of attributes. However, in instances where the data is skewed this approach should be used.

This study sought to develop and test a method to benchmark and monitor visitor satisfaction at attractions,

with the potential to further refine and apply this approach to attractions in other destinations including both built and natural attractions (such as wildlife parks, gardens, theme parks etc.). The objectives were twofold. First, to understand the satisfaction levels and loyalty of attraction visitors, and to identify experience gaps and facility issues that may need further research or management attention. Second, to examine differences in visitor satisfaction levels by visitor types and segments. It is hoped that this approach has provided more detailed insights into levels of satisfaction and loyalty to assist managerial decision making. The development of a consistent approach to measuring and benchmarking visitor satisfaction at attractions would provide comparable data to enable decision making at a local attraction level as well as a local, regional or even national level. One possibility is the integration of an attraction benchmarking methodology into the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre product IPAT (Industry Performance Analysis Tool). Future research and refinement to this approach is required before any regional or national role out through a tool such as IPAT.


78

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Survey Instrument Dr. Brent Ritchie STCRC ACT Network Coordinator Tourism Program University of Canberra Ph: (02) 6201 5016 Email: [email protected]

ACT Attraction Satisfaction Study Thank you for agreeing to take part in this important study of visitors to the attractions in the National Capital (ACT). The National Capital Attractions Association and the ACT Tourism Industry will use the survey information to determine the needs of visitors to attractions. The aims of the study are to understand the facilities and experience needs of visitors to the ACT attractions sector. This information will assist the attractions sector to develop more appropriate experiences and facilities for future visitors. We would be grateful if you could spend a few minutes to complete this survey, and return it via the enclosed reply paid envelope within two weeks. Please be assured that your answers will be strictly confidential and only collectively analysed together with all other participants. The results of the survey will be produced in summary tables and charts and no individual response will be shown. As an additional incentive, all those who complete and return the survey will be entered in a draw for a CASH PRIZE of $500 (Lottery Permit No TP 07/00736.1). To be in the draw you must return your completed survey within two weeks of receiving it. To be in the draw for the prize please be sure to provide your contact details at the end of the survey. They will be separated from the rest of the survey before analysis commences ensuring the identity of respondents will remain confidential. The prize will be drawn on Monday April 15 2008 as this study continues for 12 months. A reply paid envelope is included for your convenience.

If you would like any further information about the survey please contact Sue Uzabeaga, project officer, on (02) 6201 2232 or [email protected] Yours sincerely Dr. Brent Ritchie Project Coordinator




79

The majority of the questions in this survey relate to your most recent visit to the ACT and

visitation to the attraction where you provided your contact details. You would have received a postcard to take home as a reminder of this study.

SECTION ONE: VISITATION PATTERNS 1. Do you live in Australia?

Yes No, in what country? (go to Question 4)

2. If you live in Australia, where do you live?

ACT/Queanbeyan Western Australia Other NSW Queensland Victoria Tasmania South Australia Northern Territory

3. What is your postcode? _______________________ If you live outside of the ACT/Queanbeyan, please complete the following questions on your trip to Canberra. Otherwise please go to Section Two to answer questions about your attraction visit. 4. How many times have you visited the ACT including both daytrips and overnight trips: (If you can’t remember exactly, please give your best estimate) 4a. in the past 3 years? ______________ 4b. how many of these were taken in the past 12 months? ____________

5. What was your main purpose of your recent visit to Canberra? (where you received the invitation to take part in this research)

Visit friends Business meeting or conference Visit family Convenient stop-over point Attend a specific event or exhibition Visit specific attraction(s) Other (please specify)

6. How many nights did you stay in Canberra during this trip? ________ (write 0 if this was a daytrip)


80

SECTION TWO: YOUR ATTRACTION VISIT The following questions in this section relate to the attraction you visited when you were invited to participate in this research. The postcard provides information on where you received the postcard from. If you received more than one postcard/invitation please complete one survey on the attraction that you spent the most time at. Please complete the following questions based on one attraction only. 1. Please identify the attraction where you received an invitation to participate in this research? (This will also be the one that you complete the survey about)

Australian Institute of Sport

National Capital Exhibition

Old Parliament House

Australian War Memorial

National Gallery of Australia

Questacon (The National Science and Technology Centre)

Australian National Botanic Gardens

National Museum of Australia

Royal Australian Mint

CSIRO Discovery Centre

Other (please specify)

2. How many times have you visited this attraction: (If you can’t remember exactly, please give your best estimate) 2a. in the past 3 years? ______________ 2b. how many of these were taken in the past 12 months? ____________

3. How many people did you visit this particular attraction with? ______ people 4. How would you describe your travel party, that is, all persons with whom you directly travelled and shared your attraction experience?

