a study on tourist satisfaction and willingness to revisit ... - june 2019/ijer... · a study on...

A STUDY ON TOURIST SATISFACTION AND WILLINGNESS TO REVISIT

IN SIGHTSEEING AND RECREATION AREAS

Kuang-Tai Liu 1, Hung-Teng Chang

2 and Chiu-Chi Wei

1*

1 Department of Industrial Management, Chung Hua University

707, Sec. 2, WuFu Rd., Hsinchu 300, Taiwan

E-mail: [email protected]

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] 2

Ph.D. Program of Technology Management, Chung Hua University

707, Sec. 2, WuFu Rd., Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.

Department of Management Information System, Yu Da University and Technology

No. 168, Hsueh-fu Rd., Tanwen Village, Chaochiao Township, Miaoli County, 361 Taiwan

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract With the increase of national income and improvement of quality of life in Taiwan, people have

paid more and more attention to sightseeing and leisure activities in Taiwan. As the government

issued the stipulation of two-day weekend, Taiwanese people spend more and more time on

sightseeing and leisure activities and are increasingly willing to engage in sightseeing activities.

Therefore, leisure vacation has become an indispensable part of people's daily life. The purpose of

this study is to explore the impact of tourists’ demographic variations on tourist satisfaction and

willingness to revisit, the impact of the characteristics of tourism on tourist satisfaction and

willingness to revisit as well as the impact of tourist satisfaction on the willingness to revisit. This

study conducts a questionnaire survey and uses SPSS statistical software as statistical analysis tools.

Data analysis methods include narrative statistical analysis, factor analysis, t-test, single-factor

variability analysis and correlation analysis. The results show that: there are significant differences

between tourists’ satisfaction and willingness to revisit, for example, the visiting purposes would

significantly affect tourist satisfaction on the landscape environment, scenic spot guidance,

recreational facilities; tourists are more satisfied with the natural landscape of the landscape

environment; there is a positive correlation between tourist satisfaction and their willingness to

revisit. The results of this study can serve as a reference for the management of ecotourism.

Keywords: sightseeing and recreation areas, customer satisfaction, willingness to revisit

1. Introduction

According to the statistics by the Tourism Bureau of MOTC (Ministry of Transportation and

Communications) in 2018 about the major sightseeing and recreation areas in Taiwan and Fujian

(national parks, forest tourism areas, leisure farming and fishery areas, leisure farms, wetlands,

aboriginal areas, experimental forest areas, national scenic spots as well as the historical sites and

historical buildings in municipalities and counties), the number of tourists almost tripled from

97,990,000 in 2009 to 281,518,000 in 2018. The increasing trend shows that sightseeing and leisure

tourism has become part of Taiwanese people's life. With the improvement of the quality of

Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158

IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com

16

mailto:[email protected]

sightseeing and recreational facilities and the holding of local festivals, the national tourism market

is more warming up (Tourism Bureau, MOTC, 2018).

However, the development of tourism has also caused many negative impacts such as

challenges faced by land and water resources, animals and plants, environment and cultures. Under

this situation emerges ecotourism, which is considered to be a tourism activity that can take into

account both natural conservation and recreation development. During the ongoing of sightseeing, it

can also protect fragile natural resources from damages. Ecological sightseeing and recreational

landscape is one of the few areas that combine the aesthetic feeling of landscape with the ecological

function. It not only provides modern people with the function of rest and recreation so that they can

have the space to exercise, walk and refresh their body and mind, but also provides people with a

clean and healthy living environment. For the living creatures in the environment, it can also provide

diversified living space and habitats, which is an important basis to maintain the ecological stability

of the environment. While traveling to ecological tourist spots, visitors not only recognize the rich

ecological resources there, but can also have a deep understanding of the special natural and human

characteristics of the local areas, which may make them develop an attitude of environmental

responsibility, and finally return economic benefits to the local area, thereby making conservation

work sustainable.

In face of the rapid development of tourism market, understanding the tourists' participation and

satisfaction with the activities will help to segment the market and increase competitiveness.

Therefore, this study will explore the relationship between tourists' satisfaction after participation in

recreation and their willingness to revisit, and provide reference for relevant management units based

on the study results.

2. Literature Review

The purpose of this study is to explore the sightseeing ecotourism in recreational areas, which

uses the ambient forest forms and the natural landscape and tranquil environment formed by such

forms, together with human and historical resources, to provide places for tourism, recreation,

comfort, sports, observation and research activities. It defines the use of resources as natural,

ecological, with environmental ethics and environmental awareness in order to achieve the goal of

coexistence of society, economy and environment (Lin et al., 2016). According to Gee et al. (1997),

there are five important connotations of tourism development:

(1) Creation of attraction: It refers to the development and utilization of local special tourist

resources to create scenic spots that can attract tourists to go there for sightseeing. Generally

speaking, tourist resources can be divided into natural resources and humanistic resources;

development of tourist attractions may not necessarily be an exploitation behavior but may also be a

combination of local characteristics or natural resources; development of natural resources such as

ecological parks and scenic spots are based on the premise of ecological conservation. These scenic

spots are not profit-making, but require quality, low-level development and educational function.



17

(2) The emphasis is on “accessibility”, not transportation itself. As far as facilities are concerned,

the provision of transportation includes hardware and software construction. The combination of

attractiveness in transportation, such as road signs at intersections or turning points, the use of

landmarks and landscape design and the enhancement of different visual images, can help tourists

know the environment where they are located, help them find scenic spots and therefore turn their

tourism plans to actual behaviors.

(3) Service and equipment: Sightseeing service system is the integration of various service

aspects. Whether it is environmental services, accommodation facilities and hospitality services,

commercial services for tourists, the provision of infrastructures, or itinerary arrangements, booking

and other services, they all interact with each other. Among them, the so-called environmental

services refer to the exterior design of buildings and landscapes, as well as the perfection of

environment or cleaning and maintenance. The business services provided for tourists’ overlap with

the daily use of local residents, such as restaurants, public facilities and so on. In the travel industry,

it acts as a bridge between the demand of tourists and the supply of tourism, including

accommodation, transportation, attraction promotion and reservation operations, and the use of

computer technology for implementation and communication to achieve the connection between

supply and demand.

(4) Information provision: The provision of tourism information is a kind of tourism service, but

also tourism marketing. On the other hand, the provision of tourism information is also a kind of

tourism service work after tourists enter the tourism development area. For example, the tourism

information center provides various kinds of assisting services including transportation, scenic spots,

activities and accommodation information for tourists, or on-site guide and commentary in the

tourism area.

(5) Marketing and promotion: The concept of marketing is different from that of promotion.

Marketing mainly achieves the increase of product demand through the enhancement of product

image and market segregation. At the beginning of planning a tourist destination, tourism marketing

must be carried out at the same time. Tourism promotion is to attract tourists through substantive

discounts and package itinerary arrangement. Therefore, provision of tourism marketing and

promotion information can more effectively attract tourists. Generally speaking, there are two ways

for tourists to understand the sightseeing area: one is the original way, which belongs to their

expectations and perceptions of the scenic spots, and its information sources are TV news, radio,

documentaries, newspapers, periodicals, drama, literature, and experience shared by friends etc. The

other is the inducing way, which refers to the impression induced by deliberate arrangement of the

sightseeing provider (Gee et al., 1997).

Tourism industry is a cluster industry that contains many related industries, and it is also an

important strategy for local economic development. While developing tourism industry, local

governments must have proper control. Huang et al. (2015) pointed out that recreational experience

could be divided into pre-expectation and post-recreational experience, while the overall feeling of



18

tourists after recreation is called "satisfaction". Ramseook et al. (2015) considered that the

satisfaction of tourists' recreational attributes is the degree of feeling about the psychological

experience, environmental landscape, recreational activities and travel arrangement during the trip.

Backer and Crompton (2000) believed that satisfaction is the psychological and emotional state of

the individual after experience; recreational satisfaction is the overall evaluation of the recreational

journey by tourists. Chan et al. (2015) pointed out that recreational satisfaction is the result of the

comparison between personal pre-expectation and the actual experience. Kozak (2001) believed that

"revisit" meant that tourists are satisfied with their recreational destination and willing to travel there

again. Therefore, the tourists’ previous travel experiences, the convenience of the transportation to

the destination, the satisfaction on the recreational products and services are all factors that will

affect tourists’ willingness to revisit. Pansari and Kumar (2017) pointed out that customer

satisfaction is an important attribute of consumer behavior research, and that the level of customer

satisfaction affects customers' willingness to repurchase in the future, as well as other purchase

behavior including brand loyalty and the positive reputation of the brand. Tsaur et al. (2015) studied

the relationship between leisure motives and leisure cognition, and found that there are multiple

factors affecting the tourists’ willingness to revisit, including the leisure characteristics of the tourists,

the influences of the leisure groups, and market structure.

Baker and Fulford (2016) studied the willingness to revisit the recreation area or the willingness

to repurchase tourism products and found out that when tourists choose to visit the recreation area, if

the recreation opportunities, environmental facilities, activities and services provided by the

recreation area meet the requirements of tourists, the tourists will be willing to visit there again. The

derivative behavior of willingness to revisit may include customer referral, public recommendation

and word of mouth etc.

This study holds that tourists’ willingness to revisit refers to the tourists’ emotional response

(i.e., customer satisfaction) after the tours, which will quickly change into the overall attitude of the

customers toward such tour. When the tourists are satisfied with the recreation, they may have the

willingness to revisit and recommend the recreation area again and make the area get the favor of

other tourists through word-of-mouth propaganda. The above studies show that tourists’ satisfaction

on the tourist destination will affect their willingness to revisit, while the willingness is based on the

tourist destination’ ability to keep tourists satisfied.

3. Research Method

This study adopted the “Naturalistic Observation” method to have a preliminary understanding

of the research subjects, and then referred to relevant literatures and researches to design a

questionnaire in line with the research framework. Then, "Questionnaire Survey" method was used to

conduct a questionnaire and statistical quantitative analysis of tourists to recreation area A.

The content of the questionnaire is designed and revised mainly with reference to literature

theories and consulting several scholars’ opinions for the items and grammar of the questionnaire.



19

The scale of the questionnaire is Likert’s five-point scale. The structure of the questionnaire in this

study is as follows:

(1) Demographic variation: it refers to the basic information of individual tourists, such as

gender, age and residential place etc.

(2) Tourist characteristics: It refers to the basic information of tourists after their experience of

recreational activities, including number of previous visits, companions, means of transport, purpose

and duration of stay, etc.

(3) Satisfaction: It refers to the degree of satisfaction of tourists with the activities they have

participated, including landscape environment, guideline of scenic spots, recreational facilities, etc.

(4) Willingness to revisit: It refers to the situation of willingness to revisit and recommendation

after the tourists are satisfied, including overall satisfaction, recommendation to relatives and friends,

revisit etc. Figure 1 shows the research framework.

Figure 1. Research Framework

After the preliminary design of the questionnaire was completed, 50 respondents were acquired

to fill in the questionnaire to understand the difficulties that formal respondents may encounter when

filling in the questionnaire. Then they completed the formal questionnaire after reliability and

validity analysis. In order to achieve consistency and stability of the content of the questionnaire, the

most common statistical Cronbach's α value was used to verify the reliability of each facet of the

factors and the overall reliability of the questionnaire. The greater the Cronbach’s α value, the greater

the internal consistency of the scale. If the Cronbach’s α value is between 0.7 and 0.9, its reference

Tourists’ characteristics

Demographic variation

1. Gender

2. Age

3. Residential place

Tourist characteristics

1. Number of previous visits

2. Companions

3. Means of transport

4. Purpose

5. Duration of stay

Satisfaction

1. Landscape environment

2. Guideline of scenic spots

3. Recreational facilities

Willingness to revisit



20

standard is " Good "; if the Cronbach’s α value is between 0.5 and 0.7, it references standard is "

Acceptable ". Therefore, the reliability value of the questionnaire should exceed 0.5 at least to

represent that the questionnaire is reliable (as shown in Table 1):

Table 1 Questionnaire Reliability Coefficient

Reliability coefficient Internal consistency

Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.30 Unacceptable

0.30 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.40 Poor

0.40 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.50 Questionable

0.50 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.70 Acceptable

0.70 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.90 Good

0.90 ≦ Cronbach’s α Excellent

4. Results Analysis and Discussion

In this study, a total of 800 close-ended questionnaires were distributed to tourists, which were

mainly investigated by researchers on the spot. 784 valid questionnaires were collected, with an

effective questionnaire recovery rate of 98%. The tourist characteristics were analyzed from

demographic variables and tourism characteristics, which are described in detail as follows:

4.1 Descriptive statistics of population and tourism characteristics

The demographic variables of tourists in recreation area A include gender, age and residential

places, as shown in Table 2, which are described as follows:

(1) Gender: The statistical results of this study show that female tourists account for 52.7% and male

tourists account for 47.3%, indicating that the majority of tourists in recreation area A are

female.

(2) Age: The statistical results of this study show that the age distribution is mainly 16-25 years old,

accounting for 29.8%, followed by 26-35 years old (20.3%), 36-45 years old (17.7%), 56-65

years old (11.4%), 66 years old and above (4.5%), below 15 years old (1.7%) and missing

value (0.1%), indicating that the majority of visitors to recreation area A are young people aged

16-25.

(3) Residential regions: The statistical results of this study show that the majority of tourists live in

the Central regions, accounting for 53.8%, 34.7% in the North, 10.5% in the South, 0.6% in the

East, 0.3% in foreign countries and 0.1% in the outlying islands, indicating that the majority of

visitors are from Central regions.



21

Table 2 Narrative Statistics of Demographic Variables

Variable Classification criteria Number of visitor Percentage %

Gender

male

female

371

413

47.3%

52.7%

Total 784 100%

Age

Under 15

16-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66 and older

Missing value

13

234

159

139

114

89

35

1

1.7%

29.8%

20.3%

17.7%

14.5%

11.4%

4.5%

0.1%

Total 784 100%

Residential regions

North

Central

South

East

Outlying islands

Foreign countries

272

422

82

5

1

2

34.7%

53.8%

10.5%

0.6%

0.1%

0.3%

Total 784 100.0%

The analysis of tourist characteristics of recreation area A includes five items (as shown in

Table 3): number of visits, travel companions, transportation, duration of stay and purpose of visit,

which are described as follows:

(1) Number of visits: The results of this study show that the majority number of visits to recreation

area A is more than one time, accounting for 41.8%, followed by more than three times,

accounting for 31.3%, while visiting for twice is less, accounting for 26.9%.

(2) Travel companions: The results of this study show that the companions of the respondents are

mainly family members (41%), followed by friends (30.3%), colleagues/classmates (13.1%)

and those who travel here alone (9.6%), tour groups (5.4%) and missing values (0.6%)

(3) Transportation: The results of this study show that the majority of the respondents adopt their

personal-use vehicles for transportation (60.6%), followed by locomotives (19.4%), tour bus

(8.2%), bicycles (4.9%), passenger vehicles (2.5%), hiking (2.2%), taxi (1.3%), trains (0.8%)

and missing values (0.1%). It indicates that personal-use vehicles are still the more common

transportation tools used by tourists



22

(4) Duration of stay: The results of this study show that the majority of the time spent in this area is

from half an hour to 4 hours, accounting for 73.9%, followed by 11.3% within half an hour,

8.4% between 4 hours and 8 hours, and 6.4% over 8 hours. It indicates that the main time spent

by tourists in recreation area A is from half an hour to 4 hours.

(5) Purpose of visit: The statistical results of this study show that most of the respondents come here

for the purpose of getting close to nature, accounting for 32.9%, followed by relieving body and

mind (29.3%), reunion with relatives and friends (21.6%), exercise and fitness (8.1%), others

(photography, fishing) (4.9%), academic research (2.3%) and missing value (0.9%). It indicates

that tourists come to recreation area A mainly for the purpose of getting close to nature and

relieving body and mind.

Table 3 Narrative Statistics of Tourism Characteristics

Tourism characteristics

Number

of

visitor

Percentage %

Number of visits

once 328 41.8%

twice 211 26.9%

three times and above 245 31.3%

Travel

companions

family members 321 41%

friends 237 30.3%

colleagues/classmates 102 13.1%

tour groups 43 5.4%

alone 76 9.6%

missing value 5 0.6%

Transportation

bicycles 38 4.9%

locomotives 152 19.4%

personal-use vehicles 475 60.6%

passenger vehicles 19 2.5%

trains 7 0.8%

taxi 10 1.3%

tour bus 64 8.2%

hiking 18 2.2%


Duration of stay

within half an hour 89 11.3%

half an hour to 4 hours 579 73.9%

between 4 hours and 8 hours 66 8.4%

over 8 hours 50 6.4%



23

Purpose of visit

close to nature 258 32.9%

reunion with relatives and friends 169 21.6%

relieving body and mind 229 29.3%

exercise and fitness 64 8.1%

academic research 18 2.3%

others (photography, fishing) 39 4.9%


4.2 Narrative statistics of satisfaction and willingness to revisit

In this section, narrative statistics are made about tourist satisfaction and willingness to revisit

4.2.1 Narrative Statistics of Satisfaction

As shown in Table 4, in the "landscape environment" aspect, the ranking of customer

satisfaction from high to low is as follows: natural landscape (3.8321), ecological resources (3.6498),

historical sites (3.5181), and clean environment (3.3372). In the "scenic spot guidance" aspect, the

ranking of customer satisfaction from high to low is as follows: scenic spot 4 (3.4580), scenic spot 3

(3.4284), scenic spot 2 (3.4269) and scenic spot 1 (3. 4096). In the "recreational facilities" aspect, the

ranking of customer satisfaction from high to low is as follows: parking lot space design (3.4130),

sightseeing facilities (such as walkway, cultural square) (3.3575), pavilion seat design in rest area

(3.2344), safety facilities (3.2287), public toilet safety (3.1968), catering facilities (such as coffee

shop) (3.1870) and night lighting equipment (3.1374).

Table 4. Narrative Statistics of Satisfaction

Factor aspect NO. Content Average

value

Standard

deviation

Landscape

environment

〈Avg. 3.5843〉

1 ecological resources 3.6498 0.68445

2 natural landscape 3.8321 0.71071

3 historical sites 3.5181 0.69837

4 clean environment 3.3372 0.75223

Scenic spot

guidance

〈Avg. 3.4307〉

5 scenic spot 1 3.4096 0.74513

6 scenic spot 2 3.4269 0.74509

7 scenic spot 3 3.4284 0.70732

8 scenic spot 4 3.4580 0.76316

Recreational

facilities

〈Avg. 3.2507〉

9 pavilion seat design in rest area 3.2344 0.67676

10 public toilet safety 3.1968 0.71143

11 parking lot space design 3.4130 0.68921

12 catering facilities 3.1870 0.75705

13 sightseeing facilities 3.3575 0.74280

14 safety facilities 3.2287 0.70183

15 night lighting equipment 3.1374 0.71696



24

The reliability analysis in Table 5 shows that test results of tourist satisfaction with landscape

environment (α= 0.818), satisfaction with scenic spot guidance (α= 0.881) and satisfaction with

recreational facilities (α= 0.883) are reliable. As to the reliability of various aspects of landscape

environment, besides environmental cleanliness, removal of any other aspect will reduce the overall

reliability, which means that all aspects are indispensable; as to the reliability of aspects of scenic

spot guidance and recreational facilities, the removal of other aspects will reduce the overall

reliability, which means that all aspects are indispensable.

Table 5 Reliability Analysis of Satisfaction

Factor

aspect NO. Content

Cronbach’s

α

Cronbach’s

α of content

Landscape

environment

1

2

3

4

ecological resources

natural landscape

historical sites

clean environment

0.818

0.728

0.737

0.775

0.837

Scenic spot

guidance

5

6

7

8

scenic spot 1

scenic spot 2

scenic spot 3

scenic spot 4

0.881

0.880

0.822

0.846

0.836

Recreational

facilities

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

pavilion seat design in rest area

public toilet safety

parking lot space design

catering facilities

sightseeing facilities

safety facilities

night lighting equipment

0.883

0.867

0.870

0.874

0.872

0.861

0.856

0.864

4.2.2 Narrative statistics of willingness to revisit

The analysis of willingness to revisit analysis in Table 6 shows that the mean value of "are you

willing to recommend relatives and friends to visit recreation area A" is 3.7106, and the mean value

of "are you willing to travel to recreation area A again" is 3.6787. The questions of willingness to

revisit are all higher than the median value of 3, which shows that majority of the visitors under

survey have high willingness to revisit.



25

Table 6 Narrative Analysis of Willingness to Revisit

NO. Content Average

value

Standard

deviation

1 Are you willing to recommend relatives and friends

to visit recreation area A? 3.7106 0.67040

2 Are you willing to travel to recreation area A again? 3.6787 0.68173

4.3 Difference Analysis of Satisfaction

In this section, independent sample t-test and One-Way ANOVA are used to explore the

significance in satisfaction of different tourists and tourism characteristics.

4.3.1 Analysis of satisfaction difference from tourist characteristics

The analysis of Table 7 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the satisfaction

of tourists of different genders on the “landscape environment”, “scenic spot guideline” and

“recreational facilities” of recreation area A.

Table 7 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Gender

Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05

The analysis of Table 8 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the satisfaction

of tourists of different ages on the “landscape environment”, “scenic spot guideline” and

“recreational facilities” of recreation area A.

Satisfaction Gender n Average

value F P

Landscape

environment

male 318 3.57233 0.08746 0.7675

female 354 3.58545

Scenic spot

guidance

male 318 3.421384 0.003834 0.9506

female 354 3.424435

Recreational

facilities

male 318 3.26505 0.909 0.3407

female 354 3.22478



26

Table 8 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Age

Satisfaction Age n Average

value F P

Landscape

environment

1. Under 15 12 3.47917

4.549 0.0001559*

2.16-25 206 3.41045

3.26-35 140 3.64074

4.36-45 122 3.63866

5.46-55 100 3.66582

6.56-65 79 3.69231

7.66 and older 31 3.66380

Scenic spot

guidance

1. Under 15 12 3.7500

1.303 0.2533

2.16-25 206 3.4303

3.26-35 140 3.4389

4.36-45 122 3.3887

5.46-55 100 3.4847

6.56-65 79 3.3750

7.66 and older 31 3.2241

Recreational

facilities

1. Under 15 12 3.4405

0.6161 0.7176

2.16-25 206 3.2012

3.26-35 140 3.2371

4.36-45 122 3.2737

5.46-55 100 3.2391

6.56-65 79 3.2876

7.66 and older 31 3.2660


The analysis of Table 9 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the satisfaction of

tourists from different residential places on the “landscape environment” and “scenic spot guideline”,

but no significant statistical difference in the satisfaction on “recreational facilities” of recreation

area A.



27

Table 9 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Residential Places

Satisfaction Age n Average

value F P

Landscape

environment

1. North 240 3.66775

7.731 4.42e-07*

2. Central 372 3.51589

3. South 72 3.60764

4. East 4 4.3125

5.Outlying islands 1 1

6. Foreign countries 2 3.625

Scenic spot

guidance

1. North 240 3.41991

3.199 0.007311*

2. Central 372 3.46132

3. South 72 3.22569

4. East 4 3.875

5.Outlying islands 1 2


Recreational

facilities

1. North 240 3.24057

1.08 0.3702

2. Central 372 3.25336

3. South 72 3.17262

4. East 4 3.78572

5.Outlying islands 1 3.42857



4.3.2 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Tourism Characteristics

The analysis of Table 10 shows that different times of visits will cause significant statistical

difference in the satisfaction on the “scenic spot guideline” in recreation area A, but not on

“landscape environment” and “recreational facilities”.



28

Table 10 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Times of Visits

Satisfaction Time to visit n Average

value F P

Landscape

environment

1、once 283 3.54273

1.37 0.2548 2、twice 126 3.57486

3、three times and above 226 3.62841

Scenic spot

guidance

1、once 283 3.30818

8.754 0.0001766* 2、twice 126 3.45198


Recreational

facilities

1、once 283 3.19117

2.273 0.1038 2、twice 126 3.26634



The analysis of Table 11 shows that different companions of tourists will cause significant

statistical difference in the satisfaction on the “landscape environment” in recreation area A, but not

on “scenic spot guideline” and “recreational facilities”.

Table 11 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Travel Companions

Satisfaction Travel companions

companions

n Average value F P

Landscape

environment

family members 278 3.554856

2.992 0.01827*

friends 203 3.536946

colleagues/classmates 88 3.545454

tour groups 38 3.750000

alone 65 3.761538

Scenic spot

guidance


1.39 0.2358

friends 203 3.36453



alone 65 3.51154

Recreational

facilities


1.612 0.1695

friends 203 3.20478



alone 65 3.31209




29

The analysis of Table 12 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the satisfaction

of tourists taking different means of transportation on the “landscape environment” and “scenic spot

guideline” in recreation area A, but not on its “recreational facilities”.

Table 12 Analysis of Satisfaction difference from Mans of Transportation

Satisfaction Transportation n Average

value F P

Landscape

environment

bicycles 33 3.789063

3.436 0.001277*

locomotives 134 3.58721

personal-use vehicles 419 3.564951

passenger vehicles 17 3.705883

trains 6 3.791667

taxi 8 3.84375

tour bus 56 3.607143

hiking 16 3.015626

Scenic spot

guidance

bicycles 33 3.72656

3.597 0.0008223*




trains 6 3.70833

taxi 8 3.4375

tour bus 56 3.1875

hiking 16 3.04687

Recreational

facilities

bicycles 33 3.33482

1.983 0.055




trains 6 3.57143

taxi 8 3.625

tour bus 56 3.22449

hiking 16 3.02678


The analysis of Table 13 shows that tourists’ length of stay in recreation area A will lead to

significant statistical difference in their satisfaction on the “landscape environment” of recreation

area A, but not on its “scenic spot guideline” and “recreational facilities”.



30

Table 13 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Length of Stay

Satisfaction Duration of stay n Average

value F P

Landscape

environment

within half an hour 74 3.47297

3.495 0.01537* half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.57143

between 4 hours and 8 hours 58 3.78879

over 8 hours 43 3.56976

Scenic spot

guidance


1.818 0.1426 half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.409457


over 8 hours 43 3.389535

Recreational

facilities


1.537 0.2036 half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.24289


over 8 hours 43 3.19602


The analysis of Table 14 shows that tourists’ different purposes of visiting recreation area A

will lead to significant statistical difference in their satisfaction on the “landscape environment”,

“scenic spot guideline” and “recreational facilities”.

Table 14 Analysis of Satisfaction difference from Visiting Purposes

Satisfaction Purpose of visit n Average value F P

Landscape

environment

close to nature 224 3.54018

3.132 0.008388*

reunion with relatives and friends 143 3.57518

relieving body and mind 198 3.58081

exercise and fitness 57 3.83333

academic research 16 3.60938

others (photography, fishing) 34 3.40441

Scenic spot

guidance


4.401 0.0005981*








31

Recreational

facilities


7.333 1.055e-06*







4.4 Difference analysis of willingness to revisit

In this section, independent sample t-test and One-Way ANOVA are used to explore whether

there is difference in satisfaction of different tourists. The analysis of Table 15 shows that there is no

significant statistical difference in the willingness to revisit of tourists of different genders.

Table 15 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Gender

Factors Gender n Average value F P

Willingness to revisit male 318 3.688679

0.005395 0.9415 female 354 3.685028


The analysis of Table 16 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the willingness

to revisit of tourists at different ages.

Table 16 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Age

Factors Age n Average value F P


1. Under 15 12 3.91667

5.387 1.899e-05*

2.16-25 206 3.50249

3.26-35 140 3.74445

4.36-45 122 3.66807

5.46-55 100 3.88266

6.56-65 79 3.74359

7.66 and older 31 3.86207


The analysis of Table 17 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the

willingness to revisit recreation area A of tourists from different residential places.



32

Table 17 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Residential Places

Factors Residential

regions n Average value F P


1. North 240 3.73593

0.7677 0.5733

2. Central 372 3.65331

3. South 72 3.69444

4. East 4 3.87500

5.Outlying islands 1 3.00000




to revisit recreation area A of tourists who have visited here for different times before.

Table 18 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Times of Visit

Factors Time to visit n Average

value F P


1、once 283 3.56727

10.48 3.304e-05* 2、twice 126 3.69491




willingness to revisit recreation area A of tourists with different companions.

Table 19 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Traveling Companions

Factors Travel companions n Average value F P



2.358 0.05228

friends 203 3.61822



alone 65 3.87692




33


willingness to revisit recreation area A of tourists taking different means of transportation.

Table 20 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Means of Transportation

Factors Transportation n Average

value F P


bicycles 33 3.96875

1.977 0.05583


personal-use

vehicles 419 3.66422


trains 6 4.16667

taxi 8 3.9375

tour bus 56 3.69643

hiking 16 3.4375



to revisit recreation area A of tourists staying for different length of time.

Table 21 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Length of Stay

Factors Duration of stay n Average

value F P



7.604 5.267e-05* half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.69819


over 8 hours 43 3.81395



to revisit recreation area A of tourists with different traveling purposes.

Table 22 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Traveling Purposes

Factors Purpose of visit n Average

value F P



3.35 0.005365*









34

4.5 Correlation analysis between satisfaction and willingness to revisit

This section explores the correlation between satisfaction and willingness to revisit. Pearson

Correlation is applied to statistical analysis. The correlation between satisfaction and willingness to

revisit is high between 0.70 and 0.99, moderate between 0.40 and 0.69, and low between 0.10 and

0.39 (Chiu, 2002). The results show that there is a positive correlation between satisfaction and

willingness to revisit. The correlation between "landscape environment" and "willingness to revisit"

is 0.4893955; the correlation between "scenic spot guidance" and "willingness to revisit"

is0.4643456; the correlation between "recreational facilities" and "willingness to revisit" is

0.4406076. The satisfaction of all three items, namely "landscape environment", "scenic spot

guidance" and "recreational facilities", all have a moderate correlation with "willingness to revisit"

(as shown in Table 23).

Table 23 Correlation Analysis between Satisfaction and Willingness to Revisit


Satisfaction F P Pearson’s correlation coefficient

Landscape environment 211 < 2.2e-16* 0.4893955

Scenic spot guidance 184.2 < 2.2e-16* 0.4643456

Recreational facilities 161.4 < 2.2e-16* 0.4406076


5. Conclusion

This study found that there is a positive relationship between tourist satisfaction and willingness

to revisit. When customers’ satisfaction is high, their willingness to revisit is also high. This

conclusion is in consistent with the findings of Shahijan, Rezaei and Amin (2018). Tourists'

satisfaction with recreational facilities in recreation area A is not very high. This may be because the

surrounding environment is mainly aimed to maintain nature and thus it is not appropriate to develop

attractive and exciting recreational facilities.

Recreation area A charges for admission to the park, but tourists can use tickets to pay for their

consumption. However, due to the insufficient propaganda information, not all tourists know this

information. In this situation, some tourists are reluctant to pay for tickets and feel disappointed, so

they transfer to other scenic spots. This study suggests that it can set up tourist service centers,



35

strengthen the training of professional commentators and provide commentaries folders and tourism

information about transportation, surrounding attractions, activity information etc. to ensure

information transparency and provide better services. As many photographers like to go to recreation

area A for photography, fishing enthusiasts go there for fishing and a variety of bird species make it

their habitats, it is suggested that it should build ecological pools, make good maintenance of the

wetlands, making it the best place not only for sports, fitness and leisure, but also for ecological

academic research. Tourists are satisfied with the landscape environment of recreation area A. It is

suggested to make good use of the characteristics of recreation area A as a tourist destination (natural

landscape and ecological resources) to develop activities in different seasons in order to increase

tourist satisfaction and willingness to revisit. According to the survey and analysis, due to the remote

location of recreation area A, the proportion of tourists driving their own cars is quite high. So it is

suggested to integrate the local public transportation means to attract more tourists; In addition, it is

suggested that large parking lots be added to transport the influx of tourists during holidays or events.

As most of the tourists in this study come from neighboring areas, it is suggested that it can

cooperate with local communities or industries. Besides marketing local characteristics, it can also

enhance the advertising effect of recreation area A and attract tourists from other areas.

References

1. Tourism Bureau, MOTC, Executive Yuan, Tourism Business Statistics, Search date: 20181220

2. Lin, C.C., Wu, H.H., Lin, S.C., Hsieh, H.S., “A Preliminary Study on the Relationship between

Tourists' Leisure Experience and Environmental Attitudes”, National Pingtung University

Department of Physical Education, (2), 2016, p34~42.

3. Gee, C.Y., Hakens, J.C., Choy, D.J.L., The Travel Industry, 3/e, Guilu Publishing, 1997.

4. Cardozo, R.N. (1965). An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Expectation and Satisfaction,

Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 491-504.

5. Howard, J. A. and Sheth J. N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John Willey and

Sons.

6. Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfactions Processes in Retail Setting,

Journal of Consumer Research, 25-48.

7. Harris, C.C.（1982）. Recreation satisfaction：Visitor evaluation of forest experience as a decision

making process. In Forest and Rover Recreation：Research Update. St. Paul：North Central Forest

and Experiment Station：USDA Forest Service.



36

8. Driver, B. (1997). The defining moment of benefits . Parks & Recreation , 32 (12), 38-41.

9. Huang,S., Weiler, B. and Assaker, G. (2015). Effects of Interpretive Guiding Outcomes on Tourist

Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 54(3), P.344–358.

10. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V.N.and Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural

relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of

Mauritius, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 175, P.252–259.

11. Backer, D. A. and Crompton, J. L. (2000), Quality, Satisfaction and Behaviour Intentions, Annals

of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.

12. Chan, A., Hsu, C. H. C. and Baum, T. (2015). The impact of tour service performance on tourist

satisfaction and behavioral intentions ：a study of Chinese tourists in Hong Kong, Journal of

Travel and Tourism Marketing, 32(1-2). P.18-33.

13. Kozak, M. (2001). Repeater’s behavior at two distinct destinations, Annals of Tourism Research,

28(3), P.784-807.

14. Pansari, A.and Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and

consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.45(3),P.294–311.

15. Tsaur, S.H., Lin, W.R., and Cheng, T.M. (2015). Toward a Structural Model of Challenge

Experience in Adventure Recreation, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 47(3), P.322–336.

16. Baker, D. M. A., Fulford, M. (2016). Cruise passengers’ perceived value and willingness to

recommend, Tourism & Management Studies, Vol.12(1), P.74-85.

17. Chen, C. M., Lee, H. T., Chen, S. H. and Huang, T. H. (2011). Tourist Behavioural Intentions in

Relation to Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Kinmen National Park, Taiwan.,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Vol.13, P.416–432.

18. Milad Kalantari Shahijan, Sajad Rezaei, Muslim Amin (2018), Cruisers’ experience, service

convenience, values, satisfaction and revisit intention, International Journal of Quality

&Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 2304-2327.



37

https://link.springer.com/journal/11747/45/3/page/1

a study on tourist satisfaction and willingness to revisit ... - june 2019/ijer... · a study on...

Documents