This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]

On: 01 January 2015, At: 23:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Enhancing ImportancePerformance Analysis Through

Segmentation
a

Brett L. Bruyere PhD , Donald A. Rodriguez &

Jerry J. Vaske

Department of Natural Resource Recreation and

Tourism , Colorado State University , Colorado, USA
Published online: 13 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Brett L. Bruyere PhD , Donald A. Rodriguez & Jerry J. Vaske
(2002) Enhancing Importance-Performance Analysis Through Segmentation, Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12:1, 81-95, DOI: 10.1300/J073v12n01_05
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v12n01_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

Enhancing
Importance-Performance Analysis
Through Segmentation
Brett L. Bruyere
Donald A. Rodriguez
Jerry J. Vaske

ABSTRACT. This article demonstrates how importance-performance

analysis (IPA) and segmentation can be effectively used as a tool to measure
user satisfaction with the recreational opportunities in a parks and recreation
district of a gateway community. Data were obtained from three different
segments of the gateway populationyear-round residents, seasonal residents, and tourists. Results indicated that importance-performance evaluations varied among the three segments. Segmentation was found to be a
necessary component of IPA in order to identify differences between distinct user groups that allow for more accurate planning and decision making. Additionally this article examines how the adjustment of importance
and performance crosshairs can enhance IPA beyond more traditional approaches. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com>
Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights
reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Recreation, importance-performance, segmentation

Brett L. Bruyere is a PhD candidate and instructor at Colorado State University.
Donald A. Rodriguez is Assistant Professor at Colorado State University. Jerry J.
Vaske is Professor at Colorado State University. All three authors are affiliated with
the Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism.
Address correspondence to: Brett L. Bruyere, NRRT, Forestry 232, Colorado State
University, Forestry 232, Ft. Collins, CO 80523.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 12(1) 2002
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J073
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

81

82

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

INTRODUCTION
This study highlights the importance of integrating segmentation in
an importance-performance analysis (IPA) to enhance its utility and to
achieve accurate and useful results. While IPA has been extensively
used to measure client satisfaction for nearly 25 years (Martilla &
James, 1977), more recent research has indicated that IPA has limited
utility when not used in conjunction with variables to segment user
groups (Vaske, Beaman, Stanley, & Grenier, 1996). As will be described later, IPA without a segmentation component will produce results for an aggregate user group that ultimately indicates levels of
satisfaction for an average user. However, as noted by Shafer (1969)
over 30 years ago, the average user does not exist, and therefore, average satisfaction ratings are of minimal practical value. Combining IPA
with segmentation overcomes this limitation and provides more useful
results for recreation managers.
Initially developed by Martilla and James (1977), IPA is a means by
which to measure client satisfaction with a product or service. The IPA
approach recognizes satisfaction as the function of two components: the
importance of a product or service to a client, and the performance of a
business or agency in providing that product or service. The combined
client ratings for those two components provide an overall picture of
satisfaction with clear directives for management, which is discussed
later.
As a cost-efficient and broadly applicable evaluation tool, IPA is an
attractive option for recreation managers who are often faced with limited budgets and time constraints. IPA is inexpensive to administer,
simple to interpret, and when combined with segmentation, produces
results that can be incorporated into effective management strategies.
Determining how to manage municipal recreation programs and facilities in gateway communities can be problematic in that managers
must balance the provision of recreational opportunities to appease both
residents and tourists. As demonstrated by Vaske et al. (1996), enhancing the opportunities for one user group can adversely affect the opportunities of another. For example, marketing a golf course to visitors may
create a tightly scheduled tee-time calendar and interfere with permanent residents who are unable to play golf at desired times of the day.
However, since tourists provide valuable revenue to a gateway community, recreational agencies must cater to the visiting public to some extent in order to contribute to a viable local economy (Crompton &
Richardson, 1996; Thomason, Crompton & Kamp, 1979). This study

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

83

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

demonstrates how an IPA combined with segmentation can allow managers to navigate differences between users and provide opportunities
that are desirable and satisfying to multiple groups.
Review of Literature
As previously described, Martilla and James (1977) defined satisfaction as a function of two components: the importance placed by customers on a product or service and the performance of that product or
provision of service. Combining the importance and performance measures allows for the creation of a four-quadrant matrix that offers a visual
understanding of overall user satisfaction. Importance is represented
along the vertical axis with ratings from very important to not at all
important.
One limitation of IPA is its inability to determine if expressed importance is based on a positive or negative attitude about an attribute. A facility can be considered important based on either favorable (i.e.,
providing a safe place for youth) or unfavorable (i.e., creates traffic)
reasons. IPA traditionally assumes that expressed importance is based
on a favorable evaluation. Addressing this issue is discussed later in the
methods section.
Performance ratings are measured on a horizontal axis and range
from poor to excellent. When combined, the importance and performance axes intersect and produce a four-quadrant matrix.
Each quadrant in an IPA matrix represents either high or low importance and poor or excellent performance. This matrix gives managers an
easily understood picture of the status of their services and facilities as
perceived by users. In previous studies (Williams & Neal, 1993; Havitz,
Twyman, & DeLorenzo, 1991) the four quadrants have been interpreted
as keep up the good work, concentrate here, low priority, and
possible overkill (Figure 1).
Martilla and James (1977) first applied IPA to customer satisfaction
with an auto dealership. Subsequent applications have examined health
care services (Cunningham & Gaeth, 1989), dental offices (Nitse &
Bush, 1993) and financial institutions (Ennew, Reed, & Binks, 1993).
Guadagnolo (1985) pioneered the use of IPA within recreation to measure satisfaction with a sanctioned running race. Since that time, IPA
has been used within recreation to evaluate satisfaction with the attributes associated with visitor centers (Megnak, Dottavio, & OLeary,
1986), state park cabins (Hollenhorst, Olson, & Fortney, 1992), and an
alpine ski area (Hudson & Shephard, 1988).

84

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

FIGURE 1. Importance-Performance Matrix

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

IMPORTANCE
Very important
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E

Points in this quadrant indicate high

importance but poor performance.
Concentrate here.

Points in this quadrant indicate high

importance and excellent performance.
Keep up the good work!

Poor

Excellent

Points in this quadrant indicate low

importance and poor performance.
Low priority.

Points in this quadrant indicate low

importance but excellent performance.
Possible overkill.

Not at all important

IPA has also been used to measure attributes within parks and recreation departments to help create more efficient and positive office environments. Richardson (1987), for example, used IPA to measure
employee satisfaction of internal communication flows. Williams and
Neal (1993) implemented an IPA to determine if employees felt satisfied with motivational opportunities, and Havitz et al. (1991) successfully examined employee satisfaction with job tasks and professional
development opportunities.
By itself, however, importance-performance analysis has limited utility except for rare situations in which the target population is homogenous. More often, users present a diversity of attitudes and demographics.
Incorporating segmentation is therefore critical although it has not been
traditionally included. Segmentation accounts for the diversity that inevitably exists between groups and provides more powerful results to recreation managers and tourism planners. Without segmentation, importanceperformance ratings can be misinterpreted and lead to inaccurate and
ineffective planning.
Previous research in recreation emphasizes the need for segmentation in satisfaction studies. Bonn, Furr and Uysal (1992), for example,
in a study of seasonal visitors to Hilton Head Island, South Carolina,
found that visitors importance ratings of beaches, golf and fishing amenities differed between spring, summer, fall and winter visitors. Donnelly, Vaske, DeRuiter and King (1996) showed that recreational
preferences of visitors to Colorado state parks differed substantially be-

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

85

tween visitors of primitive parks, visitors of highly developed parks,

and visitors of parks with moderate levels of amenities. Incorporating
segmentation allowed managers on both Hilton Head Island and in Colorados state parks to optimize the level of service to specific user
groups (e.g., summer visitors and visitors who prefer varying levels of
development). In Vaske et al. (1996), the authors identified multiple
scenarios in which IPA without appropriate segmentation can actually
result in undesirable outcomes related to user displacement and sub-optimal resource allocation. Other recreation research has also reached
similar conclusions emphasizing the importance and necessity of segmentation (Etzel & Woodside, 1982; Mills, Couturier & Snepenger,
1986).
Setting the crosshairs on the IP matrix can also provide managers
with greater insight. The point at which the importance and performance crosshairs intersect on the matrix is at the discretion of the manager or researcher. In some previous studies, the intersection was based
on each of the axes respective neutral points (Havitz et al., 1991; Williams & Neal, 1993; Richardson, 1987). However, movement of the
crosshairs can provide more insightful interpretation and allows for
flexibility in setting standards. Past research (Hudson & Shephard,
1998; Megnak et al., 1986; Guadagnolo, 1985; Hollenhorst, Olson &
Fortney, 1992) offers two reasons for adjusting the crosshairs. One, adjusting the performance crosshair allows for setting a standard of quality that significantly exceeds neutral and therefore reflects a higher
standard of service. Second, adjusting the importance crosshair allows
for priorities to be more narrowly recognized.
Recreation managers must therefore consider two questions when
setting crosshairs in an IPA: what is the standard of quality to be provided and what is the degree of priority of information needs? An
agency with limited resources might only want an indication of the very
top priorities and would adjust the importance crosshair accordingly. Or
the agency may desire a strict quality of service and adjust the performance crosshair accordingly. After an adjustment of crosshairs has
been made, points in the respective quadrants can remain interpreted as
previously described in Figure 1.
There are tradeoffs, however, to an adjustment of crosshairs from the
point of neutrality. While it does allow for measurement of satisfaction
at a higher standard and a more narrow indication of where to prioritize
efforts, an adjustment can also lead to misinterpretation. For example,
an IP attribute rating might fall in the keep up the good work quadrant
based on traditional placement of the crosshairs, but could end up in the

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

86

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

possible overkill quadrant based on an upward adjustment of the performance axis. In this scenario, managers may be inclined to lessen current maintenance toward the attribute because of a perceived expression
of low importance. Such a decision could have an adverse impact on users who actually expressed some degree of importance, albeit mild, regarding the attribute.
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
The Estes Valley is nestled in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado at an
elevation of 7,500 feet. The valley serves as the eastern gateway to
Rocky Mountain National Park, where more than 113 summits exceed
10,000 feet in elevation, and wildlife such as elk and bighorn sheep
abound. At the heart of the Estes Valley is the town of Estes Park, a
tourism-based gateway community rich in restaurants, specialty shops
and outdoor recreation opportunities. The permanent year round Estes
Valley population is nearly 5,000, while approximately 2,500 individuals consider themselves seasonal residents. Additionally, nearly three
million tourists visit the area annually.
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) is a special
district that provides recreational programs and facilities to both residents and visitors of the Estes Valley. Its amenities include golf facilities, an aquatics center, lake and marina facilities, adult and youth sports
leagues, picnic and playground areas, public parks and a host of special
events such as fishing derbies and fun runs.
In order to gain direction regarding where to focus its resources,
EVRPD sponsored a study to assess user satisfaction of all its programs and facilities. Additionally, district staff needed clarification
on how year round residents, seasonal residents and tourists differed
with regards to their respective preferences for and satisfaction ratings of district facilities. An IPA was conducted and measured 54
EVRPD attributes. Results were segmented based on the three user
groups of interest: year round resident, seasonal resident and visitor
user groups.
Additionally, EVRPD adhered to a high standard of quality for the
provision of its facilities and services, and also was limited in resources.
Therefore, the crosshairs were adjusted to account for the preferred
standard and also to allow for a more clear indication on what users considered to be the highest priority.

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

87

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

METHODS
The sample for this study included permanent residents, seasonal residents and visitors of Estes Park, Colorado, a gateway community to
Rocky Mountain National Park. A mail-back survey was developed to
measure the importance and performance ratings of 54 amenities provided by the EVRPD that represented nearly all of the districts programs and facilities. This article focuses on six of those attributes to
illustrate the value of IPA and segmentation: Lake Estes Trail, marina
store, youth soccer leagues, tennis courts, beach and picnic areas and bicycle rentals.
The survey was conducted in the summer of 1998. The year round
and seasonal resident database was generated by a systematic sampling
strategy with a random start, in which every third name from an alphabetical list of property owners (acquired as public information) were
mailed a survey. Respondents then indicated their year round or seasonal residential status on the survey.
The tourist database was generated by collecting names and addresses on-site at EVRPD facilities for a three-month period in the late
spring and early summer of 1998. Names and addresses collected from
specific sites were proportional to the number of tourists that used the
area. For example, district staff estimated that 30 percent of all its tourist use occurs at their golf courses. Consequently, 30 percent of names
on the tourist database were collected on-site from the golf courses. Additionally, four-hour periods throughout the week were randomly selected for collecting names on-site, with a disproportionately higher
number of periods occurring on the weekends when tourist use is highest. A small number of names and addresses (n = 79) were systematically selected (every fourth name beginning with a random start) from
bicycle rental forms, boat rental forms and campground registrations.
In total, more than 2,500 year round residents, seasonal residents and
tourists were sent a survey with a postage-paid reply envelope. Reminder postcards were sent two weeks later. After the sixth week, the
survey and postage-paid envelope were again sent to non-respondents.
A total of 1,157 surveys (45% response rate) were returned and used for
analysis (476 from year round residents, 377 from seasonal residents
and 304 from tourists).
Respondents were asked to assess importance and performance of
each attribute on a five-point Likert scale. Importance was measured on
a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Performance was
also measured on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). As noted earlier, a

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

88

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

limitation of measuring importance of an amenity is the inability to determine if importance is expressed for negative or positive inclinations.
A user who expresses high importance on the Lake Estes Trail, for example, might do so for positive or negative reasons.
To address this problem, respondents were asked to rate importance
on the provision of an amenity, rather than the amenity itself. For example, one question asked was how important is it to you that EVRPD
provide the Lake Estes Trail?, instead of how important is the Lake
Estes Trail? While the difference in the questions is subtle, it provides
a needed distinction. Using the language focused on the provision of an
amenity, a response of very important can be interpreted as it is very
important to me that EVRPD provide the Lake Estes Trail. The researcher can then assume the expressed level of importance to be based
on a positive evaluation. The alternative format would be interpreted as
the Lake Estes Trail is very important to me. However, the researcher
is provided no indication if that expressed importance is based on a positive or negative evaluation.
RESULTS
A value of three, the midpoint on a five-point Likert scale to measure
importance and performance, served as the neutral point in this studys
importance and performance continuums and would be the traditional
intersection of crosshairs on the matrix. EVRPD, however, opted to utilize a more strict importance and performance standard and therefore
set the crosshair intersection above the neutral point, at a value of 3.5 for
both importance and performance. Setting the intersection at this value
allows the district to be more stringent in its evaluation and also provides for a more clear indication of where to direct limited resources.
If the intersection of the importance and performance crosshairs remained at the point of neutrality, nearly all of the ratings by each user
group for all six attributes would have been in the keep up the good
work quadrant. The one exception would have been seasonal ratings
for youth soccer, which was placed in the concentrate here quadrant
based on its combined ratings of 3.34 for importance and 2.81 for performance (see Figure 2). Following the adjustment of crosshairs to the
EVRPDs preferred level of 3.5, the points in the quadrants differ and
management implications changed. For example, seasonal residents
ratings toward youth soccer resulted in an initial management implication of concentrate here. After the crosshair adjustment, however, the

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

89

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

FIGURE 2. Segmented Importance-Performance Ratings for Six Amenities

with Traditional and Adjusted Crosshairs
Very Important 5

Concentrate Here

Keep up good work

Y6

S5

Y4
1
S6 Y YS
3T
4
4

Y2
S2
T2

Y5
S3
S1

1
Poor
LEGEND
1marina store
2Lake Estes trail
3youth soccer (no tourist rating)
4Lake Estes beach/picnic areas
5bicycle rentals
6tennis courts

Low priority

T5T6

T1

5
Excellent

Possible overkill

Yyear round residents

Sseasonal residents
Ttourists
Not at all Important 1
= traditional crosshair placement
= adjusted crosshair placement

implication became low priority. Similar differences occurred for

seasonal resident ratings of the marina store and bicycle rentals, as well
as tourist ratings of the marina store, bicycle rentals and tennis courts
(see Figure 2).
Prior to segmenting ratings by user group, and after adjusting crosshairs to a value of 3.5, the aggregate results for each of the six attributes
indicated that all six points were placed in the quadrant identified as
keep up the good work (Figure 3). In other words, aggregate importance and performance ratings exceeded a value of 3.5 for each of the
six amenities. The Lake Estes Trail received a notably higher rating
than all of the other attributes.
The importance-performance ratings segmented by the three user
groups of interest, however, illustrate a different picture (Figure 4).
While all six ratings from year round residents fell in the quadrant of
keep up the good work, including ratings of 3.76 and 3.96 for the marina stores importance and performance, respectively. However, sea-

90

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

FIGURE 3. Aggregate Importance-Performance Ratings for Six Amenities

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

Very Important 5

Concentrate Here

Keep up good work

A2
A6
A5

1
Poor

LEGEND
Low priority
1marina store
2Lake Estes trail
3youth soccer (no tourist rating)
4Lake Estes beach/picnic areas
5bicycle rentals
6tennis courts

A4
A1
A3
5
Excellent

Possible overkill

A = aggregate user group

Not at all Important 1

sonal residents rated some of these amenities differently. Seasonal

resident ratings for the marina store were 3.4 and 3.45 for importance
and performance, respectively. Therefore, those amenities, from a seasonal resident perspective, fell into the quadrant of low priority. This
was also true for their ratings of youth soccer, and their bicycle rental
ratings were placed in the concentrate here area of the matrix.
Like year round and seasonal residents, tourist ratings for the Lake
Estes Trail and beach and picnic areas also resulted in placement in the
keep up the good work quadrant. Their ratings for the marina store,
bicycle rentals and tennis courts resulted in possible overkill quadrant. Response rate by tourists for youth soccer leagues was too low (n =
16) for analysis.
DISCUSSION
The results of this IPA accentuate the benefit of segmentation. Given
the aggregate results as presented in Figure 3, EVRPD might be inclined to proceed with business as usual for each of the six attributes,

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

91

FIGURE 4. Segmented Importance-Performance Ratings for Six Amenities

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

Very Important 5

Concentrate Here

Keep up good work

S5
1
Poor

S3

Y6 Y
4
Y1
S6 Y3
T4 S4
Y5
T5T6

S1

Low priority

Y2
S2
T2

5
Excellent

T1

Possible overkill

LEGEND
1marina store
2Lake Estes trail
3youth soccer (no tourist rating)
4Lake Estes beach/picnic areas
5bicycle rentals
6tennis courts
Yyear round residents
Sseasonal residents
Ttourists

Not at all Important 1

since each fell in the quadrant of keep up the good work. By incorporating segmentation in the analysis, however, a different picture unfolds
for management of the marina store, youth soccer leagues, bicycle rentals and tennis courts. The aggregate ratings in importance-performance
lead managers to follow one strategy; segmented ratings lead to another
strategy. An IPA without segmentation can lead researchers to make inaccurate conclusions and managers may be spending limited resources
unwisely as a result.
IPA and segmentation allows managers to recognize opportunities in
which a singular management strategy can appease multiple user
groups. Given limited resources which often exist within recreational
agencies, such opportunities are extremely valuable. For example, ratings by year round residents, seasonal residents and tourists for the Lake
Estes Trail and the beach and picnic areas each indicated keep up the
good work. In these instances, continuing the current management
strategy would appear to benefit all three user groups.

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

92

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

The value of segmentation is perhaps more apparent when looking at

amenities in which importance-performance ratings for year round residents, seasonal residents and tourists did not coincide with the aggregate findings. Whereas the aggregate rating would favor a keep up the
good work approach to the marina store, youth soccer leagues, bicycle
rentals and tennis courts, the segmented results indicate otherwise.
The aggregate rating for tennis courts favored a management strategy
to keep up the good work. This would be consistent with both year
round and seasonal resident results, but would not appear to benefit
tourists, who considered tennis courts to be less important and perhaps
receiving too many resources. Similarly, the segmented ratings for bicycle rentals indicated differences between groups; year round residents favor a keep up the good work approach, seasonal residents felt
that bicycle rentals needed attention (the concentrate here quadrant)
and tourist ratings resulted in an indication of possible overkill. Such
results advise managers to take three different management strategies,
which is vastly different than the original aggregate finding of keep up
the good work. Similar results were produced for the marina store and
youth soccer.
Given the diversity of management implications that depend in part
on user group, developing an effective management strategy can seem
difficult, although it can enhance management decisions considerably.
The strategy to follow depends on the priorities of the district. Without
segmentation, however, EVRPD would not have had any indication
that differences between user groups existed, and may have alienated
user groups as a result of following the aggregate-based result.
The results of this segmented IPA enabled EVRPD to better establish
priorities and improve management decisions based on their overall
agency goals. One agency priority is to ensure the provision of satisfactory recreational opportunities for its year round residents. This group
comprises a majority of the districts users and they also make the greatest financial contribution to the agency (through property tax levies).
The district considers their needs and preferences to be of the highest
priority. IPA with segmentation has helped the district identify how to
best meet the needs of its year round residents.
Further, this study indicated how the adjustment of the crosshairs can
enhance results. Researchers are provided latitude in setting a standard
of quality that is most appropriate and desirable and also can gain a
clearer picture of what amenities are most and least important. Recreation managers must work within finite budgets and time constraints,

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

93

and the adjustment of the importance crosshairs allows for the best use
of those limited resources.
In the case of EVRPD, the district preferred to provide a standard of
quality that is well beyond neutral, and adjusting the performance axis
on the matrix accommodated that preference. As a result, the district
now realizes, for example, that seasonal residents satisfaction with bicycle rentals is not meeting the high standard the district established as
its goal in this study.
Additionally, adjusting for importance has allowed the district to
better recognize its priorities. Until the importance adjustment was
made, nearly every rating for each of the three user groups was placed in
the keep up the good work quadrant. Following the adjustment,
EVRPD realized that expending resources to enhance seasonal resident
and tourist use of the marina store, for example, would be an unwise discretion of limited time and money. Instead, its resources would be better
spent on more highly regarded amenities such as the Lake Estes Trail.
CONCLUSION
Just as Shafer (1969) concluded that the average camper does not exist, neither does the average user exist in a gateway community such as
the Estes Valley. Year round residents, seasonal residents and tourists
all presented unique characteristics and motivations. Only a multi-faceted management recreational strategy can meet the needs and preferences of all users, and IPA and segmentation can effectively assist in the
development of such a strategy.
With the results of this study, EVRPD administrators are in good position to confidently allocate resources that are aligned with their goals.
The results indicated how the satisfaction of all three groups can be realized through singular management strategies, such as maintenance of
the Lake Estes Trail, to how satisfaction can be enhanced for specific
groups, such as improving bicycle rental opportunities for seasonal residents.
Agencies that employ IPA such as the EVRPD must recognize that
while the approach is highly useful, satisfaction research has a limited
shelf life. Demographics and recreation experience preferences change
over time and consequently, user perceptions of what is and what is not
satisfactory can change, as well. In communities such as the Estes Valley that are experiencing considerable residential and tourist growth,
user characteristics can change quickly and dramatically. Managers

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

94

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

should regularly reassess user satisfaction as such changes become apparent.

The sample for this study was a unique gateway community, in
which the impetus for residing or visiting the area is most likely its natural and mountainous recreational opportunities, such as those available
in the adjacent national park. Given the uniqueness of the area, one limitation of this study is its generalizability to other recreational contexts
and environments. Additionally, a survey to determine the characteristics of non-respondents was not conducted due to limited resources.
Therefore, the extent to which bias exists within the sample is not exactly known, although demographic characteristics of the residents and
tourists in the sample closely resemble statistics gathered by census and
local chamber of commerce efforts.
Overall, this study demonstrated the value of IPA and the critical importance of integrating segmentation when using this approach to evaluate recreational services in a gateway community. Segmentation leads
to distinct differences in data interpretation that may drive key management decisions, and managers must understand the subtle differences
among user groups if critical resources are to be allocated most effectively. Additionally, the setting of IP crosshairs is an arbitrary decision
and must be made in concert with the goals and objectives of the managing agency. This implies collaboration on the part of the researcher and
the managing agency to insure these settings represent meaningful standards.
LITERATURE CITED
Bonn, M. A., Furr, H. L., & Uysal, M. (1992). Seasonal variation of coastal resort visitors: Hilton Head Island. Journal of Travel Research, (Summer), 50-56.
Crompton, J. L., & Richardson, S. L. (1986). The tourism connection: When public
and private leisure services merge. Parks and Recreation, 21 (10), 38-45.
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.
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.
Ennew, C. T., Reed, G. V., & Binks, M. R. (1993). Importance-performance analysis
and the measurement of service quality. European Journal of Marketing, 27 (2),
59-70.

Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:13 01 January 2015

Bruyere, Rodriguez, and Vaske

95

Etzel, M. J., & Woodside, A. (1982). Segmenting vacation markets: The case of the
distant and near-home travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 20 (Spring), 10-14.
Guadagnolo, F. (1985). The importance-performance analysis: An evaluation and marketing tool. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 2, 13-22.
Havitz, M. E., Twyman, G. D., & DeLorenzo, J. M. (1991). Important-performance
analysis as a staff evaluation tool. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration,
9 (1), 43-54.
Hollenhorst, S., Olson, 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.
Hudson, S. & Shephard, G. W. H. (1998). Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: An application of importance-performance analysis to an alpine ski resort.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7 (3), 61-77.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of
Marketing, 41 (1), 77-79.
Megnak, K. K., Dottavio, F. D., & OLeary, J. T. (1986). Use of importance-performance analysis to evaluate a visitor center. Journal of Interpretation, 11 (2), 1-13.
Mills, A., Couturier, H., & Snepenger, D. (1986). Segmenting Texas snow skiers. Journal of Travel Research, 25 (Fall), 19-23.
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.
Richardson, S. L. (1987). An importance-performance approach to evaluating communication effectiveness. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 5 (4),
71-83.
Shafer, E., Jr. (1969). The average camper who doesnt exist. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper NE-142.
Thomason, P., Crompton, J. & Kamp, R. (1979). A study of the attitudes of impacted
groups within a host community toward prolonged stay of tourist visitors. Journal
of Travel Research, 17 (3), 2-6.
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.
Williams, A. E. & Neal, L. L. (1993). Motivational assessment in organizations: An
application of importance-performance analysis. Journal of Parks and Recreation
Administration, 11 (2), 60-71.

SUBMITTED: 10/26/00
FIRST REVISION SUBMITTED: 06/30/01
FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED: 01/22/02
ACCEPTED: 02/01/02
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY