Values and Willingness: New Strategies to Enhance Willingness in ACT
A STUDY ON TOURIST SATISFACTION AND WILLINGNESS TO REVISIT ... - June 2019/ijer... · A STUDY ON...
Transcript of A STUDY ON TOURIST SATISFACTION AND WILLINGNESS TO REVISIT ... - June 2019/ijer... · A STUDY ON...
A STUDY ON TOURIST SATISFACTION AND WILLINGNESS TO REVISIT
IN SIGHTSEEING AND RECREATION AREAS
Kuang-Tai Liu 1, Hung-Teng Chang
2 and Chiu-Chi Wei
1*
1 Department of Industrial Management, Chung Hua University
707, Sec. 2, WuFu Rd., Hsinchu 300, Taiwan
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] 2
Ph.D. Program of Technology Management, Chung Hua University
707, Sec. 2, WuFu Rd., Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.
Department of Management Information System, Yu Da University and Technology
No. 168, Hsueh-fu Rd., Tanwen Village, Chaochiao Township, Miaoli County, 361 Taiwan
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract With the increase of national income and improvement of quality of life in Taiwan, people have
paid more and more attention to sightseeing and leisure activities in Taiwan. As the government
issued the stipulation of two-day weekend, Taiwanese people spend more and more time on
sightseeing and leisure activities and are increasingly willing to engage in sightseeing activities.
Therefore, leisure vacation has become an indispensable part of people's daily life. The purpose of
this study is to explore the impact of tourists’ demographic variations on tourist satisfaction and
willingness to revisit, the impact of the characteristics of tourism on tourist satisfaction and
willingness to revisit as well as the impact of tourist satisfaction on the willingness to revisit. This
study conducts a questionnaire survey and uses SPSS statistical software as statistical analysis tools.
Data analysis methods include narrative statistical analysis, factor analysis, t-test, single-factor
variability analysis and correlation analysis. The results show that: there are significant differences
between tourists’ satisfaction and willingness to revisit, for example, the visiting purposes would
significantly affect tourist satisfaction on the landscape environment, scenic spot guidance,
recreational facilities; tourists are more satisfied with the natural landscape of the landscape
environment; there is a positive correlation between tourist satisfaction and their willingness to
revisit. The results of this study can serve as a reference for the management of ecotourism.
Keywords: sightseeing and recreation areas, customer satisfaction, willingness to revisit
1. Introduction
According to the statistics by the Tourism Bureau of MOTC (Ministry of Transportation and
Communications) in 2018 about the major sightseeing and recreation areas in Taiwan and Fujian
(national parks, forest tourism areas, leisure farming and fishery areas, leisure farms, wetlands,
aboriginal areas, experimental forest areas, national scenic spots as well as the historical sites and
historical buildings in municipalities and counties), the number of tourists almost tripled from
97,990,000 in 2009 to 281,518,000 in 2018. The increasing trend shows that sightseeing and leisure
tourism has become part of Taiwanese people's life. With the improvement of the quality of
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
16
sightseeing and recreational facilities and the holding of local festivals, the national tourism market
is more warming up (Tourism Bureau, MOTC, 2018).
However, the development of tourism has also caused many negative impacts such as
challenges faced by land and water resources, animals and plants, environment and cultures. Under
this situation emerges ecotourism, which is considered to be a tourism activity that can take into
account both natural conservation and recreation development. During the ongoing of sightseeing, it
can also protect fragile natural resources from damages. Ecological sightseeing and recreational
landscape is one of the few areas that combine the aesthetic feeling of landscape with the ecological
function. It not only provides modern people with the function of rest and recreation so that they can
have the space to exercise, walk and refresh their body and mind, but also provides people with a
clean and healthy living environment. For the living creatures in the environment, it can also provide
diversified living space and habitats, which is an important basis to maintain the ecological stability
of the environment. While traveling to ecological tourist spots, visitors not only recognize the rich
ecological resources there, but can also have a deep understanding of the special natural and human
characteristics of the local areas, which may make them develop an attitude of environmental
responsibility, and finally return economic benefits to the local area, thereby making conservation
work sustainable.
In face of the rapid development of tourism market, understanding the tourists' participation and
satisfaction with the activities will help to segment the market and increase competitiveness.
Therefore, this study will explore the relationship between tourists' satisfaction after participation in
recreation and their willingness to revisit, and provide reference for relevant management units based
on the study results.
2. Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to explore the sightseeing ecotourism in recreational areas, which
uses the ambient forest forms and the natural landscape and tranquil environment formed by such
forms, together with human and historical resources, to provide places for tourism, recreation,
comfort, sports, observation and research activities. It defines the use of resources as natural,
ecological, with environmental ethics and environmental awareness in order to achieve the goal of
coexistence of society, economy and environment (Lin et al., 2016). According to Gee et al. (1997),
there are five important connotations of tourism development:
(1) Creation of attraction: It refers to the development and utilization of local special tourist
resources to create scenic spots that can attract tourists to go there for sightseeing. Generally
speaking, tourist resources can be divided into natural resources and humanistic resources;
development of tourist attractions may not necessarily be an exploitation behavior but may also be a
combination of local characteristics or natural resources; development of natural resources such as
ecological parks and scenic spots are based on the premise of ecological conservation. These scenic
spots are not profit-making, but require quality, low-level development and educational function.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
17
(2) The emphasis is on “accessibility”, not transportation itself. As far as facilities are concerned,
the provision of transportation includes hardware and software construction. The combination of
attractiveness in transportation, such as road signs at intersections or turning points, the use of
landmarks and landscape design and the enhancement of different visual images, can help tourists
know the environment where they are located, help them find scenic spots and therefore turn their
tourism plans to actual behaviors.
(3) Service and equipment: Sightseeing service system is the integration of various service
aspects. Whether it is environmental services, accommodation facilities and hospitality services,
commercial services for tourists, the provision of infrastructures, or itinerary arrangements, booking
and other services, they all interact with each other. Among them, the so-called environmental
services refer to the exterior design of buildings and landscapes, as well as the perfection of
environment or cleaning and maintenance. The business services provided for tourists’ overlap with
the daily use of local residents, such as restaurants, public facilities and so on. In the travel industry,
it acts as a bridge between the demand of tourists and the supply of tourism, including
accommodation, transportation, attraction promotion and reservation operations, and the use of
computer technology for implementation and communication to achieve the connection between
supply and demand.
(4) Information provision: The provision of tourism information is a kind of tourism service, but
also tourism marketing. On the other hand, the provision of tourism information is also a kind of
tourism service work after tourists enter the tourism development area. For example, the tourism
information center provides various kinds of assisting services including transportation, scenic spots,
activities and accommodation information for tourists, or on-site guide and commentary in the
tourism area.
(5) Marketing and promotion: The concept of marketing is different from that of promotion.
Marketing mainly achieves the increase of product demand through the enhancement of product
image and market segregation. At the beginning of planning a tourist destination, tourism marketing
must be carried out at the same time. Tourism promotion is to attract tourists through substantive
discounts and package itinerary arrangement. Therefore, provision of tourism marketing and
promotion information can more effectively attract tourists. Generally speaking, there are two ways
for tourists to understand the sightseeing area: one is the original way, which belongs to their
expectations and perceptions of the scenic spots, and its information sources are TV news, radio,
documentaries, newspapers, periodicals, drama, literature, and experience shared by friends etc. The
other is the inducing way, which refers to the impression induced by deliberate arrangement of the
sightseeing provider (Gee et al., 1997).
Tourism industry is a cluster industry that contains many related industries, and it is also an
important strategy for local economic development. While developing tourism industry, local
governments must have proper control. Huang et al. (2015) pointed out that recreational experience
could be divided into pre-expectation and post-recreational experience, while the overall feeling of
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
18
tourists after recreation is called "satisfaction". Ramseook et al. (2015) considered that the
satisfaction of tourists' recreational attributes is the degree of feeling about the psychological
experience, environmental landscape, recreational activities and travel arrangement during the trip.
Backer and Crompton (2000) believed that satisfaction is the psychological and emotional state of
the individual after experience; recreational satisfaction is the overall evaluation of the recreational
journey by tourists. Chan et al. (2015) pointed out that recreational satisfaction is the result of the
comparison between personal pre-expectation and the actual experience. Kozak (2001) believed that
"revisit" meant that tourists are satisfied with their recreational destination and willing to travel there
again. Therefore, the tourists’ previous travel experiences, the convenience of the transportation to
the destination, the satisfaction on the recreational products and services are all factors that will
affect tourists’ willingness to revisit. Pansari and Kumar (2017) pointed out that customer
satisfaction is an important attribute of consumer behavior research, and that the level of customer
satisfaction affects customers' willingness to repurchase in the future, as well as other purchase
behavior including brand loyalty and the positive reputation of the brand. Tsaur et al. (2015) studied
the relationship between leisure motives and leisure cognition, and found that there are multiple
factors affecting the tourists’ willingness to revisit, including the leisure characteristics of the tourists,
the influences of the leisure groups, and market structure.
Baker and Fulford (2016) studied the willingness to revisit the recreation area or the willingness
to repurchase tourism products and found out that when tourists choose to visit the recreation area, if
the recreation opportunities, environmental facilities, activities and services provided by the
recreation area meet the requirements of tourists, the tourists will be willing to visit there again. The
derivative behavior of willingness to revisit may include customer referral, public recommendation
and word of mouth etc.
This study holds that tourists’ willingness to revisit refers to the tourists’ emotional response
(i.e., customer satisfaction) after the tours, which will quickly change into the overall attitude of the
customers toward such tour. When the tourists are satisfied with the recreation, they may have the
willingness to revisit and recommend the recreation area again and make the area get the favor of
other tourists through word-of-mouth propaganda. The above studies show that tourists’ satisfaction
on the tourist destination will affect their willingness to revisit, while the willingness is based on the
tourist destination’ ability to keep tourists satisfied.
3. Research Method
This study adopted the “Naturalistic Observation” method to have a preliminary understanding
of the research subjects, and then referred to relevant literatures and researches to design a
questionnaire in line with the research framework. Then, "Questionnaire Survey" method was used to
conduct a questionnaire and statistical quantitative analysis of tourists to recreation area A.
The content of the questionnaire is designed and revised mainly with reference to literature
theories and consulting several scholars’ opinions for the items and grammar of the questionnaire.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
19
The scale of the questionnaire is Likert’s five-point scale. The structure of the questionnaire in this
study is as follows:
(1) Demographic variation: it refers to the basic information of individual tourists, such as
gender, age and residential place etc.
(2) Tourist characteristics: It refers to the basic information of tourists after their experience of
recreational activities, including number of previous visits, companions, means of transport, purpose
and duration of stay, etc.
(3) Satisfaction: It refers to the degree of satisfaction of tourists with the activities they have
participated, including landscape environment, guideline of scenic spots, recreational facilities, etc.
(4) Willingness to revisit: It refers to the situation of willingness to revisit and recommendation
after the tourists are satisfied, including overall satisfaction, recommendation to relatives and friends,
revisit etc. Figure 1 shows the research framework.
Figure 1. Research Framework
After the preliminary design of the questionnaire was completed, 50 respondents were acquired
to fill in the questionnaire to understand the difficulties that formal respondents may encounter when
filling in the questionnaire. Then they completed the formal questionnaire after reliability and
validity analysis. In order to achieve consistency and stability of the content of the questionnaire, the
most common statistical Cronbach's α value was used to verify the reliability of each facet of the
factors and the overall reliability of the questionnaire. The greater the Cronbach’s α value, the greater
the internal consistency of the scale. If the Cronbach’s α value is between 0.7 and 0.9, its reference
Tourists’ characteristics
Demographic variation
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Residential place
Tourist characteristics
1. Number of previous visits
2. Companions
3. Means of transport
4. Purpose
5. Duration of stay
Satisfaction
1. Landscape environment
2. Guideline of scenic spots
3. Recreational facilities
Willingness to revisit
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
20
standard is " Good "; if the Cronbach’s α value is between 0.5 and 0.7, it references standard is "
Acceptable ". Therefore, the reliability value of the questionnaire should exceed 0.5 at least to
represent that the questionnaire is reliable (as shown in Table 1):
Table 1 Questionnaire Reliability Coefficient
Reliability coefficient Internal consistency
Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.30 Unacceptable
0.30 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.40 Poor
0.40 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.50 Questionable
0.50 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.70 Acceptable
0.70 ≦ Cronbach’s α ≦ 0.90 Good
0.90 ≦ Cronbach’s α Excellent
4. Results Analysis and Discussion
In this study, a total of 800 close-ended questionnaires were distributed to tourists, which were
mainly investigated by researchers on the spot. 784 valid questionnaires were collected, with an
effective questionnaire recovery rate of 98%. The tourist characteristics were analyzed from
demographic variables and tourism characteristics, which are described in detail as follows:
4.1 Descriptive statistics of population and tourism characteristics
The demographic variables of tourists in recreation area A include gender, age and residential
places, as shown in Table 2, which are described as follows:
(1) Gender: The statistical results of this study show that female tourists account for 52.7% and male
tourists account for 47.3%, indicating that the majority of tourists in recreation area A are
female.
(2) Age: The statistical results of this study show that the age distribution is mainly 16-25 years old,
accounting for 29.8%, followed by 26-35 years old (20.3%), 36-45 years old (17.7%), 56-65
years old (11.4%), 66 years old and above (4.5%), below 15 years old (1.7%) and missing
value (0.1%), indicating that the majority of visitors to recreation area A are young people aged
16-25.
(3) Residential regions: The statistical results of this study show that the majority of tourists live in
the Central regions, accounting for 53.8%, 34.7% in the North, 10.5% in the South, 0.6% in the
East, 0.3% in foreign countries and 0.1% in the outlying islands, indicating that the majority of
visitors are from Central regions.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
21
Table 2 Narrative Statistics of Demographic Variables
Variable Classification criteria Number of visitor Percentage %
Gender
male
female
371
413
47.3%
52.7%
Total 784 100%
Age
Under 15
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66 and older
Missing value
13
234
159
139
114
89
35
1
1.7%
29.8%
20.3%
17.7%
14.5%
11.4%
4.5%
0.1%
Total 784 100%
Residential regions
North
Central
South
East
Outlying islands
Foreign countries
272
422
82
5
1
2
34.7%
53.8%
10.5%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
Total 784 100.0%
The analysis of tourist characteristics of recreation area A includes five items (as shown in
Table 3): number of visits, travel companions, transportation, duration of stay and purpose of visit,
which are described as follows:
(1) Number of visits: The results of this study show that the majority number of visits to recreation
area A is more than one time, accounting for 41.8%, followed by more than three times,
accounting for 31.3%, while visiting for twice is less, accounting for 26.9%.
(2) Travel companions: The results of this study show that the companions of the respondents are
mainly family members (41%), followed by friends (30.3%), colleagues/classmates (13.1%)
and those who travel here alone (9.6%), tour groups (5.4%) and missing values (0.6%)
(3) Transportation: The results of this study show that the majority of the respondents adopt their
personal-use vehicles for transportation (60.6%), followed by locomotives (19.4%), tour bus
(8.2%), bicycles (4.9%), passenger vehicles (2.5%), hiking (2.2%), taxi (1.3%), trains (0.8%)
and missing values (0.1%). It indicates that personal-use vehicles are still the more common
transportation tools used by tourists
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
22
(4) Duration of stay: The results of this study show that the majority of the time spent in this area is
from half an hour to 4 hours, accounting for 73.9%, followed by 11.3% within half an hour,
8.4% between 4 hours and 8 hours, and 6.4% over 8 hours. It indicates that the main time spent
by tourists in recreation area A is from half an hour to 4 hours.
(5) Purpose of visit: The statistical results of this study show that most of the respondents come here
for the purpose of getting close to nature, accounting for 32.9%, followed by relieving body and
mind (29.3%), reunion with relatives and friends (21.6%), exercise and fitness (8.1%), others
(photography, fishing) (4.9%), academic research (2.3%) and missing value (0.9%). It indicates
that tourists come to recreation area A mainly for the purpose of getting close to nature and
relieving body and mind.
Table 3 Narrative Statistics of Tourism Characteristics
Tourism characteristics
Number
of
visitor
Percentage %
Number of visits
once 328 41.8%
twice 211 26.9%
three times and above 245 31.3%
Travel
companions
family members 321 41%
friends 237 30.3%
colleagues/classmates 102 13.1%
tour groups 43 5.4%
alone 76 9.6%
missing value 5 0.6%
Transportation
bicycles 38 4.9%
locomotives 152 19.4%
personal-use vehicles 475 60.6%
passenger vehicles 19 2.5%
trains 7 0.8%
taxi 10 1.3%
tour bus 64 8.2%
hiking 18 2.2%
missing value 1 0.1%
Duration of stay
within half an hour 89 11.3%
half an hour to 4 hours 579 73.9%
between 4 hours and 8 hours 66 8.4%
over 8 hours 50 6.4%
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
23
Purpose of visit
close to nature 258 32.9%
reunion with relatives and friends 169 21.6%
relieving body and mind 229 29.3%
exercise and fitness 64 8.1%
academic research 18 2.3%
others (photography, fishing) 39 4.9%
missing value 7 0.9%
4.2 Narrative statistics of satisfaction and willingness to revisit
In this section, narrative statistics are made about tourist satisfaction and willingness to revisit
4.2.1 Narrative Statistics of Satisfaction
As shown in Table 4, in the "landscape environment" aspect, the ranking of customer
satisfaction from high to low is as follows: natural landscape (3.8321), ecological resources (3.6498),
historical sites (3.5181), and clean environment (3.3372). In the "scenic spot guidance" aspect, the
ranking of customer satisfaction from high to low is as follows: scenic spot 4 (3.4580), scenic spot 3
(3.4284), scenic spot 2 (3.4269) and scenic spot 1 (3. 4096). In the "recreational facilities" aspect, the
ranking of customer satisfaction from high to low is as follows: parking lot space design (3.4130),
sightseeing facilities (such as walkway, cultural square) (3.3575), pavilion seat design in rest area
(3.2344), safety facilities (3.2287), public toilet safety (3.1968), catering facilities (such as coffee
shop) (3.1870) and night lighting equipment (3.1374).
Table 4. Narrative Statistics of Satisfaction
Factor aspect NO. Content Average
value
Standard
deviation
Landscape
environment
〈Avg. 3.5843〉
1 ecological resources 3.6498 0.68445
2 natural landscape 3.8321 0.71071
3 historical sites 3.5181 0.69837
4 clean environment 3.3372 0.75223
Scenic spot
guidance
〈Avg. 3.4307〉
5 scenic spot 1 3.4096 0.74513
6 scenic spot 2 3.4269 0.74509
7 scenic spot 3 3.4284 0.70732
8 scenic spot 4 3.4580 0.76316
Recreational
facilities
〈Avg. 3.2507〉
9 pavilion seat design in rest area 3.2344 0.67676
10 public toilet safety 3.1968 0.71143
11 parking lot space design 3.4130 0.68921
12 catering facilities 3.1870 0.75705
13 sightseeing facilities 3.3575 0.74280
14 safety facilities 3.2287 0.70183
15 night lighting equipment 3.1374 0.71696
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
24
The reliability analysis in Table 5 shows that test results of tourist satisfaction with landscape
environment (α= 0.818), satisfaction with scenic spot guidance (α= 0.881) and satisfaction with
recreational facilities (α= 0.883) are reliable. As to the reliability of various aspects of landscape
environment, besides environmental cleanliness, removal of any other aspect will reduce the overall
reliability, which means that all aspects are indispensable; as to the reliability of aspects of scenic
spot guidance and recreational facilities, the removal of other aspects will reduce the overall
reliability, which means that all aspects are indispensable.
Table 5 Reliability Analysis of Satisfaction
Factor
aspect NO. Content
Cronbach’s
α
Cronbach’s
α of content
Landscape
environment
1
2
3
4
ecological resources
natural landscape
historical sites
clean environment
0.818
0.728
0.737
0.775
0.837
Scenic spot
guidance
5
6
7
8
scenic spot 1
scenic spot 2
scenic spot 3
scenic spot 4
0.881
0.880
0.822
0.846
0.836
Recreational
facilities
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
pavilion seat design in rest area
public toilet safety
parking lot space design
catering facilities
sightseeing facilities
safety facilities
night lighting equipment
0.883
0.867
0.870
0.874
0.872
0.861
0.856
0.864
4.2.2 Narrative statistics of willingness to revisit
The analysis of willingness to revisit analysis in Table 6 shows that the mean value of "are you
willing to recommend relatives and friends to visit recreation area A" is 3.7106, and the mean value
of "are you willing to travel to recreation area A again" is 3.6787. The questions of willingness to
revisit are all higher than the median value of 3, which shows that majority of the visitors under
survey have high willingness to revisit.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
25
Table 6 Narrative Analysis of Willingness to Revisit
NO. Content Average
value
Standard
deviation
1 Are you willing to recommend relatives and friends
to visit recreation area A? 3.7106 0.67040
2 Are you willing to travel to recreation area A again? 3.6787 0.68173
4.3 Difference Analysis of Satisfaction
In this section, independent sample t-test and One-Way ANOVA are used to explore the
significance in satisfaction of different tourists and tourism characteristics.
4.3.1 Analysis of satisfaction difference from tourist characteristics
The analysis of Table 7 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the satisfaction
of tourists of different genders on the “landscape environment”, “scenic spot guideline” and
“recreational facilities” of recreation area A.
Table 7 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Gender
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 8 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the satisfaction
of tourists of different ages on the “landscape environment”, “scenic spot guideline” and
“recreational facilities” of recreation area A.
Satisfaction Gender n Average
value F P
Landscape
environment
male 318 3.57233 0.08746 0.7675
female 354 3.58545
Scenic spot
guidance
male 318 3.421384 0.003834 0.9506
female 354 3.424435
Recreational
facilities
male 318 3.26505 0.909 0.3407
female 354 3.22478
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
26
Table 8 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Age
Satisfaction Age n Average
value F P
Landscape
environment
1. Under 15 12 3.47917
4.549 0.0001559*
2.16-25 206 3.41045
3.26-35 140 3.64074
4.36-45 122 3.63866
5.46-55 100 3.66582
6.56-65 79 3.69231
7.66 and older 31 3.66380
Scenic spot
guidance
1. Under 15 12 3.7500
1.303 0.2533
2.16-25 206 3.4303
3.26-35 140 3.4389
4.36-45 122 3.3887
5.46-55 100 3.4847
6.56-65 79 3.3750
7.66 and older 31 3.2241
Recreational
facilities
1. Under 15 12 3.4405
0.6161 0.7176
2.16-25 206 3.2012
3.26-35 140 3.2371
4.36-45 122 3.2737
5.46-55 100 3.2391
6.56-65 79 3.2876
7.66 and older 31 3.2660
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 9 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the satisfaction of
tourists from different residential places on the “landscape environment” and “scenic spot guideline”,
but no significant statistical difference in the satisfaction on “recreational facilities” of recreation
area A.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
27
Table 9 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Residential Places
Satisfaction Age n Average
value F P
Landscape
environment
1. North 240 3.66775
7.731 4.42e-07*
2. Central 372 3.51589
3. South 72 3.60764
4. East 4 4.3125
5.Outlying islands 1 1
6. Foreign countries 2 3.625
Scenic spot
guidance
1. North 240 3.41991
3.199 0.007311*
2. Central 372 3.46132
3. South 72 3.22569
4. East 4 3.875
5.Outlying islands 1 2
6. Foreign countries 2 3.75
Recreational
facilities
1. North 240 3.24057
1.08 0.3702
2. Central 372 3.25336
3. South 72 3.17262
4. East 4 3.78572
5.Outlying islands 1 3.42857
6. Foreign countries 2 3.28572
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
4.3.2 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Tourism Characteristics
The analysis of Table 10 shows that different times of visits will cause significant statistical
difference in the satisfaction on the “scenic spot guideline” in recreation area A, but not on
“landscape environment” and “recreational facilities”.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
28
Table 10 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Times of Visits
Satisfaction Time to visit n Average
value F P
Landscape
environment
1、once 283 3.54273
1.37 0.2548 2、twice 126 3.57486
3、three times and above 226 3.62841
Scenic spot
guidance
1、once 283 3.30818
8.754 0.0001766* 2、twice 126 3.45198
3、three times and above 226 3.54318
Recreational
facilities
1、once 283 3.19117
2.273 0.1038 2、twice 126 3.26634
3、three times and above 226 3.29156
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 11 shows that different companions of tourists will cause significant
statistical difference in the satisfaction on the “landscape environment” in recreation area A, but not
on “scenic spot guideline” and “recreational facilities”.
Table 11 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Travel Companions
Satisfaction Travel companions
companions
n Average value F P
Landscape
environment
family members 278 3.554856
2.992 0.01827*
friends 203 3.536946
colleagues/classmates 88 3.545454
tour groups 38 3.750000
alone 65 3.761538
Scenic spot
guidance
family members 278 3.42266
1.39 0.2358
friends 203 3.36453
colleagues/classmates 88 3.52273
tour groups 38 3.35526
alone 65 3.51154
Recreational
facilities
family members 278 3.21788
1.612 0.1695
friends 203 3.20478
colleagues/classmates 88 3.30195
tour groups 38 3.39097
alone 65 3.31209
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
29
The analysis of Table 12 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the satisfaction
of tourists taking different means of transportation on the “landscape environment” and “scenic spot
guideline” in recreation area A, but not on its “recreational facilities”.
Table 12 Analysis of Satisfaction difference from Mans of Transportation
Satisfaction Transportation n Average
value F P
Landscape
environment
bicycles 33 3.789063
3.436 0.001277*
locomotives 134 3.58721
personal-use vehicles 419 3.564951
passenger vehicles 17 3.705883
trains 6 3.791667
taxi 8 3.84375
tour bus 56 3.607143
hiking 16 3.015626
Scenic spot
guidance
bicycles 33 3.72656
3.597 0.0008223*
locomotives 134 3.4438
personal-use vehicles 419 3.42463
passenger vehicles 17 3.67647
trains 6 3.70833
taxi 8 3.4375
tour bus 56 3.1875
hiking 16 3.04687
Recreational
facilities
bicycles 33 3.33482
1.983 0.055
locomotives 134 3.29125
personal-use vehicles 419 3.21288
passenger vehicles 17 3.42857
trains 6 3.57143
taxi 8 3.625
tour bus 56 3.22449
hiking 16 3.02678
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 13 shows that tourists’ length of stay in recreation area A will lead to
significant statistical difference in their satisfaction on the “landscape environment” of recreation
area A, but not on its “scenic spot guideline” and “recreational facilities”.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
30
Table 13 Analysis of Satisfaction Difference from Length of Stay
Satisfaction Duration of stay n Average
value F P
Landscape
environment
within half an hour 74 3.47297
3.495 0.01537* half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.57143
between 4 hours and 8 hours 58 3.78879
over 8 hours 43 3.56976
Scenic spot
guidance
within half an hour 74 3.388514
1.818 0.1426 half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.409457
between 4 hours and 8 hours 58 3.607759
over 8 hours 43 3.389535
Recreational
facilities
within half an hour 74 3.17761
1.537 0.2036 half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.24289
between 4 hours and 8 hours 58 3.37193
over 8 hours 43 3.19602
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 14 shows that tourists’ different purposes of visiting recreation area A
will lead to significant statistical difference in their satisfaction on the “landscape environment”,
“scenic spot guideline” and “recreational facilities”.
Table 14 Analysis of Satisfaction difference from Visiting Purposes
Satisfaction Purpose of visit n Average value F P
Landscape
environment
close to nature 224 3.54018
3.132 0.008388*
reunion with relatives and friends 143 3.57518
relieving body and mind 198 3.58081
exercise and fitness 57 3.83333
academic research 16 3.60938
others (photography, fishing) 34 3.40441
Scenic spot
guidance
close to nature 224 3.30022
4.401 0.0005981*
reunion with relatives and friends 143 3.53147
relieving body and mind 198 3.4053
exercise and fitness 57 3.65351
academic research 16 3.60937
others (photography, fishing) 34 3.40441
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
31
Recreational
facilities
close to nature 224 3.14158
7.333 1.055e-06*
reunion with relatives and friends 143 3.40359
relieving body and mind 198 3.20058
exercise and fitness 57 3.44603
academic research 16 3.44643
others (photography, fishing) 34 3.06302
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
4.4 Difference analysis of willingness to revisit
In this section, independent sample t-test and One-Way ANOVA are used to explore whether
there is difference in satisfaction of different tourists. The analysis of Table 15 shows that there is no
significant statistical difference in the willingness to revisit of tourists of different genders.
Table 15 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Gender
Factors Gender n Average value F P
Willingness to revisit male 318 3.688679
0.005395 0.9415 female 354 3.685028
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 16 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the willingness
to revisit of tourists at different ages.
Table 16 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Age
Factors Age n Average value F P
Willingness to revisit
1. Under 15 12 3.91667
5.387 1.899e-05*
2.16-25 206 3.50249
3.26-35 140 3.74445
4.36-45 122 3.66807
5.46-55 100 3.88266
6.56-65 79 3.74359
7.66 and older 31 3.86207
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 17 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the
willingness to revisit recreation area A of tourists from different residential places.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
32
Table 17 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Residential Places
Factors Residential
regions n Average value F P
Willingness to revisit
1. North 240 3.73593
0.7677 0.5733
2. Central 372 3.65331
3. South 72 3.69444
4. East 4 3.87500
5.Outlying islands 1 3.00000
6. Foreign countries 2 3.75000
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 18 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the willingness
to revisit recreation area A of tourists who have visited here for different times before.
Table 18 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Times of Visit
Factors Time to visit n Average
value F P
Willingness to revisit
1、once 283 3.56727
10.48 3.304e-05* 2、twice 126 3.69491
3、three times and above 226 3.82954
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 19 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the
willingness to revisit recreation area A of tourists with different companions.
Table 19 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Traveling Companions
Factors Travel companions n Average value F P
Willingness to revisit
family members 278 3.66906
2.358 0.05228
friends 203 3.61822
colleagues/classmates 88 3.7159
tour groups 38 3.78947
alone 65 3.87692
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
33
The analysis of Table 20 shows that there is no significant statistical difference in the
willingness to revisit recreation area A of tourists taking different means of transportation.
Table 20 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Means of Transportation
Factors Transportation n Average
value F P
Willingness to revisit
bicycles 33 3.96875
1.977 0.05583
locomotives 134 3.67442
personal-use
vehicles 419 3.66422
passenger vehicles 17 3.70588
trains 6 4.16667
taxi 8 3.9375
tour bus 56 3.69643
hiking 16 3.4375
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 21 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the willingness
to revisit recreation area A of tourists staying for different length of time.
Table 21 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Length of Stay
Factors Duration of stay n Average
value F P
Willingness to revisit
within half an hour 74 3.39189
7.604 5.267e-05* half an hour to 4 hours 497 3.69819
between 4 hours and 8 hours 58 3.87069
over 8 hours 43 3.81395
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
The analysis of Table 22 shows that there is significant statistical difference in the willingness
to revisit recreation area A of tourists with different traveling purposes.
Table 22 Analysis of Difference in Willingness to Revisit from Traveling Purposes
Factors Purpose of visit n Average
value F P
Willingness to revisit
close to nature 224 3.645089
3.35 0.005365*
reunion with relatives and friends 143 3.70979
relieving body and mind 198 3.651515
exercise and fitness 57 3.973684
academic research 16 3.84375
others (photography, fishing) 34 3.514706
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
34
4.5 Correlation analysis between satisfaction and willingness to revisit
This section explores the correlation between satisfaction and willingness to revisit. Pearson
Correlation is applied to statistical analysis. The correlation between satisfaction and willingness to
revisit is high between 0.70 and 0.99, moderate between 0.40 and 0.69, and low between 0.10 and
0.39 (Chiu, 2002). The results show that there is a positive correlation between satisfaction and
willingness to revisit. The correlation between "landscape environment" and "willingness to revisit"
is 0.4893955; the correlation between "scenic spot guidance" and "willingness to revisit"
is0.4643456; the correlation between "recreational facilities" and "willingness to revisit" is
0.4406076. The satisfaction of all three items, namely "landscape environment", "scenic spot
guidance" and "recreational facilities", all have a moderate correlation with "willingness to revisit"
(as shown in Table 23).
Table 23 Correlation Analysis between Satisfaction and Willingness to Revisit
Willingness to revisit
Satisfaction F P Pearson’s correlation coefficient
Landscape environment 211 < 2.2e-16* 0.4893955
Scenic spot guidance 184.2 < 2.2e-16* 0.4643456
Recreational facilities 161.4 < 2.2e-16* 0.4406076
Note: * indicates a significant value P < 0.05
5. Conclusion
This study found that there is a positive relationship between tourist satisfaction and willingness
to revisit. When customers’ satisfaction is high, their willingness to revisit is also high. This
conclusion is in consistent with the findings of Shahijan, Rezaei and Amin (2018). Tourists'
satisfaction with recreational facilities in recreation area A is not very high. This may be because the
surrounding environment is mainly aimed to maintain nature and thus it is not appropriate to develop
attractive and exciting recreational facilities.
Recreation area A charges for admission to the park, but tourists can use tickets to pay for their
consumption. However, due to the insufficient propaganda information, not all tourists know this
information. In this situation, some tourists are reluctant to pay for tickets and feel disappointed, so
they transfer to other scenic spots. This study suggests that it can set up tourist service centers,
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
35
strengthen the training of professional commentators and provide commentaries folders and tourism
information about transportation, surrounding attractions, activity information etc. to ensure
information transparency and provide better services. As many photographers like to go to recreation
area A for photography, fishing enthusiasts go there for fishing and a variety of bird species make it
their habitats, it is suggested that it should build ecological pools, make good maintenance of the
wetlands, making it the best place not only for sports, fitness and leisure, but also for ecological
academic research. Tourists are satisfied with the landscape environment of recreation area A. It is
suggested to make good use of the characteristics of recreation area A as a tourist destination (natural
landscape and ecological resources) to develop activities in different seasons in order to increase
tourist satisfaction and willingness to revisit. According to the survey and analysis, due to the remote
location of recreation area A, the proportion of tourists driving their own cars is quite high. So it is
suggested to integrate the local public transportation means to attract more tourists; In addition, it is
suggested that large parking lots be added to transport the influx of tourists during holidays or events.
As most of the tourists in this study come from neighboring areas, it is suggested that it can
cooperate with local communities or industries. Besides marketing local characteristics, it can also
enhance the advertising effect of recreation area A and attract tourists from other areas.
References
1. Tourism Bureau, MOTC, Executive Yuan, Tourism Business Statistics, Search date: 20181220
2. Lin, C.C., Wu, H.H., Lin, S.C., Hsieh, H.S., “A Preliminary Study on the Relationship between
Tourists' Leisure Experience and Environmental Attitudes”, National Pingtung University
Department of Physical Education, (2), 2016, p34~42.
3. Gee, C.Y., Hakens, J.C., Choy, D.J.L., The Travel Industry, 3/e, Guilu Publishing, 1997.
4. Cardozo, R.N. (1965). An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Expectation and Satisfaction,
Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 491-504.
5. Howard, J. A. and Sheth J. N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John Willey and
Sons.
6. Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfactions Processes in Retail Setting,
Journal of Consumer Research, 25-48.
7. Harris, C.C.(1982). Recreation satisfaction:Visitor evaluation of forest experience as a decision
making process. In Forest and Rover Recreation:Research Update. St. Paul:North Central Forest
and Experiment Station:USDA Forest Service.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
36
8. Driver, B. (1997). The defining moment of benefits . Parks & Recreation , 32 (12), 38-41.
9. Huang,S., Weiler, B. and Assaker, G. (2015). Effects of Interpretive Guiding Outcomes on Tourist
Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 54(3), P.344–358.
10. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V.N.and Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural
relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of
Mauritius, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 175, P.252–259.
11. Backer, D. A. and Crompton, J. L. (2000), Quality, Satisfaction and Behaviour Intentions, Annals
of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.
12. Chan, A., Hsu, C. H. C. and Baum, T. (2015). The impact of tour service performance on tourist
satisfaction and behavioral intentions :a study of Chinese tourists in Hong Kong, Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 32(1-2). P.18-33.
13. Kozak, M. (2001). Repeater’s behavior at two distinct destinations, Annals of Tourism Research,
28(3), P.784-807.
14. Pansari, A.and Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.45(3),P.294–311.
15. Tsaur, S.H., Lin, W.R., and Cheng, T.M. (2015). Toward a Structural Model of Challenge
Experience in Adventure Recreation, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 47(3), P.322–336.
16. Baker, D. M. A., Fulford, M. (2016). Cruise passengers’ perceived value and willingness to
recommend, Tourism & Management Studies, Vol.12(1), P.74-85.
17. Chen, C. M., Lee, H. T., Chen, S. H. and Huang, T. H. (2011). Tourist Behavioural Intentions in
Relation to Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Kinmen National Park, Taiwan.,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH, Vol.13, P.416–432.
18. Milad Kalantari Shahijan, Sajad Rezaei, Muslim Amin (2018), Cruisers’ experience, service
convenience, values, satisfaction and revisit intention, International Journal of Quality
&Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 2304-2327.
Kuang-Tai Liu, Hung-Teng Chang and Chiu-Chi Wei , Int. Jou Eco. Res, 2019, V10 i3, 16 – 37 ISSN:2229-6158
IJER – MAY – JUNE 2019 available online @ www.ijeronline.com
37