Original Scientific Article
Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty
during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Protection
Motivation Theory Approach
Damir Magaš
University of Rijeka, Croatia
dmagas@gmail.com
Zrinka Zadel
University of Rijeka, Croatia
zrinka.zadel@fthm.hr
Nikolina Šerić Honović
University of Rijeka, Croatia
nseric@fthm.hr
This paper aims to investigate beach visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty during the
covid-19 pandemic using the Protection Motivation Theory (pmt) framework.
Through interviews with beach visitors on three separate, distinct beach locations
in Croatia, Primorsko-Goranska County, we identify the antecedents of beach visi-
tor satisfaction and consequent behavioural intentions representing loyalty. A novel,
combined satisfaction/importancemethod to investigate satisfaction with heteroge-
nous beach types is assessed and empirically validated. Using pls-sem structural
equation modelling we identified that natural beach characteristics carry the largest
impact on overall beach satisfaction and the consequent visitors’ behavioural inten-
tions of recommendation and revisit. Furthermore, we find that beach occupancy
has no significant impact on overall satisfaction. Lastly, we demonstrate that fear
and risk of covid-19 moderate the relationship between visitors‘ satisfaction with
beach facilities and their overall experience satisfaction with the beach. Satisfaction
with the overall experience at the beach significantly affects the intentions of recom-
mendation and revisit. This study investigates beach visitors’ satisfaction and loy-
alty under the covid-19 pandemic conditions. We employed the pmt to obtain a
deeper understanding of beach visitors’ preferences during the pandemic. Our re-
sults provide recommendations for management and future research.
Keywords: beach visitors, satisfaction, loyalty, covid-19, protection motivation
theory
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.151-171
Introduction
The covid-19 pandemic has dramatically and nega-
tively impacted the world tourism and leisure sectors
(Duro et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). Unlike the previ-
ous health crises sars or mers, covid-19 is highly
infectious and has higher rates of susceptibility (Liu
et al., 2020). The economic impacts of beach tourism
have ledmany countries to reopen borders for tourists
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 151
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
as soon as the number of infection cases decreased
(Zielinski & Botero, 2020). The study of tourists’ beach
experiences has gained importance in the pandemic,
as it was one of the first tourism experiences to become
available post-lockdown in 2020, and to a lesser extent
in 2021. Alegre andCladera (2006) demonstrate that in
the case of the Balearic Islands, satisfaction with sun-
shine and beaches has the strongest impact on over-
all satisfaction with the destination. Beach tourists de-
mand high-quality environments and high-quality ex-
periences (Botero et al., 2013). In recent studies, re-
searchers have begun to focus on tourists’ perception
of beach quality (García-Morales et al., 2018; González
& Holtmann-Ahumada, 2017) and beach tourists’ fu-
ture behaviour intentions (Dodds & Holmes, 2019; Yu
et al., 2021).
At the same time, a growing focus on pandemic-
related risks in tourism research can be observed (Bha-
ti et al., 2021; Rather, 2021). As an affective component
of a tourist’s perceived risk, fear has been identified as
important concerning future travel behaviour (Luo &
Lam, 2020). Protection motivation theory (pmt), de-
veloped by Rogers (1975), offers a theoretical frame-
work under which components of fear appeal are cog-
nitively weighted in a mediating process forming pro-
tection motivation, which in turn, directly affects at-
titude change, or intent to adopt a recommended re-
sponse.
The conceptual model in this research expands
upon themodel proposed inDodds andHolmes (2019)
and is based on the satisfaction with attribute per-
formance levels of the following constructs: satisfac-
tion with natural beach characteristics, satisfaction
with beach facilities, satisfaction with perceived beach
crowding, their respective effects on the satisfaction
with the overall experience of beach visitors, and loy-
altymeasured as behavioural intentions of recommen-
dation and revisit. The covid-19 pandemic condi-
tions are integrated into the model as hypothesised
moderation effects of perceived pandemic-related
health risks of beach visitors utilising the pmt ap-
proach. In this regard we build a model of satisfac-
tion, attitude and behaviour of beach visitors while
controlling for the covid-19-related conditions, to
better understand beach visitor preferences and beach
management priorities under global pandemic condi-
tions.
The research questions that are proposed in this
paper are, thus, how fear and risk of covid-19 inter-
playswith satisfaction of beach visitors, andhowbeach
visitors’ satisfaction with the overall experience at the
beach during the covid-19 pandemic affects their fu-
ture behavioural intentions of recommendation and
revisit.
The aim of this paper is to extend pmt to the
covid-19 pandemic conditions to explore how it has
affected beach tourists’ satisfaction and future be-
havioural intentions. Furthermore, this study inves-
tigates the role of covid-19 perceived fear and risk
as a moderator in influencing visitors’ satisfaction
with natural beach characteristics, beach facilities and
beach crowding.
To investigate these research questions, a quantita-
tive research was conducted on three distinct beaches
of Primorsko-Goranska County in Croatia. Sampled
beach locations along the littoral coastline are shown
in Figure 1.
Theoretical Background
Protection Motivation Theory
Rogers (1975) postulates that three crucial compo-
nents of fear appeal – the magnitude of noxiousness,
probability of occurrence, and efficacy of a protec-
tive response – predict health-protective behaviour,
i.e. protectionmotivation. The magnitude of noxious-
ness initiates the appraisal of severity, the probability
that the event will occur appraises vulnerability and
the efficacy of protective response initiates appraisal
of response efficacy. A threat appraisal process is con-
ducted, which influences the protection motivation.
Furthermore, Rogers (1975) adds that fear is an af-
fective state protecting against possible hazards and a
motivational state directing an individual away from
something, but also an intervention variable, subjected
to stimuli and response, that motivates an organism to
avoid a noxious event.
Protection motivation theory (pmt) has recently
been used by tourism scholars to investigate travel
health risks (Bhati et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019),
tourists’ climate change adaptation intention (Wang
152 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Figure 1 Sampled Beach Sites, Croatia
et al., 2019) and virus outbreaks prevention on cruise
ships (Fisher et al., 2018), among others. Recently,
Rather (2021) revealed that socialmedia during covid-
19 significantly affects customer brand engagement
which in turn has an effect on revisit intention during
covid-19, with the risk of travelling during covid-
19 and fear of covid-19 acting as moderators on the
relationships.
The focus on the pandemic-related fear of travel-
ling during tourists’ stay, and its impact on the beach
tourism experience, offers a further development of
the pmt in the field of tourism during the covid-19
pandemic. This research extends the pmt to investi-
gate how it influences beach visitors’ satisfaction with
beach attributes, overall experience satisfaction, and
their intentions of recommendation and revisit. Ac-
cording to Rather (2021), only a few studies contend
with health-related risks of travellers during the pan-
demic.
The conceptual model in this research is adapted
based on the model proposed by Dodds and Holmes
(2019) and is shown in Figure 2. Since overall satisfac-
tion with a hospitality service or experience is depen-
dent on all individual attributes that make up the ser-
vice or experience (Chi & Qu, 2008), we propose in
Natural
beach char-
acteristics
Perceived
crowding
Beach
facilities
Overall
experience
satisfaction
Recom-
mendation
intention
Revisit
intention
H1 (H6)
H2 (H7)
H3
(H8
)
H4 (H
9)
H5 (H10)
Figure 2 Conceptual Framework
our mode that natural beach characteristics, beach fa-
cilities and visitor perceptions of beach crowding af-
fect overall beach experience. Since the influence of
satisfaction on post-purchase behaviour is well estab-
lished in the literature (Olsen, 2002; Prebensen et al.,
2010), we insert in the model recommendation and
revisit intention as dependant on overall experience
satisfaction. Following Rather (2021) and J. Wang et
al. (2019), we consider the threat and coping appraisal
components of pmt (perceived risk and fear) to affect
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 153
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
beach visitors’ overall experience satisfaction and loy-
alty.
Satisfaction
Customer satisfactionwith products or services is con-
sidered one of the most important determinants of
successful business operations. Anderson and Mittal
(2000) consider customer satisfaction a key link in
the satisfaction-profit chain, and argue that improve-
ment of product or service attribute performance lev-
els leads to an increase in customer satisfaction, which
consecutively leads to higher customer retention and
increased profitability.
While the importance of the satisfaction concept is
considered to be generally acknowledged in the litera-
ture, the approaches to its definition andmeasurement
have been diverse (Morgan et al., 1996). The reason for
this may lie in the fact that various theoretical frame-
works have been used by scholars as bases for conduct-
ing quantitative research, interpreting the results, and
explaining the satisfaction or dissatisfaction process in
customers.
A significant part of earlier research into customer
satisfaction is dominated by the expectancy disconfir-
mation theory of consumer satisfaction. Oliver (1980)
thus defines consumer satisfaction as a function of
expectations and expectancy disconfirmation and ar-
gues it can influence attitude change and purchase in-
tention. The expectancy disconfirmation theory has
been one of the earliest andmost widely used theoreti-
cal frameworks in customer satisfactionmeasurement
(Cadotte et al., 1987; Day, 1977; Oliver, 1976; Oliver,
1980). At the same time, some authors (Churchill &
Surprenant, 1982; Tse & Wilton, 1988) find that direct
attribute performance level measurement, as opposed
to the measurement of difference in expected and
perceived performance, can arguably, in some cases,
be a more robust predictor of customer satisfaction.
