IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANDSEGMENTATION: AN APPLICATION AT A

BIOSPHERE RESERVE IN VIETNAM

Jerry J. VaskeRachel KiriakosStuart P. Cottrell

Mai Ngoc Khuong

ABSTRACT. This paper examines how importance-performance analysis (IPA) used withsegmentation can be an effective natural resource management tool. Data were obtained fromvisitors (n 5 368, response rate 5 66%) to the Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam.Two distinct user segments were identified according to their preference for facility developmentwithin the reserve. The two segments differed in their importance-performance ratings for (a)attractions, (b) beach facilities and services, (c) facilities in the area, and (d) beauty of the area.Those favoring development rated each of these reserve attributes as more important (p , .001)than those less disposed to additional development. Those favoring development rated theperformance of three of four attributes positively, while all four attributes received negativeperformance scores for those less disposed to additional development. Implications show thatsegmentation can allow for more accurate planning and decision making.

KEYWORDS. Importance-performance, segmentation, Vietnam

Natural resource and tourism managersstruggle to meet differing needs of visitors(Ryan, 2002). The complexities of naturalresources necessitate integrating a wide arrayof interests into management plans (Caneday& Kuzmic, 1997). These special interestgroups typically represent a blend of national,

regional, and local interests marked by differ-ing demographics, values, and behaviors. Theinfluence of multifaceted stakeholder groupsare evident in spotted owl habitat manage-ment in Oregon (Yaffee, 1994), the reintro-duction of wolves in the Greater YellowstoneArea (Taylor, Johnson, & Shelby, 2005), and

30

Jerry J. Vaske, PhD, is Professor, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources,Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA (E-mail: jerryv@cnr.colostate.edu).

Rachel Kiriakos is Research Assistant, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources,Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA (E-mail: rachkiriakos@gmail.com).

Stuart P. Cottrell, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Human Dimensions of NaturalResources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA (E-mail: Cottrell@cnr.colostate.edu).

Mai Ngoc Khuong is affiliated with World Leisure International Centre of Excellence (WICE),Wageningen University, 6703 BG Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26:30–41, 2009Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10548400802656736

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

snowmobile use in Voyageurs (Caneday &Kuzmic, 1997), and Yellowstone (Davenport& Borrie, 2005) National Parks.

Natural resource managers have histori-cally focused on biological information andmade decisions based on expert professionaljudgment (Peterson & Manfredo, 1993).Given changing demographics, more diversevalue orientations, and the increasing effec-tiveness of interest groups, a broader spec-trum of the public now demands and expectsinvolvement in decision making (Decker,Brown, Vaske, & Manfredo, 2004), even incommunist countries (Cottrell, Vaske, Shen,& Ritter, 2007; Jansen-Verbeke & Go, 1995).Empowering visitors with input into thedecision-making process can be viewed as athreat to traditional ways of conductingbusiness (Magill, 1988; Ryan, 2002). At thesame time, however, an understanding ofhow different segments of the public perceiveparticular management actions can helpagencies minimize controversy when choos-ing among management alternatives (Vaske,Beaman, Stanley, & Grenier, 1996).

A paradigm for evaluating informationabout the publics’ views of acceptablemanagement policies is needed to bridgethe gap between changing public expecta-tions and traditional professional (biologi-cal) judgment (Huan, Beaman, & Shelby,2002). Importance-performance analysis(IPA), when combined with visitor segmen-tation, offers one such paradigm for identi-fying publicly acceptable policies amongdifferent visitor segments (Bruyere,Rodriquez, & Vaske, 2002; Huan et al.,2002; Oh, 2001; Vaske et al., 1996). Thepurpose of this article is to demonstrate theuse of IPA and segmentation in under-standing visitors’ views of managementalternatives at the Can Gio MangroveBiosphere Reserve, Vietnam.

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCEANALYSIS

Importance-performance analysis (IPA) wascreated to address the customer satisfaction

problems at an automobile dealership(Martilla & James, 1977) and subsequentlyapplied to health care services (Cunningham& Gaeth, 1989), dental offices (Nitse &Bush, 1993), and financial institutions(Ennew, Reed, & Binks, 1993). IPA hasalso been used to assess perceptions ofIreland as a tourism destination (O’Leary& Deegan, 2005) and in studies of recrea-tionist satisfaction with visitor centers(Megnak, Dottavio, & O’Leary, 1986), statepark cabins (Hollenhorst, Olsen, & Fortney,1992), and a ski area (Hudson & Shephard,1998).

