Smart Destination Selection Process: Research on Generation Y Tourists

Sürme, Metin; Ince, Ercan

doi:10.2478/ejthr-2023-0003

Figures & Tables

Result of exploratory factor analysis scale of millennial tourists’ smart destination selection process

Items	Factor loadings			M	SD	Explained variance	KMO	Significance
Items	1	2	3	M	SD	Explained variance	KMO	Significance
Attitude

AT1	0.838			4.0642	0.85626	68.202	0.795	0.000
AT2	0.884			4.0872	0.86228
AT3	0.823			3.8349	0.90583
AT4	0.788			3.8257	0.84072
AT5	0.793			3.9450	0.86226

Behaviour

BEH1		0.779		3.9541	0.85745	56.008	0.702	0.000
BEH2		0.572		3.0642	1.04969
BEH3		0.870		3.8945	0.76373
BEH4		0.742		3.8624	0.81425

Travel intention

TI1			0.867	3.7798	0.76632	75.531	0.727	0.000
TI2			0.871	3.7706	0.82733
TI3			0.869	3.7018	0.93478

t test for gender variable

Factors	F	Significance	t	df	Significance (2-tailed)	Mean difference
Attitude	0.009	0.923	0.884	216	0.378	0.08563
Behaviour	0.239	0.625	0.073	216	0.942	0.00633
Travel Intention	0.023	0.880	−0.138	216	0.891	−0.01372

Structural model regression weights

Analysis path			B	β	SE	C.R.	P
Travel Intention	<---	Attitude	0.474	0.457	0.091	5.209	0.000
Travel Intention	<---	Behaviour	0.790	0.684	0.127	6.201	0.000

ANOVA test for education variable_

		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Significance
Attitude	Between groups	2.632	2	1.316	2.617	0.075
	Within groups	108.093	215	0.503
	Total	110.725	217

Behaviour	Between groups	0.117	2	0.058	0.141	0.869
	Within groups	89.133	215	0.415
	Total	89.249	217

Travel Intention	Between groups	5.067	2	2.533	4.885	0.008
	Within groups	111.503	215	0.519
	Total	116.569	217

Values of Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient

0.00 ≤ α < 0.40	Not reliable
0.40 ≤ α < 0.60	Lowly reliable
0.60 ≤ α < 0.80	Quite reliable
0.80 ≤ α < 1.00	Highly reliable

Model goodness-of-fit values

Variable	χ²	df	χ²/df	GFI	CFI	NFI	SRMR	RMSEA
Criterion			≤ 5	≥ 0.90	≥ 0.90	≥ 0.90	≤ 0.08	≤ 0.08
Modal	103.65	51	2.032	0.927	0.962	0.935	0.0468	0.076

Validity and reliability analysis_

Variable	AVE	CR	Cronbach’s alpha
Attitude	0.58	0.83	0.883
Behaviour	0.45	0.75	0.709
Travel Intention	0.63	0.83	0.834

Tukey test for age variable

Dependent variable			Mean difference (I–J)	SE	Significance	95% CI
Dependent variable			Mean difference (I–J)	SE	Significance	Lower bound	Upper bound
Travel Intention	18–23	24–29	0.31499	0.15114	0.162	−0.0764	0.7064
		30–35	−0.29700	0.16831	0.293	−0.7328	0.1388
		36–41	−0.20573	0.14886	0.512	−0.5912	0.1797

	24–29	18–23	−0.31499	0.15114	0.162	−0.7064	0.0764
		30–35	−0.61199^*	0.20946	0.020	−1.1544	−0.0696
		36–41	−0.52072^*	0.19418	0.039	−1.0235	−0.0179

	30–35	18–23	0.29700	0.16831	0.293	−0.1388	0.7328
		24–29	0.61199^*	0.20946	0.020	0.0696	1.1544
		36–41	0.09127	0.20782	0.972	−0.4468	0.6294

	36–41	18–23	0.20573	0.14886	0.512	−0.1797	0.5912
		24–29	0.52072^*	0.19418	0.039	0.0179	1.0235
		30–35	−0.09127	0.20782	0.972	−0.6294	0.4468

Demographic findings

	Frequency	Percent
Gender

Male	104	47.7
Female	114	52.3

Age

18–23	142	65.1
24–29	27	12.4
30–35	21	9.6
36–41	28	12.8

Education

Associate degree	136	62.4
Undergraduate	59	27.1
Postgraduate	23	10.6

Participation levels of Generation Y tourists in statements regarding the smart destination selection process

Expressions		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree	M	SD
New facilities like smartphones, websites, etc., have enabled me to better plan my trip	n	6	6	19	124	63	4.062	0.856
	%	2.8	2.8	8.7	56.9	28.9	4.062	0.856
New facilities like smartphones, websites, etc., have made travelling easier than before	n	4	11	15	120	68	4.087	0.862
	%	1.8	5.0	6.9	55.0	31.2	4.087	0.862
The existence of smart infrastructure influences my attitude in visiting this destination	n	5	15	35	119	44	3.834	0.905
	%	2.3	6.9	16.1	54.6	20.2	3.834	0.905
Smart facilities such as tour guide devices are very important to me	n	3	10	51	112	42	3.825	0.840
	%	1.4	4.6	23.4	51.4	19.3	3.825	0.840
I have access to new facilities like smartphones, websites, etc.	n	3	13	30	119	53	3.945	0.862
	%	1.4	6.0	13.8	54.6	24.3	3.945	0.862
It is important for me to easily locate with my cell phone and inform friends and relatives where I am	n	5	8	31	122	52	3.954	0.857
	%	2.3	3.7	14.2	56.0	23.9	3.954	0.857
I really care about my travelling behaviour as I use smart facilities and friends will follow me	n	12	63	56	73	14	3.064	1.049
	%	5.5	28.9	25.7	33.5	6.4	3.064	1.049
I have resources, time, and opportunities to use smart devices	n	2	7	43	126	40	3.894	0.763
	%	0.9	3.2	19.7	57.8	18.3	3.894	0.763
I am confident that, if I want, I can use smart devices	n	4	9	38	129	38	3.862	0.814
I am confident that, if I want, I can use smart devices	%	1.8	4.1	17.4	59.2	17.4	3.862	0.814
Other people who are important to me think I should use smart apps for my trip	n	11	49	62	79	17	3.192	1.033
	%	5.0	22.5	28.4	36.2	7.8	3.192	1.033
My family encouraged me to use smart technologies for this trip	n	10	31	55	108	14	3.389	0.964
	%	4.6	14.2	25.2	49.5	6.4	3.389	0.964
I intend to visit smart destinations because of safety and security issues	n	3	9	48	131	27	3.779	0.766
	%	1.4	4.1	22.0	60.1	12.4	3.779	0.766
For my future travels I want to go to destinations with more smart facilities	n	3	11	54	115	35	3.770	0.827
	%	1.4	5.0	24.8	52.8	16.1	3.770	0.827
I will make an effort to visit smart destinations when travelling	n	7	14	53	107	37	3.701	0.934
	%	3.2	6.4	24.3	49.1	17.0	3.701	0.934
I prefer smart destinations rather than traditional ones	n	3	21	58	106	30	3.637	0.886
I prefer smart destinations rather than traditional ones	%	1.4	9.6	26.6	48.6	13.8	3.637	0.886
I will select smart destinations for future trips	n	6	29	78	90	15	3.362	0.896
I will select smart destinations for future trips	%	2.8	13.3	35.8	41.9	6.9	3.362	0.896
Smart destinations have more to offer compared to traditional destinations, hence I get more experiences and fun	n	7	14	41	124	32	3.733	0.902
	%	3.2	6.4	18.8	56.9	14.7	3.733	0.902

CFA goodness-of-fit values

Variable	χ²	df	χ²/df	GFI	CFI	NFI	SRMR	RMSEA
Criterion			≤ 5	≥ 0.90	≥ 0.90	≥ 0.90	≤ 0.08	≤ 0.08
Attitude	7,331	4	1,833	0,987	0,995	0,989	0,0192	0,062
Behaviour	3,417	2	1,709	0,992	0,993	0,984	0,0270	0,057
Travel Intention	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0

ANOVA test for age variable

		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Significance
Attitude	Between groups	3.193	3	1.064	2.118	0.099
	Within groups	107.531	214	0.502
	Total	110.725	217

Behaviour	Between groups	0.912	3	0.304	0.737	0.531
	Within groups	88.337	214	0.413
	Total	89.249	217

Travel Intention	Between groups	5.661	3	1.887	3.641	0.014
	Within groups	110.909	214	0.518
	Total	116.569	217

Tukey test for education variable

Dependent variable			Mean difference (I - J)	SE	Significance	95% CI
Dependent variable			Mean difference (I - J)	SE	Significance	Lower bound	Upper bound
Travel Intention	Associate degree	Undergraduate	−0.05874	0.11227	0.860	−0.3237	0.2062
	Associate degree	Postgraduate	−0.50703^*	0.16236	0.006	−0.8902	−0.1238

	Undergraduate	Associate degree	0.05874	0.11227	0.860	−0.2062	0.3237
	Undergraduate	Postgraduate	−0.44829^*	0.17703	0.032	−0.8661	−0.0305

	Postgraduate	Associate degree	0.50703^*	0.16236	0.006	0.1238	0.8902
	Postgraduate	Undergraduate	0.44829^*	0.17703	0.032	0.0305	0.8661

Values for normal distribution

Scale	N	Skewness	Kurtosis	Shapiro-Wilk (p)	Kolmogorov-Smirnov (p)
Attitude	218	−0.109	−0.350
Behaviour	218	−0.165	1.656	0.000	0.000
Travel Intention	218	−0.071	−0.250

Smart Destination Selection Process: Research on Generation Y Tourists

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Result of exploratory factor analysis scale of millennial tourists’ smart destination selection process

t test for gender variable

Structural model regression weights

ANOVA test for education variable_

Values of Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient

Model goodness-of-fit values

Validity and reliability analysis_

Tukey test for age variable

Demographic findings

Participation levels of Generation Y tourists in statements regarding the smart destination selection process

CFA goodness-of-fit values

ANOVA test for age variable

Tukey test for education variable

Values for normal distribution

Paradigm

My account