Effective Factors of Tourist LoyaltySvetlana Solovyeva & Olviya Shestyuk CSUS Sacramentosveta.solo@yahoo.com

ABSTRACTThe following study focuses on evaluating the effective factors that contribute to tourist satisfaction, and if that in return leads to destination loyalty. It focuses on push and pull motivations as well as destination residents’ attitude towards the tourists as the factors that determine traveler’s satisfaction. Traveler’s satisfaction, consequentially, could possibly influence destination loyalty and word-of-mouth recommendations.

INTRODUCTIONThis experimental study focuses on the different types of motivations that lead to consumers choosing one final tourist destination over another, as well as their further loyalty to that destination.  There are many articles that have studied this aspect of destination loyalty compared to different factors.

In the article User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism Brian Bramwell talks about tourist attractions in Sheffield in England. Sheffield is a popular destination spot for tourist, however, often times the tourist do not stay overnight or return, so this study focuses on analyzing the different tourism products of Sheffield in the attempt to improve its tourism. The products of Sheffield include destination attractions such as shopping centers or the sports centers. In the above stated study, the “primary products: the activity place” of Sheffield that were evaluated consisted of art and sport centers, and the “primary products: the leisure setting” consisted of the city centre environment (Bramwell, 1998). Secondary or additional products that were evaluated consisted of shopping centers, tourist accommodation and accessibility. Thus, in this experiment, the independent variables are the primary and secondary products and the dependent variable is user satisfaction. The information used to prepare this article was obtained using a questionnaire method, delivered face to face.

This study suggests that although residents are not the primary users of tourism products, their opinion is still incredibly valuable as they are the residents of the city and thus very closely tied with its structure and culture. The opinions of tourist who have never been to Sheffield were also considered as these people represent potential tourists, and thus, it is important to know what they would value at their tourism destination (Bramwell, 1998).

A study done by three authors, Yooshik Yoon, Dogan Gursoy, Joseph S. Chen, focuses on evaluating residents’ opinion of certain tourist destination, in order to determine the effects and outcomes resident opinion has on tourism satisfaction. It is suggested that tourists do not enjoy locations in which they do not feel welcome, which directly ties back to the attitude that the residents have towards tourists. Thus, if resident opinion is not taking into consideration when the planning of tourism attractions and products occurs, then “[a]nger, apathy, or mistrust will

ultimately be conveyed to the tourists. For the most part, tourists tend to be reluctant to visit places where they feel unwelcome. Therefore, it is important to know how residents perceive total impact and the factors that influence perceived total impact of tourism development” (Yoon, et.al, 2000).  Thus, based on previously performed studies and literature, this study tests the following five hypotheses, with H1 serving as the main hypothesis, and H2-H5 serving as secondary, or sub point-type, hypotheses. The following hypotheses are taken directly from the above-mentioned study:

H1: There is a direct relationship between residents'perceived total impacts and support of tourismdevelopment.H2: There is an indirect relationship between residents'perceived economic impacts and residents'  supportfor tourism development, and this indirect relationshipis mediated by total impactsH3: There is an indirect relationship between residents'perceived social impacts and residents'  support fortourism development, and this indirect relationshipis mediated by total impactsH4: There is an indirect relationship between residents'perceived cultural impacts and residents'  supportfor tourism development, and this indirect relationshipis mediated by total impactsH5: There is an indirect relationship between residents'perceived environmental impacts and residents'support for tourism development, and this indirectrelationship is mediated by total impacts(Yoon, Gursoy, Chen, 2001)

This study utilized a mailed questionnaire with a Likert scale in order to collect the necessary information. The results of this study confirmed hypotheses 2-5, thus showing that residents valued or perceived as positive the economic and cultural effects of tourism and they perceived negatively the impact on the environment and social conditions that tourism created. Thus, in order to gain residents’ support for future tourism development projects, the economic and cultural benefits need to be emphasized and the negative impacts on the environment and social conditions needs to be minimized  (Yoon, et.al, 2000).  

The article “Limits to mass tourism’s effects in rural peripheries” focuses on the relationship between tourism booms in certain villages. The increasing flow of tourists is a potential driver of development for poor countries. The increase of tourist spending can go to the poor and therefore decrease poverty. This article is focused on people and tourists in three villages in Siem Reap, Cambodia (Biddulph, 2012).

During the past 2 decades, the number of visitors has increased tremendously due to the Tourism of Angkor that has been a major driver for the tourists. This article describes the livelihoods of villagers in three villages in rural Siem Reap and explains how the tourism boom centered on the provincial town and the temple complex has reoriented those lives (Biddulph, 2012).

There are three ways in which tourists help generate revenue of people living in the area. First, there are direct effects where poor people earn money as they work and sell for the tourists. Moreover, there are indirect effects where tourism workers spend their earnings in the local economy. Lastly, there are dynamic long-term effects, which include institutions, infrastructure, and management in country. The questions to be answered are: (i) How do the households in the study villages earn their livings? (ii) What role does tourism play both in current livelihoods and future plans? (iii) How have contextual factors shaped livelihood strategies and enabled or constrained tourism’s influence? (Biddulph, 2012)

Another interesting approach compared to travel satisfaction is perceived risk and the article by authors Lepp and Gibson provides a descriptive comparison of this issue. Governments, travel agents, and news media issue warnings about severe risks associated with international tourism. Travellers are highly advised to buy bottled water, traveler’s books and get their vaccinations before they go out into international countries. It is an issue of how different types of tourists distinguish different types of risks and safety in international tourism and what factors influence their judgments. The four major risk factors that previous investigations have identified are terrorism, war and political stability, health concerns, and crimes. The relationship between tourism and terrorism has come about in 1972 during the Munich Olympic Games. Ever since then, it has been identified that tourists are often targets of terrorist organizations.

Like terrorism, political instability and war can increase risks at a specific destination severely. This article goes into detail explaining many situations where thousands of tourists have cancelled their trips to certain countries because of serious risks. Moreover, infectious pathogens have become a highly aware vision to tourists. Carter came to a conclusion that Europe and North America are considered free of transmitting pathogens whereas Africa is known for the breeding ground for infections. Lastly, it is found that tourists have become a known target for criminals. That is because tourists usually carry large sums of money and are involved in risky behaviors. However, tourists have found out that if they blend in with the culture, it helps them from standing out of the crowd and keeps them safe (Lepp & Gibson, 2003).

The article “Life Satisfaction and Support for Tourism Development” analyzes the relationship between tourism development and quality of life for residents, which has been a key study over the past few years. Moreover, tourism development is more likely to be achieved when the residents are involved in planning and coordination of the development process. Residents are more likely to be involved in tourism activities and be a support to them. However, a resident’s quality of life highly determines how they will act towards the tourists in the area. Important factors that build up local residents’ quality of life include community well-being,

material well-being, and emotional well-being. This research analyzes the values of tourism development and its relation to the overall quality of life in local residents.

In order for the development of future tourism programs to be successful, local resident quality of living must be leaning towards the successful side too. Residents who are higher in the economy or have personal benefits in their community are more likely to develop positive attitudes towards the simple idea of allowing tourism programs to take action into development.

Many researchers have been debating about the real general meaning of Quality of Life because the definition is different for every individual. The three keywords that are involved in defining the meaning of Quality of Life are well-being, welfare, and happiness. Moreover, these four life domains are categorized into two main dimensions: material life and non-material life. The study states four different hypotheses and the data was collected through an online market research company (Woo, Kim, Uysal, 2015).

CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKSThe conceptual theory tested the hypothesized causal relationships between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty, with travel satisfaction being effected by push and pull motivations. This theory is referred to as tourism destination loyalty theory (Yoon, Uysal, 2001). This study improved upon the conceptual theory by also considering the residents’ attitude towards tourists in their hometown as an important factor on traveler’s satisfaction. Furthermore, this study also tests the amount and the qualitative factors of word-of-mouth recommendations as a causal relationship of customer satisfaction, along with the conceptual model’s destination loyalty factor.

Word of mouth

Destination loyalty

Traveler’s Satisfaction

Pull motivations

Residents’ attitude

Push motivations

THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCT

Definition of Independent Variables: Push motivations concern personal desires such as the need to get away, the desire for relaxation, prestige or a concern for health, and pull motivations consist of external attributes such as the attractiveness of the final destination, which varies from scenic views, to beaches, to other attractions such as amusement parks or shopping. The purpose of this study is to understand the driving factors of customers’ loyalty in order to develop effective marketing strategies regarding destination loyalty.

“Previous studies reveal that customer loyalty is influenced by customer's’ satisfaction (Bitner,1990 ; Dick & Basu, 1994 ; Oliver, 1999 ), and satisfaction is affected by travel motivation (Mannell & Iso-Ahola,1987; Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991; Fielding, Pearce, & Hughes, 1992)” (Yoon, Uysal, 2001). Which implies that in order for tourist-oriented businesses to be successful and retain customer’s loyalty, they need to focus on providing high customer satisfaction, in order to motivate that customer’s traveling destination.

This study will also test a new variable, along with the independent variables of push and pull motivations, the final destination residents’ attitude towards customers. It is suggested that tourists do not enjoy locations in which they do not feel welcome, which directly ties back to the attitude that the residents have towards tourists. Thus, if resident opinion is not taking into consideration when the planning of tourism attractions and products occurs, then “[a]nger, apathy, or mistrust will ultimately be conveyed to the tourists. For the most part, tourists tend to be reluctant to visit places where they feel unwelcome. Therefore, it is important to know how residents perceive total impact and the factors that influence perceived total impact of tourism development” (Yoon, et.al, 2000).

Definition of the dependent variable: Traveler’s satisfactionA dependent variable depends on the value on that of another. In this case, push and pull motivations, and residents attitude all determine whether the traveler leaves his destination satisfied. Which implies that in order for tourist-oriented businesses to be successful and retain customer’s loyalty, they need to focus on providing high customer satisfaction, in order to motivate that customer’s traveling destination. Previous literature and studies suggest these attributes work together, in combination, in order to produce overall satisfaction (Yoon, Uysal, 2001). The tourists’ satisfaction variables are expectation satisfaction, worth visiting, and comparison with other places.

Definition of interdependent variables:Destination loyalty and word-of-mouth recommendations are directly related to traveler’s satisfaction. If travelers are satisfied with their experience at a certain final destination, as a result of a positive relationship with push and pull motivations and residents’ attitude towards the tourists, then they are more likely to develop destination loyalty and to recommend that destination to their friends, family or coworkers through word-of-mouth. According to Ditcher (1966) and

Gajendra, et.al (2012), there is no definite dictionary definition to word-of-mouth, however, over time, word-of-mouth has been associated with “diffusion, transmission, communication, and dissemination of thoughts, information, messages, opinions, evaluations, and comments between at least two persons about some products, services, brands, and related experiences” (Yeoh, Othman, Ahmad, 2013).

To reiterate, all three of the independent variables: push motivations, pull motivations and residents’ attitude toward tourists, have a direct relationship with the traveler’s satisfaction. Traveler’s satisfaction, in return, influences the tourist’s destination loyalty and the likeliness that they will recommend that final destination to their friends, family and/or coworkers.

METHODOLOGYThis study collected 300 samples through the use of a questionnaire from tourists’ residing in the city of Sacramento. It identified a population of those who travel at least two times a year, and then asked questions pertaining to their final destination and the factors that affect their choice of a final destination. Then, the study used the information collected from the 300 samples to perform regression analysis in order to test for correction between the variables. The study also analyzed the significance of the variables R-values and their coefficients. The results of the analysis are discussed below.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1: Pearson correlation between push motivations, residents’ attitudes and travelers’ satisfaction

Correlations

Travel_sat

Pearson Correlation Push_motiv .752 Sig.value .000

Residents_Attitude .785 Sig.value .000

The table above shows the Pearson correlation for push motivations, residents’ attitudes and travelers’ satisfaction. Push motivation and traveler satisfaction have a correlation value of .752 with a significance value of .000. Since the significance value is below .05 and the correlation is .752, this means that here is a high correlation between push motivations and traveler satisfaction. In other words, push motivations such as the desire to improve health, desire to get away, and need for relaxation have a significant effect on the satisfaction of the traveler.

Figure 1: Correlation between traveler satisfaction (dependent) and push motivations (independent).

Figure 1 (above) shows a scatter plot with a high positive correlation, which supports the hypothesis that push motivations have a direct and positive correlation to travelers’ satisfaction. This means that a person’s reasons for going on to a tourism location such as the need to get away or for health benefits, positively impact that person’s satisfaction level of the final destination.Similarly, the residents’ attitude and traveler satisfaction have a correlation value of .785 with a significant value of .00; which means that these two variables have high correlation. More specifically, the residents’ attitude towards tourist at final destinations has a direct effect on traveler satisfaction.Figure 2 (below) shows a scatter plot with a high positive correlation, which support the hypothesis that residents’ attitude have a direct and positive correlation to travelers’ satisfaction. Thus proving the relationship between residents’ attitude and travelers’ satisfaction to be an import factor of consideration in choosing a tourism location.

Figure 2: Correlation between traveler satisfaction (dependent) and residents’ attitude (independent).

Table 2 (on the next page) presents the coefficient values of push motivations and residents’ attitude. The correlation equation for traveler satisfaction is the following: TRAVEL SATISFACTION= .234+.391PM+.55RA

For every one push motivation (PM) increase, traveler satisfaction increases by .391 and for every one residents’ attitude increase, traveler satisfaction increases by .55. The constant value represent travelers’ satisfaction without the effect of any other variables.

The three tables below show the R-squared values for  independent variables: residents’ attitude and push motivations, and their effect on the dependent variable: travelers’ satisfaction.

Figure 3-2: Residents’ attitude effect on travelers’ satisfactionModel R R Square Adjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the Estimate

1 .785a .616 .614 .51975a. Predictors: (Constant), Residents_Attitude

b. Dependent Variable: Travel_sat

Table 2: Coefficients of push motivations and residents’ attitudeModel B Sig. value(Constant) .234 .072Push_motiv .391 .000Residents_Attitude.550 .000a. Dependent Variable: Travel_sat

Figure 3-1: Push motivations & residents’ attitude effect on travelers’ satisfaction

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .845a .714 .712 .44891

a. Predictors: (Constant), Push_motiv, Residents_Attitude

b. Dependent Variable: Travel_sat

Figure 3-1 shows an R-square variable of .714. A positive R-value between 0 and 1 signifies that the two variables increase or decrease together. This means that 71.4% of travelers’ satisfaction is affected by residents’ attitude and push motivations. Furthermore, a traveler’s satisfaction decreases as residents’ attitude and push motivation decrease and increases as residents’ attitude and push motivations increase. Table 3-2 shows the R-value for only travelers’ satisfaction based on residents’ attitude. It is evident that 61.6% of travelers’ satisfaction increases of decreases according to residents’ attitude. Table 3-3 illustrates that the push motivations effect on travelers’ satisfaction is 56.5%. Thus, it can be concluded that residents’ attitude and push motivations both have a significant effect on travelers’ satisfaction. However, residents’ attitude has a stronger impact as compared to push motivations.

CONCLUSION

The theoretical framework tested in this study has been proven to be partially true. Two of the tested independent variables (residents’ attitude and push motivations) have a significant impact on travelers’ satisfaction, while one of the variables (pull motivations), does not. This study leads to the conclusion that in order to earn and keep a travelers’ loyalty by affecting their satisfaction, it is important to target the push motivations of the traveler. It also suggests that for marketers and those attempting to sell products and create an enjoyable experience at a certain tourism location, it is important to consider the residents’ attitude toward tourists. Yoon and Uysal (2001), provide many suggestions of how to improve residents’ attitude in order to achieve the right atmosphere for a tourist location.

Figure 3-3: Push motivations effect on travelers’ satisfaction

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .752a .565 .564 .55271

a. Predictors: (Constant), Push_motiv

b. Dependent Variable: Travel_sat

References

Biddulph, R. (2012). Limits to mass tourism’s effects in rural peripheries. Annals of

Tourism Research, 50 (1), 98-112. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.011

Bramwell, B. (1998). User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism. Tourism

Management, 19 (1), 35-47.

Lepp, A., Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals

of Tourism Research, 3 (7), 606-624. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024

Woo, E., Kim, H., Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development.

Annals of Tourism Research, 50 (1), 84-97. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.001

Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., Chen J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism development theory with

structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 22, 363-372.