Journal of Tourism & Hospitality
Open Access

Dimensions of Visitor Satisfaction at Attractions: a study at Kakum National Park, Ghana

Author info »

Introduction

Tourism is globally recognized as the fastest growing industry. According to the World Tourism Organization 2014 report, the tourism sector continuously experienced expansion and diversification, and it has become one of the largest and fastest- growing economic sectors in the world [1]. Defined as an activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business, and other purposes, tourism is regarded as a major contributor to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment in many economies of the world opined that, the tourism and travel sector outshined the global economy in 2016 as its direct contribution increased by 3.1 percent as compared to the growth of the global economy (2.5) percent. Moreover, its contribution to employment grew by 1.8 percent in 2016 which revealed almost 2 million net additional employment opportunity was created by the sector [2]. In Africa, some of the major destinations for tourists include Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mauritius and Ghana (Ghana Tourist Authority (GTA) in 2016). The Ghana Tourist Authority in 2016 alludes that, Ghana leads its neighbors as the number one tourist destination in West Africa.

Attractions are recognized as one of the three important elements of tourism supply in addition to transport and accommodation [3]. Hence, tourism would not exist without attractions [4]. This view is shared by Gunn who argues that without developed attractions; tourism would not exist and that there would be little need for transportation, facilities, services and information systems. Kakum National Park (KNP) is one of the most visited attractions and among the country’s iconic attractions created since the early 1990 s in Ghana (Ghana Statistical Report, 2017). Even though others of its nature have been created, it remains the flagship attraction in the categories of National Parks in Ghana [5]. Argue that attractions are crucial in contributing to the overall satisfaction of visitors, considered attractions as the core of tourism, not only in terms of formulating the tourism product but, also as a gauge of the performance of the entire destination [6,7].

Therefore, to ensure the sustenance of attractions and destinations, the satisfaction of visitors is key [8]. A higher level of visitor satisfaction increases visitor dedication, reduce price elasticity, brings down exchange costs, and enhance the limit inflow of new visitors [9]. As the main driver of visitors to a destination, satisfaction with the experiences of a tourists at attractions has far-reaching implications and worthy of study. Studies on visitor satisfaction with destinations have often focused on other tourism supply elements such as hotels, transport and restaurants with little emphasis on attraction. This is especially the case of Ghana where tourism scholars have barely studied visitor satisfaction with attractions and its associate relations with future behavioral tendencies towards the destination [10]. The objectives of this study are to ascertain visitors’ level of satisfaction with services at KNP and also to study the differences between visitors’ satisfaction dimensions and their socio-demographic characteristics.

The concept of attractions in tourism

According to attraction is any place or thing that has the ability to persuade a person to visit a destination defines tourist’s attractions as “consisting of all those elements of a non-home place that draw discretionary travelers away from their homes. They usually include landscapes to observe, activities to participate in and experiences to remember “defines visitor attractions as "a named site with a specific human or natural feature which is the focus of visitor and management attention" also argues that the use the phrase “Visitor attraction” is meant to cater for the non-overnight tourist market. Notwithstanding the use of the lexis, the existence of a drawing factor is irrefutable. Visitors’ need for attractions may stem from various forms of motivation, ranging from pleasure-seeking, recreation and relaxation, education, learning other people’s culture and visiting museums and parks [11].

Visitor Attractions are classified to include natural attractions such as beautiful mountain and valleys, scenery, gardens and springs, scenic drive, parks, lakes, rivers, wildlife, caves, and underground formations. Another form of attraction is entertainment and events, which include shows, exhibitions, cultural events and festivals, western musicals and nightlife and entertainment as well as historic attractions such as history, heritage, and vintage buildings [12].

Attractions are at the core and give a reason for the development of tourism in any given destination [13]. Other studies also affirm the importance of attraction to tourism by arguing that attractions are an essential component of tourism development [14].

Also, attractions provide the focus by setting the agenda for tourists’ activities of a destination in the tourism industry [15]. There are a number of attributes associated with each destination such as, attractions, services, and infrastructure. However, attractions and the experience they provide are major contributors to overall satisfaction [16]. More so, it has been labeled as key determinant of a destinations image that influences tourist satisfaction [17].

Visitor satisfaction with attractions in tourism

The importance of visitor’s satisfaction in the service industry has been acknowledged by several researchers as crucial for destination sustainability and the overall success of the destination [18-20]. Therefore, an understanding of visitor satisfaction is of paramount importance for the tourism industry because it is considered as one of the key objectives and indicators in the success in tourist destination management [21]. Satisfaction is viewed as an attitude or evaluation that is formed by the customer comparing their pre-purchase expectation of what they would receive from the product to their subjective perceptions of the performance they did received also views it as a person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment by comparing a product’s perceived performance (outcome) in relation to his or her expectation. If the person’s expectation is met, he or she is likely to evaluate his or her experience as satisfactory, and disaffection will surface if the services provided do not meet the visitors’ desires [22].

