INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
Published online 10 November 2011 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
Destination managers in rural states, like
North Dakota, understand the benefits of
tourism and, thus, the importance of studying
visitors’ intentions. This study investigated
visitors’ perceptions of destination image,
value and satisfaction and those variables’
relationship with future behaviors, with a
specific focus on their intent to return and
make recommendations to others. The results
showed that destination image directly
affects visitors’ perception of value and
revisit intentions, and it indirectly affects
satisfaction and recommendation intentions.
The results also demonstrate how tourism
practitioners can apply past models to their
destination. The overall findings support the
concept that a positive image is important to
attracting repeat visitors. Copyright © 2011
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 14 December 2010; Revised 10 September 2011;
Accepted 28 September 2011
Keywords: rural tourism; destination image;
perceived value; satisfaction; WOM; revisit
intention.
*Correspondence to: WooMi Jo Phillips, North Dakota
State University, Apparel, Design, and Hospitality
Management, NDSU Dept 2610 P.O. Box 6050, Fargo,
North Dakota 58108, USA.
E-mail: woomi.phillips@ndsu.edu
INTRODUCTION
T
ourism has been identified as an alternative
form for economic growth and regional
development in many rural areas. The
positive economic impacts of rural tourism has
been long researched (Fleischer and Felsenstein,
2000; Gartner, 2004; Cawley and Gillmor, 2008).
Tourism can diversify economies for rural com-
munities that can be reliant upon agriculture,
which at times suffers with weather and market
fluctuations. It can provide growth opportunities
for rural areas that are not likely to attract large
manufacturing firms.
North Dakota is a rural state, with an esti-
mated population of around 640 000 (US Census
Bureau, 2010). Without well-known natural
amenities, or a large population to attract the vis-
iting friends and relatives market, the state still
attracts plenty of visitors. With approximately
6.1 million overnight visitors and over 9 million
day visitors in 2008 (Longwoods International,
2009), tourism was the third largest industry in
the state, following agriculture and oil (Coon
and Leistritz, 2009). A Travel Industry Associ-
ation of America report showed the North
Dakota State Tourism office budget as ranking
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
advertisement dollars spent (Longwoods Inter-
national, 2009), and each visitor to the state adds
$81 to the gross product. In addition, the North
Dakota tourism industry has grown (10.7%)
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
94
faster than the national average (8.1%) (North
Dakota Department of Commerce, 2010).
Rural states similar to North Dakota see the
economic value of tourism and seek ways to
expand the industry. However, it is challenging
with limited competitive advantages and
tourism funding to promote its destinations
effectively. Creating desire and need (by devel-
oping more attractions and amenities) for
people to visit rural tourist destinations can
be difficult. For example, most tourists would
find more reasons and interests to visit New
York City for vacation than to visit a rural
destination in a Midwestern state.
Destination marketing campaigns and pro-
motions should play a major role in convincing
travelers to visit a destination. Other marketing
strategies like positive word of mouth (WOM)
from past visitors should be taken into consid-
eration for marketing purposes. Having past
visitors recommend the area through positive
WOM could be one of the most effective mar-
keting tools to bring new visitors, especially
to rural destinations. Good WOM cannot only
create the positive image of the destination
but also increase awareness of the destination
to people who are not very familiar with the
rural area. Generating repeat visits has been a
major challenge to many rural destinations,
due to the complexity and high costs of acces-
sing rural destinations (especially large coun-
tries as the USA) (Gartner, 2004), the lack of the
resources for quality services (Roberts, 1996)
and meeting visitors’ expectations (Hjalager,
1996; Opperman, 1996). For these reasons, tar-
geting people from nearby locations might have
been the easiest way to bring repeat visits. People
in neighboring locations might consider visiting
again because of the proximity and easy access,
or they are likely to pass through the destination
on their way to other destinations. However, this
would not be a proactive marketing strategy.
Creating revisit need and desire from a wider
market would help the area’s tourism growth.
