BUCHAREST UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES [609986]

BUCHAREST UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES
Faculty of Business and Tourism

BACHELOR THESIS

Scientific Coordinator:
Lecturer Gavri ș Alexandru , Ph.D

Author:
Ciuraru Florentina Iuliana

Bucharest, 201 8

BUCHAREST UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES
Faculty of Business and Tourism

Insights on foreign tourists ’ satisfaction in
Bucharest

Scientific Coordinator:
Lecturer Gavri ș Alexandru , Ph.D

Author:
Ciuraru Florentina Iuliana

Bucharest, 201 8

BUCHAREST UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES
Faculty of Business and Tourism

Insights on foreign tourist ’s satisfaction in
Bucharest

Scientific Coordinator:
Lecturer Gavri ș Alexandru , Ph.D

Author:
Ciuraru Florentina Iulia na

Bucharest, 201 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 4
CHAPTER 1. LITERATUR E REVIEW ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 6
1.1. Tourist Satisfaction – concept ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 6
1.2. The role of Destination Image in the satisfaction process ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 10
1.3. Models related to satisfaction (in tourism) ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 12
CHAPTER 2. CASE STUD Y: BUCHAREST AS A TO URIST DESTINATION …………….. 16
2.1. Brand destination ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 16
2.2. Urban branding ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 17
2.3. Bucharest as a tourist destination ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 18
CHA PTER 3. METHODOLOGY ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 23
3.1. Conducting the research study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 23
3.2. Data collection ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 25
3.3. Participants ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 25
3.4. Data Analysis ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 27
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 28
4.1. Travel Behavior Characteristics ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 28
4.2. Tourist’s expectation vs. perception of Bucharest ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 33
CONCLUSION ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 40
REFERENCES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 42
ANNEXES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 48

4
INTRODUCTION
Tourism, in all forms representing it, is an ancient activity whose origins date back to ancient
times, but as an industry, it has experienced true development since the second half of the 20th
century (Stănciulescu, Țîrca, Chiș, & Souca, 2010). According to the latest statistics, in 201 6
there were 1235 million int ernational tourists, which generated an income of 1034 billion euros
and the latest forecasts see the tourists increase to 1.8 billion tourists for 2030 (WTO, 201 7).
Even in 2009, the peak of the gl obal economic crisis combined with some tourist destinatio ns
with epidemiological or terrorist threats, led to tourist activity declining by only 4% , compared to
the previous year to 880 million international tourists, even increasing in some countries in
Africa and Asia (WTO, 2012). This demonstrates both the dy namism of the industry and the fact
that its vulnerability to economic crises can be significantly diminished as long as the customer
of the tourist services is a satisfied consumer (Souca, 201 1). And the satisfaction of consumers is
possible only by offer ing a complex tourist product, perfectly adapted to the requirements of the
clients.
Many examinations investigate the success of a destination in connection with the declared
tourist satisfaction , taking into consideration different aspects of the destina tion (Alegre and
Cladera, 2006; Crompton and Love, 1995; Kozak and Rimmington, 1999; Murphy, Pritchard,
and Smith, 2000).
As far a s Romania is concerned, from a geographic point of view and emphasizing the
anthropic potential of our country , we should be o ne of Europe ’s branded destinations . Yet, from
the perspective of Romanian tourists, there is a negative attitude reflected by the fact that a
significant proportion of Romanian citizens have a very mediocre pe rception of the value of
tourist services in g eneral and of accommodation in particular , being willing to allocate their
holiday budgets to foreign destinations to the detriment of native ones.
Even though t here are huge possibilities for tourism improvement, the country ’s offerings are
not attracting as many tourists as the authorities would like. Same situation applies to the flagship
center of Romania, its capital – Bucharest . After interacting with a few foreigners that seemed to
see our capital city as a welcoming destination, I thought that a research on this t opic would be
the best choice for my bachelor’s thesis.
In this manner, the main purpose of this research is to obtain foreign visitors ’ feedback on
Bucharest as a to urist destination by examining the relationships between their expect ation s and

5
perception s during their visit. The i nformation collected in this study will be the informational
support of the author for the evaluat ion of the current situation and how it correlates to the
satisfaction of the international visitors. This stu dy collects positive and negative feedback from
foreign tourists during their stay in Bucharest , using a convenience sampling method that lately
has been used as a consequence of internet growth.
The thesis ’ goal is to examine the level of international tourists ’ satisfaction while visiting
Bucharest . Below are the specific objectives of this study:
 The study of the current tourism situation
 The level of international tourists ’ satisfaction with Bucharest’s offerings
The structure of this paper consists of four sections. The first section gives an overview
picture of the background information, the choice of research topic and the main goal of the
study. The second section presents a literature review of the study , including the main concept s –
tourism, tourists and tourist destination attributes – toward s tourists ’ satisfaction. The third
section presents the methodology. Data collection , the participants and data analysis are
discussed. The f ourth section focuses on all the empirical findings and data collected under Excel
analysis . The last section closes the study with a conclusion based on the main findings of the
study.
After concluding this paper, I believe we have a lot more to offer, we just need to learn how to
promote right. Tourists seem to en joy our capital, with minor negative cases. The issues we must
pay a close attention to involve preserving the natural environment and the infrastructure. We as
citizens are very welcoming with our tourists and nowadays the capital seems to gather
enlighte ned minds and characters that give Bucharest a new face, a face of a real European
capital, a new generation that hopes to make changes for the wellbeing of the city and its
citizens.

6
CHAPTER 1. Literature review
Tourism is described as being the activi ty in which people go from one place to another , with
a possible intention to return. The W orld Tourism Organization (WTO) sustains that the purpose
of tourism can be leisure, sightseeing, business, education, health or even scientific research
(UNWTO , 2014). In recent decades tourism has grown, situating as the second most important
industry in global trade (Walker and Walker, 2011). Because of this immense growth, the
marketers focused more on this subject, putting their attention on the decision -making p rocess of
tourists ( Currie and Wesley, 2008). Tourist ’s perceptions represent a psychological component
that may be the ultimate factor in the decision making process. P eople have different needs and
seek different experiences . In consequence , tourists ’ experiences and perceptions are varied and
may cause different outcomes on the level of tourist satisfaction .
1.1. Tourist Satisfaction – concept
The steady gro wth of implication in tourism has a positive effect on a country ’s national
economy. A lmost any geogra phical level has provoked a growth of researches aimed to provide
analytical observation on tourists ’ willingness and satisfaction. Satisfaction of tourist experience
is strongly related to the main characteristic of individual’s happiness, the life satisf action (Neal,
Sirgy and Uysal , 1999) . Two major perspectives for defining well -being are used: the hedonic
and eudae monist views (Ryan and Deci , 2001). The hedonic well -being is the pleasure that is
obtained through short -term satisfaction. The eudaemonist well-being refers to long -term
satisfaction obtained through the fulfillment of special needs. Tourist experiences are grant ed
through both perspectives: hedonic by fulfilling the need to relax during a holiday stay and
eudaemoni st by fulfilling the needs of competence through the experiences over time. Therefore,
welfare is the main component to assess the quality of societies ’ life (Diener and Oishi , 2003).
Recently, the tourist ’s satisfaction has been widely pr esented as being the response of
gratific ation regarding tourist ’s wishes and desires. The fulfillment of needs and desires is known
from early stages of humanity. Just like everybody needs food and water to satisfy the natural
human needs, adding the safety, we also need relaxation and rewards. Observing the humans,
researches noticed that in time our goals change or evolve in different ways. According to
Levesque and McDougall (1996 ) satisfaction is repres ented by the final overall customer attitude
to a service provider. Zineldin (2000) describ ed it as being the emotional reaction towards the
differences of the ex -ante expectations and post -ante results of the experience. Th e satisfaction
can be felt at a level of under -fulfillment or over -fulfillment. When the tourists experience over –

7
fulfillme nt they are more predictable to return, while the tourists that experienced a low level of
satisfaction are more likely to spend their vacation somewhere else and avoid the past destination
(Heskett et al., 1994 )
At another level of scrutiny, a n important factor of satisfaction during each destination is the
individuals that interact with the tourists. It can be either the staff from a hotel, restaurant,
entertainment business or the locals. As mentioned by Boshoff and Tait (1996) analyzing this
matter is very important. Consequently, the quality of the services provided play s a big role in
satisfying the tourists, satisfaction being interrelated with service quality, product quality, price,
situation factors and personal factors (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2001 ), as shown in Figure 1 .1.

Figure 1.1: Customer satisfaction model, Sources: Zeithaml & Bitner (2001)
Studies showed that there is a strong relation between satisfaction and loyalty . Regarding
loyalty, we can identify two expressions: the willingn ess to repurchase and word -of-mouth
communication (Selnes, 1993). The first one refers to the disposition of the customer to
repurchase t he offering, while the second represents the individual’s intention to continue the
relationship with the company, bein g a reliable source of information for potential buyers
(Maxham III, 2001). Satisfaction can be measured by disconfirmation of expectations. "If the
performance is above expectations, positive disconfirmation is expected to occur. In the contrary
case, negative disconfirmation occurs " (Oliver, 1997 , p. 228). The changes of disconfirmation
regarding satisfaction are related by the "Contrast Theory ". After an experience in which the
expectations were different than the actual performance, tourists will amplif y their evaluation
due to the surprise. When performance is higher than expected, the tourist will evaluate more
positively the experience and vice versa .

8
Ranaweera and Prabhu (2003 ) described c ustomer satisfaction as being the intermediary
between operati onal service s and the b enefits that can be brought to the business. In order for a
business to grow and have success , they must take into consideration the importance of satisfying
the tourists (Shin and Elliott, 2001). The past research has proven the sta tement that satisfaction
is tightly connected to the re -visit desire (Fornell, 1992). Satisfaction is also a way to keep them
close, evolving into loyalty (Fornell, 1992; Halstead and Page, 1992). This aspect is also
economical. It was demonstrated the fac t that attracting new customers is more pricey than
maintaining the current ones (Blodgett, Wakefield and Barners, 1995 ). Furthermore, by keeping
the tourists satisfied, they tend to express their feelings to others, advertising the destination
services an d products by word -of-mouth means (Fornell, 1992; Halstead and Page, 1992). It is
impossible to satisfy everybody, this happens in any industry, even in tourism ( Spreng, Harrell
and Mackoy, 1995 ). It is showed by studies that a tourist tends to spend more and not complain
of an increase of prices, if their wishes are fulfilled (Fornell et al., 1996 ). Profitability can result
from satisfying the tourists, making the business grow and expand their market share.
As indicated by past investigations, life fulfil lment is identified with the person ’s fulfillment
regarding wellbeing, work, family or recreation (Fernandez -Ballesteros, Zamarron and Ruız,
2001). Consequently, studying tourist satisfaction became a critical issue under scrutiny by
academics, but also by individuals themselves, since it concerns their need of fulfillment in life.
Since satisfaction was presented as a field of study, a s ignificant number of studies have
concentrated on this idea.
The academic literature sustains the belief that satisfaction is influenced by two elements:
one’s the quality of the tourist product/service offered and the other one is connected with the
tourist’s subjective opinion, likes and desires . Another factor has been added: the systemic
perspective, which can be tested in this case with the tourist product, as being a complex product
that surrounds tangible and intangible components. Tourist satisfact ion as explained by Tse and
Wilton (1988) is a post -consumption evaluation of the product received. Satisfaction is a major
factor that influences touris t’s choices of holiday destinations, the amount of products and
services consumed and it also plays a b ig role in the future choice of re -visiting the destination.
(Kozak and Rimmington, 1999 ).
Furthermore, research by Chon (1989) sees tourist satisfaction as a function placed between
the customer ’s assumption about the destination and the assessment that comes after the actual
experience, which is the result of the resemblance between their first thought of the destination
and the actual contact with the destination. As Kozak & Rimmington ( 1999 ) sustained , customer

9
satisfaction turned out being an essentia l key to destination marketing and by that it is translated
as the desire of revisit a certain destination by the tourist.
When the tourist experience s satisf action at the desired level it leads to an increase in
customer loyalty (F lint et al., 2011). We should add the fact that customer satisfaction plays a
crucial role in lowering the trans action costs (Yang and Peterson, 2004) and reduces or keeps
stable the price elasticity (Fornell et al., 2006) . By word -of-mouth it can evolve and attract new
customers (Uncles et al., 20 03) and make the destination name well -known by the public eye,
giving it a reputation amon g the competition in the tourism sector (Rust et al., 1995 ). It is known
that tourist satisfact ion is an important indicator with regards to a business ’ performance.
The product offered in the tourism industry has to be compatible with the destination ’s
environment, social interactions and economic activities. The product consists of sub -products
such a s transportation, food and beverage, activities, purchases, souvenirs and the list can go on .
All of those build the tourist package which is bought by the customers (Pizam et al. , 1993).
Echtner and Ritchie ( 2003 ) characterize the tourist product by tangibility. Regarding this
statement , a destination is composed of a mixture between tangible and intangible aspects.
Yuksel (2001) attests that tourists ’ opinion of the experience is related to the positive and
negative interactions with the as pects mentioned above. The customer ’s satisfaction is directly
influenced by their loyalty (Bitner, 1990); on the other hand , satisfaction is affected by
motivation (Iso-Ahola, 1990). Kozak and R immington ( 1999 ) attested that the state of
satisfaction rega rding vacation experience has the greatest influenc e on the purpose of returning
to the same destination.
In this way, a destination is "the location of a cluster of attractions and related tourist facilities
and services which a tourist or tour group sele cts to visit or which providers choose to promote "
(McIntyre, 1993 , p. 23 ). Maintaining high quality service and securing individual satisfaction
are the main players that guide your business through success (Stevens, Knutson and Patton,
1995). High quali ty services and tourist satisfaction helps building a relationship with tourists on
the long run, thus creating destination loyalty.
However, "satisfaction " is perceived differently by all of us. The individuals have diverse
needs, objectives and past exp eriences that are in a strong correlation with their expectations.
Every tourist experiences a particular experience encounter which causes a specific level of
prosperity, which could be positive or negative. In other words, a tourist ’s dissatisfaction and
satisfaction is a function of contradiction that arises from the contrast between expectations and

10
actual experience (Oliver, 1980). Moreover, the topic of expectations regarding tourist s’ well-
being has reached a large -scale. Tourist s’ expectations are v ariable (Ryan, 1995), they may be
ambiguous (Crompton & Love, 1995) or tourists may not have any expectations at all.
The concept of tourist satisfaction is a challenging aspect to be defined since the tourist
product is complex by definition (Smith, 1994). Because the global competition is rising day by
day, the Destination Management Organizations (DMOs ) are dealing with an immense amount
of global competition.
The main importance of DMOs is the fact that it makes marketers ’ life easier by access ing
information with regards to the evolving market. In order to be successful with your destination
image you must first evaluate it. This task can be extremely hard, difficult and expensive but
mandatory if you want to understand the tourists’ habits, behavior , in order to develop marketing
strategies and plans . Satisfying your tourists is compulsory in every sector of any industry. By
future means, if your tourist enjoys their experience this will bring you only good , from loyalty
to spreading the information by word -of-mouth and increase of sales.
1.2. The role of Destination Image in the satisfaction process
Destination is an ultimate paradox, being both the main purpose of tourism and the final
product. The destination can take the form of a regio n, country, village or island. What
differentiates destinations is the fact that each has their own culture, history and natural beauty .
The definition given by Berman (2005) described the destination as being a country, state,
region, city or town that is advertised as a place for tourism. Leiper (1979) made a big impact on
the tourism literature. He said that the motion factor that makes tourist travel to a certain
destination is generated in the region, making the destination the final step of the travel .
Analyzing the destination image of a place is strategically speaking , needed. This analy sis has
to be very attentive, since every minus could affect the choice of tourists. In our modern era, the
image is very important, dictating the future success or failure of a destination ’s market ( Aaker ,
1991 ). The image that appears in the eye of the tourists is the result of each experience they
encounter and also their own perceptions ( Paivio, 1971). The destination image has been
described as a subjective impr ession of reality in the perception of the tourist (Bigné , Sánchez
and Sánchez , 2001 ). It is difficult to express this attribute in numbers, since it is in a big amount
a subjective impression from all tourists that either visited or heard about a certain destination
(San Martín and Rodriguez, 2008). An international research made by Ban and Ozdogan (2010)
resulted that the image of tourist destination is the core in the decision making process.

11
From a destination management manner , the destination componen ts have a fundamental
value in the evaluation of the touristic experience (Alegre and Garau, 2010). The success of a
destination depends on its image , which is developed in time, by fulfilling the desires of tourists,
giving high quality services and produ cts that evolve into good reputation and authentic brand
image that is seen by actual or potential tourists (Voase, 2012).
The idea that the image of a destination plays an important role in the choice of tourists was
discussed by Bigné et al. (2001) and f urthermore continued by Chen and Tsai (2007). They said
that destination image is strongly intertwined with the post evaluation, implies recommendation
to others and possible future returns ; several researchers sustain ed that destination image can
have a d ecisional impact in the consumer behavior and result in more and repeated travels to a
destination. (Chen et al., 2013). Studies surrounding this subject connect the destination image
with tourists ’ satisfaction. They do not stop only at explaining why the positive experience as a
whole influences aspects like loyalty and positive word -of-mouth (Veasna et al., 2013) . They
even sustain that the aspects just mentioned are the source of destination image.
The i mage is at the base of an individual ’s mental repr esentation of knowledge, feelings and
global impressions about a destination (Baloglu and McCleary , 1999). So, the image is conceived
as a portrayal of the traveler ’s goal in the person’s psyche. The nature and arrangement of this
idea and in addition , its impact on the decision procedure , has been widely investigated (Baloglu
and McCleary, 1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 2003). It resulted that there are three main
characteristics of image: cognitive, affective and holistic. Firstly, the image of a destination is
based on knowledge of the place (cognitive aspect). M oreover, it has been attested that the image
is also formed of feelings (Kim and Richardson , 2003; Pike and Ryan , 2004); last but not least,
the image should be made of holistic impressions of the des tination (Echtner and Ritchie , 2003 ).
Destinatio n image affects tourist behavior and attests that positive mental representation of the
place is in direct relation of choosing the destination (Telisman -Kosuta , 1994). Satisfaction with
the service would be significantly affected by the prior image the user has of the company
(Kristensen, Martensen and Gronholdt , 1999). The difficulty for individuals to evaluate their
experiences, as well as the confidence in their images of the place (Joppeet et al., 2001), could
justify the view that image is a driver of satisfaction. Finally, the positive relationship between
image and intentions to return became a key element acknowledged in the European Customer
Satisfaction Index (ECSI, 1998).
As such expectation has an indirect relation with satis faction through disconfirmation, Yuksel
(2001) stated that the higher the expectations, the less positive is the disconfirmation. This

12
hypothesis confirms that the emotions are mandatory while researching the customer ’s
psychol ogy. Emotions related to service are important in tourism because of their experimental
component and ambiguity (Dube, Rioux, 1990) . Thus, regarding the formation of emotions,
"Theories of Appraisal " is attesting that each customer ’s emotions are influenc ed by their
evaluations and interpretations of an event. Moreover, emotions are the result of the cognitive
appraisal of a person -environment situation (Lazarus , 1991).
In tourism, the individuals may feel positive and negative emotions during the same s tay
because of the interaction with the place. On the other hand, the studies have shown that the
existence of certain factors that generates satisfaction is not generating dissatisfaction with their
absence. The contrary can also happen, when the absence of the factors that create dissatisfaction
would not generate satisfaction (Kano , Seraku, Takahashi and Tsuji, 1984 ).
1.3. Models related to satisfaction (in tourism)
Understanding the tourist ’s mind is extremely important , since it is connected to the succe ss
of the destination. The need of examination of the psychological process of the individual going
through several pre -experiences and post -experiences stage has been discussed recently by
Swarbrooke and Horner (2004). In connection with the point previou sly mentioned, attributes
like decision making processes, loyalty, experiences and satisfaction are key factors in
understanding tourist ’s point of view concerning tourism and leisure (Crouch, Perdue,
Timmermans and Uysal, 2004). The effect on this variabl e can be explained by the "Assimilation
Theory " (Sherif and Hovland, 19 57). Studying satisfaction is needed in order to predict and
understand the consumer ’s responses after the experience.
A few contending ideal models are utilized to clarify tourist ’s behavior in tourism. The
emotional and cognitive perspectives are two of the most essential ways of explaining the
decision making process and the behavioral process (Decrop , 1999). The human being is
considered to be a rational specie s, capable of processin g information . The mental representation
plays a huge role in the informational process that leads to personal beliefs and judgments of the
consumer concerning the holiday experience. The emotional approach is based on assumptions,
putting feelings as an i mportant component of the experience, thinking that destinations should
include, for example, enjoyment, pleasure and fantasy ( Decrop , 1999).
The cognitive approach resembles similarity between performance and standard comparison
(Oliver , 1980 ). In this si tuation , the best model to be applied is the expectancy disconfirmation
(Wirtz et al ., 2001). Furthermore, this model contains two cognitive judgments that play an

13
important role in the satisfaction development, pre-conceived expectations and disconfirmati on.
The second determinant is said to be more important than the first one, sinc e the pre -conceived
expectations are, in fact , the equal of the comparative analysis (Oliver , 1997).
In order to investigate the consumer’s satisfaction and dissatis faction, many assumptions have
been made by the researchers, but the expectancy -confirmation -disconfirmation theory by Oliver
(1980) and Service Quality (SERVQUAL) by Parasur aman et al. (1988) is used the most.
Service quality is directly bonded with the rapid growth and destination competition, making
the study of quality service an important matter. In order to have representative results, the
quality of the offered services must be measured and evalu ated (Brown and Bitner, 2007). To
have precise qualit ative results and notice the problems that might encounter a lot of conceptual
models were created. With the help of the models the efficiency, profitability and performance
can be improved (Seth and Deshmukh, 2005). Depending on the expected service and t he
perceived service, the service quality can be affected. Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons (2001)
sustained that satisfaction is created after the perceived service and can be represented by
comparing the ex -ante expectations and post -ante perceived expectations , as shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Perceived service quality model. Sources: Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons (2001)
Service quality was represented by definition in a lot of ways, but all are surrounding the same
core, the perspective of the touris t. The first ones that introduced the idea of –service quality –
were Gronroos and Parasuraman (1982) , their work being continued by Parasuraman , Zeithaml
and Berry (1988). They believed that the viewpoint of quality was a disconfirmation of the
tourist ’s assumption and evaluation of the destination. The extent of service quality was