Recognized as an important behavioral antecedent, managers of attractions are increasingly appreciating the economic importance of meeting the needs of visitors and providing them with memorable experiences [23]. Regarding the tourism industry, it has been suggested that when tourists are satisfied, they are likely to recommend the tourist destination to others [24]. Accordingly, satisfied tourists tend to engage in positively word of mouth communication with others about their positive experiences [25-30]. This in turn, contributes to increased rates of tourists’ patronage, retention, loyalty and acquisition. Invariably, there is a positive association between tourist satisfaction and the long-term profitability and success of the destination.

According to factors used in evaluating the satisfaction of attractions includes both tangibles (appearance of physical facilities, including equipment, personnel and communication materials) and intangibles (good ambiance and well-dressed staff among others) while focus on the intangibles [31]. These factors have been expanded and categorized under the following various authors: Responsiveness, tangibles, communications, consumables and empathy product, experience, marketing, culture and leadership; surroundings of the attraction, reception/ticket office, literature and souvenir selling area, exhibition, catering, toilets, general impression showed that the physical environment can powerfully affect customers’ cognition, emotions, and behavior [32]. According to them, one important factor that has been thoroughly emphasized in the satisfaction of attractions research is the physical environment [33].

Satisfaction and tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics

Note that an understanding of tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics is significant for tourism marketing management [34]. Socio-demographic characteristics of tourists include; gender, age, income, education, nationality occupation and marital status, socio-demographic profiles such as nationality, age, gender, income, and educational level are highly vary with satisfaction. Indicate that age and income do not affect the level of satisfaction significantly, but gender, education, and occupation had a significant influence on satisfaction [35]. According to there is a significant difference between satisfaction and gender and that, females expressed higher satisfaction than males; an assertion similar to this contrasts the finding of that showed that males have a higher level of satisfaction than females [36]. With reference to the level of education, argue that different educational backgrounds influence satisfaction levels also showed a significant relationship between educational level and satisfaction with snorkeling experience in Pulau Payar Marine Park. With respect to nationality, argue that there is a significant difference in satisfaction across the different nationalities of visitors to Balearic Island in Spain [37]. On the contrary, suggest that, there is no significant difference in overall satisfaction and nationality [38]. From the above, it may be assumed that the evidence pointing to the differences in tourists’ satisfaction and their socio-demographic characteristics can be described as mixed and contradictory. This in part could be attributed to the different socio-cultural contexts and the different aspects of tourists’ activities that were considered [39,40].

Theoretical framework

The two types of consumer satisfaction exist. These are the transaction-specific and overall satisfaction. Transaction-specific satisfaction is correlated to a specific encounter with the organization whereas overall satisfaction is a collective construct summing satisfaction with specific products/services of the organization with various facets of the company, physical facilities for example. It is based on information from all previous encounters with an organization and can be viewed as a function of all previous transaction-specific satisfaction [41-50].

The underpinned theory for this current study is the transaction-specific theory which suggests that satisfaction of a customer is dependents of their experience with specific attributes of services based on which they engaged in a transaction. Subsequently, the decision to re-engage in the service transaction in future is hinged on the customers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the earlier transaction [51]. Further, the transaction-specific theory suggests that since customers’ judgment of satisfaction is based on specific proportions, decision to re-purchase could be ascribed to the customers’ satisfaction of a service dimension rather than the overall service [52]. Given the above, when consumer satisfaction is evaluated, the researchers should define whether the satisfaction measure is based on the overall or the transaction-specific satisfaction [53]. This study aims to define the differences between socio-demographics and satisfaction dimensions of visitors’ at the KNP of Ghana [54,55]. The transaction-specific theory is thus deemed appropriate since KNP has specific services attributes that makes it easier to measure visitors satisfaction (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Map of Kakum national park.

Source: Cartographic and remote sensing unit, UCC (2017).

Study area (Insert map of study area)

The Kakum National Park is located in the Central Region of Ghana, close a small community called Abrafo Odumasi and among the many protected area in the country develop for touristic purposes. The main attractions at the park cover the canopy walkway, bird watching, nature walk and teahouses for night camping [56-60]. The KNP is not only known as the greatest and most visited attraction among the national parks in Ghana, according to the country’s flag ship attraction because of its unique attributes (canopy walk way and the rainforest) which appeals to a greater number of visitors who come at the central region.

Materials and Methods

The study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional field survey [61]. According to the main drive of descriptive research design is to report an exact description of observations in a situation and no attempt is made to change behaviors [62]. A convenient sampling technique was used to reach out to the research participants [63- 65]. With the help of two trained field assistants stationed at key areas of the park, visitors who had finished their tour were invited to complete a questionnaire before exiting the attraction [66-70]. Before the actual collection of data, a pretest of the instrument was carried out at KNP. A sample size of 30 visitors was selected for this purpose. Pre-testing was done to ensure that the instrument measured quality and concise information [71].

A self-administered questionnaire which comprised of close- ended questions was used for data collection [72]. The instrument was structured into two sections (A and B) in connection to the objectives of the study [73]. Section A captured information on the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants and section B dealt with issues on visitor’s satisfaction assessment of six service dimensions they have experience from the selected attraction namely Tangibles, Price, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy which is adopted initially, respondents views on the six service dimensions measuring visitors’ satisfaction were captured using a 5-point Likert Scale (1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neither agree nor disagree, Agree, 5-Strongly Agree) of which they were asked to indicate their extent of agreement or disagreement with some statements posed by the researcher. To facilitate the interpretation of the results, the 5-point Likert Scale was subsequently collapsed to 3 points which was as follows: Disagree=1 (Strongly disagree+disagree); Neither agree nor disagree=2; Agree=3 (Agree + Strongly agree) [74,75]. The Three- point Likert scale concur with the assertion that, the points ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’ which are at the extreme ends of the scale, only stress the degree of agreement or otherwise. Aside, this resolution was reliant on the fact that data transformation exercise does not lead to any information lost but, rather enhances the interpretation of the results; it improves the simplicity of the results and conveys more precise meanings [76].

A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed to respondents, of which 387 were retrieved. Out of this number, 367 were found useful for analysis, representing 91.75% response rate. Collected data were analyzed using both descriptive statistics (percentage in agreement, mean scores and standard deviation) and inferential statistical analysis techniques [77]. Specifically, independent t-test was employed to compare the mean score between gender and satisfaction dimensions while one way ANOVA was employed to compare the mean score of more than two groups which are age, marital status, religion, and continent of origin, level of education and employment status and the attributes of satisfaction. To calculate the overall satisfaction, we summed the means of each attribute and then divided the result by the number of dimensions.

Results and Discussion

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

The assumption was that, visitors’ socio-demographic characteristics of participants will vary by the satisfaction dimensions. In this study, variables that were included for socio demographic characteristics were sex, age, marital status, religion, continent of origin, level of education and employment status [78]. This section is important because, research has shown that, the satisfaction level of visitors varies by their socio-demographic background. Accordingly, a summary of the socio-demographic profile of respondents are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristic of respondents (N=367).

Regarding the sex distribution of participants, the results indicate that, a little over half (55.9%) of the visitors was made up of males. Traditionally, males are known to travel more than females, and this could be a contributing factor to the low patronage of females. The age characteristic identifies Ghana as appealing to the young market. Over half of the respondents (56.9%) were within the 21- 29 age brackets and were followed by those aged between 30-39 years (20.2%) while (8.7%) of the respondents were below 20 years [79]. The indication is that, the visitors who visit KNP are generally dominated by young adults between the ages of 21-29 mainly because of the canopy walkway which attracts. This corroborates the popular notion that the youth have a high propensity to travel, than other segments and due to their exuberance and curiosity to discover new things and place to spend a lot for time on leisure pursuits. Moreover, 8.7% of the respondents were below 20 years. Finally, the least (8.2%) of the total respondents from the attraction were aged from 50 years and above. The rigorous nature of activities at the attraction especially the canopy walkway could account for the smaller number of aged visitors to the destination [80].

In terms of marital status, ninety-four (94), representing 25.6% of respondents were currently married while 3% were ever married (separated, divorced or widowed) [81]. This finding could be as a result of a popular notion that single people have the propensity to travel more because they may not have any family responsibility or obligation. Study support this finding which suggests that as people marries, night life and other activities like travel becomes less important. With regards to religious affiliation, majority (78.2%) were Christians, followed by those who were atheists (10.9 %). Islam recorded (7.6%) and (3.3%) were others, including Traditionalist, Buddhist and Jewish [82]. This means that Christianity was the dominant religion among visitors who visited the attraction during the time of the study.

From the standpoint of continent of origin, the study observed Africans (mostly Ghanaian and Nigerian) visitors’ domination (61.0%) followed by Europeans (18.8%) and North Americans (17.4%) with only 3.3% (12) from other continents like South America, Australia and Asia representing the least [83]. This result reflects the Ghana Tourism Authority statistics (2010) which maintains that the bulk of Ghana’s visitors are from the continent of Africa. Conceivably, these remarkable African arrivals can be attributed to the increasing travel culture among the people in the sub-region [84].

In relation to level of education, majority (64.3%) of the visitors were those with University and College education, followed by Postgraduates (22.6%) and those with the least level of education were those with secondary school education (13.1%). Another variable considered was employment status of respondents. Out of the total respondents, more than half (56.4%) was employed, (39.5 %), were students and the least (4.1%) were unemployed [85]. This implies that most of the visitors who visited the attractions at the time of the study were financially sound with regular income and therefore have the money to spend. For a person to travel, he or she needs a discretionary income, and this is possible when the person is working.

Dimensions of visitor satisfaction

Table 2 presents the various dimensions of satisfaction with services experienced by visitors at the destination with their percentage in agreement, mean and standard deviation. Overall, visitors indicated that they were satisfied with the destination services with a mean (2.55). Specifically, Visitors were satisfied (M=2.69) with the destinations reliability [86]. According to the ability of the attraction to deliver the promised service dependably and accurately means it is reliable this implies that staff at the KNP are well informed about the attraction and as such delivered up to visitors’ expectation.

One utmost responsibility of any business is the “duty of care” to its customers which has a long-term positive impact to the business. Our findings from the study suggest that visitors were also satisfied (M=2.68) with the level of empathy exhibited by staff at the attractions. The implication is that staff of the attractions was caring, welcoming and hospitable to visitors who visited the destination. Therefore, it may be said that visitors will be willing to visit again and recommend the KNP to others because they were well catered for (Table 2).

Table 2: Dimensions of visitors’ satisfaction at the attractions (N=367).

Also, responding promptly to customers’ enquiries is an important responsibility of every staff in any institution which has a lasting implication to customers’ satisfaction. Accordingly, visitors agreed that staff at the attractions were willing to help them and provided prompt services with a corresponding mean of 2.67. This implies that visitors were satisfied with the responsiveness of staff at the attraction during their visit to the destination.

Assuring customers of your expertise and knowledge in the discharge of your duties allays the fears in them and gives them confidences when dealing with you. In this study, staff displayed the above characteristics with a mean of 2.61 suggesting that visitors were satisfied with assurance demonstrated by staff at the various attractions.

Similarly, visitors also expressed satisfaction with the tangibles of the attraction with an overall mean score (M=2.53). Critically, environmental cleanliness is one thing visitor’s look at when forming opinions about destinations. Price is one of the dimensions tourists attach importance when it comes to choosing a destination. However, most visitors were uncertain with the price of service at the attraction with a mean of M=2.14. Reasons for this uncertainty with price could be associated with the fact that most of the visitors came in groups, and with a package tour and therefore did not know the entry price to the attraction. Also, most package tours are bound with time and as such visitors went back to their buses just after the tour and could not have the chance to explore the prices of products and services at the KNP.

Conclusively, regarding the highest satisfied service dimensions in order of magnitude, visitors ranked reliability as the most satisfied attribute with the highest overall mean score (M=2.69), followed by empathy (M=2.68), responsiveness (M=2.67), assurance (M=2.61), tangibles (M=2.57) while price was ranked as uncertain dimension by visitors with an overall mean score of (M=2.14) for satisfaction at the attraction. Aside visitors been uncertain about the price dimension of the attractions, tangibility of the destination were the least satisfied dimension. The notion that Ghana’s destination is been faced with sanitation challenges could have been a contributing factor.

Difference between visitors’ satisfaction dimensions and socio-demographic characteristics

Table 3 presents the difference between visitors’ satisfaction dimensions and their socio-demographic characteristics. The table indicates that some satisfaction dimensions had significant differences with certain socio-demographic variables. A t-test showed that value of significant (2-tail) is higher than 0.05 meaning that the sex of respondents does not vary with any of the satisfaction dimensions at attractions at p>0.05. Hence, the sexes (male and female) of respondents do not vary with the various satisfaction dimensions at the destination (Tangibles, Price, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy). This finding is consistent who found that gender does not vary with satisfaction. However, with the highest mean score across all dimensions, females were more satisfied than males; a finding which is also consistent.

With respect to age, the findings did not record any statistical differences with the dimensions of satisfaction except price which showed a significant variation at (F=4.108, p=0.003). This finding contradicts the study by findings suggested that there is no significant variation between satisfaction of price and value with age. Also, it came to light that the age group from 18-20 were more satisfied with tangibles, with the highest mean (M=2.78), ages from 21-29 were also much satisfied with the assurance dimension with M=2.73, while ages 30-39 were more satisfied with reliability with a mean M=2.73. The ages from 40-49 and 50+ were also much satisfied with tangibles and responsiveness with the means of M=2.86 and M=2.90 respectively. The reason for these responses might be that every age group has its own characteristics that differ from each other and as such have different prioritizes with regards to the dimensions of satisfaction.

Religion, marital status and employment status of visitors did not have any significant variation on the satisfaction of the various dimensions at p>0.05 level. All visitors across religion were satisfied with most of the dimensions at the destination except price. Specifically, Christians were more satisfied with reliability (M=2.74) while Atheists, Muslims and the other religious affiliations were all highly satisfied with responsiveness with means (M=2.95, M=2.75 and M=2.75) respectively.

More so, respondents who were single and the ones who were married recorded the higher levels of satisfaction (M=2.74) and (2.81) for reliability respectively while those who had ever married (Divorced, Widowed or Separated) were more satisfied with the tangible aspects of the attractions. Aside price (F=3.24, P=0.04) which showed a statistical association with visitors’ levels of education at the attraction, the remaining satisfaction dimensions showed otherwise. This finding is similar to that who found that, educational level of tourists statistically vary with satisfaction of price and value.

Moreover, aside price, all the categories under level of education showed satisfaction with the various dimensions; however, the extent of agreement was higher among secondary school students across all the satisfaction dimensions. Similar finding emerged in the study of satisfaction. Their findings revealed that, those with secondary school education had a highest mean satisfaction than the other groups.

With reference to employment status, visitors expressed different satisfaction levels toward different dimensions with the destination. Specifically, students were more satisfied (M=2.72) with empathy while the unemployed respondents were much satisfied with the assurance (M=2.87) dimension of the attractions. Lastly, respondents who were employed, also recorded the highest mean of M=2.79 for reliability dimension of the destination.

Contrary to this, Table 3, indicates that continent of origin has a significant association with all the satisfaction dimensions at p ≤ 0.05 levels except reliability. Specifically, the table showed a significant difference between continent of origin and tangibles (F=5.70, p=0.001), price (F=12.57, p<0.001), responsiveness (F=4.98, p=0.002), assurance (F=6.31, p<0.001) and Empathy (F=5.45, p=0.001) respectively (Table 3).

Table 3: Difference between visitors’ satisfaction dimensions and socio-demographic characteristics.

Conclusion

The tourism industry is considered an important contributor to the growth of many economies and Ghana is no exception. For the industry to remain competitive, it is important that it meets the changing needs and demands of the tourism market. Thus, is has become pertinent for destination managers to study the dimensions relating to satisfaction at attractions and formulate strategies to retain visitors. The current study assessed how visitors’ socio-demographic characteristics (Age, sex, religion, continent of origin, marital status, level of education and employment status) varies with service dimensions of satisfaction (tanibles, price, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy)at KNP in the central region of Ghana.

From the study, an overall mean score of 2.55 was recorded for satisfaction dimensions indicating that all the respondents agreed that they were satisfied with the whole service experience at the destination. Even though visitors were generally satisfied with the attractions services, their satisfaction with price was not positive. This finding affirms the transaction-specific theory which posits that satisfaction of customers is based on their experiences of specific attribute of the service based on which the customers make a transaction. The age and educational background of visitors vary with the price dimension of the attractions. Continent of origin of visitors also varies with tangibles, pricing, responsiveness, and assurance and empathy dimensions of the destination.

Practically, the finding of significant variations between the different ages, educational background and price dimension as well as the different continent of origins and satisfaction dimensions, necessitate the need for tourism operators and destination managers to continue to market this important segments and develop strategies for repeat visitation to destination.

With a plethora of studies postulating how socio-demographic characteristics vary with satisfaction dimensions of visitors, it is expected that, the outcomes of this study will inform destination managers to know the extent to which socio-demographic characteristics of visitors vary with satisfaction dimensions at attractions and to customize services to meet the varying demographic segment who serve as their clientele.

Although the current study reveals association between some socio-demographic characteristics and some satisfaction dimensions at the KNP, the study however failed to confirm where the differences occur between the groups that were statistically significant. Future research should employ a Post-hoc test to ascertain where the differences occur within the significant groups.

Also, the study concerned itself with the differences that exist between the socio-demographic profiles of visitors’ and satisfaction dimension at the attractions without considering the outcome of satisfaction. Accordingly, satisfied customers are likely to be loyal and also recommend the destination to other. Hence, future studies should explore the post-visit behavioral intention of visitors at the attraction as to whether visitors are willing to recommend and revisit the destination again as a result of their satisfaction or not, because other factors such as the lack of diversified tourism products at the destination can deter a satisfied visitor from revisiting in the future.

References

1. Adam I, Adongo CA, Dayour F. International tourists’ satisfaction with Ghanaian upscale restaurant services and revisit intentions. J Quality Ass Hospit Tour. 2015; 6(2):181-201.

   [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

2. Agyeiwaah E, Otoo FE, Suntikul W, Huang WJ. Understanding culinary tourist motivation, experience, satisfaction, and loyalty using a structural approach. J Trav Tour Market. 2019;36(3):295-313.

   [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

3. Akama JS, Kieti DM. Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya's wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tour Manage. 2003;24(1):73-81.

   [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

4. Akyeampong O, Asiedu AB. Spatio-temporal aspects of tourism development in Ghana. Tourism in Ghana: A Modern Synthesis. Accra, Ghana: Assemblies of God Literature Centre. 2008:196-221.

   [Google scholar]

5. Alegre J, Garau J. Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Ann Tour Res. 2010;37(1):52-73.

   [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

6. Amissah EF. Tourist satisfaction with hotel services in Cape Coast and Elmina, Ghana. Amer J Tour Manage.2013;2(1A):26-33.

   [Google scholar]

7. Amuquandoh FE. International tourists' concerns about traditional foods in Ghana. J Hospit Tour Manage. 2011;18(1):1-9.

   [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

8. Boakye KA, Boohene RO. Inbound tour ist’s perceptions of Ghana-A post trip assessment. Glob Cult. 2010:73-91.

   [Google scholar]

9. Adetola BO, Adewumi IB, Olonimoyo HT. Tourist Satisfaction with Attractions of Idanre Hills, Ondo State, Nigeria. Amer J Tour Manage. 2016;5(1):1-8.

   [Google scholar]

10. Campo S, Yagüe MJ. Tourist loyalty to tour operator: Effects of price promotions and tourist effort. J Trav Res. 2008;46(3):318-326.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

11. Cooil B, Keiningham TL, Aksoy L, Hsu M. A longitudinal analysis of customer satisfaction and share of wallet: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. J Market. 2007;71(1):67-83.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

12. Cooper C, Fletcher J, Gilbert D, Fyall A, Wanhill S. Tourism: Principles and practice. Pearson Edu. 2005.

    [Google scholar]

13. Croce V. With growth comes accountability: could a leisure activity turn into a driver for sustainable growth? J Tour Futur. 2018.

    [Google scholar]

14. Crosby A. Measuring customer satisfaction. In ee scheming, wf Christopher (eds), the service quality handbook. New York: Amazon. 1993.

    [Google scholar]

15. Esu BB. Influence of socio-demographic characteristics on attendee’s perception of festival quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Intern Review Soc Sci Human. 2015;10(1):16-31.

    [Google scholar]

16. Filieri R, Alguezaui S, McLeay F. Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor? Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on recommendation adoption and word of mouth. Tour Manage. 2015; 51:174-185.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

17. Fletcher D, Fletcher H. Manageable Predictors of Park Visitor Satisfaction: Maintenance and Personnel. J Park Recreat Admin. 2003.

    [Google scholar]

18. Flint DJ, Blocker CP, Boutin Jr PJ. Customer value anticipation, customer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical examination. Indust Market Manage. 2011;40(2):219-230.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

19. Fornell C, Mithas S, Morgeson III FV, Krishnan MS. Customer satisfaction and stock prices: High returns, low risk. J Market. 2006;70(1):3-14.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

20. Frochot I. An analysis of regional positioning and its associated food images in French tourism regional brochures. J Trav Tour Market. 2003;14(3-4):77-96.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

21. Garbarino E, Johnson MS. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. J Market. 1999;63(2):70-87.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

22. Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust. Tourist Arrivals and Expenditure at the Kakum National Park. 2016. 
23. Ghana. Statistical Service. Ghana Living Standards Survey Round 6 (GLSS 6): Poverty profile in Ghana (2005-2013). Ghana Statistical Service. 2014.

    [Google scholar]

24. Ghana Tourist Authority. Tourism Statistical Fact Sheet on Ghana, Accra Ghana: Ghana Tourist Board, Research Department. 2010.
25. Goeldner CR, Ritchie JB. Tourism principles, practices, philosophies. John Wiley Sons.2007. [Cross Ref]

    [Google scholar]

26. Hair Jr Joseph F, Black William C, Babin Barry J, Anderson Rolph E. Multivariate data analysis 7th ed.2010.

    [Google scholar]

27. Handayani B, Rashid B. The mediating influence of nation brand image in the relationship between tourism and hospitality attributes and behavioral intention. TEAM J Hospit Touri. 2016;13(1):1-4.

    [Google scholar]

28. Haneef SK, Ansari Z, Bhavani G. Attractions of Dubai and Expo 2020: An exploratory study. Worldwide Hospit Tour Themes. 2019.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

29. Higham JE, Lusseau D, Hendry W. Wildlife viewing: The significance of the viewing platforms. J Ecotour. 2008;7(2-3):137-146.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

30. Hosany S, Prayag G, Van Der Veen R, Huang S, Deesilatham S. Mediating effects of place attachment and satisfaction on the relationship between tourists’ emotions and intention to recommend. J Trav Res. 2017;56(8):1079-93.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

31. Huh J, Uysal M. Satisfaction with cultural/heritage sites:Virginia historic triangle. J Quality Assur Hospit Tour. 2004;4(3-4):177-194.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

32. Iniesta-Bonillo MA, Sánchez-Fernández R, Jiménez-Castillo D. Sustainability, value and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations. J Bus Res. 2016;69(11):5002-5007.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

33. Inskeep E. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1991. 
34. Jarvis D, Stoeckl N, Liu HB. The impact of economic, social and environmental factors on trip satisfaction and the likelihood of visitors returning. Tour Manage. 2016;52:1-8.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

35. Jones MA, Suh J. Transaction‐specific satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an empirical analysis. J services Market. 2000.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

36. Kempiak J, Hollywood L, Bolan P, McMahon-Beattie U. The heritage tourist: An understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions. Intern J Heritage Stud. 2017;23(4):375-392.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

37. Kozak M, Rimmington M. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. J Trav Res. 2000;38(3):260-269.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

38. Lascu DN, Manrai LA, Manrai AK, Gan A. A cluster analysis of tourist attractions in Spain: Natural and cultural traits and implications for global tourism. Europ J Manage Bus Econ. 2018.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

39. Leask A. Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective management. Tour Manage. 2010;31(2):155-166.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

40. Lew AA. A framework of tourist attraction research. Ann Tour Res. 1987;14(4):553-575.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

41. Loi LT, So AS, Lo IS, Fong LH. Does the quality of tourist shuttles influence revisit intention through destination image and satisfaction? The case of Macao. J Hospit Tour Manage. 2017;32:115-23.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

42. Manhas PS, Manrai LA, Manrai AK. Role of tourist destination development in building its brand image: A conceptual model. J Econ, Finan Admin Sci. 2016;21(40):25-29.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

43. McKercher B, Ho PS, Du Cros H. Attributes of popular cultural attractions in Hong Kong. Ann Tour Res. 2004;31(2):393-407.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

44. Meng B, Han H. Working-holiday tourism attributes and satisfaction in forming word-of-mouth and revisit intentions: Impact of quantity and quality of intergroup contact. J Destin Market Manage. 2018;9:347-357.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

45. Merrilees B, Miller D, Herington C. Antecedents of residents' city brand attitudes. J Bus Res. 2009;62(3):362-367.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

46. Middleton VC. Granitowy krajobraz Kotliny Jeleniogórskiej-dopełnienie Geoparku Karkonosze [w:]" Przegląd Geologiczny. 1996;60(10):528-533.

    [Google scholar]

47. Milman A. Key attributes for evaluating the guest experience at theme parks. Intern J Tour Res. 2009;11(4):373-387.

    [Google scholar]

48. Nowacki MM. Quality of visitor attractions, satisfaction, benefits and behavioral intentions of visitors: Verification of a model. Intern J Tour Res. 2009;11(3):297-309.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

49. Oliver RL. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Market Res. 1980;17(4):460-469.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

50. Packer J, Ballantyne R. Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A review of literature and development of a multifaceted model. Visitor Stud. 2016;19(2):128-143.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

51. Padrón‐Ávila H, Hernández‐Martín R. Why do tourists differ in their likelihood to visit attractions? The case of Lanzarote. Intern J Tour Res. 2019;21(6):790-800.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

52. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further research. J Market. 1994;58(1):111-124.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

53. Pearce PL. Analyzing tourist attractions. J Tour Stud. 1991;2(1):46-55.

    [Google scholar]

54. Petrick JF. The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. J Trav Res. 2004;42(4):397-407.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

55. Pigram J. Outdoor recreation and resource management. Croom Helm Ltd. 1983.

    [Google scholar]

56. Prentice R. Tourism and heritage attractions. Routledge. 1993.

    [Google scholar]

57. Richards G, Wilson J. Today's youth travelers, tomorrow’s global nomads: New horizons in independent youth and student travel: A report for the International Student Travel Confederation (ISTC) and the Association of Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS). Intern Stud Trav Conf. 2003.

    [Google scholar]

58. Richins ML. What consumer’s desire: Goals and motives in the consumption environment. In Inside consumption. 2005:362-369.

    [Google scholar]

59. Salim N, Mohamed B. The relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and snorkeling satisfaction in Pulau Payar Marine Park, Kedah. Intern J Built Environ Sustain. 2014;1(1):38-44 [Cross Ref]

    [Google scholar]

60. Schneider I, Sönmez S. Exploring the touristic image of Jordan. Tour Manage. 1999;20(4):539-542.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

61. Sunderland M. Customer satisfaction and its consequences of customer behavior revisited. The Impact of different levels of satisfaction on word of mouth, feedback to the supplier, and loyalty. Intern J Serv Ind Manage. 1998;9(2):169-88.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

62. Sparks B. Tourism satisfaction survey, Sunshine Coast. Project 2.3 of the Gold Coast Visioning Project, Work in Progress Report Series. 2000.

    [Google scholar]

63. Spinks W, Lawley M, Richins H. Satisfaction with Sunshine Coast tourist attractions: the influence of individual visitor characteristics. J Tour Stud. 2005;16(1):12-23.

    [Google scholar]

64. Štumpf P, Vojtko V, Valtrová B. Satisfaction of European tourists: Benchmarking of EU countries. Glob Bus Finan Rev.2018;23(1):1-4.

    [Google scholar]

65. Suanmali S. Factors affecting tourist satisfaction: An empirical study in the northern part of Thailand. SHS Web Conferences 2014;12:01027. EDP Sciences.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

66. Sukiman MF, Omar SI, Muhibudin M, Yussof I, Mohamed B. Tourist satisfaction as the key to destination survival in Pahang. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2013;91:78-87.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

67. Swarbrooke J. The development and management of visitor attractions. Routledge. 2012.

    [Google scholar]

68. Swart K, George R, Cassar J, Sneyd C. The 2014 FIFA World Cup™: Tourists’ satisfaction levels and likelihood of repeat visitation to Rio de Janeiro. J Destin Market Manage. 2018;8:102-113.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

69. Tam JL. Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: An integrative model. J Market Manage. 2004;20(7-8):897-917.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

70. Teas RK. Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality. J Market. 1993;57(4):18-34.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

71. Tegambwage AG. The relative importance of service quality dimensions: An empirical study in the Tanzanian higher education industry. Intern Res J Interdiscip Multidiscip Stud. 2017;3(1):76-86.  

    [Google scholar]

72. Teye V, Sirakaya E, Sönmez SF. Residents' attitudes toward tourism development. Ann Tour Res. 2002;29(3):668-688.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

73. Phosikham T, Vilayphone A, Wayakone S, Phimavong S. The relationships between international tourists’ travel characteristics, their sources of information, and their level of satisfaction based on socio-demographics. Luang Prabang Province, Lao PDR. Intern J Bus Soc Sci. 2015;6(11):47-61.

    [Google scholar]

74. Um S, Chon K, Ro Y. Antecedents of revisit intention. Ann Tour Res. 2006;33(4):1141-1158.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

75. Uncles MD, East R, Lomax W. Good customers: The value of customers by mode of acquisition. Aus Market J. 2013;21(2):119-125.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

76. Veasna S, Wu WY, Huang CH. The impact of destination source credibility on destination satisfaction: The mediating effects of destination attachment and destination image. Tour Manage. 2013;36:511-526.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

77. Wall EA, Berry LL. The combined effects of the physical environment and employee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel Rest Admin Quart. 2007;48(1):59-69.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

78. Wanhill S. Interpreting the development of the visitor attraction product. Manag Visit Attract.2009:16-35.

    [Google scholar]

79. Weiler B, Ham S. Relationships between tourist and trip characteristics and visitor satisfaction: A case study of the Panama Canal Watershed.2004.

    [Google scholar]

80. World tourism and travel council. World economic impact report, 2015.
81. World Tourism Organization. UNWTO world tourism barometer and a statistical annex.2014.
82. World travel and tourism council. Travel and tourism: Economic impact 2017 India. World Travel Tourism Council. 2017.

    [Google scholar]

83. Yang Z, Peterson RT. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychol Market. 2004;21(10):799-822.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

84. Yu L, Goulden M. A comparative analysis of international tourists’ satisfaction in Mongolia. Tour Manage. 2006;27(6):1331-1342.

    [Cross Ref] [Google scholar]

85. Zeinali B, Jafarpour M, Hessam A, Shojaeivand B, Zolghadr H. Tourists' Satisfaction with and Loyalty to Shopping Experience: A Socio-Demograhic Analysis.  Intern J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2014;4(6):67.

    [Google scholar]

86. Parasuraman A, Berry LL. Delivering service quality. 1985.

    [Google scholar]