This paper examined rural destination visi-
tors’ intentions to return and to recommend
travel to others by investigating key variables:
destination image, perceived value and satis-
faction. One of the prominent concepts in
studying tourists’ intention is destination
image. In the last three decades, destination
image has been studied as one of the most
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
W. M. J. Phillips et al.
important factors that influence tourists’ beha-
viors (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Baloglu and
McCleary, 1999; Chi and Qu, 2008; Lee, 2009;
Prayag, 2009; Assaker et al., 2011; Qu et al.,
2011). Creating and transmitting a positive des-
tination image is even more imperative for
rural destinations. Investing in developing the
destination image that visitors have for a rural
area can assist destination management organi-
zations in maximizing their benefits (Hsu et al.,
2004). Perceived value and overall satisfaction of
the destination also are important forms of the
visitors’ evaluations. The effects of these two
constructs on tourists’ behaviors have been well
documented (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Oh,
2000; Petrick, 2004; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Faullant
et al., 2008; Žabka et al., 2010, Assaker et al., 2011).
Although these are all well-recognized variables
in the study of tourists’ behaviors, they have not
been applied to a rural tourism setting
altogether. By studying the effects of these vari-
ables and the relationships among these con-
structs, important information about visitors’
WOM and revisit intentions to rural tourism
destinations can be provided to state tourism
officials, as well as community leaders, to assist
in planning marketing strategies and effectively
utilize their resources. The information can help
destination managers develop appropriate mar-
keting tactics to increase the number of visitors,
as well as increase visitors’ likelihood of return-
ing. Therefore, the aim of this study was to
assess the relationships among the three con-
structs (destination images, perceived value
and satisfaction) and the simultaneous effects
of these variables on intentions to revisit and
recommend a rural tourism destination, using
North Dakota visitors as the sample.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Destination image is defined as an individual’s
overall perceptions of a particular destination
(Gunn, 1972; Spencer and Dixon, 1983; Fakeye
and Crompton, 1991). Destination image has
been recognized as one of the most important
factors that influence tourist destination
choices and future behavioral intentions
(Crompton, 1979; Pearce, 1982; Milman and
Pizam, 1995; Court and Lupton, 1997; Baloglu
and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and Martín, 2004b;
Chen and Tsai, 2007). For example, when a
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations
tourist has a positive image of a tourism destin-
ation, she or he is more inclined to visit the des-
tination (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Birgit,
2001), whereas a negative perception of the
destination will not lead to a visit to the destin-
ation. Destination image also influences tour-
ists’ post-purchase evaluations and behaviors
such as perceived value and future behavior
intentions, including revisit intentions and
recommendations to others. A tourist who
holds a more positive image of a destination
perceives more value in traveling to the destin-
ation (Chen and Tsai, 2007) and is more likely
to revisit and recommend the destination to
others (Mansfeld, 1992; Court and Lupton,
1997). Thus, this study proposes the first three
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 Destination image positively
influences tourists’ revisit intention.
Hypothesis 2 Destination image positively
influences tourists’ intention to recommend.
Hypothesis 3 Destination image positively
influences tourists’ perceived value.
Perceived value is defined as a consumer’s
overall evaluation of what they paid for the
product (service) acquired (Zeithaml, 1988). It
is the net of consumers’ costs and benefits
(Lovelock, 2000). Although there is no mutual
agreement on the relationships to other vari-
ables, perceived value is recognized as an
important antecedent for customer satisfaction
and future behavioral intentions (Oh, 2000;
Petrick, 2004; Chen and Chen, 2010). For ex-
ample, a tourist with a high-perceived value
of a destination is more likely to be satisfied
with both the destination-specific attributes
and the overall visit experience and to revisit
the destination in the future. Perceived value
has been operationalized both on a unidimen-
sional and multidimensional scale. Because it
is the measurement of the customer’s overall
evaluation, the unidimensional (overall per-
ceived value) scale has shown sufficiency (Gale,
1994). The perceived value’s positive relation-
ships to satisfaction and behavioral intentions
have been shown in the literature (Cronin et al.,
2000; McDougall and Levesque, 2000; Chen
and Chen, 2010). This study looks at the
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
95
satisfaction in two dimensions: attribute satisfac-
tion and overall satisfaction. Thus, the next set of
hypotheses is proposed:
Hypothesis 4 Tourists’ overall perceived value
positively influences attribute satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5 Tourists’ overall perceived value
positively influences overall satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6 Tourists’ overall perceived value
positively influences revisit intention.
Hypothesis 7 Tourists’ overall perceived value
positively influences intent to recommend.
Although consumer satisfaction has been
one of the most researched variables in the
marketing literature, its definition has not been
agreed upon by researchers. Generally, satisfac-
tion has been understood as the degree to
which an individual believes that a consump-
tion experience brings positive feelings (Rust
and Oliver, 1994). It is the consumers’ holistic
evaluation of an experience (Oliver, 1997). In
tourism, satisfaction is the overall contented
feeling that a tourist felt from visiting a destin-
ation, which fulfilled his travel expectations
and needs. Researchers also have asserted that
overall satisfaction is influenced by satisfaction
from the individual attributes (Fornell, 1992;
Oliver 1993; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). More
specifically, overall satisfaction is the indivi-
dual’s subjective consumption evaluation that
is based on all the elements associated with
the experiences. Tourism includes various indi-
vidual attributes of all the products and ser-
vices such as transportation, accommodation,
foodservice and others (Pizam and Ellis,
1999). Overall satisfaction is made up of the
experiences with each of these encounters.
Each specific component of traveling to a des-
tination will influence the tourists’ overall satis-
faction (Seaton and Benett, 1996; Hsu, 2003).
Thus, this study considers both attribute and
overall satisfaction as antecedents to behav-
ioral intentions. Furthermore, there is a rela-
tionship between satisfaction and future
behavioral intentions (Kotler et al., 1994; Kozak
and Rimmington, 2000; Bigné et al., 2001; Chi
and Qu, 2008). Repurchase intention and
willingness to recommend to others are well-
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
96
established measurements for consumers’
future behaviors. Tourism literature has proven
that tourists with higher levels of satisfaction
are more inclined to visit the destination again,
willing to give more positive WOM and to rec-
ommend the destination to others (Kozak,
2001; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Thus, the next five
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 8 Tourists’ attribute satisfaction
positively influences their overall satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9 Tourists’ attribute satisfaction
positively influences their revisit intention.
Hypothesis 10 Tourists’ attribute satisfaction
positively influences their intentions to recom-
mend.
Hypothesis 11 Tourists’ overall satisfaction
positively influences their revisit intentions.
Hypothesis 12 Tourists’ overall satisfaction
positively influences their intentions to
recommend.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationships dis-
cussed above in a conceptual model.
METHODS
Survey instrument
The questionnaire was designed with the fol-
lowing major sections: destination image, per-
ceived value, attribute satisfaction, overall
satisfaction, tourist behavior intention, and
respondents’ demographic and travel behavior
information. The questions in the survey were
based on a review of literature and specific
destination characteristics. For destination
image, eight attributes that are more specific
to North Dakota destinations were extracted
Attribute
Satisfaction
Overall Behavioral
Destination
Image Perceived Intentions
Value
Overall
Satisfaction
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
W. M. J. Phillips et al.
from previous studies (Echtner and Ritchie,
1993; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and
Martin, 2004a). Respondents were asked to rate
their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree) with eight image attri-
butes: beautiful scenery, historic attraction,
interesting cultural activities, friendly people,
good reputation, outdoor activities, family
oriented and recreation activities available for
children. A single item was used to measure
the overall perceived value. Based on its defin-
ition, ‘perceived value is a consumer’s percep-
tion of the net benefits gained in exchange for
the costs incurred in obtaining the desired ben-
efits’ (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003). It is the con-
sumer’s overall assessment of what he or she
paid for the products obtained (Zeithaml,
1988) and also is the trade-off value between
perceived costs and benefits (Lovelock, 2000;
DeSarbo et al., 2001). Thus, it can be measured
by one overall evaluation item (Gale, 1994),
‘overall, it is good value for my money’. For at-
tribute satisfaction, there are specific attributes
that are important to each destination (Pizam
and Ellis, 1999; Mohsin and Ryan, 2003). For
this study, we asked respondents four attribute
items on lodging, restaurants, signage and ad-
mission fees that are most relevant. To differen-
tiate with the attribute satisfaction, the overall
satisfaction was measured by a single item, as
traditionally, it has been measured by a single
summative measurement (Fornell et al., 1996;
Bolton and Lemon, 1999), ‘your overall satis-
faction with this visit’ on a five-point scale
(1 = very disappointed and 5 = very satisfied)
(Bigné et al., 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007).
Respondents were asked about their future
behavior intentions, including revisit intentions
and WOM, which are widely used in the field
of tourism, (Chi and Qu, 2008; Yoon and Uysal,
2005; Zeithaml, 2000). The above measure-
ments were rated on a five-point Likert scale
where ‘1’ means strongly disagree and ‘5’
means strongly agree. For socio-demographic
information, respondents’ gender, age, educa-
tion level, marital status, income and past visit
experience were gathered.
Data collection
Data were collected via intercept surveys at
three tourist attractions in the state of North
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations 97

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. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
98 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
analysis using AMOS (16.0) was carried out to
test the relationships proposed in the path
model, which allows all the hypotheses to be
considered simultaneously. For constructs with
multiple items, destination image and attribute
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
satisfaction, the means were used in the path
model.
The path model showed stable goodness-
of-fit statistics (w² = 6.77, d.f. = 3, comparative fit
index) = 0.99; normed fit index = .99; and root
mean squared error of approximation = 0.063),
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations
indicating the measurement model fits the data
reasonably well (Hu and Bentler, 1995).
The results of path analysis are presented in
Table 2. Of the 12 paths, seven paths were
shown to be statistically significant. Destin-
ation image positively influenced overall per-
ceived value (b image value = 0.81, t = 23.86),
which, in turn, positively influenced both attri-
bute satisfaction (b value attribute-satisfaction =
0.22, t = 4.05) and overall satisfaction (b value
overall-satisfaction = 0.22, t = 4.17). Destination
image had a positive effect on revisit intention
(b image revisit = 0.27, t = 2.97) but not on recom-
mendation intention (b image recommenda-
tion = 0.13, t = 1.51). Overall perceived value
did not have any influence on recommendation
intentions (b value recommendation = 0.07,
t = .87) or revisit intentions (b value revisit =
0.13, t = 1.42). Attribute satisfaction posi-
tively affected overall satisfaction (b attribute
overall-satisfaction = 0.33, t = 6.24). It had posi-
tive influence on recommendation (b attribute-
satisfaction recommendation = 0.20, t = 3.76) but
not on revisit (b attribute-satisfaction revisit =
0.11, t = 1.79). Similarly, overall satisfaction had
a positive effect on recommendation (b overall-
satisfaction recommendation = 0.24, t = 4.41) but
not on revisit intentions (b overall-satisfaction
revisit = 0.11, t = 1.76).
Figure 2 illustrates all significant (solid lines)
and insignificant (dotted lines) paths. In
addition, the destination image accounted for
64% of the variances in overall perceived value;
the overall perceived value accounted for 5% of
variances in attribute satisfaction and 18% in
.13 (1.51)
.22
(4.05)
.81
Destination (23.86)
Overall
Image
Perceived value
.22
(4.17)
.27 (2.97)
Supported
Figure 2. Results of hypothesized path model.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
99
overall satisfaction. The model explained 22%
and 7% of the variances in revisit and recom-
mendation intentions respectively.
In addition, Table 3 shows the direct, indirect
and total effect of all variables. As it indicates,
destination image had a direct effect on the over-
all perceived value, which in turn had a direct
effect on attribute satisfaction. The attribute satis-
faction had a direct effect on overall satisfaction,
and overall satisfaction had a direct effect on both
recommendation and revisit intentions. Other
paths showed some indirect effects, including
perceived overall value to overall satisfaction,
attribute satisfaction to recommendation and
revisit intentions, and destination image to
recommendation and revisit intentions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Results from this study are consistent with some
past studies that conclude that destination
image affects revisit intentions (Bigné et al.,
2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Choi et al., 2011).
However, this study did not find any support
for the path between destination image and
WOM intention. Similar result was found in
other previous studies (Chi and Qu, 2008). In
their competing model, they did not find any
direct effect from destination image to destin-
ation loyalty (which includes WOM and revisit
intention). Most respondents indicated that they
had a positive image (mean values ranging from
4.0 to 4.5 on a five-point scale) of all three sites.
They are willing to revisit the destinations based
on the positive image that they have but are not
.20
Attribute
(3.76)
Satisfaction
.11
Recommend
.07 (1.79)
Intention
(.87)
-.13
(-1.42)
.33 Revisit
(6.24) Intention
.24
Overall (4.41)
Satisfaction
.11
(1.76)
Not supported
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
100
Table 3. Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect
Path
Destination image ! Perceived overall value
Perceived overall value ! Attribute satisfaction
Perceived overall value ! Overall satisfaction
Attribute satisfaction ! Overall satisfaction
Overall satisfaction ! Recommend intention
Overall satisfaction ! Revisit intention
Attribute satisfaction ! Recommend intention
Attribute satisfaction ! Revisit intention
Destination image ! Recommend intention
Destination image ! Revisit intention
willing to recommend the destinations to others.
Thus, destination image alone does not necessar-
ily play a role in encouraging people to recom-
mend the rural destination to other people.
This might be explained by the WOM sender’s
reluctance to share an opinion with others. The
WOM sender might be afraid that the receiver
has a different opinion or perception about the
destination and does not see the destination the
same way as the sender. Thus, the destination
image is only a good tool to gauge visitors’
own revisit intentions.
Consistent with Chen and Tsai (2007)’s
study, the overall perceived value has no sig-
nificant influence on tourists’ intentions in this
study. It rather indirectly influences the
intention through attribute and overall satisfac-
tion. Together with satisfaction, perceived
value also has been recognized as an important
antecedent to predict the behavior intentions
(Tian-Cole et al., 2002; Petrick, 2004). The insig-
nificant result provides empirical evidence to
elucidate the relationship. Including perceived
value as a direct antecedent of intention and
satisfaction as a moderator between perceived
value and intention would be a more reason-
able model.
Both attribute and overall satisfaction were
found to be predictors of only positive recom-
mendations (Bigné et al., 2001; Chi and Qu,
2008) but not the revisit intention. This was just
opposite as destination image only positively
influenced tourists’ revisit intention but not
the WOM. Visitors to three sites in this study
are willing to recommend to others based on
their satisfaction level. However, that is not
the case for visitors’ revisit intention. Recom-
mending or putting positive words about their
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
W. M. J. Phillips et al.
Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
0.80 — 0.80
0.22 — 0.22
0.22 0.07 0.29
0.33 — 0.33
0.24 — 0.24
0.11 — 0.11
0.20 0.08 0.28
0.11 0.03 0.14
0.13 0.15 0.28
0.27 —0.06 0.21
experiences from three touristic sites is easier
than making another trip to the same places
for themselves. Recommending or stating
positive words about their experiences is
easier than making another trip to the place(s).
The positive WOM does not cost anything.
On other hand, revisit intention involves their
decisions to go back to the same rural
destinations.
It is interesting to find that not all antece-
dents of the behavioral intentions affect WOM
and revisit intentions the same way. One affects
only WOM, whereas others influence only re-
visit intention. Both the attribute and overall
satisfactions were important in determining
their WOM intention only. The preliminary in-
vestigation for this study showed that close to
70% of respondents visited Medora and the
IPG as their primary destinations, and most of
them had visited these two destinations in the
past. Thus, visitors might have plenty of
experiences in these two sites in the past and
not plan to come back for a while. However,
they are willing to recommend these sites to
others based on the good experiences and satis-
faction at the destinations. Tourists might not
find many reasons to visit a rural destination
repeatedly; however, the destination image
that visitors have on the destination influence
their revisit intention. Consistent quality ser-
vice, amenities, and a variety of events and
programs might be the key factors that
attracted repeat visitors. For the Lewis and
Clark Interpretive Center, it seems that the visi-
tors happened to stop there on their way to
other destinations, and the majority of them
had never visited it before. Although this par-
ticular destination does not serve as a major
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations
destination, it is still important to provide
memorable visiting experiences for those pas-
sing through. A good short experience might
get them interested in visiting again. In
addition, even if they may not ever visit the
destination again in the future, they might tell
their family and friends about their visit and
recommend the destination to them. The study
results show that a positive image is important
to attracting repeat visitors to these three sites.
Overall, respondents in this study had a
positive image in regard to scenery, friendly
residents and an abundance of historical attrac-
tions. Therefore, the state should continue to
reinforce the image that residents are friendly
and that these sites have beautiful scenery
and several cultural attractions.
This study attempted to investigate the effect
of destination image, perceived value, attribute
and overall satisfaction on WOM and revisit
intentions for tourist sites in a US rural state.
The results are somewhat consistent with pre-
vious studies. It was found that different vari-
ables influence WOM and revisit intention
differently. Destination image and the visitors’
satisfaction are good indicators for revisit
intention and WOM intention respectively.
Based on this, the state offices need to make
sure they are building appropriate images and
aligning them with the destination attributes
and visitors’ perceptions. In addition, each
rural destination needs to keep the visitors’
attribute satisfaction level high by offering
adequate amenities and service so that the
overall experience at the destination is satisfac-
tory. Keeping visitors’ attribute and overall
satisfaction high is important for them to give
positive WOM to potential visitors.
This study has some limitations. First, the
data were only collected at three sites in North
Dakota, USA, which might not represent other
rural states with other types of attributes. Thus,
some caution is needed when generalizing the
study results. One future study suggestion
with the three sites would be comparisons of
the model results. Because three sites might
offer different products/service, generalizing
all variables might not be reasonable. Compar-
isons of three sites might provide more prac-
tical suggestions for each site. Second, the
visitors’ perceived value was tested via one
measurement item. Although one general item
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
101
to measure the overall perceived value is
adequate, the result between perceived value
and revisit and recommendation intention
might turn out differently. As other studies
suggested (Petrick and Backman, 2002; Duman
and Mattila, 2005), perceived value with differ-
ent measurement variables on service quality,
monetary price, nonmonetary price, reputation
and emotional response could be included in
future study. Third, there are other possible
attributes to measure specific satisfaction. Four
measurement items for attribute satisfaction
might not be enough to cover all facets of attri-
butes for the three sites studied. Various attri-
butes that are the most applicable for a specific
destination should be used (Valle et al., 2006;
Chi and Qu, 2008). In the same sense, the eight
destination image items might not be efficient
to measure the three dimensions of destination
image: cognitive, affective and overall image
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). A comprehensive
list of destination image measurement might
provide different test results. Many visitors to
Medora and IPG were repeaters, whereas major-
ity of the visitors to Lewis and Clark were the
first timers. Past visit to the destinations might
have influenced the study results differently.
Thus, controlling the prior visit variable might
provide different test results. The prior visit as
a moderator between independent variables
and tourist behavior intentions can be tested in
future research. This study took a comprehen-
sive approach to learn about visitors’ WOM
and revisit intention to rural destinations. Fur-
ther studies are needed to draw more concrete
conclusions about the relationships among these
variables.
REFERENCES
Assaker G. Vinzi VE. O’Connor P. 2011. Examining
the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and des-
tination image on tourist’ return pattern: A two
factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism
Management 32: 890–901.
Baker DA, Crompton JL. 2000. Quality, satisfaction
and behavioral intention. Annals of Tourism
Research 27(3): 785–804.
Baloglu S, McCleary KW. 1999. U.S. international
pleasure travelers’ images of four Mediterranean
destinations: A comparison of visitors and non-
visitors. Journal of Travel Research 38(2): 144–153.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
102
Beerli A, Martin JD. 2004a. Factors influencing
destination image. Annals of Tourism Research
31(3): 657–681.
Beerli A, Martín JD. 2004b. Tourists’ characteristics
and the perceived image of tourist destinations:
A quantitative analysis- a case study of Lanzarote,
Spain. Tourism Management 25: 623–636.
Bigné JE, Sánchez MI, Sánchez J. 2001. Tourism
image, evaluation variables and after-purchase
behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management
22(6): 607–616.
Birgit L. 2001. Image segmentation: The case of a
tourism destination. Journal of Service Marketing
15(1): 49–66.
Bitner MJ, Hubert AR. 1994. In Encounter satisfaction
versus overall satisfaction versus quality, Rust TR,
Oliver RL (Eds) Sage Publications: London.
Bolton RN, Lemon KN. 1999. A dynamic model of
customer’s usage of services: Usage as an ante-
cedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of
Marketing Research 36(2): 171–186.
Cawley M. Gillmor DA. 2008. Integrated rural
tourism: concepts and practice. Annals of Tourism
Research 35(2): 316–337.
Chen CF. Chen FS. 2010. Experience quality, per-
ceived value, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
tions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management
31: 29–35.
Chen Z, Dubinsky AJ. 2003. A conceptual model of
perceived customer value in E-commerce: A pre-
liminary investigation. Psychology and Marketing
20(4): 323–347.
Chen CF. Tsai DC. 2007. How destination image and
evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions.
Tourism Management 28: 175–187.
Chi CG, Qu H. 2008. Examining the structural rela-
tionships of destination image, tourist satisfaction
and destination loyalty: An integrated approach.
Tourism Management 29: 624–636.
Choi JG, Tkachenko T, Sil S. 2011. On the destination
image of Korea by Russian tourists. Tourism
Management 32: 193–194.
Coon R, Leistritz FL. 2009. Estimating North
Dakota’s Economic Base. Agribusiness & Applied
Economics Report No. 643. North Dakota State
University: Fargo.
Court B, Lupton RA. 1997. Customer portfolio devel-
opment: modeling destination adopters, inactives
and rejecters. Journal of Travel Research 36(1): 35–43.
Crompton JL. 1979. An assessment of the image of
Mexico as a vacation destination and the influ-
ence of geographical location upon that image.
Journal of Travel Research 17: 18–23.
Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Hult GTM. 2000. Assessing
the effects of quality, value and customer
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
W. M. J. Phillips et al.
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in
service environments. Journal of Retailing 76(2):
193–218.
DeSarbo SW, Jedidi K, Sinha J. 2001. Customer value
analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strategic
Management Journal 22(9): 845–57.
Duman T. Mattila AS. 2005. The role of affective fac-
tors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism
Management 26: 311–323.
Echtner CM, Ritchie JR. 1993. The measurement of
destination image: An empirical assessment.
Journal of Travel Research 31(4): 3–13.
Fakeye PC, Crompton JL. 1991. Image differences
between prospective, first-time, and repeat visi-
tors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of
Travel Research 30(2): 10–16.
Faullant R. Matzler K. Füller J. 2008. The impact of
satisfaction and image on loyalty: the case of
Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality
18(2): 1630178.
Fleischer A. Felsenstein D. 2000. Support for rural
tourism: Does it make a difference? Annals of
Tourism Research 27: 1007–1024.
Fornell C. 1992. A national customer satisfaction
barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
Marketing 56: 6–21.
Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant
BE. 1996. The American customer satisfaction
index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of
Marketing 60(October): 7–18.
Gale BT. 1994. Managing customer value: Creating
quality and service that customers can see. Free Press:
New York.
Gartner WC. 2004. Rural tourism development in
the USA. International Journal of Tourism Research
6: 151–164.
Gunn C. 1972. Vacationscape. Destination tourist
regions. Taylor and Francis/University of Texas:
Washington DC.
Hjalager A. 1996. Agricultural diversification into
tourism: Evidence of a European community
development programme. Tourism Management
17(2): 103–111.
Hsu CH. 2003. Mature motor-coach travelers’ satis-
faction: A preliminary step toward measurement
development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research 20(10): 1–19.
Hsu CH, Wolfe K, Kang S. 2004. Image assessment
for a destination with limited comparative advan-
tages. Tourism Management 25(1): 121–126.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In
Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and
applications, Hoyle R (Ed). Sage: Thousand Oaks,
CA; 76–99.
IPG. 2008. International Peace Garden official website.
Retrieved from: http://www.peacegarden.com.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
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
our place! the marketing of cities, regions, and
nations. Public Management 76: 15–18.
Kozak M. 2001. Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct
destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 28(3):
784–807.
Kozak M, Rimmington M. 2000. Tourist satisfaction
with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday
destination. Journal of Travel Research 38: 260–269.
Lee TH. 2009. A structural model to examine how
destination image, attitude, and motivation affect
the future behavior of tourist. Leisure Sciences 32:
215–236.
LewisAndClarkTrail.com. 1998. nd. Retrieved from:
http://www.lewisandclarktrail.com/section2/
ndcities/BismarckMandan/InterpretiveCenter/
index.htm
Longwoods International. 2009. 2008 Visitor Study:
Presentation report. Retrieved from: http://
www.ndtourism.com/uploads/resources/826/nd-
visitor-study-08.pdf
Lovelock CH. 2000. Service Marketing: People,
Technology, Strategy, 4th edn. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mansfield Y. 1992. Tourism: Toward a Behavioral
Approach, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McDougall GH, Levesque T. 2000. Customer sat-
isfaction with services: putting perceived value
into the equation. Journal of Service Marketing
14: 392–410.
Milman A, Pizam A. 1995. The role of awareness
and familiarity with a destination: The Central
Florida case. Journal of Travel Research 33(winter):
21–27.
Mohsin A, Ryan C. 2003. Backpackers in the northern
territory of Australia. International Journal of Tourism
Research 5(2): 113–121.
ND Department of Commerce. 2010. 2009 Annual
Report North Dakota Department of Commerce
Tourism Division. Retrieved from: http://www.
ndtourism.com/uploads%5Cresources%5C793%
5C2009-annual-report-for-web.pdf
ND Department of Tourism. 2002. Official website.
Retrieved from: http://www.ndtourism.com/
whatdo/attractions/attraction-details.asp?AID=
1441.
NPS. 2008. National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, visitation statistics Theodore Roosevelt
National Park. Retrieved from: http://www.nps.
gov/thro/parkmgmt/visitation-statistics.htm,.
Oh H. 2000. Diners’ perceptions of quality, value
and satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 41(3): 58–66.
Oliver RL.1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute
bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of
Consumer Research 20(December): 418–430.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
103
Oliver RL. 1997. Satisfaction:A behavioral perspective
on the consumer. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Opperman M. 1996. Rural tourism in southern
Germany. Annals of Tourism Research 23(1): 86–102.
Pearce PL. 1982. Perceived changes in holiday des-
tination. Annals of Tourism Research 9: 145–164.
Petrick JF. 2004. The roles of quality, value, and
satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’
behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research
42(4): 397–407.
Petrick JF, Backman SJ. 2002. An examination of the
construct of perceived value for the prediction of
golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
Research 41(1): 38–45.
Pizam A. Ellis T. 1999. Customer satisfaction and its
measurement in hospitality enterprises. Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
ment 11(7): 326–339.
Prayag G. 2009. Tourists’ evaluations of destination
image, satisfaction and future behavioral inten-
tions- The case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 26: 836–853.
Qu H, Kim LH, Im HH. 2011. A model of destin-
ation image: Integrating the concepts of the
branding and destination image. Tourism Manage-
ment 32: 465–476.
Roberts L. 1996. Barriers to the development of rural
tourism in the Bran area of Transsylvania. In Tour-
ism and culture: Image, identity and marketing,
Robinson M, Evans N, Callaghan: P (Eds), Busi-
ness Education Publishers: Sunderland; 185–196.
Rust RT, Oliver RL. 1994. Service quality: Insights
and managerial implication from the Frontier. In
Service Quality: New directions in theory and prac-
tice, Rust RT, Oliver RL. Sage: Thousand Oaks,
CA; 1–9.
Seaton AV. Benett MM. 1996. Marketing tourism pro-
ducts: Concepts, issues, cases. International Thomson
Business Press: London.
Spencer C, Dixon J. 1983. Mapping the development
of feelings about the city: A longitudinal study of
new resident’s affective maps. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 8: 373–383.
Tian-Cole S, Crompton JL, Willson VL. 2002. An em-
pirical investigation of the relationships between
service quality, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
sions among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal
of Leisure Research 34(1): 1–24.
Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). 2007.
2006–2007 Survey of U.S. State and Territory Office
Budgets. Author: Washington, DC.
US Census Bureau. 2010. State and County Quick-
Facts: North Dakota. Retrieved from: http://
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38000.html
Valle PO, Silva JA, Mendes J, Guerreiro M. 2006.
Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
104
intention: A structural and categorical analysis.
International Journal of Business Science and Ap-
plied Management 1(1): 25–43.
Yoon Y, Uysal M. 2005. An examination of the
effects of motivation and satisfaction on destin-
ation loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Manage-
ment 26(1): 45–56.
Žabka V, Brenčič MM, Dmitrović T. 2010. Modeling per-
ceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioral
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
W. M. J. Phillips et al.
intentions at the destination level. Tourism Man-
agement 31: 537–546.
Zeithaml VA. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price,
quality and value: A means-end model and syn-
thesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52: 2–22.
Zeithaml VA. 2000. Service quality, profitability, and
the economic worth of customers: what we know
and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 28(1): 67–85.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 93–104 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr