See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233643032

Tourism Destination Attractiveness: Attractions, Facilities,

and People as Predictors

Article in Tourism Analysis · December 2009

DOI: 10.3727/108354209X12597959359211

CITATIONS READS
173 102,955

3 authors, including:

Sebastian Vengesayi Felix Mavondo

Current Looking for affiliation Monash University (Australia)
24 PUBLICATIONS 751 CITATIONS 289 PUBLICATIONS 9,010 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sebastian Vengesayi on 11 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 14, pp. 621–636 1083-5423/09 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.3727/108354209X12597959359211
Copyright  2009 Cognizant Comm. Corp. www.cognizantcommunication.com

TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS: ATTRACTIONS,

FACILITIES, AND PEOPLE AS PREDICTORS

SEBASTIAN VENGESAYI,* FELIX T. MAVONDO,† and YVETTE REISINGER‡

*School of Management, Faculty of Business, University of Tasmania, Hobart Campus, Tasmania, Australia
†Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics,
Monash University, Clayton Campus, Melbourne, Australia
‡School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

This article examines the influence of tourist attractions, destination support services, and people
related factors on the attractiveness of a tourism destination. A sample consists of 275 tourists
visiting major tourism destinations. Through moderated regression of models the study identifies
the main contributors to destination attractiveness. Destination attractions are found to be the core
determinants of the attractiveness; destination support facilities and services, and people-related
factors are the secondary determinants. Support facilities and services and people-related factors
explain equivalent variances suggesting they are complementary rather than substitutes.

Key words: Destination attractiveness; Attractions; Support services; People

Introduction nation attributes by attempting to group the desti-

nation attributes into broad categories that destina-
The study of destination attractiveness is lim- tion managers could use to prioritize the allocation
ited (Formica, 2002) in that attempts to measure of resources for the benefit of both tourists and
or assess the attractiveness of tourism destinations destination operators. The study contributes to mar-
are ad hoc and therefore of little use to most stake- keting theory and practice by developing testable
holders at these destinations. The existing destina- models that show which groups of destination at-
tion studies seek to identify the most popular des- tributes are important, how much each group adds
tination attributes, that is, attractions and activities to explaining destination attractiveness and what
within a destination that are popular among tour- the managerial implications are for each group.
ists. Little attempt is however made to highlight,
group, and rank these attributes in a way that
Literature Review
could help destinations to allocate resources and
prioritize the development of destination facilities. The attractiveness of a tourism destination is
This study goes beyond identifying popular desti- often referred to the opinions of visitors about the

Address correspondence to Yvette Reisinger, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, 1810 N. 13th
Street, Speakman Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19122. Tel: 215-204-7139; Fax: 215-204-8705; E-mail: [email protected].

621
622 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

destination’s perceived ability to satisfy their needs. There are significant spatial differences in
Research has shown that attractiveness studies are terms of resource availability and tourists’ percep-
necessary for understanding the elements that en- tions of the ability of these resources to deliver
courage people to travel (Formica, 2002). The individual benefits (Formica & Uysal, 2006). Identi-
more a destination is able to meet the needs of fying and understanding the main resources which
tourists, the more the destination is perceived to contribute to tourists’ perceptions of their ability
be attractive and the more the destination is likely to deliver individual benefits that is destination at-
to be chosen in preference to competing destina- tractiveness is of importance because it could be
tions. Thus, the major value of destination attrac- used as a decision-making tool in planning, market-
tiveness is the pulling effect attractiveness has on ing, and developing appropriate resource alloca-
tourists (Kim & Lee, 2002). tion strategies.
Mayo and Jarvis (1981) define destination at- A number of studies identify the attributes that
tractiveness as “the relative importance of individ- tourists consider as important in evaluating the at-
ual benefits and the perceived ability of the desti- tractiveness of a destination (Gearing, William,
nation to deliver these individual benefits” (p. Swart, & Var 1974; Kim, 1998; Meinung, 1995).
201). This ability is enhanced by the specific attri- For example, Middleton (1989) examines three at-
butes of a destination that makeup the destination tributes of destination attractiveness: facilities,
such as attractions, infrastructure or services and prices of venues, and transport networks. How-
people providing these services. According to Hu ever, these attributes explain only a small propor-
and Ritchie (1993), a tourism destination is there- tion of destination attractiveness. Gartner (1989)
fore a combination of destination attributes, mostly identifies several other attributes of destination at-
tourist facilities and services. In an assessment of tractiveness, including historic and cultural sites,
the attractiveness of a destination tourists evaluate nightlife, liquor, outdoor life, natural environment,
the perceived ability of the destination attributes and receptiveness among others. Meinung (1995)
to meet their needs (Mayo & Jarvis, 1981). It is argues that scenery is one of the most important
generally believed that the attractiveness of a des- attributes in attracting tourists, while cultural attri-
tination is enhanced the more attributes the desti- butes are growing in importance in the global de-
nation has. In order to attract visitors destinations mand for tourism. In a study of Korean destina-
develop facilities and services to enhance its at- tions, Kim (1998) lists several other factors
tractiveness. The attractiveness of a destination di- affecting the attractiveness of a destination. These
minishes in the absence of these attributes. More- are clean and peaceful environment, quality of ac-
over, in the absence of destination attractiveness commodation facilities, family-oriented amenities,
tourism would not exist and there could be little safety, accessibility, reputation, entertainment, and
or no need for tourist facilities and services (Kim recreational opportunities. According to Hu and
& Lee, 2002). However, some destinations such Ritchie (1993), the attractiveness of tourism desti-
as isolated tropical islands or small coastal towns nations depends on the context of the vacation ex-
offer a limited range of facilities and services and perience and, in particular, educational and recre-
are very successful. ational travel context. An important finding from
Destination attractiveness is distinguished from their study is that “certain potentially negative at-
destination competitiveness. While the attractive- tributes of destination are more acceptable for cer-
ness of a destination depends on the relationship tain types of vacation (educational) than others
between the availability of existing attractions and (recreational)” (p. 34).
the perceived importance of such attractions (For- The studies of destination image highlight the
mica & Uysal, 2006) and their ability to deliver importance of destination attributes in developing
benefits to tourists (demand), destination competi- positive destination images. Different destinations
tiveness depends on the availability of resources have different images and thereby attract different
and a destination ability to use these resources ef- people (Gartner, 1989; Haahti, 1986). Goodrich
fectively over the long term to attract visitors (sup- (1978) concludes that there is a direct association
ply) (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). between tourists’ perceptions of a destination and
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 623

preferences for that destination. The more favor- identification of the core destination attributes
able the perception of a destination, the more at- should be a priority for destination researchers,
tractive and preferred that destination tends to be. given the need for destination managers and mar-
Fakeye and Crompton (1991), who examine the keters to allocate scarce developmental resources.
image differences between visitors to Texas, con- Because of the limited resources available to
clude that the following destination attributes de- the tourism industry for developmental purposes,
termine its attractiveness: social opportunities, nat- not all destination attributes can be developed si-
ural and cultural attractions, amenities, transport, multaneously. Conventional wisdom dictates that
and entertainment. certain attributes should be developed earlier than
In an attempt to capture the major determinants others. The resources that should be allocated first
of destination attractiveness, Genest and Legg to the development of a tourism destination are
(2003) identify three dimensions of attractiveness: those that are perceived to provide the greatest en-
product, performance, and futurity. They argue that hancement to its attractiveness. For this to be pos-
a premier destination is the one that provides a sible, the attributes should be categorized into
quality tourist product and experience. The perfor- groups.
mance dimension is measured by visitation levels, Many researchers have categorized destination
and the futurity dimension is sustained by market- attributes into groups (Ferrario, 1979; Lew, 1987;
ing, product renewal and effective management of Leiper, 1990; Ritchie & Zins, 1978). The grouping
destination capacities. Though this evaluative of destination attributes—predictors of destination
analysis of a destination helps to assess its attrac- attractiveness—has its roots in the study by Ferra-
tiveness, there are various questions that remain rio (1979). According to Ferrario, for a destination
unanswered, such as 1) How each dimension is to be attractive there should be something very
evaluated and what is more important: the product special within it (i.e., an attraction). Thus, attrac-
dimension or the performances dimension; 2) From tions represent the first important group or cate-
what perspective are the destinations being ana-
gory of destination attractiveness. This assertion is
lyzed—supply perspective or demand perspective?
supported by Crouch and Ritchie (1999), who note
Also, high visitation levels do not automatically
that attractions are the primary factors that pull
transform to high destination attractiveness since
people to visit a destination and thus destination
visitation levels may be influenced by other fac-
attractions are the main factors of destination at-
tors like the destination proximity to the source
tractiveness. In order for tourism to flourish there
market (Prideaux, 2000a) and market accessibility
should be attractions within a destination; other at-
(McKercher, 1998).
Further, although destination attractiveness tributes are complementary. The second group of
studies (see Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Hu & Ritchie, destination attributes that predict its attractiveness
1993; Klenosky, 2002; Lee, 2001; Meinung, 1995) is represented by destination support services and
highlight attributes that determine the attractive- facilities. According to Dwyer, Livaic, and Mellor
ness of a tourism destination, the magnitude and (2003) and Ritchie and Crouch (2000), destination
strength of each attribute are not being explored. support services and facilities play a complimen-
Only few attempts are made to categorize the attri- tary role in predicting the success of a destination.
butes that are important to destinations and inves- However, without attractions within a destination,
tigate their magnitude, strength, and contribution support services become irrelevant. The third group
to destination attractiveness. of destination attractiveness predictors includes
This study extends prior studies through cate- people-related factors. People-related factors com-
gorizing (and ranking) the attributes of destination pliment the role destination attractions play in de-
attractiveness as perceived by those attracted to a termining the attractiveness of a destination. On
destination (i.e., the tourist). A review of literature their own, people related-factors are not useful;
suggests that destinations are multiattribute and they require the existence of attractions and sup-
thus the identification of the various categories of port facilities and services to which people can
these attributes becomes important. Further, the add value.
624 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

Purpose of the Study 2000). These factors contribute much to the char-
acter of many coastal, island, and isolated destina-
This study attempts to empirically examine and
tions. According to Ferrario (1979), the real ele-
categorize the attributes that are predictors of des-
ment that determines destination attractiveness is
tination attractiveness and establish their relative
the presence of “something interesting or unusual
contributions to attractiveness. The classification
and ranking of attractiveness predictors help desti- to see or do” (p. 18).
nations to allocate their scarce resources. This There are different classifications and catego-
study attempts to integrate previous studies on ries of destination attractions (Crouch & Ritchie,
destination attractiveness by incorporating three 1999; Ferrario, 1979; Formica, 2001; Ritchie &
groups of destination predictors such as attrac- Crouch, 1993). Destination attractions come in
tions, support services, and people-related factors, several different shapes, sizes, and forms (Walsh-
as indicated in the literature. The study then em- Heron, 1990). For example, Leask (2003) and
pirically examines the contribution of each of Swaarbrooke (1995) classify attractions into two
these groups to the perceived attractiveness of a broad classes, namely man-made and natural.
destination. A brief description of each group of Man-made attractions are created by human be-
attributes that predict destination attractiveness is ings (e.g., historical monuments or theme parks)
discussed in the following sections. and the examples of natural attractions are the un-
usual flora and fauna and spectacles such as Victo-
Destination Attractions ria Falls (Holloway, 1998). Some classify attrac-
tions into site and events, with a site being the
Destination attractions are the fundamental destination that appeals to visitors (e.g., a national
tourism core assets that tourism destinations pos- park) while an event being something that draws
sess. These attractions define the framework people because of what is taking place (e.g., Soc-
within which visitors enjoy their vacations. They cer World Cup tournament). Goeldner, Ritchie,
include all forms of natural and created (man-
and McIntosh (2000) categorize attractions into
made) resources, culture, heritage, history, cus-
five main groups such as cultural, natural, events,
toms, architectural features, traditional artwork,
recreation, and entertainment. Attractions may also
cuisine, music, and handicrafts that attract travel-
include landscapes, activities, and experiences.
ers (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Goeldner & Ritchie,
For example, Crouch and Ritchie (1999) divide at-
2003; Walsh-Heron, 1990). The most ideal desti-
tractions into six categories: physiography, culture
nation attractions are those that are rare, inimita-
and history, market ties, activities, events, and the
ble, and only available at a particular destination
or at very few destinations. Flagestad and Hope tourism superstructure. This categorization, how-
(2001) argue that destination attractions ought not ever, appears to be contrary to the recommenda-
to be limited to physical attractions only. How- tions of Ferrario (1979), in which there should be
ever, Flagestad and Hope’s assertion can be criti- a clear distinction between the unusual elements
cized in that the nonphysical attractions are found that determine the character of a destination (cul-
to play only a supporting role to destination’s core ture, history, or events) and other supporting ele-
attractions (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). ments like market ties and tourism superstructure.
Destination attractions are the primary elements Lew (1987), however, correctly observes that it is
of destination appeal; they are the key motivators difficult to differentiate between attractions and
for tourist visitation and the fundamental reasons nonattractions as some forms of infrastructure
why prospective visitors choose one destination such as transportation (e.g., cruise liners), accom-
over another (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Several modations (e.g., resorts), and other services (e.g.,
other destination factors that contribute to and en- restaurants) can themselves be attractions. Even
hance the attractiveness of a tourist destination tourists can become attractions (MacCannell,
have been identified such as climate (Hu & Ritchie, 1976). For example, MacCannell notes that virtu-
1993), communication facilities (Falk, 2002), and ally anything can become a tourist attraction. Not
favorable exchange rates (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Rao, only the historical and natural sites but also ser-
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 625

vices and facilities that cater for tourists can be around and in which destination services (e.g. roads,
included in attractions. water, sewage) are developed and maintained to
Tourists can also be attracted to a destination high standards. The major destination support ser-
by being “involved and active” in the attractions vices are provided by accommodation, transporta-
like white water rafting, hunting safaris (Ferrario, tion, and communication facilities. These support
1979), bush trails, and bicycle rides. Crouch and services enable tourism destinations to develop as
Ritchie (1999) suggest that the challenge to desti- well as to monitor negative aspects of this devel-
nations is to develop active attractions that take opment and take corrective actions in order to re-
advantage of the natural physiography of the desti- main sustainable.
nation while remaining consistent with the local The important role of the support services and
culture and value. facilities in predicting destination attractiveness is
Whatever the classification of destination at- highlighted by Crouch and Ritchie (1999). Some
tractions it is evident that different attractions at- theoretical studies attempt to relate the adequacy
tract different types of tourists to destinations and of support services to the number of visitors the
satisfy different needs. For example, destinations destination receives. However, there appears to be
that offer an entertaining nightlife may appeal to no empirical investigation that underpins the theo-
young travelers, whereas destinations that offer retical relationship between destination support
easily accessible children-friendly facilities would services and destination attractiveness. This study
be of value to families with young children. Also, attempts to provide this evidence.
those destinations that have a relatively easy and
low cost transportation to and from the destination People-Related Factors
may be more attractive to senior travelers.
One can conclude that, at least for most desti- Tourism is a labor-intensive industry that fre-
nations, the more diverse attractions a destination quently involves the interaction between people
has, the more attractive that destination is to the (Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). The social in-
tourist market (Goeldner et al., 2000). Many suc- teraction between tourists and local people is cru-
cessful tourism destinations that offer a wide vari- cial in attracting people to a destination (Smith,
ety of popular attractions cater to numerous target 2000). Tourists usually meet and interact with lo-
markets. However, some of the most successful cals while visiting a destination. This social inter-
mass tourism destinations have a limited range of action plays an important role in developing tour-
attractions such as sun, sand, and sea. Further, be- ists’ perceptions of how attractive the destination
cause the uniqueness of an attraction is a major is to a tourist. The most attractive and reputable
pull factor that determines the visitation level to a tourism destinations are well known for the friend-
destination, the more unique an attraction is the liness of their residents. Thus, local residents,
more attractive is the destination (Swaarbrooke, whether they are employees of the tourism and
1995). hospitality industry or the general public, influ-
ence the attractiveness of a destination.
The role that a destination’s people play in en-
Destination Support Services
hancing the destination attractiveness is widely
The development of a destination requires care- documented in literature (e.g., Baum, 1995, 1996;
ful planning and management (Prideaux, 2000b). Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Some studies explain
Literature abounds with examples of destinations the importance of human resources to the tourism
that have been haphazardly developed thus result- industry (Conlin & Titcombe, 1995; Esichaikul &
ing in major problems to the locals (Prideaux, Baum, 1998). The availability of adequately and
2000b). Destinations need to be nurtured and their professionally trained staff is reported to be an es-
development monitored if they are to maintain an sential component of today’s destinations without
acceptable growth pattern (Gearing et al., 1974). which the destination product becomes disadvan-
Nurturing a destination involves the creation of an taged. Well-trained personnel are required in all
environment in which visitors feel free to move the service establishments at a destination (Bri-
626 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

guglio & Vella, 1995). Various studies discuss the jor cause for concern for the local tourism indus-
relationship between destination employees and its try. It was felt necessary to examine the country’s
attractiveness (Baum, 1993; Cameron & Harvey, attractiveness as a tourism destination and identify
1994; Jafari & Fayos-Sola, 1995; Lucas & Perrin, its major predictors so destination managers could
1994). prioritize the allocation of resources for the benefit
of both tourists and business operators.
Hypotheses The tourism industry in Zimbabwe is mostly
focused on its natural attractions; most visitors are
The study hypothesizes that the attractiveness
attracted by Victoria Falls, the Great Zimbabwe
of a tourist destination is primarily dependent on
Ruins, and wildlife that is in abundance. Zim-
the attractions available at a destination and that
babwe has also eight national parks that are spread
different destination attributes have different pull-
throughout the country. These national parks are
ing effects on tourists. Because attractions are the
home to a variety of animals including the big
core predictors of each tourism destination’s at-
five.
tractiveness they are treated as the control vari-
ables in this study. Destination support services Method
and people-related factors provide support to the
attractions in making destination attractive. Hence, Sample
they are hypothesized to play a secondary comple- The primary unit of analysis in this study is a
mentary role in destination attractiveness. This study tourist. Tourists are selected because they are ca-
predicts that the total variance explained by desti- pable of identifying what attracts them to one des-
nation attractions in destination attractiveness will tination over another. Tourists’ opinions of what
be much higher than the variance explained by attracts them to a destination are important in de-
destination support services and people-related fac- termining the attractiveness of a destination.
tors. Although the sample used in the study con-
sisted mostly of international visitors to Zim-
The Study Context babwe, a limited number of Zimbabwe nationals
This study was conducted in Zimbabwe located were also included. However, only those Zimbab-
in the southern part of Africa with a current popu- weans who were not residents in the local areas
lation of about 11 million people. Today African and who were visiting the area for the purposes of
countries attract an increasing number of interna- vacationing were included in the study. In order
tional tourists who search for new and authentic to improve the representativeness of the sample,
experiences. Since attaining its independence in visitors were sampled from different geographical
1980, the tourism industry in Zimbabwe grew by locations and at different types of attractions (see
an average rate of 6% per year. By 1995 the coun- data collection procedure). A total of 300 tourists
try received a high of 2.5 million visitors and di- were surveyed.
rectly employed almost 100,000 people; tourism
became the fastest growing sector in the country’s Development of Measures
economy (Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, 2005). A self-completion questionnaire was used as
Unfortunately, in the last several years the tourism the data collection instrument. A survey instru-
industry in Zimbabwe has experienced a down ment included the factors that were postulated to
turn. In 1999 the tourism industry contributed 15% influence the attractiveness of tourism destina-
to the GDP; yet in 2005 tourism contributed only tions. Because no universal set of items that mea-
2% to the GDP (Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, sure destination attractiveness exists, the items
2005). The decline in Zimbabwean tourism is used in this study derived from previous destina-
attributed to the negative publicity the country tion attractiveness and image studies (Ferrario,
receives from the international community for po- 1979; Haahti, 1986; Hu & Ritchie, 1993; Kim,
litical reasons. This decline in attractiveness of 1998; Middleton, 1989; Tang & Rochananond,
Zimbabwe as a tourism destination becomes a ma- 1990).
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 627

