JEL Classification M30
Yogyakarta, as a major tourist destination in Indonesia, experienced an increase in tourist visits from year to year. If in 2005 the number of domestic tourist visits was still below one million people, that number increased by around 1.2 million people in 2009. In 2017 this figure had increased significantly by 4.7 million tourists; with the increasing number of hotels and motels built in Yogyakarta, as well as the start of the construction of the New Yogyakarta International Airport, in 2018 domestic tourist visits exceeded 5 million people. However, a number of places remain a favorite for most visitors, namely the Yogyakarta Palace, Parangtritis beach, Prambanan temple, Malioboro street, and so on. The perception of tourists that Yogyakarta is a city of culture has encouraged many tourists to visit cultural places. However, the length of stay of domestic tourists is still short, ranging from two to three days. Also, hotel occupancy rate in the Special Region of Yogyakarta does not reach 80% for Star-Hotel; in 2017 occupancy rate ranged 63.87%, while for non-star hotels, occupancy rate averaged 29.73%. In addition, the length of stay of guests in Star-Hotels on average reached 1.71 nights and non-star hotels reached 1.27 nights in 2017. In addition to being associated with the large number of domestic tourists from around Yogyakarta, also the level of loyalty of a tourist to repeatedly visit Yogyakarta is quite low, so tourists tend to shorten visits in addition to reducing the frequency of visiting Yogyakarta. These facts requires the Regional Government of Yogyakarta Special Region to increase tourist satisfaction and intention to visit Yogyakarta.
Figure 1. Graphs of Length of Stay of Tourists in DIY in 2012-2016
In various literature, there is still debate between satisfaction and loyalty, or between tourist satisfaction with the tourist intention to visit again. Prayag et al. (2017) in his research model state that there is a cross relationship between the overall destination image and satisfaction, also between the destination image and loyalty, as they consider the destination image construct to be complex. While Lee (2009) actually stated that the destination image construct will only affect tourist satisfaction, which then influences tourist visit intention. Liu and Kao (2018) stated that it was quite different and it needs the inclusion of new constructs, namely business strategies, which individually influenced both the constructs of motivation, satisfaction constructs and the intention of visiting constructs. Pratminingsih et al. (2014) in their research made a model stating that motivation can directly influence visit intention, or it can also be mediated by tourist satisfaction variable. Similarly, destination image constructs can directly encourage someone to visit a destination. The things above make the model of motivation relationship, destination image, satisfaction, and intention to visit a model that is still not fixed in researching consumer behavior in tourist activities. Ribeiro et al. (2017) put forward a new hypothesis, which states that tourist satisfaction does not need to produce repeated visit intention, but directly affects tourist loyalty; in their model, tourist satisfaction is a mediating variable, and can be influenced by several variables which have not yet been tested in many studies in the field of tourist behavior, namely emotional solidarity of tourists. Similarly, Cohen et al. (2014) suggested to pay attention to the factors of the development of information technology which further facilitated access and information to destinations, emergence of millennial generation which were increasingly influential in decision making, and the need to pay attention to ethics in traveling. Shirazi and Som (2010) results show that relationship marketing is important as a marketing strategy aimed at creating long-term relationships and improving corporate performance through tourist loyalty. In the competitive market of tourism destination, relationship marketing should be used to create loyal tourists for visit and revisit intention.
2. Literature Review
Lee (2009) correlates motivation with Maslow's theory of hierarchical motivation, with the emphasis that the need for travel is more about social needs, achievement and self-realization. He also stated two forces, namely driving factor and pulling factor; if the motivation of the driving force is the reason that causes someone to leave the house and look for a destination for recreation, then the motivation of the attraction is the desire of tourists to visit a place which is perceived as attractive because of destination attraction strength and its attributes. Whereas Lin (2014) states a number of factors that motivate a tourist, such as finding something new, relaxation, exploration, and interpersonal relationships. Pratminingsih et al. (2014) added elements of shopping activities, strengthening family relationships when traveling, and the prestige that tourists might get as part of their motivation to travel. Whereas Liu an Kao (2018) view motivation more as a driving force for activities and continues to carry out certain activities, in this case the activity of visiting one place to another. Cohen et al. (2014) stated that a tourist motivation can influence a tourist trip to certain destination, such as expectations and attitudes, and then motivation can also affect after visit, such as tourist loyalty. Correia et al. (2013) further divide the elements of a tourist motivation to look for new things (experiencing new things, experiencing something that others have never, looking for new adventures), new knowledge (about music, culture, dance, culinary, etc.) and new facilities in tourist attractions (security, cleanliness, information, etc.).
In general, destination images can be interpreted as the overall perception of tourists on a specific tourist attraction. Shen et al. (2015) state that the image of a tourist attraction becomes important when knowledge and understanding of a tourist attraction is very limited. If a tourist has a good and positive perception on a destination, he will tend to choose the destination to be included in the tourist destination; if he is interested in cultural aspects, then well-imaged cultural destinations will tend to be visited (Hou et al. 2005). In his research on a number of tourists, Chew and Jahari (2014) looked at the destination image from the point of formation of the construct, the underlying causes and the accompanying consequences. They suggest to examine the destination image construct from the point of view of logic (cognitive) which includes the attributes that exist in a destination, as well as emotions (affective) related to one's feelings in assessing a destination. Su et al. (2018) gives the opinion that research on tourist destinations is relatively small, and there is redundancy between the image of the destination and the reputation of the destination; they argue that a good reputation from a tourist place becomes competitive and encourages tourists to be loyal. On the other hand, Postma and Schmuecker (2017) state that a wrong understanding of the image of a destination can cause conflict between tourists who visit with guides or locals.
Whereas Prayag et al. (2017) considers destination images to be generally interpreted as constructs consist of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a tourist gets when they are in a destination. The construct is dynamic and is obtained by someone in several stages of the tour (before a visit, during a visit, and after visiting a destination). Pratminingsih et al. (2014) adding that the actual destination image is a holistic perception of all attributes in a destination, and cannot be limited to certain attributes (e.g. cultural, service and other elements). Zhang et al. (2014) in a meta-analysis of destination image constructs, the meaning of the construct is a compilation of beliefs and impressions based on the process of information from various sources from time to time as a result of the mental processes of a destination. They mention two main approaches in conceptualizing this construct: through a three-dimensional continuum approach or three-component approach. This shows that the destination image construct is not as simple as assumed in previous studies.
In various studies, satisfaction constructs have many meanings and tend to be interpreted in general (loose) understanding. A number of researchers stated that there were three main categories of constructs of satisfaction related to tourism activities, namely satisfaction related to services received by tourists, satisfaction related to destinations, and tourist satisfaction. (Alegre and Garau, 2011; Lee et al., 2011). Whereas Chan et al. (2015) distinguish service dimensions from the dimensions of a tourist's experience, and give meaning to tourist satisfaction as a result of affection from cognitive assessment on the product services. In his research, Prayag et al. (2017) also state that a positive attitude towards the overall perception of a destination from someone will encourage them to be satisfied with the destination product. Pratminingsih et al. (2014) consider satisfaction according to classical understanding, namely comparing tourist expectations with the reality that he receives when consuming a trip to a destination. Satisfaction will be obtained if their expectations are achieved or even exceeded. However, Lin (2014) believes that tourist satisfaction will affect the desire to buy products at destinations, besides he will also carry out positive word of mouth activities for his family and friends. In addition, he also expressed two constructs, namely performance expectations of certain service attributes, as well as disconfirmation expectations; It is mentioned that the attributes of cultural wealth are a critical factor for customer satisfaction in fulfilling their expectations when traveling. Simultaneously, Ribeiro et al. (2017) states that satisfied travelers will be very likely to visit a destination many times, and recommend that destination to others. Su et al. (2018) in his research stated that tourist satisfaction can be an important indicator of tourist loyalty formation and the possibility that they will visit again. Correia et al. (2013) further divided the satisfaction variable into an element related to facilities in tourist attractions, the knowledge they gained when visiting a tourist destination, as well as new things that tourists get when traveling.
In their research about tourists who travel to Penang, Malaysia (Som et al., 2011), results show that tourism destinations and images must take particular consideration of image factor; this will affect international tourists’ satisfaction and their recommendation to revisit to other potential tourists. Relationship between tourist satisfaction and recommendation was highlighted; if tourist are satisfied with image factor, they are more willing to spread positive recommendations and want to repeat visitations in future.
Lee et al. (2011) stated that there is a positive relationship between tourist satisfaction and their desire to return to visit, which can also be interpreted as tourist loyalty to enjoy certain services and destinations again (Prayag, 2009). Some researchers do consider visiting interest to be the final terminal of a tourist's behavioral journey (Pratminingsih et al., 2014; Liu and Kao, 2018). However, the study also states that visiting interests are realized and that someone who obtains satisfaction will tend to be loyal and repeat his actions.
Whereas Chan et al. (2015) distinguish service dimensions from the dimensions of a tourist's experience, and give meaning to tourist satisfaction as a result of affection from cognitive assessment on the services of a product. In his research, Prayag et al. (2017) also state that a positive attitude towards the overall perception of a destination from someone will encourage them to be satisfied with the destination product. Pratminingsih et al. (2014) consider satisfaction according to classical understanding, namely comparing tourist expectations with the reality that he receives when consuming a trip to a destination. Satisfaction will be obtained if their expectations are achieved or even exceeded. However, Lin (2014) believes that tourist satisfaction will affect the desire to buy products at destinations, besides he will also carry out positive word of mouth activities for his family and friends. In addition, he also expressed two constructs, namely expectations of the performance of certain service attributes, as well as expectations of disconfirmation. It is mentioned that the attributes of cultural wealth are a critical factor for customer satisfaction in fulfilling their expectations when traveling. Simultaneously, Ribeiro et al. (2017) states that satisfied travelers will be very likely to visit a destination for the umpteenth time, and recommend that destination to others. Su et al. (2018) in his research stated that tourist satisfaction can be an important indicator of the formation of tourist loyalty and the possibility that they will visit again. Correia et al. (2013) further divided the satisfaction variable into an element related to facilities in tourist attractions, the knowledge they gained when visiting a tourist destination, as well as new things that tourists get when traveling.
In many tourism destination’s researches, it has been widely recognized that tourist satisfaction, tourist loyalty and tourist’s revisit intention have a positive relationship (Ramukumba, 2018). Ramukumba’s (2018) result show that tourists were overall satisfied with their experiences in the Tsitsikamma National Park, Africa, and their satisfaction had a positive impact to their revisit in the future.
Lee et al. (2011) stated that there is a positive relationship between tourist satisfaction and their desire to return to visit, which can also be interpreted as tourist loyalty to enjoy certain services and destinations again (Prayag, 2009). Some researchers do consider visiting interest to be the final terminal of a tourist's behavioral journey (Pratminingsih et al., 2014; Liu and Kao, 2018). Huang et al. (2015) state that tourist behavorial intention consists of word of mouth intention and al loyalty, and that variable is influenced with tourist interpretation and tourist satisfaction to certain destination. However, the study also states that visiting interests are realized and that someone obtains satisfaction will tend to be loyal and repeat his actions. Verma and Chandra (2017) use the theory of planned behavior to test relationship between attitude and behaviour in tourist activities; they propose a research model that explain that behavior intention will predict behavior, and also propose two variable, namely moral reflectiveness and conscientiousness, to predict tourist behaviour. With green hotel as a research object, results found that youth are conscientious about ecological issues and have positive attitude and good moral reflectiveness to visit green hotels. Biraglia et al. (2018) state that an individual’s motivation to visit tourist attractions can vary; tourist may wish to take part in a recreational activity or sometimes they want to learn about its heritage. In many heritage destinations, their research found an interesting results; visit intention to certain destination is influenced by authenticity as one of elements tourist evaluate an destination, determining the perceived quality of place, the level of satisfaction of experiences and finally to visit intentions; authenticity role as mediating variable between altrusim and visit intention. Kim and Kwon (2018) propose familiarity as a moderating effect when test relationship between image and attitude to visit intention; their results show that destination familiarity and product familiarity moderate relationship between those variables. Many research results and many research model above show that tourist visit intention is not a simple meaning construct; many researcher suggest visit intention is a complex construct and have many factors that form this construct. From the various studies above (Alegre and Garau, 2011; Lee et al. 2011), the research model is presented as follows in Figure 2.
From the research model in figure 2, several research hypotheses were developed:
H1: The Destination Image construct has a positive and significant effect on the construct of the Tourist Satisfaction
H2: The Tourist Motivation construct has a positive and significant effect on the Tourist Satisfaction construct
H3: The Tourist Satisfaction construct has a positive and significant effect on the Tourist Visitation Intent construct.
Figure 2. Research Model
3. Research Methodology
In this research, survey method was used using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to two hundreds students using the purposive sampling method. The contents of the questionnaire will be divided into two stages. The first part is to find out the profile of students who have traveled in Yogyakarta and its surroundings, while the second part contains questions for testing the model, which consists of five constructs. The population is all tourists (young generation) who have visited Yogyakarta Special Region; while the sample is a number of students in Yogyakarta Special Region.
Measurements for indicators from each construct are based on research from Lee (2009), Prayaag et al. (2017), Chan et al. (2015), and Alegre and Garau (2011). If specified, each construct with a planned decline in a number of operational variables are:
- For the Destination Image construct, operational variables are tourist areas with ecological content, tourism environment, cultural wealth there, diversity of destinations (mountain tourism, beaches and others).
- For the Motivation construct, operational variables are to know the outside culture, recognize village life, relaxation, mental refreshment, strengthen relationships with friends, restore physical fitness.
- For the Satisfaction construct, operational variables are overall satisfaction, satisfaction with the building, satisfaction with the climate and nature of the destination, satisfaction with services, and satisfaction with tourist facilities.
- For the Visit Intention construct, operational variables are the desire to visit again, the desire to tell friends, to do WOM.
The collected data will be analyzed using cross tab for profile data and structural model analysis to test the research model in the form of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SEM testing procedures have many stages. First step is defining the existing construct, then developing a measurement model. After that the process continued with testing the measurement model.
Then the structural model specification (structural model) and the validity of the structural model are carried out. Several goodness of fit criteria have been developed to interpret a structural equation model, to determine the degree of compatibility of a model with the empirical data obtained (Hooper et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2009; Singh, R., 2009). Commonly used goodness of fit criteria are based on covariance matrix comparisons of data observed with the estimated covariance matrix, with several measures, including Chi-Square, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Non-Normed Fit Index or Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Some criteria for goodness of fit in a structural model equation:
Table 1. Goodness of Fit Measurement
|Goodness of fit test||Good fit or accepted levels|
|χ 2 / df||< 2|
Sources: Hooper et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2009; Singh, R., 2009
4. Analysis and Results
4.1.Profile of Respondents
The profile of respondents is presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. All the data came from primary sources.
Table 2. Gender Composition
Table 3 Expenditure per month(Indonesian Rupiah / month)
|Expenditure per month (Indonesian Rupiah/month)||Expenditure per month(USD /month)||Count||Percentage|
|< Rp. 1.000.000,- / month||<70 USD/ month||32||23.5%|
|> Rp. 1.000.000,- / month - < Rp. 1.500.000,- / month||70 – 105 USD/ month||43||31.6%|
|> Rp. 1.500.000,- / month - < Rp. 2.000.000,- / month||105 – 140 USD/ month||35||25.7%|
|> Rp. 2.000.000,- / month||> 140 USD / month||26||19.1%|
Sources: Primary Data, Exchange rate: USD/IDR = 0.000070000
Table 4. Traveling Frequencies per Year
|1 – 5 times / Year||92||67.6%|
|6 – 10 times / Year||26||19.1%|
|More than 10 times / Year||17||12.5%|
From the three tables above, gender composition is relatively evenly distributed, with the largest level of expenditure per month at a moderate level, namely from > Rp.1,000,000, - / month to <Rp. 1,500,000 / month (31.6%), with 1 US$ approximately equals Rp. 14.500,-. Whereas for the frequency to travelling, the majority are between 1 and 5 times a year (67.6%). This shows that respondents who have moderate expenditure per month will tend to travel according to their level of expenditure.
As for the results of the structural model analysis with AMOS to show the suitability of the model (model fit) and the estimation results between variables, the results are as follows:
Table 5. Goodness of Fit results
|Goodness of fitcriteria||Result||Interpretation|
|χ 2 / df||1.711||Good|
Sources: Primary Data
From table 5 above it can be seen that the research model can meet the eligibility criteria, because the value of χ2 / df (1,711) is below 2, and RMSEA (0.073) is below the RMSEA limit value (0.08). While the TLI number (0.848) and CFI (0.878) are included in the marginal fit criteria, because they are in the range 0.8 - 0.9. As a whole, the model can fulfilled the eligibility requirements for further analysis of the interrelationships between variables in the model.
Table 6. Hypothesis Testing Results
|Probability to Reject Ho|
|Destination Image → Satisfaction||0.000|
|Satisfaction → Visit Intention||0.000|
From table 6 above, all the probability numbers to reject H0 are below 0.05. This shows that Destination Image and Tourist Motivation positively and significantly affect Tourist Satisfaction; while the tourist satisfaction variable has a positive and significant effect on the Visit Intention. Thus all hypotheses, namely H1, H2, and H3, are proven in this research model.
Table 7. Standardized Estimates and Standard Errors
|Relationship variables||Standardized Estimates||Standard Error|
|Destination Image → Satisfaction||0.484||0.136|
|Motivation → Satisfaction||0.263||0.087|
|Satisfaction → Visit Intention||0.868||0.139|
From table 7, the biggest value of standardized estimates is 0.868 (relationship between satisfaction and visit intention). It means that there is strong relationship between two variables; a tourist who is satisfied about one destination image’s report and also has the motivation to visit, will eventually go visit that destination. And relation between destination image variable and satisfaction (0.484) bigger than relation between motivation variable with satisfaction variable (0.263). It means that destination image is more influental than motivation to make a tourist feel satisfied. All the standard error numbers are relatively small, which indicate that destination image and motivation can be used to predict satisfaction, and satisfaction can be used to predict visit intention in the future.
The results show that tourist whose have positive image from certain tourist destination, he can be satisfied than he have a big motivation to visit. And if a tourist feel satisfied, he most likely want to visit a tourist destination. This result also shows a tourist will consider destination image, whether famous or not, whether or not it is currently be a ‘hot trending topic’ in social media, whether there are many positive reports about that destination or not, and others. If one destination place is famous and have many positive things, then tourist will think he will feel satisfied if he can visit that destination; it will encourage tourists to have an intention to visit the place someday.
The results that the destination image affects tourist satisfaction shows that someone visiting a destination, especially for those who have visited several times, is closely related to the image of the tourist place visited. This is in line with the findings of Chew and Jahari (2014) which differ slightly from the above model, namely the need for antecedent variables, namely risks perceived by tourists (such as money to be spent and others) before being linked to the image of the destination, and not the need mediating variables such as tourist satisfaction variables. The same is the case with Prayag et al. (2017) who also stated the link between the image and the intention of visiting tourists. But they consider the destination image is the overall image of a tourist attraction and not just the destination image, but includes all variables that can affect the total image of tourism objects, such as the image of object cleanliness, image of tourism security, and so on. Similarly, research from Puh (2014) about the relationship between image and tourist satisfaction, the results showed a positive and significant relationship. However, the image variable here is a construct with a number of variables such as the atmosphere of the tourist place, cultural image, arts, access to tourist attractions, etc., which are wider than the scope of the destination image in this study.
Shen et al. (2015) in their research on tourist image in Singapore showed that tourists consider Singapore as a fashion city and city for leisure; in accordance with these findings, Singaporeans want to shape the image of urban tourism country, create and renovate a variety of important tourism objects, such as Marina Bay Sands, Sentosa Island, and a variety of typical Singapore cuisine. This shows the image of certain tourist attractions will encourage certain tourism strategies to strengthen the image and attract tourists. What's interesting in the research, destination identity is also proven to directly affect tourist satisfaction. In the context of Yogyakarta tourism, Yogyakarta's identity with a long history and predicate of city education and cultural city, will make it easier for tourists to be positive in Yogyakarta tourism. Another finding is the proof of the negative influence between satisfaction and the search for alternative tourism objects; satisfied tourists will tend not to look for alternative tourism objects.
In Indonesia, research from Pratminingsih et al. (2014) about tourist behavior in Bandung concluded the significant influence of a tourist motivation on satisfaction. Their findings show that not only does motivation affect satisfaction, but motivation also directly influences revisit intention, even though the regression coefficient is smaller. This shows the alleged motivation of satisfied tourists will tend tourist to visit again, even motivation can encourage someone to visit back to the same place without first feeling satisfied to travel. This is also related to a strong destination image, such as the name 'Malioboro street area' which has been strongly imagined as a prominent cultural tourism destination for a number of tourists in Indonesia; this is in line with Zeng’s findings about the influence of unique cultural forces on the desire to visit (Zeng, 2017); Visiting motivation will be high if there are cultural strengths that are well imagined through testimonials, review and word of mouth.
There are several implications from the results of this study. Because destination image and motivation directly influence tourist satisfaction, the continuous strengthening of the image of the city of Yogyakarta as the main tourist destination in Indonesia must continue. In addition, related to the motivation of tourists who begin to shift to social needs and self-actualization, such as displaying selfies at the latest tourist attractions or making stories about tourism activities in electronic media, the imaging process Yogyakarta city can be done through the social media community, and it become part of the lifestyle of tourists. Photos of the latest tourist attractions accompanied by photo selfies spot in some places need to be promoted through social media or other marketing communities. Another implication is the need for promotion through events and other activities, because satisfied tourists need to be maintained and coupled with efforts to encourage tourists to return to Yogyakarta.
From the analysis of respondents' profiles, it is seen that the gender composition between men and women is relatively evenly distributed, the highest level of monthly expenditure of respondents is at a moderate level, namely from > Rp.1,000,000, - to month - <Rp. 1,500,000 / month (1 US$ ≈ Rp. 14.500,-). While for the frequency of respondents, most respondents traveled between 1 and 5 times a year. Respondents who have moderate expenditure per month will tend to travel according to their level of expenditure.
Research model that describes the relationship of Variable Destination Imagery, Tourist Motivation, Satisfaction of a tourist, and Visit Intention. Tourist visiting model has met the eligibility requirements of a model (goodness of fit).
From the regression analysis, the variables of Destination Image and Tourist Motivation positively and significantly affect a tourist's satisfaction; while the tourist satisfaction variable has a positive and significant effect on the variable intention of visiting a tourist.
- Alegre, J. and Garau, J., 2011. The factor structure of tourist satisfaction at sun and sand destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), pp.78-86.
- Biraglia, A., Maximilian H.E.E. and Gerrath, B.U., 2018. Examining How Companies’ Support of Tourist Attractions Affects Visiting Intentions: The Mediating Role of Perceived Authenticity. Journal of Travel Research, 57(6), pp. 811–823.
- 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), pp.18-33.
- Chew, E. Y. T. and Jahari, S. A. (2014). Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management 40, pp.382-393.
- Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G. and Moital, M., 2014. Consumer behaviour in tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), pp.872-909.
- Correia, A., Metin K. and Ferradeira, J., 2013. From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction. International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7 (4), pp.411-424.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. anderson, R. E. and Tatham., R. L., 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
- Hooper, D., Joseph C. and Mullen, M. R., 2008. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Vol 6, pp.530.
- Hou, J. S., Lin, C. H. and Morais, D. B., 2005. Antecedents of attachment to a cultural tourism destination: The case study of Hokka and non-Hokka Taiwanese. Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), pp.221–233.
- Huang, S. 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), pp.344–358.
- Kim, S. B. and Kwon K., J., 2018. Examining the Relationships of Image and Attitude on Visit Intention to Korea among Tanzanian College Students: The Moderating Effect of Familiarity. Sustainability, 10, pp.1-15.
- Lee, S., Jeon, S. and Kim, D., 2011. The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism Management, 32, pp.1115-1124.
- Lee, T. H., 2009. A Structural Model to Examine How Destination Image, Attitude, and Motivation Affect the Future Behavior of Tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31 (3), pp.215-236,
- Lin, C. J., 2014. Chinese Tourists in Taiwan: Motivation and Satisfaction. World Journal of Management Vol. 5. No. 1, pp.20 – 35.
- Liu, C. C. and Kao, J. S., 2018. A study of the impact of business strategy on customers' tourism behaviors, motivation, and satisfaction: a case study of hotels at Kenting, Taiwan. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 8(8) pp.486-500.
- Postma, A. and Schmuecker, D., 2017. Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city destinations: conceptual model and strategic framework, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 3 Issue: 2, pp.144-156.
- Pratminingsih, S. A., Rudatin, C. L. and Rimenta, T., 2014. Roles of Motivation and Destination Image in Predicting Tourist Revisit Intention: A Case of Bandung – Indonesia. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.19-24.
- Prayag, G. (2009). Tourist’s evaluation of destination image, satisfaction and future behavioral intentions: The case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(8), 836-853.
- Prayag, G., Sameer H., Muskat, B. and Chiappa, G. D., 2017. Understanding the Relationships between Tourists’ Emotional Experiences, Perceived Overall Image, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), pp.41 –54.
- Puh, Barbara. 2014. Destination Image and Tourism Satisfaction: The Case of a Mediterranean Destination. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(13), pp.538-544.
- Ramukumba, T., 2018. Tourists revisit intentions based on purpose of visit and preference of the destination. A case study of Tsitsikamma National Park. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7 (1), pp.1-10.
- Ribeiro, M. A., Woosnam, K.M., Pinto, P. and Silva, J. A., 2017. Tourists Destination Loyalty through Emotional Solidarity with Residents: An integrative moderated mediation model. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), pp.1-17.
- Shen, H., Song, C. Y., Li, M. and Qian, J., 2015. Shaping Destination Images through Social Networking Sites: A Case Study of Singapore. Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 11, pp.89-107.
- Shirazi, S. F. and Som, A. P. 2010. Relationship Marketing and Community Involvement: Two Significant Factors for Tourism Strategies. In C.A. Brebbia and F.D. Pineda (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism, IV, pp.47-53.
- Singh, R., 2009. Does my structural model represent the real phenomenon?: a review of the appropriate use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) model fit indices. The Marketing Review, Vol. 9, pp.199-212.
- Som, A. P., Shiazi, S. F., Marzuki, A. and Jusoh, J. 2011. A critical analysis of tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), pp.178-183.
- Su, L., Huang, Y.H. and Hsu, M., 2018. Unraveling the impact of destination reputation on place attachment and behavior outcomes among Chinese urban tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 1(4), pp.290-308.
- Verma, V. K. and Chandra, B., 2017. An Application of Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Young Indian Consumers' Green Hotel Visit Intention. Journal of Cleaner Production, October 2017, pp.1-11.
- Zeng, B. X., 2017. Cultural centre, destination cultural offer and visitor satisfaction. Sustainability, Vol. 9, pp.1-12.
- Zhang, H. M., Fu, X. X., Liping A. C., Lin L., 2014. Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourist Management 40, pp.213-223.