Martilla and James (1977) defined satis-faction as a function of two components: (a)importance placed on a product or service bya customer and (b) the performance of thatproduct or service as viewed by the custo-mer. Combining importance and perfor-mance leads to the creation of a four-quadrant grid representing overall satisfac-tion. Importance is depicted on the verticaly-axis with ratings from ‘‘not important’’ to‘‘very important.’’ Performance is depictedon the horizontal x-axis with ratings from‘‘poor’’ to ‘‘excellent.’’ The four resultingquadrants are interpreted as ‘‘keep up thegood work,’’ ‘‘concentrate here,’’ ‘‘lowpriority,’’ and ‘‘possible overkill’’(Figure 1). This matrix gives managers aneasily understood picture of the status oftheir products and services as rated byvisitors (Bruyere et al., 2002; Daniels &Marion, 2006; Hollenhorst & Gardner, 1994;Huan et al., 2002; Oh, 2001).

For situations involving homogeneousvisitors (e.g., similar motivations for visit-ing), this simple, intuitive, approach providesa useful strategy for evaluating the effective-ness of tourism service delivery. Problemsarise, however, when not all tourists sharethe same importance attitudes (Bruyereet al., 2002; Stanley & Beaman, 1993; Vaskeet al., 1996). One group, for example, mayfavor man-made facilities, while anothergroup may prefer a more natural setting.The optimal agency performance for the firstgroup does not constitute an appropriatesolution for the second group.

Vaske et al. 31

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

VISITOR SEGMENTATION

Although IPA has an intuitive appeal,most visitors do not constitute a homoge-nous population; the ‘‘average user’’ doesnot exist (Shafer, 1969). Heterogeneity isreflected in the diverse array of demo-graphics, attitudes, and behaviors (Manning,1999). Unless this variability is accountedfor in IPA, the results can lead to inaccuratemanagement decisions (Bruyere et al., 2002;Vaske et al., 1996). Segmentation accountsfor the inevitable diversity in a populationand clarifies the extent to which visitorsegments differ on managerially relevantindicators (Bloom, 2004; Frochot, 2005).Respondents are divided into subgroupsbased on these indicators, which allowsmanagers to prioritize actions to addressmanagement objectives (Bruyere et al., 2002).

Previous tourism research emphasizes theneed for segmentation in satisfaction studies.Bonn, Furr, and Uysal (1992), for example, ina study of seasonal visitors to Hilton HeadIsland, South Carolina, found that visitors’importance ratings of beaches, golf, and fish-ing amenities differed between spring, summer,fall, and winter visitors. Bruyere et al. (2002)illustrated the importance of integrating

IPA and segmentation in understanding threesegments’ (i.e., year-round residents, seasonalresidents, tourists) evaluations of the servicesand facilities provided by a recreation andpark district in a gateway community (EstesPark, Colorado). Donnelly, Vaske, DeRuiter,and King (1996) showed that recreationalpreferences of visitors to Colorado state parksdiffered substantially between visitors ofprimitive parks, visitors of highly developedparks, and visitors of parks with moderatelevels of amenities. Incorporating segmenta-tion allowed managers on Hilton Head Island,Estes Park, and in Colorado’s state parks tooptimize the level of service to specific usergroups (e.g., summer visitors, year-roundresidents, and visitors who prefer varyinglevels of development). Other recreationand tourism research has reached similarconclusions emphasizing the importanceand necessity of segmentation (Dacko,2004; Dıaz-Perez, Bethencourt-Cejas, &Alvarez-Gonzalez, 2005; Dimanche, Havitz,& Howard, 1992; Etzel & Woodside, 1982;Jang, Morrison, & O’Leary, 2002;McKercher, Ho, du Cros, & Chow, 2002;Mills, Couturier, & Snepenger, 1986;Moscardo, Pearce, & Morrison, 2001;Yuksel, 2003).

FIGURE 1. Importance-Performance Grid

32 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

Vaske et al. (1996) simulated four scenariosin which IPA without appropriate segmenta-tion resulted in user displacement and subopti-mal resource allocation. The hypothetical usergroup segments represented different attitudesand preferences for the area. The optimalmanagement solution for the whole population(i.e., additional development) was not ideal forany of the user segments. Some user groupsviewed the solution as an improvement whileothers viewed the development strategy asinappropriate. Those who were most attractedto the original undeveloped beach were dis-placed and by users who preferred moredevelopment (Vaske et al., 1996).

