Effects of Novelty Seeking, Destination Quality and Motivation on

Tourist Loyalty

M. Irhas Effendi, Dyah Sugandini, Yenni Sri Utami, Agus Sasmito Aribowo

Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta

Keywords: Novelty Seeking, Destination Quality, Motivation, and Loyalty

Abstract: This study aims to analyze tourist loyalty that is influenced by novelty-seeking, destination quality, and

motivation. This research is a survey research using a questionnaire as a data collection tool. The sampling

technique used is non-probability sampling, which is convenience sampling. This research is important

because it justifies that tourists want to visit a destination again, even though these tourists have visited it.

Previous research shows that tourists will rarely return to visit the same destination. The results of this research

are expected to support research findings stating that tourists want to visit previous destinations if there are

several influencing factors. This study uses international tourist respondents who visit tourist villages in the

Special Region of Yogyakarta. PLS-SEM is used to analyze research data. The results showed that the effect

of novelty seeking, destination quality, and motivation on loyalty mediated by tourist satisfaction was

accepted.

INTRODUCTION

Rural tourism has a wide potential that is attractive as

tourist visits. Previous research shows that the loyalty

of tourists to visit rural tourism is influenced by

previous experience (Rajaratnam et al., 2015), service

quality (Butnaru and Miller, 2012); visitor motivation

(Devesa et al., 2010) and tourist ratings (Weiermair

and Fuchs, 1999). Previous studies have identified

service quality attributes as factors that influence

loyalty, both directly and indirectly (Rajaratnam et

al., 2015). The study also shows that novelty-seeking,

destination quality, and motivation affect not only

tourist satisfaction but also tourist loyalty in general

(Qu et al., 2011).

Although satisfaction is considered important in

determining tourist loyalty, the strong relationship

Between satisfaction and return, visits have been

questioned, because many satisfied customers from

previous visits have not made return visits to previous

tourist destinations (Dolnicar, Coltman and Sharma,

2013). Lepp and Gibson (2003) suggest that some

tourists switch destinations for their next vacation,

even though they are satisfied with previous visits. In

addition, Rittichainuwat et al. (2003) stated that

tourist satisfaction does not have an influence on their

intention to re-visit a tourist destination when there

are other variables (eg, novelty-seeking). The opinion

of Jang and Feng (2007) states that tourist satisfaction

shows a positive effect on the intention to revisit in

the short term, not the medium term, or the intention

to revisit the long term. In this case, the tendency to

look for novelty might be used to explain the behavior

of migrating tourists, regardless of their satisfaction

level.

This study contributes to expanding loyalty

knowledge in rural tourism in the context of

developing countries. This study develops measures

to assess novelty seeking, the quality of rural tourism,

and the motivation to visit rural tourism destinations

(rural tourism). Tourist satisfaction is used as a

mediator of these three variables in influencing tourist

loyalty. The main objective of this study is to examine

the direct effect of novelty seeking, perception of

destination quality, and motivation mediated by

satisfaction. This study focuses on rural tourism (rural

tourism) in the Special Region of Yogyakarta.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Satisfaction and Loyalty

Customer satisfaction is a major concept in marketing

literature and is an important objective of all business

activities, including hospitality and tourism. Tourist

satisfaction is very important for the survival and

Effendi, M., Sugandini, D., Utami, Y. and Aribowo, A.

Effects of Novelty Seeking, Destination Quality and Motivation on Tourist Loyalty.

DOI: 10.5220/0009961802330240

In Proceedings of the International Conference of Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management (ICBEEM 2019), pages 233-240

ISBN: 978-989-758-471-8

233

failure of the company (Williams and Uysal, 2013).

Dominici and Guzzo (2010) define satisfaction as a

business philosophy for creating customer value by

anticipating and managing their expectations and

demonstrating the ability and responsibility to meet

their needs.

The study of return intentions is still an important

field of research in tourism, which shows good

intentions and tourist loyalty (Prayag et al., 2013).

Empirical studies conducted by (Eusebio and Vieira,

2013) show that tourist satisfaction influences the

intention of tourists to make a return visit and the

willingness of tourists to recommend tourist

destinations to others. Rajaratnam, Nair, Sharif, and

Munikrishnan (2015), examined the direct effect of

satisfaction on revisit intention in the context of rural

tourism in Malaysia. The results of his research

indicate that the perceived quality of the destination

significantly influences satisfaction, which in turn

affects revisit intention. Satisfied foreign or

international tourists are more likely to revisit these

destinations and recommend them to others,

compared to domestic tourists.

2.2 Novelty Seeking and Tourist

Satisfaction

Kim and Kim (2015), states that novelty seeking is an

important factor in the purpose of traveling, and has

been identified as one of the factors causing

Tourists to be dissatisfied and not return to the

same destination. The results of his research showed

that novelty-seeking could influence the relationship

between overall satisfaction and intention to revisit.

Novelty seeking strengthens the relationship between

overall satisfaction and the intention of tourists to find

similar alternatives, and can further recommend

attractions to others, and can create the potential for

positive word of mouth communication. Keaveney

(1995) states that novelty seeking is based on the

theory of the search for variations (Hirschman, 1984;

McQuisto, 1989). In the search behavior variations of

consumers require stimulation by switching to

products that are different from before (Um et al.,

2006) or the tendency to look for novelty (Jang &

Feng, 2007). Um, et al. (2006) and Jang & Feng

(2007) state that novelty-seeking has a more positive

influence on return intention than satisfaction. Kozak,

Huan, & Beaman, (2002), suggest that dissatisfied

tourists may not return to the same destination for

subsequent visits because of a desire to seek new

experiences (Oppermann, 1998). In the same section

Vena also states that tourists do not re-visit popular

destinations because they eliminate wanting to search

for variations and reduce the possibility of repeat

visits (Bello & Etzel, 1985, Niininen, Szivas, & Riley,

2004)

Hypothesis 1: Novelty seeking influences loyalty

Mediated by tourist satisfaction.

2.3 Destination Quality and Tourist

Satisfaction

Service quality is often conceptualized as the

difference between expected service performance and

actual perceived service performance (Kara et al.,

2005; Grönroos, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1988). In

some previous studies, service quality has been

defined as the extent to which services meet customer

needs or expectations (Dotchin and Oakland, 1994).

Zeithaml et al. (1996) conceptualize service quality as

the overall impression of the customer towards

service weaknesses. The approach to tourism

destination quality refers to three major perspectives,

namely (1) quality theory from Juran, Deming,

Ishikawa, Feigembaun and what develops and is

known as total quality management (Mellat-Parast,

2015); (2) the quality awards mechanism which is

widely adopted is adopted by countries, regions or

organizations that have tried to promote quality (Titu

and Bucur, 2016; Ziaei et al., 2016) and (3) the quality

standards commonly known as Standards ISO 9000

(Schulingkamp and Latham, 2015).

Pérez, García, Sánchez, and Martínez (2017)

conducted empirical research on Holguín tourist

destinations, in Cuba with tourist respondents and

tourism service providers, and were designed to

provide information about the relationship between

tourist satisfaction levels and destination quality

variables. His research results show that quality

service (assuming a higher level of quality) can lead

to higher levels of customer satisfaction as well.

Pandža Bajs (2015) states that service quality,

emotions, experience, reputation as well as monetary

or non-monetary costs affect perceived value

conformation, and in turn will cause tourist

satisfaction

Hypothesis 2: Destination quality influences

loyalty, which is mediated by tourist satisfaction.

2.4 Motivation and Loyalty of Tourists

Motivation is a dynamic process that involves internal

psychological factors such as choice, novelty, effort,

and persistence over time (Jang and Feng, 2007).

Hurtado and Paralera (2014) point out two of the most

relevant motivational issues related to the tourism

sector, namely the reasons people travel and what

they expect from their visit (Yoon and Uysal, 2005).

Hurtado and Paralera (2014) also stated that

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

234

infrequent tourist visits munsul is a matter of

motivation and satisfaction.

Lamont, 2014; and Kozak, 2002, show that in

general, tourists travel because they are driven by

internal reasons or because they feel attracted by a

number of external variables related to tourist

destinations. The driving factors associated with

internal and emotional aspects are the desire to be

alone, rested and relaxed, to adventure, or to interact

socially. Hurtado and Paralera (2014) state that in

tourism, motivation explains the reasons for traveling

(why); choice of destination made (where); and the

results obtained (satisfaction).

Hypothesis 3: Motivation influences loyalty,

which is mediated by tourist satisfaction.

3 RESEARCH METHODS

The research was conducted in the form of a survey,

using an explanatory research approach through

hypothesis testing (Sekaran, 2003). Convenience

sampling is used as a sampling technique because

there are no specific restrictions on the sample taken.

The sample range in this study covers all foreign

tourists visiting tourist villages in DIY, regardless of

the length of stay, tourist destinations, the origin of

tourists, gender, and age during the data collection

period. The research object taken was the tourism

object of Tembi Tourism Village, Banyubiru,

Langgeran, Kota Besar, and Brajan. The number of

samples in this study was 200 respondents. Five

constructs were measured using a 5-point Likert

scale. Data analysis techniques using PLS-SEM.

4 RESULTS OF RESEARCH

Respondents Characteristics of survey respondents

can be seen in table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents

Characteristics category%

Gender M F 45

Education

Junior High

School

Diploma

Bachelor

Other

21%

19%

44%

11%

Job

civil

servant

Entrepreneur

Student

Retired

15 %

62%

18%

Others

Income level

(foreign tourists)

<$ 1,000

$ 1,000 - $

1,999

$ 2,000 - $

2,999

≥ $ 3,000

10%

46%

25%

19%

Total 100%

Results of Quantitative Analysis Results of data

processing techniques using the SEM method based

on Partial Least Square (PLS) requires two stages (1)

Outer model and (2) Inner Model.

4.1 Outer Model to Test Instrument

Banksmodel for testing the focuses

validity(validity)and reliability(reliability)of each

indicator on the latent variables. Outer models with

reflective indicators are evaluated through:

convergent validity, discriminant validity, and

Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The convergent

validity value is the value loading factor on the latent

variable with its indicators. Expected value> 0.7

(Ghozali, 2015). The discriminant validity value is

useful to know whether the variable has an adequate

discriminant by comparing the loading value of the

intended variable must be greater than the loading

value with other variables.

Table 2. Test convergent validity, discriminant validity

(Outer Loading)

Motivation Novelty Destinatio

n Quality

Satisfactio

Loyalty

K1 0.773

K2 0820

K3 0820

M1 0.784

M2 0.810

M3 0.741

M4 0.776

N1 0.74

N3 0864

N4 0826

N5 0819

Q1 0.776

Q2 0769

Q3 0822

Effects of Novelty Seeking, Destination Quality and Motivation on Tourist Loyalty

235

Q4 0.788

RI1 0802

RI2 0.82

RI3 0.78

Based on results test Outer Loading seen from

convergent validity and discriminant validity can be

concluded that most of the instruments that make up

each variable latent are valid. This is indicated by a

value factor loading greater than 0.7. To show

convergent validity can be demonstrated through

unidimensionality, which can be expressed using the

average value of the extracted variant (Average

Variance Extracted / AVE). Expected AVE value>

0.5. The AVE values generated in the study can be

shown in table 3.

Table. 3. AVE value for testing convergent validity

Test Reliability is a measure of the internal

consistency of the indicators of a construct that shows

the degree to which each indicator indicates a latent

construct generally. The results of internal

consistency reliability testing for each construct using

thecoefficient Cronbach's Alpha have met rules of

thumb the required, namely ≥ 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998;

Sekaran, 1999). Other reliability measurements in

this study were conducted by conducting atest

composite reliability. It is said to be reliable if it has

avalue composite reliability ≥ 0.7. The results of

reliability testing can be shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Results of the Validity Test of the Research

Instrument

4.2 Inner Model for Testing the Path

Analysis

The inner Model (structural model) is often referred

to as an influence test/hypothesis test. Testing the

inner workings of the model was done by observing

the coefficient of determination (R2), Q2 predictive

relevance,and significance of the parameter

coefficient t-statistics. Q2 > 0 indicates that the

observed values have been reconstructed well so that

the model has predictive relevance. While the value

of Q2 <0 indicates the absence of predictive

relevance. The R2 value of 0.67 is categorized as

substantial, R2 value of 0.33 is categorized as

moderate, R2 value of 0.19 is categorized as weak, R2

value of> 0.7 is categorized as strong (Chin, 1988).

The test results of R2 can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. The test results of R

The value of Q

has a value in the range 0< Q

<1,

where the closer to 1 means the better the model. The

quantity of Q

is equivalent to the coefficient of total

determination in the path analysis. The calculation

result of Q

predictive relevance is 0.784. From

testing R

and Q

is seen that the model established is

robust. So that hypothesis testing can be done. Table

6 shows the results of the structural test /output inner

model (influence test/hypothesis test).

Cronbach's

Alpha

Composite

Reliability

Motivation 0.783 0.860

Novelty 0.829 0.887

Destination Quality 0.798 0.868

Satisfaction 0.728 0.847

Loyalty 0.729 0.847

Square

R Square

Adjuste

Description

Satisfaction 0.728 0.724 Substantia

Loyalty 0.735 0.734 Substantia

Average

Variance

Extracted

(AVE)

Information

Motivation 0.605 Valid

Novelty 0.662 Valid

Destination

Quality

0.622 Valid

Satisfaction 0.648 Valid

Loyalty 0.649 Valid

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

236

Table 6. Test results for path analysis

Original

Sample (O)

Sample

Mean (M)

Standard

Deviation

(STD

EV)

Statistics

(|O/

STD EV|)

Values

Information

Novelty

Satisfaction

0.214

0.21

0.075

2.860

0.00

Significant

Quality

Satisfaction

0.362

0.35

0.087

4.182

0.00

Significant

Motivation

Satisfaction

0.321

0.31

0.095

3,378

0.00

Significant

Satisfaction

loyalty

0.858

0.85

0.032

27,04

0,00

Significant

Effects of Novelty Seeking, Destination Quality and Motivation on Tourist Loyalty

237

The results of the path coefficient test shown in

table 6 show that all paths are significantly positive.

It can be seen from the value oft greater than t table.

All values of arithmetic greater than t table with a

significance level of 5%, namely (1.96). In addition,

when viewed from the p-value ≥ 0.05, the entire path

is significant. Here is a picture of PLS-SEMresults

Bootstrapping.

Figure 1: PLS-SEM Model Algorithm for loyalty

The results of testing the indirect effect / mediating

effect of each variable can be seen in table 7.

Table 7. The coefficient of indirect effect/mediation

Specific Indirect

Effects

Novelty 

Satisfaction 

Loyalty

0.183

Quality 

Satisfaction

Loyalty

0311

Motivation

satisfaction

Loyalty

0275

4.3 Results of Testing Hypothesis

The first hypothesis states that the novelty-seeking

effect on loyalty mediated to the satisfaction of

tourists. According to the table, Table 6 is known that

the effect of novelty-seeking to the satisfaction of

0214 with value of 2.860 and a p-value of 0.004. The

effect of satisfaction on loyalty is 0.858, with a value

count of 27.044 and a p-value of 0.000. Based on

table 7, it is known that the influence of novelty-

seeking loyalty with mediated tourist satisfaction is

0.183 with a Sobel test of 2.837, which is greater than

1.96 with a significance level of 5%. Thus the first

hypothesis is accepted.

The second hypothesis states that destination

quality influences loyalty by mediating tourist

satisfaction. According to the table, Table 6 is known

that the effect of quality destination on satisfaction for

0362 with a value of count equal to 4,182 and a p-

value of 0.004. Based on table 7, it is known that the

influence of destination quality on loyalty with

mediated tourist satisfaction is 0.311 with a Sobel test

of 4.112, which is greater than 1.96 with a

significance level of 5%. Thus the second hypothesis

is accepted.

The third hypothesis states that motivation

influences loyalty by mediating tourist satisfaction.

According to the table, Table 6 is known that the

effect of motivation on the satisfaction of 0321 with

a value of tcount equal to 3,378 and a p-value of

0.001. Based on table 7, it is known that the influence

of destination quality on loyalty with mediated tourist

satisfaction is 0.275 with a Sobel test of 3.352, which

is greater than 1.96 with a significance level of 5%.

Thus the third hypothesis is accepted.

5 DISCUSSION

This study shows evidence that the antecedents of

tourist loyalty are proxied by revisit intention, namely

the perception of the quality of novelty seeking, the

quality of destinations, and the motivations

supported. Loyalty model testing using PLS-SEM

also shows a fit model. Novelty seeking, Destination

quality and motivation influence loyalty by mediating

tourist satisfaction. Variation search

behavior(novelty-seeking) many travelers do because

they want to experience never expected before, the

desire to get us something, and their spirit of

adventure travelers. This allows tourists to return to

visit tourist destinations if they desire to get new

experiences has not been fulfilled on previous visits.

Tourist satisfaction with visits can influence return

visits. This study supports the results of research

conducted by Kim and Kim (2015), which states that

novelty seeking is an important factor and causes

women are dissatisfied and do not return to the same

goal. Um, et al., (2006) and Jang & Feng (2007) also

argue that tourists often search for variations by

switching to products that are different from before or

tendency to look for novelty. Kozak, Huan, &

Beaman (2002) also show that dissatisfied tourists

may not return to the same destination for subsequent

visits because of a desire to seek new experiences

(Oppermann, 1998).

The results of this study show evidence that the

quality of the destination can increase tourist

satisfaction, which will ultimately increase return

visits/tourist loyalty. Tourists feel that the

entertainment provided by the tourist village, the

availability of information, cleanliness, and security

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

238

in the tourist village is good, so this tourist feels

satisfied and desires to make a return visit to the

tourist village. The results of this study support Kara

et al., (2005); Dotchin and Oakland (1994); Mellat-

Parast (2015); Titu and Bucur (2016) and Ziaei et al.,

2016) which show that quality service leads to high

levels of customer satisfaction and will cause tourists

to return.

The effect of destination quality on tourist

satisfaction will ultimately increase return visits /

supported tourist loyalty. Tourists feel that the

entertainment provided by the tourist village, the

availability of information, cleanliness, and security

in the tourist village is good, so this tourist feels

satisfied and desires to make a return visit to the

tourist village. The results of this study support Kara

et al., (2005); Dotchin and Oakland (1994); Mellat-

Parast (2015); Titu and Bucur (2016) and Ziaei et al.,

2016) which show that quality service leads to high

levels of customer satisfaction and will cause tourists

to return. The influence of motivation on loyalty is

mediated by the satisfaction of supported tourists.

Tourists visit the tourist village in DIY because of the

motivation to complete their vacation, learn the

culture of the local community, enjoy another life in

the village. The motivation is strong enough to visit

the tourist village causing tourists to feel satisfied

with his visit. So that these tourists intend to make a

return visit to the tourist village in the future. Tourist

motivation to visit this strong tourist village can

increase tourist loyalty in the tourist village. The

results of this study support the findings of research

conducted by Hurtado and Paralera (2014), which

states that the cause of return visits to tourist

destinations is motivation and satisfaction. Lamont,

(2014); and Kozak, (2002) also show that tourists

visit a destination because it is driven by an interest

in internal variables such as motivation. Hurtado and

Paralera (2014) show that the driving factor that

usually arises for visiting a tourist destination is the

desire to relax and relax and interact socially.

6 CONCLUSIONS

This study focuses only on tourism villages, so that

research with other settings is needed to improve the

generalization of the findings of this research. In

addition, the tourism industry also has different

characteristics. This study also only measures

behavioral loyalty, that is, the intention to revisit

tourist destinations, it would be better in further

studies to examine other dimensions of loyalty, such

as word of mouth, desire to recommend and

commitment. Besides the variable novelty seeking,

destination quality and motivation, there are other

variables that need to be considered in predicting

consumer loyalty in the tourist village, namely trust,

attraction, empathy from the community in the tourist

village, the hospitality of the people. In addition,

several variables, such as perceived value, complaint

intention, reputation, and experience, should be added

in predicting loyalty.

REFERENCES

Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). “The role of novelty in

the pleasure travel experience”. Journal of Travel

Research, 24(1), 20–26.

Butnaru, G.I. and Miller, A. (2012). “Conceptual

approaches on quality and theory of tourism Services”.

Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 375-

380.

Chin, W.W. (1998), Issues and opinion on structural

equation modeling, MIS Quarterly , 22(1), VII-XVI.

Chin, W.W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach for

Structural Equation Modeling, in Marcoulides, G.A.

(Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Devesa, M., Laguna, M. and Palacios, A. (2010). “The role

of motivation in visitor satisfaction: empirical evidence

in rural tourism”. Tourism Management. Vol. 31. No.

4, pp. 547-552.

Dolnicar, S., Coltman, T., & Sharma, R. (2013). “Do

satisfied tourists really intend to come back? Three

concerns with empirical studies of the link between

satisfaction and behavioral intention”. Journal of Travel

Research. Vol. 54(2), pp. 152–178.

Dominici, G., and Guzzo, R. (2010). “Customer satisfaction

in the Hotel Industry: A case study from Sicily”.

International Journal of Marketing Studies. Vol. 2, No

2, pp. 3-12.

Dotchin, J. A., and Oakland, J. S. (1994). “Total Quality

Management in Services Part 2: Service Quality”.

International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management. 11(3), 27-42.

Eusebio, C., and Vieira, A.L. (2013). “Destination

attributes’ evaluation, satisfaction and behavioural

intentions: a structural modeling approach”,

International Journal of Tourism Research. Vol.15.

No.1, pp.66-80.

Ghozali, Imam. (2015). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate

dengan Program IBM SPSS 23. Semarang : Badan

Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro

Grönroos, C. (2001). “The perceived service quality

concept-a mistake?” Managing Service Quality . 11(3),

150-152.

Hair, Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L &Black, W.C

(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall International, Inc.

Hirschman, E. C. (1984). “Experience seeking: A

subjectivist perspective of consumption”. Journal of

Business Research. Vol.12, pp. 115–136.

Hurtado dan Paralera (2014)

Effects of Novelty Seeking, Destination Quality and Motivation on Tourist Loyalty

239

Hurtado, J. M. Ramírez and Paralera, M. C (2014).

“assessing motivation and satisfaction in an emerging

kind of sports tourism: paddle tennis”. Enlightening

Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal. Vol 4, No 2. pp. 168-

194.

Jang, S.S., and Feng, R. (2007). “Temporal destination

revisit intention: the effects of novelty seeking and

satisfaction”, Tourism Management. Vol. 28 No. 2, pp.

580-590.

Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarim, M., and Zaim, S. (2005). “A

paradox of service quality in Turkey: The seemingly

contradictory relative importance of tangible and

intangible determinants of service quality”. European

Business Review. Vol. 17(1), pp. 5-20.

Keaveney, S. (1995). “Customer switching behaviour in

service industries: An exploratory study”. Journal of

Marketing, 59 (2), pp. 71–82.

Kim, Sungsoo., and Kim, Heeyoung. (2015). “Moderating

effects of tourists’ novelty- seeking tendencies on the

relationship between satisfaction and behavioral

intention”. Tourism Analysis. Vol. 20, pp. 511–522

Kozak, M., Huan, T., and Beaman, J. (2002). “A systematic

approach to non-repeat and repeat travel”. Journal of

Travel and Tourism Marketing. Vol. 12(2), pp.19–38.

Kozak, M. (2002). “Comparative analysis of tourism

motivations by nationality and destinations”. Tourism

Management. Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 221-232.

Lamont, M. (2014). “Authentication in sports tourism”.

Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 45, March, pp. 1-17.

Lepp, A., and Gibson, H. (2003). “Tourist roles, perceived

risk and international tourism”. Annals of Tourism

Research. Vol. 30, pp. 606–624.

McQuiston, D. H. (1989). “Novelty, complexity, and

importance as causal determinants of industrial buyer

behavior”. Journal of Marketing. 53, 66–79.

Mellat-Parast M. (2015). “A longitudinal assessment of the

linkages among the Baldrige criteria using independent

reviewers' scores”. International Journal of Production

Economics. 164.

Niininen, O., Szivas, E., and Riley, M. (2004). “Destination

loyalty and repeat behaviour: An application of

optimum stimulation measurement”. International

Journal of Tourism Research. Vol. 6, pp. 439–447.

Oppermann, M. (1998). “Destination threshold potential

and the law of repeat visitation”. Journal of Travel

Research. Vol. 37, pp. 131–137.

Pandža Bajs I. (2015). “Tourist perceived value,

relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions,

The Example of the Croatian tourist destination

Dubrovnik”. Journal of Travel Research. Vo. 54(1).

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1988).

“SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring

consumer perceptions of service quality”. Journal of

Retailing. Vol. 64 (1), pp. 29-40.

Pérez C.R., García V.G., Sánchez R.A., and Martínez V.R.

(2017). “Quality management and customer

satisfaction in a tourist destination, a structural equation

analysis”. Polish Journal Of Management Studies.

Vol.16 No.1, pp.175-186.

Prayag, G., Hosany, S., and Odeh, K. (2013). “The role of

tourists’ emotional experiences and satisfaction in

understanding behavioural intentions”. Journal of

Destination Marketing and Management. Vol. 2 No. 2,

pp. 118-127.

Qu, H., Kim, L.H. and Im, H.H. (2011). “A model of

destination branding: integrating the concepts of the

branding and destination image”. Tourism

Management. Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 465-476.

Rajaratnam, S.D., Munikrishnan, U.T., Pahlevan Sharif, S.

and Nair, V. (2014). “Service quality and previous

experience as a moderator in determining tourists’

satisfaction with rural tourism destinations in Malaysia:

a partial least squares approach”. Procedia-Social and

Behavioural Sciences. Vol. 144 (20 August), pp. 203-

211.

Schulingkamp R.C., and Latham J. R. (2015). “Healthcare

performance excellence: A comparison of Baldrige

Award recipients and competitors”. Quality

Management Journal. Vol. 22(3).

Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods for Business

– A skill building approach. 2nd Ed. United States of

America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods

for Business – A skill building approach 4nd Ed. United

States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Rajaratnam, S. D., Nair, V., Sharif, S. P., and

Munikrishnan, U. T. (2015). “Destination quality and

tourists’ behavioural intentions: rural tourist

destinations in Malaysia”. Worldwide Hospitality and

Tourism Themes. Vol. 7. Issue. 5, pp. 463 - 472

Rittichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., and Leong, J. K. (2003). “The

collective impacts of a bundle of travel determinants on

repeat visitation”. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Research. Vol. 27(2), pp. 217–236.

Titu, M.A., and Bucur, A. (2016). “Models for quality

analysis of services in the local public administration”.

Quality and Quantity. Vol. 50(2).

Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006). “Antecedents of revisit

intention”. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 33(4), pp.

1141-58.

Weiermair, K. and Fuchs, M. (1999). “Measuring tourist

judgment on service quality”. Annals of Tourism

Research. Vol. 26. No. 4, pp. 1004-1021

Williams, J. A., and Uysal, M. (2013). Current issues and

development in hospitality and tourism satisfaction.

The Haworth Press Inc., New York, USA.

Yoon, Y., and Uysal, M. (2005). “An examination of the

effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination

loyalty: A structural model”. Tourism Management.

Vol. 26 (1), 45-56.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., and Parasuraman. (1996). “A.

The behavioural consequences of service quality”.

Journal of Marketing. pp. 31-46.

Ziaei A.E., Alirezaee H., Riyahi A., and Shirazi P.S. (2016).

“Assess causal relationships of EFQM model criteria

using fuzzy dematel (case study: Tovseeh Taavon

bank)”. International Business Management. Vol. 10(1

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

240