A research that investigates tourists’ perceptions of services provided by hotels in Antalya, Turkey.

1. How do international tourists
perceive hotel quality?
An exploratory study of service quality in
Antalya tourism region
Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol
Department of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
Inci Varinli
Department of Business Management, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
Olgun Kitapci
Department of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to identify tourists’ perceptions of services provided by hotels in
Antalya/Turkey and to explore hotel service quality dimensions. Specifically, the objectives are as
follows: to identify the dimensions of hotel service quality, and to determine the relative impact of
those dimensions on customer satisfaction levels, on customer value and on customers’ intentions to
recommend or revisit a hotel.
Design/methodology/approach – The present study uses the framework which originally
appeared in Juwaheer’s study investigating international tourists’ perceptions of hotels in Mauritius.
In this framework ten hotel service quality dimensions were defined by factor analysis and then the
most important dimensions for each component were determined using stepwise regression analysis.
Findings – Of the ten hotel service quality dimensions, “tangibles” and “food quality and reliability”
influence the customer satisfaction level the most. Customer value is explained by five dimensions
which generate 37.8 percent of the variance. “Hotel employees and problem solving”, “transportation”,
“food quality and reliability”, “climate and hygiene”, “level of price”, “tangibles”, “interaction with
Turkish culture” and “friendly, courteous and helpful employees” are the main dimensions which
affect whether a guest will recommend a hotel. “Tangibles”, “interaction with Turkish culture”, and
“level of price” are seen as the most influential dimensions in terms of customers’ intentions to revisit a
hotel.
Research limitations/implications – The basic limitation of the study is the unexplained
variance, which is the result of the regression analysis. Therefore, future research should aim to
determine the factors explaining that variance.
Practical implications – In light of these findings, hotel managers in Antalya can better
understand their guests’ priorities and consequently, they can arrange their service encounter process
accordingly to fulfill these priorities.
Originality/value – This study presents potentially valuable information for hotel managers in
Antalya with regards to understanding customer value and satisfaction, which are the key elements in
terms of guests revisiting a hotel and recommending it to others. As providing an opportunity for a
comparative study of service quality searches, this study contributes to the field.
Keywords Turkey, Service marketing, Experience marketing, International guest services,
International hotel management, Service quality perceptions
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM
26,3
470
Received 9 November 2012
Revised 15 February 2013
27 June 2013
14 October 2013
Accepted 2 November 2013
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 26 No. 3, 2014
pp. 470-495
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0211

2. Introduction
With its history, sea, cultural assets and high quality tourism facilities, Antalya is
known as the capital of Turkish tourism. With Belek, Kemer, Side-Manavgat, Alanya,
Lara-Kunda, and Kas¸ tourism centers, Antalya hosts more than 10 million foreign
quests every year. Along with a cultural heritage deeply rooted in history, Antalya’s
coves and highlands of unique beauty, pristine beaches, comfortable hotels and
marinas, colorful entertainment venues, and art-filled festivals all make it a tourist
destination that offers endless possibilities to its guests. These include the pleasure of
sunbathing from sunrise to sunset; the natural thrill of outdoor sports in the grip of
mother nature; the excitement of discovering national parks with their rich flora and
fauna, ancient cities, museums and Kaleic¸i; the mystery of the mountains and the
peaceful Mediterranean coves drawing you away; the romance of watching an opera
outdoors under the stars at night; sampling the unique delicacies of Turkish cuisine
and enjoying the party scene. Meeting the hospitable people of Antalya is just another
part of the pleasant holiday experience (GoTurkey, 2013). Being an eye-catching
destination (Sarı et al., 2011) and as well as being the most globally connected, densely
populated and the main tourist destination in Turkey (Erkus¸-O¨ ztu¨rk, 2009) brings
many responsibilities for city-managers in general. Specifically, as a tourism capital,
hotels in Antalya need to provide services of the highest quality to their guests.
Objectives of the study
The present paper builds on the framework of Juwaheer’s study which was published
in 2004 and which investigated the perceptions of international tourists from countries
in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Juwaheer employed a modified SERVQUAL
approach on 410 international tourists staying in different categories of beach hotel in
Mauritius. Using principal component factor analysis, nine hotel factors named
reliability factors, assurance factors, extra room benefits sought, staff communication
skills and additional benefits, room attractiveness and de´cor, empathy, staff outlook
and accuracy factors, food and service related factors, and hotel surroundings and
environmental factors were identified out of 39 hotel attributes. The results of
regression analysis revealed that the overall level of service quality and likeliness to
return to the same hotel are primarily derived from the reliability factor, while room
attractiveness and de´cor was the primary dimension affecting perceptions of hotel
guests’ satisfaction and recommendation decisions.
With this in mind, the main purpose of the present study is to identify customer
perceptions of services provided by hotels in Antalya and to determine the hotel
service quality dimensions. Specifically, the objectives can be listed as follows:
.
to identify the hotel service quality dimensions; and
.
to determine the relative impact of those dimensions on customer satisfaction
levels, customer value and on recommending and revisiting intentions.
The paper first presents a review of the literature on service quality in the tourism
sector and then it presents the methodology used in the current study. The article ends
with a review of the main findings, discussion, implications and limitations of the
study.
Service quality
in Antalya
471

3. Literature review
Service quality
The various attempts to relate the concept of quality to different situations have
prevented the emergence of a common global definition. The concept of quality is
described as “zero error – do right first time” in common Japanese philosophy
(Parasuraman et al., 1985) and has been highlighted as the most important single
pioneering power on the economic development process of international companies
(Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Accordingly, quality is used to describe different
phenomena (Vinagre and Neves, 2008). On the one hand, some authors describe the
concept as usage convenience, while others define it as conformity to specifications
(Kara et al., 2005). However, the definition of quality standardized by “American
National Standards Institute” and “American Society for Quality” is as follows: “The
totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that impact its ability to
satisfy given needs” (Ma et al., 2005, p. 1068).
Therefore, service quality correlates with its own characteristics, and it is described
as an attitude form which includes a global judgment related to the superiority of
service (Jun et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 1998). According to the definition that relates
service quality to behavioral intentions; it is an attitudinal structure which leads
behavioral intentions (Fullerton, 2005). As an output of the service encounter process,
service quality is stated as meeting the consumers’ expectations (Duffy et al., 1997).
Among consumer satisfaction theories, some authors including Parasuraman and his
colleagues identify service quality as the gap between service perceptions and
consumer expectations (Vinagre and Neves, 2008). Accordingly, perceived service
quality, termed “true quality” by Kordupleski (Redman and Mathews, 1998), is the
discrepancy level which emerges as the result of the comparison made between
normative expectations related to what should happen and perceptions related to what
actually happened (Kelley and Turley, 2001; Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In other
words, service quality focuses on meeting needs and requirements and the degree to
which the service provided meets customer expectations (Lewis et al., 1994).
Measuring service quality
The basic characteristics of service, namely variability, inseparability and
perishability have caused some difficulties for academics and practitioners with
regards to measuring service quality (Espinoza, 1999). In particular, decisively
determining the criteria which will be used for the service quality evaluation process is
not very easy because of the complicated structures (Poolthong and Mandhachitara,
2009). In spite of those difficulties, true quality cannot be developed unless it is
measured, thus emphasizing the importance of service quality measurement. Only
service providers who know how consumers evaluate the service will also know how to
lead these evaluations in the desired direction (Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In addition,
basing user experiences related to a service and distinguishing service differentiation
criteria on this ground is another important reason to realize the measurement process
(Vinagre and Neves, 2008). However, service marketers understand the need to define
the perceptions of service quality correctly when using it for a competitive advantage
(Malhotra et al., 2005).
IJCHM
26,3
472

4. Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is seen as the most valuable property for businesses in saturated
markets (Gundersen et al., 1996). Achieving profits by satisfying consumer demands
and needs reflects the central position of the customer satisfaction marketing concept
(Woodside et al., 1989). Companies based on high satisfaction levels receive high
economic gains (Gilbert and Veloutsou, 2006). Moreover, the satisfied consumer is less
sensitive to price, less affected by competitors’ counter attacks and compared with the
unsatisfied consumer, stays loyal to company for longer (Nam et al., 2011). The
American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI), a scale which measures the customer
satisfaction level of companies, shows that a one-point increase in customer
satisfaction causes a boost in market value of on average 1 million $ and 3 percent
(Fornell, 2001). Being one of the most commonly studied components in marketing
literature (Philips et al., 2011), there have been various attempts to define the concept of
customer satisfaction (Yang and Peterson, 2004), but a generally agreed definition has
not yet been determined (Tsiotsou, 2006). In light of previous studies, the following
definition of customer satisfaction can be given: “As a construct, customer satisfaction
has been noted as a special form of consumer attitude; it is a post-purchase
phenomenon reflecting how much the consumer likes or dislikes the service after
experiencing it” (Woodside et al., 1989, p. 6).
In some instances, the terms quality and satisfaction are used as synonyms and are
seen as similar concepts (Iacobucci et al., 1995). Nevertheless, there are significant
differences between these two notions. While the concept of service quality develops
over years and correlates with customer expectations, satisfaction is a short-term and
transaction-based measurement of personal and emotional reaction to a service
(Hernon et al., 1999). Cronin and Taylor (1992) provide a popular explanation of the
difference, namely that perceived service quality is a form of attitude; a long-run
overall evaluation, whereas satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure. In addition,
whereas quality is a conceptual reaction, customer satisfaction consists of both
conceptual and affective reactions (Ha and Jang, 2010). Investigating the casual order
of the satisfaction-service quality relationship, Lee et al. (2000) suggested that service
quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction which in turn has a greater influence
on purchase intention. Briggs et al. (2007) handled the discrepancy in question as part
of the hotel sector and propounded that customer satisfaction is associated with the
thoughts of the customers about their experiences and with the interaction between
them and hotel components like employees. In that study, it was also emphasized that
service quality is shaped by location and value perception.
Service quality in the tourism sector
Recently, the dominant position of the manufacturing sector has been overtaken due to
the rise of the service sector. Accordingly, with its international identity, the tourism
and accommodation industry stands among the biggest industries in the world
(Ingram and Daskalakis, 1999). Tourism, which has become a supplementary
component of lifestyle, is one of the primary players in the economic development of
many countries (Poon and Low, 2005) and it is seen as an indispensable source for
foreign currency inflow (Atılgan et al., 2003). This situation is reflected in the studies in
the service quality field. Referring to previous studies within the scope of service
quality, the tourism field has emerged as the fifth most studied subject (Akıncı et al.,
Service quality
in Antalya
473

5. 2009). Given that it possesses hedonic, aesthetic and emotional components which
cannot be seen in other services like finance (Johns, 1999), tourism services are
accepted as a unique product due to the tangible and intangible elements it owns as
part of the tourism experience (Poon and Low, 2005). As customers of hotels take part
in an experience, the hotel industry is specific. Accordingly, hotel managers and
employees must be able to turn all the interactions with its guests into a positive
experience (Juwaheer and Ross, 2003). Purchasing and consuming all sorts of services
generating holiday experience locates tourism consumers in a different place from
other economic activities. In this manner, tourism consumers make their quality and
satisfaction judgments via holiday experiences related to all components of a
complicated tourism system (Weiermair, 2000). The success of any company depends
on understanding the basic points influencing consumers’ demands and meeting these
demands in such a way that guests will be satisfied during their first visit (Juwaheer
and Ross, 2003). As an output of the process in question, customer-focused tourism
companies should determine their target audience’s needs and develop the service
encounter process accordingly (Eraqi, 2006).
This study focuses on the quality perceptions of international tourists, as it might
be considered as a right attempt for hotel managers to determine the primitive service
quality dimensions in the high-quality service delivery process. The concept of quality
has numerous dimensions changing over time. Here, the question is which dimensions
are the most important ones. Finding the true answer will lead hotel managers to take
relevant steps. With this conscious, an in-depth review of service quality and
satisfaction has been drawn and a content analysis has been made in the scope of the
previous studies on service quality in the tourism sector (Table I).
Methodology
The survey questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part is to measure hotel
guests’ perceptions of service quality in the hotel where they were staying. A five-point
Likert-type rating scale, in which (1) indicates “strongly disagree” and (5) indicates
“strongly agree” was used. The second part of the questionnaire pertains to the
measurement of the demographic characteristics of respondents. The adopted
instrument was in line with previous studies by Tribe and Snaith (1998), Khan (2003),
Juwaheer (2004), Laroche et al. (2005), Akbaba (2006), Albacete-Saez et al. (2007), Li et al.
(2007), Narayan et al. (2008) and Salazar et al. (2010). A pilot test was conducted with 25
instructors at Cumhuriyet University. The results enabled us to gain valuable
information about the wording of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed in
English, German and Russian.
The target population of this study was departing English, German and Russian
tourists (n ¼ 307) who had stayed in hotels, motels and holiday-villages. The data
gathering process was realized during July, 2012 at ICF Airport, Antalya. Incomplete
surveys and the failure to obtain full responses means that after conducting 500
face-to-face surveys, just 307 questionnaires were found to be usable. The precise size
of the target population was difficult to be ascertained accurately. However, according
to published data, the total number of incoming tourists in 2011, was 4,168,396
(Turkish National Statistics, 2011). Probability sampling was implemented due to time
and budget restrictions. Therefore, the sample size was calculated to be 500 with a 5
percent sampling error. In the data analysis process, factor analysis and multiple
IJCHM
26,3
474

6. AuthorsSamplesizeReliabilityScale
No.of
proposalsAnalysistechniqueDimensionsorfactors
Lewisetal.(1994)1,279hotelguests66Frequency2–Locationandprice
Atkinson(1988)200guestsAsix-point
Likert-type
59MeanInorderofpriorities;
hygiene;safety;goodvalue
forthemoney;andfriendly,
courteousandhelpful
employees
Knutson(1988)1,853visitorsFrequency5–Clean,comfortable,
well-maintainedrooms;
convenientlocation;
promptandcourteous
service;safeandsecure
environment;andfriendly
andcourteousemployees
Wilenskyand
Buttle(1988)
130hotelguestsAfive-point
Likert-type
40Factoranalysis7–Opportunitiesfor
relaxation;valuefor
money;standardof
personalservice;physical
attractiveness;appealing
image;standardofservices;
andsuitabilityforbusiness
guests
Riversetal.(1991)426hotelguestsAfive-point
Likert-type
Mean3–Location;general
servicesandroom
readiness
Ananthetal.
(1992)
222visitorsAfive-point
Likert-type
57Mean9–Goodvalueformoney;
in-roomtemperature
controlmechanism;
convenientlocationof
hotel;priceof
accommodation;
soundproofrooms;special
discountsavailable;loud
firealarms;freeparking
services;andfirmnessof
mattress
(continued)
Table I.
The service quality
studies in tourism and
accommodation sector
Service quality
in Antalya
475

7. AuthorsSamplesizeReliabilityScale
No.of
proposalsAnalysistechniqueDimensionsorfactors
Barsky(1992)100guestsMeanInorderofpriorities;
employeeattitude;location;
androoms
McClearyetal.
(1993)
433businessguestsAfive-point
Likert-type
56Factoranalysis7–Basicproduct;business
services;banquet/meeting
facilities;frequenttraveler
programs;advertising/
publicrelations;convenient
location;andno-smoking
rooms
Websterand
Hung(1994)
40employees,58guestsAfive-point
Likert-type
108–tangibles;reliability;
communication;
responsiveness;security;
courtesy;understanding;
andaccess
Akan(1995)228hotelguestsAfour-point
Likert-type
30Factoranalysis7–Courtesyand
competenceofthe
personnel;communication
andtransaction;tangibles;
knowingand
understandingthe
customer;accuracyand
speedofservice;solutions
toproblems;andaccuracy
ofhotelreservations
LeBlancand
Nguyen(1996)
409travelers0.47-0,91fordimensionsAseven-
pointLikert-
type
27Factoranalysis5–Contactpersonnel;
physicalenvironment;
qualityofservices;
corporateidentity;and
accessibility
Ekincietal.(1998)115Englishvacationists0,87fortangibles,0,92for
Intangibles
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
18Confirmativefactor
analysis
2–tangiblesand
intangibles
(continued)
Table I.
IJCHM
26,3
476

8. AuthorsSamplesizeReliabilityScale
No.of
proposalsAnalysistechniqueDimensionsorfactors
TribeandSnaith
(1998)(HOLSAT)
102hotelguestsAfive-point
Likert-type
566–Thephysicalresortand
facilities;ambiance;
restaurants,bars,shops
andnightlife;transfers;
heritageandculture;
accommodation
Meietal.(1999)
(HOLSERV)
155predominantly
businesstravelers
0,88-0,93fordimension;
0,97fortotalscale
27Factoranalysis3–Employees;tangibles;
andreliability
HeungandCheng
(2000)
220tourists0,78-0,88fordimensionsAseven-
pointLikert-
type
15Factoranalysis4–tangiblesquality;staff
servicequality;product
value;andproduct
reliability
Kozak(2001)1,872BritishandGerman
tourists
0,56-0,87fordimensionsAseven-
pointLikert-
type
55Factoranalysis8–Accommodation
services;localtransport
services;hygiene,
sanitationandcleanliness;
hospitalityandcustomer
care;facilitiesand
activities;levelofprices;
languagecommunication;
anddestinationairport
services
ChoiandChu
(2001)
420internationaltourists0,71-0,93fordimensions;
0,94fortotalscale
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
29Exploratoryfactoranalysis7–Staffservicequality;
roomquality;general
amenities;business
services;value;security;
andIDD(international
directdial)facilities
(continued)
Table I.
Service quality
in Antalya
477

9. AuthorsSamplesizeReliabilityScale
No.of
proposalsAnalysistechniqueDimensionsorfactors
Yu¨kseland
Yu¨ksel(2001)
340tourists0,53-0,90fordimensions;
0,95fortotalscale
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
58Factoranalysis16–Foodquality;service
quality;hygieneand
accommodation;
hospitality;tourist
facilities;beachand
environment;priceand
value;entertainment;
quietness;convenience;
communication;security;
watersports;
transportation;airport
services;andweather
Ekincietal.(2003)120Britishtravelers0,88fortangibles,0,95for
intangibles;0,96fortotal
scale
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
16Exploratoryfactoranalysis2–tangiblesand
intangibles
GettyandGetty
(2003)(LQI)
222travelersforthefirst
dataset,229travelersfor
theseconddataset
265–Tangibility;reliability;
responsiveness;confidence;
andcommunication
Khan(2003)
(ECOSERV)
324EcotourismSociety
members
0,86-0,98fordimensions;
0,97fortotalscale
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
30Factoranalysis6–Ecotangibles;
assurance;reliability;
responsiveness;empathy;
andtangibles
Millanand
Esteban(2004)
368students0,71-0,89fordimensions;
0,95fortotalscale
Afive-point
Likert-type
31Confirmativefactor
analysis
6–Serviceencounters;
empathy;reliability;
serviceenvironment;
efficiencyofadvice;
additionalattributes
(continued)
Table I.
IJCHM
26,3
478

10. AuthorsSamplesizeReliabilityScale
No.of
proposalsAnalysistechniqueDimensionsorfactors
Juwaheer(2004)410internationaltourists0,60-0,75fordimensionsAseven-
pointLikert-
type
39Factoranalysis9–Reliability;assurance;
extraroombenefitssought;
staffcommunicationand
additionalamenities
sought;room
attractivenessandde´cor;
empathy;staffoutlookand
accuracy;foodandservice;
hotelsurroundingsand
environment
Nadiriand
Hussain(2005)
285Europeanguests0,95fortangibles,0,81for
intangibles;0,96fortotal
scale
Afive-point
Likert-type
22Exploratoryfactoranalysis2–tangiblesand
intangibles
PoonandLow
(2005)
200AsiantouristsAfive-point
Likert-type
48Factoranalysis12–Hospitality;
accommodation;foodand
beverages;recreationand
entertainment;
supplementaryservices,
securityandsafety;
innovationandvalue-
addedservices;
transportation;location;
appearance;pricing;and
payment
Akbaba(2006)234Businesstravelers0,70-0,85fordimensions;
0,93fortotalscale
Afive-point
Likert-type
29Factoranalysis5–tangibles;adequacyin
servicesupply;
understandingandcaring;
assurance;andconvenience
Albacete-Saez
etal.(2007)
172tourists0,71-0,91fordimensions;
0,93fortotalscale
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
36Exploratoryfactoranalysis
andconfirmativefactor
analysis
7–Personnelresponse;
complementoffer;tourist
relations;basicdemands;
tangibleelements;security;
andempathy
(continued)
Table I.
Service quality
in Antalya
479

11. AuthorsSamplesizeReliabilityScale
No.of
proposalsAnalysistechniqueDimensionsorfactors
Wilkinsetal.
(2007)
664hotelguests0,72-0,90fordimensions63Exploratoryfactoranalysis
andconfirmativefactor
analysis
3primary;6secondary–
Physicalproduct(stylish
effort;roomquality;and
addedextras);service
experience(qualitystaff;
personalization;and
speedyservice);andquality
foodandbeverage
Narayanetal.
(2008)
323tourists0,67-0,90fordimensionsAseven-
pointLikert-
type
67Exploratoryfactoranalysis
andconfirmativefactor
analysis
14–Core-tourism
experience;culture;
informationcenters;
personalinformation;
hospitality;fairnessof
price;hygiene;distractions;
amenities;pubs;valuefor
money;logistics;food;and
security
Mohsinand
Lockyer(2010)
271participantsBetween0,993and1forall
questions
Aseven-
pointLikert-
type
23Exploratoryfactoranalysis5–Hotelambianceand
staffcourtesy;foodand
beverageproductand
servicequality;staff
presentationand
knowledge;reservation
services;andoverallvalue
formoney
Ramanathanand
Ramanathan
(2011)
664hotelguests–––Statisticalregression“Valueformoney”asa
criticalattribute,while
“customerservice”,“room
quality”and“qualityof
food”aredissatisfiers
Table I.
IJCHM
26,3
480

12. regressions were used. Accordingly, 50 service quality variables were factor analyzed
to reduce those variables into a smaller set of dimensions. Principal component
analysis with varimax rotation was conducted and only factors with an Eigenvalue
equal to or greater than one were considered significant. Finally, regression analysis
was applied to find out the hotel service quality dimensions which contribute to the
customer satisfaction level and revisiting and recommending intentions. Accordingly,
multiple regression analysis with a stepwise method was used.
Findings
Demographic profile of respondents
Table II shows the demographics of the respondents. The sample included more
women (57.0 percent), tourists aged between 35 and 44 (28.7 percent), white-collar
workers (36.4 percent) and German tourists (61.2 percent). The majority of tourists had
graduated from at least high school (86.3 percent). They stayed at 4 þ star hotels (91.6
percent) and their trips were for pleasure rather than for business (90.4 percent).
Hotel service quality dimensions
The results of descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha are illustrated in Table III.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the reliability of each factor. Cronbach’s alphas of
individual factors were 90.5 for “friendly, courteous and helpful employees”, 85.1 for
“Room amenities”, 87.9 for “food quality and reliability”, 86.1 for “Interaction with
Turkish culture”, 78.2 for “Entertainment opportunities”, 75.5 for “tangibles”, 86.3 for
“Level of prices”, 67.4 for “transportation” and 41.8 for “Climate and hygiene”. The
mean values, standard deviations, number of items and reliability analysis are
summarized in Table III.
From the varimax-rotated factor matrix, ten factors representing 63.6 percent of the
explained variance were extracted from 50 variables. Reliability analysis was the
internal consistency of each factor. These ten dimensions, represented in Table IV,
were identified as follows:
Dimension 1 – friendly, courteous and helpful employees. This dimension,
accounting for 30.3 percent of the variation in the data, consists of statements about
courteous, friendly, knowledgeable and available service when the guests needed hotel
employees. In addition, according to this dimension the hotel staff should know their
duties. They should perform their duties well and not make mistakes. They should be
able to solve complaints. In addition, they should appear neat and tidy and pay
individualized attention to their guests to make them feel special. Furthermore, aspects
such as flexibility, the hotel’s ability to solve guests’ problems, giving information
about the facilities and compensating for any inconvenience that guests suffer also
played their part in this dimension.
Dimension 2 – room amenities. In this dimension which explains 6.5 percent of the
variance, the room should be quiet and it should have a good view, fine furnishings and
it should be very comfortable. In addition, room facilities should function properly and
materials associated with the service should be adequate.
Dimension 3 – food quality and reliability. This dimension, explaining 4.5 percent of
the variance, includes statements related to hotel meals and reliability. According to
this dimension, hotel meals should be high quality, hygienic and there should be a wide
variety. Reliability means that all areas in the hotel should be well indicated with signs,
Service quality
in Antalya
481

13. Frequency %
Gender
Female 172 57,0
Male 130 43,0
Total 302 100
Age
18-24 72 23,8
25-34 59 19,5
35-44 87 28,7
45-54 51 16,8
Above 55 34 11,2
Total 303 100
Education
No school education 2 0,7
Elementary School 12 3,9
Junior High School 42 13,7
High School 96 31,3
Bachelor’s degree 72 23,5
Master’s degree 45 14,7
Doctorate degree 15 4,4
Total 284 100
Type of accommodation
Motel 12 4,2
Holiday village 12 4,2
4 stars hotel 82 28,4
5 stars hotel 153 52,9
þ5 stars hotel 30 10,4
Total 289 100
Was it your first visit?
Yes 129 43,4
No 168 56,6
Total 297 100
Job
Executive/manager 54 18,2
Self-employed 35 11,8
White-collar 108 36,4
Blue-collar 16 5,4
Retired 11 3,7
Housewife 6 2,0
Student 37 12,5
Others 30 10,1
Total 297 100
Marital status
Single 124 42,8
Married 136 46,9
Divorced/widowed 30 10,3
Total 290 100
(continued)
Table II.
Demographics of
respondents
IJCHM
26,3
482

14. and the hotel should reflect a quality service image; it should provide the services as
they are promised and it should perform the services right first time.
Dimension 4 – interaction with Turkish culture. Explaining 4.2 percent of the
variance, this dimension is about being able to meet and talk to Turkish people, to find
out about everyday life in Turkey, to learn more about Turkish history, to visit
museums and archaeological sites and to visit nearby Turkish towns and countryside.
Dimension 5 – entertainment opportunities. This dimension, which explained 4.1
percent of the variation, consists of statements related to the variety of restaurants,
bars, shops and nightlife and being a fashionable.
Dimension 6 – tangibles. In this dimension, the visual quality of resort buildings,
green spaces, the capacity of the hotel service unit and the crowdedness of the beach
are taken into consideration and 3.5 percent of the variance is explained.
Dimension 7 – level of prices. Explaining 3.0 percent of the variance, this dimension
includes statements related to the cheapness of services in restaurants, bars and
nightlife.
Dimension 8 – transportation. Explaining 2.8 percent of the variance, the
statements in this dimension are associated with the airport’s modernity, quality of
in-flight service and access to the hotel’s loading/unloading areas, car parking areas,
etc.
Dimension 9 – climate and hygiene. The ninth dimension includes statements from
two different sub-dimensions. Explaining 2.3 percent of the variance explained, this
dimension therefore consists of statements which focus on the cleanliness of the resort
and fine weather.
Dimension 10 – security. This dimension explains 2.1 percent of the variance and
includes just one statement that explains the safety and security of the resort.
As the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) rate is 0.908, the data gathered from sample are
considered to be appropriate for factor analysis (Table IV).
Relative importance of hotel service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction,
customer value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions
In Tables V-VIII the hotel service quality dimensions affecting customer satisfaction,
customer value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions are shown.
Stepwise regression analysis was carried out using customer satisfaction, customer
Frequency %
Nationality
German 188 61,2
Russian 71 23,1
English 48 15,6
Total 307 100
Purpose of visit
Business 22 7,5
Fun/holiday 264 90,4
Health 5 1,7
For sport 1 0,3
Total 292 100 Table II.
Service quality
in Antalya
483

15. Dimensions and variables a m s
Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,905 4,26 0,881
Q19. The hotel staff would be friendly 4,46 0,852
Q20. The hotel staff would know their job, do it well and not make
mistakes 4,32 0,815
Q18. The hotel staff would be courteous 4,49 0,842
Q22. The hotel staff would be always available when needed 4,40 0,804
Q24. The hotel staff would give guests individualized attention that
makes them feel special 4,07 0,950
Q23. The hotel staff would appear neat and tidy 4,39 0,807
Q21. The hotel staff would be responsive to solve the complaints 4,19 0,979
Q25. The hotel staff would have knowledge to answer questions 4,24 0,876
Q40. The hotel would provide flexibility in service that would be
adequate and sufficient 4,07 0,895
Q41. Getting information about the facilities and services of the hotel
would be easy 4,19 0,864
Q42. The hotel would resolve guest complaints and would compensate
for the inconvenience guests suffer 4,09 1,014
Room amenities 0,851 4,13 0,986
Q30. The room would have a high comfort 4,06 0,983
Q28. The room would have quality furnishings 4,08 0,965
Q29. The size of the room would be enough 4,16 0,953
Q27. The room would have a good view 4,03 1,003
Q32. Materials associated with the service would be adequate and
sufficient 4,22 0,995
Q31. Facilities in room would function properly 4,33 0,926
Q26. The room would be quiet 4,06 1,080
Food quality and reliability 0,879 4,32 0,909
Q34. Hotel meals would be a high variety 4,30 0,963
Q33. Hotel meals would be a high quality 4,35 0,928
Q35 Hotel meals would be hygienic 4,54 0,809
Q36. All areas in the hotel would be well indicated with signs 4,19 0,941
Q38. The hotel would provide the services as they were promised 4,37 0,936
Q39. The hotel would perform the services right the first time 4,23 0,904
Q37. The hotel would project a quality service image 4,26 0,883
Interaction with Turkish culture 0,861 3,79 1,042
Q50. I would be able to visit museums and archaeological sights 3,84 1,078
Q49. I would be able to learn more about Turkish history 3,78 1,040
Q51. I would be able to visit nearby Turkish towns and countryside 3,77 1,083
Q48. I would be able to find out about everyday life in Turkey 3,77 1,039
Q47. I would be able to mix and talk with Turkish people 3,82 0,970
Entertainment opportunities 0,782 3,83 0,956
Q11. The resort would have a variety of bars 4,05 0,912
Q10. The resort would have a variety of restaurants 4,12 0,899
Q13. The resort would have a variety of nightlife 3,42 1,073
Q12. The resort would have a variety of shops 3,97 0,932
Q14. The resort would be fashionable 3,62 0,964
Tangibles 0,755 4,31 0,881
Q7. The hotel would ensure regular maintenance of hotel lawn and green
space 4,26 0,902
Q6. The resort buildings and layout would be visually pleasing 4,21 0,857
Q8. The service units of the hotel have adequate capacity 4,46 0,840
Q9. The beach would be uncrowned 4,22 0,964
Q1. The beach and sea would be clean 4,42 0,842
(continued)
Table III.
Descriptive statistics of
variables
IJCHM
26,3
484

16. value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions as the dependent variables
and hotel service quality dimensions as independent variables. From Tables V-VIII, it
is understood that “tangibles” ðb ¼ 0:243Þ and “food quality and reliability” ðb ¼
0:190Þ dimensions are the main influential factors of customer satisfaction and these
dimensions explain 14.2 percent of the variance in the customers satisfaction level. It
means that 85.8 percent of the variance can be explained by other factors. Furthermore,
the tangibles dimension is the most influential dimension on customer satisfaction as it
explains 11.6 percent of the variance. The F-statistic for the regression model was
17.228 with a p-value of 0.000.
The customer value is explained by five dimensions generating 37.8 percent of the
variance which are “friendly, courteous and helpful employees” ðb ¼ 0:132Þ;
transportation ðb ¼ 0:259Þ; “food quality and reliability” ðb ¼ 0:215Þ; “Climate and
hygiene” ðb ¼ 0:151Þ; and “Level of prices” ðb ¼ 0:101Þ: However, it should be noted
that 62.2 percent of the variance can be explained by other factors. Indeed, the
“friendly, courteous and helpful employees” dimension is the most influential
dimension on customer value as it explains 25.3 percent of the variance. The F-statistic
for the regression model was 36.567 with a p-value equal to 0.000. “tangibles” ðb ¼
0:158Þ; “Interaction with Turkish culture” ðb ¼ 0:141Þ and “friendly, courteous and
helpful employees” ðb ¼ 0:152Þ are the main dimensions that influence customers to
recommend the hotel and 12.6 percent of variance is explained by these dimensions.
The F-statistic for the regression model was 14.550 with a p-value equal to 0.000.
Finally, “tangibles” ðb ¼ 0:225Þ; “Interaction with Turkish culture” ðb ¼ 0:133Þ and
“Level of price” ðb ¼ 0; 121Þ are considered to be the most influential dimensions on
customers’ revisiting intentions. 12.7 percent of the variance is explained by these
dimensions and in order to explain all the variance, some other factors should be taken
into account. The F-statistic for the regression model was 14.633 with a p-value equal
to 0.000.
Dimensions and variables a m s
Level of prices 0,863 3,57 0,979
Q16. Bars would be cheap 3,57 1,006
Q15. Restaurants would be cheap 3,66 0,968
Q17. Nightlife would be cheap 3,48 0,964
Transportation 0,674 4,15 0,926
Q45. The arrival airport would be modern and efficient 4,20 0,907
Q46. In flight service would be of a high quality 3,97 1,004
Q43. It would be easy access to the hotel 4,29 0,868
Climate and hygiene 0,418 4,53 0,752
Q5. The climate would be mainly sunny 4,66 0,664
Q3. The resort would be clean 4,41 0,841
Security – 4,61 0,712
Q4 The resort would be safe and secure 4,61 0,712
Note: Standard Deviation: s; Cronbach’s alpha: a; Mean: m Table III.
Service quality
in Antalya
485

17. Dimensions
D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8D9D10
Q19.0,791
Q20.0,752
Q18.0,715
Q22.0,644
Q24.0,591
Q23.0,586
Q21.0,585
Q25.0,501
Q40.0,487
Q41.0,478
Q42.0,457
Q30.0,821
Q28.0,731
Q29.0,700
Q27.0,538
Q32.0,511
Q31.0,495
Q26.0,405
Q34.0,798
Q33.0,762
Q35.0,708
Q36.0,542
Q38.0,535
Q39.0,486
Q37.0,471
Q50.0,843
Q49.0,814
Q51.0,805
Q48.0,757
(continued)
Table IV.
Factor loadings for hotel
service quality
dimensions
IJCHM
26,3
486

18. Dimensions
D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8D9D10
Q47.0,500
Q11.0,822
Q10.0,709
Q13.0,664
Q12.0,555
Q14.0,449
Q7.0,692
Q6.0,630
Q8.0,574
Q9.0,561
Q1.0,438
Q16.0,837
Q15.0,836
Q17.0,816
Q45.0,789
Q46.0,716
Q43.0,395
Q5.0,772
Q3.0,427
Q4.0,465
Eigenvalue14,8573,2022,2192,0762,0081,7311,5011,3951,1311,046
Percentageofvarianceexplained30,3216,5354,5284,2374,0983,5323,0632,8472,3072,134
Totalvarianceexplained63,602
Notes:Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO):0,908.D1=friendly,courteousandhelpfulemployees;D2=roomamenities;D3=foodqualityandreliability;
D4=interactionwithTurkishculture;D5=entertainmentopportunities;D6=tangibles;D7=levelofprices;D8=transportation;D9=climateandhygiene;
D10=security.
Table IV.
Service quality
in Antalya
487

19. Discussion
The results of this study back up the importance of service quality perceptions in the
context of particular dimensions as it shows such dimensions are related with
customer satisfaction, customer value and behavioral intentions. From a pragmatic
point-of-view, the study offers potentially valuable contributions to the hotel industry
in Antalya as it provides some insights for hotel managers. Developing a framework
R 2
Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,378 0,000 Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,189 0,132 1,851 0,065
Transportation 0,325 0,259 4,964 0,000
Food quality & reliability 0,281 0,215 3,176 0,002
Climate & hygiene 0,227 0,151 3,044 0,003
Level of prices 0,105 0,101 2,028 0,043
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2
)=0,378; dependent variable: customer value. Value items:
The holiday would be good value for money
Table VI.
Hotel service quality
dimensions affecting
customer value
R 2
Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,142 0,000 Tangibles 0,345 0,243 3,936 0,000
Food quality & reliability 0,243 0,190 3,064 0,002
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2
)=0,142; dependent variable: satisfaction. Satisfaction
Items: My general vacation satisfaction level of high, my satisfaction level related with the resort is
high
Table V.
Hotel service quality
dimensions affecting
customer satisfaction
level
R 2
Sig Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,127 0,000 Tangibles 0,391 0,225 3,854 0,000
Interaction with Turkish culture 0,174 0,133 2,279 0,023
Level of prices 0,152 0,121 2,145 0,033
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2
)=0,127; dependent variable: revisit intentions. Revisit
intention items: I would like to revisit Antalya, I would like to stay again at the resort which I have
stayed last
Table VIII.
Hotel service quality
dimensions affecting
revisit intentions
R 2
Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,126 0,000 Tangibles 0,248 0,158 2,355 0,019
Interaction with Turkish culture 0,166 0,141 2,404 0,017
Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,237 0,152 2,277 0,023
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2
)=0,126; dependent variable: recommend intentions.
Recommendation Items: I would recommend my friends and relatives to visit Antalya, I would
recommend my friends and relatives to stay at the resort which I have stayed last
Table VII.
Hotel service quality
dimensions affecting
recommend intentions
IJCHM
26,3
488

20. for conceptualizing the effects of service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction
and other behavioral intentions can be considered as the main theoretical implication of
this study. The present study presents ten hotel service quality dimensions from a list
compiled of 50 items. These dimensions can be listed as:
(1) friendly, courteous and helpful employees;
(2) room amenities;
(3) food quality and reliability;
(4) interaction with Turkish culture;
(5) entertainment opportunities;
(6) tangibles;
(7) level of prices;
(8) transportation;
(9) climate and hygiene; and
(10) security.
In the second stage of the analysis, these dimensions were analyzed using a stepwise
regression analysis technique to find out the dimensions which are used by tourists in
Antalya. The aim here was to evaluate satisfaction and value levels of tourists and to
explore the dimensions that have the main influences on their revisiting and
recommending intentions. Accordingly, although there is a large unexplained variance,
the “tangibles” and “food quality and reliability” dimensions are the main dimensions
that should be considered by hotel managers in order to satisfy their guests’ needs. In
these dimensions, the featured points are providing a pleasing visual appearance of
resort buildings and their layout, ensuring regular maintenance of green spaces,
having adequate capacity of dining rooms, meeting rooms, swimming pools, quietness
of the beaches, meals that are high quality, rich in variety and hygienic, indicating all
areas in the hotel with signs, representing a quality service image, providing the
services as promised and performing the services right first time. By doing so, the
physical environment may become more attractive.
From the results, it is observed that five dimensions namely, “friendly, courteous
and helpful employees”, “transportation”, “food quality and reliability”, “climate and
hygiene” and “level of prices” are the dimensions that explain customer value
perceptions as these dimensions generate 37.8 percent of the variance. As the “friendly,
courteous and helpful employees” dimension is the best predictor of customer value
perceptions, hotel managers should pay more attention to hotel staff in order to ensure
that they are courteous, friendly, neat and tidy. They should know what to do, and they
should do it well. They shouldn’t make mistakes. The hotel employee are the ones who
are responsible for dealing with complaints; they should be available whenever needed,
show individualized attention to guests and have enough knowledge to answer their
questions. In recruitment process, the candidates possessing these attributes should be
found and hired. Since hotel employees have first-hand knowledge about the
characteristics of customers, Olorunniwo et al., 2006 state that the employees should be
encouraged and rewarded in service quality design and implementation process. What
is more, hotel managers should focus on the problem-solving process by providing
flexible services, giving information to guests easily, resolving guests’ complaints and
Service quality
in Antalya
489

21. compensating for any inconveniences that guests suffer. Regarding the other four
dimensions, easy access to the hotel, a modern and efficient airport, high quality
in-flight service, a clean resort, fine weather; and low-priced bars, restaurants and
nightlife are the other matters to focus on. The statements of the “food quality and
reliability” dimension are expressed in the previous paragraph, so they will not be
mentioned again here.
The “tangibles” and “interaction with Turkish culture” dimensions emerge as the
two main influences on both recommending and revisiting intentions. Besides the
statements related to the tangibles dimension presented above, hotel guests who are
able to meet and talk to Turkish people, who are able to find out about everyday life in
Turkey, who are able to learn more about Turkish history, who are able to visit
museums and archeological sites and who can visit nearby Turkish towns and
countryside are more likely to recommend and revisit the hotel where they stayed. The
other dimensions influencing recommending and revisiting intentions are “friendly,
courteous and helpful employees” and “level of prices”. The statements related to these
last dimensions are not going to be pointed out again as they have been described
above. The result of the study is on the other side of the discussion, compared with
Alexandris et al. (2002) reported that tangible dimension is not among the most
important predictor of WOM communications. Accordingly, the tangible dimension
still stands as an antecedent of recommending and revisiting intention.
Implications and limitations
The increasing interest in addressing the service quality concept from the consumer’s
point-of-view is accepted as one of the most important developments in the tourism
industry (Nadiri and Hussain, 2005). Explicitly describing and understanding the hotel
attributes in light of customer needs allows hotel management to recognize and fulfill
customer wants and needs in advance instead of subsequently reacting to customer
dissatisfaction (Choi and Chu, 2001). Moreover, giving a satisfactory experience to the
customers, hotel managers should understand how the customers assess the service
quality (Olorunniwo et al., 2006) that is too subjective to evaluate based on specific
characteristics of service (Alexandris et al., 2002). Thus, this study is believed to
provide useful information about these facts for hotel managers in Antalya. Besides its
practical implications, the study has some theoretical values while it is providing
insights for a comparative study of service quality perceptions.
With the findings of the study, it is understood that international tourists evaluate
their satisfaction and value perceptions and intend to revisit and recommend in
accordance with the different hotel service quality dimensions. In light of these
findings, hotel managers in Antalya can understand their guests’ priorities and can
arrange their service or encounter process to fulfill these priorities. Recognizing the
priorities will lead the hotels to reposition their quality propositions in order to exceed
the expectations of their guests and shape their hotel experience. By doing so, hotels
may offer their own service quality pledges. In addition to these implications, this
study is also helpful for hotels in Antalya in terms of allocating their resources more
effectively. The need to identify the key dimensions in gaining customer value,
customer satisfaction and in leading the guests to revisit and recommend makes these
findings more interesting and valuable. The importance of findings for managerial
decision-making processes is evident. Hotel managers seeking to improve their
IJCHM
26,3
490

22. customers’ loyalty levels and making efforts to increase retention rates may benefit
from information about the effect of dimensions of service quality on customer
satisfaction and of the latter on behavioral loyalty.
Presenting information for hotel management in Antalya with regards to gaining
customer value and customer satisfaction and in leading the guests to revisit and
recommend may be accepted as a reply to the question of how the study contributes to
the literature. In this manner, the study may be used in international industry-specific
and comparative research. Hotel managers that aim to offer high quality service should
pay special attention to having staff that are able to solve problems and who are
fully-qualified. It is essential for the staff to have the emotional and esthetic skills as
they are always in touch with customers from different cultures and countries (Crick
and Spencer, 2011). It would also be interesting to expand the model to include the
economic consequences for companies and organizations of the relationships described
in this paper. The Turkish hospitality industry, among others, will have much to
benefit from studying such an extended model.
The basic limitation of the study is perhaps the unexplained variance as the result
of the regression analysis. To settle this matter, future research should aim to
determine the points which explain that variance. With regards to other attempts to
make the findings more valuable, examining the research in different sectors, in
different cultures, in different service areas of hospitality could be advisable. It should
be also mentioned that generalization of the findings to the entire tourism and hotel
field is not possible due to the sampling procedure. Since it is a convenience sample, the
applicability of this work to all hotels in the region and service quality field is quite
suspicious. The other limitation of this study comes from the fact that the field research
was conducted on tourists who visited Antalya. Owing to the research sample
limitations, it would be useful to analyze data from a greater geographical sample that
would include other tourist locations and compare the differences.
References
Akan, P. (1995), “Dimensions of service quality: a study in Istanbul”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 39-43.
Akbaba, A. (2006), “Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: a study in a business hotel in
Turkey”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 170-192.
Akıncı, S., Atılgan I˙nan, E., Aksoy, S¸. and Bu¨yu¨kku¨pcu¨, A. (2009), “Pazarlama literatu¨ru¨nde
hizmet kalitesi kavramının du¨nu¨ ve bugu¨nu¨”, H.U¨ . I˙ktisadi ve I˙dari Bilimler Faku¨ ltesi
Dergisi, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 61-82.
Albacete-Saez, C.A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M. and Llorens-Montes, F.J. (2007), “Service quality
measurement in rural accommodation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 45-65.
Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N. and Markata, D. (2002), “Can perceptions of service quality predict
behavioral intentions? An exploratory study in the hotel sector in Greece”, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 224-231.
Ananth, M., DeMicco, F.J., Moreo, P.J. and Howey, R.M. (1992), “Marketplace lodging needs of
mature travelers”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 12-24.
Atılgan, E., Akıncı, S. and Aksoy, S¸. (2003), “Mapping service quality in the tourism industry”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 412-422.
Service quality
in Antalya
491

23. Atkinson, A. (1988), “Answering the eternal question: what does the customer want”, The Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 12-14.
Barsky, J.D. (1992), “Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: meaning and measurement”,
Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-73.
Briggs, S., Sutherland, J. and Drummond, S. (2007), “Are hotels serving quality? An exploratory
study of service quality in the Scottish hotel sector”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,
pp. 1006-1019.
Choi, T.Y. and Chu, R. (2001), “Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in
the Hong Kong hotel industry”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 20, pp. 277-297.
Crick, A.P. and Spencer, A. (2011), “Hospitality quality: new directions and new challenges”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 463-478.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,
The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Duffy, J.A., Duffy, M. and Kilbourne, W. (1997), “Cross national study of perceived service
quality in long-term care facilities”, Journal of Aging Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 327-336.
Ekinci, Y., Prokopaki, P. and C¸obanog˘lu, C. (2003), “Service quality in Cretan accommodations:
marketing strategies for the UK holiday market”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 47-66.
Ekinci, Y., Riley, M. and Fife-Schaw, C. (1998), “Which school of thought? The dimension of
resort quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 63-67.
Eraqi, M.I. (2006), “Tourism service quality (TourServQual) in Egypt: the viewpoints of external
and internal customers”, Benchmarking an International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 469-492.
Erkus¸-O¨ ztu¨rk, H. (2009), “The role of cluster types and firm size in designing the level of network
relations: the experience of the Antalya tourism region”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 589-597.
Espinoza, M.M. (1999), “Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality measure: a
comparative study between Quebec and Peru”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 449-468.
Fornell, C. (2001), “The science of satisfaction”, Harvard Business Review, March.
Fullerton, G. (2005), “The service quality-loyalty relationship in retail services: does commitment
matter?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12, pp. 99-111.
Getty, J.M. and Getty, R.L. (2003), “Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers’ perceptions
of quality delivery”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Gilbert, G.R. and Veloutsou, C. (2006), “A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 298-308.
Goturkey.com (2013), Official Tourism Portal of Turkey, available at: www.goturkey.com/en/
city/detail/antalya (accessed 8 October 2013).
Gundersen, M.G., Heide, M. and Olsson, U.H. (1996), “Hotel guest satisfaction among business
travelers: what are the important factors?”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 72-81.
Ha, J. and Jang, S. (2010), “Effects of service quality and food quality: the moderating role of
atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 520-529.
IJCHM
26,3
492

24. Hernon, P., Nitecki, D.A. and Altman, E. (1999), “Service quality and customer satisfaction: an
assessment and future directions”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 9-17.
Heung, V.C.S. and Cheng, E. (2000), “Assessing tourists’ satisfaction with shopping in the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region of China”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38,
pp. 396-404.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Grayson, K. (1995), “Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: the voice of the consumer”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 277-303.
Ingram, H. and Daskalakis, G. (1999), “Measuring quality gaps in hotels: the case of Crete”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Johns, N. (1999), “What is this thing called service?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33
Nos 9/10, pp. 958-973.
Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), “Customers’ perceptions of online retailing service quality
and their satisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 817-840.
Juwaheer, T.D. (2004), “Exploring international tourists’ perceptions of hotel operations by using
modified SERVQUAL approach – a case study of Mauritius”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 350-364.
Juwaheer, T.D. and Ross, D.L. (2003), “A study of hotel guest perceptions in Mauritius”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-115.
Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarım, M. and Zaim, S. (2005), “A paradox of service quality in Turkey: the
seemingly contradictory relative importance of tangible and intangible determinants of
service quality”, European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Kelley, S.W. and Turley, L.W. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at
sporting events”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 161-166.
Khan, M. (2003), “ECOSERV, ecotourists’ quality expectations”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 109-124.
Knutson, B.J. (1988), “Frequent travelers: making them happy and bringing them back”, The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 83-87.
Kozak, M. (2001), “Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two
nationalities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 391-401.
Laroche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2005), “‘I’ versus ‘we’, how individualists and
collectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 279-308.
LeBlanc, G. and Nguyen, N. (1996), “An examination of the factors that signal hotel image to
travelers”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 32-42.
Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000), “The determinants of perceived service quality and its
relationship with satisfaction”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-231.
Lewis, B.R., Orledge, J. and Mitchell, V. (1994), “Service quality: students’ assessment of banks
and building societies”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-12.
Li, C., Lai, P.C., Chick, G.E., Zinn, H.C. and Graefe, A.R. (2007), “Cross-cultural models of
customer service: a case of country park recreation in Hong Kong”, Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 41-66.
McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A. and Hutchinson, J.C. (1993), “Hotel selection factors as they relate
to business travel situations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 42-48.
Service quality
in Antalya
493

25. Ma, Q., Pearson, J.M. and Tadisina, S. (2005), “An exploratory study into factors of service
providers”, Information & Management, Vol. 42, pp. 1067-1080.
Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005), “Dimensions of service
quality in developed and developing economies: multi country cross-cultural
comparisons”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-278.
Mei, A.W.O., Dean, A.M. and White, C.J. (1999), “Analysing service quality in the hospitality
industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 136-143.
Millan, A. and Esteban, A. (2004), “Development of a multiple-item scale for measuring customer
satisfaction in travel agencies services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 533-546.
Mohsin, A. and Lockyer, T. (2010), “Customer perceptions of service quality in luxury hotels in
New Delphi, India: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 160-173.
Nadiri, H. and Hussain, K. (2005), “Perceptions of service quality in North Cyprus hotels”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 469-480.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y. and Whyatt, G. (2011), “Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer
satisfaction”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 1009-1030.
Narayan, B., Rajendran, C. and Sai, L.P. (2008), “Scales to measure and benchmark service
quality in tourism industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 469-493.
Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G.J. (2006), “Service quality, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions in the service factory”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 59-72.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Phillips, W.J., Wolfe, K., Hodur, N. and Leistritz, F.L. (2011), “Tourist word of mouth and revisit
intentions to rural tourism destinations: a case of North Dakota, USA”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 14 No. 4.
Poolthong, Y. and Mandhachitara, R. (2009), “Customer expectations of CSR, perceived service
quality and brand effect in Thai retail banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 408-427.
Poon, W. and Low, K.L. (2005), “Are travelers satisfied with Malaysian hotels?”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 217-227.
Ramanathan, U. and Ramanathan, R. (2011), “Guests’ perceptions on factors influencing
customer loyalty”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Redman, T. and Mathews, B.P. (1998), “Service quality and human resource management: a
review and research agenda”, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-77.
Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-445.
Rivers, M.J., Toh, R.S. and Alaoui, M. (1991), “Frequent-stayer programs: the demographic,
behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of hotel steady sleepers”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 41-45.
Salazar, A., Costa, J. and Rita, P. (2010), “A service quality evaluation scale for the hospitality
sector: dimensions, attributes and behavioral intention”, Worldwide Hospitality and
Tourism Themes, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 383-397.
Sarı, C., Oban, R. and Erdogan, A. (2011), “Ornitho-Tourism and Antalya”, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 19, pp. 165-172.
IJCHM
26,3
494

26. Stewart, H., Hope, C. and Muhlemann, A. (1998), “Professional service quality: a step beyond
other services?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 209-222.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001), “Customer perceptions of
service quality: a critique”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998), “From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in Varadero,
Cuba”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006), “The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase
intentions”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207-217.
Turkish National Statistics (2011), Arriving Foreigners 2011, available at: www.tuik.gov.tr/
PreTabloArama.do, (accessed 5 May 2010).
Vinagre, M.H. and Neves, J. (2008), “The influence of service quality and patients’ emotions on
satisfaction”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 87-103.
Webster, C. and Hung, L. (1994), “Measuring service quality and promoting decentering”, The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 50-55.
Weiermair, K. (2000), “Tourists’ perceptions toward and satisfaction with service quality in the
cross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 397-409.
Wilensky, L. and Buttle, F. (1988), “A multivariate analysis of hotel benefit bundles and choice
trade-offs”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Wilkins, H., Merrilees, B. and Herington, C. (2007), “Towards an understanding of total service
quality in hotels”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 26, pp. 840-853.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), “Linking service quality, customer satisfaction,
and behavioral intention”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-17.
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role
of switching costs”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.
Yu¨ksel, A. and Yu¨ksel, F. (2001), “Comparative performance analysis: tourists’ perceptions of
Turkey relative to other tourist destinations”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 333-355.
Corresponding author
Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol can be contacted at: taylan_dortyol@yahoo.com.tr
Service quality
in Antalya
495
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints