| Literature DB >> 35805393 |
Nadeem Ullah1, Jawad Khan2, Imran Saeed3, Shagufta Zada4,5, Shanchao Xin1, Zhihao Kang1, YiKe Hu1.
Abstract
Gastronomic tourism is becoming an essential consideration among tourists when choosing a tourist destination. One of the main reasons for visiting a specific destination for almost 15% of tourists is "gastronomy". This has led to the development of a new kind of tourism called "Gastronomic Tourism". However, there has been minimal research on gastronomy tourism, specifically in Pakistan. The primary purpose of this study is to measure the level of satisfaction in a tourist destination and furthermore consider gastronomy as a component of visitor motivation. A survey of 307 tourists who had recently visited Pakistan's northern areas was undertaken to conduct the study. This has enabled us to better understand the variables that influence the behaviors and attitudes of tourists toward this popular tourist attraction. Gastronomy motivation impacts tourism location selection, and gastronomic experience influences satisfaction, according to the research. Specifically, tourists show a keen interest in gastronomic experiences after feeling satisfied with the destination and local foods, developing loyalty toward the destination.Entities:
Keywords: gastronomic experience; loyalty; satisfaction; self-concept theory; tourist’s motivation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805393 PMCID: PMC9265459 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Local food is defined as “products which not only symbolize tourism destinations but also vividly demonstrate local traditional culture” [31]. Source: Mordor Intelligence. Reprinted/adapted with permission from https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/market-entry-tourism-and-hotel-industry-in-pakistan, accessed on 9 May 2022.
Figure 2Proposed Theoretical Model of Gastronomic Experience.
Sample Characteristics.
| Demographic Variables | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 196 | 63.8 |
| Female | 111 | 36.2 |
| Age (years) | ||
| 25–30 | 20 | 6.5 |
| 31–35 | 177 | 57.7 |
| 26–40 | 63 | 20.5 |
| Above 40 | 47 | 15.3 |
| Country | ||
| National | 286 | 93.2 |
| International | 21 | 6.8 |
| Profession | ||
| Student | 67 | 21.8 |
| Public Office Holder | 54 | 17.6 |
| Private Job | 93 | 30.3 |
| Businessman/women | 40 | 13.3 |
| Unemployed | 27 | 8.8 |
| Retired | 26 | 8.5 |
| Qualification | ||
| High School | 15 | 4.9 |
| Bachelor’s | 30 | 9.8 |
| Masters | 243 | 79.2 |
| PhD | 19 | 6 |
Descriptive Statistics.
Correlation, Mean, SD, Reliability and HTML Ratio.
| Variables | Mean | SD | HTML Ratio | Correlation | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |||
| 1. Gender | 1.3616 | 0.48124 | - | |||||||||||
| 2. Age | 2.4463 | 0.82815 | −0.078 | |||||||||||
| 3. Education | 2.8664 | 0.58165 | 0.021 | 0.063 | ||||||||||
| 4. Country | 1.0684 | 0.25285 | −0.07 | −0.006 | −0.182 ** | |||||||||
| 5. Profession | 2.9479 | 1.5158 | −0.028 | 0.003 | 0.014 | 0.06 | ||||||||
| 6. Gastronomic Experience | 3.8514 | 0.82641 | 0.022 | 0.039 | 0.086 | −0.184 ** | −0.038 | −0.87 | ||||||
| 7. Satisfaction with the Destination | 3.7638 | 0.67762 | 0.824 | 0.02 | 0.017 | 0.032 | −0.077 | −0.022 | 0.371 ** | −0.81 | ||||
| 8. Motivation | 4.0275 | −71,772 | 0.82 | 0.876 | 0.029 | 0.092 | 0.077 | −0.1 | −0.033 | 0.533 ** | 0.669 ** | −0.84 | ||
| 9. Loyalty | 4.0195 | 83,778 | 0.832 | 0.841 | 0.837 | −0.009 | 0.094 | 0.068 | −0.047 | −0.026 | 0.388 ** | 0.699 ** | 0.848 ** | −0.82 |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Factors Loading.
| Items | Loadings | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.92 | 0.59 | |
| 1 | 0.761 | ||
| 2 | 0.772 | ||
| 3 | 0.814 | ||
| 4 | 0.773 | ||
| 5 | 0.735 | ||
| 6 | 0.745 | ||
| 7 | 0.803 | ||
| 8 | 0.773 | ||
|
| 0.87 | 0.63 | |
| 1 | 0.832 | ||
| 2 | 0.776 | ||
| 3 | 0.821 | ||
| 4 | 0.761 | ||
|
| 0.90 | 0.58 | |
| 1 | 0.811 | ||
| 2 | 0.764 | ||
| 3 | 0.755 | ||
| 4 | 0.862 | ||
| 5 | 0.742 | ||
| 6 | 0.697 | ||
| 7 | 0.732 | ||
|
| 0.85 | 0.66 | |
| 1 | 0.697 | ||
| 2 | 0.795 | ||
| 3 | 0.830 |
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis (N = 307).
| Hypothesis | Suggested Effect | (Β) | T Value | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Motivations → Gastronomy experience | (+) | 0.284 *** | 10.995 | Supported |
| H2: Gastronomy experience → Satisfaction with the destination | (+) | 0.138 *** | 6.985 | Supported |
| H3: Satisfaction with destination → Loyalty | (+) | 0.489 *** | 17.068 | Supported |
| H4: Gastronomy experience → Loyalty | (+) | 0.151 *** | 7.355 | Supported |
GE = Gastronomic Experience. SAT = Satisfaction. MOT = Motivation. LOY = Loyalty. ***. Correlation is significant at 0.001 level (Two tailed).
Verification of the hypothesis.
| Model | X2 | df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized four-factor model | 3774 | 1245 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Three-factor model: | 5890 | 2278 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.18 | 0.16 |
| Two-factor model: | 3956 | 3247 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.27 | 0.18 |
| One-factor model: GE, SAT, MOT and LOY | 6447 | 4265 | 0.42 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.24 |
Figure 3Northern Areas.