| Literature DB >> 31881676 |
Sangmook Lee1, Hyebin Park2, Yoonyoung Ahn3.
Abstract
Due to growing food-related tourism, there is increasing interest about street foods worldwide, including South Korea. Many types of food-related experiences have been considered as one of the significant elements to develop positive perceptions about a destination, and street food has been recognized as a critical clue for encouraging tourists to a destination. Previous scholars mentioned street food as a public health risk element as well as a significant factor to attract tourists' attention. Therefore, this study aims to find out how experiential quality of street foods is related to the destination image, life satisfaction, and word of mouth as perceived by tourists in night markets of South Korea. Data was collected from 325 foreigners who visited night markets and have experienced street foods in Korea. This study demonstrates the results of the influence of quality of street foods on tourist experience, on destination image, on life satisfaction, and on word of mouth in Korea. In addition, the result shows a moderating impact of food neophobia on the formulated relationships. There are statistically significant differences between groups with high neophobia perception and low neophobia perception of street foods. Based on the results of this study, we propose not only academic implications for future studies, but also managerial implications for food enterprises and food tourism organizers related to street food.Entities:
Keywords: WOM (word of mouth); destination image; experience quality; food neophobia; life satisfaction
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31881676 PMCID: PMC6981621 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model.
General characteristics of the subjects.
| Characteristics | n | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Street Market[s] | Bupyeong Night Market (Busan) | 129 | 39.7 |
| Haeundae Night Market (Busan) | 79 | 24.3 | |
| Kyungju Jungang Market (Kyungju) | 117 | 36.0 | |
| Gender | Male | 170 | 52.3 |
| Female | 155 | 47.7 | |
| Ethnic | African American | 37 | 11.4 |
| Hispanic | 8 | 2.5 | |
| Asian | 165 | 50.8 | |
| Caucasian[White] | 86 | 26.5 | |
| Other | 29 | 8.9 | |
| Companion | Family | 53 | 16.3 |
| Couple | 108 | 33.2 | |
| Friend | 121 | 37.2 | |
| Colleague | 18 | 5.5 | |
| Alone | 22 | 6.8 | |
| Others | 3 | 0.9 | |
| Average payment per visit | Under 3000 | 10 | 3.1 |
| 3001–5000 | 91 | 28.0 | |
| 5001–10,000 | 194 | 59.7 | |
| 10,001–20,000 | 30 | 9.2 | |
| Total | 325 | 100 | |
Constructs and Scale of Items.
| Constructs and Scale Items | Mean | SD | Cronbach α a | Factor Loading b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
| I had an excellent experience of street food while staying in the food market. | 5.10 | 0.987 | 0.793 | |
| I am impressed by the street food quality in the food market. | 5.28 | 1.053 | 0.735 | |
| I felt positive things about the street food products for travelers. | 5.18 | 1.035 | 0.883 | |
|
|
| |||
| The employees were kind and supporting in street food market. | 4.83 | 1.224 | 0.746 | |
| The interaction I had with the staff was of a high standard. | 4.70 | 1.248 | 0.892 | |
| I feel good about the interaction I had with the employees in street food market. | 4.77 | 1.235 | 0.878 | |
| Overall, I would say the quality of my interaction with the employees was excellent in the street food market. | 4.82 | 1.216 | 0.857 | |
|
|
| |||
| The physical environment in this street food store is excellent. | 4.77 | 1.280 | 0.728 | |
| I am impressed with the general quality of this street food markets’ physical atmosphere. | 5.11 | 1.232 | 0.757 | |
| I believe that the environment of street food stores in the night food market was of high quality. | 4.59 | 1.359 | 0.915 | |
|
|
| |||
| The place for the street food provides good service. | 4.86 | 1.128 | 0.802 | |
| The place for the street food gave a positive image of the destination. | 4.50 | 1.330 | 0.825 | |
| The place for the street food has good reputation. | 4.07 | 1.376 | 0.824 | |
| The place for the street food helped to get a good image of my trip. | 4.10 | 1.588 | 0.808 | |
|
|
| |||
| The street food in the night market is beyond my expectations. | 4.65 | 1.212 | 0.917 | |
| I really like this trip to this street food market. | 4.84 | 1.185 | 0.813 | |
| The experience of street foods makes me happy about my trip. | 4.75 | 1.148 | 0.886 | |
| It is worthwhile to stay in here. | 4.88 | 1.118 | 0.883 | |
|
|
| |||
| I will say positive things about this street food to other people. | 5.10 | 1.296 | 0.930 | |
| I would highly recommend the street food in the night market to my friends and relatives. | 4.58 | 1.378 | 0.881 | |
| If I could, I would recommend the street food. | 4.87 | 1.237 | 0.839 |
Note 1. SD = Standard Deviation. Note 2. a Bold figures display Cronbach Alpha. Note 3. b All factor loadings are significant (p < 0.001).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Discriminant Validity.
| OUT | INT | PHY | DESI | LSA | WOM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OUT | 0.556 1 | |||||
| INT | 0.264 | 0.714 | ||||
| PHY | 0.141 | 0.115 | 0.647 | |||
| DESI | 0.496 | 0.283 | 0.202 | 0.664 | ||
| LSA | 0.450 | 0.318 | 0.171 | 0.812 | 0.767 | |
| WOM | 0.500 | 0.277 | 0.158 | 0.903 | 0.850 | 0.782 |
| χ2 = 419.853, d.f. = 171, GFI = 0.89, AGFI = 0.85, NFI = 0.92, RFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.067 | ||||||
Note 1. OUT = Outcome clue; INT = Interaction clue; PHY = Physical Environmental Clue; DESI = Destination Image; LSA = Life Satisfaction; WOM = Word of Mouth; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Note 2. 1 AVE is on the diagonal. Squared of paired constructs are on the off-diagonal.
Structural Parameter Estimates.
| Hypothesized Path | Coefficient | t-Value | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1: OUT→DESI | 0.553 | 7.419 *** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 2: INT→DESI | 0.189 | 3.238 *** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 3: PHY→DESI | 0.173 | 3.224 *** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 4: OUT→ESA | 0.089 | 2.290 ** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 5: INT→LSA | −0.026 | −0.727 | Not Supported |
| Hypothesis 6: PHY→LSA | −0.032 | −0.519 | Not Supported |
| Hypothesis 7: DESI→LSA | 0.939 | 13.309 *** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 8: DESI→WOM | 0.454 | 2.741 ** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 9: LSA→WOM | 0.501 | 3.038 ** | Supported |
| χ2 = 517.376, d.f. = 194, GFI = 0.87, AGFI = 0.83, NFI = 0.92, RFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.072 | |||
Note 1. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 2. OUT = Outcome clue; INT = Interaction clue; PHY = Physical Environmental Clue; DESI = Destination Image; LSA = Life Satisfaction; WOM = Word of Mouth.
Figure 2Results of structural equation modeling.
Moderating effects of level of food neophobia (low and high].
| Hypothesized Path | Unconstrained χ2 | Constrained χ2 | t-Value | Model Comparison Δχ2 (Δd.f. = 1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | ||||
| Hypothesis 1: OUT→DESI | 658.554 | 667.024 | 6.076 *** | 1.716 | 8.471 *** |
| Hypothesis 2: INT→DESI | 658.554 | 660.607 | 3.224 *** | 5.747 *** | 2.053 |
| Hypothesis 3: PHY→DESI | 658.554 | 659.008 | 2.205 * | 3.292 *** | 0.454 |
| Hypothesis 4: OUT→LSA | 658.554 | 664.392 | 1.780 | 4.663 *** | 5.838 ** |
| Hypothesis 5: INT→LSA | 658.554 | 659.710 | 0.274 | 1.125 | 1.156 |
| Hypothesis 6: PHY→LSA | 658.554 | 659.347 | 1.537 | 0.215 | 0.793 |
| Hypothesis 7: DESI→LSA | 658.554 | 659.608 | 3.406 *** | 4.701 *** | 0.055 |
| Hypothesis 8: DESI→WOM | 658.554 | 660.238 | 0.506 | −1.296 | 1.684 |
| Hypothesis 9: LSA→WOM | 658.554 | 659.304 | 9.105 *** | 9.905 *** | 0.750 |
Note 1. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Moderating effect of food neophobia.