R. éfi
_ m. r

" My:
.r x ,
9h... .mi

3%.

.41... 5343...; r5,
. . arms.

.uur

t- . a: ‘3‘; Q
a and“... i... fiasfngn
. t3 z; k»...

i!

. .
4 ‘ ‘1 .
PI. .:
.. u.

. 33F. 3

.. #é

‘ .1. .«A .
.5 ,

@‘9

 

"“3 U.

1 3.
x .z . 1.1.} {it}...
2:)? 11.... :1...
.i: ash...‘
)5.
ll .4.

.6913: .-
o i v)

‘ 3 . _ ,7.-. . a... .. .z.
fun... 3 3: 3.. ~11: .
z I . .

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN EVALUATION OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF LANGKAWI ISLAND AS A

DOMESTIC TOURIST DESTINATION BASED ON THE IMPORTANCE AND
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF ATTRACTIONS

presented by

AZLIZAM AZIZ

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for
Ph'D degree in Manon and

Tourism Resources

flWfi

Major p/ofessor

 

 

a '2 .
Date 1407 LTO/OZOOA
' f

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

.LIBRARY *y
M'Chigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDue.p65«p.15

 

AN EVALUATION OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF LANGKAWI ISLAND AS A
DOMESTIC TOURIST DESTINATION BASED ON THE IMPORTANCE AND
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF ATTRACTIONS

By

Azlizam Aziz

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2002

ABSTRACT
AN EVALUATION OF ATTRACTIVENESS OF LANGKAWI ISLAND AS A
DOMESTIC TOURIST DESTINATION BASED ON THE IMPORTANCE AND
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF ATTRACTIONS
By

Azlizam Aziz

The purpose of this study was to assess the attractiveness of Langkawi Island,
Malaysia, as a tourist destination for domestic visitors and to segment the visitor market
by using visitors’ perceptions of the availability of different types of attractions on the
island and the importance placed on each attraction in the decision to visit the island. The
study was also used to determine the influence of domestic visitors’ previous experience
on the assessment of the island’s attractiveness and the relative importance of each
attraction in influencing their decision to visit the island.

Destination attractiveness iS an indication of the ability of destination in satisfying
tourists’ needs and expectations. A variation of multi-attribute model, as originally
introduced by Rosenberg and Fishbein, was used in measuring attractiveness. The model
suggests that a person’s attitude is a function of the strength of a held belief and a person
evaluation of that belief. Evaluations were made on eight types of attractions that are
frequently associated with Langkawi Island: historical attractions, beaches, theme parks,
shopping complexes, sport and special events, nature and outdoor recreation, agriculture-
tourism attractions, and holiday resorts.

Questionnaires were distributed among domestic visitors traveling to Langkawi

Island between August 8, 2001 and September 2, 2001. A total of 754 surveys were

completed which gathered data such as socio-demographics, trip characteristics, and
travel behavior. In addition, visitors’ ratings on belief/perception and importance scales
were also recorded. This enabled the study to evaluate the overall attractiveness of
Langkawi and to use the data for segmentation purposes. Data analysis involved the
application of t-tests, chi-square, analysis of variance, and cluster analysis.

Findings indicated that the beach was the most important attraction type in
visitors’ decisions to visit Langkawi, followed by historical attractions, shopping
complexes, and holiday resorts. These attraction types were also perceived as a strength
of Langkawi’s tourist offerings for the domestic market. Previous experience on the
island was found to influence the attractiveness values for Langkawi and importance
ratings for each type of attraction. The repeat visitors, in general, gave lower
attractiveness values to the island. Similarly, they also indicated lower importance for
most types of attractions compared to first-time visitors.

Attractiveness scores were further used to segment the findings of the domestic
visitors. Three substantial segments were identified and labeled as: ‘Historical
Vacationer’, ‘Recreational Traveler’, and ‘General Experience.’ Significant differences
were found among the segments in terms of state of residency, length of trips, purpose of
trips, intention to visit historical attractions, previous visit experiences, types of trips, and
choice of accommodations. Alternative segmentation, by using multiplicative scores as
segmentation base and removing ‘business only’ visitors from the analyses, produced
four segments that subsequently labeled as ‘Vacation Travelers’, ‘First-time Visitors’,

‘In-state’, and ‘Active Recreation’ segments.

Dedicated to Ummi, Ain, Sarah, Wafa ......

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All thanks and praises are due to Allah, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful.

I would like to express my Sincere appreciation to the chairperson of my
dissertation committee, Dr. Edward Mahoney, for his encouragement, thoughtful
guidance, and supervision. For the last seven years, Dr. Mahoney served not only as an
advisor, but also a supportive mentor who shared his expertise and time and was
instrumental in seeing this research reach completion. Special thanks to Dr. Daniel
Stynes, who provided numerous suggestions and directions for this undertaking. I also
wish to thank the other two members of the dissertation committee, Dr. Joseph Fridgen
and Dr Bonnie Reece, whose ideas and comments were invaluable contributions to this
research.

Thank you also to the Government of Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia, for
facilitating financial support throughout my masters and doctoral program in the United
States. Additionally, thanks to Dr. Donald Holecek and other staff members of
Michigan’s Travel and Tourism Resource Center for their support and friendship. Special
thanks go to dear friends, Kim Young-rae, Asiye Tasci, Chang Huh, Omar Moufakkir
and family, and Seung-Hyun Kim for their continuous support during both good and
difficult times. Keep believing in yourselvesl.

This acknowledgment would be incomplete without recognizing the love,
patience, and encouragement of my wife, Sharifah Azizah. To my daughters, Nurain,
Maisarah, and Wafa, thank you for bringing inspiration and happiness to my life. May

Allah reward us all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................
An Overview of Tourism in Malaysia ........................................ 1
Problem Statement ............................................................... 7
Conceptual Framework ......................................................... 10
Research Objectives ............................................................ 12
Definition of Terms ............................................................ 13
Measurement of Research Variables l4
Significance of Study 15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 18
Destination Attractiveness ...................................................... 18
Factors of Destination Attractiveness ........................... 19
Measurement of Attractiveness .................................. 24
Multi-attribute Model ........................................................... 28
The Modified Attitude-Toward Object Model ................ 32
Previous Experience ............................................................ 34
Market Segmentation .......................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS ............................................................ 42
Research Hypotheses ............................................................. 42
Research Design .................................................................. 43
The Sample and Sampling Procedures .......................... 44
The Questionnaire and Pretest of the Questionnaire ........... 46
Data Preparation and Analysis ................................................. 48
Data Analysis ....................................................... 48
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................. 51
Characteristics of Domestic Visitors to Langkawi Island 51
Trip Characteristics ............................................................. 56
Travel Behavior of Domestic Visitors to Langkawi Island ................ 62
Attractiveness of Langkawi Island ............................................. 64
Results of Research Hypotheses Testing ..................................... 78
Importance of Different Types of Attractions .................. 78
The Influence of Previous Experience ............................ 80
Previous Experience on Importance Score ...................... 82

vi

Previous Experience on the Attractiveness of Langkawi

Island ............................................................. 84
Identification and Assessment of Market Segments ........... 85
Forming the Segments and Analysis ............................ 87
Alternative Segmentation ...................................................... 99
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 106
Summary of Key Research Findings ........................................... 107
Research Conclusion ............................................................ 114
Recommendations for Management and Marketing ........................ 1 17
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ................... 122
APPENDIX A — SURVEY DAYS ................................................. 126
APPENDIX B — RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ............................. 127
APPENDIX C - COMPARISONS BETWEEN BUSINESS AND NON
BUSINESS VISITORS ......................................... _. .................... 134
APPENDIX D: COMPARISON BETWEEN NEW ATTRACTIVENESS
SEGMENTS .......................................................................... 136
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................... 13 8

vii

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 1:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

LIST OF TABLES

Types of attractions on Langkawi Island ....................................
Characteristics of respondents ................................................
Classification of respondents by state of permanent residency ...........
Trip characteristics .............................................................
Trip characteristics (continued) ..............................................
Travel behavior of domestic tourists visiting to Langkawi Island ........

Domestic visitors’ beliefs on the availability of eight types of
attractions on Langkawi Island ..............................................

Importance ratings domestic visitors assigned to eight types of
attractions in their decisions to visit Langkawi Island .....................

Comparison of the beliefs on the availability of various types of
attractions on Langkawi Island by persons who consider those types
of attractions as either important or unimportant when deciding to visit
the island ........................................................................

Chi-square tests of the relationship between visitors’ interest in
historical attractions and their beliefs on the availability of historical

attractions on Langkawi Island ...............................................

Examples of how the multiplicative attractiveness scores are
calculated .........................................................................

Mean multiplicative attractiveness scores (Eik. 83,) of various types
of attractions on Langkawi Island .............................................

Results of paired t-tests of the difference in the importance of
historical attractions and other types of attractions in the decisions of
domestic visitors to visit Langkawi Island ...................................

Summary of visitors’ previous experience to Langkawi Island ...........

Summary of statistical comparisons (t-test) of importance
mean scores between first time and repeat visitors to Langkawi .........

viii

53

56

58

61

63

66

68

71

73

76

77

79

81

83

Table 16: Summary of statistical comparisons (t-test) of the overall
attractiveness means scores between first time and repeat visitors ....... 84

Table 17: Segment labels based on significant differences in cluster centroids. . .. 89

Table 18: Summary of statistical comparisons (ANOVA) of Langkawi’s three
domestic visitor market segments ........................................... 91

Table 19: Summary of statistical comparisons (Chi-Square) across Langkawi’s

three domestic visitor market segments .................................... 93
Table 20: Summary of statistical comparisons (Chi-Square) for socioeconomic 97
characteristics across Langkawi’s three domestic visitor market
segments .........................................................................
Table 21: Statistical comparisons between multiplicative score segments .......... 104

Table C 1: Summary of statistical comparisons (t-test) of selected characteristics
between ‘business’ and ‘non-business’ visitors to Langkawi Island..... 134

Table C2: Summary of statistical comparison (Chi-square) between ‘business’
and ‘non-business’ visitors to Langkawi Island ............................ 135

Table D1: Statistical comparisons between alternative (attractiveness) score
segments ......................................................................... 136

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Langkawi Island .............................................
Figure 2: The dimensions of destination attractiveness ...........................
Figure 3: Mean scores for importance and belief scales ...........................
Figure 4: Distribution of the overall attractiveness scores .........................

Figure 5: Similarities between segments from two segmentation approaches

20

69

98

113

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

An Overview of Tourism in Malaysia

As in other developing countries, Malaysia has incorporated tourism into its
economic development strategy. The tourism industry has been strongly promoted in the
country as a means of creating new employment opportunities, reducing the deficit in the
balance of foreign earnings, and diversifying its economic base. The pivotal role of
tourism in the Malaysian economy is evident. With contributions of more than RM9
billion to the nation’s economy in 1998, tourism represents the third most important
industry after the manufacturing sector and palm oil industry (Malaysian Government,
2000)

While the country, in general, is still recovering from the devastating effects of
the economic downturn of 1997/98, the future of the Malaysian tourism industry remains
strong. The Malaysian Eight National Plan (2001-2005) anticipates that tourism will
continue to be one of the driving forces for national economic growth. The foreign tourist
influx is projected to be 14 million people and will generate an earning of approximately
RM29 billion for the year 2005. In the course of surviving the economic slowdown, the
Malaysian government discovered that, although the recession offset foreign tourist
grth projections, it became responsible for fostering the emergence of the once-
overlooked domestic tourism market. A report released by the Malaysian Government
(2000) indicated that in 1999 there was an increase of almost 90 percent in the amount of

domestic travel over the previous year.

A brief historical perspective may offer several explanations for why the
economic Slowdown actually helped to rejuvenate the domestic tourism market. In
Malaysia, the tourist business has been flourishing since the early 19605, but serious
efforts to promote the industry only became evident after the establishment of the
Malaysian Tourist Development Corporation in 1972. The early strategies for tourism
development focused on increasing inbound tourism market, which was primarily due to
the spending power of foreigners as compared to that of Malaysian nationals. Therefore,
early attractions and facilities, such as holiday resorts at beach and highland areas,
luxurious hotels, and casinos were developed in order to cater to the international tourists,
which, at the same time, marginalized the domestic market.

When the country and other south-pacific regions, were hit by recession in 1997-
98, it brought changes to the tourism industry that favored the domestic market. The
tourist trade from such traditional, international markets as Japan, Singapore, Thailand,
and Taiwan slumped and the Malaysian ability for outbound travel was significantly
reduced. Accordingly, as stated by the Ministry of Art, Culture and Tourism or MOCAT
(2000), the government was forced to re-evaluate its tourism policy and initiate
campaigns to boost domestic tourism through various programs and activities aimed at
creating awareness of local attractions.

One of the fastest growing destinations for domestic tourism in Malaysia is
Langkawi, an island located about 51 kilometers off the west coast of the northern state
of Kedah (Figure 1). The island has been aggressively developed and promoted since the
late 19805 as a new domestic tourist destination and as a means of offsetting the

outbound travels made by Malaysians to neighboring Thailand.

quml
Location of Langkawi Island

 

 

THAILAND

 

PENANGI ;

mbonq Teboi ‘ /

—z—>

 

. State Capitol
0 District Major Town

 

0 Sea Port
,lntemational Border
- - -‘- State Border
E Highway
-===== State Road
—— Railroad
'- - - Ferry Line

* lntematlonalAlrport
* State Airport

0 10 20 39km.

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the leisure and tourism opportunities offered by Langkawi Island center on its
shopping complexes, seaside attractions, and entertainment. More importantly, however,
historical attractions have become a substantial element of the holiday experience on the
island (Din, 1990; State Planning Unit, 1994).

The major historical attractions on Langkawi include Mahsuri Mausoleum, Telaga
Air Hangat (Natural Hotsprings), Makam Purba (Ancient Tombs), Beras Terbakar (Burn
Rice Field), Gua Cherita (Cave of Legends) and Galeri Perdana (Perdana Gallery).
Perhaps, underscoring the growing interest in such type of attraction, the Langkawi
Development Authority (LADA) commissioned an inventory of historical attractions on
the island in 2000. The project was partly funded by the American Express Foundation
and produced a list of tourism sites, which were consequently promoted together as
‘Heritage Trails’. The project also produced maps and brochures, which were distributed
to visitors to help them plan their visit and enjoy more satisfying tourism experiences at
the historical Sites.

In addition, the island’s natural and outdoor recreation opportunities, which
include forest reserves, forest recreation areas, mountain ranges, marine sanctuaries, and
wildlife and natural landscapes, are becoming popular attractions. Two of the most
popular are Gunung Raya and Gunung Machincang, mountains famous for hiking,
mountain climbing, and a waterfall called Telaga Tujuh, or Seven-Steps Waterfall. Sports
and special events are also organized periodically and visitors can choose to experience a
wide variety of major local and international events. In 2001, the island hosted such
events as the Tour de Langkawi (conceptually similar to Tour de France), the Langkawi

International Maritime and Aerospace exhibition, the Independence Month Celebration,

the International Culinary Fair and the International Kite Championship. Sports facilities

such as golf courses, archery centers and Shooting ranges are also available to the public

at different locations on the island. Other types of attractions and locations are provided

 

 

in Table 1.
Table 1
Types of attractions on Langkawi Island
Types of Attractions Key Attraction Attributes
1. Agriculture 0 Laman Padi -Demonstration paddy fields
Tourism Attractions 0 M ARDI AgroParks and fruit orchards
2. Shopping 0 Langkawi Duty Free - A vast Shopping center,
complexes offering tax-free products.
0 Oriental Village - Integrating Shopping, culture
and culinary attraction
o Langkawi Crystaal - Offering glass product and
demonstration facility
3. Beaches o Tanjung Rhu - Picnic area and shelters are
. Pantai Kok provided in all area
0 Pantai Pasir Hitam
o Burau Bay
0 Pantai Tengkorak
4. Theme Parks 0 Underwater World - Marine-based theme park
0 Snake Sanctuary - Showcasing tropical snakes in
their natural habitat. Also
provide facilities for research.
5. Holiday Resorts 0 Datai Bay Resort - Most resorts incorporate the
o Sheraton Langkawi Island tropical jungle and local
. Andaman Sea traditional architecture in their
. Beijaya Resort design and development.
0 Pelangi Resort

 

Considering the wide variety of tourist attractions which Langkawi offers,
planners, marketers, and service providers on the island must be able to create strategic
tourism marketing plans for encouraging more visits and to better serve the needs of the
market. However, the current tourism development practices on Langkawi Island have
often showed a disregard for market research. Previous plans on the island were
constructed without the benefit of comprehensive market research to provide necessary
and crucial information. Research needs include assessing the demand for certain types of
attractions or tourism experiences rather than trying to force-feed the market with types
of services and experiences that the tourists do not want.

In addition, a review of literature dealing with Langkawi’s tourism indicates a
lack of important information about its domestic visitors. Information about trip
characteristics, preferences, and perceptions could not be located. Market segmentation,
which are commonly regarded as the cornerstone of tourism destination marketing plans,
are non-existent.

A nation-wide survey, carried out by Tourism Malaysia in 1998 to compile
information on domestic tourism, included such elements as travel patterns, trip
characteristics, and demographic profiles (Tourism Malaysia, 1999). The study, however,
was too generic and not designed to elicit information that was pertinent to any specific
destination, especially Langkawi Island. The study did not draw together any information
that could be translated into marketing strategies for local destinations; nevertheless, it
illustrated the importance and potential of domestic tourism in the country, by reporting
the number of trips made and estimating spending by tourists visiting various destinations

within the country.

Considering Langkawi’s current status as Malaysia’s premier destination, the gaps
in market information may lead to a misdirecting of investments in tourism development
and further underestimate the potential and sustainability of the industry on the island.
Inevitably, in-depth market research needs to be carried out to acquire a wider
perspective on the domestic market and variables that may induce development of the

market on Langkawi.

Problem Statement

In light of limited important marketing information on domestic tourism on
Langkawi Island, this study will attempt to gather information such as visitor profiles,
motivation for visiting, trip characteristics and travel behavior to aid in marketing the
island’s tourism. Particularly, this study is interested in determining how domestic
tourists evaluate the attractiveness of Langkawi Island as a vacation destination, their
perception of different types of attractions on the island, and the importance they assign
to such attractions in their decision for visiting the island. A knowledge of Langkawi’s
strongest attributes and attractions will assist destination marketers to uncover what
makes the island attractive to tourists . Destination marketers may want to ask such
questions as ‘how do tourists perceive each of these attractions?’; ‘do tourists perceive
one attraction to be more appealing than others in their decision to visit the island?’; ‘if
so, which attraction is it?’; and also, ‘which attraction is perceived as the least
appealing?’

Answering these questions, as well as discovering what makes Langkawi Island

attractive to tourists, is crucial for several reasons. It will help to:

1) Identify the most preferred experiences and attractions on the island;

2) Ensure the highest tourist satisfaction from attractions and services provided

on the island; and

3) Increase repeat-visits and ensure the sustainability of the industry on the

island.
As stated in many previous studies, (Davis and Sternquist, 1987; Brayley, 1990; Hu and
Ritchie, 1993) there is evidence of a relationship between the perceived attractiveness of
a destination and a touriSt’s decision to visit that destination.

From a marketing point of View, it is crucial to identify those attractions and
attributes of a destination which play a significant role in determining destination choice
(Sirakaya, McLellan, and Uysal, 1996; Shifflet, 1999). These kinds of studies have
concluded that tourists often base their decision for choosing between vacation
destinations on the benefits obtained from a destination’s attributes. At this stage, which
is termed ‘pre-purchase stage’ (Norman, 1995), a tourist has yet to single out a
destination to visit. The problem with these ‘pre-purchase stage’ studies, as critics will
quickly point out, is that tourists are not only considering which destination to visit but
may even be contemplating whether to take a vacation at all. Observing the more
meaningful consumption behavior -- to choose and actually travel to a certain destination-
- may carry more weight in explaining a tourist’s attitude, including their evaluation
about the attractiveness of the destination (Kucukkurt, 1981; Norman, 1995).

Therefore, the current research will focus on tourists who have already decided on
a destination to visit (i.e., Langkawi) and are well on their way there. Since the decision

to visit a particular destination has already been made, a study of the destination and its

attributes is beyond the scope of this study. As such, assessment will be made solely on
the ability of different attributes of a chosen destination to appeal to tourists. Moreover,
most of the previous studies on destination choice and attractiveness were conducted in
developed nation settings. Rather than relying on such research, there is a need to start
similar studies in developing countries, especially Malaysia.

As mentioned earlier with regard to the growing importance of historical
attractions to Langkawi’s tourism industry, special attention will be given to examining
this type of attraction in further detail. It would be particularly interesting to discover if
historical attractions on the island are evaluated differently from other attractions by
tourists. Information gathered from such evaluations will allow the island’s tourism
marketers to assess the importance of such types of attractions to the industry. Findings
may affect future strategic actions, including investments for developing and/or
improving infrastructure at such attraction sites, therefore offering better attractions for
the market.

Reflecting on the lack of market segmentation analysis on Langkawi and realizing
the importance of such efforts for boosting tourism marketing plans, this study will also
attempt to determine if segmentation on the island is possible. To this end, tourist
attitudes toward the destination or the perceived attractiveness of the island will be the
basis for identifying market segments on the island. The results may also help to establish

a theoretical and methodological framework for subsequent tourism research in Malaysia.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is based on F ishbein’s multi-attribute
model. F ishbein (1967) and F ishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggest that a person’s attitude is
a function of the strength of a held belief and also a person’s evaluation of that belief.
The general theoretical underpinning of Fishbein’s model is that behavior is a function of
what one believes and how much importance one places on that belief (Fishbein, 1967) .
In other words, behavior is an assertion by an individual that a given object (which would
be applicable to a destination in a tourism study) possesses or does not possess certain
qualities. Although there are many models derived from this attitude theory, Fishbein
makes a distinction by focusing entirely upon an individual’s attitude toward an object
(with multiple attributes) and not on an attitude toward a behavior.

Due to the complexity of attitudes, measurement of a concept based only on a
Single overall attribute, the dimensions which compose attitude, could not be realized
(Mahoney, 1982). Multi-attribute models, however, allow for an analysis of the various
salient attributes people use in forming attitudes. Mahoney further noted that the purpose
of many multi-attribute models, such as Fishbein’s model, is to understand the intangible
aspects of consumer behavior in relation to their consumption. In the field of tourism, the
model can provide explanations for tourist behavior in relation to their travel experiences.

Fishbein’s model, which is also known as ‘attitude-toward-object’ or ATO model,
is an additive, multiplicative process (Matejka, 1976; Kucukkurt,1981; Brayley, 1990).
This model indicates a theoretical belief that a person’s attitude toward any object is a
function of the total contribution by each belief. The idea is that an attitude toward an

object will increase indefinitely with the addition of positive beliefs. By using such

10

summative models, along with the addition of favorable beliefs about an object, will tend
to increase positive attitudes towards the object. Therefore, from a tourism perspective, a
tourist’s attitude toward a destination is, in a sense, a measure of that destination’s
attractiveness. More precisely, as Brayley (1990) commented, ‘the attractiveness of a
destination is a measure of how well a destination is perceived to accommodate tourist
needs’ (p.4-5).

Information about tourist attitudes helps destination marketers to improve their
understanding of the tourism market. Comprehensive information should help in
identifying which area or product needs to be changed for the better. For example, by
employing attitude data, destination marketers will be able to identify which attributes or
characteristics are perceived as the most and the least attractive to tourists. Attributes
with the least attraction may need physical improvement or greater emphasis in their
promotional programs. Accordingly, marketers may want to make the most appealing
attributes the focal point of their promotional materials.

A review of tourism literature also suggests that previous experience influences a
tourist’s decision-making schema (Norman, 1995). Norman has described previous
experience as ‘the manifestation of an individual’s expertise in the activity or with the
attraction, and knowledge about alternatives’ (p.58). Previous studies such as Prince
(1990), Hu and Ritchie (1993), Chen (1996), Court and Lupton (1997) and Shifflet
(1999) have shown that previous experience was an important influential factor in tourist
attitudes toward destination (i.e., perceived destination attractiveness) and travel
behavior. Therefore, the present study postulates that a visitor’s amount of previous

experience with a destination may influence their attitude and travel behavior, including

11

attribute preference, the perceived destination attractiveness, and ultimately their decision

to visit (or re-visit) the destination.

