Abstract
This research was conducted to investigate motivating factors that influences the preferences of visitors to either Culture-based or the Nature-based destination. The 'Push and Pull' theory of motivation was adopted to identify how Push (motivations) and Pull (destination attraction) influenced visitors’ preferences destinations under investigation, and to identify their relationship. Six (6) sampled destinations- a combination of both Nature-based and Culture-based destinations were randomly selected for this study. Appropriate statistical analyses were carried out and major findings indicated that both Push and Pull factors influences visitors preferences, however Pull factors had more significant effect on visitors preference, especially on the destination visited, indicating that destination attractions has more influence on visitors than their motivations to achieve their desires or needs. The chi-square was used to determine statistical significance among 'Push' and 'Pull' factors and analysis revealed a significant association between preferred Tourist destination and the actual destination visited. Mean measures unveiled that destination attributes/attraction (Pull factors) significantly influenced those that visited nature-based destinations than those that visited culture-based destinations, with attributes: 'Ease of access', ' Overall cleanliness of the destination' and 'Quality of service' with higher rankings. Destination Managers, marketers and all stakeholders in Tourism marketing should pay attention to the intrinsic and extrinsic reasons why people visit in other to grow tourism and because they are fundamental to why people visit or travel. Especially pull factors, as a lot more can be done in this regard, than what pushes visitors due to the unpredictability of human needs.
Keywords: Visitors, Push, Pull, Destination, Motivation, Tourism.
Received: 18 January 2021 / Revised: 22 February 2021 / Accepted: 8 March 2021/ Published: 1 April 2021
Contribution/ Originality
This study is one of very few studies that have given an insight on what is obtainable in the types of tourist destinations and how they can be improved; it also characterized the relative preference of tourist between nature and culture based destinations and revealed major factors for these preferences.
1. INTRODUCTION
The last six decades, have given birth to the popularity of tourism worldwide in social and economic sense. The unprecedented growth of tourism has been the most dramatic but consistent as figures in the 1950s of international travelers which was about 25 million, has risen to 687 million at the wake of the new millennia. In 2011 records has it that the world total number of international tourist has peaked at 982 million travelers. World Tourism Organisation (2012) and statistics shows that total global tourism contribution was approximately US$7.5 trillion in 2014 (Statista, 2015). In the same vein, economic contribution of tourism worldwide was valued at US$2.1 billion in the 1950s and also at the beginning of the new millennium, it had risen and valued at US$473 billion. In the recent, records has it that tourism generated over US$2.5 trillion in 1999 also providing about 112 million jobs.
The African tourism industry in the recent consistently enjoys the reputation of being the most dynamic and fastest growing one in the global tourism picture with huge potentials of economic growth and job provision despite its challenges. The continent received 65.3 million of international visitors of the world’s 1.33 billion, making up of 5.8% of the world total. WTTC (2015). Although the input of the Nigerian tourism industry in the above statistics is low, contributing only 5.2% in total international visitors to the continent (WTTC, 2015) and also contributing to 2.8% of employment in Africa, yet it has the opportunities in terms of resources to grow its economy through tourism.
Nigeria with a population of about 160 million people (National Population Census, 2006) is endowed with human, natural and material resources (Sinclair & Stabler, 1991) with tourism having a greater advantage of harnessing these resources for growth and national development. Government’s involvement in tourism started after the independence in 1960, with the establishment of Nigeria Tourism Board in 1976 and 1990, after which a national policy was formulated and adopted, even though tourism activities had already begun during the colonial era (Bola, 2010). The tourism industry is capable of boosting Nigeria’s economy if properly planned and managed.
The country in 2006 came up with the Tourism Master Development Plan (National Tourism Developmental Master Plan (2006)) which has suffered a great deal of setback regarding implementation of policies. Lagos state like some other states in the country has been at the forefront of Tourism development in terms of promotion of tourism by the way of tourism infrastructural development and policy development (Babatola & Adeleke, 2013). So for Lagos State also where the study is focused, to be able to compete as a prime tourist destination, there is the need for the state to draw up strategies that will drive the tourism industry at the domestic level and to develop an international image as a leisure and tourist destination and this includes developing and proper management all forms of its tourism resources and potentials (Natural, Cultural, etc.) by the way of funding, planning and policy development. Planning and development in tourism is all encompassing, and it is that which incorporates short term policies and long term policies that will eventually bring about economic and social gains across board i.e. To the policy makers, Investors, The Destination, Residents in the Destinations etc. (Matheison & Wall, 1982). Planning also should be a continuous and a constant phenomenon in tourism, for it to meet up with persistent dynamism in the tourism industry, which is the global focus and priorities due to by development; for example the change in taste and demand of tourist, needs and preferences of consumers. The challenge therefore now for National government, Policy makers, and all stakeholders is to formulate policies geared towards developing our destinations in the direction of this new trend.
Relatively, the perceived quality of tourist destinations is basically influenced by their natural and cultural environment (Ferraro, 1979). These attractions in a destination alongside quality services as perceived by tourists will greatly influence their choice or preference for a particular destination. This perception could either encourage tourist or visitors to revisit or deter them from doing so again (Inskeep, 1991).
Tourist preferences are also relevant and not limited to the designing of appropriate policies and planning in other to meet consumers’ preferences but to also help in the implementation of the overall tourism developmental plan (Inskeep, 1991).Given the call for understanding the tourism market attitude and preferences for greater attractions either of the Natural or Cultural environment, there is a clear need for carrying out a survey for such preferences and priority given to its application in other to identify and understand how it can contributes to tourism growth which is the focus of this research work.
This is because, the development and success of tourism in any region or area is dependent on the level of excellence and count of its natural, cultural and other economic resources (Adejuwon, 1993).
The Nigerian tourism industry is still vulnerable to these dynamics that are going on the international scene and still an emerging one (Ashamu, 2016) due to the low degree of attention paid to and investment made, in this direction. Notably, the tourism industry is still at the primary level due to the reasons mentioned above.
Therefore the intent here is to help to provide a clear picture of what the tourism market looks like based on tourists preferences in other to produce specialized products (Tourism) that will help destinations to attract both local and international visitors and differentiate their products. Specifically, the advantages of this for destinations are that it determines the degree of patronage as well as the basic reasons why potential tourist prefer one destination over another.
Consequently tourism planning that incorporates tourist preferences has been proven to be as one of the best ways of creating competitive and comparative advantages for destinations by attracting various segments of the market or visitors adding value to the products offered. This competitiveness is especially that of structural characteristics (Infrastructure, superstructure), that actually forms the major part of attractions that draws tourist to destinations and what they would like to enjoy or achieve in such destinations.
Tourism in Lagos is as old as tourism in Nigeria and the beginning of life and ancient civilization (Ifegbo, 2005) long before the era of the colonial leadership but actual development of tourism started in 1965.
Destination attributes or attractions are the main reasons people travel aside for inner desires (or what is termed the ‘Push’ factors) because it is what pulls tourist or visitors to destinations (Crompton, 1979). On the basis of this study, attractions (Resources) have been classified into two major type’s namely Nature-based and culture-based themes. Relatively, Buhalis (2000) revealed that visitors travel for several reasons to specific destinations, usually man-made or natural.
Nature-based attractions are those that that includes parks, landscape, seascape, mountains, coasts, flora, fauna, and islands. Etc. (Ritchie, Crouch, & Hudson, 2001). While culture-based attractions are those that includes Historical sites, Monumental sites, Theatres, Museums, Industrial sites, Cuisines, Entertainment, Concerts, Architectural sites. Etc.
Natural attractions are major factors that pulls people to travel because of the breathtaking sites in terms of the natural beauty and scenery (Ritchie et al., 2001).
Culture-based attractions such as historical and heritage have also drawn those segment of the market who have the desire to learn about contemporary civilizations and cultural treasures of places. That is, peoples way of life whether in the past or the present (Godfrey & Clarke, 2000).
Destinations can also combine some of these attractions, especially those that are built, in order to increase the level of patronage from tourists or visitors to their destinations. As most often vacationists or visitors usually like to participate in various activities. This is why knowing and analyzing the behavior, perception or expectations of tourist is of significant importance and key to designing tourism planning and effective management of destinations (Beerli & Martin, 1994; Gunn, 1994; Pearce, 1995).
The efforts of the Lagos State government in terms of policy and infrastructural development for the purpose of tourism development cannot be overlooked as it has improved and provided facilities that enhances tourism and tourism experience (Babatola & Adeleke, 2013). However, all these efforts will culminate to no success at all if destination managers and tourism marketers do not have adequate understanding of consumers motivation(Behavior) which is quite significant for successful tourism growth (Goelder & Ritchie, 2009) and usually done by profiling the existing market using their demographics, visit pattern and, needs etc.
Therefore, this lack of understanding can be solved through Market Research Analysis as it will reveal trend, interpret market and monitor changes that would necessarily drive policy development towards target market. (Goelder & Ritchie, 2009) also, despite the huge tourism potentials in Lagos State, there is paucity of studies on the demand and behavior of visitors and their preferences for either Nature-based or Culture-based destinations. Therefore, for Lagos state and all stakeholders to fully develop tourism and benefit from its huge potentials, there is need for proper understanding of tourist needs and preferences for these destinations.
A significant number of published papers on the analysis of tourist preferences to specific tourist destination type exist; however there is limited comparative analysis of the general themes or two types of tourist destinations based on resources: Nature and Culture. Therefore this work will give an insight as to what is obtainable in the two types of tourist destinations and how they can be improved upon; it will also characterize the relative preference of tourist between nature-based and culture-based destinations and possibly reveal major factors for these preferences.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Study Area
Lagos State, a former capital of the nation Nigeria is situated in the South Western corner of the country and covering a total area of 3577 sq.km, spans the Guinea coast of the Atlantic Ocean for over 180 km, from the republic of Benin on the west to its boundary with Ogun state in the East, extending approximately from Latitude 6o2´N to 6o4′ N, and from Longitude 2o45′ E to 4o20′ E of its 787sq.km (www.wikipedia.com).
Lagos state unarguably has the most vibrant economy in Nigeria (See Figure 1) which makes it a major financial center and would have been the fifth largest economy in Africa, if taken as a country. The state is naturally and culturally beautified with various touristic destinations. Its unique Landscape which includes Beaches, Historical sites, shopping malls, makes it a one stop destination for touristic activities both locally and internationally. Tourism in Lagos is as old as tourism in Nigeria and the beginning of life and ancient civilization (Ifegbo, 2005) long before the era of the colonial leadership but actual development of tourism started in 1965.
Figure-1. Map of the study area.
2.1.1. Tourist Destinations in Lagos Classified into Nature-Based or Culture-Based
2.1.1.1. Nature-Based Destinations in Lagos
- Tarkwa bay.
- Eleko beach.
- Badagry beach.
- Alpha beach.
- Lekki conservation center.
- LUFASI Wildlife center.
- Whispering palms.
- Elegushi beach.
2.1.2. Culture-Based Destinations in Lagos
- Badagry first storey building.
- Nationsal museum, Lagos.
- Slave relics, Badagry.
- Silverbird galleria.
- MUSON center.
- National theatre.
- Heritage museum, Badagry.
- Freedom Park.
- Nike Art Gallery.
Figure-2. The map of lagos showing the array of nature-based and culture-based tourist destinations.
2.2. Data Collection
Data for this research work was collected primarily through a structured questionnaire. A stratified random sampling was employed to properly represent the target population. Six (6) tourist destinations were used which is about 30% of the tourist destinations in Lagos. This is based on geographical location, three (3) are newly established ones and three (3) are old destinations. Closed-end primary data self-administered survey questionnaire was administered to the tourists based on what influenced their choices for their preferences for either of the type of the tourist destinations under investigation. With the first part concerning information about visitors socio-demographic features and the second part of which consist of questions that will measure the behavior of the tourist towards the choice their destinations. The main constructs that was used to analyze the data includes;
- Preferred type of destination.
- Influence of motivation for travelling to the preferred and actual destination visited.
- Perceived importance of destination attributes on the preferred destination and actual destination visited, and tourist past visit pattern.
Differences regarding the motivations and preferences of the tourist were also identified. Two items was used to measure preferred type of destination and obtain general preference information about nature-based destination and culture-based destination. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1= strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. Thirteen (13) items relevant to motivational factors of tourist to their preferred destination was also measured. Responses were also measured on a 5-point Likert –scale type of importance. Ten (10) items regarding destination attributes was used to measure the perceived importance of destination attributes at the preferred destination, selected based on the travel and tourism Literature. Lastly four items was used to measure tourist past visit pattern/behavior. In addition to these, a ranking analysis was performed on different types of destinations categorized under the themed destination being considered.
2.3. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics was performed for all items of importance related to motivations and activities at the destinations under investigation to provide characteristics of sample and offer general information regarding variables. Simple correlation analysis with reliability test was carried out to identify the relationship between individual.
A series of independent t-test was used to analyze the study variables (preference of destination type, motivation, and preferred activities) to determine whether variables in the two groups (Nature-based and Culture-based tourism) differed. Firstly a number of statistical procedures was carried out for this study using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 23.0) First Univariate statistics (frequency distributions, percentages, and mean) was applied where appropriate. Secondly, to identify differences between one of the seven independent variables (age, gender, marital status, education, income, employment, party composition) .To identify statistically significant relationships between two nominal variables, chi-square test was performed. Lastly a preference ranking was done for a combination of examples of both Nature-based and Culture-based destinations.
3. RESULTS
Table-1. Demographic characteristics of the tourists.
| Demographic characteristics | Frequency |
Percent |
|
| Gender | Male | 67 |
44.4 |
| Female | 82 |
54.3 |
|
| Non – response | 2 |
1.3 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Age | 15 - 18 years | 47 |
31.1 |
| 19 - 25 years | 45 |
29.8 |
|
| 26 - 35 years | 43 |
28.5 |
|
| 36 - 45 years | 8 |
5.3 |
|
| 46 years and above | 8 |
5.3 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Educational level | None | 1 |
0.7 |
| Primary | 6 |
4.0 |
|
| Secondary | 51 |
33.8 |
|
| Tertiary | 93 |
61.6 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Income level | None | 35 |
23.2 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
17.9 |
|
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
9.9 |
|
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
20.5 |
|
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
13.9 |
|
| Not stated | 22 |
14.6 |
|
| Marital status | Single | 120 |
79.5 |
| Married | 31 |
20.5 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Group composition | Individual visitor | 16 |
10.6 |
| With family | 18 |
11.9 |
|
| With friends | 38 |
25.2 |
|
| Organized tour | 79 |
52.3 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
Table 1 shows that 44.4% of the tourists were male, 54.3% were female and the remainder 1.3% did not specify their gender. The majority of the tourists (31.1%) were 15 – 18 years, a cumulative 89.4% were 35 years and below which shows that majority of the tourists in the visited destinations were young while majority of the tourists (79.5%) were single. Also, 61.6% of the respondents had a tertiary education and 33.8% had a secondary education. This implies that only those who had at least a secondary education value taking leisure in visiting tourist destinations or centers. In addition, 23.2% of the tourists had no income which suggests two things; one, majority of these tourists is school-age children that are non-income earners who had visited due to organized tours. Lastly, 52.3% of the tourists were there on organized tour, 25.2% were with friends, 11.9% were with family members and 10.6% were on individual visit.
Table-2. Tourist destinations.
| Tourists Experiences | Frequency |
Percent |
|
| Past experience | First timer | 104 |
68.9 |
| Repeater | 47 |
31.1 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Preferred tourist destination | Nature - based tourism (Beaches, Nature parks, Wildlife parks, Resorts, etc.) | 97 |
64.2 |
| Culture - based tourism (Historical sites, Museums, Archeological sites, Heritage museums, Gallerias, Malls, etc.) | 53 |
35.1 |
|
| Non – response | 1 |
0.7 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Type of destination visited | Nature – based | 64 |
42.4 |
| Culture – based | 87 |
57.6 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
Table 2 shows that shows that 68.9% of the tourists were first timers which could be as a result of organized tour, 64.2% of the tourists preferred nature - based tourism destination (Beaches, Nature parks, Wildlife parks, Resorts, etc.) and only 42.4% of the tourists who participated in the were found in nature – based destinations.
Table-3. Mean and standard deviation of rating of preferred destination of respondents.
| c | N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Rank |
| Beaches | 150 hi |
4.76 |
2.16 |
5 |
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | 151 |
5.07 |
2.06 |
2 |
| Gallerias | 151 |
4.28 |
2.25 |
9.5 |
| Nature parks | 151 |
5.40 |
1.94 |
1 |
| Theatres | 151 |
4.41 |
2.31 |
8 |
| Resorts | 151 |
4.51 |
2.16 |
7 |
| Museums | 151 |
4.77 |
1.97 |
6 |
| Historical sites | 151 |
4.86 |
2.06 |
3 |
| Shopping Malls | 151 |
4.81 |
2.26 |
4 |
| Monumental sites | 151 |
4.28 |
2.24 |
9.5 |
Table 3 shows the rankings/ ratings of the enumerated preferred tourism destination. Nature parks were rated first with a mean rating of 5.40 (sd = 1.94) followed by wildlife parks/ Zoos/ game reserves (mean = 5.07; sd = 2.06) and first from the rear were gallerias (mean = 4.28; sd = 2.25) and monumental sites (mean = 4.28; sd = 2.24) followed by theatres while beaches (mean = 4.76; sd = 2.16) and museums (mean = 4.77; sd = 1.97) were in the middle.
Table 4 shows that 58.9% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that their motivation for visit was to spend time with friends and family, 43.7% were there to meet new people, 70.8% were there to spend time with their friends and 67.8% were to socially interact with others. Also, 80.8% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that their motivation for visit was to have fun and enjoyment, only 25.2% were there to escape usual responsibilities, 19.2% were out there to slow down and 23.2% were there to get away from everyday routine.
Table-4. Main motivation for visiting the tourist destination.
| Items | CD |
D |
N |
A |
CA |
Rank |
| To spend time with friends and family | 35 (23.2) |
12 (7.9) |
15 (9.9) |
26 (17.2) |
63 (41.7) |
8 |
| To meet new people | 36 (23.8) |
20 (13.2) |
29 (19.2) |
35 (23.2) |
31 (20.5) |
9 |
| To spend time with friends | 20 (13.2) |
3 (2.0) |
21 (13.9) |
36 (23.8) |
71 (47.0) |
5 |
| To socially interact with others | 14 (9.3) |
15 (9.9) |
20 (13.2) |
41 (27.2) |
61 (40.4) |
6 |
| I want to have fun and enjoyment | 15 (9.9) |
3 (2.0) |
11 (7.3) |
44 (29.1) |
78 (51.7) |
3 |
| To escape usual responsibilities | 72 (47.7) |
26 (17.2) |
15 (9.9) |
13 (8.6) |
25 (16.6) |
11 |
| To slow down | 75 (49.7) |
27 (17.9) |
20 (13.2) |
18 (11.9) |
11 (7.3) |
13 |
| To get away from everyday routine | 63 (41.7) |
33 (21.9) |
20 (13.2) |
16 (10.6) |
19 (12.6) |
12 |
| To spend time alone | 65 (43.0) |
25 (16.6) |
20 (13.2) |
19 (12.6) |
22 (14.6) |
10 |
| Pursue activities of interest | 22 (14.7) |
16 (10.7) |
23 (15.3) |
33 (22.0) |
56 (37.3) |
7 |
| Learn about art/ culture | 10 (6.6) |
8 (5.3) |
12 (7.9) |
51 (33.8) |
70 (45.4) |
4 |
| Appreciate and learn about natural scenery | 11 (7.3) |
- |
13 (8.6) |
49 (32.5) |
78 (51.7) |
2 |
| Experience new and different things | 8 (5.3) |
2 (1.3) |
10 (6.6) |
39 (25.8) |
92 (60.9) |
1 |
Note: CD – Completely Disagree; D – Disagree; N – Neutral; A – Agree; CA – Completely Agree.
Lastly, 27.2% of the respondents agreed or completely agreed that their motivation for visit was to spend time alone, 59.3% were there to pursue activities of interest, 79.2% were there to learn about art/ culture, 84.2% were out to appreciate and learn about natural scenery and 86.7% were out there to experience new and different things.
Table-5. Perceived importance of tourist motivation about destination attributes.
| Attributes of tourist destination | CU |
U |
N |
I |
VI |
Rank |
| Personal safety and security | 11 (7.3) |
7 (4.6) |
20 (13.2) |
19 (12.6) |
94 (62.3) |
5 |
| The destination can easily be reached | 27 (18.0) |
18 (12.0) |
21 (14.0) |
31 (20.7) |
53 (35.3) |
10 |
| Having variety of activities | 11 (7.3) |
8 (5.3) |
20 (13.3) |
45 (30.0) |
66 (44.0) |
7 |
| Seeking fun and entertainment | 10 (6.6) |
9 (6.0) |
12 (7.9) |
41 (27.2) |
79 (52.3) |
2 |
| Quality of service | 10 (6.6) |
11 (7.3) |
14 (9.3) |
40 (26.5) |
76 (50.3) |
4 |
| Visiting new places | 9 (6.0) |
5 (3.3) |
8 (5.3) |
39 (25.8) |
90 (59.6) |
1 |
| Offer of cultural and other events | 9 (6.0) |
9 (6.0) |
23 (15.2) |
45 (29.8) |
65 (43.0) |
9 |
| Possibility of shopping | 31 (20.5) |
22 (14.6) |
35 (23.2) |
30 (19.9) |
33 (21.9) |
10 |
| Seeking the beauty of nature | 13 (8.6) |
3 (2.0) |
16 (10.6) |
38 (25.2) |
81 (53.6) |
3 |
| Overall cleanliness of the destination | 9 (6.0) |
7 (4.6) |
22 (14.6) |
31 (20.5) |
82 (54.3) |
6 |
Note: CU – Completely; Unimportant, U – Unimportant; N – Neutral; I – Important; VI – Very Important.
Table 5 shows that 74.9% of the respondents perceived their personal safety and security as important or very important attribute of the destination, 56.0% counted on the ease of reaching the destination, 74.0% perceived having variety of activities as important or very important and 79.5% counted on seeking fun and entertainment. Also, 76.3% of the respondents perceived the quality of service as important or very important, 85.4% perceived visiting new places as important, and 72.8% counted for destination’s offer of cultural and other events as important.
Lastly, only 41.8% counted the possibility of shopping as important or very important, 78.8% counted seeking the beauty of nature and 74.8% perceived the overall cleanliness of the destination as important or very important.
Table 6 shows that 40.4% of the respondents had their first visit to any of the destinations in their adulthood, 30.5 was in their adolescence and 29.1 visited first in the childhood. Also, 55% of the respondents visits any of the tourist destinations once in a year, 18.5% visit every three (3) months, 14.6% visit every six (6) months and only 11.9% visit monthly while 46.4% of them were visiting the destination they were met for the first time. In addition, 43.7% of the tourists visit any of the destinations only during organized visits, 37.1% visit any time they felt like and 19.2% visit during festive periods. Also, 41.7% visited their destination once in the last six months, 14.6% visited twice in the same period, 7.3% visited 3 or more time in the same period, 30.4% cannot remember whether they visited and 6.0% had not visited at all in the same period. Furthermore, it shows that 45.0% of the respondents visited with family, 35.15 visited with friends, 13.2% visited in group e.g., School activities, 6.0% visited alone while one of the respondents did not answer. Lastly, almost half or the respondents(49.7%) travelled beyond 15 km to their destination, 17.2% travelled 3 km or less and 32.9% travelled between 5 and 15 km to their destination.
Table-6. Past visit pattern of respondents to destination.
| Characteristics | Frequency |
Percent |
|
| When was your first visit there or any tourist destination | Childhood | 44 |
29.1 |
| Adolescence | 46 |
30.5 |
|
| Adulthood | 61 |
40.4 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Frequency of visits there or any other tourist destination after the first visit | Monthly | 18 |
11.9 |
| Every three months | 28 |
18.5 |
|
| Every six months | 22 |
14.6 |
|
| Once in a year | 83 |
55.0 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Time of visit | Any time I feel like | 56 |
37.1 |
| During festive periods | 29 |
19.2 |
|
| During organized visits | 66 |
43.7 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Have you visited this tourist destination before? | No | 81 |
53.6 |
| Yes | 70 |
46.4 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Number of times you visited here in the last six months | None | 9 |
6.0 |
| Once | 63 |
41.7 |
|
| Twice | 22 |
14.6 |
|
| Thrice | 6 |
4.0 |
|
| Four times | 5 |
3.3 |
|
| I can't remember | 46 |
30.5 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| How do you visit there? | Alone | 9 |
6.0 |
| With friends | 53 |
35.1 |
|
| With family | 68 |
45.0 |
|
| In group e.g., School activities | 20 |
13.2 |
|
| Non – response | 1 |
.7 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
| Length of time you took to travel there | 1km | 12 |
7.9 |
| 2 km | 11 |
7.3 |
|
| 3 km | 3 |
2.0 |
|
| 5 km | 9 |
6.0 |
|
| 6 km | 11 |
7.3 |
|
| 10 km | 14 |
9.3 |
|
| 15 km | 16 |
10.6 |
|
| Above 15 km | 75 |
49.7 |
|
| Total | 151 |
100.0 |
|
3.1. Hypotheses Testing
3.1.1. Hypothesis One
H1: There is no significant difference in rating of tourist destinations by type of destination visited.
Table 7 shows the mean ratings of preference of tourist destinations by respondents’ who visited those destinations. It revealed that those who visited nature – based destinations rated them higher while those who visited culture – based destinations equally rated them higher except historical sites and nature parks there were reversed. However, all the destinations were not significantly rated higher (p > 0.05) except gallerias that has significant mean difference (p < 0.05)
3.2. Hypothesis Two
H2: There is no significant difference in mean rating of preference of tourist destinations by their most preferred destination.
Table-7. Respondents rating of tourists’ destinations by type of destination visited.
| Destination | Destination visited | N |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
T |
P |
| Beaches | Nature – based | 63 |
5.02 |
2.00 |
1.237 |
0.218 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.57 |
2.27 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | Nature – based | 64 |
5.11 |
2.07 |
0.186 |
0.853 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
5.05 |
2.07 |
|||
| Gallerias | Nature – based | 64 |
3.72 |
2.27 |
-2.679 |
0.008 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.69 |
2.15 |
|||
| Nature parks | Nature – based | 64 |
5.28 |
2.01 |
-0.667 |
0.506 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
5.49 |
1.89 |
|||
| Theatres | Nature – based | 64 |
4.28 |
2.21 |
-0.588 |
0.557 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.51 |
2.39 |
|||
| Resorts | Nature – based | 64 |
4.69 |
2.22 |
0.866 |
0.388 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.38 |
2.11 |
|||
| Museums | Nature – based | 64 |
4.77 |
1.94 |
-0.049 |
0.961 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.78 |
2.00 |
|||
| Historical sites | Nature – based | 64 |
4.88 |
2.10 |
0.072 |
0.943 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.85 |
2.05 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | Nature – based | 64 |
4.63 |
2.33 |
-0.883 |
0.379 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.95 |
2.21 |
|||
| Monumental sites | Nature – based | 64 |
4.20 |
2.23 |
-0.383 |
0.702 |
| Culture - based | 87 |
4.34 |
2.26 |
Table-8. Respondents mean rating of preference of tourists’ destinations by most preferred destination.
| Destination | Most preferred destination | N |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
T |
P |
| Beaches | Nature - based | 96 |
5.02 |
2.07 |
2.065 |
0.041 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.26 |
2.26 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | Nature - based | 97 |
5.46 |
2.02 |
3.285 |
0.001 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.34 |
1.97 |
|||
| Gallerias | Nature - based | 97 |
4.26 |
2.24 |
-0.066 |
0.948 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.28 |
2.29 |
|||
| Nature parks | Nature - based | 97 |
5.88 |
1.63 |
4.295 |
<0.001 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.53 |
2.17 |
|||
| Theatres | Nature - based | 97 |
4.48 |
2.23 |
0.603 |
0.547 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.25 |
2.48 |
|||
| Resorts | Nature - based | 97 |
4.43 |
2.22 |
-0.773 |
0.441 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.72 |
2.02 |
|||
| Museums | Nature - based | 97 |
4.55 |
1.92 |
-1.884 |
0.064 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
5.17 |
2.03 |
|||
| Historical sites | Nature - based | 97 |
4.63 |
2.05 |
-1.813 |
0.072 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
5.26 |
2.06 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | Nature - based | 97 |
4.80 |
2.23 |
-0.019 |
0.985 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.81 |
2.35 |
|||
| Monumental sites | Nature - based | 97 |
4.21 |
2.17 |
-0.495 |
0.622 |
| Culture - based | 53 |
4.40 |
2.38 |
Table 8 shows the mean ratings of preference of tourist destinations by their most preferred destination. It revealed that respondents who preferred nature – based destinations rated beaches, Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves and nature parks significantly higher than those who preferred culture – based destinations (p < 0.05) and rated resorts lower though not significant (p > 0.05). Also, while culture – based preferred respondents rated museums, historical sites, shopping malls and monumental sites higher than nature – based preferred respondents, gallerias and theatres were however rated lower and none of the ratings of culture - based destinations is significantly different (p > 0.05).
3.3. Hypothesis Three
H3: There is no significant difference in mean rating of preference of tourist destinations by their demographic characteristics.
Table-9. Respondents mean rating of preference of tourists’ destinations by gender.
| Destination | Gender |
N |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
T |
P |
| Beaches | Male |
67 |
4.64 |
2.21 |
-0.877 |
0.382 |
Female |
81 |
4.95 |
2.06 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | Male |
67 |
5.64 |
1.76 |
2.876 |
0.005 |
Female |
82 |
4.71 |
2.13 |
|||
| Gallerias | Male |
67 |
4.48 |
2.20 |
0.769 |
0.443 |
Female |
82 |
4.20 |
2.25 |
|||
| Nature parks | Male |
67 |
5.24 |
2.02 |
-1.100 |
0.273 |
Female |
82 |
5.59 |
1.82 |
|||
| Theatres | Male |
67 |
3.96 |
2.29 |
-2.451 |
0.015 |
Female |
82 |
4.87 |
2.23 |
|||
| Resorts | Male |
67 |
4.13 |
2.18 |
-2.016 |
0.046 |
Female |
82 |
4.84 |
2.09 |
|||
| Museums | Male |
67 |
4.93 |
1.93 |
0.569 |
0.571 |
Female |
82 |
4.74 |
1.94 |
|||
| Historical sites | Male |
67 |
4.79 |
2.09 |
-0.473 |
0.637 |
Female |
82 |
4.95 |
2.02 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | Male |
67 |
4.16 |
2.20 |
-3.386 |
0.001 |
Female |
82 |
5.38 |
2.16 |
|||
| Monumental sites | Male |
67 |
4.00 |
2.21 |
-1.464 |
0.145 |
Female |
82 |
4.54 |
2.24 |
Table 9 shows the mean rating of preference of tourist destinations according to respondent’s gender. It revealed that female respondents rated beaches, nature parks, theatres, resorts, museums, historical sites, shopping malls and monumental sites higher than the males while their male counterparts rated wildlife parks/ zoos/ game reserves and gallerias higher. However, only the ratings of wildlife parks/ zoos/ game reserves, resorts and shopping malls differed significantly among male and female tourists (p < 0.05).
Table 10 shows the mean ratings of preference of tourist destinations according to the respondent’s age. It revealed that only the ratings of beaches differed significantly by age of the tourists (p < 0.05) with the highest mean rating for beaches from those between 19 - 25 years (5.36; 0.48) and least mean rating from those 46 years and above (3.00; 0.38). The mean ratings of all the other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table 11 shows the mean ratings of preference of tourist destinations according to the respondent’s educational qualification. It revealed that only the ratings of shopping malls differed significantly by educational qualification of the tourists (p < 0.05) with the highest mean rating for shopping malls from those with primary education (6.00; 2.45) and least mean rating from those with no education (1.00; 0.00). The mean ratings of all the other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table 12 shows that the mean ratings of preferences for all the destinations by income were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table 13 shows the mean ratings of preference of tourist destinations according to the respondent’s marital status. It revealed that only the ratings of theatres differed significantly by marital status of the tourists (p < 0.05) with the highest mean rating from singles (4.61; 2.24) and least mean rating from married tourists (3.65; 2.46). The mean ratings of all the other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table-10. Respondents mean rating of tourists’ destinations preference by age.
| Destination | Age |
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
F |
P |
| Beaches | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
4.34 |
0.50 |
2.571 |
0.04 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
5.36 |
0.48 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
42 |
4.83 |
0.47 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
4.88 |
0.46 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
3.00 |
0.38 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
5.04 |
2.07 |
0.835 |
0.638 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
4.93 |
1.96 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.95 |
2.19 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
5.88 |
2.53 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
5.86 |
2.65 |
|||
| Gallerias | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
3.98 |
2.08 |
1.491 |
0.208 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
4.80 |
1.97 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.23 |
2.24 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
3.00 |
1.46 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
4.29 |
2.27 |
|||
| Nature parks | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
5.32 |
2.03 |
1.106 |
0.356 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
5.16 |
2.01 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
5.47 |
1.96 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
6.63 |
.74 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
5.86 |
1.46 |
|||
| Theatres | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
4.57 |
2.38 |
0.811 |
0.52 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
4.71 |
2.13 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.14 |
2.33 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
3.88 |
2.85 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
3.43 |
2.57 |
|||
| Resorts | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
4.04 |
2.04 |
1.216 |
0.307 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
4.58 |
2.18 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.79 |
2.19 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
5.50 |
2.27 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
4.14 |
2.48 |
|||
| Museums | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
5.04 |
2.01 |
1.035 |
0.391 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
4.67 |
1.93 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.51 |
1.99 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
5.75 |
1.39 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
4.29 |
2.43 |
|||
| Historical sites | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
5.21 |
1.84 |
1.087 |
0.385 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
5.04 |
2.01 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.44 |
2.20 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
4.88 |
2.59 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
4.14 |
2.34 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
5.55 |
1.99 |
2.399 |
0.053 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
4.44 |
2.31 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.67 |
2.35 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
3.50 |
2.39 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
4.43 |
2.23 |
|||
| Monumental sites | 15 - 18 years |
47 |
4.57 |
2.31 |
1.329 |
0.262 |
19 - 25 years |
45 |
3.96 |
2.04 |
|||
26 - 35 years |
43 |
4.60 |
2.19 |
|||
36 - 45 years |
8 |
3.00 |
2.83 |
|||
46 - 55 years |
7 |
4.14 |
2.48 |
Table 14 shows the mean ratings of preference of tourist destinations according to the respondent’s marital status. It revealed that only the ratings of theatres differed significantly by marital status of the tourists (p < 0.05) with the highest mean rating from singles (4.61; 2.24) and least mean rating from married tourists (3.65; 2.46). The mean ratings of all the other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table -11. Respondents mean rating of preference of tourists’ destinations by educational qualification.
| Destination | Age |
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
F |
P |
| Beaches | None |
1 |
5.00 |
-. |
0.254 |
0.859 |
Primary |
6 |
5.50 |
2.07 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
4.76 |
2.05 |
|||
Tertiary |
92 |
4.71 |
2.25 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | None |
1 |
6.00 |
. |
0.141 |
0.936 |
Primary |
6 |
5.00 |
2.28 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
4.96 |
2.05 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
5.13 |
2.09 |
|||
| Gallerias | None |
1 |
5.00 |
. |
0.486 |
0.692 |
Primary |
6 |
5.17 |
2.48 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
4.39 |
2.20 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.15 |
2.27 |
|||
| Nature parks | None |
1 |
7.00 |
. |
0.695 |
0.556 |
Primary |
6 |
5.33 |
1.63 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
5.14 |
2.15 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
5.54 |
1.84 |
|||
| Theatres | None |
1 |
5.00 |
. |
0.572 |
0.634 |
Primary |
6 |
4.33 |
2.81 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
4.75 |
2.32 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.23 |
2.29 |
|||
| Resorts | None |
1 |
6.00 |
. |
1.64 |
0.19 |
Primary |
6 |
5.33 |
1.63 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
4.02 |
2.14 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.71 |
2.17 |
|||
| Museums | None |
1 |
5.00 |
. |
0.977 |
0.405 |
Primary |
6 |
5.67 |
1.97 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
5.02 |
1.95 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.58 |
1.98 |
|||
| Historical sites | None |
1 |
4.00 |
. |
1.91 |
0.131 |
Primary |
6 |
6.33 |
.82 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
5.16 |
1.85 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.61 |
2.19 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | None |
1 |
1.00 |
. |
4.279 |
0.006 |
Primary |
6 |
6.00 |
2.45 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
5.49 |
2.02 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.41 |
2.26 |
|||
| Monumental sites | None |
1 |
7.00 |
. |
1.026 |
0.383 |
Primary |
6 |
4.17 |
2.71 |
|||
Secondary |
51 |
4.59 |
2.24 |
|||
Tertiary |
93 |
4.10 |
2.21 |
4. DISCUSSION
Overall, more than half of the respondents were female (54.3%) while the male respondents were (44.4%) and 1.3% did not specify their gender. Majority of respondents were between ages 15-18 yrs., while respondents between ages 19-25 were next with 29.8%, respondents between 26-35 yrs. were 28.5% and respondents between ages 30-40 yrs and 46 and above were both 5.5%.The results also shows that respondents were more likely to have a tertiary education with 61.6%, while respondents with a secondary education recorded 33.8%, low scores are shown by respondents with primary education with 4.0% and no education with 0.7%.
The income level of respondents indicated that 'no income level' had the highest percentage score with 23.2%, followed by respondents with income level between 40,000-599,999 with 20.5%, next to this level are respondents with income level between 60,000- 89999, 17.9% was recorded for this group. Overall, past visit pattern shows that 40.4% of respondents had their first visitation in their Adulthood, while 30.5% was in their adolescence, and 29.1% visited in their childhood.
Table-12. Respondents mean rating of preference of tourists’ destinations by income.
| Destination | Income level | N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
F |
P |
| Beaches | None | 35 |
4.49 |
2.09 |
0.973 |
0.436 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 26 |
4.77 |
2.07 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
3.93 |
2.49 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
5.16 |
2.48 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.71 |
1.93 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
5.23 |
1.85 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | None | 35 |
5.17 |
2.12 |
0.46 |
0.805 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.70 |
1.96 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
5.00 |
2.24 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
5.35 |
2.18 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
5.33 |
1.93 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
4.77 |
2.05 |
|||
| Gallerias | None | 35 |
4.09 |
2.06 |
1.253 |
0.288 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.81 |
2.27 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
4.20 |
2.60 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
4.48 |
2.29 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.62 |
2.13 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
3.36 |
2.22 |
|||
| Nature parks | None | 35 |
5.34 |
2.03 |
0.523 |
0.759 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
5.00 |
2.09 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
5.40 |
2.16 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
5.61 |
2.01 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
5.29 |
1.85 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
5.82 |
1.44 |
|||
| Theatres | None | 35 |
4.86 |
2.29 |
0.681 |
0.638 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
3.96 |
2.08 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
3.93 |
2.79 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
4.26 |
2.49 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.52 |
2.18 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
4.68 |
2.21 |
|||
| Resorts | None | 35 |
4.14 |
2.16 |
0.518 |
0.762 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.22 |
2.08 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
4.87 |
1.99 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
4.65 |
2.44 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.76 |
2.17 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
4.77 |
2.05 |
|||
| Museums | None | 35 |
5.26 |
1.84 |
0.734 |
0.599 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.56 |
2.14 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
4.27 |
2.40 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
4.68 |
1.96 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.90 |
1.76 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
4.64 |
1.92 |
|||
| Historical sites | None | 35 |
5.34 |
1.78 |
0.633 |
0.675 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.81 |
2.00 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
4.47 |
2.45 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
4.55 |
2.16 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.90 |
1.998 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
4.82 |
2.281 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | None | 35 |
5.80 |
1.860 |
2.266 |
0.051 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.22 |
2.391 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
4.60 |
2.354 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
4.52 |
2.365 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.24 |
2.022 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
5.09 |
2.369 |
|||
| Monumental sites | None | 35 |
4.74 |
2.318 |
1.704 |
0.137 |
| 10,000 - 19,999 | 27 |
4.52 |
1.929 |
|||
| 20,000 - 39,999 | 15 |
4.00 |
2.591 |
|||
| 40,000 - 59,999 | 31 |
3.97 |
2.183 |
|||
| 100,000 and above | 21 |
4.90 |
2.071 |
|||
| Not stated | 22 |
3.32 |
2.276 |
Table-13. Respondents rating of tourists’ destinations by marital status.
| Destination | Marital Status |
N |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
T |
P |
| Beaches | Single |
120 |
4.88 |
2.04 |
1.403 |
0.163 |
Married |
30 |
4.27 |
2.56 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | Single |
120 |
5.07 |
2.02 |
-0.072 |
0.943 |
Married |
31 |
5.10 |
2.24 |
|||
| Gallerias | Single |
120 |
4.40 |
2.22 |
1.315 |
0.190 |
Married |
31 |
3.81 |
2.33 |
|||
| Nature parks | Single |
120 |
5.30 |
1.98 |
-1.301 |
0.195 |
Married |
31 |
5.81 |
1.72 |
|||
| Theatres | Single |
120 |
4.61 |
2.24 |
2.090 |
0.038 |
Married |
31 |
3.65 |
2.46 |
|||
| Resorts | Single |
120 |
4.53 |
2.12 |
0.168 |
0.867 |
Married |
31 |
4.45 |
2.35 |
|||
| Museums | Single |
120 |
4.85 |
1.95 |
0.922 |
0.358 |
Married |
31 |
4.48 |
2.06 |
|||
| Historical sites | Single |
120 |
4.93 |
2.01 |
0.750 |
0.454 |
Married |
31 |
4.61 |
2.26 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | Single |
120 |
4.92 |
2.24 |
1.092 |
0.276 |
Married |
31 |
4.42 |
2.35 |
|||
| Monumental sites | Single |
120 |
4.39 |
2.18 |
1.155 |
0.250 |
Table-14. Respondents mean rating of preference of tourists’ destinations by experience.
| Destination | Experience |
N |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
T |
P |
| Beaches | First timer |
103 |
4.80 |
2.16 |
0.302 |
0.763 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.68 |
2.18 |
|||
| Wildlife parks/ Zoos/ Game reserves | First timer |
104 |
4.98 |
2.15 |
-0.815 |
0.416 |
Repeater |
47 |
5.28 |
1.86 |
|||
| Gallerias | First timer |
104 |
4.21 |
2.31 |
-0.541 |
0.589 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.43 |
2.11 |
|||
| Nature parks | First timer |
104 |
5.33 |
1.97 |
-0.726 |
0.469 |
Repeater |
47 |
5.57 |
1.87 |
|||
| Theatres | First timer |
104 |
4.41 |
2.33 |
0.023 |
0.982 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.40 |
2.30 |
|||
| Resorts | First timer |
104 |
4.39 |
2.15 |
-0.979 |
0.329 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.77 |
2.19 |
|||
| Museums | First timer |
104 |
4.90 |
1.96 |
1.199 |
0.233 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.49 |
1.99 |
|||
| Historical sites | First timer |
104 |
5.10 |
2.01 |
2.109 |
0.037 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.34 |
2.10 |
|||
| Shopping Malls | First timer |
104 |
5.07 |
2.14 |
2.065 |
0.041 |
Repeater |
47 |
4.26 |
2.44 |
|||
| Monumental sites | First timer |
104 |
4.25 |
2.28 |
-0.283 |
0.778 |
Furthermore, the frequency of visit shows that over half (55.0%) of the respondents visit once in a year, 18.5% do every three months, 14.6% do every six months. Only 11.9% visit monthly, and 46.4% were visiting for the first time.
The group composition shows that respondents visit more in a group than as individual, as 45% of the respondents with family, 35.15% visited with friends, 13.2% visited in an organized tour, 6.0% visited alone while one respondent did not supply any answer for this question. Occasion for visit, revealed that 43.2% of respondents visit only during organized tours (school, friends, family etc.), while 37.1% visited anytime they felt and 19.2% visited during festivities. Visit within the last six months indicate that 41.7% of respondents visited once, while 14.6% visited twice, 30.4% cannot remember and 6.0% have not visited at all.
Table 2 reveals that overall 68.% were first-timers which reveals to an extent the level of participation in tourism by the Locals and the developing state of domestic tourism in the state, responses for repeaters recorded(31.1%). The number of tourist in a Nature-based destination were (N = 64E) while tourist who visited a Culture-based destination were (N= 87). Generally, (64.2%) that is (N= 97) prefer a Nature-based destination while (35.1%) (N=53) prefer a culture-based destination.
Generally, the main motivation for visiting either of the destination theme rankings indicate that ‘Experience new and different things’, ‘Appreciate and learn about natural scenery’, ‘I want to have fun and enjoyment’ and to ‘Learn about art and culture’ ranked highest with percentages of 86.7%, 84.2%, 80.8% and 79.2% respectively, while ‘To slow down’, ‘To get away from everyday routine’, ‘To escape usual responsibilities’ and ‘To spend time alone’ ranked lowest in motivation to visit, with percentages at 19.2%, 23.2%, 25.2% and 27.2% respectively. Based upon these results, visitors in Lagos, are particularly interested in 'relaxation' and ‘education’ and less interested in ' self-exploration’ and 'escape'.
Past visit patterns also show that the frequency of visit is still very much low as over half of them visit once in a year and a greater percentage where visiting for the very first time. Quite significantly over half of the respondents traveled more than 15km to the various destinations, suggesting that distance is less important for tourism growth if attractions are well defined
4.1. Mean Ratings
The mean and standard deviation of ratings of the preferred destination of respondents indicated that Nature-parks was rated 1(Highest) with a mean rating of 5.40(sd = 1.94) followed by Wildlife parks/Zoo/Game reserves = 5.07; sd = 2.06) and Gallerias = mean = 4.28; sd = 2.24) followed theatres while beaches (mean= 4.76; sd = 2.16) and Museums (mean = 4.77; sd = 1.97).
ANOVA analysis examined whether tourist Motivations (Push factors) and the Destination attributes (Pull factors) at the item level differed significantly. Findings unveil that generally visitors were motivated to visit either of the destination and that 'Experience new and different things', Appreciate and learn about natural scenery', and 'I want to have fun and enjoyment' were ranked higher as motivating items, while results also revealed that overall Pull items for visitors to both destination were ‘Visiting new places', 'Seeking fun and enjoyment', and 'Seeking the beauty of nature' ranked higher than other pull items
4.2. Findings of Hypothesis Testing
A one-tail independent t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and chi-square were performed and tested on the main hypothesis.
The first hypothesis was tested with the use of t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify the mean difference in overall ratings of destination by the type of destination visited, where decisions were made and conclusions as well, at 5% level of significance. At this level, all explanatory variables were rated high by tourists both in a Culture-based and Nature-based destination, except for ‘historical sites’ and ‘Nature parks’ that was different in each case respectively. Nonetheless, all destination types were not significantly rated higher (p> 0.05) except for ‘Gallerias’ that has significant mean difference (t = -2.679, p < 0.05). The results shows that there are no differences in the ratings of tourist by the type of destination visited except for Galleria, thus this Hypothesis is rejected for Gallerias.
Another result of the t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed to determine the mean difference in the rating of preference of tourists by their most preferred destination, revealed that there is no significant difference in the mean rating of preference of tourists by their most preferred destination. The mean rating of preference of tourists in a nature-based destination showed significant higher (p < 0.05) ratings for ‘beaches’,’ Wildlife parks/Zoo/ Game reserves’ and ‘Nature parks’ than tourists in a culture-based destination, while Resorts were rated lower. In the same vein, tourist in a culture-based destination rated Museums, Historical sites, Shopping malls and monumental sites higher than Nature-based tourist. However, ‘theatres’, and ‘gallerias’ were rated lower, though not significantly different (p > 0.05), especially in the ratings of tourist in Culture-based destination.
The ANOVA Analysis also examined the differences in the mean rating of tourist preferences for destinations across demographic variables. The first significant difference in the variables was found in the variable ‘Gender’. It showed that female tourist rated ‘beaches’, ‘Nature parks’, ‘theatres’, ‘resorts’, ‘Museum’, ‘Historical sites’, ‘Shopping malls and Monumental sites higher than the males, while the Males rated ‘Wildlife parks/ Zoos/Game reserves’ and Gallerias higher than the females. Nevertheless, the ratings of ‘Wildlife park/ Zoos/ Game reserves’, ‘Resorts’ and ‘Shopping malls’ differed significantly among female and male respondents (t = 2.876, p = < 0.05; t = -2.016, p = < 0.05; t = -3.386, p < 0.05 ).
Furthermore, the result also showed that the mean rating of preference for tourist destination differed with regards to respondents ‘Age’. It revealed that only the rating of ‘beaches’ differed significantly by the age of respondents (p < 0.05) with the highest mean rating for ‘beaches’ from those between 19-25 years (5.36, 0.48) and the least mean rating from those between 46 years and above (3.00, 0.38). The mean ratings for other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Also, the mean rating of tourist preference for tourist destination with regards to respondents ‘Educational qualification” revealed that the ratings for ‘Shopping Malls’ differed significantly by Educational Qualification of the respondents (p < 0.05) with the highest ratings for ‘shopping Malls’ from those with Primary education (6.00, 2.45) and the least mean rating for ‘shopping malls’ from those with’ no education’ (1.00, 0.00). The mean ratings of other destination were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
The independent samples t-test found that income made no significant difference on the ratings of the respondents (p > 0.05).
The mean rating of tourist preference for destination according to ‘Marital status’, revealed that only ratings of ‘theatres’ differed significantly by marital status (p < 0.05) with the mean ratings from ‘singles’ (4.61, 2.24) and least mean rating from married tourist (3.6, 2.46). The mean ratings of other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Lastly, the independent t-test found out that the ratings of tourist by ‘Past experience’, showed that ratings of ‘Historical sites’ and ‘shopping malls’ differed significantly by the experience of the tourists (p < 0.05) with the Highest mean ratings for historical sites from ‘first timers’ (5.10, 2.01) and for shopping malls from ‘first timer’ also (5.07, 2.14) and the mean least ratings from repeaters for both historical sites (4.34, 2.10) and shopping malls (4.26, 2.44). The mean ratings for other destinations were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
The Chi-square results show a significant association between preferred tourist destination and actual destination visited (x²₁ = 4.694; p = 0.030; OR = 2.174 (95% CL: 1.070 – 4.417). This is because the table shows that 51.5% of tourist that prefer nature-based destination, most actually visited a Culture-based tourist destination, while 30.2% of those that prefer culture-based destination, most actually visited a nature-based destination. The tests show that the proportion differed significantly (p < 0.5) and the null hypothesis is thus rejected. It was therefore concluded that there is significant association between preferred tourist destinations and actual destination visited. The Table shows an odd ratio of 2.174 which indicate that tourists that prefer Nature-based destinations are two times more likely to visit Culture-based destinations.
Mean measures for the influence of Motivation and perceived importance of destination attributes on destination preference were analyzed and results revealed that there is no significant difference in the influence of motivation factors on the preference of tourists, the Table showed that those who preferred Nature-based destinations rated their overall motivation 60.31% (sd = 16.49%) while those that preferred culture-based destinations ratings were at 56.92% (sd = 14.42%) , thus the null hypothesis is accepted, as there is no significant difference in the influence of the motivation (push) factors on the influence of tourist preferences. (p > 0.05). The mean measures of the influence of the destination attributes (Pull) factors on the preference for either destination themes also revealed that there is no significant difference in the mean ratings (p > 0.05), since the Table 4.16 shows that those who preferred culture-based destinations rated their overall destination attributes 72.84% (sd = 19.35%) while those who preferred Nature-based destinations rated their destination attributes 74.63% (sd = 15.83%), hence concluding there is no significant difference in the influence of perceived importance of destination attributes (pull) factors on the preference for either destination theme.
Lastly, the mean measures on the influence of motivation (Push) factors and perceived importance of destination attributes (Pull) factors on the actual destination visited. The results indicated that those who visited Nature-based destinations rated their overall perceived importance of destination attributes 77.28% (sd = 17.09%) while those that preferred Culture-based destinations rated their important destination attributes 70.53% (sd = 18.42%), and the difference in the mean rating is significant (p < 0.05). Therefore, it is concluded that The perceived importance of destination attributes (Pull) factors significantly influenced the preference of those that actually visited a Nature-based destination more than those that visited a Culture-based destination, and the attributes that had the most influence includes, ‘Ease of access’, ‘Quality of service’ and ‘Overall cleanliness of the destination’
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the results suggest that Nature-based and Culture-based destinations appeals to visitors in Lagos as ratings were almost at par. It was revealed that 68.9% of the respondents overall are First-timers, while 42.4% of the respondents are repeaters confirming the fact that it is a growing sector. It is therefore important for destination managers to use this when designing policies for this segment of the market.
Regarding preferred destination, respondents were more likely to prefer to visit a Nature-based destination with 64.2% and 35.1% from respondents who prefer a Culture-based destination, nonetheless respondents who preferred Nature-based destination were found in a Culture-based destination.
On the whole, Nature-based destinations were ranked higher than Culture-based destinations within the types of destinations categorized under the two destination themes.
Results also indicate that respondents were more likely to be motivated to visit any of the destinations, as ‘Experience new different things’, ‘Appreciate and learn about natural scenery’, ‘I want to have fun and enjoyment’ and ‘Learn about art and culture’ ranked higher than ‘I want to slow down’, ‘To escape usual responsibilities’, ‘To spend time alone’ and get away from everyday routine’ that ranked lowest. Low ranking suggests that respondents are less likely concerned with ‘Escaping.
In the same vein, respondents’ perception of the importance of destination attributes showed that ‘Visiting new places’, ‘Seeking fun and entertainment,’ ‘Quality of service’ and ‘Seeking the beauty of nature’ had higher rankings as pull factors, where respondents stated they were ’Important’ and/or ‘Very Important’ These empirical results establishes an evidence that there is a relationship between respondents motivations and their perceived importance of destination attribute in terms of what ‘pushes’ them and what ‘pulls’ them. This offers valuable insight into the behavior of tourist in the area of study for stakeholders, as tourism development and marketing is being pursued.
Items that ranked very low in the perceived importance of destination attributes were ‘The destination can be easily reached’, ‘Possibility of shopping, ‘Offer of other cultural events’, ‘Having a variety of activities’, and ‘Overall cleanliness of the destination’ depicting they are ‘Completely unimportant’ and/or ‘Unimportant’. The low score of the Item ‘Destination can easily be reached’ is not surprising as over half of the tourist overall, traveled over 15km to the various sampled destination. This implies that regardless of the location of the tourist destination visitors were willing to visit, once the destination is perceived to help them fulfil their desires. Others low ranked score indicates they are not at all important to the tourist as they visit these destinations.
Overall, tourist demographics results shows that there is no significant difference in the overall ratings of preference of respondents in terms of income this suggest that visitors in Lagos would visit destinations not minding their income level, however the results illustrated that significance differences were found only by Age, with the highest mean rating for ‘Beaches’ from those between the ages of 19-25, suggesting that younger people are more active and vibrant and are more likely to be engaged in energy consuming activities, while those between the ages of 46 and above ranked ‘Beaches’ low, suggesting that this age group are more likely to engage in activities that are relaxing. Other destination showed no significant differences. Educational status ratings only differed significantly by the ratings of ‘Shopping malls’ with the highest mean ratings from those that have only ‘Primary education’ and lowest mean rating from those that had ‘No education’ at all.
With regards to respondents’ marital status, a significant difference was shown in the rating of ‘Theatres’ for preferences of tourist destinations. With highest mean rating from ‘Singles’ and least mean rating from ‘Married’, the mean ratings of other destination were not significantly different. Results also shows that there is no significant difference in the influence of push and pull factors on tourist preferences for either destination, as those who visited Nature-based tourist destination rated their overall destination at 60.97% while those that visited Culture-based destination rating stood at 57.24%, these results suggest that visitors in both destination themes are drawn by the same reasons which is basically for ‘Learning different and new things’, however, significant difference in the influence of pull factors on tourist preferences on the actual destination visited exist as 'Ease of access', 'Quality of service', and 'Overall cleanliness of destination' were attributes with significant influence.
Based on these results 'Pull' motives were significantly higher than 'Push' motives, It means that 'Pull' motives have a strong influence on the final choice of destination, especially for nature-based destinations.
Based on the results of this study, there is the need to develop products that can influence tourists’ preference for either Nature-based or Culture-based destinations. The focus for tourism planners, managers and developers should be on sustaining and improving upon these factors that influences their choices by formulating strategies and policies that would ensure they are in place.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: The authors appreciate the various tourist destinations who granted them access to the use of their facilities for this work. |
REFERENCES
Adejuwon, F. J. (1993). Fundamentals of tourism planning (pp. 172). Nigeria: Gabumo Publishing Company Limited.
Ashamu, S. F. (2016). Current and future global trends in tourism and business. Paper presented at the Conference proceedings .International conference on food and Human tech. 21st-25t November 2016.
Babatola, O., & Adeleke, B. (2013). Youths awareness and visit patterns to recreation-cum-tourists destinations in Lagos State, Nigeria. Public Policy and Administration Research, 3(9), 50-61.
Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (1994). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681.
Bola, O. A. (2010). Peace and tourism in Nigeria (pp. 14). Washington,USA: Centre for Responsible Travel.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 2(1), 97-116.
Crompton, J. (1979). Why people go on pleasure vacation? Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408-424.
Ferraro, F. (1979). The evaluation of tourist resources; an applied methodology. Journal of Travel Research, 17(3), 18-22.
Godfrey, K., & Clarke, J. (2000). The tourism development handbook: A practical approach to planning and Marketing (pp. 232). London: Continuum.
Goelder, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Tourism: Principles practices and Philosophies. New Jersey: John Wiley and Son.
Gunn, C. A. (1994). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Ifegbo, L. I. (2005). Introduction to positive economics (6th ed.). London: English Language Book Society.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Matheison, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical.
National Population Census. (2006). Report of Nigerians national population on 2006 census. Review, 33(1), 206-210.
National Tourism Developmental Master Plan. (2006). NTDC. 1, 137.
Pearce, D. (1995). Blueprint 4: Capturing global environmental value. London: Earth Scan.
Ritchie, J. R. B., Crouch, G. I., & Hudson, S. (2001). Developing operational measures for the components of a Destination Competitiveness/ Sustainability model: Consumers versus Managerial Perspective, in J.A. Mazanec & G.J Crouch & J. R. B Ritchie & A. G. Woodside(Ed's), Consumer Psychology of Tourism Hospitality and Leisure. New York: CABI.
Sinclair, M. T., & Stabler, M. J. (1991). The tourism industry: An international analysis. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International.
Statista. (2015). Facts on social network: Social media and marketing (pp. 5): A.Guttna.
World Tourism Organisation. (2012). UNWTO annual report. (2012) (pp. 78). Madrid: UNWTO.
WTTC. (2015). The economic impact of travel and tourism (pp. 25). London, UK: WTTC.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Journal of Tourism Management Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |