Sustainable Tourism: Factors Influencing Arab Tourists’ Intention to Revisit Turkish Destinations

Abstract

This study explores the factors influencing Arab tourists’ intention to revisit Turkish destinations, contributing to the theoretical discourse on tourist behavior, destination loyalty, and sustainable tourism development. Over the past decade, Türkiye (Turkey) has experienced a steady increase in tourists, with Arab visitors forming a significant segment. This growing market segment presents unique opportunities and challenges that remain understudied in academic literature. Despite their prominence, limited research exists on Arab tourists’ behavior, needs, and experiences in Türkiye. This study employs a mixed-method approach, combining surveys and interviews conducted between July and December 2024. Data from 713 surveys and 14 interviews were analyzed, revealing that 72% of Arab tourists were satisfied with their current visit, 49% with previous visits, 57% indicated a strong intention to revisit, and 81% recommended Turkish destinations to others. The study identifies seven key dimensions of revisit intention through Exploratory Factor Analysis that collectively explain 79.841% of the variance in revisit intention. The regression analysis demonstrates how different factors contribute to revisit decisions, with overall satisfaction (β = 0.622), loyalty (β = 0.521), financial status (β = 0.507), behavior of staff and locals (β = 0.484), cultural and social appeal (β = 0.478), overall experiences (β = 0.329), educational level (β = 0.333), accessibility and convenience (β = 0.288), service quality (β = 0.216), and length of stay (β = 0.128) emerging as significant predictors. These findings underscore the complexity of the decision-making process, suggesting that no single theory can fully explain tourists’ behavior and the sustainability of their visits. The study recommends further exploration of the proposed model and investments in tourism staff training, particularly in foreign languages, to enhance service quality and encourage repeat visits. Addressing issues such as unprofessional behavior and language barriers can improve overall satisfaction and loyalty, increasing the likelihood of Arab tourists revisiting Türkiye. This research highlights the importance of sustainable tourism practices in fostering long-term economic and social benefits for Turkish destinations.

1. Introduction

Tourism in Türkiye (Turkey) is a rapidly growing sector, with revenues increasing by 3.9% in the third quarter of 2024, generating USD 23.22 billion (WTTC [1]). The tourism sector’s contribution to GDP reached 12% and is expected to rise further (Degenhard [2]). Recently, cities like Trabzon, the Asian part of Istanbul, and Konya have become popular among Arab tourists, alongside traditional destinations like Fatih in Istanbul, Antalya, and Mersin. Tourists from Arab countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, are drawn to these destinations for their family-friendly, somewhat conservative, culturally rich, and quieter environments (Özdemir [3]; Çakmak and Dilek [4]).

Arab visitors have a long history with Türkiye, but recent years have seen significant increases in their numbers and a shift in their tourist profile. Previously, older Arab visitors were primarily men visiting Turkish in-laws, trading, or conducting business with Turkish partners. In contrast, the new wave of Arab tourists consists of families visiting for leisure, shopping, sightseeing, and other experiences (Kirişçi and Kaptanoğlu [5]). Istanbul and Trabzon are two distinct destinations that attract Arab tourists: Trabzon is a small, cozy, and less congested city, while Istanbul is an international, diverse, and bustling metropolis with historical, religious, political, and cultural significance for many Arabs. For some, Istanbul evokes romantic views and nostalgic memories, as they see it as the capital of their former Ottoman Empire (Inalcik [6]). Both cities offer unique and rich experiences in Turkish tourism. The influx of Arab tourists has not only increased revenues and economic opportunities for host cities but also elevated the importance of these regions, prompting policymakers to improve services and infrastructure. In 2023, Trabzon welcomed 515,000 tourists, with 222,000 coming from Middle Eastern countries (Hurriyat Daily News [7]). Küçükaşcı [8] noted that political and social factors have contributed to the rise in Arab visitors, with numbers growing from 44,222 in 2002 to 1,089,614 in 2018, according to the Turkish Ministry of Tourism. While this study does not examine the factors behind this increase, it focuses on the factors influencing Arab tourists’ decisions to revisit Turkey, thus contributing to the sustainability of tourism in this country.

The theoretical importance of this study lies in its pluralistic approach to understanding tourist behavior and destination selection. By integrating multiple theoretical perspectives, this research acknowledges the complexity and multifaceted nature of tourism, as highlighted by Cohen [9], Crompton and Petrick [10], and Yoo, Yoon, and Park [11]. This study contributes to the field by synthesizing various models and theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of tourist satisfaction, loyalty, and decision-making processes. This approach not only enhances the theoretical framework of tourism studies but also offers practical insights for improving tourist experiences, sustainability of tourism as a major economic revenue-generating sector, and destination management.

Examining factors that influence the intention to revisit is crucial for several reasons. First, research on the perceptions of Arab tourists is limited, as indicated by searches in Google Scholar, SCOPUS, and JSTOR. This study aims to illuminate the perceptions of this significant tourist group in the Turkish market and consequently contribute to theory building and the theoretical discourse on important tourism concepts, namely, loyalty, satisfaction, and revisit intention. Second, given the historical context of tourism in Türkiye, the number of Arab tourists may decline if Türkiye fails to secure their loyalty. Unlike other tourist groups, Arabs often travel in groups and with families, leading to substantial spending on food, accommodation, long stays, and shopping. However, their expectations must be met to prevent them from choosing alternative destinations near Türkiye, such as Georgia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Azerbaijan. The intense competition among tourist destinations, coupled with a saturated market and the fluctuating Turkish Lira, necessitates a deep understanding of Arab tourists’ needs, expectations, and interests (Sönmez & Sirakaya [12]; Küçükaltan & Pirnar [13]). This understanding can help Turkish destinations retain Arab tourists’ loyalty. Third, in the face of continuous competition and Türkiye’s ambition to become a top global tourist destination, policymakers must focus on key tourist clusters, including Russians, Germans, British, and Arabs. Catering to Arab tourists with suitable tourism options, such as halal food, conservative services, respectful and professional staff, and fixed-price policies for goods and services, can encourage more visits and repeat visits. The geographical proximity of Arab countries to Türkiye facilitates frequent visits, suggesting a sustainable visitor base. Fourth, shared cultural components between Arabs and Turks make it cost-effective and beneficial for the Turkish market to implement adjustments (e.g., halal food and hotels) that attract more Arabs while enhancing the loyalty of existing tourists. Fifth, this study emphasizes the importance of sustainable tourism development in creating a balanced and resilient tourism industry that benefits both tourists and host communities. Sixth, this study assesses the intentions to revisit using a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data from a convenience sample of Arab tourists in Istanbul and Trabzon. The analysis will provide evidence-based policy recommendations for researchers and decision-makers to improve tourism policies and planning. Following this introduction, the paper will discuss theory and literature, methods, analysis and findings, and the conclusion.

2. Literature and Theory

2.1. Defining Who Is a Tourist

The literature suggests no consensus on defining who is a tourist and what constitutes tourism (Leiper [14]; Boğan & Sarıışık [15]). Mor, Dalyot, and Ram [16] cited the UNWTO, defining a tourist as a person who stays overnight away from home, classifying visitors (domestic, inbound, or outbound) as tourists (or overnight visitors). Yu, Kim, Chen, and Schwartz [17] defined a tourist by the distance traveled, the purpose of travel, and the frequency of visits to the same place. Darwish and Burns [18] approached the definition from a supply and demand perspective, focusing on the characteristics of those seeking to fulfill particular needs. Similarly, Masberg [19] considered the distance traveled but also acknowledged variations among different measures of distance and traveler characteristics.

In this study, we define “Arab tourists” as individuals of Arab nationality who travel from their home country, country of work, or country of residence (for over a year) to Türkiye for touristic purposes for at least one day and no longer than three consecutive months. This definition includes purposes such as medical tourism, sightseeing, shopping, conference attendance, and cultural visits, excluding travel for work, study, or investment requiring permanent residence. Arab tourists maintain their Arab citizenship regardless of their current residence (e.g., a Jordanian working in Oman or an Egyptian student in Morocco). The Turkish government generally allows a 90-day stay without a visa, with longer stays requiring legal residence procedures, thus categorizing the travel as “residency”, “relocation”, or “migration”.

Based on the above, Arab tourists form an “Arab Tourism Cohort” that refers to a specific segment of tourists visiting Turkey, characterized by shared Arabic cultural, linguistic, and social attributes. This cohort is part of a broader tourism cluster that benefits from sustainable tourism efforts, including targeted marketing, tailored services, and cultural familiarity. Tourism clusters are geographical concentrations of interconnected businesses and institutions in the tourism sector that enhance competitiveness and innovation (Porter [20], 1998). The Arab Tourism Cohort can be seen as a sub-cluster within the larger tourism ecosystem in Turkey, benefiting from specialized services and cultural products tailored to their preferences (Kachniewska [21]). Sustainable cultural tourism emphasizes the importance of cultural experiences and heritage in attracting Arab tourists, who are often drawn to Turkey’s rich cultural heritage, which includes historical ties and shared cultural elements (Richards [22]). This cohort seeks experiences that resonate with their cultural background, enhancing their overall satisfaction and engagement. The Arab Tourism Cohort represents a market segment that can be targeted with specific marketing strategies and customized services (Dolnicar [23]). The benefits of Arab Cluster Tourism to the Turkish economy include enhanced marketing strategies, customized services, and cultural exchange. Recognizing the Arab Tourism Cohort as a distinct segment allows tourism marketers to develop targeted campaigns that appeal to the cultural and social preferences of Arab tourists. This includes promoting destinations, activities, and services that align with their interests. Encouraging tourism businesses to offer tailored services such as Arabic-speaking guides, halal food options, and culturally relevant entertainment enhances the travel experience and encourages repeat visits. The presence of the Arab Tourism Cohort fosters positive cultural exchange and mutual understanding between Turkish hosts and Arab visitors, enriching the cultural fabric of the destination and promoting positive international relations, ensuring revisits and stronger loyalty (Kachniewska [21]; Richards [22]).

2.2. Country Context and Relationship with Arab Tourists

Arab tourists are increasingly drawn to family-friendly destinations with natural beauty, pleasant weather, and shopping opportunities. Many discover Türkiye through social media, particularly YouTube, where Arab bloggers document their trips, showcase local cuisine, film beautiful mosques, and highlight cultural bonds between Arabs and Turks (Küçükaşcı [24]). These vlogs have captivated millions, sparking interest in Türkiye. Additionally, Turkish dramas have established emotional connections with places like Istanbul, Anatolia, and Rumeli (Özdemir [3]; Güzel and Güzel [25]). While some argue that Turkish dramas and politics alone cannot sustain Arab tourism, they acknowledge that Arabs’ interest in Turkish destinations is multifaceted. Factors influencing their decision to visit and revisit Türkiye are complex, with Arabs making rational decisions to satisfy specific needs beyond the influence of Turkish drama (Sönmez & Sirakaya [12]; Küçükaltan & Pirnar [13]). Regardless, more Arabs visit Türkiye today than ever before (Küçükaşcı [24]). This growing interest underscores the importance of understanding and catering to the needs and preferences of Arab tourists to maintain and enhance their loyalty to Türkiye as a preferred destination.

2.3. Tourist Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Return

In order to sustain tourism, a country needs to maintain strong destination loyalty and satisfaction. Tourist satisfaction is an emotional state resulting from the interaction between a tourist and a destination (Ibrahim & Gill [26]). It significantly influences tourists’ behavior, perceptions, and attitudes during and after their visit. When travelers’ expectations are met or exceeded, satisfaction is achieved (Gnanapala [27]; Shaykh-Baygloo [28]). This satisfaction can lead to decisions such as returning to the same destination (Oppermann [29]), promoting the destination through word-of-mouth and social media, and developing loyalty to the destination. As part of tourist loyalty, word-of-mouth is crucial in influencing travel decisions, as emphasized by Arasli and Baradrani [30]. Studies confirm the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. La Barbara and Mazursky [31] identified loyalty as a key indicator of a continuous business relationship. Hallowell [32] noted that satisfied customers, whose loyalty reduces operational costs, are crucial. Petrick [33] explained that loyal tourists, despite spending less per visit, return more frequently, compensating for lower spending. Maintaining loyal customers is cost-effective, as it reduces the need for extensive marketing and upkeep (Tosum & Timothy [34]; Küçükaltan & Pirnar [13]). Yoon and Uysal [35] further explained that destination loyalty is driven by satisfaction and repeat visits.

Türkiye faces intense competition in the travel market, requiring decision-makers to scientifically assess the strengths and weaknesses of its approaches, infrastructure, and tourism sustainability policies (Yüksel & YuÈksel [36]). This is crucial not only to attract more visitors but also to understand what makes them satisfied and loyal. Tourists’ satisfaction is complex, as it involves comparing what Türkiye offers with other destinations. The loyalty of Arab tourists, in particular, depends on their assessment of Turkish destinations relative to non-Turkish ones. Countries like Bosnia, Macedonia, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Azerbaijan, which share similarities with Türkiye in climate, food, nature, and cultural heritage, are strong competitors (Bishku [37]; Hussain, Jamaluddin, & Hashim [38]; Hamadamin [39]). As alternative destinations emerge, Turkish decision-makers must not take the attraction of Arab tourists for granted. Historical data (Shahrivar [40]) show that tourism is vulnerable to political, economic, social, and unexpected events. A decline in satisfaction can lead to a significant drop in tourist numbers, especially among Arab tourists who rely heavily on word-of-mouth, resulting in an unsustainable source of income for the host country. Negative experiences shared through social media can have a domino effect, damaging the destination’s image. As

Table 1. Number of tourists in Türkiye, 2000–2023.

Year	Number of Tourists	Year	Number of Tourists
2000	10,428,153	2001	11,618,969
2002	13,256,028	2003	14,029,558
2004	17,516,908	2005	21,124,886
2006	19,819,833	2007	23,340,911
2008	26,336,677	2009	27,077,114
2010	28,632,204	2011	31,456,076
2012	31,782,832	2013	34,910,098
2014	36,837,900	2015	36,244,632
2016	25,352,213	2017	32,410,034
2018	39,488,401	2019	45,060,000
2020	12,730,000	2021	24,710,000
2022	44,560,000	2023	49,210,000

Source: (1) Mengu [41]; OECD [42]; T.C. Kultur ve Turizm Bakanligi [43].

shows, despite a clear increase in tourists from 2000 to 2023, fluctuations in numbers indicate uncertainty. This fluctuation is not unique to Türkiye but highlights the potential for improvement. Maintaining high satisfaction levels is essential to secure Türkiye’s position as a top tourist destination and to ensure the loyalty of Arab tourists.

Table 2. Selected top nationalities that visit Türkiye.

Nationality *	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
Russia	4,550,588	6,313,675	5,232,611	4,694,422	2,128,758	7,017,657	5,964,631
Germany	4,385,331	6,193,259	5,679,194	3,085,215	1,118,932	5,027,472	4,512,360
Britain	2,101,847	3,800,922	3,370,739	392,746	820,709	2,562,064	2,254,871
Iran	2,101,847	2,504,494	2,331,076	9618	385,762	2,102,890	2,001,744
Malaysia	54,350	95,444	89,766	9618	17,892	114,214	95,591
Iraq	635,497	1,051,721	1,208,895	836,624	387,587	1,374,896	1,172,896
Jordan	221,485	384,680	494,629	326,633	93,750	474,874	406,469
Kuwait	213,539	363,070	480,123	246,249	120,221	374,191	298,620
Algeria	206,677	292,505	210,478	48,827	50,121	295,512	288,207
Lebanon	189,294	257,781	272,844	191,768	89,337	376,721	338,837
Morocco	158,377	262,124	251,708	121,333	67,775	234,264	176,538
Libya	147,250	194,351	220,179	197,983	107,251	259,243	188,312
Egypt	146,044	187,053	227,850	124,483	68,936	177,655	148,943
Tunisia	121,551	176,547	206,714	126,970	57,563	172,587	142,372
UAE	69,647	120,819	146,438	52,587	3772	37,500	43,292
Saudi Arabia	654,391	820,683	497,914	10,083	67,490	564,816	747,233
Bahrain	45,890	64,771	98,147	62,730	17,852	90,299	77,075
Qatar	42,869	70,090	92,439	83,831	31,956	108,496	96,327
Total of Arab tourists	2,852,511	4,246,195	4,408,358	2,430,101	1,163,611	4,541,054	4,125,121

* This table includes some of the nationalities that have the highest and lowest number of tourists from non-Arab countries. Source: Türkiyethings [46]; Dierks [47]; Ministry of Culture and Tourism [48].

reports the number of tourists from the top thirteen Arab countries. To compare Arab tourists with other nationalities, Table 2 includes four non-Arab nationalities (Russian, German, British, and Iranian) that visit Türkiye in large numbers and one nationality (Malaysian) with fewer visitors. From 2018 to 2024, 23,766,951 Arab tourists from these thirteen countries visited Türkiye. If considered as one nationality, Arabs ranked third in 2022–2024, following Russians and Germans. This highlights the Arab world’s significance as a source of sustainable tourism, with regular tourists visiting Türkiye every year. Although their numbers fluctuate annually, Arabs remain a crucial client for Türkiye’s tourism industry. Like any other nationality, however, if dissatisfied, Arabs may choose alternative destinations, depriving Türkiye of significant income. In 2023, Arab tourists contributed to Turkey’s sustainable economy by spending over USD 162 million daily. Dierks [44] reported that tourists from all nationalities contributed USD 131 billion to Türkiye’s GDP in 2024, a figure expected to rise. In 2023, foreigners and Turkish citizens living abroad spent over USD 55.87 billion during their stay in Türkiye (Road Genius [45]; T.C. Kultur ve Turism Bakanligi [43]).

2.4. Türkiye’s Tourism Policies

Türkiye has transitioned from protectionist policies in the 1940s to liberal economic policies, further developed through several five-year plans starting in the 1970s (Akçay [49]; Aygün and Baycan [50]). The “Tourism Encouragement Law, number 2634”, introduced in 1982, marked the first systematic governmental effort to regulate sustainable tourism, aiming to capitalize on the country’s rich tourist attractions (Okuyucu [51]). Subsequent policies and initiatives have been crucial in increasing tourist numbers over the past decade (Caliskan [52]). The first organized effort to promote Türkiye as a tourist destination began in 1863 with the “Ottoman Exhibition” in Istanbul, highlighting the richness of Turkish travel destinations (Tozoglu [53]). Regulatory policies, such as the 1895 “Instructions on Hotels and Guest Houses in and around Istanbul”, and the establishment of various associations and professional organizations, laid the groundwork for tourism development (Arslan & Polat [54]; ÇOKİŞLER [55]; Çalışkan [52]). The Tourism Bureau, established in 1934, evolved into the Department of Tourism in 1943, and later the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in 1989, reflecting strategic thinking that leveraged the country’s cultural richness (Koroglu [56]). The strides made by the government and the private sector over the past 161 years, including eleven five-year plans, have positioned Türkiye among the top tourist destinations in 2024. However, improvements are needed, particularly in nationality-targeted tourism, to address the needs and expectations of Arab tourists and other key nationalities. Enhancing tourist satisfaction and loyalty could elevate Türkiye to the top global tourist destination, surpassing France and Spain.

Researchers have identified shortcomings in Turkish tourism policies and planning that impede tourism sustainability. From 1963 to 1982, public investments focused on the western regions, neglecting other parts of the country (Göymen [57]). Deficiencies in infrastructure and inadequate training for tourism workers were also noted, prompting the Fourth Development Plan to address these issues (Caliskan [52]). Centralized planning has limited stakeholder participation and input from regions outside the western areas, deepening regional disparities and alienating local communities (Tosun & Jenkins [58]; Tosun & Timothy [34]; Göymen [57]). This alienation has hindered the development of welcoming attitudes and behaviors towards tourists, including Arabs (Finger [59]; Alirhayim [60]). Seasonality is another major challenge, causing temporary closures of hotels and businesses, job losses, and infrastructure strain during peak times (Okuyucu [51]). Investing in Arab tourism, given their proximity and ability to visit year-round, could mitigate these seasonal impacts.

Despite these challenges, significant progress has been made. Government intervention and state sustainable planning have expanded, incentivizing improvements in infrastructure and allied industries (Demir & Güzel [61]; Güzel, Ehtiyar, & Ryan [62]). The private sector’s increased role in tourism expansion has also been notable, contributing to Türkiye’s ranking as the sixth most visited country in 2024, with 51.2 million tourists (Var [63]; Yilmaz, Capar, & Şeker [64]). By addressing these challenges and leveraging the progress made, Türkiye can further enhance its tourism sector, ensuring sustainable growth and increased satisfaction and loyalty among Arab tourists.

2.5. Theories of Tourism

As argued by Cohen [9], the complexity and homogeneity of the field of tourism necessitate a pluralistic research strategy rather than searching for a single theoretical approach. Crompton and Petrick [65] similarly noted that while some theories are valuable in explaining tourists’ behavior, there is no holistic theory that can explain it all. Yoo et al. [11] stressed that no single model can adequately explain tourists’ destination selection process and travel behaviors, despite the useful models and theories that explain different aspects of tourism.

One of the popular theories in this area is Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which posits that visiting a destination involves calculated decisions based on observations and comparisons of expectations with actual experiences. Pine and Gilmore’s Experience Economy Theory [66] emphasized the importance of memorable experiences to translate into economic, social, and cultural sustainability in tourism, arguing that high-quality services are essential for tourist satisfaction and return visits. Tourists seek fulfilling experiences and make well-calculated decisions based on service quality, value for money, and overall experience. High customer satisfaction index (CSI) scores indicate high satisfaction levels and a stronger push to revisit a destination. By understanding and enhancing these factors, destinations can improve tourist satisfaction, loyalty, and the likelihood of return visits.

Some researchers differentiated between overall loyalty, behavioral loyalty, and attitudinal loyalty. General loyalty was discussed through various indicators, such as the intention to recommend, the intention to revisit, and the likelihood of future visits. Behavioral loyalty stems from emotional attachment and is influenced by satisfaction levels, familiarity with the destination, attachment, and perceived value (Al Abri, Alkazemi, Abdeljalil, Al Harthi, and Al Maqbali [67]). Researchers also discussed attitudinal loyalty as the degree of affection and satisfaction toward the destination (Wang and Li [68]). While attitudinal loyalty is considered a lower level of loyalty that indicates a positive emotional connection, behavioral loyalty is demonstrated when consumers show a genuine intent or an actual decision to revisit and recommend the destination to others (Tajeddini, Gamage, Hameed, Qumsieh-Mussalam, Chaijani, Rasoolimanesh, and Kallmuenzer [69]).

In addition, numerous studies have investigated the impact of demographic factors on tourists’ decisions to return, such as age, gender, marital status, income, education, health, family size, residential location, and infrastructure. The findings of these studies have varied, showing little similarity among destinations. However, loyalty and satisfaction consistently appeared as two crucial factors behind tourists’ decisions (Al Ansaari [70]; Chi and Qu [71]).

The discussion of previous theories and literature reveals the following research gaps. First, most studies focus on a single theoretical framework (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Destination Loyalty Model), while the intention to revisit is too complex to be explained by a single theory (Manosuthi, Lee, and Han [72]). Integrating multiple theories could provide a more comprehensive understanding (Chi and Qu [71]). Second, studies often overlook contextual factors such as cultural and sociopolitical influences that are crucial for tourism sustainability (Talaee Malmiri, Norouzi Isfahani, BahooToroody, and Abaei [73]). Third, Türkiye and the Arab world (with a population of around 600 million) are underrepresented regions in tourism research, as most studies focus primarily on Western destinations (Nöhammer, Haid, Corradini, Attenbrunner, Heimerl, and Schorn [74]). Exploring the intention to revisit emerging destinations, such as Trabzon and the Asian section of Istanbul, could provide new perspectives, particularly when targeting underrepresented tourist clusters (e.g., Arab tourists) (Küçükaşcı [8]). This study aims to address these gaps.

Building on the pluralistic approach outlined in Section 2.5, Table 3 maps key variables to their theoretical foundations, demonstrating how our integrated framework addresses gaps in single-theory approaches.

Table 3. Theoretical framework and variable mapping.

Variable	Theoretical Roots	Key Studies	Operationalization in This Study
Satisfaction	Expectation-Confirmation Theory	Oliver [75]; Parasuraman et al. [76]	Overall visit satisfaction (Table 4)
Loyalty	Destination Loyalty Model	Yoon & Uysal [35]; Chi & Qu [71]	Revisit intention (Table 5)
Cultural appeal	Cultural Tourism Theory	Richards [22]; Battour et al. [77]	EFA 7 factors (Table 6)
Service quality	SERVQUAL Model	Parasuraman et al. [76]	Tangibles, reliability subscales (Table 6)
Accessibility	Push–Pull Theory	Baharun & Ghalip [78]	Transport ease, payment methods (Survey Questions)

Table 3. Theoretical framework and variable mapping.

Variable	Theoretical Roots	Key Studies	Operationalization in This Study
Satisfaction	Expectation-Confirmation Theory	Oliver [75]; Parasuraman et al. [76]	Overall visit satisfaction (Table 4)
Loyalty	Destination Loyalty Model	Yoon & Uysal [35]; Chi & Qu [71]	Revisit intention (Table 5)
Cultural appeal	Cultural Tourism Theory	Richards [22]; Battour et al. [77]	EFA 7 factors (Table 6)
Service quality	SERVQUAL Model	Parasuraman et al. [76]	Tangibles, reliability subscales (Table 6)
Accessibility	Push–Pull Theory	Baharun & Ghalip [78]	Transport ease, payment methods (Survey Questions)

Table 4. Characteristics of the study sample.

Description	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Male	64
Female	46
20–30 years old		17
31–40 years old		32
41–50 years old		29
51 years old or older		22
High school or lower			17
Bachelor’s degree or higher			83
Come with family				58
Come with friends				26
Come alone				16
First-time visit					15
Second-time visit					38
Third-time visit or more					47
Speak good Turkish						6
Speak a little Turkish						11
Cannot speak Turkish						83
Stay for less than one week							17
Stay for 1–2 weeks							61
Stay for 2–3 weeks							15
Stay for longer than 3 weeks							7
Personal income is less than middle class								31%
Personal income is in the middle (middle class)								35%
Personal income is higher than the middle (upper class/rich)						34%

N = 713.

Table 4. Characteristics of the study sample.

Description	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Male	64
Female	46
20–30 years old		17
31–40 years old		32
41–50 years old		29
51 years old or older		22
High school or lower			17
Bachelor’s degree or higher			83
Come with family				58
Come with friends				26
Come alone				16
First-time visit					15
Second-time visit					38
Third-time visit or more					47
Speak good Turkish						6
Speak a little Turkish						11
Cannot speak Turkish						83
Stay for less than one week							17
Stay for 1–2 weeks							61
Stay for 2–3 weeks							15
Stay for longer than 3 weeks							7
Personal income is less than middle class								31%
Personal income is in the middle (middle class)								35%
Personal income is higher than the middle (upper class/rich)						34%

N = 713.

Table 5. Satisfaction with visit experience and intention to visit again.

Description	%	%	%	%	%
Satisfaction with previous visit(s):
-Generally, I am very satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	23	-	-	-	-
-Generally, I am moderately satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	26	-	-	-	-
-Generally, I am a little satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	15	-	-	-	-
-Generally, I am not satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	21	-	-	-	-
-I have not visited Türkiye before	15
Satisfaction with the current visit:
-Generally, I am very satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye	-	39	-	-	-
-Generally, I am moderately satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye	-	33	-	-	-
-Generally, I am a little satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye	-	11	-	-	-
-Generally, I am not satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye		17
How would you rate the overall value for money of your current tourism experience in Türkiye?
-Excellent	-	-	11	-	-
-Very good	-	-	36	-	-
-Good	-	-	23	-	-
-Bad	-	-	14	-	-
-Very bad			16
How likely are you to visit Türkiye as a tourist again?
-For sure, I plan to visit again	-	-	-	57	-
-I may visit again	-	-	-	22	-
-I may not visit again	-	-	-	8	-
-Definitely, I will not visit again				13
Are you willing to recommend somebody to visit Türkiye?
-Yes	-	-	-	-	81
-No	-	-	-	-	16
-Not sure					3
Total	100	100	100	100	100

Table 5. Satisfaction with visit experience and intention to visit again.

Description	%	%	%	%	%
Satisfaction with previous visit(s):
-Generally, I am very satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	23	-	-	-	-
-Generally, I am moderately satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	26	-	-	-	-
-Generally, I am a little satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	15	-	-	-	-
-Generally, I am not satisfied with my previous visit(s) experience(s) to Türkiye	21	-	-	-	-
-I have not visited Türkiye before	15
Satisfaction with the current visit:
-Generally, I am very satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye	-	39	-	-	-
-Generally, I am moderately satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye	-	33	-	-	-
-Generally, I am a little satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye	-	11	-	-	-
-Generally, I am not satisfied with my current visit experience in Türkiye		17
How would you rate the overall value for money of your current tourism experience in Türkiye?
-Excellent	-	-	11	-	-
-Very good	-	-	36	-	-
-Good	-	-	23	-	-
-Bad	-	-	14	-	-
-Very bad			16
How likely are you to visit Türkiye as a tourist again?
-For sure, I plan to visit again	-	-	-	57	-
-I may visit again	-	-	-	22	-
-I may not visit again	-	-	-	8	-
-Definitely, I will not visit again				13
Are you willing to recommend somebody to visit Türkiye?
-Yes	-	-	-	-	81
-No	-	-	-	-	16
-Not sure					3
Total	100	100	100	100	100

Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis.

Item	1 Overall Satisfaction	2 Loyalty	3 Service Quality	4 Behavior of Staff and People	5 Destination Experiences	6 Accessibility and Convenience	7 Cultural and Social Appeal
9	0.80
10	0.78
14	0.83
15	0.87
16	0.91
44	0.90
α = 0.87
6		0.84
11		0.88
13		0.79
23		0.86
66		0.91
α = 0.84
17			0.88
19			0.86
21			0.91
22			0.84
30			0.78
31			0.84
34			0.90
36			0.86
α = 0.88
8				0.81
25				0.76
26				0.89
27				0.87
28				0.81
29				0.86
36				0.78
47				0.89
α = 0.86
41					0.88
42					0.86
43					0.89
48					0.76
α = 0.84
30						0.79
31						0.78
34						0.77
36						0.83
40						0.91
41						0.86
50						0.77
56						0.83
64						0.89
46						0.76
55						0.81
57						0.83
59						0.69
62						0.78
63						0.83
α = 0.81
14							0.68
15							0.83
16							0.80
36							0.76
37							0.86
38							0.82
39							0.79
42							0.88
45							0.68
51							0.66
53							0.74
54							0.83
α = 0.85

Varimax rotation was used. Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings–Cumulative = 79.841; Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.883; Approx. Chi-Square in Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = 886.431, df = 385, Sig. < 0.001.

Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis.