Research Objectives

The two primary purposes of this study are: (l) to assess the attractiveness of

Langkawi Island as a destination for domestic visitors and, (2) to evaluate domestic

visitors’ perceptions and the importance they assign to various types of attractions as a

means of segmenting the island’s domestic tourist market.

Specifically, the study is designed to:

1.

Assess domestic visitors’ perceptions of different types of attractions on the
island;

Assess the relative importance of different types of attractions in domestic
visitors’ decision to visit the island;

Ascertain the relative importance of Langkawi’s historical attractions
compared to other types of attractions in determining visits to the island;
Determine if previous experience visiting the island influences the importance
assigned to various types of attractions;

Compare how repeat and first-time visitors assess the attractiveness of
Langkawi Island and its various types of attractions, particularly historical
attractions; and

Segment domestic visitors to Langkawi Island based on the importance they
assign to various types of attractions and their perceptions of the availability
of such attractions on the island, and determine if the segmentation produces

substantial, exploitable, and reachable market segments.

12

Definition of Terms

The following are definitions of terms that are used throughout this thesis as it is
important that readers have a common understanding of the terms used. Some of them
are adopted from those provided by other authors.
Attraction
A location where travel experience actually takes place (Stanley, 1995). It may also mean
features or characteristics that are perceived to be significant in tourist-making decisions
for visiting a destination. Eight attraction types on Langkawi Island (historical attractions,
beaches, theme parks, Shopping complexes, sport and special events, nature and outdoor
recreation, agriculture-tourism attractions, and holiday resorts) are the focus of this study.
Destination
A region or locality which contains one or more attractions and attracts tourists to stay
temporarily (Lue, 1992). This study considered only Langkawi Island as a destination.
Attractiveness
A measure of the ability of a tourism destination to satisfy relevant tourist needs and
desires (Brayley, 1990).
Attitude
A learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner
with respect to a given object (F ishbein and Ajzen, 1975). In this study, ‘attractiveness’ is

the measurement of visitors’ attitudes toward Langkawi Island.

13

Domestic Tourist
Malaysian residents (excluding Langkawians) who take a trip from their permanent

residence to Langkawi Island.

Measurement of Research Variables
Importance
This variable indicates the importance of each type of attraction in respondents’ decisions
to visit Langkawi. Respondents were asked (item #9 in the questionnaire):

‘How important were the following tourism attractions in your decision to travel to
Langkawi on this trip? Respondents were asked to indicate an importance rating for each
type of attraction based on a Likert-type scale anchored by 0 (not important) to 4
(extremely important).

Belief

The variable belief indicates the respondents’ perceptions of ‘adequacy’ or ‘availability’
of each type of attraction on the island. This was measured by the following question
(#10): ‘In your perception, what types of attractions are available on Langkawi Island?’.
Respondents were asked to rate their belief on each type of attraction based on a Likert-
type scale ranging from 0 (None available) to 4 (Many/much Available).

Attractiveness

This variable indicates the overall appeal of Langkawi as a tourism destination. This
variable was measured based on the summation of the multiplicative scores (belief x

importance) of each attraction type.

14

Previous experience

In this study, a respondent’s previous experience was revealed by asking the question, ‘is
the current trip a respondent’s first trip to Langkawi Island?’. This variable was
measured by categorical responses of ‘yes’ (labeled as First Time Visitor) and ‘no’

(labeled as Repeat visitor).

Significance of Study

The significance of this study was considered from two perspectives: (1) its
contribution to the body of knowledge about travel and tourism, and (2) practical
contributions for tourism marketing and planning, especially in the context of Malaysian
tourism.

Firstly, an important theoretical contribution of this study is to enhance
understanding of the role played by attitude toward destination in a tourist’s travel choice
process. In this study, attitude toward destination is represented by visitors’ perceptions
of a destination’s attributes and the importance they assign to each attribute in
influencing their visitation. The adoption of F ishbein’s multi-attribute model in assessing
tourist attitude may offer additional perspectives of the model’s applications in the study
of travel and tourism. The most significant difference in distinguishing this study from
previous attempts to adopt the model in a tourist context, is the inclusion of types of
attractions as destination attributes (as opposed to conventional environmental and
physical destination’s attributes) to be measured and tested. In essence, the adapted

model enables the determination of a tourist’s attitude toward a destination, while at the

15

same time allowing examination of different destination attributes (types of attractions)
and their roles in promoting visits to destinations.

Secondly, the pertinence of this study is its use of actual travel data
(contextual/situational selection data) as opposed to the use of contrived data. More
precisely, this study uses data obtained from actual tourists who are departing to
Langkawi Island. It is acknowledged that tourists may make choices at various stages;
‘pre-purchase’, en route or during actual travel, and on-site purchase stages. As
mentioned earlier, the majority of choice studies were focused on the ‘pre-purchase’
stage with very little on the sequential stages. Therefore, the results of this study may
contribute to expanding the knowledge about tourists at an actual travel stage and provide
a basis for further research in this area.

Finally, this study will provide practical suggestions to policy makers, tourism
planners, and service providers on Langkawi (and Malaysia in general) for developing
and promoting domestic tourism. As mentioned earlier, there has been little empirical
research conducted to date on the domestic tourism market on the island. In this regard,
the study will help in filling the void by enriching tourism literature about the market.
The increasing popularity of tourism on Langkawi puts pressures on tourism planners and
service providers to have a greater understanding of visitors to the island. Attraction
management on the island should be supported by detailed market profiles: data on
visitor preferences, perceptions, expectations, and other psychological characteristics.

Additionally, the present study may also contribute towards estimating the level
of use of different types of attractions, which has implications for infrastructure planning

and investment decisions. Ideally, it is hoped that information gathered in this study will

16

help to develop a product mix that will be better adapted to the needs of domestic
visitors, while taking advantage of the unique characteristics and resources available on

the island.

17

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

As has been stated previously, the purpose of this research study is to assess the
attractiveness of Langkawi Island as a tourist destination, and to evaluate both first-time
and returning visitors’ perceptions of the island’s tourist appeal. In order to support this
assessment, Chapter 2 will provide a review of the literature which addresses the:

1) Concepts and factors of destination attractiveness;

2) Multi-attribute attitude models, which serve as the research framework of the

present study;

3) Previous experiences of tourists, which provide an important variable for

explaining and predicting tourist travel decision; and

4) Market segmentation of tourists’ attitudes toward a destination

Destination Attractiveness

In various research articles published in the tourism field, attempts have been
made to define and measure destination attractiveness (Matejka, 1976; Ritchie and Zins,
1978; Kucukkurt, 1981; Mayo and Jarvis (1981); Brayley (1990), and Hu and Ritchie
(1993). One definition, as provided by Kucukkurt (1981), for example, described
attractiveness of a destination as an interaction between the valence of destination
attributes and people’s expectation about a destination. Mayo and Jarvis (1981)
conceptualized attractiveness as “a combination of the relative importance of individual
benefits and the perceived ability of the destination to deliver (those) benefits” (p.24).

Similarly, Hu and Ritchie (1993) described destination attractiveness as a reflection of

18

“the feelings, beliefs, and opinions that an individual has about the destination’s ability to
provide satisfaction in relation to his or her special vacation needs” (p.25). Thus, it
appears that the existing definitions of attractiveness center around people’s expectations
and perceptions of a destination. Such ideas have an enormous marketing implication
since they provide one of the most important reasons why tourists make a destination
choice. Researchers, such as Urn and Crompton (1990), suggested that tourists decide to
visit certain places - because of certain factors or attributes that make those places
appealing.
Factors of Destination Attractiveness
From a marketing point of view, it is imperative to identify factors that play
significant roles in determining the attractiveness of a destination. As suggested by much
of the reviewed literature, there are several factors that contribute to enhancing the
appeal of a destination. These are summarized in Figure 2. The model shows destination
attractiveness as comprising five important factors:
1) Social and Cultural Factors, which include local hospitality, a pleasant
attitude toward visitors, price levels for services, ease of communication
(such as English speaking population), and unique customs, arts, and
crafts;
(2) Physical Attributes, which include man-made attractions such as theme
parks, shopping areas, and architectural and recreational facilities;
(3) Natural Attributes, such as the area’s natural beauty, unique landscape,

and outdoor attractions;

19

(4) Ancillary Attributes, including the area’s infrastructure, accommodation
and dining facilities, and transportation;
(5) Geographical Factors, such as location and accessibility, weather/climate,

and unique geographical features.

Figure 2
The dimensions of destination attractiveness

 
 
   
  
 

 

GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIO-CULTURAL

  
  
  
   
  
 

  
  
  
 
  
  

   
   

FACTORS FACTORS
Location Local hospitality
Accessibility Pleasant attitude

Weather/climate Price level
Unique features Communication

 

. rts and crafts

  
 
  
    
  
  
 

DESTINATION
ATTRACTIVENESS

 
  
  
 

 
    
   
  

 

PHYSICAL ANCILLARY

  
   
  
  

ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES
Theme parks Infrastructure

Shopping areas Accommodation and Dining
Architectural Transportation

Recreational facilities

 
 
  
 

  

NATURAL
ATTRIBUTES
Natural beauty
Unique landscape
Outdoor attractions

    
     

20

Of all of the dimensions of attractiveness outlined above, the physical and natural
attributes can be considered the core dimensions and are consequently the focus of the
present study. The relevance of these dimensions, culled from previous tourism research
is provided in the following paragraphs.

Studies, such as Hu and Ritchie (1993) include physical, natural, and man-made
dimensions of attractiveness in their research. Attractiveness is conceptualized as
consisting of destination attributes which include scenery, climate, local people, barrier to
language, museum, and cultural attractions. An earlier study by Goodrich (1978), mixed
physical attributes (both man-made and natural) with social attributes such as destination
attractions. The physical attractions included: facilities for water sports (such as beaches,
swimming, water skiing etc.); facilities for other sports like golf, tennis, etc; historical
and cultural attractions (e.g., museums, monuments, historical buildings etc.); natural and
scenic beauty; shopping facilities; and entertainment places. Social attractions, such as
‘pleasant attitudes of the people,’ were also considered by Goodrich.

Goodrich’s study has been duplicated and tested for Michigan’s tourism market
by Davis and Stemquist ( 1987). The latter study was designed to determine tourists’
perception of Traverse City, to find out which features attract tourists and to identify
market segments for the destination. Ten attributes, including water-based attractions,
sport and entertainment attractions, historical and cultural sites, and shopping and
nightlife attractions, were tested as possible determinants of the area’s appeal. The study
found 5 attributes; water-based attractions, scenic beauty, rest and relaxation,
accommodations, and people’s attitude consistently emerged as those most highly valued

by the respondents.

21

In another study of tourist attitude by Ritchie and Zins (I978), attempts to identify
the attributes influencing the attractiveness of a tourism region drew the following
conclusion:

Natural climate and beauty was clearly judged the single most important

determinant of the attractiveness of a given region. Cultural and social

characteristics were judged second in importance, followed by attitudes towards
tourists, accessibility of the region, infrastructure of the region, price levels, sport-

recreation facilities and shopping facilities (p. 260).

Similar attractiveness determinants were also evident in a study conducted by
Thorsteinsson (1992) in Iceland. It was found that most foreign tourists go to Iceland
mainly because of the scenery and specific geological features, such as mountains,
waterfalls, glaciers, and hot springs which were recorded as the most important
determinants of Iceland’s attractiveness. Weather attributes, however, were found to be
moderate, or at least important determinants. This, in the researcher’s own words, was
expected since ‘tourists going to Iceland are not looking for warm temperatures [and] a
lot of sunshine..’ (p. 52).

In a more recent study, Shifflet (1999), in an unpublished report on Pennsylvania
heritage tourism study, found that the state’s historical attractions were perceived as
highly attractive compared to other neighboring states’ attractions, including Washington
DC, Virginia, and New York. Respondents also indicated that among those historical
attractions in the state, Gettysburg, Philadelphia, and the Liberty Bell came through as the
most important elements of Pennsylvania’s heritage image. This was followed by other

physical attributes such as the Amish communities, Pennsylvania Dutch country, Civil

22

war attractions, and places related to the Founding of America (e. g. Valley Forge,
Independence Hall).

Similar physical environments were also used and tested as attributes by
Ballantine (1991). In her study on Canadian ecotourists’ motivations for traveling to
Kenya, destination attributes were measured as ‘type of attraction sought while traveling
to Kenya.’ Respondents were asked to indicate the value of each of the 37 attraction types
when choosing the country as a vacation destination. These attraction types include
‘wilderness and undisturbed area’, ‘rural areas’, ‘beaches’, ‘resort areas’, ‘mountains’,
‘shopping’, ‘historic sites’, ‘outdoor recreation’, ‘local festivals and events’, ‘national
parks’, and ‘first class hotel’. These attributes were then used as the basis for determining
if the respondents could be classified as ‘ecotourists’ or not.

Vague or indeterminate characteristics, such as warm weather, amount of
sunshine, or generally good weather and friendly attitudes toward tourists are not
included in the present study. An area’s weather or climate characteristics hardly qualify
as specific features or proper tourist attractions (F errario, 1976). Although often listed as
such in some previous tourism studies, the real pulling power to a destination remains the
presence in that area of “something interesting or unusual to see or to do” (F errario, 1976;
p.9) or in other words, a set of natural and/or man-made attractions available in the area.
Not all areas with suitable climate are necessarily tourist destinations. Even poor climate
or uncertain weather conditions are not necessarily a deterrent for tourism. Therefore,
pleasant climate, sunny weather, friendly locals and low cost can be regarded only as

essential supporting features for tourists’ enjoyment of a destination.

23

In the end, the concept of ‘attraction types’ as used by Brayley (1990) and
Ballantine (1991) to refer to destination attributes, was judged to be most applicable to
the present study. This approach enabled the researcher to study the role of each
individual attraction type in determining the destination’s overall interest. Consequently,
this study will include those attraction types frequently associated with Langkawi Island
as the destination attributes to be examined: historical attractions, beaches, theme parks,
shopping complexes, sports and special events, nature and outdoor recreation,
agriculture-tourism attractions, and holiday resorts. This will facilitate the determination

of the strengths and weaknesses of the tourism ‘product’ on Langkawi Island.

Measurement of A ttractiveness

This section provides a review of several past studies of tourism in order to
illustrate the different methods of assessing destination attractiveness. Tourism literature,
in general, indicates two typologies of destination attractiveness studies. The first is
represented by the investigation of the actual visitation patterns; the second measures the
perceived attraction generated by a single resource or by a region or destination (Formica,
2002). The first approach is based on the belief that visitation or consumption
characteristics are relative to the attractiveness of the area (Oppermann, 1994). This
demand-as-indicator approach assumes that one’s destination is more attractive than
others because it receives more visitors. Similarly, such studies may also use tourism
expenditure or length of tourist stay as attractiveness indicators of a destination.
Arguably, if a destination is very attractive, it will encourage tourists to stay longer and

spend more money in the area.

24

Perdue (1996), for example, uses visitation data as part of the indicator for the
attractiveness of the downhill skiing destinations of Colorado. Data were obtained from
16 of 27 ski areas in the state. For each ski area, estimates of total visitation from the
study areas were calculated by multiplying the percentage distribution of visitors by lift
ticket sales. The ski area estimates were then averaged to form the statewide estimates
used to indicate the attractiveness of the industry.

Among the mentioned sources of measuring attractiveness, tourist perceptions
appear more accurate than actual visitation or tourism receipts (Formica, 2002). In fact,
tourists are the ultimate judges in determining the level of attractiveness of a region. This
is because, as suggested by Echtner and Ritchie (1993), perceptions are reality in the
traveler's mind; therefore it does not matter how many tourism resources are available in
a given area when its overall attractiveness has already been defined. In perception
studies, destination attribute is often used as the primary measurement for destination
attractiveness. Attractiveness is viewed as a function of objective and subjective
assessments of the features of a given destination. Destination features or attributes,
including unique physical features, significant historical and cultural elements, and
friendliness of its people, are assessed to develop attractiveness indexes.

One study by Gearing, Swart and Var (1974), for example, assesses the
attractiveness of multiple destinations in Turkey, by considering a set of determinant
attributes. The study was originally designed to facilitate the distribution of financial
allocations in tourism investment in the country. The results also served as an indicator

for tourism attractiveness of several regions in Turkey.

25

According to the study by Gearing et a1. (1974), the attractiveness of the country

can be represented in a model as:

Tj = f(Nj,Sj,Hj,Rj,Ij)
Where
Tj = The attractiveness of destination
Nj Natural factors in region 1-
S)- : Social and cultural factors in region j
HJ- Historical factors in region j
Rj Recreational and shopping factors in region ,-
Ij = Accessibility and accommodation factors in region j

Following this early work of Gearing et al., many later attractiveness studies have
helped to illuminate some important issues including the question of what and how many
attributes should be included in calculating destination attractiveness. While Gearing et
al., identified 17 attributes in Turkey, others like Goodrich (1978) developed 10 attributes
during his study of nine tourism destinations including Florida, Hawaii, Mexico and
California. Ritchie and Zins (1978), extended the method of Gearing et al. for measuring
the relative importance of eight general and 12 social and cultural attraction categories,
by using Quebec as a case study. In comparing factors affecting destination choices
between Turkey and Greece, Kucukkurt (1981) used 29 destination attributes which were
later factor-analyzed and reduced to 10 main dimensions (such as the novelty of
attraction, and touristic conveniences). Hu and Ritchie (1993), however, agreed that the
attribute listings must demonstrate their importance and relevance to the destination

under study.

26

Additional reviews of literature have also indicated a supply-side approach to
tourism attractiveness studies. These types of studies normally investigate and measure
tourism resources and their spatial distribution. The supply perspective determines the
overall attractiveness of the destination by performing an inventory of existing tourism
resources. In one study, Richard (2001) analyzed what constitutes destination
attractiveness by examining the different attributes of a Chinese-themed park in Holland
called ‘the Sweet Lake China’. The park was established to present famous Chinese
landmarks in the form of miniature buildings. Visitors were shown exammes of Chinese
living culture such as the tea ceremony, different kinds of food, and clothing as intriguing
aspects of the park. Entertainment elements, such as music, dance, acrobatics, and martial
arts were also considered attractive factors of the park.

Chen and Hsu (2000) developed critical attributes tied to destination image to
measure the total attractiveness of a destination. Their study was intended to uncover
destination attributes influencing Korean tourists’ perceived destination image and
explored the relationship between tourists’ perception of attractiveness and their decision
to travel abroad. The study used 18 generic destination-related attributes to measure the
perceived attractiveness and found attributes such as adventure, scenery, environmental
friendliness, availability of tourist information, and unique architecture as the defining
factors for attractiveness.

As indicated earlier, tourist perception was arguably the more accurate source of
attractiveness measurement. One major contribution of those perception-attractiveness
studies was the introduction of multi-attribute models in providing the necessary research

framework to measure destination attractiveness. This multi-attribute approach to has

27

received considerable attention in the tourism literature because it enables examination of
attitudes or beliefs toward selected product (or tourism destination) attributes, including
the value tourists attach to each attribute in their travel decision.

In his study of multiple destinations in Texas, Brayley (1990) quantifies the
concept of attractiveness through the application of the multi-attribute model. In
Brayley’s model, the degree of importance of each destination attribute to individual
tourist trip decision is labeled as ‘centrality’. This centrality indicates the value to the
tourist in his/her ‘successful’ consumption of the destination attributes. The strength of
tourist belief on quantity and quality of destination attributes in the state of Texas was
labeled as ‘evaluation’. Destination or tourist attributes in the study were represented by
13 attraction types which included ‘High Country’, ‘Lakes’, ‘Historic Sites’, ‘Ethnic
Settlements’, and ‘Ranchlands’. Often, the multi-attribute models were able to let
researchers study multiple attractions or destinations in details. Therefore, given the
appropriateness of this type of behavioral model to the present study, the model will be

elaborated on in the next section.

The Multi-Attribute Model
This section focuses on the multi-attribute model which serves as the research
framework of the present study. This model was made well known by Fishbein (1967),
who was generally credited with its development, although many of the models now
employed bear only superficial resemblance to the one he originally advanced (Davis,
1986). The multi-attribute attitude model is based on the premise that a consumer’s

desire for specific attributes and his or her beliefs about the ability of an object to deliver

28

these attributes will govern his or her preference for that object. For tourism research
interest, the model proposed by Fishbein (1967), which was also known as the ‘attitude-
toward-object,’ is especially suitable for measuring attitudes toward tourism destination.
According to the ‘attitude-toward-object’ or ATO model, tourists’ attitudes toward a
destination is a function of:

o the presence or absence of Specific destination’s attributes (beliefs), and

0 evaluation of certain destination—Specific preference (importance)

The F ishbein model was also generally classified as a linear-compensatory model.
This classification reflects the ability of the model to recognize the trade-off between the
attitude scores. In the multi-attribute model, the perceived strength of one attribute can
compensate for weakness in another attribute. These scores are averaged producing a
single, uni-dimensional score representing the overall attitude. In other words, attribute
identities are lost during the summative process (Scott, Schewe and Frederick, 1978).

The strength of Fishbein’s ATO model includes widespread empirical testing,
quantitative measurement, and easy adaptation to various Situations. In fact, components
of a multi-attribute model can appropriately be adapted for many product-purchase
situations including vacationing.

In its tourism application, the model is usually cited in the following

mathematical equation:

I].
Attitudeo = 2 be;
i=1

Where Attitude0 is an overall assessment of affect for (or against) the destination,
bi is the strength of the belief that the destination contains the ithe attribute. e, is

29

the evaluation associated with the degree to which the ith attribute is desired by
the tourist. The 2 indicates that there is n (total number) of salient attributes over
which the bi and e; are summated. The elements of these factors (multiplied) are

added together to form a uni-variate attitude score (Scott, Schewe and Frederick,

1978)

In its tourism application, the ATO multi-attribute model and the attitude score
were used to determine destination attractiveness (Matejka, 1976; Goodrich, 1978;
Brayley, 1990; Carmichael, 1991; Hu and Ritchie, 1993, Turner and Reisinger, 2000).
Matejka (1976) for example, examined tourist’s attitudes toward 28 randomly chosen
destination attributes for the state of Arkansas. Tourist attitudes, or the perceived
attractiveness of the state were measured along a multiplicative model of ‘adequacy-
importance’. Tourists were asked to rate the amount of each vacation attribute that they
perceived the state of Arkansas to possess (referred to as adequacy in the model). They
were also asked to indicate the importance of each attribute in their decision to choose an
ideal destination. The attitude scores (importance times adequacy) were added together
from all attributes to give a composite score representing the total attractiveness of the
state as a destination.

One study by Scott et al. (1978) tried to link preferences for Massachusetts with
perceived attractiveness of the state, as compared to other New England states, by using a
multi-attribute model framework. By employing a mailed survey, they instructed
respondents to rate each of the four New England states. Each state was evaluated in
terms of the same set of 18 state attributes. The state attributes included such universal
characteristics as ‘cleanliness of state,’ ‘familiarity with state,’ ‘the scenic quality,’ ‘the
image of historic places,’ and ‘quality of state park.’ Respondents were grouped into two

categories: those who would choose Massachusetts as a destination and those who would

30

rather choose other states as their destination. By using the multi-attribute model they
managed to conclude that those who chose Massachusetts perceived the state as highly
attractive in terms of friendly people, more relaxing, more cultural, and less
commercialized compared to the other states.

Similar approaches were also employed by Carmichael (1991) in her investigation
of the decision-making process of skiers in the anticipation (planning) stage for Victoria,
British Columbia during the 1990 ski season. Their spatial patterns and movements were
predicted in relation to their images of the potential resorts located in the study region. A
method was developed to use a multi-attribute model as a measure of tourist image.
Therefore, salient attributes were identified and used to measure the ski resorts’
attractiveness. Six key attributes — snow conditions, variety of runs, lift lines, value for
money, staff friendliness, and access to home were tested against skiers’ beliefs and
attitudes. Most of the 359 respondents believed that all six attributes were important to
their ski enjoyment during the next trip. Variety of runs and snow conditions were found
to be the most valued attributes. In order to complete the attractiveness measurement,
respondents were also asked how much they believed resorts under study possessed those
six attributes.

AS these studies indicated, the overall appeal of a destination to an individual is
determined by the valence of different destination attributes to the individual. The studies
were also able to Show that tourists prefer to visit those destinations which have attributes
or characteristics which they consider to be important to their satisfaction. In most cases,

tourists considered more than one attribute when choosing a destination to be visited,

31

hence the importance of addressing the subject of destination choice by using multi-
attribute models.

The present study, however, is only interested in examining those tourists who
have already selected their vacation destination. To reflect this unique situation and the
fact that there is no need to make comparisons between destinations, this study employed
a variation of ATO model as originally introduced by F ishbein (1967) and is presented in

the next section.

The Modified Attitude— Toward Object Model
The modified model which is similar to models tested and used by Matejka (1976)
Brayley (1990) and Hu and Ritchie (1993) is called ‘Destination Attractiveness Model’

and can be shown in the following equation:

n
Ti = at = Z Bik Ek
k=l
Such that
'1‘i = Attractiveness of destination (Attractiveness)
a, = An unidimensional measure of respondent i ‘s
attitude toward destination
Bik = The strength of respondents i ‘S belief that attraction
type k is possesed by destination (Belief)
Ek = The degree of importance of attraction type k to
attract respondent i to destination (Importance)
n = Number of attraction types

The Destination Attractiveness Model has the same core variables as the original
ATO model. It is modified by specifying attractiveness as an indication of an individual’s

attitude toward destination. The basic components of the ATO model — importance and

32

belief are retained in the modified version. This will enable the current study to uncover
how the availability of each type of attraction was perceived by visitors and the relative
importance of those attractions in determining visitation to the destination. Hu and
Ritchie (1993) believe that determining the relative importance of each destination
attribute in influencing people’s evaluations of the attractiveness of a tourism destination,
is the most critical measurement aspect of tourism attractiveness. This is because such
evaluations are more likely to serve as behavior (for example — choosing a destination)
determinants.

The concept of ‘attraction types,’ as used by Ballantine (1991) and earlier by
Brayley (1990), to refer to attraction types as destination attributes, was judged to be the
most applicable to the present study. This approach enabled the researcher to study the
role of each individual attraction type in determining the destination overall
attractiveness. Consequently, this study will include those attraction types frequently
associated with Langkawi Island as the destination attributes to be examined. These
attraction types are: historical attractions, beaches, theme parks, Shopping complexes,
sport and special events, nature and outdoor recreation, agriculture-tourism attractions,
and holiday resorts. As suggested by Ap and Sandiford (1998), such attractions can offer
a competitive advantage to a destination. Answering the question, ‘which attractions
were seen as the most appealing to tourist?’ should be a cornerstone for strategic

marketing of a destination (Goodrich, 1978).

33

Previous Experience

The previous experience construct is now seen as an important variable in
explaining and predicting tourist travel decisions. This dimension was included in the
present study with the hope that a measure of a tourist‘s previous visitation to a
destination would be a significant predictor of their attitude toward the destination. In
other words, the present study would like to compare how previous visitations have
affected the way tourists assess the attractiveness of a destination and also determine if
their previous experience influenced the value they assigned to various attractions
available at the destination.

In leisure and travel literature, previous experience is frequently described
interchangeably with prior visitation, familiarity, destination awareness, and destination
experience. Previous experience was cited as a rather observable measure compared to
other variables, such as motivation, involvement, and perceived constraints (Norman,
1995). Previous experience has also been described as a measure of an individual’s
expertise in activity, his knowledge about activity, and knowledge about alternatives
(Prince, 1990). AS a result, the amount of previous experience could influence an
individual’s attitude, including, as in the case of the present research, his perception of
destination attractiveness and ultimately his decision to visit a destination.

Hu and Ritchie (1993) contend that familiarity with a destination, which is
influenced by such factors as previous visitation and overall knowledge about a
destination, plays an important role in influencing an individual’s perception (and,
therefore, the attractiveness) of a particular destination. In their study on determination of

destination attractiveness, they were also particularly interested in finding out if

34

familiarity influences a tourist’s perception of destination attractiveness. ‘Familiarity’
was measured in terms of previous experience, whether or not respondents had been to a
destination. Five destinations, Hawaii, Australia, Greece, France, and China were
selected to reflect differing degrees of previous experience with destinations on the part
of respondents. Sixteen attributes (physical and social) were tested to determine their
roles in destination attractiveness. The influence of ‘familiarity’ on the perceived
attractiveness was examined by employing student t-tests. It was concluded that the
perceived attractiveness of each of the destinations was influenced favorably by previous
visitation experiences with the selected attributes.

Court and Lupton (1997) examined how factors, such as destination image,
destination experience, and demographic characteristics, combine to influence perceived
destination attractiveness and tourists’ intentions for visiting the destination. The research
was carried out in the state of New Mexico among 900 out-of-state residents.
‘Destination experience’ was used to describe respondent’s previous experience at a
destination. A dependent variable, ‘intention to visit,’ was tested against destination
image and previous experience. Destination image was measured by asking respondents
to state the extent of their satisfaction with 24 image items. Factor analysis, multiple
regression, and multinomial logit analysis were applied for data analysis.

One of the findings, among others, indicated that there is a positive relationship
between previous experience and favorable destination image (or the perceived
attractiveness of the destination). In conclusion, Court and Lupton stated that people who
have experienced a satisfying vacation are likely to return. The findings assuredly echoed

the importance of previous experience in travel decisions as Shown by earlier studies (for

35

example, Mayo, 1979; Woodside and Lysonski,l989). These studies suggest that the
number of previous visits to certain destinations influenced favorable perception or image
and encouraged subsequent visits. As summarized by Mayo, comparisons of image often
lead tourists to choose one destination that promises to provide them with the greatest
amount of satisfaction or offers the chance of obtaining the desired experience.

A review of literature also traced a link between previous experience with repeat
visitation and destination brand loyalty. Oppermann’s (2000) empirical study on
destination loyalty to Australia was focused on the influence of previous experience and
destination loyalty on destination choice. The study was longitudinal (using data
collected over an 11- year span) and based on frameworks and concepts found in
consumer behavior and marketing literature. The research proposed past travel behavior
as a strong influence for current decisions and therefore could be used to predict future
travel intentions as well. To test the hypothesis, the visitation frequency for the period
studied was compared with the actual current travel (1995). As expected, those who were
considered as ‘very Australia loyal’ (defined as making six or more visits to the
destination) were found to re-visit the destination in 1995. On the other hand, the study
found that those who were classified as ‘unsteady’ (who made just one trip) switched
destination regularly. In conclusion, Opperrnann believes that recognizing the role of
previous experience will help destination marketers understand their target market better
and encourage the desired re-visitation among tourists.

In addition to the emerging numbers of studies on previous experience in leisure
and travel literature, there is also some research conducted along the lines of a smaller

framework of tourists visiting historical attractions. One such study was conducted by

36

Prince (1990), who researched previous experiences of visitors (and non-visitors) to a
selection of alternative historical attractions, particularly museums, in the United
Kingdom. By using the theory of behavioral consistency, Prince hypothesized that
previous experience with an attraction may produce an attitude toward attraction of
similar types. The attitude may (or may not) motivate making a visit depending upon the
specific attitude thus synthesized. For example, if people choose to visit museums, they
should also opt for visiting similarly perceived sites.

The findings of Prince’s research demonstrate a high degree of commonality
between ‘visitors to museums’ and other types of historical attractions, such as castles,
fortified buildings, and historic houses. Prince’s (1990) study also found that the non-
visitors opted to visit other types of attractions such as zoos, libraries, parks, and
commercial exhibits. Further analysis of visitor’s perceptions found that the
overwhelming majority of respondents considered historic houses and stately homes as
having the closest attributes or characteristics similar to that of a museum. Broadly
speaking, visitors put attributes, that related to such places, as important determinants for
their decision to visit. Prince also concluded that the findings were consistent with other
propositions developed in other studies that previous experience is central to travel
decisions, specifically destination choice.

In another study, Chen (1996) examined factors affecting visitors’ evaluation of
tourist preferences and choice alternatives in order to identify a tourism market for
different historical attractions in Pennsylvania. The historical attraction covered in the
study included historic railroads, museums, forts, historic villages and national

memorials. The identified factors were grouped into two categories: salient factors (such

37

as miles traveled, days spent, and size of travel group), and latent factors (previous
experiences). Previous experience was considered to be the amount (frequency) of
previous visits and types of historical attractions visited. Tourist sociodemographic
characteristics were also used as determinant variables. Among these factors, previous
experience was found to be one of the important variables that influenced tourists’
preferences (for types of historical attraction) and choice behavior. Sociodemographic
characteristics, such as educational attainment, were found to be one of the grouping
factors in profiling visitors to such attractions.

As noted in the previous chapter, following the review of literature on the subject,
the present study postulates that a tourist’s previous experience with a destination may
influence their perception of the attractiveness of a destination and the value they attach

to each attraction type available at the destination in making a (or their) travel choice.

Market Segmentation
One of the many important similarities among destination attractiveness studies

was the implications of their findings that were pertinent to market segmentation. Much
of the research, such as that done by Goodrich (1978), Davis and Stemquist (1987),
Brayley (1990) and recently Schofield (2000), has employed segmentation techniques in
identifying tourists’ attitudes toward destination. Therefore, it is the intention of the
present study to determine if similar techniques could be used to explore segments of
visitors traveling to Langkawi Island. Since the topic of segmentation is abundant in

tourism literature, it is not the intention of this study to cover the topic comprehensively,

38

but rather to give a brief overview on segmentation in order to present a general
perspective on tourism segmentation to the readers.

Market segmentation was defined by Brayley (1990) as “the process of dividing a
market into distinct groups of consumers with different characteristics, needs and
behaviors” (p. 55). Therefore, the main reason for the segmentation process is to find
groups of consumers with common characteristics related to purchase and use of
products, programs, or services. The most promising groups, in terms of size,
measurability, and profitability are selected as “target markets” and are the markets in
which businesses decide to profile and focus their attention (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986).

In its tourism application, segmentation can be a very useful management tool for
evaluating destinations’ competitiveness (Spotts and Mahoney, 1991; Shoemaker, 1994;
Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan, 1998). There are two reasons of utmost importance for
conducting a tourism segmentation research: (1) to better understand target groups so that
this information will enable marketers to create a strong advertising campaign, and (2) to
gain competitive market advantage in positioning (or re-positioning) a destination by
finding markets that might be receptive to promotional messages.

Factors, including demographic, behavioral, and psychographic have been used in
tourism research as bases for segmenting the tourism market. Arguably, the most widely
used, the behavioral segmentation base, includes variables such as attitude (perceptions
and preference), motivation, image, product usage (heavy half), and expenditure (Spotts
and Mahoney,l991). On the other hand, psychographic segmentation is also frequently
referred to as lifestyle segmentation. It is generally based on some AIO (activities,

interests, opinions), and VALS (values and life style) criteria or variables (Weber, 1992).

39

A limitation of psychographic segmentation, however, is that it usually requires a
complex approach in order to obtain information and requires a large number of
questions to be asked through the research instrument.

To demonstrate the application of attractiveness measurement in destination
marketing, especially in segmentation, some relevant studies are discussed here. In
general, most of these studies (eg., Goodrich, 1978; Davis and Stemquist, 1987; Brayley,
1990) employed multivariate statistical methods of cluster analysis in identifying the
market segments. Methods of analysis such as t—test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and
discriminant analysis were then used to distinguish and profile the identified segments. In
one of the studies, Goodrich (1978) employed cluster analysis to group respondents based
on the factors scores of the value ratings of the destination attributes. Three clusters were
stipulated by the researcher and labeled as Group I, Group 2 and Group 3. Group 1 was
composed mostly of respondents who were interested in passive types of tourism
attractions, such as scenic beauty and shopping. Group 2 consisted of respondents who
were interested in sports attractions such as golf, tennis, and water sports. The final group
was primarily interested in historical and cultural attractions.

In a similar fashion, Davis and Stemquist (1987) in their study on Traverse City,
Michigan, based their cluster analysis on the ‘attitude-toward-attribute’ scores for
segmenting the tourists into homogeneous segments. Clusters, or segments, were
identified according to their attitude toward the destination. For example, cluster 1 was
labeled as ‘Least favorable’, while cluster 4 was labeled as ‘Satisfied customer’.
ANOVA was used for contrasting the clusters (or segments) for their demographic and

trip characteristics. These characteristics, such as gender, occupation, age, educational

4O

levels, and income, failed to Show any differences between segments. Trip characteristics
such as distance, length of visit, frequency of visit to Traverse City, composition of travel
party, and mode of transportation also appear to be similar for all segments. Although
they failed to correctly predict or profile the segments, Davis and Stemquist believe that
segmentation ‘can help destination marketers profile an area’s tourist [appeal] and help
develop promotional strategies based on these attitude profiles’ (p.29).

The two attractiveness studies cited in the previous paragraphs can be classified as
a posteriori or factor cluster-based segmentation in which segments are separated into
groups based on a set of variables such as benefit, need, and attitude. Another type of
segmentation is called a priori segmentation in which the base for segmentation is
predetermined before a study can be carried out. In a posteriori segmentation, the size
and number of segments are previously unknown to the researcher. As the name
indicates, this approach involves carrying out various levels of factor and cluster
statistical analysis (Formica and Uysal, 1998). While a priori segmentation relies on
discretionary selection of variables by the researcher, a posteriori relies exclusively on
empirical delineation of segments. Therefore, as Formica and Uysal (1998) argued, a
posteriori segmentation is capable of producing more in-depth results than a priori.
Accordingly, a posteriori was the technique of choice for the present study in

determining the usefulness of attractiveness as the basis for segmentation.

41

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter gives a description of the research methods employed to achieve the

study objectives and test the hypotheses. The first section outlines the research

hypotheses that will be tested, along with a justification for each hypothesis. The second

section focuses on methods used to collect the data needed to test the hypotheses,

including questionnaire designs, administration of the survey, and sampling methods. The

final section describes the procedures used to prepare and analyze the data.

Research Hypotheses

In order to achieve the research objectives, the following research hypotheses were

tested:

Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 2:

Domestic visitors to Langkawi Island assign more importance to
historical attractions in their decision to visit the island th_an they do to
any other types of attractions.

Justification: Marketing of Langkawi Island has focused on its
historical attractions -the island has been dubbed the “Legends Island.”
If the advertising and image position has been successful it is likely that
a large proportion of the visitors were there to visit its historical
attractions. If historical attractions are not very important to the visitors,
tourism marketers may need to consider a new advertising theme.

Repeat visitors assigned more importance values for all types of
attraction on their decision to visit Langkawi than the first-time visitors.

 

Justification: Researchers, such as Oppermann’s (2000), contend that
repeat visitation may serve as an indicator for destination loyalty. It is
likely that repeat visitors, who have an established preference for the
island, will consider the island’s attractions as more important than first-
time visitors.

42

Hypothesis 3: Repeat visitors assigned more attractiveness value than the first-time
visitors to Langkawi Island and its various types of attractions.

Justification: Literature review of previous visitation studies
indicated that the amount of previous experience could influence
individual’s attitude including their perception of destination
attractiveness and their decision to re-visit a destination (for example
refer to Court and Lupton, 1997).

The final research objective is to determine if the perceptions of domestic visitors
and the importance they assign to various types of attractions on the island can be used
to identify substantial, exploitable and reachable market segments to guide marketing of
the island. Substantiality, exploitability and reachability are three important criteria to
determine the usefulness of segmentation results (Kikuchi, 1986; Myers, 1996). This final

research objective can be translated into the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: The segmentation based on the attractiveness scores produces
domestic visitor segments that are substantial in volume.

Hypothesis 5: Domestic visitors to Langkawi Island can be grouped into
identifiable and exploitable segments that differ in terms of their
socio-demographic. trip chgacteristics, and travel behavior.

Research Design
A number of data collection methods were given consideration for their
usefulness and viability. It was decided, finally, that an on-site self-administered survey,
distributed and managed by trained technicians would be the best method to use. This
decision was made for a number of reasons, the most important being that there was no

available list of visitors to the island that could be used as a sampling frame. This ruled

43

out the possibility of collecting data from telephone or mail surveys using an established
sampling frame. Therefore, it became necessary to both sample and collect information
on-site. Another reason is that Malaysians are not as accustomed to surveys as people in
the United States and a personal contact was considered important for achieving a higher
response rate.

In addition, a self-administered questionnaire distributed and delivered by trained
technicians has some of the advantages of a personal interview, but tends to be more
efficient, while at the same time reducing the chance of interviewer bias
(Kucukkurt,198l). Another advantage of personally distributing questionnaires to visitors
to be completed is that it greatly increases the number of questionnaires that can be
obtained and significantly reduces the cost of data collection. The method also facilitated
certain questions including repetitive importance and belief ratings. From previous
experience with personal interviews in Malaysia, the researcher discovered that the
method was not suitable for securing attitudes and other personal information
(Azlizam, 1994). Self administered questionnaires afforded people more privacy and the
technicians were always available on-site to answer any questions a respondent might

have.

The Sample and Sampling Procedures

The sampling population consisted of Malaysian (domestic) visitors to Langkawi
Island, who were 18 years of age or older and traveled to the island by ferry. Permanent
residents of the island were not surveyed. Foreign tourists were also excluded from the

survey because the primary purpose was to gather information about domestic tourists.

44

Also, foreign tourists are likely to have different levels of knowledge, motivation, and
travel behavior than domestic tourists (McIntosh,1997).

Surveys were conducted from August 8th to September 2nd, 2001. The sampling
site was the Kuala Kedah ferry terminal, which is one of the primary points of entry to
Langkawi. The Langkawi Development Authority estimated that about 1.25 million
people used the ferry service in 2000; about 60% of them arrived during the weekends
and 40% during the weekdays (Suriati, 2001; personal interview). To better ensure the
representativeness of the sample, about 60% of the questionnaires were completed
during the weekends (Friday through Sunday) and 40% between Monday and Thursday.
Surveys (including the pretest) were distributed on 26 different days (Appendix A).

Potential respondents were randomly selected as they entered the ferry departure
hall. Every fifth person who entered was contacted either by the author/researcher or
trained survey technicians. The purpose of the survey was immediately explained in that
it was being conducted by a student from Michigan State University with the co-
operation of Tourism Malaysia. Then they were asked about their willingness to
participate. Willing respondents were then asked two screening questions: 1) were they
visiting the island? (in order to determine that they were not residents of the island), and
2) were they 18 years of age or older? Persons who did not qualify were thanked and
given information concerning the qualification criteria. When someone, who was
sampled, was disqualified, the next person entering the hall was sampled. Qualified
respondents were provided with a pencil, a copy of the questionnaire, and a clipboard.
The researcher or one of the trained survey technicians was present at all times to answer

any questions and provide additional information about the study and purpose of various

45

questions. This proved effective in reducing the number of incomplete surveys. Only 48
of the 873 distributed surveys were unusable, because a significant number of the
questions were not answered. Only 71 (7.5 percent) of the 944 persons contacted
refused to complete the survey, and of those people, most indicated they were too tired
and/or did not have enough time to participate. A total of 754 usable surveys were

completed and used in the analysis.

The Questionnaire and Pretest of the Questionnaire

The research questionnaire was first constructed in English and then translated
into the Malaysian language. This process allowed for it to be reviewed and edited by
faculty advisors at Michigan State University. The translation was necessary because
some residents of Malaysia are not proficient in English. To ensure that the final
Malaysian version was semantically similar to the original, the ‘independent back
translation,’ as explained by Yavas (1990), was employed. However, only the Malaysian
language version was used in the pilot and actual surveys.

The questionnaire was divided into 5 sections (Appendix B). The first two
sections asked for information about the respondent’s travel behavior and trip
characteristics, (i.e., mode of transportation, reasons for the trip, length of trip, travel
party composition, activities they planned to participate in on the island and their
overnight accommodations). Section 3 consisted of a series of questions that asked
respondents to rate the importance of various types of attractions, how they impacted
their decision to visit the island, and their perception of the extent (amount) of these

attractions on the island. Attraction types included: historical attractions, beaches,

46

shopping complexes, sport and special events, nature and outdoor recreation, agriculture-
tourism attractions, and holiday resorts. Section 4 included questions concerning previous
trips to the island and past travel destinations, especially visits to historical attractions.
The last section gathered information about the respondents’ socio-demographic
characteristics: age, gender, education level, income, occupation, and ethnicity.

The survey instrument was pre-tested over two days on ferries departing for
Langkawi Island. The purpose of the pretest was to identify design, wording, and
distribution problems before conducting the actual survey. Another purpose was to
prepare for any possible questions from potential respondents. The results of the pre-test
showed that the questionnaire was clear and understandable, and that the length was not a
problem. The wording of a few questions was adjusted and the layout of a couple of other
questions was modified, based on comments and suggestions from respondents.

Based on the pre-test, a decision was made to conduct the surveys at the ferry
departure hall (on the mainland) rather than on the ferries as originally planned. It was
determined that sampling would be easier and that it would be more convenient to
complete the survey on dry land rather than on a moving ferry. It was also more
convenient for visitors to complete the survey while they waited for their ferry. It was
also much more efficient, in terms of time, to distribute all the surveys at the departure

hall avoiding the need for survey technicians to make round-trips to the island.

47

Data Preparation and Analysis

After all the information was collected, it was coded and entered into a data base.
A series of frequencies were run to ensure that the data was within the established
response ranges. Any out-of-range and extreme values were checked against the original
questionnaire entries and mistakes corrected. The attitude scale items were examined to
determine their reliability. In essence, this was to answer the question, ‘to what extent is
the ability of the importance and belief items used in this study yielding the same
findings on repeated occasions, given that the phenomenon of vacationing remains
constant’. A reliability (alpha) analysis was conducted on both importance and belief
items. A reliability of 0.839 was attained for the 16 items and this score was deemed

acceptable for the purpose of this study.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)
version 10.0. A series of chi-square tests were first conducted to determine if there were
any significant differences in the profiles of respondents interviewed during the pre—test
on the ferries and those interviewed in the departure hall. Tests were canied out on four
variables —gender, education, past visits (first time or repeat visits) and state of origin
(Kedah or out-of-state). As expected, no significant differences were found.

The commonly accepted .05 level of statistical significance was the standard by
which all statistical tests were conducted. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies,
means, and standard deviations, were prepared in order to provide an overview of the

respondents. Analytical procedures and statistical tests utilized for hypotheses testing

48

included t-tests (one-tailed tests), chi-square, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cluster
analysis was employed to group visitors to the island into segments based on the group’s
perceptions and the importance they assigned to different types of attractions. Cluster
analysis is the most common tool used by marketing researchers in market segmentation.
Other multivariate tools, such as factor and discriminant analyses were not determined to
be appropriate for the purposes of this study. Discriminant analysis, for instance, requires
the segments to be predefined, which is common in a priori segmentation research
(Norman, 1995). In this study, there was no information or past research available on
possible visitor market segments on the island; thus a priori segmentation is impossible
to be conducted.

The clustering was based on a uni-dimensional score (summed multiplicative
scores of importance and beliefs ) that provided one measure of the overall attractiveness

of Langkawi as a destination. As described in the previous chapter and recommended by
Davis (1986) and Davis and Stemquist (1987), the uni-dimensional score (Ti) represents

the attractiveness of the destination. This multiplicative, additive process is in accordance
with the F ishbein model previously discussed (Davis and Stemquist, 1987).

A Quick Cluster software package was employed to do the clustering. Quick
Cluster is very efficient in that it does not require substantial computer resources. It
produces only one solution for the number of clusters requested (Ipson, 1993). An
additional specification of centroid cluster analysis was used as this sorts cases
(respondents) and generates homogeneous groups based on the smallest distance between

the case and the center of the cluster.

49

Once an attitude-based cluster (segments) solution was selected, the next step
was to describe the membership of the clusters and determine if and how they were
different from the membership of other segments. One way ANOVA tests were
conducted to test for differences on key marketing characteristics including age, length of
trips, size of travel party, previous visits to Langkawi, and the number of pleasure trips
taken in the last 12 months. Chi-square tests were also conducted to determine if
differences existed on various categorical variables including state of residency, purpose
of trips, intention to visit (or not) historical attractions on the island, awareness of
historical attractions on the island, previous experience (first-time or repeat), choice of
accommodation, and types of trip (day-trip or overnight). The findings from the different

analyses are presented in the next chapter.

50

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of various statistical analyses performed on the
survey data. A descriptive profile of domestic visitors to Langkawi Island that includes
their travel behavior, party characteristics, and their preferences and perceptions are
reported first. Results, supporting or refuting the research hypotheses, are presented and

discussed in the latter part of this chapter.

Characteristics of Domestic Visitors to Langkawi Island

As discussed in the last chapter, these results are based on surveys of 754
respondents intercepted at Kuala Kedah Ferry Terminal between August 1St and
September 3rd 2001. About 1.25 million people traveled to the island by ferry in 2000. In
contrast, about 300,000 persons used airline services to get to the island in 2000 (LADA,
2001). Sampling ferry customers and the timing of the surveys raises some questions
relating to the representativeness of the survey findings. Obviously, persons who travel
to the island by air are excluded from the survey and results. This may under-represent
high-income visitors and persons traveling greater distances to reach the island. Also, the
sampling period did not include the island’s peak season. Peak travel in Malaysia is
usually on weekends and school holidays. Malaysian public schools were in session
during the interview period and only one long holiday weekend (the Independence Day
weekend in late August) took place when surveys were being conducted. Therefore, the

results may over-represent the older, childless, travel parties and in-state visitors.

51

In an effort to address the potential problems concerning the representativeness of
the sampled population, comparisons were made with findings from a national domestic
tourism study that was conducted by Tourism Malaysia in 1998; there were no
comparable data currently available on visitors to Langkawi. Comparisons with the 1998
study were difficult because the studies employed different data collection methods and
most of the data collected was not the same. However, the broad comparisons with
information collected on the 1998 study provided an indication of how Langkawi visitors
differ from general domestic tourists.

As shown in Table 2, the sample consisted of about 40 percent female and 60
percent male. A vast majority (76.5 percent) of the respondents were between the ages of
21 to 40. Perhaps the most striking demographic characteristic of the survey respondents
was the small percentage of persons of retirement age. Only about 2 percent were 50
years or older, and only 6 persons indicated that they were 56 year old or older. The
1998 study by Tourism Malaysia reported about 4 percent of their respondents’ ages 50
or older. The 1998 study also collected information from an equal proportion of men and

women, since the data was collected through a quota sampling technique.

52

Table 2
Characteristics of respondents

 

1998’s Tourism Malaysia Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage (percentage)
Gender (n=754)
Male 60.1 49.6
Female 39.9 50.4
Age (n=754)
Under 20 years 7.6 28.1
21 to 25 years 22.0 10.6
26 to 30 years 23.9 12.8
31 to 35 years 15.6 n/a
36 to 40 years 15.0 26.7
41 to 45 years 8.5 n/a
46 to 50 years 5.0 17.6
Over 50 years 2.4 4.2
Highest Education (n=754)
Primary 4.0 13.9
Seconday 56.5 70.1
Tertiary 39.5 16.0
Employment (n=754)
Full-Time 74.0 n/a
Part-Time 2.3 n/a
Own Business 9.7 n/a
Student 10.9 n/a
Homemaker 2.4 n/a
Retired 0.8 n/a
Monthly Income (n=754)
RM2,000 or less 53.7 54.8
RM2001-RM4000 39.3 28.7
RM4001-RM6000 4.9 6.6
RM6,000 or more 2.1 9.9
Ethnic Grom) (n=754)
Malay 68.8 (66.1)* 72.0
Chinese 20.7 (25.3)* 19.0
Indian 10.1 (7.4)* 9.0
Others 0.4 (1.2)* n/a

 

* Malaysian population in parentheses

53

The majority of respondents in the current study (almost 60 percent) had
completed the lower level of education. This level includes both primary and secondary
education which is equivalent to elementary and high school in the United States.
Visitors to Langkawi are on average more educated than the general domestic tourist
population as indicated by the 1998 study. About 40 percent of the island’s visitors had
completed college and university compared to just 16 percent of domestic tourists
identified in the 1998’s study. A vast majority of the Langkawi visitors (74 percent)
were employed full-time. A comparatively low number (2.3 percent) were employed
part-time and about 10 percent indicated self-employment. Eleven percent of the island’s
visitors were students. Slightly over 3 percent of the respondents were either homemakers
or retired.

The monthly household income levels for Langkawi domestic visitors varied
greatly. Only a few earned more than RM10,000 per month or about $2,700. This
conversion calculation was according to the official exchange rate on October 30, 2001;
one US dollar equaling RM3.75. More than half (54 percent) of the domestic visitors
arriving by ferry earned less than RM2,000. Middle income persons, earning RM2000-
RM6000 represented 42 percent of the visitors. About two percent are high income
earners, making more than RM6,000.00 per month. The average monthly household
income of the visitors was RM23 72.00 and this was much higher than the national
average which stands at RM 1434.90 (Malaysian Government, 2000). In comparison, the
1998 Study indicated that 10 percent of domestic tourists have monthly incomes of
RM6,000. However, the overall income distribution of visitors to the island parallel

closely the incomes of domestic tourists identified in the 1998 Study.

54

Table 2 also shows the ethnicity of domestic visitors to the island. The majority
(68.8%) are ‘Malay’, while persons of Chinese (21%) and Indian (10%) descent make up
a sizeable portion of visitors. The 1998 study showed a similar distribution among the
general domestic tourists. In general, visitors to the island and domestic tourists are
representative of the country’s ethic populations as reported in the latest national census
(Malaysian Government, 2000). Malay remains the largest ethnic group in the country
(about 66% ) followed by Chinese at 25.3 percent and Indian (7.4 percent).

As presented in Table 3, about half of the visitors to the island are from states
other than Kedah. Most of these ‘out-of-state’ visitors came from the neighboring state
of Penang (14%), followed by Selangor (9.2 %), Wilayah (8.9%) and Perak (8%). The
remaining 12.2 percent come from eight other states. Again, as mentioned earlier in this
chapter regarding timing of the survey, this finding might represent the typical groups of

visitors to Langkawi during this particular time of the year.

55

Table 3
Classification of respondents by state of permanent residency

 

State Number of Responses Percentage

 

In-State (n=361)

Kedah 361 47.9
Out-of-State (n=3 93)
Perak 60 8.0
Selangor 69 9.2
Pahang 23 3.1
Kelantan 9 1.2
Johor 22 2.9
Melaka 8 1.1
Negeri Sembilan 12 1.6
Penang 103 13.7
Perlis 8 1.1
Wilayah 67 8.9
Sabah 5 0.7
Sarawak 4 0.5
Terengganu 4 0.5

 

Trip Characteristics
The survey collected information on a variety of trip characteristics of domestic
visitors to the island including main mode of transportation to reach the ferry, reasons for
visiting Langkawi Island, length of time away from their homes, the length of stay on the
island, accommodation on the island, travel party size, number of children in travel party,
intentions for participating in various activities on the island including visiting historical

Sites. This information was important because there was no similar information about

56

visitors to the island available, and the information was used later to profile various
market segments for the island.

About 70 percent of domestic tourists traveled from their homes to the Kuala
Kedah Ferry terminal by car or motorcycle. The remainder used public buses (12.6 %)
and taxis (10.5% ). There was no direct train service to Kuala Kedah. While there was a
train station at the nearby city of Alor Setar, train passengers may have used taxi or
public bus service to get to the ferry terminal. The majority of respondents (almost 60
percent) indicated that the sole reason for their trip away from home was to visit
Langkawi Island. Only 8 respondents were visiting other places as their primary
destination with Langkawi a stop-over on those trips. Only one of the visitors coming to
the island was on his/her way to Thailand. The others were visiting Payar, a nearby
island-destination that is well-known for snorkeling. Clearly, Langkawi was the primary
destination for the majority of visitors.

The most cited reasons for visiting the island were for ‘touring and general
sightseeing’ (46.7 percent), followed by ‘business only’ (28 percent), ‘shopping’ (26.9
percent), ‘mixed business and pleasure trips’ (18.1%) and ‘visiting family and friends’
(14.9%). In contrast, the Tourism Malaysia survey determined that almost half of
domestic tourists traveled for the main purpose of visiting family and friends. The 1998
study’s findings also showed that only about 1 percent of the tourists cited Shopping as an
important purpose of their trip to domestic destinations. The present study, therefore,
suggested the importance of Langkawi as a shopping destination among the domestic

tourists.

57

Table 4
Trip characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998 Tourism Malaysia’s
Percentage study (percentage)
Main Transportation (n=754)
Car 67.1 72.5
Motorcycle 2.7 n/a
Chartered Bus 6.2 5.6
Taxi 10.5 3.2
Public (Schedule) Bus 12.6 6.9
Train 0.9 0.8
Reason for trip
Visiting Langkawi Only 59.9 n/a
Reasons for visiting Langkawi *
Visiting Family & Friend 14.9 47.3
General Sightseeing/touring 46.7 35.7
Business (work only) trip 28.0 1.0
Business with pleasure 18.1 3.7
Shopping 26.9 1 .4
Educational trip 8.2 3.0
Others 5.9 n/a
Number of Night for Trip (n=754)
Day-trippers 9.2 n/a
Overnight Visitors +
1 night 25.2 (24.0) n/a
2 nights 34.1 (32.8) n/a
3nights 17.8 (17.2) n/a
4 nights 8.2 (5.6) n/a
5 or more nights 8.6 (7.8) n/a
Accommodation on Langkawi (n=754)
Hotel / Motel 52.5 22.0
Campground 4.7 1.7
Chalet 10.9 7.7
Vacation Resort 8.0 n/a
Family/Friend 18.3 56.9
Others 3.2 n/a

 

* indicates multiple response question

+ Nights planned on Langkawi shown in parentheses

58

Almost 91% of the respondents stayed at least one night away from home while
on their trip to Langkawi Island. These were considered ‘overnight’ visitors. Only about
9 percent were ‘day-trippers’ or did not plan to spend any nights away from home. The
overnight visitors spent an average of two nights away from home, which included
traveling to and from the island. Most overnight visitors (74%) planned to Spend
between one to three nights on the island. Only about 8 percent of them planned to spend
five or more nights on Langkawi. Comparable information on the length of trips was not
available from the 1998’s study.

More than half of the overnight visitors (52.6%) to the island planned to lodge in
hotels or motels. By comparison, the study conducted by Tourism Malaysia (1999) found
that the majority of domestic visitors (56.9 percent) stayed with family, friends, or
relatives on overnight trips. Clearly, this is because Langkawi is an island-destination.
Without any family ties or fiiends on the island, visitors may have had no other option
but to stay in hotels or other types of commercial lodging while visiting the island.
Chalets were the next most often used type of lodging by guests visiting the island.
Chalets are generally operated by private, small, and locally owned enterprises.
Observations during the surveys disclosed that most chalet companies employed
representatives who were active and visible at the ferry terminal trying to entice visitors
to their businesses. Chalet Operators also offer competitive prices to attract visitors.

Nearly 27 percent of the visitors traveled alone to the island (Table 5). Nineteen
percent traveled in large groups, which consisted of more than five persons. Travel
parties to the island averaged nine persons compared to five persons as reported in the

1998 Tourism Malaysia study. Travel parties to Langkawi were divided into two groups:

59

those with and without children. In the present study, children are defined as persons 13
years old or younger. Almost 78 percent of the parties did not include a child. Most of the
other parties included one or two children.

Most respondents anticipated that they would participate in about three different
activities while on the island. Most of the respondents planned to Sightsee (66.4 %). Also,
given Langkawi’s status as a ‘duty-free zone,’ it comes as no surprise that a majority of
visitors (61.8 %) were planning to shop during their trips. Other popular activities
included ocean swimming (35.9 %), visiting theme parks (25.2 %), and photography
(23.7 %). Other activities that are heavily promoted are less popular among the visitors,
including attending special events and festivals (10.2 %), scuba diving (9.5%), boating
(4.9%), and golfing (3.4%). About 12 percent of the visitors had no plans to participate in
any of the activities listed on the questionnaire.

The person in the travel parties who made the decision to visit Langkawi is also
reported in Table 5 along with similar findings on domestic travel collected in the 1998
study. Most of the respondents (almost 39 %) made the decisions themselves, and for
about 21 percent of the parties, the travel decision was jointly made with their spouse.
Approximately 11 percent of the respondents were visiting the island on trips arranged by
their employers. Usually, they were those who worked for private companies, such as

factories that provide group travels as some sort of job incentive.

60

Table 5
Trip characteristics (continued)

 

1998 survey
Percentage (percentage)

 

# of Person in Travel Party (n=754)

 

 

 

 

Travel Alone 27.2 n/a
1 person 11.0 n/a
2 persons 13.5 n/a
3 persons 11.4 n/a
4 persons 1 1.4 n/a
5 persons 6.5 n/a
More than 5 persons 19.0 n/a
# of Children in Travel Party (n=754)
None 77.7 n/a
1 to 2 16.5 n/a
3 to 4 4.2 n/a
5 to 6 0.8 n/a
7 and more 0.8 n/a
Activity to Participate in*
Sightseeing/ touring 66.4 n/a
Shopping 61.8 n/a
Swimming (sea) 35.9 n/a
Visiting theme park 25.2 n/a
Photography 23.7 n/a
Picnic 22.8 n/a
Visiting family or friends 15.0 n/a
Trip Decision Makers (n=754)
Self 38.6 38.0
Jointly (with spouse/partner) 21.1 n/a
Spouse/ partner 7.6 1 1.5
Employer 1 1.5 7.2
Travel agents 4.2 0.5
Family/ friends 1 1.0 7.7
Others 5.9 n/a

 

* indicates multiple response question

61

Recently, the Malaysian government has voiced dissatisfaction with the number
of Malaysians who utilize the services of travel agencies for domestic trips (Malaysian
Government, 2000). The low level of use of travel agents is verified by this study. Only
about 4 percent consulted travel agents for information or arrangements on places to
visit on Langkawi compared to less than 1% for all domestic travel. trips. The low usage
of travel agents by domestic visitors continues even though there have been annual
campaigns since 1999 to encourage more planned holidays by Malaysians (Tourism

Malaysia, 2002).

Travel Behavior of Domestic Visitors to Langkawi Island

This section provides information on the travel behavior of visitors to Langkawi,
including the number of pleasure trips (to other destinations) during the 12 months prior
to their trips to Langkawi, and the destinations and types of attractions visited on these
trips. This information is presented in Table 6. Almost half (47.9 percent) of the
domestic visitors to Langkawi had not taken any pleasure trips during the 12 months prior
to their visit to Langkawi. About a third (32 percent) had taken at least one pleasure trip.
The majority of these (71%) had been on one to three trips during the period. Most of
these trips were to domestic destinations; only about 28 percent of the trips were made
internationally. In part this may be due to the efforts of the Malaysian government to
promote domestic attractions Since the economic slowdown. Promotional campaigns such
as ‘Malaysia My Destination’, ‘Colors of Malaysia’, and ‘Short Breaks Malaysia’ were

launched to foster domestic travel (Idrose, 2000).

62

Table 6
Travel behavior of domestic visitors on Langkawi Island

 

Number of Percentage

 

 

 

 

Responses

Pleasure trip in the previous 12 months (n=754)

No trips 512 67.9

Made at least one trip 242 32.1
Number of Trips (n=242)
1 47 19.4
2 77 31.8
3 47 19.4
4 21 8.7
5 21 8.7
6+ 29 12.0
Pleasure trip destinations * (n=242)
International 68 28. 1
Domestic 235 97. 1
Attractions visited on pleasure trips (n=242) +
Historical Attractions 190 78.5
Shopping Complexes 220 90.9
Beaches 199 82.2
Theme Parks 116 47.9
Sports and Special Events 63 26.0
Nature and Outdoor 107 44.2
Agriculture Tourism 83 11.0
Holiday Resorts 166 68.6

 

* Multiple response (respondents may indicate both destination types).

+ Only ‘yes’ percentages are reported.

Additionally, those who had taken at least one pleasure trip in the 12 months prior
to visiting Langkawi were also asked about the types of attractions visited. Shopping
complexes were the most popular attraction on their trips; almost 91% who visited had

gone to a shopping area as a pleasure trip. Other popular activities or attractions included

63

beaches (82% ), historical attractions (79%) and holiday resorts (69%). Coincidently,

these were also considered to be the most popular attractions on Langkawi Island.

Attractiveness of Langkawi Island
AS presented in the previous chapter, the adapted ‘Destination Attractiveness

Model’ can be expressed by using the following formula:

n
Ti = 3i = 2 Elk Ek
k=1
Where:
Ti = Attractiveness of a destination (Attractiveness)
ai = A unidimensional measure of respondent i ‘s attitude
toward the destination
Bik = The strength of respondents i ‘s belief that attraction
type k is available at the destination (Belief)
Eik = The degree of importance that individual i assigns to
attraction type R (Importance)
n = The number of different types of attractions

A four step process was employed to determine the attractiveness of Langkawi
Island. First, surveyed respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of eight

different types of attractions in their decision to visit the island. This data produced the

Eik scores for the model. Then they were asked about their beliefs/perceptions of the

availability (supply) of the eight attraction types on the island. This provided the Bik

scores. The importance and availability was measured using a 5-point Likert-like scale
ranging from 0 to 4.
Tables 7 and 8 present the importance and belief scores for each of the eight

attraction types, respectively. AS shown on Table 7, Langkawi is perceived as providing

64

many different tourism attractions, most notably beach attractions. Most domestic visitors
perceive that the island has a range of attractions, not just offering one type of attraction.
They perceive that beaches, historical attractions, and resorts are the most abundant
attractions on the island. For example, about 85 percent of the domestic visitors believe
that there are many beach attractions on Langkawi. Only a relatively few visitors perceive
that beach attractions are not widely available on the island. Themes parks, agricultural
tourism, and sports and special events are not perceived as being as abundant.
Interestingly, despite being frequently organized and offered, many respondents (21.8
percent) still perceived special events and sports as not widely available on the island.
Also, even though the island has a national reputation as a shopping destination, about
10% of domestic tourists believe that the island does not offer a great deal of shopping

opportunities.

65

Table 7

Domestic visitors’ beliefs on the availability of eight types of attractions
on Langkawi Island

 

Frequency and percentages

 

 

 

Types of 0 1 2 3 4 Mean
Attractions None Much
Available Available

Historical 6 28 1 14 265 341 3.20
Attractions (0.8)1 (3.7)1 (15.1) 1 (35.1) 1 (45.2) 1
Shopping 17 52 173 288 224 2.86
Complexes (2.3) 1 (6.9)1 (22.9) 1 (38.2) 1 (29.7) 1
Beaches 3 16 96 276 363 3.30

(0.4)1 (2.1)1 (12.7) 1 (36.6) 1 (48.1) 1
Theme 35 94 246 293 86 2.40
Parks (4.6) 1 (12.5) 1 (32.6) 1 (38.9) 1 (11.4) 1
Sports and 39 125 273 237 80 2.26
Special (5.2) 1 (16.6) 1 (36.2) 1 (31.4) 1 (10.6)1
Events
Nature and 15 74 224 277 164 2.66
Outdoor (2.0) 1 (9.8) 1 (29.7) 1 (36.7) 1 (21.8) 1
Agriculture 20 1 1 1 244 260 119 2.26
Tourism (2.7) 1 (14.7) 1 (32.4) 1 (34.5) 1 (15.9) 1
Holiday 6 20 1 13 293 322 3.20
Resorts (0.8) 1 (2.7) 1 (15.0) 1 (38.9) 1 (42.7) 1
Note:

I Percentages of each score on belief scale
Scale: None available (0) to Many/Much Available (4)

Table 8 reports the importance that domestic visitors assigned the eight attraction
types in their decisions to visit Langkawi. The table reveals that domestic visitors came to

the island for a variety of reasons and that a sizeable proportion consider all of the

66

attraction types to be important reasons for visiting. Beaches, historical attractions, and
holiday resorts were the three most important types of attractions in visitors’ decision to
visit Langkawi. As already discussed, most respondents considered beach attractions to
be the most important reason for visiting the island. They assigned it a mean importance
score of 2.99 (on a four point scale with 4 being most important) for the attraction type.
About 71 percent considered the beach as either important or very important in their visit.
Historical attractions (mean=2.97) and holiday resorts (mean=2.69) were the next most
important types of attractions. These were rated highly (important or very important) by
about 67 percent and 59 percent of the visitors, respectively. The study also found that
sports and special events were perceived as the least important factor (mean =2.04) in

their decision to travel to Langkawi Island.

67

Table 8

Importance ratings domestic visitors assigned to eight types of attractions

in their decisions to visit Langkawi Island

 

Frequency and percentages of
each score on Importance Scale

 

 

 

Types of 0 l 2 3 4 Mean
Attractions Not Extremely
Important Important

Historical 20 38 186 210 300 2.97

Attractions (14.7) 1 (5.0) 1 (24.7) 1 (27.4) 1 (39.8) 1

Shopping 40 57 201 238 218 2.71

Complexes (5.3) 1 (7.6) 1 (26.7) 1 (31.6) 1 (28.9) 1

Beaches 19 36 164 247 288 2.99
(2.5) 1 (4.8) 1 (21.8)1 (32.8)1 (38.2) 1

Theme 54 121 255 220 104 2.26

Parks (7.2)1 (16.0)1 (33.8) 1 (29.2) 1 (13.8) 1

Sports and 89 141 275 150 99 2.04

Special (11.8) 1 (18.7) 1 (36.5) 1 (19.9) 1 (13.1) 1

Events

Nature and 43 105 209 197 200 2.54

Outdoor (5.7) 1 (13.9)1 (27.7) 1 (26.1) 1 (26.5) 1

Agriculture 55 143 240 196 120 2.24

Tourism (7.3) 1 (19.0) 1 (31.8) 1 (26.0)1 (15.9) 1

Holiday 39 95 178 190 252 2.69

Resorts (5.2) 1 (12.6) 1 (23.6) 1 (25.2) 1 (33.4) 1

Note:

I .
Percentages of each score on Importance scale

Scale: Not Important (0) to Extremely Important (4)

68

The mean scores for both importance and belief scales are summarized and
reported in a graph below. The graph shows that the belief scores (on the availability of
attractions) as assigned by the domestic visitors are higher than the importance they
assigned to each type of attraction. Some other details also emerge from the graph. For
example, domestic visitors place more importance on beaches and believe that the island
has more beaches than any of the other seven types of attractions. Sports and special
events were considered to be the least important type of attraction in decisions to visit

Langkawi. The greatest discrepancy between importance and perception of availability is

 

 

 

 

for resorts.
Figure 3
Mean scores for importance and belief scales

1 I” if — I T IT 1A? *7 I —_ l
. 3.5 f
j j.
l 3 - l
I 2.5 ’
l 8 l
S 1.5 , I
l ‘1’ l
p 2 l
. 1 fi—w—m" » l
1 l—O—Belief 1';
0.5 1+.Im99rtar193"
l l

1 0

x.
of” '69 of? 68' av“ 00‘ {45° 06 l
‘ ® Q Q 4“ $0 015- 00 Q. .
9 e v9

69

The tables and graph Show that while visitors perceived some attractions as being
abundant on the island, these attractions were not always important reasons for visiting
Langkawi. Take holiday resorts for example. Many visitors felt that there were many
resorts available on the island, but that they were not a very important reason for visiting.
This may be due to the fact that holiday resorts on the island are perceived as too
expensive for most domestic visitors. So, while the island is seen as having many resorts,
most domestic visitors choose other types of accommodation while on the island.
Therefore, holiday resorts were not a factor in their trip decision, hence the low
importance score.

In order to better understand the relationship between the importance of various
attractions types and visitor beliefs/perceptions of the availability of those attractions,
scores from both scales were subjected to statistical tests. First, the importance
scores/scale were recoded into two categories: a‘ high score’ that included scores of
either 3 or 4 on the importance scale. The ‘low score’ included 0 or 1 scores. Importance
scores of 2 were disregarded because it was felt that these persons were indifferent
toward that type of attraction. Domestic visitors that assigned either a high or low score
to the different types of attractions were then compared by performing a series of t-tests

on their beliefs/perceptions on the availability of various types of attractions (Table 9).

7O

Table 9
Comparison of the beliefs on the availability of various
types of attractions on Langkawi Island by persons who consider
those types of attractions as either important or unimportant
when deciding to visit the island

 

Low Importance High Importance

 

(0 and 1) (3 and 4) 1
Types of n=131 n=274 t- Prob.
Attractions value
Historical 3.041 3.421 -4220 000*
Attractions
Shopping 2.651 3.121 -4505 000*
Complexes
Beaches 3.051 3.471 4.733 000*
Theme Parks 1.791 2.741 -8.974 000*
Sports and Special 1.691 2.641 —9.223 000*
Events
Nature and Outdoor 2.231 2.981 -7090 000*
Agriculture 2.001 2.871 -8.349 000*
Tourism
Holiday Resorts 2.891 3.411 -5.609 000*

 

Imean scores on belief scale
'1‘ a significant difference at the .05 level.

Table 9 shows that for all types of attractions, domestic visitors who considered a
particular type of attraction as important or very important in their decision to visit the
island believed that those attractions were widely available on the island. This is not
surprising and possibly explains that, for example, persons who consider beaches to be
important, believe or perceive that there are beaches available on the island. The t-test
comparisons are all significant at a .05 confidence level.

Some other possible explanations for these findings may include the fact that
persons who do not consider a type of attraction as being important are just unaware (and
not interested in determining) of the availability of that type of attraction on the island.

Conversely, visitors who consider a type of attraction to be important will spend more

71

effort in researching the availability of those attractions. It may also plausible that visitors
are merely transferring familiar images of other island-destination to Langkawi. Typical
and ideal images of an island-destination, such as beaches, sun, and sea may contribute to
visitor perceptions that such attractions are highly available on the island.

Additional tests were performed to determine whether persons, who are not
interested in a particular type of attraction, are more likely to believe/perceive that they
are not available on the island. In other words, lack of interest in an attraction type
results in perceptions of non-availability. Visitors’ interests in historical attractions may
provide an example of this assumption. To test this assumption, four ‘interest’ indicators
for historical attractions were used to determine: (1) their previous experiences visiting
historical attractions on Langkawi; (2) their stated intention to visit historical attractions
while visiting Langkawi on the trip that they were surveyed; (3) their intention to visit or
have visited Kuala Kedah Fort (a historical site close to the ferry terminal) while on the
current trip; and (4) their previous visit to any historical sites on pleasure trips they made
within the last 12 months. Chi-square tests were performed to determine the relationship
between these four ‘interest’ indicators and their belief on the availability of historical

attractions on the island. The results from chi-square tests are presented in Table 10.

72

Table 10

Chi-square tests of the relationship between visitors’ interest in historical attractions and
their beliefs on the availability of historical attractions
on Langkawi Island

 

Indicators of Low Belief High Belief Statistic
interest in historical attractions Score Score

 

Visited historical attractions during

previous trips to Langkawi
No 81.2 62.8 76: 2.260
Yes 18.8 37.2 P>.05

Plan to visit historical attractions on

the island during current trip
No 52.9 42.1 )8: 1.553
Yes 47.1 57.9 P>.05

Plan to visit Kuala Kedah Fort

during current trip
No 76.5 69.0 x2: 8509*
Yes 23.5 31.0 P<.05

Visited historical attractions on
pleasure trips made within the last

12 months
No 50.0 20.5 x2= 2.051
Yes 5.0 79.5 P>.05

 

1" a significant difference at the .05 level .

From the analyses, it was found that only one ‘interest’ indicator — plan to visit
Kuala Kedah Fort, showed significant differences (at .05 level) between the belief
categories. The lack of significance differences may be the result of ‘cell sparseness’
problem; some cells of the cross-tabulation tables have less than 5 expected member

counts. However, the finding, in general, shows that visitors who have little or no interest

73

in historical attractions believe that such attraction types are not widely available on
Langkawi Island, thus providing support for our assumption.

The third step in determining the attractiveness of Langkawi Island to domestic
visitors involved a multiplicative procedure. The importance score of each attraction type

for each respondent was multiplied by their belief or perception score. Eight
multiplicative scores (Bik . Eik) were calculated for each respondent. The multiplicative
scores were then added together creating one summative score for each respondent. This

summative score 2(Bik. Ek) is the overall attractiveness of Langkawi Island. How the

overall attractiveness index is calculated is demonstrated for three respondents in Table
11. These scores were later used as the basis for segmentation analyses in this study.
The multiplicative attractiveness scores for the three respondents are 56, 56, and
46 respectively. The attractiveness scores of these three respondents indicated that they
do not perceive the island to be a very attractive destination for different reasons. For
example, Respondents # 1 and #2 have the same overall attractiveness scores, but the
importance they assigned to the attractions and their perceptions of what attractions are
available on the island are different in significant ways. In this case, Respondent #1,
perceives the island as having most of the attractions (higher belief/perception scores) but
did not place as much importance on the attractions in their decision to visit the island.
Conversely, Respondent #2 was not as positive ( low belief/perception scores) about the
availability of different types of attractions, but the attractions were important in his or
her decision to visit the island. Respondent #2 visits the island even though he/she
perceived that the island does not offer many of such attractions. It could be argued that

there is a potential that Respondent #2 may not be satisfied with his/her previous

74

experience on the island. However, the individual scores indicated that, it is more likely
that he/She was visiting the island for one or two primary reasons (e.g., visiting holiday
resorts) and was therefore, not as aware of the other attractions on the island. Or maybe
he/she was more conservative in the scoring than Respondent #1. The summative scores
provide an overall measure of attractiveness but it also hides important information about
the perceptions and importance different respondents assigned to different types of

attraction.

75

Table 1 1

Examples of how the multiplicative and attractiveness scores are calculated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents #
Types of Attractions Formulas 1 2 3
Historical Attractions Q9 (Eik) 2 3 4
Q10(Bik) 4 1 4
Eik- Bik * 8 3 16
Shopping Complexes Q9 (Elk) l 3 3
Q10 (Bik) 4 2 1
Eik- Bik * 4 6 3
Beaches Q9 (Eik) 3 4 3
Q10 (Bik) 4 3 3
Theme Parks Q9 (Eik) 2 4 3
Q10 (Bik) 4 1 1
Eik~ Bik * 8 4 3
Sports and Special Events Q9 (Elk) 2 3 2
Q10 (Bik) 3 1 1
Elk- Bik * 6 3 2
Nature and Outdoor Q9 (Em) 2 3 3
Q10 (Bik) 4 2 2
Eik- Bik * 8 6 6
Agriculture Tourism Q9 (Eik) 2 3 2
Q10 (Bik) 4 2 2
Eik- Bik * 8 6 4
Holiday Resorts Q9 (Eik) 1 4 1
Q10 (Bik) 2 4 3
Eik- Bik * 2 6 4
Summative Score 2 En Ba 56 56 46

 

1" Multiplicative score; importance score multiplied by belief score

76

The mean multiplicative scores (Eik. Bik) for each type of attraction are presented

in Table 12. Despite the low overall attractiveness score, the island was perceived by
domestic visitors as attractive, especially for its shoreline and beach attractions (mean
multiplicative scores of 10.14 (from a maximum 16 points), followed by the historical
attractions (9.87). Holiday resorts (mean=8.93) and shopping complexes (8.29) were also
perceived as determinants of Langkawi’s attractiveness. This verifies earlier conclusions
on what makes the island attractive as a major destination for domestic visitors; these
attractions are also commonly associated with tourism experiences on the island (Din,
1990). While there is variation among different visitor segments in how they perceive
the attractiveness of the island, marketers and advertisers need to recognize that beaches
and historical attractions are key positioning and image dimensions. As discussed
previously, the island is seen as having many holiday resorts, but are not important to

many domestic visitors, possibly because they are out of their price range.

Table 12

Mean multiplicative attractiveness scores (Eik. B3,) of
various types of attractions on Langkawi Island

 

 

Types of Attractions Min. Max Mean Multiplicative
Scores

Historical Attractions 0 16 9.87

Shopping Complexes 0 16 8.29

Beaches O 16 10.14

Theme Parks 0 16 5.85

Sports and Special Events 0 16 5.09

Nature and Outdoor 0 16 7.25

Agriculture Tourism 0 16 6.03

Holiday Resorts 0 16 8.93

 

77

Results of Research Hypotheses Testing
As discussed in chapter 3, five research hypotheses were formulated for
testing. The first four hypotheses were based on the components of the ‘Destination
Attractiveness Model’ . The final two hypotheses focused on evaluating the segmentation
results. Hypotheses 1 through 3 were tested using t-tests and Chi-square. Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the final two hypotheses.

Importance of Different Types of A ttractions

The first research hypothesis was stated as:

Domestic visitors to Langkawi Island assign more importance to
historical attractions in their decision to visit the island than they do
to any other types of attractions.

Let us recall that survey respondents were asked to use a 5-point Likert-type
scale to indicate the importance they assigned to various types of attractions in their
decision to visit Langkawi Island. The more important the attraction type, the higher the
score. Seven paired t-tests were performed to determine statistical differences in the
importance assigned to different pairings of attractions.

The findings of the t-tests (Table 13) support the research hypothesis (at 95
percent confidence level) for most types of attractions. There is a significant difference in
the importance of historical attractions in decisions to visit the island compared to other
attractions, except for beaches. There is no statistical difference between the importance
assigned historical attractions and beaches. Domestic visitors generally considered the
island’s historical attractions to be more important than other attractions including

shopping which is considered to be a mainstay of the island’s attractiveness and image.

78

Table 13
Results of paired t-tests of the difference in the importance of
historical attractions and other types of attractions
in the decisions of domestic visitors to visit Langkawi Island

 

 

Attraction Type Mean t-value df Probability
(one-tail)

Historical Attractions 2.97 5.69 753 .000*

Shopping Complexes 2.71

Historical Attractions 2.97 - .53 753 .296

Beach Attractions 2.99

Historical Attractions 2.97 16.42 753 .000*

Theme Parks 2.26

Historical Attractions 2.97 20.35 753 .000*

Sports and Special Events 2.04

Historical Attractions 2.97 8.84 753 .000*

Nature and Outdoor 2.54

Recreation

Historical Attractions 2.97 15.88 753 .000*

Agriculture-tourism 2.24

Historical Attractions 2.97 5.91 753 000*

Holiday Resorts 2.69

 

1" different at the .05 level of statistical significance
Scale: Not Important (0) to Extremely Important (4)

It is particularly interesting to find that the historical attractions were given higher
scores than shopping complexes. Despite being developed as a shopping haven for
visitors, data obtained revealed that the importance of historical attractions has
outweighed the importance of shopping attractions in visitor decision to visit Langkawi.
The relatively high scores on historical attractions, however, are in accordance with the

shift in tourism development policy of the state of Kedah as stated in the first chapter.

79

The findings may lend support to the policy and emphasize the critical importance of this
attraction type in generating tourism money for the state. Such findings would be of
interest, especially to LADA and other relevant state agencies, because this may represent

the type of tourism development on the island they want to pursue in the future.

The Influence of Previous Experience

This section discusses the results of statistical analyses pertaining to the second
and third research hypotheses. Each hypothesis was designed to examine the effect of
previous experience on visitor attitudes. Specifically, the hypotheses were set to
determine if the repeat visitors assigned more importance and attractiveness values than
the first-time visitors.

A vast majority (60.2 percent) of respondents identified themselves as repeat
visitors (Table 14). Only about 40 percent indicated that it was their first trip to Langkawi
Island. Respondents, who stated that they had visited Langkawi before, were further
asked to indicate the year they had first visited the island. The finding revealed that about
69 percent of visitors had taken their first trip to the island between the years of 1991 and
2000. This may reflect the early stage of tourism activities on the island when it was
being heavily developed and promoted as the nation’s new tourist destination. The
majority of the respondents (26.8 percent) also stated that they had not visited Langkawi
within the previous 12 months from the time they were surveyed. Others specified that
they made between one (19.6 percent) to two (21.4 percent) trips to the island during the

same period of time.

80

Table 14
Summary of visitors’ previous experience to Langkawi Island

 

 

 

 

 

Number of
Responses Percentage
Types of visitors (n=754)

F irst-time visitor 300 39.8
Repeat visitor 454 60.2
Year First Visited (n=454)
Prior to 1980 35 7.7
1981-1985 24 5.3
1986-1990 73 16.1
1991-1995 119 26.2
1996-2000 195 43.0
2001 8 1.8
Trips in the last 12 months* (n=454)
0 (did not make any trip) 130 28.6
1 trip 89 19.6
2 trips 97 21.4
3 trips 49 10.8
4 trips 24 5.3
5 or more trips 65 14.3

 

1" 12 months refer to time period between August 2000 until July 2001

81

Previous Experience on Importance Scores
Research hypothesis 2 was designed to determine the influence of respondents’
previous experience on their importance scores of all types of attractions. Specifically,

the research hypothesis tests the notion that:

Rapeat visitors assigned more importance values for all types of
attraction on their decision to visit Langkawi than the first-time
visitors.

An independent sample t-test (one-tail) was used to compare mean scores
between the groups for the importance ratings. The previous experience variable was
used as the grouping variable. Seven separate t-tests were applied (at 95 percent
confidence level) on the mean scores of each type of attraction. Findings from the tests
are summarized in Table 15. Significant differences between the groups were found for
five types of attraction - - historical attractions, shopping, beach attractions, theme parks
and sports and special event. However, the study discovered that the first-time visitors
rated each of these attractions as carrying more importance than the repeat visitors in
their travel decision. Therefore, the proposition stated in the third research hypothesis
was not supported.

The higher importance scores by the first-time visitors may have been the result
of their high expectation of what they hoped to experience on Langkawi. For example,
historical attractions were rated highly by the respondents and this may have reflected
their strong desire to consume tourism experience at such attractions more than any other
types of attractions available on the island. Three of the attractions - historical, shopping
and theme parks - may also have been considered to be unique attributes to the island and

therefore have carried more weight in determining the decision to visit the destination.

82

Table 15

Summary of statistical comparisons (t-test) of importance

mean scores between first time and repeat visitors to Langkawi

 

 

Attraction Group N Mean t-value df Probability
Type (one tail)

Historical F irst-Time 300 3.10 - 2.78 752 .003*
Repeat 454 2.89

Shopping First-Time 300 2.84 - 2.62 752 .005*
Repeat 454 2.63

Beach First-Time 300 3.07 - 1.77 752 004*
Repeat 454 2.94

Theme Park First-Time 300 2.46 - 4.07 752 .0001“
Repeat 454 2.13

Sport/Special First-Time 300 2.13 - 1.74 752 .042*

Events Repeat 454 l .98

Nature/ First-Time 300 2.59 - 1.03 752 .151

Recreation Repeat 454 2.50

Agriculture First-Time 300 2.27 - 0.46 752 .321

Tourism Repeat 454 2.23

Resorts First-Time 300 2.76 - 1.22 752 .116
Repeat 454 2.65

 

’1‘ different at the .05 level of statistical significance

83

Previous Experience on the Attractiveness of Langkawi Island

The third hypothesis is stated as:

Repeat visitors assigned more attractiveness value than the first-time
visitors to Langkawi Island and its various fipes of attractions.

This hypothesis was derived to determine if the repeat visitors assigned a
higher attractiveness value to Langkawi as a tourism destination than the first-time
visitors. An independent sample t-test (one tail) was used to compare mean values for the
attractiveness of the island between the visitor groups. Once again, the previous
experience variable was used as the grouping variable. Findings of the t-test may be
found in table below.

Table 16

Summary of statistical comparisons (t-test) of the overall attractiveness
means scores between first time and repeat visitors

 

Variable Group N Mean Std. t- df Probability
Deviation value Kine-tail)

ATTRACTIVENESS First 300 63.79 22.26 -2.23 752 .013*
Time
Repeat 454 59.89 24.38

 

* different at the .05 level of statistical significance

The findings reveal a significant difference among the groups with regard to the
attractiveness scores . A one-tail t-test, applied to the overall attractiveness scores yielded
a value of - 2.23, which is Significant at the .05 level. The findings, however, failed to
support the research hypothesis that the repeat visitors assigned more attractiveness value

than the first-time visitors for Langkawi Island. Instead, the first-time visitors were found

84

to rate the island higher (mean=63.79) than the repeat visitors (mean=59.89) for
attractiveness.

One plausible explanation for this finding is that most of the first-time visitors
may have rated (on the belief scale) all types of attractions according to their perceptions,
which more often than not, did not reflect the reality (Gregory, 1992). Therefore, they
may have had the inclination to rate it higher than the repeat visitors. The repeat visitors,
in contrast, rated the various types of attractions according to a more realistic impression
of what they had seen on the island before and this may have influenced their low belief
scores for each type of attraction.

For repeat visitors to give low ratings to a destination in terms of its attractiveness
may raise concerns for destination managers. One of the concerns is that this finding may
suggest the general lack of satisfaction on previous tourism experiences among people in
this group. However, it was not the intention of this study to investigate the underlying
cause for such differences in ratings between the groups. Further work on satisfaction
level and its pertinence to destination attractiveness is required in the future to validate

this proposition.

Identification and Assessment of Market Segments

The final objective of this study was to determine whether or not domestic visitors
to Langkawi Island could be grouped into substantial, exploitable and reachable market
segments. While it is often possible to group tourists into segments based on various

segmentation bases (e,g,, socio-economics, purchase volume, purchase behavior), it

85

frequently produces groups that cannot be sufficiently used in designing a marketing mix
that can selectively attract and satisfy the individuals that comprise the groups.
Therefore, this study identifies the domestic visitor segments to Langkawi based on their
perceptions of various types of attractions on the island and the importance they assign to
the attractions. Two research hypotheses (#4 and #5) were tested to assess the quality of

the segments that were produced.

Hypothesis 4: The sganentation based on the attractiveness scores produces
segments that are substantial in volume.

 

Segments are considered to be substantial if there are enough customers or sales
potential to justify the expenditure for marketing efforts required to serve it (Myers,
1996). For the purpose of testing the hypothesis, the number of domestic visitors in the
identified segments was used as a measure of substantiality.

Hypothesis 5 was formulated to determine whether the segments that were
identified were exploitable and reachable from a marketing perspective. Segments that
cannot be distinguished or selectively reached by using different combinations of
marketing communication messages and media are not useful as a basis for marketing
strategies (Kikuchi, 1986). The persons comprising market segments must have some
distinguishing characteristics so that elements of a marketing mix, such as promotions
that electively appeal to them, can be designed for and targeted at the segments. In this
case the segments were compared to determine differences in their socio—demographic

characteristics, trip characteristics, and travel behaviors.

86

Hypothesis 5: Domestic visitors segments differ in terms of their socio-
demographic characteristics, trip characteristicmnd their travel
behaviors.

Forming the Segments and Analysis
The summative scores 2(Bik. Ek), or the overall attractiveness scores were used

as the segmentation base of the domestic visitors to Langkawi Island. The formation of
the scores was discussed earlier in this chapter. A non-hierarchical cluster analysis (K-
means) was used to group domestic tourists to Langkawi Island into groups or potential
market segments. This technique reassigns cases to clusters with the nearest centroid
(Wedel and Kamakura, 2000). The K-means technique was used primarily due to the
large sample size. The K-means method also is far more ‘robust to outliers and the
presence of irrelevant variables’ (Wedel and Kamakura, 2000; p. 54). This software does
not require substantial computer resources. It permits specification of the numbers of
different clustering to be created. For the purpose of this study, a sequence of clustering
containing 2,3,4,5, and 6 clusters was specified by the researcher, but the technique only
produces one solution for each of the different clustering solutions (number of clusters)
requested (Ipson, 1993).

Compared to hierarchical clustering method, one of the disadvantages of using K-
means method is difficulty in determining the number of clusters to retain for further
analysis. In order to select the number of clusters, two criteria for selecting cluster
solutions, as mentioned by Mahoney (1979), Kikuchi (1986) and Wedel and Kamakura
(2000) were used: substantiality of segment size, and ‘interpretability’ or the ability of

clusters to allow subsequent analysis. The cluster centroids of each of the five different

87

clustering solutions was examined to determine which of the solutions produced the most
meaningful clusters and potential market segments. The four and five cluster solutions
produced some groups that were only Slightly dissimilar and some were very small in
terms of membership. The four cluster solution for example, produced one cluster
comprised of only eight respondents. It was suggested by Ipson (1993) that the minimum
size of segment should be economically practical to tailor a separate marketing mix for
the segment. Conversely the two cluster solution groupings were very generic and the
differences between the two clusters did not provide much direction for marketing. In this
regard, it was judged by the researcher that the 3 cluster solution fits this description.

The three cluster solution produced notably different clusters of sufficient Size.
Cluster 1 comprises 9.8 percent of Langkawi’s domestic visitors, Cluster 2 representing
83.1 percent and Cluster 3 represents 7.1 percent. If the Langkawi Development
Authority (LADA) estimation of 1.28 million tourist arrived by ferry in 2000 is
accurate, then Segment 1 represents 125,000 domestic visitors, 1.1 million visitors are in
Segment 2, and 91,000 in Segment 3. The segmentation in this study, therefore, supports
the research hypothesis stating that the sample did produce market segments that are
substantial in volume potential.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to determine what Significant
differences exist between the clusters in terms of the importance they assign to various
types of attractions, and their perceptions of availability of those attractions on the island.
There were statistically significant difference (p<.05) for each type of attraction
indicating that the three segments differ in importance ratings and perceptions. The mean

perception/belief and importance scores (cluster centroids) for each of the segments

88

provided the basis for labeling and describing them. The results of ANOVA’S to

determine statistical differences across the three segments can be found in Table 17.

Table 17

Segment labels based on significant differences in cluster centroids

 

 

Importance Segment #1 Segment #2 Segment #3
Type of and Belief

Attraction Scales Prob.
Historical Importance 1.72 3.03 3.93 000*
attraction Belief 2.76 3.20 3.87 000*
Shopping Importance 1.50 2.78 3 .50 000*
Belief 2.35 2.87 3.49 000*

Beach Importance 1.57 3.08 3 .93 000*
attraction Belief 2.80 3.31 3.87 000*
Theme Importance 0.93 2.32 3.49 000*
parks Belief 1.50 2.44 3.23 000*
Sports and Importance 0.74 2.08 3.36 000*
Events Belief 1.55 2.26 3 .23 000*
Nature / Importance 1.01 2.61 3.87 000*
Recreation Belief l .97 2.66 3 .70 000*
Agriculture Importance 0.85 2.28 3.79 000*
tourism Belief 1.69 2.45 3 .68 000*
Resorts Importance 1 . 12 2.77 3 .93 000*
Belief 2.72 3.19 3 .96 000*

 

1" Different at the .05 level of statistical significance
Importance: from 0=not important to 4=extremely important.
Belief: from 0=none available to 4= many/ much available.

Domestic visitors comprising Segment #3 placed more importance on all types of

attraction, but particularly higher on historical attractions (mean importance rating or

89

3.93), beaches (mean importance rating =3.93) and holiday resorts (mean importance
rating =3.93). Interestingly, Segment 3 members perceived that the island has a greater
numbers of these three types of attractions than any of the other segments. Therefore,
Segment 3 was labeled the ‘Historical Vacationer’ Segment. Members of Segment #2
placed significantly more importance on shopping (mean=2.78) and nature/outdoor
recreation (mean=2.61), and also perceive that the island offers more in the way of these
activities/attractions than the other segments. Hence, this segment was labeled the
‘Recreational Traveler’ Segment. Segment #1 proved to be hard to meaningfully labeled
or named. This segment, however, comprises of visitors who placed less importance on
all types of attractions and believe the island has less of all attractions than the other
segments. This segment has been named the ‘General Experience’ Segment.

To develop a more robust and marketing supportive profile of each of the
segments, they were statistically compared on socioeconomic, trip characteristics, and
travel behavior variables ANOVA and Chi-square analyses were used depending on
whether the variables were nominal or interval. One-way ANOVA tests were conducted
to examine differences in average age, length of their trips to Langkawi, number of
persons in their travel party to Langkawi, number of previous visits to Langkawi, number
of pleasure trips taken (to other destinations) within the previous 12 months. Chi-square
tests were employed to test for differences on categorical variables including: state of
residency, purpose of trip, intention to visit (or not) historical attractions on the island,
awareness of historical attractions on the island, first-time vs. repeat visitors, choice of
accommodation, and types of trip (day-trip or overnight). The findings of the ANOVA

tests can be found in Table 18 and the results of the Chi-square tests are in Table 19.

90

Table 18

Summary of statistical comparisons (ANOVA) of
Langkawi’s three domestic visitor market segments

 

 

Variables Segment Number Mean F-value df Prob.
value
Age 1.General Experience 74 31.49 .082 2 .922
2.Recreational Traveler 627 3 1.54
3.Historical Vacationer 53 3 1.04
Length of 1.Genera1 Experience 74 1.70 4.699 2 009*
Trip 2.Recreational Traveler 627 2.38
3.Historical Vacationer 53 2.40
Size of 1.General Experience 74 3.11 2.516 2 .081
Travel 2.Recreational Traveler 627 6.50
Party 3.Historical Vacationer 53 10.96
# of past 1.General Experience 74 3.15 1.438 2 .239
Trip to 2.Recreational Traveler 627 2.34
Langkawi 3.Historical Vacationer 53 2.56
# of past 1.General Experience 74 4.05 1.803 2 .167
Pleasure 2.Recreational Traveler 627 3.05
Trip 3.Historical Vacationer 53 3.28

 

* different at the .05 level of statistical significance

There are no statistically significant differences between the three segments in
terms of their age, Size of travel party to Langkawi, the number of previous trips to
Langkawi, and the number of pleasure trips (to other destinations) within the previous 12
months. The only difference was the length of the trip which they were making to
Langkawi. Visitors in the General Experience Segment were found to make shorter trips
to the island. We must remember that they placed less importance on any of the types of

attractions and they also believed that Langkawi has fewer attractions than any of the

91

other segments. Most of the members in this segment were on day trips and they were
also more likely going to the island for shopping and general sight seeing primarily.
Conversely, ‘Historical Vacationers Segment’ perceived that the island has an abundance
of the various attractions, and their enthusiasm was appropriately reflected by their
intention to stay longer on Langkawi than visitors in the other two segments.

As recommended by Mahoney (1979), despite the lack of statistically significant
differences (at .05 level), some of the patterns observed are worth noting as they
contribute to a more complete profile of the segments. For example, the size of Historical
Vacationer Segment’s travel parties was larger than the other segments, although the
difference is not statistically significant at a 95 % level of confidence. Additionally,
visitors in the General Experience Segment traveled more than the other segments. They
averaged four pleasure trips over the last twelve months compared to Historical
Vacationers and Recreational Travelers segments who took an average of three trips.
Their greater travel experience may also contribute to the lower ratings they gave to
Langkawi’s attractions compared to the other segments.

Chi-square tests on categorical variables including ‘income’, ‘education level’,
‘employment’, and ‘ethnic groups’ are reported in Table 19. Although socio-economic
characteristics have been frequently criticized as producing weak or mixed results in
discriminating between segments (Mahoney, 1979; van Raaij, 1986; Brayley, 1990;
Court and Lupton, 1997), they can contribute to developing a profile that can help target

media placement.

92

Table 19

Summary of statistical comparisons (Chi-Square) across
Langkawi’s three domestic visitor market segments

 

 

 

Percentage Percentage Percentage Statistic
Variables Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3
Q1= 7Q (n=627) m=53)

State of Residency

In-state 71.6 44.8 47.9 )6: 19.272*

Out-of—state 28.4 55.2 52.1 P<05
Purposes of Trip+

VFR 25.7 13.4 17.0 x2=8.094*

Sightseeing 16.2 50.9 39.6 x2=33090*

Business Trip 50.0 26.3 17.0 x2=21.848*

Business/Pleasure 16.2 17. l 32. 1 x2=7.632*

Shopping 12.2 28.9 24.5 x2=9.555*
Plan to visit historical Site 60.0 66.9 69.2 x2=16.641*
Aware of historical Site a 70.0 82.4 84.2 x2=1.988
Previous Experience

Repeat visitor 73.0 58.4 64.2 x2=6.258*

F irst-time visitor 27.0 41.6 35.8 P<05
Choice of Accommodation

Commercial lodging 63.0 83.0 86.3 x2=14045*

Family, friends 37.0 17.0 13.7 P<05
Types of trips

Day trip 27.0 7.5 3.8 x2=35.352*

Overnight trip 73.0 92.5 96.2 P<05

Note:

X2 Test of significance of differences in percentages

1" = significant at p= .05
+=multiple-response question

a = This question was relevant only to those who were visiting Langkawi for the first time.

There are Significant differences across the segments on their state of residency.

About 55.2 percent of the Recreational Travelers were out-of-state visitors compared to

93

just over a quarter (28.4%) of the General Experience Segment and 52.1 percent of
Historical Vacationers. The fact that a higher percentage of the General Experience
visitors was locals could also contribute to the lower importance they assigned to tourism
attractions and also perceptions of the island’s attractions. As already reported, most of
the out-of-state visitors in all three segments came from the neighboring states of Penang,
Selangor, Wilayah and Perak.

The three segments differ significantly in their purposes for the trips to Langkawi
Island. In this study, purposes of trips to Langkawi was measured using a multi-response
question which allows respondents to indicate multiple purposes for their trips.
Therefore, for analysis purposes, dummy variable was created for each response. A score
of ‘1’ was given if a respondent indicated a particular trip purpose and ‘0’ if a purpose
was not selected. Differences across five trip purposes -- visiting family and fiiends
(VFR), sightseeing, business trip, business with pleasure and shopping-- were tested.

More of the General Experience visitors (about 26 percent) were traveling to the
island to visit family and friends. In comparison, just 13 percent of Recreational
Travelers and about 17 percent of Historical Vacationers cited such a purpose for their
trip to the island. More visitors in the Recreational Travelers segment were visiting
Langkawi mainly for Sightseeing (about 51 %) and shopping (28.9%) than visitors in the
other two segments. Half of the General Experience visitors were on business trips to
Langkawi; this purpose was cited the least among the Historical Vacationers (only 17%).
This is perhaps because more Historical Vacationers (32.1%) were mixing business with

pleasure while visiting the island.

94

The chi-square tests also revealed a statistically significant difference in intentions
to visit historical sites while on the island. As might be expected, over two-thirds of
Historical Vacationers planned to visit historical sites. Fewer members of the other two
segments intended to visit such type of attraction. A Significant difference was also
identified with respect to the previous trip experiences of members of the three segments.
Almost three quarters of General Experience were repeat visitors to Langkawi in contrast
to just over half (58.4%) of Recreational Travelers. As mentioned in the previous
paragraph, many General Experience visitors were visiting Langkawi for business
purposes. Their frequent business trips to the island may account for the overwhelming
number of repeat visitors in this segment.

The following classification of accommodations, as recommended by Gregory
(1992) was used: ( 1) commercial lodging and, (2) staying with family or friends.
Commercial accommodations included hotels or motels, chalets, campgrounds, and
resorts. Of course, day-trippers were excluded from the analysis. The majority of all
respondents (81.7 percent) planned to stay in commercial lodging facilities. Chi-square
tests revealed some statistically significant differences between the segments in their
choice of accommodations on the island. A high percentage (86%) of the Historical
Vacationers planned to stay in commercial lodging. Interesting, a fairly high percentage
(37 percent) of respondents in the General Experience segment indicated that they would
rather stay at family or friends’ houses than using the commercial services. Data in Table
22 shows that most of them are in-state visitor and had frequented the island in the past,
mostly for business purposes. It is plausible to believe that members of this segment

comprised mostly of those who are greatly familiar with the island or have family/friend

95

ties on the island. Thus, they are more likely to spend nights at friend or family houses on
the island.

The domestic tourists were asked how long they planned to Spend away from
home on their trip to Langkawi. The information was transformed into ‘overnight’ and
‘daytrip’ visitors. The vast majority of domestic tourists visiting the island (90.8%) were
overnight trippers, spending a night or more on Langkawi and/or other places (en route to
the island or on their way home). Again, there were statistically Significant differences
between segments on the type of their trips. About 96 percent of Historical Vacationers
(of which 52% reside out-of-state) were on overnight trips compared to just 73% of the
General Experience. This is mainly due to the fact that most visitors in the General
Experience segment are traveling a rather Short distance to Langkawi compared to others;
about 76 percent of them are residing in the state of Kedah.

Tests for differences in the socio-economic characteristics of the members of the
three segments are reported in Table 20. Because of cell sparseness the income variable
was recoded into categorical data. Respondents with monthly household income of
RM2,000 or less were categorized as ‘low income’, and those who earn more than
RM2,000 were classified as ‘high income’ group. Other categorical characteristics
(precisely education and employment) were also condensed into fewer categories.
Education levels were re-grouped into 2 categories: a ‘low education level’ that included
persons with primary and secondary levels of education and a ‘high level’ of education
which included persons who were classified as college or university graduates. The
original eight employment categories were reduced to two — ‘full-time’ and ‘other’

employment situations. Business owners were considered full-time employees. The

96

‘other’ category included part-time employees, students, retired persons, and
homemakers.

Table 20

Summary of statistical comparisons (Chi-Square) for socioeconomic
characteristics across Langkawi’s three domestic visitor market segments

 

Percentage Percentage Percentage Statistic
Variables Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3
(n= 74) (n=627) (n=53)

 

Education Level

Low Level 62.2 60.3 60.4 X2: 0098

High Level 37.8 39.7 39.6 P>05
Income Level

Low Income 55.4 53.7 50.9 X2: 0249

High Income 44.6 46.3 49.1 P>05
Employment Category

Full-time 91.9 82.9 81.1 x2=4.163

Other 8.1 17.1 18.9 P>05
Ethnic Group

Malay 78.4 67.0 77.4 x2: 6.376

Chinese 13 .5 22.0 15.1 P>05

Indian 8.1 10.5 7.5

 

Note:
1‘ Test of significance of differences in percentages

Table 20 shows that there are no statistically significant differences in
educational level, income, employment status, and ethnicity between segments.
Therefore, socio-economic variables alone do not provide meaningful differentiation
between segments or to design target marketing. However, when combined with other

variables they provide a more complete understanding of the three segments.

97

In summary, the segments differed on 7 of the 17 variables that were tested and
none of the socio-economic characteristics. There are potentially exploitable differences
across the segments in their length of trips, state of residency, purpose of trips, intentions
to visit historical attractions, previous trips to the island, types of trips, and choice of
accommodation. Figure 4 can aid in understanding the segments. The graph shows the
distributional pattern of the attractiveness scores. The distribution of attractiveness
scores follow almost a normal curve. This normal distribution in someway hinders clear

grouping of respondents based on the attractiveness data.

 

Figure 4
Distribution of the overall attractiveness
scores
100
ml

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 '
40 i
5‘ 20 I
5, Std. Dev = 23.62
:3)- Mean = 61.4
I: 0 d N = 754.00

 

0_ 7 ‘3 u’ 7 6‘ )0 <9 I I I I
0 0- 0% oo 00 0-0 ago 0 40%0 00.0’00‘300‘700

Attractiveness scores

98

 

Alternative Segmentation Analysis

The segmentation analysis described above was carried out using overall
attractiveness values assigned by all visitors including those business visitors. Some
concerns surfaced during the data analysis stage that the inclusion of business visitors in
the analyses might distort the true characteristics of visitor market on the island,
particularly with regard to attitudes toward the island as a tourist destination. It was felt
that business visitors would have different motivations for their visits and as a result,
could assign different degrees of importance to various attractions than tourists. To
examine this possibility, respondents were classified into ‘business visitors’ and ‘non-
business visitors’ to the purpose of their trips to Langkawi and then compared on a
number of different characteristics. The findings of these comparisons are Shown in Table
C1 and C2 (Appendix C).

In general, the ‘business only’ visitors to Langkawi Island can be described as
follows: most of them are repeat visitors and had traveled to the island more than 3 times
in the previous 12 months; they were most likely to travel by themselves and did not
Spend any during the trip; most of them were also interested in shopping and participating
in touring and sightseeing while on their trips to Langkawi. Many business visitors to
the island are residents of Kedah. Because of the short duration of their trips , they were
less likely to stay overnight on the island. Their frequent trips to the island and familiarity
with its attractions perhaps, leads to the lower attractiveness values they assigned to
Langkawi Island as compared to values assigned by the ‘non-business’ visitors. They are
less concerned with many of the attractions that are of interest to tourists and vacationers.

Briefly, the findings lead us to conclude that there are differences in characteristics and

99

attitude toward Langkawi between the business visitor and the rest of domestic visitors
on the island.

There findings tend to substantiate concerns that including ‘business only’
visitors might dilute the attractiveness values assigned by visitors and as a result the
segmentation analyses. A Similar K-mean cluster analysis was performed but this time,
‘busineSS only’ visitors were excluded from the analysis. Interestingly, the

segmentation analyses (Table D1; Appendix D) produced three segments that are very

"" manna-Anew

similar to the segments derived when ‘business only’ visitors were included.

Additional concerns were raised concerning the decision to base the

 

segmentation on the overall (summative) attractiveness score versus segmenting on the
attractiveness (importance and perceptions) of different attraction types. While the
summative scores provides an overall measure of attractiveness, it was felt that it might
also hide marketing relevant such as the differences in the perceptions and importance
respondents assign to different types of attraction.

To address this concern, another segmentation analysis was conducted using the
multiplicative scores (Bik. Ek) for each type of attraction as the segmentation base. The

multiplicative scores are, in essence, an indication of the attractiveness of each type of
attraction on the island to the domestic visitors rather than the island’s overall
attractiveness.

Again, a non-hierarchical cluster analysis (K-means) was used to identify the
visitor segments. ‘Business only’ visitors were dropped from the segmentation process.
In addition, further examination of the multiplicative scores, determined that the scores

for agriculture tourism attractions and Sports and special events were consistently lower

100

than for other types of attractions on Langkawi. Also, there was very little variation in the
multiplicative scores for these two attraction types across visitors. Consequently, scores
for these two types of attractions were also eliminated form the segmentation analyses.

A sequence of clustering containing 2,3,4,5, and 6 clusters was specified, and
each of the clustering results were examined. The cluster centroids of each of the five
different clustering solutions was examined to determine which of the solutions produced
the most meaningful clusters and potentially exploitable market segments. Substantiality
of the segments, and ‘interpretability’ were used in determining the number of cluster
solutions for further analyses. It was determined that the four-cluster solution best met the
criteria and the four segments were compared and contrasted on a number of different
characteristics in an effort to generate marketing important profiles.

The four-cluster solution produced notably different clusters of sufficient size.
Cluster 1 comprises 17.3 percent of Langkawi’s domestic visitors, 24.5 percent of visitors
are in Cluster 2, 36.6 percent in Cluster 3, and 21.5 percent are in Cluster 4. Applying
the estimated visitor arrivals via ferry in 2000, it is estimated that Segment 1 contains
28,160 domestic visitors, about 728, 320 visitors are in Segment 2, Segment 3 contains
456,960 visitors and 66,560 visitors are included in Segment 4.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to identify significant differences
between the clusters/segments in terms of the multiplicative scores they assigned to
various types of attractions on the island. The perception/belief and importance scores
(cluster centroids) for each of the segments provided the basis for labeling and
describing the four clusters/segments. The results of ANOVA’s are reported in Table 21.

Chi-square and ANOVA test were carried out to identify meaningful differences across

101

 

segments on several variables including socio-demographic, trip characteristics and

travel behavior. The findings from these analyses are also Shown in Table 21. The

combination of the analyses are summarized in the following profiles:

Segment 1:

Segment 2:

Segment 3:

Segment 4:

This segment assigns high attractiveness scores to historical
attractions, shopping, beach, and resorts. A large number of out-of-
state visitors, many of them visiting the island for the first time are in
this segment. Shopping, visiting theme parks, and visiting family and
friends are the most preferred activities on the island. They are also
very interested in visiting historical attraction on the island, and many
had visited such attractions at other destinations they visit. Most of
them are overnight trippers, and accordingly planned to Spend more
nights on the island . They prefer to stay in commercial lodging,
although they are dominated by middle-income persons and younger
in age compared to the other segments. This segment is labeled as
‘Vacation Travelers’.

Their attractiveness scores are lower for all types of attractions. Most
of them are in-state visitors, residing in the state of Kedah. Their
preferred activities on the island are shopping and visiting family and
friends. This segment includes a large number of persons who have
visited the island frequently. Generally they have little interest in
visiting historical attraction on the island. Most are on Short trips to the
island, and overnight visitors stay with family or friends. They are
older with lower incomes. This is labeled the ‘In-state’ or ‘Local’
segment because their residency explains many of their characteristics.

This segment in centrist in that its members assign average
attractiveness scores to all types of attractions except shopping and
beaches. Most first time visitors can be found in this segment.
Shopping and visiting theme parks are two most preferred activities
while on the trip. Most of this segment are out-of-state visitors who
frequently stay in commercial lodging when staying overnight on the
island. ‘First—time Visitors’ is the label given to this segment.

This segment is interested in all types of attractions and this is
reflected in the higher than average attractiveness scores they assign to
each of the attraction types, especially historical attractions, outdoor
recreation activities and resorts. They are more likely to kayak, hike
and scuba dive while visiting the island. Also, they are less interested
in shopping on the island. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that
members of this segment are younger than the other segments. They
are also interested in historical places on the island. Many are repeat
visitors, who on average stay longer on the island than other

102

 

segments. They prefer commercial lodging, perhaps because many of
them are in the higher income brackets. Therefore, this segment is
called as the ‘Active Recreation’ segment.

This segmentation does not seem to provide much different information from that
previously offered by the first (overall attractiveness) segmentation process. Some
characteristics of the new segments mirrored the characteristics previously identified in
the original segments. This is in Spite of the fact that steps were taken in removing
‘irrelevant’ variables from the segmentation analyses. Recall that this second alternative
segmentation, which is based on the multiplicative scores, excluded the business visitors
from the analyses. In addition, the scores for agriculture tourism attractions and sports
and special events were dropped in forming and identifying the segments.

In summary, the segments differed on several variables that were tested; none are
socio-economic characteristics. There are potentially exploitable differences in intentions
to visit historical attractions, previous visit to historical site at other destination, historical
Sites visited on previous trip to the island, previous experience (repeat versus first time)
on the island, types of trips, and some activities to participate in. Discussion on
Similarities between segments identified from both original (attractiveness) and

multiplicative segmentation approaches are provided in the next chapter.

103

.,....¥

1:“ ll““‘

 

1.1.2 ... . _. Ilsa-1'. r“ *.

 

Table 21

Statistical comparisons between multiplicative score segments

 

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment4 Statistic
Variables (n= 94) (n=133) (n=199) (n=117)

 

Multiplicative Scores a

104

Historical Attraction 1 1.71 5.50 1 1.52 12.01 F=79.403*
Shopping 11.52 4.88 11.68 5.47 F=149073*
Beach 9.82 7.26 12.90 11.62 F=63.415*
Theme Parks 3.76 3.39 8.55 6.99 F=85.913*
Nature/recreation 5.43 5.20 7.46 13.03 F=106.402*
Holiday Resorts 12.07 5.73 8.92 1 1.83 F=61.139*
Socio-demographics
Agea 31.02 30.33 31.65 29.42 F=1.829
State of Origin
Kedahan 36.2 48.1 39.7 42.7 )8: 3.812
Out of state 63.8 51.9 60.3 57.3 P>05
Income group
<2000 52.1 55.6 53.3 55.5 ,6: 87.811
2001-4000 40.4 36.1 40.7 32.5 P>0.05
4001-6000 6.4 3.8 4.5 6.4
>6000 1.1 4.5 1.5 2.6
Trip Characteristics
Total night (island) a 2.17 1.98 2.16 2.16 F=O.704
Total length of trip a 2.43 2.16 2.31 2.47 F=941
Number of previous 2.28 1.83 1.80 2.54 F=1.208
trip to Langkawi a
Plan to visit 67.0 57.9 73.4 65.8 y1=8.685*
historical sites on
Langkawi Island
Visited historical 31.6 22.5 42.5 45.9 x2=l 1.61 1*
sites during last trip
to Langkawi island
Visited other 87.5 60.0 78.3 79.5 y2=8.413*
historical sites
Previous Visit to L1
Repeat 60.6 60.2 43.7 63.2 x‘= 16071*
First Time 39.4 39.8 56.3 36.8 P<05
Type of visit
Day trip 1.1 9.8 3.0 2.6 )6: 13.927*
Overnight 98.9 90.2 97.0 97.4 P<05

 

 

Table 21

Statistical comparisons between multiplicative score segments (continued)

 

Segment] Segment 2 Segment3 Segment4 Statistic

 

Variables (n= 94) (n=133) (n=199) (n=117)
Choice of lodging
Family/relative 16.3 21.7 16.7 18.6 12:-— 1.506
Commercial 83.7 78.3 83.3 81.4 P>05
Activity to participate
Shopping + 78.7 57.9 77.4 45.3 )6: 44.471 *
VFR+ 16.0 23.3 14.6 16.2 x2= 4.598
Visit Theme+ 24.5 12.0 41.7 35.0 x‘= 36.216*
Scuba Diving+ 8.5 8.3 14.1 19.7 x2= 9.152
Jungle Hiking + 2.1 9.8 10.1 14.5 x2= 9936*
Kayaking + 5.3 10.5 12.1 18.8 12: 9995*

 

8 ANOVA test; mean scores are reported

X2 Test of significance of differences in percentages
* = significant at p= .05
+=multiple-response question

105

 

 

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMEMNDATIONS

The two primary purposes of this study were to assess the attractiveness of
Langkawi Island as a destination for domestic visitors and to evaluate visitors’
perceptions and the importance they assigned to various types of attractions as a means of
segmenting the island’s domestic Visitor market. The first chapter provided the general
background, problem statement, purposes, and significance of the study. A description of
Langkawi Island and tourism in Malaysia and specifically on the island were also
provided in the chapter.

Chapter Two presented a review of literature related to the concept of destination
attractiveness, multi-attribute attitude models, the relationship of previous visit
experiences in explaining and predicting tourist travel decisions, and different approaches
to market segmentation employed in relation to tourism research.

Chapter Three described the research hypotheses and also methods employed for
data collection and analysis stages of this study. Chapter Four reported the findings,
including tests of research hypotheses, the socio-demographics, trip characteristics, and
general travel behavior of the domestic Visitors to Langkawi Island. It also discussed in
detail, the overall attractiveness evaluation of the island along with visitors’ perceptions
and the importance they assigned to various types of attractions on the island.

This final chapter is divided into four sections. The first section summarizes the
major research findings relevant to the research objectives. Conclusions based on the
research findings are presented in the second section. The third section discusses

marketing and management implications of the findings to stakeholders of the tourism

106

 

industry on the island such as LADA, Tourism Malaysia, Kedah’s state government, and
attractions operators and event organizers. The fourth and last section addresses some of

the study’s limitations and suggests future research directions.

Summary of Key Research Findings

Findings from this study reveal that domestic visitors to Langkawi could be
characterized as middle income, middle age, with high levels of education including
many high school and college graduates. Most of the visitors that were interviewed were
male and belonged to the Malay ethnic group. In-state visitors and near-to-home-visitors
from the neighboring states of Penang, Perak, and Selangor constituted a significant
proportion of domestic travelers interviewed. Most of the visitors were traveling from
their home for the main purpose of visiting Langkawi Island. The majority planned to
Spend between one to three nights at commercial lodgings, such as hotels and motels on
the island, while only a small fraction (less than 10 percent) of domestic visitors to
Langkawi were day-trippers. A majority of visitors traveled to the island in relatively
large parties, averaging nine persons.

Visitors did not perceive the Langkawi Island attractions as particularly unique in
terms of type or amount of attractions. Visitors also appeared to miss many of the
unique or distinct features that make it different from other island destinations. The
findings suggest that domestic visitors largely perceived it as ‘just another island-
destination’. Visitor perceptions of Langkawi’s attractiveness further revealed that
beaches were the single most important type of attraction in determining its

attractiveness. This was followed in descending order by holiday resorts, shopping

107

 

complexes, nature and outdoor recreation, agriculture tourism, theme parks, and finally
Special events and festivals. Suffice it to say, Langkawi has four key types of attractions
that embody its current attractiveness: beaches, historical attractions, holiday resorts, and
shopping complexes.

The first research objective was to assess visitor’s perceptions of different types
of attractions on Langkawi. The findings revealed a variety of different perceptions on
the types of attractions available on the island. The island is primarily perceived as
having many beaches, historical attractions, holiday resorts, and shopping complexes.
Since the evaluation of visitor perceptions is essentially an evaluation of ‘destination
image’ (Brayley, 1990), these four types of attractions may likely comprise the dominant
image or positioning dimensions for current domestic visitors to Langkawi.

The second and third research objectives are essentially concerned with the
importance of the various types of attractions, especially historical attractions, in visitors’
decisions to travel to Langkawi Island. The findings reveal that beaches, historical
attractions, holiday resorts, and shopping complexes are the most important in
determining visitors’ decisions to travel to Langkawi. Next to beaches, the island’s
historical attractions were the most important, suggesting that they are critically
important to the marketability of the island.

The fourth and fifth research objectives focused on determining the roles of
previous visit experience in determining the importance value domestic visitors assigned
to the various types of attractions on the island and their perceptions of the overall
attractiveness of the destination. Significant differences existed on perceptions of first-

time and repeat visitors on five (out of eight) types of Langkawi’s attractions — beaches,

108

historical attractions, shopping complexes, theme parks, and sports and special events.
These five types of attractions were perceived to be more important by the first-time
visitors in their decision to visit Langkawi than for repeat visitors. These attractions
appeared to carry more weigh in determining the first-time visitors’ travel decisions.
Such information is important in designing marketing and advertising aimed at attracting
new visitors to the island.

The findings also revealed that first-time visitors had stronger perceptions of
Langkawi’s overall attractiveness than did repeat visitors. Still, the island had a
significant number of repeat visitors during the time of the study. About 31 percent of all
visitors had been to Langkawi two or more times within the previous twelve months.
This apparent contradiction may in part be due to the role of intervening factors or
situational constraints such as time, money, distance, and lack of opportunity in
determining tourists’ behavior (Backmann and Crompton, 1991). Distance, for example,
may prohibit visitors from traveling to destinations far from home and induce visits to
near-to-home destinations. About half of the respondents in the present study were in-
state visitors and therefore, may have corroborated Backman and Crompton’s
proposition.

The final objective of this study was to segment domestic visitors to Langkawi
Island based on the importance they assigned to various types of attractions along with
their perceptions of the extent/availability of various types of attractions on the island.
The question was whether the segmentation would produce substantial, exploitable, and

reachable market segments. The segmentation produced three segments with substantial

109

volume potential: ‘General Experience’, ‘Recreational Travelers’ and ‘Historical
Vacationer’.

The exploitability and reachability of the segments was evaluated based on an
examination of differences across segments on seventeen socio-demographics, trip
characteristics and travel behavior variables. As revealed by the chi-square and ANOVA
tests, statistically significant differences were found between the segments on state of
residency, length of trips, purpose of trips, intentions to visit historical attractions,
previous visit experiences, types of trips, and choice of accommodations. Other variables
were not found to be significantly different across the segments.

The Recreational Traveler Segment is the largest of the three segments,
comprising about 83 percent of the domestic visitor market to Langkawi. This segment is
particularly interested in shopping and nature and outdoor recreation attractions in their
decision to visit Langkawi. This segment, however, believes that Langkawi offers mostly
beach attractions, historical sites, and holiday resorts for visitor enjoyment. This group
visited the island mainly for the purpose of general sightseeing and shopping. Distance is
perhaps, the most critical factor in defining the profile of this group. Most of them come
from out-of-state. Accordingly, they planned to spend more than two nights away from
home during their trip to Langkawi. Moreover, compared to the others, most visitors in
this segment came to Langkawi for the first time, which lessened their familiarity with
attractions on the island. They, however, Showed interest in visiting historical attractions
on Langkawi. The majority of visitors in this segment are of Chinese descent and possess

higher levels of education than other visitors.

110

The General Experience Segment is the second largest group comprising 9.8
percent of Langkawi domestic visitors. This segment is comprised of visitors who do
not consider any of the attractions as really mattering in their decision to visit Langkawi.
They also, for reasons that were speculated and discussed in Chapter Four, believe the
island has less of all types of attractions. The segment is also characterized by visitors
who are on Short trips to the island, mostly because a large number of them are in-state
visitors. As would be expected, members of this segment have visited Langkawi more
frequently than visitors in the other two segments. Many of them were visiting the island
for business purposes and/or to visit family and friends. Accordingly, compared to the
other two segments, most of them preferred to stay in family or fiiends’ houses than at
commercial lodging. They mostly came in smaller travel groups and took more pleasure
trips to both international and domestic destinations. Among the three segments, they
showed the least amount of interest in visiting historical attractions on the island. This
segment has the highest proportion of Malays.

The Historical Vacationer Segment is the smallest segment of visitors traveling to
Langkawi Island. Members of this segment assign more importance to beaches,
historical attractions, and holiday resorts for their visit to the island. This segment is
characterized by visitors who believe that Langkawi has many holiday resorts, historical
attractions, and beaches to offer. Many of them are out-of-state residents and are
distinguished from other segments by their plan to spend the most nights away from
home while on their trip to Langkawi. They were visiting the island mostly for
sightseeing and/or mixing business with pleasure purposes. They also showed the

intention of visiting historical sites while on the island, even though many of them had

111

 

been to Langkawi before. Commercial lodging was their preferred choice of
accommodation, despite the fact that they spent more time on the trip compared to the
other segments; this was, perhaps, because this segment contains a high proportion of
higher income visitors.

Since some concerns were raised during the segmentation analyses of the effects
of business visitors on the research outputs, alternative approaches for segmentation were
introduced. The first alternative segmentation, by using the same attractiveness scores but
excluding the business Visitors, produced segments that closely resembled those 1

originally identified in the initial segmentation analysis. A second segmentation was

 

carried out based on the multiplicative scores of each type of attraction on the island, with
the exception of agriculture tourism attraction and Sports and special events. Business
visitors were also excluded from the analysis. Profiles of the four identified segments,
however, are also remarkably similar to the three segments in the original (overall
attractiveness) segmentation . For example, it is reasonable to believe that one of the
original segments (i.e., Recreational Travelers) was split up into two new segments —
‘Vacation Travelers’ and ‘F irst-time Visitors’ in the latter segmentation. Similarities (and
differences) between the identified segments from both segmentation approaches are

shown in Figure 5.

112

Figure 5

Similarities between segments from two segmentation approaches

 

Multiplicative
Segmentation

 

 

 

Segment 1
‘Vacation
Travelers’

 

Segment 3
‘First-time
Visitors’

 

Segment 2

‘In-state’

 

 

   
      

Segment 4
‘Active
recreation

I Segment Characteristics , I

 

 

 

Attractiveness
Segmentation

 

 

 

 

’1‘ Combined together,
represents 53.9% of
sample

1" Assigned high scores
on beach, historical,
shopping, and resort
attractions.

1" Mostly out-of-state
and first time visitors

* Showed interest on
historical attractions

* Most preferred type
of activity: Shopping,
and visiting theme arks

 

'1‘ The largest segment
(83.1% of sample)

1" Put high values on
beach, historical, resorts
attractions

1" Mostly out-of-state
and first time visitors

'1‘ Showed interest on
historical attractions

* Visiting primarily for
sightseeing and
shopping

 

  
 

   
 

Segment 2
‘Recreational
Traveler’

  

 

 

 

 

* Represents 24.5% of
sample (second largest)

* Assigned low scores
on all attractions

* Mostly in-state and
repeat visitors

* Short stay on island

 

1" The second largest
segment (9.1% of
sample)

’1‘ Put low scores on all
attractions

1" Mostly in-state and
repeat visitors

* Short stay on island

 

     

Segment 1
‘General
Experience

   

9

 
  

 

 

 

 

(mostly with family, (mostly with family,
friends) friends)

* Preferred type of * Visiting for business
activity: shopping, and and visiting

visiting family/friend family/friend

1" Rated all attractions * Assigned high scores
high (especially on all attractions
historical, resorts and (historical, beach,
outdoor recreation) resorts)

1" Mostly out-of-state
visitors

* Stay the longest on
island; preferably at
commercial lodging

* Showed high interest
in historical attractions
111 Visitors with higher
income

 

‘1‘ Mostly out—of-state
visitors

* Stay the longest on
island; preferably at
commercial lodging

* Showed high interest
in historical attractions
1" Visitors with higher
income

 

   

  

Segment 3
‘Historical
Vacationer’

 
   

 

 

113

 

Similarities (and minor differences) between segments identified from both
segmentation approaches are noted. Recreational Travelers segment of the original
segmentation were somehow divided into two new segments in the second segmentation.
These new segments were labeled as ‘Vacation Travelers’ and ‘F irst-time Visitors’
mostly to reflect their lack of previous visit experience and familiarity with the
destination. The General Experience is comparable to ‘In-state’ from the alternative
segmentation. As indicated before, most of the characteristics of General Experience
segment were tied to their state of residency. Finally, Historical Vacationer segment

posses characteristics that were unmistakenably similar to ‘Active Recreation’ segment.

 

Research Conclusion

Overall, this destination attractiveness study is successful in achieving its stated
objectives. It provides meaningful insights into the characteristics of the current domestic
visitors market to the island. The results also indicate that the multi-attribute model, as
originally recommended by Martin Fishbein, provides beneficial means of evaluation of
the various types of attractions on Langkawi Island and their roles in determining the
attractiveness of the destination. Beaches, historical attractions, holiday resorts, and
shopping complexes were consistently ranked as the primary types of attractions on the
island. It appears that these types of attractions are the competitive strength of Langkawi
in the domestic tourism market.

In general, findings indicate that first-time visitors have higher expectations of
their visit to Langkawi compared to repeat visitors. The first—time visitors considered five

types of attractions - - historical attractions, shopping complexes, beach, theme parks, and

114

sports and special events - as very important to their visit to the island. For tourism
planners and marketers, this information may be useful for targeting new and potential
visitors. The first-time visitors also assigned higher attractiveness values to Langkawi
than the repeat visitors. As a result, the study was able to conclude that previous visit
experience on Langkawi does influence the perceived attractiveness and the importance
visitors assign to various types of attractions on the island.

Despite the difficulties in findings factors that may clearly define characteristics
of the domestic visitor segments, it is still too early to conclude that domestic visitors to
Langkawi Island make up a homogeneous market. Such a conclusion may only create
further misconception of the market and lead to difficulties in future assessment of
tourism demand and enactment of effective marketing strategies. This may merely reflect
the fact that the tourism industry on Langkawi, and in Malaysia in general, is still
considered to be in its infancy stage by international and regional standards. Compared to
other countries in the region, such as Indonesia and Thailand, most of the destinations
and attractions in Malaysia are still in a developing mode, and, therefore, the domestic
market has not been exposed to enough diverse types of attractions and tourism
experiences. As a consequence, the domestic market may have been inadvertently
‘conditioned’ to act and behave in the same way with regard to its pleasure pursuits
including traveling.

Despite the efforts to use different segmentation approaches, including
eliminating business visitors from the analyses, the end results remain almost the same.
The visitor segments that emerged from the second (multiplicative) segmentation analysis

did not produce distinct characteristics from segments originally identified in the first

115

 

(attractiveness) segmentation. In other words, removing the business visitors from the
data did not change the make up or the characteristics of the domestic visitor segments.

The study also recognized that business visitors may constitute a unique, separate
segment on the island. Since they have different reasons for traveling and have trip
characteristics compared to the rest of visitor groups on the island, this segment warrants
future investigation. We should not be too hasty in dismissing the business visitors as
irrelevant to the tourism industry. In many cases, especially on island-destination such as
Langkawi, it is an inconceivable idea to think that the business visitors would somehow
manage not to engage in tourist-related activities. At the very least, they could take a
short walk to enjoy the scenery around the island, or shop for some souvenirs to bring
home.

The stakeholders of tourism industry on the island can take advantage of
information provided by the study to develop more effective marketing strategies to reach
the domestic visitor market. The study findings could also be used by marketing
managers as opportunities to improve services and facilities for the various types of
attractions on the island. This would maximize visitor satisfaction, and enhance the
perceived value and desirability of the services and facilities available on the island.
Additionally, the information can be of value in deciding on types of firture tourism

product development on Langkawi Island.

116

 

Recommendations for Management and Marketing
The research findings point to several marketing and management implications
for tourism stakeholders on Langkawi Island. Most importantly:

(1) Collaboration initiatives should be made by the stakeholders to promote different
types of attractions on the island. The findings have shown the synergistic
relationship between the attractions in stimulating visits to the island. Further
attention should be given to the growing interest of historical attractions to
domestic visitors. There is a necessity for improving services and facilities at the
historical sites on Langkawi. Interpretive programs, for instance, should be

provided to deliver information about the sites and enhance visitor’s experience. 1

 

Efforts could also be made to expand several improvement projects, such
as the Heritage Trail, in order to incorporate other historical attractions in the state
of Kedah. Many visitors had indicated their intention to visit historical sites such
as Bujang Valley Archaeological Sites, Kuala Kedah Fort and Royal Complex in
Alor Setar during their trip to Langkawi. Kuala Kedah Fort for example, is
located just across the river from the ferry terminal. A viewing deck could be
constructed at the terminal so tourists might enjoy the scenery. Pay-to-view
telescopes could also be installed on the deck for those visitors who wish to see
the fort up close. Additionally, since most Visitors travel by using their own
transportation, billboards and directional signage may be erected along the
highway and major roads to present information and/or lure tourists to the

historical sites.

117

(2) There is a need to identify Langkawi’s tourism brand image. From tourism
marketing perspectives, brand image creation is crucial in developing a
positioning strategy for tourism destination. The current and future attractions on
the island should present a quality tourism experience that fits its brand image.
Langkawi’s promotional campaigns should raise the profile and significance of
these attractions to gain greater response from the targeted market. More
importantly, the Langkawi’s tourism brand must be supported by visual and
verbal language to support the market positioning and values of the island.

To create a tourism brand and position Langkawi as a beach and shopping
destination would be in direct competition with other similar regional island-
destinations such as Penang, Phuket (in Thailand) and Bali (in Indonesia). Phuket
for example, possesses attractions which are almost similar to Langkawi —
excellent beaches and Spectacular coastal scenery. Penang Island, which is located
south of Langkawi, has more well-established holiday resorts and shopping
facilities. In this regard, however, Langkawi has the advantage over Penang for its
status as a duty-free shopping zone.

Based on this argument, one recommendation then is to create Langkawi’s
tourism brand based on its rich historical and natural attractions, including
outdoor recreation activities. A Langkawi brand could be created in order to
highlight an awareness that “Langkawi” symbolizes a special experience and
place where one can come to enjoy natural and historical attractions at the same
place. The message could be communicated to the market by using logo and

advertisements that depict or showcase the co-existence of both types of

118

 

6

attractions on the island. A slogan such as where legends and adventures
begin. . ..’ (. . .legenda dan kembara bermula di sini. ...) is recommended to be
portrayed consistently with the logo and in all advertisement for filture marketing
campaigns.

(3) Concentrating only on certain types of attractions on Langkawi poses a few
issues, including over-use of attraction sites, a narrowing market selection, and
not optimizing the diversified tourism resources. Therefore, it is also

recommended for tourism stakeholders to consider a diversification strategy: ‘the

development of a greater variety of tourism products by the destination to obtain

 

greater overall market share’ (June and Smith, 1987). This diversification strategy
however, should be pursued without diluting the overall attractiveness of the
destination by Slipping into mediocrity.

The primary goals of a diversification strategy are (a) to increase visitor
stay and spending on the island, and (b) to ensure satisfaction among repeat
visitors. Under this diversification strategy, other types of attractions, although
considered as less important by visitors, are still important for creating synergy to
attract visitors to Langkawi. Further development and promotion of other types of
attractions, such as sports and festivals, and theme parks will offer a variety of
experience. This will create the image of ‘so many things to do’ in visitors’ minds
and may encourage them to stay longer on the island. Diversification also will
greatly widen the potential market. For instance, Langkawi is becoming
recognized for offering a range of tourism products around sports and special

events. Activities, such as cycling, have received growing interest and support due

119

to the success of organizing the annual event of Tour de Langkawi. The island’s
appeal for cycling has the potential for further development of the competition
component and also for pleasure purposes.

More efforts to promote Langkawi’s tourism products are needed for
distant-state markets such as Terengganu, Johor, Sabah and Sarawak. Distance
visitors might discover what Langkawi has to offer during their initial trip.
Advertising campaigns to increase Langkawi’s tourism brand awareness and
desire to visit (and re-visit) might be appropriate for this market. Such campaigns
may include distributing free posters and stickers depicting Langkawi’s tourism
appeal to visitors. Additionally, given the increasing effectiveness of the Internet
in promoting tourism destination, the technology could be of use in
communicating the value of Langkawi’s tourism products to the market. The use
of this new technology could also be converged with the conventional advertising
campaigns to entice potential visitors to Langkawi.

(4) Results of this study imply that market segmentation should be used as
supplementary as opposed to being the primary base for designing management
and marketing strategies for the tourism industry on Langkawi. Despite
limitations of the findings, target marketing is recommended over mass
marketing. Therefore, the strategies presented in the following paragraphs may be
recommended for targeting the domestic visitor segments.

Given the difficulties in changing tourist’s attitudes toward a destination in
the short run, the immediate promotional campaigns should target the segment

with favorable attitudes toward Langkawi, i.e., the Historical Vacationer Segment.

120

 

Such short-term campaigns may also concentrate on those in-state travelers. Its
size (comprising about 48 percent of total respondents) justifies that this is a
visitor segment the stakeholders cannot afford to ignore. The relatively Short
distance for trips is a huge incentive for this group to keep visiting the island.
Since this segment contains visitors who tend to stay a Short time on the island,
they might like a half—day package that includes a tour of historical sites such as
Air Panas Village, Mahsuri Mausoleum, and Beras Terbakar. A visit to shopping
districts could be included in the itinerary.

The Recreational Traveler Segment is especially attracted to nature and
outdoor recreation and shopping activities. Establishing outdoor and nature
oriented attractions, such as outdoor recreation centers will help to catch the
attention of this segment. Furthermore, organizing Special events, such as
orienteering and canoeing competitions will place the island as one of Malaysia’s
destinations for active outdoor-oriented pursuits among this segment.

Perhaps, the greatest potential for future market development lies in the
Recreational Traveler Segment. There are three characteristics of this segment
that may present the stakeholders with opportunities to take advantage of market
development. Firstly, this segment is a disproportionate size compared to the
other segments, representing about 83 percent of the domestic visitors to the
island. Secondly, members of this segment, in general, have an average or lower
attitude toward the island. Thirdly, the study indicates that members of this

segment have frequented Langkawi the least of all three segments.

121

 

Two possibilities for addressing the characteristics of this segment seem
feasible in this regard. First, the pessimistic or unenthusiastic attitude toward the
destination may be lessened through proper advertising and promotional
campaigns. Consistent advertisement in the media for example, may help to
communicate what types of attractions are available and that there are ‘things to
do’ on the island. According to Hudson and Gilbert (2000), lack of knowledge
about an activity or destination is one of many constraining factors for
participation in pleasure trip. Second, members of this segment could be enticed
to visit or re-visit the island by employing a range of sales promotions. For

instance, giveaways (e.g., free stay at hotels after staying for a number of nights),

 

coupons for ferry rides, ‘two-fers’ (two for the price of one sales) and other
techniques may be effective in enticing a trial of different tourism products on the

island and repeat visitors.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Despite the efforts which were expended throughout the design, implementation,
data analysis, and interpretation stages of this study, there are, nonetheless, a number of
important limitations attached to the present study. The most important of these
limitations will be discussed in this section, along with recommendations for how future
research may appropriately deal with the shortcomings.

It was noted in the previous chapter that the timing and location of data collection
may affect sample characteristics such as travel party composition, state of origin, as well

as other socio-demographic characteristics. It was suggested, therefore, that future

122

research should include visitors at another entry point to the island or specifically the
Langkawi International Airport to increase the generalizability of the study. Although a
sample at this site may be biased toward more up-scale visitors, it would still be
interesting to determine if the results differ from the present study. Additionally, surveys
conducted at different time periods, or over a longer time period, might yield a different
result.

The current study has made sure that enough measures were taken in the
identification of as many types of attractions as possible to be studied. However, the
ultimate choice of attractions during the study design remained, to some extent, a
question of arbitrary judgment. During the implementation stage of the survey,
consultation with experts in the field, including LADA and Tourism Malaysia officials,
discovered that certain attributes such as ‘art and handicraft’ and ‘architectural’
attractions were missing from the list of attractions studied. They agreed, however, that
these types of attractions were minor and, in some ways, were incorporated as a part of
other attractions included in the study. It was suggested, therefore, that substantial
research efforts are needed in the future to conduct unstructured, in-depth interviews with
tourism experts and actual visitors. Statistical procedures, such as factor analysis, could
be employed to help identify the salient dimensions that represent attributes of the
destination.

The current study, while providing an underlying structure of the domestic visitor
characteristics and their travel behavior, suggests the need for further confirmatory
research. This includes replication of this study at other destinations which could use the

same construct and model. Therefore, comparisons can be made on the responses of

123

 

visitors to Langkawi and other destinations in Malaysia. From a marketing standpoint,
such comparisons may provide crucial information on Langkawi’s stand in the highly
competitive local and regional tourism environment. Refinements, nonetheless, are
always needed to produce more definitive results.

While admittedly preliminary in scope and even considered to be an exploratory
inquiry, the current study sheds some light on the characteristics of domestic visitors to
Langkawi Island. Considering the lack of information on the visitors, this study may
provide the basis for future research on the island. For example, future studies may gather
information about benefits sought by visitors to the island and their expectations and
satisfaction. This information might be used as a basis for segmenting the visitor market.
According to Mahoney (1979), such segmentation provides managers with an
understanding of the motivations which lead tourists to a destination and “places
management in a better position to design promotional messages that more closely match

the desires of those (visitors) they wish to attract” (p.192).

124

 

 

APPENDICES

125

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAMPLING DAYS
Monday I Tuesday Wed Thursday
Weekdays 8/8/01 8/9/01
pilot survey pilot survey
8/13/01 8/14/01 8/15/01 8/16/01
8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am - 6pm 8am — 6pm
8/20/01 8/21/01 8/22/01 8/23/01
8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm
8/27/01 8/28/01 8/29/01 8/30/01
8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm
Total = 14 actual survey-days
Completion = 347completed surveys
Friday Saturday Sunday
8/10/01 8/11/01 8/12/01
8am — 6pm 8am —- 6pm 8am — 6pm
Weekends 8/17/01 8/18/01 8/19/01
8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm
8/24/01 8/25/01 8/26/01
8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm
8/31/01 9/1/01 9/2/01
8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm 8am — 6pm
Total = 12 actual survey-days
Completion = 407 completed surveys
Note:

Weekend includes Friday, Saturday, Sunday

8/31/01 — 9/2/01 is the Independence Day Weekend

126

 

 

APPENDIX B
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

TOURISM" ’ Code: agar Oflice Us:
MALA ’SIA a D111“

 

 

 

Department of Parks. Recreation
and Tourism Resources
Michigan State Unrversrty

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS TO PERSON FILLING OUT THIS SURVEY

We are interested in gathering information about your current trip to Langkawi Island and finding out about
your opinion on tourism attractions on the island. Your responses will help us shape the firture of tourism
development and promotion on the island. This survey will take 7 to 10 minutes of your time. Your
participation is entirely voluntary and your responses are confidential, to be used only for the purposes of
this study. You may choose not to answer certain question or discontinue your participation at any time.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and retuming this questionnaire.
Thank you.

 

SECTION I : INFORMA TION ABOUT YOUR TRIP FROM HOME T O K UALA KEDAH FERRY
TERMINAL

Please provide us information about this trip. All questions in this section pertain only to your current trip
from your home to Kuala Kedah Ferry Terminal .

Q1 How did you travel from your home to Kuala Kedah Ferry Terminal (Please 1/ only One box)

0 Car 0 Taxi
CI Motorcycle 1:] Public (scheduled) bus
D Rented bus 1:] Train

Q2 Is visiting Langkawi Island your ONLY reason for your trip?

_ CI YES (go to Q3)

 

D NO—-‘> Q2a. ls visiting Langkawi Island a primary reason for making this trip?

D Yes (Go to Q3)

{—0 No (Go to Q2b below)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f Q2b. What are your reasons for the trip? (V ) Check all that apply to you.
D Visiting family/friends D Shopping
11: D Business trip (work only) 1:] Sightseeing/touring
1} 1:1 Business with pleasure D Traveling to other

V E] Others, destination (write town/city)
specify,

Go to Q3 °

(next page)

 

 

127

 

 

SECTION 2: LENGTH OF TRIP

We are interested in [mowing the length (day and night) of your current trip. Please answer Q3 to Q8. Keep
in mind that unless stated otherwise, questions in this section concern with your trip from home to

Langkawi Island and back to your home.

Q3 Where is your permanent residence located?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PostalCode State
For Q4 and Q5, please use the calendar shown on the last page to provide your answer.
Q4 What day and date did you leave home on this trip?
[eru’wlmlFrISaISu] l /08/01J
Day (Circle) Date
Q5 What day and date do you plan to arrive back home from this trip?
[MITu’WITthrlSaISuI l /08/01]
Day (Circle) Date
Q6 How many nights do you plan to spend away from home on the entire trip? Nights (*A)
(Please write 0 if you don ’t plan to spend any nights away from home; go to Q9)
Q7 How many of these nights do you plan to spend on Langkawi Island? Nights (*8)

(Please write 0 if you don ’t plan to spend any nights on the island; Go to Q8)

 

 

fl Q73 What type of accommodation will you use on Langkawi?

i3 Cl Hotel/Motel Cl Staying with friends/family
g C] Camping Cl Resort

Cl Chalet Cl Others (specify)

L25. -.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q8 How many nights have you spent or do you plan to spend at locations Nights (*C)
OTHER than Langkawi Island, including your travel back home?
(Please write 0 if you are not spending any night on other locations; Go to Q9)
* A= B+C
:1 Q8a. Please indicate number of nights (and type of accommodation) that you have spent or plan to
.. spend at locations other than Langkawi Island on this trips.
{ii-U Location Number of Night(s) Type of Accommodation
g (city, town) Specifiz number Please (1’ ) :
i: . * D Hotel/Motel Cl Staying with friends/family
i;- 1- __ nights ( D) D Camping Cl Resort
'1 D Chalet Cl Others (specify)
_ D Hotel/Motel D Staying with friends/family
iii 2 - __ nights (*E) D Camping Cl Resort
gill: D Chalet 0 Others (specify)
E r‘
l. ' ‘ ._-.-". .--_.:.-."-1.. ‘1 '. 1' . .21 . » ;'-.""".’1”-"

128

 

 

 

SECTION 3: CURRENT TRIP TO LANGKA WI ISLAND

Questions in this section pertains to this visit to Langkawi Island.

Q9 How important were the following tourism attractions in your decision to travel to Langkawi
on this trip? Please indicate your response by using a scale between 0 to 4.
A zero (0) shows that the attraction has no importance to you. A four (4) shows that the attraction
has great importance to your decision to visit Langkawi on this trip.

 

 

Not Extremely
Type of Attraction Important Important
Historical attractions .................. 0 l 2 3 4
Shopping complexes .................. 0 1 2 3 4
Beaches ................................. 0 1 2 3 4
Theme Parks ............................. O 1 2 3 4
Sport and Special Events ............. 0 1 2 3 4
Nature/ Outdoor Recreation .......... 0 l 2 3 4
Agriculture Tourism Attractions. . O l 2 3 4
Holiday Resorts ................... 0 l 2 3 4

 

 

 

Q10 In your perception, what types of attraction are available on Langkawi Island? Please rate by
circling the scale between 0 (None Available) to 4 (Many/Much Available). even if you have never visited the

 

island.
None Many/Much
Type of Attraction Available Available
Historical attractions .................. 0 l 2 3 4
Shopping complexes .................. O 1 2 3 4
Beaches ................................. O l 2 3 4
Theme Parks ............................ 0 l 2 3 4
Sport and Special Events ............. O l 2 3 4
Nature/ Outdoor Recreation .......... 0 1 2 3 4
Agriculture Tourism Attractions. . 0 1 2 3 4
Holiday Resorts ................... O l 2 3 4

 

 

 

129

Q1 1 What is your purpose(s) for visiting Langkawi Island? (v’ ) Check all that apply to you.

0 Visiting family/friends Cl Shopping
D General sightseeing/touring 0 Educational trip
0 Business tn'p (work only) CI Others, specify

 

0 Business with pleasure/recreation

Q12 Is this your first trip to Langkawi Island?

ONO—1

Q12a. When did you first visit Langkawi Island?

 

Year

Q12b. How many trip(s) to Langkawi have you taken during the last 12 months?
_ trip (8)
Q12c. Have your visited any historical sites on your previous trips to Langkawi Island?

............... D No (go to Q13) ClYes (go to Q12d)

Q12d. In Column A write all the historical attractions on Langkawi you have visited
during the last 12 months. In Column B your answers should be specific to the
historical attractions on Langkawi that you have visited.

 

 

 

A B
Write all the historical On the scale of O to 4, please rate your
attractions in Langkawi satisfaction level with your previous experience
you have visited during at historical attractions in Langkawi? (please
the last 12 months. circle one number).
Not Somewhat Very Extremely
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D YES Q12e.Before arriving at the Kuala Kedah Ferry Terminal, were you aware of
1:; any historical attractions on Langkawi Island? Please check (I).
Cl No (Go to 013) CI Yes (Go to Q12e below)
E: -. ' ri'l"""v."-£'_3£~‘E‘i.l£“313-4552.?45'W.'- -- "- h." 7', ' .rl
i" Q12c. What source of information made you aware of historical E 'f
attractions on Langkawi? Please check (V). i‘
E E D Family or friends Cl Program on radio or television E
G 0 to 013 E 0 Travel agent Cl Printed articles (newspaper, i
Next a e f magazine etc.)
p g l} D Intemet Cl Others (specify) 1
E Co to Q13
; |=-- '. . - =-' . ~.. -" _- ' ' _-:--'1-_=i,. .-‘.-.'- -' ° 1. LET'S—Tira- 3m

 

 

 

130

 

 

Q13 Please check (J ) all activities that you plan to participate in during this trip to Langkawi:

 

General Activities

D Shopping

D Touring/ sightseeing
Cl Visiting family/friends

Water-Based Recreation
Cl Scuba diving

D Swimming (sea)

CI Jet Skiing

0 Fishing (sea)

D Speed Boating

Cl Canoeing/ Kayaking

Visiting Tourist Attraction

0 Theme Parks
D Festival/special events

D Agricultural tourism attractions

 

Sports and Outdoor Recreation
D Trail Hiking

CI Picnicking

D Nature Photography

Cl Golfing

El Rock Climbing

D Cave exploration

D Swimming (river/waterfall)
[3 Fishing (river/freshwater)

 

Q14 How many other persons (not counting yourself) are accompanying you on this trip to Langkawi

Island? (If you are traveling alone, write 0 and go to Q16)

Person(s)

Q15 What is the gender and age of other persons traveling with you to Langkawi Island? (Specify

number for each category. Do not include yourself)

 

 

Children Male Female Adults Male Female
Under 5 years of age 18 to 35 years old
5 to 12 years old 36 to 59 years old

 

13 to 17 years old

 

60 years of age and older

 

 

Q16 On this trip to Langkawi Island, do you plan to visit any historical attractions?

D Yes D No

Q17 On this trip from home, have you visited or do you plan to visit any of the following Kedah’s

historical attractions?

Ql7a. Bujang Valley ................ D Yes
Ql7b. Kuala Kedah Fort ............ D Yes
Ql7c. Museums in Alor Setar. D Yes

CINo
CINo
0N0

Q18 The decision on places to be visited on this trip was made primarily by.

(Please I only One box)
D Myself

Cl Spouse/Partner
CI Children of family

D Friends and relatives

Cl Travel agent

131

CI Others, specify

D Joint decision (with spouse/partner)

 

 

 

 

SECTION4: TRAVEL TREND

Questions in this section pertains to your pleasure trips you have taken during the last 12 months (August
2000 to July 2001) to destinations both domestic and international.

Q19 Not including this trip, have you taken any pleasure trips of at least 80km. from home
during the last 12 months?

__ Cl NO (go to Q20)

 

i

 

13 YES

Ql9a. How many pleasure tn'ps?

 

Number of Trips (*A)

Q19b. Please indicate how many of these trips were to domestic or international

destinations? (Indicate number of trips in space below)

Note: B+C=A

 

International trips (*8)

 

Domestic trips (*C)

Ql9c. While on these trips did you visit any of these attraction? (Please / )

Ql9c1 Shopping complexes ............... D Yes CI No
Q19c2 Beaches ............................... CI Yes D No
Ql9c3 Theme Parks ......................... D Yes D No
Ql9c4 Sport and Special Events .......... D Yes CI No
Q1905 Nature/ Outdoor Recreation ....... Cl Yes E] No
Q19c6 Agriculture Tourism Attractions .. D Yes D No
Ql9c7 Holiday Resorts ................... D Yes D No
Q19c8 Historical attractions ................ D Yes D No

 

 

If Yes in Q] 9C8 ', answer Q] 9d 1 -Q1 9d4 ’ below:

 

 

 

 

 

Go to Q20
(next page)

 

 

 

Q19dl.

Ql9d2.

Ql9d3.

Ql9d4.

Did you visit historical attraction while on any of these pleasure
trips? (please ./ one box only).
C] Always CI Sometimes CI Never

Do you acquire information about historical attractions when planning
your pleasure trips? (please v’ one box only).

CI Yes Cl No

Do you select destinations for pleasure trip based on the number and
type of its historical attractions that are available ? (please 1 one box

only).
CI Yes Cl No
What types of activities that you participated in? ( / one box)

El Hiking 0 Interpretation programs
[3 Touring/ Sightseeing
Cl Photography

0 Picnicking

Cl Historical research
D Educational programs

D Visited museum

0 Expedition/exploration
D Supervised excavation
Cl Other (specify)

 

132

w a: mu.

 

 

 

SECTION 4: ABOUT YOU

Q20 How old are you? :

Q21 What is your gender (please /) 1:] Male D Female

Q22 Please write your approximate household monthly income: RM

Q23 What is your highest level of education (Please 1’ only ONE box)

D Primary School 0 Tertiary (college/university)
Cl Secondary School D No formal education

Q24 What is your current employment status (Please / only ONE box)

0 Employed full time Cl Student

0 Employed part-time D Homemaker
C] Unemployed CI Retired

0 Own business Cl Others, specify

 

Q25 What ethnic group do you belong to (Please 1 only ONE box)

 

 

 

 

D Malay/Bumiputra D Indian 0 Others, specify
E1 Chinese El Sikh
4 August 2001 p j 4 September 2001 p
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 Q :1. l
§§l§2flll Zéééélfi
agugugg 2133,1133”;
QELIEEZQLS Eflflflflz—IE
2_2__2§_2_930;1 .222_42_52_2_2_.2_
3o

 

 

1
1
I
1

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME

Please return this questionnaire to researchers or ferry officials

133

APPENDIX C
COMPARISON BETWEEN BUSINESS AND NON BUSINESS VISITORS

Table C1

Summary of statistical comparisons (t-test) of selected characteristics
between ‘business’ and ‘non-business’ visitors to Langkawi Island

 

 

Characteristics Group Mean Std. t-value Probability
Deviation
Number of previous Business 3.31 4.00 —3.50 .001*

trip to Langkawi
Non-business 2.08 2.87

Travel group Size Business 1.67 18.85 4.07 .000*
Non-business 7.76 3.27

Attractiveness Business 5 1 .98 24.43 5.98 .000*

value assigned
Non-business 64.29 22.46

 

Tdifferent at the .05 level of statistical significance

134

 

APPENDIX C
COMPARISON BETWEEN BUSINESS AND NON BUSINESS VISITORS
(continued)

Table C2

Summary of statistical comparison (Chi-square) between ‘business’
and ‘non-business’ visitors to Langkawi Island

 

Characteristics Business Non- Statistic
business

 

First time visit to Langkawi

 

First time visitors 26.7 45.1 X2: 17.414*

Repeat 73.3 54.9 P<.05
Type of trip

Overnight 75.2 95.8 )8: 64.731*

Daytrip 24.8 4.2 P<.05
State of Origin

Kedahan 64.6 41.8 12: 25.894*

Out-of-State 35.4 58.2 P<.05
Activity planned to participate in +

Shopping 47.8 65.9 )8: 17.239*

General touring/sightseeing 28.6 79.2 x2: 14.530*

 

* different at the .05 level of statistical significance
+ indicates multiple response question; only ‘yes’ responses reported

135

APPENDIX D
COMPARISONS BETWEEN NEW ATTRACTIVENESS SEGMENTS

Table D1
Statistical comparisons between alternative (attractiveness) score segments

 

Segment] Segment 2 Segment 4 Statistic
Variables (n= 12) (n=503) (n=28)

 

Multiplicative Scores “

 

 

 

Historical Attraction 1.08 7.25 15.46 F=94.184*
Shopping 1.92 6.04 13.14 F=59.553*
Beach 1.25 8.30 16.00 F=94.311*
Theme Parks 1.42 3.98 12.21 F=79.585*
Nature/recreation 2.92 5.53 14.93 F=55.660*
Sports /special event 0.48 6.54 l 1.84 F=66.314*
Agriculture tourism 1.45 4.32 10.34 F=57.876*
Holiday Resorts 2.58 6.41 15.86 F=78.266*
Socio-demogaphics
Agea 32.25 30.93 31.46 F=0.306
State of Origin
Kedahan 75.0 41.8 50.0 )8: 6.761
Out of state 25.0 58.2 50.0 P>.05
Income group
<2000 41.7 59.3 42.9 )6: 8.614
2001-4000 50.0 34.5 42.9 P>0.05
4001-6000 0 3.6 10.7
>6000 8.3 2.6 3.6
Trip Characteristics
Total night (island) a 1.67 2.10 2.14 F=0.632
Total length of trip a 1.67 2.32 2.43 F=0.747
Number of previous 1.50 1.85 2.71 F=O.700
trip to Langkawi a
Plan to visit 50.0 61.9 75.0 x2=5.860

historical sites on

Langkawi Island

Visited historical 12.5 27.8 52.9 12:8.732“

sites during last trip

to Langkawi island

Previous Visit to L1
Repeat 66.7 55.7 60.7 x2= 1.381
First Time 33.3 44.3 39.3 P>.05

 

136

APPENDIX D
(continued)

Table D1
Statistical comparisons between alternative (attractiveness) score segments

 

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment4 Statistic
Variables (n= 12) (n=503) (n=28)

 

Trip Characteristics

Type of visit
Day trip 0.00 7.7 3.6 )8: 9365*
Overnight 100.0 92.3 96.4 P<.05
Choice of lodging 58.3 19.8 18.5 x2= 14.642*
Family/relative 41.7 80.2 81.5 P<.05
Commercial
Activity to participate
Shopping + 33.3 61.3 57.1 x2= 11.821*
VFR+ 41.7 20.1 17.9 )8: 7.665*
Visit Theme+ 0 18.6 28.6 x2= 27.917*
Scuba Diving+ 8.3 8.8 7.1 x2= 6.699
Jungle Hiking + 16.7 8.8 3.6 )8: 2.228
Kayaking + 8.3 9.8 7.1 x2= 2752*

 

 

3 ANOVA test; mean scores are reported

X2 Test of significance of differences in percentages ( percent)
* = significant at p= .05
+=multiple-response question

137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ap, J. and Sandiford, PJ (1998). The role of Ethnographic techniques in tourism
planning. Journal of Travel Research. 37(1), 3-11.

Azlizam A. (1994). Potential for Ecotourism Enterprises among Local Residents of
Kuala T ahan National Park. BSc. thesis. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

Backmann, S.J., and Crompton, J .L (1991). The Usefulness of Selected Variables for
Predicting Activity Loyalty. Leisure Science, 13, 205-220.

Ballantine, J .L. (1991). An Analysis of the Characteristics of a Population of Canadian
Tourists to Kenya. M.A thesis. University of Waterloo, Canada.

Brayley, RE. (1990). An Analysis of Destination Attractiveness and the Use of
Psychographics and Demographics in Segmentation of the Within-State Tourism Market.
PhD dissertation. Texas A&M University.

Carmichael, B. (1991). Using Conjoint Modeling to Measure Tourist Image and Analyses
of Ski Resort Choice. In Johnson, P. and Thomas, B. (eds.), Choice and Demand in
Tourism. (pp. 93-106). .Mansel Publishing.

Chen, J .S. (1996). Factors Affecting Tourists’ Choices of Heritage Destinations. PhD
dissertation. The Pennsylvania St ate University.

Chen, J .S. and Hsu, CH. (2000). Measurement of Korean tourists' perceived images of
overseas destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 411-417.

Court, B and Lupton, A (1997). Customer Portfolio Development: Modeling Destination
Adopters, Inactives, and Rejecters. Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 35-43.

Davis, RD. (1986). Quantitative Applications in Tourism Market Segmentation:
Traverse City, Michigan. PhD dissertation. Michigan State University.

Davis, B.D., and Stemquist, B. (1987). Appealing to the Elusive Tourist: An Attribute
Cluster Strategy. Journal of Travel Research, 25(4), 25-32.

Din, AK. (1990) . Bumiputera Entrepreneurship in the Penang-Langkawi Tourist
Industry. PhD. dissertation. University of Hawaii.

Ferrario, F .F (1976). The Tourist Landscape — A Method of Evaluating Tourist Potential

and Its Application to South Africa. Phd dissertation. University of Cape Town, South
Africa.

138

 

F ishbein, M. (1967). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.

F ishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes Toward Objects as Predictors of Single and
Multiple Behavior Criteria. Psychological Review, No. 81, 59-74.

Formica, S. (2002). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A proposed Framework.
Journal of American Academic of Business, 1(2), 350-355.

Formica,S. and Uysal, M. (1998). Market-Segmentation of an International Cultural-
Historical Event in Italy. Journal of Travel Research, 36(4), 16-24.

Gearing, C.E., Swart, W. and Var, T. (1974). Establishing a Measure of Touristic
Attractiveness. Journal of Travel Research, 12, 1-8.

Goodrich, J .N (1978). The Relationship Between Preferences for and Perceptions of
Vacation Destinations: An Application of Choice Model. Journal of Travel Research,
Fall, 8-13.

Gregory, SR (1992). A Comparison Study of Tourist and Paratourist in the Delaware
Valley. PhD dissertation. The Temple University.

Hu, Y., and Ritchie, B. (1993). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual
Approach. Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 25-39.

Hudson, S. and Gilbert, D. (2000). Tourism Constraints: the Neglected Dimension of
Consumer Behavior Research. In Woodside, AG. and Crouch, G.I., Mazanec, J .A.,
Opperrnann, M. and Sakai, M.Y. (eds). Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality
and Leisure. (pp. 137-154). CABI Publishing Co., New York.

Idrose, M. (2000, June 12). Personal Interview.

Ipson, N. M. (1993). A Benefit Segmentation of the University Mature Student Campus
Recreation Market. Phd dissertation. Texas A&M University.

June, LP, and Smith, S.L.J (1987). Service Attributes and Situational Eflects on
Customer Preferences for Restaurant Dining. Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 20-26.

Kikuchi, H. (1986). Segmenting Michigan ’s Sport Fishing Market: Evaluation of Two
Approaches. PhD dissertation. Michigan State University.

Kucukkurt, M. (1981). Factors Affecting Travel Destination Choice: An Expectancy

Theory Framework for Studying Travel Behavior. PhD. dissertation. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, New York.

139

LADA (2001). Tourist Arrivals on Langkawi. Langkawi Development Authority
(unpublished).

Lue, CC. (1992). An Exploratory Analysis of Multi-attribute—Destination Pleasure
Travel Behavior. PhD. dissertation. Texas A&M University.

Mahoney, E. M. (1979). Two Alternative Approaches to Segmenting Michigan ’s
Downhill Ski Market. PhD dissertation. Michigan State University.

Mahoney, M.Y. (1982). A Comparison of Managers ’ and Consumers ’ Perceived Images
of Discount Department Stores: A Multi-attribute Attitude Model. Master thesis.
Michigan State University.

Malaysian Government (2000). Bank Negara Malaysia : Annual Report 1999. Penerbitan
Negara. Kuala Lumpur.

Matejka, J .K. (1976). Vacation Behavior: An Investigation of Experience, Adequacy-
Importance and Perceived Risk. PhD. dissertation. University of Missouri.

Mayo, E. J. and Jarvis, L.P. ( 1981). Psychology of Leisure Travel. CABI Publishing Co.
Boston , MA.

McIntosh, A.J. (1997). The Experiences and Benefits Gained by Tourists Visiting Socio-
Industrial Heritage Attractions. PhD. dissertation. Queen Margaret College, Edinburg,
Canada.

MOCAT (2000). Citrawarna Malaysia 2000. Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism,
Malaysia.

Myers, J.H. (1996). Segmentation and Positioning Strategic Marketing Decisions.
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Norman, W. C. (1995). The Influence of Perceived Constraints on the Generic Travel
Decision. PhD dissertation. The University of Minnesota.

Opperrnann, M. (1994). Regional Aspect of Tourism in New Zealand. Regional Studies,
28(2), 155-167.

Perdue, RR (1996). Target Market Selection and marketing Strategy: The Colorado
Downhill Skiing Industry. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 39-47.

Prentice, R.C., Guerin, S, and McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor Learning at Heritage

Attraction: A Case Study of Discovery as a Media Product. Tourism Management, 19(1),
5-23.

140

 

Prince, DR. (1990). Factors Influencing Museum Visits: An Empirical Evaluation of
Audience Selection. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9, 149-168.

Richards, G. (2001). Marketing China Overseas: the Role of Theme Parks and Tourist
Attractions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(1), 28-39.

Ritchie, J. R. B., and Zins, M. (1978). Culture as Determinant of the Attractiveness of a
Tourism Region. Annals of Tourism Research, 5 (2): 252-67.

Schofield, P. (2000). Evaluating Castlefield Urban Heritage Park from the Consumer
Perspective: Destination Attribute Importance, visitor Perception, and Satisfaction.
Tourism Analysis, 5(2),]83-189.

Scott, D.R., Schewe, CD, and Frederick, DC (1978). A Multi-brand/ Multi-attribute
Model of Tourist State Choice. Journal of Travel Research, 17(1), 23-28.

Shifflet and Associates (1999). Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Study: A research report
prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. DK
Shifflet and Associates Ltd., McLean, Virginia.

Shoemaker, S. (1994). Segmenting the US Travel Market: According to Benefit Realized.
Journal of Travel Research, Winter, 8-21.

Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R.W., and Uysal, M. (1996). Modelling Vacation Destination
Decisions: A Behavioral Approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 5(1), 57-75.

Spotts, D.M., and Mahoney, EM. (1991). Segmenting Visitors to a Destination Region
Based on the Volume of Their Expenditure. Journal of Travel Research, 29(4), 24-31.

Stanley, D. (1995). Marketing Research Framework for the Heritage Tourism Initiative.
Paper presented at Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New
York, April 9-11, l995.(119-123).

State Flaming Unit, SPU (1994). Pelan Pembangunan Negeri Kedah. Alor Setar, Kedah.
Stynes, D and Mahoney, EM. (1986). Michigan Commercial Campground Marketing
Study. Michigan State University. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources.

Suriati, M. (2001, July 15). Personal Interview.

Tourism Malaysia (1999). Domestic Survey. Ministry of Arts, Culture and Tourism,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Tourism Malaysia (1999). Domestic Survey. Ministry of Arts, Culture, and
TourismKuala Lumpur.

141

 

Tourism Malaysia (2002) Event Promotion. [Online]. Available:
http://www.tourism.gov.my/Activities/events_promotions.asp).

Tumer,L. and Reisinger, Y. (2000). Importance and Expectations of Destination
Attributes for Japanese Tourists to Hawaii and the Gold Coast Compared. Asia Pacific

Journal of Tourism Research, 4(2), 1-1 8.

Um, S. and Crompton, J .L (1992). The Roles of Perceived Inhibitors and Facilitators in
Pleasure Travel Destination Decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 30(3), 18-29.

van Raaij, W.F. (1986). Consumer Research on Tourism: Mental and Behavioral
Constructs. Annals of Tourism Research, 13,1—9.

Weber, S. (1992). Trends in Tourism Segmentation Research. Marketing and Research
Today, 20(2), 116-122.

Wedel, M. and Kamakura, W. (2000). Market Segmentation: Conceptual and
Methodological Foundations (2“! ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MS.

Yavas, U (1990). Correlates of Vacation Travel: Some Empirical Evidence. Journal of
Prefessional Service Marketing, 5(2), 3-18.

142

   

>MICI‘tIGANrTAYE PNIVERSIYV ’LIBRARIEE
l 11111111111111111111111111 l
l 3 ‘1293 (7123i72’7‘401 M _