Airport service quality drivers of passenger

satisfaction
Vanja Bogicevic, Wan Yang, Anil Bilgihan and Milos Bujisic

Vanja Bogicevic is Abstract

Graduate Student and Purpose – Considering the complexity of the airport industry service palette, it is important to identify
Graduate Assistant and which air travel factors are distractors and which factors are enhancers of passenger satisfaction.
Wan Yang is Assistant Building on Herzberg’s two-factor motivation theory, this study aims to explore most frequently
Professor, both at the mentioned attributes of airport service quality and distinguish key drivers for passenger
College of Hospitality and satisfaction/dissatisfaction in the airport context.
Technology Leadership, Design/methodology/approach – A content analysis of 1,095 traveler comments posted between
University of South Florida, 2010 and 2013 on an airport review web site was performed in order to identify satisfiers/dissatisfiers.
Sarasota, Florida, USA. The web spider randomly selected consumer comments related to 33 popular destinations.
Anil Bilgihan is Assistant Findings – The study results indicated key satisfiers in the airport context such as cleanliness and
Professor at the College of pleasant environment to spend time in. On the other side, security-check, confusing signage and poor
Business, Florida Atlantic dining offer are recognized as major dissatisfiers in the airport setting.
University, Boca Raton, Practical implications – The study findings provide insight on predominant satisfiers, dissastisfiers
Florida, USA. Milos Bujisic and performance factors of airport service quality from passengers’ perspectives. Airport management
is PhD and Graduate teams may use the study results to renovate airport facility and improve service quality.
Associate at Rosen College Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to utilize the visual data
of Hospitality Management, mining techniques in examining airport users’ experience. Visualization produced summaries of
University of Central qualitative comments in the form of tag clouds, word networks, and word tree images that help discover
Florida, Orlando, Florida, the most emerging themes of travelers’ complaints and compliments.
USA.
Keywords Data mining, Airport service quality, Consumer comments, Dissatisfiers, Satisfiers
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The air travel industry has been changing at an exceptional rate. Rapid improvements in
travel comfort and technology have elevated passengers’ expectations in regards to the
airport experience. Today’s air travelers are exposed to multiple service attributes that help
them distinguish the performance of chosen transportation providers. In order to evaluate
their performance, a large number of airline and airport management companies have
measured passengers’ perceptions of service provided, without clearly understanding
passengers’ expectations (Chen and Chang, 2005). Misapprehension of such expectations
may cause substantial financial and market losses to providers (Chen and Chang, 2005).
Considering the transport service as a chain process, consumers’ air travel experience on
site is composed of two major components: airport ground service and in-flight service.
Previous research on airport services has identified several important factors for passenger
satisfaction such as flight timeliness, information convenience, efficient security and
check-in procedures, signage and orientation, and terminal amenities (Chen and Chang,
Received 2 September 2013
2005; Correia et al., 2008; De Barros et al., 2007; Fodness and Murray, 2007). However, the
Revised 2 September 2013 influence of these factors on overall passenger satisfaction is still not entirely researched.
Accepted 9 September 2013

DOI 10.1108/TR-09-2013-0047 VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013, pp. 3-18, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 j TOURISM REVIEW j PAGE 3
 Tourism and marketing research has argued that it is not sufficient for a product or service to
be memorable; it also has to be delightful (Füller and Matzler, 2008; Torres and Kline, 2013).
Not all elements of a service possess the power to evoke ‘customer delight’ (Berman, 2005;
Matzler et al., 1996). Füller and Matzler (2008) claimed that some products and service
elements are considered to be essential, so their presence would not cause high customer
satisfaction, but rather the absence of dissatisfaction. On the other hand, certain service and
product attributes that are often unpredictable and go beyond customers’ expectations may
only enhance customer experience. The concept of customer satisfaction factor structure
was grounded in the Herzberg et al.’s (1959) two-factor job satisfaction theory. According to
this theory, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not two opposite extremes, but two
independent continua. With the popularization of this theory in service quality and behavioral
research, constructs and definitions of satisfiers vs dissatisfiers have emerged (Cadotte and
Turgeon, 1988; Johnston, 1995). Dissatisfiers refer to service attributes that cause
dissatisfaction when poorly executed and lead to complaining behavior, but not resulting in
compliment behavior when their performance is high. Contrary to dissatisfiers, high
performance of satisfiers generates strong satisfaction but poor performance is not an
antecedent of dissatisfaction.
Few researchers have examined the factors of traveler’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction in the air
transportation industry (Mikulic and Prebezac, 2008; Sulzmaier, 2001). However, these
studies were concerned with establishing new theoretical and analytical frameworks and
approaches using data collected at a single airport. Addressing the limited generalizability
of previous studies’ results, there is a need for understanding which air travel factors are
considered to be essentials (dissatisfiers) and which factors serve as enhancers of
passenger satisfaction (satisfiers) in a global context. To bridge that gap, the current study
aims to recognize universal dimensions of air travel service quality by identifying the key
satisfiers and dissatisfiers from a large sample of responses utilizing visual data mining
techniques. Bearing in mind that ‘‘tourism service quality begins at the airport’’ (Rendeiro
Martı́n-Cejas, 2006), this study focuses on airport ground service and the results would
provide important theoretical and practical contribution to the travel and tourism fields.

2. Literature review
Along with the improvement of quality standards in a majority of service industries, the air
travel industry has significantly changed in the past two decades. These changes reflected
in higher quality standards, various pricing strategies and growth of air transport traffic
among others. According to the ACI world report 2012, the total air traffic passengers
increased by 4.2 percent compared to the previous year, with significant growth in the
Asia-Pacific market, relatively stable in North America and a decline in the European market
(Airport Council International, 2013). The largest air travel market in 2012 was the
Asia-Pacific market with a share of almost 30 percent in RPK (Revenue-Passenger
Kilometer) (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2012). On the other hand, the North
American continent is the home for over a half of the worlds’ busiest airports with Atlanta,
Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Denver airports being ranked among the top ten busiest
airports (Airport Council International-North America, 2012). Carney and Mew (2003) stated
that consistent traffic growth causes congestion in numerous airports in the Asian, European
and North American continents.
As a consequence, airports are operating with a limited capacity possibly resulting in a
higher than expected air traffic affecting the passenger’s overall satisfaction. Airports
worldwide have recognized the necessity of examining passenger satisfaction and
identifying cues for enhancing airport experience. Airport Council International (2013)
introduced the Airport Service Quality (ASQ) initiative with the aim to measure passenger
experience in different airport segments, obtained from questionnaire responses. Even
though surveying is an important examining method, airport quality questionnaires should
be susceptible to further enhancements with new topics that emerge from air travel
passengers’ responses.

j j
PAGE 4 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
2.1 Ground service quality
The concept of service quality is still a significant research topic in tourism and hospitality
sector (Barber et al., 2011; Chen, 2013; Cheng et al., 2012; Clemes et al., 2011; Han et al.,
2012; Harrington et al., 2012; Prentice, 2013; Torres and Kline, 2013). In air travel sector,
service quality has been examined independently in airport service setting and in-flight
service setting (Chen and Chang, 2005). The current study mainly focuses on the
ground/airport service quality. Airports are known as complex service settings where
passenger satisfaction is influenced by various dimensions of service packages.
Unfortunately, in the airport management field, perceived service quality by travelers has
long been neglected as one of the indicators of airport performance. Airport management
has typically measured objective airport service quality in order to identify service gaps that
pose threats to the airport’s overall performance, obtained through various measurement
systems known as benchmarking (Francis et al., 2002; Humphreys and Francis, 2002).
Therefore, they have usually ignored travelers’ perspectives. Francis et al. (2002)
recognized that airport benchmarking methods have evolved historically from
measurement of workload unit costs and revenues, over comparison of airport design and
operations with previously established standards, to perceiving passengers’ evaluation of
service quality.
An important dimension of airport service quality is the passengers’ perception of the
building physical environment. Classified as an ‘‘elaborate servicescape’’ (Bitner, 1992), an
airport is a multifaceted environment where proper design should demonstrate visual
appeal, functionality, comfort and productivity of its users. Several studies have examined
servicescape framework in the airport context (Correia et al., 2008; Fodness and Murray,
2007; Jeon and Kim, 2012). Fodness and Murray (2007) suggested that successful
functional organization is tightly related to intuitive signage system and convenient building
layout, which satisfy passengers’ demands for efficient orientation at the airport. Correia et al.
(2008) employed criteria such as walking distance, walking time, space availability,
orientation/information, and number of seats in departure lounges in order to measure the
overall level of service in San Paulo airport terminals. As a result, Correia et al.’s study (2008)
presents a broad instrument that examines the service quality of airport facilities. In order to
examine the international airport environment, Jeon and Kim (2012) evaluated servicescape
attributes in relation to passengers’ emotional states and behavioral intentions. The study
results stated that airport functionality, aesthetic, and safety elicit a traveler’s positive
emotions, tightly connected to their behavioral intentions. On the other side, ambient
conditions generate passengers’ negative emotions, but they do not affect behavioral
intentions. Moreover, social servicescape at the airport was found to affect travelers both
positively and negatively proposing a major importance of human factor. De Barros et al.’s
study (2007) conducted among transfer passengers of a major South Asian hub confirmed
the significance of airport staff courtesy, specifically during screening procedures.
Aside from providing efficient transportation, the airline industry collaborates with numerous
service sectors such as retail, hospitality, tourism and advertising. In addition to well
established servicescape dimensions, Rowley and Slack (1999) also focused on hospitality
and retail amenities within airport departure lounges. Their exploratory study suggested that
spacious, light and clean lounges with branded retail stores and restaurants positively
influence passenger experience. In addition, travelling is being perceived as a luxury
experience and airport lounges as spaces for relaxation where time and place dimensions
are almost absent. With the aim to evaluate service quality, Yeh and Kuo (2003) conducted a
study among 14 airports in Asia-Pacific region. Identifying six distinctive service attributes
such as staff courtesy, processing time, security, comfort, convenience and information
visibility, their conceptual model generates a comparative performance index that evaluates
the level of service quality for each airport. Other researchers have applied queues theory to
airport service quality. Based on waiting times and proposed time intervals for different
service processes at the airport, Rendeiro Martı́n-Cejas (2006) found that efficient check-in
procedures positively influence passenger satisfaction. Moreover, shorter waiting time in
security lines provide the opportunity for passengers to explore leisure and commercial

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 5
 areas at the terminals. Even though the results of previous studies have valuable practical
implications for airport management, they do not adequately capture passengers’ attitudes
and perceptions of airport service. When it comes to any type of service, customers are no
longer only interested in the service outcome, but also in the process of service delivery
(Zeithaml, 1988).

2.2 Satisfiers vs dissatisfiers

Even though we assume that customer satisfaction is anticipated as a consequence of
successful service outcome, the nature of drivers for customer satisfaction is far more
complex. However, both research and practice in service industries agreed that a customer
who is just satisfied is not necessarily a loyal customer, thus the ultimate goal of the service
delivery is not customer satisfaction, but customer delight (Matzler et al., 1996; Michelli,
2008; Oliver et al., 1997, Rust and Oliver, 2000). To gain a deeper understanding of drivers of
customer satisfaction, consumer behavior researchers employed Herzberg et al.’s (1959)
theory of motivation (Mittal et al., 1998; Matzler and Sauerwein, 2002).
The Herzberg’s theory of motivation, also known as the two-factor theory and
motivation-hygiene model, was first developed in the context of workplace satisfaction
claiming that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite ends of a single
continuum. According to Herzberg et al. (1959), employees react to their working conditions
and distinguish job context factors named ‘‘hygienes’’ and job content factors named
‘‘motivators’’ that determine two independent continua. If the motivation needs are fulfilled,
they will lead to employee satisfaction. However, when motivation needs are not fulfilled they
will not lead to employee dissatisfaction but to no-satisfaction. Similarly, absence of hygiene
needs will lead to employee dissatisfaction but their fulfillment will lead to employee
no-dissatisfaction. Lundberg et al. (2009) further argued that ‘‘motivators’’ satisfy
employees’ self-realization needs, whereas ‘‘hygienes’’ refer to routine factors and
lower-end needs that accompany job performance.
Numerous studies followed Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene model and applied it to the fields
of human resources, hospitality, marketing and engineering (Cadotte and Turgeon, 1988;
Chan and Baum, 2007; Fuchs and Weiermair, 2003; Füller and Matzler, 2008; Füller et al.,
2006; Johnston, 1995; Lee and Min, 2013; Matzler et al., 2003, 2006; Pawitra and Tan, 2003;
Tontini and Silveira, 2007, Walker et al., 1977).
Cadotte and Turgeon (1988) were among the first to apply the motivation-hygiene theory in
the hospitality industry. Their analysis of restaurant and hotel complaints and compliments
showed that the absence of certain factors such as availability of parking spaces, service
speed and adequate pricing elicited customer dissatisfaction, but their presence did not
generate satisfaction. On the other hand, some constructs such as ambiance, spaciousness
and convenience of location mentioned in guests’ compliments result in customer
satisfaction, but their absence was not noticed in the complaints category. Furthermore, two
additional categories were revealed in their study: criticals and neutrals. The presence of
criticals leads to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction, while the presence of neutrals does
not have any impact on customer satisfaction. The motivation-hygiene theory has been
further modified and satisfaction antecedents were named differently such as basic factors
(dissatisfiers), excitement factors (satisfiers) and performance factors (hybrids), but the
fundamental structure remained the same (Matzler and Sauerwein, 2002). According to
Matzler and Sauerwein (2002), basic factors are considered to be prerequisites for service
outcome whereas excitement factors are not a necessity, but more as generators of
customer delight. In addition, customer satisfaction conditioned with performance factors
increases when the performance level is high and decreases when the performance level is
below average.
Relatively few studies applied Herzberg et al.’s theory of motivation in air transport industry,
even though initial attempts have been reasonably justified (Lovelock, 1985; Bitner, 1992;
Oliver et al., 1997; Sulzmaier, 2001). Lovelock (1985) pointed out that airline industry
provides a good example of clear distinction between core services attributes and
secondary service attributes. From this perspective, core attribute in airline industry is the

j j
PAGE 6 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
transportation of passengers, whereas all the steps in the process of departure and arrival
may be defined as secondary attributes. However, if performance of these attributes such as
check-in procedure, baggage claim and timeline punctuality is poor, secondary attributes
are more likely to elicit passenger dissatisfaction. Sulzmaier (2001) also argued that ‘‘strong
dissatisfaction is a barrier to the factors that generate satisfaction’’ (p. 60). Herzberg’s theory
of motivation was a foundation for AMP (Associative Motivational Patterns) framework,
successfully applied in an empirical study of Munich airport business expansion strategy.
This framework suggests that airport attributes or offerings can be distinguished into three
categories such as non-enablers, motivators and demotivators, depending on their
motivational impact.
Mikulic and Prebezac (2008) proposed a theory claiming that airport ‘‘attribute importance’’
is not a precise benchmark for passenger satisfaction. Therefore, they revised impact
performance analysis (IPA) with a concept of asymmetric effects of attributes in customer
satisfaction adapted from Matzler and Renzl (2007). Mikulic and Prebezac (2008) suggest
that airport service attributes such as building comfort and restaurant/shopping possibilities
have a dominant impact on overall passenger satisfaction. However, they only examined a
limited number of attributes within a single airport. Therefore further research on airport
service attributes in a large-scale context is paramount for determination of key drivers for
passenger satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
To recap, this study aims to identify all known dimensions of airport experience and to
recognize service aspects that can be perceived as predominantly satisfying or
dissatisfying. The findings of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge on
passenger satisfaction in the airport setting and present a rational background for
determining airport service quality dimensions. Moreover, recognition of key drivers of
passenger satisfaction and dissatisfaction will provide valuable implications to air travel
industry practitioners.

3. Methodology
This study employed various data mining techniques to conduct a content analysis of 1095
traveler comments posted between 2010 and 2013 on an airport review web site in order to
identify satisfiers/dissatisfiers. The collective practice of data mining and user-generated
content can postulate meaningful insights into airport services performance. After retrieving
1,095 useable customer comments, using a web spider application, the data mining
techniques produced summaries of qualitative comments in the form of tag clouds, word
networks, and word tree images. This software-assisted analysis of user-generated
information provides consumer researchers with more objective ratings of qualitative
consumer assessments of their experience across various units of analysis, with several
applications for operational management. A web spider, crawler, or robot is a program or
suite of programs that iteratively and automatically downloads web pages (Thelwall, 2001).
For this study, the application recursively visits target web site and extracts content of
interest. Using a web spider is a very effective method for collecting information from
dynamically user generated web sites that build web pages on demand, drawing
information out of a database to address the user’s request (Gerdes and Stringam, 2008).
The exploration step seeks to illustrate the reported online consumer generated contents,
including neutral, positive, and negative airport experiences in written forms. Because it is
exploratory, this article presents visualizations that can be focused as narrowly or as broadly
as researcher/practitioner chooses. With these objectives, it became necessary to choose a
source of the online customer comments of airports. In order to display more representative
flyers’ comments, we chose www.AirlineQuality.com, which enables flyers around the world
to access and/or provide information about airports and airline companies. Being a part of
Skytrax, AirlineQuality.com is the largest airline and airport review web site that includes
reviews of 682 airline companies and 725 airports. Airport experiences provide the unit of
analysis for this study, where the focus was on popular airports in the world. Whenever a user
wants to write a review about the airport on AirlineQuality.com, the systems pops up a
window that asks the user to input a quantitative review, the last time the user visited the

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 7
 airport, overall satisfaction with the airport, and ratings for queuing times, terminal
cleanliness, and terminal facilities. Finally, it asks whether the user would recommend the
airport to others.
Data mining is considered as an appropriate tool to find out patters in big amount of data
generated by consumers (Lau et al., 2005). This technique is acknowledged to explore
valuable patterns that indicate trends and significant features about specific topics in big
datasets and it became an important technique for the services research (Turban et al.,
2010). The information was collected using the web spider developed specifically for the
purposes of this research. The web spider randomly selected consumer comments posted
over a period of three years on www.AirlineQuality.com, pertaining to 33 popular
destinations. The command or coded orders were to retrieve traveler reviews and any
responses from the selected airports (N ¼ 33) between 2010 and 2013. This process
resulted in 1,095 responses.

The spider collected both quantitative and qualitative data available from www.
AirlineQuality.com. Positive and negative recommendations could be identified on the
basis of the overall satisfaction score where the quantitative scores ranged from 1 (most
negative valence) to 10 (most favorable valence). Data collected included overall rating (on
a scale from 1 to 10); queuing rating (on a scale from 1 to 5); cleanliness rating (on a scale
from 1 to 5); overall facilities rating (on a scale from 1 to 5); likelihood to recommend a friend
(no/yes); and qualitative review. In order to identify the satisfiers and dissatisfiers, the
dataset was organized into two separate sets, high rated and low rated comments, based on
the overall satisfaction scores.

The process of generating visualization patterns used written comments associated with
point scores to organize the data. Visual data mining techniques have high value in
exploratory data analysis, as well as great potential in terms of exploring large amount of
data, especially when little is known about the data or the exploration goals are vague (Keim,
2002; Viégas et al., 2007). Not only are interactive visualizations a key medium for
communication in a data-rich world, but preliminary reports suggest that visualizations may
catalyze storytelling (Viégas et al., 2004) and collective data analysis (Wattenberg, 2005),
which is especially fitting for studying experience-based products such as transportation
experiences.
IBM ManyEyes application enables the power of human visual intelligence to find patterns. It
draws networks of words, such that two words are connected if they are associated in
qualitative comments, because they appear together in a phrase of the form ‘‘X and Y.’’
Common words such as ‘‘the’’ or ‘‘of’’ are hidden, because they are not informative for this
kind of display. Therefore, it is easy to recognize common themes. A word tree offers a visual
search tool for unstructured text, such as a book, article, speech, or poem, that allows
readers to pick a word or phrase and then indicate all the different contexts in which that
word or phrase appears. The contexts get arranged in a tree-like branching structure to
reveal recurrent themes and phrases. The word tree starts with a blank slate instead of full
data visualizations; the researcher then chooses a search term to display. The software finds
all occurrences of that term, along with the phrases that appear after it. Considering that
there are no previous studies conducted on the topic of airport facilities using this method,
visualizations help to identify the common themes in a large sample of qualitative comments.
The interpretation of visualization patterns generated by IBM ManyEyes application was
conducted by four researchers independently. In the following step, the initial findings of
each researcher were transcribed and organized according to the theoretical framework.
Next, the comparison between different explanations was conducted and the prevailing
themes were recognized. Finally, the results were systematized and merged into a single
interpretation. This process was conducted in order to reduce the potential research bias
which could occur during the interpretation of qualitative visualization output. Research
integrity (e.g. credibility, dependability, trustworthiness) was achieved through the use of
several measures: descriptions of researcher positionality, peer debriefers, an extensive

j j
PAGE 8 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
 description of previous literature, and an openness to disconfirming evidence (Creswell,
2009; Marshall and Rossman, 2006; Moustakas, 1994).

4. Findings
In the first phase of the data analysis, Atlas.ti 6.1 software analyzed qualitative data for the
word counts. As a result, 14 airport service attributes were identified as most frequently
mentioned words/phrases in both high and low rated comments. The frequency of word
mention in satisfying and dissatisfying context is presented in Table I for following attributes:
check-in, security-check, signage, accessibility, parking, baggage, staff, shopping, dining
options, cleanliness, adequate seating, Internet kiosk, charging stations and Wi-Fi. There
were 7063 references in total; the most occurred ones were staff with 1,698 hits, baggage
with 1,163 hits and shopping with 991 hits. In order to determine satisfaction structure
among these service factors, relative frequency of each factor was calculated (see Figure 1).
According to the relative frequencies, none of the identified attributes was perceived as
exclusively satisfying or dissatisfying. However, three factors were mentioned more
frequently in dissatisfying recommendations and one in satisfying recommendations:
1. Dining options (dissatisfying).
2. Signage (dissatisfying).
3. Security-check (dissatisfying).
4. Cleanliness (satisfying).
Considering that majority of factors generate both satisfaction and dissatisfaction to certain
extent, it seems that satisfaction with the remaining airport service factors depends on the
factor performance. These factors are at the same time the most frequently discussed
attributes: staff, baggage and shopping. Such results suggest that human factor as
‘‘intangible’’ dimension of service quality (Zeithaml, 1988) predominantly influences
passengers’ experiences at airports. When it comes to airport characteristics and
organization, the most relevant ones such as dining options, shopping and security-check
are essential for airport experience, while remaining ones (check-in, accessibility, parking,
adequate seating, Internet kiosk, charging stations and Wi-Fi) receive a small level of
positive or negative consideration.
The data were further analyzed in IBM ManyEyes software searching for connections
between revealed factors. The presented findings appear as phrase net diagrams, word
trees, and cloud tags. Phrase net diagrams depict the relationships among different words in
a text, using a simple form of pattern matching to provide multiple views of the concepts in

Table I Summary of results

Factors Satisfying (%) Dissatisfying (%) Total

Check-in 45 41 66 59 111
Security-check 156 32 328 68 484
Signage 133 28 348 72 481
Accessibility 93 43 123 57 216
Parking 33 42 46 58 79
Baggage/luggage 465 40 698 60 1,163
Staff 691 41 1,007 59 1,698
Shopping 447 45 544 55 991
Dining options 260 36 465 64 725
Cleanliness 414 81 96 19 510
Adequate seating 139 42 189 58 328
Internet kiosk 46 46 54 54 100
Charging stations 14 40 21 60 35
WiFi 64 45 78 55 142
Total 3,000 42 4,063 58 7,063

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 9
 Figure 1 The factors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

the data set. Tag clouds provide a quick overview of the most salient terms in a large text
corpus, and visual mapping enables users to see trends (Viégas et al., 2007).

The first set included the comments with high overall ratings (8, 9, 10 out of 10). The most
frequently occurring words for highly satisfied flyers are represented in Figure 2. They refer
to different categories such as time, friendly, efficient, clean, nice, shops, well, and easy. The
larger the font, the more common the frequency or appearance of the word represented.
Word trees reveal a branching view of how reviewers used the key words and phrases. For
instance, using the frequent occurring words for satisfied flyers, ‘‘time’’ was chosen (117 hits)
to start a word tree. After ‘‘time’’, ‘‘to’’ was the most occurring phrase, thus, a word tree of
‘‘time to’’ is displayed on Figure 3. The word tree ‘‘time to’’ was mainly associated with duty
free shops and airport leisure offerings.

Similar data analysis was conducted in order to identify the airport experience dissatisfiers.
The second set included the comments with low overall ratings (1, 2, 3 out of 10). This
yielded to 491 usable reviews. The most frequently occurring words for dissatisfied flyers are
represented through ‘‘word network’’ displayed in Figure 4. Again, larger font size displays
higher frequency or appearance of the word represented.

Figure 2 Most occurring words in positive comments (high ratings: 8-10)

j j
PAGE 10 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
Figure 3 Word tree ‘‘time to’’

Figure 4 A network of related words (low ratings)

Following, word trees were used to reveal a branching view of how reviewers used the key
words and phrases for dissatisfied flyers. For instance, the most occurring word for
dissatisfied flyers, ‘‘airport’’ was chosen to start a word tree presented on Figure 5.
Considering that ‘‘is a’’ was the most occurring phrase, a word tree of ‘‘airport is a’’ was
created. Comments included ‘‘disgrace’’, ‘‘labyrinth’’ ‘‘nightmare’’, ‘‘joke’’, and ‘‘disaster’’.
The comments also mentioned that the airport actually hurts the image of the destination.
However, content analysis of the data and word counts revealed that some important factors,
such as security and staff appear in both data sets. The frequency of these two constructs is
relatively high among comments with both high rating and low rating. Therefore, the study
results implied on a third category, which suggested that three-factor theory proposed by
Matzler and Sauerwein (2002) would more appropriately identify satisfaction structure in the

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 11
Figure 5 Word tree ‘‘airport’’

airport context. Taking into consideration the exploratory nature of the study, it is not
surprising to reveal a three-factor satisfaction model. According to Matzler and Sauerwein
(2002), factors that generate satisfaction when fulfilled but at the same time generate
dissatisfaction when neglected are called performance factors. The performance factors
need to be seen as a linear function of satisfaction since they portray clearly expressed
customers’ needs and desires. As such, these factors are examined with exceptional
consideration, increasing competition between service providers.
Even though lowest rated comments connected to security check referred to security
screening procedures and long queues, the most occurred word in these comments was
‘‘staff’’. Therefore, another word tree was used to understand why flyers were dissatisfied
with the airport staff. The phrase ‘‘staff were’’ was deployed, presented in Figure 6. The main
reason for dissatisfaction with the airport was staff rudeness and unprofessionalism.
Furthermore, inefficiency and inconvenient airport organization were important generators of
passenger dissatisfaction. However, ‘‘staff’’ also occurred in 138 highly rated comments
suggesting positive flyers comments on helpful, polite and friendly staff. To come to a
conclusion, ‘‘staff’’ has been recognized as the occurred performance factors that strongly
influence flyers’ perception of the airports.

Figure 6 Word tree ‘‘staff were’’

j j
PAGE 12 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
5. Discussion
Existing research in airport context has mainly focused on examining overall airport
performance (Francis et al., 2002; Humphreys and Francis, 2000, 2002), overall level of
service (Correia et al., 2008) or facility characteristics (Hackett and Foxall, 1997; Jeon and
Kim, 2012, Rowley and Slack, 1999). Only few studies examined key drivers of satisfaction
with the airport service from passengers’ perspective (De Barros et al., 2007; Fodness and
Murray, 2007). Airport environment has long served as a hypothetical example of an ideal
setting where satisfiers could be distinguished from dissatisfiers (Pizam and Ellis, 1999). The
main contribution of the current study comes from identifying the key satisfiers and
dissatisfiers from passengers’ perspective. By revealing key satisfiers and dissatisfiers, this
study provides useful guidelines for future researchers to develop an airport service quality
survey instruments and gain a deeper understanding on passengers’ airport experiences.
The other unique contribution of this study is the demonstration of the value of visual data
mining techniques in exploratory analyses of passenger compliments and complaints
related to airport context. Using data mining technique, this study examined randomly
selected passenger comments on www.AirlineQuality.com web site posted during the past
three years. The study findings regarding various airport scores provide examples of how
data mining exploration and subsequent analytical tools can be employed in service sector
businesses, such as airports in this study.
Based on Herzberg’s theory of motivation, the study results revealed both satisfiers and
dissatisfiers in the airport context. First, using word count, word trees and word networks, we
identified which airport attributes cause passengers to feel beyond satisfied. Apparently,
airport passengers tend to appreciate cleanliness of the facilities, shopping options, Wi Fi
and adequate seating. Second, via visualization method we highlighted predictors of flyers
dissatisfaction with the ground service. According to the results, major dissatisfaction with
the airport service happens during the security screening procedures. ‘‘Good airport
experience’’ is also threatened by inconvenient location for security check procedures, poor
signage and long waiting lines. Third, the results suggested the need for defining third
category from Matzler and Sauerwein’s three-factor theory, named performance factors.
These factors such as staff, baggage and shopping options, equally satisfy passengers if
performed well, and dissatisfy them if performed poorly. However, it must be taken into
consideration that the importance of determined performance factors cannot be perceived
as relative performance of stated attributes (Matzler and Sauerwein, 2002). It appears that
passengers experience strong emotions at the airports that result in extremely satisfying or
dissatisfying comments, emphasizing the importance of a topic described in a comment.
Therefore, passengers’ self-stated importance of performance factors may not provide a
general representation. It is important for airports to utilize rich information generated by
passengers on the Internet to enhance their performances. Airports are advised to deploy
similar methods to analyze online reviews/comments on a regular basis.

6. Managerial implications
Bearing in mind that the study data were drawn from authentic passenger experiences
obtained at worldwide popular airports, this study provides valuable implications to airport
industry management. The study findings serve as a foundation to develop strategies to
improve the service quality at the airports. As a matter of fact, airport management used to
rely upon personal judgment and airport performance measures when implementing
strategies for service quality enhancement. Besides traditional objective performance
measures, airport practitioners should incorporate key quality attributes from passengers’
perspective.
An airport should examine the basic factors that would lead to strong dissatisfaction of their
passengers. Factors, such as efficient security-check, convenient signage system and
variety of restaurants and bars are considered to be foundations of airport quality. For
example, quality of time spent at an airport as a transit service setting directly depends on
recognized dissatisfiers such as security-check and signage. A passenger who feels lost

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 13
 and disoriented because of misleading direction signs and who waits in lengthy security
lines certainly feels disappointed with the airport. It is more likely that their initial travelling
experience would cloud the tourist destination image. Moreover, poor choice of food and
beverage establishments and extremely high prices cause strong discontent of passengers
whose stay at the airport is extended. Therefore, examining dissatisfiers is of highest
importance in establishing priorities for maintaining satisfactory airport service standards.
Even though recognizing and improving dissatisfiers is vital for preventing passengers’
discontent, airports also need to focus on identifying satisfiers. A strategy for decreasing
dissatisfaction may maintain expected quality standard of the airport service, but it would
not generate increased satisfaction of the airport passengers. The paper results suggest
that an airport should examine whether their facility operates on an adequate level of
cleanliness. A clean and maintained airport facility enhances passenger satisfaction
providing a positive image of the destination itself. A passenger may perceive that
employees who care about their working environment would definitely care about their
customers.
Considering that majority of the identified factors can be characterized as performance
factors, a particular attention should be given to performance factors in the airport context.
Apparently, most occurring attributes in passenger comments were performance factors
such as staff, baggage and shopping options. As a result, a conclusion is that that
passenger satisfaction would depend on the performance of these attributes. In other
words, passengers tend to appreciate friendly, welcoming and helpful staff. However, they
equally express their discontent if staff treated them unprofessionally and impolitely. Both
situations leave a strong impact on passengers’ impressions with the overall service,
generating positive and negative reputation of the airports. Furthermore, not only that good
variety of retail stores and restaurants increases passenger satisfaction, but also it is closely
connected with increase in revenue and profitability. Therefore, previously mentioned
performance factors should unquestionably serve as benchmarks of airport service quality.

7. Limitation and future research suggestion

Several limitations of this study must be recognized. To begin with, there is no focus on a
particular type of airport (e.g. location, size, number of passengers per year). Also, the
historical challenge of measuring and reporting word-of-mouth data persist in this study.
Another limitation is related to the analysis of frequency of the most occurred words in both
positive and negative comments. The word count suggests the most commented topics of
the discussions in the comments. However, without direct insight into content of the
comments, the differences between levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction expressed for
each factors remain relatively small. For instance, word count cannot record whether the
author of the comment was extremely disappointed with the signage system at the airport or
just experienced difficulty to read the sign because of its position. Present study reports an
analysis of data retrieved only from www.AirlineQuality.com, consequently the
generalizability of the findings are limited. Finally, caution is required when forming tag
clouds; without precise wording, the results would be less meaningful.
In order to address these concerns, future studies are advised to broaden the scope by
including different review channels. Manual data coding is desirable for revealing subtle
differences among factors that fit into a group of performance factors. Follow-up studies are
advised to conduct surveys to find any disclosure differences among factors and support
deeper conclusions. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, consumer behaviors
are not captured in the current study. Future research may connect the key satisfiers and
dissatisfiers we identified to passengers’ behavioral intentions (e.g. Word-of-Mouth,
repurchase and loyalty). In addition, future studies may develop a comprehensive airport
quality instrument based on the current study findings and gain a deeper understanding on
the topic of airport service quality.

j j
PAGE 14 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
References
Airport Council International (2013), World Report February 2013, available at: www.google.com/
url?sa ¼ t&rct ¼ j&q ¼ &esrc ¼ s&source ¼ web&cd ¼ 1&ved ¼ 0CDYQFjAA&url ¼ http%3A%2F%2
Fwww.aci.aero%2Fmedia%2Fbfe6e703-1eb4-4422-ba79-5a262375e7d9%2FNews%2FWorld%25
20Report%2FWorldReport_February_2013_pdf&ei ¼ Awx3Ub6jKs-70AHYxYH4Aw&usg ¼ AFQjCN
FYUbQIMLPYsMaNynSBSfc46HItlg&sig2 ¼ fOLhCdxjlozIefehH1H3Ag&bvm ¼ bv.45580626,d.dmQ
(accessed 23 March 2013).
Airport Council International-North America (2012), Airport Traffic Reports: Top 5 Busiest North
American Airports-2012 Traffic Count, available at: www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports
(accessed 23 March 2013).
Barber, N., Goodman, R. and Goh, B. (2011), ‘‘Restaurant consumers repeat patronage: a service
quality concern’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 329-336.
Berman, B. (2005), ‘‘How to delight your customers’’, California Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 129-151.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), ‘‘Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees’’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Cadotte, E.R. and Turgeon, N. (1988), ‘‘Key factors in guest satisfaction’’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 45-51.
Carney, M. and Mew, K. (2003), ‘‘Airport governance reform: a strategic management perspective’’,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 221-232.
Chan, L.J.K. and Baum, T. (2007), ‘‘Researching consumer satisfaction: an extension of Herzberg’s
motivator and hygiene factor theory’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 71-83.
Chen, F.Y. and Chang, Y.H. (2005), ‘‘Examining airline service quality from a process perspective’’,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 79-87.
Chen, W.-J. (2013), ‘‘Factors influencing internal service quality at international service hotels’’,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 35, pp. 152-160.
Cheng, C.-C., Chen, C.-T., Hsu, F.-S. and Hu, H.-Y. (2012), ‘‘Enhancing service quality improvement
strategies of fine-dining restaurants: new insights from integrating a two-phase decision-making model
of IPGA and DEMATEL analysis’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 1155-1166.
Clemes, M.D., Gan, C. and Ren, M. (2011), ‘‘Synthesizing the effects of service quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the motel industry: an empirical analysis’’, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 530-568.
Correia, A.R., Wirasinghe, S. and De Barros, A.G. (2008), ‘‘Overall level of service measures for airport
passenger terminals’’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 330-346.
Creswell, J.W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
De Barros, A.G., Somasundaraswaran, A. and Wirasinghe, S. (2007), ‘‘Evaluation of level of service for
transfer passengers at airports’’, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 293-298.
Fodness, D. and Murray, B. (2007), ‘‘Passengers’ expectations of airport service quality’’, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 492-506.
Francis, G., Humphreys, I. and Fry, J. (2002), ‘‘The benchmarking of airport performance’’, Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 239-247.
Fuchs, M. and Weiermair, K. (2003), ‘‘New perspectives of satisfaction research in tourism destinations’’,
Tourism Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 6-14.
Füller, J. and Matzler, K. (2008), ‘‘Customer delight and market segmentation: an application of the
three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style groups’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 116-126.
Füller, J., Matzler, K. and Faullant, R. (2006), ‘‘Asymmetric effects in customer satisfaction’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1159-1163.
Gerdes, J. and Stringam, B.B. (2008), ‘‘Addressing researchers’ quest for hospitality data: mechanism
for collecting data from web resources’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 309-315.

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 15
 Hackett, P. and Foxall, G. (1997), ‘‘Consumers’ evaluations of an international airport: a facet theoretical
approach’’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 339-349.

Han, S., Ham, S., Yang, I. and Baek, S. (2012), ‘‘Passengers’ perceptions of airline lounges: importance
of attributes that determine usage and service quality measurement’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 1103-1111.

Harrington, R.J., Ottenbacher, M.C., Staggs, A. and Powell, F.A. (2012), ‘‘Generation Y consumers: key
restaurant attributes affecting positive and negative experiences’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 431-449.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), Motivation to Work, Transaction Publishers,
New Brunswick, NJ.

Humphreys, I. and Francis, G. (2000), ‘‘Traditional airport performance indicators: a critical

perspective’’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
Vol. 1703 No. 1, pp. 24-30.

Humphreys, I. and Francis, G. (2002), ‘‘Performance measurement: a review of airports’’, International

Journal of Transport Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 79-85.

Jeon, S. and Kim, M.-S. (2012), ‘‘The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in an
international airport service environment’’, Service Business, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 279-295.

Johnston, R. (1995), ‘‘The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers’’, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 53-71.

Keim, D. (2002), ‘‘Information visualization and visual data mining’’, IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-8.

Lau, K.N., Lee, K.H. and Ho, Y. (2005), ‘‘Text mining for the hotel industry’’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 344-362.

Lee, J.-S. and Min, C. (2013), ‘‘Prioritizing convention quality attributes from the perspective of
three-factor theory: the case of academic association convention’’, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 282-293.

Lovelock, C.H. (1985), ‘‘Developing and managing the customer-service function in the service sector’’,
in Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R., Suprenant, C.F. and Gutman, E.G. (Eds), The Service Encounter:
Managing Employee Customer Interaction in Service Business, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA,
pp. 265-280.

Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A. and Andersson, T.D. (2009), ‘‘Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of work
motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 890-899.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006), Designing Qualitative Research, 4th ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.

Matzler, K. and Renzl, B. (2007), ‘‘Assessing asymmetric effects in the formation of employee
satisfaction’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1093-1103.

Matzler, K. and Sauerwein, E. (2002), ‘‘The factor structure of customer satisfaction: an empirical test of
the importance-grid and the penalty-reward-contrast-analysis’’, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 314-332.

Matzler, K., Renzl, B. and Rothenberger, S. (2006), ‘‘Measuring the relative importance of service
dimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction: a case study in the hotel
industry’’, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 179-196.

Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E. and Heischmidt, K. (2003), ‘‘Importance-performance analysis revisited: the
role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction’’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 112-129.

Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H., Bailom, F. and Sauerwein, E. (1996), ‘‘How to delight your customers’’,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-18.

Michelli, J. (2008), The New Gold Standard: 5 Leadership Principles For Creating A Legendary
Customer Experience Courtesy Of The Ritz-Carlton, Business Summaries, Miami, FL.

j j
PAGE 16 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013
Mikulic, J. and Prebezac, D. (2008), ‘‘Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impact
range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis’’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 559-576.

Mittal, V., Ross, W.T. Jr and Baldasare, P.M. (1998), ‘‘The asymmetric impact of negative and positive
attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions’’, The Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 33-47.

Moustakas, C.E. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997), ‘‘Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial
insight’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-336.

Pawitra, T.A. and Tan, K.C. (2003), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction in Singapore - a perspective from Indonesian
tourists’’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 399-411.

Pizam, A. and Ellis, T. (1999), ‘‘Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises’’,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 326-339.

Prentice, K. (2013), ‘‘Service quality perceptions and customer loyalty in casinos’’, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 49-64.

Rendeiro Martı́n-Cejas, R. (2006), ‘‘Tourism service quality begins at the airport’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 874-877.

Rowley, J. and Slack, F. (1999), ‘‘The retail experience in airport departure lounges: reaching for
timelessness and placelessness’’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 Nos 4/5, pp. 363-376.

Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (2000), ‘‘Should we delight the customer?’’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 86-94.

Sulzmaier, S. (2001), Consumer-oriented Business Design: The Case of Airport Management,

Physica-Verlag HD, New York, NY.

Thelwall, M. (2001), ‘‘A web crawler design for data mining’’, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 27
No. 5, p. 319.

Tontini, G. and Silveira, A. (2007), ‘‘Identification of satisfaction attributes using competitive analysis of
the improvement gap’’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 482-500.

Torres, E. and Kline, S. (2013), ‘‘From customer satisfaction to customer delight: creating a new standard
of service for the hotel industry’’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 642-659.

Turban, E., Sharda, R. and Delen, D. (2010), Decision Support and Business Intelligence Systems,
9th ed., Prentice Hall, New York, NY.

Viégas, F.B., Boyd, D., Nguyen, D.H., Potter, J. and Donath, J. (2004), ‘‘Digital artifacts for remembering
and storytelling: post history and social network fragments’’, paper presented at the Proceedings of the
37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5-8 May, Big Island, Hawaii, available at:
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/,fviegas/papers/posthistory_snf.pdf (accessed 30 March 2013).

Viégas, F.B., Wattenberg, M., Ham, F.V., Kriss, J. and McKeon, M. (2007), ‘‘Many eyes: a site for
visualization at internet scale’’, paper presented at the Proceedings of IEEE Information Visualization
(InfoVis), 27 October-November 1, Sacramento, CA, available at: http://nguyendangbinh.org/
Proceedings/VIS_InfoVis_VAST/2007/infovis/papers/viegas.pdf (accessed 30 March 2013).

Walker, O.C. Jr, Churchill, G.A. Jr and Ford, N.M. (1977), ‘‘Motivation and performance in industrial
selling: present knowledge and needed research’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, pp. 156-168.

Wattenberg, M. (2005), Baby Names, Visualization, and Social Data Analysis, Hayes Barton Press,
New York, NY.

Yeh, C.H. and Kuo, Y.L. (2003), ‘‘Evaluating passenger services of Asia-Pacific international airports’’’,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 35-48.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

j j
VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 17
 Appendix.

Table AI Demographics of AirlineQuality.com visitors

Demographics (%)

Age
, 18 4
18-24 6
25-34 20
35-44 26
45-54 21
55-64 15
65 þ 8

Gender
Male 53
Female 47

Household income
$0-50 000 12
$50 000-100 000 21
$100 000-150 000 29
$150 000 þ 37

Education
No college 28
College 44
Grad school 27

Ethnicity
Caucasian 76
African American 3
Asian 12
Hispanic 8
Other 1

Source: www.quantcast.com

About the authors

Vanja Bogicevic is Graduate Student and Graduate Assistant in the College of Hospitality
and Technology Leadership at University of South Florida, USA. Her main fields of research
are hospitality design and servicescape.
Wan Yang is Assistant Professor in the College of Hospitality and Technology Leadership at
University of South Florida, USA. Her main fields of research are luxury consumption, service
quality management, and cross-cultural issues in the hospitality and tourism industry.
Anil Bilgihan is Assistant Professor in the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University,
USA. His main field of research is hospitality information systems.
Milos Bujisic is a PhD and Graduate Associate at Rosen College of Hospitality Management
at University of Central Florida, USA. His main fields of research are food and beverage
management, customer behavior and revenue management. Milos Bujisic is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 18 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 68 NO. 4 2013