Despite the identification of the individual de- Table 1

terminants of destination attractiveness in the ex- Factor Analysis and Reliability Statistics
tant tourism literature, a close examination of for Destination Attractions
these determinants revealed three clearly identifi- Reliability
able groups of factors: destination attractions, des- (Cronbach’s
tination support services, and people-related fac- Attractions Loadings Alpha)
tors. The items used in this study were also Overall destination attractions 0.892
clustered into three main groups based on Crouch Cultural and historical attrac-
and Ritchie’s (1999) and Enright and Newton’s tions 0.826
Historical sites 0.692
(2004) categorization. The third factor was called Cultural sites 0.769
“people-related factors” in recognizing the impor- Architectural sites 0.622
tant role that local people play in making a desti- Traditional arts 0.770
Cultural arts 0.700
nation attractive. Natural attractions 0.776
Exploratory factor analysis was used to deter- National parks 0.800
mine the dimensions of the three major groups of Wildlife 0.763
Natural wonders/scenery 0.751
destination attractiveness. Orthogonal rotation was Recreation facilities 0.655
chosen to maximize the differences among the di- Pleasant weather 0.661
mensions extracted. Only factors with eigenvalue Water-based activities 0.644
Recreational activities 0.532
greater than 1 (unit) and items with factor loadings Unique attractions 0.742
greater than 0.6 were retained for further analysis. Variety of attractions 0.652
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the factors and factor Shopping facilities 0.608
Accessibility of attractions 0.824
loadings of the respective variables. Unique attractions 0.546
Table 1 shows the dimensions of attractions Created attractions 0.837
that were identified through exploratory factor Tours 0.533
Opportunities for sport 0.761
analysis (EFA) of the destination attractions items. Special events 0.682
Factor analysis resulted in the five dimensions of Sports facilities 0.757
destination attractions namely historical, natural, Nature-based activities 0.770
unique and created attractions, and recreational
and recreation. They were found to determine the
character of a destination and provide something
Prior to the major field study, a series of steps
interesting and/or unusual to see or do, as sug-
was taken to refine the questionnaire and to ensure
gested by Ferrario (1979). Recreation has been
a smooth conduct of the study. The questionnaire
classified under attractions because recreation can
was pretested on 20 graduate students and faculty
be attractions on their own, though they can
members to determine the quality of the question-
equally be classified under support services. How-
naire, absence of ambiguous questions, time it
ever, it is believed they are more of attractions
took to complete the questionnaire, and the gen-
than support services, especially for families with
eral flow and layout of the questionnaire.
children and sport/fitness fanatics. The classifica-
tion of recreation under destination attractions is
Instrument and Measures
further supported by the need for more active and
involving consumptive tourism activities. In this study, destination attractiveness was
Table 2 shows the dimensions of destination conceptualized as attractiveness relative to com-
support services as identified by factor analysis. peting destinations. The concept was measured by
These dimensions are accommodation facilities, asking 12 questions on how attractive various as-
destination utilities, communication facilities, and pects of the destination were relative to the alter-
destination accessibility. Table 3 shows the di- native the tourists would have chosen. A “destina-
mensions of people-related factors that include at- tion” was conceptualized and operationalized at
titude of local people to tourists, physical risk, the level of the study site. The questions clearly
health risk, and customer service. stated “for this particular destination site NOT for
628 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

Table 2 tent to which these contribute to destination attrac-

Factor Analysis and Reliability Statistics tiveness. The physical environment was added to
for Destination Support Services the attraction factors presented in Table 1.
Reliability The attractiveness of a destination may depend
(Cronbach’s on the quality of the physical environment. The
Supporting Services Loadings Alpha) quality of the natural environment is related to the
Overall destination supporting attractiveness of destinations (Butler, 2000; Hu &
services 0.897 Ritchie, 1993). Mihalic (2000) argues that a well-
Accommodation facilities 0.825 managed destination environment is a requirement
Quality of facilities 0.709
Variety of facilities 0.647 if the attractiveness of a destination is to be en-
Upmarket facilities 0.781 hanced. Go and Govers (2000) and Hu and Ritchie
Value for money 0.523 (1993) note that the quality of the physical envi-
Destination utilities 0.749
Clean water 0.784 ronment is one of the most mentioned attractive-
Electricity 0.683 ness determinants. Also, the environment commu-
Communication facilities 0.760 nicates an image of the destination, signals its
Direct flights 0.624
Modern communication market positioning and differentiates it from com-
facilities 0.796 petitors. Although some may question whether
Internet 0.716 destination attractiveness depends on environment
Destination accessibility 0.818
Quality of road system 0.709
Traffic congestion 0.747
Car rental facilities 0.755
Range/cars for rent 0.701
Adequate transport networks 0.538 Table 3
Adequate internal transportation 0.565 Factor Analysis and Reliability Statistics
Accessibility of attraction sites 0.599
for People-Related Factors
Loadings less than 0.40 were suppressed.
Reliability
(Cronbach’a
People-Related Factors Loadings Alpha)

the country.” The list of items respondents were Overall people-related factors 0.763
Attitude of locals to tourists 0.757
asked about to assess destination attractiveness is Willingness of locals to help 0.419
presented in Table 4. Attitude of employees to tour-
On exploratory factor analysis this produced ists 0.702
Attitude of locals to tourists 0.717
three factors that the authors interpreted as (a) Friendliness of locals 0.496
attractiveness of destination physical atmosphere Physical risk 0.709
(α = 0.732); (b) friendliness of the people (α = Peaceful environment 0.804
Availability of police patrols 0.836
832); and (c) variety of activities (α = 0.757). Des- Safe/secure parks 0.745
tination attractiveness was therefore operational- Political stability 0.507
ized as a second-order factor of these three latent Health risk 0.723
Hygiene standard 0.682
variables. The overall Chronbach was α = 0.769. Risk of illness 0.879
The confirmatory model had strong fit measures Personal health safety 0.496
and the average variance extracted (AVE) was Modern medical facilities 0.729
Customer service 0.785
0.695. For computation into the regression models Appearance of employees 0.641
destination attractiveness was computed as the av- Ability to speak English 0.678
erage of the three dimensions represented by the Other foreign languages skills 0.538
Tour guiding skills 0.534
above latent factors. Employees’ knowledge of lo-
A structured questionnaire was used to measure cal attractions 0.692
the constructs. Respondents were asked to rate the Attitude of immigration offi-
cials 0.536
importance of various attractions, services and
facilities, and people-related factors, and the ex- Loadings less than 0.40 were suppressed.
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 629

Table 4
Destination Attractiveness Measures

Friendliness of local people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Attitude of local people towards tourists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Your ability to communicate with local people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The willingness of residents to help tourists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The quality of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The level of safety provided by the destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Availability and quality of local transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The facilities available for tourists to use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The level of prices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The professionalism of service staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Availability of information about the destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The quality of information about the destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(Bramwell et al., 1996), most tourists are now Data Collection Procedure
convinced of the need to conserve the physical en-
The questionnaire was administered by the
vironment and are attracted to destinations that
main researcher. Visitors were approached at the
preserve the environment (Holden, 2000).
major tourist destinations in Zimbabwe such as
Residents’ support for tourism was added to the
Victoria Falls (46% of the sample), Zimbabwe Ru-
people-related factors presented in Table 3. The
ins in Masvingo (18%) and Matopo (15%) region,
residents’ support for tourism is important because
Great Zimbabwe National Park, the Eastern High-
destinations may not be attractive without the sup-
lands (12%), and Kariba (9%). Respondents were
port of the local residents and government. The
requested to complete the questionnaire while visit-
strength of the residents’ support for tourism is
ing a particular attraction site. This method ensured
an important determinant of how welcomed and
that the responses were current and not dependent
needed tourists feel at a destination. The feelings
on memory recall. The completed questionnaires
of welcoming and hospitality make a particular
were collected by the researcher. Only those re-
destination attractive to tourists.
spondents who were older than 18 years were
In addition, respondents were requested to rate
asked to participate in the study. Only one partner
the attractiveness of the destination in which the
in a couple was interviewed. It took about 20 min-
research was conducted. The measuring items
utes to complete the questionnaire.
were adapted from previous studies (e.g., Gearing
Out of 300 returned questionnaires, 25 were not
et al., & Var, 1974; Hu & Ritchie, 1993; Klen-
usable; they had missing data. As a result, 275
osky, 2002; Tang & Rochananond, 1990). The
completed questionnaires were used for further
same questions were asked at different sites. Fi-
analysis, giving an effective response rate of 91.7%.
nally, the questionnaire asked the general informa-
tion about the respondents pertaining to their na-
Respondent Demographics
tionality, age, and gender.
A 7-point Likert-type scale was used to mea- The sample was balanced in terms of gender;
sure the responses that ranged from 1 = not impor- there was 52% male and 48% female respondents.
tant at all to 7 = very important. The 7-point Likert The age distribution was as follows: nearly 11%
scale was chosen because it has advantages in of the respondents were younger than 20 years,
terms of increasing reliability (Zikmund, 2000). 36.4% were in the 21–29 age brackets, nearly
This scale is also common in empirical studies 50% were between 30–49 years of age, and only
(Mavondo, 1999; Slater & Narver, 1993). The use 3% were older than 50 years. Clearly, the majority
of an odd number of response options provides a of the respondents were middle-aged tourists. The
midpoint, which represents a point of neutrality on majority of the respondents were from Europe
a scale. Few sections of the questionnaire also (45.5%), followed by other African countries (18.5%),
used nominal scales to generate categorical data. and Australasia (14.2%). Australasia is a region
630 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

Table 5
Internal Consistency for Destination Attractions Construct

Internal
Construct Consistency CA HA UA NA REC PE

Created attractions 0.8456 0.7160

Historical attractions 0.8161 0.436 (0.36) 0.6780
Unique attractions 0.7480 0.446 (0.49) 0.428 (0.41) 0.6525
Natural attractions 0.7925 0.159 (0.14) 0.374 (0.46) 0.283 (0.37) 0.7400
Recreation 0.5787 0.455 (0.62) 0.347 (0.42) 0.348 (0.57) 0.324 (0.51) 0.5567
Physical environment 0.8003 0.309 (0.25) 0.342 (0.30) 0.267 (0.37) 0.392 (0.48) 0.287 (0.39) 0.6640

Values in parentheses represent correlations; values in bold represent the square root of average variance extracted.

of Oceania that includes New Zealand, Australia, The use of average variance shared between a
Papua New Guinea, and neighboring islands in the construct and its measures, or AVE was suggested
Pacific Ocean. A small percentage (8%) of the to- by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for assessment of
tal sample was represented by tourists from the discriminant validity.
US and Canada. The composition of the respon- Tables 5–7 show the coefficient alpha scores
dents in this study mirrors official statistics for of the measures used in this study. Churchill ar-
these destinations suggesting the sample was fairly gues that the reliability of a developing measure-
representative of the visitors to Zimbabwe. ment instrument should be assessed by calculating
coefficient of alpha (Churchill, 1979; Cronbach,
Data Analysis 1951). The guideline is that the coefficient alpha
should be 0.70 or above (De Vaus, 2001). The co-
In order to examine if factors in the three
efficient of alpha score for all the measures used
groups of destination attractiveness factors (attrac- in this study ranged from 0.56 to 0.74. Churchill
tions, support services, people-related factors) (1979) recommends the deletion of some items in
were not measuring the same attributes, discrimi- a multi-item measure in order to improve the mea-
nant validity of the factors in all groups was run; sure’s reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis did
the results are shown in Tables 5–7. The reliability not support any deletion of items from these mea-
of each of the constructs used in this study was sures (Smith, 1999). Though some of the alpha
recalculated using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) scores appear low they were accepted for this
internal consistency formula but using the notation study, based on Nunally’s (1967) suggestion that
in Mavondo and Conduit (2000) as shown below: reliabilities around 0.60 will suffice during the
early stages of scale development.
(Σλ)2 Because the aim of the study was to investigate
Variable (ξ) =
(Σλ)2 + Σ(δ) the relationship between destination attractions,
destination support services, people-related factors,
where λ is the regression weight and δ = (1 − λ2). and destination attractiveness, a series of regres-

Table 6
Internal Consistency for Destination Support Services Construct

Internal
Construct Consistency AF DU CF AD

Accommodation facilities 0.8367 0.7100

Destination utilities 0.8142 0.560 (0.68) 0.7175
Communications facilities 0.6923 0.482 (0.66) 0.483 (0.56) 0.6500
Accessibility of destination 0.7093 0.509 (0.64) 0.458 (0.52) 0.434 (0.61) 0.6125

Values in parentheses represent correlations; values in bold represent the square root of average
variance extracted.
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 631

Table 7
Internal Consistency for People-Related Factors Construct

Internal
Construct Consistency AT PR HR CS RST

Attitude to tourists 0.5855 0.6400

Physical risk 0.7765 0.280 (0.44) 0.6800
Health risk 0.7515 0.468 (0.66) 0.537 (0.65) 0.6550
Customer service 0.7893 0.343 (0.61) 0.544 (0.68) 0.506 (0.71) 0.5885
Residents’ support for tourism 0.8188 0.457 (0.32) 0.377 (0.32) 0.280 (0.37) 0.458 (0.61) 0.6802

Values in parentheses represent correlations; values in bold represent the square root of average variance extracted.

sion models was run involving attractions, support tions and destination support services. Model 4
services, people factors, and destination attractive- seeks to establish the total variance of destination
ness. First, destination attractions and destination attractiveness that is explained by the three groups
attractiveness were run in a regression to assess of factors (i.e., destination attractions, destination
the predictive power of the different types of at- support services, and people-related factors).
tractions on destination attractiveness. Second, the
different types of destination support services were Results and Discussion
entered into a regression with destination attrac-
tions to assess their combined contribution to des- Model 1 investigates the relationship between
tination attractiveness. Third, destination attrac- destination attractions and the attractiveness of a
tions and people-related factors were then entered tourist destination. As mentioned previously at-
into a regression. Finally, destination attractions, tractions are treated as control variables for the
destination support services and people-related fac- other models. This is because attractions are as-
tors were entered into a moderated regression with sumed to be the most important factors determin-
destination attractiveness. Destination attractions ing the attractiveness of a destination. The results
were used as the control variable because attrac- presented in Table 8 are based on one-tail test be-
tions were hypothesized to be the primary factors cause specific directions of the relationships are
of any tourism destination attractiveness. Without hypothesized.
attractions, the other variables become irrelevant The results of Model 1 show that destination
and there is no tourism to talk about (Formica, attractions explain 32% (R2 = 0.316) of the total
2002). A place might have world class support ser- variance of destination attractiveness. The strong-
vices in terms of roads or accommodation facili- est predictor of destination attractiveness is unique
ties and high level of customer service but if the attractions (0.32, t = 5.25, p < 0.001), followed by
place does not have the attractions for tourists to physical environment (0.17, t = 2.87, p < 0.01),
visit, it cannot be called a tourist destination. The historical attractions (0.16, t = 2.54, p < 0.01), and
results are shown in Table 8. created attractions (0.15, t = 2.30, p < 0.05).
Model 1 in Table 8 investigates the relationship Model 2 is a moderated regression that seeks to
between attractions and destination attractiveness. establish the increment in total variance explained
Model 2 seeks to establish the incremental contri- by adding support services into Model 1. The re-
bution made by destination support services to ex- sults show that Model 2 explains 38% (R2 = 0.376)
plaining destination attractiveness. Destination sup- of the total variance in destination attractiveness.
port services are expected to increase the total The incremental variance ∆R2 is significant F-ratio
variance explained by destination attractions. Model (p < 0.001) showing that significantly more total
3 seeks to establish the incremental contribution, if variance in destination attractiveness is explained
any, made by people-related factors to destination by adding support services. The factors with the
attractiveness. People-related factors are expected strongest and significant influence on destination
to increase the total variance explained by attrac- attractiveness are destination accessibility (0.22,
632 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

