Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

THE EFFECT OF DESTINATION IMAGE ON DESTINATION SATISFACTION AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED QUALITY OF DESTINATION: THE CASE OF MANAVGAT

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Abdullah USLU,
  • Ali İNANIR
Abdullah USLU
Asisst. Prof., Akdeniz University
Ali İNANIR
Lect., Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1494

Published 2020-06-25

Keywords

  • Destination Image Perceived Quality of Destination Destination Satisfaction Manavgat
  • Destinasyon İmajı Destinasyonun Algılanan Kalitesi Destinasyon Memnuniyeti Manavgat

How to Cite

USLU, A., & İNANIR, A. (2020). THE EFFECT OF DESTINATION IMAGE ON DESTINATION SATISFACTION AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED QUALITY OF DESTINATION: THE CASE OF MANAVGAT. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 1753–1776. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1494

Abstract

1. LITERATURE
1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
The social, cultural and economic effects of tourism are increasing day by day. Its economic effects are of vital importance, especially for the development of touristic destinations (Çelik and Doru, 2016). Accordingly, the image is an important element in order to increase the economic effects in the destination. Because it is observed that destination image influences the quality perceived by the tourist from the service (Öztürk and Şahbaz, 2019), the satisfaction of tourist from the visit (Chi and Qu, 2008), intention to revisit and recommending behavior (Bigne, Sanchez and Sanchez, 2001; Sevim, Seçilmiş and Görkem, 2013) and in short, many tourist behaviors (Tasci, Gartner and Cavusgil, 2007; Tasci and Gartner, 2007; Tasci, 2009). With all these aspects, the positive development of tourist behaviors also ensures the economic development of destinations. In summary, the subject of the research is the image of the Manavgat destination and the relationship between the perceived quality of the destination and the destination satisfaction.
1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
The purpose of the research is to determine the effect of the image of Manavgat destination on perceived quality and satisfaction, as well as the effect of perceived quality on satisfaction. In addition, it is another aim of the research to reveal the mediating role of the perceived quality of the destination in the relationship between destination image and satisfaction. All these aims set out exhibit the uniqueness and importance of the study.
1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
Destination image is the general picture that occurs in the minds of tourists visiting the destination. The formation of the image in the destinations is important in the positive emergence of this picture. Natural and cultural resources, infrastructure and superstructure, socio-economic and social conditions and natural environment play a role in the formation of the image (Beerli and Martin, 2004; San Martin and Rodriguez, 2008; Sun, Geng-Quing and Xu, 2013). In addition, it is observed that the destination image has an effect on the perceived quality of the destination (Chen, 2011) and destination satisfaction (Özdemir, 2007; Kozak, Bigne and Andreau, 2004; Pizam, Neumann and Reichel, 1978). However, since the number of studies examining the mediating role of the perceived quality of the destination in the relationship of destination image with destination satisfaction is limited, it is thought that this study will contribute to the literature in this aspect.


2. DESIGN AND METHOD
2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
This is a practical study for foreign tourists coming to Manavgat by utilizing quantitative research methods.
2.2. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
The survey technique, which is one of the quantitative research methods, has been used to test the models and hypotheses were created for the purpose of the research. Analyzes have been carried out on 290 surveys collected from tourists.
2.3. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Quantitative research method, which is the most suitable method for the purpose of the research, has been utilized. As for research model was analyzed (PLS-Partial Least Squares) path analysis was used. Before the research model being tested, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients, validity of convergent and discriminant are checked for all variables’ validity and reliability. Destination image that will involve to measurement model, validity of measurement model (CFA) oriented the perceived quality of destination and destination satisfaction were examined.
2.4. RESEARCH MODEL
The research model created to determine the purpose of the research is as follows:

2.5. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The hypotheses created based on the literature are as follows;
H1: The destination image positively affects the perceived quality of the destination.
H2: The destination image positively affects destination satisfaction.
H3: The perceived quality of the destination positively affects destination satisfaction.
H4: The perceived quality of the destination has a mediating role between the destination image and destination satisfaction.
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS
According to the results of the research, it has been determined that the image of the destination affects the perceived quality and satisfaction of the destination, and the perceived quality of the destination affects the satisfaction of the destination. One of the most important results of the research is that the perceived quality of the destination has a partial mediating role between the destination image and destination satisfaction.
3.2. HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS
All 4 hypotheses created for the purpose of the study have been accepted.
3.3. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE
It has been revealed that the destination image has effects on the perceived quality and satisfaction of the destination. Similarly, in their research (Milman and Pizam, 1995; Costro et al., 2007; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chen, 2011), it has been exhibited that the destination image is influential on the perceived quality of the destination and it has been revealed (by Prayag, 2008; Prayag and Ryan, 2012; Blas and Carvajal Trujillo, 2014; Hosseini, 2015; Sarıipek et al., 2019) that the destination image has an effect on destination satisfaction.
The better the image of the destination in the mind of the tourist is, the better the perceived quality of the destination is. The destination image is also connected to destination satisfaction. With this research, it is revealed that the concept of destination satisfaction, which is a determining factor in the behavior of tourists, originates from the destination image, and then the satisfaction of the destination increases as a result of the quality services they offer.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS
4.1. RESULTS of the ARTICLE
It has been revealed that the destination image has effects on the perceived quality and satisfaction of the destination. It has been determined that the perceived quality of the destination has effects on destination satisfaction. In addition, with this research, it has been determined that the perceived quality of the destination has a mediating role between destination image and destination satisfaction.
4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS
Destinations that want to create a good destination image in the consumer have to reveal the appropriate socio-cultural, economic and environmental conditions. While carrying out studies that emphasize the basic features of the destination, activities that will contribute to increasing the overall quality of the destination and increasing the satisfaction of the destination are required. Undoubtedly, the image of the destination created in the minds of tourists plays a major role in the formation of Manavgat's brand identity.
4.3. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE
There are several limitations in the research. The first constraint of the research is that the data collected from the tourists are obtained only from the Manavgat destination, and the results of the research cannot be generalized. It is another limitation of the research that the application is made only for foreign tourists and the local tourists are ignored

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Afthanorhan, W. M. A. B. W. (2008). A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 2(5),198-205.
  2. Akdeniz, F. & Bakır Sert, H. (2018). Alternatif turizmin parlayan yıldızı; Oymapınar (Manavgat, Antalya, Türkiye). Journal of Recreation and Tourism Research, 5(1), 71-78.
  3. Akış, A. & Kaya, B. (2018). Manavgat’ın (Antalya) alternatif turizm potansiyeli. Asya Studies Academic Social Studies/Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar, 3, 20-27.
  4. Aksu, A., İçigen, E. T. & Ehtiyar, R. (2010). A comparison of tourist expectations and satisfaction: A case study from Antalya region of Turkey. Turizam International Scientific Journal. 14(2), 66-77.
  5. Albayrak, A. (2013). Alternatif turizm, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  6. Baloglu, S. & McCleary, K.W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897.
  7. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
  8. Beerli, A. & Martin, J. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681.
  9. Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, I. & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: inter relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607-616.
  10. Blas, S. S. & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014). Cruise passengers’ experiences in a mediterranean port of call. the case study of Valencia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102, 307-316.
  11. Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows. London: Routledge.
  12. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97-116.
  13. Chen, C. F. & Tsai, D. C. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115-1122.
  14. Chen, C. F. (2011). Exploring relationships between destination brand equity, satisfaciton and destination loyalty: A case study of Mongolia. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinart Arts, 3(2), 81-94.
  15. Chi, C. G.Q. & Ou, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach, Tourism Management, 29, 624-636.
  16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah. NJ.
  17. Costro, C. B., Armario, E. M. & Ruiz, D. M. (2007). The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behaviour. Tourism Management, 28, 175-187.
  18. Çelik, S. & Doru, Ö. (2016). Turizm ve bölgesel kalkınma ilişkisi Muş turizm potansiyeline yönelik bir swot analizi. Ünidap Uluslararası Bölgesel Kalkınma Konferans Kitabı, 28-30 Eylül, Muş, 329-342.
  19. Davras, O. & Uslu, A. (2019). Destinasyon seçimini belirleyen faktörlerin destinasyon memnuniyeti üzerindeki etkisi: Fethiye’de İngiliz turistler üzerine bir araştırma. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(1), 691-708.
  20. Doğan, D. (2019). SmartPLS ile Veri Analizi, Ankara: Zet Yayınları.
  21. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  22. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage: Thousand Oaks.
  23. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson: New International Edition.
  24. Hayes, J. (2018). The Theory and Practice of Change Management, Palgrave
  25. Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis?, Qual Quant 52(1), 1-8.
  26. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, Jr., D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M. & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö amd Evermann. Organizational Research Methods (17:2), 182-209.
  27. Henseler, J., Hubona G. S. & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116, 1-19.
  28. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. & Sarsted, M. (2015). A new criterion for assesing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135.
  29. Hosseini, S.(2015). The relationships between destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty, International Journal of Research In Sıcial Sciences, 5(6), 27-43.
  30. Howie, F. (2004). Managing the tourist destination. London: Thomson Learning.
  31. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  32. İnanır, A. (2018). Destinasyon yönetimi kapsamında paydaşlar arası ilişkiler Göller Yöresi örneği. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Antalya: Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  33. İnanır, A. (2019). Turistik destinasyon yönetiminde paydaşlar arası ilişkiler: Göller Yöresi örneği, Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3), 517-541.
  34. Kim, H. & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Motion picture ımpacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 216-237.
  35. Koçoğlu, C. M. (2019). Destinasyona yönelik marka imajı ve marka sadakati ilişkisinde destinasyon kalitesinin aracılık rolü. Seyahat ve Otel İşletmeciliği Dergisi, 16(1), 34-47.
  36. Kozak, M. & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260-269.
  37. Kozak, M., Bigne, E. & Andreau, L. (2004). Satisfaction and destination loyalty: a comparison between non-repeat and repeat tourists. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1), 43-59.
  38. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2018). Turizm İstatistikleri, https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-9851/turizm-istatistikleri.html (Erişim tarihi: 01.03.2020).
  39. Leisen, B. (2001). Image segmentation: the case of tourism destination. Journal of Service Marketing. 15(1), 49-66.
  40. Mai, K. N., Nguyen, P. N. D. & Nguyen, T. M. (2019). International tourists’ loyalty to ho chi minh city destination-a mediation analysis of perceived service quality and perceived value. Sustainability, 11, 1-16.
  41. Milman, A. & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awarness and familiarity with a destination: the central Florida Case: Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), 21-27.
  42. Nitzl, C., Roldán J.L. & Cepeda Carrión G. (2016) Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems 119(9), 1849-1864.
  43. Özdemir, G. (2007). Destinasyon yönetimi ve pazarlama temelleri İzmir için bir destinasyon model önerisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  44. Öztürk, Y. & Şahbaz, R. P. (2019). Hizmet kalitesi, destinasyon imajı ve davranışsal niyetler arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi: Ilgaz Dağı Milli Parkı ziyaretçilerine yönelik bir araştırma. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 7(4), 2962-2976.
  45. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. & Zeithalm, V. A. (1990). An empirical examination of relationship in an extended service quality model. Cambridge, MA.: Marketing Science Institute.
  46. Pizam, A., Neumann, Y. & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a destination area, Annals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314-322.
  47. Prayag, G. (2008). Image, satisfaction and loyalty-the case of Cape Town, Anatolia, 19(2), 205-224.
  48. Prayag, G. & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: the role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 342-356.
  49. Rajest, R. (2013). Impact of tourist perceptions, destination image and tourist satisfaction on destination loyalty: A conceptual model, PASOS, 11(3), 67-78.
  50. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, A. G. (2006). A first course ınstructural equation modeling (2th edition). New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Inc.
  51. San Martin, H. & Rodriguez, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism Management. 29(2), 263-277.
  52. Sarıipek, S., Çevik, S. & Yıldırım Saçılık, M. (2019). Destinasyon imajı algısının memnuniyet ve destinasyon sadakati üzerindeki etkisi: Erdek örneği, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(68), 1232-1240.
  53. Sevim, B., Seçilmiş, C. & Görkem, O. (2013). Algılanan destinasyon imajının tavsiye davranışı üzerine etkisi: Safranbolu’da bir araştırma. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 9(20), 115-129.
  54. Sun, X., Geng-Qing, Chi, C. & Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: the case of Hainan island. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 547-577.
  55. Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C. & Çavuşgil, S. T. (2007). Conceptualization and operationalization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(2), 194-223.
  56. Tasci, A. D. A. & Gartner, W.C. (2007). Destination image and its functional relationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413–425.
  57. Tasci, A. D. A. (2009). Social distance: The missing link in the Loop of Movies, destination image, and tourist behavior?. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 494-507.
  58. Tinsley, R. & Lynch, P. (2001). Small tourism business networks and destination development. International Hospitality Management, 20(4), 367-378.
  59. Tosun, C. & Jenkings, C. L. (1996). Regional planning aproaches to tourism development: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 17(7), 519-531.
  60. Wong, K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (pls-sem) techniques using smartpls. Marketing Bulletin, 24, Technical Note 1, 1-32.
  61. World Tourism Organization. (2007). A practical guide to tourism destination management. World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
  62. Yılmaz, Ö. D. (2014). Sürdürülebilir Turizm ve Destinasyon Yönetimi. M, Kozak (Ed.). Sürdürülebilir Turizm Kavramlar ve Uygulamalar. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, 275-291.
  63. Yoon, Y. & Uysal, M. (2005). An Examiation of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26, 45-56.
  64. Zabkar, V., Brencic, M. M. & Dmitrovic, T. (2010). Modeling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level, Tourism Management, 31, 537-546.