Item	1 Overall Satisfaction	2 Loyalty	3 Service Quality	4 Behavior of Staff and People	5 Destination Experiences	6 Accessibility and Convenience	7 Cultural and Social Appeal
9	0.80
10	0.78
14	0.83
15	0.87
16	0.91
44	0.90
α = 0.87
6		0.84
11		0.88
13		0.79
23		0.86
66		0.91
α = 0.84
17			0.88
19			0.86
21			0.91
22			0.84
30			0.78
31			0.84
34			0.90
36			0.86
α = 0.88
8				0.81
25				0.76
26				0.89
27				0.87
28				0.81
29				0.86
36				0.78
47				0.89
α = 0.86
41					0.88
42					0.86
43					0.89
48					0.76
α = 0.84
30						0.79
31						0.78
34						0.77
36						0.83
40						0.91
41						0.86
50						0.77
56						0.83
64						0.89
46						0.76
55						0.81
57						0.83
59						0.69
62						0.78
63						0.83
α = 0.81
14							0.68
15							0.83
16							0.80
36							0.76
37							0.86
38							0.82
39							0.79
42							0.88
45							0.68
51							0.66
53							0.74
54							0.83
α = 0.85

Varimax rotation was used. Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings–Cumulative = 79.841; Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.883; Approx. Chi-Square in Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = 886.431, df = 385, Sig. < 0.001.

3. Study Propositions

Considering the limitations of singular theoretical approaches, complexity of tourism as a human behavior (Cohen [9]; Crompton and Petrick [10]; Yoo et al. [11]), the history of tourism in Türkiye (Tozoglu, [53]), and the fluctuation of tourist numbers including Arabs (see Table 1 and Table 2), we propose the following:

Proposition 1 (Theoretical Pluralism). 

Existing theories (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Destination Loyalty Model) inadequately explain Arab tourists’ behavior in Türkiye because: (a) TPB focuses on rational decision-making but neglects cultural–historical ties (e.g., Ottoman nostalgia; Tozoglu [53]); (b) loyalty models prioritize satisfaction but overlook contextual barriers (e.g., language issues; Interviewee #7). This justifies our mixed-method, multi-theory approach (Cohen [9]; Crompton & Petrick [10]).

Proposition 2 (Cultural Specificity). 

Arab tourists’ revisit intentions will reflect unique relational dynamics (e.g., shared heritage, halal services) not fully captured by Western-centric models (Battour et al. [77]; Özdemir [3]). Based on the findings reported in previous studies, the study will test the possible impact of the following sixteen variables on tourists’ decision to revisit Türkiye (i.e., intention to revisit): satisfaction, loyalty, actual experiences, pre-visit expectations, pre-visit information, past experiences, emotional attachment, destination image, tangibles, reliability, assurance, empathy, push factors, pull factors, and responsiveness. Despite some possible similarities with other nationalities and cultures, we expect the revisit intention of Arab tourists to reflect the unique relationship between Arabs and Turks, especially Arabs’ emotional and cultural attachments to Türkiye.

Proposition 3 (Satisfaction–Loyalty Primacy). 

Consistent with prior studies (Yoon & Uysal, [35]; Chi & Qu, [71]), satisfaction and loyalty are expected to emerge as the strongest predictors of revisit intention, given their established cross-contextual relevance in tourism research.

4. Methods

4.1. Design

The study’s methodological flow—from questionnaire design (Section 4.2) through analysis (Section 5)—follows a sequential mixed-methods approach, adopted for two key reasons: (1) to address gaps in prior research on Arab tourists in Türkiye, which lacks culturally specific insights (e.g., language barriers, Ottoman nostalgia) despite existing theoretical frameworks (e.g., TPB, SERVQUAL) and (2) to triangulate findings by first identifying broad patterns via surveys (e.g., satisfaction scores) and then exploring contradictions or deeper motivations through interviews (e.g., why 17% of dissatisfied tourists cited language issues). Method choices are justified contextually throughout.

The study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine satisfaction, loyalty, and intentions to return among Arab tourists who visited Istanbul and Trabzon in Türkiye between July and December 2024. These two destinations were chosen for their convenience, familiarity, accessibility, and the large number of Arab tourists they attract. The researchers designed a questionnaire and administered it to Arab tourists staying in hotels and furnished apartments using the snowball sampling technique. However, the most effective method to recruit respondents was while they were shopping, sightseeing, and dining in places such as restaurants. These locations are known to attract most Arab tourists, as food, sightseeing, and shopping are among the main purposes of visiting Türkiye (Çorbaci and Çetinsoz [65]).

The research team collected responses from 914 men and women, but some responses were invalid due to reasons such as a lack of seriousness in responding to questions, giving multiple responses to the same question, and skipping many questions in the survey. After eliminating invalid and incomplete surveys, 713 responses were processed using SPSS v.29, resulting in a return rate of 78%, which is acceptable by many statisticians (Yu and Cooper [79]; Sivo, Saunders, Chang, & Jiang [80]). A trained team of Arab residents, mostly Syrian, Egyptian, and Iraqi, who worked in tourism (e.g., hotels and restaurants), was responsible for the survey administration. The research ethical protocol was straightforward: A research team member approached a potential tourist, introduced themselves, and asked two introductory questions about the tourist’s nationality and their willingness to complete the survey. Tourists from an Arab country who were willing to complete the survey were guided to answer the survey questions and return them to the researcher, who waited nearby. The researchers provided extra copies to those who responded and were willing to help distribute them to other Arab tourists they knew. Arab tourists in Istanbul and Trabzon tend to stay in certain districts and visit popular destinations among Arabs that are usually family-oriented. This drop-off and pick-up method of survey administration is simple yet effective and popular in Arab societies.

To support the data collected from the survey and obtain detailed and rich information, the researchers identified 14 tourists (10 men and 4 women) from the pool of tourists who had already completed the survey and invited them to sit for unstructured interviews. All interview responses were transcribed and thematically analyzed. Because the number of interviewees was small, manual keywording and counting using MS Word was suitable. The interviews lasted between 50 min and 145 min, with some completed in two sessions rather than one.

4.2. Operationalization and Measurement

The variables analyzed in this study were selected based on their theoretical grounding (see Table 3) and adapted through pilot testing to fit the Arab tourist context. The dependent variable, “Return decision”, is the expressed intention to visit Turkish tourist destinations again and is measured in the survey by one question borrowed from do Valle, Silva, Mendes, and Guerreiro [81]: “Do you plan to visit Türkiye as a tourist again?”. “Destination loyalty” is measured by three survey questions: “Did you visit Türkiye before?”, “How likely are you to visit the same Turkish tourist destinations in the future that you visited this time?”, and “Are you willing to recommend somebody to visit Türkiye?” (see Battour, Battour, and Ismail [82]; Battour et al. [77]; Atiq et al. [83]). “Overall destination satisfaction” is measured by asking tourists three questions about their level of overall satisfaction with the current visit experience to Türkiye, overall satisfaction with previous visits to the same country if any, and their overall value for money when visiting Türkiye in general (see do Valle et al. [81]; Chi and Qu [71]; Yoon and Uysal [35]).

The questionnaire included questions about the independent variables discussed in the literature. The most important variables are fifteen (15) push factors borrowed from Baharun and Ghalip [78] and eleven (11) pull factors adopted from Baharun and Ghalip [78]. Sample survey questions about push factors include “I like to enjoy natural beauty in Türkiye”, “I am interested in visiting the many attractive places in Türkiye”, and “I like the nice weather in Türkiye”. Sample questions about pull factors include the following: “The easy access to Turkish tourist places encourages me to visit this country”, “My ability to use convenient payment methods such as credit cards makes my visit to Türkiye smoother”, and “Low travel cost encourages me to visit Türkiye”.

“Destination image” refers to the perceptions of tourists about the destination and was measured by three questions borrowed from Sönmez and Sirakaya [12] (pp. 190–191) that asked about safety and security in the country, natural attractiveness, and weather conditions. Tourists usually search for fulfilling experiences and care about the economic aspects of their planned interrelated decisions, such as where to visit, when to visit, and what to do in a particular destination (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [76]). These decisions, according to Ilieska [84], are well-calculated based on tourists’ assessment of multiple factors, including service quality, value for money, and overall experience. “Destination and service quality” were assessed in survey questions about five dimensions: (1) Tangibles: measured by six questions about the physical appearance of hotels and restaurants (cleanliness, modernity, and the overall aesthetic appeal of the service environment), tourism personnel attitude, and effectiveness of communication; (2) Reliability of services: the ability of the tourist destination to provide Arab tourists with the promised services accurately, measured by two questions; (3) Responsiveness of staff: their willingness to help Arab customers and provide prompt service, measured by two questions; (4) Assurance: assessed by three questions that measure the extent to which staff convey trust and confidence and have the necessary knowledge to deal with Arab tourists; (5) Empathy of staff: providing caring and individualized attention to Arab tourists, measured by two questions.

Using Ajzen’s planned behavior theory and Pine and Gilmore’s [66] experience economy theory, memorable experiences require high-quality services, without which tourists cannot be satisfied enough to return. These high-quality services should be adequate and comprehensive to fulfill the expectations of tourists (Oppermann [85]; Oliver [75]; Parasuraman et al. [76]; Pine and Gilmore [66]). “Past experiences” in Türkiye were measured by two questions that asked how generally memorable and fulfilling past experiences were. “Pre-visit expectations” were measured by two questions that assessed Arab tourists’ expectations that their current visit to Türkiye would be enjoyable and fulfilling. “Pre-visit information” was assessed by two questions about how much information Arab tourists had about Turkish destinations they intended to visit and how accurate that information was. “Engaging experience” was measured by two questions about the extent to which Turkish destinations were successful in engaging Arab tourists in talking or socializing with locals. “Emotional attachment” refers to how Arab tourists emotionally perceive Türkiye and feel attached to it for any reason, such as religious, historical, or social, and was measured by two questions (see Battour et al. [77]; Atiq et al. [83]).

4.3. Data Analysis

The study employed distinct analytical approaches for quantitative and qualitative data to ensure rigorous examination of revisit intentions among Arab tourists. This dual approach ensured methodological transparency and triangulation of results:

(a)

Quantitative Analysis: We used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify latent dimensions influencing revisit intentions. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure (0.883) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ² = 886.431, * p< 0.001) confirmed sample adequacy. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation extracted seven factors explaining 79.841% of variance (Table 6). We also used Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to assess predictors of revisit intention. Assumptions (linearity, homoscedasticity, normality of residuals) were validated, and standardized coefficients (β) interpreted effect sizes (

Table 7. Multiple regression model.

Model Summary (N = 713)	Unstandardized Coefficients (b)		Standardized Coefficients (β) Importance of the Effect
Dependent Variable: Intention to Revisit	b	Std. Error	Beta (β)	t-Test	Sig. *
Constant	0.474	0.116	0.381	27.14	0.006 *
Gender	0.244	0.282	0.211	1.602	0.025 *
Nationality	0.103	0.471	0.093	1.072	0.046
Age	0.107	0.821	0.085	1.404	0.085
Education	0.412	0.454	0.333	0.702	0.003 *
Group visit	0.111	0.862	0.106	1.621	0.107
Language ability	0.086	0.920	0.099	1.047	0.083
Financial abilities	0.691	0.212	0.507	1.841	0.000 *
Length of current stay	0.207	0.621	0.128	1.003	0.031 *
Satisfaction	0.647	0.187	0.622	1.316	0.001 *
Loyalty	0.601	0.227	0.521	1.020	0.000 *
Service quality	0.356	0.626	0.216	1.204	0.009 *
Behavior of staff and people	0.572	0.209	0.484	2.102	0.027 *
Destination experience	0.455	0.233	0.329	0.633	0.013 *
Accessibility and convenience	0.318	0.132	0.288	1.013	0.000 *
Cultural and social appeal	0.633	0.801	0.478	0.811	0.010 *

* Significant at p < 0.05; b (standardized coefficient). R = 0.794; R² = 0.638; Adjusted R² = 0.605; Model df = 76; df(error) = 1437; F = 933.6; sig. = 0.000; Std. Error = 0.131.

). To ensure reliability, we used Cronbach’s α scores (0.81–0.88), which confirmed internal consistency for all constructs.

(b)

Qualitative Analysis: We used thematic analysis, as we transcribed the interviews and coded them using MS Word to identify recurring themes (e.g., language barriers, staff behavior). Key quotes were extracted to contextualize quantitative findings (e.g., dissatisfaction drivers).

5. Analysis and Findings

5.1. Sample Description

The study survey included a question on nationality, asking respondents to choose from the main popular groups of Arab nationalities. The results were as follows: 34% from Syria, 25% from the Arabian Gulf states and Yemen, 22% from Iraq, 12% from the three nationalities of the levant (Belad Al Sham), namely, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine, 3% from Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, and Comoros, and 4% from the Arab Maghreb countries (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya). These numbers indicate that citizens from Syria, the Gulf states, and Iraq comprise the majority of the study sample (81%).

Table 4 shows that the sample consisted of 57% male and 43% female tourists, with the majority (61%) aged between 31 and 50 years. The vast majority of tourists are university-educated (83%), with only 6% speaking good Turkish. Economically, the tourists are distributed across all social classes without a particular concentration in any class. This distribution suggests that visiting Türkiye is accessible to both poor and rich Arab tourists alike (34% and 31%, respectively). Table 4 also indicates that most Arab tourists visit Türkiye with their families (58%) or friends (26%) and stay for one to two weeks (61%) or two to three weeks (15%), indicating that Arab tourists tend to stay for a relatively extended period. Only 17% of the Arab tourists stay for less than a week.

5.2. Findings

The responses in Table 4 suggest that Arab tourists are generally satisfied with their past visit experiences in Türkiye; 49% are very satisfied and 26% are moderately satisfied. Only 36% were either slightly satisfied or not satisfied (15% and 21%, respectively). Of all Arab tourists, 15% did not have past experiences visiting Türkiye. The same table shows that 72% of Arab tourists are generally very or moderately satisfied with their current visit to Türkiye (39% and 33%, respectively), while 28% are either slightly satisfied or not satisfied at all (11% and 17%, respectively).

Being generally satisfied with both past and current visits, Arab tourists perceive their current visit as worth the money spent on it. Specifically, 74% of the tourists rate the overall value for money of their current visit experience as excellent (11%), very good (36%), and good (23%). Comparatively, 30% rate the value for money of the visit as bad (14%) and very bad (16%). Although the vast majority of Arab tourists rate the value for money favorably, around one-third rate this aspect unfavorably, which is a relatively large percentage and may indicate other negative aspects of the visit experience.

When asked about their intentions to visit Türkiye again, there is a strong desire to return. Table 4 indicates that 57% of Arab tourists are confident in their intention to return to the country. Those who may visit again make up 22% of all tourists, which is not a high percentage, yet considerable. When around a quarter of the tourists show reluctance or uncertainty about coming back, there must be a reason behind this attitude, especially when 8% of the tourists are unsure about their intention but lean toward not visiting. Put differently, the group of Arabs who are either confident in their intention to revisit Türkiye (13%) and those who seem to have had a negative experience and are more likely not to visit again (8%) suggests that 21% of Arab tourists could have unfulfilled needs or unmet expectations about their visit to Türkiye. Table 4 also indicates that 81% of those who visited Türkiye have loyalty to it as they are willing to recommend it to others.

Considering satisfaction and intention to return, we can say that 21% of Arab tourists are not satisfied with their past visits to Türkiye, 17% are not satisfied with their current visit, 30% rate the value for money of their current visit as bad or very bad, and 13% decided not to visit Türkiye again. If we look at this dichotomously, we can argue that 13% to 30% of Arab tourists are not in favor of tourism in Türkiye. This leaves 70% with a somewhat favorable attitude toward tourism in Türkiye. While these numbers lean toward the positive side, the 30% unfavorable views cannot be ignored, and there is therefore a need to understand what may have contributed to producing these results.

Because there is no strong theory about clustered tourists in Türkiye, we do not know what constitutes the experiences of Arab tourists in this country. Therefore, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) has identified seven factors derived from the data (KMO and Bartlett’s test = 76.82%, p < 0.005) that help us map Arab tourists’ experiences in Türkiye. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is utilized as the main extraction method in our study to effectively reduce the dimensionality of the data while preserving as much variability as possible. By transforming the original variables into a new set of uncorrelated variables called principal components, PCA helps identify the underlying structure of the experiences of Arab tourists in Türkiye. These principal components are linear combinations of the original variables, ordered in such a way that the first few components capture most of the variance in the data (Wold, Esbensen, and Geladi [86]).

Varimax rotation is then applied to the extracted components to make the results more interpretable. Varimax is an orthogonal rotation method that maximizes the variance of squared loadings of a factor (component) across variables, which simplifies the structure of the data. This means that each variable tends to load highly on one factor and low on others, making it easier to identify which aspects of their experiences are most significant. This rotation helps in achieving a clearer and more meaningful factor structure, which is crucial for interpreting the results of the analysis (Visinescu and Evangelopoulos [87]).

In our study examining the factors influencing Arab tourists’ intention to revisit Türkiye, we employed exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation. The analysis revealed seven key factors that together explain 79.841% of the total variance. This high cumulative percentage indicates that these factors capture a substantial portion of the underlying variance in tourists’ intentions. The adequacy of our sample for factor analysis is confirmed by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy, which is 0.883. This value is considered excellent, suggesting that the sample size is more than sufficient for reliable factor analysis. Additionally, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yielded an approximate chi-square value of 886.431 with 385 degrees of freedom and a significance level of <0.001. This result confirms that the correlations between items are sufficiently large, validating the suitability of our data for factor analysis. Therefore, we can say that the seven factors identified through Varimax rotation explain 79.841% of the variance in the intention to revisit Türkiye among Arab tourists. The excellent KMO measure and significant Bartlett’s test results further support the robustness of our factor analysis.

According to Table 6, three important facts emerge. First, Arab tourists’ experiences in Türkiye can be explained by seven factors: (1) overall satisfaction, (2) loyalty, (3) service quality, (4) behavior of staff and people, (5) destination experiences, (6) accessibility and convenience, and (7) cultural and social appeal. These factors collectively account for 79% of the variance in the study data. Second, these findings substantiate the study proposition about the complexity of the return decision among Arab tourists and how these multiple factors combined can shape the tourism experience of this cluster of tourists. It can, therefore, be said that improving the experience of Arab tourists and, consequently, improving the chances of their return, can be complex and worth thorough examination. Third, the pattern in which items loaded in each factor indicates important theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, item loading does not conform to traditional constructs discussed in the literature, such as push and pull factors, satisfaction, and quality of service. Table 6 shows that the reported factors in the literature have loaded differently in this study, as many items from push and pull, for example, have loaded on satisfaction, and many items from quality of services have loaded on multiple factors, such as destination experiences and behavior of staff. These theoretical findings, albeit needing further examination using both Arab clusters as well as other nationalities, have practical implications; Arab tourists in Türkiye may have peculiar needs, expectations, and attitudes. Furthermore, the combination of Arab tourists and Turkish destinations may exhibit a different setting worth future examination. Unlike tourism in other countries, the historical, cultural, and geopolitical factors between Arabs and Turks (i.e., Türkiye) may have led to different dynamics in how Arab tourists interact with Turkish destinations. It could also be useful for future studies to consider validating the study survey used in the present study. While all items had high reliability scores measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, some constructs may still need validation using different samples and different destinations within Türkiye.

After identifying the seven factors that describe the experiences of Arab tourists in Türkiye, it was necessary to use ordinary least squares regression (OLS) to determine the predictors of the intention to revisit Türkiye. Results of the best-fit regression model in Table 7 indicate that unstandardized coefficients were used to interpret the effect of a one-unit change in a predictor variable on the response variable, and standardized coefficients were employed to compare the relative importance of different predictor variables on the response variable (Grace and Bollen [88]). Therefore, ten independent variables had a significant impact on the tourists’ intention to revisit, leaving four variables (nationality, age, gender, group visit status, and language abilities) with an insignificant impact on the dependent variable.

The analysis reveals that among the ten variables that impact the tourists’ intention to revisit (see Table 7), overall satisfaction was the strongest predictor (β = 0.622), followed by tourists’ loyalty (β = 0.521), financial status of the tourist (β = 0.507), behavior of tourist staff and ordinary locals (β = 0.484), cultural and social appeal of Türkiye as a country and society (β = 0.478), overall destination experiences (β = 0.329), educational level of tourists (β = 0.333), accessibility and convenience of Türkiye and Turkish destinations (β = 0.288), service quality in restaurants, hotels, and tourist destinations (β = 0.216), and actual length of stay during the current visit (β = 0.128).

The top predictors, as indicated above, are satisfaction and loyalty. Both variables emerged in EFA as distinct factors, indicating distinguishable forces within which other forces, such as push and pull factors, seem to dissolve mainly into satisfaction, loyalty, quality of services, and convenience factors in Table 6. This result may imply that satisfaction and loyalty are strong forces that reflect many aspects (dimensions) of the tourists’ experience in Türkiye. Therefore, revisiting the country is largely influenced by Arabs’ satisfaction and loyalty to Turkish destinations. The loyalty seems relevant to what Türkiye represents to many Arab tourists, as they may perceive it from a “romantic” angle where the history of mutual identity and shared culture gives the country a special appeal that attracts many Arabs to visit it (see Tozoglu [53,89]). This explanation resonates with the historical fact that Arabs (mainly in Egypt and Greater Syria and Iraq) and Turks carried the same nationality (i.e., Ottoman) for over 400 years. Many Arabs still revert to this shared history as a source of attraction and sentimental value in Türkiye. Furthermore, media and Turkish drama that have spread across the Arab world in the past two decades may have shaped a special image of Türkiye that appeals to Arabs. Additionally, the geographic closeness of Türkiye and the ease of accessing its services may also serve as motivators for Arab tourists to visit and revisit Türkiye.

Table 7 suggests that Arabs care about the behavior of staff who work in tourist places such as hotels and restaurants, in addition to ordinary Turks (β = 0.484). The interviews support this finding, as every single interviewee expressed uncomfortable feelings when staff in hotels, shops, restaurants, and other tourist places showed either unprofessional, incompetent, or rude behavior towards Arab tourists. Interviewee #3 stated that: “…she [shopkeeper] was kind but did not show empathy…she did not smile, greet, or thank me when I handed her the money”. Another respondent (interviewee #13) stressed that “extremely poor language skills…they could not speak any international language…I felt ignored and unworthy”.

The language barrier is therefore a real problem that Arab tourists face in Türkiye, as most Turks (tourism staff and ordinary people) do not speak a universal language such as Arabic or English. This causes serious frustration among Arab tourists and often leads to misunderstandings, as confirmed by Interviewee #7 who said that: “…the restaurant staff served me the wrong meal and I could not just explain to them that I did not eat meat and it was impossible that I ordered meat…the manager accused me of insulting the Turks and forced me to leave the restaurant…how can I insult the Turks when I love Türkiye and visit it frequently?”

It is possible that inadequate communication and language barriers could affect the perceptions of quality of service as well as the length of stay in the country. Table 7 shows that quality of service (β = 0.216) and length of stay (β = 0.128) significantly affect the revisit decision. However, the length of stay at the destination is potentially influenced by tourists’ satisfaction and self-assessment of the quality of service they receive, as well as the overall destination experience, which could eventually impact tourists’ decision to revisit the destination. This complex relationship is explained by two interviewees who posited that “…I love Türkiye but it is extremely difficult to communicate with people…when I speak Arabic, some of them behave badly with me…when I speak English they cannot understand me…to me this is a major turnoff issue” (Interviewee #3). When asked if they feel that Turks discriminate against Arab tourists or intentionally abuse them, Interviewee #6 answered that: “…it is not that they hate us but they were taught in school to suspect and maybe hate Arabs”. Another response was that: “…it is not personal but these people [Turks] are charged with negative views about Arabs…some political parties and politicians are racist and convey racist and anti-Arab messages to their constituents…therefore you go to a shop and some staff disrespects you just because you are Arab” (Interviewee #9). A supporting comment came from Interviewee #2, who confirmed that: “…some staff are nice and professional but some of them are rude and condescending…they treat Arabs the same way Europeans treat Turks…I do not think I will come back”.

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that satisfaction and loyalty are likely to reflect the experience of Arab tourists based on how they are treated by locals. While there are plenty of strengths in Turkish tourism and its infrastructure, the following discussion mainly focuses on the darker side of the Arab tourism experience, aiming to shed light on what can reduce the chances of a revisit. The inadequate training of those who work in tourism sites and facilities seems to lack two important qualities essential for tourism and tourism promotion: (a) poor language skills, as their foreign language capabilities are generally but profoundly poor, and (b) locals and staff seem to lack basic rational thinking, as their economy needs a continuous and increasing flow of tourists (from all nationalities, including Arabs), but they have not developed their attitudes, ways of thinking, and behaviors in such a way that ensures the satisfaction and return of tourists. For example, if 17% of Arab tourists are not satisfied with their experiences in Türkiye (see Table 4 and Table 5), 4,040,381 tourists will not come back (see Table 5). This number leads Türkiye and the Turkish economy to lose around USD 27,540,000 daily (see Dierks [90]; Kultur ve Turism Bakanligi [91]). This loss is only the direct spending of Arab tourists on shopping, accommodation, food, and other expenses during their stay in Türkiye.

The immature, emotional, and highly politicized image of Arabs in some Turkish destinations and by some Turkish staff and public is summarized by Interviewee #1, who said that: “…they want my money but they do not want me…their economy relies on my spending but they do not like to serve me…they promote their country as a tourist heaven but they treat me by their political ideology”. Another female tourist described her experience in a food store where the lady asked her to leave the store upon noticing her wearing a traditional Arabic dress and speaking Arabic (abaya). The saleswoman told her that: “…you are Arab and you bargain a lot…just leave the store” (Interviewee #6). Two interviewees (#7 and #3) explained this dilemma as follows: “…I bought sweets that had worms and insects inside, but when I protested to the storekeeper, he dismissed me disrespectfully…if I did not like Türkiye, I would not come back to this country”; “…some stores cheat us, and when they know we are Arabs, they increase the prices of everything at least fivefold…they do not do this with all tourists, but they always do it with me…I feel they target Arabs”.

Jacking up the price of items, selling expired food items, claiming no availability of hotel rooms, and providing bad service are among the most cited negative experiences of Arab tourists. These issues can be improved by more training of tourism staff and education of the general public. The politicization of tourism can have a devastating impact on the number of tourists; thus, the government is recommended to provide official training to those working in tourism, including strict training and learning a second international language. While Turkish schools teach English from fifth grade to twelfth grade, staff and ordinary people speak it poorly. The Turkish government is advised to revise its educational system and invest more in training language teachers and improving language educational methods so that the outcomes of this education can aid tourism staff and even ordinary people in communicating well with their guests. Furthermore, many Arab tourists cited cases of merchandise cheating and buying spoiled food, especially sweets. To establish trust and confidence in local products, the government is recommended to implement continuous and stricter policies in this regard.

OLS indicates that the ten independent variables predict around 60% of the variance in Arabs’ decision to revisit Turkish destinations (adjusted R² = 0.605). The small standard error (0.131) suggests that the predicted values are close to the actual values, indicating a good fit. These results suggest that this regression model fits the data well. Income and education of the tourists are significant predictors of the dependent variable (B = 0.507 and B = 0.333, respectively). One can argue that a tourist’s income plays a major role in determining many decisions, including when, where, and how to travel, in addition to how much to spend on shopping and accommodation. Income is usually relevant to deciding how long a tourist can stay. Therefore, the OLS model reflects not only the responses of the Arab tourists but also the conventional wisdom about people’s rational behavior, where all ten variables in the model correspond with different aspects of a travel decision that a rational person may make.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

The analysis of Arab tourists’ experiences in Türkiye reveals a generally positive outlook, with a significant majority expressing satisfaction with both past and current visits. However, a notable minority reported dissatisfaction, highlighting areas for improvement. The study identified seven key factors influencing the intention to revisit, thus determining the extent and scope of tourism sustainability in Türkiye: overall satisfaction, loyalty, service quality, behavior of staff and locals, destination experiences, accessibility and convenience, and cultural and social appeal. These factors collectively explain a substantial portion of the variance in tourists’ intentions to return, underscoring the complexity of the decision-making process. This complexity supports Proposition 1, which suggests that tourists’ behavior cannot be fully explained by a single theory (see Cohen [9]; Crompton and Petrick [10]). Instead, a combination of factors from various theories provides a more comprehensive understanding of Arab tourists’ intention to revisit Türkiye, including push–pull factors and quality of service factors (Duan and Jiang [92]; Aksu, İçigen, and Ehtiyar [93]).

The findings also align with Proposition 2, indicating that while the factors influencing the intention to revisit among Arab tourists may generally align with those from other countries, there are unique aspects of tourism in Türkiye that must be considered. For instance, the historical, cultural, and geopolitical factors between Arabs and Turks contribute to a unique dynamic that shapes Arab tourists’ experiences and intentions (Tosun and Jenkins [58]; Tozoglu [53]). This is evident in the significant impact of satisfaction and loyalty on the intention to revisit, as highlighted in Proposition 3. Satisfaction and loyalty emerged as the strongest predictors, reflecting the importance of these factors in the decision-making process for Arab tourists. Our results generally support prior findings on satisfaction/loyalty (Yoon and Uysal [35]) but highlight culture-specific factors like Ottoman heritage (Tozoglu [89]) and language barriers (Interviewee #7) that are underrepresented in Western models. This validates our pluralistic theoretical approach.

Moreover, the study’s findings emphasize the need to address specific issues that negatively impact Arab tourists’ experiences, such as unprofessional behavior, language barriers, and perceived discrimination. Addressing these issues through improved staff training, enhanced language education, and stricter regulatory policies can help improve overall satisfaction and loyalty, thereby increasing the likelihood of Arab tourists revisiting Türkiye (Göymen [57]; Ulker-Demirel and Ciftci [94]). These insights underscore the importance of considering the unique relationship between Arab tourists and Turkish destinations, as well as the need for a multifaceted approach to understanding and improving tourists’ experiences that can lead to sustainability.

In a free-market society like Türkiye, sustainable tourism development requires balanced governmental intervention to create an environment that promotes tourism growth while ensuring the well-being of people, the environment, and infrastructure. Tourism policies must carefully balance goals such as protecting natural and historical sites while generating revenue for the national economy. Failure to achieve this balance can lead to political tensions and social resentment towards tourists (Tosun and Timothy [34]). Therefore, it is crucial for policymakers to develop strategies that not only enhance the tourist experience but also foster positive interactions between tourists and locals, ensuring long-term sustainability and mutual benefit.

While this study provides valuable insights into sustainable tourism and the factors influencing Arab tourists’ revisit intentions in Türkiye, several limitations should be acknowledged: (1) The study focused on Istanbul and Trabzon due to their high concentration of Arab tourists. While these cities are representative of key tourist hubs, future research could expand to other regions (e.g., Antalya, Cappadocia, Konya, and Gaziantep) to enhance generalizability. (2) The data were collected during a specific timeframe (July–December 2024), limiting causal inferences. Therefore, longitudinal studies could track behavioral changes over time. (3) Although our sample (N = 713) is robust for EFA/regression, it primarily comprises tourists from certain Arab countries rather than all countries. Hence, future studies could explore differences among other Arab nationalities (e.g., North Africans, such as Algerians and Moroccans, and African Arabs, like people from Chad and Mali). (4) Our analysis focused on the main effects for parsimony, but future work could examine interaction effects (e.g., loyalty × service quality) with larger datasets to uncover conditional relationships. (5) Research comparing Arab tourists with other key demographics (e.g., European or Asian tourists) could further contextualize these findings. Despite these limitations, this study advances theoretical and practical understanding of Arab tourist behavior in Türkiye. The identified factors (e.g., cultural appeal, staff behavior) offer actionable insights for destination marketers and policymakers.