14
approached in the academic literature. Gronroos (1982 ) claimed the existence of two dimensions
of service quality, the technical and functional. The technical dimension refer s to the tangible
components of the service delivered and the second one refers to the overall performance of the
service. Gronroos ’ statement was developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), presenting five
tangible dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assur ance and empathy. The origin of the five
dimensions was Gronroos ’ (1982) claim. Rust and Oliver (1994) mixed both proposal s, arriving
to a wider claim. They developed a dimensi on formed from three components: the service
product, delivery and environment. These three were presented as a whole that forms the service
quality.
Brady and Cronin (2001) used on their research the model of Rust and Oliver (1994) and they
arrived to the point where they constructed a claim of a multidimensional service quality
perception. They presented the formation of service quality in the eye of the tourists within three
primary dimensions: outcome quality, interaction quality, and environmental quality . The three
primary dimensions were composed of multiple sub -dimensions. Eve n though, this subject is
much discussed , it is still not 10 0% clear, the only sure thing being that the perception of quality
is multidimensional and each dimension represents a certain industry.
Consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is the product of th e consumer ’s comparison of expected
service (ES) with PS (performance service). Whenever ESPS, it could be interpreted that
anticipated quality would be less than satisfactory and would drift towards unacceptable quality,
with a high divergence between ES and PS. Additionally, when ESPS, quality expected would be
more than satisfactory and would aim towards ideal quality, with high divergence between ES
and PS. The satisfactory perceived quality is reached when ES¼ PS. It is proposed to use the
Service Qual ity Model, which gave a reasonable structure in a territory where minimal earlier
research had been done.
The Expectancy -Confirmation -Disconfirmation and SERVQUAL model have offered a
benchmark for measuring service quality for over 20 years. On the other hand, several
researchers suggest that specific measurement scales are necessary for providers of tourism. It
has been proven that scales which are assessing the five SERVQUAL dimensions may not reflect
precisely tourists ’ satisfaction levels (Teas, 199 4).
According to the expectancy -confirmation -disconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980), tourists are
purchasing goods and services like tourism packages with pre -purchase expectations about the
performance. After the service ha s been used, the tourists are compa ring the stay with their initial
expectations, thus when the result matches the expectation, confirmation occurs. If there is any

15
divergence between expectation and the actual result, disconfirmation occurs. Negative
disconfirmation appears when the servic e performance is poorer than the expected performance.
In contrary, positive disconfirmation appears when the service performance is better than
expected. Satisfaction is caused by positive disconfirmation and dissatisfaction is caused by
negative disconfi rmation.
Otto and Ritchie (1996) affirm that the customer ’s encounter is actually based on its
interactions with the destination ’s individuals and environment and this could probably be the
best indicator of tourism industry; also, they advise future resea rchers of tourism service quality
to assess tourists ’ experience rather than the gap between expectations and performance.
Many studies have tested the relation between satisfaction and negative/positive word -of-
mouth marketing. Oliver and Swan (1989) atte sted that as satisfaction increased, the word -of-
mouth activity increased, but later on, Anderson (1998) found that high satisfied and dissatisfied
customers are tending to involve more into the word of mouth marketing, contrary to customers
that are less extremely dissatisfied or satisfied. Moreover, extremely dissatisfied customers
involve even more in word -of-mouth activity than extremely satisfied customers. Tribe and
Snaith (1998) proposed another model for measuring tourist satisfaction within a desti nation,
which is named HOLSAT. This model ’s concept of satisfaction is showed as the position a
tourist ’s evaluation has over his initial expectations. The model encourages travelers to express
their satisfaction/dissatisfaction by assessing both positive and negative aspects.
In conclusion to this chapter, with the use of different models we can analyze several
attributes that are in a strong correlation with the tourists ’ arrivals and primary wishes of
visitation, as well as aspects affected by several f actors that can come from individuals ’ minds
and expectations or their personal impression , constructed from the destination image of a place,
that can be poorly administrated, thus giving false expectations. By using models of satisfa ction,
one can bette r undertand the tourists ’ expectations and act accordingly within the tourism market
dynamics. In addition to that, destination image is an important subject when discussing tourism,
because it is the most driving factor of a tourist’s decision of visiting . Without it , there are small
posibilities of a growing tourism industry.

16
CHAPTER 2. Case study: Bucharest as a tourist destination
Nowadays, the competition between cities is intense. Taking into consideration the fact that
globalization affected every region, maintaining a good authentic city image is mandatory. In
order to attract investments and rise up the national economy, every country has to make the best
efforts. Attracting tourists and business es are both as hard as it seems; making residents s ee a
region, city with warm eyes is also very difficult. The urban management faces big challenges in
the path of constructing a positive image that surrounds validity, credibility, attractiveness and
distinctiveness. The created solution for this long pro cess is the Urban Brand Index. Using this
method, the authorities can analyze easier the perception of possible investors, visitors or future
residents and also to seize the possibilities of improvement with the owned attributes. Within
such approach, we w ill discuss theoretical perspectives of brand destination as parts of a larger
discussion about destination image concept and connect them to the city of Bucharest, used as a
case-study.
2.1. Brand destination
The brand destination is "a name, symbol, logo , word mark or other graphic that both
identifies and differentiates the destination; furthermore, it conveys the promise of a memorable
travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; it serves to consolidate and
reinforce the emotiona l binding between visitor and destination " (Ritchie et al. , 1998 , p. 103) .
Morgan and Pritchard (2001, p. 214) spoke about the importance of brand destination, describing
it as a battle "for customers in tomorrow ’s tourism industry will not be for the price, but for the
customers ’ hearts and minds – in essence, the branding (…) will be the key to success ". To the
term of brand image we can add the term of brand identity (Qu et al., 2010) , in order to make a
perfect destination brand. Between these two ide as, in a large portion of the cases, there are a few
contrasts because of the way tourists inside their decision making process consider attributes, for
example, regular landmarks, atmosphere, framework, workmanship landmarks or potentially
immaterial qual ities, such as flexibility, security, unwinding, vitality and so forth. In this manner,
knowing your target market is compulsory in advertising, since specific parts of a destination
might be good for a portion and negative for another (Fan, 2006).
Spea king about both terms, it is necessary that the brand identity must be steady, while the
destination image can advance over time because of outer/target factors, or should be modernized
after a specific timeframe – because of inward/subjective elements (Mazurek, 2008). A positive
brand image of a city has the ability to offer the city an impressively strong and particular

17
preferred standpoint. In addition, it can impact the direct foreign investments, it can influence the
way foreigners see a certain region and it can eventually lead to tourism movements.
The connection between brand identity and brand image is common. The brand image is an
impression of brand identity and assumes an essential part in its building. In light of the
anticipated brand identity and through the correspondence techniques expounded by the goal
advertiser, the visitor makes in his mind a goal picture, a picture that is a vital factor for the
future alternative. The fulfillment or disappointment that the visitor feels with respect to an
acquired tourism item depen ds primarily on the desires he had from the goal, on goal picture
already held by him and how he saw the execution of the goal (Pike, 2002) grated disregarded
angles until that point.
2.2. Urban branding
The idea of place promotio n and identity has been discussed before. Researchers like
Ashworth and Voogd, approached this manner since 1990, naming it "place marketing ". Urban
branding is a developed notion of place marketing. Back in time the notion of urban marketing
was surroundi ng only the promotion of a city as a whole. Nowadays, this process has been highly
discussed, connecting the urban activities with the demand of consumers in order to raise the
economy and the quality of life by taking into consideration the wishes of the population and the
economic goals meant to be checked.
Ashworth and Voord (1990) described urban marketing as being the result of the demand,
formed with the help of the pres ent and possible future citizen and tourists in the needed area.
Smidt-Jensen (20 06) continued the research and argued that the citizens, companies and local
organizations represent an equal importance in comparison with the marketing strategy.
If all those components are not positively evolving, this can lead t o a negative understanding of
the authentic experience for tourists or possible new residents. The locals represent the most a
place. Therefore their behavior represents a big asset or disadvantage if it is not closely analyzed.
Mommaas (2002) analyzed th is manner of "urban branding " sustaining that , by using this
strategy the cities can gain an image, a culture that will work as a symbol in the eye of the
tourists. Everyone knows the big world cities that are connected to certain symbols. As an
unspoken r ule, people connect cities with a solitary quality, a guarantee, a property or a story.
We all know Paris is the synonym of romanticism, Milan translates in style, New York is energy
since "it never sleeps ", Tokyo means modernity. All this attributes attra ct tourists, becoming th e
raw material of a brand that is constructed and resulted through well -made branding.

18
The city brand is the main instrument on attracting as many tourists as possible to a certain
destination. With the help of a city brand we can g row the prestige and statute of a certain
destination. In the core , this process can have a big impact providing a sense of place; it can
attract future investments and overall development. In order to create a powerful destination
brand we must use the ho listic approach , since the city as a whole is the actual brand. In this
particular case our destination is Bucharest, the capital of Romania.
2.3. Bucharest as a tourist destination
Representing the biggest city and commercial center of our country, Buchar est registers a
population of 2.106.144 inhabitants (INSSE, 2016), a number that ranks the city on the sixth
position after London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome and Paris at EU level. According to
www.citymayors.com, the capital is a regional marginal metropolis, with a limited international
influence. Compared and similar with Athens and Lisbon, Bucharest has at metropolitan level a
few third party services and at international scale is little developed. Recent accelerated evolution
pushes Bucharest closer to be p laced on a superior category, more precise as a regional
metropolis with a powerful international influence, just like Rome, Madrid and Bern.
Since becoming the Romanian capital , Bucharest is on a constant modification, representing
the cultural, artistic and media center of this country. Situated between the Carpathian lower
regions and the Danube River, Bucharest in its brilliant age — the late nineteenth and mid
twentieth hundreds of years — was referred to all through Europe as "Little Paris." Royals ru led
at the time, and the city was popular for its exquisite engineering, excellent lanes and social tip
top. There are still some flawless neo -Classical structures that trace back to Bucharest ’s prime,
however World War II bombings and two tremors adjusted a great part of the horizon.
Yet, Romania and its capital became known in the international eye during the communism
era. Once the Communist administration took control over the political scene, a significant part
of the historical components Bucharest ha d started getting lost , at any rate structurally. In that
period , plenty of major constructions emerged. After the communist period , Bucharest faced a
shift from the sector of industry to commerce. With the development of comm erce sector, the
urban l andsca pes took a different path in many parts of the city; downtown and in outer suburban
areas a lot of tall buildings appeared. The construction of several private enterprises was
permissive, some were not even according to our century policies, but with poor legislation or
action taken , this issue was not analyzed in detail. The large state interventions followed by the
unsupervised development from the next period created a bland image, with no t so many
outstanding hallmarks. At some point , a British daily pa per, the Guardian (2010) , wrote about

19
Bucharest as being the "Paris eaten then spa t out ", but I totally disagree. Y es, this city has its
flaws , but as all cities from this wide world , each is flawed. Bucharest still has a lot to improve,
but we do have our assets. Even in our decade , Bucharest still does not have a personal identity,
just traces of possible brand image made by passengers. But, since Romania entered the
European Union in 2007, current Bucharest is making a decent attempt to recapture its fal len
stature as a worthy European capital .
Within such a dim perspective, recent initiative might have just changed the direction.
Bucharest was one of the cities that were present in an online contest called "The Best City to
Visit Travel Tournament 2013 Championship " held by the site Fox nomad . The blogger Anil
Polat was the one that initiated the contest. Bucharest ended up on the second destination to visit ,
according to the poll. Bucharest has a lot to offer, from numerous parks, museums, restaurants t o
night life. Ironically , in the contest , Bucharest surpassed destinations like Rome, Edinburgh and
Cape Town, but was beaten by another Romanian destination, Sibiu. As many tourists say,
Bucharest is hectic, electric and even though the communist era has fallen, the capital still has
not found its core, it is still defining and forming its own acquired taste. Some critics treat
Bucharest as a cheaper alternative to Budapest or Belgrade.
Nowadays Bucharest is a mix of traces of communism and capitalism. Wh ile visiting the city ,
the tourists usually glance at the massive Palace of Parliament that was built in the Ceau șescu
era. A lot of buildings were built during that period and they still are a present resemblance of
what it was. The capitalism influence can be noticed in the modern neighborhoods , where
companies like Hard Rock Café , Starbucks and many more found their places in this city.
Romania ’s capital gets negative criticism, yet in actuality it is fun, electric and dynamic. Right
here we find the breading be tween unreconstructed communisms with an unfinished or strongly
structured capitalism. Unfortunately , the majority of tourists only spend a night or two before
leaving to other destinations like Transylvania. In order to taste the real vibe of Bucharest you
must give it time. T o understand and see with your own eyes what Bucharest has to offer , you
must allow yourself a few days to visit the wide range of museums, walk the immense parks and
enjoy a fresh drink at a futurist cafe shop from where you can spot a 300 year old church next to
a brand new glass office buildin g. Numerous substantial new investments have changed the old
face of the city and today it has been turned into an extremely intriguing blend of old and new ,
that has little to do with its underlying notoriety.
Since it became a part of the EU , Bucharest started offering some phenomenal attractio ns and
has lately developed an advanced & modern lifestyle that can be found in a lot of European

20
capitals. Nowadays, the capital has been experiencing real development and modernization
works for example, the Basarab Overpass that comes into the rescue fo r the overcrowded traffic
and the National Arena, where a lot of important games are hosted. Another important and
notable improvement was made in the Lipscani area, with the help of the European grants that
represented an important investment for the tour ism industry . Everybody visits the Old Town
when they visit Bucharest , despite, maybe, missing the right destination.
A famous quote about Bucharest that caught my eye was of an American humorist and actor,
Robert Benchley that said the following: "There i s no such place as Budapest. Perhaps you are
thinking of Bucharest, and there is no such place as Bucharest, either " (IMDB). This claim
transports me to a certain problem that always seems to happen. Many people mistake Bucharest
for Budapest, funny or not there had been a lot of incidents where an entire bus of supporters
misspelled the name and ended up in Bucharest, instead of Budapest, or famous singers that
mistaken the name of the capitals in both cases. In all actuality, aside from the way that Hunga ry
and Romania are neighboring nations and the names sound somewhat similar, the two urban
communities are to a great degree unique and distinct from each other. Both of them are capital
of their countries, so this means both are big and the possibilities of entertainment are immense.
Surprisingly , a lot of persons compare or give another name to Bucharest "The New Berlin ".
Nowadays, Bucharest , just like Berlin , is a creative space with cool and unique bars and coffee
shops, occasionally but lately a lot of festivals of very kind and a lot of street art. Looks can be
deceiving and this city is the actual proof of this statement, Bucharest is and will evolve into a
greater and creative city with the young population arising and turning into adults. Cool,
innovative, abrasive, underground and dynamic that is how Berlin is usually described but
happily , a lot of people describe Bucharest as being just the same. Mostly because of the new
emerging bistros, stunning bars and clubs, a flourishing music scene, phen omenal street art and
inventive population gives Bucharest genuinely the Berlin vibe. Falling in love with this city is
simple, its culture and mostly its people make you want to come back and it almost feels like
home. Being an affordable destination that can give a peak of Paris or Berlin makes a lot of
tourists to choose this destination and they usually end up coming back. Bucharest is like wine
and cheese, if you give it time, it will show you its true colors and I can assure you there are
plenty of co lor combinations.
Taking aside that a lot of citizens say that the city is overcrowded and dirty, the following
positive opinions surround the immense possibilities of businesses and jobs, the culture lifestyle,
the museums, concerts that are hosted, and the diversity and fun that make Bucharest an

21
impressive city. In our days the capital is a source of creativity, of cultural effervescence and
dynamism. In our eyes, the citizens that are used with the environment tend to ignore what makes
Bucharest uniqu e. As mentioned, this capital city is an Eastern Europe Berlin. A lot of foreigners
say that the overcrowding, the dirt and the buildings that are covered in street art resemble a taste
of Berlin. In a metaphorical way Bu charest is an invisible without vis ion but in plain action,
Berlin.
Bucharest can be and ends up being the home of many, either Romanians or foreigners,
simply because it has a lot to offer. The first thing that comes through my mind is the people. It is
a matter of tastes, but I like the people from these surroundings, even if they are native from
Bucharest or they moved in. I like that they are less vocal and have way too many things to do
instead of following the others ’ daily activities and they are always helping others. On the other
hand, the communities seems to be a little less closer than they are in other cities, but this is just a
personal opinion referring to my native city, Constanța.
A project that was initiated by citizens is the so called "Bucharest 2021 " – European Capital.
The ones that initiated the program threw the dices and put their stake on this particular image of
Bucharest, the capital of people, the invisible city in the eye of the citizens that need to be
awakened. A cultural capital cannot be only a city, it must be the city, it must be lived and shared
by the locals and not just staged by their representatives; on the other hand, in the chronic
absence of a coherent vision and consistent urban policies, only in the "people ’s city " you find all
the potential for cr eativity that many presume, but few can come to see it. It is not an act of
undermining the authority, but one for restitution of the city to its inhabitants.
Accordingly, all the preparation of this candidacy was not placed under the sole authority of
an "artistic director ", as in other cases, but chose the formula of an open working group, in which
thousands of lovers of the city are invited to join. Bucharest has to appear, get a face in which
most of its inhabitants are recognized. On a small scale, th is has been happening for some years
now, from the "alternative " spaces and events of culture, which have pushed Bucharest into small
urban regeneration projects. Thus, invisible Bucharest should only organize, develop and stage
this potential as little as visible, so real.
Thinking about the previous mention of Bucharest not having an "identity ", the authorities
should understand how to form one with the help of its citizens and from tourists ’ impressions as
well. Unfortunately , there are several related projects that seemed to shape the future place
identity of this city , yet they remained only in the initial stage, on paper. If we wish to develop
the tourism sector, we must analyze the weaknesses and transform them into strengths . In order

22
for Bucharest to be seen in the same light as other capitals continuous development should be
made . Thus, without being aware of its problems, we will not evolve and therefore will not be
seen in the eye of the traveler as a proper destination to be chosen.
In order t o attract a number of tourists we must give what is expected. The only way we can
discover the wishes and demands of tourists is by making analyses by interacting with the trigger
factor , the tourists. Even though it is impossible to please everybody, we c an still attract more
tourists by erasing the general issues that are highlighted by the majority. The only way we can
do this is by initiating a research with the aim of finding out the weak spots and possible
improvements of the city from several respons es.

23
CHAPTER 3. Methodology
This section portrays the procedure used by the researcher to lead the study . It incorporates
the solid research strategies and the reasons for choosing the following method. The study
sample , information gathering and the i nformation investigation, are of high quality . At long last
yet imperatively, the legitimacy and dependability will assess the exactness of the research .
In the ca se of tourism analyses, tourist s’ expectation s should be scrutinized by including all
possibl e variables for every striking property of the tourist product and , in addition , for the
overall tourist experience (Oliver and Burke , 1999). In this research, they were measured for the
fundamental measurements of a destination, i.e. characteristic view, personal satisfaction, social
legacy, tourism foundations, recreation activities (Murphy; Pritchard and Smith, 2000) and for
the general understanding .
Quantitative research , as sustained by Ghauri & Gronhaug (2005 ), represents not only a mean
for tests an d verification of data but also re sembles an important approach regarding the data to
be analyzed. Altinay & Paraskevas (2008) saw the questionnaire as an efficient method to use in
order to collect information from a large number of respondents, at a low cost, so as to produce
summaries and quantitative descriptions.
3.1. Conducting the research study
The research topic of this paper is the survey of tourists ’ satisfaction , of those who visited the
tourist destination Bucharest on specific estimations , of touristic offer of this place and the level
of their fulfillment with the service. In the first part, the study began with the survey
questionnaire which can be found at the end of this study as appendix 1. All of the respondents
were foreign tourists who h ad visited Bucharest at least once. The aim was to establish to what
extent satisfaction affects the successfulness of a tourist destination. A self -administered
questionnaire survey was used to collect data from foreign tourists coming to Bucharest. The a im
of this resea rch is to collect information regarding the expectations and the tourist ’s satisfaction
while visiting Bucharest.
The questionnaire was developed in English. The collected information on tourists was related
characteristics, social demogr aphics, as well as pre – and post -experience about Bucharest as a
tourism destination. After distributing the survey to the foreign tourists willing to participate in
the survey, the on -site survey was carried out and the final results returned 100 usable
questionnaires. Data collection was conducted using the convenience sampling method , method

24
that has been used in past studies by Nwagwu (2009 ), Rehman and Shabbir (2010 ) in the study of
Internet usage -related research simply because nowadays everyone has i nternet access and it is a
faster method. In all types of research, it is ideal to test the whole popula tion, yet because of
matters of time the popula tion is simply too extensive , making it difficult to incorporate each
person. This is the motivation behi nd the reason why most researchers use testing procedures like
convenience sampling, the most widely recognized of all examining strategies. Numerous
researchers incline toward s this procedure strategy since it is quick, modest and simple and the
subjects are promptly accessible.
In pilot studies, this technique is normally utilized on the grounds that it enables the analyst to
acquire fundamental information and patterns in regards to his examination , without the
confusions of utilizing a randomized exampl e. Such investigations are likewise exceptionally
valuable for identifying connections among various attributes. Researchers utilize the
convenience sampling method not because it is easy to use, but rather in light of the fact that it
likewise has other r esearch favorable circumstances.
This method is made by examining the accessible essential information source that will be
needed for the examination without extra requirements. As it were, this testing technique
includes getting respondents wherever you c an find them and wherever is advantageous. When
the convenience sampling method is used , there is no consideration criteria distinguished before
the determination of subjects. All subjects are welcome to take part. This method is used in
business studies i n order to gather primary data regarding a certain issue, for example a
perception of image, just like in this case a destination ’s image.
The instruments used in this survey were extracted from the literature review. San Martín and
Del Bosque (2008) exam ined the destination image in previous studies and the scales of
cognitive and affective attributes were adapted from different studies. Also, the scales were
utilized and analyzed by numerous past researche rs which uncovered great dependability and
legiti macy. Along these lines, the utilization of these scales was viewed as proper in this
investigation. All scale s were assessed utilizing a five -point Likert scale going from 1 ( strongly
disagree) to 5 ( strongly agree) adapted from Lee et al. (2011) . These scales were chosen since
they detailed satisfactory dependability and legitimacy in the past investigations . Also, a few
components of the scale were somewhat changed to make it appropriate with regards to tourists
coming to Bucharest.

25
3.2. Data collection
The q uestionnaire survey consists of three section s, just like it follows: first section with basic
data of all tourists ’ demographic characteristics, afterwards the second section consisting of
tourist destination and travel patterns information needed to iden tify the tourists’ expectation s
and perception of Bucharest. The last section focuses on the (dis -)satisfaction and loyalty, overall
satisfacti on with the tourist destination . Each section consist s of several sets of related questions
and at the third sect ion, the respondents were required to state their level of agreement or
satisfaction on destination expectation and their travel experience using a Likert Scale of 5,
ranging from 1 (completely disagree; completely dissatisfied) to 5 (completely agree; com pletely
satisfied ). These scales were selected because on previous studies they transformed the primary
given data into adequate, reliable and valid information for the case of several studies. After
adjusting some questions that were not suitable for the context, minor changes were made
between these , the first and second drafts, a final draft of the final version being submitted to
respondents. I evaluated the clarity and appropriateness of all items to ensure the content validity
of the questionnaire.
3.3. Participants
The fundamental principle of the survey was to conduct online surveys with individu al
tourists. Moreover, data was collected over a period of 2 months from 23 March until May 25 ,
2018. For this study, I distributed the survey on different social media platforms and related
groups. I also gave the questionnaire to a few foreigners I knew myself . After eliminating invalid
surveys, a total of 100 completed questionnaires were ultimately collected for further analysis.
Of the total number of re spondents, most of them were female ( 60%), aged between 18-60 years.
Also, the second majority of the participants ( 43%) were traveling for the first time to Bucharest.
Finally, most of the participants stayed in Bucharest between 2 to 16 days.
In the su rvey, there are 100 respondents who come from different continents. Most tourists
come from Europe, more precise a percentage of 89% people. America and Asia travelers come
in second with 4%. Last but not least, Australia has the smallest percentage among all. Only 3%
of them come to visit. In my opinion, the percentage of people coming from Europe is greater
because of geographical matters , while in the case of America, Asia and Australia we must focus
on promoting the capital more, since the majority came with business reasons.

26
Most of the respondents are originally from Spain (17%) followed by France (13%). The
following countries of origin are Italy (10%) and United Kingdom (10%). The other respondents
are from countries from all around the world and co vering every continent.
The research highlights the fact that female visitors (60% ) have a tendency to go on vacation
more than male (40%) tourists. However, the percentage of the two genders is not that much
different. As it clearly can be remarked , the difference is only 20%. On the demographic side, t he
number of people who are on the age of less than 24 dominates with the percentage of 51%.
Followed by that group of age are tourists from 28 – 37 (33%) and tourists from the middle age,
12% respectively . People in the age group of 48 – 57 are not many and so, they only account for
3%, followed closely by the age interval of 58 -67 by 1%.
In this particular case , the majority of respondents are single (59%), this information being
sustained by the majority of young generation submitting the survey. As expected , the following
percentage was of married people (30%), followed by (11%) cases of divorced people .
Among the 100 respondents, bachelor graduates (42%) accounted for the majority of tourists
in this gr oup. Followed by master graduates (36%) and persons with a higher degree (3%). This
makes sense because these groups may spend more money on traveling. A percentage of 18% of
respondents were high scholars, this could be explained by the fact that some cho ose vocational
schools or just do not want to continue their studies, or they have their own businesses.
Another characteristic of respondents refer s to income. The percentages pictured in figure 3.1
are as follows: tourists with income above € 1100 (40%), followed by the ones with income of €
500 – € 1100 (25%). Right after , we have the interval of € 250 – € 500 (22%) and in the end the
last interval of people with income below € 250. First, employed individuals travel more than the
unemployed. Obviously, people who have a job earn mone y and afford to take a vacation;
mean while , the jobless people are dependent on the government and they have much more to
worry about than travelling. Anyone who has a monthly income above 1100 € can afford going
on vacation, visitin g in our case Bucharest. However, the same does not hold true for those who
make less than 250 €.

27

Figure 3.1: Income of respondents
3.4. Data Analysis
It was mentioned upper that the reason behind this researc h is to examine the relationship
between tourist determinants and tourist satisfaction. As mentioned above, questionnaires were
used to gather quantitative data about the different subjects. After c ollec ting enough data, I had a
variety of rich information on tourists ’ impressions on Bucharest that followed a lot of positive
and also negative results. The utilization of a Likert scale in the study adequately resembled the
differences between the expectation and perception of visitors about Bucharest and in addition it
inspected their (dis -)satisfaction during their trip.
Microsoft Excel software was used to describe the general characteristics of the sample, such
as the average age of the respondents. After the basic averages, other calculations were
perform ed on the data sample, like exploratory factor analysis and reliability calculations. This
action was made in order to create factors so the information would be diminished and could be
utilized as a part of further calculations. Then again, the given resu lts of this research depend on
the literature review and the observational information. Nevertheless , this research represents a
small effort in the field of tourism and may turn into a solid hotspot for additional inquir ies.

28
CHAPTER 4. Results
4.1. Travel Behavior Characteristics
Tourists tend to spend a short time in Bucharest. In the table 4.1, 74 % of the total number of
visitors spen t 2 to 16 nights in Bucharest . On average , tourists stayed 31.02 nights and that
percentage is the result of the fo llowing intervals, where the second group of tourists that decided
to spend around 17 -31 nights represents 12%, coming straight away the ones with a higher
percentage of 14%, that decided to spend more than 50 nights . The amount of visitors that stayed
longer is the result of different factors, like: they are either attending educational year(s) in our
capital or they are here because of work requi rements. But the majority spends a few days , since
a lot of respondents c onsider Bucharest as more of a busines s trip rather than a tourist
destination. S ome only spend a few nights in here to organize their trips to other parts of
Romania, usually Prahova Valley or Transylvania.
Table 4.1: Information on a number of nights spent in Bucharest

As seen from figure 4.1 people prefer to travel in pairs, but not necessarily couples . The
biggest percentage was 59% and that is represented by the respondents that chose to travel either
alone or wit h friends, husband or wife. 34% of tourists decided to come with their friends , while
34% decided to come alone. The following percentage is represented by the couple travels
surrounding a number of 23 %, while only 6% of people came with their family, foll owed by the
ones that came with coworkers (4%), visitors that came with business motives.
Nights spent %
2-16 74%
17-31 12%
More than 50 14%
Mean 31.02

29

Figure 4.1: Information on travellers’ partner
The next travel behavior characteristics of our respondents shown below , represents the way
they chose to make their travel arrangements. The majority (84%) chose to make their own
arrangements independently. The rest of respondents consulted a travel agent (14%) and some
respondents sustained that the arrangements were made by local friends or employer organized
travel (2%).

Figure 4.2: Information on travel arrangements
The following data has been extracted from table 4. 2. It is not a big surprise that a lot of
people already knew th is destination , since 89% of respondents were from Europe. A few
respondents that alr eady knew this destination chose to inform themselves more, by using the
Internet ( 20.5%), while others either came to see relatives or asked friends that already went here
about our capital ( 26.3%). Thinking about the fact that a few r espondents were olde r than 50
(4%) we have a percentage of 5.8% in the case of Books & Guides and Travel agency, while
fairs & exhibitions with travel packages were only 3.2%. Some respondents stated that they came

30
with the Erasmus program or they heard about Bucharest becaus e of their work movement
(1.9%) .
Table 4. 2: Type of information sources about Bucharest
Information sources: Count of respondents %
I already knew this destination 52 33.3%
The Internet 32 20.5%
Friends & relatives 41 26.3%
Books and guides 9 5.8%
Travel agency 9 5.8%
Fairs and/or exhibitions 5 3.2%
It was part of the travel package 5 3.2%
Other sources 3 1.9%

Furthermore, in correlation with the past information analyzed, we have the analysis of
number of tourist visits in Buch arest , pictured below in figure 4. 3. A lot of respondents (43%)
said that it is their first time in Bucharest, followed by a surprisingly big percentage of people
that came the fourth time or more (30%). Some came twice (19%), while some retur ned for the
third time (8%). The se numbers are explained by either the fact that our country is developing in
the eye of the traveller, the entrance in the European Union was a big asset, or simply because a
lot of persons come for work and business meetings, since ou r capital is the center of commercial
business sector, surrounding the biggest number of multinationals and companies, attracting
investors of all kind.

Figure 4. 3: Information on tourists visits

31
By means of transportation as seen from figure 4. 4, the re spondents mostly chose to fly either
with low cost airline (51%) company or major airline (47%), the difference between the se two
options being small , only by 4%. This percentage was so high , mainly because the respondents
came from countries were the mini mum wage is higher than the one in our country so the
transportation expenses are minor too, or they come from different continents. Some chose to
travel by car, the ones that lived in countries nearby Romania and the cost of gas would not be as
much as so meone coming from western or northern Europe or other continents just like the case
of people that travel by bus (6%) or train (1%).

Figure 4.4: Mean of t ransportation
Furthermore, there are so many r easons for tourists to come to Bucharest, which are illustrated
in table 4.3 below . The majority of respondents came to Bucharest for entertainment, like fun
(20.7%), relaxation (16.8%), visiting relatives and friends (15.9%) this is mainly because our
night life is pretty developed, surrounding the Old Cen ter, where every foreigner passes by. A lot
of them also come with either lovers that are Romanian born and they come with them to visit
their relatives or just Romanian friends that they join in their hometown trip du e to curiosity of
the unknown. A perce ntage of 12.9%, respectively of 12.1% come for different conferences that
are hosted by our capital or for courses that are cheaper, or simply for business meetings. Some
travelers choose to come here to discover our Romanian culture (12.5%), or different museums
that show our origins and culture, like National History Museum of Romania, The Peasant
Museum, National Museum of Romanian Literature and many more.
A small , yet not the smallest , percentage of tourists come for sports and recreation (4.3%), due
to the fact that Bucharest has a lot of parks that are large and clean, like Herăstrău, Titan Park,
Tineretului Park or Carol Park. A small percentage of tourists come for health reasons (1.7%),

32
while only 0.9% comes for religious reasons. Others came here because they were offered
employment here, or for an Erasmus year (2.2%).
Table 4.3: Main reasons for visiting Bucharest
Activities Count of
respondents %
Relaxation 39 16.8%
Visiting relatives and friends 37 15.9%
Business reasons 28 12.1%
Attending a conference, congress, seminar,
and other forms of educations 30 12.9%
Culture 29 12.5%
Fun 48 20.7%
Sports and recreation 10 4.3%
Health 4 1.7%
Religious reasons 2 0.9%
Other 5 2.2%

Table 4. 4 represents the activities tourists chose while travelling to Bucharest. By analyzing
the above answers , it can be stated that our capital is a city of tourist experience which offers
many attractive choices. Many tourists think that Bucharest is a city with many attractions that
offers goo d tourism services.
It can be easily noticed that Bucharest represents a tourist destination which offers food that
is valuable for the money they cho se to spend , since a number of 80 respondents prefer to dine
downto wn (18.3% of total percentage) . Friend ly and hospitable , the locals represent a major
factor that earns a lot of recognition from tourists. A great number of respond ents ch ose to walk
around downtown (18.3%) and admire the architecture, beautiful places Bucharest has and
furthermore a number o f 64 respondents said they go shopping too (14.6%). Speaking in terms of
entertainment , a huge number of tourists engage in a night out while visiting Bucharest (16.2%).
A number of 50 respondents stated that they come to Bucharest for cultural exhibits (1 1.4%)
that do not come as a surprise since Bucharest is an electric city that opens its arms to the new
and contempo rary creative minds. A lot of artists show their art in different occasions , the most

33
resembling example could be MNAC – The National Museum of Contemporary Art that hosts a
lot of exhibitions. Speaking about entertainment , a representative number of 47 respondents
came to Bucharest to attend an event or festival (10.8%) thing that seems pretty normal, by the
fact that nowadays a lot of food f estivals, art, design or music festival s are hosted, one of the
examples could be Summer Well (music festival) that happens each year and since its location is
the Field of Stirbey where you cannot camp or have accommodation , a lot of tourists cho se to get
accommodation in Bucharest. Thirty seven of respondents came to visit a friend (8.5%) which is
not uncommon due to the fact that the Internet is nowadays an easy path for making international
connections between individuals. Last but not least , some respo ndents (1.8%) sustained that they
volunteered, participated to conferences or just came to study.
Table 4. 4: Main activities in Bucharest
Activities
Count of
answers %
Events or Festivals 47 10.8%
Dining downtown 80 18.3%
Shopping 64 14.6%
Cultu ral Exhibits 50 11.4%
Walking around downtown 80 18.3%
Entertainment/ Night Life
District 71 16.2%
Visited friends 37 8.5%
Other 8 1.8%

4.2. Tourist ’s expectation vs. perce ption of Bucharest
For travelers, the way toward s choosing an d settling on a tourist destination is impacted by
how they see the general picture of Bucharest as a tourist destination , which incorporates
numerous components of nature, economy, society and politics. Speaking about the general
image of Bucharest in the eyes of travelers as shown in the figure below , on a scale of 1 to 5, the
average rating of people thinking that Bucharest has a positive light in the eye s of tourists is 3.25,
meaning that they do not see it a bad or a great destination more like a neutr al one. The second
attribute is represented by the image of Bucharest that seems to be rounded to 4, meaning that the

34
travelers think our capital has a sort of different image from their own places, and in contrary
with our perceptions, Bucharest has a cer tain "je ne sais quoi ". In the field of popularity,
Bucharest seems to be again in the field of neutrality with an average rating of 3.
Unfortunately, when speaking about preservation of nature, the foreigners seem to think that
our capital is not fully p rotecting the environment, aspect that should give us further thoughts.

Figure 4. 5: Overall image of Bucharest
In the next figure, the impressions of tourists are pictured. Surprisingly the average rating of
respondents that stated their visit in here as being very valuable is pretty high, 4.07, m eaning that
we leave a positive impression, we are warm and welcoming. When speaking about new
knowledge or experiences , we are heading towards the positive rank of 4, aspect that should
pursue us to develop mo re and acknowledge the fact that we are still in the process of developing
but we should not stop here just because things seem to work fine. The last saying can be
correlated with the average rating of people that thought spending money in here was worthy , the
average rating being very similar with the past one, so I repeat myself, we should try and make
things more interesting, more locally embedded more creative or interactive.

35

Figure 4. 6: Impression of respondents
After asking them about their overal l impression about our capital, I asked them about their
overall satisfaction during their stay and a mong 100 respondents, the average response was 3.96
(in a scale from 1 to 5) , aspect that highlights what I said earlier .
Furthermore, I asked them about t heir pre – and post -expectations. The results are pictured in
the above figures. An average rating of 4.2 was pleased with their destination decision , an
average rate of almost 4 was surprised and their expectations exceeded their past impressions.
Among st 100 respondents, the average response of respondents that would afterwards tell
their relatives or friends about this destination was 4.05 (in a scale from 1 to 5) . This
phenomenon can be explained by the fact that the eastern countries were m ostly under
communist regime and a lot of persons either do not know about their existence or simply think
are undeveloped. An average rating of almost 4 stated that they would choose this destination
again and recommend it to other. An average rate of alm ost 4 said they would return, and on
average 3.63 said that they feel like home.

Figure 4.7: Expectations of respondents Figure 4.8: Post impression

36
Obviously, I had to ask them if they encountered inconvenience s due to lack of supp ort of
their mother tongue during th e trip. The results are highlighted in figure 4. 9. A percentage of
26% said that they had issues while interacting with taxi drivers, this could be due to scam or
illegal taxi with rigged meters in the street , or the fa ct that they charge too hi gh compared to the
actual price . Further on, they encountered problems with p ublic transportation station signs
(13.52%). Since many old, damaged or missing signposts are not repaired or replaced , they faced
a lot of obstacles whi le visiting the city. Unfortunately, there is no self -service information kiosk
or Tourist Infor mation B oard around the city. Because the same situation happens to the exit
signs (13.17%), tourists may feel confused or waste time by trying to find the righ t way to the
attractions.
A lot of respondents had problems while i nteracti ng with store employees (14.19%) that
would be happening due to the fact that some citizens are not fluently speaking English. Same
situation in the case of tourist center staff (9.96%) . Some respondents spoke about the issue of
restaurant menus (9.96%) that do not have translation , making the order slightly impossible,
taking into consideration the lack of English speakers too. Some respondents (3.56%) pointed out
that we do not ha ve a city website where all the events are listed and also a lot of them said they
faced obstacles while interaction with the staff from train station .

Figure 4. 9: Inconvenience encountered
In the following figure, are represented a set of attributes rat ed by respondents. On a scale
from 1 to 5, the attributes that are heading towards an average of 4 are the following:
Accommodation, Restaurants, Cultural sites, Local Interaction and Activities & Entertainment.
Taking into consideration that the tourists coming to our country come from places where the
minimum wages are slightly higher than ours, they did not find the prices for accommodation,

37
food & beverages expensive. We have a lot of places where tourists can get in touch with our
culture and history , as I mentioned before.
Bucharest is a city that can party until the sunrise an d even if you are not the sleep loosing
kind of person, you can still find things to do . Like going to see a play or a movie or just walk in
the park. The interaction with the ci tizens is voted as being close to 4, meaning that we are
indeed friendly and helpful but we should go beyond this. Transportation stands in the neutral
meter, simply because it is overcrowded, making the trip longer than expected. A sad reality is
faced wh en speaking about infrastructure and natural preservation. A lot of respondents said that
the city is d irty and the infrastructure is poor. Some have complained about the public toilets, and
transportation systems .

Figure 4. 10: Satisfaction of respondent s
Further on after questioning them about our city attributes, I asked them if they would be
willing to return. A percentage of 88% answered positively, while only 12% said they would not
return. Those who answered negatively were asked why they chose not to return. The most
common answers were: l ack of English speak er leading to hard communication at tourist
attractions and important locations , some said they see it more as a business trip destination and
the majority said that the streets are dirty, the old buildings are falling apart and the infrastructure
is on a low level.
For those who answered positively, I asked them when they would return and the results are
resembled in the next figure. A lot of respondents said that they would either come during spring
(38.27%) because in the hot season Bucharest can be extremely hot due to the presence of a lot
buildings and t he overcrowded traffic that is constant. A percentage of 35.80% said they would
return during summer season, mostly because a lot of event s and festivals are happening in that

38
period. Some said they would return during winter (14.81%) just because they have not and they
would like to experience the cold season in our country. A few respondents said they would
come during autumn (6.17%) for t he same reasons as the ones that would come during winter. A
percentage of 4.94% said they would come anytime because they feel like home in here and
Bucharest is beautiful every season.

Figure 4.1 1: Months of possible returns
The last question I p roposed to them was for the ones that would choose to re -visit and for
what purpose . Their responses are highlighted in table below . The most voted activities were
cultural or art exhibits (15.1%) , due to the fact that a lot did not engage in this activity when I
firstly asked what they did. T hey also said that they would go and see more attractions (13.9%)
since a lot of them only came for business reasons. Some had interest in cycling or walking
(8.1%) as a new possible activity, and this activity comes h and in hand with wa tching scenery
(8.7%). Some would take into consideration sports (3.5%) while some would like to involve in
historical activities (9.6%). They kept their past activities as possible ones, di ning in town (13%),
shopping (13%). Meeting wit h locals (12.2%) has an important spot, mostly because during their
trip they met people and bounded, making friendships. Other s said that they would experience
Bucharest’s night life, several festivals or events or they would return to see if the infrastr ucture
has improved and if Bucharest has developed its tourism .

39
Table 4.5: Reasons to return
Activities Count of answers %
Food 45 13%
Tourist attractions 48 13.9%
Walking / Cycling 28 8.1%
Scenery 30 8.7%
Shopping Downtown 45 13%
Culture, Art Exhibits 52 15.1%
Sports 12 3.5%
Meet an interact with locals 42 12.2%
Historical experience 33 9.6%
Other 10 2.9%
The results of the study have theoretical and practical significance. The analysis has
highlighted important insights on the travel attributes of Bucharest. By correlating attributes like
gender, age and marital status with tourist ’s behavioral patterns we can further analyze the
relationship between travel attributes and tourist satisfaction. Depending on the above factors , a
lot of forecasts about future visits can be made. Extracting from the study we can conclude that
women tend to travel more to this destination, the majority of travelers come alone and
occasionally in pairs with friends or relatives. The tendency of tra velers come with job related
visits or business. Besides the ones that are long term passengers due to work, the second
majority of tourists spend around four days in Bucharest engaging in several activities. A lot of
them come for shopping, night life and downtown walks in the city.
The overall tourist satisfaction with our city ’s offerings was on the positive scale, aspect that
should motivate us for more. A lot of res pondents spoke about problems regarding the protection
of the environment and infrastru cture, aspects that are obvious in the eye of the citizens too. The
municipalities should take into consideration the highlighted issues and make changes, for a
better future tourist product and service. When speaking about the will of returning, more than
half of the respondents answered positively, some even stating that they would come to see if
changes were made. The preferred returning period is during spring or summer season.
The first steps for a better understanding of what a tourist wants and loo ks for while visiting
Bucharest have been made, t herefore future research on this area should be made in order to
enable a more precise analysis that would c apture the dynamism and changes over the time.

40
CONCLUSION
Bucharest has many attractions that can be used for a future develop ed touristic business .
However, due to the inappropriate management and exploitation of tourism, the city has not been
promoting its existing potential. In fact, the revenue from tourism is still lower than in other
sectors. Therefore, the study was made to analyze the foreign er’s expect ation of Bucharest and
their personal impressions of this destination , as well as the examination of the degree of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction wit h the current tourist offerings in the city. Currently , Bucharest
is a place for visitors that spend two or three nights before their departure to other tourist places
from Romania . Some spend a longer period due to business reasons or job related cases .
In the knowledge term, the research gives the author a more ex tensive comprehension on
tourist destination attributes that need to be exploited in order to maximize the tourist ’s
satisfaction. The overall satisfaction of tourists represents a crucial part in the survival and
further tourist advance ment of any destination. By using the satisfaction analysis , we can
evaluate the performance of tangible and intang ible elements of tourist products and services ,
correlating them with the traveler ’s eagerness of returning.
In the empirical term, the analy sis of the research was conducted using quantitative research.
The data collected from the survey questionnaire was made with the help of 100 respondents
willing to participate in the research. In addition , Excel program was applied for the data
transfers and computer analysis in order to analyze properly the differences between expectation
and perception of tourists . The tourists ’ (dis-) satis faction with the current tourist s’ offerings in
Bucharest was analyzed as well .
We are k eeping in mind that the end goal of this research was to make suggestions for
creating a suitable tourism strategy that would fulfill tourists ’ satisfaction during their stay and
make them want to return. Our capital needs a well built up strategy to enhance and redesign its
present conditions. By creating a strong brand image with a powerful slogan and impressive
logo, we can enlarge the city image and inflate its tourism offerings to attract foreigners and
motivate them to choose Bucharest as their next tourist destination , not as a simple point of
departure or business trip , but more as a capital tourist destination like the ones we have in mind.
This could happen with the help of city government that should hire professional tourism experts .
Afterwards, making a team specialized on marketing and promoti on could be another way to
enhance the capital ’s popularity, by creating new interesting activities and even a powerful

41
advertising campaign . The citizens should also contribute to this evolvement, something similar
with the Buchare st 2021 – European Capital of Culture initiative.
I am well aware that there are some limitations that need to be acknowledged and addressed
regarding the research. It was not difficult to find respondents, the only t ime I faced obstacle s
was when respon dents answered part of a survey but not all of it, or they missed or skip ped some
questions , making me neglect their answers . Missing data from any of these causes could partly
bias results of the data analyses. Also , some respondents answer ed superficiall y to the open
questions, making the analysis a little difficult. The research was conducted during a period of
two months and for a deeper research there must be more time allocated.

42
REFERENCES
1. Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat Visitation in Ma ture Sun and Sand Holiday Destinations . Journal
of Travel Research , 44(3), pp.288 -297.
2. Alegre, J. and Garau, J. (2010). Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction . Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1),
pp.52 -73.
3. Altinay, L. and Paraskevas, A. (2008) . Planning R esearch in Hospitality and Tourism . Butterworth –
Heinemann, Oxford.
4. Anderson, E. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. Journal of Service Research , 1(1), pp.5 –
17.
5. Baker, D. and Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions . Annals of Tourism
Research , 27(3), pp.785 -804.
6. Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation . Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(4), pp.868 -897.
7. Ban, O., Özdogan, O.N. (2010). Approaches in investigating Romania’s image as a tour ist destination
among the Turkish students . Journal of Tourism , 10, pp.13 -19.
8. Berman, B. (2005). How to Delight Your Customers. California Management Review , 48(1), pp.129 -151.
9. Bigné, J.E., Sánchez, M.I. & Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation vari ables and after purchase
behavior : Inter -relationship. Tourism Management, 22, pp. 607 -617.
10. Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters; the effects of physical surroundings and employee
responses . Journal of Marketing , Vol. 54 (April), pp. 69 -82.
11. Blodgett, J.G., Wakefield, K.L. and Barnes, J.H. (1995). The Effects of Customer Service on Consumer
Complaining Behavior . Innovative Marketing, Volume 4, Issue 2. Journal of Service Marketing , pp. 31 -42.
12. Boshoff, C. and Tait, M. (1996). Quality perception s in the financial services sector. International Journal
of Service Industry Management , 7(5), pp.5 -31.
13. Brady, M. and Cronin, J. (2001). Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A
Hierarchical Approach . Journal of Marketing , 65(3), pp.34 -49.
14. Brown, S.W., & Bitner, M.J. (2007). Mandating a service revolution for marketing, in Lusch, R.F. and
Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service -Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions . M.E. Sharpe,
Armonk, NY .
15. Chen, C. and Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty.
Tourism Management , 36, pp.269 -278.
16. Chen, C. and Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions ?.
Tourism Management , 28(4), pp.1115 -1122.
17. Chon, K. (1989). Understanding recreational traveler's motivation, attitude and satisfaction. The Tourist
Review , 44(1), pp.3 -7.
18. Crompton, J. and Love, L. (1995). The Predictive Validity of Alternative Approaches to Evaluating Quality
of a Festival. Journal of Travel Research , 34(1), pp.11 -24.
19. Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension . Journal of
Marketing , 56, pp. 55 -68.

43
20. Crouch, G.I., Perdue, R.R., Timmermans, H.J.P. & Uysal, M. (2004 ). Consumer psy chology of tourism,
hospitality and leisure . Volume 3. Cambridge: CABI Publishing .
21. Currie, R., Wesley, F. and Sutherland, P. (2008). Going where the Joneses go: understanding how others
influence travel decision‐making. International Journal of Culture, To urism and Hospitality Research, 2(1), pp.12 –
24.
22. Decrop, A. (1999). Tourists’ Decision -Making and Behavior Processes . 20(1), pp.157 -161.
23. Echtner, C.M., Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003 ). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image . Journal of
Tourism Studies , vol.14, no.1, pp.37 -48.
24. Fan, Y. (2006). Branding the nation: What is being branded ?. Journal of Vacation Marketing , 12(1), pp.5 –
14.
25. Fernández -Ballesteros, R., Dolores Zamarrón, M. and Angel Ruíz, M. (2001). The contribution of socio –
demographic and psychosoci al factors to life satisfaction . Ageing and Society, 21(01), pp.25 -29.
26. Fitzsimmons, J. and Fitzsimmons, M. (2001). Service management . New York: McGraw -Hill.
27. Flint, D., Blocker, C. and Boutin, P. (2011 ). Customer value anticipation, customer satisfaction a nd loyalty:
An empirical examination. Industrial Marketing Management , 40(2), pp.219 -230.
28. Foley, P. (1992). Book reviews: Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. 1990: Selling the city: marketing
approaches in public sector urban planning . London: Belhaven Press. Pro gress in Human Geography, 16(4),
pp.608 -610.
29. Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience. Journal of
Marketing, 56(1), pp.55 -68.
30. Fornell, C., Mithas, S., Morgeson, F. and Krishnan, M. (2006). Customer Satisfaction and Stock Prices:
High Returns, Low Risk. Journal of Marketing , 70(1), pp.3 -14.
31. Fred Selnes (1993). An Examination of the Effect of Product Performance on Brand Reputation,
Satisfaction and Loyalty . European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 27 Issue: 9, pp.19 -35.
32. Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. Harlow (GB): Financial Times
Prentice Hall, pp.23.
33. Gold, T. (2018). Scary Halloween? Don't count on it: on Dracula's trail in Romania . [online] the Guardian.
Available at: https:/ /www.theguardian.com/travel/2010/oct/30/bucharest -dracula -romania -halloween [Accessed 17
May 2018].
34. Grönroos, C. (1982). Strategic Management and Marketing in Service Sector . Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA .
35. Halstead, D. and Page, T.J. Jr (1992) . The effects of satisfaction and complaining behavior on consumers
repurchase behavior . Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior , 5, pp. 1 -11.
36. Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. Jr., & Schlesinger, L.A. (1994 ). Putting the
service profit chain to work . Harvard Business Review, pp. 105-11.
37. Hovland, C., Harvey, O. and Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to
communication and attitude change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol ogy, 55(2), pp.244 -252.
38. Ignacio Rodríguez de Bosque, Héctor San Martín (2008). Research Tourist satisfaction a cognitive –
affective model. Annals of Tourism Research , 35(2), pp. 551 -573.
39. Iso-Ahola, S. (1990). Motivation for Leisure. In Understanding Leisure and Recreation: Mapping the Past,
Charting the Future , edited by E. L. Jackson and T. L Burton. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, pp. 247 -279.

44
40. Joppe, M., Martin, D. and Waalen, J. (2001). Toronto’s Image as a Destination: A Comparative
Importance -Satisfaction Analysis by Origin of Visitor . Journal of Travel Research , 39(3), pp.252 -260.
41. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must -be quality . Hinshitsu:
Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control , 14(2), pp. 39 -48.
42. Kim, H. and Richardson, S. (2003). Motion picture impacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism
Research , 30(1), pp.216 -237.
43. Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (1999). Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: conceptual
considerations and em pirical findings . International Journal of Hospitality Management , 18(3), pp.273 -283.
44. Kristensen, K., Martensen, A. and Gronholdt, L. (1999). Measuring the impact of buying behaviour on
customer satisfaction. Total Quality Management , 10(4 -5), pp.602 -614.
45. Lazarus, R. (1991). Progress on a cognitive -motivational -relational theory of emotion . American
Psychologist , 46(8), pp.819 -834.
46. Lee, Y., Park, S., Jung, S., Oh, S. and Yang, J. (2011). Study on the current status of naturalized plants in
South Korea. Kore an Journal of Plant Taxonomy , 41(1), pp.87 -101.
47. Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 6(4), pp.390 -407.
48. Levesque, T. and McDougall, G. (1996). Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking .
International Journal of Bank Marketing , 14(7), pp.12 -20.
49. Mansfeld, Y. and Pizam, A. (2012). Consumer Behavior in Travel & Tourism. Hoboken: Taylor and
Francis, pp.103 -133.
50. Mark, M. (2017). 11 incredibly useful things to know before visiting Bucharest , Romania. [Blog] the
comm on wanderer . Available at: https://www.thecommonwanderer.com/blog/bucharest -things -to-know -travel -tips
[Accessed 15 May 2018].
51. Maxham, J. (2001). Service recovery's influence on consumer satisfaction, positive word -of-mouth, and
purchase intentions. Journa l of Business Research , 54(1), pp.11 -24.
52. Mazurek, M. (2008). Tourist destination Branding: A Competitive Marketing Strategy – Does it really
matter? A case study of Kremnica, Slovakia, Proceedings of the 4th Graduate Student Research Symposiu m
organized by Travel and Tourism Research Association, Canada Chapter, edited by HS Chris Choi, pp. 31 -41.
53. McIntyre, G., Hetherington, A. and Inskeep, E. (1993). Sustainable tourism development . Madrid: World
Tourism Organization , p.23.
54. Media.un wto.org. (2018). UNWTO Annual Report 2016 | World Tourism Organization UNWTO. [online]
Available at: http://media.unwto.org/publication/unwto -annual -report -2016 [Accessed 17 Jun. 2018].
55. Mezei, A. and Paivio, A. (1972). Imagery and Verbal Processes. Leonard o, 5(4), pp.359.
56. Mihăilescu, V. (2015). Cum poate fi Bucureștiul capitală europeană a culturii? – Dilema Veche . [online]
Dilema veche. Available at: http://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/situatiunea/articol/cum -poate -fi-bucurestiul -capitala –
europeana -a-culturii [ Accessed 12 May 2018].
57. Mommaas, H. (2002). City branding: The necessity of sociocultural goals, in Hauben T., Vermeulen M.
and Patteeuw V., City Branding: Image Building and Building Images . NAI Uitgevers, Rotterdam
58. Monitor Social. (n.d.). București, capit ală europeană? . [online] Available at:
https://monitorsocial.ro/indicator/bucuresti -capitala -europeana/ [Accessed 13 May 2018].
59. Morgan , N., & Pitchard, A . (2001) . Advertising in Tourism and Leisure . Butterworth -Heinemann, Oxford,
UK pp. 124

45
60. Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. and Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveller
perceptions. Tourism Management , 21(1), pp.43 -52.
61. Narasimhan, K. (2004). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm . Zeithaml, V.A.
and Bitner, M.J. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm . 3rd ed.: McGraw‐Hill 2003.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal , 14(5), pp.436 -437.
62. Neal, J., Sirgy, M. and Uysal, M. (1999). The Role of Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/ Tourism Services
and Experience in Satisfaction with Leisure Life an d Overall Life. Journal of Business Research , 44(3), pp.153 -163.
63. Nwagwu, W. (2005). Deficits in the visibility of African scientists: implications for developing information
and communication technology (ICT) capacity. World Review of Science, Technology a nd Sustainable Development ,
2(3/4), pp.244.
64. Oishi, S. and Diener, E. (2003). Culture and Well -Being: The Cycle of Action, Evaluation, and Decision.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 29(8), pp.939 -949.
65. Oliver, R. (1980 ). A Cognitive Model of the A ntecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), pp.460.
66. Oliver, R. and Burke, R. (1999). Expectation Processes in Satisfaction Formation . Journal of Service
Research, 1(3), pp.196 -214.
67. Oliver, R. and Swan, J. (1 989). Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in
Transactions: A Field Survey Approach . Journal of Marketing , 53(2), pp.21.
68. Otto, J. and Ritchie, J. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management , 17(3), pp.165 -174.
69. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valerie A. & Berry, Leonard L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple -item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality . Journal of Retailing , vol. 64(1), pp. 12 -40.
70. Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis —a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism
Management, 23(5), pp.541 -549.
71. Pike, S. and Ryan, C. (2004). Destination Positioning Analysis through a Comparison of Cognitive,
Affective, and Conative Perceptions. Journal of Travel Research , 42(4), pp.333 -342.
72. Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to a destination by using
the expectancy disconfirmation theory . International Journal of Hospitality Management , 12(2), pp.197 -209.
73. Qu, H., Kim, L. and Im, H. (2011). A model of des tination branding: Integrating the concepts of the
branding and destination image. Tourism Management , 32(3), pp.465 -476.
74. Ranaweera, C. and Prabhu, J. (2003). The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on customer
retention in a continuous purchasing setting . International Journal of Service Industry Management , 14(4), pp.374 –
395.
75. Rehman, A. and Shahbaz Shabbir, M. (2010). The relationship between religiosity and new product
adoption. Journal of Islamic Marketing , 1(1), pp.63 -69.
76. Ritchie, J . R. Brent, and Robin J. B. Ritchie (1998). The branding of Tourism Destinations: Past
Achievements and Future Challenges . Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Congress of the International Association of
Scientific Experts in Tourism, Destination Marketing: Scop es and Limitations , edited by Peter Keller . Marrakech ,
Morocco : International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism, pp. 89–116.
77. Romaniatourism.com. (n.d.). BUCHAREST, Romania – Travel and Tourism Information . [online] Available
at: http://romania tourism.com/bucharest.html [Accessed 12 May 2018].

46
78. Rust, R., Zahorik, A. and Keiningham, T. (1995). Return on Quality (ROQ): Making Service Quality
Financially Accountable . Journal of Marketing , 59(2), pp.58.
79. Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994). Service Qua lity: Insights and Managerial Implications from the
Frontier. In: Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L., Eds., Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice , Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 1 -19.
80. Ryan, R. (1995 ). Psychological Needs and the Facilitati on of Integrative Processes . Journal of Personality,
63(3), pp.397 -427.
81. Ryan, R.M. , & Deci, E.L. (2001). To be happy or to be self‐fulfilled: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well ‐being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology , 52, pp. 141 ‐ 166. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews/ Inc.
82. San Martín, H. and Rodríguez Del Bosque, I. (2008). Explo ring the cognitive –affective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism Management , 29(2), pp.263 -277.
83. Selnes, F. (1993 ). An Examination of the Effect of Product Performance on Brand Reputation, Satisfaction
and Loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), pp.19 -35.
84. Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. and Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review . International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Managemen t, 22(9), pp.913 -949.
85. Shin, D. and Elliott, K. (2001 ). Measu ring Customers' Overall Satisfaction. Services Marketing Quarterly .
22(1), pp.3 -19.
86. Smidt -Jensen, S . (2006). City Branding Lessons from medium sized cities in the Baltic Sea Region, Danish
Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning . Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark, available
http://www.mecibs.dk/brochures/05Branding.pdf
87. Smith, D. and Aaker, D. (1992). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name .
Journal of Marketing, 56(2), p.125.
88. Smith, M. (1994). A theory of the validity of predictors in selection. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology , 67(1), pp.13 -31.
89. Souca, M. L. (2011). SERVQUAL – Thirty years of research on service quality with implications for
customer satisfaction. In I. Plăiaș (Ed.), Intern ational Conference Marketing from Information to Decision 4th
Edition (pp. 420 –429). Cluj -Napoca: Risoprint.
90. Spreng, R., Harrell, G. and Mackoy, R. (1995). Service recovery: Impact on satisfaction and intentions .
Journal of Services Marketing , 9(1), pp.15 -23.
91. Stănciulescu, G. C., Țîrca, A. -M., Chiș, A., & Souca, M. L. (2010). The modernization of pilgrimage
destinations: a necessity? Calitatea -acces la succes , II (116), pp. 916 –921.
92. Stevens, P., Knutson, B & Patton, M. (1995). Dineserv: A tool for measuring service quality in restaurants,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , 36, pp. 56 -60
93. Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (2004). Consumer behavior in tourism . Burlington, MA: Butterworth –
Heinemann.
94. Teas, R. (1994). Expectations as a Comparison St andard in Measuring Service Quality: An Assessment of a
Reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), pp.132 -139.
95. Tejada, M. (2017). Bucharest: 9 reasons to see Romania's capital . [online] CNN Travel. Available at:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/9 -reasons-to-visit-bucharest -romania -capital/index.html [Accessed 15 May
2018].

47
96. Telisman -Kosuta, N. (1994). Tourist destination image. In S. Witt, &L. Moutinho (Eds.) , Tourism
marketing and managemen t handbook, pp. 557 –561. Cambridge: Prentice Hall.
97. The Romania n, C. (2016). Budapest vs. Bucharest: Which One to Choose?. [Blog] RomaniaExperience .
Available at: https://www.romaniaexperience.com/budapest -vs-bucharest -which -one-to-choose/ [Accessed 14 May
2018].
98. Tourism -bucharest.com. (2018). Short History of Buchare st. [online] Available at: http://www.tourism –
bucharest.com/short -history -of-bucharest.html [Accessed 11 May 2018].
99. Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998). From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in Varadero, Cuba.
Tourism Management , 19(1), pp.25 -34.
100. Tse, D. and Wilton, P. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension. Journal of
Marketing Research , 25(2), pp.204.
101. Uncles, M., Dowling, G. and Hammond, K. (2003). Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs .
Journal of Consumer Marketing , 20(4), pp.294 -316.
102. UNWTO Tourism highlights. (2012). 12th ed. [ebook] Madrid: World Tourism Organization, p.16.
Available at: http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/annual_report_2012.pdf [Accessed 8 Apr. 2018].
103. UNWTO Tourism Highlights Edition. (2014). 14th ed. [ebook] Madrid, p.12. Available at: https://www.e –
unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284416226 [Accessed 12 Apr. 2018].
104. Veasna, S., Wu, W. and Huang, C. (2013 ). The impact of destination source credibility on destination
satisfaction: The media ting effects of destination attachment and destination image. Tourism Management , 36,
pp.511 -526.
105. Voase, R. (2012). Recognition, reputation and response: Some critical thoughts on destinations and brands.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management , 1(1-2), pp.78 -83.
106. Voloacă, Ș. (2016). Mihaela Păun, despre București 2021. [Blog] Art by creart . Available at:
http://www.art7.fm/mihaela -paun -despre -bucuresti -2021/ [Accessed 15 May 2018].
107. Walker, J. and Walker, J. (2011). Tourism. Boston: Prentice Hall.
108. Wirtz, J. and Matt ila, A. (2001). Exploring the Role of Alternative Perceived Performance Measures and
Needs -Congruency in the Consumer Satisfaction Process . Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(3), pp.181 -192.
109. Yang, Z. and Peterson, R. (2004). Customer perceived value, satis faction, and loyalty: The role of
switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21(10), pp.799 -822.
110. Yüksel, A. (2001). Managing customer satisfaction and retention: A case of tourist destinations, Turkey.
Journal of Vacation Marketing , 7(2), pp.153 -168.
111. Zinel din, M. (2000). Total relationship management (TRM) and total quality management (TQM).
Managerial Auditing Journal , 15(1/2), pp.20 -28.

48
ANNEXES
Section 1: General Information
1. What is your gender?
 Male
 Female
2. What is your age?
 20 or under
 21-30  31-55
 56 or older
3. Please, name your country of residence:
4. What is your marital status?
 Single
 Divorced  Married
 Widowed
5. What is your employment status? (Mark the appropriate answer)
 Employed
 Self-employed
 Unemployed  Retired
 Student
 Other :
6. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
 High school
 Bachelor’s degree  Master’s degree
 Doctor’s degree
7. What is your approximate income/year?
 below €250
 €250 -€500  €500 -€1100
 above €1100
8. Who are you traveling with?
 Family
 Husband or wife
 Friend(s)  Alone
 Coworkers
 Other :
9. If you travelled in groups, how many people were traveling in your group? (Including yourself)
10. How did you make your travel arrangements to Bucharest?
 Independently
 Travel agent  Other (please specify)

49
Section 2: To urist Destination
1. Where did you hear about this tourist destination? (Mark the appropriate answer, more answers possible)
 I knew this destination
 The Internet
 Friends and relatives
 Books and guides  Travel agency
 Fairs and/or exhibitions
 It was pa rt of the travel package
 Other sources :
2. How many times have you come to Bucharest as a tourist?
 First time
 Second time  Third time
 Fourth time or more
3. How did you arrive to Bucharest?
 By car
 By bus
 With low-cost airline  With major airline
 By train
 Other :
4. What are the main reasons for your visit to this tourist destination? (Mark the appropriate answer, more
answers possible)
 Relaxation
 Visiting relatives and friends
 Business reaso ns
 Attending a conference, congress, seminar, and
other forms of educations
 Culture  Fun
 Sports and recreation
 Health
 Religious reasons
 Other :
5. How many nights you stayed in this tourist destination:
6. What did you do during your stay in Bucharest? (Mark the appropriate answer, more answers possible)
 Events or Festivals
 Dining downtown
 Shopping
 Cultural Exhibits  Walking around downtown
 Entertainment/ Night Life District
 Visited friends
 Other
Section 3: Overall Satisfaction
1. In the following table are listed a few statements that refer to the general image of Bucharest. Please indicate to
what extent you agree with for each statement: »1« means you completely disagree with it, and »5« means you
agree with it completely.

50

I completely I completely
disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5
1.I think most people have a
positive opinion about this
tourist destination.
2.This tourist destination has
a unique image.
3.I think this tourist
destination is popular
4.This tourist destination
respects the natural
environment.
2. This part of the questionnaire refers to your feelings and comprehension of the value of your stay. For each of
the following statements, please say to what extent you agree with it. »1« means you completely disagree and
»5« that you completely agree with the statement.

I completely I completely
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
1. Overall, staying in this tourist destination has been very 1 2 3 4 5
valuable to me.
2. I have gained a lot of new knowledge and experiences in 1 2 3 4 5
this tourist destination.
3. Staying at this tourist destination is worth every Euro 1 2 3 4 5
paid.

3. In this part of the questionnaire we ask you to rate your overall satisfaction with your visit to this tourist
destination on a scale 1 – 5. Here »1« means you are completely dissatisfied and »5« that you are complet ely
satisfied.

Completely Completely
dissatisfied satisfied

1 2 3 4 5
What is your overall satisfaction with your visit to this tourist 1 2 3 4 5 destination?

4. Now we would like to ask you to tell us to what extent do you agree with the followin g statements (»1« means
you completely disagree and »5« that you completely agree with it):
I completely I completely

disagree
agree

1
2 3 4 5
1. I am pleased that I decided to visit this tourist 1 2 3 4 5
destination.
2. The visit to this tourist destination exceeded my 1 2 3 4 5
expectations.
3. I will speak highly of this tourist destination to my 1 2 3 4 5
friends and colleagues.

51
5. We would like to ask you again to indicate whether you agree or dis agree with the following statements and to
what extent on a scale »1« (I completely disagree) to »5« (I completely agree).

I completely I completely
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
1. If I had to decide again I would choose this tourist 1 2 3 4 5
destination again.
2. I will recommend this tourist destination to my friends 1 2 3 4 5
and relatives.
3. I will return to this tourist destination. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel at home in this tourist destination. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Have you suffe red any inconvenience due to lack of support of your mother tongue during this trip? (Mark the
appropriate answer, more answers possible)
 Tourist guidebook
 Tourist map
 Tourist sign maps
 Interaction with tourist center staff
 Public transportation station s igns
 Public transportation station exit signs  Interaction with taxi drivers
 Rental car navigation systems
 Restaurant menus
 Interaction with store employees
 Other
7. While visiting Bucharest, what did you think about the following items? (For each statem ent please indicate the
extent of satisfaction. »1« means Dissatisfied, »2« mean Somewhat Dissatisfied, » 3« means neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied , »4« means fairly satisfied and »5« means Satisfied.
1 2 3 4 5
Accommodation
restaurants
means of transport (buses, taxis, hired cars)
the natural environment (cleanliness, protection/preservation)
the built environment
archaeological/cultural sites and monuments
the infrastructure
Locals interaction
activities and entertainment opportunities (variety, quality, value for money)
8. For those who answered "somewhat dissatisfied " or "dissatisfied " to – Please write the reasons:
9. For those who answered yes – If you return to Bucharest, in what mon th would you visit?
10. For those who answered yes -If you visit Bucharest again, what would you come for? ( Mark the appropriate
answer, more answers possible)
 Food
 Tourist attractions
 Walking / Cycling
 Scenery
 Shopping Downtown  Culture, Art Exhibits
 Spor ts
 Meet an interact with locals
 Historical experience
 Other