Abstract
Purpose
This study addresses a critical aspect of tourism in Arunachal Pradesh, India, by investigating how tour quality impacts on tourist satisfaction of domestic tourists. As one of the least explored regions of the country, Arunachal Pradesh holds immense tourism potential. Understanding the factors that contribute to tourist satisfaction, particularly the role of tour quality, is of paramount importance for enhancing the region's appeal as a sought-after travel destination.
Design/methodology/approach
The study was operationalized using survey questionnaires from domestic tourists (n = 200) visiting Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India. A convenient sampling method was adopted for the study. Ordinary least square structural equation modeling (OLS-SEM) was used to measure the relationships.
Findings
The findings show that tourist expectations and tourist motivation influence tour quality and consequently impact the overall satisfaction of tourists.
Practical implications
This study extended the existing literature on tourist satisfaction in the domain of travel and tour by demonstrating the significance of tourist expectations and motivations on tour quality and tourist satisfaction. The findings offer insights for stakeholders seeking to enhance destinations' image, tour quality and overall tourist satisfaction.
Originality/value
This paper provides original contributions to the field of tourism by examining the effect of tour quality on tourist satisfaction. It integrates the factors, namely tourist expectations and motivations, into the analysis, offering insights into delivering customized tour experiences that meet tourists' needs.
Keywords
Citation
Tagiya, M. and Mara, O. (2024), "Does tour quality impact tourist satisfaction? Experiences from Arunachal Pradesh, India", Business Analyst Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/BAJ-12-2023-0072
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Mudang Tagiya and Odang Mara
License
Published in the Business Analyst Journal. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Today, tourism stands out as a highly dynamic economic sector, offering numerous advantages in terms of socioeconomic, environmental and cultural aspects. The tourism and hospitality sector, inclusive of services such as hotels and restaurants, has been recognized as a catalyst for development, a key driver of socioeconomic advancement and a substantial contributor to foreign exchange earnings in various countries (Davidson & Sahli, 2015). It may produce large-scale employment of varied types – from the most specialists to the unskilled, and play a vital role in promoting equal growth across countries. According to Mbaiwa (2003), tourism contributes significantly to both global output and employment.
In the tourism industry, the satisfaction of tourists serves as a crucial factor that guarantees future profitability and acts as a standard for assessing the quality of services. Achieving tourist satisfaction involves the design of effective processes that ensure the services provided align with tourists' expectations (Taghavi & Soleimani, 2017). The tourism literature emphasizes that tourists' satisfaction with a destination or place plays a crucial role in their choice of destination. In other words, when tourists are delighted with their tour, they are more inclined to revisit the destination or recommend it to others. Tourist satisfaction is significant for many service industries (Nahid & Akbar, 2016).
As tourists seek relaxation, insufficient services hinder tourist numbers and sustainable tourism (Sabbagh Kermani, 2001). Considering the sector's growing significance and its expanding role in the economy, it is now more crucial than ever to focus on enhancing infrastructure, elevating service quality and providing seamless facilitation for tourists.
Tourism is an incredible way to showcase India's rich culture, diversity and history while simultaneously reaping substantial economic benefits. In India, the Northeastern region consists of eight states: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura. The region offers ample opportunities for mountaineering, trekking and adventure tourism (Dam, 2013). Among these states is Arunachal Pradesh, which is the largest state, known as the “land of the rising sun” and situated in the easternmost part of India (Joshi, 2005). Tourism has grown in Arunachal Pradesh, yet it lags behind neighboring states like Assam and Meghalaya, despite being blessed with nature and exotic locations. Furthermore, the state faces accessibility challenges. Although the state's first airport was inaugurated in the capital city at the end of 2022, alternative options for transportation are available, including advanced landing grounds (ALG) in select districts and a weekly chopper service. Due to its geographical landscape, most of the destinations are reachable only by road. Tourists rely on public transport (road transportation) to explore various state areas. The state offers options like minibuses, deluxe buses and multi utility vehicles (MUVs) for travel, although these methods consume more time and energy than other transport modes. Additionally, road conditions suffer due to heavy rainfall, affecting travel and tour experiences.
Despite the significant market potential in domestic travel, research on domestic tourists' perceptions remains relatively limited. Recent studies have delved into tourism development, marketing of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism sector, eco-tourism and cultural tourism. However, to our knowledge, there is a dearth of research investigating the interplay between tourist motivation, expectation, tour quality and satisfaction within the study region's tourism industry. Additionally, a research gap exists in exploring the connection between tourist satisfaction and revisiting intention. Understanding how satisfaction influences the likelihood of return visits can offer valuable insights for marketing strategies and destination management. Hence, this research seeks to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by investigating the connections between various factors within the realm of service marketing through an empirical analysis focused on a specific destination. In pursuit of this objective, the study draws on established research models to construct a conceptual framework explaining the complex relations amid tourist motivation, tourist expectations, tour quality and overall tourist satisfaction.
1.1 Research questions
This research provides insights into Arunachal Pradesh's tourism industry, policymakers and destination managers. By uncovering the relationship between tour quality and tourist satisfaction, this study aims to promote sustainable and visitor-focused tourism practices. Recognizing how tour quality influences satisfaction can help providers enhance experiences, cater to preferences and promote Arunachal Pradesh as a remarkable travel destination. Building on the context and research gaps, this study addresses these research questions:
How do tourists’ expectations relate to tour quality in the context of Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India?
What is the impact of tourist motivation on tour quality among domestic tourists visiting the Ziro Valley?
How does tour quality influence the tourist satisfaction of domestic tourists visiting the Ziro Valley?
2. Literature review
2.1 Research concept
Tourist expectations: Customer expectation is defined as pretrial concepts regarding a specific product or service (Olson & Dover, 1979). According to Hsieh, Yuan, and Kuo (2011), for services to be of high quality and to satisfy customers, expectations must be met. O'Connor, Trinh, and Shewchuk (2000) and Pham and Simpson (2006) both recently evaluated managing service quality. Earlier research (Tse & Wilton, 1988; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993) has demonstrated that service quality involves a certain kind of expectation. According to Miller (1977), the particular kind represented a normative anticipation of upcoming occurrences. Customers should develop normative expectations of what is adequately deserving in the future, according to the author Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, and Zeithaml (1993), who also suggested that this serves as a benchmark for evaluating service quality. Furthermore, because customer perceptions of services are consistent, customers judge the overall quality of services by contrasting their expectations with actual experiences. This suggests that while there are higher expectations, the perceived quality falls short (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985).
Tourist motivation: According to Christie and Morrison (1985), motivation arises when individuals seek to fulfill a need. Motivation has recently gained prominence in tourism research (Fodness, 1994). According to Christie and Morrison (1985), people get motivated when they try to meet a need. A recent study on tourism has placed a greater emphasis on motivation, particularly as it relates to meeting conscious demands (Fodness, 1994). In order to meet these demands, customers need to be aware of a product or service before making a purchase (Christie & Morrison, 1985). The idea of push motivation is important in the context of tourism. A push incentive that has historically been effective in explaining the urge to travel (Crompton, 1979). As a result, according to Weissinger and Bandalos (1995), this demand properly represents an important inner incentive. According to this viewpoint, customers are “pushed” to use a tour service by their emotional demands. As a result, pleasure-seeking and behavior selection are influenced by emotional demands (Goossens, 2000). Furthermore, research in tourism would be meaningless if the motives of visitors were not taken into account (Dann, 1988). An examination of the depth of the motives must allow one to evaluate the quality of a tour.
Tour quality: Tour quality is determined by the degree of alignment between the aspirations of visitors and the anticipated preparatory activities in the tour's natural surroundings (Marine-Roig, 2019). Tour quality is the traveler's assessment of the service delivery process as it relates to the tour experience, according to Chen and Tsai (2007). According to Parasuraman et al. (1985), the best way to measure the value of a company's services is to measure how satisfied customers are with them. The customer's assessment of the general value and quality of a tour association is known as perceived quality (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry, & Berry, 1990). The available experience may be specifically described as the perceived trip quality that is centered on the similarity between expectation and actual performance (Chen & Tsai, 2007).
Tourist satisfaction: Tourist satisfaction can be described as the degree of delight and contentment that a tourist derives from their travel experience, specifically in relation to a product or service feature that aligns with their preferences, expectations and requirements during the trip (Severt, Wang, Chen, & Breiter, 2007). Satisfaction is the result of customers' anticipations both before and after utilizing a service or product. Within the realm of tourism, satisfaction is largely associated with the interplay between pre-trip expectations and post-trip encounters. Tourists experience satisfaction when their experiences align with, and even surpass, their initial expectations. Conversely, if a tourist encounters discomfort or disappointment, dissatisfaction is the anticipated result (Chen & Chen, 2010).
2.2 Relationship among the research concepts
2.2.1 Tourist motivation, tourist expectations, tour quality and tourist satisfaction
Expectations are related to the performance of a product or service as anticipated by the consumers. In service quality, expectations play a normative role and are based on past experiences, and they provide the customers' view of what should happen (Dean, 2004). Existing literature has demonstrated that there is a dynamic interplay between expectations related to service quality and customer satisfaction (Oliver, 2000). Moreover, service (tour) quality should be evaluated based on the extent of motivations. It is believed that tourist motivation contributes to the assessment of the quality of services like the tour, tracking, etc.
The study of service quality holds significance in service literature. Most service quality researchers agree that customer expectations are important constructs in the service quality formation process (Jang & Noh, 2011). Service quality is seen as an accumulation of service superiority assessments. Furthermore, service quality is revised after each encounter with a service firm as consumers compare their expectations to their perceptions of the delivered service (Boulding et al., 1993; Asnawi, Sukoco, & Fanani, 2020). This interpretation of service quality emphasizes the significance of customer expectation and encouraged service researchers to develop theories regarding the formation of consumer expectations and the factors that precede these expectations, as demonstrated by Hu, Teichert, Liu, Li, and Gundyreva (2019). Consumers' expectations have long been an important topic of study in several fields such as psychology (Prince et al., 2020), pricing (Veale & Quester, 2009), retailing (Priporas, Stylos, & Fotiadis, 2017) and satisfaction (Diehl & Poynor, 2010), among others. Therefore, the first hypothesis is proposed:
There is a significant positive relationship between tourist expectations and tour quality in Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh.
According to Park (2009), motivation significantly influences visitors' choices in terms of what to attend, the effort they put into learning and their overall enjoyment of the experience. Findings from previous research (Prentice, Davies, & Beeho, 1997; Rodríguez Del Bosque, San Martin, Collado, & del Mar García de los Salmones, 2009) have highlighted the importance of motivations and expectations as top priorities for tourists, leading to the design of products and services aimed at satisfying these aspects. Additionally, Hsieh, Park, and Hitchcock (2015) proposed that both push and pull motivations serve as robust indicators of service quality perceptions. Furthermore, in a study conducted by Lee, Jeon, and Kim (2011) on the impact of tour quality on tourist satisfaction and loyalty, they discovered that tourist motivation had a significantly positive influence on overall tour quality, supporting their research hypothesis. Therefore, the second hypothesis is proposed:
Tourist motivation significantly influences tour quality among domestic tourists visiting Ziro Valley.
Previous studies (Negi, 2009; Kuo, Cheng, Chang, & Chuang, 2018) have established a strong association between customer satisfaction and service quality. It is widely recognized that higher levels of perceived service quality are likely to lead to increased customer satisfaction. According to Ryu, Lee, and Kim (2012), “Satisfaction derives from the quality of the service and not the contrary.” However, service quality is influenced by various factors like perceived value, performance, expectations and motivations, etc. Abror, Patrisia, Engriani, Evanita, Yasri, and Dastgir (2020) have proposed that service quality serves as a precursor to consumer satisfaction. In the definition put forth by the researchers, namely Baker and Crompton (2000), the satisfaction is described as an experiential element, representing the emotional phase achieved by the tourist subsequent to their tour. Suhartanto, Brien, Primiana, Wibisono, and Triyuni (2020) emphasize that a tourist's satisfaction is a direct outcome of the quality of the experience they undergo. Based on the above arguments, the third hypothesis is proposed:
Tour quality has a significant positive impact on the satisfaction of domestic tourists visiting Ziro Valley.
Based on the literature reviewed above, the following hypothetical model (depicted in Figure 1) was developed: Tourist expectations and motivations influence tour quality, which in turn impacts tourist satisfaction.
The study contributes to the current body of knowledge in the following ways: First, it provides a comprehensive conceptual framework that integrates the concepts of tourist expectations, motivation, tour quality and tourist satisfaction. This framework offers a holistic understanding of the interrelationships among these factors in the context of tourist experiences. Second, the review emphasizes the significance of tourist expectations and motivation in shaping tour quality and satisfaction, highlighting the normative role of expectations and the push motive of motivation. Third, it establishes a strong link between tour quality and tourist satisfaction, underlining the importance of the quality of a tour experience in determining customer satisfaction.
The paper's organization is as outlined below. After the introduction, the literature review establishes a theoretical foundation by exploring concepts such as tourist expectations, motivation, tour quality and tourist satisfaction. The research design and data collection procedures are outlined in the methodology section. Empirical results and interrelationships among variables are presented in the findings section. The implications section discusses practical implications for marketers, travel agents, tour managers and stakeholders, along with the potential for applying findings in similar contexts. The paper closes with key findings, study limitations and suggestions for future research addressing research gaps.
3. Methodology
The current study adopts an exploratory approach within a cross-sectional timeframe. The study targets domestic tourists in Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India. The population of the study was unavailable from the relevant agency during the research period; hence, the convenient sampling method was adopted. A pilot survey was conducted with 30 domestic tourists who were staying in the hotels and resorts in the study area. Following the pilot survey findings, the questionnaire underwent a review and subsequent adjustments were made.
The revised and final questionnaire was administered to tourists staying in hotels, resorts and homestays in the study region from March 1 to March 31, 2023. The questionnaire included 21 items to measure the variables as mentioned in Table 1. An attempt was made to get ten respondents for each item to get the ratio of 1:10, i.e. (n x 10) as suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, Rolph, and Anderson (2010), which makes it 210 respondents. However, 250 copies of the questionnaire were given out in order to get a more reliable result. In total, 239 fully completed questionnaires were collected, out of which 200 were considered suitable for analysis.
This study's analysis involved 200 questionnaires, excluding 50 incomplete ones. The sampling design emphasizes the demographic profiles of domestic tourists. The questionnaire underwent two rounds of revision during the pilot study.
- (1)
Research instrument
The research instrument comprises two parts: The first part contains demographic questions, assessing respondents' characteristics. The second section comprises 21 items designed to assess the study variables, with respondents providing their responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from agreement to disagreement.
- (2)
Measurement, reliability and validity of scales
The study instrument consisted of the following 21 questions (Table 1), which were developed from the concepts addressed in the review of literature: “tourist expectations” (four-items), “tourist motivation” (four-items), “tour quality” (eight-items) and “tourist satisfaction” (five-items).
The measurement section concentrates on scales for measuring tourist expectations, motivation, tour quality and satisfaction. The authors sourced the four items from Whipple and Thach (1988) and Baloglu and McCleary (1999) to measure tourist expectations. The four items were adapted from Bigne, Sanchez, and Sanchez (2001) and Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky (1996) concerning tourist motivations. In the case of tour quality, the authors adopted eight items from the study by Baker and Crompton (2000). Finally, the five items to access tourist satisfaction were adapted from previous studies by Bigne et al. (2001) and Van Raaij and Francken (1984).
Overall, the approach to measuring these variables appears to be based on previous research and appropriate scales, which is an essential aspect of ensuring the reliability and validity of the study's results.
After adapting items, they underwent pilot testing for respondent comprehension. Some items were rephrased for clarity while respondents completed the questionnaire. Table 1, given below, highlights the items associated with various variables in this current study.
- (3)
Analysis techniques
This study used SPSS version 21.0 and AMOS 21.0 to analyze survey data. Steps included descriptive analysis, reliability testing (using Cronbach's alpha), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for measuring model quality and structural equation modeling (SEM) with multi-group analysis for hypothesis testing.
4. Analysis of data
- (1)
Profile of the respondents
Table 2 shows the respondent’s demographic profile. Of the 200 valid responses, males accounted for 73.5% of the sample. The majority of the respondents were 21–30 years old, accounting for 39%. The majority of the respondents were graduates by education (44%), followed by postgraduates, which accounted for 24.5%, and the majority of the respondents were students (37%). Moreover, the annual income ranges from “up to 3-lakh,” followed by a range of 3–5 lakh (54.5 and 24.5%, respectively).
- (2)
Measurement model and reliability
CFA was used to evaluate the quality of the measurement model. The measurement model consists of four constructs, i.e. tourists' expectations, tourists' motivation, tour quality and tourists' satisfaction. The maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) estimation method is used in CFA. As per Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2013), a reliability estimate of 0.7 or higher indicates good reliability. Factor loadings between 0.6 and 0.7 may be acceptable if other indicators of construct validity are satisfactory. Hence, the items with factor loading above 0.6 were considered for the study. Hence, the total number of items remaining was 16 items. Table 3 highlights the factor loading, reliability, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability. According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (1998) and Hossain, Zhou, and Rahman (2018), construct reliability estimates should be 0.7 or greater, while AVE, representing the variance explained by the construct, should be above 0.5. In this study, the construct reliability met or exceeded the threshold value. The AVE for tour quality and tourist satisfaction exceeded 0.5, with slightly lower values for tourist expectations and tourists' motivations. As suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), if the AVE falls below 0.5 but the composite reliability exceeds 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct remains acceptable. Therefore, these findings affirm that the measurement items maintain both reliability and validity.
The collected survey data were used to test the proposed model and hypothesized paths. To analyze the data, SEM was employed, and the models, both measurement and structural, were tested using the MLE method. MLE is chosen due to its versatility, efficiency in managing missing data and applicability to various distributions, including non-normal distributions. It is widely adopted in statistical software packages and suits large datasets (Brown, 2015).
To evaluate the overall fit of the structural model, a range of indices were employed, including χ2 statistics, goodness of fit index (GFI), normalized fit index (NFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The established criteria for considering a model to have a good fit stipulate that the obtained GFI, CFI, AGFI and NFI values should be equal to or greater than 0.9, in line with prior research (Byrne, 2004; Arbuckle, 2011). Furthermore, an RMSEA value within the range of 0.05 to 0.08 is generally deemed acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). The results of the SEM analysis for this study produced a χ2 of 281.52 (p = 0.00), with a degree of freedom (df) equal to 102, resulting in a χ2/df ratio of 2.76. The computed fit indices were GFI = 0.932, AGFI = 0.908, NFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.94 and RMSEA = 0.062. Overall, these results support the conclusion that the proposed structural model exhibits a good fit.
- (3)
Structural model
The research model and proposed hypotheses were evaluated using the covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) approach. CB-SEM serves both confirmatory and exploratory analyses, enabling researchers to test hypotheses and identify complex patterns of association among variables (Kline, 2023). To test the model and hypotheses, the path model was assessed via bootstrapping, as shown in Figure 2. A summary of research hypothesis is provided in Table 4. The critical ratio (CR) and p-value serve as indicators of the statistical significance of variable relationships. The paths were found to be statistically significant at p < 0.05.
As hypothesized, tourists’ expectations positively impact tour quality (CR = 2.57, p = 0.017), consistent with prior studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2011). Similarly, tourist motivation demonstrates a positive impact on tour quality (CR = 3.932; p = 0.000), consistent with previous studies (e.g. Hwang, Asif, & Lee, 2020). Lastly, tour quality directly influenced tourist satisfaction (CR = 6.002; p = 0.000). As a result, hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 are supported.
5. Findings and discussion
This research aimed to investigate how tour quality impacts tourist satisfaction among domestic tourists visiting Arunachal Pradesh, India. By understanding the relationships between tourist expectations, motivation, tour quality and satisfaction, this study aims to provide valuable insights to the tourism industry, policymakers and destination managers in the region. The study employs a comprehensive research framework, incorporating previous models and hypotheses. We examine the relationships among tourist expectations, motivation, tour quality and satisfaction using SEM. The following section highlights the findings based on the hypotheses of the study and subsequent discussions.
Hypothesis H1: Tourist expectations and tour quality.
The first hypothesis (H1) explored the relationship between tourist expectations and tour quality. The findings revealed a significant positive impact of tourists' expectations on tour quality (CR = 2.57, p = 0.017). This indicates that when tour experiences meet/exceed tourists' expectations, the perceived tour quality is higher. These results align with previous studies by Xu, Wu, and Jing (2017) and Boulding et al. (1993) highlighting the importance of customer expectations in shaping perceptions of service quality. This consistency with existing literature adds further validity to the findings and indicates that managing expectations is a critical factor in delivering high-quality tour experiences. Local tour operators and destination managers can leverage these insights by recognizing the value of meeting tourists' expectations. By carefully aligning their offerings with tourists’ expectations, they can create positive experiences that lead to higher perceived tour quality and, ultimately, increased tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis H2: Tourist motivation and tour quality.
The second hypothesis (H2) investigated the influence of tourist motivation on tour quality. The study found a significant positive relationship between tourist motivation and tour quality (CR = 3.932; p = 0.000). This suggests that when tour experiences align with tourists' motivations, it creates a stronger emotional connection and enhances overall tour quality. These findings are consistent with research by Chen and Tsai (2007), Hsieh et al. (2015) and Gim (2018), emphasizing motivations as predictors of perceptions of service quality. By knowing and aligning tour experiences with these motivations, operators can create enjoyable and emotionally meaningful tours that are perceived as higher in quality.
Hypothesis H3: Tour quality and tourist satisfaction.
The third hypothesis (H3) investigated the direct influence of tour quality on tourist satisfaction. The findings indicated a statistically significant influence of tour quality on tourist satisfaction (CR = 6.002; p = 0.000). The findings reinforce the importance of delivering excellent tour experiences that not only meet but also exceed tourists' expectations and motivations. When tour operators and destination managers focus on providing high-quality and personalized tours, it leads to a greater sense of fulfillment among tourists, resulting in increased levels of satisfaction. These results align with previous research conducted by Lee et al. (2011) and Hwang et al. (2020), emphasizing tour quality in shaping tourists' overall satisfaction levels. The consistent findings across different studies support the notion that tour quality is a critical factor in determining how satisfied tourists feel with their overall travel experiences. Tour operators and destination managers should prioritize delivering excellent tour experiences that meet or exceed tourists' expectations and motivations.
Overall, the findings support the proposed research model and confirm the relationships between tourist expectations, motivation, tour quality and tourist satisfaction. The positive impact of meeting tourists' expectations and motivations on tour quality underscores the significance of personalized and tailored tour experiences. Moreover, the direct link between tour quality and tourist satisfaction highlights the pivotal role of high-quality tour experiences in promoting overall satisfaction.
6. Theoretical and managerial implication
The present study contributes to the existing literature on tourist satisfaction in a nascent state like Arunachal Pradesh, India, by providing several theoretical contributions. This study proposed that tourist motivation and expectations determine tour quality and consequently influence tourist satisfaction. To the best of our knowledge, this study would be the first of its kind within this region to explore tourist satisfaction through the lens of tour quality and its determinants. Consequently, the findings of this study provide valuable theoretical implications for understanding of the relationships among tourist expectations, tourist motivation, tour quality and tourist satisfaction in the context of the tourism industry. The insights garnered from this study have the potential to shape the formulation of theoretical frameworks and guide practitioners in enhancing service delivery and customer satisfaction in the tourism sector.
The result shows that tourist expectations have a significant positive relationship with tour quality (CR = 2.57 and p < 0.05). This implies that when the expectations are met, the tour is perceived as quality one (Hughes, 1991; Reisinger & Waryszak, 1994). Tourists engage in a comparative process, evaluating their pre-trip expectations against their post-experience perceptions to assess tour quality. When the actual performance surpasses these expectations, it results in emotional satisfaction (Woodruff, Cadotte, & Jenkins, 1983; Liljander & Strandvik, 1997). Consequently, tourism managers in Ziro Valley should strive to introduce innovative and competitive tour services meticulously crafted to enhance tour quality and consequently boost tourist satisfaction. The findings also emphasize that tourist motivation significantly influences tour quality (CR = 3.932). Therefore, when tourist expectations are elevated, tourism managers need to concentrate on enhancing tourist motivations and creating superior, competitive travel offerings to align with the heightened expectations of domestic tourists. The unique features and cultures of the residents may be included while promoting the travel products to enhance motivation and interest in Ziro Valley. Moreover, findings also indicate that tour quality has a significant impact on tourist satisfaction. Hence, tour operators, travel agents and local authorities should place emphasis on enriching the tour experience by adding value through providing complementary services like sightseeing, hassle-free hotel booking services, pick-up and drop-off to the destination and more.
7. Limitations and future research
Like any study, this research also has limitations and opportunities for further investigation. First, this paper focuses only on domestic tourists in the valley, so the findings may not apply to inbound tourists. Therefore, future research could be done on both inbound and domestic tourists. Secondly, the study was limited to the Ziro Valley, suggesting potential for research across different districts of Arunachal Pradesh, India. The sample was drawn using convenient sampling techniques; hence, it was difficult to generalize the result. Third, the model was tested on 200 domestic tourists, which might not encompass the entire domestic market, so a larger sample would give more general results. Fourth, as with a questionnaire survey, there may be a measurement against error in assessing the respondent's honesty.
The study aims to explore the influence of quality of tour and tourist satisfaction; future studies may be conducted using different determinants of tour quality, such as mode of transportation, tour guide, destination quality, value for money and customer service. Also, this study could be extended further by studying the relationship between tourist satisfaction and revisiting intention in the study area or region.
8. Conclusions
Service quality, tourist satisfaction, tourist expectation and tourist motivation are important aspects of the tourism industry (Lee et al., 2011; Napitupulu, Pramono, Saragih, & Saragih, 2021), as the growth of the tourism organization largely depends on how tourist expectations are met through their services and how they keep their tourists satisfied and motivated (Gnoth, 1997; Kozak & Rimmington, 1998; Qu & Ping, 1999). Hence, this paper aimed to study the impact of these factors on tourist satisfaction among domestic tourists in Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India. This study conducted a comprehensive analysis, drawing from existing research, to formulate integrated models and subsequently validated these models with a sample of 200 domestic tourists visiting Ziro Valley. The empirical findings affirm the suitability of the proposed structural equation model, which collectively considers variables such as tourist motivation, tourist expectations, tour quality and tourist satisfaction.
In conclusion, this study has provided valuable insights into the impact of tourist expectations and tourist motivation on tour quality and how tour quality leads to tourist satisfaction in the context of Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India. The findings of this study support the following key conclusions:
Firstly, the study confirmed that tourist expectations have a significant positive impact on tour quality. This suggests that meeting tourists' expectations plays a crucial role in delivering high-quality tour experiences. By understanding and addressing the specific expectations of tourists, organizations in the tourism industry can enhance the quality of their offerings and improve overall customer satisfaction.
Secondly, the study revealed that tourist motivation significantly impacts tour quality. This implies that the motivations and underlying factors that drive tourists to engage in tourism activities have a direct influence on the quality of their tour experiences.
Lastly, the study found that tour quality has a significant impact on tourist satisfaction. This emphasizes the importance of providing excellent tour experiences that meet tourists' expectations and motivation. When tourists perceive the tour quality to be high, it enhances their overall satisfaction and increases the likelihood of repeat visits (Guntoro & Hui, 2013; Hasan, Abdullah, Lew, & Islam, 2019), positive word-of-mouth recommendations (Wang, Tran, & Tran, 2017; Ali, Puah, Ayob, & Raza, 2020) and long-term loyalty (Ali et al., 2020).
Figures
Figure 1
Hypothetical model
Figure 2
Path model
Items for variables
| Variable | Items |
|---|---|
| Tourist expectation | TE1 – I expect to see very beautiful scenery from the tour |
| TE2 – I hope to see the historical and cultural legacy of the tour | |
| TE3 – I hope to see comfortable and safe city environments from the tour | |
| TE4 – I expect to see various souvenirs from the tour | |
| Tourist motivation | TM1 – I expect to get mental rest from the tour |
| TM2 – I hope to enjoy amusements from the tour | |
| TM3 – I hope to get several new experiences from the tour | |
| TM4 – The tour will be more valuable than its cost | |
| Tour quality | TQ1 – The tour has provided experiences of beautiful scenery |
| TQ 2 – The tour spot was filled with the historical and cultural legacy | |
| TQ 3 – The tour was comfortable and safe | |
| TQ 4 – I have had many new experiences from the tour | |
| TQ 5 – The tour was more valuable than its cost | |
| TQ6 – The journey was finished on time | |
| TQ7 – The overall experience of the journey was good | |
| TQ8 – The co-passengers were good during this tour | |
| Tourists satisfaction | TS1 – I am satisfied with the tour |
| TS2 – I enjoyed myself on the tour | |
| TS3 – I am positive about participating in the tour in the future | |
| TS4 – I share my tour experience positively | |
| TS5 – I will cherish this tour in my life |
Source(s): Adapted from of Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Whipple and Thach (1988), Bigne et al. (2001), Spreng et al. (1996), Baker and Crompton (2000), Bigne et al. (2001) and Van Raaij and Francken (1984)
Profile of respondents
| Variables | Category | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 147 | 73.5 |
| Female | 53 | 26.5 | |
| Age (in years) | Upto 20 | 19 | 9.5 |
| 21–30 | 78 | 39 | |
| 31–40 | 65 | 32.5 | |
| 41–50 | 25 | 12.5 | |
| Above 50 | 13 | 6.5 | |
| Education | Upto middle school | 03 | 1.5 |
| Elementary | 13 | 6.5 | |
| Higher secondary | 47 | 23.5 | |
| Graduation | 88 | 44 | |
| P.G or Higher | 49 | 24.5 | |
| Occupation | Pvt. employee | 20 | 10 |
| Govt. employee | 23 | 11.5 | |
| Business | 26 | 13 | |
| Researcher | 6 | 3 | |
| Self-employed | 51 | 25.5 | |
| Student | 74 | 37 | |
| Annual income | Upto 3 lakhs | 109 | 54.5 |
| 3–5 lakhs | 49 | 24.5 | |
| 5–7 lakhs | 28 | 14 | |
| Above 6 lakhs | 14 | 7 |
Source(s): Survey data (2023)
Measurement model – factor loading, reliability, AVE and CR
| Variables | Items | Factor loading | Cronbach’s alpha | AVE | Composite reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourist expectation | TE1 | 0.68 | 0.811 | 0.47 | 0.78 |
| TE2 | 0.72 | ||||
| TE3 | 0.68 | ||||
| TE4 | 0.67 | ||||
| Tourist motivation | TM1 | 0.72 | 0.901 | 0.41 | 0.72 |
| TM2 | 0.55 | ||||
| TM3 | 0.63 | ||||
| TM4 | 0.62 | ||||
| Tour quality | TQ1 | 0.69 | 0.823 | 0.56 | 0.86 |
| TQ2 | 0.78 | ||||
| TQ3 | 0.65 | ||||
| TQ4 | 0.88 | ||||
| TQ5 | 0.72 | ||||
| Tourists satisfaction | TS1 | 0.88 | 0.792 | 0.66 | 0.85 |
| TS2 | 0.64 | ||||
| TS3 | 0.89 |
Source(s): AMOS output
Results of hypothesis testing
| Hypothesis | Path coefficients | CR value | p-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Tourist expectations → Tour quality | 0.101 | 2.574 | 0.017** | Supported |
| H2: Tourist motivation → Tour quality | 0.153 | 3.932 | 0.000** | Supported |
| H3: Tour quality → Tourists satisfaction | 0.3011 | 6.002 | 0.000** | Supported |
Note(s): χ2/df = 2.99, p-value = 0.00, GFI = 0.929, AGFI = 0.892 and RMSR = 0.039
**p < 0.05
Source(s): AMOS output
Declaration: The authors declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of the article.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Reference
Abror, A., Patrisia, D., Engriani, Y., Evanita, S., Yasri, Y., & Dastgir, S. (2020). Service quality, religiosity, customer satisfaction, customer engagement and Islamic bank’s customer loyalty. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(6), 1691–1705. doi: 10.1108/jima-03-2019-0044.
Ali, M., Puah, C. H., Ayob, N., & Raza, S. A. (2020). Factors influencing tourist’s satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth in selection of local foods in Pakistan. British Food Journal, 122(6), 2021–2043. doi: 10.1108/bfj-11-2018-0728.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 user’s guide. New York: Amos development corporation, SPSS. pp. 226-229.
Asnawi, N., Sukoco, B. M., & Fanani, M. A. (2020). The role of service quality within Indonesian customers satisfaction and loyalty and its impact on Islamic banks. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(1), 192–212. doi: 10.1108/jima-03-2017-0033.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00108-5.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868–897. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00030-4.
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–616. doi: 10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00035-8.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–27. doi: 10.2307/3172510.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272–300. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007.
Christie, M. R., & Morrison, A. M. (1985). The tourism system: An introductory text Editorial. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall International.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5.
Dam, S. (2013). Growth of tourism industry in north east India with special reference to Sikkim. Tourism Recreation Research, 38(2), 175–188. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2013.11081743.
Dann, G. M. (1988). Images of Cyprus projected by tour operators. Problemy Turystyki, 11(3), 43–70.
Davidson, L., & Sahli, M. (2015). Foreign direct investment in tourism, poverty alleviation, and sustainable development: A review of the Gambian hotel sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(2), 167–187. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2014.957210.
Dean, A. M. (2004). Rethinking customer expectations of service quality: Are call centers different?. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(1), 60–78. doi: 10.1108/08876040410520717.
Diehl, K., & Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 312–322. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.2.312.
Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 555–581. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(94)90120-1.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800313.
Gim, T. H. T. (2018). Tourist satisfaction, image, and loyalty from an interregional perspective: An analysis of neighboring areas with distinct characteristics. Sustainability, 10(4), 1283. doi: 10.3390/su10041283.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283–304. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(97)80002-3.
Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 301–321. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00067-5.
Guntoro, B., & Hui, T. K. (2013). Travel satisfaction and revisit intention of Chinese visitors: The case of Singapore. Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 9, 29–47. doi: 10.1108/s1745-3542(2013)0000009006.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th Ed), (Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 207–219), Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Rolph, E. A. (2010), Multivariate data analysis. New York: Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.
Hasan, M. K., Abdullah, S. K., Lew, T. Y., & Islam, M. F. (2019). The antecedents of tourist attitudes to revisit and revisit intentions for coastal tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 13(2), 218–234. doi: 10.1108/ijcthr-11-2018-0151.
Hossain, M. S., Zhou, X., & Rahman, M. F. (2018). Examining the impact of QR codes on purchase intention and customer satisfaction on the basis of perceived flow. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 10, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/1847979018812323.
Hsieh, Y. H., Yuan, S. T., & Kuo, R. L. (2011). A PSO-based intelligent service dispatching mechanism for customer expectation management. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12128–12141. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.007.
Hsieh, C. M., Park, S. H., & Hitchcock, M. (2015). Examining the relationships among motivation, service quality and loyalty: The case of the National Museum of Natural Science. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1), 1505–1526. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2015.1013143.
Hu, F., Teichert, T., Liu, Y., Li, H., & Gundyreva, E. (2019). Evolving customer expectations of hospitality services: Differences in attribute effects on satisfaction and re-patronage. Tourism Management, 74, 345–357. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.010.
Hughes, K. (1991). Tourist satisfaction: A guided “cultural” tour in north Queensland. Australian Psychologist, 26(3), 166–171. doi: 10.1080/00050069108257243.
Hwang, J., Asif, M., & Lee, K. W. (2020). Relationships among country image, tour motivations, tour quality, tour satisfaction, and attitudinal loyalty: The case of Chinese travelers to Korea. Sustainability, 12(8), 3182. doi: 10.3390/su12083182.
Jang, H. Y., & Noh, M. J. (2011). Customer acceptance of IPTV service quality. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 582–592. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.03.003.
Joshi, H. G. (2005). Arunachal Pradesh: Past and present. Mittal.
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1998). Benchmarking: Destination attractiveness and small hospitality business performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(5), 184–188. doi: 10.1108/09596119810227767.
Kuo, N. T., Cheng, Y. S., Chang, K. C., & Chuang, L. Y. (2018). The asymmetric effect of tour guide service quality on tourist satisfaction. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 19(4), 521–542. doi: 10.1080/1528008x.2018.1483283.
Lee, S., Jeon, S., & Kim, D. (2011). The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1115–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.09.016.
Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1997). Emotions in service satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(2), 148–169. doi: 10.1108/09564239710166272.
Marine-Roig, E. (2019). Destination image analytics through traveller-generated content. Sustainability, 11(12), 3392. doi: 10.3390/su11123392.
Mbaiwa, J. E. (2003). The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments, 54(2), 447–467. doi: 10.1006/jare.2002.1101.
Miller, J. A. (1977). Studying satisfaction, modifying models, eliciting expectations, posing problems, and making meaningful measurements. Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, 72–91.
Nahid, E. B., & Akbar, A. N. D. (2016). The effects of the mental image of isfahan tourists on the development of tourism. Journal of Tourism and Management Studies, 31, 109–125.
Napitupulu, J., Pramono, R., Saragih, E. L. L., & Saragih, E. L. L. (2021). Determinants of tourist attraction of the heritage tourism. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 12(2), 507–514. doi: 10.14505//jemt.12.2(50).19.
Negi, R. (2009). Determining customer satisfaction through perceived service quality: A study of Ethiopian mobile users. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 4(1).
O'Connor, S. J., Trinh, H. Q., & Shewchuk, R. M. (2000). Perceptual gaps in understanding patient expectations for health care service quality. Health Care Management Review, 25(2), 7–23. doi: 10.1097/00004010-200004000-00002.
Oliver, R. L. (2000). Customer satisfaction with service. Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, 247254, 339–354.
Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1979). Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 179–189. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.64.2.179.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50. doi: 10.1177/002224298504900403.
Park, S. H. (2009). Segmentation of boat show attendees by motivation and characteristics: A case of New York national boat show. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 10(1), 27–49. doi: 10.1080/15470140902779936.
Pham, K. Q. V., & Simpson, M. (2006). The impact of frequency of use on service quality expectations: An empirical study of trans-Atlantic airline passengers. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 10(1), 1–7.
Prentice, R., Davies, A., & Beeho, A. (1997). Seeking generic motivations for visiting and not visiting museums and like cultural attractions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 16(1), 45–70. doi: 10.1080/09647779700501601.
Prince, M., Yaprak, A., Cleveland, M., Davies, M. A., Josiassen, A., Nechtelberger, A., … Von Wallpach, S. (2020). The psychology of consumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism: A five-country study of values, moral foundations, gender identities and consumer orientations. International Marketing Review, 37(6), 1013–1049. doi: 10.1108/imr-05-2019-0142.
Priporas, C. V., Stylos, N., & Fotiadis, A. K. (2017). Generation Z consumers' expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 374–381. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.058.
Qu, H., & Ping, E. W. Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise travelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 20(2), 237–244. doi: 10.1016/s0261-5177(98)00073-9.
Reisinger, Y., & Waryszak, R. (1994). Japanese tourists' perceptions of their tour guides: Australian experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 1(1), 28–40. doi: 10.1177/135676679400100103.
Rodríguez Del Bosque, I., San Martin, H., Collado, J., & del Mar García de los Salmones, M. (2009). A framework for tourist expectations. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 139–147. doi: 10.1108/17506180910962140.
Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Kim, W. G. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(2), 200–223. doi: 10.1108/09596111211206141.
Sabbagh Kermani, M. (2001). Regional economics (theory and models) (First Edition). Tehran: Samt Press. 419.
Severt, D., Wang, Y., Chen, P. J., & Breiter, D. (2007). Examining the motivation, perceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees: Evidence from a regional conference. Tourism Management, 28(2), 399–408. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.003.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15–32. doi: 10.1177/002224299606000302.
Suhartanto, D., Brien, A., Primiana, I., Wibisono, N., & Triyuni, N. N. (2020). Tourist loyalty in creative tourism: The role of experience quality, value, satisfaction, and motivation. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), 867–879. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1568400.
Taghavi, M., & Soleimani, A. G. (2017). The factors influencing the growth of the tourism industry. Econ Res, 3, 157.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 204–212. doi: 10.1177/002224378802500209.
Van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities, and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 101–112. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(84)90098-7.
Veale, R., & Quester, P. (2009). Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the influence of price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality. International Business Review, 18(2), 134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.01.004.
Wang, T. L., Tran, P. T. K., & Tran, V. T. (2017). Destination perceived quality, tourist satisfaction and word-of-mouth. Tourism Review, 72(4), 392–410. doi: 10.1108/tr-06-2017-0103.
Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D. L. (1995). Development, reliability and validity of a scale to measure intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4), 379–400. doi: 10.1080/00222216.1995.11949756.
Whipple, T. W., & Thach, S. V. (1988). Group tour management: Does good service produce satisfied customers?. Journal of Travel Research, 27(2), 16–21. doi: 10.1177/004728758802700203.
Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R., & Jenkins, R. L. (1983). Modeling consumer satisfaction processes using experience-based norms. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(3), 296–304. doi: 10.1177/002224378302000308.
Xu, X. Y., Wu, S. Y., & Jing, H. (2017). Explore the differences between perceived service quality and customer satisfaction based on customer expectation of service attributes. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 23(3), 219–236. doi: 10.1504/ijstm.2017.085476.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/0092070393211001.
Further reading
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988), Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Mudang Tagiya is dedicated Research Scholar in the Department of Management at Rajiv Gandhi University, located in Arunachal Pradesh, India. He specializes in the field of tourism management, having pursued his Ph.D. in this area. With a strong academic background that includes an MBA, MCom, Master of Tourism Management (MTM), Post Graduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE) and National Eligibility Test (NET), Mudang Tagiya's scholarly journey is marked by active participation in academic forums. He has presented research papers at numerous international and national conferences and has also published research papers in edited book chapters, further establishing a reputation for scholarly excellence and dedication to advancing knowledge in the field of tourism management.
Dr Odang Mara is Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Rajiv Gandhi University, a Central University, Arunachal Pradesh, India. With a strong academic background, including an M.Com, MBA, NET qualification and Ph.D., Dr Mara has accumulated 13 years of professional experience. Notably, he has published research papers in several national and international journals and books, further enhancing his academic contributions. Currently, Dr Mara is supervising four Ph.D. scholars, showcasing a commitment to fostering the next generation of researchers and contributing to academic excellence.