Nature Lovers’ Perceptions On Quality Dimensions In Gunung Gading National Park, Sarawak

Theory of Planned Behavior and Revisit Intention

To understand and predict people's behavioural intentions, theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is one of the widely adopted and persuasive theory to study tourists’ revisit intention. The TPB focused on tourists’ visit intention or revisit intention to explain the behaviour and travel intention of tourists. In the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), attitudes, subjective norms as well as perceived behavioural control are determining the intentions. Attitude denotes to favourable or unfavourable assessment of person or behaviour’s appraisal; subjective norms represents as the perceived social pressure influence to determine whether execute or not to execute the behaviour; and perceived behavioural control is well-defined as person’s insight of their capacity to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

TPB has been adopted in a number of research fields such as social psychology, tourism and festival and events to determine the tourists’ intention and behaviour. TPB reflects that the behavioural intention is strong-minded by attitudes and subjective norms of human behaviour. In this regard, visitors are more likely to revisit a festival where subjective norms exist (Choo et al., 2016; Han et al., 2010; Kim & Han, 2010). Quintal et al. (2015) elucidated that the willingness to revisit and likelihood to recommend to others are influenced by the predictors of behavioural intentions. In a similar study, Leng and Chiu (2016) proposed TPB as the theoretical model of festival intention to revisit. Therefore, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms as well as attitudes play a vital role in decision making to revisit the destination. Thus, TPB is implemented as main theory to underline the framework of current study look at the impact of quality dimensions enhancing tourists’ satisfaction and revisit intention.

Revisit Intention

Revisit intention is referred to tourists continually visit a destination and keen to recommend it to others. The positive word-of-mouth of repeated tourists are considered as the best marketing tool (Chin et al., 2018; Som & Badarneh, 2011) and as such, a number of studies have found that revisit intention represented the loyalty of customers that intend to revisit the destination, destination image also a key indicator influence tourist to choose the same destination as future intention to visit (Chi & Qu, 2008; Stylidis et al., 2017). Due to the competitive tourism market, tourists’ positive experience from past travel such as quality of service and product play a crucial role on creating tourists’ revisit intention to tourism destination (Choo et al., 2016; Li, 2014; Tubey & Tubey, 2014).

Satisfaction

Tourist satisfaction had a substantial impact on tourists’ revisit intention and recommendation to others. It was found that satisfied customers would enhance the word-of-mouth advertising and increase the level of repeat purchase (Alananzeh et al., 2018; Ohn & Supinit, 2016; Xiaoli & Chirapanda, 2013) which in this case refers to revisiting the tourism destinations and creating positive word-of-mouth advertisement on tourism sites. According to previous studies (Dodds & Jolliffe, 2016; Suhartanto et al., 2019) are defined customer satisfaction as the expectation and evaluation of service or product by customers in order to compare between before and after visiting a destination. The tourist future behaviours are related to tourist satisfaction because tourist experiences with the destinations’ attractions could fulfill tourists’ expectation which would develop tourists’ loyalty in revisiting the tourism destinations (Mohaidin, Wei & Ali Murshid, 2017). Therefore, tourists’ satisfaction is a significant factor that impacts tourist revisit intention and future purchase which could result in favourable future bahavioural intention (Ali et al., 2016; Suhartanto et al., 2019).

Accessibility Quality

Accessibility quality is defined as the ease of person in accessing one destination to another destination by using the quality of transportation method at the tourism destination (Chin et al., 2018). Several studies (Coban, 2012; Litman, 2003) revealed that ease of access is one of the important factors for destination image, service quality and tourist satisfaction in turn to influence tourist to make their travel decisions in selecting destination. Moreover, affordability, convenience and accessibility quality of transportation infrastructure also found to affect tourists ease to the destination (Lee & Kim, 2014). As such, destination accessibility and infrastructure are regarded as service quality that have impacted on tourist satisfaction and influence future behavioural intention (Hau & Omar, 2014).

Accommodation Quality

In tourism and hospitality industry, accommodation is referred as a place or a room to stay such as hotels, motels, apartments, villages and homestays (Chin et al., 2018). Accommodation quality included friendliness and efficiency of service, cleanliness of accommodation, convenience of accommodation, security and safety of accommodation (Latiff & Imm, 2015). Previous study by Shonk (2006) emphasized that quality of accommodation has a significant upshot on tourists’ satisfaction. As such, accommodation is one of the main criteria in selecting a destination as good quality of accommodation enhances the tourists’ expectations and satisfaction. Previous studies (Chin et al., 2019; Downward & Lumsdon, 2000; Mehmetoglu, 2007; Rauch et al., 2015) revealed that the accommodation quality influence tourists’ intention to stay, activities’ choices and how much time they are willing to spend in tourism destination.

Destination Resource and Attractiveness

Destination is defined as a location where tourists’ facilities and services are provided (Kim & Brown, 2012) for tourism-related activities to be conducted (Shonk, 2006). Destination resource and attractiveness refer to the special attributes of destination which can attract tourists and develop a sustainable tourism (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Past researchers claimed that destination resources and attractiveness are significant factors and play important roles to attract tourists’ visitation (Tubey & Tubey, 2014; Navarro, 2015). In destination competitive market, resources are defined as unique assets of the destination that can be create a competitive advantage (Hong, 2009; Manrai et al., 2018). Past studies (Balkaran & Maharaj, 2013; Goeldner et al., 2000) stated that natural resources and attractiveness consists of natural scenic beauty, national parks, wildlife reserves, flora and fauna and world heritage sites. Moreover, cultural resources and attractiveness involved local cuisine, museums, cultural or historical buildings, folk village, entertainment and nightlife. Thus, unique natural attractions create wonderful travel experience for tourists and persuade tourists to visit the destination again (Bonn et al., 2007).

Local Communities’ Attitude (Moderator)

As stated by Chin et al. (2018), local communities’ attitude refers to a group of local residents who are expressing their perception and attitude towards tourists. In tourism development, local communities play a crucial role as service provider to tourists which provided accommodation, transportation, information and activities (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Lo et al., 2017). Spencer and Nsiah (2013) stated that local communities’ attitude can affect tourists’ satisfaction, spending power, revisit intention and positive or negative word of mouth. Past studies (Goulding et al., 2014; Jaafar et al., 2013; Sharma & Dyer, 2009) have shown that the favourable attitude of local communities, level of support and involvement towards the tourism development to determine success and failure. Therefore, the participation of local communities is a key driver to sustain the tourism destination development.

Hypotheses Development

In a study by Chin et al. (2018), accessibility is advocated as playing a crucial character in shaping the destination competitiveness in the tourism industry. Good quality of accessibility of a tourism destination will result in an increase in destination attractiveness and tourists’ satisfaction, which in turn attract tourists visit and enhance destination image (Basaran, 2016; Madden et al., 2016). Previous studies have promulgated that accommodation quality is an imperative component to enhance tourists’ visit experience and revisit intention (Dubé & Renaghan, 2000; Lo et al., 2017; Nam et al., 2011; Ryu et al., 2012) and accommodation quality and tourists’ satisfaction are found as important factors in amplifying the tourists’ visit experience and revisit intention (Dubé & Renaghan, 2000; Latiff & Imm, 2015; Nam et al., 2011). A good accommodation quality can ensure tourists’ expectation and satisfaction in order to increase the potential growth of economic to tourism destination (Chin et al., 2018). In previous research (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000) have posited that destination resources and attractiveness have impacted satisfaction of tourists and strong influence on tourists’ revisit intention. There is further evidence on the compelling and positive relationship between destination resources, attractiveness and satisfaction (Alananzeh et al., 2018). According to the above research discussion, the subsequent hypotheses are formed:

• H1: Accessibility quality is positively related to tourists’ satisfaction at Gunung Gading National Park of Sarawak.

• H2: Accommodation quality is positively related to tourists’ satisfaction at Gunung Gading National Park of Sarawak.

• H3: Destination resources and attractiveness are positively related to tourists’ satisfaction at Gunung Gading National Park of Sarawak.

Past studies (Prayag et al., 2017; Vareiro et al., 2019) revealed that tourists’ satisfaction and revisit intention have significant positive relationship. The destination loyalty is a determinant of satisfaction of tourists and tourists are probable to revisit the same destination and tend to share positive word of mouth with friends and family (Bosque & Martín, 2008; Campo‐Martínez et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2014; Vareiro et al., 2019; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Moreover, satisfaction is a substantial predictor of revisit intention as satisfied tourists with good travel experience are preferred to repeat their visit to the destination spots and recommend to others for visiting the particular destination (Chen & Tsai 2007; Prayag et al., 2017), whereas dissatisfied tourists with bad impression of the destinations are highly unlikely to revisit. As per discussion, the subsequent hypothesis is developed:

• H4: Satisfaction of tourists is positively related to revisit intention at Gunung Gading National Park of Sarawak.

Local communities play a crucial role as a service provider in tourism development, as their participation and support are the enabler in developing favourable conditions towards tourism destination (Lo et al., 2017). Local communities are the impetus in providing high quality service to tourists, such as better transportation service and give direction to tourists so that tourists ease to access the location. This is to enhance the quality of accessibility and satisfaction of tourists. In addition, the favourable local communities’ attitude attain positive relationship on satisfaction of tourists towards revisit intention. Past researchers have discovered that quality of accommodation is a significant influence to enhance tourists’ satisfaction (Latiff & Imm, 2015; Marković & Raspor, 2010; Ryu et al., 2012). The responsive attitude of local communities provides the accommodation facilities to tourists may increase tourists’ satisfaction and revisit intention (Ariffin et al., 2013; Bimonte & Punzo, 2016; Chin et al., 2018). Various studies (Balkaran & Maharaj, 2013; Navarro, 2015; Tubey & Tubey, 2014) revealed that destination resource and attractiveness is a significant component to attract tourists. Destination resources and attractiveness and tourists’ satisfaction have significant positive relationship to influence tourists in making decision to revisit destination attraction. Moreover, local communities play a vital role in providing local events and a range of activities to tourists in enhancing tourists’ satisfaction (Sustainable Tourism Online, 2016). The discussion as above lead to develop the succeeding hypotheses:

• H5: The local communities’ attitude positively moderate the relationship between accessibility quality and tourists’ satisfaction.

• H6: The local communities’ attitude positively moderate the relationship between accommodation quality and tourists’ satisfaction.

• H7: The local communities’ attitude positively moderate the relationship between destination resources and attractiveness and tourists’ satisfaction.

Assessment of the Measurement Model

The discriminant validity, items reliability and convergent validity were measured by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). According to Bagozzi et al. (1991) revealed that all the items loadings are far exceed the threshold point of 0.50 which shown in Table 2 . Next, the convergent validity was measured by composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). The results indicated that all the CR values should above the threshold point of 0.7 (Chin, 2010) besides all the values of average variance extracted (AVE) must met the minimum value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2014). Both Fornell-Larcker and HTMT criterions were used to measure the discriminant validity. The AVE value was square rooted to testify against the inter item correlation of the construct with other constructs in the proposed research model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The criteria for all the values known as greater than each of the constructs’ correlation (Chin, 2010) (see Table 3 ).

Moreover, a new suggested method to test the discriminant validity which known as discriminant validity (HTMT Ratio) (see Table 4 ). In HTMT, there are two criteria to follow to conclude that there is satisfactory for discriminant validity. First criteria, the HTMT value would not be larger than HTMT0.85 value of 0.85 (Kline, 2015). Second criteria, according to Gold et al. (2001) stated that the HTMT value would not larger than HTMT0.90 value of 0.90 As shown in Table 4 , all the values have conceded the HTMT criterion which indicating that discriminant validity has been ascertained. In summary, the evident results of discriminant validity, convergent validity, and reliability were completely satisfactory for the measurement model. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.256 for satisfaction and 0.201 for revisit intention.

Assessment of the Structural Model

Following, the results of the hypotheses testing shown as Figure 1 and Table 5 . Remarkably, the statistical results presented that four of the direct hypotheses tested, 2 were found supported. Surprisingly, three of the moderating hypotheses proposed were rejected. The results revealed that destination resources and attractiveness was found relation with tourist’s satisfaction, whereas satisfaction is significantly related to revisit intention in the case of Gunung Gading National Park. Thus, H3 and H4 were accepted. H1, H2, H5, H6, and H7 were rejected. In Table 5 has reported the variation inflation factor (VIF) values is less than 10 which in the range of 1.363 and 1.834. This can be confirmed there are no multicollinearity exists among the constructs (Bock et al., 2005). According to Hair et al., (2016) advised that the predictive relevance explaining by both R2 and Q2. Hence, the Q2 value was performed by blindfolding procedures. The Q2 value of the satisfaction was 0.145 and Q2 value for revisit intention was 0.132, which is more than zero value (Table 6 ).

See Full Size >

Accessibility Quality, Accommodation Quality, as well as Destination Resources and Attractiveness on Satisfaction

The statistical results indicated that out of seven hypotheses tested, only two direct hypotheses were supported. The result of study showed that the accessibility quality and accommodation quality have no significant relationship with satisfaction. Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 are rejected. One of the plausible justifications for the findings is that a good accessibility quality to a destination, specifically national park will not influence the tourists’ satisfaction. In the case of Gunung Gading National Park, although the journey to the national park take about 2 hours’ drive from main town, however, tourists are satisfied with the road conditions and mode of transportations provided by relevant authorities. Alternatively, quality of accommodation is found not influencing tourists in making travel decision to the national park, particularly for the case of Gunung Gading National Park. As such, most of the respondents visited to the park opted for a one day visit or they preferred to stay at nearby accommodations. That could be the reason tourists believed that the accommodation quality will not influence their satisfaction at the park, perhaps the natural resources and attractiveness are their main concern and as attractors to enhance the satisfaction level.

From this study, destination resources and attractiveness were found to be positively related to satisfaction, thus supporting hypothesis 3. The findings are congruent with previous research and found that positive significant relationship between destination resources and attractiveness, and tourists’ satisfaction are confirmed (Alananzeh et al., 2018). The possible rationalization for this is that destination resources and attractiveness are considered as positive destination image to develop tourists’ attraction and satisfaction in order to increase tourists’ visitation (Dean et al., 2019; Navarro, 2015). For instance, tourists who are visiting the national park tends to be attracted by the natural local resources, such as the natural tracking trails, the beauty of the waterfall, the freshness of the air at the park. Thus, it is recommended that continuous efforts should be taken to protect and maintain the quality of the destination resources and attractiveness for its sustainability.

Tourists’ Satisfaction and Revisit Intention

Next, the statistical findings also revealed that tourists’ satisfactions are positively related to revisit intention, thus indicating that hypothesis 4 is supported. The findings are corresponding with past studies which indicated the satisfaction and revisit intention have positive relationship (Banki et al., 2014, Chin et al., 2018; Mensah, 2013). In line with the TPB theory, tourists who are satisfied with the quality of service at the national park are encouraged to revisit to the national park due to favourable behavior towards the tourism destination. Tourists who are satisfied with location and travel experience tend to revisit and create positive word of mouth toward the destination (Chin et al., 2018; Qu et al., 2010; Um et al., 2006).

Local Communities’ Attitudes Moderates Accessibility Quality, Accommodation Quality, as well as Destination Resources and attraction on Tourists’ Satisfaction

On the other hand, statistical results have found that the local communities’ attitude did not affect the relationship between accessibility qualities, accommodation quality, destination resources and attractiveness and tourists’ satisfaction, thus hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 are rejected. It was found that local communities’ attitude will not enhance the relationship between the proposed independent variables to tourists’ satisfaction at the national park. Past studies (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Lo et al., 2017) claimed that local communities’ attitude plays an important role in tour guiding, provide accommodation facilities for tourists and hosting events with favourable attitude. This research found that local communities' attitude does not impact in term tourist perception towards advancement of tourism destination competitiveness. Consequently, the reason for this could be the ownership of the national park belongs to the government and not the local community. For the community to play a significant role, it is suggested that local communities to be assigned some role in the management of the national park. Both the local community and park management team could have worked together to achieve greater development of the national park. That is community could assist managing the park and at the same time this could increase community’s income.