Home / Tourist

Results of Structural Linear Model Analysis (Normalization)


103


Word of mouth



Environment and tourism activities

0.435


Chi –square/df = 3.595, CFI = 0.860, IFI = 0.861, RMSEA = 0.073


0.960



Natural conditions

0.850


0.784

0.744


Infrastructure

0.830


Government support

0.897


Religious belief

Familiarity

0.245



Maybe you are interested!

0.275


Guest satisfaction

Destination image

Customer loyalty

R 2 = 0.679 R 2 = 0.615


0.359


R 2 = 0.805


Note:


Statistically significant Not statistically significant


Figure 4.7. Results of linear structural model analysis (standardized)


The results of the regression coefficient table of the model's impact relationships show that most of the relationships are statistically significant at the 5% level (Figure 4.7):

Factor analysis of destination attractiveness : Destination attractiveness is directly affected by three factors (1) familiarity (FAR), (2) word of mouth (WOM) and (3) spiritual beliefs (BEL). The results table (Table 4.?) shows that all three factors have a positive impact on destination attractiveness with p-values ​​all less than 0.001. In which, word of mouth has the largest impact with the standardized coefficient β WOM = 0.435, followed by familiarity with β FAR = 0.359 and spiritual beliefs β BEL = 0.275. The three factors contributed to explaining 67.9% (ATR = 0.266FAR + 0.388WOM + 0.206BEL; R 2 = 0.679) of the variation in destination attractiveness factor (Table 4.14). Therefore, by analyzing the empirical data, hypotheses H1, H2a and H5a are accepted.

Tourist satisfaction factor analysis : Tourist satisfaction (SAT) is considered to be directly affected by destination attractiveness (ATR). The analysis results show a positive relationship between destination attractiveness and tourist satisfaction with standardized Beta coefficient β ATT = 0.784 at the 5% significance level (p-value less than 0.001) (figure). Destination attractiveness contributes to explaining 61.5% (SAT = 0.992ATR; R 2 = 0.615) of the change in tourist satisfaction factor (table 4.15). Therefore, from the empirical data, the study accepts hypothesis H3.

Factor analysis of tourist loyalty: Tourist loyalty is directly influenced by (1) word of mouth (WOM), (2) tourist satisfaction (SAT) and (3) spiritual beliefs (BEL). From the results table, it can be seen that two of the three factors, tourist satisfaction and spiritual beliefs, have a positive impact at the 5% statistical level (p-value is less than 0.001) (Table 4.9). The standardized Beta impact coefficients of the two factors are β SAT = 0.744 and β BEL = 0.254, respectively. However, word of mouth (WOM) was found to have no direct linear impact on the attitude of return commitment because p-value = 0.536, greater than 0.05. The two factors of tourist satisfaction and spiritual belief contributed to explaining 80.5% of the change in loyalty (REV = -0.025WOM + 0.218BEL+ 0.677SAT; R 2 = 0.805) of the change in loyalty. Therefore, by empirical analysis, the two hypotheses H4 and H5b were accepted and hypothesis H2b was rejected.


Table 4.9. Results of estimated impacts between variables in the research model


Relationship of variables

Standardized Beta

Standard error

Critical value

p-value

R 2

ATR

<---

FAR

0.359

0.042

6,307

<0.001


0.679

ATR

<---

WOM

0.435

0.042

9,256

<0.001

ATR

<---

BEL

0.275

0.039

5,241

<0.001

SAT

<---

ATR

0.784

0.075

13,154

<0.001

0.615

REV

<---

WOM

-0.025

0.041

-0.619

0.536


0.805

REV

<---

SAT

0.744

0.047

14,492

<0.001

REV

<---

BEL

0.254

0.034

6,422

<0.001

Source: Results of official data analysis with the support of AMOS software


4.4.5. Results of assessing the stability of the research model

The study used bootstrap testing with a 1000-sample return to evaluate the robustness of the estimated model. The analysis results showed that the bias of the Beta coefficients from the original sample and the average of the Beta coefficients from the bootstrap analysis were very small (maximum 0.004) (Table 4.10). Thus, the estimated model can be considered robust and reliable, and can be used to infer about the population.

Table 4.10. Results of model stability assessment


Relationship between variables

Standardized estimate

Estimated by bootstrap

Bias

SE-Bias

Return sample n= 1000

ATR

<---

FAR

0.359

0.364

0.004

0.002

ATR

<---

WOM

0.435

0.433

-0.002

0.001

ATR

<---

BEL

0.275

0.273

-0.003

0.002

SAT

<---

ATR

0.784

0.782

-0.002

0.001

REV

<---

SAT

0.744

0.745

0.002

0.001

REV

<---

BEL

0.254

0.252

-0.002

0.002

Source: Results of official data analysis with the support of AMOS software


4.3.6. Results of evaluating the combined (standardized) impact of factors on tourist loyalty

Tourist loyalty is not only directly affected by tourist satisfaction and spiritual beliefs but also indirectly affected by word of mouth, familiarity and attractiveness of the destination. The analysis results show that all factors have an impact on tourist loyalty. In particular, tourist satisfaction has the largest total impact on loyalty (λ = 0.744), followed by attractiveness of the destination (λ = 0.583), spiritual beliefs (λ = 0.415), word of mouth (λ = 0.254) and the smallest impact is familiarity (λ = 0.210) (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11. Results of the assessment of the combined impact of factors on the attitude of commitment to return

Secondary variable

belong

Type of work

dynamic

habit

belong

Information

word of mouth

Attractiveness

destination

Satisfaction of

tourist

Faith

spiritual

Attractiveness of the destination

Direct

0.359

0.435

-

-

0.275

Indirect

-

-

-

-

-

Synthetic

0.359

0.435

-

-

0.275

Tourist satisfaction

Direct

-

-

0.784

-

-

Indirect

0.282

0.341

-

-

0.216

Synthetic

0.282

0.341

0.784

-

0.216

Customer loyalty

Direct

-

-

-

0.744

0.254

Indirect

0.210

0.254

0.583

-

0.161

Synthetic

0.210

0.254

0.583

0.744

0.415

Source: Results of official data analysis with the support of AMOS software

4.4. Show guest reviews on loyalty

Familiarity

The evaluation results show that the indicators are rated above average with the highest score belonging to the aspect of “the tourist destination in general makes tourists feel familiar” (Mean = 3.392; SD = 1.147) and the lowest score is in the aspect of “feeling more familiar with the tourist destination than the people around” (Mean = 3.145; SD = 1.223) (Table 4.12). The results also show that most of the aspects that tourists surveyed had more than 70% choosing a score of 3 or higher on the 5-point Likert scale and over 40% had a score of more than 4 (Figure 4.8).


Table 4.12. Tourist evaluation results with “familiarity”



Evaluation criteria


Mean


SD

95% confidence interval

Bottom border

Upper bound

I feel familiar with the tourist destination.

schedule X more than people around


3,145


1,223


3,043


3,248

I feel familiar with the tourist destination.

schedule X more than other friends


3,272


1,121


3,178


3,366

I always feel familiar with the tourist destination.

Schedule X as a frequent traveler


3,290


1,093


3,199


3,382

Overall, for the tourist destination I feel

feel familiar with myself


3,392


1,147


3,296


3,488

Source: Author's analysis results with the support of SPSS software



Figure 4.8. Tourist evaluation results with “familiarity”

Word of mouth

The results from the empirical data show that word-of-mouth information is rated quite highly with an average score of approximately 4. Of which, “regularly consulting others before deciding on a tourist destination” is rated the highest (Mean = 3.893; SD = 0.899), followed by “consulting others makes tourists more confident in their decisions” (Mean = 3.809, SD = 1.012) and finally “trusting other people's advice helps tourists make better choices” (Mean = 3.779;


SD = 0.845) (Table 4.13). The survey results also showed that over 80% of the tourists surveyed rated 3 points or higher and over 60% responded 4 points or higher on the 5-point Likert scale in the survey aspects (Figure 4.9).

Table 4.13. Results of visitors' evaluations with “word of mouth information”



Evaluation criteria


Mean


SD

95% confidence interval

Bottom border

Upper bound

I believe that the advice of the people

others help me choose better travel destinations


3,779


0.845


3,708


3,849

I often consult other people.

before deciding on a tourist destination


3,893


0.899


3,818


3,968

Consulting other people makes me more confident in my choice.

my tourist spot


3,809


1,012


3,725


3,894

Source: Author's analysis results with the support of SPSS software


Figure 4.9. Results of visitors' evaluations with “word of mouth information”

Environment and tourism activities

The results of the analysis from the survey data show that the criteria of environmental attractiveness and tourism activities are not significantly different but all have an average score that is rated quite good by tourists on a 5-point Likert scale. In which, tourism


Visitors rated the highest in the aspect of “feeling the residents in the tourist area are friendly” (Mean = 3.673; SD = 1.064) and the lowest in the aspect of “reasonable prices of goods/services in the tourist area” (Mean = 3.439; SD = 0.989) (Table 4.14). The survey results also showed that the evaluation points tended to be selected mainly in the high score group with over 80% choosing from the 3-point level and over 45% from the 4-point level on the 5-point Likert scale of the surveyed indicators (Figure 4.10).

Table 4.14. Tourists' evaluation results of "environment and tourism activities"


Evaluation criteria


Mean


SD

95% confidence interval

Bottom border

Upper bound

I find the residents at tourist area X quite friendly.

3,673

1,064

3,584

3,762

I see tourist activities at tourist area X

well managed

3,555

0.985

3,473

3,638

Sources of tourist information about tourist area X are easily accessible (through magazines, internet, acquaintances...)


3,628


1,001


3,544


3,712

The prices of goods/services at tourist area X are quite reasonable.

3,439

0.989

3,356

3,522

Source: Author's analysis results with the support of SPSS software


Figure 4.10. Tourists' evaluation results of "environment and tourism activities"


Natural and cultural features

The natural and cultural characteristics factors were also assessed at a relatively good level on the 5-point Likert scale, however, there was a difference in the average scores between the criteria. In which, the highest rated criterion was “the tourist area has many beautiful landscapes” (Mean = 3.837; SD = 0.955) and the lowest was “the tourist area has many typical souvenir shops” (Mean = 3.416; SD = 1.089) (Table 4.15). The survey results also showed that most of the assessment criteria were rated by over 75% of surveyed visitors above 3 points and over 50% above 4 points on the 5-point Likert scale (Figure 4.11).

Table 4.15. Tourist evaluation results for “natural and cultural features”



Evaluation criteria


Mean


SD

95% confidence interval

Bottom border

Upper bound

Tourist area X has fresh air.

3,672

1,087

3,581

3,762

The living environment in the tourist area is not polluted.

3,721

0.994

3,637

3,804

Tourist area X has many beautiful landscapes.

3,837

0.955

3,757

3,917

Tourist area X has many beautiful cultural works.

3,652

0.994

3,568

3,735

X tourist area has a very unique and attractive culinary background.

3,452

0.978

3,370

3,534

Tourist area X has many typical souvenir shops.

3,416

1,089

3,325

3,507

Source: Author's analysis results with the support of SPSS software


Figure 4.11. Tourist evaluation results for “natural and cultural features”

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *