A Study of Taroko National Scenic Area of Recreation Motivation and Recreation Satisfaction in East Taiwan-Applying Importance-Performance Analysis 25
Li-Chun Hsu, Graduate Student of Graduate Institute of Management,National I Lan University ABSTRACT Taiwan Tourism Bureau had been pushing the Doubling Tourist Arrivals Plan and planned several packages of tour routes in order to double the number of tourist arrivals. And the east area is the most popular hot resorts in Taiwan. Under such circumstance, it looks after both sides on natural resource and to satisfy the needs in the outdoor and recreation for people in Taiwan. Taroko National Park (TNP) keeps on maintaining its recreation facilities, ecological environments and providing its decent public services, and also communicating its belief, policy and regulation. Thus, visitors can have good traveling experience and willing to revisit to the TNP again and again. Therefore, this study based on TNP intended to explore its tourists' sociodemographics, recreation motivation, travel importance and satisfaction of tourists. The data was collected by questionnaire. The total numbers of 223 questionnaires were collected through convenience sampling. The numbers of the effective returned questionnaires were 209. The data analysis methods included Descriptive Statistics, Alpha Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis, One-way ANOVA, and Importance-Performance Analysis. The research results were as follows, the population statistic variables (gender, live, level of education, marriage, and travel frequency) have a significant difference with recreation motivation. The results of this study reveal that the attributes of people and car routine separately, trash, drinking facility, the narration media, exhibition facility, specialized narrator, etc, fall on the Keep the Good Work quadrant, and the attributes of meal facilities, self-guiding trail, service attitude of the narrator, trouble solving of the narrator belong to requires immediate improvement quadrant according to the strategy implications of IPA. Key words: National Scenic Area, Recreation Motivation, Recreation Satisfaction, Importance-Performance Analysis 26
() WTTC, World ( 2002) Travel & Tourism Council 10 4.21 8.61 GDP 3.6% 3.8% () (1) 1.98 2.5 ( (2) 2002) (3) (4) (Chu & Choi, 2000) 1984 () ( ) Gold1972 12 Crandall 27
(1980) (Customer Satisfaction) Cai & Combrink (1986) (2000) Cha, McCleary & Uysal(1995) (1) Hampel (1977) (2) Yeung (2002) Jansen & Johan1996 () 1970 (Chapman, 1993 (Crandall, 1980Driver, Brown & Peterson, Kozak & Nield, 1998Chu & Choi, 2000) 1991Hanna & Berndt, 1995 198 Hawes & Rao(1985) 2000 200 Sethna (1982) 2004 2004) IPA (2001) () Baker & Crompton(2000)(O Sullivan, 1991) () 28
(low () priority) D (concentrate here) 1 - () (2004) () A (keep up the good work) B (possible overkill) C B A C D 1 29
() ANOVA IPA 2 () () 1. ( ) ( ) (Descriptive Analysis) 2. 3. t (Independent-Sample T-test)4. 1 5 (One-way ANOVA)LSD 5. I.P.A (Important Performance Analysis)I.P.A 223 14 209 93.30% 30
() 1 77 36.8 111 53.1 132 63.2 39 18.7 20 10 4.8 47 22.5 21~30 99 47.4 12 5.7 31~40 51 24.4 41~50 40 19.1 () 5 56 108 2.4 26.8 51.7 51 9 4.3 40 19.1 32 15 15.3 7.2 20,000 80 38.3 20,001~30,000 33 15.8 31 52 14.8 24.9 30,001~40,000 60 28.7 40,001~50,000 17 8.1 9 4.3 50,001~60,000 13 6.2 5 2.4 60,001~70,000 5 2.4 61 29.2 70,001 1.5 1 0.5 147 70.3 3 1.4 62 29.7 77 36.8 87 41.6 35 16.7 5 2.4 31
20,000 209 80 (38.3%) 132 (63.2%) 30,001~40,000 20 (28.7%) 21~30 (82.8%) 99 (47.4%) 31~40 147 (70.3%) 62 51 (24.4%) 21~40 (29.7%) 150 78.4% (71.8%) () 61 (29.2%) 52 (24.9%) ( 50 41 ) 111 (53.1%) 78.05% DeVellis(1991) α 0.70~0.80 (41.2%) (5.7%) Cronbach's α 0.7 108 (51.7%) Cronbach s α 56 (26.8%) 0.7 2 40 (19.1%) 2 0.800 0.787 0.748 : 32
() 1 0.40 21.231% 17.049% 17.042% 55.323%( 3 KMO 0.809 797.062 =0.000 KMO 0.7 1 0.867 0.826 0.589 0.423 0.697 0.648 0.576 0.453 0.808 0.672 0.556 0.556 : 3 33
() T (T-test) (ANOVA) 4 1.485 0.410 0.922 1.249 1.413 1.922 1.668 0.672 0.667 0.506 1.111 2.372* 2.649* 0.857 2.375* 0.482 2.124* 1.728 1.085 P0.05*, P0.01* : 4.591 ** 0.900 0.553 2.132* 2.168* T LSD () () LSD LSD 34
35 () (IPA) 5 6 4 6 3.56 2 1 7 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5
X Y 1 ABCD () 63.2% 21~30 47.4% 29.2% 24.9% 53.1% 51.7% 36
37 20,000 38.3% 70.3% 41.6% 36.8% 1. A ( ) 2. B ( 3. C ( )
38 4. D ( ) () 1. 2. 4 4 3
[1]..2002. [2]..2002. () [3]. http://ivy2.epa.gov.tw/nsdn/ch/news/m AIN34.htm.2006. [4]...2000. [5],,.., 14(2) 23-41.2004. [6],. ( ) 39
[16] Baker D.A. and Crompton J.L., Quality,.11(2)117-135.2001. Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions. [7],,. Annals of Tourism Research. 27(3)785-804. 2000.1(2)119-150.2006. [17] Cai L.A. and Combrink T.E., Japanese [8]. female travelers A unique outbound -. market. Asia Pacific. Journal of Tourism.1999. Research. 5(1)16-242000 [9].. [18] Cha S., McCleary K.W., and Uysal M.,.1988. Travel Motivations of Japanese Overseas [10]. Travelers: A Factor-Cluster Segmentation..2004. Approach. Journal of Travel Research. [11]. 34(2)33-39.1995...2002. [19] Chapman R.G., Brand performance [12]. - comparatives. Journal of Products & Brand. Management, 2(1)42-50.1993..1986. [20] Chu R.K.S. and Choi T., An [13]. importance-performance analysis of hotel -. selection factors in the Hong Kong industry:.2000. A comparison of business and leisure [14]. travelers. Tourism Management. 21. 363-377. 2000..2003. [21] Crandall R., Motivations for leisure. Journal [15]. of Leisure Research, 12(1)45-54.1980.. [22] DeVellis R.F., Scale Development T heory.2001. and Applications. London: SAGE. 1991. 40
[23] Driver B.L., Brown P.J., and Peterson G.L., Benefits of Leisure. Stage College, PA: Venture Publishing. 1991. [24] Gold S., Nonuse of Neighborhood Park. Journal of American Institute of Planners. 38(3)369-378.1972. [25] Hampel D.J., Consumer Satisfaction with the Home Buying Process Conceptualization and Measurement. The Conceptualization of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, H. K. Kieth (ed.), Cambridge, Mass Marketing Science Institute. 7-8. 1977. [26] Hanna N. and Berndt T., Relations Between Friendship, Group Acceptance, and Evaluations of Summer Camp. Journal of Early Adolescence. 15 (4)456-475.1995. [29] Kozak M. and Nield K., Importance-performance analysis and cultural perspectives in Romanian Black Sea resorts. Anatolia International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research. 9(2) 99-116.1998. [30] O Sullivan E.L., Marketing for park, recreation, and leisure, State College. PA: Venture.1991. [31] Sethna B.N., Extensions and testing of Importance-Performance Analysis. Business Economics, September. 28-31.1982. [32] Yeung C.H., Ging L.C., and Christine T.E., Customer Satisfaction and Profitability: A reappraisal of the Nature of the Relationship. Journal of Targeting. 11(1) 24-33. 2002. [27] Hawes J.M. and Rao C.P., Using Importance-Performance Analysis to Develop Health Care Marketing Strategies. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 5(4) 19-25.1985. [28] Jansen V.M. and Johan R., Scanning museum visitors Urban Tourism Marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2) 364-375. 1996. 41
42