Next Article in Journal
Measuring Activity—The Picture of Seniors in Poland and Other European Union Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
Factors Influencing the Knowledge Level of Fish Consumers: An Explanatory Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Role of Biotransformation of Acacia nilotica Metabolites by Aspergillus subolivaceus in Boosting Lupinus termis Yield: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Segmentation of Hungarian Consumers Based on Circular Economy Values and Awareness of Food Waste
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/su15129510
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

How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism?

by
Abdullah Tarinc
1,
Arif Aytekin
2,*,
Ozlem Tekin Ozbek
3,
Gozde Seval Ergün
4,
Ali Keles
5,
Fatih Uslu
6,
Huseyin Keles
7 and
Ozgur Yayla
8
1
Department of Gastronomy and Culinary Arts, Faculty of Manavgat Tourism, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Turkey
2
Department of Social Work, Faculty of Manavgat Social Sciences and Humanities, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Turkey
3
Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Gönen Vocational School, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Balıkesir 10900, Turkey
4
Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Manavgat Tourism, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Turkey
5
Independent Researcher, Antalya 07600, Turkey
6
Department of Education Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Turkey
7
Department of Tourism Guidance, Faculty of Manavgat Tourism, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Turkey
8
Department of Recreation Management, Faculty of Manavgat Tourism, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9510; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129510
Submission received: 12 May 2023 / Revised: 1 June 2023 / Accepted: 8 June 2023 / Published: 13 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Analysis and Sustainable Food Consumption)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines the relationship between local food quality perception, dining satisfaction, and post-dining behavioral intention in the context of sustainable gastronomy tourism in Manavgat/Antalya. The research also analyzes the moderator roles of food neophilia and neophobia in this relationship. A face-to-face survey was conducted with the tourists who visited the region and experienced local restaurants. Accordingly, 487 participants were interviewed. In order to analyze the collected data, data survey analysis was applied, and the findings were analyzed using AMOS software (Version 24) to test the structural model. The results have shown that the core perceptions of local food and delivery quality positively affect dining satisfaction, whereas no effect on external quality has been found. Moreover, the findings have also revealed that dining satisfaction positively influences post-dining behavioral intention. In addition, food neophilia and neophobia moderate the relationship between dining satisfaction and post-dining behavioral intention. These findings have emphasized the importance of promoting local food quality to increase tourists’ dining satisfaction and their intention to participate in sustainable gastronomy tourism. Destination managers should collaborate with food producers to create a branded local food line that offers sustainable and delicious options, thereby enhancing the travel experiences of domestic and foreign tourists.

1. Introduction

Tourism practices that respect nature and cultural values and give importance to conservation have gained importance due to the increasingly negative effects of mass tourism on the natural environment. In the context of protection–use balance; gastronomy tourism has emerged as a new touristic product where one-third of the tour budget is spent on food consumption [1]. Lee, Packer and Scott (2015) [2] define gastronomy tourism as food-themed activities, cooking and tasting events, organizations, or destination visits with the concept of gastronomic products. Gastronomy tourism is defined as traveling to regions with gastronomically rich resources to spend leisure time or have fun. Sustainable gastronomy can be defined as a term based on environmental sustainability, protection and improvement of health, and socio-cultural and environmental quality of the society [3]. It is a concept that has been considered within the context of protecting ecological values and passing them on to future generations. The values that reflect the unique food and culture of destinations not only act as an attraction factor for tourists but also shape the brand and image perception of destinations. One of the values that constitute the identity of destinations is undoubtedly gastronomic elements [4]. Londono (2011) [5] defines sustainable gastronomy tourism as a tourism activity that attaches importance to ensuring food safety and using environmentally friendly production techniques during the preparation/production of food. Similarly, the sustainability of gastronomy tourism is explained as a tourism type that protects public health and supports social and cultural quality by adopting environmentally friendly methods in the production and preparation of foods [6].
Food and beverages have a strong influence on the willingness to travel for gastronomy, the choice of destinations, and the evaluation of experiences since they are an important motivational factor for tourists [7]. When there are positive experiences with a variety of foods, then there is a satisfied departure from the trip. Therefore, food is one of the foreground promotional elements of a destination [3,8]. Local food, one of the main elements of gastronomy, is important in terms of promoting not only the general culture but also the food and beverage culture of a region. The gastronomic values of a region act as an important attraction element for tourists visiting that region and are effective in revisiting the region [9]. The interest of gastronomy tourists in local cuisine has been analyzed in five dimensions: cultural experience, excitement, interpersonal dialog, emotional connection, and health and hygiene. Accordingly, cultural experience, lack of health concerns, and emotional attachment ensure that gastronomy tourists are satisfied with their local cuisine experience [10]. The knowledge, abilities, skills, and expectations of tourists about the destination provide positive behavioral intentions during their visits to the destination [11].
It is possible for some tourists to experience a different food culture through practices such as tasting and even preparing food in a unique cultural atmosphere. These practices may provide a first-time, fascinating experience and lasting fond memories regarding the destination that increase their satisfaction levels with it [12]. Food neophilia (FL) and food neophobia (FB) are food-related personality characteristics that influence food-related perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and behavioral patterns of an individual [13]. Previous research on the topic has primarily focused on the influence of internal psychological aspects on external behaviors and attitudes, such as the daily menu preferences and choices of individuals, and predicting their intentions to purchase different foods in their daily lives [14]. Previous researchers have investigated the effect of FB and FL between different food types, across different cultures, and in different age groups [15,16], but the moderator effect of FB and FL on dining satisfaction (DS) and post-dining behavior concerning local food quality perception (LFQP) has not been examined. This study has aimed to contribute to filling the gap in the literature by investigating the effects of LFQP on post-dining behavioral intention (PDBI). In this respect, a conceptual model was developed by focusing on three sub-dimensions (core, external, and distribution) to determine the effects of LFQP on PDBI. In addition, in order to increase the originality and quality of the research, the effect of LFQP on DS and the effect of DS on PDBI have been examined. Moreover, the moderator role of both FB and FL in the relationship between DS and PDBI has been examined. The findings of the study are expected to provide valuable insights into the effects of LFQP on DS and PDBI.

2. Conceptual Model

2.1. The Effect of LFQP on DS

Food is an important part of human life and culture and has a significant effect on our health and well-being. In recent years, the concept of “local food” has gained popularity among consumers who are increasingly seeking locally originated food options [17,18,19]. This trend is driven by several factors, such as food security, environmental sustainability, and support for local economies, etc. [20]. LFQP is the degree to which consumers believe that locally originated food is of better quality than the food coming from far away [21]. This perception is influenced by various factors, such as the freshness of the food, the agricultural practices used to produce it, and the community where it is grown [22]. Consumers who perceive local food to be of higher quality are more likely to seek it out when dining out and may be willing to pay more for it. DS refers to the degree of pleasure or enjoyment consumers experience when dining out. There are several factors that can influence DS, including the quality of the food, the service provided by restaurant staff, the ambience of the restaurant, and the general value of the dining experience.
Previous research has shown that LFQP has a significant influence on DS. Consumers who perceive local food to be of higher quality report higher levels of DS than those who do not. A study by Feldmann and Hamm (2015) [19] found that consumers who perceive local food as higher quality are more likely to revisit the restaurant and recommend it to other people. The study also found that perceived food quality has a stronger effect on DS than other factors, such as service quality and atmosphere.
The studies by Frash et al. (2015) [23] and Martinez et al. [24] found that consumers are eager to pay more money for local food because they perceive it to be of higher quality. They also stated that this perception leads to higher levels of DS. In addition, LFQP may influence other aspects of the dining experience. For example, a study by Linnes et al. (2022) [25] revealed that consumers who eat at local restaurants feel more connected to their community, and this leads consumers to have higher levels of DS.
While LFQP is an important factor in DS, other factors can also influence this relationship. For example, the type of cuisine offered by the restaurant, the price of the food, and the overall dining experience may influence consumers’ perceptions regarding the quality of the food. Moreover, consumers’ personal preferences and beliefs about food and its production may also influence their LFQP.
In addition to the aspects above, in recent years, the food service industry has witnessed a significant transformation with the emergence of a variety of dining options, ranging from traditional food restaurants to food delivery services. Food quality and dining experiences are crucial factors determining customer satisfaction and loyalty. The main objective of this chapter is to investigate LFQP in three sub-dimensions: core, external, and delivery, and also investigate its effect on DS.
Core food quality perception refers to the intrinsic qualities of food such as taste, aroma, texture, and freshness [26,27]. Many studies have emphasized the importance of basic food quality perception in determining customer satisfaction. According to Han and Ryu (2009) [28], food quality was found to be the most important determinant of customer satisfaction in a Chinese fast-food chain. Similarly, Lee et al. (2005) [29] stated that food quality had a positive influence on customer satisfaction in their study conducted in a Korean restaurant. Basic food quality perception is also linked to customers’ intentions to revisit and recommend the restaurant. For example, Liu and Jang (2009) [30] found that perception of basic food quality has a significant effect on customers’ intention to revisit a Chinese restaurant in the US.
The external perception of food quality refers to the external attributes of a meal, such as presentation, ambiance, and service quality. Several studies have emphasized the importance of external perceptions of food quality in determining customer satisfaction [31,32]. For example, Ghadban et al. (2021) [33] found that service quality, ambiance, and food presentation significantly influence customer satisfaction in a Lebanese restaurant. The perception of external food quality is also linked to customers’ intention to revisit and recommend the restaurant. Another example is as follows; Jang et al. (2012) [34] found that service quality and ambiance significantly influence customers’ intention to revisit and recommend a Korean restaurant in the US.
The perception of delivery food quality has become an Important factor in determining customer satisfaction with the popularization of delivery services. This perception refers to intrinsic and extrinsic attributes such as taste, freshness, packaging, delivery time, and order accuracy. Many studies have emphasized the importance of delivery food quality perception in determining customer satisfaction. For example, Dwaikat et al. (2019) [35] found that the perception of delivery food quality significantly influences customers’ satisfaction with pizza delivery service. Delivery food quality perception is also linked to customers’ intentions to reuse and recommend the food delivery service. For example, Banerjee et al. (2019) [36] found that delivery time, packaging, and meal quality significantly influence customers’ intentions to reuse and recommend the food delivery service.
Within the framework of the information obtained in the literature review, hypothesis H1 has been formulated with the purpose of measuring the effect of LFQP perception on DS.
H1: 
LFQP has a positive and significant effect on DS.
H1a: 
Core quality has a positive and significant effect on DS.
H1b: 
External quality has a positive and significant effect on DS.
H1c: 
Delivery quality has a positive and significant effect on DS.

2.2. The Effect of DS on PDBI

Eating out is a popular social activity that has become an important part of people’s lives. Therefore, the dining experience plays a vital role in customer satisfaction and loyalty. DS refers to the level of enjoyment or satisfaction that a customer gets during and after a dining experience. PDBI refers to the likelihood that a customer will return to a restaurant or recommend it to others after a dining experience. Restaurants need to understand the relationship between DS and PDBI to improve customer retention and business performance. Sulek and Hensley (2004) [37] found that DS is a significant predictor of PDBI. In this section of the study, the effect of DS on PDBI and the factors contributing to DS have been examined.
Several factors contribute to DS, including food quality, service quality, ambience, and price. Food quality is a significant item in determining DS. It is the most critical element of the dining experience, and customers’ perception of food quality can make or break a restaurant’s reputation. A study by Canny (2014) [38] concluded that food quality has a significant effect on customers’ DS and PDBI. Customers who are satisfied with food quality are more likely to return to the restaurant and recommend it to others.
Service quality is another important factor affecting DS. It refers to the level of customer service provided by restaurant staff, including speed and accuracy of service, friendliness, and attentiveness. A study by Sulek and Hensley (2004) [37] determined that service quality has a significant positive effect on customers’ DS and PDBI. Customers who are satisfied with service quality are more likely to return to a restaurant and recommend it to others.
Another factor is the ambiance, which refers to the overall atmosphere and environment of a restaurant, including lighting, music, decor, and cleanliness. A study by Omar et al. (2015) [39] found that ambiance has a significant positive effect on customers’ DS and PDBI. Customers who are satisfied with the ambiance are more likely to revisit a restaurant and suggest it to other people.
Price is considered to be an important factor affecting DS. It refers to the cost of the food and other related expenses such as drinks and tips. A study by Iglesias and Guillén (2004) [40] found that price has a significant negative impact on customers’ DS and PDBI. Customers who are satisfied with the price are more likely to return to a restaurant and recommend it to others.
Other factors that contribute to DS include menu variety, portion size, and food presentation. A study by Baiomy et al. (2019) [41] found that menu variety has a significant positive effect on customers’ DS and PDBI. Customers who are satisfied with the variety of menu options are more likely to return to a restaurant and recommend it to others. Similarly, a study of Chinese restaurants by Liu and Jang (2009) [30] found that food presentation has a significant effect on customers’ DS and PDBI. Within the scope of the detailed literature on DS and PDBI, hypothesis H2 has been formed for the second purpose of the study;
H2: 
DS has a positive and significant effect on PDBI.

2.3. The Moderator Role of FB and FL in the Effect of DS on PDBI

Neophilia and neophobia refer to the personality traits that show the attitudes and behaviors of individuals towards different phenomena to which they are not accustomed. Neophilia expresses an individual’s moderate approach or tendency to try new things out of curiosity or interest in order to seek diversity, whereas neophobia is the opposite [42]. Considering the studies conducted on FB in the literature, it can be understood that this concept has direct or indirect effects on consumer behavior in general [15,16,43]. FB is also an indicator of personality and behavior. It also influences the willingness to experience non-traditional foods [44]. However, FB also weakens the direction between the attitude of local tourists regarding local foods and their intention to try local foods [45]. Moreover, statistically significant differences are found between the groups with high and low perceptions of neophobia concerning street foods [46]. FB can also affect how people perceive the atmosphere and authenticity of a restaurant, as well as their subjective knowledge of food. However, it has no effect on the impact of authenticity perception on experience satisfaction [47]. The intention of consumers to buy organic products is positively linked to purchase behavior, and FB positively moderates the relation between purchase intention and organic food consumption [48]. The effects of natural ingredients and creativity on perceived values are considerably affected by FB, yet the relationship between natural ingredients and hedonic value is, to a great extent, moderated by food technology neophobia [49]. In another study, the results collected from 221 university students showed that functional, social, emotional, and contingent values positively influenced the purchase intention of consumers. Additionally, purchase intention is positively associated with consumers’ organic food purchasing behavior. Furthermore, the findings of that study also verified the moderating role of FB in the relationship between purchase intention and organic food consumption [50]. Results of another study conducted with 1144 Chinese consumers showed that price negatively influences purchase intention; however, the negative effect can be mitigated by health perception. Although FB does not have a direct effect on the purchase attitude or intention of individuals, it has a moderating effect on the antecedent variables and the relationships between them. Consumers that have low levels of FB view higher prices as a monetary sacrifice; however, higher prices may also be associated with higher quality [15]. Lastly, the individual FB of children has a negative relationship with their willingness to choose and eat vegetables and fruits [51]. Considering the impact of FB on different variables in the literature and especially its moderator effect the following hypothesis has been formed.
H3: 
FB has a positive mediating effect between DS and PDBI.
It has also been found that FB and FL have an effect on consumers’ curiosity and desire to try non-traditional foods [46]. On the other hand, FL strengthens the positive perception of local tourists toward local food [45]. In a study conducted on local food, 181 foreign tourists were surveyed in Taiwan. It was found that FB or FL of foreign tourists strongly influenced their willingness to consume rice-based Taiwanese street food. The most significant finding of this specific study with the theme of local food is that FB or FL moderates the attraction effect of the message on the intention of foreign tourists to experience local flavors [52]. In another study, based on consumer choice value theory and the theory of planned behavior, the moderator effect of FB/FL behavior was also examined. Concerning consumer choice value, epistemic and social values were found to be significant. The theory of planned behavior showed that perceived behavioral control was not significant and, to some extent, influenced the purchase behavior of consumers with FB/FL behavior. [53]. In this direction, the findings on FL in the literature have been evaluated and the following hypothesis has been proposed.
H4: 
FL has a positive mediating effect between DS and PDBI.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Instrument

The three-dimensional 15-item scale to determine the tourists’ LFQP was adapted from Han et al. (2019) [54] and Shafieizadeh et al. (2021) [27]. In order to measure DS, the three-item scale in Oliver’s (1997) [55] study was used. The three-item scale to determine PDBI was adapted from Ladhari et al. (2008) [56]. For the determination of FB, the 10-item FB scale developed by Pliner and Hobden (1992) [57] was used. Finally, in determining FL, a four-item scale was preferred based on the previous studies in the literature [58,59]. All of the scales used in the study have been graded using a 5-point Likert scale.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

A destination’s emphasis on alternative tourism types within the context of sustainable tourism may lead to the development of the region in various aspects such as economic development, employment opportunities, infrastructure and superstructure, and the expansion of the tourism season to twelve months. In this sense, the destination of Manavgat/Antalya, which mainly serves mass tourism but also has many local restaurants serving gastronomy tourism, was determined as the research population. According to the data provided by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2023) [60], the number of foreign tourists visiting Manavgat in 2022 was 5,987,374 and the average length of stay was 4.15 days. The simplified formula developed by Yamane (1967) [61] was used to determine the required number of people to reach. Based on this formula, it was determined that it would be necessary to reach a minimum of 384 tourists. Among the tourists visiting Manavgat, especially those who participate in activities such as rafting, trekking, and safari as part of package tours or individually, foreign tourists who experienced local restaurants in the region were determined as the research sample. First of all, a pilot study was conducted with 53 participants between 10 September 2022 and 15 September 2022 using the questionnaire tool to be employed in the research. The findings of the research revealed that the Cronbach’s alpha (CA) values of the constructs in each of the scales were 0.70 and above [62] and the scale items were understandable. Based on the results obtained from the pilot study, it was decided that the actual data could be collected. In this context, a face-to-face questionnaire was applied to 487 foreign tourists who experienced local restaurants serving in Manavgat destination between 01 October 2022 and 20 October 2022 by using a convenience sampling method. In addition, the participants of the research were not asked any personal questions and were informed that the answers would remain completely confidential and would not be disclosed in any way. In order to reduce the risk of common method bias in social science research [63], response enhancement techniques were applied. Finally, of the 487 completed questionnaires, 22 were excluded due to missing data, and 465 questionnaires were subjected to analysis.

3.3. Data Analysis

The obtained data were transferred to the SPSS 22.0 package program and then coded. First of all, a three-stage data screening process was carried out in the SPSS program. In the first stage, Mahalanobis distance was calculated regarding the questionnaires. As a consequence of the evaluation, the research carried on with the remaining 441 questionnaire data (Mahalanobis’ D (36) > 0.001) after excluding 24 questionnaire forms from the analysis as they were found to have extreme values. In the second stage, the Tolerance and VIF values in each construct were evaluated to determine whether there was a multicollinearity problem. It was determined that the maximum VIF value for each construct was 2.296 and the minimum Tolerance value was 0.593. These values indicated that the construct did not have a multicollinearity problem [64]. In the third stage, the Skewness and Kurtosis values of the data were examined, and it was concluded that the data presented a normal distribution since the values were between −1.5 and +1.5 [65]. To test the structural model, the AMOS program has been preferred. In this regard, the two-stage approach recommended in the literature [66] has been preferred. Moreover, the Process macro (Hayes, 2013; model 1) [67] has been utilized to identify moderator effects.

3.4. Findings

3.4.1. Demographic Profile

Of the tourists who responded to the research questionnaire, 55.6% are female (n = 245) and 44.4% are male (n = 196). When the ages of the participants are examined, 34.9% of the participants are 18–25 (n = 154), 26.1% are 26–34 (n = 115), 29.9% are 35–44 (n = 132), 6.3% are 45–54 (n = 28), and 2.7% are 55 and over (n = 12). It is also found that 71.2% of the tourists are associate’s/bachelor’s degree graduates (n = 314). In addition, the rate of primary education graduates is 4.3% (n = 19), the rate of secondary education graduates is 9.1% (n = 40), and the rate of those with postgraduate education is 15.4% (n = 68). While 55.1% of the tourists who answered the questionnaire are married (n = 243), 44.9% are single (n = 198). Regarding their nationalities, it is observed that the majority of the respondents are Russian and German tourists. Of the participants, 35.8% are of German origin (n = 158) and 28.8% are of Russian origin (n = 127). Furthermore, 15% of the respondents are British (n = 66), 7% from Belgium (n = 31), 4.5% from Poland (n = 20), 3.9% from Macedonia (n = 17), 2.5% from Croatia (n = 11), 1.8% from Czech Republic (n = 8), and 0.7% from Ukraine (n = 3). A significant portion of the tourists who responded to the survey were of Russian and German nationality, which can be explained by the nationality distribution of tourists visiting Manavgat destination in general; when the nationalities of the tourists visiting Manavgat destination are analyzed, nearly 50% of the total tourists are tourists of Russian and German origin [60]. Finally, it is found that 46.3% of the tourists experienced local dishes with friends (n = 204), 45.1% with family (n = 199), and 8.6% alone (n = 38). In line with the explanations, the demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

3.4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA has been applied prior to defining the coefficients between the relationships in the study [66], and the results are given in Table 2. The primary measure explored in the CFA is the factor loadings. In fact, there is a consensus in the literature that factor loadings should be 0.50 and above [68,69]. In this context, two statements in the delivery quality dimension and four statements in the FB dimension have been excluded from the analysis as they have factor loadings lower than 0.50. The factor loads of the remaining 29 statements were found to be above the limit accepted in the literature, and the calculated t-values of all statements were found to be significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. Because each t value is greater than 1.96, the statements measuring the whole structure are significant [65]. In addition, the goodness-of-fit values of the model are within reasonable limits (χ2 = 790.545, df = 326, χ2/df = 2.425, NFI = 0.939, RFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.957, RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.963). The results show that the collected data supported the structural model.
The CA values in every construct have been utilized to determine the reliability of the scales used and it has been determined that these values are minimum 0.788. These results indicate that the construct is reliable [62]. At the same time, the construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) values in each dimension of the construct consisting of a total of seven dimensions have been examined, and it has been determined that both CR and AVE exceed the threshold values of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. As a consequence of the findings obtained, it has been concluded that convergent validity and composite reliability values are met [69].
In Table 3, the discriminant validity (DV) of the model is examined. Based on the implications of the table, it has been determined that the AVE value of each construct is higher than all the values in the relevant row of the square root. In light of these results, it can be stated that the discriminant validity of the construct has been achieved [70].

3.4.3. Hypothesis Testing

Considering the satisfactory results obtained from the CFA, the second stage of the study, path analysis, followed. Goodness of fit values in path analysis have shown reasonable levels in parallel with the values in CFA (χ2 = 498.346, df = 141, χ2/df = 3.534, NFI = 0.955, RFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.967). When the path coefficients have been evaluated based on the research purpose, core quality (β = 0.33, t = 4.035, p < 0.001) and delivery quality (β = 0.35, t = 4.218, p < 0.001), which are the sub-dimensions of food quality perception, positively affect tourists’ local food consumption satisfaction. On the other hand, external quality has no statistically significant effect on DS (p > 0.05). In light of the results, H1a and H1c have been accepted while H1b has been rejected. Regarding the effect of DS on PDBI, the results indicate that, as DS increases, tourists’ PDBI increases (β = 0.47, t = 5.938, p < 0.001), and considering these results, H2 has been accepted.
The results of moderator effect regarding the third and fourth hypotheses of the study have been presented in Table 4. When the results have been evaluated, firstly, the moderating role of FB on the effect of DS on PDBI was located to be significant (β = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.317, −0.044], p < 0.05). Furthermore, upon evaluating the details of the moderating effect, it was found that FB was significant as a moderator variable at all low, medium, and high levels. In fact, in the effect of DS on PDBI, the perception of FB is inversely proportional to the severity of the relationship. In other words, while the effect of DS on PDBI is stronger for individuals with a low perception of FB (β = 0.43, 95% CI [0.300, 0.568]), the severity of the said effect weakens for individuals with a high perception of FB (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.049, 0.338]). In light of the results, H3 has been accepted. In Figure 1, the relevant details of the moderating effect have been displayed. In Figure 1, the horizontal axis shows the food neophobia levels of tourists, and the vertical axis shows their post-dining behavioral intentions based on a five-point Likert scale. While the post-dining behavioral intentions of individuals with low food neophobia on the horizontal axis increase, the post-dining behavioral intentions of individuals with high food neophobia on the vertical axis decrease. In other words, there is a negative relationship between these two variables.
The moderator role of FL in the effect of DS on PDBI has been examined within the context of the last hypothesis of the study and is significant (β = −0.11, 95% CI [0.005, 0.227], p < 0.05). When the details of the moderating effect have been evaluated, it is seen that FL has a significant effect at all low, medium, and high levels. Unlike FB, this effect is positive. In other words, while the effect of DS on PDBI is weaker for individuals with a low perception of FL (β = 0.24, 95% CI [0.100, 0.380]), the magnitude of the effect increases for individuals with a high perception of FL (β = 0.47, 95% CI [0.326, 0.651]). Based on this result, H4 has been accepted. The details of the moderating effect are presented in Figure 2. The horizontal axis in Figure 2 shows the food neophilia levels of tourists while the vertical axis shows their post-dining behavioral intentions based on a five-point Likert scale. Unlike Figure 1, individuals with low food neophilia on the horizontal axis have lower post-dining behavioral intentions on the vertical axis while individuals with high food neophilia have higher post-dining behavioral intentions on the vertical axis. In other words, there is a positive relationship between the variables.
In the view of the results obtained, the structural model coefficients are shown in Figure 3.

4. Discussion and Implications

This study has developed a comprehensive model to determine the relationships among the perception of quality, behavioral intentions, and satisfaction within the scope of local food tourism. Accordingly, the study has aimed to answer how the dimensions of LFQP affect DS, how DS affects PDBI, and whether FB and FL have moderator effects on this relationship. In this respect, all other direct and moderator effects except H1b among the hypotheses developed within the context of the research have been accepted. It is observed that recent studies have addressed the relationship between specific qualities of local food and DS [71]. The results of this study have shown that core quality and delivery quality, which are the dimensions of LFQP, have a positive impact on DS. Moreover, it can be confirmed that core quality has a greater influence on DS than delivery quality. Core quality significantly explains the tourists’ satisfaction with local food. Therefore, the tourists who find core quality criteria, such as flavor, satiety, and freshness, in local foods are highly satisfied with these foods. This finding is consistent with previous studies in the literature [27,54,72]. Delivery quality, another variable in this study, also has a strong effect on DS. This finding emphasizes the importance of hygiene and customer service in the quality perception of tourists. In this regard, it is observed that the results of the hypothesis coincide with the previous studies [27,54,72]. It has been concluded that external quality, which is considered to be another dimension of quality perception, does not have any effect on DS. This result differs from the studies previously conducted in the literature [54]. In fact, in the study by Shafieizadeh et al. (2021) [27] targeting food trucks, it was concluded that external quality had an effect on satisfaction. The fact that there are perception differences between hotel guests and individuals who like to taste street foods makes the findings of this study acceptable. The reason for such a finding is likely to be customer expectations. This result can be attributed to the low expectations of foreign customers who intend to consume local food to experience a conventional presentation or appearance. It is a noteworthy finding that the appearance of local food is not important for tourists, while basic values such as taste, ingredient quality, freshness, and hygiene are significant satisfaction determinants.
Furthermore, the consequences have confirmed that DS is also a determinant of PDBI. In this sense, satisfaction has a crucial role in determining the future behavioral intentions of tourists. The stated finding is in agreement with the findings of several prior studies [71,73,74]. This finding is indicative of tourists’ satisfaction with local foods and the behavioral intentions of tourists to try these foods.
Previous studies suggest that FB and FL shape consumers’ purchase preferences [75]. The findings of the current study have shown that FL has a moderator impact on the relationship between satisfaction with local food and the intention to try local food. These findings are in line with the results of other studies [45]. According to these results, tourists with high FL tend to show higher purchase, recommendation, and price-paying behavior for the local foods they are satisfied with.
In addition, the finding of our hypothesis, in which we measured another moderator effect, reveals a negative effect. As the direction of the relationship is differently here, the finding needs to be carefully interpreted. FB shows a negative moderator effect in the relationship between tourists’ satisfaction with local food and their behavioral intentions after consuming local food. Accordingly, as FB increases, the intention to try these foods decreases even if there is satisfaction with local foods. We can find several studies examining the moderating role of FB in the existing literature concerning the food consumption values of tourists [45]. In fact, in the studies, it has been observed that FB has a moderator effect on the relationship between organic food purchase intention and consumption behavior [48,50]. In this context, although no studies have been found that investigated the moderator role of FB in the relationship among the variables examined within the context of the study, it is evident that the research results are compatible with the literature when similar concepts have been considered.

4.1. Theoretical Implications

There are important theoretical implications of this study. The first of these is the three-dimensional scale used to ascertain the quality perception of local food. The scale, which is included in the model in its three-dimensional form as core, external, and delivery, and the research results that have emerged accordingly will provide added value to the literature. It is thought that evaluating the three dimensions of quality perception separately will provide a more comprehensive perspective regarding the effect on DS. In addition, unlike the literature, it has been observed that the external quality dimension has not yielded significant results in the model, but the other two variables have a high impact power. In addition, the study, which argues that core quality is the most powerful predictor of customers’ perceptions regarding overall quality, has contributed to the existing literature.
The results concerning the positive impact of tourists’ satisfaction with local food consumption on their future behavioral intentions can also contribute to the existing gastronomy tourism literature. Moreover, since the study focuses on the consumption behavior of the local food by foreign tourists vacationing in a country, it is different from previous gastronomy tourism studies in terms of its results.
Another contribution of the research is related to the variables included in the model. Although the number has increased in recent years, there are very few studies that examine the food fear and food desire context of customers based on the tourism sector [52,70,76]. This paper provides empirical findings to fill the gap in the literature.
Even though there are several studies in the literature focusing on FB and FL [45], no study has yet been found examining the moderating role of FB and FL variables between tourists’ satisfaction with local food within the context of the Manavgat destination and PDBI focused in this study. In this context, the study offers an important additional value to the literature and also sheds light on other studies that could conducted in terms of its findings. In addition, although the positive moderator effect of FB was found in the previous studies in which food consumption values and attitude formation were measured in the literature [48,50], this effect is negative in our study. This result is thought to make a critical difference to the relevant literature.
Furthermore, in the research, the measurement model parameters of all variables (LFQP, DS, PDBI, FB, FL) have been determined to be appropriate. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that all of the scales are considered to be valid instruments.

4.2. Practical Implications

The marketing-oriented efforts of destination managers should include creating a local food brand with a sustainable and high-quality taste, and food producers should be contacted for this purpose. In this way, it is believed that the travel experiences of both local and international tourists can be enriched with the production of branded local food products.
Tasting local food products entails various risk factors for tourists. Several studies have highlighted the relationship between these risk factors and FB [77,78]. Focusing on FB should be inevitable for business and destination managers due to its effect on satisfaction and consumption intention. Tourists who are not accustomed to new foods may hesitate to consume these foods due to fears about hygiene problems or accompanying diseases. Therefore, following hygiene instructions, creating open kitchen concepts, training employees on food safety, and providing information to customers about food sources and preservation methods could be offered as a solution to overcome this fear. The importance of quality perception in this regard should not be ignored because the development of quality standards in the production and presentation of local food should be considered as a step to ensure reliability. It is recommended that businesses use fresh and high-quality food ingredients to achieve quality and raise service standards by serving food on time.
Destination managers aim to keep tourist satisfaction high in every period to increase the competitiveness of their destinations. In this respect, this study has pointed out the antecedents and effects of tourists’ satisfaction with local food and provided clues for destination managers to utilize in their marketing plans.
Moreover, the findings of the study will also help to better understand what foreign tourists expect from local food. Thus, not only hotel businesses or restaurants but also different types of enterprises, such as local food producers and tour companies that organize trips, will focus on adding new content to their activities.

5. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The study has a number of limitations even though it has substantial conclusions. The first of these limitations is that the research sample consists only of hotel guests. It is thought that measuring the attitudes and behaviors of tourists regarding local foods through studies based on restaurant customers or street food consumers will enrich the literature and provide the opportunity to make comparisons.
The research has been applied only to tourists visiting the Manavgat/Antalya destination. Targeting a tourist group whose reason for traveling by mass tourism is sea-sand-sun is another limitation of the study. In this sense, it is thought that different conclusions can be reached by selecting samples that prefer different types of tourism and destinations in future studies. In addition, investigating local food consumption in the context of personality traits (adventurous, conservative, etc.) or religious differences (Islam, Christian, etc.) of tourists may provide noteworthy findings. Additionally, future studies might draw attention to cross-cultural differences by repeating the research model with samples of different cultures to make comparisons.

6. Conclusions

The main purpose of this research is to analyze and determine the attitudes of foreign tourists who have received services from hotel businesses operating in Manavgat district of Antalya, one of Türkiye’s most popular tourism destinations, within the framework of LFQP, DS, PDBI, FB, and FL. According to the findings obtained as a consequence of the research, it is clear that core quality and delivery quality, which are the dimensions of local food quality perception, have an impact on dining satisfaction, while external quality, which is another dimension of local food quality perception, does not have any effect on dining satisfaction. As a result of the analyses, the effect of food satisfaction on post-dining behavioral intention, which is another hypothesis of the research, has been confirmed. Furthermore, it has been determined that food neophilia has a positive moderator effect and food neophobia has a negative moderator effect on the relationship between local food satisfaction and the intention to try local food.

Author Contributions

This research paper has been agreed upon by all of the authors and carried out collaboratively, but each one of the authors has made individual contributions to the paper. H.K. provided project management and language supervision. O.Y. performed the analyses and focused on the process of testing the hypotheses and the scales of the article. A.T., G.S.E. and O.T.O. conducted an extensive literature review, contributed to the original draft, and formulated the research hypotheses. A.A., A.K. and F.U. contributed to the completion of the discussion, implications, limitations, and conclusion chapters. In addition, the authors used an internal audit system during the preparation phase and monitored each other for any potential setbacks. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the research.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed during this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gheorghe, G.; Tudorache, P.; Nistoreanu, P. Gastronomic Tourism, A New Trend for Contemporary Tourism. Cactus Tour. J. 2014, 9, 12–21. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lee, K.-H.; Packer, J.; Scott, N. Travel Lifestyle Preferences and Destination Activity Choices of Slow Food Members and Non-Members. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Scarpato, R. Gastronomy as a tourist product: The perspective of gastronomy studies. In Tourism and Gastronomy; Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 65–84. [Google Scholar]
  4. Yurtseven, R.; Kaya, O. Eko-Gastronomi ve Sürdürülebilirlik. In 11. Ulusal Turizm Kongresi; Detay Yayıncılık: Cankaya, Türkiye, 2010; pp. 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  5. Londoño, M.d.P.L. Gastronomy Tourism: An Opportunity for Local Development in Catalonia? A Stakeholder Analysis. In Proceedings of the 51st Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “New Challenges for European Regions and Urban Areas in a Globalised World”, Barcelona, Spain, 30 August–3 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. Akdağ, G.; Üzülmez, M. Sürdürülebilir Gastronomi Turizmi Kapsamında Otantik Yiyeceklere Yönelik Bir İnceleme. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2017, 5, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. López-Guzmán, T.; Uribe Lotero, C.P.; Pérez Gálvez, J.C.; Ríos Rivera, I. Gastronomic Festivals: Attitude, Motivation and Satisfaction of the Tourist. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cohen, E.; Avieli, N. Food in Tourism: Attraction and Impediment. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 755–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ignatov, E.; Smith, S. Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2006, 9, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Santa Cruz, F.G.; Tito, J.C.; Pérez-Gálvez, J.C.; Medina-Viruel, M.J. Gastronomic Experiences of Foreign Tourists in Developing Countries. The Case in the City of Oruro (Bolivia). Heliyon 2019, 5, e02011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Brown, T.J.; Ham, S.H.; Hughes, M. Picking up Litter: An Application of Theory-Based Communication to Influence Tourist Behaviour in Protected Areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 879–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lai, M.Y.; Wang, Y.; Khoo-Lattimore, C. Do Food Image and Food Neophobia Affect Tourist Intention to Visit a Destination? The Case of Australia. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 928–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tomić Maksan, M.; Deronja, K.; Tudor Kalit, M.; Mesić, Ž. Food Neophobia as a Determinant of Consumer Behaviour in Ethnic Food Consumption. Ekon. Misao I Praksa 2019, 28, 579–595. [Google Scholar]
  14. Caber, M.; Yilmaz, G.; Kiliçarslan, D.; Öztürk, A. The Effects of Tour Guide Performance and Food Involvement on Food Neophobia and Local Food Consumption Intention. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1472–1491. [Google Scholar]
  15. Huang, L.; Bai, L.; Zhang, X.; Gong, S. Re-Understanding the Antecedents of Functional Foods Purchase: Mediating Effect of Purchase Attitude and Moderating Effect of Food Neophobia. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jaeger, S.R.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Prescott, J. Relationships between Food Neophobia and Food Intake and Preferences: Findings from a Sample of New Zealand Adults. Appetite 2017, 116, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Kumar, A.; Smith, S. Understanding Local Food Consumers: Theory of Planned Behavior and Segmentation Approach. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 196–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brown, E.; Dury, S.; Holdsworth, M. Motivations of Consumers That Use Local, Organic Fruit and Vegetable Box Schemes in Central England and Southern France. Appetite 2009, 53, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  19. Feldmann, C.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences for Local Food: A Review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 152–164. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dougherty, M.L.; Brown, L.E.; Green, G.P. The Social Architecture of Local Food Tourism: Challenges and Opportunities for Community Economic Development. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2013, 28, 1. [Google Scholar]
  21. Brunsø, K.; Grunert, K.G.; Fjord, T.A. Consumers’ Food Choice and Quality Perception; Aarhus University, School of Business: Aarhus, Denmark, 2002; pp. 1–60. [Google Scholar]
  22. Torjusen, H.; Lieblein, G.; Wandel, M.; Francis, C.A. Food System Orientation and Quality Perception among Consumers and Producers of Organic Food in Hedmark County, Norway. Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  23. Frash, R.E., Jr.; DiPietro, R.; Smith, W. Pay More for McLocal? Examining Motivators for Willingness to Pay for Local Food in a Chain Restaurant Setting. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2015, 24, 411–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Martinez, S. Local Food Systems; Concepts, Impacts, and Issues; Diane Publishing: Collingdale, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. Linnes, C.; Weinland, J.T.; Ronzoni, G.; Lema, J.; Agrusa, J. The Local Food Supply, Willingness to Pay and the Sustainability of an Island Destination. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability Labels on Food Products: Consumer Motivation, Understanding and Use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shafieizadeh, K.; Alotaibi, S.; Tao, C.-W.W. How Do Authenticity and Quality Perceptions Affect Dining Experiences and Recommendations of Food Trucks? The Moderating Role of Perceived Risk. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Han, H.; Ryu, K. The Roles of the Physical Environment, Price Perception, and Customer Satisfaction in Determining Customer Loyalty in the Restaurant Industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2009, 33, 487–510. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, Y.-K.; Park, K.-H.; Park, D.-H.; Lee, K.A.; Kwon, Y.-J. The Relative Impact of Service Quality on Service Value, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty in Korean Family Restaurant Context. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2005, 6, 27–51. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, Y.; Jang, S.S. Perceptions of Chinese Restaurants in the US: What Affects Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Almohaimmeed, B.M. Restaurant Quality and Customer Satisfaction. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2017, 7, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
  32. Weiss, R.; Feinstein, A.H.; Dalbor, M. Customer Satisfaction of Theme Restaurant Attributes and Their Influence on Return Intent. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2005, 7, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ghadban, S.; Al Hallak, M.; Fayad, B. Local Chain Restaurants and Millennials’ Needs: Insights from Lebanon. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2021, 18, 647–670. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jang, S.S.; Ha, J.; Park, K. Effects of Ethnic Authenticity: Investigating Korean Restaurant Customers in the US. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 990–1003. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dwaikat, N.Y.; Khalili, S.A.; Hassis, S.M.; Mahmoud, H.S. Customer Satisfaction Impact on Behavioral Intentions: The Case of Pizza Restaurants in Nablus City. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2019, 20, 709–728. [Google Scholar]
  36. Banerjee, S.P.; Jain, D.; Nayyar, R. Measuring Service Quality of Food Delivery Services: A Study of Generation Z. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2019, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sulek, J.M.; Hensley, R.L. The Relative Importance of Food, Atmosphere, and Fairness of Wait: The Case of a Full-Service Restaurant. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 2004, 45, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Canny, I.U. Measuring the Mediating Role of Dining Experience Attributes on Customer Satisfaction and Its Impact on Behavioral Intentions of Casual Dining Restaurant in Jakarta. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2014, 5, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Omar, M.S.; Ariffin, H.F.; Ahmad, R. The Relationship between Restaurant Ambience and Customers’ Satisfaction in Shah Alam Arabic Restaurants, Selangor. Int. J. Adm. Gov. 2015, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  40. Iglesias, M.P.; Guillén, M.J.Y. Perceived Quality and Price: Their Impact on the Satisfaction of Restaurant Customers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2004, 16, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Baiomy, A.E.; Jones, E.; Goode, M.M. The Influence of Menu Design, Menu Item Descriptions and Menu Variety on Customer Satisfaction. A Case Study of Egypt. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 19, 213–224. [Google Scholar]
  42. van Trijp, H.C.; van Kleef, E. Newness, Value and New Product Performance. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, 562–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C.; Keller, C. Antecedents of Food Neophobia and Its Association with Eating Behavior and Food Choices. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 293–298. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mascarello, G.; Pinto, A.; Rizzoli, V.; Tiozzo, B.; Crovato, S.; Ravarotto, L. Ethnic Food Consumption in Italy: The Role of Food Neophobia and Openness to Different Cultures. Foods 2020, 9, 112. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hussain, K.; Abbasi, A.Z.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Schultz, C.D.; Ting, D.H.; Ali, F. Local Food Consumption Values and Attitude Formation: The Moderating Effect of Food Neophilia and Neophobia. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2023, 6, 464–491. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, H. The Role of Environmental Uncertainty, Green HRM and Green SCM in Influencing Organizations Energy Efficacy and Environmental Performance. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 332–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. El-Said, O.A.; Smith, M.; Al Ghafri, W. Antecedents and Outcomes of Dining Experience Satisfaction in Ethnic Restaurants: The Moderating Role of Food Neophobia. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 799–824. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kashif, U.; Hong, C.; Naseem, S.; Khan, W.A.; Akram, M.W.; Rehman, K.U.; Andleeb, S. Assessment of Millennial Organic Food Consumption and Moderating Role of Food Neophobia in Pakistan. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 42, 1504–1515. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, C.-K.; Olya, H.; Ahmad, M.S.; Kim, K.H.; Oh, M.-J. Sustainable Intelligence, Destination Social Responsibility, and pro-Environmental Behaviour of Visitors: Evidence from an Eco-Tourism Site. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 365–376. [Google Scholar]
  50. Akbar, A.; Ali, S.; Ahmad, M.A.; Akbar, M.; Danish, M. Understanding the Antecedents of Organic Food Consumption in Pakistan: Moderating Role of Food Neophobia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Kähkönen, K.; Rönkä, A.; Hujo, M.; Lyytikäinen, A.; Nuutinen, O. Sensory-Based Food Education in Early Childhood Education and Care, Willingness to Choose and Eat Fruit and Vegetables, and the Moderating Role of Maternal Education and Food Neophobia. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 2443–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chen, Y.-C.; Lee, C.-S.; Kuan, S.-H. Tasty but Nasty? The Moderating Effect of Message Appeals on Food Neophilia/Neophobia as a Personality Trait: A Case Study of Pig Blood Cake and Meatballs. Foods 2021, 10, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. D’Souza, C. Game Meats: Consumption Values, Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Moderating Role of Food Neophobia/Neophiliac Behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Han, H.; Lee, K.-S.; Chua, B.-L.; Lee, S.; Kim, W. Role of Airline Food Quality, Price Reasonableness, Image, Satisfaction, and Attachment in Building Re-Flying Intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 80, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
  55. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ladhari, R.; Brun, I.; Morales, M. Determinants of Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 27, 563–573. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a Scale to Measure the Trait of Food Neophobia in Humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Jang, S.S.; Kim, D. Enhancing Ethnic Food Acceptance and Reducing Perceived Risk: The Effects of Personality Traits, Cultural Familiarity, and Menu Framing. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 47, 85–95. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim, Y.G.; Suh, B.W.; Eves, A. The Relationships between Food-Related Personality Traits, Satisfaction, and Loyalty among Visitors Attending Food Events and Festivals. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 216–226. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ministry of Culture and Tourism. 2022 Tourism Statistics. 2023. Available online: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-9851/turizm-istatistikleri.html (accessed on 14 February 2023).
  61. Yamane, T. Problems to Accompany ”Statistics, an Introductory Analysis”; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  62. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cooper, B.; Eva, N.; Fazlelahi, F.Z.; Newman, A.; Lee, A.; Obschonka, M. Addressing Common Method Variance and Endogeneity in Vocational Behavior Research: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 121, 103472. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Bush, R.P.; Ortinau, D.J. Marketing Research; McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Ullman, J.B. Using Multivariate Statistics; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  66. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. 2012. Available online: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  68. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; KSU Libraries Publication: Kennesaw, GA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar]
  70. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ha, H.-S. Effect of Perceived Risk on Chinese Street Foods of Korean Tourists on Eating Intention: Focusing on Moderator Effect of Food Neophobia. Culin. Sci. Hosp. Res. 2016, 22, 253–266. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kim, S.; Choe, J.Y.; Kim, P.B. Effects of Local Food Attributes on Tourist Dining Satisfaction and Future: The Moderating Role of Food Culture Difference. J. China Tour. Res. 2022, 18, 121–143. [Google Scholar]
  73. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. Impact of Hotel-Restaurant Image and Quality of Physical-Environment, Service, and Food on Satisfaction and Intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 63, 82–92. [Google Scholar]
  74. Choe, J.Y.J.; Kim, S.S. Effects of Tourists’ Local Food Consumption Value on Attitude, Food Destination Image, and Behavioral Intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  75. Yuan, J.; Jang, S. The Effects of Quality and Satisfaction on Awareness and Behavioral Intentions: Exploring the Role of a Wine Festival. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jaeger, S.R.; Chheang, S.L.; Jin, D.; Ryan, G.; Worch, T. The Negative Influence of Food Neophobia on Food and Beverage Liking: Time to Look beyond Extreme Groups Analysis? Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 92, 104217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hashemi, S.; Mohammed, H.J.; Kiumarsi, S.; Kee, D.M.H.; Anarestani, B.B. Destinations Food Image and Food Neophobia on Behavioral Intentions: Culinary Tourist Behavior in Malaysia. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2023, 35, 66–87. [Google Scholar]
  78. Khanna, S.; Nagar, K.; Chauhan, V.; Bhagat, S. Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior to Street-Food Consumption: Testing the Effect of Food Neophobia among Indian Consumers. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 550–572. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 09510 g001 550
Figure 1. FB as a moderator between DS and PDBI.
Figure 1. FB as a moderator between DS and PDBI.
Sustainability 15 09510 g001
Sustainability 15 09510 g002 550
Figure 2. FL as a moderator between DS and PDBI.
Figure 2. FL as a moderator between DS and PDBI.
Sustainability 15 09510 g002
Sustainability 15 09510 g003 550
Figure 3. Structural Model Coefficients. *** p < 0.001 * p < 0.05 N.S.: No significant.
Figure 3. Structural Model Coefficients. *** p < 0.001 * p < 0.05 N.S.: No significant.
Sustainability 15 09510 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic profile.
Table 1. Demographic profile.
Demographic Variablesn%
GenderMale19644.4
Female24555.6
Age18–2515434.9
26–3511526.1
36–4513229.9
46–54286.3
55 and over122.7
Marital statusSingle19844.9
Married24355.1
Educational statusPrimary education194.3
Secondary education409.1
Associate’s/Bachelor’s degree31471.2
Postgraduate6815.4
NationalityGerman15835.8
Russian12728.8
British6615.0
Belgian317.0
Polish204.5
Macedonian173.9
Croatian112.5
Czech Republican81.8
Ukrainian30.7
People who eatWith friends20446.3
With family19945.1
Alone388.6
Table
Table 2. CFA Results.
Table 2. CFA Results.
Factors/ItemsStandard Loadingt-Value CRAVECA
Local Food Quality Perceptions
Core Quality 0.9260.6450.929
Local food is delicious.0.70911.31 ***0.50
The foods are filling.0.86111.42 ***0.74
The foods are fresh.0.75411.01 ***0.56
The ingredients used in foods are of good quality.0.93411.58 ***0.87
The foods are easy to digest.0.89511.40 ***0.80
The temperature of the food is appropriate.0.89611.41 ***0.80
Foods are healthy and nutritious.0.501 0.25
External Quality 0.9090.7690.910
The presentation of the foods is successful.0.86223.79 ***0.74
The colors of the food are beautiful. 0.89925.52 ***0.80
The foods are rich in variety.0.871 0.75
Delivery Quality 0.8160.5980.861
Sanitary eating utensils are suitable.0.71126.13 ***0.51
Delivery-staff cleaning is suitable.0.86426.64 ***0.74
Customer service of delivery staff is successful.0.737 0.55
Dining Satisfaction 0.8320.6260.821
I am happy to experience local food.0.672 0.45
I enjoyed tasting these foods very much.0.86114.83 ***0.74
In the process of consuming these foods, I gained new and pleasant experiences.0.82814.55 ***0.68
Post-dining Behavioral Intentions 0.7910.5600.788
I will certainly recommend local dishes to my friends and relatives.0.84214.29 ***0.71
If I stay in this area again, these local foods will be my first choice.0.66712.49 ***0.44
I’d be willing to pay more to taste these local foods again.0.727 0.52
Food Neophobia 0.8620.5150.817
I am always afraid to try something new and different.0.665 0.44
It is very hard to try a new dish at dinner invitations.0.70111.02 ***0.47
I’m scared to try food I’ve not eaten before.0.71411.23 ***0.49
I am very meticulous about the food I consume.0.86112.85 ***0.63
I can hardly eat anything different.0.76611.68 ***0.52
I approach trying new ethnic foods with dread.0.5689.12 ***0.33
Food Neophilia 0.8390.6640.881
I will experiment with new dishes at dinner events.0.792 0.62
I love different cultures’ food.0.90120.65 ***0.81
I am constantly experimenting with different and new dishes.0.82018.67 ***0.67
I enjoy trying new ethnic dishes.0.73816.40 ***0.54
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. DV Results.
Table 3. DV Results.
Factor1234567
1. COQ0.803 a
2. EXQ0.7450.877 a
3. DEQ0.6570.6460.773 a
4. DS0.6310.5140.5530.791 a
5. PBI0.1940.1190.1260.2810.748 a
6. FNHO0.0320.0430.0130.0720.1240.718 a
7. FNHI0.0210.0620.0260.0350.4760.0100.815 a
COQ: Core quality, EXQ: External quality, DEQ: Delivery quality, DS: Dining satisfaction, PBI: Post-dining behavioral intention, FNHO: Food neophobia, FNHI: Food neophilia. a Square root of the AVE.
Table
Table 4. Moderated Effect Results.
Table 4. Moderated Effect Results.
Post-Dining Behavioral Intentions
βConfidence Interval
H3 Min.Max.
Dining satisfaction (X) 0.73 ***0.4991.647
Food neophobia (W) 0.38 *0.2701.458
X.W (Interaction) −0.18 *−0.317−0.044
R2 0.11
Food neophobiaβS.E.tLLCIULCI
L:0.43 ***0.066.360.3000.568
M:0.24 ***0.063.980.1240.367
H:0.19 ***0.072.640.0490.338
Post-Dining Behavioral Intentions
βConfidence Interval
H4 Min.Max.
Dining satisfaction (X) 0.75 ***0.4001.558
Food neophilia (W) 0.49 ***0.3411.492
X.W (Interaction) 0.11 *0.0050.227
R2 0.32
Food neophiliaβS.E.tLLCIULCI
L:0.24 ***0.073.360.1000.380
M:0.35 ***0.047.620.2630.447
H:0.47 ***0.076.390.3260.651
*** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05; L: Low; M: Middle; H: High.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tarinc, A.; Aytekin, A.; Ozbek, O.T.; Ergün, G.S.; Keles, A.; Uslu, F.; Keles, H.; Yayla, O. How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism? Sustainability 2023, 15, 9510. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129510

AMA Style

Tarinc A, Aytekin A, Ozbek OT, Ergün GS, Keles A, Uslu F, Keles H, Yayla O. How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism? Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9510. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129510

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tarinc, Abdullah, Arif Aytekin, Ozlem Tekin Ozbek, Gozde Seval Ergün, Ali Keles, Fatih Uslu, Huseyin Keles, and Ozgur Yayla. 2023. "How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism?" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9510. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129510

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