The direct and indirect effects of times of visits, length of stay, push and pull factors on tourist loyalty through the mediation of tourist destination satisfaction

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Times of Visits, Length of Stay, Push and Pull Factors on Tourist Loyalty through the Mediation of Tourist Destination Satisfaction A study of interna

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Times of Visits, Length of Stay, Push and Pull Factors on Tourist Loyalty through the Mediation of Tourist Destination Satisfaction

A study of international leisure tourists in Ho Chi Minh City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Factors On Tourist Loyalty Through The Mediation Of Tourist Destination Satisfaction

A study of international leisure tourists in Ho Chi Minh City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

In Finance

by Mrs Nguyen Thi Mai Phuong

ID: MBA06024 International University - Vietnam National University HCMC

Acknowledge

Foremost, I would like to express my very great appreciation to my advisor, PhD Mai Ngoc Khuong for his valuable and constructive suggestions during the research process His willingness to give his time so generously has been very much appreciated His patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques helped me gain a lot of knowledge and experiences In addition, when I had some problems in the research process, Dr Khuong always gave me the exemplary advice, constant assistance and valuable support The help and guidance given by him time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which

Furthermore, I also take this opportunity to express my special thanks to all my respondents, whose valuable information, precious time and support helped me to complete this research Last but not least, I am particularly grateful for the assistant given by my friends, Mr Quach Binh, Mr Nguyen Tan Thoi, … and my sister Ms Nguyen Thi Yen Phuong for helping me in collecting data Especially, I am grateful for the willing help of my dear husband and family Without all of their precious support, this research would not be possible

Plagiarism Statements

I would like to declare that, apart from the acknowledged references, this thesis either does not use language, ideas, or other original material from anyone; or has not been previously submitted to any other educational and research programs or institutions I fully understand that any writings in this thesis contradicted to the above statement will automatically lead to the rejection from the MBA program at the International University – Vietnam National University Hochiminh City

Copyright Statement

This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognize that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the author‟s prior consent

© Nguyen Thi Mai Phuong/ MBA06024/ 2014

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEGDE i

PLAGIARISM STATEMENT ii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT iii

LIST OF TABLE viii

LIST OF FIGURE ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .1

1 Background of the research .1

2 Problem Statement 3

3 Research Question 3

4 Research Objectives .4

4.1 General Objective 4

4.2 Specific Objectives 4

5 Significances and Implications 4

6 Scope and Limitation .5

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .7

1 Push and Pull Travel Motivations 7

1.1 Definition and Concept .7

1.2 Travel Motivations Determinants .8

1.2.1 Push Determinant .9

1.2.2 Pull Determinant .10

2 Tourist Destination Satisfaction 11

2.1 Definition and Concept 11

2.2 Determinants of Tourist Destination satisfaction 13

3 Tourist Loyalty 14

4 Number of Visits 16

5 Length of Stay 19

6 Travel Motivations, Number of Visits, Length of Stay, Destination Satisfaction and Tourists Loyalty 20

7 Conceptual Framework .25

8 Hypotheses 26

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 27

1 Research Process .27

2 Research Design 28

3 Target Sample .28

4 Sample Size 29

5 Data Collecting 29

5.1 Primary Data 29

5.2 Secondary Data 30

6 Questionnaire Design 30

7 Data Analysis .34

8 Reliability Test 36

9 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 38

9.1 EFA for Independent Variables 39

9.2 EFA for Mediate and Dependent Variables 41

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 43

1 Sample Demographic 43

1.1 Gender 44

1.2 Age Group 45

1.3 Country 45

1.4 Relationship Status 46

1.5 Number of Visits to Vietnam 48

1.6 Party Composition 49

1.7 Travel Mode to Vietnam 49

1.8 Length of Stay in Vietnam 50

2 Descriptive Statistics 51

2.1 Push Determinant 51

2.2 Pull Determinant 53

2.3 Destination Satisfaction 54

2.4 Tourists Loyalty 56

3 Multiple Regression 58

3.1 Factors affect Destination Satisfaction 58

3.2 Factors affect Tourists Loyalty directly 60

3.3 Factors affect Tourists Loyalty indirectly through the mediation Destination Satisfaction 62

3.4 Relationship between Destination Satisfaction and Tourists Loyalty 64

4 Path Analysis 65

4.1 Direct Effect on Tourists Loyalty 66

4.2 Indirect Effect on Tourists Loyalty 66

4.3 Path diagram of Tourists Loyalty 66

CHAPTER V- DISCUSSTION AND RECCOMENDATION 69

1 Discussion of Findings 69

1.1 The Influence of Push, Pull Factors, Number of Visits, Length of Stay on Destination Satisfaction 69

1.2 The Influence of Push, Pull Factors, Number of Visits, Length of Stay, Destination Satisfaction on Tourists Loyalty 70

1.3 Summary of Research Findings 72

2 Recommendations for Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam Tourism 74

3 Conclusion 76

LIST OF REFERENCES 77

APPENDIX 91

List of Tables

Table 1: Items of Measurement Scale 31

Table 2: Cronbach's Alpha of Variables 37

Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's Test of 9 Travel Motivation attributes 39

Table 4: Factor Loadings and Reliability of Independent Variables 40

Table 5: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Mediate and Dependent Variables 41