Both these approaches to satisfaction measurement
presume there is a linear relationship between perfor-
mance and disconfirmation on one side, and customer
satisfaction on the other.
More recent literature on consumer satisfaction
(Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Alegre & Garau, 2011; Mi-
kulić & Prebežac, 2008; Matzler et al., 2004) suggests
classification of product or service attributes, pertain-
ing to the fact that besides linear, asymmetrical rela-
tionshipsmay exist between importance, performance
and satisfaction. The three-factor model of satisfac-
tion (Alegre & Garau, 2011) enables differentiation be-
tween factors that delight visitors and factors that are
perceived as basic service factors. Matzler and Sauer-
wein (2002) group attribute performance indicators
into three factors as dependent on the nature of their
relationship with satisfaction, and propose that (1) Ba-
sic factors act as minimal requirements that affect dis-
satisfaction when performing low, but do not affect
satisfaction when performing high or exceeding ex-
pectation, (2) Performance factors affect both satis-
faction and dissatisfaction, and (3) Excitement factors
affect satisfaction if fulfilled but do not affect dissatis-
faction if they are not.
Cadotte et al. (1987) add that satisfaction is an
emotional response to the result of the confirma-
tion/disconfirmation process of product performance
evaluations. Placing the emotional response within
the confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm, Oliver et
al. (1997) propose that emotions coexist with satisfac-
tion judgment and correlate with satisfaction (Mano&
Oliver, 1993). Spreng et al. (1996) identify that subjec-
tive satisfaction judgments of service attribute perfor-
mance influence overall satisfaction, which is in turn,
an emotional reaction to a product or service.
In the context of customer satisfaction in tourism,
previous research has shown that satisfaction with
tourism destinations (Court & Lupton, 1997; Kozak
& Rimmington, 2000) and satisfaction with tourism
experiences (Chen & Chen, 2010; Prayag et al., 2017)
contribute to tourism destination loyalty. Chi and Qu
(2008) investigate how destination image and satis-
faction with attributes of a tourism destination af-
fect overall satisfaction and loyalty; their findings in-
dicate that destination image affects overall satisfac-
tion. Furthermore, destination attribute satisfaction
affects overall satisfaction and overall satisfaction af-
fects destination loyalty. Considering satisfaction with
the sun and sea tourism destinations, Alegre and Ga-
rau (2011) reveal that the most important among the
performance factors are in fact beaches, while consid-
ering familiarity with a destination as an excitement
154 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
factor, linked to the affective and emotional dimen-
sions of satisfaction.
Loyalty
Early loyalty research has been concerned with the
concept of brand loyalty, with three approaches to
measurement: behavioural measures, attitudinal mea-
sures and composite measures, as the combination
of behavioural and attitudinal measures (Jacoby &
Chestnut, 1978). Behavioural measures of loyalty (Op-
permann, 2000) are based on actual purchasing be-
haviour or reported purchasing behaviour. Attitudi-
nal measures of loyalty include consumer preferences,
intentions and affection for a brand (Petrick, 2005).
Oppermann (2000) argues that a composite measure
of loyalty, taken as a combination of behavioural and
attitudinal measures, may be a more comprehensive
measure, but not as practical, due to the question of
weighing of the behavioural and attitudinal compo-
nents in the composite approach to measurement.
Since repeated purchasing behaviour may be out of
convenience or because of other factors not related to
brand loyalty (Jacoby&Chestnut, 1978),measurement
of behavioural loyalty as actual repurchase behaviour
has not taken significant root in modern literature
(Olsen, 2002), and researchers have instead relied pre-
dominantly on attitudinal measures, which, in more
recent literature, are commonly referred to as loyalty
behaviours (Pinkus et al., 2016) or (future) behavioural
intentions (Žabkar et al., 2010). This approach tomea-
surement is based on the popular (Ajzen, 1991) theory
of planned behaviour, which states that behavioural
intentions are a reliable predictor of future behaviour.
Two typical behaviours of consumer loyalty in tourism
are the willingness to recommend (positive word of
mouth) and intention of revisit (intention of return),
and may be regarded as two subdimensions of loyalty
(Bosque & San Martín, 2008). These are commonly
conceptually combined in modern tourism loyalty
research (Chi & Qu, 2008). However, some destina-
tions require considerable effort and expense to visit
(Pinkus et al., 2016), and this fact may influence their
future intentions. For example, in their investigation
of tourists to the Galapagos islands of Ecuador, Rivera
andCroes (2010) found that tourists will gladly recom-
mend the destination, but will not consider revisiting.
Other reasons for wanting to recommend a destina-
tion, but not consider revisit may include general nov-
elty seeking in tourism (Kim&Chen, 2019; Lončarić et
al., 2018). For these reasons willingness to recommend
and intention of revisit should bemodelled as separate
constructs but may conceptually be used together to
describe loyalty in tourism.
Building on the attitudinal, i.e. behavioural inten-
tion, approach to loyalty, Oliver (1999) explains that
consumers become loyal in a cognitive sense first,
then in an affective sense, following a conativemanner
and finally a behavioural manner. Cognitive loyalty is
based on available information about the brand, be-
liefs, and prior experience. Affective loyalty is a posi-
tive attitude toward the brand developed on a basis of
a continuous number of previous purchases and is not
as easily dislodged from the consumer mind by mar-
keting of other alternative brands. Conative loyalty is
influenced by the affective stage and implies a serious
commitment of repurchase. In the final stage of action
loyalty, the repurchase commitment is accompanied
by the desire to do so, nomatter the obstacles encoun-
tered.
Edvardsson et al. (2000) expand this framework
and differentiate between bought and earned loyalty,
as well as between loyalty to product companies and
loyalty to service companies. Bought loyalty is earned
through indirect payments to customers in the sense
of loyalty programmes andmember discounts. Earned
loyalty, on the other hand, results in an affective attach-
ment of the customer to the company or brand, which
is not as easily removed by marketing of competitors.
The authors furthermore demonstrate empirically that
satisfaction impacts profitability significantly in the
service loyalty model, while in the product loyalty
model, the effect is also significant, but smaller. The
impact of loyalty onprofitability for serviceswas found
to be positive, while for the products it was found to be
negative. The findings of their study suggest that for
services, revenue growth comes primarily indirectly
through satisfaction and word-of-mouth recommen-
dation, while, on the other hand, product companies
rely more on paid loyalty strategies, which have a neg-
ative effect on profitability.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 155
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Loyal visitors are important to destination man-
agers as it is less expensive to retain visitors than
seek new ones (Thomas, 2001); they are more likely
to spread positive word of mouth with no extra cost
(Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999), while typically attribut-
ing service errors to uncontrollable factors (Weiner,
2000). The concept of loyalty in tourism includes, but
is not exclusive to: tourism destination loyalty (Ni-
ininen & Riley, 2003; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Meleddu
et al., 2015), hotel brand loyalty (So et al., 2013; Nam
et al., 2011), loyalty to digital tourism platforms such
as Airbnb (Lalicic & Weismayer, 2018) and, more re-
cently, loyalty to nature-based tourism destination
settings (Pinkus et al., 2016; Mirzaalian & Halpenny,
2021).
Perceived COVID-19 Fear
Fear is an emotion that is activated when a danger-
ous situation is perceived as a risk to personal safety,
or safety of others (Garcia, 2017). The covid-19 pan-
demic has significantly influenced individual percep-
tions of fear and risk (Hassan & Soliman, 2021). In
accordance with pmt (Dillard et al., 2012) individual
perception of risk from an event may motivate pro-
tective behaviour related to that event. Ahorsu et al.
(2022) suggest that perceived fear of covid-19 may
even amplify the damage of the disease, and with high
levels of fear, individuals may not be rational in mak-
ing their decisions.
Studies thus far have identified a significant influ-
ence of the covid-19 pandemic on tourists’ perceived
risk (Lu et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2021), travel in-
tention (Turnšek et al., 2020) and behaviour (Bae &
Chang, 2021).
Some authors model fear of covid-19 as a mod-
erator between previously established relationships
from the literature (Hassan & Soliman, 2021; Rather,
2021). Hassan and Soliman (2021) find that fear arousal
concerning covid-19moderates the relationships be-
tween destination reputation and revisit intention.
Furthermore, Turnšek et al. (2020) add that in the case
of women, age affects the level of perceived threat,
while people with higher education perceive higher
risk. T. H. Lee and Jan (2023) find that travellers’
personality traits are also connected to different lev-
els of risk perceptions concerning covid-19. Lu et
al. (2022) suggest that perceived risk of covid-19 is
linked to temporal dynamics of the pandemic, ge-
ographical distance from outbreak areas, and differ-
ences in regional tourism development.
Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis
Development
Satisfaction with Beach Natural Characteristics and
Overall Experience Satisfaction
According to Pizam et al. (1978), tourist satisfaction
is the result of interaction between a tourist’s experi-
ence with the destination and their expectations about
the destination. Expectations have widely been ex-
plored (Roca & Villares, 2008; Lozoya et al., 2014)
in the study of beach visitors. A significant number
of studies (Roca et al., 2008; Roca et al., 2009; Marin
et al., 2009) measure visitor satisfaction with beach
natural and environmental characteristics. The find-
ings indicate that visitors highly value both the natural
and environmental beach characteristics. Dodds and
Holmes (2019) find that both satisfaction with nat-
ural characteristics and facilities are correlated with
overall satisfaction. Based on these arguments the first
hypothesis is proposed as:
h1 Satisfaction with natural beach characteristics
has a significant impact on overall experience
satisfaction.
Tourism and marketing literature has established
that attribute-based performance evaluations of prod-
ucts/service quality affect overall satisfaction (Alegre
& Cladera, 2006; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Grappi &
Montanari, 2011; Giese & Cote, 2000). Baloglu et al.
(2004) argue that empirical work concerning the ef-
fect of experience attributes of products/services on
overall satisfaction leads to a better understanding of
the relative contribution of these attributes to the over-
all experience and/or behavioural intention.
Beach Crowding and Overall Experience Satisfaction
Beaches are vulnerable socio-ecological systems and
are under increased pressure of high tourist visita-
tion during the summer season. According to Da Silva
(2002), the straightforward notion of less crowding
156 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
equalsmore quality, or better tourist experience, is not
always applicable, particularly in the context of beach
experiences. Studies of beach crowding often use the
concept of available space in m2/visitor to estimate
crowding, i.e. determine the beach carrying capacity
thresholds. Roca et al. (2008) investigated the effect
of sand area availability in m2/visitor in their study of
the Spanish Catalan coast and found that there is no
statistically significant relationship between sand area
availability and visitor satisfaction. Furthermore, the
results showed that minimum mean values observed
were often lower than recommended thresholds in the
literature, which, depending on the author, amount to
4 – 6m2 per visitor available for themost congested ur-
ban beach type (Roca et al., 2008). Cabezas-Rabadán
et al. (2019) find that beach visitor density is very sub-
jective in connection to the evaluation of crowding.
Indeed, previous research (Da Silva, 2002; Kane et al.,
2021) identified that beach visitors congregate in the
area less than 30–50 meters away from the sea and
often group together (Guyonnard & Vacher, 2016).
However, since data on beach crowding preferences
during a global pandemic is scarce and limited to the
usa (Kane et al., 2021), we formulate the second hy-
pothesis as:
h2 There is a statistically significant relationship
between perceived crowding on the beach and
the overall experience satisfaction at the beach.
We measure perceived crowding as perceptions
of satisfaction with the space available at the beach,
crowding and noise, following the social carrying ca-
pacity paradigm. Shelby and Heberlein (1984, p. 433)
define social carrying capacity as the ‘level of use be-
yond which experience parameters exceed acceptable
levels.’ High crowding may lead to reduced available
space on the beach and produce presence of unpleas-
ant noise.
Beach Facilities and Overall Experience Satisfaction
Research conducted thus far offers mixed results on
the connection between visitors’ satisfaction with the
beach and their satisfactionwith beach facilities. Beach
visitors were found to prioritise beach facilities at ur-
ban beach locations (Lozoya et al., 2014). However,
Peña-Alonso et al. (2018) find that visitors place im-
portance on the quality of beach facilities in both nat-
ural and semi-urban environments. Frampton (2010)
argues that, following the holistic beach management
approach, facilities and amenities must be included
in beach evaluation, as they meet the needs of those
who use the beach. Evaluation of beach facilities are
also part of the bare (Bathing Area and Registration
Evaluation system) scheme developed by Micallef and
Williams (2004). Dodds andHolmes (2019) found that
beach facilities have a positive impact on overall expe-
rience satisfaction. We thus formulate the third hy-
pothesis as:
h3 Beach facilities have a positive effect on overall
experience satisfaction.
Beach facilities and amenities are identified as im-
portant in the literature (Botero et al., 2013) and amin-
imum service offer is expected by beach visitors (Lo-
zoya et al., 2014).However, a ‘diminishing return’ func-
tion is hypothesised by some researchers. For instance,
Marin et al. (2009) argue thatwhen the anthropic pres-
sure is too high, the result can be a ‘banalisation’ of
the natural marine environment. Furthermore, Roca
and Villares (2008) argue that overexploitation of the
beach area results in reduction of available beach sur-
face and influences perceived crowding.
Loyalty: Intention to Recommend and Intention
of Revisit
Oliver defines loyalty as ‘a deeply held commitment
to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred product/service
consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive
same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite
situational influences and marketing efforts having
the potential to cause switching behaviour’ (Oliver,
1999, p. 34). Borrowing an environmental psychology
perspective of place attachment (Scannell & Gifford,
2010), we derive thatOliver’s product/service-oriented
definition is applicable to the concept of a tourists’ loy-
alty to a beach, i.e. a specific place.
According to Yoon and Uysal (2005), repeat pur-
chases or recommendations to others are the most
usual indicators of consumer loyalty in marketing lit-
erature. Previous research studies of loyalty in tourism
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 157
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
have established that high level of satisfaction leads
to intention of recommendation (Oppermann, 2000;
Prebensen et al., 2010) and intention of revisit (Hai et
al., 2020). According to Alegre and Cladera (2006),
repeat visitors are likely to return to the destination,
but the main determinant of repeat visitation is high
satisfaction.
The satisfied tourist has a tendency to express a
favourable opinion about the destination and is likely
to recommend the destination to others or revisit
(Verma & Rajendran, 2017). According to Zeithaml
et al. (1996), when customers express preference for
a company over available alternatives in the form of
competition, increase the volume of purchase, or are
willing to pay a price premium, they are behaviourally
bonding with the company. Word of mouth recom-
mendations are highly regarded information among
tourists (Prebensen et al., 2010), and are also typically
perceived as highly reliable (Chi & Qu, 2008). Logi-
cally, we formulate hypothesis 4 as:
h4 Overall experience satisfaction positively affects
the intention to recommend the beach.
Regarding beach visitors,Dodds andHolmes (2019)
find that overall experience satisfaction at the beach is
positively correlated with intention of revisit. How-
ever, Assaker and Hallak (2012) find that some tourist
segments, even when satisfied with the destination,
may not revisit, and at the same time, some segments
that are not satisfied might revisit. Consequently, we
examine the following hypothesis.
h5 Overall experience satisfaction positively affects
the intention to revisit the beach.
By understanding the relationship between pro-
vided services and their connection to visitor satis-
faction and loyalty, destination managers are better
informed on how to influence the creation of satisfac-
tion and loyalty among destination visitors (Petrick,
2005).
Moderating Role of covid-19 Perceived Fear and Risk
Previous studies have established the relation between
health protective behaviour and travel behaviour (Bha-
ti et al., 2021; Park & Almanza, 2020). Rather (2021)
revealed that perception of fear and risk of covid-19
moderates relationships between social media, con-
sumer brand engagement, co-creation, and revisit in-
tention. In exploring the links between destination
reputation and revisit intention, and between per-
ceived trust and revisit intention during the covid-
19 pandemic, Hassan and Soliman (2021) also found a
moderating role of fear arousal. This study models the
perceived risk and fear of covid-19 as a moderator
in a conceptual model of attribute satisfaction, over-
all experience satisfaction and loyalty of beach visitors
following the framework of Oliver (1993).
In context of beaches, Botero et al. (2013) have es-
tablished that water and sand quality are top prefer-
ences of beach visitors in urban and rural areas. Hong
et al. (2020) demonstrate that tourists placed great im-
portance on natural and green areas in b&b tourism
during the covid-19 pandemic. Visitor perceptions
of the beach and sea environment as unclean or unhy-
gienic during a pandemic, according to the pmt, may
trigger health protective behaviour which in turn may
moderate the relationship between satisfaction with
natural beach characteristics and overall experience
satisfaction. We therefore propose to examine the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
h6 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between satisfaction with natural
beach characteristics and overall experience sat-
isfaction.
Previous research (Cumberbatch & Moses, 2011)
has established that perceptions of ‘too many people’
and lack of personal space are the main factors that
cause beach visitors to perceive the beach as crowded.
According to De Ruyck et al. (1997), beach visitors’
group size affects space taken on the beach inversely;
the larger the group size, the less beach space was used
by the group. covid-19 protocols include safe dis-
tance from others as an avoidance strategy, and fear
of covid-19 may moderate the relationship between
perceived crowding and overall experience satisfac-
tion. We therefore examine the following hypothesis:
h7 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between perceived crowding on the
beach and overall experience satisfaction.
Ivanova et al. (2021) find that hygiene, disinfection,
158 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and a reliable health system in a destination are leading
factors in deciding to travel. At the same time, clean
drinking water, good sanitary conditions and hygiene
of the environment, restaurants and accommodation
is expected by tourists (Liu et al., 2014; Bhati et al.,
2021). Logically, we propose to examine the following
hypothesis:
h8 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship of satisfaction with beach facilities
and overall experience satisfaction.
Since personal behaviour varies by the individual’s
perceived risk level (Kim & Chen, 2019), we propose
to examine the possible moderation of covid-19 fear
on the relationship between overall experience satis-
faction and intention to recommend.We thus propose
the following hypothesis:
h9 Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between overall experience satisfac-
tion and intention to recommend.
As consumers have a higher preference to avoid
risk than maximize utility, perceived risk is an im-
portant factor in an effort to explain purchase be-
haviour (Yu et al., 2021) and is part of the pmt model.
Perceived risk experienced during travel and recre-
ational activities may moderate the relationship be-
tween overall experience satisfaction and intention to
revisit. Consequently, we propose to examine the fol-
lowing scientific hypothesis:
h10Perceived covid-19 fear and risk moderate the
relationship between overall experience satisfac-
tion and intention to revisit.
Research Design
The data for the purpose of hypothesis testing was ob-
tained by quantitative research (N = 377). A structured
questionnaire was used as a survey instrument. The
three beaches represent a natural (n = 121), municipal
(n = 152), and urban beach (n = 104).
Operationalisation of the Constructs
The original set of 23 items measuring beach natural
characteristics, crowding and facilities on the beach
was reduced to 17, as 6 items from the beach facilities
construct were deleted based on the statistical signifi-
cance of the formative construct outer loadings crite-
ria (Hair et al., 2017).
Satisfaction measures of performance for seven
items measuring satisfaction with natural beach char-
acteristics were adopted from previous research (Roca
et al., 2009). These include: nc1 – Beach sediment tex-
ture, nc2 – Available shade on the beach, nc3 – Tex-
ture of beach sediment when entering the sea, nc4 –
Cleanliness of the sea, nc5 – Opportunities to observe
maritime species, nce1 – Litter/plastic on the beach,
and nc_scn – Beach scenery and local landscape. Fol-
lowing the socio-ecological systems (Refulio-Corona-
do et al., 2021) paradigm of coastal and marine envi-
ronments, natural beach characteristics are modelled
together with perceptions of water and sand cleanli-
ness in a single construct.
Beach crowding items were adapted from previ-
ous research (Roca et al., 2008; Lozoya et al., 2014).
Namely, items occ1 – Available space on the beach
and occ – 3 Crowding on the beach. We insert also
item occ2 –Noise on the beach, as Cumberbatch and
Moses (2011) find that presence of unpleasant noise
on the beach, associated with the various activities
of beach visitors, may contribute to perceptions of a
crowded beach.
Regarding beach visitor satisfaction with beach fa-
cilities, itemswere adapted formRoca et al. (2009) and
Lozoya et al. (2014). These include measures of gen-
eral beach facilities (bf1 – Changing room availabil-
ity, bf2 – Available parking space, . . .), sanitary facili-
ties (bsan1 – Litter bin availability, bsan2 – Shower
availability, . . .), recreation facilities bf4 – Areas for
sport, recreation, and children’s play on the beach and
bf5 –Accessibility to the beach and sea for persons with
disabilities.
Overall experience satisfaction at the beach is based
on the scale proposed in Oliver (1997) and adapted
for this research, containing affective (1 – I really en-
joyed this beach), cognitive (2 – I made a wise choice
to visit this beach) and fulfilment (3 – This beach is ex-
actly what I needed) components of satisfaction. This
original scale was expanded by del Bosque and San
Martín (2008) by a single overall satisfaction measure
which was also included and adapted for this research
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 159
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
(4 – I am satisfied with the overall experience at this
beach).
Loyalty is measured in constructs of intention to
recommend the beach and intention of revisit. These
two constructs measuring loyalty represent attitudinal
loyalty in the form of behavioural intention. The In-
tention to revisit construct includes two items adapted
from del Bosque and San Martín (2008) (1 – I will try
to visit this beach again and 2 – I think I will visit this
beach) and one item adapted fromDodds andHolmes
(2019) (3 – I will probably visit this beach again). In-
tention to recommend items were included using the
three items adapted from Prayag et al. (2017) based on
Grappi and Montanari (2011) and Lee et al. (2008).
We measure perceived risk and fear of covid-
19 as a single reflective construct with 2 items which
demonstrate high face validity: 1 – I feel safe on this
beach and 2 – I do not fear getting covid-19 on this
beach. The 2 items of the Perceived risk and fear of
covid-19 construct were generated for the purpose
of this research by a focus group including university
professors. As the results in Table 2 demonstrate, the
construct exhibits satisfactory levels of reliability and
convergent validity.
Appendix A presents the full list of items. Items
were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Since the natural beach contained almost no facil-
ities from the original set of items, we proxied sat-
isfaction with importance on the natural beach. We
find justification in this approach as, according to Teas
(1993), a perceived ability of a product to deliver satis-
faction can be conceptualised as a conformation with
a consumer’s ideal product features.
Data Collection
The research was conducted on three distinct beaches
of Primorsko-GoranskaCounty in Croatia: City beach
in the municipality of Crikvenica, Ploče beach in the
city of Rijeka and Klančac beach in the municipal-
ity of Brseč. The investigation took place during the
months of July, August and September of 2021. Beach
visitors were approached on each beach location with
a formal introduction, explanation of study goals and
assurance of anonymity. The research was conducted
only on working days of the week, between the hours
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics
Variables Categories () ()
Gender Male . 
Female . 
Age (years) – . 
– . 
– . 
– . 
– . 
Above  . 
Education Elementary school . 
Highschool . 
University degree . 
phd . 
Visitor type Domestic tourist . 
Foreign tourist . 
Local resident . 
Season resident . 
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) proportion (),
(2) frequency.
of 09.00 am – 12.00 am and 03.00 pm – 06.00 pm to
avoid high sun exposure of the investigators. A pilot
study was carried out in order to ensure all questions
were clear to the respondents, establish the feasibility
of the research protocol and test the sampling strategy.
Feedback from the pilot studywas used in the final ver-
sions of the research protocol and questionnaire. The
sampling strategy used was a stratified random sam-
ple approach. Age and gender proportion stratums on
each beach were estimated daily, and the random sam-
plewas picked proportionally to and from ratio sizes of
stratums identified. Both tourists and the local popu-
lation are part of the sample, following the sustainable
development paradigm.
Descriptive statistics show that 59.4 of the sam-
ple are female and 40.6 are male respondents. Fur-
thermore, 21 of respondents were between the age
of 15–24, 16.7 were 25–34, 20.7 were 35–44, 25.7
were 45–54, 10.9 were 55–64 and 5 were 65 years
and above. The results of the descriptive analysis are
presented in Table 1.
160 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
CommonMethod Variance (CMV)
cmv is variance that originates from themeasurement
method rather than the measurement of constructs,
and can be a problem commonly known as method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Employing the commonly
usedHarman’s single factor test for assessing cmv, we
find that most of the variance is not explained by a
single factor. In fact, variance explained by one fac-
tor amounted to 22.9 of total variance explained. We
conclude that cmv is not an issue in this research.
Research Results
Themodel was tested using partial least squares struc-
tural equation modelling (pls-sem) with Smartpls
3.3.5 software. pls-sem has become a standard tool
for analysing complex relationships between variables
in tourism and many other fields of study (Sarstedt
et al., 2020). The pls-sem approach is recommended
due to the ability of generating high statistical power
with smaller sample sizes, workingwith non-normally
distributed data and different scale types, while taking
a predictive modelling approach (Hair et al., 2017).
Reflective Measurement Model Assessment
Since our model includes both formative and reflec-
tive constructs, we report the reliability and validity
results for the reflective constructs separately in Ta-
ble 2. All the constructs factor loadings are above the
0.7 threshold value (Hair et al., 2017). Composite re-
liability values range from 0.95–0.89, while the Cron-
bach’s alpha values are in the range of 0.77–0.93. The
lowest value for alpha is 0.77 and it is associated with
the perceived fear/risk from covid-19, which is at
an acceptable level for exploratory research (Hair et
al., 2017). Cronbach’s alpha values of other constructs
range from0.90–0.93 and display excellent levels of re-
liability. Average variance extracted (ave) is ameasure
of convergent validity and the recommended thresh-
old is above 0.5. ave ranges from values of 0.81–0.88.
Thus, the measures of the reflective constructs have
high levels of convergent validity.We conclude that the
reflective constructs indicators are reliable and conver-
gently valid.
Next, we assess the discriminant validity of the
reflective constructs using the Fornell and Larcker
Table 2 Reliability and Validity of Reflective Model Items
() () () () () () ()
(a) c . . . . . .
c .
(b) sate . . . . . .
sate .
sate .
sate .
(c) reci . . . . . .
reci .
reci .
(d) ri . . . . . .
ri .
ri .
Notes Constructs: (a) perceived fear/risk of covid-19, (b)
overall experience satisfaction, (c) recommendation inten-
tion, (d) revisit intention. Column headings are as follows:
(1) items, (2) average variance extracted, (3) composite relia-
bility, (4) Cronbach alpha, (5) mean, (6) standard deviation,
(7) outer loadings.
(1981) criterion followed by the heterotrait-monotrait
(htmt) criterion as recommended byHair et al. (2017).
The results are represented in Table 3 and Table 4, re-
spectively.
The squared root of each construct’s ave is higher
than correlations with other constructs, as shown in
Table 3, by which discriminant validity using the For-
nell and Larcker criterion is established.We do not cal-
culate ave for the formative variables as this measure
is appropriate only for reflective construct assessment.
All htmt values are below the recommended thresh-
old of 0.9, as shown in Table 4. This result confirms
discriminant validity of the reflective constructs using
the htmt criterion.
Formative Measurement Model Assessment
In this section we assess the formative constructs in-
dicators for issues of collinearity and test their statisti-
cal significance. According to Hair et al. (2017), a vif
indicator value of 5 and higher represents a possible
collinearity problem. Table 5 presents the vif for the
formative constructs’ indicators. All values are below
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 161
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 3 Discriminant Validity by Fornell and Larcker’s
Criterion
() () () ()
() .
() . .
() . . .
() . . . .
Notes Column/row headings are as follows: (1) covid-19
fear/risk, (2) overall satisfaction, (3) recommendation inten-
tion, (4) revisit intention.
Table 4 Discriminant Validity by htmt Criterion
() () ()
() .
() . .
() . . .
Notes Column/row headings are as follows: (1) covid-19
fear/risk, (2) overall satisfaction, (3) recommendation inten-
tion, (4) revisit intention.
the recommended threshold of 5; this indicates that
the issue of collinearity is not a problem in the forma-
tive indicators. All items are statistically significant at
p < 0.01 level except items nc2 and and occ2, which
are significant at p < 0.05 level.
Structural Model Evaluation
Next, we evaluate the structural model. Using stan-
dardised root mean square residual (srmr) we evalu-
ate the model fit. We also investigate the model’s path
coefficients, coefficients of determination of endoge-
nous constructs – R2, effect size of exogenous on en-
dogenous constructs – f 2, predictive relevance – Q2,
and effect size of the predicted effect – q2. The srmr
value in this research (srmr = 0.053) indicates a good
fit as it is below the recommended conservative thresh-
old of 0.08 (Hair et al., 2017). R2 values are as follows:
Overall satisfaction – R2 = 0.44, recommendation in-
tention – R2 = 0.67 and revisit intention – R2 = 0.58.
Following guidelines from the literature, overall satis-
faction displays moderate to weak R2 values, while the
recommendation and revisit intention R2 values may
be described as moderate to substantial. All Stone-
Table 5 Assessment of Formative Model
Constructs with variables () () ()
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bf → Facilities . . .
bsan → Facilities . . .
bsan → Facilities . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc → Natural Characteristics . . .
nce → Natural Characteristics . . .
nc_scn → Natural Character. . . .
occ → Crowding . . .
occ → Crowding . . .
occ → Crowding . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) outer loadings,
(2) p values, (3) VIF.
Geisser’sQ2 values for endogenous constructs (overall
satisfaction: 0.35, recommendation intention: 0.56 and
intention to revisit: 0.50) are positive, which estab-
lishes the predictive relevance of the proposed model
(Hair et al., 2017).
Furthermore, q2 values of predictive effect size of
exogenous construct’s contribution to an endogenous
latent variable Q2 were calculated. In the proposed
model the calculation was possible for the influence of
satisfaction with natural characteristics on overall sat-
isfaction and the influence of satisfactionwith facilities
on overall satisfaction. The q2 resulted in values of 0.23
and 0.03, respectively. Satisfaction with natural char-
acteristics has a moderately strong predictive effect
size on overall satisfaction, while satisfaction with fa-
cilities has a weak predictive effect size. All constructs
in the proposed model are statistically significant at
p < 0.01, except occupancy, which is not statisti-
cally significant. The results are displayed in Tables 6
and 7.
162 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 6 Structural Model Results
Hypothesis/paths β p f 2 Supported
h Natural Characteristics→ Overall Satisfaction . . . Yes
h Crowding→ Overall Satisfaction . . . No
h Facilities→ Overall Satisfaction . . . Yes
h Overall Satisfaction→ Recommendation Intention . . . Yes
h Overall Satisfaction→ Revisit intention . . . Yes
Notes Overall satisfaction R2 = 0.44, Q2 = 0.35; recommendation intention R2 = 0.67, Q2 = 0.56; revisit intention R2 = 0.58,
Q2 = 0.50. β – regression coefficient, p – statistical significance, f 2 – effect size.
Table 7 Predictive Effect Sizes
Paths () () ()
Natural Characteristics→ Overall
Satisfaction
. . .
Facilities→ Overall Satisfaction . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1)Q2 included, (2)
Q2 excluded, (3) q2.
Moderation Analysis
In the final stage, the moderating effect of perceived
fear and risk of covid-19 is assessed in the proposed
relationships between satisfaction with natural beach
characteristics and overall satisfaction, between satis-
faction with beach facilities and overall satisfaction,
and between overall satisfaction and intentions of rec-
ommendation and revisit. Since the perceived crowd-
ing effect on overall satisfaction is not statistically sig-
nificant, we do not test the moderating effect in this
relationship. Thus, Hypotheses h7 is rejected. The
product indicator approachwas used as themoderator
calculation method and the product term generated
was standardised following recommendations from
the literature (Rasoolimanesh, Wang et al., 2021). The
results of the hypothesised moderating relationships
are displayed in Table 8. The only statistically signifi-
cant (p < 0.05) moderated relationship in the model
is between beach facilities and overall satisfaction. The
negative beta coefficient in the supported moderation
indicates that an increase in the perceived fear/risk
of covid-19 increases the effect of satisfaction with
beach facilities on overall satisfaction with the beach.
Lower values on the covid-19 fear/risk scale indicate
higher values of perceived fear/risk. The effect size is
weak at f 2 = 0.02. The results are displayed in Table 8.
Discussion
As the results of our investigation show, natural beach
characteristics have the largest effect on overall visi-
tor satisfaction, even during the covid-19 pandemic,
confirming h1. These results support the findings of
previous research (Dodds & Holmes, 2019; Lozoya et
al., 2014)which reports that beach visitors highly value
natural beach characteristics. However, as demon-
strated in Lozoya et al. (2014), there are significant
differences in beach visitor preferences between differ-
ent beach types. The authors find that visitors placed
higher importance on natural beach characteristics
than facilities, in a natural beach setting, while on the
urban beach, a higher proportion of visitors valued
facilities over natural characteristics.
As for the relationship between perceived crowd-
ing on the beach and overall beach visitor experience
satisfaction, our investigation finds no significant con-
nection, thus h2 is rejected. These results support
the findings of previous research. Namely, Roca et al.
(2008) demonstrate a limited descriptive influence of
higher beach area availability on beach visitor satis-
faction; however, they find no significant correlation.
Taking both these results into consideration, we sug-
gest the possibility of an asymmetrical relationship
between crowding at the beach and beach visitor expe-
rience satisfaction. Namely, higher levels of perceived
crowding may influence only visitor dissatisfaction,
while a lower level of perceived crowding does not
lead to higher levels of beach visitor satisfaction. It
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 163
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 8 Moderation Analysis
Hypothesis/tested paths β p Moderation
h covid- Moderating Effect Natural characteristics→Overall Satisfaction –. . No
h covid- Moderating effect Facilities→ Overall Satisfaction –. . Yes
h covid- Moderating Effect Overall satisfaction→ Recommendation Intention . . No
h covid- Moderating Effect Overall satisfaction→ Revisit Intention –. . No
seems a certain ‘baseline performance’ of crowding at
the beach is expected by visitors and is an integral part
of the overall beach experience, and consequently the
sun and sea tourism destination product.
Next, the results indicate that beach facilities have
a significant positive effect on overall experience sat-
isfaction at the beach, thus confirming hypothesis
h3. These results are in line with previous research
(Rodella & Corbau, 2020) which has established that
visitors value highly good quality services and facil-
ities, even in natural beach settings (Lozoya et al.,
2014). Furthermore, Botero et al. (2013) find that beach
facilities are among the top three priorities of visi-
tors at both European and Caribbean beaches. Beach
managers should take special interest in visitor pref-
erences and evaluations regarding beach facilities at
each beach location, as it is an important feature di-
rectly under their control.
Our investigation shows that overall experience
satisfaction positively affects the intention to recom-
mend the beach and the intention of revisit, thus
confirming hypothesis h4 and hypothesis h5, respec-
tively. These results are in line with previous research,
which has established that (Žabkar et al., 2010) tour-
ism destination attributes affect perceived destination
quality and consequently tourist satisfaction and be-
havioural intentions. This hypothesis has also been
confirmed as valid in the case of nature-based desti-
nations (Pinkus et al., 2016), and particularly beaches
(Dodds & Holmes, 2019).
Research results did not support hypothesis h6,
concerning the existence of a moderating effect of
covid-19 fear and risk between the relationship of sat-
isfactionwith natural beach characteristics and overall
experience satisfaction. This indicates that even in the
presence of a health/safety risk during the pandemic,
visitors perceive the natural beach environment as rel-
atively safe. This may be explained by the fact that epi-
demiological studies of covid-19 (Qian et al., 2021)
suggest that there is higher risk of covid-19 infec-
tion indoors than outdoors. Furthermore, Kane et al.
(2021) argue that coastal environments offer lower risk
of infection than regular outdoor areas, due to the dis-
persion of respiratory droplets in the regular airflow
of the coastline. As perceived crowding does not affect
overall experience satisfaction at the beach, the hy-
pothesis h7 concerning a possible moderating effect
of covid-19 fear and risk between perceived crowd-
ing and overall experience satisfaction was not tested
and is thus rejected.
Beach facilities affect overall satisfaction positively,
but as the moderation analysis has shown, when the
perceived fear and risk are higher, the influence of
beach facilities on overall satisfaction is stronger, con-
firming hypothesis h8. Since previous research has
demonstrated (Yu et al., 2021) that emotion regulation
ability is a significant moderator between perceived
risk of covid-19 and stress, the availability of nec-
essary facilities at the beach can aid visitors in their
ability to regulate perceived risk, which in turn leads
to higher overall experience satisfaction levels. These
results support the findings of Hassan and Soliman
(2021), which show that fear arousal has a modera-
tion impact on the relationships between visitors’ per-
ceived trust and revisit intention, social responsibility
and revisit intention, and between destination reputa-
tion and revisit intention.
No moderating effect of covid-19 fear and risk
has been found between the paths of overall experi-
ence satisfaction and recommendation intention, thus
hypothesis h9 is rejected. The reason for this may lie
in the fact that 39.8 of the respondents had signifi-
164 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
cant previous experience with the beach and the des-
tination, namely domestic tourists, local and seasonal
residents. Rasoolimanesh, Seyfi et al. (2021) find that
past experience with a destination is a significant fac-
tor contributing to tourists’ willingness to support a
destination. According to Han and Hyun (2015), pre-
vious travel experience tends to create trust and min-
imises future travel risk perceptions.
Finally, no moderating effect of covid-19 fear and
risk was found between overall experience satisfaction
and revisit intention, thus hypothesis h10 is not con-
firmed. These results are opposite to those of Rather
(2021), who finds that perceived covid-19 fear mod-
erates the relationship between consumer brand en-
gagement and revisit intention. Furthermore, Hassan
and Soliman (2021) find that fear arousal negatively
moderates the direct positive relationships between
destination reputation and return intention and be-
tween perceived trust and return intention. The rea-
sons for these differences in results, besides previous
destination experience, may lie in the visitor percep-
tion of beaches being relatively safer during a pan-
demic, as opposed to other environments within the
tourist destination. Regarding this result, it may also
be argued that during pandemic conditions, destina-
tion managers should emphasise the tourism desti-
nation beach environments in their marketing cam-
paigns and in particular to the marketing segments
with previous experiences with the beach and the des-
tination.
Using pmt nested in the satisfaction-loyalty frame-
work we have demonstrated that under the pandemic
conditions, perceived threat of covid-19 increases
the value visitors place on facilities in public areas,
or in the case of this investigation, at the beach. As the
protection motivation of the pmt framework is am-
plified, because of perceived fear/risk increase, beach
visitors place more value on facilities (available park-
ing space, areas for recreation, easier accessibility)
and sanitary standards (litter bin and shower avail-
ability). These results can be interpreted within the
pmt framework, as activation of efficacy response.
The availability of these common facilities leads to
higher levels of overall satisfaction as the perceived
fear/risk of disease increases.
Conclusion
This paper investigated the antecedents of beach vis-
itors’ satisfaction with beaches during the covid-
19 pandemic in the case of three distinct Croatian
beaches of the Primorsko-Goranska County wider lit-
toral area. A significant number of authors (Ariza et
al., 2014;Magaš et al., 2018; Milanés Batista et al., 2020;
Villares et al., 2006) argue that stakeholder partici-
pation is a key element in an integrated approach to
beach and coastal zone management. We have em-
ployed the pmt approach to model visitors’ percep-
tions of fear and risk of covid-19 in a conative model
of visitor satisfaction and future behavioural inten-
tions. Furthermore, we have tested and demonstrated
the validity of the combined satisfaction-importance
method for investigating beach visitors’ satisfaction
with heterogenous beach types (rural, urban, town)
in an integral approach. This novel holistic methodol-
ogy can be used by destination managers in assessing
satisfaction with beaches of a tourism destination in
a wider geographical sense, while controlling for dif-
ferent preferences of visitors to natural and/or rural
beach locations as opposed to visitor preferences of
urban and semi-urban beach types.
The empirical findings of this study offer theoret-
ical contributions to the pmt. When, in accordance
with the pmt model, the intent to adopt a recom-
mended response is triggered, the availability of basic
facilities provides protective response ability, leading
to higher overall satisfaction of visitors and favourable
future intentions toward the destination. These find-
ings have implications for beach and destinationman-
agers about visitor satisfaction and loyalty during a
global pandemic.
The main limitation of this paper is the combined
satisfaction/importancemeasurement for the purpose
of combined assessment of natural and urban beach
types in our investigation. A further limitation of this
research is a sample of 3 beaches in only one coun-
try. Future research on the topic should include more
beaches in a multiple-country investigation.
Further future research recommendations include
identification of attributes that carry the largest effect
sizes on overall satisfaction and future behavioural in-
tentions in a beach sample under investigation. This
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 165
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
can be accomplished using the importance-perfor-
mance technique. The attributes carrying the largest
impacts on satisfaction and loyalty, in the overall sam-
ple, should be the ones thatmanagers need to consider
and prioritise to foster sustainable and competitive
beach tourism destinations, even during the times of
a global pandemic. Lastly, future research in tourism
during a pandemic, on visitor satisfaction and loyalty,
should focus on the tourism destination, accommo-
dation establishments (hotels, b&b), hospitality es-
tablishments (restaurants, bars), and entertainment
events and model the pandemic influence on the pre-
viously established theoretical relationships from the
literature.
Acknowledgments
This paper was funded under the project line zip uniri
of the University of Rijeka, for the project zip-uniri-
116-1-20.
References
Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C. Y., Imani, V., Saffari, M., Griffiths, M.
D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2022). The fear of covid-19 scale:
Development and initial validation. International Jour-
nal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(3), 1537–1545.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 438–
459.
Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat visitation in mature
sun and sand holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 44(3), 288–297.
Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2011). The factor structure of tourist
satisfaction at sun and sand destinations. Journal of
Travel Research, 50(1), 78–86.
Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the
satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research,
3(2), 107–120.
Ariza, E., Lindeman, K. C., Mozumder, P., & Suman, D. O.
(2014). Beach management in Florida: Assessing stake-
holder perceptions on governance. Ocean and Coastal
Management, 96, 82–93.
Assaker, G., & Hallak, R. (2012). European travelers’ return
likelihood and satisfactionwithMediterranean sun-and-
sand destinations: A chi-square automatic identification
detector-based segmentation approach. Journal of Vaca-
tion Marketing, 18(2), 105–120.
Bae, S. Y., & Chang, P. J. (2021). The effect of coronavirus
disease-19 (covid-19) risk perception on behavioural
intention towards ‘untact’ tourism in South Korea dur-
ing the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020).Current
Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 1017–1035.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S. L., & Santos, J. (2004). The
relationship between destination performance, overall
satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct seg-
ments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 4(3–4), 149–165.
Bhati, A. S., Mohammadi, Z., Agarwal, M., Kamble, Z., &
Donough-Tan, G. (2021). Motivating or manipulating:
The influence of health-protective behaviour and media
engagement on post-covid-19 travel. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(15), 2088–2092.
Botero, C., Anfuso, G.,Williams, A. T., Zielinski, S., da Silva,
C. P., Cervantes, O., Silva, L., &Cabrera, J. A. (2013). Rea-
sons for beach choice: European andCaribbean perspec-
tives. Journal of Coastal Research, 65, 880–885.
Cabezas-Rabadán, C., Rodilla, M., Pardo-Pascual, J. E., &
Herrera-Racionero, P. (2019). Assessing users’ expec-
tations and perceptions on different beach types and
the need for diverse management frameworks along the
Western Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 81, 219–231.
Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Ex-
pectations and norms in models of consumer satisfac-
tion. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 305–314.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, per-
ceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for
heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural re-
lationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and
destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism
Management, 29(4), 624–636.
Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation
into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal
of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–504.
Court, B., & Lupton, R. A. (1997). Customer portfolio devel-
opment: Modeling destination adopters, inactives, and
rejecters. Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 35–43.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service qual-
ity: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Market-
ing, 56(3), 55–68.
Cumberbatch, J., & Moses, J. (2011). Social carrying capac-
ity in beachmanagement in Barbados. Journal of Coastal
Research, 14(23), 14–23.
Da Silva, C. P. (2002). Beach carrying capacity assessment:
How important is it? Journal of Coastal Research, 36(1),
190–197.
Day, R. (1977). Extending the concept of consumer satisfac-
tion. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 149–154.
166 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
De Ruyck, M. C., Soares, A. G., & McLachlan, A. (1997). So-
cial carrying capacity as a management tool for sandy
beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3), 822–830.
Del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfac-
tion a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 35(2), 551–573.
Dillard, A. J., Ferrer, R. A., Ubel, P. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2012).
Risk perception measures’ associations with behavior
intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer
screening messages.Health Psychology, 31(1), 106–113.
Dodds, R., &Holmes,M. R. (2019). Beach tourists:What fac-
tors satisfy them and drive them to return. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 168, 158–166.
Duro, J. A., Perez-Laborda, A., Turrion-Prats, J., & Fernán-
dez-Fernández,M. (2021). Covid-19 and tourism vulner-
ability. Tourism Management Perspectives, 38(2), 100819.
Edvardsson, B., Johnson,M. D., Gustafsson, A., & Strandvik,
T. (2000). The effects of satisfaction and loyalty on prof-
its and growth: Products versus services. Total Quality
Management, 11(7), 917–927.
Fisher, J. J., Almanza, B. A., Behnke, C., Nelson, D. C., &
Neal, J. (2018). Norovirus on cruise ships: Motivation for
handwashing? International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement, 75, 10–17.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–
50.
Frampton, A. P. R. (2010). A review of amenity beach man-
agement. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(6), 1112–1122.
Garcia, R. (2017). Neurobiology of fear and specific phobias.
Learning and Memory, 24(9), 462–471.
García-Morales, G., Arreola-Lizárraga, J. A., Mendoza-Sal-
gado, R. A., García-Hernández, J., Rosales-Grano, P., &
Ortega-Rubio, A. (2018). Evaluation of beach quality as
perceived by users. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 61(1), 161–175.
Giese, J., & Cote, J. (2000). Defining consumer satisfac-
tion. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2000(1).
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf
González, S. A., & Holtmann-Ahumada, G. (2017). Quality
of tourist beaches of northern Chile: A first approach for
ecosystem-basedmanagement.Ocean and Coastal Man-
agement, 137, 154–164.
Grappi, S., &Montanari, F. (2011). The role of social identifi-
cation and hedonism in affecting tourist re-patronizing
behaviours: The case of an Italian festival.TourismMan-
agement, 32(5), 1128–1140.
Guyonnard, V., & Vacher, L. (2016). Beach filling model
to improve beach management: A case on the French
Atlantic coast (Pertuis Charentais beaches). Sustainable
Tourisim, 7(1), 67–78.
Hai, P. T., Thuong, M. T., & Quy, N. L. D. (2020). Tourists’
satisfaction, loyalty and intention to return: Survey at
Phong Nha-Ke Bang national park, Vietnam. Journal of
Southwest Jiaotong University, 55(2). https://doi.org/10
.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.2.57
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt,M. (2017).
Aprimer on partial least squares structural equationmod-
eling (pls-sem) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2015). Customer retention in the
medical tourism industry: Impact of quality, satisfaction,
trust, and price reasonableness. Tourism Management,
46, 20–29.
Hassan, S. B., & Soliman, M. (2021). covid-19 and repeat
visitation: Assessing the role of destination social re-
sponsibility, destination reputation, holidaymakers’ trust
and fear arousal. Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, 19, 100495.
Hong, Y., Cai, G., Mo, Z., Gao, W., Xu, L., Jiang, Y., &
Jiang, J. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on tourist sat-
isfaction with b&b in Zhejiang, China: An importance-
performance analysis. International Journal of Environ-
mental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3747.
Ivanova, M., Ivanov, I. K., & Ivanov, S. (2021). Travel be-
haviour after the pandemic: The case of Bulgaria.Anato-
lia, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1818267
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement
and management. John Wiley.
Kane, B., Zajchowski, C. A. B., Allen, T. R., McLeod, G.,
& Allen, N. H. (2021). Is it safer at the beach? Spatial
and temporal analyses of beachgoer behaviors during the
covid-19 pandemic. Ocean and Coastal Management,
205(1), 105533.
Kim, H., & Chen, J. S. (2019). The memorable travel expe-
rience and its reminiscence functions. Journal of Travel
Research, 58(4), 637–649.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction
with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destina-
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260–269.
Lalicic, L., & Weismayer, C. (2018). A model of tourists’
loyalty: The case of Airbnb. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, 9(1), 78–90.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2023). How does personality affect
covid-19 pandemic travel risk perceptions and behav-
iors? Evidence from segment analysis in Taiwan. Sustain-
ability, 15(1), 655.
Lee, Y. K., Lee, C. K., Lee, S. K., & Babin, B. J. (2008). Fes-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 167
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
tivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loy-
alty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 56–64.
Liu, J., Xie, W., Wang, Y., Xiong, Y., Chen, S., Han, J., &
Wu, Q. (2020). A comparative overview of covid-19,
mers and sars: Review article. International Journal of
Surgery, 81(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.032
Liu, Z., Zhang, G., & Zhang, X. (2014). Urban street foods in
Shijiazhuang city, China: Current status, safety practices
and risk mitigating strategies. Food Control, 41(1), 212–
218.
Lončarić, D., Dlačić, J., & Perišić Prodan, M. (2018). What
makes summer vacation experiencememorable?An em-
pirical study from Croatia. Zbornik Veleučilišta u Rijeci,
6(1), 67–80.
Lozoya, J. P., Sardá, R., & Jiménez, J. A. (2014). Users ex-
pectations and the need for differential beach manage-
ment frameworks along the Costa Brava: Urban vs. nat-
ural protected beaches. Land Use Policy, 38, 397–414.
Lu, Y. H., Liu, P., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., & Shen, C. (2022).
Spatial-temporal differences in the effect of epidemic
risk perception onpotential travel intention. sage Open,
12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141392
Luo, J. M., & Lam, C. F. (2020). Travel anxiety, risk atti-
tude and travel intentions towards ‘travel bubble’ desti-
nations inHongKong: Effect of the fear of covid-19. In-
ternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(21), 7859.
Magaš, D., Debelić, B., & Vilke, S. (2018). Users’ perception
as a tool for an integrated coastalmanagement and beach
quality assessment. Pomorstvo, 32(2), 290–296.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensional-
ity and structure of the consumption experience: Evalu-
ation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 20(3), 451–466.
Marin, V., Palmisani, F., Ivaldi, R., Dursi, R., & Fabiano, M.
(2009). Users’ perception analysis for sustainable beach
management in Italy. Ocean and Coastal Management,
52(5), 268–277.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., &
Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between
attribute-level performance and overall customer sat-
isfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-perfor-
mance analysis. IndustrialMarketingManagement, 33(4),
271–277.
Matzler, K., & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The factor structure
of customer satisfaction: An empirical test of the im-
portance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast analysis.
International Journal of Service Industry Management,
13(4), 314–332.
Meleddu, M., Paci, R., & Pulina, M. (2015). Repeated be-
haviour and destination loyalty. Tourism Management,
50, 159–171.
Micallef, A., &Williams, A. T. (2004). Application of a novel
approach to beach classification in the Maltese Islands.
Ocean and Coastal Management, 47(5–6), 225–242.
Mikulić, J., & Prebežac, D. (2008). Prioritizing improvement
of service attributes using impact range-performance
analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis.Managing Ser-
vice Quality, 18(6), 559–576.
Milanés Batista, C., Planas, J. A., Pelot, R., & Núñez, J.
R. (2020). A new methodology incorporating public
participation within Cuba’s iczm program. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 186(15), 105101.
Mirzaalian, F., & Halpenny, E. (2021). Exploring destination
loyalty: Application of social media analytics in a nature-
based tourism setting. Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management, 20, 100598.
Morgan,M. J., Attaway, J. S., & Griffin,M. (1996). The role of
product/service experience in the satisfaction formation
process. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 9, 104–114.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., &Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand
loyalty and consumer satisfaction.Annals of TourismRe-
search, 38(3), 1009–1030.
Niininen, O., & Riley, M. (2003). Towards the conceptual-
ization of tourism destination loyalty. Tourism Analysis,
8(2–4), 243–246.
Oliver, R. L. (1976). Effect of expectation and disconfirma-
tion on postexposure product evaluations: An alterna-
tive interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4),
480–486.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitivemodel of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute basesof
the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research,
20(3), 418–430.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction a behavioral perspective on
the consumer. Routledge.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 63(4), 33–44.
Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., &Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight:
Foundations, findings, andmanagerial insight. Journal of
Retailing, 73(3), 311–336.
Olsen, S. O. (2002). Comparative evaluation and the rela-
tionship between quality, satisfaction, and repurchase
loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
30(3), 240–249.
168 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Jour-
nal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78–84.
Park, H., & Almanza, B. (2020). What do airplane travelers
think about the cleanliness of airplanes and how do they
try to prevent themselves from getting sick? Journal of
Quality Assurance inHospitality and Tourism, 21(6), 738–
757.
Peña-Alonso, C., Ariza, E.,Hernández-Calvento, L., &Pérez-
Chacón, E. (2018). Exploring multi-dimensional recre-
ational quality of beach socio-ecological systems in the
Canary Islands (Spain). Tourism Management, 64, 303–
313.
Petrick, J. F. (2005). Reoperationalising the loyalty frame-
work. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), 199–212.
Pinkus, E., Moore, S. A., Taplin, R., & Pearce, J. (2016). Re-
thinking visitor loyalty at ‘once in a lifetime’ nature-
based tourism destinations: Empirical evidence from
Purnululu National Park, Australia. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 16, 7–15.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimentions
of tourist satisfaction with a destination area. Annals of
Tourism Research, 5(3), 314–322.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral re-
search: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
879–903.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B., & Del Chiappa, G. (2017).
Understanding the relationships between tourists’ emo-
tional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction,
and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research,
56(1), 41–54.
Prebensen, N., Skallerud, K., & Chen, J. S. (2010). Tourist
motivation with sun and sand destinations: Satisfaction
and the wom-effect. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
keting, 27(8), 858–873.
Qian, H., Miao, T., Liu, L., Zheng, X., Luo, D., & Li, Y. (2021).
Indoor transmission of sars-cov-2. Indoor Air, 31(3),
639–645.
Rahman, M. K., Gazi, A. I., Bhuiyan, M. A., & Rahaman,
A. (2021). Effect of Covid-19 pandemic on tourist travel
risk and management perceptions. plos one, 16(9),
e0256486.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Seyfi, S., Rastegar, R., & Hall, C. M.
(2021). Destination image during the covid-19 pan-
demic and future travel behavior: The moderating role
of past experience. Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, 21(1), 100620.
Rasoolimanesh, S.M.,Wang,M.,Mikulić, J., &Kunasekaran,
P. (2021). A critical review of moderation analysis in
tourism and hospitality research toward robust guide-
lines. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 33(12), 4311–4333.
Rather, R. A. (2021). Demystifying the effects of perceived
risk and fear on customer engagement, co-creation and
revisit intention during covid-19: A protectionmotiva-
tion theory approach. Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management, 20, 100564.
Refulio-Coronado, S., Lacasse, K., Dalton, T., Humphries,
A., Basu, S., Uchida, H., &Uchida, E. (2021). Coastal and
marine socio-ecological systems: A systematic review of
the literature. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 648006.
Rivera, M. A., & Croes, R. (2010). Ecotourists’ loyalty: Will
they tell about the destination or will they return? Jour-
nal of Ecotourism, 9(2), 85–103.
Roca, E., & Villares, M. (2008). Public perceptions for eval-
uating beach quality in urban and semi-natural environ-
ments. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51(4), 314–329.
Roca, E., Villares, M., & Ortego, M. I. (2009). Assessing
public perceptions on beach quality according to beach
users’ profile: A case study in the Costa Brava (Spain).
Tourism Management, 30(4), 598–607.
Roca, E., Riera, C., Villares, M., Fragell, R., & Junyent, R.
(2008). A combined assessment of beach occupancy
and public perceptions of beach quality: A case study in
the Costa Brava, Spain.Ocean and Coastal Management,
51(12), 839–846.
Rodella, I., & Corbau, C. (2020). Linking scenery and users’
perception analysis of Italian beaches (case studies in
Veneto, Emilia-Romagna and Basilicata regions). Ocean
and Coastal Management, 183, 104992.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear
appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1),
93–114.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Moisescu,
O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness
checks in pls-sem. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531–554.
Scannell, L., &Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment:
A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp
.2009.09.006
Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). A conceptual frame-
work for carrying capacity determination. Leisure Sci-
ences, 6(4), 433–451.
Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: The
future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 18(4), 345–370.
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2013). The in-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 169
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
fluence of customer brand identification on hotel brand
evaluation and loyalty development. International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, 34(1), 31–41.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996).
A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satis-
faction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15–32.
Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation,
and consumers’ perceptions of quality. Journal of Mar-
keting, 57(4), 18–34.
Thomas, J. S. (2001). A methodology for linking customer
acquisition to customer retention. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 262–268.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer sat-
isfaction formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), 204–212.
Turnšek, M., Brumen, B., Rangus,M., Gorenak,M., Mekinc,
J., & Štuhec, T. L. (2020). Perceived threat of covid-19
and future travel avoidance: Results from an early con-
venient sample in Slovenia.Academica Turistica, 13(1), 3–
19.
Verma, A., & Rajendran, G. (2017). The effect of histori-
cal nostalgia on tourists’ destination loyalty intention:
An empirical study of the world cultural heritage site-
Mahabalipuram, India. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 22(9), 977–990.
Villares, M., Roca, E., Serra, J., & Montori, C. (2006). Social
perception as a tool for beach planning: A case study on
the Catalan coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 48, 118–
123.
Wang, J., Liu-Lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Mills, D. J. (2019).
Travellers’ self-protections against health risks: An appli-
cation of the full Protection Motivation Theory. Annals
of Tourism Research, 78, 102743.
Wang,W. C., Lin, C. H., Lu, W. B., & Lee, S. H. (2019). When
destination attractiveness shifts in response to climate
change: Tourists’ adaptation intention in Taiwan’s Kent-
ing National Park. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(5), 522–
543.
Weiner, B. (2000). Reflections and reviews attributional
thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(3), 382–387.
Yang, Y., Zhang, C.X., &Rickly, J.M. (2021). A reviewof early
covid-19 research in tourism: Launching the Annals of
Tourism Research’s Curated Collection on coronavirus
and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 91, 103313.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects
of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A
structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56.
Yu, J., Lee, K., & Hyun, S. S. (2021). Understanding the in-
fluence of the perceived risk of the coronavirus disease
(covid-19) on the post-traumatic stress disorder and re-
visit intention of hotel guests. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 46, 327–335.
Žabkar, V., Brenčič, M. M., & Dmitrović, T. (2010). Mod-
elling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behav-
ioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism Man-
agement, 31(4), 537–546.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The
behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of
Marketing, 60(4), 596–611.
Zielinski, S., & Botero, C. M. (2020). Beach tourism in times
of covid-19 pandemic: Critical issues, knowledge gaps
and research opportunities. International Journal of En-
vironmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7288.
Appendix A
Natural beach characteristics. Please rate your level of
satisfaction where 1 – very dissatisfied, 2 – dissatisfied,
3 – neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, 4 – satisfied, 5 –
very satisfied.
nc1 Beach sediment texture
nc2 Available shade on the beach
nc3 Texture of beach sediment when entering the
sea
nc4 Cleanliness of the sea
nc5 Opportunities to observe maritime species
(fish, crabs, shells . . .)
nce1 Litter/Plastic on the beach
nc_scn Beach scenery and local landscape
covid-19 fear/risk. Please rate your level of agreement
with the following statements where 1 – strongly dis-
agree, 2 – somewhat disagree, 3 – neither agree, nor
disagree, 4 – somewhat agree 5 – strongly agree.
c191 I do not fear getting covid-19 on this beach
c193 I feel safe on this beach
Perceived crowding. Please rate your level of satisfac-
tion where 1 – very dissatisfied, 2 – dissatisfied, 3 –
neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, 4 – satisfied, 5 – very
satisfied.
pco1 Available space on the beach
pco2 Noise on the beach
pco3 Crowding on the beach
Beach facilities.Please rate your level of satisfaction/im-
portance where 1 – very dissatisfied, 2 – dissatisfied, 3
170 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023
Damir Magaš et al. Beach Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty during the COVID-19 Pandemic
– neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied, 4 – satisfied, 5 –
very satisfied.
bf1 Change room availability
bf2 Available parking space
bf3 Lifeguard and/or medical service
bf4 Areas for sport, recreation, and children play
on the beach
bf5 Accessibility to the beach and sea for persons
with disabilities
bsan1 Litter bin availability
bsan2 Shower availability
Overall satisfaction and intentions of recommenda-
tion/revisit. Please rate your level of agreement with
the following statements where 1 – strongly disagree, 2
– somewhat disagree, 3 – neither agree, nor disagree,
4 – somewhat agree, 5 – strongly agree.
sate1 I am satisfied with the overall experience at
this beach
sate2 I made a wise decision to visit this beach
sate3 This beach is exactly what I needed
sate4 I really enjoy this beach
reci1 I will recommend this beach to other people
reci2 I will tell other people positive things about
this beach
reci3 I will encourage friends and relatives to visit
this beach
ri1 I will try to visit this beach again
ri2 I think I will visit this beach again
ri3 I will probably visit this beach again
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 2, August 2023 | 171