The relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice - A case study of Binh Dinh province tourism destination

5.2.5. Implication 5: From the relationship between tourism barriers and tourism motivations, it is necessary to promote the role of travel businesses and strengthen cooperation in tourism development 146

5.2.6. Implication 6: From the relationship between tourism barriers and destination choice, it is necessary to provide tourism information through important information channels that tourists seek when choosing a destination 148

5.3. Limitations of the topic and future research directions 151

LIST OF AUTHOR'S PUBLISHED RESEARCH WORKS

REGARDING THE THESIS ......................................................................................- 1 -

Maybe you are interested!

LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................................................................- 2 - APPENDIX…… .........................................................................................................................- 24 - APPENDIX 1: OVERVIEW OF SOME STUDIES.................................................................- 24 - APPENDIX 2: LIST OF LECTURERS AND MANAGERS PARTICIPATING IN THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH .............................................................................................- 29 -

APPENDIX 3: PRELIMINARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ..............................................................- 31 -

APPENDIX 4: GROUP DISCUSSION AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS................................................- 37 -

APPENDIX 5: QUANTITATIVE PRELIMINARY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................- 43 -

APPENDIX 6: RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE SCALE ..........................................- 53 -

APPENDIX 7: OFFICIAL QUANTITATIVE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................- 63 - APPENDIX 8: RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF OFFICIAL QUANTITATIVE SURVEY DATA ................................................................................................................- 73 -

APPENDIX 9: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AFTER QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH.....................................- 118 - APPENDIX 10: RESULTS OF TOURISM ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL REGION IN THE PERIOD 2006-2014..........................................................- 121 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHP : Analytic Hierarchy Process

ANOVA : Analysis of variance

AMOS : Analysis of Moment Structure

BKKHI : Atmosphere

CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI : Comparative Fit Index

DONGCO: Travel engine

EFA : Exploratory Factor Analysis

GFI : Good of Fitness Index

HADDEN : Destination Image

HTCHUNG: Common infrastructure

HTDLICH: Tourism infrastructure

IR : Importance Rating KIENTHUC : Knowledge and novelty KMO : Kaiser Meyer Olkin

LUACHON: Choose destination

MTRUONG: Tourism environment

MDS: Multinomial dimension scale

ML : Maximum Likelihood

NMNL : Nested multinomial logit model

QUANHE: Strengthening relationships

RAOCAN: Travel barriers

RMSEA : Root Mean Square Error Approximation SEM : Structural Equation Modeling

SP : Self Perception

SPSS : Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

THUGIAN: Relax

TLI : Tucker and Lewis Index

TOPSIS : The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution City. : City

TTCI : Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index TUNHIEN : Natural tourism resources

UNWTO : The United Nations World Tourism Organization PREMIUM : Prestigious

VANHOA: Culture, history and art

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Types of destinations, main target markets and activities 29

Table 2.2: Summary of components of travel engine 33

Table 2.3: Destination image components/attributes 37

Table 2.4: Summary of destination image components 38

Table 2.5: Factors mentioned in the destination choice model 48

Table 2.6: Summary of variables in Liu and Ko's study (2011) 51

Table 3.1: Travel motivation scale… 79

Table 3.2: Destination image scale… 82

Table 3.3: Tourism barriers of Binh Dinh tourist destination 84

Table 3.4: Tourism barrier scale… 85

Table 3.5: Destination choice scale… 85

Table 3.6: Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient results for travel motivation 86

Table 3.7: Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient results for destination image 87

Table 3.8: Results of factor analysis of travel motivation scale… 89

Table 3.9: Results of factor analysis of destination image scale 89

Table 3.10: Results of factor analysis of unidimensional scales… 90

Table 4.1: Information about the research sample… 92

Table 4.2: Results of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of scale components... 93

Table 4.3: Results of the second factor analysis 94

Table 4.4: Discriminant validity test results of the travel motivation scale 97

Table 4.5: Results of reliability test of travel motivation scale 97

Table 4.6: Discriminant validity test results of destination image scale… 100

Table 4.7: Results of reliability test of destination image scale… 100

Table 4.8: Results of testing the discriminant validity of the scales in the critical model ……. 103 Table 4.9: Results of testing the reliability of the scales in the critical model….. 103 Table 4.10: Results of testing the causal relationship between the concepts in the model

Theoretical figure (not standardized) 105

Table 4.11: Results of testing the causal relationship between concepts in the model

Theoretical (normalized) figure 106

Table 4.12: Results of testing the causal relationship between concepts in the model

competitive model (standardized) 108

Table 4.13: Differences between compatibility indicators according to tourists' nationality 111

Table 4.14: Estimated relationships between concepts in the variability model

by nationality of visitor (standardized) 111

Table 4.15: Differences between compatibility indicators by gender 112

Table 4.16: Differences between compatibility indicators by age 113

Table 4.17: Differences between compatibility indicators by educational level ……… 114 Table 4.18: Differences between compatibility indicators by occupation 115

Table 4.19: Differences between compatibility indicators by income 117

Table 4.20: Differences between compatibility indices by arrival 118

Table 4.21: Differences between compatibility indicators according to accompanying tourists 119

Table 4.22: Differences between compatibility indicators according to tourism type 119

Table 4.23: Differences between compatibility indicators according to length of stay ……… 120 Table 4.24: Estimated relationships between concepts in the variable model

by length of stay (standardized) 121

Table 4.25: Differences between compatibility indicators by main destination

option 123

Table 4.26: Estimated relationships between concepts in the variability model

by main destination chosen by tourists (standardized) 123

Table 4.27: Impact of factors on dependent variables in model 125

Table 4.28: The influence of research sample characteristics on the relationships ……… 128 Table 4.29: Overall sample mean values of factors 130

Table 5.1: Important sources of information when choosing a destination 149

LIST OF IMAGES

Figure 2.1: Theoretical diagram of push and pull in an individual's travel experience….. 27 Figure 2.2: Components of destination image… 35

Figure 2.3: General model of perception and choice of tourist destination… 44

Figure 2.4: Tourist behavior and destination choice model… 50

Figure 2.5: Hierarchy of destination choice… 54

Figure 2.6: Theoretical model… 64

Figure 2.7: Competitive model… 66

Figure 3.1: Research implementation process… 69

Figure 4.1: CFA results of travel motivation scale (standardized) 96

Figure 4.2: CFA results of destination image scale (standardized) 101

Figure 4.3: CFA results of the critical model (standardized) 102

Figure 4.4: Theoretical model of adjustment 104

Figure 4.5: SEM results of theoretical model (standardized) 105

Figure 4.6: SEM results of competitive model (standardized) 107

Figure 5.1: Theoretical model of destination image building 144

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

1.1. Necessity of research

1.1.1. Theoretically

Increasing social income combined with the increase in world population has led to an increase in tourism demand. The question is why tourists choose one destination over another. Destination choice is an important research concept that has received the attention of many scholars in recent decades (Woodside and Lysonski, 1989; Um and Crompton, 1990; Ankomah et al., 1996; Sirakaya et al., 2001; Jang and Cai, 2002; Sirakaya and Woodside, 2005; Dolnicar and Huybers, 2007; Chen and Wu, 2009; Prayag, 2011; Mutinda and Mayaka, 2012; Yiamjanya and Wongleedee, 2014). “Tourism destination choice can be conceptualized as the choice of a destination by tourists from a set of alternatives” (Huybers, 2004, p. 1). Thus, tourism destination choice is a very important decision process not only for tourists but also for the destination. In order to remain competitive in the smokeless industry, tourism businesses need to understand the decision-making process and the destination choice decision of tourists is extremely important in developing strategic solutions to attract tourists (Costa and Ferrone, 1995).

Recognizing the role of tourism for development, in recent times, issues of tourism and tourist attraction have become the subject of research by many domestic and foreign scientists. In the world, studies have shown that there are many factors influencing the choice of destination (Guillet et al., 2011). According to Lang et al. (1997, p. 22), “in general, the basic factors in the models include the demographic components of tourists (age, income, life cycle, ...), psychological data (pursued benefits, preferences, attitudes, ...), marketing variables (product, price, advertising, ...), attributes related to the destination (attraction factors, situational variables, ...) and perception”. These influencing factors appear in studies individually or simultaneously.

Except for some studies that discuss the influence of destination choice on demographics, purpose and trip characteristics separately (Lang et al., 1997; Heung et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008), most studies use push and pull theory to discuss the relationship between factors in the destination choice model. Kim et al. (2003) argued that the push and pull approach provides the best way to explain and predict individual travel decisions. Push and pull theory suggests that people travel because they are pushed by internal forces from themselves and pulled by external forces from destination attributes (Jang and Cai, 2002; Lam and Hsu, 2006; Mohammad et al., 2010). Specifically, Kim et al. (2003, p. 170) argue that “push factors are conceptualized as factors or needs that arise due to an imbalance or tension in the motivational system”, which drive or create a desire to travel. In contrast, the pull factors of a tourist destination refer to a combination of several multidimensional attributes of facilities and services that make the destination attractive to a particular individual in a choice situation (Hu and Ritchie, 1993).

According to Kotler (2001), customers are those who want to receive maximum value within their budget and knowledge. Faced with many choices for the variety of products and services, customers will choose the product that gives them the greatest satisfaction based on the set value expectations. Understanding what motivates people to travel is important in predicting the decisions of potential tourists and future travel patterns (Moore et al., 1995; Carr, 2002a, 2002b; Lam and Hsu, 2006; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chen et al., 2011; Fratu, 2011; Kluin and Lehto, 2012).

Besides travel motivation, destination image is another research concept that helps explain destination choice. Baloglu and McCleary (1999a) demonstrated that destination image has an important influence on destination choice. Furthermore, Chi and Qu (2008), Jamaludin et al. (2012) found a relationship between destination image and future behavior specifically the impact of a destination image on tourists’ intention to revisit and recommend it to friends and relatives.

tourism. According to Prayag (2011), image is generally accepted as an important pull factor for the success and development of a tourist destination. Dominique and Lopes (2011) identify the main factors that characterize the image of a tourist destination, as well as their implications for tourism management. In short, destination image is one of the most important factors of a tourist destination and becomes a key factor for the success or failure of tourism management.

However, Oh et al. (1995), Srisutto (2010) suggested that the factors that may influence tourists’ destination choice are not simply push and pull factors but also include barriers. The findings provide evidence that tourists act on their consumption values, seek information from various sources, evaluate destination images and have some barriers in going to their chosen destination. Although barriers to travel have been noted in the tourism literature since the 1980s, only a few studies have applied the barrier concept in the tourism field (Nyaupane and Andereck, 2008; Hung and Petrick, 2010) and only Chen et al. (2013) examined the influence of travel barrier variables on destination image perception and destination choice in the case of young tourists to Brunei. In particular, the impact of barriers on motivation has only been proposed by Alexandris et al. (2011) in the field of recreation in general and studied in the case of recreational skiers, but has not been proposed by any research in the field of tourism. Therefore, measuring the relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice under the influence of antecedent variables of travel barriers is still a big gap in research.

On the other hand, in previous studies, the most commonly used method to study destination choice is actually logistic regression with variants such as logit, multinomial logit, and probit (Morley, 1994; Jang and Cai, 2002; Seddighi and Theocharo, 2002; Hong et al., 2006; Lyons et al., 2009). Besides, some studies use discriminant analysis (Corey, 1996; Lang et al., 1997; Liu and Ko, 2011). In addition, some studies use ordinary linear regression using the least squares (OLS) method to analyze the regression.

The relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice - A case study of Binh Dinh province tourism destination - 2

Comment