(Please choose one option only)

Travelling alone Business associates travelling together—without spouse

Adult couple (in a relationship sense; married/defacto)

Business associates travelling together—with spouse

Family group—parents and children

School, uni, college group (including sporting)

Friends or relatives travelling together—with children

(non-school) Sporting group/community group or club

Friends or relatives travelling together—without children

Other (please specify)

5. How long did you stay at this attraction? _______ hours ______ minutes 6. Which of the following information sources did you use to obtain information for this attraction visit? (Choose as many options as apply)

A travel agent Advertising/travel articles or documentaries (TV, radio or print)

The internet Friends or relatives Tourist Office/Visitor

Information Centre Been there before

Travel book, guide or brochure None Motoring Associations Other (please specify)


81

SECTION THREE: ATTRACTION FACILITIES AND SERVICES The following questions in this section will ask about your recent attraction visit in Canberra. Below are a number of items that people say are important facilities and services that they expect when they visit attractions. The questions use the following scale:

5 = very important/very satisfied 4 = important/fairly satisfied 3 = neither important nor unimportant/neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 = not important/fairly dissatisfied 1 = not at all important/very dissatisfied 0 = no opinion/not applicable/not used

1. Please circle the number indicating your assessment of both the IMPORTANCE and your level of SATISFACTION with this item at the attraction you visited in Canberra.

IMPORTANCE

FACILITIES AND SERVICES SATISFACTION

1 2 3 4 5 0 Good first impression/welcome 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Overall atmosphere 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Electronic displays 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Interactive displays 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Appropriateness of displays 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Clear explanation of displays 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 A range of displays 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Quality of service 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Helpful human guides 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Front reception information 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Maps and information sources for

the attraction 1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 Parking facilities 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Value for money of retail goods 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Overall, facilities and services at this

attraction 1 2 3 4 5 0

2. What else about this attraction were you particularly happy with on your recent visit? Did you have any good experiences at the attraction that you did not plan or expect? Please record these below. 3. What else about this attraction were you particularly unhappy with on your recent visit? Did you have any bad experiences at the attraction that you did not plan or expect? Please record these below.


82

SECTION FOUR: ATTRACTION EXPERIENCES AND LOYALTY Below are a number of items that people say are important experiences that they seek when they visit attractions. The questions use the following scale:

5 = very important/very satisfied 4 = important/fairly satisfied 3 = neither important nor unimportant/neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 = not important/fairly dissatisfied 1 = not at all important/very dissatisfied 0 = no opinion/not applicable/not used

1. Please circle the number indicating your assessment of both the IMPORTANCE and your level of SATISFACTION with this item at the attraction you visited in Canberra.

IMPORTANCE

EXPERIENCES SATISFACTION

1 2 3 4 5 0 A chance to discover or learn something new

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 A unique experience 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 An opportunity to experience Arts or

Culture 1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 Educational experiences for my children

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 Fun and enjoyment 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 Something the children will enjoy 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 An opportunity to understand the

science around us everyday 1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 To better understand the Australian identity

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 Overall, the experiences at this attraction

1 2 3 4 5 0

2. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with your attraction visit? Take all aspects of your visit into account. (Please circle a number)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Neither satisfied Nor dissatisfied

Satisfied Very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

3. If it were possible, how likely are you to return to this attraction in the next 12 months? (Please circle a number)

I definitely wouldn’t


I’m unsure I probably would

I definitely would

1 2 3 4 5


83

4. How likely are you to recommend this attraction to other people as an attraction to visit? (Please circle a number)

I definitely wouldn’t


I’m unsure I probably would

I definitely would

1 2 3 4 5

5a. Did you experience any problem(s) with any aspect of the attraction on your visit?

Yes No Go to Section five 5b. IF YES, was the problem(s) reported to attraction staff? Yes No 5c. IF YES, was the problem(s) resolved to your satisfaction? Yes No SECTION FIVE: ABOUT YOU These questions will be used to get a better understanding of the influence of your socio-demographics on attraction satisfaction. 1. What is your gender?

Male Female 2. What is your age?

16-24 35-44 55-64 75-84 25-34 45-54 65-74 85+

3. Are you single or part of a couple?

Single (never married, divorced, separated, widowed and not part of a couple)

Part of a couple (married, defacto, living together)

4. Which of the following best describes what you are mainly doing at present? Are you…

Working full-time Retiree / Pensioner Working part-time Mainly doing home-duties Not currently employed /

looking for work Studying

Other (please specify) 5a. Do you currently have children aged 14 years or younger for whom you are the parent / guardian and who live with you (in your house) at least 50% of the time?

Yes No 5b. IF YES, how old is the youngest child?

0-5 years 6-14 years


84

6. IF YOU ARE AGED 24 YEARS OR UNDER, do you still live at home (with a parent/your parents?)

Yes No 7. IF YOU ARE AGED 25 YEARS OR OVER, do you have any children aged 15 to 24 living with you?

Yes No 8. Which of these groups would contain the combined income of everyone in your household, before tax or anything else is taken out? Please include pensions and allowances from all sources.

9. We will be re-contacting a small number of those taking part in the survey to fully understand the results and to get ideas on how to improve the attraction experience in Canberra. Would you be happy for us to contact you by telephone to answer a few questions or arrange a face-to-face interview?

Yes No

IF YES, please complete your name and phone number on the prize draw slip. Thank you. This concludes the survey. Please place the completed survey in the reply paid envelope provided and post it back as soon as possible. Don’t forget to complete the form below to be included in the prize draw within two weeks of receiving it. This

form is detached prior to data analysis. !-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SURVEY PRIZE FORM Please enter your details here and return the survey in the reply paid envelope within the next two weeks to be in the draw for the $500 cash prize.

Name: __________________________Telephone: (___)_________________________

Prize Terms and Conditions This competition is open to all participants aged 16 years and over, who complete and return the survey. The competition is being promoted by the Sustainable Tourism CRC, University of Canberra (ABN 81 633 873 422). The competition begins on 1/3/07 and concludes on the 28/3/08. The competition will be drawn on 17/4/08 at 11am in Room B34, Building 6, University of Canberra, Kirinari Street, Bruce ACT 2601. The winner will be notified by telephone. If the winner cannot be contacted on the day to claim their prize, a second chance draw will take place on 18/8/08.

Weekly Annual $1-$79 $1-$4,199 $80-$159 $4,200-$8,299 $160-$299 $8300-$15599 $300-$499 $15600-$25999 $500-$699 $26000-$36399 $700-$999 $36400-$51999 $1000-$1499 $52000-$77999 $1500-$1999 $78000-$103999 $2000-$2499 $104,000-$129999 $2500-$2899 $130,000-$149,999 $2900+ $150,000+ Don’t know Don’t know

85

Appendix B: Delphi Results

Initial Tangible Attributes from Industry Workshop

Displays Visitor Information Services Interactive/electronic displays Front reception information Explanation of displays Maps and information sources for the attraction Range of displays Maps and information sources for Canberra Sequence of displays/navigation Facilities Relevance of displays Car parking facilities Appropriateness of displays Transport to attraction Special exhibitions Bus access Guides Rest room facilities People Disabled facilities (including lifts toilets etc) Volunteers Opening hours Written Retail/Shop Audio Price of goods Staff Value for money of goods Quality of Service Range of goods Friendliness Uniqueness of goods First Impressions/Welcome Atmosphere Food Quality of food Range of food Price of food

Initial Experience Attributes from Industry Workshop

A chance to escape and unwind A chance to enjoy peace and quiet

A unique experience Fun and enjoyment

Heritage experiences An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture A chance to discover or learn something new

Educational experiences for my children An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage

Something the kids would enjoy A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends To better understand Australia’s scientific achievements


86

Top

Ran

ked

Tan

gibl

e A

ttri

bute

s fro

m T

wo

Rou

nds

Att

ribu

te

# rank

ed

Avg

ra

nk

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

15

Dis

play

s

Ran

ge o

f dis

play

s 9

9.4

2 1

3 1

2

In

tera

ctiv

e/

Elec

troni

c di

spla

ys

8 9.

8 2

3 1

1

1

Expl

anat

ion

of

disp

lays

9

10.8

1

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

App

ropr

iate

ness

of

dis

play

s 7

15.7

1

2

1

1

1

1

Gui

des

Pe

ople

6

14.8

1 1

1

1

1 1

Staf

f

Qua

lity

of S

ervi

ce

10

7.8

2 2

2 1

1

1

1

Fi

rst I

mpr

essi

ons/

W

elco

me

6 14

.0

1

1 1

1 1

1

Atm

osph

ere

8 14

.2

1

2

2

1

2

V

isito

r In

form

atio

n Se

rvic

es

Fron

t rec

eptio

n in

form

atio

n 8

12.7

1

3 2

1

1

Map

s and

in

form

atio

n so

urce

s for

the

attra

ctio

n

7 17

.0

2

1

1 2

1

Faci

litie

s

Car

par

king

fa

cilit

ies

6 17

.6

2 1

1

1 1

Ret

ail/S

hop

V

alue

for m

oney

of

goo

ds

8 16

.6

1

2

2 1

1

1

Bol

d in

dica

tes t

hem

es fr

om w

hich

an

exte

nsiv

e ra

nge

of in

divi

dual

attr

ibut

es w

ere

deve

lope

d an

d id

entif

ied

abov

e fr

om th

e in

dust

ry w

orks

hop.

Th

e ta

ble

abov

e in

dica

tes o

nly

thos

e at

tribu

tes t

hat w

ere

incl

uded

in th

e su

rvey

.

VIS

ITO

R A

TTR

AC

TIO

N S

ATI

SFA

CTI

ON

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

87

Top

Ran

ked

Exp

erie

nce

Att

ribu

tes f

rom

Tw

o R

ound

s

Att

ribu

te

# ra

nked

A

vg

rank

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10

A c

hanc

e to

dis

cove

r or l

earn

so

met

hing

new

10

5.

8 3

1 2

1 1

2

A u

niqu

e ex

perie

nce

9 6.

3 5

2

2

Fu

n an

d en

joym

ent

8 9.

9

1 3

2 2

A

pla

ce to

spen

d qu

ality

tim

e w

ith

partn

er/fa

mily

/frie

nds

8 10

.1

1 2

1 3

1

An

oppo

rtuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

Aus

tralia

’s h

erita

ge

7 11

.7

3

1

2 1

Educ

atio

nal e

xper

ienc

es fo

r my

child

ren

7 12

.7

3

1

2

1

To b

ette

r und

erst

and

the

Aus

tralia

n id

entit

y 7

12.8

1

2

1

1

2

Som

ethi

ng th

e ki

ds w

ould

enj

oy

7 13

.1

2

2

1 1

1

To b

ette

r und

erst

and

Aus

tralia

’s

scie

ntifi

c ac

hiev

emen

ts

5 16

.4

1

1 1

2

An

oppo

rtuni

ty to

exp

erie

nce

Arts

or

Cul

ture

6

16.6

1

1

1

3

The

tabl

e ab

ove

indi

cate

s onl

y th

ose

attri

bute

s tha

t wer

e in

clud

ed in

the

surv

ey. A

full

list o

f tho

se g

ener

ated

from

the

indu

stry

wor

ksho

p ar

e lis

ted

abov

e.

88

Appendix C: Postcard Survey Invitation

Front page picture of Canberra

Back page invitation information


89


90

Appendix D: Statistical Differences—Facilities and Services

Table D:1: Statistical Differences in Mean Importance and Satisfaction Scores by Visitor Characteristics

Type of Difference Attribute Affected Mean Score1 Mean DifferenceFemale (Male) Good first impression/welcome (I)

Good first impression/welcome (S) 4.39 (4.28) 4.52 (4.44)

0.11 0.08

Female (Male) Overall atmosphere (I) Overall atmosphere (S)

4.47 (4.36) 4.58 (4.48)

0.11 0.10

Female (Male) Electronic displays (S) 4.14 (4.01) 0.13 Female (Male) Interactive displays (S) 4.20 (4.04) 0.16 Female (Male) Appropriateness of displays (S) 4.52 (4.42) 0.10 Female (Male) Clear explanation of displays (S) 4.46 (4.37) 0.09 Female(Male) A range of displays (I)

A range of displays (S) 4.31 (4.22) 4.48 (4.34)

0.09 0.14

Female (Male) Quality of service (I) Quality of service (S)

4.39 (4.30) 4.50 (4.41)

0.09 0.11

Female (Male) Helpful human guides (I) Helpful human guides (S)

4.24 (4.08) 4.48 (4.35)

0.16 0.13

Female (Male) Front reception information (I) Front reception information (S)

4.23 (4.12) 4.40 (4.31)

0.11 0.09

Female (Male) Maps and information sources (S) 4.35 (4.23) 0.12 Female (Male) Parking facilities (I)

Parking facilities (S) 4.20 (4.11) 4.34 (4.26)

0.09 0.08

Female (Male) Value for money of retail goods (I) Value for money of retail goods (S)

3.69 (3.57) 4.05 (3.86)

0.12 0.19

Female (Male) Overall, facilities and services (I) Overall, facilities and services (S)

4.44 (4.33) 4.47 (4.36)

0.11 0.11

Single (Couple) Quality of service (I) 4.29 (4.37) -0.08 Single (Couple) Maps and information sources (I) 4.14 (4.30) -0.16 Single (Couple) Parking facilities (I)


-0.29 -0.13

Domestic (International) Range of displays (I) 4.28 (4.08) 0.20 Domestic (International) Parking facilities (I) 4.22 (3.41) 0.81 Domestic (International) Appropriateness of displays (S) 4.48 (4.27) 0.21

Local (Non-Local) Good first impression/welcome (I) 4.29 (4.36) -0.07 Local (Non-Local) Electronic displays (I)

Electronic displays (S) 3.04 (3.42) 4.02 (4.12)

-0.38 -0.10

Local (Non-Local) Interactive displays (I) 3.34 (3.62) -0.28 Local (Non-Local) Appropriateness of displays (I)

Appropriateness of displays (S) 4.23 (4.36) 4.44 (4.50)

-0.13 -0.06

Local (Non-Local) Clear explanation of displays (I) Clear explanation of displays (S)

4.34 (4.44) 4.37 (4.46)

-0.10 -0.09

Local (Non-Local) A range of displays (I) 4.17 (4.34) -0.17 Local (Non-Local) Quality of service (I)

Quality of service (S) 4.27 (4.40) 4.40 (4.48)

-0.13 -0.08

Local (Non-Local) Helpful human guides (I) Helpful human guides (S)

4.00 (4.26) 4.38 (4.45)

-0.26 -0.07

Local (Non-Local) Front reception information (I) Front reception information (S)

4.09 (4.24) 4.30 (4.39)

-0.15 -0.09

Local (Non-Local) Maps and information sources (I) 4.15 (4.31) -0.16 Local (Non-Local) Parking facilities (I)


0.10 -0.18

Local (Non-Local) Value for money of retail goods (I) 3.57 (3.68) -0.11

First Time (Repeat) Good first impression/welcome (I) 4.37 (4.30) 0.07 First Time (Repeat) Overall atmosphere (I) 4.40 (4.46) -0.06


91

Type of Difference Attribute Affected Mean Score1 Mean DifferenceOverall atmosphere (S) 4.49 (4.60) -0.11

First Time (Repeat) Electronic displays (I) 3.42 (3.12) 0.30 First Time (Repeat) Interactive displays (I) 3.61 (3.38) 0.23 First Time (Repeat) Appropriateness of displays (I) 4.34 (4.27) 0.07 First Time (Repeat) Clear explanation of displays (I) 4.44 (4.37) 0.07 First Time (Repeat) A range of displays (I)

A range of displays (S) 4.31 (4.21) 4.39 (4.46)

0.10 -0.07

First Time (Repeat) Quality of service (I) 4.39 (4.30) 0.09 First Time (Repeat) Helpful human guides (I) 4.25 (4.07) 0.18 First Time (Repeat) Front reception information (I) 4.23 (4.13) 0.10 First Time (Repeat) Maps and information sources (I) 4.31 (4.19) 0.12 First Time (Repeat) Parking facilities (I)


-0.13 0.11

First Time (Repeat) Overall, facilities and services (S) 4.39 (4.47) -0.08

With Children (Without) Overall atmosphere (I) 4.47 (4.40) 0.07 With Children (Without Electronic displays (I)

Electronic displays (S) 3.45 (3.21) 4.14 (4.05)

0.24 0.09

With Children (Without) Interactive displays (I) Interactive displays (S)

3.86 (3.32) 4.22 (4.08)

0.54 0.14

With Children (Without) Appropriateness of displays (I) 4.37 (4.28) 0.09 With Children (Without) A range of displays (I) 4.34 (4.23) 0.11 With Children (Without) Quality of service (I) 4.41 (4.32) 0.09 With Children (Without) Parking facilities (I) 4.39 (4.04) 0.35 With Children (Without) Value for money of retail goods (I) 3.83 (3.54) 0.29 With Children (Without Overall, facilities and services (I) 4.46 (4.37) 0.09

Note: 1 Statistical differences = p< 0.05. Independent sample t-tests were used. (I) = importance and (S) = satisfaction. Bolded rows indicate that these attributes moved quadrants as indicated in Figures 16 to 18.


92

Appendix E: Statistical Differences—Experiences

Table E:1: Statistical Differences in Mean Importance and Satisfaction Scores by Visitor Characteristics

Type of Difference Attribute Affected Mean Score1

Mean Difference

Female (Male) A chance to discover or learn something new (I) A chance to discover or learn something new (S)

4.45 (4.38) 4.58 (4.47)

0.07 0.11

Female (Male) A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends (I) A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends (S)

4.03 (3.92)

4.43 (4.29)

0.11

0.14

Female (Male) A unique experience (I) 4.12 (4.09) 0.03 Female (Male) An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture (I)

An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture (S) 3.87 (3.70) 4.26 (4.06)

0.17 0.20

Female (Male) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage (I) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage (S)

4.14 (4.25) 4.41 (4.34)

-0.11 0.07

Female (Male) Educational experiences for my children (I) Educational experiences for my children (S)

3.27 (3.13) 4.29 (4.14)

0.14 0.15

Female (Male) Fun and enjoyment (I) Fun and enjoyment (S)

4.14 (3.96) 4.34 (4.18)

0.18 0.16

Female (Male) Something the children will enjoy (I) Something the children will enjoy (S)

3.27 (3.13) 4.26 (4.06)

0.14 0.20

Female (Male) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (I) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (S)

3.29 (3.35)

4.09 (3.96)

-0.06

0.13

Female (Male) To better understand the Australian identity (I) 3.97 (4.07) -0.10 Female (Male) Overall, the experiences at this attraction (I)

Overall, the experiences at this attraction (S) 4.45 (4.38) 4.57 (4.46)

0.07 0.11

Single (Couple) A place to spend quality time with

partner/family/friends (I) A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends (S)

3.76 (4.05)

4.29 (4.39)

-0.29

-0.10

Single (Couple) An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture (I) 3.91 (3.77) 0.14 Single (Couple) Educational experiences for my children (I)

Educational experiences for my children (S) 2.67 (3.26) 4.10 (4.26)

-0.59 -0.16

Single (Couple) Something the children will enjoy (I) Something the children will enjoy (S)

2.80 (3.34) 3.97 (4.18)

-0.54 -0.21

Single (Couple) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (I) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (S)

3.17 (3.36)

3.97 (4.05)

-0.16

-0.08

Domestic (International) Educational experiences for my children (I)


0.88 0.51

Domestic (International) Something the children will enjoy (I) Something the children will enjoy (S)

3.28 (2.40) 4.15 (3.94)

0.88 0.19

Domestic (International) Overall, the experiences at this attraction (I) 4.43 (4.30) 0.13

Local (Non-Local) A chance to discover or learn something new (I) A chance to discover or learn something new (S)

4.30 (4.47) 4.50 (4.54)

-0.17 -0.04

Local (Non-Local) A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends (I) A place to spend quality time with partner/family/friends (S)

4.18 (3.92)

4.49 (4.31)

0.26

0.18

Local (Non-Local) A unique experience (I) 3.97 (4.17) -0.20 Local (Non-Local) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage 3.99 (4.27) -0.28


93

Type of Difference Attribute Affected Mean Score1

Mean Difference

(I) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage (S)

4.26 (4.43) -0.17

Local (Non-Local) Fun and enjoyment (I) Fun and enjoyment (S)

4.13 (4.04) 4.33 (4.25)

0.09 0.08

Local (Non-Local) Something the children will enjoy (I) 3.36 (3.22) 0.14 Local (Non-Local) To better understand the Australian identity (I)

To better understand the Australian identity (S) 3.79 (4.12) 4.20 (4.36)

0.33 -0.16

Local (Non-Local) Overall, the experiences at this attraction (I) 4.38 (4.44) -0.06

First Time (Repeat) A chance to discover or learn something new (I) 4.48 (4.36) 0.12 First Time (Repeat) A place to spend quality time with


3.91 (4.09)

4.29 (4.47)

-0.18

-0.18

First Time (Repeat) A unique experience (I) 4.17 (4.02) 0.15 First Time (Repeat) An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture (I)

An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture (S) 3.76 (3.85) 4.15 (4.23)

-0.09 -0.08

First Time (Repeat) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage (I) 4.26 (4.08) 0.18 First Time (Repeat) Educational experiences for my children (I)


-0.21 -0.10

First Time (Repeat) Fun and enjoyment (S) 4.21 (4.35) -0.14 First Time (Repeat) Something the children will enjoy (I)

Something the children will enjoy (S) 3.14 (3.33) 4.10 (4.20)

-0.19 -0.10

First Time (Repeat) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (I)

3.36 (3.25) 0.11

First Time (Repeat) To better understand the Australian identity (I) To better understand the Australian identity (S)

4.10 (3.88) 4.35 (4.27)

0.22 0.08

With Children (Without) A place to spend quality time with


4.46 (4.41)

4.47 (4.31)

0.05

0.16

With Children (Without) A unique experience (I) 4.19 (4.06) 0.13 With Children (Without) An opportunity to experience Arts or Culture (S) 4.05 (4.26) -0.21 With Children (Without) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage

(I) An opportunity to experience Australia’s heritage (S)

4.07 (4.25) 4.26 (4.45)

-0.18 -0.19

With Children (Without) Educational experiences for my children (I) Educational experiences for my children (S)

4.27 (2.50) 4.44 (3.99)

1.77 0.45

With Children (Without) Fun and enjoyment (I) Fun and enjoyment (S)

4.45 (3.86) 4.39 (4.20)

0.59 0.19

With Children (Without) Something the children will enjoy (I) Something the children will enjoy (S)

4.29 (2.63) 4.37 (3.92)

1.66 0.45

With Children (Without) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (I) An opportunity to understand the science around us everyday (S)

3.72 (3.10)

4.11 (3.98)

0.62

0.13

With Children (Without) To better understand the Australian identity (I) To better understand the Australian identity (S)

3.72 (3.10) 4.11 (3.98)

0.62 0.13

With Children (Without) Overall, the experiences at this attraction (I) 4.46 (4.40) 0.06 Note: 1 Statistical differences = p< 0.05. Independent sample t-tests were used. (I) = importance and (S) = satisfaction. Bolded rows indicate that these attributes moved quadrants as indicated in Figures 23 to 25.


94

REFERENCES

Bennett, M., Dearden, P. & Rollins, R. (2003). The sustainability of dive tourism in Phuket, Thailand. In: H. Landsdown, P. Dearden & W. Neilson (eds.), Communities in SE Asia: Challenges and Responses (pp. 97-106). University of Victoria, Centre for Asia Pacific Initiatives: Victoria, B.C.

Burns, T. (1988). Using importance performance to measure the opinions of National Park concessionaries.Paper presented at the 19th Conference on Tourism Research: Expanding Boundaries. Montreal, Canada.

Cegielski, M., Espinoza, M, May, C., Mules, T. & Ritchie, B. (2005). Canberra 2000 Visitor Satisfaction Study: Final Report. CRC for Sustainable Tourism: Gold Coast, Australia.

Chon, K., Weaver, P. , & Kim, C. (1991). Marketing your community: Image analysis in Norfolk. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly. February, 21-37.

Chhetri, P. , Arrowsmith, C. & Jackson, M. (2004). Determining hiking experiences in nature-based tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 25, 31–43

Chi, C. & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29 (4), 24-636.

Crilley, G. & Price, B. (2006). Visitor service quality, visitor benefits, and behavioural intentions: An empirical investigation at an Australian botanic garden. CAUTHE 2006 conference proceedings (pp. 1378-1389).

Crompton, J.L. & Love, L.L. (1995). The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluating quality of a festival. Journal of Travel Research. 34 (1), 11-25.

Crossley, J. & Xu, Z. (1996). Three satisfaction models compared in surveys of Taiwanese tourists. Visions of Leisure and Business. 15 (2), 4-14.

Duke, C. R., & Persia, M. A. (1996). Performance-importance analysis of escorted tour evaluations. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 5(3): 207-224.

Dybedal, P. (1998). Theme Parks as Flagship Attractions in Peripheral Areas. Unit of Tourism, Research Centre of Bornholm: Bornholm.

Evans, M. R., & Chon, K. S. (1989). Formulating and evaluating tourism policy using importance-performance analysis. Hospitality, Education and Research Journal. 13: 203-213.

Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. (2005). Revisiting Delphi: The Delphi technique in tourism research. In: B.W. Ritchie, P. Burns & C. Palmer, (eds.) Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice. CABI Publishing: Wallingford.

Guandagnolo, F. (1985). The importance-performance analysis: An evaluation and marketing tool. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 3: 13-22.

Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (1998). Integrated Heritage Management: Principles and Practice. The Stationary Office. London.

Hudson, S. & Shephard, G. (1998). Measuring service quality at tourist alpine ski destinations: an application of importance-performance analysis to a resort. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 7 (3), 61-77.

Hollenhorst, S., Olson, D., & Fortney, R. (1992). Uses of importance-performance analysis to evaluate state park cabins: The case of the West Virginia Sate Park system. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration. 10: 1-11.

Kozak, M & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an Off-Season Holiday Destination. Journal of Travel Research. 38 (3), 260-269.

Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist Attraction Systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 367-384. Lew, A. (1987). A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4): 553-75. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing. 41 (January): 77-

79. Mengak, K. K., Dottavio, F. D., & O'Leary, J. T. (1986). Use of importance-performance analysis to evaluate a visitor centre. Journal of Interpretation. 11, 1-13. Nunnaly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill: New York. Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management. 22, 617-627. O’Leary, S. & Deegan, J. (2005). Ireland’s image as a tourism destination in France: Attribute importance and

performance. Journal of Travel Research. 43, 247-256.


95

O'Leary, J. T., Mengak, K. K., & Dottavio, T. D. (1987). Importance-Performance Analysis: A Tool for Evaluating Services and Facilities. National Park Service Research Management Series. Washington DC.

Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal ofMarketing Research. 27, 460-469.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-Hill: Boston. Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist Behaviour: These and Conceptual Schemes. Channel View Publications: Clevedon. Reisinger, Y. & Turner, l. (2003). Cross-Cultural Behaviour in Tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford Ritchie, B. W. (1998). Bicycle Tourism in the South Island of New Zealand: Planning and Management Issues.

Tourism Management. 19 (6), 567-582. Ritchie, B.W. (2003). Managing Educational Tourism. Channel View Publications: Clevedon Ryan, C. (1995). Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Problems. Routledge: London. Ryan, C. & Cessford, G. (2003). Developing a visitor satisfaction monitoring methodology: Quality gaps,

crowding and some results. Current Issues in Tourism. 6 (6), 457-507.Vaske, J., Beaman, J., Stanley, R. & Grenier, M. (1996). Importance-performance and segmentation: Where do we go from here? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 5 (3), 225-240.

Wade, D.J. & Eagles, P. F.J. (2003). The use of importance-performance analysis and market segmentation for tourism management in parks and protected areas: An application to Tanzania’s national parks. Journal of Ecotourism. 2 (3), 196-212.

Weber, K. (1997). Assessment of tourist satisfaction using the expectancy-disconfirmation theory: A study of German travel market in Australia. Pacific Tourism Review. 1, 35-45.

Wright, B. A., Backman, S. J., & Wicks, B. E. (1991). Operating at the ‘wildlife-human interface’: A marketing approach to wildlife planning. In: W. R. Mangum (Ed.), Public Policy Issues in Wildlife Management (pp. 39-52). Greenwood Press: New York.

Yu, X. & Welier, B. (2000). Chinese pleasure travellers in Australia: An analysis of perceived importance and levels of satisfaction. In proceedings of CAUTHE 2000 national tourism research conference (pp. 242-254.


96

AUTHORS

Dr. Brent W. Ritchie Brent Ritchie is currently a Senior Lecturer in the School of Tourism, University of Queensland. Prior to this he was the network coordinator (ACT) for the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) at the University of Canberra. His research interests cover visitor behaviour and tourism marketing, particularly concerning niche tourism markets (such as cultural tourism, sport and event tourism) as well as urban and city tourism. Brent was involved in many STCRC projects at the University of Canberra from 1998 to 2008 including projects that covered visitor satisfaction monitoring, community attitudes towards tourism, mountain tourism events, ACT direct expenditure and travel patterns, economic value of national cultural institutions, national capital tourism and this current study. E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Trevor Mules Trevor Mules is known both locally and internationally for his research in tourism. He has a PhD in economics and has written and consulted extensively on tourisms’ economic impacts, especially at the regional level. He instigated the first Australian survey of how perceptions of their national capital were related to their visitation to Canberra, and he coordinated the original scoping study on models of visitor satisfaction. E-mail: [email protected]

Mrs Sue Uzabeaga Sue Uzabeaga is the Research Administrator working directly to the network coordinator (ACT) for the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC). Sue pursued her career at the University of Canberra as a general staff member in the Faculty of Business and Government. Sue is an experienced administrator who began her career in the public service in the ACT working in the Department of Taxation. Sue completed a Bachelor of Tourism in December 2003. Sue has been involved in STCRC projects at the University of Canberra from 2003 to 2008 including this current study. E-mail: [email protected].




COMMERCIALISE

RESEARCHAND

DEVELOPMENT

EDUCATIONAND

TRAINING

UTILISE

COLLABORATION

COM

MU

NI C A T I O N

I NN

OV

ATI

ON

• Travel and tourism industry• Academic researchers• Government policy makers

• New products, services and technologies• Uptake of research finding by business, government and academe• Improved business productivity• Industry-ready post-graduate students• Public good benefits for tourism destinations

Chairman: Stephen GreggChief Executive: Ian KeanDirector of Research: Prof. David Simmons

CRC For Sustainable Tourism Pty LtdGold Coast Campus Griffith University Queensland 4222 Australia ABN 53 077 407 286

Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171Website: www.crctourism.com.auBookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshopEmail: [email protected]

I N D U S T R Y P A R T N E R S U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S C O M M E R C I A L I S A T I O N

EC3, a wholly-owned commercialisation company, takes the outcomes from the relevant STCRC research; develops them for market; and delivers them to industry as products and services. EC3 delivers significant benefits to the STCRC through the provision of a wide range of business services both nationally and internationally.

K E Y E C 3 P R O D U C T STOURISM NT NORTHERN TERRITORYAUSTRALIA

The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre

(STCRC) is established under the Australian Government’s

Cooperative Research Centres Program. STCRC is the

world’s leading scientific institution delivering research to

support the sustainability of travel and tourism – one of

the world’s largest and fastest growing industries.

Introduction

The STCRC has grown to be the largest, dedicated tourism

research organisation in the world, with $187 million

invested in tourism research programs, commercialisation

and education since 1997.

The STCRC was established in July 2003 under the

Commonwealth Government’s CRC program and is an

extension of the previous Tourism CRC, which operated

from 1997 to 2003.

Role and responsibilities

The Commonwealth CRC program aims to turn research

outcomes into successful new products, services and

technologies. This enables Australian industries to be more

efficient, productive and competitive.

The program emphasises collaboration between businesses

and researchers to maximise the benefits of research

through utilisation, commercialisation and technology

transfer.

An education component focuses on producing graduates

with skills relevant to industry needs.

STCRC’s objectives are to enhance:

• the contribution of long-term scientific

and technological research and innovation

to Australia’s sustainable economic and social

development;

• thetransferofresearchoutputsintooutcomesof

economic, environmental or social benefit to Australia;

• thevalueofgraduateresearcherstoAustralia;

• collaborationamongresearchers,betweenresearchers

and industry or other users; and efficiency in the use of

intellectual and other research outcomes.

visitor attraction satisfaction benchmarking project · visitor attraction satisfaction...

Documents