HYPOTHESES

This paper builds on a previous study(Khuong, 2004), which examined touristexpectations and satisfaction during theirvisits to Can Gio Mangrove BiosphereReserve, Vietnam. The original study waslimited to a descriptive analysis of visitors tothe reserve and their evaluation of theexperience via an importance and perfor-mance analysis. This paper builds on priorIPA with segmentation research (Bruyere etal., 2002; Vaske et al., 1996) by examininghow visitor segments with different beliefsabout facility development evaluate theservices and facilities offered at the CanGio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve. Morespecifically, study hypotheses are:

H1 Visitors can be segmented basedon their level of desired facilitydevelopment.

H2 Visitors interested in facility develop-ment will differ in their importance-performance ratings from those notinterested in facility development.

METHODS

Study Site

Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve,the first biosphere reserve in Vietnam, is

located 50 km southeast of Ho Chi MihnCity and covers 73,360 ha, over half of whichis mangrove forestland. Can Gio is known asthe ‘‘green lungs’’ of Ho Chi Mihn City, thelargest industrial center in Vietnam. Can Giosupports some of the most luxurious anddiverse mangroves in the world and repre-sents the largest rehabilitated mangrove areain Vietnam. Given the decreasing area ofmangroves worldwide, Vietnam considered iturgent to declare this region a mangrovebiosphere reserve (Tri, Hong, & Cuc, 2000).

In 2000, UNESCO approved the CanGio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve and iden-tified three important roles (i.e., conserva-tion, development, logistic) to support,strengthen, and unify management efforts(Tri et al., 2000). Conservation is intended toprotect the mangroves, which house numer-ous species and considerable biomass.Conservation of mangroves is critical toensure biodiversity of the plants and animalsthat live off of them. The development role isespecially critical for this area given that CanGio is the poorest district of Ho Chi MihnCity; approximately 58,000 people livewithin the reserve. Sustainable developmentof conservation and cultural socioeconomicactivities will hopefully help the district. Thelogistic role incorporates education,research, and environmental awareness, bothlocally and internationally.

There are three main tourist attractions inCan Gio (Khuong, 2004). First, ForestryPark houses a 600-member monkey group, acrocodile pool, and a Vietnamese army base.Second, the April 30th Beach is found in thetransition area adjacent to Can Gio town.Although the beach is polluted, tourists areattracted to the inexpensive seafood sold inthe area. Third, the Vam Sat site includes abat sanctuary and a bird sanctuary (Khuong,2004).

Data Collection and Sampling Design

Data were collected from domestic visitorsat Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserveduring October, November, and December2003 by two Vietnamese graduate students

Vaske et al. 33

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

(Khuong, 2004). The study population con-sisted of all domestic tourists coming to CanGio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve inOctober. There were an estimated 26,320domestic tourists in 2002, October throughDecember. International tourists wereexcluded because they accounted for only1% of all visitors in 2002 (Huy, 2001). Afour-page self-administered on-site survey inVietnamese was randomly distributed toevery second group in Can Gio ForestryPark and every fifth group at the April 30thBeach. Survey questions assessed visitordemographics, visitor motives, importanceand performance of attractions, facilities andservices, activity participation, and experi-ence satisfaction. The survey took approxi-mately 15 minutes to complete. The totalsample consisted of 368 participants(response rate 5 66%).

Independent/Segmentation Variable

The independent variable, facility devel-opment, was a composite index that includedthe following variables: ‘‘well maintainedwalking trails,’’ ‘‘camping areas,’’ ‘‘bunga-low and eco-lodge systems,’’ and ‘‘canteens,restaurants, and food shops.’’ Each of theoriginal variables was coded on a 5-pointscale ranging from not important (22) toextremely important (+2).

Dependent Variables

Respondents rated the importance of 17variables (see Table 2 for specific items) ofCan Gio on 5-point scales ranging from 22(not important) to +2 (extremely important).They then gave performance evaluations ofthe same variables on 5-point scales rangingfrom 22 (very poor) to +2 (excellent). Theimportance-performance measures weredesigned to reflect four dimensions (i.e.,attractions, beach facilities, services, beautyof area) of a Can Gio experience.

Analysis

Reliability analyses using SPSS were usedto examine the internal consistency of thefour items assessing tourist beliefs about

facility development. A single variable wascreated as the sum of the four variablesrepresenting facility development. To vali-date the two facility development segments(not important versus important), the fourdevelopment variables were cluster analyzed.

Separate confirmatory factor analyses(CFA) using LISREL 8.54 on the impor-tance-performance measures indicated thateach of the variables was associated withtheir respective concepts. Indices were com-puted as the average of the variablescomprising each dimension of importanceand performance. Independent sample t testswere used to compare the four importancedimensions and the four performance dimen-sions against the two facility developmentsegments (not important versus important).

RESULTS

Visitor Profile

Over three quarters (78%) of the touriststo Can Gio come from the nearby Ho ChiMihn City, with most of the remaindercoming from nearby provinces (Khuong,2004). Slightly more female (52%) than male(48%) tourists visit the area. Over half of thevisitors are between the ages of 15–24; 30%are between 25–34 years old. Visitors tend tobe educated, with 60% holding a universitydegree and 3% postgraduate degrees. Thelargest segment of visitors is students (51%),followed by office workers (19%).

Facility Development Segments

Four variables were used to construct abelief about development index (Table 1).These included ‘‘well maintained walkingtracks,’’ ‘‘camping within the reserve,’’‘‘bungalow and ecolodge systems,’’ and‘‘canteens, restaurants, and food shops.’’The overall reliability (Cronbach’s a 5 .78)supported combining the four variables intoa single construct.

Using the midpoint of the computed index(i.e., zero) as the cut point, approximatelyhalf of the respondents (53%) viewed facility

34 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

development as important and 47% viewedfacility development as not important. Tovalidate this approach to operationalizingthe two visitor segments, the four develop-ment variables were cluster analyzed. Thecorrelation between a 2-cluster solution andthe simple dichotomous-split variable was.91. Given that the 3-cluster solution resultedin only 18 individuals in cluster 3, thedichotomous-split facility development con-cept was used as the segmentation (indepen-dent) variable in the analyses. Takentogether, these findings support hypothesis1: Visitors can be segmented based on theirlevel of desired facility development.

Importance-Performance Evaluations

The importance-performance variablesreflected four dimensions: (a) attractions, (b)beach facilities, (c) services, and (d) beauty ofarea. ‘‘Attractions’’ included six items: RungSac military base, Sea God Temple, Sam Satecotourism site, Dam Doi tourist site, CanGio museum, and the bird yard (Table 2).‘‘Beach facilities’’ were represented by fourvariables (e.g., accommodations at April 30thBeach, small food shops, and restaurants atApril 30th Beach). The ‘‘services’’ dimensionincluded four questions (e.g., motorboats forviewing mangrove forests, Japanese ecologicalvillage). ‘‘Beauty of area’’ was measured by (a)the greenness of the mangrove forests, (b) thebeauty of the landscape, and (c) the diversityof flora and fauna.

Separate confirmatory factor analyses(CFA) using LISREL 8.54 on the importanceand performance measures indicated that eachof the variables was associated with their

respective concepts (Table 2). For the ‘‘attrac-tions’’ dimensions (both importance andperformance), the standardized factor load-ings ranged from .54 (importance—Vam Satecotourism site) to .74 (performance—CanGio museum). The coefficients for ‘‘beachfacilities’’ ranged from .70 to .82 for impor-tance, and .68 to .81 for performance. Similarstandardized factor loadings were found for‘‘services’’ (.55 to .75—importance, .40 to.81—performance) and ‘‘beauty of area’’ (.52to .81—importance, .77 to .84—performance).Reliability coefficients for the variables ineach of the four concepts ranged from .71 to.85 (importance) and from .75 to .87 (perfor-mance). Deleting any of the questions fromtheir respective constructs did not improve thereliability. These findings when combinedwith the CFA fit statistics (x2 / DF 5 4.31and 4.39, CFI 5 .94 and .95, RMR 5 .07 and.06; importance and performance, respec-tively), supported combining the variablesassociated with each of the importance andperformance dimensions into their respectiveconstructs.

Segment Differences

Independent sample t tests were used tocompare the four importance dimensionsand the four performance dimensions(Table 3) against the facility developmentsegments (not important versus important).All eight of the statistical tests were sig-nificant (t > 3.11, p ( .002, in all cases) andin the predicted (hypothesis 2) direction.Visitors interested in facility develop-ment reported higher mean importance-performance ratings for attractions, beach

TABLE 1. Reliability Analysis of Facility Development Variables

Concept/Variables1 Item TotalCorrelation

Alpha If Item Deleted Cronbach Alpha

Facility Development .78

Well maintained walking tracks .524 .755

Camping within the reserve .620 .706

Bungalow and ecolodge systems .683 .670

Canteens, restaurants, and food shops .511 .760

1Variables coded on a 5-point scale ranging from (22) not at all important to (+2) extremely important.

Vaske et al. 35

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

TABLE 3. Importance-Performance Evaluations by Facility Development Segments

Importance of Development t value p value g

Not Important Important

Importance Concepts1

Attractions 20.38 0.68 3.91 , .001 .44

Beach facilities 20.18 0.77 6.17 , .001 .53

Services 20.12 0.72 7.22 , .001 .54

Beauty of area 1.03 1.39 4.33 , .001 .30

Performance Concepts2

Attractions 20.08 0.20 3.11 .002 .52

Beach facilities 20.38 20.04 3.59 , .001 .45

Services 20.21 0.08 3.65 , .001 .44

Beauty of area 20.37 0.92 4.78 , .001 .43

1Importance variables coded on a 5-point scale ranging from (22) not important to (+2) extremely important.2Performance variables coded on 5-point scale ranging from (22) very poor to (+2) excellent.

TABLE 2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Importance and Performance Variables

Dimension Standardized Factor Loading1 Cronbach Alpha

Importance2 Performance3 Importance Performance

Attractions .83 .87

Rung Sac military base .59 .67

Sea God Temple .64 .68

Vam Sat ecotourism site .54 .73

Can Gio museum .70 .74

Dam Doi tourist site .69 .67

Bird yard .74 .72

Beach Facilities .85 .84

Accommodations at April 30th

Beach

.76 .68

Small food shops at April 30th

Beach

.82 .79

Restaurants at April 30th Beach .80 .81

April 30th Beach .70 .79

Services .76 .75

Motorboats for viewing mangrove

forest

.55 .81

Japanese ecological village .66 .65

Household renting chairs and life

buoys

.70 .40

Forestry Park restaurant .75 .71

Beauty of Area .71 .86

Immensely green mangrove forest .55 .80

Beautiful landscape .52 .77

Diversity of flora and fauna .81 .84

x2 473.57 483.30

DF 110 110

x2 / DF 4.31 4.39

CFI .94 .95

RMR .07 .06

1All standardized factor loadings significant at p , .001; SE ( 0.53.2Importance variables coded on a 5-point scale ranging from (22) not important to (+2) extremely important.3Performance variables coded on 5-point scale ranging from (22) very poor to (+2) excellent.

36 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

facilities, services, and beauty of area thanthose not interested in facility development.The effect sizes for the ‘‘importance’’ differ-ence tests ranged from .30 (beauty of area) to.54 (services). For the ‘‘performance’’ tests,the effect sizes ranged from .43 (beauty ofarea) to .52 (attractions). The magnitude ofthese differences suggests ‘‘typical’’ to ‘‘sub-stantial’’ relationships (Vaske, Gliner, &Morgan, 2002), or ‘‘medium’’ to ‘‘large’’associations (Cohen, 1988).

Plotting the average importance-perfor-mance evaluations highlights the differencesbetween two segments (Figure 2). The ratings

for 3 of the 4 evaluations (i.e., attractions,beach facilities, services) for those who did notconsider development important fell in the‘‘low priority’’ quadrant. ‘‘Beauty of area’’does not focus on development and, as mightbe expected, the combined means for thisgroup for this concept were in the ‘‘keep of thegood work’’ quadrant. For respondents whoconsidered development important, 3 of the 4evaluation sets (i.e., attractions, services,beauty of area) were in the ‘‘keep up the goodwork’’ quadrant. The exception for thissegment was beach facilities, which was in‘‘concentrate here’’ quadrant.

FIGURE 2. Importance-Performance Evaluations by Facility Development Segments

Vaske et al. 37

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

When the importance-performance scoresfor each of the items were examined for thesegment that views facility development asnot important, those attributes rated mostfavorably were ‘‘immensely green mangroveforest,’’ ‘‘diversity of flora and fauna,’’ and‘‘beautiful landscape.’’ Conversely, this seg-ment was dissatisfied with 8 of the 17attributes: ‘‘Dam Doi tourist site,’’ ‘‘April30 beach,’’ ‘‘small food shops, restaurants,and accommodations at April 30 beach,’’‘‘bird yard,’’ ‘‘Sea God temple,’’ and ‘‘CanGio museum.’’

For the segment that viewed facilitydevelopment as important, similar to theother group, the attributes rated mostfavorably were ‘‘immensely green mangroveforest,’’ ‘‘diversity of flora and fauna,’’ and‘‘beautiful landscape.’’ This segment, how-ever, was dissatisfied with ‘‘householdrenting chairs and life buoys,’’ ‘‘Dam Doitourist site,’’ ‘‘Vam Sat ecotourism site,’’and ‘‘restaurants at April 30 beach.’’‘‘Forestry Park restaurant,’’ ‘‘accommoda-tions at April 30 Beach,’’ and ‘‘Sea GodTemple’’ were borderline. This segment wasrelatively satisfied with 10 of the 17attributes.

‘‘Dam Doi tourist site’’ was a concentratehere item for both groups. ‘‘Householdsrenting chairs and lifebuoys’’ and ‘‘ForestryPark restaurant’’ had low performancescores for both groups; consequently theseitems were low priority for the facilitydevelopment not important group and con-centrate here items for the facility develop-ment important group.

DISCUSSION

Natural resource managers are challengedto accommodate different user groups(Caneday & Kuzmic, 1997; Donnelly et al.,1996; Hollenhorst et al., 1992; Magill, 1988;Manning, 1999; Peterson & Manfredo, 1993;Tonge & Moore, 2007). This article exam-ined two segments of visitors at Can GioMangrove Biosphere Reserve. Approxi-mately half of the sample viewed facility

development positively; the other half didnot find facility development important. Theresults support predicted differences betweensegments. With the exception of a non-development-oriented concept (beauty ofarea), respondents who did not considerdevelopment important rated services, beachfacilities, and attractions as a low priority.Conversely, those who valued developmentbelieved that Can Gio should continue toprovide services/attractions and wanted evenmore beach facilities.

These results are consistent with past IPAand segmentation research (Duke & Persia,1996; Hollenhorst et al., 1992). Bruyere et al.(2002) demonstrated the importance ofsegmentation to measure user satisfactionwith the recreational opportunities of agateway community. Bonn et al. (1992)showed how importance-performance rat-ings of beaches, golf, and fishing amenitiesdiffered among spring, summer, fall, andwinter visitors to Hilton Head, SouthCarolina. Preferences of recreation visitorsto Colorado state parks differed amongthose wanting primitive parks versus thosedesiring more park amenities (Donnelly etal., 1996).

Implications

Without segmentation, importance-per-formance analysis can lead to misleadingconclusions (Vaske et al., 1996). Visitors tonatural resource areas constitute a diversegroup of individuals. A management solu-tion for one user segment of the populationis not necessarily optimal for another group.Some segments may view additional devel-opment as an improvement, while othersconsider such changes negatively (Bruyere etal., 2002; Vaske et al., 1996).

To accommodate this diversity of views,planning decisions need to be based on thearea’s management objectives. The manage-ment objectives for Can Gio emphasize bothconservation and development (Tri et al.,2000). Conservation efforts are designed toprotect the mangroves, while developmentinitiatives are intended to enhance the lives

38 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

of people living in one of the poorest districtsof Ho Chi Mihn City. Importance-perfor-mance analysis (with or without segmenta-tion) does not address which of these dualmandates should take priority when decidinghow much and what type of development isappropriate for Can Gio. Combining IPAwith segmentation, however, provides man-agers with a gauge for estimating the propor-tion of individuals who favor development. Inthis investigation, there were approximatelyequal percentages in the two segments and thegroups differed significantly on whether addi-tional development was judged as appropri-ate. Any decision to develop or not developCan Gio is likely to have negative conse-quences for half of the visiting public.

To address this dilemma managers’ mightconsider other indicator variables (e.g.,visitor demographics). Previous researchhas suggested that (a) slightly more femalesthan males visit the Can Gio, (b) over halfare 15–24 years old, and (c) nearly two thirds(63%) hold a university or postgraduatedegree (Khuong, 2004). Ancillary analysesof our data suggested no significant differ-ences in the two segments (i.e., developmentnot important versus development impor-tant) by either sex or age. Level of education,however, was related to development prefer-ences. Nearly 80% of those with a universityor postgraduate degree did not view devel-opment favorably; 41% of those who hadstopped their formal education with a highschool degree considered developmentimportant.

CONCLUSION

Prior research has repeatedly demon-strated that average users do not exist forNorth American natural resources(Manning, 1999; Shafer, 1969); a similarconclusion appears to apply to visitors to abiosphere reserve in Vietnam. Those thatprefer and those that do not favor facilitydevelopment often differ in their beliefsabout acceptable management actions.Importance-performance analysis when

combined with segmentation can facilitateunderstanding these variations in preferencesand may lead to more optimal managementstrategies. All research, however, has alimited shelf life (Bruyere et al., 2002).Preferences and demographics change overtime. Tourism in Vietnam has just begun toexpand with a 12% increase in domestictravel in 2002 (Khuong, 2004). Because newusers can imply different user characteristicsand preferences, managers are encouraged toperiodically update IPA research.

REFERENCES

Bloom, J. Z. (2004). Tourist market segmentation with

linear and non-linear techniques. Tourism

Management, 25(6), 723-733.

Bonn, M. A., Furr, H. L., & Uysal, M. (1992).

Seasonal variation of coastal resort visitors: Hilton

Head Island. Journal of Travel Research, 31(1), 50-

56.

Bruyere, B., Rodriquez, D., & Vaske, J. J. (2002).

Enhancing importance-performance analysis

through segmentation. Journal of Travel and

Tourism, 12(1), 81-95.

Caneday, L., & Kuzmic, T. (1997). Managing the

diverse interests of stakeholders. Parks and

Recreation, 32(9), 118-127.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the

behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cottrell, S., Vaske, J. J., Shen, F., & Ritter, P. (2007).

Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism in

Chongdugou, China. Society and Natural

Resources, 20(6), 1-15.

Cunningham, M. A., & Gaeth, G. J. (1989). Using

importance-performance analysis to assess patients

decisions to seek care in a dental school clinic.

Journal of Dental Education, 53(10), 584-586.

Dacko, S. G. (2004). Marketing strategies for last-

minute travel and tourism: Profitability and rev-

enue management implications. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 16(4), 7-20.

Daniels, M. L., & Marion, J. L. (2006). Visitor

evaluations of management actions at a highly

impacted Appalachian Trail camping area.

Environmental Management, 38(6), 1006-1019.

Davenport, M. A., & Borrie, W. T. (2005). The

appropriateness of snowmobiling in National

Parks: An investigation of the meanings of snow-

mobiling experiences in Yellowstone National

Park. Environmental Management, 35(2), 151-160.

Vaske et al. 39

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

Dıaz-Perez, F. M., Bethencourt-Cejas, M., & Alvarez-

Gonzalez, J. A. (2005). The segmentation of Canary

Island tourism markets by expenditure: Implica-

tions for tourism policy. Tourism Management,

26(6), 961-964.

Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1992).

Consumer involvement profiles as a tourism

segmentation tool. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 1(4), 33-52.

Decker, D., Brown, T., Vaske, J. J., & Manfredo, M. J.

(2004). Human dimensions of wildlife management.

In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R.

Field, & P. Brown (Eds.), Society and natural

resources: A summary of knowledge (pp. 187-198).

Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho.

Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J. J., DeRuiter, D. S., & King,

T. B. (1996). Person-occasion segmentation of state

park visitors. Journal of Parks and Recreation

Administration, 14(2), 95-106.

Duke, C. R., & Persia, M. A. (1996). Performance-

importance analysis of escorted tour evaluations.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 5(3), 207-223.

Ennew, C. T., Reed, G. V., & Binks, M. R. (1993).

Importance-performance analysis and the measure-

ment of service quality. European Journal of

Marketing, 27(2), 59-70.

Etzel, M. J., & Woodside, A. G. (1982). Segmenting

vacation markets: The case of the distant and near-

home travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 20(4),

10-14.

Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists

in rural areas: A Scottish perspective. Tourism

Management, 26(3), 335-346.

Hollenhorst, S., & Gardner, L. (1994). The indicator

performance estimate approach for determining

acceptable wilderness conditions. Environmental

Management, 18(6), 901-906.

Hollenhorst, S., Olsen, D., & Fortney, R. (1992). Use

of importance-performance analysis to evaluate

state park cabins: The case of the West Virginia

State Park system. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration, 10(1), 1-11.

Huan, T.-C., Beaman, J., & Shelby, L. B. (2002). Using

action-grids in tourism management. Tourism

Management, 23(3), 255-264.

Hudson, S., & Shephard, G. W. H. (1998). Measuring

service quality at tourist destinations: An applica-

tion of importance-performance analysis to an

alpine ski resort. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 7(3), 61-77.

Huy, D. D. (2001). Market and ecotourism promotion

strategy study at Can Gio. Unpublished bachelor’s

thesis, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City,

Vietnam.

Jang, S. C., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (2002).

Benefit segmentation of Japanese pleasure travelers to

the USA and Canada: Selecting target markets based

on the profitability and risk of individual market

segments. Tourism Management, 23(4), 367-378.

Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Go, F. (1995). Tourism

development in Vietnam. Tourism Management,

16(4), 315-325.

Khuong, M. (2004). Tourist expectations and satisfac-

tion assessment for ecotourism product development

at Can Gio Biosphere Reserve: Ho Chi Mihn City,

Vietnam. Unpublished master’s thesis, Wageningen

University, Wageningen,The Netherlands.

Magill, A. W. (1988). Natural resource professionals:

The reluctant public servant. The Environmental

Professional, 10(4), 295-303.

Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation:

Search and research for satisfaction (2nd ed.).

Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-

performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1),

77-79.

McKercher, B., Ho, P. S. Y., du Cros, H., & Chow, B.

S.-M. (2002). Activities-based segmentation of the

cultural tourism market. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 12(1), 23-46.

Megnak, K. K., Dottavio, F. D., & O’Leary, J. T.

(1986). Use of importance-performance analysis to

evaluate a visitor center. Journal of Interpretation,

11(2), 1-13.

Mills, A. S., Couturier, H., & Snepenger, D. J. (1986).

Segmenting Texas snow skiers. Journal of Travel

Research, 25(2), 19-23.

Moscardo, G. M., Pearce, P. L., & Morrison, A. M.

(2001). Evaluating different bases for market

segmentation: A comparison of geographic origin

versus activity participation for generating tourist

market segments. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 10(1), 29-49.

Nitse, P. S., & Bush, R. P. (1993). An examination of

retail dental practices versus private dental practices

using an importance-performance analysis. Health

Marketing Quarterly, 11(1–2), 207-221.

Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance–performance

analysis. Tourism Management, 22(6), 617-627.

O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2005). Ireland’s image as a

tourist destination in France: Attribute importance

and performance. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3),

247-256.

Peterson, M. R., & Manfredo, M. J. (1993). Social

science and the evolving conservation philosophy. In

S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, D. E. Baker, E. K.

Brown, J. R. Pratt, & R. F. Schmalz (Eds.), Conserva-

tion and resource management (pp. 292-304). Easton,

PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science.

Ryan, C. (2002). Equity, management, power sharing

and sustainability—Issues of the ‘‘new tourism.’’

Tourism Management, 23(1), 17-26.

40 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009

Shafer, E., Jr. (1969). The average camper who doesn’t

exist (Research Paper NE-142). Upper Darby, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Stanley, R., & Beaman, J. G. (1993). Uses of

importance-performance measures to recognize pol-

icy issues. Paper presented at the Canadian

Congress of Leisure Research, Winnipeg,

Manitoba.

Taylor, J. G., Johnson, S. S., & Shelby, L. B. (2005).

Judgments of responsibility for the wolves of the

Southern Greater Yellowstone Area (Publication

No. 2005-1408). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline.

Tonge, J., & Moore, S. A. (2007). Importance-

satisfaction analysis for marine-park hinterlands:

A Western Australian case study. Tourism

Management, 28(3), 768-776.

Tri, N. H., Hong, P. N., & Cuc, L. T. (2000). Can Gio

Mangrove Biosphere Reserve. Hanoi, Vietnam:

Cartographic Publishing House.

Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., Stanley, R., & Grenier, M.

(1996). Importance-performance and segmentation:

Where do we go from here? Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing, 5(3), 225-240.

Vaske, J. J., Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2002).

Communicating judgments about practical signifi-

cance: Effect size, confidence intervals and odds

ratios. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(4), 287-300.

Yaffee, S. L. (1994). The wisdom of the spotted owl:

Policy lessons for a new century. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

Yuksel, A. (2003). Market segmentation based on

customers’ post-purchase performance evaluation:

A case of tourist diners. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 15(1), 1-18.

SUBMITTED: July 9, 2007FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:

March 4, 2008ACCEPTED: March 4, 2008

REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

Vaske et al. 41

Downloaded By: [Vaske, Jerry J.] At: 09:24 27 February 2009