Critical Factors Affecting Selection of Travel

Thanh Phong TRAN, Trong Nghia PHAN, Hoang Thinh NGUYEN / Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business Vol 8 No 9 (2021) 0341–0349 341341

Print ISSN: 2288-4637 / Online ISSN 2288-4645doi:10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no9.0341

Critical Factors Affecting Selection of Travel Destinations: A Case Study in Vietnam

Thanh Phong TRAN1, Trong Nghia PHAN2, Hoang Thinh NGUYEN3

Received: May 30, 2021 Revised: August 08, 2021 Accepted: August 15, 2021

Abstract

This study is conducted to fill the research gap in proposing and testing the relationship between “Attitudes about the overall image of the destination”, “Subjective norms” and “Perceived behavioral control”. Simultaneously, we examine the relationship between these variables and tourists’ “intent to choose a destination.”. While most previous studies only deal with the relationship between destination image and intended behavior of tourists, this study uses the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to explain the intended behavior of tourists. In addition, the Theory of Destination Image (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991) is used to explain the factor “attitudes about the overall image of the destination”, contribute to supplementing and perfecting the Theory of Planned Behavior. This study uses a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze a sample of 993 observations, the subjects of which are international tourists to Vietnam, to test the relationship between second-order constructs. The test results show that “Subjective norms” and “Perceived behavioral control” have an impact on “Attitudes about the overall image of the destination”. Moreover, all these three factors have an impact on “Intent to choose destination”, in which the factor “Perceived behavioral control” has the greatest impact on “intention to choose destination”.

Keywords: Destination Selection, Travel Destination, Destination Image

JEL Classification Code: G01, G30, G32, G33

rising competition among tourist destinations throughout the world (Buhalis, 2000).

In general, tourist attractions have responded to a drop in visitor numbers by expanding their marketing budget. (Buhalis, 2000; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). However, the performance of this strategy was not as anticipated; the reason is that more and more destinations spend more on marketing and most of them was wrong to target the market leading to limited results (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999).

The widening range of destination choices and the increasing competition between destinations means, that tourists have more opportunities to choose their desired final destination. Therefore, destination management organizations (DMOs) must strive to enhance the image of tourist destinations by improving the quality of the visitor experience, creating differentiated values to attract visitors, enhancing the quality of the tourist experience, high-quality infrastructure, creating more space and recreational activities for visitors, among others (Qu et al., 2011; Le & Le, 2020). A lot of research in the world has mostly focused on improving destination image, and enhancing visitor satisfaction, improving destination quality to attract visitors (Setiawan et al., 2021). However, it is not enough

1 First Author. Lecturer, Quy Nhon University, Vietnam.Email: [email protected]

2 Corresponding Author. Lecturer, Department of Finance, Banking and Business Administration, Quy Nhon University, Vietnam [Postal Address: 170 An Duong Vuong, Quy Nhon City, 55113, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam] Email: [email protected]

3 Lecturer, Quy Nhon University, Vietnam.Email: [email protected]

© Copyright: The Author(s)This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

In the new era, tourism has risen to become the most important economic activity on a global scale, and the tourism and travel industry has made a considerable contribution to the global economy. Tourism is recognized as one of the key growth industries in all countries and is a major source of income, employment creation, and wealth creation for many countries. Despite the fact that global tourism is growing at a faster rate than other industries, tourism is still in its early stages, resulting in

Thanh Phong TRAN, Trong Nghia PHAN, Hoang Thinh NGUYEN / Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business Vol 8 No 9 (2021) 0341–0349342

to improve the destination image, satisfaction, service quality, etc. It is also and necessary to understand tourism motivations, influencing social factors (subjective Norms), income, vacation time (perceived behavioral control). Understanding the above crucial factors has significant consequences for tourism-related authorities’ planning, particularly in determining each destination’s marketing approach. As a result, the goal of this research is to provide destination managers with a more thorough understanding of tourists’ attitudes toward destinations, subjective normative factors, control of perceived behavior, and how these elements influence tourists’ choice of destination. From there, it helps policymakers identify important factors in Vietnam that can attract tourists, pinpoint issues that need improvement, and pinpoint content to promote to attract tourists.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior

Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) was an extension of the theory of reasoned action-TRA (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; Fishbein et al., 1980). The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) started as the Theory of Reasoned Action in 1980 to predict an individual’s intention to engage in a behavior at a specific time and place. The theory was intended to explain all behaviors over which people have the ability to exert self-control. The key component to this model is behavioral intent; behavioral intentions are influenced by the attitude about the likelihood that the behavior will have the expected outcome and the subjective evaluation of the risks and benefits of that outcome. Intention is assumed to ascertain motivational factors influencing behavior.

Attitude refers to a person’s opinion of whether a behavior is positive or negative (Fishbein et al., 1980). Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Attitude in this study refers to the attitude of tourists about the destination image because many previous studies have demonstrated that the overall attitude about the destination image has an impact on the intention to choose the destination. (Almeida et al., 2020; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003; Hunt, 1975; Zhang et al., 2014).

According to the theory of reasoned action (Figure 1), subjective norms can be formed via perceived normative beliefs from people and social circumstances surrounding tourists, namely family, friends, colleagues, industry, and media (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975). Perceived behavioral control refers to people’s perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

According to the definition of Buhalis (2000), selection intention is the transformation of motivation into buying action. Tourists’ desire to visit a given location is accomplished through evaluating alternatives based on individual preferences and goals, or more accurately, evaluating tourism products based on individual evaluation criteria.

Based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the study found that there are 3 factors affecting the intention to choose a destination, including (1) overall attitude about the destination image; (2) subjective norms; (3) perceived behavioral control. However, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) has not specifically mentioned the overall attitude about the destination image. Therefore, to clarify this factor, we need to learn more about destination image theory.

Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior


2.2. Theory of Destination Image

Destination image is the expression of all knowledge, impressions, prejudices, and thoughts, feelings, emotions of an individual or group about a particular object or place (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991).

Echtner and Ritchie (1991) are the pioneers to propose “three axes of destination image”, which most fully represent the components of destination image, namely: (1) attributes and comprehensive; (2) common and unique; (3) functional and psychological.

According to the proposed model, the attribute and comprehensive axes refer to the individual element and the overall impression of the destination. Common - unique axis refers to the common, similar elements about a destination (common to any destination) and what is unique, different, and unique only in that destination. The functional-psychological axis refers to components that are directly observable and measurable (e.g. price) and intangibles that cannot be easily measured (e.g. friendliness).

Qu et al. (2011) identified the overall destination image of a locality, including four groups: (1) quality of experience (Baker et al., 1992); (2) factors that attract visitors; (3) environment and infrastructure (Vengesayi, 2008); (4) recreation and outdoor activities (Buhalis, 2000; Swarbrooke, 2001).

3. Research Model and Hypotheses

Based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), we have identified three groups of factors affecting the

intention to choose a tourist destination. In addition, based on the Theory of Destination Image (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991), four groups of factors have been identified that affect the overall attitude of tourists about the destination image; therefore, this study proposes the following research modQu et al. (2011) pointed out four groups of factors that have a positive impact on the overall attitude about the image of a tourist destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Hsu et al., 2009). Therefore, in this study, the following hypothesis was proposed (Figure 2).

H1: Experience quality has a positive impact on overall attitudes about tourist destination image hình.

H2: Attraction factors have a positive impact on the overall attitude of tourist destination image.

H3: Experience environment and infrastructure have a positive impact on the overall attitude of tourist destination image.

H4: Outdoor activities and leisure have a positive impact on the overall attitude of tourist destination image.

The theory of intended behavior (Ajzen, 1991) has shown three factors that have a positive effect on the intended behavior of tourists (Han & Kim, 2010; Phetvaroon, 2006;). Therefore, this study poses the following hypotheses (Figure 2).

H5: Perceived behavioral control has a positive impact on the overall attitude about the image of a tourist destination.

Figure 2: Research Model


H6: Subjective Norms has a positive impact on the overall attitude of tourist destination image.

H7: Overall attitude factor about tourist destination image has a positive impact on destination choice intention.

H8: Subjective Norms have a positive impact on the intention to choose a destination.

H9: Perceived behavioral control has a positive impact on the intention to choose a destination.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Measurement Development

Attitudes about overall destination image measurement scale 1. Experiential quality; 2. Attracting factor; 3. Environ-ment and infrastructure; 4. Leisure and outdoor activities) was inherited from the research of Qu et al. (2011). The “subjective norm” scale was inherited from the research of Han and Kim (2010). The scale of “Perceived behavioral control” was inherited from the research of Han and Kim (2010). The scale of “Destinations selection intention” was inherited from the research of Phetvaroon (2006), and Han and Kim (2010).

4.2. Data Collection

A convenient random sampling method, with methods of EFA, CFA is applied in this study. The data collection method used is to send questionnaires directly to foreign tourists at famous attractions in Vietnam. Foreign tourists were surveyed in 9 provinces/cities with the largest number of tourists in the country. These 9 provinces represent the 3 regions of the North, the Central, and the South, namely: Ha Noi, Lao Cao, Quang Ninh, Hue, Da Nang, Quang Nam, Da Lat, Sai Gon, and Can Tho. According to research data from January to December 2019, when 1500 interview questionnaires were given, the number of valid responses was 993. The questionnaire was built based on the above questions and supplemented with the following demographic information (Table 1).

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Analysis

There were two items that did not meet the requirement. However, they are important variables so they will be kept for EFA. After EFA and scale retest, the results are shown in Table 2.

5.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

The results of EFA analysis for four independent vari-ables in relation to “Attitudes about overall destination image” are as follows (Table 3).

The KMO = 0.891 is over the required minimum, meeting the requirements for EFA analysis (Kaiser, 1974; Kaiser & Rice, 1974). Bartlett’s test has Sig = 0.000 < 0.05, which means that the four independent variables are correlated (Bartlett, 1937; Bartlett, 1950). The Eigenvalue = 2.662 above 1 is satisfactory (Hair et al., 2010). The Total Variance Explained = 62.897% showed that four independent variables can explain 62.9% of the dependent variable. This indicator is satisfactory (Hair et al., 2010).

The results of EFA analysis for three variables affecting “Destination selection intention” are as follows:

The KMO = 0.826 is over the required minimum. Bartlett’s test has Sig = 0.000 < 0.05, which means that the four independent variables are correlated. The Eigenvalue = 2.82 > 1 is accepted. The total variance explained = 62.5%, which shows that the three variables can explain 62.5% of the dependent variable.

5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed P = 0.000 < 0.05. This means all variables are accepted; CMIN/df = 2.058 < 3 meeting the requirements; GFI = 0.950 > 0.9; CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.950; and RMSEA = 0.052 < 0.08, all meeting the requirements (Hair et al., 2010) (Figure 3).

Table 1: Participant Characteristic

Characteristic Quantity Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 492.00 49.55Female 501.00 50.45

Age

18–29 428.00 43.1030–44 351.00 35.3545–59 198.00 19.94>= 60 16.00 1.61

Job

Student 251.00 25.28Officer 419.00 42.20Doctor 7.00 0.70Teacher 16.00 1.61Businessmen 101.00 10.17Worker 144.00 14.50Farmer 35.00 3.52Housewife 11.00 1.11Other 9.00 0.91


Table 3: Variables and Items

Item Loadings

I. Attitude about the Overall Image of the Destination in Vietnam

1. Quality of Experience

CLTN1. Easy access to Vietnam RemovedCLTN2. Quiet and relaxing atmosphere 0.659CLTN3. Reasonable hotel and restaurant costs 0.795CLTN4. Fascinating scenery and natural landscape 0.789CLTN5. Many open environment 0.873CLTN6. Friendly local 0.752

2. Attracting Factors

HD1. Diverse and attractive local cuisine 0.705HD2. There are many parks, attractive attractions 0.833HD3. This is a good place for children and families to relax 0.676HD4. This is an attractive tourist center of the country RemovedHD5. Attractive climate, only in Vietnam 0.885HD6. Convenient and affordable shopping facilities 0.934HD7. Attractive cultural events and festivals in Vietnam (flower festival, space of gong culture...) 0.673

3. Environment and Infrastructure

MTDL1. Fresh and natural environment 0.847MTDL2. Developed tourism infrastructure 0.828MTDL3. Accurate travel information and professional travel support 0.849MTDL4. Easy access to attractions 0.819MTDL5. Safe environment and confidentiality of visitor information RemovedHD8. Low level of urbanization 0.831

Table 2: Result of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Analysis

No Variables Number of Items

Cronbach’s Alpha

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation (Smallest)

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted

(Highest)

1 Quality of Experience (TN) 5 0.876 0.632 0.8662 Environment and

Infrastructure (MT)6 0.928 0.765 0.918

3 Leisure and Outdoor Activities (GT)

4 0.834 0.656 0.795

4 Attracting Factors (HD) 6 0.912 0.662 0.9085 Subjective Norms 3 0.763 0.558 0.7276 Perceived Behavioral

Control3 0.810 0.614 0.786

7 Intention 4 0.801 0.609 0.766


Item Loadings

4. Leisure and Outdoor Activities

GT1. Night market activities in Vietnam are attractive 0.775GT2. Extreme sports activities in Vietnam are attractive 0.728GT3. Teambuilding activities in Vietnam are attractive 0.763GT4. Many Cafés, Bars, Clubs, discos… are appealing 0.708

II. Subjective Norms

CQ1. My friends and relatives recommend Vietnam as a good destination 0.699CQ2. The good feedback about Vietnam from the tourist community has an influence on me 0.822CQ3. The advertising programs about Vietnam attractions are attractive to me 0.732

III. Perceived Behavioral Control

KS1. The Vietnamtour price is reasonable, it is suitable for my budget 0.816KS2. I have enough health, time, and opportunity to come to Vietnam for tourism 0.827KS3. Coming to Vietnam to travel completely depends on my decision 0.615

IV. Intention of Choosing Vietnam as a Destination

YD1. Vietnam is my first choice for my holiday 0.652YD2. Choosing Vietnam is a wise decision 0.744YD3. I will recommend Vietnam to others 0.719YD4. I will go to Vietnam the next time 0.757

Table 3: Continued

The combined reliability of the four variables (Table 4) is greater than 0.6; the extracted variance for the four variables is 0.5. This proves that the scales of the 4 variables are satisfactory (Hair et al., 2010).

The measurement results of standardized coefficients for the observed variables are greater than 0.5 and less than 1. The lowest value is CCQ1 with a value of 0.656, and the highest correlation between concepts is 0.468 < 0.656. With all P-values less than 0.001, it means the concepts meet the requirement for convergent and discriminant.

5.4. Hypothesis Test Results

The results show that CMIND/df = 2.178 greater than 1 and less than 3 is accepted; TLI = 0.933 and CFI = 0.939 are higher than 0.90; hence there is a better model fit. GFI is significant at a measurable level higher than 0.8. RMSEA is less than 0.5 indicating an acceptable and good model fit (Figure 4).

The results in Table 5 show that all p-values are less than 0.05 (at a significant level of 95%). All factors have an impact on the “Intention of choosing Vietnam as a destination”;

this result is completely satisfactory (Phetvaroon, 2006). Besides, the strongest construct is the “perceived behavioral control”. This result is different from many previous studies which indicated destination image as the most important (Almeida-García et al., 2020; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003; Hunt, 1975; Zhang et al., 2014; Ritchie et al., 2000). Moreover, the “subjective norm” construct has a significant impact on the intention of choosing a destination, while many previous studies only study the impact of the destination image on the intention of choosing a destination (Almeida-García et al., 2020; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003). The result discovered two new constructs namely “subjective norm” and “perceived behavioral control” which leave an impact on the intention of choosing a travel destination.

The result was discussed with tourist experts (investors and researchers), and they believe in the consistency of the result. Experts indicated that during the epidemic period, tourists consider the level of “perceived behavioral control” as a significant contribution to choosing a destination, followed by two constructs “attitudes about the overall attractiveness of destination” and “subjective norm”.


Figure 3: Unidirectionality Test Results

Table 4: Reliability of the Scale in CFA

STT Variables Estimate (Average)Reliability

Aggregate Reliability Extracted Variance

1 Attitudes 0.735 0.826 0.5444 Subjective norms 0.723 0.768 0.5273 Perceived behavioral control 0.769 0.813 0.5922 Intention 0.723 0.814 0.523

Table 5: Regression Weights

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

1 (Attitudes) ← 4 (Subjective norms) −0.176 0.063 −2.776 0.0061 (Attitudes) ← 3 (Perceived B control) 0.352 0.070 5.019 ***2 (Intention) ← 4 (Subjective norms) 0.228 0.065 3.502 ***2 (Intention) ← 3 (Perceived B control) 0.602 0.081 7.404 ***2 (Intention) ← 1 (Attitudes) 0.311 0.064 2.611 0.009

Note: *** indicates significant at 1% level of significance based on t−statistics.


Figure 4: Structural Model and Path Coefficients

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076477

Almeida-García, F., Domígunez-Azcue, J., Mercadé-Melé, P., & Pérez-Tapia, G. (2020). Can a destination really change its image? The roles of information sources, motivations, and visits. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100662

Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 328–339. https://doi.org//10.1177/0092070394224002

Bartlett, M. S. (1937). Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 160(901), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1937.0109

Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85.

Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00095-3

Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00196-3

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Deigo, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image, Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303100402

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of the destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1.1.89.3276

Fishbein, M., Jaccard, J., Davidson, A. R., Ajzen, I., & Loken, B. (1980). Predicting and understanding family planning behaviors. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010), An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 659–668. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.01.001

Hair, J. F., William, B., Barry, B., & Rolph, A. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hunt, J. D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 13(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/004728757501300301


Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575

Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115

Le, H. B. H., & Le, T. B. (2020). Impact of destination image and satisfaction on tourist loyalty: Mountain destinations in Thanh Hoa province, Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(4), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no4.185

Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, 32(3), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.014

Phetvaroon, K. (2006). Application of the theory of planned behavior to select a destination after a crisis: A case study of Phuket, Thailand [Bachelor’s thesis, Oklahoma State University]. ShareOK. https://hdl.handle.net/11244/7268.

Ritchie, J. R. B., Goeldner, C. R., & McIntosh, R. W. (2000). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (8th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Setiawan, H., Marwa, T., Wahab, Z., & Shihab, M. S. (2021). The strength of tourist involvement in mediating the relationship between experience value, destination image, and tourist loyalty: An empirical study in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(6), 1079–1090. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no6.1079

Swarbrooke, J. (2001). Key challenges for visitor attraction managers in the UK. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 1(4), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1057/PALGRAVE.RLP.5090130

Vengesayi, S. (2008). Destination image: Are there relationships with destination attributes? The Business Review, Cambridge, 10(2), 289–294. https://www.ajhtl.com/uploads/ 7/1/6/3/7163688/article_28_vol_8_1__2019.pdf

Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006

Documents

Critical Factors Affecting Selection of Travel