封面.doc

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "封面.doc"

杏血松
9 years ago
Views:

1 A Study on the Relationship between Tourist s Vacation Lifestyle and Preference for Destination Choices

2 0 -iii-

3 ( ) ( ) 90 ( ) ( ) ( ) R ( ) ( ) ( http: //nr.stic.gov.tw/theses/html/authorize.html ) (106-36) ( : ) ( ) (85) 712 -iv-

4 -v-

5 ABSTRACT In the field of the consumer behavior, few study focus on the relationship between consumer behavior and preference of product choice. Therefore, the objections of this study are to understand the differences between tourist s destination choice preference and vacation market segmentation and to test the relationship between vacation lifestyle and destination choice preference. 358 questionnaires from Da-Ho were used in this study. The study methods are confirmatory factor analysis, cluster analysis, exploratory factor analysis, one-way ANOVA, Chi-square test, and LISREL. The findings were as follows: 1.The part of vacation life-style, it could be classified as family, escape, social, weekend, and enjoy lifestyles. According to 5 vacation lifestyle, it could be classified as 3 groups including high-class group, weekend group, and homebody group. 2.The part of tourist s destination choice preference, it could be classified as parent, recreation, special product of the area, outdoor, and art destination. 3.Homebody group is prefer parent, outdoor, and art destination rather than the other groups. 4.The segment market of parent destination is escape, social, and enjoy lifestyle. 5.The segment market of recreation destination is escape. 6.The segment market of special product of the area destination is escape. -vi-

6 7.The segment market of outdoor destination is enjoy lifestyle. 8.The segment market of art destination is not. keyword Vacation Lifestyle, Preference of Destination Choices, LISREL -vii-

7 -viii-

8 -ix-... iii...v...vi... viii...ix...xi... xii

9 -x LISREL

10 () () xi-

11 LISREL (1) (2) (1) (2) xii-

12 xiii-

13 1 ( ) ( ) (destination) 2 1 Kolter(1997) 2 (destination) - 1 -

14 - 2 - (destination attributes) ( ) ( 1994) ( ) ( ) (1993) 65% (Kotler, 1992) ( ) Kotler (1992)

15 (lifestyle) (activity) (interest) (opinion) (Kotler1992) ( 2001) (2002) - 3 -

16 ( ) LISREL LISREL ( 2001) ( 1999) ( 1993) - 4 -

17 ? (destination approach) - 5 -

18 , , ,600 ( ) ( 2000) - 6 -

19 (consumer decision making) (Mowen, 1987) (Kotler, 1997 Engel et al., 1995) (2-1) (problem recognition) (information search) (alternative evaluation) (purchase) (post-purchase evaluation) - 7 -

20 ( 2001) 2-1 Kotler (1997) (impression) (Fesenmaier, 1988Um & Crompton, 1992) (input factor) - 8 -

21 ( 2001) ( 2001) () 1. Thach & Axinn (1994) / (2001) 2. (setting attributes) (1991) (1986) (1994) 3. (1995) - 9 -

22 4. (1996) 5. Telisman-Kosuta(1989) () (package) ( 2001) 1. (1)Hu & Ritchie (1993) (pattern) (universal importance)

23 (2)Rapoport (1977) (perceptual group) (associational group) Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) (formal organization) (spatial configuration) Gabr(1993) ( 1999) (3)Thach & Axinn (1984) (core) (augmented) (basic core requirement) 2. (1993) ( ) ( ) ( )

24 (1) (1994) (2)Gunn(1988) (Attraction Clusters) (Service Commumity) (Curculation Corridors) (Linkage Corridors) 4. (1) (1995) (2)Peterson(1983)

25 1.Um & Crompton (1992) (need satisfaction dimension) (social agreement dimension) (travel ability dimension) 2. (1987) 3.Brunson & Shelby (1990) (necessity attributes) (experience attributes)

26 (amenity attributes) Brunson & Shelby(1990) Um & Crompton(1992) (1987) () (Moutinho, 1988Gartner,1989 Pyo,Mihalik, & Uysal, 1989Fakeye & crompton, 1991Crompton, Fakeye & Lue, 1992Hu & Ritchie, 1993Ewart & Holenhorst, 1994 Thach & Axinn, Lue, crompton, & Stewart,

27 ) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

28 (Kotler1992) (2-2) 2-2 Kotler (1992)

29 Kotler ( ) (black box) (2-3) 2-3 Kotler (1994) Harris(1984) (1994)

30 (2001) 2-4 (1984)

31 2-5 Woodside & Lysonski (1989) (1984) (2-4) Woodside & Lysonski(1989)

32 (2-5) (Kotler 1992) (Life Style) 1960 ( 2000)

33 ( 1993) ()Lazer (1963) ()Andreason (1967) ()Engel, et al.(1987) ()Demy (1974)

34 ( )Hawkins, Best, & Coney(1992) ( ) (1988) (Pattern) () (2000) ( & 2001)

35 (Demographics) (Social Class) (Psychological Characteristics) Well & Tigert(1968) Engel, et al. (1984) (2-6)

36 2-6 Engel, et al. (1984)

37 Lazer (1963) (2-7)Hawkins, et al.(1992) (2-8) 2-7 Lazer (1963)

38 ( ) 2-8 Hawkins, et al. (1992) ()

39 (Wind & Green, 1974) 1. (General Lifestyle Research) Wells & Tigert (1971) AIO SRI VALS VALS2 Plummer(1974) 2. (Specific Lifestyle Research) / (2002) () ( 2001) Wind & Green(1974) AIO

40 4. 5. AIO Reynolds & Daeden (1974)AIO 1. (Activity) 2. (Interest) 3. (Opinions) () Plummer AIO Plummer(1974)

41 (2002)

42 3,

44 : 3-2 (2002) 5 (3-2)

45 5 15 * 3-3 % X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X X X X X X X * (2002)

46 () () () () () 7 ( ) () () ( + + ) ( ) ( + ) () 20,000 20,001-40,000 40,001-60,000 60,001-80,000 80, , , , , , , , ,001 9

47 ( ) () () () ()

49 ( )

50 ()

51 3-2 () ( )

52 30 15 (2002)

53 18 SPSS 10.0 p

54 (analysis of interdependence) (confirmatory factor analysis) (2002) 5 ( )15 (exploratory factor analysis) (principal component analysis) K-means LISREL ()LISREL LISREL

55 Jareskog & Sorbom (1995) Beck & Bargmann (1966) (covariancestructural analysis) LISREL (path analysis) LISREL (fit indicators) (modification indicators) ( 1999) LESREL LISREL LISREL (path analysis) 6 LISREL (path analysis) (factor analysis) ( 1995)

56 1. (measurement error) (recursive) (residuals) (reciprocal causation) (second-order factor model) 4. ( )LISREL LISREL (Manifest Variable ) (Latent Variable ) LISREL (Measurement Model) ( 2002) LISREL 1. (Structural Equation Model)

57 .. ( ) ( ) 2. (Measurement Models) x y (1) (Measurement Model for X) X. x x x (2) (Measurement Model for Y)

58 y. y y y y () (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993)LISREL 2 ( Chi-square) Goodness-of Fit Index (GFI)Goodness-of Fit Index (GFI) Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3-4 (Joreskog & Sorbom, ) 1. ( 2, Chi-square) 2. (Goodness-of Fit Index, GFI) GFI 0 1 GFI GFI

59 3.Bentler (1990) (Comparative Fit Index, CFI) NFI (Root Mean Square Residual, RMR) RMR LISREL 2 GFI CFI RMR > 0.9 > 0.9 <

60 (29.8%) 358 ( 4-1) 61.2% % %32.2% 58.9% 36% ( ) 55.2% 26.8% ( ) 9.9%

61 , ,001-40, ,001-60, ,001-80, , , , , , ( ) (8 2.2 ( % 41.4% 50.5% % %

62 40,001-60, % 20,001-40, % 60,001-80, % 31.8%32.4% 17.3% ( ) ( ) (4-2) () % % 46.9% % 28.4% 25.3% 23.6% 1001~

63 42.5% 2001~ % 38% 24.9% 22.3% e 43.7% 21.5%16.6% 0.9% ,001-60,000 20,001-40,000 60,001-80,000 ( ) 64.2% ~ ~

64 4-2 1 () ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

65 358 K-means 358 (varimax) (2002) Cronbach

66 Bartlett s p0.001 Kasiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) (2002)

67 5-2 Cron-b ach s á % () 12.9%

68 () 12.1% () 11.6% () 10.9% () 10.3%

69 K-Means K-Means ( 5-3) 116 (32.4%) 137 (38.3%) 105 (29.3%) 5-3 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) 0.12* (32.4%) 137(38.3%) 105(29.3%) 358(100%) * K-Means ()

70 ( ) ( ) () 2 ( ) ( )

71 () 3 ( ) 6-18 ( )

72 (1) 2 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) 0.59 a 72(63.7) b 79(59.0) 62(60.8) 41(36.3) 55(41.0) 40(39.2) (61.6) 84(63.2) 52(51.0) 43(38.4) 49(36.8) 50(49.0) 8.38 ( ) 16(14.5) 32(24.4) 24(24.0) 41(37.3) 53(40.5) 37(37.0) 39(35.5) 39(29.8) 32(32.0) 14(12.7) 7(5.3) 7(7.0) 23.84** 46(40.7) 63(47.4) 34(33.3) 14(12.4) 9(6.8) 10(9.8) 6 33(29.2) 33(24.8) 16(15.7) (12.4) 19(14.3) 33(32.4) 18 6(5.3) 9(6.8) 9(8.8) (5.3) 12(9.2) 7(6.9) 15(13.3) 13(33.9) 9(8.8) 59(52.2) 72(55.0) 59(57.8) 33(29.2) 34(26.0) 27(26.5) 9.88 () 27(23.9) 23(17.1) 22(21.5) 34(30.1) 42(31.3) 35(34.3) 33(29.2) 49(36.6) 30(29.4) 13(11.5) 12(9.0) 9(8.8) ( ) 6(5.3) 8(5.9) 6(5.9) 1. **P< a Pearson Chi-Square 3. b ( )

73 (2) F ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) 32.56(7.3) a 33.77(7.9) 36.24(8.6) 6.03** ( ) 9.7(3.9) 9.2(3.6) 9.3(3.9) **P< a ( ) (1) F ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) 4.9(3.87) a 5.4(4.77) 4.2(4.41) (1.33) 0.83(0.99) 0.78(1.06) 2.09 ( ) 2.77(1.2) 2.22(1.01) 2.42(1.35) 7.08** 1.**P< a ( )

74 5-7 (2) 2 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) a ** 9(8.2) b 5(3.75) 6(5.9) 42(37.8) 23(17.2) 23(22.5) 31(27.9) 45(33.6) 23(22.5) 19(17.1) 35(26.1) 28(27.5) 10(9) 27(20.1) 22(21.6) (41.7) 51(40.2) 31(30.7) 10(9.3) 12(9.4) 14(13.9) 31(28.7) 29(22.8) 24(23.8) 16(14.8) 30(19.6) 25(24.8) 6(5.6) 5(4.0) 7(6.9) 1. **P< a Pearson Chi-Square 3. b ( )

75 358 (varimax) Cronbach Bartlett s (p<0.001)kasiser -Meyer -Olkin (KMO) 0.78 () () () () ()

76 () 14.34% ()

77 11.74% () 9.43% Cron- bach s á %

78 ( ) 9.02% () 8.56%

80 5-11 (F=2.94p<0.1) (F=7.21p<0.05) (F=3.35p<0.05) 5-11 F ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) 4.73(0.72) a 4.89(0.72) 4.96(0.66) 2.94* 3.87(0.79) 3.76(0.80) 3.73(0.74) (0.77) 4.34(0.80) 4.33(0.86) (0.68) 4.94(0.69) 4.95(0.78) 7.21** 4.19(0.66) 4.10(0.86) 4.37(0.83) 3.35** 1.*P<0.1 **P<0.05 ***P< a ( )

81 LISREL () ( ) () ( )

82 X Y ( 1 ~ 5 ) ( 1 ~ 5 ) 5-12 Cronbach

83 5-12 a A B C D E (1.26) (1.23) *** (1.09) *** 0.17*** (0.97) *** 0.25*** 0.32*** (1.18) *** 0.13** A. 4.86(1.03) *** 0.37*** 0.20*** 0.27*** B. 3.79(1.19) *** 0.21*** 0.23*** 0.16*** 0.35*** 0.32*** 1.00 C. 4.37(1.08) *** 0.20*** *** 0.18*** 0.37*** 1.00 D. 4.85(0.93) *** 0.49*** *** *** 0.17*** 0.27*** 1.00 E 4.19(1.10) *** 0.17*** *** 0.25*** 0.16*** 0.29*** **P<0.05 ***P< a ( ) df GFI CFI RMR *** *** *** *** ** *P<0.1 **P<0.05 ***P<

84 (5-12) RMR 1 ( 1 ~ 5) ( 1 ) (5-14)

85 RMR

86 2 ( 1 ~ 5) ( 2 ) (5-14)

87 ( 1 ~ 5 ) ( 3 (5-14)

89 4 ( 1 ~ 5 ) (

90 ( 1 ~ 5 ) (

91 - 79 -

92 ( 5-1) () (2000) (2000) (1994)

93 ( ) (2001)

94 * 0.11 * * * * * * *P<

96 358 & (2002) Cronbach Bartlett s (p0.001)Kasiser-Meyer -Olkin (KMO) K-Means K-Means ()

97 () ()

99 (varimax) Cronbach Bartlett s (p<0.001)kasiser -Meyer -Olkin (KMO)

100 (F=2.94p<0.1) (F=7.21 p<0.05) (F=3.35p<0.05) LISREL ( 1 ~ 5 )

101 ( 1 ~ 5 ) () ()

102 ()

103 ( ) ()

104

105 - 93 -

106 - 94 -

107 - 95 -

108 - 96 -

109 1. (1992) (2000) (1998) 5. (2002) 6. (2000) (1993) 8. (2001) 9. (1995) 1(1)pp (2001)

110 11. (2001) 12. (1997) 13. (1996) 14. (2001) 15. (1995) 3pp (2000) 13(1) (1999) 18. (2000) 19. (2001) 20. (1999) 21. (2000)

111 22. (2001) 7(1) (1991) 24. (1985) 25. (1993) : 26. (1994) 27. (2001) 28. (2001) 29. (1986) 30. (1999) 12(3) (1994) 32. (1994) 33. (1992)

112 34. (1999) 35. (2000) 36. (2001) 37. (1999) 12(4) (2000) 39. (1994) 40. (2000) (1985) 42. (2001) 43. (2000) 44. (2000)

113 45. (1998) (1994) 7(4) (1996) : 48. (2001) 49. (1987) 6(3) (1993) 51. (2000) 52. (1993) (2001) 14(3) (2002)

114 55. (2000) (2000) 57. (2000) 58. (1994) 7(2) (1994) 7(1) (2000) ICP (1980)

115 1. Andreson A. R. (1967). Leisure, Mobility, & Lilfe Style Pattterns, American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, Winter, pp Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit indexes in Structure Models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp Brunson, M. & B. Shelby (1990). A hierarchy of campsite attributes setting, Leisure Sciences, 12, pp Crompoton, J. L., P. C. Fakeye & C. Lue (1992). PositioningThe Example of the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the Winter Long stay Destination Market, Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), pp Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Kollat, D. (1987). Consumer Behavior 3 rd ed., Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press. 6. Fakeye P. C. & J. L. Crompoton (1991). Image Differences between Prospective, First-time, & Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), pp Fesenmaier, D. R. (1988). Integrating Activity Patterns into Destination Choice Model, Journal of Leisure Research, 20(3), pp Gabr, H. S. (1993). Enhancing th visual attributes of urban waterfronts for tourism, Unpublished Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

116 9. Gartner, W., (1989). Tourism Image Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques, Journal of Travel Research, 28(2), pp Gartner, W., (1989). Tourism ImageAttribute Measurement of State Tourism Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques, Journal of Travel Research, 28(2), pp Gunn, C., (1988), VacationscapesDesinging tourist regions, New YorkVan Nostrand Reinhold, pp.23-26, 50-52, Harris, C. C., B. L. Driver, & E. P. Bergersen (1984).Do choices of sport fisheries reflect angler preferences for site attributes? In USDA Forest Service GTR INT-184, pp Hu, Y. & J. R. Brent Ritchie (1993). Measruing Destination Attractiveness A Contextural Approach, Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), pp Joreskog, K. G. & D. Sorbom (1989), LISREL 7 A Guide to the Program & Applications, 2th eds., Chicago: SPSS Publications. 15. Joreskog, K. G. & D. Sorbom (1993), DOS EXTENDER LISREL 8.03, Chicago : Scientific Software International, Inc Joreskog, Karl G. & Dag Sorbom (1995), LISREL & Structual EguationModeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Homewood, & Control, 7th ed., Englewood, Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 17. Kotler, P. (1992). Marketing Management: AnalysisPlanning Implementation and Control, 6 th ed

117 Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: AnalysisPlanning Implementation and Control, 8 th ed., Prentice-Hall Inyrtnsyionsl Rfiyiond, p Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: AnalysisPlanning Implementation and Control, 9 th ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 20. Lazer, W. (1963), Life Style Concepts and Marketing in Stephen Greyser(Ed.), Toward Scientific Marketing, pp Chicago: American Marketing Assn. 21. Lue, C., J. L. Crompoton, & W. P. Stewart (1996). Evidence of Cumulative Attraction in Multidenstination Recreational Trip Decisions, Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), pp Moutinho, L., (1988). Amusement Park Visitor Behavior- Scottish attitudes, Tourism management, 9(4), pp Plummer, J. T. (1974). The concept and application of life style segmentation, Journal of Marketing, 38, pp Pyo, S., B. J. Mihalik, & M. Uysal (1989). A Taxonomy of Leisure Purchase Decision Paradigms Based on Level of Involvement, Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), pp Reynolds, F. D. & W. R. Darden, (1974). Constructing Life Style and Psychographics, In W. D. Wells(Ed.), Life Style and Psychographics, pp.174, Chicago American Marketing Assn. 26. Telisman-Kosuta, N. (1989). Tourist Destination Image, In Tourism

118 Marketing and Management Handbook, edited by S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho. UK Prentice Hall, pp Thach, S. V. & C. N. Axinn (1994). Patron Assessments of Amusement Park Attributes, Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), pp Thach S. V. & C. N. Axinn (1994). Patron Assessments of Amusement Park Attributes, Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), pp Um, S., & J. L. Crompoton (1992). The Roles of Perceived Inhibitors and Facilitators in Pleasure Travel Desttination Decisions, Journal of Travel Research, 1(3), pp Um, S., & J. L. Crompton (1992). The Roles of Perceived Inhibitors and Facilitators in Pleasure Travel Destination Decisions, Journal of Travel Research, 31(3), pp Wells, W. D. & D. J. Tigert, (1968). A Consumer Attitude Inventory, Unpublished paper presented, Conference of AMA. 32. Wind, Y. & Green, P. E., (1974). Some Conceptual, Measurement, and Analytical Problems in Life Style Research, In W. D. Wells(Ed.), Life Style and Psychographics, pp , Chicago American Marketing Assn. 33. Woodside A. G. & S. Lysonski., (1989). A General Model of Travler Destination Choice, Journal of Travel Research, 27, pp

119

120 ?

121

122

123 ( ) () (+ ) ( ) ( + ) ( ) ( ) 10.( ) 11. ( ) ,000 20,001~40,000 40,001~60,000 60,001~80,000 80,001~100, ,001~120, ,001~140, ,001~160, , ,000 20,001~40,000 40,001~60,000 60,001~80,000 80,001~100, ,001~120, ,001~140, ,001~160, ,001 A B C -111-

124 ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) ( ) 4 ( ) ( ) ( ) () 5 ( ) 6 ( ) ( ) 7 ( ()() ) 8

125 LISREL () () 1 ) X 1 X 2 X 3 () 2 ) X 4 X 5 X 6 () 3 ) X 7 X 8 X 9 () 4 ) X 10 X 11 X 12 () 5 ) X

126 X 14 X 15 ** () () 1 ) Y 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y 6 () 2 ) Y 7 Y 8 Y 9 Y 10 Y 11 () 3 ) Y 12 Y 13 Y

127 ( ) ( 4 ) Y 15 Y 16 Y 17 () 5 ) Y 18 Y 19 Y

128 (2000) (2001) (2000) (1994) -116-

129 -117-

untitled

untitled (9) * ** business district shopping street image business district % % % / * ** (6) chamber of commerce 9 9 Lazer96 Hawkins et al. 料 Hawkins, et al., Lazer,96 Plummer,9Mayo & Jarvis,9Engel et al.,plummer9