Next Article in Journal
Community-Based Actors and Participation in Rangeland Management. Lessons from the Western Highlands of Cameroon
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Expected Benefits towards Smart Hotels in Shaping Customer Behavior: Comparison by Age and Gender
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/su13041681
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Seasonal Variation in Visitor Satisfaction and Its Management Implications in Banff National Park

by
Dehui Christina Geng
,
John L. Innes
,
Wanli Wu
,
Weiwei Wang
and
Guangyu Wang
*
National Park Research Centre, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1681; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041681
Submission received: 13 January 2021 / Revised: 26 January 2021 / Accepted: 29 January 2021 / Published: 4 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Seasonal variations in tourist satisfaction is an important issue for the sustainable management of national parks worldwide. Visitors should have high-quality experiences in both the high season and the off-season. This research investigated visitor satisfaction patterns and determinants in Banff National Park in different seasons. The study was conducted through a face-to-face questionnaire survey that collected visitor demographic, expectation and satisfaction data in July 2019 (high season) and December 2019 (off-season) in Banff National Park. The data analyses were based on a sample of 741 respondents and were processed using principal component analysis, correlation analysis and logistic regression models for different seasons. There were significant differences in visitor satisfaction levels and their determinants in different seasons. The quality of the park’s natural characteristics and the park’s activities were the most important determinant of visitor satisfaction in the high season and off-season, respectively. The correlation between visitor satisfaction and expectations in the high season was generally negative, whereas all correlations in the off-season were positive. The results fill a knowledge gap by examining the seasonal differences in visitor experience and their determinants in the national park, and by building a bridge between visitor experience and tourism seasonality. The findings may assist both practitioners and scholars in understanding visitor expectations and satisfaction in different seasons. They may assist in the prioritization and effective management of the park to optimize the visitor experience in both seasons and achieve tourism sustainability.

1. Introduction

Tourism seasonality—the regularly occurring variation in the supply and demand of tourism—is one of the greatest challenges affecting sustainable tourism [1,2]. In the context of national parks, tourism seasonality represents a temporal and spatial imbalance in the number of visitors through the course of the year. It can also be represented in different elements, such as expenditures by visitors, traffic and other forms of transportation and the flow of employment [2,3,4,5,6]. Tourism seasonality and its associated social, economic and environmental impacts are generally perceived to produce negative effects on tourism destinations. It can be a major problem faced by national parks and needs to be tackled at the operational and marketing level [2,3,7,8,9].
The dimensions and influencing factors of seasonality have been analyzed in past research. Tourism seasonality has two dimensions, natural and institutional seasonality [10,11,12,13,14]. Natural (or physical) seasonality represents the temporal variation in the natural environment. The influencing factors of natural seasonality can be the climate and weather in national parks and their effects on particular seasonal qualities (such as leaf colour), and visitors’ personal preferences [14,15]. Another dimension of tourism variation is the institutional seasonality, which has three driving factors, including holidays, travel motivations and events held at the destination [12,16]. Both natural and institutional seasonality can cause significant impacts on the amount of tourism. The imbalance in visitor numbers in national parks has affected the optimal use of park facilities, services and resources [17,18], creating issues for sustainable management of tourism.
The negative impacts of tourism seasonality and the high levels of competition amongst tourism destinations (especially during the off-season) mean that national parks are paying greater attention to visitor satisfaction and experience management [19,20]. Park visitor satisfaction is defined as the congruence of expectation and experience, and can be indirectly measured assessing the reactions of visitors to national park attributes such as services, facilities and activities, as well as the set of natural characteristics that provide the identity of a national park [21,22,23]. Visitor satisfaction is considered to be one of the most important destination performance indicators and a source of competitive advantage that can increase visitor numbers and loyalty, contributing to tourism sustainability and political support [20,24,25,26,27].
For a national park to reduce the negative impacts of seasonality and achieve sustainable tourism, park managers need to evaluate visitor experiences at all times of the year [7,28]. However, past research is limited in two ways. First, although many studies have been done to investigate visitor satisfaction with tourism destinations, particularly during the high season(s), fewer studies examine visitor satisfaction during the off-season [29]. Second, there has been little research examining the impacts of the off-season on visitor satisfaction in order to bridge the knowledge gap between tourism seasonality and visitor satisfaction [7,30]. According to Baum and Lundtorp [31], the problem of understanding seasonality in tourism is related to the lack of deep and longitudinal studies. This paper is based on questionnaire data collected in both the summer and winter in Banff National Park. A comparison of visitor satisfaction is made between the high season and off-season in order to analyze seasonal variation in national park visitor satisfaction and provide recommendations for visitor experience management. In addition, recommendations for marketing strategies are suggested that can be used to mitigate and ameliorate the effects of tourism seasonality in national parks. This research is novel in that it builds a bridge between visitor experience and tourism seasonality in national parks, as well as analyzing the visitor experience and its determinants in the park both seasons. It also provides valuable national park management recommendations for both academics and practitioners to achieve sustainable tourism management.

2. Tourism Seasonality and Visitor Satisfaction in National Parks

2.1. Causes and Measures of Tourism Seasonality in Banff National Park

Banff National Park is a case of a tourism destination that has been affected by substantial tourism seasonality (Figure 1). It is Canada’s oldest national park, having been established in 1885, and has experienced an increasing number of visitors since 2010 [32]. In 2019, more than four million people visited Banff National Park, which makes it the most visited national park in Canada [33]. However, according to Figure 1, Banff National Park experiences significant tourism seasonality, and the level of seasonality has intensified, with an increasing proportion of visitors arriving in the high season. The greatest numbers of visits occur in July and August, with significantly fewer occurring in the winter months.
There are several potential causes of tourism seasonality in national parks. Natural seasonality in Banff National Park includes the temporal variations in the climate, hours of daylight, the variability of temperature and weather, all of which can cause seasonal tourism variation [34]. For example, weather can reduce visitor numbers in winter due to the access problems caused by snow blocking roads [11]. In particular, according to the research done by Lundtorp et al. [8], the further the tourist destination is from the equator, the higher the impact caused by seasonality. The impact at Banff may be attenuated slightly by the presence of the Lake Louise ski area.
Compared to natural seasonality, institutional seasonality is more variable [35,36]. Institutional seasonality refers to the temporal variation caused by human actions and associated policies and includes such factors as available leisure time, travel motivations, and the timing of special events in the destination [3,34,37]. Specifically, holidays and religious events directly affect the availability of travel time; social pressure, fashion, tradition and changing tastes are significant causes of travel habits and motivation. Activity opportunities, special events and sports seasons also can cause additional institutional seasonality [11,12,16,34]. The pleasant weather and long daytime combined with the tradition of summer family holidays are the primary reasons for the peak in visitor numbers during the summer months in Banff National Park.
National park seasonality can be measured by the numbers and expenditures of visitors, highway traffic and other types of transportation toward and within the park, as well as the employment at and occupancy of park accommodation [35,38]. Butler and Mao [10] first classified the three different patterns of seasonality, namely (i) one-peak, (ii) two-peak, and (iii) non-peak. One-peak seasonality is typically defined as a significant spike in park attendance during the high-season in the summer months; two-peak seasonality usually has two peak tourism seasons; non-peak seasonality is characterized by no seasonal variation of visitor numbers throughout the year. According to Figure 1, Banff National Park is categorized as a destination with one-peak seasonality occurring during the high-season of July and August.
To measure tourism seasonality, the seasonality ratio is calculated by using the month with the highest number of visitors divided by the average number of visitors per month, with a higher ratio indicating a higher degree of seasonality [38]. Based on data collected by the Government of Alberta [39], the tourism seasonality ratio of Banff National Park is calculated and represented in Table 1. IA seasonality ratio ≥ 2 can indicate extreme seasonality [40]. The tourism seasonality ratio at Banff National Park ranges from 2.13 to 2.38, indicating significant and persistent tourism seasonality.

2.2. Visitor Satisfaction and Seasonality

Visitor satisfaction is an indicator of the quality of visitor experiences in a tourism destination. It confers an advantage by influencing the decision to recommend and return [20,26,29]. In addition, with the rise of social media, it has become easier and popular for visitors to share their travel experiences about a tourism destination [41]. Various studies have found that national park visitor satisfaction is influenced by the park’s services and natural characteristics as well as a given visitor’s travel motivation, number of previous visits and expectation levels [42,43,44,45,46].
However, with the development of the tourism market, it is insufficient to analyze visitor satisfaction without integrating seasonality. Visitors tend to have a different perception, satisfaction and experience of a national park’s natural characteristics, services, facilities and activities in different seasons [2,7]. According to Chen et al. [47], some additional variables such as visitors’ personality, travel motivations and previous travel experiences also influence visitor overall satisfaction. These driving factors should be further explored to determine the impacts on visitor satisfaction combined with tourism seasonality in national parks and other tourism destinations.

2.3. Impacts and Implications of Tourism Seasonality in National Parks

The impacts of tourism seasonality have been investigated and analyzed from both the supply-side and the demand-side for various destinations. From the supply-side perspective, which includes local business owners, service and activity suppliers, employees and communities, the impacts of tourism seasonality can be summarized into three categories: economic impacts, facility impacts and ecological impacts [34,48]. The economic impacts of tourism seasonality mainly refer to employment fluctuations and reduced profits for local businesses. During the off-season, national park managers may have to lay off some seasonal employees, which also causes a lack of career opportunities for individuals in local and surrounding communities [49]. In addition, the off-season may also cause the loss of skills, experience and commitment amongst some workers [11,50,51,52].
The facility impacts generated from tourism seasonality in national parks include the over-utilization of facilities and pressure on the transport system and other infrastructure provided by parks during the high season [11,52]. From an environmental protection and conservation perspective, pollution issues and over-use of natural resources during the high season have caused serious problems in park ecosystems and for biodiversity [48].
Park seasonality has caused negative impacts on the demand-side. Congestion, overcrowding, higher prices, pollution and other infrastructure issues during the high season can significantly reduce the quality of visitor experience [16,48]. For example, shortage of park services and facilities caused by overcrowding during the high season in Banff National Park are becoming serious due to the increasing numbers of visitors. Banff National Park has had to shut down some popular natural scenic spots to protect wildlife habitat or conserve ecological integrity during the high season, which also significantly reduces visitor experience, especially for nature-based tourism [53,54]. Reducing the negative impacts of tourism seasonality and ensuring year-round high-quality visitor experiences need to be given more attention and require special management strategies. In view of these considerations, this research had three objectives, including i) comparing the differences in visitor satisfaction between high season and off-season in Banff National Park, ii) investigating the seasonal variation in visitor overall satisfaction determinants and the relationship between visitor expectation and satisfaction by seasons, and iii) assessing management implications and providing recommendations to reduce the negative impacts of tourism seasonality, ensuring a high level of visitor overall satisfaction in both seasons, and achieving long term tourism sustainability for national park management. The structural framework of the research is shown in Figure 2.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

As Canada’s first national park and a flagship for Parks Canada’s system, Banff National Park plays a significant role in providing a travel experience for visitors from all over Canada and the world [32]. The park was established in 1885 in a famous scenic natural and wilderness area in southwestern Alberta, Canada. Banff National Park is spread over 6641 km2 with three ecoregions, including montane, alpine, and subalpine. The unique geographical characteristics of the park provide spectacular natural beauty, including glaciers, forests, meadows, lakes and mountains. Banff welcomes more visitors than any other park in Canada, and is the third-most visited park in North America. However, the park is experiencing significant and persistent tourism seasonality, which has negatively affected not only the local employment and ecological integrity but also determines the under- or over-utilization of park facilities, further reducing the quality of visitor experiences and posing a challenge for park managers attempting to achieve sustainable tourism management [55].
Four popular sites with high visitor use within Banff National Park were selected for the survey, including the Town of Banff, Lake Louise, Banff Sunshine Ski Resort, and Lake Louise Ski Resort. The Town of Banff is a resort town located within the park, covering 3.93 square kilometres with approximately 8000 residents living in the town and tourism being the town’s main economic driver. Lake Louise is a glacial lake within the park and is renowned for its turquoise water. A variety of hiking trails and ski areas are accessible around the lake. Banff Sunshine and Lake Louise ski resorts provide the longest ski season in Canada and varied terrains for beginner, intermediate and expert skiers [56]. These four sites represent the natural, economic, social and cultural values found in the park.

3.2. Questionnaire Development

The questionnaires used for this research consisted of two parts and were available in English. Respondents took 10–15 min to complete the questionnaire survey. The questionnaires gauged indicators of visitor satisfaction concerning their expectations, their overall impression of the park, as well as collecting some demographic information. Satisfaction criteria include infrastructure, facilities, services and activities provided by Banff National Park. Visitor satisfaction was measured using a five-point Likert type ordinal scale with the following options: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied.

3.3. Survey Procedure

A pre-test was conducted with a small sample of respondents from tourism-related staff and students to identify any problems such as ambiguous wording and to judge how long the questionnaire would take to administer. The final questionnaires were distributed using face-to-face surveys in both July and December (i.e., the survey was conducted in person by asking respondents to complete the questionnaire). One advantage of face-to-face questionnaire surveys is the high response rate compared to other methods of questionnaire distribution. The questions were simple, general and non-sensitive, which reduced the probability that participant responses would be affected by questionnaire bias. The responses were anonymous, reducing potential participants’ concerns about privacy when answering questions.
Sampling took place at the four sites in the park daily from 8 am to 5 pm, including weekends and national holidays in July 2019 and December 2019. Questionnaires were distributed to a total of 778 visitors. 752 questionnaires were returned, and 741 of these had valid answers, resulting in an effective response rate of 95%. Incomplete questionnaires could be attributed to visitor fatigue, busy schedules and other concerns; incomplete questionnaires were rejected from the statistical analysis.

3.4. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

A comparative analysis was conducted to determine the seasonal variation of visitor demographic and satisfaction data between high season and off-season in Banff National Park, using SPSS 26.0. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted to reduce the dimension of the sub-criteria and to categorize the key factors influencing visitor experience in the park. Correlation analysis between visitor expectations and experiences with the park infrastructure, facilities and services, activities and natural resources was also conducted to investigate potential seasonal differences. A logistic regression analysis was used to build the visitor experience model and explore the impact of the factors affecting visitor satisfaction in the different seasons.

4. Results

4.1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on Visitor Satisfaction Criteria by Seasons

Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to reduce the dimensions of the 27 satisfaction variables. This resulted in different component groups of visitor satisfaction variables between high season and off-season in the park (Table 2).
The principal components of visitor satisfaction variables between July and December are shown in Table 2. For July, the principal component analysis generated eight components based on the respondents’ questionnaires collected, explaining 78.1% of the total visitor satisfaction variables. The most important component in the high season was the natural characteristics, encompassing flora, fauna, landscape view and trip maps. For December, there were only six components for visitor satisfaction variables, with the KMO = 0.909. Unlike the results for the summer season, park activities played a more significant role in visitor satisfaction variables, including tubing, hostels, libraries, picnic and camping grounds, educational programs, interpretation activities, hot springs and dog sledding activities.
For both seasons, the natural characteristics received high satisfaction scores from visitors. In summer, visitors were least satisfied with the park infrastructure, with this receiving significantly lower satisfaction scores compared to other criteria. Visitors generally more satisfied with visits made during off-season than in high season.

4.2. Comparison of Visitor Expectation and Satisfaction Correlation by Seasons

A correlation analysis was conducted based on the results of the principal components calculation of visitor satisfaction and expectations. The results of the satisfaction and expectation correlations are presented in Table 3.
The relationships between visitors’ expectations and satisfaction were significantly different between seasons (Table 3). During the park’s high season, visitor satisfaction was mostly negatively correlated with their expectations of park amenities, whereas during the off-season, visitor satisfaction was positively correlated with expectation. In the high season, visitor satisfaction was generally significantly correlated with expectations of the park’s infrastructure, facilities, activities and natural characteristics, while during the off-season, visitor satisfaction was not statistically correlated with the expectations for park infrastructure.

4.3. Logistic Regression Determinants Comparison between High-Season and Off-Season

A logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the different determinants of visitor satisfaction between the summer and the winter, and how the same determinants influenced overall visitor satisfaction in the different seasons. Two models were generated, one for the high season and one for the off-season (Table 4). The dependent variable was overall visitor experience, and the independent variables included the components generated by the PCA, namely visitor satisfaction with the park’s nature, facilities, services and activities. The independent variables also included visitor gender, age, residency status, travel group composition, how they first heard about the park, travel motivation, length of stay and means of transportation.
Model 1, which explained 38% of the overall satisfaction, represents the determinants during the high season. The satisfaction levels of all criteria had significant impacts and positively influenced overall visitor satisfaction. None of the data related to visitor demographics had a statistically significant effect on the overall visitor experience.
Model 2, developed for the off-season, explained 40% of the overall visitor satisfaction during the off-season. Similar to the first model, overall satisfaction was significantly affected by the level of visitor satisfaction with park nature, facilities, services and activities. Residency status had a significant impact on overall visitor experience, with international visitors tending to have a higher level of overall experience compared to local visitors. However, the other demographic variables had no impact on overall visitor experience.
Both models indicate that the overall visitor experience was significantly affected by visitor satisfaction with the four park criteria. The park’s natural characteristics play a more important role in determining the overall experience in summer compared to winter, whereas park activities predominate in determining visitors’ overall experience in winter. Older and female visitors were generally more satisfied with their experience during the summer in Banff National Park, whereas younger and male visitors tended to have a higher quality of visit in the winter.

5. Discussion

5.1. Visitor Satisfaction and Its Seasonal Variation

There was a significant seasonal difference in the principal components of visitor satisfaction and the impact level of each component. In the park’s high season, the satisfaction with natural characteristics was one of the components explaining the most variance. During the park’s off-season, visitor satisfaction with park activities played the most important role among the six components. This may be because a major travel motivation in winter is to participate in winter activities such as skiing and snowboarding. A greater proportion of the visitors in summer come for sightseeing, and the park’s natural characteristics are therefore an important factor. Outdoor recreation was one of the important travel motivations during the park’s off-season, which explains why the quality of park activities was the most important component in the winter and was less important in the summer.
Visitor satisfaction with park infrastructure and services were important in both seasons. The quality of park infrastructure is an important factor influencing visitors’ satisfaction, as has been demonstrated in previous studies [57,58,59,60,61]. Among the various factors in the infrastructure component, parking lots and washrooms were the two most important determinants. Crilley et al. [62] also found that clean and well-presented toilet facilities were very important in determining visitor satisfaction. Previous studies [44,63,64] have demonstrated that service quality is an essential factor influencing visitor satisfaction in national parks, and is also widely noted as an important factor in determining visitor loyalty (i.e., revisit motivation). Services are particularly relevant in national parks, unlike other types of tourist attractions such as theme parks. Natural characteristics and themes are inherent in national parks and other PAs, and thus, visitor services are the element that can be modified and improved to increase visitor attachment [65].
Natural characteristics received high satisfaction from visitors while their satisfaction with park infrastructure and services were lower in both seasons. This is consistent with previous studies that have found the natural environmental dimensions of a national park are usually the attribute generating the greatest amount of satisfaction [2,42,62,66]. Although satisfaction levels with natural characteristics, activities, infrastructure and services were similar between seasons, visitors in the summer tended to have higher satisfaction levels with natural characteristics and activities and lower satisfaction levels with park infrastructure and services compared to the park’s off-season. There are at least two possible reasons for these results. First, according to the socio-demographic characteristics of visitors (Appendix A), most visitors travelling to Banff National Park were from nearby cities and provinces, and therefore, the natural characteristics and activities may have been less refreshing to locals compared to international visitors. During the high season, the activities provided by the park are more diverse and include more environmental education and interpretation programs, which are more suitable for all visitors. For example, Parks Canada provides more guided hiking tours and outdoor learning activities in summer and this may have increased the satisfaction level of visitors. Activities available in the off-season are generally designed for younger visitors and are oriented towards winter sports. A second explanation for the result may be related to tourism seasonality in Banff. The number of visitors in July 2019 was four times that of December 2019 in Banff, resulting in crowding of park infrastructure (e.g., parking lots and washrooms) and services (e.g., visitor centers) in the high season, and thus lower satisfaction levels with those park attributes. This is supported by the frustration expressed by visitors over the lack of available parking spots during their trip, especially in the Town of Banff.

5.2. Visitor Expectation, Satisfaction and Travel Types by Season

Based on the results of the correlation between visitor satisfaction and expectations, there are significant differences between the park’s high season and off-season. One significant seasonal difference is that summer visitor satisfaction is generally negatively correlated with expectations of the park’s infrastructure and services and positively correlated with the park’s activities and natural characteristics. All correlation between visitor satisfaction and expectations with park services, activities and natural characteristics are positive in winter. There was no significant correlation between visitors’ expectations of infrastructure and visitor satisfaction during the off-season. This may be related to the greater proportion of international visitors in summer and the greater proportion of locals in winter (Appendix A). According to previous studies, local visitors generally come with clear expectations in terms of the quality and variability of infrastructure, services, activities and natural characteristics that a certain destination provides [67,68]. Parks therefore tend to have positive or no correlation between visitor expectations and satisfaction for locals. The resulted presented here are also consistent with a previous study that found that local tourists’ expectations of a destination are positively correlated with satisfaction with infrastructure and facilities such as accommodation, whereas for international visitors, the levels of expectation and satisfaction are positively correlated with a park’s aesthetic views, food and information [67].
Another significant seasonal variation was the generally negative correlations between visitor satisfaction and expectations in the high season, and positive correlations in the off-season. The result indicating a negative correlation in the park’s high season contrasts with most other research, while the relationship between visitor satisfaction and expectation in the off-season is consistent with previous literature. Many studies have argued that there is a direct positive correlation between visitor satisfaction and expectations [41,69,70,71]. There are several possible reasons for the difference between these previous studies and the current research. First, visitor expectation here is defined as the anticipation of variables such as park product or experience [72]. It is widely accepted by most researchers that a positive correlation occurs when a visitor’s expectation is fulfilled or exceeded [73,74]. However, due to the large numbers of visitors in Banff National Park during the high season, over-crowding of park infrastructure and services is a serious issue that leads to visitor dissatisfaction.
The relationship between visitor satisfaction and correlation is controversial. Hui et al. [75] argued that a positive correlation occurs when a tourism destination’s performance matches visitor expectations. However, this relationship may break down when the perception level is below expectations but also different or even higher than expected before the trip. This also reflects visitors’ socio-demographic characteristics. The expectations held by international visitors to Banff are usually based on advertising or recommendations. This can lead to differences between their perception of park performance and their expectations, which may the reason for the negative correlation in the park’s high season when international visitors dominate the population.
The seasonality of visitor satisfaction and expectations could be a result of the different types of visitors in high season and off-season. The questionnaire results indicate that there are more sightseeing-type visitors in the high season and more vacation-type visitors in the off-season. Sightseeing visitors usually have high expectations and requirements for the park’s attributes and are critical if these are below expectation. The correlation between visitor satisfaction and expectation is negative in summer when the park performance fails to meet their expectations. During the park’s off-season, most visitors come to Banff for vacation purposes, such as spending time with family and participating in winter activities, purposes and expectations which are easier to satisfy. Such visitors usually have low expectations of the infrastructure quality or consider it relatively less important but value the travel experience with their companions.

5.3. The Satisfaction Determinants of Overall and Target Group Visitors and Its Seasonality

Previous studies have demonstrated that visitor satisfaction is a multidimensional concept that is associated with different aspects of services and products provided by tourism destinations, and that each of the aspects has different impacts in determining overall visitor satisfaction [29,76,77,78,79]. According to the results of both logistic regression models that represent visitor satisfaction determinants, overall satisfaction is generally significantly affected by the same determinants. Based on the models, all dimensions of satisfaction level (natural characteristics, infrastructure, services and activities) positively impact overall visitor satisfaction in both the high season and the off-season. Among the four satisfaction dimensions, park infrastructure and services are the two most important determinants. Based on the literature review by Matzler and Sauerwein [80], there are three types of factors determining overall visitor satisfaction, including basic factors, performance factors and excitement factors. Basic factors are regarded as being guaranteed by the tourism destination, such as park infrastructure, and do not need to be specific but determine the minimum requirements and satisfaction threshold for visitors. These factors can generate a high level of visitor dissatisfaction if they are not fulfilled. Performance factors can increase visitor satisfaction levels if they successfully meet visitors’ needs and desires, and excitement factors only increase visitor satisfaction and never cause dissatisfaction if those factors are not fulfilled. This explains the results found in this study that park infrastructure and services, as two basic park factors, play the most important role in determining visitor overall satisfaction in both seasons.
The differences in satisfaction determinants between seasons include the result that residency status significantly affects overall visitor satisfaction in the park’s off-season, whereas it does not appear to be a significant determinant during the high season. Previous research has shown that nationality has an impact on visitor satisfaction [81,82]. For example, international visitors usually have more international exposure and so their past travel experiences influence their expectations and experiences, and hence have an impact on visitor satisfaction. In addition, different cultures have different views on the quality and novelty of park attributes [67]. According to the results presented here, during the off-season, international visitors have the highest overall satisfaction, followed by Canadian visitors and with local visitors having the lowest overall satisfaction. Combined with the information gained from the interviews, locals generally were dissatisfied with the reasonableness of costs within Banff, whereas international visitors generally held a satisfied or neutral attitude towards the reasonableness of prices. This can be explained knowledge asymmetry: local people usually know the local market price for park products, and that the price of products sold in Banff National Park is typically 15% higher than the price in Calgary. This leads to dissatisfaction amongst visitors from Alberta. International visitors usually come to Banff National Park as a once in a lifetime experience and price is less important to them. The results also suggest that older visitors tend to have a higher level of satisfaction in the high season, whereas younger people are more satisfied during the winter, which may be to differences in the activities undertaken by these two groups. However, similar to the results from the previous study, visitor age only had a limited impact on determining their overall satisfaction [83]. In addition, visitor gender, age, travel group composition, sources of knowledge about the park, travel motivation, duration, and means of transportation were not significant determinants affecting visitor overall satisfaction in either season.

5.4. Management Implications for Tourism Seasonality

Tourism seasonality usually has stable and well-established patterns with predictable elements [84,85]. Park managers can consequently investigate seasonality patterns and implement different strategies based on seasonal variations in visitor numbers, and can reduce potential negative impacts [85]. This paper has a number of implications for park management, and these are described below, also taking into account the results of other related studies.
Reducing the divergence between visitor expectations and satisfaction is an important step, especially amongst visitors in the high season. It is important for park managers to investigate seasonal variations in visitor satisfaction levels and identify the determinants of visitor satisfaction and the causes of visitor dissatisfaction in different seasons [20]. Chi and Qu [30] point out that although it is extremely hard to control all the park elements influencing overall visitor satisfaction, it is still possible to manipulate and manage some of the important ones. Recognizing the seasonal variations in visitor satisfaction is an important step, and may provide a simpler way to improve visitor satisfaction levels. Ensuring the quality of park infrastructure and the variability of park services in the high-season is would help reduce over-crowding and the subsequent visitor dissatisfaction. [7].
Creating artificially high expectations creates problems, and the use of images and information that reflect reality ensures that expectations are set at the appropriate level. Consequently, advertising strategies are important [67,86]. Based on our results on the seasonal correlation between visitor expectation and satisfaction, we suggest that Banff National Park should focus on building realistic portraits of the condition of the park’s infrastructure, services and nature during the high season. It is important to let visitors be aware of the crowding and over-utilization of park infrastructure such as parking lots and washrooms in the summer to avoid creating visitor expectations that cannot be satisfied. For the off-season, because of the positive correlation between visitor expectations and satisfaction, park managers can use advertising strategies to raise visitor expectations. As discussed, lower expectations may not lead to higher satisfaction, and there may only be higher visitor satisfaction when visitors’ expectations and experiences match each other [67].
Park managers could instigate incentives to reduce the summer peak by encouraging more visitors at other times of the year. Seasonal pricing with discounts in the off-season could be one potential strategy [16,87]. It is also important make greater efforts to advertise the opportunities for international visitors in winter. For example, utilizing the natural characteristics and advertising snow scenes in Banff could attract more international visitors, especially from areas that rarely have snow.

6. Conclusions

It is important for park managers to ensure high-quality visitor experiences in both the high season and the off-season ifseasonality issues are to be addressed. This research fills a knowledge gap by determining the seasonal variation in visitor satisfaction determinants, investigating the seasonal correlations between visitor expectations and satisfaction, and providing management implications to not only reduce the negative impacts of tourism seasonality, but also utilize the seasonality as an opportunity to prioritize and conduct different seasonal strategies.
The results indicate that the quality of Banff National Park’s natural characteristics is the most important visitor satisfaction determinant in the high season, and that park activities are the most significant component that determines visitor satisfaction level in the off-season. Park managers could utilize this seasonal difference to prioritize their management focus by seasons and increase the quality and variability of park activities. This would be especially important during the off-season when park activities are most important determinant but receive the lowest satisfaction level. It is important for the park to continuously provide high-quality services and infrastructure year-round since these two elements play an important role in determining the level of visitor satisfaction in both the high season and the off-season. It is also important to reduce the gap between visitor expectations and satisfaction in the high season.
One limitation of this research should be addressed. The weather in Banff National Park during the survey in both seasons was not included in the analysis. However, daily weather can be a potential determinant that causes visitor satisfaction to fluctuate. For example, the blizzard that occurred in December 2019 significantly reduced visitor satisfaction with the cell and network services provide by Banff National Park. Further research is needed on how to account for the impact of weather on the results. Future studies could also focus on the analysis of the impact of cultural differences on visitor experience level and determinants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.C.G., G.W.; Methodology, D.C.G. and W.W. (Weiwei Wang); Software, D.C.G.; Format Analysis, D.C.G., J.L.I., W.W. (Wanli Wu), W.W. (Weiwei Wang), G.W.; Writing—Original Data Preparation, D.C.G.; Writing—Review & Editing, D.C.G., J.L.I., W.W. (Wanli Wu), W.W. (Weiwei Wang), G.W.; Supervision, G.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by APFNet (2017SP2-UBC).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board via RISe-UBC (H20-00154).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available on request.

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by APFNet (2017SP2-UBC) and the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia. We are also immensely grateful to Darren Enns (Director, Planning and Development) and Randall McKay (Senior Planner) from Town of Banff, Benjamin Curry (Geomatics Coordinator) from Parks Canada, Silvio Adamo (Fire Chief and Director from Banff Fire Department, and Harvey Locke (Co-founder and Strategic Advisor) from Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, who provide their insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Visitor socio-demographic characteristics by seasons in Banff National Park.
Table A1. Visitor socio-demographic characteristics by seasons in Banff National Park.
TotalHigh-SeasonOff-Season
(n = 741)(n = 291)(n = 450)
Gender
Male54.40%49.50%57.60%
Female45.60%50.50%42.40%
Age
20 and under17.30%8.60%22.90%
21−4050.60%40.50%57.10%
41−6021.80%31.30%15.80%
61 and over10.30%19.60%4.20%
Residency status
Local (AB and BC)41.40%18.90%55.90%
Canada (outside AB and BC)12.70%20.60%7.60%
Outside Canada45.90%60.50%36.50%
Group composition
Travel alone7.00%6.50%7.30%
Multi-person93.00%93.50%92.70%
Source (multiple choice)
Advertisement6.90%10.80%3.70%
Webpage9.90%15.30%5.50%
Brochure3.60%5.40%2.20%
Friends or relatives63.60%49.90%74.70%
Others16.00%18.60%13.90%
Reason for visit (multiple choice)
Pressure reduction8.70%11.00%7.40%
Natural recreation75.70%70.20%78.60%
Environment education5.10%7.20%4.00%
Others10.50%11.60%10.00%
Transportation (multiple choice)
Vehicle73.00%72.98%74.80%
Plane20.80%20.81%24.80%
Bicycle0.60%0.62%0.30%
Others5.60%5.59%0.10%
Times for visiting
140.00%56.60%31.00%
211.40%16.40%8.70%
34.70%5.80%4.10%
Over 343.90%21.20%56.20%

References

  1. Cuccia, T.; Rizzo, I. Tourism seasonality in cultural destinations: Empirical evidence from Sicily. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Hall, C.M.; Stefánsson, Þ. Senses by Seasons: Tourists’ Perceptions Depending on Seasonality in Popular Nature Destinations in Iceland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Butler, R.W. Seasonality in tourism: Issues and implications. In Tourism: The State of the Art; Seaton, A., Ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  4. Connell, J.; Page, S.J.; Meyer, D. Visitor attractions and events: Responding to seasonality. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Duro, J.A. Seasonality of hotel demand in the main Spanish provinces: Measurements and decomposition exercises. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Turrión-Prats, J.; Duro, J.A. Tourist seasonality and the role of markets. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Frleta, D.S.; Jurdana, D.S. Seasonal variation in urban tourist satisfaction. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 344–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lundtorp, S.; Rassing, C.R.; Wanhill, S. The off-Season is ‘No Season’: The Case of the Danish Island of Bornholm. Tour. Econ. 1999, 5, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. O’Mahony, B.; Galloway, G.A.; Bergin-Seers, S.; Lee, C.; McMurray, A. Seasonality in the Tourism Industry: Impacts and Strategies. 2008. Available online: https://sustain.pata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/80085Lee_TourismIndustSeasonality-WEB.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  10. Butler, R.W.; Mao, B. Seasonality in tourism: Problems and measurement in Quality Management in Urban Tourism; Murphy, P.E., Ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1997; pp. 9–23. [Google Scholar]
  11. Commons, J.; Page, S. Managing Seasonality in Peripheral Tourism Regions: The Case of Northland, New Zealand. In Seasonality in Tourism; Elsevier BV: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 153–172. [Google Scholar]
  12. Goulding, P.J.; Baum, T.G.; Morrison, A.J. Seasonal trading and lifestyle motivation: Experiences of small tourism businesses in Scotland. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2005, 5, 209–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baron, R.R.V. Seasonality in Tourism: A Guide to the Analysis of Seasonality and Trends for Policy Making; Economist Intelligence Unit: London, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hartmann, R. Tourism, Seasonality and Social Change. Leis. Stud. 1986, 5, pp. 25–33. Available online: https://www.skibig3.com/three-banff-lake-louise-ski-resorts/ (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  15. Kim, J.; Thapa, B.; Jang, S.; Yang, E. Seasonal Spatial Activity Patterns of Visitors with a Mobile Exercise Application at Seoraksan National Park, South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Jang, S.S. Mitigating tourism seasonality: A quantitative approach. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 819–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lundmark, L.J.T.; Fredman, P.; Sandell, K. National Parks and Protected Areas and the Role for Employment in Tourism and Forest Sectors: A Swedish Case. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Park, S.; Yaduma, N.; Lockwood, A.J.; Williams, A.M. Demand fluctuations, labour flexibility and productivity. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 59, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oh, H.; Fiore, A.M.; Jeoung, M. Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications. J. Travel Res. 2007, 46, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Y. More Important Than Ever: Measuring Tourist Satisfaction; Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University: Queensland, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Arabatzis, G.; Grigoroudis, E. Visitors’ satisfaction, perceptions and gap analysis: The case of Dadia–Lefkimi–Souflion National Park. Policy Econ. 2010, 12, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bigné, J.E.; Andreu, L.; Gnoth, J. The theme park experience: An analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 833–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chhetri, P.; Arrowsmith, C.; Jackson, M. Determining hiking experiences in nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amin, V.L.; Chan, M.K.Y.; Omar, M.S. Enhancing Visitor Experiences Using Thematic Interpretation in Park Guiding Service in Sarawak National Parks. In Proceedings of the SHS Web of Conferences, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia; Sabah, Malaysia, 19 November 2014, Volume 12, p. 1025.
  25. Bowen, D.; Clarke, J. Reflections on tourist satisfaction research: Past, present and future. J. Vacat. Mark. 2002, 8, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ritchie, B.J.R.; Crouch, G.I. The competitive destination: A sustainable perspective. Tour. Manag. 2000, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rodger, K.; Moore, S.A.; Taplin, R. Visitor Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Protected Areas: A Review and the Future. 2012. Available online: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/16887/1/park_loyality_Tech_Report_MU_Oct_2012.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  28. Fuchs, M.; Weiermair, K. New perspectives of satisfaction research in tourism destinations. Tour. Rev. 2003, 58, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kozak, M.; Rimmington, M. Tourist Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an Off-Season Holiday Destination. J. Travel Res. 2000, 38, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chi, C.G.Q.; Qu, H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 624–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Baum, T.; Lundtorp, S. Seasonality in Tourism: An Introduction. In Seasonality in Tourism; Elsevier BV: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  32. Parks Canada. Parks Canada Attendance 2018-19. 2019. Available online: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/attend (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  33. Statista. Number of Visitors to Banff National Park in Canada from 2011 to 2019. 2020. Available online: https://0-www-statista-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/statistics/501614/visitors-to-banff-national-park/ (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  34. Cannas, R. An overview of tourism seasonality: Key concepts and policies. Almatourism J. Tour. Cult. Territ. Dev. 2012, 3, 40–58. [Google Scholar]
  35. Butler, R. Seasonality in Tourism: Issues and Implications. In Seasonality in Tourism; Elsevier BV: Chichester, UK, 2001; pp. 5–21. [Google Scholar]
  36. Koenig-Lewis, N.; Bischoff, E.E. Seasonality research: The state of the art. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2005, 7, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, C.-K.; Song, H.-J.; Mjelde, J.W. The forecasting of International Expo tourism using quantitative and qualitative techniques. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 1084–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Karamustafa, K.; Ulama, S. Measuring the seasonality in tourism with the comparison of different methods. Euromed J. Bus. 2010, 5, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Government of Alberta. Alberta Tourism Market Monitor (Annual). 2020. Available online: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/6848638 (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  40. Ćorluka, G.; Vukušić, A.; Kelić, I. Measuring tourism seasonality: Application and comparison of different methods. In Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija. Biennial International Congress. Tourism & Hospitality Industry; Faculty of Tourism & Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka: Opatija, Croatia, 2018; pp. 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  41. Vérain, L. Tourist Motives, Expectations and Satisfaction. Master’s Thesis, Wageningen University, Gelderland, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  42. Agyeman, Y.B.; Aboagye, O.K.; Ashie, E. Visitor satisfaction at Kakum National Park in Ghana. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2019, 44, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rodger, K.; Taplin, R.; Moore, S.A. Using a randomised experiment to test the causal effect of service quality on visitor satisfaction and loyalty in a remote national park. Tour. Manag. 2015, 50, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thapa, B.; Lee, J. Visitor experience in Kafue National Park, Zambia. J. Ecotourism 2016, 16, 112–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tian-Cole, S.; Crompton, J.L.; Willson, V.L. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationships Between Service Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions among Visitors to a Wildlife Refuge. J. Leis. Res. 2002, 34, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yuksel, A. Managing customer satisfaction and retention: A case of tourist destinations, Turkey. J. Vacat. Mark. 2001, 7, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, C.M.; Chen, S.H.; Lee, H.T.; Tsai, T.H. Exploring destination resources and competitiveness–A compar-ative analysis of tourists’ perceptions and satisfaction toward an island of Taiwan. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 119, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bigović, M. Quantifying seasonality in tourism: A case study of Montenegro. Acad. Tur. Tour Innov. J. 2011, 4, 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  49. Dyson, K.; Huppert, D.D. Regional economic impacts of razor clam beach closures due to harmful algal blooms (HABs) on the Pacific coast of Washington. Harmful Algae 2010, 9, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Baum, T.; Hagen, L. Responses to seasonality: The experiences of peripheral destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 1999, 1, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Krakover, S. Partitioning seasonal employment in the hospitality industry. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Alshuqaiqi, A.; Omar, S.I. Causes and Implication of Seasonality in Tourism. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2019, 11, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ellis, C. Closures in Place to Protect Wildlife Denning and Nesting in Unusual Areas of Banff. RMO Today. Available online: https://www.rmotoday.com/banff/closures-in-place-to-protect-wildlife-denning-and-nesting-in-unusual-areas-of-banff-2405886 (accessed on 4 June 2020).
  54. Parks Canada. Seasonal Closures and Restrictions. 2019. Available online: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/visit/installations-facilities/fermetures-closures (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  55. Parks Canada. Banff National Park of Canada Management Plan. Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada. 2010. Available online: https://www.letstalkmountainparks.ca/7824/widgets/29977/documents/13460 (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  56. Ski Big 3.Three World Class Ski Resorts. 2020. Available online: https://www.skibig3.com/three-banff-lake-louise-ski-resorts/ (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  57. Dupeyras, A.; Maccallum, N. Indicators for Measuring Competitiveness in Tourism. Oecd Tour. Pap. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jovanović, S.; Ilic, L. Infrastructure as Important Determinant of Tourism Development in the Countries of Southeast Europe. Ecoforum 2016, 5, 288–294. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim, H.; Joun, H.J.; Choe, Y.; Schroeder, A. How Can a Destination Better Manage Its Offering to Visitors? Observing Visitor Experiences via Online Reviews. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Parks Canada. Evaluation of Parks Canada’s Visitor Service Offer. Government of Canada. 2012. Available online: https://www.pc.gc.ca/leg/docs/pc/rpts/rve-par/78/index_e.asp (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  61. Virkar, A.R.; Mallya, P.D. A review of dimensions of tourism transport affecting tourist satisfaction. Indian J. Commer. Manag. Stud. 2018, 9, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Crilley, G.; Weber, D.; Taplin, R. Predicting Visitor Satisfaction in Parks: Comparing the Value of Personal Benefit Attainment and Service Levels in Kakadu National Park, Australia. Visit. Stud. 2012, 15, 217–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, C.-K.; Lee, Y.-K.; Wicks, B.E. Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rivera, M.A.; Croes, R. Ecotourists’ loyalty: Will they tell about the destination or will they return? J. Ecotourism 2010, 9, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Coghlan, A.; Buckley, R.; Weaver, D. A framework for analysing awe in tourism experiences. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 1710–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Tonge, J.; Moore, S.A.; Taplin, R.; Pearce, J. Visitor satisfaction analysis as a tool for park managers: A review and case study. Ann. Leis. Res. 2011, 14, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Lather, A.S.; Singh, R.; Singh, K.A. Comparing the levels of expectation and satisfaction of Indian and foreign adventure tourists visiting India. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2012, 6, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Simpson, K. Customer Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions in a Rural Community Museum Environment. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2000, 1, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bosque, I.R.; San Martín, H. Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 551–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kung, R. A Study of the Tourists Expectation, Satisfaction and Revisiting Intention in the Neiwan, Hsinchu. Int. J. New Dev. Eng. Soc. 2018, 2, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  71. Aksu, A.; Içigen, T.; Ehtiyar, R.; Akın, A.; Ebru, I.T.; Rüya, E. A comparison of tourist expectations and satisfaction: A case study from Antalya region of Turkey. Turiz 2010, 14, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Arnold, E.; Price, L.; Zinkhan, F. Consumers, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  73. Oliver, R.L. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service Satisfaction: Compatible Goals and Different Concepts. In Advances in Service Marketing and Management; Swart, T.A., Bowen, D.E., Brown, S.W., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1993; Volume 3, pp. 65–86. [Google Scholar]
  74. Akama, J.S.; Kieti, D.M. Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tour. Manag. 2003, 24, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hui, T.K.; Wan, D.; Ho, A. Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sampson, S.E.; Showalter, M.J. The Performance-Importance Response Function: Observations and Implications. Serv. Ind. J. 1999, 19, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Murphy, P.; Pritchard, M.P.; Smith, B. The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bartikowski, B.; Llosa, S. Customer satisfaction measurement: Comparing four methods of attribute categorisations. Serv. Ind. J. 2004, 24, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alegre, J.; Garau, J.; Cerina, U.A.; McAleer, M. Determinants of Tourist Satisfaction at Sun and Sand Mass Destina-Tions. Economics of Sustainable Tourism; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2011; pp. 24–40. [Google Scholar]
  80. Matzler, K.; Sauerwein, E. The factor structure of customer satisfaction. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2002, 13, 314–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Marcussen, C.H. Determinants of tourist satisfaction and intention to return. Turiz. Međunarodni Znan.-Stručni Časopis 2011, 59, 203–221. [Google Scholar]
  82. Alegre, J.; Garau, J. Tourist Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 52–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Matzler, K.; Füller, J.; Renzl, B.; Herting, S.; Späth, S. Customer Satisfaction with Alpine Ski Areas: The Moderating Effects of Personal, Situational, and Product Factors. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Moutinho, L.; Witt, S.F. Forecasting the Tourism Environment Using a Consensus Approach. J. Travel Res. 1995, 33, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Getz, D.; Nilsson, P. Åke Responses of family businesses to extreme seasonality in demand: The case of Bornholm, Denmark. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wiberg Dustin, S. Development of a Survey Measuring Visitor Satisfaction and Service Quality of Cultural and Natural Sites in Belize. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 294. 2009. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/294 (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  87. Jeffrey, D.; Barden, R.R.D. An Analysis of the Nature, Causes and Marketing Implications of Seasonality in the Occupancy Performance of English Hotels. Tour. Econ. 1999, 5, 69–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 01681 g001 550
Figure 1. The monthly distribution of visitor numbers (in thousands) in Banff National Park from 2010–2019.
Figure 1. The monthly distribution of visitor numbers (in thousands) in Banff National Park from 2010–2019.
Sustainability 13 01681 g001
Sustainability 13 01681 g002 550
Figure 2. The structural framework of the research.
Figure 2. The structural framework of the research.
Sustainability 13 01681 g002
Table
Table 1. Seasonality Ratio of Banff National Park (2010–2019) (in thousands).
Table 1. Seasonality Ratio of Banff National Park (2010–2019) (in thousands).
January FebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberAverageMax MonthSeasonality Ratio
2010155.2158.1178.5213.9240.1263.4540.0498.9355.7120.992.8120.1244.8Jul2.21
2011140.6148.7167.1212.9234.2256.4549.9503.0380.6119.195.7127.6244.7Jul2.25
2012157.6165.4181.1213.1243.4265.6516.2563.6383.2116.9101.3131.4253.2Aug2.23
2013165.1159.9198.5193.1253.1211.4512.1603.8389.0129.1101.4125.3253.5Aug2.38
2014171.0164.6184.1231.3258.3300.0560.9633.0397.9140.6103.5141.7273.9Aug2.31
2015184.9188.6203.8246.7296.4326.0630.5631.3433.0145.8116.7148.1296.0Aug2.13
2016196.6212.2239.1242.6300.5349.5680.4659.5475.2142.0131.5146.5314.6Jul2.16
2017201.7201.6228.4267.8320.0370.6688.3674.8491.7154.3123.2148.1322.5Jul2.13
2018203.7186.4229.1250.5319.3370.2681.8642.9452.7144.2125.3153.4313.3Jul2.18
2019208.1177.9236.8262.2317.8389.1688.5723.8472.3149.7126.0151.4325.3Aug2.23
Table
Table 2. Summary of the principal component analysis on visitor satisfaction by seasons.
Table 2. Summary of the principal component analysis on visitor satisfaction by seasons.
ComponentVariable (High-Season)
n = 291, KMO = 0.533		Variable (Off-Season)
n = 450, KMO = 0.909,
1Natural characteristics and trip maps (21.893%)Natural characteristics (4.963%)
FloraFlora
FaunaFauna
Landscape viewLandscape view
Maps
Mean satisfaction: 4.54Mean satisfaction: 4.20
2Infrastructure services (17.096%)Access infrastructure (6.269%)
Roads (towards)Roads (towards)
Roads (inside)Roads (inside)
PavementPavement
FootpathsTrails
Parking lots
Mean satisfaction: 2.96Mean satisfaction: 3.97
3Tourism service (9.973%)Park services (8.027%)
Shopping mallParking lots
Network and cell serviceWashrooms
Personnel knowledgeSigns
Personnel communicationGarbage bins
Kiosks
Souvenir stores
Maps
Mean satisfaction: 3.49Mean satisfaction: 3.84
4Environmental education (8.481%)Park activities (33.243%)
Education program Snow tubing
Interpretation systemHostels
Visitor center Library
Picnic and camping ground
Education program
Interpretational activity
Hot springs
Dog sledding and sleigh rides
Mean satisfaction: 4.18Mean satisfaction: 3.47
5Community services (5.256%)Life information services (5.294%)
LibraryVisitor center
Souvenir storesRestaurants and eateries
Shopping mall
Cell service and network
Mean satisfaction: 3.53Mean satisfaction: 3.77
6Accommodation services (4.41%)Skiing (3923%)
HostelSkiing
Camping and picnic ground
Mean satisfaction: 3.60Mean satisfaction: 4.26
7Food services (3.967%)
Kiosks
Restaurants and eateries
Mean satisfaction: 3.58
8Cleaning facilities (7.043%)
Washrooms
Signs
Garbage bins
Mean satisfaction: 3.74
Table
Table 3. Comparison of visitor expectation and satisfaction correlation by seasons.
Table 3. Comparison of visitor expectation and satisfaction correlation by seasons.
SatisfactionPark InfrastructurePark ServicePark ActivityPark Natural Characteristics
Expectation
High-season (n = 291)
Natural characteristic0.021−0.0540.0880.163 *
Park infrastructure−0.407 **−0.310 **−0.085−0.265 **
Tourism service−0.394 **−0.288 **0.142−0.162 *
Environmental education−0.161 *0.1290.264 **0.307 **
Cleaning facility−0.287 **−0.192 *0.098−0.071
Community service−0.397 **−0.234 **0.133−0.107
Accommodation service−0.175 *−0.158 *−0.178 *−0.285 **
Food service0.0490.0540.261 **0.317 **
Off-season (n = 450)
Ski0.0890.239 **0.138 **0.181 **
Park activity0.0470.198 **0.118 *0.171 **
Park service0.0250.169 **0.0910.133 **
Access infrastructure0.0530.200 **0.125 **0.154 **
Life information service0.0050.127 **0.0740.245 **
Natural characteristic0.0250.0850.0730.077
Note: * indicates p ≤ 0.05; ** indicates p ≤ 0.01, bold font indicates statistical significance.
Table
Table 4. Logistic regression model of visitor satisfaction determinants by season.
Table 4. Logistic regression model of visitor satisfaction determinants by season.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.95.0% Confidence Interval for BCollinearity Statistics
BStd. ErrorBeta Lower BoundUpper BoundToleranceVIF
Model 1
High-season
R2 = 0.38		(Constant)0.280.068 4.1320.0000.1460.413
OSN0.1660.010.29617.2660.0000.1470.1860.7851.273
OSI0.2130.0080.48727.1550.0000.1980.2290.7181.393
OSS0.4710.0160.56929.8330.0000.440.5020.6351.575
OSA0.0840.0130.1226.6050.0000.0590.1090.6721.488
Gender−0.0810.077−0.062−1.0490.295−0.2330.0710.9741.027
Age0.0290.0440.0390.660.51−0.0580.1160.9621.04
Residency0.0150.050.0180.2960.768−0.0840.1140.9221.085
Travel group0.1830.150.0781.2180.224−0.1130.4780.8441.185
Source0.0430.0330.0791.3320.184−0.0210.1080.9841.017
Motivation−0.0720.056−0.078−1.2810.201−0.1820.0390.9231.084
Duration0.0380.0430.0550.8840.377−0.0470.1230.8931.119
Transportation−0.0480.054−0.055−0.8940.372−0.1540.0580.8921.121
Model 2
Off-season
R2 = 0.40		(Constant)1.1420.323 3.530.0000.5061.777
OSN0.1510.0490.1313.080.0020.0550.2470.7821.278
OSI0.2430.0420.2825.7410.0000.160.3260.5841.712
OSS0.1360.0360.1733.7540.0000.0650.2070.6611.514
OSA0.1660.0310.2295.3330.0000.1050.2270.7631.31
Gender0.0310.0450.0270.6960.487−0.0570.1190.9681.033
Age−0.0020.03−0.003−0.0720.943−0.0610.0570.9331.072
Residency0.0760.0310.1242.4720.0140.0160.1370.5571.795
Travel group0.0670.0890.030.7530.452−0.1080.2420.8931.119
Source0.0070.0280.010.2530.800−0.0490.0630.8641.157
Motivation0.0080.0130.0220.5870.558−0.0180.0340.9591.043
Duration00.0180−0.010.992−0.0350.0350.8491.177
Transportation−0.0530.056−0.047−0.9520.342−0.1630.0570.5751.739
Note: Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction. * indicates p ≤ 0.05; ** indicates p ≤ 0.01, bold font indicates statistical significance. OSN: Overall satisfaction of park natural characteristics; OSI: Overall satisfaction of park infrastructure; OSS Overall satisfaction of park service; OSA: Overall satisfaction of park activity.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Geng, D.C.; Innes, J.L.; Wu, W.; Wang, W.; Wang, G. Seasonal Variation in Visitor Satisfaction and Its Management Implications in Banff National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1681. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041681

AMA Style

Geng DC, Innes JL, Wu W, Wang W, Wang G. Seasonal Variation in Visitor Satisfaction and Its Management Implications in Banff National Park. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):1681. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041681

Chicago/Turabian Style

Geng, Dehui Christina, John L. Innes, Wanli Wu, Weiwei Wang, and Guangyu Wang. 2021. "Seasonal Variation in Visitor Satisfaction and Its Management Implications in Banff National Park" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 1681. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041681

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop