- Email: [email protected]
Investigating the Effect of National Park Sustainability on National Park Behavioral Intention: Kinabalu National Park
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARKETING AND RETAILING (5TH INCOMaR) 2015
Investigating the Effect of National Park Sustainability on National Park Behavioral Intention: Kinabalu National Park Payam Mihanyara,*, Sofiah Abd Rahmanb, Norliza Aminudinc a
Faculty of Business and Management, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia b Institute of Business Excellence, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia c Faculty of Hotel and Tourism, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Abstract National Park Sustainability (NPSus) is an important construct in the context of national parks which will lead tourism industry to move towards sustainable national parks. Although previous studies examined the tourist behavioral intention through deployment of sustainability principles or destination sustainability, there is a lack of research on the effect of NPSus on National Park Behavioral Intention (NPBI). To address this gap, this study developed a model which investigates the effect of NPSus as an independent variable, and National Park Satisfaction (NPSat) as mediator on tourist NPBI. The research hypotheses where NPSus and NPSat have a significant effect on NPBI was examined. A self-administrated questionnaire was distributed among 600 tourists from developed countries visiting Kinabalu National Park (KNP). The data was examined through deployment of structural equation modelling. The findings revealed that NPSus does not affect NPBI directly, however, NPSus has a significant indirect effect on tourist NPBI through mediation effect of NPSat. Furthermore, NPSat was a full mediator. Findings of this study had practical implication to enhance destination sustainability by better understanding the NPBI. © © 2016 2016 The The Authors. Authors.Published Publishedby byElsevier ElsevierB.V. B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA. Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Keywords: NPSus; NPSat; NPBI
*Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]
2212-5671 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30126-5
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
285
1. Introduction The primary challenge for tourism industry in national parks; in the 21st century is to maintain a sustainable combination of environmental, economic, and social conditions in an ever more competitive market as tourists are seeking environmental friendly products and have a greater understanding of the impacts of tourism on natural environment (Holden, 2007; Dolnicar, Crouch, & Long, 2008; Tourism Victoria, 2009). In the current study, NPSus refers to presence of environmental, economic and social sustainability in KNP. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of research on the effect of NPSus on tourist NPBI. In order to fill this gap, this study aims to develop a theoretical framework to investigate the effect of NPSus on tourist NPBI, as well as the mediation effect of NPSat. By proposing and subsequently testing the hypothesized relationships among three constructs, this study intends to achieve the following objectives: (1) to investigate the effect of NPSus on NPSat, (2) to investigate the effect of NPSus on NPBI, (3) to investigate the mediation effect of NPSat between NPSus and NPBI, (4) to investigate the effect of NPSat on NPBI. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Overview of Tourism in Kinabalu National Park (KNP) KNP is Malaysia's first World Heritage Site designated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in December 2000 for its prominent values and unique features with high esthetical values including flora and fauna, and its role as one of the most important biological sites in the world. Although, KNP is an important tourist destination in Sabah that offers nature-based tourism activities, this site is facing concerns on the need to sustain the well-being of both the natural environment and the local community (Chape, Spalding, & Jenkins, 2008). 2.2 National Park Sustainability (NPSus) In the 21 century, the tourism industry has undergone a paradigm shift due to ICT proliferation (e.g., mobile apps) and growing concern towards sustainability principles (environmental, economic, and social sustainability), and demand for deployment of green practices. Sustainability theory attempt to prioritize and integrate economic and social responses to environmental problems (Jenkins, 2009; Brundtland, 1987), to balance continues economic growth with equal distribution of environmental and social benefits (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002; Gössling, Hall, & Weaver, 2009). In the current study, NPSus refers to presence of environmental, economic and social sustainability in KNP. Environmental sustainability (ENS) is a state in which the demands placed on the environment can be met without reducing its capacity to allow all people to live well, now and in the future (Hawken, 2010). According to Sutton (2004) Environmental sustainability is the ability to sustain the qualities (e.g., clean water and air, nonrenewable resources) that are necessity to maintain the living conditions for human being and other species in the physical environment. Economic sustainability (ECO) result in less use of resources with potentially less adverse social and environmental impacts from their use (Dwyer & Spurr, 2010). The economic dimension considers human needs for material welfare (e.g., employment). The social sustainability (SOC) means sustaining well-being, education, cultural heritage, equity, participation, and empowerment of local people in the host destination (Cooper, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999). According to Redclift (1994) poverty reduction is the primary goal of social sustainability, even before environmental quality can be fully addressed. 2.3 National Park Satisfaction (NPSat) In the current study, NPSat refers to tourists’ perception towards KNP which compares their pre-purchase expectations and beliefs with post-purchase perception. In tourism destination, tourists’ value the quality of pleasurable fulfilment of their needs and wishes, as well as the full series of services and activities proposed by the destination, once tourists are satisfied with high quality service performance, they will assess on how they feel and EHOLHYH DIWHU YLVLWLQJ D GHVWLQDWLRQ $NDPD .LHWL äDENDU %UHQþLþ 'PLWURYLü 7KH OHYHOV RI
286
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
tourists satisfaction based on their experiences are a key factor that can create behavioral intention. As behavioral outcomes, those who are satisfied with their selection of a destination will return to visit and will recommend it to their family or friends (Chaudhuri & Verma, 2008; Hu, Kandampully, & Juwaheer, 2009; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007). 2.4 National Park Behavioral Intention (NPBI) In the current study, NPBI are international tourists’ intentions towards visiting KNP. Intention is the will to perform certain activities as Bandura (1986) pointed out, where Anderson (1998) defines it as the customer’s (tourist’s) intended behavior after a service encounter, including return, exist, switch, and engage in positive or negative world-of mouth communications about the business, while Oliver (2014) defines it as an affirmed likelihood to engage in a certain behavior. The theoretical framework of the study is an extension of Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by Ajzen (1985), including sustainability theory (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Jenkins, 2009; WCED, 1987) and expectation disconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980, 2014) incorporating NPSus, NPSat and NPBI constructs. 2.5 Research Hypotheses and Proposed Theoretical Framework Based on the review of the literature above, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: There is a significant relationship between NPSus and NPSat. H2: There is a significant relationship between NPSus and NPBI. H3: NPSat mediates the relationship between NPSus and NPBI. H4: There is a significant relationship between NPSat and NPBI. With the above hypotheses, this study proposes a theoretical framework (Figure 1). The theoretical framework displays the relationships among NPSus, NPSat, and NPBI.
National Park Sustainability
H2
H1 & H3
National Park Behavioral Intention
H3 & H4 National Park Satisfaction
Fig. 1. Theoretical Framework 3. Methodology To empirically test the current study hypotheses, multi-item scales used in previous studies were identified and modified to suit with the study setting. A questionnaire with three constructs was designed to capture tourists’ NPBI in KNP. The NPSus was operationalized as consisting of three dimensions. These dimensions of ENS, ECO, and SOC were measured using previous studies (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Fornara, Bonaiuto, & Bonnes, 2010; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Yale & Columbia, 2010) established scales and has adjusted for the current study purpose. NPSat construct was measured following four items from previous research (Choi & Chu, 2000; Gill et al., 2007; Oliver, 1997). NPBI was measured using five items (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Gokovali, Bahar, & Kozak, 2007, Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Each of the three constructs was measured using a 7 point Likert-scale: The items were rated on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). This survey was conducted among international tourists from developed countries to
287
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
evaluate their NPBI towards visiting KNP. A total of 600 tourists were asked a series of questions related to their beliefs towards the NPSus, NPSat on their NPBI. The researcher Used simple random sampling, the international tourists were approached at their common places of gathering and then randomly selected. After screening the data, only 384 samples were deemed usable. Furthermore, the data collected are analysed using SPSS and AMOS software. 4. Findings and Analysis 4.1 Tourist Profile The male respondents (63.5%) were slightly more as compared to female respondents (36.35%).The respondents were mainly between 25 to 34 years old (51.3%). Of the sample, 56.8% were single, and 43.2% were married. The majority of the respondents were from Canada, Germany, and Netherlands. In terms of revisit most of them (98%) was first time visitors and only few were repeat visitors. Almost more than half (61.7%) of the respondents had university education, 23.5% has some college education, and 8% had a high school education or less. Occupation of respondents are diverse, however, employed (81.3%), student (7.9%) and unemployed (9.8%) represents majority of them. Majority of the respondents (60.5%) earned more than USD 2,500 monthly but less than USD 5,000. 4.2 Descriptive Statistics and EFA Results for NPSus Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPSus. Mean score indicated that for tourists visiting KNP presence of habitat for local wildlife exists within the national park (M = 5.81, SD = 1.08) and presence of job opportunities for local people (M = 4.31, SD = 1.42) had met their expectation, however the other aspects of NPSus such as low presence of noise, allocation of income to local people and education level among local people was rated below average level. The Results of EFA generated NPSus with three-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one. Total variance explained by the three-factors accounted to more than 73%. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) stated that factor solution that accounts for 60% or more of the total variance is regarded as satisfactory. NPSus with 13 items identified that ENS, ECO, and SOC can have positive influence of tourists NPSat and NPBI, since tourists from developed countries are more conscious about the environment and demanding environmental friendly products and services, as well as improvement of economic wellbeing towards social cohesion of local people. These findings is in line with previous research (Anuwichanont, Mechinda, Serirat, Lertwannawit & Popaijit, 2011) were they found tourist environmental concern and tourism contribution to local people has influential effect on their behavioral intention. Moreover, research evidence has shown that destination sustainability influence tourist behavioral intention through mediation effect of satisfaction (Mihanyar, Rahman, & Aminudin, 2015).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPSus National Park Sustainability Items Presence of clean (unpolluted) air
Mean 5.65
SD 1.12
Factor loading 0.89
Presence of clean (unpolluted) water
5.01
1.32
0.67
Presence of plenty areas covered in flora
5.32
1.38
0.86
Presence of habitat for local wildlife
5.81
1.08
0.91
Presence of key species
4.20
1.79
0.85
Presence of natural features
5.28
1.34
0.83
Low presence of noise pollution
4.43
1.37
0.75
288
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
Presence of allocation of income to the local people
3.82
1.56
0.90
Presence of job opportunities for local people
4.31
1.42
0.69
Presence of tourist spending on local services and products
3.93
1.12
0.93
Presences of conservation of traditional arts and crafts among local people Presence of education level among local people
3.57
1.10
0.88
3.20
1.18
0.81
Presence of basic services for local people
3.98
1.53
0.73
4.3 Descriptive Statistics and EFA for NPSat Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPSat. The Results of EFA generated NPSat with one-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one. NPSat explains tourists’ perception towards KNP which compares their pre-purchase expectations and beliefs with post-purchase perception. Total variance explained was 83%. Based on the results tourists’ perception towards KNP shows that it is not worthwhile visiting it. Furthermore, other determinants of NPSat had low evaluation among tourists. If KNP wants to provide satisfactory experiences to tourists it has to improve its NPSus to be able to meet the expectation of tourists from developed countries. Table 2. Descriptive statistics and factor analysis results for NPSat National Park Satisfaction Items
Mean
SD
I am satisfied with my decision to visit this national park
4.29
1.12
Factor Loading 0.81
My choice to visit this national park was a wise one I am sure it was the right thing to visit this national park Visiting this national park is worthwhile
3.80 3.98 3.55
1.32 1.18 1.10
0.73 0.93 0.65
4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Factor Analysis for NPBI Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPBI. Mean score indicated that the item were tourists visit this national park again in future had low outcome (M = 3.32, SD = 1.38). The Results of EFA generated NPBI with one-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one. The findings indicated that tourists won’t stay longer in their visit and they won’t chose this national park as their first choice. Table 3. Descriptive statistics and EFA for NPBI National Park Behavioral Intention Items
Mean
SD
Will visit this national park again in the future
3.32
1.38
Factor Loading 0.86
Will say positive things about this national park
3.59
1.25
0.92
Will recommend this national park to family & friends
3.86
1.32
0.63
Will choose this national park as my first choice compared to other national parks Will stay longer in the next visit to this national park
2.15
1.45
0.89
2.95
1.27
0.83
5. Results and Discussion In order to estimate the measurement model by verifying the underlying structure of constructs, this study deployed CFA with a maximum likelihood. This study also checked unidimensionality, reliabilities and validities of the constructs in the measurement model before testing the structural model (Table 4). The level of internal consistency in each dimension and construct was acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from 0.83 to 0.91 (Nunnally, 1978). All of the composite reliabilities of the constructs were over the cut-off value of 0.70,
289
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
ensuring adequate internal consistency of multiple items for each construct (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity was satisfied in that all confirmatory factor loadings exceeded the cut-off value of 0.60 and was significant at 0.01 (Byrne, 2013). In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.50, indicating a large portion of the variance was explained by the constructs (Hair et al., 2010; J. V. Chen, Yen, & Chen, 2009). H1, which hypothesized there is a significant relationship between NPSus and NPSat, was supported. H2 for predicting the significant relationship between NPSus and NPBI, was not supported. H3 were NPSat mediates the relationship between NPSus and NPBI, was supported. Finally, H4 were NPSat has a significant relationship with NPBI, was supported. The findings for H1 provides support for the effect of NPSus on tourists’ NPSat, which convincingly argues the significance of implementing NPSus in KNP in creating a positive attitude toward NPSat. However, the result of H2 revealed that NPSus has not a significant effect on NPBI. This shows that ENS, ECO, and SOC cannot directly affect tourists’ NPBI, which means that there is a need for another factor to create the path among these constructs. H3 which predicted that NPSat mediates the relationship between NPSus and NPBI was supported and consistent with the hypothesized direction. This adds value to empirical results in tourism literature. Similarly, H4 which predicted the effect of NPSat on NPBI has also produced statistically significant result at p < 0.001 significance level. Furthermore, amongst predictors of NPBI, NPSat was found as the strongest influential factor, with the standardized estimate of 0.45. Table 4. Reliabilities and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Results Composite Construct Cronbach’s alpha reliability
NPSus
0.85
0.87
NPSat
0.89
0.83
NPBI
0.92
0.90
Items ens1 ens2 ens3 ens4 ens5 ens6 ens7 eco1 eco2 eco3 soc1 soc2 soc3 npsat1 npsat2 npsat3 npsat4 npbi1 npbi2 npbi3 npbi4 npbi5
Standardized factor loading 0.81 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.93 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.86 0.92 0.77 0.85 0.70 0.87 0.68 0.89 0.90 0.63 0.76 0.83 0.91 0.80
NPSus - National Park Sustainability NPSat - National Park Satisfaction NPBI - National Park Behavioral Intention 6. Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Study This study provides an insight into the understanding of tourists’ NPBI in KNP by investigating the effect of NPSus and NPSat. The need to understand tourists’ NPBI assists in managing KNP in a sustainable path, which can have remarkable benefits for the national park. One of the greatest challenges that national parks face in an ever growing tourism market is the increasing concern for the preservation and conservation of natural environment, human welfare and the long-term economic feasibility and viability of societies which emphasizes the importance of
290
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
NPSus. The results of this study are limited to tourists NPBI from developed countries in KNP, the results maybe differ in other national parks in Malaysia, such as Taman Negara National Park and Gunung Mulu National Park which both has quiet noticeable number of tourists from developed countries compare to KNP. Regarding the measurements of the constructs, the hypothesized framework for this study was not designed to include all possible aspects of NPBI. The focus of the study was limited to the NPSus, NPSat, and NPBI constructs. Whilst these constructs were able to explain certain percentages of the variance in NPBI, there might be some other variables which can explain more substantial effect on NPBI of tourists; such as National Park attractiveness (NPA), National Park Green Practices (NPGP), and National Park Mobile Apps (NPMA). Future studies can examine the relevance of these other constructs in the national park context pertaining tourists’ NPBI. References Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya's wildlife safari: a case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism Management, 24(1), 73-81. Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of service research, 1(1), 5-17. Anuwichanont, J., Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., Lertwannawit, A., & Popaijit, N. (2011). Environmental sustainability in the Thai hotel industry. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 10(11), 91-100. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1-5. Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., de Botero, M. M. (1987). Our Common Future (\'Brundtland report\'). Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Routledge. Chape, S., Spalding, M., & Jenkins, M. (2008). The world's protected areas: status, values and prospects in the 21st century: Univ de Castilla La Mancha. Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 11151122. Cooper, C. (2005). Tourism: Principles and practice: Pearson education. Cottrell, S. P., & Vaske, J. J. (2006). A framework for monitoring and modeling sustainable tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research, 4(4), 74-84. Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G. I., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists: what do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 197-210. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 355-376. Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 3-28. Fornara, F., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2010). Cross-validation of abbreviated perceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighborhood attachment (NA) indicators. Environment and Behavior, 42(2), 171-196. Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452. Gokovali, U., Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). Determinants of length of stay: A practical use of survival analysis. Tourism Management, 28(3), 736-746. Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Weaver, D. (2009). Sustainable tourism futures: Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations: Routledge. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7): Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475-496. Hawken, P. (2010). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability: Harper Business. Holden, A. (2007). Environment and tourism: Routledge. Hu, H.-H., Kandampully, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2009). Relationships and impacts of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111-125. Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28(4), 965-975. Jenkins, H. (2009). A ‘business opportunity’model of corporate social responsibility for small-and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 21-36. Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521-530. Mihanyar, P., Rahman, S. A., & Aminudin, N. (2015). Behavioural Intention of Tourists in Conceptual Age: ‘Four Season of Middle East’. Innovation and best practices in hospitality and tourism research, 2(1), 120-126. Nunnally, J. (1978). C.(1978). Psychometric theory: New York: McGraw-Hill. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 460-469. Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer: Routledge.
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
Redclift, M. (1994). Reflections on the ‘sustainable development’debate. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1(1), 3-21. Sutton, P. (2004). A perspective on environmental sustainability. Paper on the Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management: Cabi. University, Y., & University, C. (2010). 2010 Environmental Performance Index. Verma, S., & Chaudhuri, R. (2008). Meta analysis of banking services in India: a customer centric approach. International Journal of Financial Services Management, 3(3-4), 216-222. Victoria, T. (2009). Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Strategic Plan http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/component/edocman/?task...id=220 äDENDU9%UHQþLþ00 'PLWURYLü7 0RGHOOLQJSHUFHLYHGTXDOLW\YLVLWRUVDWLVIDFWLRQDQGEHKDYLRXUDOLQWHQWLons at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31(4), 537-546. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. the Journal of Marketing, 31-46.
291
ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARKETING AND RETAILING (5TH INCOMaR) 2015
Investigating the Effect of National Park Sustainability on National Park Behavioral Intention: Kinabalu National Park Payam Mihanyara,*, Sofiah Abd Rahmanb, Norliza Aminudinc a
Faculty of Business and Management, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia b Institute of Business Excellence, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia c Faculty of Hotel and Tourism, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Abstract National Park Sustainability (NPSus) is an important construct in the context of national parks which will lead tourism industry to move towards sustainable national parks. Although previous studies examined the tourist behavioral intention through deployment of sustainability principles or destination sustainability, there is a lack of research on the effect of NPSus on National Park Behavioral Intention (NPBI). To address this gap, this study developed a model which investigates the effect of NPSus as an independent variable, and National Park Satisfaction (NPSat) as mediator on tourist NPBI. The research hypotheses where NPSus and NPSat have a significant effect on NPBI was examined. A self-administrated questionnaire was distributed among 600 tourists from developed countries visiting Kinabalu National Park (KNP). The data was examined through deployment of structural equation modelling. The findings revealed that NPSus does not affect NPBI directly, however, NPSus has a significant indirect effect on tourist NPBI through mediation effect of NPSat. Furthermore, NPSat was a full mediator. Findings of this study had practical implication to enhance destination sustainability by better understanding the NPBI. © © 2016 2016 The The Authors. Authors.Published Publishedby byElsevier ElsevierB.V. B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA. Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Keywords: NPSus; NPSat; NPBI
*Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]
2212-5671 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30126-5
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
285
1. Introduction The primary challenge for tourism industry in national parks; in the 21st century is to maintain a sustainable combination of environmental, economic, and social conditions in an ever more competitive market as tourists are seeking environmental friendly products and have a greater understanding of the impacts of tourism on natural environment (Holden, 2007; Dolnicar, Crouch, & Long, 2008; Tourism Victoria, 2009). In the current study, NPSus refers to presence of environmental, economic and social sustainability in KNP. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of research on the effect of NPSus on tourist NPBI. In order to fill this gap, this study aims to develop a theoretical framework to investigate the effect of NPSus on tourist NPBI, as well as the mediation effect of NPSat. By proposing and subsequently testing the hypothesized relationships among three constructs, this study intends to achieve the following objectives: (1) to investigate the effect of NPSus on NPSat, (2) to investigate the effect of NPSus on NPBI, (3) to investigate the mediation effect of NPSat between NPSus and NPBI, (4) to investigate the effect of NPSat on NPBI. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Overview of Tourism in Kinabalu National Park (KNP) KNP is Malaysia's first World Heritage Site designated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in December 2000 for its prominent values and unique features with high esthetical values including flora and fauna, and its role as one of the most important biological sites in the world. Although, KNP is an important tourist destination in Sabah that offers nature-based tourism activities, this site is facing concerns on the need to sustain the well-being of both the natural environment and the local community (Chape, Spalding, & Jenkins, 2008). 2.2 National Park Sustainability (NPSus) In the 21 century, the tourism industry has undergone a paradigm shift due to ICT proliferation (e.g., mobile apps) and growing concern towards sustainability principles (environmental, economic, and social sustainability), and demand for deployment of green practices. Sustainability theory attempt to prioritize and integrate economic and social responses to environmental problems (Jenkins, 2009; Brundtland, 1987), to balance continues economic growth with equal distribution of environmental and social benefits (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002; Gössling, Hall, & Weaver, 2009). In the current study, NPSus refers to presence of environmental, economic and social sustainability in KNP. Environmental sustainability (ENS) is a state in which the demands placed on the environment can be met without reducing its capacity to allow all people to live well, now and in the future (Hawken, 2010). According to Sutton (2004) Environmental sustainability is the ability to sustain the qualities (e.g., clean water and air, nonrenewable resources) that are necessity to maintain the living conditions for human being and other species in the physical environment. Economic sustainability (ECO) result in less use of resources with potentially less adverse social and environmental impacts from their use (Dwyer & Spurr, 2010). The economic dimension considers human needs for material welfare (e.g., employment). The social sustainability (SOC) means sustaining well-being, education, cultural heritage, equity, participation, and empowerment of local people in the host destination (Cooper, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999). According to Redclift (1994) poverty reduction is the primary goal of social sustainability, even before environmental quality can be fully addressed. 2.3 National Park Satisfaction (NPSat) In the current study, NPSat refers to tourists’ perception towards KNP which compares their pre-purchase expectations and beliefs with post-purchase perception. In tourism destination, tourists’ value the quality of pleasurable fulfilment of their needs and wishes, as well as the full series of services and activities proposed by the destination, once tourists are satisfied with high quality service performance, they will assess on how they feel and EHOLHYH DIWHU YLVLWLQJ D GHVWLQDWLRQ $NDPD .LHWL äDENDU %UHQþLþ 'PLWURYLü 7KH OHYHOV RI
286
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
tourists satisfaction based on their experiences are a key factor that can create behavioral intention. As behavioral outcomes, those who are satisfied with their selection of a destination will return to visit and will recommend it to their family or friends (Chaudhuri & Verma, 2008; Hu, Kandampully, & Juwaheer, 2009; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007). 2.4 National Park Behavioral Intention (NPBI) In the current study, NPBI are international tourists’ intentions towards visiting KNP. Intention is the will to perform certain activities as Bandura (1986) pointed out, where Anderson (1998) defines it as the customer’s (tourist’s) intended behavior after a service encounter, including return, exist, switch, and engage in positive or negative world-of mouth communications about the business, while Oliver (2014) defines it as an affirmed likelihood to engage in a certain behavior. The theoretical framework of the study is an extension of Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by Ajzen (1985), including sustainability theory (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Jenkins, 2009; WCED, 1987) and expectation disconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980, 2014) incorporating NPSus, NPSat and NPBI constructs. 2.5 Research Hypotheses and Proposed Theoretical Framework Based on the review of the literature above, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: There is a significant relationship between NPSus and NPSat. H2: There is a significant relationship between NPSus and NPBI. H3: NPSat mediates the relationship between NPSus and NPBI. H4: There is a significant relationship between NPSat and NPBI. With the above hypotheses, this study proposes a theoretical framework (Figure 1). The theoretical framework displays the relationships among NPSus, NPSat, and NPBI.
National Park Sustainability
H2
H1 & H3
National Park Behavioral Intention
H3 & H4 National Park Satisfaction
Fig. 1. Theoretical Framework 3. Methodology To empirically test the current study hypotheses, multi-item scales used in previous studies were identified and modified to suit with the study setting. A questionnaire with three constructs was designed to capture tourists’ NPBI in KNP. The NPSus was operationalized as consisting of three dimensions. These dimensions of ENS, ECO, and SOC were measured using previous studies (Cottrell & Vaske, 2006; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Fornara, Bonaiuto, & Bonnes, 2010; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Yale & Columbia, 2010) established scales and has adjusted for the current study purpose. NPSat construct was measured following four items from previous research (Choi & Chu, 2000; Gill et al., 2007; Oliver, 1997). NPBI was measured using five items (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Gokovali, Bahar, & Kozak, 2007, Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Each of the three constructs was measured using a 7 point Likert-scale: The items were rated on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). This survey was conducted among international tourists from developed countries to
287
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
evaluate their NPBI towards visiting KNP. A total of 600 tourists were asked a series of questions related to their beliefs towards the NPSus, NPSat on their NPBI. The researcher Used simple random sampling, the international tourists were approached at their common places of gathering and then randomly selected. After screening the data, only 384 samples were deemed usable. Furthermore, the data collected are analysed using SPSS and AMOS software. 4. Findings and Analysis 4.1 Tourist Profile The male respondents (63.5%) were slightly more as compared to female respondents (36.35%).The respondents were mainly between 25 to 34 years old (51.3%). Of the sample, 56.8% were single, and 43.2% were married. The majority of the respondents were from Canada, Germany, and Netherlands. In terms of revisit most of them (98%) was first time visitors and only few were repeat visitors. Almost more than half (61.7%) of the respondents had university education, 23.5% has some college education, and 8% had a high school education or less. Occupation of respondents are diverse, however, employed (81.3%), student (7.9%) and unemployed (9.8%) represents majority of them. Majority of the respondents (60.5%) earned more than USD 2,500 monthly but less than USD 5,000. 4.2 Descriptive Statistics and EFA Results for NPSus Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPSus. Mean score indicated that for tourists visiting KNP presence of habitat for local wildlife exists within the national park (M = 5.81, SD = 1.08) and presence of job opportunities for local people (M = 4.31, SD = 1.42) had met their expectation, however the other aspects of NPSus such as low presence of noise, allocation of income to local people and education level among local people was rated below average level. The Results of EFA generated NPSus with three-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one. Total variance explained by the three-factors accounted to more than 73%. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) stated that factor solution that accounts for 60% or more of the total variance is regarded as satisfactory. NPSus with 13 items identified that ENS, ECO, and SOC can have positive influence of tourists NPSat and NPBI, since tourists from developed countries are more conscious about the environment and demanding environmental friendly products and services, as well as improvement of economic wellbeing towards social cohesion of local people. These findings is in line with previous research (Anuwichanont, Mechinda, Serirat, Lertwannawit & Popaijit, 2011) were they found tourist environmental concern and tourism contribution to local people has influential effect on their behavioral intention. Moreover, research evidence has shown that destination sustainability influence tourist behavioral intention through mediation effect of satisfaction (Mihanyar, Rahman, & Aminudin, 2015).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPSus National Park Sustainability Items Presence of clean (unpolluted) air
Mean 5.65
SD 1.12
Factor loading 0.89
Presence of clean (unpolluted) water
5.01
1.32
0.67
Presence of plenty areas covered in flora
5.32
1.38
0.86
Presence of habitat for local wildlife
5.81
1.08
0.91
Presence of key species
4.20
1.79
0.85
Presence of natural features
5.28
1.34
0.83
Low presence of noise pollution
4.43
1.37
0.75
288
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
Presence of allocation of income to the local people
3.82
1.56
0.90
Presence of job opportunities for local people
4.31
1.42
0.69
Presence of tourist spending on local services and products
3.93
1.12
0.93
Presences of conservation of traditional arts and crafts among local people Presence of education level among local people
3.57
1.10
0.88
3.20
1.18
0.81
Presence of basic services for local people
3.98
1.53
0.73
4.3 Descriptive Statistics and EFA for NPSat Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPSat. The Results of EFA generated NPSat with one-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one. NPSat explains tourists’ perception towards KNP which compares their pre-purchase expectations and beliefs with post-purchase perception. Total variance explained was 83%. Based on the results tourists’ perception towards KNP shows that it is not worthwhile visiting it. Furthermore, other determinants of NPSat had low evaluation among tourists. If KNP wants to provide satisfactory experiences to tourists it has to improve its NPSus to be able to meet the expectation of tourists from developed countries. Table 2. Descriptive statistics and factor analysis results for NPSat National Park Satisfaction Items
Mean
SD
I am satisfied with my decision to visit this national park
4.29
1.12
Factor Loading 0.81
My choice to visit this national park was a wise one I am sure it was the right thing to visit this national park Visiting this national park is worthwhile
3.80 3.98 3.55
1.32 1.18 1.10
0.73 0.93 0.65
4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Factor Analysis for NPBI Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and EFA results for NPBI. Mean score indicated that the item were tourists visit this national park again in future had low outcome (M = 3.32, SD = 1.38). The Results of EFA generated NPBI with one-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one. The findings indicated that tourists won’t stay longer in their visit and they won’t chose this national park as their first choice. Table 3. Descriptive statistics and EFA for NPBI National Park Behavioral Intention Items
Mean
SD
Will visit this national park again in the future
3.32
1.38
Factor Loading 0.86
Will say positive things about this national park
3.59
1.25
0.92
Will recommend this national park to family & friends
3.86
1.32
0.63
Will choose this national park as my first choice compared to other national parks Will stay longer in the next visit to this national park
2.15
1.45
0.89
2.95
1.27
0.83
5. Results and Discussion In order to estimate the measurement model by verifying the underlying structure of constructs, this study deployed CFA with a maximum likelihood. This study also checked unidimensionality, reliabilities and validities of the constructs in the measurement model before testing the structural model (Table 4). The level of internal consistency in each dimension and construct was acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from 0.83 to 0.91 (Nunnally, 1978). All of the composite reliabilities of the constructs were over the cut-off value of 0.70,
289
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
ensuring adequate internal consistency of multiple items for each construct (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity was satisfied in that all confirmatory factor loadings exceeded the cut-off value of 0.60 and was significant at 0.01 (Byrne, 2013). In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.50, indicating a large portion of the variance was explained by the constructs (Hair et al., 2010; J. V. Chen, Yen, & Chen, 2009). H1, which hypothesized there is a significant relationship between NPSus and NPSat, was supported. H2 for predicting the significant relationship between NPSus and NPBI, was not supported. H3 were NPSat mediates the relationship between NPSus and NPBI, was supported. Finally, H4 were NPSat has a significant relationship with NPBI, was supported. The findings for H1 provides support for the effect of NPSus on tourists’ NPSat, which convincingly argues the significance of implementing NPSus in KNP in creating a positive attitude toward NPSat. However, the result of H2 revealed that NPSus has not a significant effect on NPBI. This shows that ENS, ECO, and SOC cannot directly affect tourists’ NPBI, which means that there is a need for another factor to create the path among these constructs. H3 which predicted that NPSat mediates the relationship between NPSus and NPBI was supported and consistent with the hypothesized direction. This adds value to empirical results in tourism literature. Similarly, H4 which predicted the effect of NPSat on NPBI has also produced statistically significant result at p < 0.001 significance level. Furthermore, amongst predictors of NPBI, NPSat was found as the strongest influential factor, with the standardized estimate of 0.45. Table 4. Reliabilities and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Results Composite Construct Cronbach’s alpha reliability
NPSus
0.85
0.87
NPSat
0.89
0.83
NPBI
0.92
0.90
Items ens1 ens2 ens3 ens4 ens5 ens6 ens7 eco1 eco2 eco3 soc1 soc2 soc3 npsat1 npsat2 npsat3 npsat4 npbi1 npbi2 npbi3 npbi4 npbi5
Standardized factor loading 0.81 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.93 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.86 0.92 0.77 0.85 0.70 0.87 0.68 0.89 0.90 0.63 0.76 0.83 0.91 0.80
NPSus - National Park Sustainability NPSat - National Park Satisfaction NPBI - National Park Behavioral Intention 6. Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Study This study provides an insight into the understanding of tourists’ NPBI in KNP by investigating the effect of NPSus and NPSat. The need to understand tourists’ NPBI assists in managing KNP in a sustainable path, which can have remarkable benefits for the national park. One of the greatest challenges that national parks face in an ever growing tourism market is the increasing concern for the preservation and conservation of natural environment, human welfare and the long-term economic feasibility and viability of societies which emphasizes the importance of
290
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
NPSus. The results of this study are limited to tourists NPBI from developed countries in KNP, the results maybe differ in other national parks in Malaysia, such as Taman Negara National Park and Gunung Mulu National Park which both has quiet noticeable number of tourists from developed countries compare to KNP. Regarding the measurements of the constructs, the hypothesized framework for this study was not designed to include all possible aspects of NPBI. The focus of the study was limited to the NPSus, NPSat, and NPBI constructs. Whilst these constructs were able to explain certain percentages of the variance in NPBI, there might be some other variables which can explain more substantial effect on NPBI of tourists; such as National Park attractiveness (NPA), National Park Green Practices (NPGP), and National Park Mobile Apps (NPMA). Future studies can examine the relevance of these other constructs in the national park context pertaining tourists’ NPBI. References Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya's wildlife safari: a case study of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism Management, 24(1), 73-81. Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of service research, 1(1), 5-17. Anuwichanont, J., Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., Lertwannawit, A., & Popaijit, N. (2011). Environmental sustainability in the Thai hotel industry. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 10(11), 91-100. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1-5. Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., de Botero, M. M. (1987). Our Common Future (\'Brundtland report\'). Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Routledge. Chape, S., Spalding, M., & Jenkins, M. (2008). The world's protected areas: status, values and prospects in the 21st century: Univ de Castilla La Mancha. Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 11151122. Cooper, C. (2005). Tourism: Principles and practice: Pearson education. Cottrell, S. P., & Vaske, J. J. (2006). A framework for monitoring and modeling sustainable tourism. e-Review of Tourism Research, 4(4), 74-84. Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G. I., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists: what do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 197-210. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 355-376. Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 3-28. Fornara, F., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2010). Cross-validation of abbreviated perceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighborhood attachment (NA) indicators. Environment and Behavior, 42(2), 171-196. Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452. Gokovali, U., Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). Determinants of length of stay: A practical use of survival analysis. Tourism Management, 28(3), 736-746. Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Weaver, D. (2009). Sustainable tourism futures: Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations: Routledge. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7): Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475-496. Hawken, P. (2010). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability: Harper Business. Holden, A. (2007). Environment and tourism: Routledge. Hu, H.-H., Kandampully, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2009). Relationships and impacts of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111-125. Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28(4), 965-975. Jenkins, H. (2009). A ‘business opportunity’model of corporate social responsibility for small-and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 21-36. Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521-530. Mihanyar, P., Rahman, S. A., & Aminudin, N. (2015). Behavioural Intention of Tourists in Conceptual Age: ‘Four Season of Middle East’. Innovation and best practices in hospitality and tourism research, 2(1), 120-126. Nunnally, J. (1978). C.(1978). Psychometric theory: New York: McGraw-Hill. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 460-469. Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer: Routledge.
Payam Mihanyar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 37 (2016) 284 – 291
Redclift, M. (1994). Reflections on the ‘sustainable development’debate. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1(1), 3-21. Sutton, P. (2004). A perspective on environmental sustainability. Paper on the Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management: Cabi. University, Y., & University, C. (2010). 2010 Environmental Performance Index. Verma, S., & Chaudhuri, R. (2008). Meta analysis of banking services in India: a customer centric approach. International Journal of Financial Services Management, 3(3-4), 216-222. Victoria, T. (2009). Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Strategic Plan http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/component/edocman/?task...id=220 äDENDU9%UHQþLþ00 'PLWURYLü7 0RGHOOLQJSHUFHLYHGTXDOLW\YLVLWRUVDWLVIDFWLRQDQGEHKDYLRXUDOLQWHQWLons at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31(4), 537-546. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. the Journal of Marketing, 31-46.
291