e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 242 Rita Lima Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) rita_lima@iscte-iul.pt Paula Vicente Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL) Email: paula.vicente@iscte-iul.pt Exploring the relationship between hostel service quality and guests’ satisfaction: a comparison between younger and older guests The hostel began as a type of accommodation chosen mainly by young travelers who appreciate staying in a place that allows them to meet other people and share information and experiences at a low price. Nowadays hostel clients are diverse and may include families, business tourists, and less young travelers. Despite the heterogeneity in the profile of hostel guests, research on the impact of service quality on hostel guests’ satisfaction has not considered that diversity. The purpose of this paper is to compare hostel preferences of young and older guests. We take data from a survey conducted with 223 hostel guests in Lisbon. The outcomes reveal that the main drivers of older guests' overall satisfaction are cleanliness and price whereas for younger guests it is primarily the staff’s competence and friendliness. Key words: hostel industry, Lisbon, service quality dimensions Rita Lima has an MSc in Management at Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Portugal. She is currently working in a consulting firm - WINNING Scientific Management - as a Business Analyst. Paula Vicente is an Assistant Professor of Statistics and Data Analysis at Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) and researcher at Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL), Portugal. She has a Ph.D. in Quantitative Methods with a specialization in Surveys and Opinion Polls from ISCTE-IUL. Her main areas of research include survey methodology, and market and social research. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ mailto:rita_lima@iscte-iul.pt mailto:paula.vicente@iscte-iul.pt e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 243 Introduction Satisfaction and service quality are the focus of much research in the hospitality sector and various studies have tried to identify the attributes of service quality that most account for guests' satisfaction. The cleanliness of the establishment is often the most important (Brochado & Gameiro 2013, Callan & Bowman 2000, Lockyer 2002), but the comfort of beds and rooms are also highly ranked (Choi & Chu 2001). Staff initiative and courtesy (Choi & Chu 2001, Lockyer 2002, Owusu-Frimpong et al. 2013, Shi & Su 2007), safety and security (Lockyer 2002) and facilities and equipment (Nadiri & Hussain 2005, Shafiq et al. 2013) are other determinants of overall satisfaction. Hostels are budget-oriented, shared-room accommodation with communal areas and facilities, such as living room, lounge, shower, kitchen, for individuals or groups of travelers making short-term stays. Most people staying in hostels are young tourists traveling independently, and whose trip includes at least one overnight stay (WYSE 2008). Initially, price was the main reason for travelers to choose hostels and the price had to be lower than that of hotels or bed & breakfasts, but over the years the type of guest in hostels has changed. Presently, factors such as the presence of self-catering facilities and equipment (Hecht & Martin 2006, Mohsin & Ryan 2003, Nash et al. 2006) and of restaurants and bars nearby, group activities organized by the hostel, the possibility of renting certain equipment such as bicycles or surfboards (Cave et al. 2008 cited by Saraiva 2013), as well as the cleanliness of the rooms, the location, personal service and security (Amblee 2015, Brochado & Gameiro 2013, Musa & Thirumoorthi 2011, Nash et al. 2006) are mostly appreciated by those who choose hostels to stay. The change in the profile of hostel guests has been driven by technology and by increased purchasing power but the communal nature of hostel facilities continues to be an important reason to stay in hostels. The social atmosphere, the common areas and the http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 244 informal ambiance have been identified by several authors as the core service dimensions crucial to create a sense of overall satisfaction among hostel guests (Borovskaya & Dedova 2014, Brochado et al. 2015, Bunda 2014, Godfrey 2011, Moisă 2010, Pearce 2009, O’Regan 2010, Rodríguez 2011, Silva 2014, Vaals 2013). Social networks such as Facebook are increasingly part of the social experience of a stay in a hostel (Berger & Paris 2013). Although young tourists are the main clients (approximately 45%), hostels also receive individual guests (20%), family guests (18%), couples (12%) and business tourists (5%) (Douglass 2013). Hostels are also able to attract older clients, e.g., aged 30 years or more (NTDA 2013) and even the over 50s (Nash et al. 2006), and diverse people in terms of socio-economics and motivations (Musa & Thirumoorthi 2011). Presently, hostels not only serve the typical short stay tourists but also host non-tourists (Butler & Hannam 2013) and long-stay guests (Butler 2010). Despite the heterogeneity in the profile of hostel guests, research on the impact of service quality on the satisfaction of hostel guests has focused mainly on the youth segment neglecting other segments. Due to this gap in the literature, the objectives of our study are to: a) identify which service quality dimensions have an impact on the satisfaction of younger guests b) identify which service quality dimensions have an impact on the satisfaction of older guests The result of this research will further hostel owners’ knowledge of guests’ perceptions about the services offered and enable them to improve service delivery and design new alternatives for guests. If there are differences between what determines the satisfaction of younger and older guests, hostels must develop customized marketing strategies aimed to satisfy all guests. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 245 Research methods A survey was conducted in Lisbon, Portugal, in November/December 2014. A total of 223 guests, distributed across 14 hostels, participated in the survey. Hostels were selected to guarantee a broad geographical coverage of Lisbon city; in each hostel, convenience sampling was used to select the guests since probability sampling could only be used if the hostels provided us with the lists of guests hosted (Malhotra et al. 2012) (which was unviable because it would breach guests’ rights to privacy). Guests were approached during breakfast and asked to cooperate. If they agreed, they were invited to complete a paper questionnaire. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete and included questions about the guest's: (a) stay, (b) satisfaction with the hostel’s service and (c) demographics. To measure satisfaction, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 27 items on the hostel's attributes based on their experience in the hostel where they were staying by means of a seven-point Likert-type scale (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree); additionally, respondents rated their overall level of satisfaction with the hostel on a seven-point rating scale from 1-totally dissatisfied to 7-fully satisfied. The items included in the Likert-scale were selected from the literature on service quality in the hospitality sector (HOLSERV scale) and adapted to the specific attributes of hostels (e.g. Al Khattab & Aldehayyat 2011, Nadiri & Hussain 2005, Parasuraman et al. 1988, Shafiq et al. 2013, Wilkins et al. 2007, Wong et al. 1999). A Principal Component Analysis was performed to reduce data dimensionality, and a Multiple Linear Regression using Ordinary Least Squares estimation was used to assess the determinants of overall satisfaction in each group of respondents – younger guests and older guests. We chose the World Youth Student and Educational Travel Confederation definition to set the groups: “the Youth Travel Sector reflects a particular aspect of tourism (...) undertaken by travelers between 15 and 29 years” (UNWTO 2008). Thus, the group of http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 246 younger guests includes those under 30 years old, and that of older guests includes all others (aged 30 or older). Significance tests are performed to assess differences between the groups but, due to the non-probabilistic nature of the sample, the p-values are not to be interpreted literally; they are merely standard values that state how large the difference between the realities under comparison needs to be so we can take note of it. Results Respondents’ characteristics Most of the respondents were female (56%), 68% were younger guests and 32% were older guests. There were 39 different nationalities, but most respondents (70%) were European. Nearly 28% of the respondents were solo travelers (n=62), 55% were traveling with friends (n=123) and 17% were traveling with a significant other or family members (n=38). For 62% of the guests, their stay was shorter than 4 days and only 6% mentioned a stay of one week or more. Table 1: Main purpose(s) of the stay by age group Purpose () Younger guests (n=153) Older guests (n=70) Sightseeing 107(69.9%) 47(67.1%) Relaxation 43(28.1%) 16(22.9%) Study or business 10(6.5%) 6(8.6%) Sports event 5(3.3%) 5(7.1%) Exploring a different culture 52(34.0%) 17(24.3%) Fun and entertainment 47(30.7%) 13(18.6%) Visit to friends or relatives 5(3.3%) 2(2.9%) Music or cultural event 5(3.3%) 4(5.7%) Meeting people and making friends 17(11.1%) 7(10.0%) () More than one purpose could be chosen. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 247 Table 1 shows that Lisbon sightseeing, i.e., visiting the city's most emblematic places and major tourist attractions, was the main purpose of the stay for both groups of guests (69.9% and 67.1%, respectively). Exploring a different culture and fun/entertainment were more frequently mentioned by the younger guests (34% and 30.7%, respectively) than by the older guests (24.3% and 18.6%, respectively). Service quality: perceptions and dimensions The mean level of agreement with the service quality attributes is high, ranging from 4.61 for the item “The hostel offers leisure facilities” to 6.38 for the items “The staff are respectful, kind and friendly” and “The common areas are clean” (Table A.1), which reflects the guests' positive perception of service quality. A comparison between younger and older guests reveals significant differences (p<0.05) in only 5 of the 27 items. Specifically, younger guests expressed stronger agreement with the items “The hostel design and decor are appealing” and “The hostel organizes group activities”, while their agreement was lower for the items “The hostel is near public transport”, “The staff are always available to assist guests” and “The staff are willing to meet specific needs” (Table A.2). The Principal Components Analysis performed with the 27 items on hostel service allowed seven new dimensions to be identified. Table 2 presents the dimensions and the items most strongly correlated with each dimension. The seven components together account for 75% of the initial variance (KMO=0.922; Bartlett test p-value=0.000). Scales were sufficiently reliable with Cronbach’s alpha above 0.6 (Hair et al. 2010). A comparison between younger and older guests in the 7 dimensions reveals significant differences (p<0.05) only in the Staff dimension (Table A.3). Specifically, older guests have a more positive perception about the hostel staff than the younger age group. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 248 Table 2: Service quality dimensions and factor loadings Components and items Loadings a % Variance Explained Cronbach’s Alpha Communality Component 1: Staff 22% 0.957 The staff are willing to meet specific needs +0.857 0.861 The staff are always available to assist guests +0.815 0.829 The staff are attentive to the problems of guests and try to resolve them +0.778 0.781 The staff are respectful, kind and friendly +0.777 0.824 The staff transmit confidence and security to guests +0.774 0.824 The staff are well-groomed +0.752 0.789 The staff are reliable and ensure an efficient and timely service +0.737 0.775 Component 2: Cleanliness 14% 0.910 The bathrooms are clean +0.842 0.765 The kitchen is clean +0.787 0.820 The common areas are clean +0.760 0.825 Rooms / dorms are clean +0.668 0.807 Component 3: Ambiance & design 11% 0.845 The hostel organizes group activities +0.763 0.711 The hostel enables guests to meet new people +0.725 0.734 The hostel provides a good breakfast service +0.543 0.634 The hostel is cozy, home-like and comfortable +0.522 0.768 The hostel design and decor are appealing +0.511 0.632 The hostel provides computers with free internet access +0.423 0.609 Component 4: Location 10% 0.772 The hostel is near monuments and museums +0.812 0.662 The hostel is near restaurants/bars/commerce +0.789 0.734 The hostel is near public transport +0.737 0.710 The hostel is in a safe neighborhood +0.416 0.548 Component 5: Price 9% 0.933 The price charged by the hostel is adjusted to the service offered +0.832 0.866 The hostel ensures a good quality/price ratio +0.823 0.891 Component 6: Facilities & services 6% 0.612 The hostel has good laundry facilities +0.849 0.791 The hostel offers leisure facilities +0.518 0.695 Component 7: Security 5% 0.671 The hostel provides a 24-hour reception service +0.788 0.633 The hostel has good security mechanisms +0.489 0.791 a After Varimax Rotation; Loadings less than 0.4 were omitted. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 249 Determinants of satisfaction Guests expressed a positive overall feeling about their stay at the hostel – 81.2% of the respondents rated overall satisfaction as 6 or higher. On average, the overall satisfaction rate was 6.06, more specifically, 6.1 for the younger group and 6.0 for the older group. The outcomes of the multiple regression linear models are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Estimates of the model explaining guests’ overall satisfaction by age group Younger guests Older guests Service quality dimensions Standardised SE p- value Standardised SE p- value Staff +0.491 0.043 0.000 +0.339 0.078 0.000 Cleanliness +0.378 0.044 0.000 +0.553 0.068 0.000 Ambiance & Design +0.328 0.045 0.000 +0.378 0.064 0.000 Location +0.189 0.042 0.000 +0.180 0.077 0.025 Price +0.317 0.045 0.000 +0.466 0.066 0.000 Facilities & Services +0.194 0.043 0.000 +0.160 0.074 0.044 Security +0.071 0.048 0.089 –0.060 0.060 0.435  Dependent variable: overall satisfaction with the hostel. The results show a strong and positive association between service quality dimensions and overall satisfaction in both the older group (adjusted R 2 =0.654; model p-value<0.001) and the younger group of guests (adjusted R 2 =0.750; model p-value<0.001). In both groups, all the dimensions of service quality have a significant impact on overall satisfaction except for Security (p-value >0.05). Whereas Cleanliness ( =+0.553, p<0.001) is the strongest determinant of satisfaction for older guests, the Staff is most important for the younger age group ( =0.491, p<0.001). Price comes only in fourth place for younger guests ( =+0.317, p<0.001) but it is the second most important driver of satisfaction ( =+0.466, p<0.001) for older guests. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 250 Conclusions and practical implications Guests have positive perceptions of the service provided by hostels (mean>6 in 16 of the 27 items of service quality). Seven dimensions representing service quality in hostels were identified: Staff, Cleanliness, Ambience & Design, Location, Price, Facilities & Services, and Security. There is a significant difference in the perception held by younger guests and older guests about Staff; older guests have a more positive perception of hostel Staff than younger guests (mean=+0.286 vs. mean=0.127). All dimensions except for Security proved to be relevant to explain the level of guests' satisfaction with the hostels. In both groups of guests, satisfaction increases with a positive perception of the Staff, Cleanliness, Price, Location, Ambiance & Design and Facilities & Services. However, the attribute that most accounts for older guests’ satisfaction is Cleanliness ( =+0.553) followed by Price ( =+0.466), while the strongest determinant of satisfaction for younger guests is the Staff ( =+0.491). The satisfaction profile of older guests fits perfectly with the classic positioning of hostels – “a clean, good-value accommodation, which offers a good night's sleep at an affordable price” (Bhatia 2002, Taskov et al. 2014). This shows that there are still people who are satisfied with hostels’ simplicity, i.e., the hostel is a place to leave their luggage while they explore a new city and return at the end of the day to take a bath and sleep; the amenities and ambiance provided by the hostel are of less importance to these people. On the other hand, the profile of younger guests reveals a group for whom the satisfaction with hostels is less influenced by the Price and more dependent on other attributes such as the staff’s availability to respond to guests’ needs, their kindness and friendliness and their ability to resolve guests’ problems efficiently. Younger guests are therefore a group that appreciates quality when staying in a hostel, namely in the performance of human resources. We have no information on whether these guests based their decision to stay in the hostel because of the http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 251 competence and courtesy of the staff, but we do know that their experience improved because of that competence. This alerts hostel managers to the importance of having well-trained staff who can understand guests' needs and meet their requests effectively. The informal and party ambiance which is typical in hostels (Moisă 2010, O’Regan 2010, Brochado et al. 2015) must not be confused with sloppiness or unprofessionalism. On the contrary, guests value a job that is done well and by attentive, friendly and respectful people. Although our study is based on a non-probabilistic convenience sample, several factors account positively for the validity of the findings. The sample includes guests from 14 hostels and of different nationalities, which contributes to sample variability and thus enhances sample representativeness. Additionally, the main reasons for traveling mentioned by our respondents are in line with other studies on hostel quality: sightseeing, getting to know different places and experiencing different cultures (Brenner & Fricke 2007, Mohsin & Ryan 2003, Musa & Thirumoorthi 2011). Having a clear understanding of what guests look for in a hostel and deciding on the market positioning accordingly is the best way to penetrate new segments and increase guest satisfaction. Our results show that hostel guests are not a homogenous group and indicate the relevance of exploring satisfaction among subgroups of travelers. Future research can explore differences between short-stay vs. long-stay guests, business guests vs. leisure/vacation guests or comparisons based on different motivations (Paris & Teye 2010) for traveling. Funding This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Science and Technology Foundation) through the UID/GES/00315/2013 project. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 252 References Al Khattab, S. & Aldehayyat, J. (2011). Perceptions of Service Quality in Jordanian Hotels. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(7), 226-233. Amblee, N. (2015). The impact of cleanliness on customer perception of security in hostels: a WoM-based approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 37-39. DOI:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.011. Berger, E. & Paris, C. (2013). Exploring the Influence of Facebook on Backpacker's Social Experience in Hostels. e-Review of Tourism Research, 10(5/6), 4-18. Bhatia, A. (2002). Tourism development: Principles and practices. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Borovskaya, I. & Dedova, M. (2014). Creativity in hospitality industry: study of hostels in St. Petersburg. Coactivity: Philosophy, Communication, 22, 137–144. Brenner, L., & Fricke, J. (2007). The evolution of backpacker destinations: The case of Zipolite, Mexico. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9, 217–230. Brochado, A. & Gameiro, C. (2013). Toward a better understanding of backpackers’ motivations. Tékhne, 11, 92-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.tekhne.2013.11.001. Brochado, A., Rita, P. & Gameiro, C. (2015). Exploring backpackers' perceptions of the hostel service quality, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27, 1839 – 1855. DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0145. Bunda, R. (2014) The business of beds: an exploration of hotel and hostel strategy, Honor Scholar Theses. Paper 350. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/350. Butler, G. (2010). Challenging Hostel User Typologies: Motivations and Mobilities in Norway. Doctoral thesis, University of Sunderland. Available at: http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/3310/. Acessed 12 th july 2017. Butler, G., & Hannam, K. (2013). Contrasting Performances of Tourist and Migrant Mobilities in Norwegian Hostels. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13(3), 175-189. Callan, R. & Bowman, L. (2000). Selecting a hotel and determining salient quality attributes: a preliminary study of mature British travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 97-118. Cave, J., Thyne, M. & Ryan, C. (2008). Perceptions of backpacker accommodation facilities: a comparative study of Scotland and New Zealand. In Hannam, K. & Ateljveic, I. (Eds), Backpacker Tourism: Concepts and Profiles, 215-245. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Choi, T. & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20, 277–297. DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4319(01)00006-8. Douglass, H. (2013) The sharing market: commercial hostels in Europe. Available at: https://www.wysetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hvs-the-sharing-market-e28093- commercial-hostels-in-europe-1.pdf. Accessed 16th October 2015. Godfrey, J. (2011). The Motivations of Backpackers in New Zealand - An industry report prepared for the Tourism Strategy Group of the New Zealand Ministry of Economic http://ertr.tamu.edu/ http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/350 http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/3310/ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15022250.2013.807983 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15022250.2013.807983 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sjht20/13/3 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sjht20/13/3 https://www.wysetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hvs-the-sharing-market-e28093-commercial-hostels-in-europe-1.pdf https://www.wysetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hvs-the-sharing-market-e28093-commercial-hostels-in-europe-1.pdf e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 253 Development as part of the requirements of a 2010 Tourism Research Scholarship. Dunedin: University of Otago. Hair, Jr, J., Black, W., Babin, B. & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective (7 th Edition). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Hecht, J. & Martin, D. (2006). Backpacking and hostel picking: An analysis from Canada. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18, 69–77. DOI: 10.1108/09596110610641993. Lockyer, T. (2002). Business guests’ accommodation selection: the view from both sides. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14, 294-300. DOI:10.1108/09596110210436832. Malhotra, N., Birks, D., & Wills, P. (2012). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. 4th Edition ed. New Jersey: FT Press Mohsin, A. & Ryan, C. (2003). Backpackers in the northern territory of Australia - Motives, behaviours and satisfactions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 113–131. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.421. Moisă, C. (2010). The distinctiveness of the youth travel product. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12, 638–648. Musa, G. & Thirumoorthi, T. (2011). Red Palm: Exploring service quality and servicescape of the best backpacker hostel in Asia. Current Issues in Tourism, 14, 103–120. Nadiri, H. & Hussain, K. (2005). Perceptions of service quality in North Cyprus hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(6), 469-480. Nash, R., Thyne, M. & Davies, S. (2006). An investigation into customer satisfaction levels in the budget accommodation sector in Scotland: A case study of backpacker tourists and the Scottish Youth Hostels Association. Tourism Management, 27, 525–532. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.01.001. NTDA (National Tourism Development Authority) (2013) Profile of overseas visitors who stayed in hostels in 2011. Available at: http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Researc h_Insights/1_Sectoral_SurveysReports/Profile_of_overseas_visitors_staying_in_hostels _in_2011.pdf?ext=.pdf. Accessed 25 th January 2016. O’Regan, M. (2010). Backpacker hostels: place and performance. In Hannam, K. & Diekmann, A. (Eds), Beyond backpacker tourism: motilities and experiences, 85-101. Bristol: Channel View Publication. Owusu-Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S., Blankson, C. & Tarnanidis, T. (2013). The effect of service quality and satisfaction on destination attractiveness of sub-Saharan African countries: the case of Ghana. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(7-8), 627-646. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple‐item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12‐40. Paris, C. & Teye, V. (2010). Backpacker Motivations: A Travel Career Approach. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(3), 244-259. Pearce, P. (2009). Evolution of the Backpacker Market and the Potential for Australian Tourism, Queensland: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/1_Sectoral_SurveysReports/Profile_of_overseas_visitors_staying_in_hostels_in_2011.pdf?ext=.pdf http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/1_Sectoral_SurveysReports/Profile_of_overseas_visitors_staying_in_hostels_in_2011.pdf?ext=.pdf http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/1_Sectoral_SurveysReports/Profile_of_overseas_visitors_staying_in_hostels_in_2011.pdf?ext=.pdf http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19368621003591350 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/whmm20/19/3 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/whmm20/19/3 e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 254 Rodríguez, D. (2011). Backpacking Tourism in Tampere. Tampere University of Applied Sciences. Saraiva, A. (2013). Hostels independentes: o caso de Lisboa. MSc Dissertation. Escola Superior de Hotelaria e Turismo do Estoril, Lisbon. Shafiq, Y., Shafiq, I., Din, M. & Cheema, K. (2013). Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction: A Study of Hotel Industry of Faisalabad, Pakistan. International Journal of Management & Organizational Studies, 2(1), 55-59. Shi, J. & Su, Q. (2007). Evaluation of hotel service quality based on customer satisfaction. Service Systems and Service Management, 9, 1–5. DOI:10.1109/ICSSSM.2007.4280099. Silva, V. (2014). The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction in a Dublin Hostel - Case Study. Higher Diploma in Science in Data Analytics. National College of Ireland Taskov, N., Dimitrov, N. & Metodijeski, D. (2014). A review of the hostel sector in the Republic of Macedonia. In Proceedings of the V th International Scientific Practical Conference: Tourism Economics and Business, 168–172. Batumi, Georgia: Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University. UNWTO (United Nations World Travel Organisation) (2008). Youth travel matters: Understanding the global phenomenon of youth travel. Madrid, Spain. Available at: http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284412396. Accessed 12 th July 2017. Vaals, F. (2013). The Future of Backpacking - A scenario planning approach to the backpacker’s travel behaviour, Leeuwarden: ETFI - European Tourism Futures Institute. Wilkins, H., Merrilee, B., & Herington, C. (2007). Toward an understanding of total service quality in hotels. Hospitality Management, 26, 840-853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.07.006 Wong, A., Mei, O., Dean, A. & White, C. (1999). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 9(2), 136 – 143. WYSE (World Youth Student and Educational) Travel Confederation (2008). The young independent traveler trends. Available at: http://www.tourism-review.com/travel- tourism-magazine-the-young-independent-traveler-trends-article441. Acessed 16th October 2015. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284412396 http://www.tourism-review.com/travel-tourism-magazine-the-young-independent-traveler-trends-article441.%20Acessed%2016th%20October%202015 http://www.tourism-review.com/travel-tourism-magazine-the-young-independent-traveler-trends-article441.%20Acessed%2016th%20October%202015 http://www.tourism-review.com/travel-tourism-magazine-the-young-independent-traveler-trends-article441.%20Acessed%2016th%20October%202015 e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 255 Appendix Table A.1: Descriptive statistics of hostels' attributes Items a Mean Std. Dev. The staff are respectful, kind and friendly 6.38 1.071 The common areas are clean 6.38 1.053 The hostel is near public transport 6.32 1.104 The hostel is near restaurants/bars/commerce 6.28 1.070 Rooms / dorms are clean 6.27 1.083 The staff are reliable and ensure an efficient and timely service 6.25 1.073 The hostel provides computers with free internet access 6.23 1.211 The hostel provides a 24-hour reception service 6.23 1.350 The staff are always available to assist guests 6.22 1.096 The kitchen is clean 6.22 1.248 The staff are well-groomed 6.21 1.150 The staff transmit confidence and security to guests 6.19 1.092 The price charged by the hostel is adjusted to the service offered 6.12 1.145 The hostel ensures a good quality/price ratio 6.11 1.172 The bathrooms are clean 6.07 1.172 The staff are attentive to the problems of guests and try to resolve them 6.05 1.226 The staff are willing to meet specific needs 5.99 1.245 The hostel is cozy, home-like and comfortable 5.97 1.255 The hostel enables guests to meet new people 5.87 1.230 The hostel has good security mechanisms 5.84 1.427 The hostel design and decor are appealing 5.75 1.272 The hostel provides a good breakfast service 5.74 1.235 The hostel is in a safe neighborhood 5.69 1.178 The hostel is near monuments and museums 5.65 1.286 The hostel organizes group activities 5.28 1.682 The hostel has good laundry facilities 4.66 1.735 The hostel offers leisure facilities 4.61 1.883 a Rated on a scale from 1-strongly disagree to 7- strongly agree. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 256 Table A.2: Mean agreement with hostels’ attributes by age group Items a Younger guests Older guests p-value The staff are respectful, kind and friendly 6.35 6.46 0.475 The common areas are clean 6.39 6.34 0.746 The hostel is near public transport 6.22 6.54 0.029 The hostel is near restaurants/bars/commerce 6.22 6.43 0.158 Rooms / dorms are clean 6.23 6.39 0.296 The staff are reliable and ensure an efficient and timely service 6.18 6.39 0.191 The hostel provides computers with free internet access 6.25 6.19 0.721 The hostel provides a 24-hour reception service 6.29 6.09 0.343 The staff are always available to assist guests 6.14 6.41 0.049 The kitchen is clean 6.23 6.19 0.812 The staff are well-groomed 6.14 6.36 0.188 The staff transmit confidence and security to guests 6.16 6.26 0.553 The price charged by the hostel is adjusted to the service offered 6.13 6.10 0.849 The hostel ensures a good quality/price ratio 6.11 6.10 0.944 The bathrooms are clean 6.13 5.94 0.268 The staff are attentive to the problems of guests and try to resolve them 5.99 6.21 0.222 The staff are willing to meet specific needs 5.88 6.22 0.037 The hostel is cozy, home-like and comfortable 6.06 5.79 0.132 The hostel enables guests to meet new people 5.86 5.87 0.961 The hostel has good security mechanisms 5.91 5.69 0.320 The hostel design and decor are appealing 5.88 5.49 0.033 The hostel provides a good breakfast service 5.80 5.61 0.288 The hostel is in a safe neighborhood 5.75 5.56 0.270 The hostel is near monuments and museums 5.59 5.76 0.383 The hostel organizes group activities 5.44 4.94 0.042 The hostel has good laundry facilities 4.72 4.51 0.420 The hostel offers leisure facilities 4.72 4.37 0.196 a Rated on a scale from 1-strongly disagree to 7- strongly agree. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 14, No. 5/6, 2017 http://ertr.tamu.edu 257 Table A.3: Mean values of service quality dimensions by age group Service quality dimensions Younger guests Older guests p-value Staff 0.127 +0.286 0.005 Cleanliness +0.049 0.110 0.278 Ambiance & design +0.081 0.182 0.073 Location 0.054 +0.120 0.239 Price +0.050 0.111 0.273 Facilities & services +0.059 0.133 0.191 Security +0.043 0.097 0.386  The dimensions are standardized variables with overall mean 0 and variance 1. http://ertr.tamu.edu/