Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 1, No.

3, 2010

227

A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors of golfers preferred driving ranges in Korea Sunhwan Hwang
Recreation & Leisure Studies Program, University of Georgia, 330 River Road, Athens, GA 30602, USA E-mail: shhwangg@uga.edu

Doyeon Won*
Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, 330 River Road, Athens, GA 30602, USA E-mail: won@uga.edu *Corresponding author
Abstract: This study was to investigate what Korean golfers prioritise when choosing an outdoor driving range. For the purpose of the current study, four attributes were chosen, namely range size, monthly fee, facility condition, and location (travel distance). The results of the conjoint analysis with 279 active Korean golfers revealed that Korean golfers put more weight on facility condition, followed by range size, travel distance, and monthly fee, when choosing an outdoor driving range. An ad hoc sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify how any change of a given driving range may affect its market share. Keywords: golf driving range; conjoint analysis; leisure marketing; urban leisure centres; Korea. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hwang, S. and Won, D. (2010) A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors of golfers preferred driving ranges in Korea, Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.227237. Biographical notes: Sunhwan Hwang is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Recreation and Leisure Studies program at the University of Georgia, where he received his PhD. His research centers on the management of leisure services, particularly golf. Doyeon Won is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Georgia. His graduate education includes a MS in Sport Management from the University of Michigan and a PhD from The Ohio State University. He conducts research on consumer behaviour in sports and leisure.

Copyright 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

228

S. Hwang and D. Won

Introduction

Over the last two decades, there has been a dramatic increase of golf participation in Korea (Hwang, Seo and Won, 2008). In 2003, Korean golfers played about 15 million rounds. That means, if divided by the average round per golfer (3.5 rounds), the number of golfers in 2003 was about 4.3 million (KGCBA, 2008). Initially, golf was popular in the greater Seoul metropolitan area where slightly less than half of the Korean population resides (Korea National Statistical Office, 2007). Now the popularity of golf became a national phenomenon. For example, the number of golf visits in Jeollabuk-do, a province with a population of 1.87 million in 2006 (Jeollabuk-do, 2008), tripled from 260,000 in 2004 to 840,000 in 2006 (Saejeonbuk Daily, 2007). In response to the golfers demands, there have been increased numbers of new golf facilities across the nation. Unlike to the US golf facilities, most golf practice facilities are not physically attached to golf courses or country clubs. Instead, each golf practice facility is owned and operated separately. As of 2007, there were 4,126 golf practice facilities in Korea, with 2,962 indoor and 1,164 outdoor facilities (KGCBA, 2008). In comparison to the number of golf practice facilities which was 2,537 in 2002 (Park, 2005), the number dramatically increased. As the number of golf facilities in terms of both golf courses and practice facilities increases, there have been greater competitions among golf facility owners in certain geographic markets. For example, in 2006, there were 1,134 practice facilities (1,015 indoor and 119 outdoor golf ranges) in the city of Seoul (KGCBA, 2008). Given that the size of Seoul (234 square miles) is similar to that of Chicago, the facility owners are in a very competitive market situation. Especially, Seoul is one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world as the metropolis was selected as the third most expensive city to live in 2007 (CNN, 2007). Considering the expensive real estate prices, each outdoor driving range is a substantial investment for facility owners. Outdoor driving ranges require relatively larger spaces and thus more money to own and operate in comparison to indoor ones. Thus, for the managers of outdoor driving ranges, it becomes much more critical to understand more about golfers as consumers, especially about what influence their choice of an outdoor driving range. From a leisure promotion perspective, the golf practice facility industry becomes more important because these facilities provide potential golfers with opportunities to initiate golf and improve their skills. Even if golfers cannot frequently go to the golf courses to play the round because of particularly expensive green fees in Korea, practice facilities are likely to be more accessible. Thus, it is certain that this industry positively influences the development of both golf equipment and golf course industries. Therefore, the study on factors influencing the choice of an outdoor driving range would be greatly useful for the managers and/or owners of the outdoor driving ranges to establish the effective marketing strategies to attract more consumers. In Korea, there has been a number of studies on the service quality of golf practice facilities, whereas there has been little research on general factors influencing golfers choice of a driving range. For example, many researchers demonstrated that service quality of the driving range such as cleanliness, attitude of staff, service of instructors, operation hour, promotion, and program were related to customer satisfaction (e.g., Lee, 1999, 2003; Lee et al., 2000; Park, 2005; Yoo et al., 2002). On the other hand, only Kim (2004) and Lee and Hur (2004) studied on golf practice facility users selection factors such as physical, personal, and systemic service using the traditional method. While service quality is a critical concept in leisure services, this concept does not include such

A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors

229

critical factors as price and travel distance to the service site. For this reason, there is a dire need for a study of the factors that influence how golfers choose outdoor driving ranges. In understanding consumer behaviour, conjoint analysis recently has been a useful analytical approach (Green and Srinivasan, 1978; Hair et al., 1998). In comparison to conventional approaches, where respondents assess the importance of each choice factor one-at-a-time on different rating scales, respondents in conjoint analysis evaluate combinations of choice factors (i.e., hypothetical scenarios). By doing so, respondents are forced to make trade-offs among multi-attribute product alternatives and thus researchers can explore the relative importance of each choice factor (Green and Srinivasan, 1978; Hair et al., 1998). Due to the high utility, the conjoint approach has been applied in various settings including leisure and recreational sports. Recently, Lawson et al. (2006) used conjoint analysis to investigate preference heterogeneity among visitors to the Okefenokee Wilderness and found the difference between day and overnight visitors in regard to the prioritised choice factors. Conjoint analysis was also applied to understand leisure consumer behaviours concerning cruise vacation (Krieger et al., 2005), skiers and snowboarders choice of skiing destinations (Won and Hwang, 2009; Won et al., 2008), resource-based recreation (More and Stevens, 2000), theme parks (Kemperman et al., 2000), recreation trips and travel time (Mackenzie, 1992), and park choice (Stemerding et al., 1999). However, there have been no published research studies that used conjoint analysis on the prioritised choice factors concerning the choice of a golf driving ranges. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the relative importance of the selected factors that influence the choice of an outdoor golf driving range in Korea. The current study used a conjoint analysis as it is proven to be an effective analytical approach in understanding consumer behaviours (Orme, 2006).

Method

2.1 Sample
Participants were 279 golfers (208 male and 71 female) from five outdoor driving ranges in a large metropolitan area in Korea. The mean age of these golfers was 35.9 years (SD = 10.89); their mean length of golf experience was 4.4 years (SD = 3.40), ranging from 1 to 20 years; their mean frequency of golf practice was 16.8 visits a month (SD = 7.38). In addition, each participant played about 22 rounds (SD = 25.98) annually and spent about $4,500 (KRW 508,000) annually for golf-related activities. A convenience sampling method was utilised in this study. At golf ranges, respondents voluntarily completed a paper-and-pencil survey, an instrument consisting of nine conjoint scenarios, and several demographic questions.

2.2 Conjoint scenarios

For the purpose of the current study, nine hypothetical outdoor golf ranges were created based on a fractional factorial design with four three-level factors (Addelman, 1962). The four selected golf range attributes, along with attribute levels, were chosen based on the consultation with a panel of experts including four Korean driving range managers. The four attributes consisted of

230 a b c d

S. Hwang and D. Won size of the range (80, 120, 160 metres) facility condition (below average, average, above average) travel distance to the facility (15, 30, 45 minutes) monthly user fees (100K, 150K, 200K).

While there is no research study that investigated the choice attributes concerning practice facilities, studies concerning the choice attributes of golf courses also suggest that fees, facility condition and design, and travel distance to be most influential factors (e.g., GCSAA, 1996; Richard and Faircloth, 1994; Richard et al., 1996; Won et al., 2009). The combination of variables amounts to 81 scenarios. The use of the fractional factorial design with orthogonal array incorporating only the main effects required nine scenarios (Addelman, 1962). The four driving range attributes and an example of the conjoint scenarios used in this study are provided in Table 1. Each participant rated each of the nine conjoint scenarios depicting hypothetical outdoor driving ranges on a 7-point Likert-type scale using a response scale ranging from 1 (not at all preferred) and 7 (extremely preferred). In addition, participants were asked to indicate their golf experience (years played golf), and frequency of usage behaviours (rounds per year, and range visits per month).
Table 1 Attributes and levels used in the study Attribute level Level 1 15 mins. 80-metre Below avg. 100K Driving range #1 Driving range attributes Travel distance Facility size (Range length) Facility condition Monthly fee (KRW) Definitely do not prefer 1 2 3 4 5 6 Level 45 mins. 80-metre Average 200K Definitely prefer 7 Level 2 30 mins. 120-metre Average 150K Level 3 45 mins. 160-metre Above avg. 200K

Driving range attribute Travel distance Facility size (range length) Facility condition Monthly fee (KRW)

2.3 Statistical analyses

The conjoint data was analysed using the SPSS Conjoint program. Conjoint analysis estimated part-worth utilities of each attribute level where the part-worth is defined as the marginal utility of the attribute in the respondents rating of the conjoint stimuli (Hair et al., 1998; Orme, 2006). All attributes except facility condition were linear variables while facility condition was a discrete variable. Further, a correlational analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between golf range attributes and golf-related personal

A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors

231

information (e.g., years played golf). A sensitivity analysis was also conducted as an application of conjoint analysis (Orme, 2006).

Results

3.1 Conjoint analysis

Table 2 reports the results of conjoint analysis. The results indicated that golfers were influenced mostly by facility condition (45.5%) followed by range size (22.2%), travel distance (17.6%) and monthly fee (14.6%). The facility condition was twice more important than the range size (2.05 = 45.5/22.2), 2.6 times more important than travel distance (2.59 = 45.5/17.6), and three times more important than monthly user fee (3.12 = 45.5/14.6). In terms of attribute levels, respondents preferred a driving range that longer (bigger range), costs less to use, was well-maintained and had up-to-date facilities, and was close to their work or home.
Table 2 Results of aggregate conjoint analysis: averaged importance and differences between attribute levels (N = 247) Utilities (part-worth) 2.1584 0.8683 0.4218 1.2901 1.0528 1.5792 1.0528 0.5264 0.8365 0.4182 0.8365 1.2547 0.6943 0.3472 0.6943 1.2547 4.7420 100.00% 14.64% 4 17.64% 3 22.20% 2 Relative importance 45.52% Importance ranking 1

Attribute Facility condition Above average Average Below average Range size 160-metre 120-metre 80-metre Travel distance 15 mins. 30 mins. 45 mins. Monthly fee (KRW) 100K 150K 200K Total Note: Constant = 4.2134.

3.2 Correlational analysis

Table 3 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients among the relative importance scores of the four selected range attributes and four golf-related

232

S. Hwang and D. Won

personal variables in this study. Among the four range attributes, the two highest correlations were found between facility condition and range size (r = .54, p < .001) and between facility condition and monthly fee (r = .51, p < .001). All correlations were significant, with an exception of a correlation between range size and travel distance. These results briefly show how golfers make trade-offs among choice factors. For example, golfers who prioritise facility condition are willing to pay more money (r = .51, p < .001) or travel greater distance (r = .44, p < .001) because they consider cost and travel distance less important than facility condition. As for personal golf information, years played golf and rounds per year were positively and significantly correlated with range size (r = .13 and r = .14, respectively; both at p < .05). Frequency of range visits had positive correlations with range size (r = .13, p < .05) and travel distance (r = .14, p < .05) while it had a negative correlation with facility condition (r = .20, p < .01).
Table 3 Results of correlational analysis 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M Facility condition Range size Travel distance Monthly fee Yrs played golf Rounds per yr Range visit f 2 .54** 3 .44** .01 4 .51** .15* .22** 5 .03 .13* .04 .10 6 .06 .14* .02 .05 .25** 7 .20** .13* .14* .04 .08 .28**

47.73 19.36

19.29 12.63

17.05 11.90

15.93 14.37

4.36 3.46

19.90 24.08

16.47 7.20

SD Note: p* < .05, p** < .01.

3.3 Sensitivity Analysis

To illustrate the use of conjoint results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted because it allows practitioners to explore market shares of their product or service by changing some attribute levels (Orme, 2006). For example, the manager of a golf driving range may want to know a change in consumers preference in case the manager improves his/her facility or purchases new equipments. For a better illustration, six hypothetical golf ranges were chosen and each range had different attribute profiles. Table 4 reports the results of the sensitivity analysis. As shown, driving range A had the greatest utility score, totalling 5.20. Consequently, it also had the highest market share, totalling 22.0%, because this range has an excellent facility and is very accessible. On the other hand, driving range F had the smallest utility score, with a total of 2.10, and thus had the smallest market share, with 8.9%.

A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis Constant 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 Facility condition 0.87 0.42 (average) C D E F (Your range) 0.42 (average) 0.87 1.29 1.29 Range size 1.58 1.58 1.05 0.53 0.53 1.05

233

Driving ranges A B

Travel Monthly fee Utility* Market distance (KRW) share 0.42 0.84 0.42 0.84 0.42 0.84 1.04 (200K) 0.35 (100K) 0.69 (150K) 0.69 (150K) 0.35 (100K) 1.04 (200K) 2.10 8.9% 2.68 11.3% 4.08 17.2% 4.58 19.3% 5.03 21.3% 5.20 22.0%

(above avg.) (160-metre) (15 mins.) (160-metre) (30 mins.) (120-metre) (15 mins.)

(above avg.) (80-metre) (30 mins.) (below avg.) (80-metre) (15 mins.) (below avg.) (120-metre) (30 mins.) Note: Utility* = Constant + U(Condition) + U(Size) + U(Travel) + U(Fee).

Take the case of driving range A, B, and C: even though range A has a higher monthly rate (200K), this range had a bigger utility score than range B or C because its facility condition is excellent and it is located close to the main market. Since the monthly fee for range A is twice as expensive as that of range B, it is shown that golfers are willing to spend more money for better facilities and accessibility. Take another example of driving range A, C, and E that are located within a 15-minute travel distance; a range with greater cost (range A) still had a bigger utility score than driving ranges with lower cost (range C and E).
Figure 1 Sensitivity analysis: an example with fictional six driving ranges (see online version for colours)
18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
i tion c on d

Relative Preference

16.5 15.0 10.9 8.9 6.8 8.9 11.5 10.5 8.9 7.2 10.2 8.9

i on

ins .

ins . 30 m

e te r s

e te r s

cond it

e te r s

iti on

15 m

c ond

80 m

120 m

Po o r

Av g .

Ex ce

l len t

160 m

45 m

ins .

234

S. Hwang and D. Won

Assume you are the manager of driving range F and compete with five other ranges in the same market. Figure 1 illustrates the relative market share of your driving range given specific competition along with the new market shares in case you change your driving ranges attributes. Clearly you cannot change some of the range attributes. For example, it is often impossible to expand the size of the range given the limits of real estate in Korea. However, you may improve (or lose) the golfers preference on your driving range by renovating your facility or lowering monthly fees. As shown, range F can gain its market share up to 16.5%, from 8.9% by improving its facility; up to 10.9% by providing longer driving ranges, up to 10.5% by moving its location, and up to 11.5% by reducing the monthly user fee.

Discussion

4.1 Prioritised driving range attributes

The results of the conjoint analysis indicated that, in choosing an outdoor driving range, recreational golfers in Korea prioritise the status of the practice facility when it was jointly considered with three other attributes, namely the size of the range, location of the range (or travel distance), and the monthly user fee. The results suggest the importance of a state-of-art or well-maintained facility. Having at least an average level facility is deemed to be very important to attract golfers. The results of part-worth estimates concerning facility condition in Table 2 indicated that the difference between Below Average and Average [1.71 = 0.42 (1.29)] are about four times greater than the difference between Average and Above Average [0.45 = 0.87 0.42]. Obviously, the easiest yet most expensive way to have an up-to-date facility is building a new one. Realistically, a more cost-effective way would be renovating the facility and purchasing some up-to-date equipment such as automatic golf ball dispensers. In addition to practice equipment, driving range mangers should pay attention to their facility amenities including pro shop, snack bar, locker room, restroom, and parking facility. In this regard, managers and marketers can learn more from the service quality literature. According to the literature, the tangible elements of the provided service influence leisure consumers satisfaction and loyalty to the service provider (MacIntosh and Doherty, 2007; Yu et al., 2006). In regard to the driving range condition of the facility and equipment, managers also need to closely monitor the profile of their consumers. As the number of female recreational golfers increases in Korea, driving range managers and marketers should understand more about their needs and wants. Regardless, female-friendly practice facilities are strongly recommended for a better marketability of driving ranges in general. Similarly, Korean golf facilities have not been friendly to left-handed golfers and it is one of the common problems raised by such golfers, who complain that accommodations that suit their needs are lacking. Thus, it would be very important to figure out how many left-handed golfers are in the market and to equip the facilities to satisfy their necessities (e.g., golf ball dispenser for the left-handed) accordingly. As with other three driving range attributes, managers and marketers should take these three factors into consideration when developing a marketing strategy. As expected,

A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors

235

golfers preferred a bigger driving range (with longer range), conveniently located (close to home or work), and cheaper to use. However, it is often impossible to offer everything that golfers want. Unfortunately managers cannot change some of the driving range attributes (e.g., location at it is related to the travel distance). Thus, driving range managers should pay more attention to the location and size of the facility during the developmental process. Further, any change should be considered with high consideration for the expense associated with that change. As reported, golfers are concerned more about the condition and size of the facility than to the monthly user fee. However, it is possible that the benefit of improving the facility by renovating it might be a less cost-effective strategy than providing some discount deals if we consider costs (i.e., costs for renovation and loss of money due to discount deals). Thus, driving range managers should consider conducting a cost-benefit analysis based on their market situation to develop a better strategic (marketing) plan.

4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted as a way to make strategic interpretations of the given data (Orme, 2006). The results illustrated that condition and size of the facility can outweigh the price (monthly fee). Golf participants are willing to pay more for using a better-maintained driving range in a trade-off situation. In other words, driving range owners should maintain their facilities and amenities well to make their establishment attractive to their consumers. However, cost and expenses associated with any change should be considered in order to make a strategic decision because certain changes come with bigger expenses (e.g., money for facility renovation vs. smaller profit margins due to discount deals). One of the reasons price was outweighed by other attributes could be the fact that participants in this study are active golf players as they were recruited at driving ranges. In a previous study concerning the choice of a golf course by Won et al. (2009), more involved golfers care more about green conditions and course design than green and cart fees. According to the Golf 20/20 (2001), core golfers are those who play more than eight rounds annually. These core golfers account for 87% of golf-related spending. The majority of the study sample in this study can be considered core golfers as more than 75% of the sample in this study played at least eight rounds a year. Therefore, the results from the current study can be more valuable to the management of driving ranges.

Limitation and future studies

One should be cautious when interpreting the conjoint data. Due to the nature of the conjoint analysis, the researchers determined the attribute levels. Thus, with different attribute (e.g., operation hour, instead of range size) or different attribute levels (e.g., monthly fee of KRW 300K, instead of KRW 200K), the relative importance score of some attributes could be different. Thus, when interpreting the conjoint results, readers should consider the attribute and their levels used in the study.

236

S. Hwang and D. Won

References
Addelman, S. (1962) Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments, Technometrics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.2146. CNN (2007) Worlds most expensive cities, retrieved 1 December 2008, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/15/pf/most_expensive_cities. GCSAA (1996) 1996 Golf Course Superintendents Report, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, Lawrence, KS. Golf 20/20 (2001) Industry definitions, retrieved 15 November 2008, from http://www.golf2020.com/industrydefinitions.asp. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.103123. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Hwang, S., Seo, H. and Won, J. (2008) Golf instructor choice factors: A conjoint analysis, Korean Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 19, No. 4. Jeollabuk-do (2008) Population statistics, retrieved 1 December 2008, from http://www.jeonbuk.go.kr. Kemperman, A.D.A.M., Borgers, A.W.J. and Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2000) Consumer choice of theme parks: A conjoint choice model of seasonality effects and variety seeking behavior, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.118. Kim, K.D. (2004) A study on the indoor golf facilities users selection factors and post-purchase evaluation, Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies, Vol. 12, pp.971978. Korea Golf Course Business Association (KGCBA) (2008) User statistics, retrieved 1 October 2008, from http://www.kgba.co.kr. Korea National Statistical Office (2007) Population report, retrieved 25 June 2008, from http://www.nso.go.kr. Krieger, B., Moskowitz, H. and Rabino, S. (2005) What customers want from a cruise vacation: Using Internet-enabled conjoint analysis to understand the customers mind, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.83111. Lawson, S.R., Roggenbuck, J.W., Hall, T.E. and Moldovanyi, A. (2006) A conjoint analysis of preference heterogeneity among day and overnight visitors to the Okefenokee Wilderness, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.575600. Lee, D.H. (1999) The development of marketing strategies for the efficient management of golf practice facility, unpublished Masters thesis, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea. Lee, J.H. (2003) The relationship between customer satisfaction on service quality of golf training facilities and repurchase behavior intentions by customers types, The Korean Journal of Physical Education, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.443451. Lee, K.S. and Hur, J. (2004) The effect of satisfaction of golf driving ranges service on repurchase intention and word of mouth intention, The Korean Journal of Physical Education, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp.653663. Lee, Y.K., Shin, D.C. and Lryu, C. (2000) The impact of golf training facilities environments on evaluation of service quality, customer satisfaction and purchase behavior intentions, Korean Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.115. MacIntosh, E. and Doherty, A. (2007) Reframing the service environment in the fitness industry, Managing Leisure, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.289305. Mackenzie, J. (1992) Evaluating recreation trip attributes and travel time via conjoint analysis, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.171184. More, T. and Stevens, T. (2000) Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation?, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.341357.

A conjoint analysis regarding influencing factors

237

Park, C.K. (2005) Relationship between the overall service quality in the golf range, customer satisfaction, customers intention to revisit, and word of mouth intention, The Korean Journal of Physical Education, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.865872. Orme, B. (2006) Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, Research Publishers LLC, Madison, WI. Richard, M.D. and Faircloth, J.B. (1994) A factor/regression model of public golf course choice intentions, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 2, pp.3752. Richard, M.D., Faircloth, J.B. and Richard, V.P. (1996) Factors considered by players in choosing a golf course, Business Quest, retrieved 20 November 2008, from http://www.westga.edu/~bquest. Saejeonbuk Daily (2007) Golf population in Jeollabuk-do, retrieved 15 November 2008, from http://www.Sjbnews.com. Stemerding, M, Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. (1999) A constraints-induced model of park choice, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.145158. Won, D. and Hwang, S. (2009) Factors influencing the college skiers and snowboarders choice of a ski destination in Korea: A conjoint study, Managing Leisure, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.1727. Won, D., Bang, H. and Shonk, D.J. (2008) Influencing factors of regional ski destinations: The influence of consumption situation and recreation specialization, Journal of Sport & Tourism, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.249271. Won, D., Hwang, S. and Kleiber, D.A. (2009) How do golfers choose a golf course? A conjoint analysis of influencing factors, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.116. Yoo, Y.S., Cho, K.M. and Cho, S.S. (2002) Impact of golf training facility users satisfaction on repurchase intentions, Korean Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.113. Yu, C-H., Chang, H-C. and Huang, G-L. (2006) A study of service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in Taiwanese leisure industry, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.126132.