Table 6: Factor Loadings and Reliability of Mediate and Dependent Variables 42

Table 7: Demographics of the Sample (Personal Information) 43

Table 8: Demographics of the Sample (Travel Information) 47

Table 9: Demographics of the sample (Length of stay in Vietnam) 50

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of Push Factor 52

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of Pull Factor 53

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics of Destination Satisfaction 55

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Destination Loyalty 56

Table 14: Pearson‟ Correlations between PUSFAC, PULFAC, Number of Visits, Length of stay and TODESA 58

Table 15: Coefficients between PUSFAC, PULFAC and TODESA 59

Table 16: Pearson‟ Correlations between PUSFAC, PULFAC, Number of visits, Length of stay and TOULOY 60

Table 17: Coefficients between PUSFAC, PULFAC, Number of visits and TOULOY 61

Table 18: Pearson‟ Correlations between PUSFAC, PULFAC, Number of visits, Length of stay, TODESA and TOULOY 63

Table 19: Coefficients between PUSFAC, PULFAC, Number of visits, TODESA and TOULOY 64

Table 20: Pearson‟ Correlations between TODESA and TOULOY 64

Table 21: Coefficients between TODESA and TOULOY 65

Table 22: Direct, Indirect and Total Causal Effects 66

Table 23: Results of the Research‟s Hypotheses 73

List of Figures

Figure 1: The relationship between customer satisfaction & customer loyalty

(Heskett et al., 2008) 15

Figure 2: Results of the hypothesized model (Chi and Qu, 2008) 21

Figure 3: Results of the hypothesized model (Chi, 2012) 23

Figure 4: Research Conceptual Framework 25

Figure 5: The Research Process 27

Figure 6: Percentage of Gender 45

Figure 7: Percentage of Age group 45

Figure 8: Percentage of Country 46

Figure 9: Percentage of Relationship Status 46

Figure 10: Percentage of Number of visits to Vietnam 48

Figure 11: Percentage of Party Composition 49

Figure 12: Percentage of Travel mode to Vietnam 49

Figure 13: Percentage of Length of stay in Vietnam 51

Figure 14.1: Path Coefficients of the Structural Equation for H1 Testing 67

Figure 14.2: Path Coefficients of the Structural Equation for H2 Testing 67

Figure 14.3: Path Coefficients of the Structural Equation for H3 Testing 67

Figure 14.4: Path Coefficients of the Structural Equation for H4 Testing 68

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine empirically the causal relationships among travel motivations, number of visits, length of stay, destination satisfaction and tourist loyalty of international leisure tourists in Ho Chi Minh City The research conceptual framework and hypotheses were constructed, based on previous theoretical and empirical studies A survey was conducted with 313 respondents to collect the primary data Multiple regression and Path analyses were used to test the research hypotheses As a result, push, pull factors and number

of visits have significant and positive influence on tourist‟s destination satisfaction and tourist loyalty to Vietnam However, length of stay does not affect those directly and indirectly Consequently, business organizations working in the tourism sector should take into account the essential roles of push and pull factors, increasing the number of visits, in order to attract more potential visitors, enhance their destination satisfaction and encourage them to re-visit

to Vietnam in the near future

Keywords: Push and pull factors, Number of visits, Length of stay, Destination

satisfaction, Tourists loyalty

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1 Background of the Research

Tourism is one of the most essential multinational business activities in the world (Friedman, 1995), brings appreciate 30% of the world‟s exports of services and has become the major income of many countries In Vietnam, tourism is an important industry of the Vietnamese economy, and contributes 5.3% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and expected to 7.5% by 2030, according to the General Plan to develop Vietnam‟s tourism until 2020 with a vision to 2030, which has recently been approved by the Government Vietnam is one of the most attractive tourist destinations

in Asia and the Pacific area and is predicted in the top group of emerging destinations for international visitors in 2014, holds the second place after Myanmar (United States Tour Operators Association - USTOA)

The total international arrivals coming to Vietnam reached 7,572,352 in 2013, increasing 10.6% over the previous year, with 4,640,882 leisure tourists and accounted for more than 60% (Vietnam General Statistics Office) In addition, according to the Ministry of Culture, Sport & Tourism - Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, the total revenue of Vietnamese tourism industry in 2013 was more than VND 200,000 billion, increasing 25% compared to 2012 Regarding to Ho Chi Minh City, the number of international visitors to the city was estimated at 4,109,000 in 2013, increasing 8.1% compared to 2012, reaching 100.2% of the plan and accounting for 55% of international visitors to Vietnam The revenue was approximately VND 83,191 billion, increasing 17%

compared to 2011, reaching 100% of the plan, accounting for 44% of Vietnam's tourism revenue, and contributing to more than 11% of the city's GDP (Ho Chi Minh City Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism)

International tourists to Vietnam come from a variety of countries and regions, with diverse cultural backgrounds The top ten proportions consist of China, Korea, Japan, United States, Taiwan, Cambodia, Malaysia, Australia, Thailand, and France (Ministry

of Culture, Sport & Tourism - Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, 2013) However, there is a sad truth that the percentage of returning tourists to Vietnam is still not high It is not over 20% (Ministry of Culture, Sport & Tourism - Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, 2012) comparing with high rate of Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia…In order to increase the returning rate, Vietnam tourism need to increase international tourists‟ satisfaction and make Vietnam become a loyal destination of those

There are many researchers studying travel satisfaction and destination loyalty, finding out important factors affect tourists‟ destination satisfaction, their loyalty and willingness to

recommend as well For example, a variety of conceptual and empirical studies have shown that causal relationship among tourists‟ satisfaction, loyalty and their travel motivation

(Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Tkaczynski, Hastings, & Beaumont, 2006; Qiao et al., 2008; Kim, 2008; Lee, Jeon, & Kim, 2011; Tang, 2013; Pratminingsih, Rudatin, & Rimenta, 2014), number of visits (Kozak, 2001; Mazursky, 1989; Chi, 2012; Lau & McKercher,

2004),destination image (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Ozturk & Qu, 2008; Mechinda et al., 2010; Sadeh et al., 2012; Jamaludin et al., 2012), etc

Especially, travel motivations, length of stay and number of visits have the clear impact on tourists‟ destination satisfaction and their loyalty According to Kozak (2001); Mazursky (1989); Chi (2012); Lau & McKercher (2004), they confirm the effect among those and

show that understanding that relationship is vital to increase the returning and loyal rate

of tourists

2 Problem Statement

Tourists‟ travel motivation has an important role in explaining their travel decision as well as their behavior It includes internal or psychological forces (push factors) and external forces of the destination attributes (pull factors) In addition, number of visits and length of stay are also very important elements that many countries use them as tools

to measure how satisfied the tourists are Therefore, understanding the motivations differences among foreign visitors and the relationships between travel motivation, times

of visits, length of stay, destination satisfaction and tourist loyalty are the serious challenges of Vietnamese tourism destination management, in order to adapt and/or adjust tourist products and services to improve destination image and attract more potential customers on around the world to Vietnam, as well as maximize recent tourists‟ satisfaction and increasing revisit rate in the near future

This thesis research studied on tourist destination satisfaction and tourist loyalty to Vietnam based on their travel motivation, by analyzing the effect of push and pull factors and identifying the number of visits and length of stay The study focused on international leisure tourists in Ho Chi Minh City during the period surveyed

3 Research Question

From the problem statement, the study raised the following research question: “To what extent do factors of times of visit, length of stay, push and pull factors directly and indirectly affect tourist loyalty toward Ho Chi Minh City Destination?”

4 Research Objectives

4.1 General Objective

This research is aimed at exploring and understanding travel motivation of foreign leisure tourists in Ho Chi Minh City; thereby, evaluating the causal relationship between their travel motivations, number of visits, length of stay, destination satisfaction and their loyalty

4.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this research include:

- To identify push and pull travel motivations, number of visits, length of stay, destination satisfaction and tourists loyalty of international leisure tourists in Ho Chi Minh City

- To identify the direct effect of tourists‟ travel motivations, number of visits and length of stay on their destination satisfaction

- To identify the direct effect of tourists‟ destination satisfaction toward their

loyalty to Vietnam

- To evaluate the direct and indirect influence of tourists‟ travel motivations, number of visits and length of stay on their loyalty to Vietnam through their

destination satisfaction

5 Significances and Implications

Basing on the empirical research findings, this study provides practical evidences about the relationship between push and pull travel motivations, number of visits, length of

stay, destination satisfaction and tourist loyalty to Vietnam of international visitors; in order to increase the awareness of Vietnamese tourism organizations about the role of travel motivations, number of visits, and their influence on tourist satisfaction and loyalty to Vietnam destination Lastly, this study proposes constructive recommendations to Vietnamese destination marketers developing tourism strategies and plans, to make Vietnam become more attractive and therefore, increase tourists‟ satisfaction and their loyalty

6 Scope and Limitation

Because of the lacking of time and resources in the research process, this research cannot avoid some issues associated with this study‟s limitations which are identified and discussed in depth below The constructive recommendations to further researches are also proposed; thus, similar studies in the future could control and restrict these limitations in order to enhance the accuracy of research results

First of all, this research only focuses on international leisure tourists who came to Ho Chi Minh City during the research period of time with the sample size of 313 Because

of the limitation in size and research scope, it may not totally represent for the whole foreign tourists in Ho Chi Minh City and in Vietnam

In addition, this research only conducts quantitative data collection method, so that the findings from each respondent are not really explained and analyzed in depth Qualitative data collection methods such as interview and focus group should be considered to conduct with quantitative data collection method In addition, questionnaire is used to collect the empirical data for this research It was designed in English only Because of the limitation and barrier in language, the misunderstanding of tourists in the questionnaire‟s questions may decrease the accuracy of research results

As regards research field, this research just studies on travel motivation, number of visits, destination satisfaction and tourist loyalty to Vietnam destination, does not mention other aspects of tourist behavior such as trip planning, motivation, travel decision, etc Thus, it cannot express tourist behavior completely In addition, travel motivation and number of visits are only two of many factors influencing the customer behavior; therefore, it may not totally influence on the destination satisfaction as well as tourist loyalty of foreign leisure tourists

Finally, the conceptual framework of this research was based on some previous studies and tested in a specific destination only – Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Other destinations with their own attributes could change tourists‟ travel motivation as well as their satisfaction and loyalty; hence, the results of the proposed model were also different from this study and others Future researchers should conduct and test the research model in some different destinations, in order to have a completely picture about this causal relationship as well as explore finding differences among these destinations

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

1 Push and Pull Travel Motivations

1.1 Definition and Concept

Motivation is one of the main driving forces used to interpret the behavior of an individual It is a process of “internal psychological factors” such as needs, desires and goals, which make a person to act or behave in a certain way, in order to achieve his or her goals and expecting satisfaction (Fodness, 1994; Backman et al., 1995; Beerli & Martı´n, 2004)

In addition, travel motivation is defined as “a set of attributes that cause a person to participate in a tourist activity” (Pizam, Neumann, & Reichel, 1979) In particular, travel motivation relates to the reason of travelers‟ decision making in travelling and choosing

to visit a particular attraction or destination instead of others (Cropmton, 1979) Lubbe (1998) stated that travel motivation to a certain destination is begun by certain needs of individuals, who perceive that destinations would serve and satisfy their needs Therefore, travel motivation is a significantly important aspect which should be recognized, to expand and develop destination marketing in order to be competitive in the market

In many tourism studies, travel motivation is considered as the starting point and one of the most important psychological influences to understand tourist behavior (Crompton, 1979; Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003; George, 2004; March & Woodside, 2005) It plays a

useful foundation in attempting to explain the ways tourists behave, the destination they travel, and the activities they participate in this destination Because travel motivations have a direct impact on tourist decisions, understanding and having the adequate knowledge about them are essential and necessary, in order to predict and control travel patterns in the future (Uysal & Hagan, 1993) and further enhancing travel satisfaction and destination loyalty (Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Tkaczynski, Hastings, & Beaumont, 2006; Qiao et al., 2008; Kim, 2008; Lee, Jeon, & Kim, 2011; Tang, 2013; Pratminingsih, Rudatin, & Rimenta, 2014) for a successful and lasting business

1.2 Travel Motivation Determinants

Generally accepted approaches in examining the tourist motivation are the concept of push and pull factors (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983; Pyo, Mihalik & Uysal, 1989; Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993; Uysal & Jurowski, 1993; Klenosky, 2002; Lam & Hsu, 2006; Aswin, 2008, Qiao et al., 2008) This model involves the theory that people travel because they are pushed and pulled to

do so (Baloglu and Uysal, 1996) The concept of push and pull travel motivation has become one of the most popular and useful frameworks to study and analyze tourist behavior Those two factors explain people travel because they are pushed by their own internal forces and pulled by the external forces of destination attributes Push motivations correspond to a tourist‟s desire and emotional frame of mind while pull motivations represent the attributes of the destination to be visited (Crompton, 1979) The characteristics of each motivation determinant are discussed below:

1.2.1 Push Determinant

Push motivations are the determinants that motivate or create the intangible or intrinsic desires of the individual travelers to go on a vacation (Crompton, 1979; Uysal & Hagan, 1993; Uysal & Jurowski, 1993) Push factors, on the other hand, refer to the tourist as a subject and deal with those factors driving him to travel (e.g escape, nostalgia, etc.) (Dann, 1977) He further explained that push factors deal with tourist motivation itself

According to Crompton (1979), the push factor consists of seven socio-psychological motives and two cultural motives The seven socio-psychological motives are escape, self-exploratory, relaxation, prestige, regression, kinship enhancement, and social interaction; while novelty and education are two cultural motives These push factors are recognized as the first step and useful tool in explaining the desire for travel and understanding tourists‟ behavior (Crompton, 1979)

In addition, Uysal & Hagan (1993), Kim, Lee & Klenosky (2003), Yoon & Uysal (2005), Lam & Hsu (2006), in their studies, identified escape, novelty seeking, adventure seeking, dream fulfillment, rest and relaxation, health and fitness, prestige, and socialization as dimensions of push motivation In more recent studies, push factor was measured similarly: getting away, adventure and excitement, discovery and learning, connecting with family and friends, engaging nature, rejuvenation, and spending time with special persons (Kim, 2008); novelty, relaxation, psychological satisfaction, prestige, and human relationship (Qiao et al., 2008)

For the purpose of this study, push motivations include escape, novelty, discovery and learning, rest and relaxation, prestige, family and friends togetherness, social interaction, and dream fulfillment which are based on previous studies

1.2.2 Pull Determinant

Pull determinant, on the contrary, are tangible resources and traveler‟s perception and expectation towards the features, attractions, or attributes of a specific destination; therefore, those motivations play an important role in destination choice of tourists once the decision to travel has been made (Crompton, 1979; Uysal & Hagan, 1993; Kim, Lee

& Klenosky, 2003) Pull factors are those which attract the tourist to a given resort (e.g sunshine, sea, etc.) and whose value is seen to reside in the object of travel (Baloglu and Uysal, 1996) They have always been conceptualized as relating to the features, attractions, or attributes of the destination itself (Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003) They represent the specific attractions of the destination which induces the traveler to go there once the prior decision to travel has been made (Dann, 1981)

Pull motivations are the external forces related to natural and historic attractions, food, people, recreation facilities, and marketed image of the destination (Uysal & Hagan, 1993) Similarly, Turnbull & Uysal (1995) found six pull factors, including heritage/culture, city enclave, comfort-relaxation, beach resort, outdoor resources and rural & inexpensive Based on previous scholar‟ work, sightseeing attractions, recreation events and activities, physical amenities, tourist services, food, weather, safety, accessibility, and affordability of destination are set as pull motivations Those characteristics or attributes of a destination can make the tourists satisfy their needs and expectations on a vacation

Dann (1981), Klenosky (2002), and Kim (2008) agreed that push and pull motivations are not independent, but related to each other While push factors push people to travel, pull factors simultaneously pull them to choose a particular destination In addition, the concepts of push and pull factors are accepted as the primary motivations in many

studies of tourist behaviors Based on the push and pull motivations, as discussed above, the individual tourists make their decisions about travelling, especially the travel destination It means that certain reasons for travel may be predicted, thus, destination marketers and promoters in the tourism industry should keep in mind about the importance of travel motivations, and give more marketing efforts to matching the main attributes of a destination with the needs and expectations of potential tourist customers (Gnoth, 1997; You et al., 2000).

2 Tourist Destination Satisfaction

2.1 Definition and Concept:

Bolton & Drew (1991, p.2) state: “A customer‟ satisfaction/ dissatisfaction with a service […] depends on his or her current perception of performance, prior expectations about performance and perceptions of the discrepancy between these two constructs.” Several studies have proven that customer satisfaction together with quality is one of the key drivers of service performance for a company (Anderson et al 1994; Fornell 1992) Hence, companies should offer services that are able to satisfy not only the consumers‟ expectations but also their perceptions of service quality As they may however differ from customer to customer, companies should evaluate the perceptions and expectations

of customers on a regular basis On this ground, it is eminent to constantly assure service performance in order to increase or at least preserve customer satisfaction The degree of satisfaction is furthermore believed to increase the probability of repurchase through a customer, hence eminent for a successful company

O‟Neil (in Kandampully et al 2001) conclusively states that if the customer experiences better service than expected a high level or positive disconfirmation and therefore satisfaction will result (also discussed in Rust & Oliver 1994)

It was Heskett et al (1994) who, with their implementation of the service profit chain model, defined customer satisfaction as a prerequisite to customer loyalty This customer loyalty then again would result in profitability

On the other hand, a tourist destination is an amalgam of tourist products, services and public goods consumed under the same brand name, thus offering the consumer an integrated experience (Buhalis, 2000; Leiper, 1995) Rather than describing it in terms of

a well-defined geographical area such as a country, island or town (Davison and Maitland, 1997; Hall, 2000), contemporary definitions view a destination as a blend of consumers‟ space and tourism products providing a holistic experience which is subjectively interpreted according to the consumer‟s travel itinerary, cultural background, purpose of visit, past experience, etc (Fuchs and Weiermair, 2003)

Moreover, tourism destinations can be defined as temporary locations for gaining a travel experience, and which is related to the destination‟s attractiveness (Leiper, 1979) According to another perspective and related to an individual‟s travel requirements, tourism destinations can be evaluated as reflections of emotions, beliefs and thoughts in enabling perceived satisfaction (Hu, Ritchie, 1993) Uysal (1998) evaluates destination attractiveness and sources, as supply factors representing pushing forces, which constitute tourist demand Naturally, tourists will have expectations from tourism destinations, in terms of attractiveness and sources These expectations can be increased

or decreased, resulting from publicity and marketing efforts of the tourism destination The net result of such efforts will be a specific holiday destination Receiving new and relevant information focused on the holiday destination, will help tourists in selecting their destination - after due consideration is made of their expectations Normally, expectations of a destination will affect satisfaction levels

Moreover, the satisfaction that tourists experience in a specific destination is a determinant of the tourist revisiting Baker and Crompton (2000) define satisfaction as the tourist‟s emotional state after experiencing the trip Therefore, evaluating satisfaction

in terms of a travelling experience is a post-consumption process (Fornell, 1992; Kozak, 2001) Assessing satisfaction can help managers to improve services (Fornell, 1992) and

to compare organizations and destinations in terms of performance (Kotler, 1994) In addition, satisfaction can be used as a measure to evaluate the products and services offered at the destination (Ross and Iso-Ahola, 1991; Noe and Uysal, 1997; Bramwell, 1998; Schofield, 2000)

2.2 Determinant of Tourists Destination Satisfaction

In the previous studies about destination satisfaction, this dimension was measured in different ways For example, Oom do Valle et al (2006) observed satisfaction through general satisfaction, attribute satisfaction, and met expectations In specific, Chi et al (2008) and Rajesh (2013) analyzed destination satisfaction by attractions, accessibility, lodging, dining, shopping, environment, activities and events Coban (2012) classified satisfaction attributes by tourist attractions, cultural attractions, natural environment, basic facilities, touristy substructures and access possibilities, variety and economical

For the purpose of this research, 10 items are used to identify destination satisfaction of foreign visitors in Vietnam, consisting of 7 attributes about natural scenery and environment, culture, history and art, infrastructure and accessibility, entertainment activities, local cuisine, safety and security, price; and worth to visit, meet expectation, and general satisfaction

3 Tourist Loyalty

Newman and Werbel (1973) defined that the loyal customers as those who re-buy a brand, consider only that brand, and do no brand-related information seeking Hawkins, Best & Coney (1995) stated that loyalty as consumers‟ intentions or actual behavior to repeatedly purchase certain products or services Oliver‟s (1997) definition of loyalty emphasizes the two different aspects of loyalty the behavioral and attitudinal concept He found that it is a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior Moreover, Jones & Taylor (2007) adopted that customer‟s aim to maintain a relationship with a particular service provider and make his

or her next purchase in the category from this service provider

The concept of loyalty has been recognized as one of the more important indicators of corporate success in the marketing literature (La Barbara and Mazursky, 1983; Turnbull and Wilson, 1989; Pine et al., 1995; Bauer et al., 2002) Hallowell (1996) provides evidence on the connection between satisfaction, loyalty and profitability The author refers that working with loyal customers reduces customer recruitment costs, customer price sensitivity and servicing costs In terms of traditional marketing of products and services, loyalty can be measured by repeated sales or by recommendation to other consumers (Pine et al., 1995) Yoon and Uysal (2005) stress that travel destinations can also be perceived as a product which can be resold (revisited) and recommended to others (friends and family who are potential tourists)

Chen and Gursoy (2001) operationally defined destination loyalty as the level of tourists‟ perception of a destination as a good place, one that they would recommend to others,

noting that studies which only consider repeat visits as an indicator of loyalty to the destination are deficient This is because those who do not return to a particular destination may simply find different travel experiences in new places, while maintaining loyalty to the previously visited destination Also, these authors argue for the intention to recommend a destination as an indicator of loyalty An airline ticket has the potential to be sold routinely, but with regard to a trip to a particular destination it may be unlikely that a purchase would actually occur, so that willingness to recommend the product could be an appropriate indicator for measure of loyalty to the destination concerned

In his study about the desirability of loyal tourists, Petrick (2004) states that loyal visitors can be less price sensitive than first time visitors This study shows that less loyal tourists and those visiting the destination for the first time tend to spend more money during the visit

Figure 1: The relationship between customer satisfaction & customer loyalty

(Heskett et al., 2008)

The figure 1 above shows the loyalty (retention) of customers based on their satisfaction

It briefly divides the customers into three groups, subdivided into 3 different zones The

“terrorists” are those customers who are “extremely dissatisfied” up to “slightly dissatisfied” with the service of the company According to Heskett et al (2008) those customers are not only highly likely of defecting to a competitor but are also likely to spread negative word of mouth to others (see also Stauss& Seidel 2004) “Apostles” on the other hand are those customers who are truly satisfied with the company or the service offered resulting in true loyalty to the company Thus, it must be the effort of a service provider trying to achieve zero or a minimum number of customer defections This will lead to more profitability in the long run

Some studies recognize that understanding which factors increase tourist loyalty is valuable information for tourism marketers and managers (Flavian et al., 2001) Many destinations rely strongly on repeat visitation because it is less expensive to retain repeat tourists than to attract new ones (Um et al., 2006) In addition, Baker and Crompton (2000) show that the strong link between consumer loyalty and profitability is a reality in the tourism industry

4 Number of Visits

According to McKercher and Wong, (2004) and Lau and McKercher (2004), two types

of visitors visit a destination, first-time visitors and repeat visitors First-time visitors represent new visitors who are discovering a destination (Lau & McKercher, 2004), while repeat visitors are familiar with the destination and satisfied with the experiences offered

Oppermann (1999) and Li et al (2008) stated that it is extremely important to understand the differences between first time and repeated travelers, since they provide management with more specific direction This is because the tourism demand of repeat visitors is quite different from that of first-time visitors (Wang 2004) According to Reid and Reid

(1993, p.3) repeat customers represent more than just a stable source of revenues, but also act as „„information channels that informally link networks of friends, relatives and other potential travelers to a destination.‟‟

An implication is that travel managers (organizers) need to consider these differences and to propose different programs for these two potentially different market segments (Vogt et al 1998; Wang 2004) Specifically, information concerning tourists‟ status as first time or repeat visitors can be useful in market segmentation (Formica & Uysal 1998), signaling destination familiarity (Tideswell & Faulkner 1999), and determining a destination‟s position in its life cycle (Oppermann 1998: 136; Priestly & Mundet 1998) Gitelson and Crompton (1984) pioneered the research of first-time and repeat visitors and concluded that first-time and repeat visitors had different motivations, leading to different intended activity sets A number of researchers in the field of tourism followed and repeated the differences between first-time visitors and repeaters The most notable differences include socio-demographics, behavior characteristics, destination perceptions, satisfaction and image as well as travel motivations (see Fakeye & Cromton 1991; Lau

& McKercher 2004; McKercher & Wong 2004; Oppermann 1998; Petrick 2004a, 2004b; Shanka & Taylor 2004; Li et al 2008)

Gitelson and Crompton (1984) noted that numerous attractions and destination areas, such as beaches or resorts, are heavily reliant on repeat visitation Petrick (2004) found that loyal visitors were more likely to return in the future, and hence offer a lower risk and more profitable target market It has also been suggested that loyal visitors may provide free WOM publicity According to Shoemaker and Lewis (1999), loyal customers are more likely to positively discuss past service experiences than non-loyal customers, creating a potential for WOM publicity at no extra cost to the service provider Li, Cheng, Kim, and Petrick (2008) also reported that repeaters had a higher

level of satisfaction than first-timers, had a stronger intention to return, and were more likely to give positive WOM (word of mouth) Thus, many destinations have adopted a business strategy focused on encouraging tourists to become repeat visitors (Lehto, O‟Leary, & Morrison, 2004)

For instance, Petrick and Sirakaya‟s (2004) empirical study suggested that repeat visitors were more satisfied with their travel experiences and were more likely to return and spread positive WOM With repurchase and use/consumption of a product/service, consumers were able to more accurately evaluate the product/service and may discover new and unanticipated benefits and costs that may affect both satisfaction and loyalty

Boo, Busser, and Baloglu (2009) found that for tourists with previous visitation experience, destination brand value and tourists‟ image congruence with a destination were critical to developing tourist loyalty Petrick and Sirakaya (2004) found that attachment rather than satisfaction is a deciding factor for repeat tourists

Chi (2012) found that many attractions and tourist destinations rely heavily on the repeat visitor segment, it would be of prime interest for destination managers to gain more knowledge on the repeater segment: how repeat visitors develop loyalty differently from first-time visitors, how previous experience can affect visitors‟ image perception and future behavior, and how repeat and first-time visitors‟ perceptions of destination image and satisfaction may influence their loyalty

Oppermann (1997) confirmed the importance of visitors‟ past experience for a better detailed demand for level of awareness while Gitelson & Crompton (1984) recognized the vital role that repeat vacation plays They indicated that many attraction areas such as resorts must pay an intense attention to repeat visitation

5 Length of Stay

The concept of length of stay is vital to the careful examination of many travel/tourism issues (Butler 1974; Masberg 1998) The importance of length of stay when studying many aspects of travel has been clearly established in prior research (Uysal, Fesenmaier, and O‟Leary 1994)

The length of stay is usually defined as the amount of time travelers spend at a destination and is frequently measured in the number of days or nights tourists spend at the site (Pearce and Elliott 1983; Uysal, McDonald, and O‟Leary 1988)

While length of stay is often used to define the supply side of tourism (e.g., to help determine the number and types of visitors in order to develop the proper facilities; to ascertain how information centers affect the visitors‟ length of stay to specific states) (Getz 1986; Tierney 1993), it can be argued that the length of stay can be a useful measure in examining the demand side of tourism as well (e.g., visitor satisfaction) The duration of time (i.e., number of nights) a traveler spends on his or her vacation has been used as an indicator of tourism demand For instance, one study conducted at national parks used length of stay (the number of “ski-touring” days at the destination site) as a measure of demand by regressing variables such as direct cost of skiing, distance traveled, number of previous skiing trips, and a myriad of site characteristics on it (Uysal

et al 1988) Another study used length of stay to examine tourism demand at resort destinations (Crouch 1994), based on the rationale that the most basic product being purchased by tourists is a “night‟s stay” And in 1998, Uysal indicated again that the length of stay (tourist nights spent on vacation) is one of the most commonly-used methods of measuring tourism demand Therefore, length of stay is an appropriate measure for tourism demand

Janet (2004) indicated that the length of stay of travelers at the tourism destination has an effect on their levels of satisfaction with service professionals, with the perceived efficiency of the service systems, and with the perceived cost of services As Davies and Mangan (1992) argued, an increased length of stay may allow tourists to undertake a larger number of activities, which may affect their overall spending, sense of affiliation and satisfaction Moreover, Kozak and Rimmington (2000), Donggen (2004) postulated that repeat visitors may have a longer length of stay than first-time visitors because repeat visitors perceived destination attributes – including the overall value for money –

to be more satisfactory than did first-time visitors

6 Travel Motivations, Number of Visits, Length of Stay, Destination Satisfaction and Tourists Loyalty

There are a variety of conceptual and empirical researches have proved the influence of destination satisfaction on tourists loyalty, as well as the causal relationships among travel motivation, number of visits, destination satisfaction, and tourists loyalty Some of typical and recent studies and their findings are summarized and presented below, in order to consolidate the research hypotheses

First, Chi and Qu (2008) developed a systematic approach to understanding destination loyalty by examining the theoretical and empirical evidence on the causal relationships among destination image, tourist attribute and overall satisfaction, and destination loyalty Their results supported the proposed destination loyalty model, which suggested that destination image directly influenced attribute satisfaction; destination image and attribute satisfaction were both direct antecedents of overall satisfaction; and overall satisfaction and attribute satisfaction in turn had direct and positive impact on destination loyalty These findings are shown in the Figure below

Figure 2: Results of the hypothesized model ( Chi and Qu, 2008 )

* Values in parenthesis are t-statistics (t critical value at 0.05 level = 1.96)

An examination of how motivation and satisfaction affect loyalty was modeled by Yoon and Uysal (2005).In the study model, motivation is divided into push factors (internal forces) and pull factors (external forces) Both of them affect destination loyalty They recognized the role of satisfaction for better tourists‟ loyalty measurement regardless of their expectations From the study findings, the researchers concluded that internal motives such as relaxation, family togetherness, safety, and fun were significant in participants‟ responses These motives in addition to destination attributes represent external sources that create a positive relationship to the destination loyalty

Beside that, Fakeye and Crompton (1992) found that travel motivation of first-time visitors to select a destination is likely to be different from those that induce previous visitors to return This was also empirically verified by Gitelson and Crompton (1984) and Hughes and Morrison-Saunders (2002) Related to pull factors, first-timers are more likely to be seeking variety and new cultural experiences, while returning visitors are more likely to be seeking relaxation and spending time with, or visiting, family and friends (Gitelson & Crompton, 1984; Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2002) Fakeye and Crompton (1992) further revealed that first-time visitors are likely to be more curious to see the area than repeaters whose curiosity motive has been satiated by previous visits, while socialization is of major importance for repeaters In addition to pull factors, the push factors play a very important role in the destination loyalty Alegre and Juaneda (2006) revealed that while first-timers are motivated by external factors (including the price of the holiday), repeaters favor factors inherent in the destination (such as the quality of the surroundings or accommodation) or factors that are a consequence of their previous stay there (a reduction in nonmonetary costs such the time and effort needed to acquire and assess information on destinations and the cost of planning or a sense of emotional attachment and loyalty to the destination based on the activities and attractions offered)

Li, Cheng, Kim and Petrick (2008, p 279) also stated that „„relaxation and familiarity were identified as the most distinctive motivations for repeat tourists, while novelty and new cultural experiences were the most crucial motivations for first-timers‟‟ Moreover,

Li et al (2008, p 280) noted that „„in terms of intended activities, most findings indicate that repeat visitors prefer social activities, such as shopping, dining, and visiting friends and relatives, while first-time visitors enjoy visiting major-iconic attractions that may help satisfy novelty seeking motivations‟‟ Thus, owing to their accumulated travel

experiences and differing motivations, repeat visitors may be less influenced by congruity than first- time visitors in evaluating their destination loyalty

self-Moreover, significant satisfaction differences have been identified between “short-term” and “long-term” visitors, and first time and repeated visitors Short-term visitors are less satisfied with perceived service quality and perceived reasonableness of the cost of their travel destination than long-term visitors (Neal, 2003) Similarly, repeated visitors score higher in satisfaction than first-time visitors (Baloglu et al., 2003) Furthermore, overall satisfaction varies according to the length of stay, gender and decision horizon (Huh&Uysal, 2003)

Recently, Chi (2012) concluded that first-timers and repeat tourists were alike in terms

of the image perception and the satisfaction level with the destination, but repeat tourists indicated higher levels of loyalty toward the destination (inferred by higher revisit and referral intentions) than first-timers We can see the result in the Figure 3 below

Figure 3: Results of the hypothesized model ( Chi, 2012 )

The role of the length of a trip in tourists‟ satisfaction was also investigated For instance, Neal (2003) found significant differences between satisfaction levels of short-term visitors and long-term visitors Particularly, short-term visitors were less satisfied than long-term visitors Huh and Uysal (2003) also found that overall satisfaction varied according to the length of stay Aktas, Aksu, and Cizel (2003) carried out a study in the Antalya region and they showed that there were significant relationships between satisfaction and length of stay, the number of accompanying people and repeat visits to Antalya But in contrast, an interesting result of the study of Bahattin et al (2012) was that, there was no significant relationship between length of stay and satisfaction levels

of tourists It might be deduced that long- or short-length of stays had no effect in increasing or decreasing the satisfaction levels of tourists

Light (1996) reported a case study of the characteristics of visitors to a special event (in this case historical re-enactments) at a heritage site (Carephilly Castle) in South Wales

By comparing the characteristics of visitors on event and non-event days, it was apparent that the events had particular appeal to tourists and were successful in encouraging repeat visits In Light‟s study, most visitors were satisfied with the cultural/heritage destination This satisfaction leads tourists to expand the length of stay and visit it again Moreover, Cutáková et al (2011) found that overall satisfaction is positively related with the length of stay As the result, longer stay tends to make people more satisfied, as well

as higher number of previous visits to the destination

Other studies (Kozak, 2001; Wang, 2004; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; McKercher & Wong, 2004; Anwar & Sohail, 2004; Juaneda, 1996; Petrick & Backman, 2002; Sonmez

& Graefe, 1998; Mohr, Backman, Gahan & Backman, 1993; Gyte & Phelps 1989; Petrick, Morais & Norman 2001) also supported for the causal relationships among

travel motivation, number of visits, length of stay, destination satisfaction, and tourists loyalty Hence, these research hypotheses are reliable and dependable to study and attempt to extend the theoretical as well as empirical evidence of these causal relationships

7 Conceptual Framework

After reviewing and consulting some related theories and researches, this study applies the hypothesized models of Yoon & Uysal (2005), Chi & Qu (2008), Chi (2012), Kozak (2001), Neal (2003), Huh and Uysal (2003), Aktas, Aksu, and Cizel (2003), Wang (2004), McKercher & Wong (2004) Therefore, the study develops the research conceptual framework as shown in Figure below

Figure 4: Research Conceptual Framework

Pull Fator

Number of Visits

Length of Stay

8 Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1.1: Push factor positively affect tourists destination satisfaction

Hypothesis 1.2: Pull factor positively affect tourists destination satisfaction

Hypothesis 1.3: Number of visits positively affects tourists destination satisfaction

Hypothesis 1.4: Length of stay positively affects tourists destination satisfaction

Hypothesis 2.1: Push factor positively affect tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 2.2: Pull factor positively affect tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 2.3: Number of visits positively affects tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 2.4: Length of stay positively affects tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 3: Tourists destination satisfaction positively affects tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 4.1: Push factor indirectly affect tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 4.2: Pull factor indirectly affect tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 4.3: Number of visits indirectly affects tourists loyalty

Hypothesis 4.4: Length of stay indirectly affects tourists loyalty

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

1 Research Process

The research process is designed as the Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: The Research Process

Identifying the problem

Data Collection Design

Sampling Design

Identifying the problem

Sampling Design

Identifying the problem

Research Objectives

Related theories and studies

Research Design Data Collection

Design

Sampling Design