Next Article in Journal
Learning from Positive Impact Organizations: A Framework for Strategic Innovation
Next Article in Special Issue
Understanding Revisit Intention towards Religious Attraction of Kartarpur Temple: Moderation Analysis of Religiosity
Previous Article in Journal
Thai Non-Life Insurance Companies’ Resilience and the Historic 2011 Floods: Some Recommendations for Greater Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/su13168889
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Tourists’ Experience on Destination Loyalty: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam

by
Vo Viet Hung
1,2,*,
Sandeep Kumar Dey
1,
Zuzana Vaculcikova
1 and
Le Trieu Hoang Anh
3
1
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, 76001 Zlín, Czech Republic
2
Faculty of Economics and Development, Hue College of Economics, Hue University, Hue City 530000, Vietnam
3
Department of Marketing Communications, Faculty of Multimedia Communications, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, 76001 Zlín, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 8889; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168889
Submission received: 9 April 2021 / Revised: 25 June 2021 / Accepted: 25 June 2021 / Published: 9 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourist Satisfaction and Sustainable Destination Branding)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research focuses on the impact of the tourist experience on the relationship among destination image, tourist motivation, and tourist satisfaction on destination loyalty by examining the theoretical and empirical evidence on the causal relationship between constructs. A research model was proposed, in which nine hypotheses were developed, and the empirical data were collected from Hue city, which is a major tourist destination in Vietnam. A total of 204 questionnaires were returned, and the data were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The moderating effect of the tourist experience on the impact of the destination image, tourist motivation, and tourist satisfaction on destination loyalty is analyzed in this article. The proposed conceptual model was tested, and the results reveal a significant relationship between the two constructs to destination loyalty (destination image and tourist satisfaction). Furthermore, the findings support the proposed destination loyalty model: destination image, tourist satisfaction directly influenced destination loyalty, and tourist experience play an important role as a moderator in the relationship between tourist motivation and tourist loyalty.

1. Introduction

Tourism has grown further and has become a dominant industry globally, which significantly affects a country’s economy. It is also affiliated with many other fields, such as advertising, endorsements, product placements, sponsorships, and business organizations [1].
Knowing what tourists’ loyalty depends on and how it is shaped has become a maxim to managers of tourist companies and destinations. Loyalty is the best indicator of potential actions, competitive advantage, and business performance [2,3,4,5]. Tourist loyalty has closely correlated with tourist satisfaction, tourist motivation, and tourist experience as a basic principle of marketing [6,7,8].
The impact of destination image, motivation, and satisfaction on tourist loyalty has been a trendy research topic in tourism research. Previous researchers have focused on various relationships between destination images, tourist experience, and tourist loyalty, which has been inconclusive in several previous studies. Researchers have found that tourist loyalty is directly influenced by destination image [9,10], and some pointed out an indirect relationship [11,12,13,14]. Although researchers have offered hypotheses regarding the role of the tourist experience in some related aspects, scholars have yet to address the impact of tourist experience as a moderator in an overall relationship; such empirical investigation is still incomplete. Loyalty is regarded as the significant predictor of future behavior as well as a source of competitive advantage and commercial success [15]. The application and usefulness of destination loyalty are investigated in this study. A number of loyalty measurements are provided based on the literature on customer loyalty [16,17].
In recent years, destinations related to heritage have been having significant and rapid growth. Heritage tourism has grown in popularity in recent years, particularly in cities that have been recognized as World Heritage Sites [17]. This study focusses on tourism in Hue city, which is well-known for its historical monuments and one of the few UNESCO designated sites in Vietnam [18]. This paper explores the existing correlations between the perception of the historical and monumental heritage site visited and tourist behavior. It adds to the current academic literature on tourist experiences at World Heritage (WH) places [19,20]. In this paper, we investigate the degree of tourist experience with the visit to the heritage site to the motivation that leads to the trip being made, and the valuation of the site’s attributes. For this reason, this area has become a prime destination for tourists.
Objectives of the study:
(a).
This study measures the impact of tourist motivation, tourist satisfaction, and destination image on tourist loyalty.
(b).
To examine the moderating role of tourist experience on destination image, tourist motivation, tourist satisfaction, and tourist loyalty.
The paper’s outline is as follows: The first section introduces the conceptual background constructs and their interrelationships with the proposed model. The research design and study findings are discussed in the second section. The final sections include results, discussions, contributions and limitations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Destination Image

The destination image can be defined as the consequences of a tourist’s impression or perception of a destination. It is an important principle that plays a role in a tourist’s choices. The destination image is considered to be a key aspect of tourist decision-making [9,10,11,21,22,23]. The impact of tourism on countries and local destination economic growth has been widely confirmed [24,25,26] and boost the competition between countries in the tourism industry [27,28].
Destination image impacts tourists in choosing a destination and re-visiting in the future [29,30]. Furthermore, destination image can positively influence the tourist experience, satisfaction, motivation, and visit intention [8,26]. Some perceptions of cultural tourism destination attractiveness might lead tourists to develop an attachment to the place [31,32,33].
Destination image can be considered a critical component of people’s destination choice [10,31,34]. In addition, destination image also impacts the intention to visit [35,36].
The destination image definitions relate to developmental constructions and representations of individuals or groups [37,38,39]. Destination image is an integrated system of feelings, thoughts, opinions, visualizations, and destination intention [12,32,33]. Tourism destination image is one of the critical challenges in tourism research; it is widely recognized that destination image influences tourists’ behavior, from their mental constructions about destination attributes to the decision-making process [40,41,42,43]. Several studies have indicated that the destination image is an essential subject in tourism research, and researchers have tried to use different methods to develop a conceptual framework. Destination image plays an essential role in tourist behavior; previous studies have presented the relationship between destination image and tourist experience, tourist loyalty, and satisfaction by direct pathway. However, there exists a lack of studies that investigates the influence from destination image to tourist loyalty. Based on this previous literature, three hypotheses were developed.
Hypothesis 1. 
Destination image has a positive impact on Tourist motivation.
Hypothesis 2. 
Destination image has a positive impact on Tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3. 
Destination image has a positive impact on Tourist loyalty.

2.2. Tourist Motivation

As a significant determinant of tourist behavior, motivation has been widely researched by academics since the 1940s. At the same time, some researchers have tried to examine their relationships with other constructs, such as destination image [44,45], destination loyalty [8,10,11,13,14]. Since the beginning of these areas of study, motivation has been an important subject in leisure and tourism literature review [46,47]. Refs. [41,48,49] argued that in tourism studies, the entire field of tourist motivation is fundamental and indispensable to tourism growth itself. [50] stated that the “who, when, where”, and “how” of tourism could be defined, but it is more difficult to answer the “why”.
For specialists in the area, motivation as a variable poses several questions. It has been considered the only one that intervenes between stimulation and reaction to tourist behavior for a long time [7,9,46].
Motivation is widely seen as the driving force behind all tourist behaviors [8,51,52,53]. Therefore, it is a starting point for researching visitors’ behavior and, beyond that, for understanding tourism systems [54,55], while there is some consensus on the fundamental meaning of motivation [56].
In particular, the relationship between tourist motivation and tourist satisfaction, tourist loyalty has been a common research interest for many researchers as satisfaction and loyalty have shown a positive effect on the post-purchase behavior of tourists, such as recommendations and intention to re-visit [7,8,9,57,58]. Following the literature review, the below research hypotheses are given.
Hypothesis 4. 
Tourist motivation has a positive impact on Tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5. 
Tourist motivation has a positive impact on Tourist loyalty.

2.3. Tourist Satisfaction

Reference [59] defines satisfaction as a judgment that a pleasurable consumption level is provided by a product or service features. Many tourism researchers deal with various aspects of consumer satisfaction in the hospitality and tourism industry, such as satisfaction with specific destinations [60,61]. A researcher shows that satisfaction is closely linked to the choice of destination and decision-making regarding where to visit [62,63]. Tourist satisfaction has always been considered an important business objective because pleasing tourists will be re-visiting. In tourism management, tourist satisfaction is also significant because it impacts destination choice [64]. Satisfaction is also a reliable measure of the quality of on-site leisure experiences and future behaviors [65,66,67].
As a result, the concept of tourist loyalty has recently replaced satisfaction measurement because of the predictor of actual behavior. Two of three indicators that make up most of the Tourist Loyalty Indices (TLI) are conduct-based, such as “likelihood of repurchasing the product or service” and “like hood recommending a product or service to others.” The third dimension of TLI is typically “overall satisfaction” itself [68].
Several studies indicate an important positive correlation between tourist satisfaction and tourist loyalty [69,70]. Some empirical research in the tourism industry indicates that tourists’ satisfaction is a good predictor of visiting and recommending the destination to other individuals [71]. High levels of consumer satisfaction, coupled with a favorable image of the destination, are likely to influence the behavioral intentions of tourists and travelers (Liu et al., 2017). The satisfaction levels influence tourists’ decision to revisit and put a positive word of mouth to others about the destination [72].
One of the crucial factors for tourist attractions’ success is tourist satisfaction because of customer behavior [73]. Scholars define satisfaction differently but almost agree that this concept is complex, encompassing cognitive and affective aspects and physiological and psychological dynamic elements [74]. References [75,76,77] stated that satisfied tourists are inclined to have desirable attraction behaviors. [78] agree that tourist satisfaction is calculated primarily by the attractiveness of tourist experience and recognizing satisfaction as an essential factor in establishing tourist loyalty. With literature studies in this field to demonstrate the relationship between tourist satisfaction and loyalty, the hypothesis is the following:
Hypothesis 6. 
Tourist satisfaction has a positive impact on Tourist loyalty.

2.4. Tourist Experience

A complicated psychological mechanism is the tourist experience. It is challenging to provide a concise description since it may include a complex variety of elements. Tourist experiences are distinct from daily experiences. The act of tourism provides complicated place-related interactions, memories, and emotions, and it is argued that place or self-in-place experience is what people are seeking.
Focusing on on-site encounters, [79,80] describe the tourist experience as an interaction between tourists and destinations, with destinations being the site of the experience and the actors of the experience being tourists. The overview of claims on the tourist experience by [81] pointed out that encounters require more than visitors. By manipulating location and presentation of culture, tourism industries are also part of the production, staging, and experience consumption.
Reference [82] explores the various meanings of tourist experience that include a built and produced consumption act, a reaction to “ordinary” life problems, a quest for authenticity, and multifaceted leisure activity. For all meanings, Li’s only requirement to be universal is that the tourist experience is important for the participant. The tourist experience is described by [83] as a combination of novelty/familiarity involving the individual pursuit of identity and self-realization. Nonetheless, people encounter similar behaviors and environments in various ways.
Since the tourist experience is extremely subjective, it can only be interpreted by focusing on the actual people involved and the particular conditions in which experiences occur [84]. Most of these meanings apply to the experience at the destination. Still, the experience of a tourism event starts before the trip in the planning and preparation phases. It continues after the tourist returns through the events’ memory and communication [24,85,86]. This study considers three hypotheses in order to assess the relationship between tourist loyalty and the three variables:
Hypothesis 7A. 
Tourist experience moderates the relationship between Destination image and Tourist loyalty.
Hypothesis 7B. 
Tourist experience moderates the relationship between Tourist satisfaction and Tourist loyalty.
Hypothesis 7C. 
Tourist experience moderates the relationship between Tourist motivation and Tourist loyalty.

2.5. Tourist Loyalty

According to [87], tourist loyalty is “a deeply held commitment to consistently repurchase or re-patronize a preferred product/service in the future.” This triggers purchases of the same repeat-brand or the same brand package, despite situational influences and marketing efforts that can activate switching behavior. For several tourism destinations, travelers with a high degree of loyalty constitute a major market segment. As tourists are more likely than first-time visitors to stay longer at a destination, they tend to spread positive knowledge by word of mouth (WOM) and engage more intensively in consumer activities [88,89,90]. Moreover, relative to attracting first-time tourists, these frequent visitors will reduce marketing costs [10,91].
Many researches have also investigated the precedents of tourist loyalty. As described above, tourist loyalty is a powerful indicator of several tourist activity outcomes [92,93]. Researchers have proposed that tourists’ loyalty-related behaviors (i.e., desire to re-visit and willingness to recommend) may be affected by the picture they perceive of the destination [91,94].
The conceptual model is given below through Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Data Collection and Sample

Data were collected from the tourists who visited Hue city, Vietnam, as the research targets. The convenience sampling approach is used in this study; surveys were conducted over two months from June to August 2020. Data were collected through an online questionnaire survey method.
Table 1 shows the various demographic profiles of the participants. There were a total of 250 responses, 46 of which were incomplete, and these or duplicate responses were eliminated. As a result, the number of valid questionnaire copies returned is 204, and the rate of reaction for this questionnaire is 82%.

3.2. Measurement

The questionnaire was developed to collect data and fulfill the prospective research objectives. The five variables include the second section described in the path model, which consists of five sections: 1—destination image; 2—tourist motivation; 3—tourist satisfaction; 4—tourist experience; and 5—tourist loyalty. Tourists are required to mark their agreement level of each item on a section by Likert scale with five-point from: strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5).
Table 2 shows the constructs with multiple items that followed previous studies closely. The data were collected through a closed-ended questionnaire administered to tourists and were analyzed using Smart PLS-SEM methodology.

3.3. Measurement Model Assessment

Reference [100] stipulate critical pre-requisite in conducting a comprehensive PLS-SEM analysis, such as examining the constructs’ reliability and validity. Table 3 reports the reliability of constructs as gauged through their respective Cronbach’s alpha values, which exceeds the suggested critical value of 0.5 [101,102] composite reliability of greater than 0.7 [103] and Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho (ρA) above the 0.8 thresholds [104]. The AVE reported surpassing the standard point of 0.5 by (Henseler et al., 2014), signifying all constructs’ successful convergence.
Similarly, all indicators have been reported to have loaded precisely with their corresponding variables displaying a loading range between 0.7 and 0.9, confirming the recommended convergent validity rules [101]. On testing the latent variables’ discriminant validity on the Fornell and Larcker criterion provisions, it is evident (refer to Table 4) that the diagonal-wise values (in bold) are the square root of the Average Variance Extracted coefficients and the remaining are correlational coefficients of the latent variables. According to the values registered herewith, the assumption of the criterion has been met. Thus, it can be concluded that latent constructs contain discriminant validity, and the investigation can proceed further.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Results

The theoretical model was analyzed through partial least square methodology drawn from structural equation modeling via the SMART-PLS software. The author’s decision to deploy PLS-SEM over other co-variance-based data modeling techniques was attributed to the small sample size and the non-normality of data [100,105]. PLS-SEM explains the causal relationships among multiple variables without strict assumptions and pre-conditions [100], which makes PLS-SEM the inferential tool of choice.
Structural model assessment and hypotheses testing: This phase of research is important as it determines and defines an association between the variables under inquiry. Findings show the existence of both direct and indirect effects on the variables in question in this analysis.
Direct effect: It may be deciphered from Table 5, based on accepted regression coefficients and t-statistics, that there exists a positive relationship among the primary independent variables Destination Image (β = 2.813, t = 2.798) and Satisfaction (β = 3.817, t = 3.849) with the dependent variable Destination Loyalty which supports the provisions of H3 and H6. On the other hand, Tourist Motivation with β = 0.807 and t = 0.736 has an insignificant association with Destination Loyalty, which disagrees with H5.
The results also portray an insignificant association between Destination Image and Satisfaction (β = 0.072, t = 0.072) in disagreement with H2 but in complete agreement with the provisions of H4 (the positive relationship between Tourist Motivation and Satisfaction) as the authors observed a robust β = 0.807 and a corresponding t = 0.736. Lastly, the bootstrapping method also revealed a significant relationship between Destination Image and Tourist Motivation (β = 3.058, t = 2.855), thereby corroborating with the premises of H1.
Indirect effect: The conceptual model tested three moderating interactions. It is revealed from the non-parametric bootstrap method that Tourist Experience as a moderating vehicle fails to predict Destination Loyalty when interacting with Destination Image (β = 2.027, t = 1.883) and satisfaction (β = 1.669, t = 1.707), respectively, thereby rejecting the postulation provided through H7A and H7B. It is important to note that the moderating variable interacts with Tourist Motivation more significantly to predict Destination Loyalty, although the relationship’s strength is weak (β = 1.769, t = 2.134).
According to the study’s structural predictive analysis, the interaction’s exogenous and endogenous variables represent a robust 52.7% explanatory power (Table 5). According to [106], R-squared (R2) is a statistical measure that represents the proportion of the variance for a dependent variable. R2 is explained by an independent variable or variables in a regression model. Table 6 provides the path coefficients for the endogenous variables in the theoretical model.

4.2. Discussion

The study postulates five direct and three indirect assumptions towards capturing tourists’ behavior towards destination loyalty. The first hypothesis concerns the positive association between DI and TM, which has been accepted due to the PLS algorithm run report’s significant empirical observations. Previous literature by [45], who was one of the first to experiment with both of the above variables to capture tourists’ future behavior, reported robust association among the same. In the visit intention domain, authors such as [107] have corroborated a significant relationship between latent motivation among tourists and destination image. Parallel, in a study conducted by [108] to predict re-visit intention, the positive correlation between motivation and destination image has been further strengthened. [109] investigated the effect of mini-movies on tourism image development through proportion and variance testing mechanisms like ANOVA, they observed a positive correlation with traveler and destination image motivation. Furthermore, the empirical observations of this study strengthen the findings of extant literature [8,26], thereby extending the discourse on the topic.
The second hypothetical assumption of the study entails the positive relationship between Destination Image and Tourist Satisfaction. In their study to examine Chinese tourists’ behavior in Korea [12] reported that cognitive image directly influenced the affective image and confirmed its formation process. Both cognitive and affective images had positive influences on satisfaction. [12] examined the structural relationships among tourist satisfaction and destination image. Their study reports a significant combination among DI and TSA in extant studies, [106] outlined the composite relationship among DI and TSA variables in their study regarding visitations by foreigners to heritage sites. According to the findings of our study, there exists a negative co-relationship between DI and TSA, which is a departure from parallel studies in the field, especially in South-East Asia; a plausible explanation for this trend may be since the sample consisted of a large number of Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2005) who are less likely to be brand-conscious. The result of this study is a departure from established literature [26], which has determined a positive interaction between the image of a destination and tourist satisfaction.
The third dimension of the study deals with analyzing the relationship between DI and Destination Loyalty. In their meta-analysis of literature in tourism, authors [10] have reported several studies that have identified synergy between DI and Destination Loyalty from studies dating back to the early 2000s. A case study conducted in the town of Alanya by Turkish investigators [110] reveal among other factors affecting tourism demand, Destination Image is instrumental in predicting Destination Loyalty. [111], in their study set in Orlando, attempted to estimate destination loyalty through a structural schema; their findings corroborate with our findings that Destination Image has a positive relationship with Destination Loyalty. A parallel study concerning the effects of self-congruity and destination loyalty [25] observed that destination image proved to be a predicting variable of destination loyalty which reflected with the findings of investigations like [35,36]. Additionally, a construct like destination loyalty which is dynamic in nature is considered to be a challenge in psychometric evaluation due to the changing propensities of tourists.
The fourth hypothesis of the study assumes that Tourist Motivation is a predictor of Tourist Satisfaction, which has been proved through this study. Our claims for the above correlation are backed by authors [112], who studied the push and pull attributes of tourism products and services. They have outlined the interrelation between Tourism Motivations and Tourist Satisfaction. A study of international tourists visiting and camping at a major national park in Zimbabwe by [113] concluded that Travel Motivation and Tourist Satisfaction are interrelated to a substantial extent. A study investigating Muslim tourists’ intention towards visiting a particular destination was impacted by the extent of motivation the tourist contains, which is in tandem with our findings. Concluding the discourse is a study by [114], who observed that Tourist Motivation is not a fit measure to predict Tourist Satisfaction according to the classical model they deployed in their study, which implies our study is in harmony with [115] who have utilized Principal Component Analysis techniques in combination with partial least square systems to predict satisfaction among tourists.
The fifth hypothesis states that Tourist Motivation and Destination Loyalty are significantly associated with each other; our study has not found statistical significance among the variables discussed hereto. This is contrary to the extant literature by [6], who have structurally analyzed the variables’ positive relationship with loyalty. On the other hand, this study’s findings support the investigation conducted by [116], who proposed that Tourist Motivation does not need to lead to Destination Loyalty. The insignificant relationship among the variables in question is deflective from studies like [57] and [58]. A plausible cause into the insignificance maybe due to the fact that different destination typologies trigger different push and pull factors.
The sixth hypothesis revolves around Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty having a positive relationship with each other. Our study determines that the above hypothesis and its premises must be agreed upon according to robust parameters as indicated by the SMART-PLS application. A study by [117] further ratifies our findings by observing that both the variables exhibit associative behavior. Furthermore, in their study, [118] performed a structural evaluation of the variables in question and detected empirical indications to signal positive correlation, providing us a premise to enhance this study’s claims. In extant studies by [119], who examined aesthetic experiential qualities for tourist satisfaction, tourist satisfaction was observed to explain a substantial amount of all the variances in their structural design, further strengthening our claim of a significant and positive association between the variables. Concluding the discussion, a landmark study by [120], who investigated the efficacy of Tourist Satisfaction to measure Destination Loyalty, indicated a robust and positive commonality among them. This study reflects the results of [69,70,78], wherein satisfaction has been found to be a subjective construct; therefore, further contextual research is warranted in the future.
Our study postulates three moderator-led interaction terms to predict Destination Loyalty through Tourist Experience. It was found that only one particular interaction effect had a significant positive capacity to explain the desired dependent variable. The only pathway in the theoretical framework, H7C (Destination Image > tourist Experience > Destination Loyalty), confirmed our assumption. It is to be noted that the moderating interaction term used in the study has been sparsely used in literature; to this extent, only two scientific papers exist which have demonstrated a significant and positive effect of Tourist Experience. In determining stay quality in rural homestays in Spain [121] and the other one, tourists’ behavioral intentions for re-visitation to a particular destination [122]. It is noteworthy to observe that, while there exists no significant direct effect between motivation and loyalty, the presence of a moderator (tourist experience) produces commonality between the former and the latter constructs. This may be due to the fact that both the predictor variable (Tourist motivation) and the output variable (Tourist loyalty) are multi-level categorical variables and such that the difference between the group means for the predictor variable differs according to the group membership on the moderator variable [123].

5. Contributions and Limitations

5.1. Contributions

The contribution of the study is two-fold. Firstly, for academicians, the study is the first to discern the predictors of tourist loyalty towards a particular destination, which enriches and supplements existing literature in the field. Furthermore, the moderating effect of tourism experience (subjective construct) serves as a unique feature of this study. Traditionally, subjective constructs have been used as direct effect variables, according to our understanding of extant literature, this is study attempts to set a precedent into future researches involving subjective constructs as moderating or control variable [9,57,58]. This gives the study essence of context in understanding tourist dynamics.
Secondly, for marketers, the study reveals consumer propensities towards re-visit, which hopes to assist decision-makers in tourism and travel companies and DMOs to strategize their offerings post the COVID-19 pandemic as tourism resumes in Vietnam. According to the research objective of the study, it aimed to quantify in empirical terms the predicting power of tourist experience on destination loyalty, the study established the moderating presence of tourist experience between destination image and loyalty. This observation implies that tourism managers, destination management companies consider destination image as a vital component of their product designs. For example, itineraries to Hue City can involve a diversity of experiences like tourist participation in traditional sports (Đẩy gậy) promotion of local culinary delights like Bún bò Huế by organizing food walks, training and engaging students of the Hue Tourism College in provision of tourist guide services, foreign language courses like English, French, Russian, and Japanese can be offered to taxi/tourist coach drivers, hotel, spa and restaurant staff, facilitating small and medium sized companies based in Hue to become more tourist friendly by organizing sensitization camps. Government and non-government stakeholders of tourism in Hue City must deliberate in leveraging the experiential quality of the destination to sustain destination loyalty and ensure re-visitation.
This is a ramification to the observation pertaining to the first hypothesis concerning Destination Image and Tourist Motivation. Because of the practical importance of destination loyalty, significant efforts have been made to investigate the various factors that may influence tourist loyalty. Significance of this study: the study’s findings would contribute significantly to tourism services’ theoretical and managerial aspects and cultural heritage tourism, specifically.
This study also intended to distinctively contribute to the body of knowledge on tourism experience by bringing together the literature on heritage tourism and cultural tourism.

5.2. Limitations

As with every study, this research has got some limitations that need to be acknowledged by the researchers. The current study was implemented in the summertime from June to August 2020, the initial time of tourism season in Hue city, Vietnam, which means it overlooks the tourists who come to Hue city during wintertime. Tourists travel to the destination in different seasons and might have different opinions, perceptions, or images. Future scholars should utilize the sample that needs to be taken throughout the year from all the tourist seasons to get comprehensive pictures and draw a comparative analysis in the results to better understand the destination image and their loyalty.
After a systematic review of extant literature in leading scientific indexes (Web of Science and Scopus), we have concluded that this study is the first of its kind to take in cognizance Tourist Experience as a moderating variable. Therefore, it is safe to consider this novel finding to contribute to the existing literature on tourist behavior. The study’s explanatory power can be further augmented by deploying other behavioral variables to increment the explanatory power in the future; it would be interesting to add constructs like mindfulness to gauge intrinsic propensities or engage variables Service-Dominant (SD) logic.
As with every study, this research has got some limitations that need to be acknowledged by the researchers. The current study was implemented in the summertime from June to August 2020, the initial time of tourism season in Hue city, Vietnam, which means it overlooks the tourists who come to Hue city during wintertime. Tourists travel to the destination in different seasons and might have different opinions, perceptions, or images. Future scholars should utilize sample need to be taken throughout the year from all the tourist seasons to get comprehensive pictures and draw a comparative analysis in the results to better understand the destination image and their loyalty.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.V.H. and S.K.D.; methodology, S.K.D. and V.V.H.; software, V.V.H. and S.K.D.; validation, V.V.H., S.K.D. and Z.V.; formal analysis, V.V.H., S.K.D. and L.T.H.A.; investigation, V.V.H. and S.K.D.; resources, Z.V.; data curation L.T.H.A.; writing—original draft preparation, V.V.H. and S.K.D.; writing—review and editing, S.K.D. and Z.V.; visualization, L.T.H.A.; supervision, Z.V.; project administration, Z.V.; funding acquisition, Z.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Internal Grant Agency of FaME, UTB, with grant number: IGA/FaME/2020/005.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kanwel, S.; Lingqiang, Z.; Asif, M.; Hwang, J.; Hussain, A.; Jameel, A. The Influence of Destination Image on Tourist Loyalty and Intention to Visit: Testing a Multiple Mediation Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Zhang, T.; Chen, J.; Hu, B. Authenticity, Quality, and Loyalty: Local Food and Sustainable Tourism Experience. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Chang, S.; Gibson, H.; Sisson, L. The loyalty process of residents and tourists in the festival context. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014, 17, 783–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mechinda, P.; Serirat, S.; Gulid, N. An examination of tourists’ attitudinal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic and international tourists. J. Vacat. Mark. 2009, 15, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, J.; Gursoy, D. An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2001, 13, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Agyeiwaah, E.; Otoo, F.E.; Suntikul, W.; Huang, W.-J. Understanding culinary tourist motivation, experience, satisfaction, and loyalty using a structural approach. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Suhartanto, D.; Brien, A.; Primiana, I.; Wibisono, N.; Triyuni, N.N. Tourist loyalty in creative tourism: The role of experience quality, value, satisfaction, and motivation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 23, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chi, C.G.-Q.; Qu, H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 624–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, H.; Fu, X.; Cai, L.A.; Lu, L. Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hasan, M.K.; Abdullah, S.K.; Lew, T.Y.; Islam, M.F. Determining factors of tourists’ loyalty to beach tourism destinations: A structural model. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 32, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chiu, W.; Zeng, S.; Cheng, P.S.-T. The influence of destination image and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: A case study of Chinese tourists in Korea. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 10, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Prayag, G.; Ryan, C. Antecedents of Tourists’ Loyalty to Mauritius. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, C.-F.; Phou, S. A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.; Chi, C.G. Theoretical examination of destination loyalty formation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 809–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. López-Guzmán, T.; Naranjo, M.T.; Gálvez, J.C.P.; Carvache-Franco, W. Segmentation and motivation of foreign tourists in world heritage sites. A case study, Quito (Ecuador). Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 22, 1170–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Muñoz-Fernández, G.A.; López-Guzmán, T.; Molina, D.L.; Gálvez, J.C.P. Heritage tourism in the Andes: The case of Cuenca, Ecuador. Anatolia 2017, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Complex of Hué Monuments—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/678/ (accessed on 25 January 2021).
  19. González Santa Cruz, F.; Lopez-Guzman, T.; Pemberthy Gallo, L.S.; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, P. Tourist Loyalty and Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Case of Popayán, Colombia. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 10, 172–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Medina-Viruel, M.J.; López-Guzmán, T.; Gálvez, J.C.P.; Jara-Alba, C. Emotional perception and tourist satisfaction in world heritage cities: The Renaissance monumental site of úbeda and baeza, Spain. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 27, 100226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gallarza, M.G.; Saura, I.G.; García, H.C. Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Beerli, A.; Martín, J.D. Factors influencing destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baloglu, S.; McCleary, K.W. A model of destination image formation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 868–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bigne, E.; Fuentes-Medina, M.L.; Morini-Marrero, S. Memorable tourist experiences versus ordinary tourist experiences analysed through user-generated content. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, W.; Malek, K. Effects of self-congruity and destination image on destination loyalty: The role of cultural differences. Anatolia 2017, 28, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Afshardoost, M.; Eshaghi, M.S. Destination image and tourist behavioural intentions: A meta-analysis. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Molina, J.A. Altruism in the household: In kind transfers in the context of kin selection. Rev. Econ. Househ. 2013, 11, 309–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dwyer, L.; Edwards, D.; Mistilis, N.; Roman, C.; Scott, N. Destination and enterprise management for a tourism future. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Zeugner-Roth, K.P.; Žabkar, V. Bridging the gap between country and destination image: Assessing common facets and their predictive validity. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1844–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hosany, S.; Prayag, G. Patterns of tourists’ emotional responses, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 730–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vengesayi, S.; Mavondo, F.T.; Reisinger, Y. Tourism Destination Attractiveness: Attractions, Facilities, and People as Predictors. Tour. Anal. 2009, 14, 621–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, Y.; Ritchie, J.R.B. Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual Approach. J. Travel Res. 1993, 32, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hou, J.-S.; Lin, C.-H.; Morais, D.B. Antecedents of Attachment to a Cultural Tourism Destination: The Case of Hakka and Non-Hakka Taiwanese Visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. J. Travel Res. 2005, 44, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Qu, H.; Kim, L.H.; Im, H.H. A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ozturk, A.B.; Qu, H. The Impact of Destination Images on Tourists’ Perceived Value, Expectations, and Loyalty. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2008, 9, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kandampully, J.; Juwaheer, T.D.; Hu, H.-H. The Influence of a Hotel Firm’s Quality of Service and Image and its Effect on Tourism Customer Loyalty. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2011, 12, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jenkins, O.H. Understanding and measuring tourist destination images. Int. J. Tour. Res. 1999, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Choi, S.; Lehto, X.Y.; Morrison, A.M. Destination image representation on the web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hunter, W.C. The social construction of tourism online destination image: A comparative semiotic analysis of the visual representation of Seoul. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khan, M.J.; Chelliah, S.; Haron, M.S. Medical tourism destination image formation process: A conceptual model. Int. J. Health Manag. 2016, 9, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chon, K. The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion. Tour. Rev. 1990, 45, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Govers, R.; Go, F.M.; Kumar, K. Promoting Tourism Destination Image. J. Travel Res. 2007, 46, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chon, K.-S. Tourism destination image modification process. Tour. Manag. 1991, 12, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cole, S.T.; Chancellor, H.C. Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor experience, satisfaction and re-visit intention. J. Vacat. Mark. 2009, 15, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, T.H. A Structural Model to Examine How Destination Image, Attitude, and Motivation Affect the Future Behavior of Tourists. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Prebensen, N.; Skallerud, K.; Chen, J. Tourist Motivation with Sun and Sand Destinations: Satisfaction and the Wom-Effect. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27, 858–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kraftchick, J.F.; Byrd, E.T.; Canziani, B.; Gladwell, N.J. Understanding beer tourist motivation. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 12, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, Y.G.; Eves, A. Construction and validation of a scale to measure tourist motivation to consume local food. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1458–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, C.; Lee, S. Understanding the cultural differences in tourist motivation between anglo-american and japanese tourists. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2000, 9, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Crompton, J.L. An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. J. Travel Res. 1979, 17, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dann, G.M.S. Tourist Motivation and Quality-of-Life: In Search of the Missing Link. In Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 233–250. [Google Scholar]
  52. Farmaki, A. An exploration of tourist motivation in rural settings: The case of Troodos, Cyprus. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 2–3, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yoo, C.-K.; Yoon, D.; Park, E. Tourist motivation: An integral approach to destination choices. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chon, K.-S. Understanding recreational traveler’s motivation, attitude and satisfaction. Tour. Rev. 1989, 44, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gunn, C.A. Tourism planning. Ann. Tour. Res. 1980, 7, 617–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jafari, J. Tourism models: The sociocultural aspects. Tour. Manag. 1987, 8, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Albayrak, T.; Caber, M. Examining the relationship between tourist motivation and satisfaction by two competing methods. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rajesh, R. Impact of Tourist Perceptions, Destination Image and Tourist Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Conceptual Model. PASOS. Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2013, 11, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Giese, J.L.; Cote, J.A. Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2002, 1, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  60. Huh, J.; Uysal, M.; McCleary, K. Cultural/Heritage Destinations: Tourist Satisfaction and Market Segmentation. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2006, 14, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fuchs, M.; Weiermair, K. New perspectives of satisfaction research in tourism destinations. Tour. Rev. 2003, 58, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Al-Kwifi, O.S. The impact of destination images on tourists’ decision making: A technological exploratory study using fMRI. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2015, 6, 174–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Butcher, J.; Smith, M.; Duffy, R. Contemporary Geographies of Leisure, Tourism and Mobility the Moralisation of Tourism Sun, Sand … and Saving the World? Available online: http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/18575/1/78.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
  64. Cronin, J.; Brady, M.K.; Hult, G.M. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 2000, 76, 193–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, J.-H. The Impact of Memorable Tourism Experiences on Loyalty Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Destination Image and Satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2017, 57, 856–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lee, T.H.; Chang, P.-S. Examining the Relationships among Festivalscape, Experiences, and Identity: Evidence from Two Taiwanese Aboriginal Festivals. Leis. Stud. 2016, 36, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kim, S. The Relationships of On-Site Film-Tourism Experiences, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of Asian Audience’s Responses to a Korean Historical TV Drama. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2012, 29, 472–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fraser, H.; Draper, J.; Taylor, W. The Quality of Teachers’ Professional Lives: Teachers and Job Satisfaction. Eval. Res. Educ. 1998, 12, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hui, T.K.; Wan, D.; Ho, A. Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Prayag, G.; Hosany, S.; Odeh, K. The role of tourists’ emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding behavioral intentions. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2013, 2, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hultman, M.; Skarmeas, D.; Oghazi, P.; Beheshti, H.M. Achieving tourist loyalty through destination personality, satis-faction, and identification. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2227–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lai, I.K.W.; Hitchcock, M.; Lu, D.; Liu, Y. The Influence of Word of Mouth on Tourism Destination Choice: Tourist–Resident Relationship and Safety Perception among Mainland Chinese Tourists Visiting Macau. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Dodds, R.; Jolliffe, L. Experiential Tourism: Creating and Marketing Tourism Attraction Experiences. In The Handbook of Managing and Marketing Tourism Experiences; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2016; pp. 113–129. [Google Scholar]
  74. Suhartanto, D.; Dean, D.; Wibisono, N.; Astor, Y.; Muflih, M.; Kartikasari, A.; Sutrisno, R.; Hardiyanto, N. Tourist experience in Halal tourism: What leads to loyalty? Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1976–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Akama, J.S.; Kieti, D.M. Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tour. Manag. 2003, 24, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Selemani, I.S. Indigenous knowledge and rangelands’ biodiversity conservation in Tanzania: Success and failure. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 3863–3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jensen, Y.; Li, M. Visitors’ satisfaction at managed tourist attractions in Northern Norway: Do on-site factors matter? Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Panjakajornsak, V. Analyzing the Effects of Past Visits, Image, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty of Foreign Tourists: A Model of Destination Loyalty. NIDA Dev. J. 2011, 51, 189–216. [Google Scholar]
  79. Moon, H.; Han, H. Tourist experience quality and loyalty to an island destination: The moderating impact of destination image. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 36, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Trauer, B.; Ryan, C. Destination image, romance and place experience—An application of intimacy theory in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. O’Dell, T. Tourist Experiences and Academic Junctures. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2007, 7, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, Y. Geographical consciousness and tourism experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 863–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Selstad, L. The Social Anthropology of the Tourist Experience. Exploring the ‘Middle Role. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2007, 7, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jennings, G.; Lee, Y.-S.; Ayling, A.; Lunny, B.; Cater, C.; Ollenburg, C. Quality Tourism Experiences: Reviews, Reflections, Research Agendas. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2009, 18, 294–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, J.; Luo, Q.; Huang, S.; Yang, R. Restoration in the exhausted body? Tourists on the rugged path of pilgrimage: Motives, experiences, and benefits. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 15, 100407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Grundner, L.; Neuhofer, B. The bright and dark sides of artificial intelligence: A futures perspective on tourist destination experiences. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Oliver, R.L. Whence Consumer Loyalty? J. Mark. 1999, 63, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wardi, Y.; Abror, A.; Trinanda, O. Halal tourism: Antecedent of tourist’s satisfaction and word of mouth (WOM). Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Al Refaie, A.; Ko, J.H.; Li, M.H. Examining the factors that affect tourists’ satisfaction, loyalty, WOM and intention to return using SEM: Evidence from Jordan. Int. J. Leis. Tour. Mark. 2012, 3, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Setiawan, P.Y. The Effect of e-WOM on Destination Image, Satisfaction and Loyalty. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent. 2014, 3, 22–29. [Google Scholar]
  91. Loureiro, S.M.C.; González, F.J.M. The Importance of Quality, Satisfaction, Trust, and Image in Relation to Rural Tourist Loyalty. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 25, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Halpenny, E.A.; Kulczycki, C.; Moghimehfar, F. Factors effecting destination and event loyalty: Examining the sustainability of a recurrent small-scale running event at Banff National Park. J. Sport Tour. 2016, 20, 233–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Awatara, I.G.P.D.S.; Samsi, A.; Hamdani, L.; Susila, N. The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation and Customer Satisfaction Toward Tourism Loyalty on Karanganyar Regency. J. Int. Conf. Proc. 2020, 3, 291–296. [Google Scholar]
  94. Cossío-Silva, F.-J.; Revilla-Camacho, M.-A.; Vega-Vázquez, M. The tourist loyalty index: A new indicator for measuring tourist destination loyalty? J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kumar, V. Examining the role of destination personality and self-congruity in predicting tourist behavior. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 20, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tsai, L.M.; Sakulsinlapakorn, K. Exploring Tourists’ Push and Pull Travel Motivations to Participate in Songkran Festival in Thailand as a Tourist Destination: A Case of Taiwanese Visitors. J. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 4, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Chandralal, L.; Valenzuela, F.-R. Memorable Tourism Experiences: Scale Development. Contemp. Manag. Res. 2015, 11, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yao, Y. Assessing Tourist Experience Satisfaction with a Heritage Destination. Open Access Theses. 2019. Available online: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses/107 (accessed on 9 April 2021).
  99. Mohamad, M.; Abdullah, A.R.; Mokhlis, S. Tourists’ Evaluations of Destination Image and Future Behavioural Intention: The Case of Malaysia. J. Manag. Sustain. 2012, 2, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in in-formation systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Goodhue, L. Thompson Does PLS Have Advantages for Small Sample Size or Non-Normal Data? MIS Q. 2012, 36, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Neter, J.; Wasserman, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs; Irwin: Chicago, IL, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  107. Khan, M.J.; Chelliah, S.; Ahmed, S. Factors influencing destination image and visit intention among young women travellers: Role of travel motivation, perceived risks, and travel constraints. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 22, 1139–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Li, M.; Cai, L.A.; Lehto, X.Y.; Huang, J. A Missing Link in Understanding Revisit Intention—The Role of Motivation and Image. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gong, T.; Tung, V.W.S. The impact of tourism mini-movies on destination image: The influence of travel motivation and advertising disclosure. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 416–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Artuğer, S.; Cevdet Çetinsöz, B.; Kılıç, İ. The Effect of Destination Image on Destination Loyalty: An Application in Alanya. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 124–136. [Google Scholar]
  111. Kim, S.-H.; Kim, M.; Han, H.-S.; Holland, S. The determinants of hospitality employees’ pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating role of generational differences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 52, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Correia, A.; Kozak, M.; Ferradeira, J. From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2013, 7, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mutanga, C.N.; Vengesayi, S.; Chikuta, O.; Muboko, N.; Gandiwa, E. Travel motivation and tourist satisfaction with wildlife tourism experiences in Gonarezhou and Matusadona National Parks, Zimbabwe. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2017, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Akgün, A.E.; Keskin, H.; Ayar, H.; Erdoğan, E. The Influence of Storytelling Approach in Travel Writings on Readers’ Empathy and Travel Intentions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 207, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Antón, C.; Camarero, C.; Laguna-García, M. Towards a new approach of destination loyalty drivers: Satisfaction, visit intensity and tourist motivations. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 238–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Almeida-Santana, A.; Moreno-Gil, S. Understanding tourism loyalty: Horizontal vs. destination loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2018, 65, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Do Valle, M.; Silva, P.O.; Mendes, J.A.; Guerreiro, J.; Do, V.; Patrícia, O.; Silva, J.A.; Mendes, J.; Guerreiro, M. Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty intention: A structural and categorical analysis. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 2006, 1, 25–44. [Google Scholar]
  118. Kim, K. Analysis of Structural Equation Model for the Student Pleasure Travel Market: Motivation, Involvement, Satisfaction, and Destination Loyalty. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 24, 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Breiby, M.A.; Slåtten, T. The role of aesthetic experiential qualities for tourist satisfaction and loyalty. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2018, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Noor, S.M.; Schuberth, F.; Jaafar, M. Investigating the effects of tourist engagement on satisfaction and loyalty. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 39, 559–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Frías-Jamilena, D.M.; Del Barrio-García, S.; López-Moreno, L. Determinants of Satisfaction with Holidays and Hospitality in Rural Tourism in Spain. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2012, 54, 294–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Molina, M.; Ángel, R.; Frías-Jamilena, D.-M.; Garcia, J.A.C. The moderating role of past experience in the formation of a tourist destination’s image and in tourists’ behavioural intentions. Curr. Issues Tour. 2013, 16, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Becker, J.-M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Estimating moderating effects in pls-sem and plsc-sem: Interaction term generation*data treatment. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 2018, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 08889 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework (Source: Author’s own).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework (Source: Author’s own).
Sustainability 13 08889 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.
DemographicsFrequencyPercentage
Gender
Male9848%
Female10652%
Age (Year)
18–29157%
30–392412%
40–493417%
50–594120%
60 and above9044%
Education
Under high school2110%
High school4221%
College6331%
Graduate or postgraduate7838%
Marital Status
Single7939%
Married9547%
Separated147%
Widower94%
Decline to answer73%
Monthly Income (USD)
Under 5000189%
5000–10,0002311%
10,000–20,0003115%
20,000–30,0003316%
30,000–40,0002311%
40,000–50,000179%
Over 50,000126%
Decline to answer4723%
Occupation
Student4824%
Employed/self-employed189%
Retired157%
Other12360%
Source: Author’s own.
Table
Table 2. Key references of construct based on prior studies.
Table 2. Key references of construct based on prior studies.
CodeConstructReference
Destination Image
DI 1My visit to this destination is worth my time and effort[95]
DI 2Compared to other destinations, this destination is a much better one
DI 3My experiences with this destination are excellent
DI 4Overall, I am satisfied with the travel experience in this destination
Tourist Motivation
TM 1To relax in foreign land[96]
TM 2To get experience in foreign land
TM 3To learn new culture
TM 4To see how the people of difference cultures live
Tourist Experience
TE 1This trip helped me to improve my self-confidence[97]
TE 2This trip helped me to develop my personal identify
TE 3This trip helped me to learn more about myself
TE 4This trip helped me to acquire new skills
Tourist Satisfaction
TSA1Hue is one of the best destinations for cultural heritage tourism[98]
TSA2My choice to visit Hue was a wise one
TSA3I think I made the right decision to visit the destination
TSA4I am satisfied with my overall experience during my visit
Tourist Loyalty
LOY 1Will say positive things about Hue to other people[99]
LOY 2Suggest Hue to friend and relatives as a vacation destination to visit
LOY 3Consider Hue as your choice to visit in the future
Source: Author’s own.
Table
Table 3. Construct reliability and validity.
Table 3. Construct reliability and validity.
VariablesItemsFactor LoadingsCronbach AlphaAVECRrho_A
TETE10.9970.9950.99010.998
TE20.998
TE30.991
DIDI10.8820.8420.6800.8900.853
DI20.789
DI30.842
DI40.774
TMTM10.9400.9460.8600.9600.954
TM20.940
TM30.919
TM40.913
TSATSA10.8800.8610.7100.9100.862
TSA20.893
TSA30.841
TSA40.744
LOYLOY10.7880.7020.6200.8300.707
LOY20.798
LOY30.784
α—Cronbach alpha, CR—composite reliability, AVE—average variance extracted, Rho_A—Dijkstra-Henseler’s rho. (Source: Author processing from smart PLS version 3.2.9).
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix and discriminant assessment.
Table 4. Correlation matrix and discriminant assessment.
TEDILOYTSATM
TE0.995
DI0.0320.823
LOY0.3410.2590.790
TSA0.3950.0640.4740.840
TM0.3320.1940.2740.3600.930
Squared correlations; AVE in the diagonal (Source: author processing from smart PLS version 3.2.9).
Table
Table 5. Path coefficient: direct and indirect effects.
Table 5. Path coefficient: direct and indirect effects.
EffectsβMean ValueStd. Devt-Valuep-ValueHypothesis
Supported
Direct Effect
DI -> LOY2.8130.2140.0742.7980.005Yes
DI -> TSA0.072−0.0060.0860.0720.943No
DI -> TM3.0580.2040.0682.8550.004Yes
TSA -> LOY3.8170.340.0913.8490.000Yes
TM -> LOY0.8070.0640.0810.7360.462No
TM -> TSA5.0650.3620.0725.0470.000Yes
Indirect Effect (Moderation)
TE -> DI -> LOY2.027−0.1420.0751.8830.060No
TE -> TSA -> LOY1.6690.1310.081.7070.088No
TE -> TM -> LOY1.7690.1480.0652.1340.033Yes
Dependent VariableCoefficient of determination (R2)Empirical Remark
Tourist Loyalty0.527Robust
Note: β = regression coefficient and t = significant value (t > 1.96) or (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 6. Path Coefficients of the endogenous variables.
Table 6. Path Coefficients of the endogenous variables.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Std. Dev.t-Valuep-Value
LOY0.3610.3940.0536.7890.000
TSA0.1300.1420.0472.7690.006
TM0.0370.0460.0271.3760.169
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hung, V.V.; Dey, S.K.; Vaculcikova, Z.; Anh, L.T.H. The Influence of Tourists’ Experience on Destination Loyalty: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168889

AMA Style

Hung VV, Dey SK, Vaculcikova Z, Anh LTH. The Influence of Tourists’ Experience on Destination Loyalty: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):8889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168889

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hung, Vo Viet, Sandeep Kumar Dey, Zuzana Vaculcikova, and Le Trieu Hoang Anh. 2021. "The Influence of Tourists’ Experience on Destination Loyalty: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 8889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168889

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop