Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the perceived sacrifices associated with visiting an LGBT-friendly destination and its impact on customer value. Specifically, we sought to explore the relationship between customer value, tourist loyalty, and willingness to pay among LGBT tourists. Using a self-administered electronic questionnaire, we collected data from 406 LGBT tourists and employed partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the data. The findings of this study reveal that perceived sacrifices, both monetary and non-monetary, are significant antecedents of customer value in the context of LGBT tourism. Moreover, our results demonstrate that customer value has a significant positive impact on tourist loyalty and willingness to pay, highlighting the importance of creating a positive customer experience for this niche market. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on LGBT tourism by providing insights into the factors that drive customer value in this sector. Moreover, our findings offer valuable implications for the tourism industry, highlighting the need to prioritize LGBT-friendly policies and initiatives to attract and retain this significant customer segment. This study sheds light on the perceived sacrifices and customer value in LGBT tourism, offering valuable insights for industry stakeholders seeking to better understand and serve this diverse and growing market.

Plain language summary

This study aims to investigate the perceived sacrifices associated with visiting an LGBT-friendly destination and its impact on customer value. This study found that perceived sacrifices (monetary and non-moneteray) have a positive impact on customer value in the LGBT tourism sector. Subsequently, customer value has an impact on tourist loyalty and willingness to pay more. This study contributes to the broad assertion that customer value is an essential component in the tourism and hospitality sector. We suggest that destinations should provide a space where the LGBT community can feel accepted and enjoy themselves without facing oppressive societal attitudes to create a welcoming environment.

Keywords

behavioral intentions perceived sacrifices LGBT tourism customer value

Background

In the past decade, LGBT tourism has grown from a niche market to a significant player in the broader tourism industry, and is becoming a popular topic in tourism and marketing literature due to the on-going political and social shifts around the world. With the shift from the modern to postmodern era, a more broad-minded society has evolved (Breshears & Beer, 2016), and a broader acceptance for individuals who are attracted to people of the same sex is being reached in communities in North America and Western Europe (Hartal & Sasson-Levy, 2021), as well as in a few countries in Africa, such as South Africa, Seychelles, Mauritius, Angola, Lesotho, Mozambique and Botswana (Rakhetsi, 2021). South Africa was the first country in Africa, and 5th in the world, to adopt a constitution that protects LGBT individuals from discrimination (Bruwer et al., 2021; Madinga et al., 2020).

As legal recognition and social acceptance of LGBT individuals expand, LGBT tourism continues to flourish, providing new opportunities for hospitality and tourism business (Ro et al., 2017). According to Pathumporn et al. (2020), an estimated $211 billion was spent on travel by LGBT individuals in 2018, and LGBT tourists contribute around 6% of the world’s total tourism spending (Ram et al., 2019), they travel frequently, and hold a greater number of passports compared with their non-LGBT counterparts (Pathumporn et al., 2020). A recent report by Reports_and_Insights (2023) indicates that the LGBT tourism global market is projected to surpass a value of US$610 billion by 2032. The second global report on LGBT tourism published by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) emphasizes the significance of understanding the LGBT tourism market (UNWTO, 2017).

While there has been a notable shift toward support for the LGBT community from various sectors, including businesses and government bodies (George, 2021; Hartal, 2019), research dedicated to understanding LGBT tourism as a sociocultural phenomenon remains limited (Hartal & Sasson-Levy, 2021). According to Lewis et al. (2021), LGBT tourists are part of a marginalized population that have unique challenges of negotiating their lives in a heteronormative society. These challenges have an effect on their travel motivations (Hattingh & Spencer, 2017; Weeden et al., 2016), destination choice (Yeo et al., 2017) and destinations to avoid (Usai et al., 2022). As a result, previous studies on LGBT tourism have focused on travel motivations (Hattingh & Spencer, 2018). Yet, the influence of sacrifices on customer value and subsequent behavioral intentions among LGBT tourists has been largely overlooked. Sacrifices are a common experience for LGBT travelers, as they often make monetary and non-monetary sacrifices to ensure their safety and comfort while travelling. Monetary sacrifices may include spending more money on safety measures, such as private accommodation, or gay inclusive entertainment (Poole, 2017), while non-monetary sacrifices may include giving up certain experiences or activities that are not LGBT-friendly. Beldona and Kher (2015) emphasize the importance of acknowledging and validating tourist’s feeling of sacrifice by considering the value they received in return. Furthermore, they call for a deeper understanding of what consumers perceive they sacrifice to engage in a service. Willingness to sacrifice is a crucial component of consumer behavior (Torres-Moraga et al., 2021). However, there has been little attention dedicated to one of the key pillars of consumer decision making, perceived sacrifices (Shukla, 2010) and its relationship with customer value and impact upon behavioral intentions.

This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the relationship between perceived sacrifices and customer value, as well as behavioral intention within the LGBT tourism sector. By shedding light on these dynamics, business in the LGBT tourism industry can tailor their offerings and marketing strategies to better meet the needs and preferences of this market segment, ultimately enhancing customer satisfactions and loyalty. To fill a research gap in the academic literature and gain better understanding of LGBT tourism, this study addresses the following research objectives:

(1) To determine the relationship between perceived sacrifices and customer value in the LGBT tourism sector.

(2) To determine the relationship between customer value and behavioral intention in the LGBT tourism sector

The remaining sections of this paper provide a literature review that sheds light on the hypothesis development, discuss the methodology adopted for this study and provide a discussion of the findings. In addition, the study’s implications are discussed. Lastly, the study’s limitations and future studies recommendations are presented.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

LGBT Tourism

The increasing attention from both scholars and industry professionals toward the relationship between tourism and the LGBT+ community has led to the recognition of LGBT Tourism as a distinct tourism sector (Qiu et al., 2024). LGBT tourism refers to those tourism offerings tailored specifically to members of the LGBT community (Madinga et al., 2022). Hartal (2019) study reveals that LGBT individuals are often subject to systematic discrimination, social isolation, hostility, and violence. Studies have indicated that LGBT individuals whose sexual orientation is easily identifiable encounter greater levels of victimization and subsequent constraints compared to other travelers (Usai et al., 2022).

Astor (2023) asserts that hate crimes against the LGBT community in the USA have markedly risen from 2022 to 2023, with 350 reported incidents during this period. These incidents encompassed various forms of aggression, such as online harassment, protests targeting LGBT events, and bomb threats directed at hospitals offering gender transition care. In heteronormative societies, majority of anti-gay hate crimes go unreported, contributing to underrepresentation in official records Usai et al. (2022). Glassmann (2012) noted that some tourist destinations may not be welcoming to the LGBT community due prevalent cultural norms and values. Consequently, the LGBT community has been forced to seek out secret gathering places to connect with others who share their identity (Hughes, 2006). Furthermore, they may travel to locations where they can engage in social interactions without facing prejudice (Hartal & Sasson-Levy, 2021). It has been argued that the getaway from a heteronormative environment, endorsing LGBT identity and seeking sex/romance, could be a substantial push motivation factors for some LGBT tourists (Hattingh & Spencer, 2017). These desires can be satisfied in a ‘LGBT friendly’ or LGBT exclusive social environment during a holiday (Ram et al., 2019), commonly known as the ‘LGBT space’ (Hattingh & Spencer, 2017), where homosexuality is tolerated and acceptable with no risk of discrimination and homophobia (Vorobjovas-Pinta, 2018). LGBT space can be described as the physical manifestation of LGBT community.

LGBT tourism accounts for more than 6% of the total tourism market. This makes LGBT tourism a substantial niche tourism market (Ram et al., 2019). A recent report by Reports_and_Insights (2023) indicates that the LGBT tourism global market is projected to surpass a value of US$610 billion by 2032. This could be due to the increasing social acceptance of LGBT community, legalization of same-sex marriage, corporate inclusivity initiatives, and growth of LGBT friendly destinations. The economic significance of the LBT tourism sector has sparked the interest of scholars and travel businesses (Qiu et al., 2024), making the LGBT community a significant tourism market while emphasizing the importance of creating a welcoming and safe environment for its members (Madinga et al., 2022). To realize the full potential of the LGBT tourism, the destinations should understand the needs of the LGBT tourists, understand their customer value perceptions (Madinga et al., 2022), what sacrifices they make to enjoy the freedom of being in an LGBT friendly tourism destination, and more importantly, due to the lucrative LGBT market, LGBT destinations are fighting for tourist loyalty from this market and are interested in understand factors that lead to tourist loyalty (Kang & Ro, 2024).

Perceived Sacrifices

In the marketing literature, sacrifices were considered what consumers pay to obtain a product or service (Shukla, 2010). While in early literature, they were limited to monetary sacrifices, the recent studies have broaden this concept, recognizing it as a multi-dimensional concept that includes both monetary and non-monetary sacrifices such as time, psychological and effort sacrifices (Russell & Boley, 2024; Siagian & Octoyuda, 2024; Torres-Moraga et al., 2021). According to Torres-Moraga et al. (2021, p. 593) “people almost always have to make monetary and non-monetary sacrifices when they want to travel to a certain destination, especially when they have a strong connection with that destination.”

In the tourism context, monetary sacrifice refers to the money paid by the tourist for various products and services at their destination, including lodging, food and drinks, spa treatment, airfare, and airport taxes, as well as tours and entertainment (Plessis & Saayman, 2018). Poole (2017) notes that LGBT tour operators are often perceived to charge LGBT tourists more than their heterosexual counterparts for a similar trip. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, LGBT vacations typically include additional inclusions not offered by traditional heterosexual tour companies, such as special events or activities tailored to the LGBT community. Secondly, hiring entertainers that cater specifically to the LGBT audience, such as Ann Hampton and Amy and Freddy, can be expensive (Poole, 2017). These entertainers are often considered to be a major draw for LGBT tourists, and the cost of hiring them reflected in higher prices charged by LGBT tour operators. According to research conducted by Vorobjovas-Pinta and Dalla-Fontana (2018), spending more money on LGBT-friendly destinations is a worthwhile investment. This is because these places provide LGBT individuals with a safe environment to meet and socialize, which is crucial for the well-being and happiness. In today’s world, many LGBT people face discrimination and mistreatment, so finding a place where they can feel comfortable and accepted is essential.

The concept of non-monetary costs in the tourism industry has become increasingly important in recent years (Russell & Boley, 2024). LGBT tourists often invest significant time and effort into researching destinations, accommodations, and activities that are known to be inclusive and welcoming, as they want to avoid encountering institutionalized prejudice and discrimination (Saravi, 2022). This process involves navigating online forums, reading newspapers, and seeking recommendations from fellow LGBT travelers to ensure a safe and affirming experience. However, the emotional toll of identifying LGBT-friendly destinations and dealing with discrimination or limited options in discriminatory societies can take a toll on one’s psychological well-being. As Hattingh and Spencer (2017) point out, these experiences can have a negative impact on their mental health and overall well-being.

In the means-end-model introduced by Zeithaml in 1988, perceived sacrifice has been identified as an important indicator of customer value (Zeithaml, 1988). Customer’s perception of value is the ratio of the benefit they receive from your offering to the price they pay (sacrifice). In the literature, a significant negative relationship between perceived sacrifice and customer value has been established (Prayoonphan & Xu, 2019; Sumaedi et al., 2012; Thielemann et al., 2018). Prayoonphan and Xu (2019) argue that when the sacrifices of obtaining a product or service increase, the perceived value of that product or service decrease. This suggests that low consumer perceived value could be an outcome of high perceived sacrifice. Therefore, low sacrifice could lead to high consumer value (Prayoonphan & Xu, 2019). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H₁- Monetary sacrifice has a significant impact on customer value.

H₂- Non-monetary sacrifice has a significant impact on customer value.

Companies in the LGBT tourism industry should understand the influence of monetary and non-monetary sacrifice on customer value because it can help them create more effective marketing strategies and improve tourist loyalty. By understanding the trade-offs that LGBT tourists are willing to make, companies can tailor their offerings and messaging to better meet the needs and preferences of this market segment. This can lead to increased willingness to pay for LGBT friendly destinations, as well as positive word-of-mouth recommendations. Additionally, understanding the importance of non-monetary factors such as safety, comfort, and inclusivity can help companies create more welcoming and accepting environments for LGBT tourists, which further enhance the overall customer value. Overall, taking into account the influence of monetary and non-monetary sacrifice on customer value can help companies in the LGBT tourism industry create more effective and customer-centric strategies. In light of the abovementioned, this study will not only contribute to the tourism body of knowledge but will provide LGBT-friendly destinations and marketing practitioners with valuable information for better positioning their destinations and offerings to attract and retain tourists in the rapidly growing LGBT tourism market. This study offers LGBT-friendly destinations guidelines on how to increase customer value and influence tourists’ behavioral intentions, such as loyalty and willingness to pay.

Customer Value and behavioral Intentions

Due to the significance of customer value in the field of marketing and in the context of this study, numerous definitions have been identified in the literature. Generally, customer value may be described as consumers’ preference for and evaluation of features and the features’ performance and consequences that are observed through the consumption process (Caputa et al., 2021). The notion of value has been debated for a few decades (Caputa et al., 2021; Williams & Soutar, 2000; Zeithaml, 1988). Understanding and creating value is a cornerstone of marketing, and value has therefore been studied in several different contexts, for example: the economics (Weinstein, 2020), information systems ( Ainin et al., 2015 ), financial (Grassi et al., 2022), social psychology (Holbrook, 1994), health (Pham et al., 2021), marketing (Ahmed et al., 2023), and in the tourism context (Carvalho & Alves, 2023; Cheng & Lu, 2013; Madinga et al., 2022; Williams, 2005; Williams & Soutar, 2000). In recent years, the importance of understanding and creating value for customers in the tourism industry has become a topic of interest among both academics and marketing professionals (Carvalho & Alves, 2023; Madinga et al., 2022; Williams & Soutar, 2000).

Understanding customer value allows tourist destinations design services and products that are tailored to meet customer needs and preferences (John & Supramaniam, 2024). In addition, customer value is seen as the foundation for all successful marketing strategies (Ahmed et al., 2023; Holbrook, 1994). The tourism sector is a highly competitive industry and tourism destinations should therefore offer superior customer value to gain competitive advantage to attract and retain customers (Cordova-Buiza & Serruto-Perea, 2024). Research indicates that tourists are becoming more selective and sophisticated in their choices and are therefore exceedingly empowered to only purchase products and services that provide value and are capable of offering satisfying experiences (Madinga et al., 2022). The relevance of creating and delivering customer value may provide a foundation for gaining a competitive edge (Ahmed et al., 2023; Weinstein, 2020), because it allows the company to understand its customers’ needs. This may lead to the development of a unique offering, and organizations that focus on customer value are likely to establish long-term competitive advantage in the market (Woodruff, 1997).

Empirical research has shown that customer value is a reliable predictor of behavioral intentions (Mason & Moretti, 2015). The relationship has been confirmed in a number of different contexts including the banking industry (Sayil et al., 2019), restaurant industry (Thielemann et al., 2018), healthcare industry (Choi et al., 2004), retail industry (Veloso et al., 2017), and tourism industry (Madinga et al., 2022). In the tourism industry, tourists’ loyalty (Suhartanto et al., 2020), and tourists’ willingness to pay (Fuentes-Moraleda et al., 2019) play an important role.

Willingness to Pay

LGBT tourism alternatives are more costly than traditional tourism alternatives, and in this case, individuals visiting LGBT friendly destinations should be willing to pay more, as LGBT-friendly locations provide additional amenities not provided to heterosexual tourists (Poole, 2017). According to Weeden et al. (2016), LGBT-friendly destinations tend to be more expensive than their non-LGBT-friendly counterparts. Additionally, destinations that cater specifically for LGBT tourists are often upscale. Furthermore, LGBT tourist destinations provide a safe and accepting environment for the LGBT community, which is why LGBT tourist are willing to pay more to experience this safe haven and escape prejudice in the heteronormative world (Vorobjovas-Pinta, 2018).

Customer value has a significant impact on customer behavior beyond just consumer choice, extending to outcomes such as tourist loyalty and willingness to pay (Mason & Moretti, 2015; Sayil et al., 2019). Research in both marketing and tourism has established a strong connection between value and behavioral intentions (Caputa et al., 2021; Mason & Moretti, 2015). Thus, the following hypothesis are proposed:

H₃- Customer value have a significant positive impact on tourist loyalty.

H₄- Customer value have a significant positive impact on willingness to pay.

Tourists’ Loyalty

To understand how tourists’ loyalty can be developed is very important to managers of tourist organizations and destinations (Cossío-Silva et al., 2019). In a competitive market landscape, tourist loyalty is acknowledged as a fundamental driving factor (Liu et al., 2023). Suhartanto et al. (2020) indicate that loyalty is the best predictor of tourist future behavior and provides tourism destinations with a competitive edge. Furthermore, loyal tourists tend to be less price sensitive compared with first time visitors and tend to spend more money during their visit compared with first time tourists (Cai et al., 2021). Tourist scholars and marketers have started paying attention to tourists’ loyalty, as loyal tourists offer tourism destinations several benefits, such as repeat visits, advocating for the destination and having a sense of destination attachment (Moore et al., 2017). In a recent study conducted by Liu et al. (2023), recommendation intentions, revisit intentions, and willingness to spread positive word of mouth were used to measure tourist’s loyalty.

Based on the preliminary literature provided in this study, a hypothetical model and hypotheses were developed. The hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Research Methodology

Data Collection

In this study, data were collected using a self-administered electronic survey designed to gather insights from LGBT tourists in South Africa. To facilitate survey distribution, we collaborated with travel agencies known for targeting LGBT tourists. Given the absence of a database of gay travel agencies in South Africa, we identified three agencies through online searches. Each agency was located in one of the gay-friendly cities in South Africa: Durban, Johannesburg, and Cape Town (Visser, 2003). These agencies were contacted and requested to distribute the survey link to their customers who had opted to receive such surveys. In addition to leveraging travel agencies, the survey link was also shared on Facebook groups and pages focusing on LGBT tourism. This approach aimed to further diversify the respondent pool and capture a broader range of perspectives within the LGBT tourist population in South Africa. Furthermore, the snowball sampling technique was employed to maximize response rates and ensure a comprehensive dataset.

In our study on LGBT tourism in South Africa, we prioritized ethical considerations due to the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential vulnerability of our participants in a society still grappling with discrimination against the LGBT community. To ensure ethical integrity, we opted for self-administered surveys, allowing participants to complete them in the comfort and safety of their homes, thus fostering openness and honesty. Strict measures were implemented to safeguard participant privacy, including refraining from collecting personally identifiable information to protect against social stigma or repercussions. Additionally, we provided a comprehensive informed consent form to ensure participants fully understood the study's purpose and their rights, upholding transparency and respect for autonomy throughout the research process.

To ensure respondents fell within the appropriate target audience, filter questions pertaining to age and sexuality were incorporated into the survey. These questions were utilized to screen respondents and ensure the inclusion of individuals who identified as part of the LGBT community and were within the desired age range for the study. Of the 417 responses received from the respondents, only 406 were deemed usable. Eleven questionnaires were incomplete and therefore, discarded.

Measurements and Questionnaire Development

This study consist of five constructs: monetary sacrifice, non-monetary sacrifice, customer value, tourist loyalty, and willingness to pay. All the items utilized in this study were adapted from previous studies. To measure monetary sacrifices, the scale developed by Cheng and Lu (2013) and Callarisa Fiol et al. (2009) , was used. Non-monetary sacrifice items were adapted from Beldona and Kher (2015). Measurement items to measure customer value were adapted from the scales used by Makanyeza et al. (2016). Measurement items to measure tourists’ loyalty were adapted from Fu (2019). Measurement items to measure willingness to pay were adapted from the scales used by Kiatkawsin and Han (2019) and Som et al. (2012). The scales and wording of the study items were modified to suit the research context. The study used a five-point Likert scale with anchor points of “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (5) to measure all variables.

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 presents the demographic data of the participants. As depicted in the table, 39.2% of the 406 respondents identified as gay, 34% as lesbian, and 23.6% as bisexual. The majority of participants (43.8%) were between the ages of 26 and 30 years. The study showed that 49.8% of the respondents held an undergraduate degree, while 15% had a postgraduate qualification. Only 0.7% of the participants had not finished primary school. The majority of participants (58.9%) indicated that they were single, followed by those living with a partner (16.7%), and a small percentage were divorced or separated (4.2%). The respondents were requested to indicate their monthly net income. Of the respondents, 29.1% earn between $803,27 and $1070,96, while only 19.2% of the respondents earn between $535,35 and $803,22 per month, 5.2% of the respondents earn between $267,79 and $535,48, and 1% of respondents earn $267,74 and less per month (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Respondent’s Profile.

Variables	Frequency	Percentages
Sexuality
Lesbian	138	34.00
Gay	159	39.20
Bisexual	96	23.60
Transgender	3	0.70
Other	3	0.70
Prefer not to answer	7	1.70
Total	406	100
Age
18–25	76	18.70
26–30	178	43.80
31–35	80	19.70
36–40	43	10.60
41–45	16	3.90
46–50	9	2.20
51–60	2	0.50
Above 60	1	0.20
Prefer not to answer	1	0.20
Total	406	100
Education level
Primary school	3	0.70
High school	129	31.80
Undergraduate qualification	202	49.80
Postgraduate qualification	61	15.00
Prefer not to answer	11	2.70
Total	406	100
Marital status
Single	239	58.90
Married	43	10.60
Divorced	11	2.70
Separated	17	4.20
Widowed	4	1.00
Living with partner	68	16.70
Prefer not to answer	24	5.90
Total	406	100
Monthly net income
$ 0–$267,74	4	1.00
$267,79–$535,48	21	5.20
$535,53–$803,22	78	19.20
$803,27–$1070,96	118	29.10
$1071,01–$1338,70	80	19.70
$1338,75–$1606,44	53	13.10
$1606,49–$1874,18	24	5.90
Over $1874,23	25	6.20
Prefer not to say	3	0.70
Total	406	100

Data Analysis

This study estimates and evaluates the proposed research model using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The SmartPLS 3 software was used to analyze data (Ringle et al., 2015). The PLS-SEM is deemed suitable for this study due to its predictive nature (Khan et al., 2019), and ability to deal with complex models (Hair et al., 2019b). This study made use of the bootstrapping method with 5,000 subsamples. The analysis is conducted with the guidelines described by Hair et al. (2019b). Hair et al. (2019b) present a two-phase data analysis process; the analysis commences with assessment of the measurement model and subsequently assessment of the structural model.

Assessment of Measurement Model

The measurement model assessment procedure involves assessment of outer loading, Cronbach alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), extracted average variance (AVE) and discriminant validity (Saari et al., 2021). Measurement items MS1, NMS5 and WTPP4 have been deleted as they were less than the proposed 0.6 outer loading values threshold (Keshavarz & Jamshidi, 2018). The Cronbach Alpha values were between 0.761 and 0.893, which is above the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019a). The CR value ranged between 0.849 and 0.925, exceeding the 0.70 recommended threshold (Hair et al., 2019a). In addition, the AVE values were between 0.533 and 0.756, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.5 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Measurement Model Results.

Construct	Indicator	Outer loading	α	C.R	AVE
Monetary sacrifice (MS)
LGBT-friendly tourism destinations’ prices are justified	MS2	0.701	.813	0.877	0.643
It is worth it to pay extra to escape social prejudice and mistreatment	MS3	0.868
LGBT-friendly tourism destinations’ prices are attractive	MS4	0.865
LGBT-friendly tourism destinations give me good value for money	MS5	0.761
Non-monetary sacrifice (NMS)
In arranging my trips, I spend a lot of time collecting information on LGBT-friendly bars, entertainment and accommodation facilities.	NMS1	0.696	.761	0.849	0.586
It is convenient to travel to LGBT-friendly tourism destinations	NMS2	0.805
The time I spend searching for the best LGBT-friendly tourism destination is worth it	NMS3	0.833
The energy I spend searching for LGBT friendly tourism destination is worth it	NMS4	0.719
Customer value (CV)
Compared to other places I visit, the time spent at LGBT-friendly tourism destinations are truly enjoyable	CV1	0.680	.778	0.857	0.601
Visiting LGBT-friendly tourism destinations feel like an escape to me	CV2	0.821
My perceived overall value of visiting a LGBT-friendly tourism destination is high	CV3	0.828
The perceived benefits I get while visiting LGBT-friendly tourism destinations match the sacrifices that I make to visit them	CV4	0.761
Tourist loyalty (TL)
I prefer visiting LGBT-friendly tourism destinations above conventional tourism destinations	TL1	0.771	.791	0.850	0.533
I am pleased to visit LGBT-friendly tourism destinations instead of conventional tourism destinations	TL2	0.797
I think LGBT-friendly tourism destinations offer better value than conventional tourism destinations	TL3	0.725
I feel more attached to LGBT-friendly destinations than conventional tourism destinations	TL4	0.697
I consider LGBT-friendly tourism destinations to be my first destination choice	TL5	0.651
Willingness to pay (WTP)
I would pay a premium price to visit LGBT friendly tourism destinations	WTP1	0.889	.835	0.899	0.749
I am willing to pay more to escape prejudice in the heteronormative society	WTP2	0.913
My income influences my willingness to pay more to visit LGBT-friendly tourism destinations	WTP3	0.789

Henseler et al. (2015) suggest that Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) values below 0.85 is required for ensuring discriminant validity. The aforementioned threshold was met in Table 3, where HTMT values were below this threshold.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity Using HTMT Criterion.

Variables	CV	MS	NMS	TL
Customer value (CV)
Monetary sacrifice (MS)	0.536
Non-monetary sacrifice (NMS)	0.544	0.665
Tourist loyalty (TL)	0.534	0.540	0.573
Willingness to pay (WTP)	0.421	0.404	0.512	0.520

Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Results

Before proceeding with the analysis, collinearity had to be ruled out (Sarstedt et al., 2019). The Variance of Inflation Factor (VIF) was also used in this analysis to identify the degree of multicollinearity. The PLS collinearity statistics show that the inner VIF values range from 1.407 to 3.809, which are below the cut-off threshold of 5 (Kock, 2021); therefore, showing that there are no multicollinearity problems. For the explanatory power assessment, the R² values were examined. Customer value has an R² value of 0.244 (see Figure 2), indicating weak predictive power (Hair et al., 2019a), while tourist loyalty and willingness to pay have R² values of 0.228 and 0125 respectively (see Figure 2), demonstrating weak predictive power (Hair et al., 2019a). Additionally, the PLSpredictive technique was used to assess out-of-sample predictive power (Shmueli et al., 2019). The Q² predict values for customer value, tourist loyalty, and willingness to pay were 0.230, 0.177, 0.111, and 0.007 respectively, indicating predictive power as the Q² predict values were greater than zero (Shmueli et al., 2019).

Figure 2.

Structural model.

The results show that monetary and non-monetary sacrifice have significant, positive impact on customer value. Thus, H₁ and H₂ are supported. The results also found that customer value has a positive significant impact on tourist loyalty and willingness to pay, thereby confirming H₃ and H₄ (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis	Paths	Estimate	t-value	p-value	Results
H₁	Monetary sacrifice → customer value	5.175	5.178	.000	Supported
H₂	Non-monetary → sacrifice customer value	3.927	3.876	.000	Supported
H₃	Customer value → tourist loyalty	10.819	11.267	.000	Supported
H₄	Customer value → Willingness to pay	5.113	5.149	.000	Supported

Discussion

At the moment, tourist destinations are engaged in cutthroat competition with one another, both domestically and internationally, in order to seize a greater portion of the market. Tourist destinations should create and deliver value to tourists to gain a competitive advantage in the market. The findings of this study show a positive significant relationship between monetary and non-monetary sacrifice, and customer value. These relationships imply that if monetary and non-monetary sacrifice increase, customer value would increase. This finding is contrary to previous studies which found a significant negative relationship between perceived sacrifices (monetary and non-monetary sacrifices) and customer value, suggesting that when the monetary sacrifice increases, customer value decreases (Shukla, 2010; Sumaedi et al., 2012; Thielemann et al., 2018). This inconsistency may be due to the fact that LGBT tourists believe that the sacrifice is justified. According to Poole (2017) findings, LGBT-friendly tourist destinations offer unique attractions for their guest, such as entertainers catering to the LGBT community and special events for LGBT individuals. Vorobjovas-Pinta and Dalla-Fontana (2018) argue that visiting an LGBT-friendly is worth it as it provides a secure space for LGBT individuals to socialize and connect with others who share similar experiences.

The findings show that providing value to tourists leads to tourists’ loyalty. This finding affirms previous studies of Eid (2015) and Gallarza et al. (2019), in which a positive and significant relationship was established between customer value and tourists’ loyalty. This finding shows that customer value is an important determinant of tourists’ loyalty. This study found that when customer value increases, the willingness to pay increases. This is in line with previous studies (Izogo et al., 2020; Tsuchiya et al., 2021), which established a significant relationship between customer value and willingness to pay. The relationship between customer value and willingness to pay is based on rational suggestions. Consumers are willing to pay for products and services that provide more benefits than costs (Demirgüneş, 2015). A study conducted by Li et al. (2012) supports the notion that customer value has an influence on consumer purchase behavior.

Implications and Conclusion

This study contributes to the broad assertion that customer value is an essential component in the tourism and hospitality sector. In this regard, this study provides recommendations for tourism destinations in general and LGBT tourism destinations in particular. LGBT tourism is unique compared to traditional tourism because it offers the freedom to escape from stress caused by discrimination, rejection from society, and prejudice. To create a welcoming environment, destinations should provide a space where the LGBT community can feel accepted and enjoy themselves without facing oppressive societal attitudes. Destinations can implement diversity and inclusion training programs for tourism industry staff. This training should cover topics such as cultural competence, understanding the needs of LGBT travelers, and respectful communication. Furthermore, the destinations could develop marketing campaigns that specifically target the LGBT tourists, showcasing the destination as inclusive and welcoming. In addition, the findings aid governments to continuously introduce inclusive policies as they contribute to the positive image of the destinations and strengthen safety perceptions.

LGBT destinations should consider the fact that perceived sacrifices (monetary and non-monetary) have an influence on the choice of tourist destination, the consumption of products and services while on vacation, how long tourists stay in a destination and has an influence on the perceived value of the destination. Therefore, destinations should strive to keep their prices competitive. Those who manage LGBT friendly guesthouses and hotels should apply appropriate strategies, for example smart pricing strategies, to offer their customers greater value well ahead of their competitors. LGBT friendly tour operators have been perceived to charge LGBT tourists more than an average heterosexual version of the same trip and they should ensure that they go the extra mile to justify their premium pricing strategy. Research shows that LGBT tourists are happy to pay extra to escape prejudice and mistreatment in a heteronormative environment. Therefore, LGBT friendly destinations should ensure that their customers feel safe at all times. Destinations targeting LGBT tourists should continuously provide tourists with an opportunity to interact and socialize in safe havens. Destinations could display the rainbow flags at its entrance to signal its support for the LGBT community. The study highlights that non-monetary sacrifices play a significant role in determining customer value. Although some countries have laws in place to protect the LGBT community from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, the LGBT community still experiences discrimination in certain areas. This results in the LGBT community spending a considerable amount of time searching for safe destinations to visit. To address this issue, it is crucial for the Department of Tourism to compile a list of safe LGBT tourist destinations in a country and make this information available to both the local and international LGBT community. Furthermore, LGBT destination marketers should also create LGBT-themed events and activities that enhance the perceived value and loyalty of tourists.

The literature indicates that retaining existing customers is more cost-effective in the long run than trying to attract new ones. Therefore, it is important for organizations to introduce consumer retention strategies, such as consumer loyalty programmes, and improve customer service. For instance, hotels could provide loyalty points for each stay. Overtime, these points could be used to get a free stay at the hotel. The tourism sector has become highly competitive, and in order for tourism destinations to attract and retain tourists, they should have a deeper understanding of tourists’ needs and perceptions. This could be achieved by constantly conducting research to understand tourists’ needs and trends in the LGBT tourism sector. Tour operators and tourist destinations could create more personalized tour packages to meet individual needs. Tourists who feels valued by the destination are more likely to be loyal and willing to pay a premium price. In addition, they should prioritize retaining existing tourists through loyalty programmes. Destinations should establish and maintain a presence on various social media platforms, as well as communicate with tourists on a consistent basis through newsletters, customer interactions, and provide information. Additionally, they could offer special experiences for LGBT tourists, such as customized packages or offers, and take into account the preferences of different tourists when making personalized recommendations, such as sending a handwritten letter and a spa voucher to a couple celebrating their anniversary.

Limitations and Future Studies

Despite the fact that this study contains some intriguing findings, there are a number of limitations that must be addressed. Firstly, given that only a single-dimensional approach to customer value has been considered in the current study, future studies could examine the impact of perceived sacrifices using a multi-dimensional approach to customer value. This will involve examining the impact of monetary sacrifice and non-monetary sacrifice on all five dimensions of customer value (functional value, emotional value, social value, epistemic value and conditional value). Secondly, this study only examined customer value as an antecedent of behavioral intentions such as tourist loyalty and willingness to pay. Future studies could consider adding perceived destination attractiveness and prior experiences in the list of factors that have an influence on tourists’ behavioural intentions. Thirdly, the predictive power of customer value, tourist loyalty and willingness to pay was weak. This suggests that the included variables do not fully account for the variability in the dependent variable(s), potentially hindering the generalizability and accuracy of the findings. Future research studies could address this limitation by employing more comprehensive models that capture a wider range of factors influencing customer value, tourist loyalty and willingness to pay.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nkosivile W. Madinga

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Ahmed

R. R.

Streimikiene

Qadir

Streimikis

(2023). Effect of green marketing mix, green customer value, and attitude on green purchase intention: Evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(5), 11473–11495.

Ainin

Akma Mohd Salleh

Bahri

Mohd Faziharudean

(2015). Organization’s performance, customer value and the functional capabilities of information systems. Information Systems Management, 32(1), 2–14.

Astor

(2023). Reports cities more than 350 anti-LGBTQ incidents over 11 months. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/anti-lgbtq-report-adl-glaad.html

Beldona

Kher

H. V.

(2015). The impact of customer sacrifice and attachment styles on perceived hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56(4), 355–368.

Breshears

Beer

C. L.-D.

(2016). Same-sex parented families’ negotiation of minority social identity in South Africa. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12(4), 346–364.

Bruwer

L.-A.

Madinga

N. W.

Bundwini

(2021). Smart shopping: the adoption of grocery shopping apps. British Food Journal, 124, 1383–1399.

Cai

Gao

(2021). The green B&B promotion strategies for tourist loyalty: Surveying the restart of Chinese national holiday travel after COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102704.

Callarisa Fiol

L. J.

Bigne Alcaniz

Moliner Tena

M. A.

Garcia

J. S

. (2009). Customer loyalty in clusters: Perceived value and satisfaction as antecedents. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 16(3), 276–316.

Caputa

Krawczyk-Sokolowska

Pierscieniak

(2021). The potential of web awareness as a determinant of dually defined customer value. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120443.

10.

Carvalho

Alves

(2023). Customer value co-creation in the hospitality and tourism industry: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 250–273.

11.

Cheng

T.-M.

C.-C.

(2013). Destination image, novelty, hedonics, perceived value, and revisiting behavioral intention for island tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(7), 766–783.

12.

Choi

K.-S.

Cho

W.-H.

Lee

Kim

(2004). The relationships among quality, value, satisfaction and behavioral intention in health care provider choice: A South Korean study. Journal of business research, 57(8), 913–921.

13.

Cordova-Buiza

Serruto-Perea

Y. A.

(2024). The Competitiveness of Tourist Destinations: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Paper presented at the International Conference on Tourism Research.

14.

Cossío-Silva

F.-J.

Revilla-Camacho

M.-Á.

Vega-Vázquez

(2019). The tourist loyalty index: A new indicator for measuring tourist destination loyalty? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), 71–77.

15.

Demirgüneş

B. K.

(2015). Relative importance of perceived value, satisfaction and perceived risk on willingness to pay more. International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(4), 211–220.

16.

Eid

(2015). Integrating Muslim customer perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and retention in the tourism industry: An empirical study. International journal of tourism research, 17(3), 249–260.

17.

(2019). Existential authenticity and destination loyalty: Evidence from heritage tourists. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 12, 84–94.

18.

Fuentes-Moraleda

Lafuente-Ibáñez

Muñoz-Mazón

Villacé-Molinero

(2019). Willingness to pay more to stay at a boutique hotel with an environmental management system. A preliminary study in Spain. Sustainability, 11(18), 5134.

19.

Gallarza

M. G.

Arteaga

Gil-Saura

(2019). Customer value in tourism and hospitality: Broadening dimensions and stretching the value-satisfaction-loyalty chain. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31, 254–268.

20.

George

A. A.

(2021). Social and cultural influences and their implications for sustainable tourism: A case study of Trinidad & Tobago’s tourism and the growth of the LGBTQ traveler segment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship, 2(3), 147–157.

21.

Glassmann

D. N.

(2012). Queer (ing) spaces: a critical analysis of physical and virtual safe spaces for lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students. University of Georgia,

22.

Grassi

Figini

Fedeli

(2022). How does a data strategy enable customer value? The case of FinTechs and traditional banks under the open finance framework. Financial Innovation, 8(1), 1–34.

23.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019a). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

24.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019b). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

25.

Hartal

(2019). Gay tourism to Tel-Aviv: Producing urban value? Urban Studies, 56(6), 1148–1164.

26.

Hartal

Sasson-Levy

(2021). The progressive orient: Gay tourism to Tel Aviv and Israeli ethnicities. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 39(1), 11–29.

27.

Hattingh

Spencer

J. P.

(2017). Salient factors influencing gay travellers’ holiday motivations: A push-pull approach. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 6(4), 1–26.

28.

Hattingh

Spencer

J. P.

(2018). Homosexual not homogeneous: A motivation-based typology of gay leisure travelers holidaying in Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(6), 768–792.

29.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115–135.

30.

Holbrook

M. B.

(1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, 21(1), 21–71.

31.

Hughes

H. L.

(2006). Pink tourism: Holidays of gay men and lesbians: Cabi.

32.

Izogo

E. E.

Elom

M. E.

Mpinganjira

(2020). Examining customer willingness to pay more for banking services: The role of employee commitment, customer involvement and customer value. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16(6), 1176–1201.

33.

John

S. P.

Supramaniam

(2024). Value co-creation research in tourism and hospitality management: A systematic literature review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 58, 96–114.

34.

Kang

(2024). The role of brand authenticity and existential authenticity in building brand loyalty toward LGBT-friendly hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 3, 10963480241244727.

35.

Keshavarz

Jamshidi

(2018). Service quality evaluation and the mediating role of perceived value and customer satisfaction in customer loyalty. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 4(2), 220–244.

36.

Khan

G. F.

Sarstedt

Shiau

W.-L.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Fritze

M. P.

(2019). Methodological research on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An analysis based on social network approaches. Internet Research, 29(3), 407–429.

37.

Kiatkawsin

Han

(2019). What drives customers’ willingness to pay price premiums for luxury gastronomic experiences at Michelin-starred restaurants? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 209–219.

38.

Kock

(2021). Common structural variation reduction in PLS-SEM: Replacement analytic composites and the one fourth rule. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2(5), 1–6.

39.

Lewis

Prayag

Pour

(2021). Linking travel motives to identity and travel behavior of the Australian LGBT market during COVID-19. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(7), 725–741.

40.

Kambele

(2012). Luxury fashion brand consumers in China: Perceived value, fashion lifestyle, and willingness to pay. Journal of business research, 65(10), 1516–1522.

41.

Liu

Yuan

Suknuch

(2023). Understanding gay tourists’ involvement and loyalty towards Thailand: The perspective of motivation-opportunity-ability. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 30, 13567667221147318.

42.

Madinga

N. W.

Broster

Kappatos

Kirr

Kader

Mophethe

Roodt

(2020). Exploring heterosexual responses to lesbian and gay-themed advertisements in south Africa. Communitas, 25, 1–20.

43.

Madinga

N. W.

van Eyk

Amoah

(2022). LGBT Tourism in South Africa: The influence of customer value on behavioural intention. Current Issues in Tourism, 26, 1–15.

44.

Makanyeza

Macheyo

du Toit

(2016). Perceived product necessity, perceived value, customer satisfaction and affective attitude: An integrative model. Journal of African Business, 17(1), 69–86.

45.

Mason

M. C.

Moretti

(2015). Antecedents and moderators of golf tourists’ behavioral intentions: An empirical study in a Mediterranean destination. EuroMed Journal of Business, 10(3), 338–359.

46.

Moore

S. A.

Rodger

Taplin

R. H.

(2017). Developing a better understanding of the complexities of visitor loyalty to Karijini National Park, Western Australia. Tourism Management, 62, 20–28.

47.

Pathumporn

Kotchare

Esichaikul

(2020). Guidelines for development of tourism components to promote phuket as a destination for foreign gay tourists. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(12), 1438–1453.

48.

Pham

T.-A. N.

Sweeney

J. C.

Soutar

G. N.

(2021). Does well-being differ across customer value cocreation practice styles? An empirical study in a chronic health context. European Journal of Marketing, 55(7), 1901–1929.

49.

Plessis

E. d.

Saayman

(2018). Aspects contributing to tourism price competitiveness of South Africa. Tourism Economics, 24(2), 146–156.

50.

Poole

(2017). Why are gay vacations more expensive?https://passportmagazine.com/why-are-gay-vacations-more-expensive/

51.

Prayoonphan

(2019). Factors influencing the intention to use the common ticketing system (spider card) in Thailand. Behavioral Sciences, 9(5), 46.

52.

Qiu

Bavik

(2024). An examination of Chinese gay tourists: Motivation, identity, and space. Tourism Geographies, 45, 1–24.

53.

Rakhetsi

(2021). 6 Countries in Africa that have legalised same-sex relationships in the past 10 years. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/countries-legalized-same-sex-relationships-africa/

54.

Ram

Kama

Mizrachi

Hall

C. M.

(2019). The benefits of an LGBT-inclusive tourist destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 14, 100374.

55.

Reports_and_Insights. (2023). LGBT Tourism Market Report, By Product Type (LGBT Travel Packages, LGBT Accommodation Services, LGBT Event Tourism, LGBT Adventure and Sports Tourism, LGBT Wellness Tourism), By Demographic (LGBT Singles Travel, LGBT Couples Travel, LGBT Family Travel, LGBT Senior Travel, LGBT Millennial Travel), By Distribution Channel, By Industry Vertical and Regions 2024-2032. https://www.reportsandinsights.com/report/lgbt-tourism-market

56.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS.

57.

Olson

E. D.

Choi

(2017). An exploratory study of gay travelers: Socio-demographic analysis. Tourism Review, 72(1), 15–27.

58.

Russell

Z. A.

Boley

B. B.

(2024). What would you sacrifice for the ‘gram? Developing and testing the Social Media Sacrifice Scale (SMSS). Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 41(5), 689–704.

59.

Saari

U. A.

Damberg

Frömbling

Ringle

C. M.

(2021). Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecological Economics, 189, 107155.

60.

Saravi

(2022). A study of the LGBTQ community’s perspective regarding Finland as a tourist destination. Itä-Suomen yliopisto,

61.

Sarstedt

Hair

J. F.

Jr Cheah

J.-H.

Becker

J.-M.

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197–211.

62.

Sayil

E. M.

Akyol

Golbasi Simsek

(2019). An integrative approach to relationship marketing, customer value, and customer outcomes in the retail banking industry: A customer-based perspective from Turkey. The Service Industries Journal, 39(5-6), 420–461.

63.

Shmueli

Sarstedt

Hair

J. F.

Cheah

J.-H.

Ting

Vaithilingam

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347.

64.

Shukla

(2010). Effects of perceived sacrifice, quality, value, and satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the service environment. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(4), 466–484.

65.

Siagian

H. S. P.

Octoyuda

(2024). Assessing the experiential marketing and customer value to develop the customer satisfaction. Insight Management Journal, 4(2), 59–67.

66.

Som

A. P. M.

Marzuki

Yousefi

(2012). Factors influencing visitors’ revisit behavioral intentions: A case study of Sabah, Malaysia. International Journal of marketing studies, 4(4), 39.

67.

Suhartanto

Brien

Primiana

Wibisono

Triyuni

N. N.

(2020). Tourist loyalty in creative tourism: the role of experience quality, value, satisfaction, and motivation. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), 867-879.

68.

Sumaedi

Bakti

I. G. M. Y.

Yarmen

(2012). The empirical study of public transport passengers’ behavioral intentions: The roles of service quality, perceived sacrifice, perceived value, and satisfaction (Case study: paratransit passengers in Jakarta, Indonesia). International Journal for Traffic & Transport Engineering, 2(1), 83–97.

69.

Thielemann

V. M.

Ottenbacher

M. C.

Harrington

R. J.

(2018). Antecedents and consequences of perceived customer value in the restaurant industry: A preliminary test of a holistic model. International Hospitality Review, 32(1), 26–45.

70.

Torres-Moraga

Rodriguez-Sanchez

Sancho-Esper

(2021). Understanding tourist citizenship behavior at the destination level. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 592–600.

71.

Tsuchiya

Y.-M.

Huang

S. C.-T.

(2021). Customer value, purchase intentions and willingness to pay: The moderating effects of cultural/economic distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(2), 268–286.

72.

UNWTO. (2017). Second global report on LGBT tourism. Retrieved from https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284418619

73.

Usai

Cai

Wassler

(2022). A queer perspective on heteronormativity for LGBT travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 61(1), 3–15.

74.

Veloso

C. M.

Magueta

Fernandes

P. O.

Ribeiro

(2017). The effects of customer satisfaction service quality and perceived value on behavioural intentions in retail industry. Paper presented at the 23nd international scientific conference on economic and social development. Biblioteca Digital.

75.

Visser

(2003). Gay men, leisure space and South African cities: The case of Cape Town. Geoforum, 34(1), 123–137.

76.

Vorobjovas-Pinta

(2018). Gay neo-tribes: Exploration of travel behaviour and space. Annals of Tourism Research, 72, 1–10.

77.

Vorobjovas-Pinta

Dalla-Fontana

I. J.

(2018). The strange case of dating apps at a gay resort: hyper-local and virtual-physical leisure. Tourism Review, 74(5), 1070–1080.

78.

Weeden

Lester

J.-A.

Jarvis

(2016). Lesbians and gay men’s vacation motivations, perceptions, and constraints: A study of cruise vacation choice. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(8), 1068–1085.

79.

Weinstein

(2020). Creating superior customer value in the now economy. Journal of Creating Value, 6(1), 20–33.

80.

Williams

(2005). Customer value and tourism satisfaction: A multidimensional perspective Paul Williams, American University of Sharjah, UAE Geoffrey Soutar, University of Western Australia. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Tourism Marketing.

81.

Williams

Soutar

G. N.

(2000). Dimensions of customer value and the tourism experience: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference.

82.

Woodruff

R. B.

(1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 139–153.

83.

Yeo

V. C. S.

Goh

S.-K.

Rezaei

(2017). Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online food delivery (OFD) services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 35, 150–162.

84.

Zeithaml

V. A.

(1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.

The Influence of Perceived Sacrifices on Behavioral Intentions in The LGBT Tourism Sector

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Background

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

LGBT Tourism

Perceived Sacrifices

Customer Value and behavioral Intentions

Willingness to Pay

Tourists’ Loyalty

Research Methodology

Data Collection

Measurements and Questionnaire Development

Sample Characteristics

Data Analysis

Assessment of Measurement Model

Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Results

Discussion

Implications and Conclusion

Limitations and Future Studies

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References