Table 8
Destination Attractions, Destination Support Services, and People-Related Factors as Determinants
of Destination Attractiveness

Models of Destination Attractiveness

Construct (n = 275) Direction Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Destination attractions
Created attractions + 0.15 (2.30)* 0.16 (2.50)** 0.17 (2.71)** 0.17 (2.63)**
Historical attractions + 0.16 (2.54)** 0.15 (2.41)** 0.19 (3.19)*** 0.15 (2.41)**
Unique attractions + 0.32 (5.25)*** 0.15 (2.13)* 0.19 (2.86)** 0.22 (1.99)*
Natural attractions + 0.05 (0.89) 0.048 (0.85) 0.06 (1.06) 0.03 (0.56)
Recreation facilities + −0.10 (1.66) −0.12 (−1.97)* −0.14 (−2.38)** −0.14 (2.43)**
Physical environment + 0.17 (2.87)** 0.12 (2.15)* 0.08 (1.38) 0.08 (1.39)
Destination support services
Accommodation facilities + 0.20 (2.91)** 0.14 (1.76)*
Destination utilities + −0.04 (−0.62) −0.02 (0.37)
Communication facilities + 0.01 (0.19) 0.01 (0.13)
Destination accessibility + 0.22 (3.50)*** 0.20 (3.27)***
People-related factors
Attitude to tourists + −0.09 (−1.34) −0.11 (−1.71)*
Physical risk − −0.02 (−0.36) −0.05 (−0.68)
Health risk − 0.05 (0.67) −0.1 (−0.16)
Customer service + 0.20 (2.95)** 0.18 (2.55)**
Residents’ support for tourism + 0.13 (2.39)** 0.13 (2.23)*
R2 0.32 0.38 0.39 0.43
Adj. R2 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.39
∆R2 0.06 (19%) 0.079 (25%) 0.12 (37%)
∆F-ratio 6.59*** 7.03*** 6.14***
Degrees of freedom ∆F 4, 27 5, 27 9, 27

The values in the table are standardized regression weights; the values in parentheses are t-values. Destination attractions
were two-tail tests while support services and people-related factors were one-tail t-tests.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < .001.

t = 3.50, p < 0.001), accommodation facilities < 0.01), and residents’ support for tourism (0.13,
(0.20, t = 2.91, p < 0.01), followed by created at- t = 2.39, p < 0.01). The negative significant rela-
tractions (0.16, t = 2.50, p < 0.01), historical at- tionship of recreation with destination attractive-
tractions (0.15, t = 2.41, p < 0.01), unique attrac- ness may be explained by the nature-based type of
tions (0.15, t = 2.13, p < 0.05), and recreation a destination under investigation in which recre-
(−0.12, t = −1.97, p < 0.05). ation is not perceived by tourists as important to
Model 3 is a moderated regression that seeks to destination attractiveness and additionally may re-
establish the increment in variance explained by flect the lack of adequate recreational facilities in
adding people factors into Model 1. The results developing economies such as Zimbabwe.
show that this model explains 40% (R2 = 0.39) of Model 4 incorporates all the three groups of
the total variance in destination attractiveness. The factors to produce the integrated model. This pro-
incremental ∆R2 is significant F-ratio (p < 0.001), vides a holistic model of destination attractiveness
again showing that significantly more variance in as a function of destination attractions, support
destination attractiveness is explained by adding services, and people-related factors. This model
people factors. The strongest and significant influ- explains 43% (R2 = 0.43) of the total variance in
ence on destination attractiveness have customer destination attractiveness. In Model 4 the factors
service (0.20, t = 2.95, p < 0.01), historical attrac- from attractions that remain significant include
tions (0.19, t = 3.19, p < 0.001), unique attractions created attractions (0.17, t = 2.63, p < 0.01), his-
(0.19, t = 2.86, p < 0.01), created attractions (0.17, torical attractions (0.15, t = 2.41, p < 0.01), unique
t = 2.71, p < 0.01), recreation (−0.14, t = −2.38, p attractions (0.22, t = 1.99, p < 0.05), and recreation
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 633

(−0.14, t = −2.43, p < 0.01). The factors from sup- the attitude of the Zimbabwean government to
port services that remain significant are destina- tourists as positive. This is consistent with interna-
tion accessibility (0.20, t = 3.27, p < 0.001) and tional media portrayal of the government as anti-
accommodation facilities (0.14, t = 1.76, p < 0.05). Western, undemocratic, and intolerant of free speech.
The factors from people-related factors that re- The results suggest that destination attractions
main significant are customer service (0.18, t = are the main determinants and predictors of desti-
2.55, p < 0.01), residents’ support for tourism nation attractiveness as supported by all models in
(0.13, t = 2.23, p < 0.05) and attitude of local peo- Table 3. Destination attractions alone account for
ple to tourists (−0.11, t = −1.71, p < 0.05). 32% of the total variance in destination attractive-
Across all models (from Model 1 to Model 4) ness. When support services and people related
factors that have changed in significance include factors are added to the regression, the total vari-
created attractions (p < 0.01), historical attractions ance explained increased by 12%, to 43% suggest-
(p < 0.01), recreation (p < 0.01), attitude to tourists ing attractions are the most significant predictors
((p < 0.05), unique attractions (p < 0.05), accom- of destination attractiveness. Without attractions
modation facilities (p < 0.05), and residents’ sup- tourism destinations cannot exist; attractions are
port for tourism (p < 0.05). Factors that did not the basis for visitation (Formica, 2002). These
change in significance are destination accessibility findings are consistent with Ritchie and Crouch
(p < 0.001) and customer service (p < 0.01). From (2000) suggesting that attractions are the main rea-
these results one can compare the two incremental son people visit certain destinations and not oth-
∆R2 values from Model 2 and Model 3. The results ers. Another support for the hypothesis comes
suggest that the bigger increment occurs between from the secondary role that support services play
Model 1 and Model 3 (25%) than the one between in making a destination more attractive (Crouch &
Model 1 and Model 2 (19%). Ritchie, 1999; Dwyer et al., 2003). Crouch and
Ritchie (1999) argue that while attractions are the
Destination Attractions, Destination Support primary reasons for visitation, supporting services
Service, and People-Related Factors: play a secondary role in making a tourism destina-
Integrated Model tion more attractive by providing the necessary
facilities for the comfort of tourists.
Destination attractions, destination support ser-
vices, and people-related factors (Model 4) ac-
Conclusion and Implications
count for 43% of the total variance in destination
attractiveness. Most of the destination attraction The multiple regressions models give an indi-
types are positively and significantly related to cation of the potential explanatory power of the
destination attractiveness (created, historical, unique). various destination factors on destination attrac-
Destination accessibility and accommodation facili- tiveness. While the results show that attractions,
ties are also significantly associated with destina- support services, and people-related factors influ-
tion attractiveness. Surprisingly, accessibility is ence the attractiveness of a destination, these three
the strongest predictor of destination attractiveness groups of factors have different effects on destina-
in Model 4. The other types of destination support tion attractiveness. Destination attractions are the
services such as destination utilities and communi- core determinants of destination attractiveness,
cation facilities are not significantly related to des- providing support to earlier studies by Formica
tination attractiveness. As shown in Model 4 the (2002) and Meinung (1995). The incremental con-
people-related factors that are significantly associ- tribution of supporting services and people-related
ated with destination attractiveness are customer factors to the contribution of attractions is rela-
service, residents’ support for tourism, and attitude tively small (19% and 25%, respectively). People-
to tourists. The attitude to tourists is significantly related factors make a higher contribution than
and negatively associated with destination attrac- supporting services, implying that people-related
tiveness. Although unexpected this result may factors are more highly regarded by tourists in in-
suggest that tourists to Zimbabwe do not perceive fluencing the attractiveness of a destination than
634 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

supporting services. Interestingly, all the destina- Limitations

tion factors (Model 4) explain more total variance
The findings may be country specific and may
in destination attractiveness (43%), making an in-
not be generalizable. The circumstances in which
cremental contribution of 37%. This implies that
developing a destination should involve providing the tourism industry in Zimbabwe finds itself is
supporting services and developing positive hu- symptomatic of a much wider problem. The econ-
man relations. omy has been shrinking over the last decade. The
From a destination attractiveness perspective, country is perceived as unfavorable for foreign in-
these results suggests that as long as destination vestment and for attracting international tourists.
attractions are popular, tourists will visit it; how- The country is perceived as undemocratic and de-
ever, the attractiveness of the destination is further void of free speech. The contribution of the tour-
enhanced by availability of support services and ism industry has significantly declined from its
the attitude of the locals to tourists. People-related highs in 1990s. Thus, the results may reflect a spe-
factors are perceived as more important in deter- cial case.
mining destination attractiveness than support ser- This is a study of users, or visitors to particular
vices. This might explain why tourists are pre- sites in Zimbabwe. Nonusers (nonvisitors) or those
pared to use “substandard” facilities to visit highly who have not been attracted to Zimbabwe have
attractive and popular destinations. Destination not been included in the survey and their ranking
managers are therefore encouraged to develop and of the destination factors has not been considered.
manage destination attraction facilities and edu- Perhaps those who assign greater weight to factors
cate local residents on the importance of tourism. such as political instability have decided the coun-
Destination managers are also encouraged to per- try is insufficiently attractive to visit. Sampling
suade local residents to be friendly to tourists if a only those who have decided to visit is a limitation
destination is to remain attractive. This suggests a of this study; managers wanting to develop the in-
prioritization of the destination attractions devel- dustry also need to know why others (nonvisitors)
opment and management, when allocating resources. do not find the place attractive to visit.
The results might be of great interest to tourism However, Zimbabwe has some of the interna-
managers and marketers. The study identifies des- tional attractions; the industry is highly sophisti-
tination attributes that should be developed and cated in terms of products on offer, expertise, and
marketed to make a destination attractive to tour- quality of hotels and services. Those have allowed
ists. The study is the first one which empirically the industry to survive despite the broader geopo-
examined the contribution of each group of the litical issues. The results indicate the resilience of
destination attractiveness. The study can be repli- an industry and adverse macroenvironmental con-
cated in other settings and results compared. ditions. One main limitation, common to many
Lastly, the variance explained in Model 4 survey studies, is the common method bias. How-
(43%) may appear too low, but when considering ever, all the potential checks for this do not sug-
other factors that people think of when selecting a gest this was a problem but this must be accepted
tourism destination and the multifaceted nature of as a potential limitation. On the more positive
tourism destinations, capturing 43% of the vari- side, limited research from southern Africa makes
ance appears a big starting point. Other factors this a unique and important contribution to tour-
that people take into consideration when choosing ism studies. The findings of the study are consis-
a destination may include destination reputation, tent with extant theory and to that extent the con-
safety and security, the costs to and at the destina- textual issues are of much less importance.
tion, or the distance between their homes and the
destination country. Obviously many people prefer References
touring destinations that are closer to home. These
Baum, T. (1993). Human resources concerns in European
variables, however, were excluded from consider- tourism: Strategic responses and the EC. International
ation and analysis because they lowered the scale Journal of Hospitality Management, 12 (1), 77–88.
reliability. Baum, T. (1995). Managing human resources in the Euro-
 TOURISM DESTINATION ATTRACTIVENESS 635

pean tourism and hospitality industry: A strategic ap- Ferrario, F. (1979). The evaluation of tourist resources: An
proach. London: Chapman and Hall. applied research (part 2). Journal of Travel Research,
Baum, T. (1996). Unskilled work and the hospitality indus- 17(4), 24–30.
try: Myth or reality. International Journal of Hospitality Flagestad, A., & Hope, C. (2001). Strategic success in win-
Management, 15(3), 1–3. ter sports destinations: A sustainable value creation per-
Bramwell, B., Henry, L., Jackson, G., Prat, A. G., Richards, spective. Tourism Management, 22, 445–461.
G., & van de Straaten, J. (Eds.) (1996). Sustainable Formica, S. (2001). Measuring destination attractiveness: A
tourism management: Principles and practice. Tilburg: proposed framework. In International Business Confer-
Tilburg University Press. ence. Miami, FL: TTRA.
Briguglio, L., & Vella, L., (1995). The competitiveness of Formica, S. (2002). Measuring destination attractiveness: A
the Maltese Islands in the Mediterranean international proposed framework. Journal of American Academy of
tourism. In M. V. Conlin & T. Baum (Eds.), Island Business, 1(2), 350–355.
tourism: Management principles and practice. Bris- Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination attractiveness
bane: John Wiley and Sons. based on supply and demand evaluations: An analytical
Butler, R. (2000), Tourism and the environment: A geo- framework. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 418–
graphical perspective. Tourism Geographies, 2(3), 337– 430.
58. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluation structural
Cameron, L. C., & Harvey, D. (1994). Formal mentoring: equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
The ‘state-of-the-art’ in tourism education? In A. V. surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(Feb-
Seaton (ed.), Tourism: the state of the art. Brisbane: ruary), 39–50.
John Wiley and Sons. Gartner, W. (1989). Tourism image: Attribute measurement
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better of state tourism products using multidimensional scal-
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing ing techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2),
Research, 16, 64–73. 16–20.
Conlin, M., & Titcombe, J. (1995). Human resources: A Gearing, C., William, E., Swart, S., & Var, T. (1974). Es-
strategic imperative for Caribbean tourism. In M. V. tablishing a measure of touristic attractiveness. Journal
Conlin & T. Baum (Eds.), Island tourism: Management of Travel Research, 12, 1–8.
principles and practice. Brisbane: John Wiley and Son. Genest, J., & Legg, D. (2003). The premier-ranked destina-
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal tions workbook 2001. Retrieved from www.ttra.com/
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. publications/uploads/o32.pdf
Crouch, G., & Ritchie, B. (1999). Tourism, competitive- Go, F., & Govers, R. (2000). Integrated quality manage-
ness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Re- ment for tourist destinations: A European perspective
search, 44, 137–152. on achieving competitiveness. Tourism Management,
De Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. 21(1), 79–88.
London: Sage Publications. Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, B. (2003). Tourism: Principles,
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2000). The price com- practices and philosophies (9th Ed.). New York/Chich-
petitiveness of travel and tourism: A comparison of 19 ester: Wiley.
destinations. Tourism Management, 21, 9–22. Goeldner, C., Ritchie, B., & McIntosh, R. (2000). Tourism:
Dwyer, L., Livaic, Z., & Mellor, R. (2003). Competitive- Principles, practice and philosophies. New York: John
ness of Australia as a tourist destination. Journal of Wiley and Sons.
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10(1), 60–78. Goodrich, J. (1978). The relationship between preferences
Echtner, C., & Ritchie, B. (1993). The measurement of des- for and perceptions of vacation destinations: Applica-
tination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of tion of a choice model. Journal of Travel Research,
Travel Research, 31(3), 3–13. 17(2), 8–13.
Enright, M., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination Haahti, A. (1986). Finland’s competitive position as a des-
competitiveness: A quantitative approach. Tourism tination. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 11–35.
Management, 25, 777–788. Holden, A. (2000). Environment and tourism. London:
Esichaikul, R., & Baum, T. (1998). The case for govern- Routledge.
ment involvement in human resources development: A Holloway, C. (1998). The business of tourism. London:
study of the Thai hotel industry. Tourism Management, Pitman.
19(4), 359–370. Hu, Y., & Ritchie, B. (1993, Fall). Measuring destination
Fakeye, P., & Crompton, J. (1991). Image differences be- attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel
tween prospective first-time and repeat visitors to the Research, 25–34.
lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, Jafari, J., & Fayos-Sola, E. (1995). Human resources devel-
30(2), 10–16. opment and quality tourism: A multi-conference report.
Falk, R. (2002). Communication: Means and ends in the Tourism Management, 228–231.
struggle against global terrorism. Pacific Review, 14(1), Kim, H. B. (1998). Perceived attractiveness of Korean des-
49–65. tinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 340–361.
 636 VENGESAYI, MAVONDO, AND REISINGER

Kim, S. S., & Lee, C. K. (2002). Push and pull relation- nation development. Tourism Management, 21, 53–63.
ships. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 257–260. Prideaux, B. (2000b). The resort development spectrum—a
Klenosky, D. (2002). The “pull” of tourism destinations: A new approach to modeling resort development. Tourism
means–end investigation. Journal of Travel Research, Management, 21, 225–240.
40, 385–395. Ritchie, B., & Crouch, G. (1993). Competitiveness in inter-
Leask, A. (2003). The nature and purpose of visitor attrac- national tourism: A framework for understanding and
tions. In A. Fyall, A. Leak, & B. Garrod (Eds.), Manag- analysis. Proceedings of the 43rd congress of the
ing visitor attractions: New directions. London: Butter- AIEST, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, October,
worth-Heinemann. 17–23.
Lee, K. (2001). Sustainable tourism destinations: The im- Ritchie, B., & Zins, M. (1978). Culture as a determinant of
portance of cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Pro- the attractiveness of a tourism region. Annals of Tour-
duction, 9, 313–323. ism Research, 5, 252–267.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Ritchie, B., & Crouch, G. (2000). Are destination stars born
Tourism Research, 17, 367–384. or made: Must a competitive destination have star
Lew, A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. genes. Lights, Camera, Action: Spotlight on Tourism in
Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4), 553–575. the New Millennium: 31st Annual Conference Proceed-
Lucas, R., & Perrin, A. (1994). The importance of language ings, Travel and Tourism Research Association, at San
to foreign tourism: A comparative study of Britain and Fernando Valley, California, United States, June 11–12.
France, with particular reference to hotels. In A. V. Ritchie, B., & Crouch, G. (2003) The competitive destina-
Seaton (Ed.), Tourism: The state of the art. Brisbane: tion: A sustainable tourism perspective. Cambridge,
John Wiley and Sons. MA: CABI.
MacCannell, D. (1976). Tourist: A new theory of the leisure Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. D. (1993). Product-market strat-
class. New York: Schocken Books. egy and performance: An analysis of the Miles and
Mavondo, F. (1999). Environment and strategy as anteced- Snow strategy types. European Journal of Marketing,
ents of marketing effectiveness and organizational per- 27(10), 33–51.
formance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7, 237–50. Smith, A. (1999). Some problems when adopting Church-
Mavondo, F., & Conduit, J. (2000). Construct validity of ill’s paradigm for the development of service quality
market orientation: Do people in different industries measurement scales. Journal of Business Research, 46,
share the same meaning. Advances in International 109–120.
Marketing, Supplement I, 63–83. Smith, V. (2000). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of
Mayo, E., & Jarvis, L. (1981). Psychology of leisure travel. tourism. Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press.
Boston: CABI Publishing. Swaarbrooke, J. (1995). The development and management
McKercher, B. (1998). The effect of market access to desti- of visitor attractions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
nation choice. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 39–47. Tang, J., & Rochananond, N. (1990). Attractiveness of a
Meinung, A. (1995). Determinants of the attractiveness of tourist destination: A comparative study of Thailand
tourism region. In S. F. Witt & L. Moutinho, (Eds.), and selected countries. Socio-Economic Planning Sci-
Tourism marketing and management handbook. Hert- ences, 24(3), 229–236.
fordshire: Prentice Hall. Walsh-Heron, J. (1990). Management of visitor attractions
Middleton, V. (1989). Tourist product. In F. S. Witt & L. and events. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moutinho (Eds.), Tourism marketing and management Wright, P., Dunford, B., & Snell, A. (2001). Human re-
handbook. London: Prentice Hall. sources and the resource based view of the firm. Jour-
Mihalic, T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist nal of Management, 27, 701–721.
destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tour- Zikmund, W. (2000). Exploring marketing research (7th
ism Management, 21(1), 65–78. ed.). Sydney: The Dryden Press.
Nunally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: Mc- Zimbabwe Tourism Authority. (2005) Zimbabwe tourism
Graw-Hill. statistics. Retrieved from http://www.zimbabwetourism.
Prideaux, B. (2000a). The role of transport system in desti- co.zw

View publication stats