INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH

Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.879

Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit

Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations:
a Case of North Dakota, USA
WooMi Jo Phillips1,*, Kara Wolfe2, Nancy Hodur3 and F. Larry Leistritz3
1
North Dakota State University, Apparel, Design, and Hospitality Management, Fargo, North Dakota, USA
2
Bradley University, Hospitality Leadership, Peoria, Illinois, USA
3
North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, Fargo, North Dakota, USA

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

T
Destination managers in rural states, like ourism has been identified as an alternative
North Dakota, understand the benefits of form for economic growth and regional
tourism and, thus, the importance of studying development in many rural areas. The
visitors’ intentions. This study investigated positive economic impacts of rural tourism has
visitors’ perceptions of destination image, been long researched (Fleischer and Felsenstein,
value and satisfaction and those variables’ 2000; Gartner, 2004; Cawley and Gillmor, 2008).
relationship with future behaviors, with a Tourism can diversify economies for rural com-
specific focus on their intent to return and munities that can be reliant upon agriculture,
make recommendations to others. The results which at times suffers with weather and market
showed that destination image directly fluctuations. It can provide growth opportunities
affects visitors’ perception of value and for rural areas that are not likely to attract large
revisit intentions, and it indirectly affects manufacturing firms.
satisfaction and recommendation intentions. North Dakota is a rural state, with an esti-
The results also demonstrate how tourism mated population of around 640 000 (US Census
practitioners can apply past models to their Bureau, 2010). Without well-known natural
destination. The overall findings support the amenities, or a large population to attract the vis-
concept that a positive image is important to iting friends and relatives market, the state still
attracting repeat visitors. Copyright © 2011 attracts plenty of visitors. With approximately
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 6.1 million overnight visitors and over 9 million
day visitors in 2008 (Longwoods International,
Received 14 December 2010; Revised 10 September 2011; 2009), tourism was the third largest industry in
Accepted 28 September 2011 the state, following agriculture and oil (Coon
and Leistritz, 2009). A Travel Industry Associ-
Keywords: rural tourism; destination image; ation of America report showed the North
perceived value; satisfaction; WOM; revisit Dakota State Tourism office budget as ranking
intention. 48th out of 50 states (TIA, 2007). The $2.9m bud-
geted to the North Dakota Tourism office was
significantly less than that of the surrounding
states of Minnesota ($10.5m), Montana ($9.5m)
and South Dakota ($9.3m). However, North
Dakota sees a 1:8 return on investment for
*Correspondence to: WooMi Jo Phillips, North Dakota advertisement dollars spent (Longwoods Inter-
State University, Apparel, Design, and Hospitality national, 2009), and each visitor to the state adds
Management, NDSU Dept 2610 P.O. Box 6050, Fargo,
North Dakota 58108, USA. $81 to the gross product. In addition, the North
E-mail: [email protected] Dakota tourism industry has grown (10.7%)

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 W. M. J. Phillips et al.

faster than the national average (8.1%) (North important factors that influence tourists’ beha-
Dakota Department of Commerce, 2010). viors (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Baloglu and
Rural states similar to North Dakota see the McCleary, 1999; Chi and Qu, 2008; Lee, 2009;
economic value of tourism and seek ways to Prayag, 2009; Assaker et al., 2011; Qu et al.,
expand the industry. However, it is challenging 2011). Creating and transmitting a positive des-
with limited competitive advantages and tination image is even more imperative for
tourism funding to promote its destinations rural destinations. Investing in developing the
effectively. Creating desire and need (by devel- destination image that visitors have for a rural
oping more attractions and amenities) for area can assist destination management organi-
people to visit rural tourist destinations can zations in maximizing their benefits (Hsu et al.,
be difficult. For example, most tourists would 2004). Perceived value and overall satisfaction of
find more reasons and interests to visit New the destination also are important forms of the
York City for vacation than to visit a rural visitors’ evaluations. The effects of these two
destination in a Midwestern state. constructs on tourists’ behaviors have been well
Destination marketing campaigns and pro- documented (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Oh,
motions should play a major role in convincing 2000; Petrick, 2004; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Faullant
travelers to visit a destination. Other marketing et al., 2008; Žabka et al., 2010, Assaker et al., 2011).
strategies like positive word of mouth (WOM) Although these are all well-recognized variables
from past visitors should be taken into consid- in the study of tourists’ behaviors, they have not
eration for marketing purposes. Having past been applied to a rural tourism setting
visitors recommend the area through positive altogether. By studying the effects of these vari-
WOM could be one of the most effective mar- ables and the relationships among these con-
keting tools to bring new visitors, especially structs, important information about visitors’
to rural destinations. Good WOM cannot only WOM and revisit intentions to rural tourism
create the positive image of the destination destinations can be provided to state tourism
but also increase awareness of the destination officials, as well as community leaders, to assist
to people who are not very familiar with the in planning marketing strategies and effectively
rural area. Generating repeat visits has been a utilize their resources. The information can help
major challenge to many rural destinations, destination managers develop appropriate mar-
due to the complexity and high costs of acces- keting tactics to increase the number of visitors,
sing rural destinations (especially large coun- as well as increase visitors’ likelihood of return-
tries as the USA) (Gartner, 2004), the lack of the ing. Therefore, the aim of this study was to
resources for quality services (Roberts, 1996) assess the relationships among the three con-
and meeting visitors’ expectations (Hjalager, structs (destination images, perceived value
1996; Opperman, 1996). For these reasons, tar- and satisfaction) and the simultaneous effects
geting people from nearby locations might have of these variables on intentions to revisit and
been the easiest way to bring repeat visits. People recommend a rural tourism destination, using
in neighboring locations might consider visiting North Dakota visitors as the sample.
again because of the proximity and easy access,
or they are likely to pass through the destination LITERATURE REVIEW
on their way to other destinations. However, this
would not be a proactive marketing strategy. Destination image is defined as an individual’s
Creating revisit need and desire from a wider overall perceptions of a particular destination
market would help the area’s tourism growth. (Gunn, 1972; Spencer and Dixon, 1983; Fakeye
This paper examined rural destination visi- and Crompton, 1991). Destination image has
tors’ intentions to return and to recommend been recognized as one of the most important
travel to others by investigating key variables: factors that influence tourist destination
destination image, perceived value and satis- choices and future behavioral intentions
faction. One of the prominent concepts in (Crompton, 1979; Pearce, 1982; Milman and
studying tourists’ intention is destination Pizam, 1995; Court and Lupton, 1997; Baloglu
image. In the last three decades, destination and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and Martín, 2004b;
image has been studied as one of the most Chen and Tsai, 2007). For example, when a
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations

tourist has a positive image of a tourism destin- satisfaction in two dimensions: attribute satisfac-
ation, she or he is more inclined to visit the des- tion and overall satisfaction. Thus, the next set of
tination (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Birgit, hypotheses is proposed:
2001), whereas a negative perception of the
destination will not lead to a visit to the destin- Hypothesis 4 Tourists’ overall perceived value
ation. Destination image also influences tour- positively influences attribute satisfaction.
ists’ post-purchase evaluations and behaviors
such as perceived value and future behavior Hypothesis 5 Tourists’ overall perceived value
intentions, including revisit intentions and positively influences overall satisfaction.
recommendations to others. A tourist who
holds a more positive image of a destination Hypothesis 6 Tourists’ overall perceived value
perceives more value in traveling to the destin- positively influences revisit intention.
ation (Chen and Tsai, 2007) and is more likely
to revisit and recommend the destination to Hypothesis 7 Tourists’ overall perceived value
others (Mansfeld, 1992; Court and Lupton, positively influences intent to recommend.
1997). Thus, this study proposes the first three
hypotheses: Although consumer satisfaction has been
one of the most researched variables in the
Hypothesis 1 Destination image positively marketing literature, its definition has not been
influences tourists’ revisit intention. agreed upon by researchers. Generally, satisfac-
tion has been understood as the degree to
Hypothesis 2 Destination image positively which an individual believes that a consump-
influences tourists’ intention to recommend. tion experience brings positive feelings (Rust
and Oliver, 1994). It is the consumers’ holistic
Hypothesis 3 Destination image positively evaluation of an experience (Oliver, 1997). In
influences tourists’ perceived value. tourism, satisfaction is the overall contented
feeling that a tourist felt from visiting a destin-
Perceived value is defined as a consumer’s ation, which fulfilled his travel expectations
overall evaluation of what they paid for the and needs. Researchers also have asserted that
product (service) acquired (Zeithaml, 1988). It overall satisfaction is influenced by satisfaction
is the net of consumers’ costs and benefits from the individual attributes (Fornell, 1992;
(Lovelock, 2000). Although there is no mutual Oliver 1993; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). More
agreement on the relationships to other vari- specifically, overall satisfaction is the indivi-
ables, perceived value is recognized as an dual’s subjective consumption evaluation that
important antecedent for customer satisfaction is based on all the elements associated with
and future behavioral intentions (Oh, 2000; the experiences. Tourism includes various indi-
Petrick, 2004; Chen and Chen, 2010). For ex- vidual attributes of all the products and ser-
ample, a tourist with a high-perceived value vices such as transportation, accommodation,
of a destination is more likely to be satisfied foodservice and others (Pizam and Ellis,
with both the destination-specific attributes 1999). Overall satisfaction is made up of the
and the overall visit experience and to revisit experiences with each of these encounters.
the destination in the future. Perceived value Each specific component of traveling to a des-
has been operationalized both on a unidimen- tination will influence the tourists’ overall satis-
sional and multidimensional scale. Because it faction (Seaton and Benett, 1996; Hsu, 2003).
is the measurement of the customer’s overall Thus, this study considers both attribute and
evaluation, the unidimensional (overall per- overall satisfaction as antecedents to behav-
ceived value) scale has shown sufficiency (Gale, ioral intentions. Furthermore, there is a rela-
1994). The perceived value’s positive relation- tionship between satisfaction and future
ships to satisfaction and behavioral intentions behavioral intentions (Kotler et al., 1994; Kozak
have been shown in the literature (Cronin et al., and Rimmington, 2000; Bigné et al., 2001; Chi
2000; McDougall and Levesque, 2000; Chen and Qu, 2008). Repurchase intention and
and Chen, 2010). This study looks at the willingness to recommend to others are well-
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
 W. M. J. Phillips et al.

established measurements for consumers’ from previous studies (Echtner and Ritchie,
future behaviors. Tourism literature has proven 1993; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and
that tourists with higher levels of satisfaction Martin, 2004a). Respondents were asked to rate
are more inclined to visit the destination again, their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree
willing to give more positive WOM and to rec- and 5 = strongly agree) with eight image attri-
ommend the destination to others (Kozak, butes: beautiful scenery, historic attraction,
2001; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Thus, the next five interesting cultural activities, friendly people,
hypotheses are proposed: good reputation, outdoor activities, family
oriented and recreation activities available for
Hypothesis 8 Tourists’ attribute satisfaction children. A single item was used to measure
positively influences their overall satisfaction. the overall perceived value. Based on its defin-
ition, ‘perceived value is a consumer’s percep-
Hypothesis 9 Tourists’ attribute satisfaction tion of the net benefits gained in exchange for
positively influences their revisit intention. the costs incurred in obtaining the desired ben-
efits’ (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003). It is the con-
Hypothesis 10 Tourists’ attribute satisfaction sumer’s overall assessment of what he or she
positively influences their intentions to recom- paid for the products obtained (Zeithaml,
mend. 1988) and also is the trade-off value between
perceived costs and benefits (Lovelock, 2000;
Hypothesis 11 Tourists’ overall satisfaction DeSarbo et al., 2001). Thus, it can be measured
positively influences their revisit intentions. by one overall evaluation item (Gale, 1994),
‘overall, it is good value for my money’. For at-
Hypothesis 12 Tourists’ overall satisfaction tribute satisfaction, there are specific attributes
positively influences their intentions to that are important to each destination (Pizam
recommend. and Ellis, 1999; Mohsin and Ryan, 2003). For
this study, we asked respondents four attribute
Figure 1 illustrates the relationships dis- items on lodging, restaurants, signage and ad-
cussed above in a conceptual model. mission fees that are most relevant. To differen-
tiate with the attribute satisfaction, the overall
METHODS satisfaction was measured by a single item, as
traditionally, it has been measured by a single
Survey instrument summative measurement (Fornell et al., 1996;
Bolton and Lemon, 1999), ‘your overall satis-
The questionnaire was designed with the fol-
faction with this visit’ on a five-point scale
lowing major sections: destination image, per-
(1 = very disappointed and 5 = very satisfied)
ceived value, attribute satisfaction, overall
(Bigné et al., 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007).
satisfaction, tourist behavior intention, and
Respondents were asked about their future
respondents’ demographic and travel behavior
behavior intentions, including revisit intentions
information. The questions in the survey were
and WOM, which are widely used in the field
based on a review of literature and specific
of tourism, (Chi and Qu, 2008; Yoon and Uysal,
destination characteristics. For destination
2005; Zeithaml, 2000). The above measure-
image, eight attributes that are more specific
ments were rated on a five-point Likert scale
to North Dakota destinations were extracted
where ‘1’ means strongly disagree and ‘5’
means strongly agree. For socio-demographic
Attribute
Satisfaction information, respondents’ gender, age, educa-
Overall Behavioral
tion level, marital status, income and past visit
Destination
Image Perceived Intentions experience were gathered.
Value
Overall
Satisfaction Data collection
Data were collected via intercept surveys at
Figure 1. Conceptual model. three tourist attractions in the state of North
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations

Dakota. In North Dakota, the most popular is the ‘peak’ tourism season in North Dakota.
tourist attraction is the Medora area. Medora The respondents were asked to return the ques-
is the gateway community to the Theodore tionnaire to the designated drop box at the site.
Roosevelt National Park located in the bad- A total of 368 questionnaires were collected
lands of North Dakota; the park has over from the three sites; 51 responses were identi-
100 000 visitors annually (NPS, 2008). The area fied as unusable. Thus, 317 samples were
also has historic sites such as museums, the included and processed for further analysis.
North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame and the
Medora musical. Medora was one of the sites The profile of respondents
where the questionnaires were distributed.
The demographic profile of respondents
The survey also was conducted at two other
(Table 1) indicated that there were more female
popular cultural attractions: the Lewis and
respondents (59.6%) than male respondents
Clark Interpretive Center and the International
(33.8%). Over 60% of the respondents were
Peace Garden (IPG). The Lewis and Clark
middle aged, and 23.7% were over 65 years
Interpretive Center is located in Washburn,
old. The majority of the respondents were
ND, which is only 40 miles north of Bismarck,
highly educated (59% with some college or
the state capital. The center opened in 1997 and
graduate school education) and married (80%)
focuses on Merriweather Lewis and William
and made more than $50 000 in the previous
Clark’s historic transcontinental exploration of
year (54.50%). Most of the respondents were
the Missouri River through the central plains
from other states or international destinations
and onto the Pacific Northwest (anonymous
(71%), and only 26% were visiting from North
with Lewisandclark.com). Lewis and Clark
Dakota. (North Dakota residents included those
spent more time in North Dakota than anywhere
who lived more than 50 miles from the destin-
else along their journey. The Interpretive Center
ation. Locals or people who lived less than 50
focuses on the Lewis and Clark expedition, espe-
miles from the destination were not included in
cially the explorers’ time in North Dakota, and it
the survey. They are considered to be local resi-
has displays of Native American artifacts. The
dents rather than tourists). More than half of
center provides history of Lewis and Clark, Saka-
the respondents (52.4%) answered that they
kawea, and the advent of riverboat usage on the
have visited the destination in the past.
Missouri river.
There were a few differences between the
The IPG is located on the Canada and USA
groups of people who visited the three sites.
border in the north central part of the state.
Those who visited the IPG were slightly
Built in 1932, the IPG commemorates the long
younger (mean = 46 years of age) and were
and lasting peace and friendship that has
more likely to have children under the age of
existed between the people of Canada and the
18 years living at home than those who visited
USA. Located on the 49th parallel, the longest
Medora (mean = 55 years of age) or the Lewis
unsecured national border in the world, the
and Clark Interpretive Center (mean = 55 years
2339-acre botanical garden is visited by over
of age). Those who visited Medora (65.4%)
60 000 visitors a year (Doug Hevenor, personal
and the Peace Garden (69.6%) indicated that
communication, 2007). The garden is planted
the location was their primary destination,
every spring with the help of hundreds of
whereas those visiting the Lewis and Clark
volunteers, and new displays have been added
Interpretive Center (28.4%) were more likely
as recent as 2002 when several steel beams sal-
to be on their way to some other destination.
vaged from the attacks on the World Trade
Lewis and Clark visitors were most likely first
Center were transported to the Gardens to cre-
time visitors (78.0%), whereas visitors to the
ate a memorial to the events of 9/11 (IPG,
other sites were mostly repeat visitors (Medora
2008). The attraction is one of North Dakota’s
74.2% and IPG, 61.3%).
and the country’s most symbolic and scenic
attractions (ND Dept. of Tourism, 2002).
Path model testing
Questionnaires were administered by work-
ers and volunteers at each site over a period The data were first checked to detect any viola-
of three months (June, July and August), which tions of underlying assumptions by analyzing
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
 W. M. J. Phillips et al.

Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents (N = 317)

Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 107 33.8
Female 189 59.6
Age
≤ 24 19 6.0
25–34 20 6.3
35–44 61 19.2
45–54 62 19.6
55–64 73 23.0
≥ 65 75 23.7
Education
Grade school 48 15.1
High school or GED 32 10.1
Vocational school 43 13.6
Some college 57 18.0
College degree 65 20.5
Some graduate school or degree 66 20.8
Marital status
Married 254 80.1
Not married 53 16.7
Living with partner or significant others origin
Residency Origin
North Dakota 83 26.2
Other states 185 58.4
International (including Canada) 40 12.6
Past visit to the destination
Yes 166 52.4
No 151 47.6

Table 2. Path analysis results

Paths Results
Destination image ! Overall perceived value Supported
Destination image ! Recommend intention Not supported
Destination image ! Revisit intention Supported
Overall perceived value ! Attribute satisfaction Supported
Overall perceived value ! Overall satisfaction Supported
Overall perceived value ! Recommend intention Not supported
Overall perceived value ! Revisit intention Not supported
Attribute satisfaction ! Overall satisfaction Supported
Attribute satisfaction ! Recommend intention Supported
Attribute satisfaction ! Revisit intention Not supported
Overall satisfaction ! Recommend intention Supported
Overall satisfaction ! Revisit intention Not supported

the descriptive statistics using SPSS (17.0). Path satisfaction, the means were used in the path
analysis using AMOS (16.0) was carried out to model.
test the relationships proposed in the path The path model showed stable goodness-
model, which allows all the hypotheses to be of-fit statistics (w² = 6.77, d.f. = 3, comparative fit
considered simultaneously. For constructs with index) = 0.99; normed fit index = .99; and root
multiple items, destination image and attribute mean squared error of approximation = 0.063),
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations

indicating the measurement model fits the data overall satisfaction. The model explained 22%
reasonably well (Hu and Bentler, 1995). and 7% of the variances in revisit and recom-
The results of path analysis are presented in mendation intentions respectively.
Table 2. Of the 12 paths, seven paths were In addition, Table 3 shows the direct, indirect
shown to be statistically significant. Destin- and total effect of all variables. As it indicates,
ation image positively influenced overall per- destination image had a direct effect on the over-
ceived value (b image value = 0.81, t = 23.86), all perceived value, which in turn had a direct
which, in turn, positively influenced both attri- effect on attribute satisfaction. The attribute satis-
bute satisfaction (b value attribute-satisfaction = faction had a direct effect on overall satisfaction,
0.22, t = 4.05) and overall satisfaction (b value and overall satisfaction had a direct effect on both
overall-satisfaction = 0.22, t = 4.17). Destination recommendation and revisit intentions. Other
image had a positive effect on revisit intention paths showed some indirect effects, including
(b image revisit = 0.27, t = 2.97) but not on recom- perceived overall value to overall satisfaction,
mendation intention (b image recommenda- attribute satisfaction to recommendation and
tion = 0.13, t = 1.51). Overall perceived value revisit intentions, and destination image to
did not have any influence on recommendation recommendation and revisit intentions.
intentions (b value recommendation = 0.07,
t = .87) or revisit intentions (b value revisit = DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
0.13, t = 1.42). Attribute satisfaction posi-
tively affected overall satisfaction (b attribute Results from this study are consistent with some
overall-satisfaction = 0.33, t = 6.24). It had posi- past studies that conclude that destination
tive influence on recommendation (b attribute- image affects revisit intentions (Bigné et al.,
satisfaction recommendation = 0.20, t = 3.76) but 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Choi et al., 2011).
not on revisit (b attribute-satisfaction revisit = However, this study did not find any support
0.11, t = 1.79). Similarly, overall satisfaction had for the path between destination image and
a positive effect on recommendation (b overall- WOM intention. Similar result was found in
satisfaction recommendation = 0.24, t = 4.41) but other previous studies (Chi and Qu, 2008). In
not on revisit intentions (b overall-satisfaction their competing model, they did not find any
revisit = 0.11, t = 1.76). direct effect from destination image to destin-
Figure 2 illustrates all significant (solid lines) ation loyalty (which includes WOM and revisit
and insignificant (dotted lines) paths. In intention). Most respondents indicated that they
addition, the destination image accounted for had a positive image (mean values ranging from
64% of the variances in overall perceived value; 4.0 to 4.5 on a five-point scale) of all three sites.
the overall perceived value accounted for 5% of They are willing to revisit the destinations based
variances in attribute satisfaction and 18% in on the positive image that they have but are not

.13 (1.51)
.20
Attribute
.22 (3.76)
Satisfaction
(4.05)
.11
.81 Recommend
.07 (1.79)
Destination (23.86) Intention
Overall (.87)
Image
Perceived value
-.13
(-1.42)
.33 Revisit
.22
(4.17) (6.24) Intention
.24
Overall (4.41)
Satisfaction
.11
(1.76)
.27 (2.97)

Supported Not supported

Figure 2. Results of hypothesized path model.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
 W. M. J. Phillips et al.

Table 3. Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect

Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Destination image ! Perceived overall value 0.80 — 0.80
Perceived overall value ! Attribute satisfaction 0.22 — 0.22
Perceived overall value ! Overall satisfaction 0.22 0.07 0.29
Attribute satisfaction ! Overall satisfaction 0.33 — 0.33
Overall satisfaction ! Recommend intention 0.24 — 0.24
Overall satisfaction ! Revisit intention 0.11 — 0.11
Attribute satisfaction ! Recommend intention 0.20 0.08 0.28
Attribute satisfaction ! Revisit intention 0.11 0.03 0.14
Destination image ! Recommend intention 0.13 0.15 0.28
Destination image ! Revisit intention 0.27 —0.06 0.21

willing to recommend the destinations to others. experiences from three touristic sites is easier
Thus, destination image alone does not necessar- than making another trip to the same places
ily play a role in encouraging people to recom- for themselves. Recommending or stating
mend the rural destination to other people. positive words about their experiences is
This might be explained by the WOM sender’s easier than making another trip to the place(s).
reluctance to share an opinion with others. The The positive WOM does not cost anything.
WOM sender might be afraid that the receiver On other hand, revisit intention involves their
has a different opinion or perception about the decisions to go back to the same rural
destination and does not see the destination the destinations.
same way as the sender. Thus, the destination It is interesting to find that not all antece-
image is only a good tool to gauge visitors’ dents of the behavioral intentions affect WOM
own revisit intentions. and revisit intentions the same way. One affects
Consistent with Chen and Tsai (2007)’s only WOM, whereas others influence only re-
study, the overall perceived value has no sig- visit intention. Both the attribute and overall
nificant influence on tourists’ intentions in this satisfactions were important in determining
study. It rather indirectly influences the their WOM intention only. The preliminary in-
intention through attribute and overall satisfac- vestigation for this study showed that close to
tion. Together with satisfaction, perceived 70% of respondents visited Medora and the
value also has been recognized as an important IPG as their primary destinations, and most of
antecedent to predict the behavior intentions them had visited these two destinations in the
(Tian-Cole et al., 2002; Petrick, 2004). The insig- past. Thus, visitors might have plenty of
nificant result provides empirical evidence to experiences in these two sites in the past and
elucidate the relationship. Including perceived not plan to come back for a while. However,
value as a direct antecedent of intention and they are willing to recommend these sites to
satisfaction as a moderator between perceived others based on the good experiences and satis-
value and intention would be a more reason- faction at the destinations. Tourists might not
able model. find many reasons to visit a rural destination
Both attribute and overall satisfaction were repeatedly; however, the destination image
found to be predictors of only positive recom- that visitors have on the destination influence
mendations (Bigné et al. 2001; Chi and Qu, their revisit intention. Consistent quality ser-
2008) but not the revisit intention. This was just vice, amenities, and a variety of events and
opposite as destination image only positively programs might be the key factors that
influenced tourists’ revisit intention but not attracted repeat visitors. For the Lewis and
the WOM. Visitors to three sites in this study Clark Interpretive Center, it seems that the visi-
are willing to recommend to others based on tors happened to stop there on their way to
their satisfaction level. However, that is not other destinations, and the majority of them
the case for visitors’ revisit intention. Recom- had never visited it before. Although this par-
mending or putting positive words about their ticular destination does not serve as a major
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations

destination, it is still important to provide to measure the overall perceived value is

memorable visiting experiences for those pas- adequate, the result between perceived value
sing through. A good short experience might and revisit and recommendation intention
get them interested in visiting again. In might turn out differently. As other studies
addition, even if they may not ever visit the suggested (Petrick and Backman, 2002; Duman
destination again in the future, they might tell and Mattila, 2005), perceived value with differ-
their family and friends about their visit and ent measurement variables on service quality,
recommend the destination to them. The study monetary price, nonmonetary price, reputation
results show that a positive image is important and emotional response could be included in
to attracting repeat visitors to these three sites. future study. Third, there are other possible
Overall, respondents in this study had a attributes to measure specific satisfaction. Four
positive image in regard to scenery, friendly measurement items for attribute satisfaction
residents and an abundance of historical attrac- might not be enough to cover all facets of attri-
tions. Therefore, the state should continue to butes for the three sites studied. Various attri-
reinforce the image that residents are friendly butes that are the most applicable for a specific
and that these sites have beautiful scenery destination should be used (Valle et al., 2006;
and several cultural attractions. Chi and Qu, 2008). In the same sense, the eight
This study attempted to investigate the effect destination image items might not be efficient
of destination image, perceived value, attribute to measure the three dimensions of destination
and overall satisfaction on WOM and revisit image: cognitive, affective and overall image
intentions for tourist sites in a US rural state. (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). A comprehensive
The results are somewhat consistent with pre- list of destination image measurement might
vious studies. It was found that different vari- provide different test results. Many visitors to
ables influence WOM and revisit intention Medora and IPG were repeaters, whereas major-
differently. Destination image and the visitors’ ity of the visitors to Lewis and Clark were the
satisfaction are good indicators for revisit first timers. Past visit to the destinations might
intention and WOM intention respectively. have influenced the study results differently.
Based on this, the state offices need to make Thus, controlling the prior visit variable might
sure they are building appropriate images and provide different test results. The prior visit as
aligning them with the destination attributes a moderator between independent variables
and visitors’ perceptions. In addition, each and tourist behavior intentions can be tested in
rural destination needs to keep the visitors’ future research. This study took a comprehen-
attribute satisfaction level high by offering sive approach to learn about visitors’ WOM
adequate amenities and service so that the and revisit intention to rural destinations. Fur-
overall experience at the destination is satisfac- ther studies are needed to draw more concrete
tory. Keeping visitors’ attribute and overall conclusions about the relationships among these
satisfaction high is important for them to give variables.
positive WOM to potential visitors.
This study has some limitations. First, the
data were only collected at three sites in North REFERENCES
Dakota, USA, which might not represent other
rural states with other types of attributes. Thus, Assaker G. Vinzi VE. O’Connor P. 2011. Examining
some caution is needed when generalizing the the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and des-
tination image on tourist’ return pattern: A two
study results. One future study suggestion
factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism
with the three sites would be comparisons of Management 32: 890–901.
the model results. Because three sites might Baker DA, Crompton JL. 2000. Quality, satisfaction
offer different products/service, generalizing and behavioral intention. Annals of Tourism
all variables might not be reasonable. Compar- Research 27(3): 785–804.
isons of three sites might provide more prac- Baloglu S, McCleary KW. 1999. U.S. international
tical suggestions for each site. Second, the pleasure travelers’ images of four Mediterranean
visitors’ perceived value was tested via one destinations: A comparison of visitors and non-
measurement item. Although one general item visitors. Journal of Travel Research 38(2): 144–153.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
 W. M. J. Phillips et al.

Beerli A, Martin JD. 2004a. Factors influencing satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in
destination image. Annals of Tourism Research service environments. Journal of Retailing 76(2):
31(3): 657–681. 193–218.
Beerli A, Martín JD. 2004b. Tourists’ characteristics DeSarbo SW, Jedidi K, Sinha J. 2001. Customer value
and the perceived image of tourist destinations: analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strategic
A quantitative analysis- a case study of Lanzarote, Management Journal 22(9): 845–57.
Spain. Tourism Management 25: 623–636. Duman T. Mattila AS. 2005. The role of affective fac-
Bigné JE, Sánchez MI, Sánchez J. 2001. Tourism tors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism
image, evaluation variables and after-purchase Management 26: 311–323.
behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management Echtner CM, Ritchie JR. 1993. The measurement of
22(6): 607–616. destination image: An empirical assessment.
Birgit L. 2001. Image segmentation: The case of a Journal of Travel Research 31(4): 3–13.
tourism destination. Journal of Service Marketing Fakeye PC, Crompton JL. 1991. Image differences
15(1): 49–66. between prospective, first-time, and repeat visi-
Bitner MJ, Hubert AR. 1994. In Encounter satisfaction tors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of
versus overall satisfaction versus quality, Rust TR, Travel Research 30(2): 10–16.
Oliver RL (Eds) Sage Publications: London. Faullant R. Matzler K. Füller J. 2008. The impact of
Bolton RN, Lemon KN. 1999. A dynamic model of satisfaction and image on loyalty: the case of
customer’s usage of services: Usage as an ante- Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality
cedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of 18(2): 1630178.
Marketing Research 36(2): 171–186. Fleischer A. Felsenstein D. 2000. Support for rural
Cawley M. Gillmor DA. 2008. Integrated rural tourism: Does it make a difference? Annals of
tourism: concepts and practice. Annals of Tourism Tourism Research 27: 1007–1024.
Research 35(2): 316–337. Fornell C. 1992. A national customer satisfaction
barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
Chen CF. Chen FS. 2010. Experience quality, per-
Marketing 56: 6–21.
ceived value, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant
tions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management
BE. 1996. The American customer satisfaction
31: 29–35.
index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of
Chen Z, Dubinsky AJ. 2003. A conceptual model of
Marketing 60(October): 7–18.
perceived customer value in E-commerce: A pre-
Gale BT. 1994. Managing customer value: Creating
liminary investigation. Psychology and Marketing
quality and service that customers can see. Free Press:
20(4): 323–347.
New York.
Chen CF. Tsai DC. 2007. How destination image and Gartner WC. 2004. Rural tourism development in
evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions. the USA. International Journal of Tourism Research
Tourism Management 28: 175–187. 6: 151–164.
Chi CG, Qu H. 2008. Examining the structural rela- Gunn C. 1972. Vacationscape. Destination tourist
tionships of destination image, tourist satisfaction regions. Taylor and Francis/University of Texas:
and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Washington DC.
Tourism Management 29: 624–636. Hjalager A. 1996. Agricultural diversification into
Choi JG, Tkachenko T, Sil S. 2011. On the destination tourism: Evidence of a European community
image of Korea by Russian tourists. Tourism development programme. Tourism Management
Management 32: 193–194. 17(2): 103–111.
Coon R, Leistritz FL. 2009. Estimating North Hsu CH. 2003. Mature motor-coach travelers’ satis-
Dakota’s Economic Base. Agribusiness & Applied faction: A preliminary step toward measurement
Economics Report No. 643. North Dakota State development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
University: Fargo. Research 20(10): 1–19.
Court B, Lupton RA. 1997. Customer portfolio devel- Hsu CH, Wolfe K, Kang S. 2004. Image assessment
opment: modeling destination adopters, inactives for a destination with limited comparative advan-
and rejecters. Journal of Travel Research 36(1): 35–43. tages. Tourism Management 25(1): 121–126.
Crompton JL. 1979. An assessment of the image of Hu LT, Bentler PM. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In
Mexico as a vacation destination and the influ- Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and
ence of geographical location upon that image. applications, Hoyle R (Ed). Sage: Thousand Oaks,
Journal of Travel Research 17: 18–23. CA; 76–99.
Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Hult GTM. 2000. Assessing IPG. 2008. International Peace Garden official website.
the effects of quality, value and customer Retrieved from: http://www.peacegarden.com.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations

Kotler P, Haider D, Rein I. 1994. There’s no place like Oliver RL. 1997. Satisfaction:A behavioral perspective
our place! the marketing of cities, regions, and on the consumer. McGraw-Hill: New York.
nations. Public Management 76: 15–18. Opperman M. 1996. Rural tourism in southern
Kozak M. 2001. Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct Germany. Annals of Tourism Research 23(1): 86–102.
destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 28(3): Pearce PL. 1982. Perceived changes in holiday des-
784–807. tination. Annals of Tourism Research 9: 145–164.
Kozak M, Rimmington M. 2000. Tourist satisfaction Petrick JF. 2004. The roles of quality, value, and
with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’
destination. Journal of Travel Research 38: 260–269. behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research
Lee TH. 2009. A structural model to examine how 42(4): 397–407.
destination image, attitude, and motivation affect Petrick JF, Backman SJ. 2002. An examination of the
the future behavior of tourist. Leisure Sciences 32: construct of perceived value for the prediction of
215–236. golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
LewisAndClarkTrail.com. 1998. nd. Retrieved from: Research 41(1): 38–45.
http://www.lewisandclarktrail.com/section2/ Pizam A. Ellis T. 1999. Customer satisfaction and its
ndcities/BismarckMandan/InterpretiveCenter/ measurement in hospitality enterprises. Inter-
index.htm national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
Longwoods International. 2009. 2008 Visitor Study: ment 11(7): 326–339.
Presentation report. Retrieved from: http:// Prayag G. 2009. Tourists’ evaluations of destination
www.ndtourism.com/uploads/resources/826/nd- image, satisfaction and future behavioral inten-
visitor-study-08.pdf tions- The case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel and
Lovelock CH. 2000. Service Marketing: People, Tourism Marketing 26: 836–853.
Technology, Strategy, 4th edn. Upper Saddle Qu H, Kim LH, Im HH. 2011. A model of destin-
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ation image: Integrating the concepts of the
Mansfield Y. 1992. Tourism: Toward a Behavioral branding and destination image. Tourism Manage-
Approach, Oxford: Pergamon Press. ment 32: 465–476.
McDougall GH, Levesque T. 2000. Customer sat- Roberts L. 1996. Barriers to the development of rural
isfaction with services: putting perceived value tourism in the Bran area of Transsylvania. In Tour-
into the equation. Journal of Service Marketing ism and culture: Image, identity and marketing,
14: 392–410. Robinson M, Evans N, Callaghan: P (Eds), Busi-
Milman A, Pizam A. 1995. The role of awareness ness Education Publishers: Sunderland; 185–196.
and familiarity with a destination: The Central Rust RT, Oliver RL. 1994. Service quality: Insights
Florida case. Journal of Travel Research 33(winter): and managerial implication from the Frontier. In
21–27. Service Quality: New directions in theory and prac-
Mohsin A, Ryan C. 2003. Backpackers in the northern tice, Rust RT, Oliver RL. Sage: Thousand Oaks,
territory of Australia. International Journal of Tourism CA; 1–9.
Research 5(2): 113–121. Seaton AV. Benett MM. 1996. Marketing tourism pro-
ND Department of Commerce. 2010. 2009 Annual ducts: Concepts, issues, cases. International Thomson
Report North Dakota Department of Commerce Business Press: London.
Tourism Division. Retrieved from: http://www. Spencer C, Dixon J. 1983. Mapping the development
ndtourism.com/uploads%5Cresources%5C793% of feelings about the city: A longitudinal study of
5C2009-annual-report-for-web.pdf new resident’s affective maps. Transactions of the
ND Department of Tourism. 2002. Official website. Institute of British Geographers 8: 373–383.
Retrieved from: http://www.ndtourism.com/ Tian-Cole S, Crompton JL, Willson VL. 2002. An em-
whatdo/attractions/attraction-details.asp?AID= pirical investigation of the relationships between
1441. service quality, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
NPS. 2008. National Park Service, U.S. Department of sions among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal
the Interior, visitation statistics Theodore Roosevelt of Leisure Research 34(1): 1–24.
National Park. Retrieved from: http://www.nps. Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). 2007.
gov/thro/parkmgmt/visitation-statistics.htm,. 2006–2007 Survey of U.S. State and Territory Office
Oh H. 2000. Diners’ perceptions of quality, value Budgets. Author: Washington, DC.
and satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant US Census Bureau. 2010. State and County Quick-
Administration Quarterly 41(3): 58–66. Facts: North Dakota. Retrieved from: http://
Oliver RL.1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38000.html
bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Valle PO, Silva JA, Mendes J, Guerreiro M. 2006.
Consumer Research 20(December): 418–430. Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
 W. M. J. Phillips et al.

intention: A structural and categorical analysis. intentions at the destination level. Tourism Man-
International Journal of Business Science and Ap- agement 31: 537–546.
plied Management 1(1): 25–43. Zeithaml VA. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price,
Yoon Y, Uysal M. 2005. An examination of the quality and value: A means-end model and syn-
effects of motivation and satisfaction on destin- thesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52: 2–22.
ation loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Manage- Zeithaml VA. 2000. Service quality, profitability, and
ment 26(1): 45–56. the economic worth of customers: what we know
Žabka V, Brenčič MM, Dmitrović T. 2010. Modeling per- and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy
ceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioral of Marketing Science 28(1): 67–85.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr