Nghiên cứu mối quan hệ giữa động cơ du lịch và sự hài lòng đối với điểm đến di sản: Vai trò của sự tham gia, trải nghiệm của du khách và hình ảnh điểm đến di sản

Nội dung text: Nghiên cứu mối quan hệ giữa động cơ du lịch và sự hài lòng đối với điểm đến di sản: Vai trò của sự tham gia, trải nghiệm của du khách và hình ảnh điểm đến di sản

1. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 NGHIÊN CỨU MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA ĐỘNG CƠ DU LỊCH VÀ SỰ HÀI LÒNG ĐỐI VỚI ĐIỂM ĐẾN DI SẢN: VAI TRÒ CỦA SỰ THAM GIA, TRẢI NGHIỆM CỦA DU KHÁCH VÀ HÌNH ẢNH ĐIỂM ĐẾN DI SẢN UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN TRAVEL MOTIVATION AND SATISFACTION TOWARDS A HERITAGE DESTINATION: THE ROLE OF VISITOR ENGAGEMENT, VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND HERITAGE DESTINATION IMAGE GVHD: TS. Sử Ngọc Diệp SVTH: Thao Phuong Tran, Nguyen An Ngoc Nguyen, Quynh Nhu Thi Nguyen University of Economics – The University of Danang TÓM TẮT Do những thiếu sót trong nghiên cứu về sự hài lòng của khách du lịch từ tác động trực tiếp của động cơ du lịch, nghiên cứu này xây dựng một mô hình tích hợp thêm ba khái niệm, sự tham gia của du khách, trải nghiệm của du khách và hình ảnh điểm đến di sản để làm rõ mối quan hệ gián tiếp giữa động cơ du lịch và sự hài lòng trong bối cảnh du lịch di sản. Không giống như những nghiên cứu về hành vi khách du lịch di sản trước đây chủ yếu tập trung vào trước hoặc sau khi trải nghiệm, nghiên cứu này đã tiến hành một cuộc khảo sát đối với cả khách du lịch trong nước và quốc tế khi họ đang trong quá trình trải nghiệm tại điểm đến. Bằng cách sử dụng Mô hinh phương trình cấu trúc bình phương tối thiếu riêng phần, mô hình nghiên cứu đề xuất đã được kiểm định với 353 du khách tại di sản văn hóa thế giới - Hội An, Việt Nam. Kết quả chỉ ra rằng, mối quan hệ giữa động cơ du lịch và sự hài lòng về điểm đến di sản không phải là trực tiếp, mà là mối quan hệ gián tiếp thông qua các yếu tố liên quan đến trải nghiệm và hình ảnh điểm đến di sản. Những phát hiện này đã chỉ rõ hơn về các yếu tố quyết định hành vi du lịch di sản, đóng góp vào tri thức khoa học trong lĩnh vực du lịch. Các tổ chức quản lý điểm đến du lịch (DMOs) của các điểm đến di sản được hưởng lợi từ các kết quả nghiên cứu và một số hướng nghiên cứu trong tương lai được đề xuát. Từ khóa: Động cơ du lịch, sự tham gia của du khách, trải nghiệm của du khách, hình ảnh điểm đến di sản, sự hài lòng. ABSTRACT Due to shortcomings in studying tourist satisfaction from the direct effect of travel motivation, the current study constructs an integrated model adding three concepts, visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image to clarify the indirect relationship between motivation and satisfaction in the context of heritage tourism. Unlike previous studies of heritage tourists’ behavior mainly focusing on pre or after the experience, this research employed a survey aiming at both domestic and international tourists during their on-site experiences. By using Partial Least Square – Structural Equation Modeling, the proposed structural model was tested with a sample of 353 visitors at Hoi An UNESCO World Heritage Site, Vietnam. As a result, the relationship between heritage travel motivation and satisfaction is not direct, but indirect via experience-related factors and heritage destination image. These findings contribute to a 57
2. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng better understanding of determinants of heritage tourist behaviors. Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) of heritage sites benefit from the study findings and several directions for future research are provided. Keywords: Travel motivation, visitor engagement, visitor experience, heritage destination image, satisfaction. 1. Introduction Heritage tourism has been one of the fastest growing tourism market with hundreds of millions of visitors travelling every year (Hollywood, Bolan, & McMahon-Beattie, 2017; Nguyen & Cheung, 2015). Thus, tourist behavior towards heritage sites has become the emerging interest as well as ‘the long- standing interest’ for scholars in the tourism field (Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006). Several behavioral variables in tourism including loyalty, satisfaction and behavioral intention have been studied in the context of heritage tourism (Alrawadieh, Prayag, Alrawadieh, & Alsalameen, 2019; Chen & Chen, 2010; De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Shen, Schüttemeyer, & Braun, 2009; Wu & Li, 2017) . Out of these variables, visitor satisfaction plays an important role in performing other behaviors which was a focus of this study. Previous studies have provided the understanding of tourist satisfaction from the comparison of service quality and customers’ expectations (Bowen & Clarke, 2002; Oliver, 1980, 1993; Yüksel & Yüksel, 2001). Another approach is to uncover factors which influence visitor satisfaction and can be socio-demographic characteristics of tourists, psychological factors, or experimental factors (Devesa, Laguna, & Palacios, 2010; Wu & Li, 2017). Regarding this, a direct effect of motivation and satisfaction has been widely studied in the tourism and marketing literature (Devesa et al., 2010). However, few studies investigated the indirect relationship between them in tourism generally and in heritage tourism particularly (Albayrak & Caber, 2018), indicating a first research gap for study. Considering the influences of experience-related factors, tourists’ experiences through their engagement during visitation should be considered as the determinants of tourists’ satisfaction (Szymanski & Henard, 2001; Taheri, Jafari, & O’Gorman, 2014; Wirtz, Mattila, & Tan, 2000) . However, there is a lack of research investigating the influences of two constructs, visitor experience and visitor engagement in the relationships between motivation and satisfaction or at best few studies tested relationships between two out of four constructs in the context of heritage tourism (Alrawadieh et al., 2019; Bryce, Curran, O’Gorman, & Taheri, 2015; Chen & Rahman, 2018; De Rojas & Cararero, 2008) . As a result, a second research gap is needed to fill in. Destination image plays an important role in tourists’ perception about a destination (Remoaldo, Ribeiro, Vareiro, & Santos, 2014) . Likewise, destination image also contributes to understanding tourists’ destination choice and satisfaction with destination experiences. However, previous studies have mainly focused on examining recalled trips or re-evaluated decisions (Smith, Li, Pan, Wite, & Doherty, 2015). Although the relationship of motivation- destination image-behavior (e.g. satisfaction, revisit intention) has been uncovered in some studies (Li, Cai, Lehto, & Huang, 2010; Pratminingsih, Rudatin, & Rimenta, 2014; Tang, 2014), this causal link only concentrated on pre or post-trip phases. Smith et al. (2015, p.114) supposed that “destination image may also be affected by contextual factors and experience through the course of a vacation and vary across the stages”. A lack of study on on-site experiences and engagement has not yet been investigated in the formation of destination image (Smith et al., 2015), revealing a third research gap. By understanding three identified research gaps, the objective of this study is to construct and validate an integrated model of motivation-satisfaction with the addition of three variables, visitor engagement, visitor experience and destination image applied to the context of heritage tourism. The 58
3. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 research contributes to the literature by providing an understanding of the indirect relationship between motivation and satisfaction mediated by experiential factors and heritage destination image perceived by tourists during experiences. The results also provide practical implications for Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) to design and develop strategies aiming to enhance visitor satisfaction at a heritage site. 2. Literature review and research methodology 2.1. Literature review 2.1.1. Heritage tourism In the literature, several conceptualizations of heritage tourism have been proposed and explained (Apostolakis, 2003). With reference to Timothy and Boyd (2003), there has been two contrasting approaches in which heritage tourism can be identified from two aspects: supply and demand. According to Apostolakis (2013), satisfying these tourists’ original motivation results in the demand for heritage displays, and thereby transforming heritage into a product. Because this study investigates the relationship between tourist motivation and satisfaction towards the context of heritage tourism, this argument lies in the center this research. 2.1.2. Theoretical background of research a) Motivation and satisfaction research Motivation is a psychological need or desire that can explain why an action is performed (Dann, 1981). There are four major approaches to examine motivation including “need-based, values-based, benefits sought or realized, and expectancy theory” (Albayrak & Caber, 2018, p. 202). In addition, push-pull framework found by Dann (1977) has been a popular theory applied to provide the understanding of travel motivation. While push factors refer to intrinsic factors motivating a tourist to travel, attractive features of a destination are considered as pull factors of motivation (Dann, 1977). Satisfaction can be understood as “a static state of fulfilment of needs or motives” (Albayrak & Caber, 2018, p.202). It can be conceptualized from two perspectives: cognitive and emotional. While the former refers satisfaction as ‘a post-experience evaluation’ (Bowen & Clarke, 2002), the latter considers an individual’s response that she/ he has after an experience (del Bosque & San Martin, 2008). Satisfaction can be observed as an uni- or multi- dimensional construct, however it is used as an uni-dimensional construct reflecting an emotional concept in this study. The motivation-satisfaction relationship has become a popular research interest of many researchers in the hospitality, tourism and travel field. Different approaches have been applied to understand such a relationship that could be categorized into two major groups (Albayrak & Caber, 2018). In the first group, travel motivation has been investigated as a sole predictor of tourist satisfaction. By contrast, apart from motivation, the second group has uncovered other variables which have influences on satisfaction. Results from these two applied approaches indicated a linear relationship between motivation and satisfaction (Albayrak & Caber, 2018). b) Visitor engagement Derived from terms used in the marketing and service literature, visitor engagement was employed in this study, however it was consistently conceptualized with the terms, consumer engagement or customer engagement. This study put engagement into the perspective of behavior to understand its influence during the experience on visitors’ satisfaction. Accordingly, engagement can be defined as an interaction between subjects (visitors) and objects (heritage destination) (Hollebeek, 2010). c) Visitor experience The tourism experience is hardly-defined due to its multi-dimensional nature (Chen & Rahman, 2018). Tung and Ritchie (2011, p. 1369) defined tourism experience as “an individual’s subjective, evaluation and 59
4. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng undergoing (i.e., affective, cognitive, and behavioral) of events related to his/ her tourist activities which begin before (i.e., planning and preparation), during (i.e., at the destination) and after the trip (i.e. recollection)”. This study only focused on understanding tourism experiences when they have undergone their trip at a destination. If tourists had higher motivations when they visited a destination, the perception of the destination experience value would be stronger (Prebensen, Woo, Chen, & Uysal, 2012) . d) Heritage destination image Many previous studies attempted to define destination image, hence Gallarza et al. (2002, p. 60) stated that “there are almost as many definitions of image as scholars devoted to its conceptualization”. However, two main approaches have been employed to conceptualize destination image that are three- dimensional continuum (e.g. attribute-holistic, functional- psychological and common-unique) and three- component (e.g. cognitive, affective and conative) approach. In the context of heritage tourism, only a study by Remoaldo et al. (2014) uncovered attribute perceptions of a heritage destination that included historical background and functionality, shopping and entertainment, convenience and efficiency. As a result, the current research inherited the multidimensional heritage destination image found by Remoaldo et al. (2014). 2.1.3. Conceptual framework and hypothesis development Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of study. The motivation has become a “meta-concept” that functions as a determinant of overall satisfaction with the trip (Devesa et al., 2010). The relationship between motivation and satisfaction has been extensively confirmed in various disciplines such as organizational behavior, marketing, event, hospitality and tourism. In the context of cultural and heritage of tourism, a vast of studies have concluded the positive influence of motivation on satisfaction (Battour et al., 2012; Correia, Moital, Costa, & Peres, 2008; Lee & Hsu, 2013; Schofield & Thompson, 2007). As a result, the study also proposed the casual link between heritage travel motivation and satisfaction: Hypothesis 1 (H1): Heritage travel motivation has a significantly direct influence on satisfaction towards a heritage destination Engagement has been found as an outcome of the desire or need to interact and cooperate with objects (e.g. brand, product, service, attraction) in the marketing literature (Calder, Malthouse, & Scha¨del, 2009; Higgins & Scholer, 2009; Patterson, Yu, & Ruyter, 2006; Pham & Avnet, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010). In the context of heritage tourism, multiple motivations were identified as main drivers of engagement (Bryce et al., 2015; Taheri et al., 2014). Poria et al. (2006) also confirmed the influence of heritage site perception on 60
5. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 motivation before the visit. As a result, it can be anticipated the causal links of heritage travel motivation associated with visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image during the on-site experience in this study as below. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Heritage travel motivation has a significantly direct influence on visitor engagement Hypothesis 3 (H3): Heritage travel motivation has a significantly direct influence on visitor experience Hypothesis 4 (H4): Heritage travel motivation has a significantly direct influence on heritage destination image Previous studies found that the high level of engagement visitors had with activities or service offerings at a destination can optimize the tourism experience (Chen & Rahman, 2018; Taheri et al., 2014). Consumer engagement was also indicated as a predictor of satisfaction towards consumption experiences (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Llic, 2011; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). As a result, the direct relationships between engagement and satisfaction were supposed in this study. Hypothesis 5 (H5): Visitor engagement has a significantly direct influence on visitor experience Hypothesis 6 (H6): Visitor engagement has a significantly direct influence on heritage destination image Hypothesis 7 (H7): Visitor engagement has a significantly direct influence on satisfaction towards a heritage destination Previous studies have provided tenable evidence for the inter-relationships between destination image experiential factors and satisfaction. Regarding experiential factors, tourists will have a more realistic and differentiated image which is affected by their on-site experiences about a destination when they visited and experienced it (Martín-Santana, Beerli- Palacio, & Nazzareno, 2017; Suhartanto, 2018). As a result, visitor experience can be considered as a predictor of destination image. In turn, destination image leads to tourist satisfaction towards the destination. Indeed, the higher evaluation a tourist holds of the destination’s cognitive image, the higher level of satisfaction he or she feels toward that destination (Kim, 2017; Lai, Kho-Lattimore, & Wang; Zhang et al., 2014). Kim (2017) also confirmed the positive relationship between memorable tourism experiences and satisfaction in a study of revisit intention of tourists travelling to Taiwan. As a result, three hypotheses representing the causal links of visitor experience, destination image and satisfaction are stated in this study. Hypothesis 8 (H8): Visitor experience has a significantly direct influence on satisfaction towards a heritage destination Hypothesis 9 (H9): Visitor experience has a significantly direct influence on heritage destination image Hypothesis 10 (H10): Heritage destination image has a significantly direct influence on satisfaction towards a heritage destination 2.2. Research methodology 2.2.1. Research Instrument A structured questionnaire included socio-demographic variables (ex., gender, age, education, region of residence), thirteen items measuring multi-dimensional heritage travel motivation (Bryce et al., 2015; Poria et al., 2004) , sixteen items measuring multi-dimensional heritage destination image (Remoaldo et al., 2014), six items measuring visitor engagement (Taheri et al., 2014), eight items measuring visitor experience (Kim & Ritchie, 2014), and three items measuring satisfaction towards a heritage destination (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Žabkar, Brenčič, & Dmitrović, 2010). Respondents were asked to evaluate the level of agreement on each measurement item using a seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly 61
6. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng disagree, 7=strongly agree). The content validity of measures was reviewed by three academic experts in tourism to access the applicability and representativeness of each measurement item. The results indicated that most of items were rated from moderately representative/ applicable to very representative/applicable. One item ‘I visited the site because of its religious heritage’ was argued by experts that it is not suitable for heritage travel motivation as the motive for religion should not be mixed with heritage values. As a result, this item was deleted, and the final 45 items were retained in the survey. After an expert panel review, a pilot study with a sample of 30 tourists was conducted to clarify the wording of measurement items, the language used and the structure of questionnaire. 2.2.2. Data collection and analysis A self-administered on-site survey was carried out to collect data from both international and domestic tourists travelling to Hoi An UNESCO World Heritage Site, Vietnam in December 2018 as this month is considered as the tourism high-season in Hoi An. The questionnaire was first developed in English and translated into Vietnamese to target at domestic tourists. To ensure the consistency of meaning between two versions, the questionnaire was double-translated. In particular, the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese by an English-Vietnamese bilingual and then translated back to English by another. A total of 368 valid questionnaires were collected, however 353 were qualified for data analysis after a data screening process including the examination of missing data, unengaged responses and extreme multivariate outliers. Due to the complexity of the proposed model, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed for data analysis. Between two forms of SEM, covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and least squares-based SEM (PLS-SEM), PLS-SEM is a component based approach that is suitable for testing developmental theories (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). Accordingly, SmartPLS 3.0 were utilized to analyze the data. A systematic procedure for data analysis included analysis of demographic information, evaluation of measurement model and evaluation of structural model. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Results 3.1.1. Profile of respondents There were totally 352 respondents after data screening, which demonstrates a diverse collection of demographic information with regard to gender, age group, region of origin and educational levels (Table 1). Table 1. Demographic profile of respondent 3.1.2. Measurement model evaluation: First-order factor model The first-order measurement model with nine factors, which were formed by 45 measurement items, was tested. The results were concluded based on the criteria set for reflective measurement model evaluation in Table 2, which included internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. First, the internal consistency reliability was measured by the composite reliability, with satisfactory number was recommended to be higher than 0.7 (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009). Accordingly, the results demonstrated that all the constructs’ composite reliability values were from 0.796 to 0.909 and were statistically accepted. 62
7. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 Second, the convergent validity was assessed by the outer loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE) values. Findings showed that most factor loadings of measurement items were greater than the threshold value of 0.7 (Hulland, 1999). However, the factor loadings of five items ‘I felt obliged to visit the site’, ‘I use guided tours at the site’, ‘I use videos and audios at the site’, ‘Beautiful weather’ and ‘Vietnam’s birthplace” were 0.426, 0.584, 0.645, 0.456 and 0.539, respectively, which were lower than the minimum requirement value of 0.7. The deletion of those five items increased both CR and AVE values of their associated constructs, therefore they are all eliminated from the measurement scales. Other items MOT4, MOT9, DIM1, DIM7, DIM10, DIM12 and DIM13, which had outer loadings ranged from 0.6, were retained in the measurement scale because the deletion of these items did not make a significant change to both the CR and AVE values of their associated constructs. In summary, after deleting MOT3, ENG1, ENG2, DIM5, DIM6, all of the indicators for the nine constructs had the acceptable level of outer loadings that met the first criterion of convergent validity. Another criterion was average variance extracted (AVE) which should not be less than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) . Results showed that after the aforementioned indicators were removed, the AVE values of all constructs were higher than0.5, ranging from 0.537 to 0.732. As a result, the measures of nine first-order constructs involved in the model were concluded to have high levels of convergent validity. Table 2. Assessment of first-order factor model 63
8. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng Finally, the evaluation of discriminant validity was checked by the square root of AVE using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Accordingly, the square root of AVE for each construct was highest compared to its correlation values with other factors (see Table 3). In summary, the above discussion indicated that all evaluation criteria for the reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were met, supporting all first-order measurement models in this study Table 3. Fornell-Larcker Criterion of first-order factor model 3.1.3. Measurement model evaluation: Second-order factor model After the evaluation of measurement constructs, heritage travel motivation (MOT) and heritage destination image (DIM) were found as second-order constructs. In particular, the higher-order construct MOT was formed by three lower-order components, namely emotional experience (MEE), recreational experience (MRE) and cultural experience (MCE). The higher-order construct DIM consisted of three components, namely historical background and functionality (IHF), entertainment (IEN) and efficiency (IEF). In order to examine the hierarchical relationships between constructs and their components, a second- order measurement model evaluation construct was tested. Accordingly, the first-order factors were used as the indicators in the model. The criteria for evaluating the second-order constructs were based on the same guidelines as for first-order construct assessment. According to the results shown in Table 4, the composite reliability values of MOT and DIM were 0.752 and 0.873, respectively, which were higher than the threshold of 0.7 (Henseler et al., 2009). This indicated a high reliability of two higher-order constructs, MOT and DIM. Turning to convergent validity, the loading values of the indicators which were the first- order constructs were all above the recommended value of 0.7 (Hulland, 1999). The loading value of MEE (0.698) was also acceptable as it was very closed to the value of 0.7 (see Table 4). The average variance extracted (AVE) values of MOT and PIM were 0.503 and 0.697, respectively, which were higher than Fornell and Larcker (1981)’s recommendation of 0.5. In summary, the results provided the empirical evidence that heritage travel motivation and heritage destination image fit best using first-order model. Table 4. Assessment of second-order factor model 64
9. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 3.1.4. Structural model evaluation a) Evaluation of direct effects Results of structural model evaluation including path coefficients, the corresponding t- values, and p- values were presented in Table 5. According to the recommendation of Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2014) , if the empirical t-value is greater than critical t-value of 1.65 at a significant level of 10%, 1.96 at a significant level of 5% and 2.57 at a significant level of 1%, the path coefficient is significant. Regarding direct relationships, findings illustrated that eight out of ten hypotheses were supported with t-values greater than 2.57 at a significant level of 1%. Particularly, heritage travel motivation had significant influences on the proposed constructs in the model including visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. However, the direct relationship between heritage travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination was rejected (βMOT→SAT= +0.05, t = 1.013, p > 0.1). Visitor engagement was study found as a predictor of visitor experience (βENG→VEX= +0.174, t = 3.212, p 0.1), it was affected by visitor experience (βVEX→DIM= 0.597, t = 12.469, p < 0.01). All three constructs, visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image, were found as the determinants of heritage tourists’ satisfaction in this model. Regarding the strength of direct relationships associated with satisfaction towards a heritage destination, visitor experience had the strongest influence on satisfaction (βVEX→SAT= 0.394, t = 6.310, p < 0.01). Interestingly, the results indicated that there was an inverse relationship between visitor engagement and heritage tourists’ satisfaction (βENG→SAT= -0.106, t = 12.469, p < 0.01). Table 5. Results of direct effects b) Evaluation of indirect relationships The study also examined the mediating effects of three added constructs, visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image, in the relationship between heritage travel motivation and visitor satisfaction by applying a bootstrapping method suggested by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010). Accordingly, if the bootstrapped indirect effects are significant with t-value greater than 1.65 the significant level of 10% and the confidence interval does not include the value of zero, mediation is supported. The findings indicated that all three variables fully mediated the causal link between motivation and satisfaction in this study. c) Evaluation of predictive capability Two criteria were used to evaluate predictive capability of model including the predictive accuracy and predictive relevance. The first one was evaluated based on the coefficient of determination (R2) which presented the amount of explained variance of each endogenous latent variable (Hair et al., 2014). Accordingly, the model constructs explained 46% of variance in heritage destination image and 51.3% of variance in satisfaction towards a heritage destination. Second, applying the blindfolding procedure in SmartPLS 3.0, the value of Q2 greater than 0 65
10. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng was used to assess the predictive relevance associated with the endogenous variable in the extended model (Chin, 2010). Accordingly, all the Q2 values are positive, indicating the model’s predictive relevance in this study. 3.2. Discussion 3.2.1. Theoretical contributions Due to the primary problem related to the direct link between motivation and satisfaction, the study confirmed the indirect relationship between motivation and satisfaction via visitor experience, visitor engagement and destination image. These additional factors explained 51.3% in the variation in satisfaction which was much higher than the percentage of variance that motivation directly explained satisfaction in previous studies. The results of study also showed a difference from previous studies which only indicated the direct influence of each separate motivational factors on satisfaction (Battour et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Pan & Ryan, 2007; Qiao et al., 2008; Taheri et al., 2014). A unique contribution of this study is the investigation of heritage destination image perceived by visitors during the experiences. The findings of study surprisingly demonstrated that the relationship between visitor engagement and satisfaction towards a heritage destination was negative, not positive as supposed. It could be explained by contextualizing ‘over- engagement’ in tourism that was adapted from the organizational behavior literature (Griffiths & Karanika-Murray, 2012). 3.2.2. Managerial contributions First, heritage travel motivation leads to visitor experience and in turn, visitor experience has the greatest influence on visitor’s satisfaction towards a heritage destination. Reflecting on this finding, it is important for destination managers to understand the main motives of heritage tourists. Second, some implications arise from the positive relationship between visitor engagement and experience. However, the negative link between engagement and satisfaction reminds managers to pay attention to the level of engagement as over- engagement can cause lower satisfaction. Finally, heritage destination image is a predictor of visitor satisfaction towards a heritage site. As a result, some suggestions for destination managers can be proposed to prevent the degradation of architectural and artistic relics, renovate in combination with the restoration of monuments in terms of material culture, spiritual culture and environmental landscape. 3.2.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Although the data collection from heritage tourists during the experience was the best way to fill the identified research gap, there were no criteria to clarify the scale of experience or degree of experience that respondents have obtained at a heritage destination. Therefore, it is anticipated that the scale/ degree of experience will have moderating effects on the causal relationships in the proposed model, generating the idea for future research. In addition, it would be interesting to do comparison studies between domestic and international tourists, between first-time and repeat visitors by applying the framework developed in the study. Finally, the future research can extend the model with the additional factors playing the mediating role in the relationship between motivation and satisfaction to provide a comprehensive understanding about the complexity of heritage tourist behaviors. 4. Conclusion The relationship between tourist motivation and satisfaction has been widely studied by academics in the tourism and hospitality field for the last couple of decades. However, previous studies mainly focused on the direct influence of motivation on satisfaction (Albayrak & Caber, 2018; Battour et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Qiao et al., 2008). It is argued that the influence of motivation was found to have a low explanation ratio for satisfaction as the nature of this relationship should be indirect with the mediation 66
11. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 effects of other variables (Albayrak & Caber, 2018; Schofield & Thompson, 2007). As a result, the current study constructed and validated a model of motivation-satisfaction towards heritage tourism with the addition of experience-related factors (visitor engagement and visitor experience) and heritage destination image. REFERENCES [1] Albayrak, T., & Caber, M. (2018). Examining the relationship between tourist motivation and satisfaction by two competing methods. Tourism Management, 69(2), 201-213. [2] Alrawadieh, Z., Prayag, G., Alrawadieh, Z., & Alsalameen, M. (2019). Self-identification with a heritage tourism site, visitors’ engagement and destination loyalty: The mediating effects of overall satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal. doi:10.1080/02642069.2018.1564284 [3] Apostolakis, A. (2003). The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals of tourism research, 30(4), 795-812. [4] Battour, M. M., Battor, M. M., & Ismail, M. (2012). The mediating role of tourist sastifaction: A study of Muslim tourists in Malaysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Maketing, 29(3), 279-297. [5] Bowen, D., & Clarke, J. (2002). Reflections on tourist satisfaction research: Past, present and future. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 297-308. [6] Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Llic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271. [7] Bryce, D., Curran, R., O'Gorman, K., & Taheri, B. (2015). Visitors' engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage consumption. Tourism Management, 46(5), 571-581. [8] Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Scha¨del, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interative Marketing, 23(3), 321- 331. [9] Chen, C.-F., & Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29-35. [10] Chen, C. F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tourism Management, 28(1), 175-187. [11] Chen, H., & Rahman, I. (2018). Cultural tourism: An analysis of engagement, culural contact, memorable experience and destiantion loyalty. Tourism Management Perspectives, 26(1), 153-163. [12] Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analysis. In E. V. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares Concepts, Methods and Applications (pp. 655-689). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. [13] Correia, A., Moital, M., Costa, C. F. d., & Peres, R. (2008). The determinants of gastronomic tourits' satisfaction: A second-order factor analysis. Journal of Foodservice, 19(2), 164-176. [14] Dann, G. M. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of tourism research, 4(4), 184- 194. [15] Dann, G. M. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of tourism research, 8(2), 187-219. [16] De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29(3), 525-537. [17] del Bosque, I. R., & San Martin, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction: A cognitive-affective model. Annals Of Tourism Research, 35(2), 551-573. [18] Devesa, M. a., Laguna, M., & Palacios, A. s. (2010). The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 547-552. [19] Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied 67
12. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440-452. [20] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. [21] Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: towards a conceptual framework. Annals Of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56-78. [22] Griffiths, M. D., & Karanika-Murray, M. (2012). Contextualising over-engagement in work: Towards a more global understanding of workaholism as an addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1(3), 87-95. [23] Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc. [24] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial leasrt squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20(277-320). [25] Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaing the consumer: The science and art of the value creating process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100-114. [26] Hollebeek, L. D. (2010). Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), 785-807. [27] Hollywood, L., Bolan, P., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2017). The heritage tourist: An understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions AU - Kempiak, Joanna. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(4), 375-392. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/13527258.2016.1277776 [28] Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal, 20(2), 195-204. [29] Kim, J.-H. (2017). The ipact of memorable tourism experiences on loyalty behaviors: The mediating effects of destination image and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 57(7), 856-870. doi:10.1177/0047287517721369 [30] Kim, J.-H., & Ritchie, J. B. (2014). Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience scale (MTES). Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 323-335. [31] Lai, M. Y., Kho-Lattimore, C., & Wang, Y. (2018). A perception gap investigation into food and cuisine image attributes for destination branding from the host perspective: The case of Australia. Tourism Management, 69(4), 579-595. [32] Lee, T. H., & Hsu, F. Y. (2013). Examining how attending motivation and satisfaction affects the loyalty for attendees at aboriginal festivals. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 18-34. [33] Li, M., Cai, L. A., Lehto, X. Y., & Huang, J. Z. (2010). A missing link in understanding revisit intention - The role of motivation and image. Journal of Travel & Tourism Maketing, 27(4), 335-348. [34] Martín-Santana, J. D., Beerli-Palacio, A., & Nazzareno, P. A. (2017). Antecedents and consquences of destination image gap. Annals Of Tourism Research, 62(1), 13-25. [35] Martín, H. S., & Bosque, I. A. R. d. (2008). Exploring the cognitive–affective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism Management, 29(2), 263-277. [36] Nguyen, T. H. H., & Cheung, C. (2015). Toward an understanding of tourists' authentic heritage experiences: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(7), 999- 1010. [37] Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 17(4), 460-469. [38] Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of consumer research, 20(3), 418-430. 68
13. Hội nghị Sinh viên nghiên cứu khoa học năm học 2018-2019 [39] Patterson, P., Yu, T., & Ruyter, K. d. (2006, 4-6 December). Understanding customer engagement in services. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2006 Conference, Brisbane. [40] Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Rethinking regulator engagement theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 115-123. [41] Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site perceptions and motivations to visit. Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), 318-326. [42] Pratminingsih, S. A., Rudatin, C. L., & Rimenta, T. (2014). Roles of motivation and destination image in predicting tourist revisit intention: A case of Bandung-Indonesia. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 5(1), 19-24. [43] Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., S.Chen, J., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and invovlement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253-264. [44] Remoaldo, P., & Vareiro, L. M. d. C. (2014). Tourist' perceptions of world heritage destinations: The case of Guimaraes (Portugal). Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(1), 206-208. [45] Remoaldo, P. C., Ribeiro, J. C., Vareiro, L., & Santos, J. F. (2014). Tourists’ perceptions of world heritage destinations: The case of Guimarães (Portugal). Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(4), 206-218. [46] Schofield, P., & Thompson, K. (2007). Visitor motivation, satisfaction and behavioral intention: The 2005 Naadam Festival, Ulaanbaatar. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9 (5), 329-344. [47] Shen, S., Schüttemeyer, A., & Braun, B. (2009). Visitors' intention to visit world cultural heritage sites: An empirical study of Suzhou, China. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(7), 722- 734. [48] Smith, W. W., Li, X., Pan, B., Wite, M., & Doherty, S. T. (2015). Tracking destination image across the trip experience with smartphone technology. Tourism Management, 48(1), 113-122. [49] Smith, W. W., Li, X. R., Pan, B., Witte, M., & Doherty, S. T. (2015). Tracking destination image across the trip experience with smartphone technology. Tourism Management, 48, 113-122. [50] Suhartanto. (2018). Tourist satisfaction with souvenir shopping: Evidence from Indonesian domestic tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(6), 663-679. [51] Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 29(1), 16-35. [52] Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O'Gorman, K. (2014a). Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism Management, 42(4), 321-329. [53] Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O'Gorman, K. (2014b). Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism Management, 42, 321-329. [54] Tang, Y. (2014). Travel motivation, destination image and visitor satisfaction of international tourists after the 2008 wenchuan earthquake: A structural modelling approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(11), 1260-1277. [55] Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2003). Heritage tourism: Pearson Education. [56] Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2011). Exploring the essense of memorable tourism experiences. Annals Of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367-1386. [57] Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. E., Mittal, V., Nab, S., Pick, D. e., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266. [58] Wirtz, J., Mattila, A. S., & Tan, R. L. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousal on the impact of affect on satisfaction—an examination in the context of service experiences. Journal of retailing, 76(3), 347-365. 69
14. Trường Đại học Kinh tế - Đại học Đà Nẵng [59] Wu, H.-C., & Li, T. (2017). A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(8), 904-944. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1096348014525638 [60] Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2001). The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm: a critique. Journal of hospitality & tourism research, 25(2), 107-131. [61] Žabkar, V., Brenčič, M. M., & Dmitrović, T. (2010). Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31(4), 537-546. [62] Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta- analysis. Tourism Management, 40(1), 213-223. [63] Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. 70