JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT

JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1

30
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EXPECTATION, SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY OF
INTERNATIONAL VISITOR TO HANOI, VIETNAM

Nguyen Quang Vinh

Fengchia University, Taichung Taiwan
Email: quangvinh191081@yahoo.com

Nguyen Luong Long*

Dainam University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: longnl@dainam.edu.vn

Abstract

Hanoi was listed as one of Smart Travel Asias top 10 destinations in 2010, the year that marked the
capitals 1000th anniversary. With the advantage of tourism resource, Hanoi has to finalize its tourism
development strategy for the long term. This study aims to help tourism planners and marketers to get
an understanding that may provide a foundation for their strategic marketing decision. The objectives of
the study are to examine the relationship among tourist perceptions, satisfaction with destination loyalty
with Hanoi capital as a tourist destination. The empirical analysis used data from 172 international
visitors. To test the hypotheses among tourist perceptions, satisfaction with destination loyalty, stepwise
regression is adopted. This survey uses ranking methods to analyses the most and less important
attributes of Hanoi. The study finds that, three most important attribute influence tourist expectation
includes diversity of cultural/historical, the offer of local cuisine and personal safety and security.
Another hand the results also indicates the negative image of Hanoi in the tourist expectation are
overall cleanliness, quality of the accommodation and unspoiled nature. The study results illustrated a
positive relationship between tourists expectation and satisfaction, tourists satisfaction and destination
loyalty and tourists expectation and destination loyalty. Implications of the findings for tourism
marketers are also discussed.

Keywords: Vietnam, perceptions, satisfaction, destination loyalty

1. Introduction

Tourism has grown at an accelerated pace over the last few decades. It has become one of the worlds
highest priority industries and employers, with the contribution of 10% to global Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and creating 214 million jobs worldwide in 2004 (WTTC, 2005: 2-3). With this growth and
its benefit, more and more competitors are striving for a bigger market share in the international
tourism market. It makes the international tourism market significantly more competitive than ever.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
31

Tourism and government officials have called for increased efforts aimed at diversifying Hanoi tourism
industry, transforming the capital into the countrys top destination for both international and local
travelers. In 2010, the year that marked the capitals 1000th anniversary, Hanoi welcomed 12.3 million
visitors. It has been estimated that the number has already reached 6.5 million this year, a 23 per cent
year-on-year increase. In 2010, Hanoi was listed as one of Smart Travel Asias top 10 destinations (VNAT,
2011). Hanois tourism sector has been largely dependent on its traditional handicraft and ancient
villages while the numbers of its resorts and entertainment complexes have fallen short compared to
other domestic destinations. According to participants at the meeting, Hanois tourism companies have
as yet to receive international recognition, with tourists still complaining about poor services and
intrusive solicitations on the street. The report of Viet Nam National Administration of Tourism (VNAT,
2011) expects that the development of Hanoi tourism played a critical role in the countrys entire
tourism picture. According to this report the Tourism Administration has submitted a strategic draft
aimed at developing Viet Nams tourism by 2030 based on authentic and competitive tourism products,
a task Hanois authorities will also have to accomplish. It has been estimated that Hanoi has nearly 5,000
sites considered historically important including the Imperial Citadel of Thanglong, recognized as a
World Heritage site by UNESCO in July 2010 (VNAT,2011), the Temple of Literature and the Giong
Festival, in addition to the prominent Old Quarter and countless numbers of traditional villages and folk
festivals. With the advantage of tourism resource, Hanoi will soon finalize its tourism development
strategy for the next 10 years, major tasks to include developing authentic tourism products, connecting
international events held in Hanoi to tourism and developing human resources. One of the important
tasks is investigate the tourist behavior includes expectation, satisfaction and loyalty with Hanoi.

This study aims to help tourism planners and marketers to get an understanding that may provide a
foundation for their strategic marketing decision. An examination of the influence of overall tourist
satisfaction and the level of satisfaction with specific attributes and their impact on repeat visitation to
Vietnam has been confined to Truongs (2002) study. Since Weber (1996) and Cho (1998) address that
many studies concentrate on tourist needs but few focus on tourist satisfaction with the attributes of a
specific destination area or on the perceived need of tourists and their satisfaction with the outcome of
the need. The objectives of the present study are to examine the relationship among tourist
perceptions, satisfaction with destination loyalty with Hanoi capital as a tourist destination.
2. Literature Review

2.1 Tourist expectation of a destination

Reilly (1990) indicated that tourists eventually choose their destination based on images of the
destination. Pearce (1989) conceptualized a destination as an amalgam of products and services
available in one location that can draw visitors from beyond its spatial confines. Other researchers have
also viewed a destination as an amalgam of individual products and experience opportunities that
combine to form a total experience of the area visited. Hu and Ritchie (1993) defined a tourism
destination as "a package of tourism facilities and services, which like any other consumer product, is
composed of a number of multi-dimensional attributes". In defining the nature of the tourism product,
several other researchers have incorporated a supply and a demand side approach that describes how
multiple components of the destination interact with travelers during their trip.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
32

Expectation research is one of the most essential tools used to gather information regarding tourists
opinions of a destination before they visit. It is defined as not only the perceptions of individual
destination attributes but also the holistic impression made by the destination. Referred to a
destinations attributes and expectation, Dann (1977) uses the pull factors as the destination attribute
attractive (such as landscape, culture, price, service, climate etc.) can pull one to some of the tourism
supply components such as attractions or destinations. In other words, the pull factors can lead an
individual traveler to select one destination over another once the decision to travel has been made.
The pull factors can be deemed as exogenous forces, which have been characterized in terms of the
features, attractions, or attributes of a destination (Klenosky, 2002: 385). Dann also examined the
endogenous forces, which he named as push factors. The push factors are viewed as relating to the
needs and wants of a traveler, such as the desire for escape from their mundane home environment,
relaxation, nostalgia, rest, prestige, knowledge, experience, and social interaction. Danns push-pull
framework provides a simple and intuitive approach for understanding tourists motivations for travel,
and explaining why a certain tourist selects one destination over another.

Truong and King (2009) shows that attributes may be defined as the key characteristics that define the
subject holiday destination and may be conveniently grouped under the following headings The Five
As. (1) Attractions: desirable features that attract holidaymakers to the specific destination. (2)
Activities: types of recreational and entertainment activities available. (3) Accessibility: ease of traveling
to the destination, including issues such as obtaining visas, health risks, etc (4) Accommodation: style
and standards of accommodation available at the destination; and (5) Amenity: general facilities that
holidaymakers require, such as banking, international direct dialing (IDD) telephone services, shopping,
etc. Dann (1981: 207) indicated that once the trip has been decided upon, where to go, what to see or
what to do (relating to the specific destinations) can be tackled. Thus, analytically, and often both
logically and temporally, push factors precede pull factors. It means that push and pull factors can be
deemed as relating to two different decisions made at two separate points in time. Tourists, firstly, are
pushed by their needs and wants to make a decision of whether to go, and then are pulled by
destinations attributes to make a decision of where to go. Therefore, destination attributes are very
important for a destination to be successful in attracting more tourists.

Regarding commonly attractive attribute for a destination, Dwyer and Kim (2003: 397) identified two
categories of price, namely, travel cost - relating to travel to and from a destination, and ground cost -
relating to commodity prices within the destination. Both of the two categories of price can influence
tourists decision making on destination selection. Another hand, in the past decade, the fast growth of
cultural tourism has been leading to some researchers (Miller, 1997; Smith, 2003) argue that cultural
attractions have become the most important attribute, which motivates people to travel. Miller (1997:
7) argued that cultural tourism has become the mass market in tourism industry. A destinations
entertainment attribute can be found in many forms, such as outdoor activities, gambling, and
nightlife. Tourists enjoy pursuing entertainment during their trip - even at museums and other cultural
sites (Global Insight Inc., 2004: 7). Since the day when tourism became a mass market due to a number
of people starting to enjoy travel, tourism has been defined as a landscape industry, and regarded as
fully integrated with destinations environment (Formica, 2000: 2). Tourists, especially those in holiday
mood, would like to enjoy their destinations natural views and beautiful scenery. Martin ( 2005: 572)
states that Weather can be defined as the state of the atmosphere in a given place at a given time, and
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
33
can be described by one particular weather station or for a specific area of the earths surface. By
contrast, climate is the prevailing condition of the atmosphere deduced from long periods of
observation. Both climate and weather can significantly influence tourists activities and behavior, just
as they affect peoples routine lives as well. Tourists destination choice is often influenced by
convenience. Given a choice between similar destinations, a tourist will tend to choose the more
convenient one. Thus, destinations, which are more proximate, would be more likely to be accepted
over destinations offering similar products that are less proximate (McKercher, 1998: 39). It explains
why accessibility can be defined as the relative ease or difficulty with which customers can reach the
destination of their choice (Kim, 1998: 345). Although there are many attributes associated with a
destination, safety is the major concern for tourists to make a decision on destination selection. Pizam
and Mansfeld (1996: 1) indicated safety, tranquility and peace are necessary conditions for prosperous
tourism . . ., most tourists will not spend their hard earned money to go to a destination where their
safety and well-being may be in jeopardy. Beside, Dwyer & Kim, (2003: 384-385) concern that local
peoples attitude toward tourists is a major social factor forming part of the macro-environment of a
destination, which may influence tourists satisfaction with their trip and is, therefore, vital to the
success of the destination (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003: 172). Local peoples attitude toward tourists is
determined by how they perceive the tourism industry. The most important factor in tourism industry is
considered by study of Lai and Vinh (2012) is services of a destination are important in tourists
destination choice. In the eyes of many tourists, destinations function more effectively, when their
services are in abundance. Thus, prosperity of a destinations tourism is highly related to its provision of
numerous ancillary services (Dwyer & Kim, 2003: 381). It is clear from the above analysis that price,
culture, entertainment, relaxation, landscape, weather, accessibility, safety, local peoples attitude
toward tourists, and service are commonly used as attractive attributes for a destination to attract
tourists. However, each destination will be visited for its own set of attributes. This will also apply to
Hanoi.

2.2 Relationship of expectation, satisfaction and destination loyalty

To determine the level of customers satisfaction with a specific holiday destination, previous
researchers have used various instruments that generate gap scores based on the difference between
the expectation and perception of the delivery of particular services associated with that destination
(Moutinho, 1987;; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). This approach is not holistic in that it does not
address the total holiday experience. Generally, expectation can be defined as performance of
establishment, ideal performance or desired performance. In terms of the relationship between
expectation and satisfaction, expectation can be defined as prior estimations made by customers while
receiving service (Oliver, 1997). The most commonly applied framework in service marketing research
views satisfaction as an emotional response that follows from cognitive responses to service experience
(e.g., quality or value perceptions).In successful destination marketing, due to the effects on tourists
destination selections, consuming of goods and services and having the decision to revisit, expectations
of tourists are important to understand . It is generally accepted that tourists have expectations after
selecting a destination for a holiday and that their satisfaction levels during and after their holiday
period are functions of their expectations. Understanding their expectations will give important clues in
developing destination attractiveness and improving tourist goods and services.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
34
It is recognized that satisfaction affects destination selection decisions, consumption of goods and
services at a destination, and intention to revisit. The importance of repeat visitation in international
tourism is widely acknowledged. Repeat visitation is important at the level of the economy as a whole
and of the individual attraction in particular. The lower costs involved in marketing to repeat consumers
has been noted frequently as a positive association Related research indicates that satisfaction is a
function of expectations and overall performance. After comparing the expectations with perceived
performance of the destination, destination satisfaction can be considered (Korzay, Alvarez, 2005: 179).
Barsky and Labagh (1992) introduced the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm into lodging research.
Basically, the proposed model in these studies was that customer satisfaction was the function of
disconfirmation, measured by nine expectations met factors that were weighted by attribute specific
importance. The model was tested with data collected from 100 random subjects via guest comment
cards. As a result, customer satisfaction was found to be correlated with a customers willingness to
return. Tourist satisfaction is important to successful destination marketing because it influences the
choice of destination, the consumption of products and services, and the decision to return (Kozak &
Rimmington, 2000).

Nevertheless, an examination of the influence of overall tourist satisfaction and the level of satisfaction
with specific attributes and their impact on repeat visitation to Vietnam has been confined to Truongs
(2002) study. Since Weber (1996) and Cho (1998) address that many studies concentrate on tourist
needs but few focus on tourist satisfaction with the attributes of a specific destination area or on the
perceived need of tourists and their satisfaction with the outcome of the need. The objectives of the
present study are to examine the relationship between tourist perceptions, satisfaction with destination
loyalty with Hanoi capital as a tourist destination.
3. Research method

Items used in constructing the questionnaire are given in appendix following recent research efforts. A
list of items was created based on Cooper et al.s (1993) Four As and Buhaliss (2000) Six As
components of the destination amalgam, the attributes included in the HOLSAT instrument (Tribe &
Snaith, 1998; Truong & Foster, 2006), and the attributes typically examined in the importance-
performance framework (Fallon & Schofield, 2006; Kozak, 2001a). Visitor satisfaction was measured
using a multi-item scale based on an adaptation of the universal scale of Oliver (1997), also applied in
other studies and included four items capturing affective, cognitive and fulfillment components of
satisfaction. The behavioral intentions construct was operationalized with four items pertaining to
loyalty commitment and repurchase (visit) intentions (Luo & Homburg, 2007) and recommendations.
The measures were similar to those used by Lee et al. (2007). All items for the three constructs
(expectation of a destinations offerings, visitor satisfaction and destination loyalty) were measured on a
five point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The questionnaire
also contained a number of questions related to demographic variables. Fig. 1 shows the research
framework, Table 1 shows the hypotheses proposed in this study. The analytical software used in this
study is SPSS 16.0 to analysis and verify the data gathered from the questionnaires.
Tourists H2
expectation
Destination
H1 loyalty
Tourists H3
Satisfaction
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
35
Fig. 1 Research frame work

Table 1 Hypothesis proposed

No. Hypothesis
H1. The tourists expectation of Hanoi as a destination is positively related to tourists
satisfaction
H2 Tourists satisfaction of Hanoi trip is positively related to destination loyalty
H3 Tourists expectation of Hanoi as a destination is directly (positively) affects destination
loyalty

Table 2: Reliability analysis

Item Cronbach's Item Cronbach's

Expec1 .897 Sat1 .897
Expec2 .902 Sat2 .900
Expec3 .904 Sat3 .895
Expec4 .907 Sat4 .889
Expec5 .907 Total Sat. .890
Expec6 .905 Loy1 .899
Expec7 .903 Loy2 .902
Expec8 .913 Loy3 .900
Expec9 .903 Loy4 .900
Total Expec. .899 Total Loy. .896
Total Cronbachs = .905, No of item;20 , No of respond: 172

As the purpose of the study is to identify and analyze tourists satisfaction after visiting Hanoi, certain
tourism sites of Hanoi such as Citadel of Thang Long, Hoankiem Lake, Battrang village, Duonglam old
village are not involved. Thus, the Noibai International Airport was selected as the interview site,
because most international tourists travel to Hanoi by air. The primary data was finally collected in the
boarding area of the Noibai International Airport during February and March, 2012, when international
tourists finished their trip to Hanoi and awaiting departure. After distributing a total of 250
questionnaires over the 2-week period, 200 questionnaires were collected. , 28 were incomplete. The
usable and effective questionnaires for this study were 172, representing a response rate of 69% . For
the constructs of tourists expectation, satisfaction and destination loyalty, a reliability analysis was
performed (Cronbachs alpha). Total alphas value are above 0.8 (see Table 2), which is considered an
indication of acceptable reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
36

4. Result and discussing

4.1 Respondents demographic

The usable questionnaires were evenly distributed to172 respondents, representing 55.2% male and
44.8% female of the surveyed tourists respectively. Most of the visitors were in the age group of 3544
years, representing 34.9% of the respondents. Respondents younger than 24 years of age were few,
accounting for only 9.3% of the respondents. Most of the tourists are first-timer (75.6%). In addition, the
survey revealed that the education level of tourists to Hanoi, Vietnam was relatively high, with 41.%
having earned bachelor degrees and 25% graduate or doctoral degrees. Only 4.7% of respondents were
grade school. With regard to purpose of visiting, the survey revealed that 70.9% of the visitors reported
as destination-unrestricted and 20.1% indicated as destination-restricted. Regarding to tourist
nationality, 25% come from China, 25% from United States, tourist come from Europe count for 15.7%,
Japanese in this survey is just 9.9% and 24.4% come from other countries. (Table 3)

Table 3: Respondents demographics

Gender Frequency Percent Experience Frequency Percent Purpose Frequency Percent

Destination-
Male 95 55.2 First-timers 130 75.6 122 70.9
unrestricted
Destination-
Female 77 44.8 Repeaters 42 24.4 50 29.1
restricted
Total 172 100.0 Total 172 100.0 Total 172 100.0

Age Frequency Percent Education Frequency Percent Country Frequency Percent

1624 yrs. 16 9.3 Grade school 8 4.7 Europe 27 15.7
2534 yrs. 35 20.3 High school 52 30.2 USA 43 25.0
3544 yrs. 60 34.9 Bachelor 69 40.1 China 43 25.0
4554 yrs. 34 19.8 Master/Ph.D. 43 25.0 Japan 17 9.9
5564 yrs. 27 15.7 Total 172 100.0 Other 42 24.4
Total 172 100.0 Total 172 100.0

4.2 Destination attributes ranking

The survey also uses mean value for analyses the most perceived attribute of tourists expectation about
Hanoi. Result from Table 4 indicates that, most of the mean scores of the nine attributes in terms of
their importance level are somewhat higher than 3, which is the value of the moderate importance
level. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the nine attributes are significantly important in the
international tourists decision of choosing Hanoi as their destination. In addition, the mean scores of
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
37
overall cleanliness, quality of the accommodation and unspoiled nature fall even below 3. Another hand,
diversity of cultural/historical (M= 4.0465), the offer of local cuisine (M=3.8488) and personal safety and
security (3.8023) are ranked most important attribute for tourist expectation about Hanoi. It just
indicates that there are two aspects in the tourists image about Hanoi: First is positive image about the
culture and securities of the Capital, second is negative image about unspoiled of environment and
accommodation. This result is consistence with the study of Truong and King (2009). For further
conclusion, this study use regression to test the hypothesis among tourists expectation, satisfaction and
destination loyalty.

Table 4: Order of importance of tourists expectation about destination attributes

Mean Std. Deviation

Items Destination attributes Rank
Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Expec1 Easily reached destination 6 3.2151 .05624 .73763
Expec2 Overall cleanliness 7 2.8605 .04970 .65181
Expec3 Diversity of cultural/historical 1 4.0465 .04503 .59051
Expec4 Quality of the accommodation 8 2.8547 .03658 .47980
Expec5 Friendliness of the local people 4 3.5872 .03765 .49377
Expec6 Opportunities for rest 5 3.4942 .04479 .58736
Expec7 Personal safety and security 3 3.8023 .03045 .39941
Expec8 Unspoiled nature 9 2.2558 .05304 .69562
Expec9 The offer of local cuisine 2 3.8488 .02739 .35925
Valid N (listwise): 172

4.3 Hypothesis testing

Table 5: Stepwise regressions for relationship between tourist expectation and satisfaction (H1)

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Model one t-value P-value
B Std. Error Coefficients Beta

Tourists expectation
-2.520 .406 -6.201 .000
(Constant)
Satisfaction 1.676 .122 .727 13.785 .000
R2/Adjusted R2 .528/.525
F/Sig. 190.031/0.00**
**P<.01
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
38

The first regression model takes tourists satisfaction as the independent variable and tourists
expectation as the dependent variable. The result is presented in Table 5. As the result, the standardized
coefficient beta () is 0.727 (p 0.01). Further, the F statistic of 190.013 is significant at P= 0.00 of
significance, revealing that the model helps to explain some of the variation in tourists satisfaction.
Besides, the adjusted coefficient of determination (Adjusted R2) revealed that 52.5% of the variance in
tourists satisfaction is explained by the regression model. The p-values of the t-tests were less than 0.01
of significance, indicating that the beta coefficient is significant. Accordingly, the results signify
appositive relationship between tourists expectation and satisfaction, supporting the surmise in the
research framework (H1) the tourists expectation of Hanoi as a destination is positively relates to
tourists satisfaction.
For further testing of relationship among each of the nine attributes and overall satisfaction, the peason
correlation method is used. From Table 6 can be seen that the item of Expec.8 Unspoiled nature
(r=0.086, p>0.1) has no relationship with the satisfaction. This result is consistent with the ranking result
showed in table 4.

Table 6: Pearson Correlation of expectation item and satisfaction (N=172)

Expec1 Expec2 Expec3 Expec4 Expec5 Expec6 Expec7 Expec8 Expec9

Sat. .693** .579** .370** .283** .170* .228** .499** .086 .495**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .026 .003 .000 .264 .000
N 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The second regression model takes destination loyalty as the independent variable and tourist
satisfaction as the dependent variable. As a consequence, Table 7 illustrates that the standardized
coefficient beta () is 0.625 (p 0.01). Further, the F statistic of 108.995 is significant at p=0.00 level of
significance, revealing that the model helps to explain some of the variation in destination loyalty.
Besides, the adjusted coefficient of determination (Adjusted R2) revealed that 38.7% of the variance in
destination loyalty was explained by the regression model. The p-values of the t-tests are less than the
0.01 level of significance, indicating that the beta coefficient is significant. Accordingly, the results signify
a positive relationship between tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty, supporting the surmise in the
research framework (H2) that tourists satisfaction of Hanoi trip is positively related to destination
loyalty.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
39
Table7: Stepwise regressions for relationship between tourists satisfaction and destination loyalty (H2)

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Model two t-value P-value
B Std. Error Coefficients Beta

Satisfaction (Constant) 1.652 .147 11.264 .000

Loyalty .489 .047 .625 10.440 .000
R2/Adjusted R2 .391/387
F/Sig. 108.995/0.00**
**P<.01

The third regression model takes destination loyalty as the independent variable and tourists
expectation as the dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 8. As a result, the
standardized coefficient beta () is 0.450 (p 0.01). Further, the F statistic of 43.145 is significant at the
P=0.00 level of significance, revealing that the model helps to explain some of the variation in technical
quality. Besides, the adjusted coefficient of determination (Adjusted R2) revealed that 19.8% of the
variance in technical quality is explained by the regression model. The p-values of the t-tests are less
than the 0.01 level of significance, indicating that the beta coefficients are significant. Accordingly, the
results signify a positive relationship between tourists expectation destination loyalty, supporting the
surmise in the research framework (H3) that Tourists expectation of Hanoi as a destination is directly
(positively) affects destination loyalty.

Table 8: Stepwise regressions for relationship between tourists expectation and destination loyalty (H3)

Unstandardized
Standardized
Model three Coefficients t-value P-value
Coefficients Beta
B Std. Error

tourists expectation (Constant) .446 .413 1.079 .282

Loyalty .812 .124 .450 6.568 .000
R2/Adjusted R2 .202/198
F/Sig. 43.145/0.00**
**P<.01

In tourism literature, the argument that a destinations image can significantly impact on tourists
destination loyalty is testified by Hunt (1975), Goodrich (1978) Scott et al. (1978) and Truong and King
(2009). For further testing of each attribute impact on the destination loyalty of tourist, the pearson
correlation is taken for analysis, Table 9 is express the Pearson Correlation of expectation item and
destination loyalty from results can be seen that, there are no relationship between destination loyalty
and three attribute as Expec.4. Quality of the accommodation Expec.5 Friendliness of the local
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
40
people, Expec.8 Unspoiled nature. This result indicates that this three attributes may not be a choice
of visitor again or recommended highly to their friends and relatives.

Table 9: Pearson Correlation of expectation item and destination loyalty

Expec1 Expec2 Expec3 Expec4 Expec5 Expec6 Expec7 Expec8 Expec9

Sat. .561** .292** .228** -.071 .074 .321** .330** -.073 .454**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .356 .334 .000 .000 .344 .000
N 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Regarding the calculation of willingness to visit Hanoi again or recommend to others, 70, 2% of
respondent consider coming to Hanoi again or willingness to introduce to their friends and relatives
(mean score = 3.1483). However the mean score also shows that the rate of agree for destination loyalty
just over neutral with mean different is 0.1483. it indicates of low score for the destination loyalty.

Table 10: Mean of repeat visitation

Variable % Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Sig. (2-tailed)

Loyalty 70.2 3.1483 .52340 .03991 .000

5. Conclusion

This research provides a framework for understanding the interrelationships between tourist
expectation and satisfaction s and the other constructs in relation to behavioral intentions. Apparently,
this research adds empirical support to this vein of literature and has tested and verifies the nine
attributes relates to Hanoi as a destination.

In this study, there are 3 most important attribute influence tourist expectation includes diversity of
cultural/historical (M= 4.0465), the offer of local cuisine (M=3.8488) and personal safety and security
(3.8023). A number of key benefits sought by respondents have been indicated and are worth
emphasizing. Another hand the results also indicates the negative image of Hanoi in the tourist
expectation are overall cleanliness, quality of the accommodation and unspoiled nature with mean
score fall even below 3. In the study, the survey results illustrated a positive relationship between
tourists expectation and satisfaction with the statement that the tourists expectation of Hanoi as a
destination is positively relates to tourists satisfaction. Besides, Unspoiled nature is not considered as
influence attribute (r=0.086, p>0.1). The positive relationship that is identified between tourist
expectation and tourist satisfaction may be interpreted as that tourists satisfaction of Hanoi trip is
positively related to destination loyalty. The same results also refer to the last statement that Tourists
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
41
expectation of Hanoi as a destination is directly (positively) affects destination loyalty. However, for
further testing of each attribute impact on the destination loyalty of tourist, from results can be seen
that, there are no relationship between destination loyalty and three attribute as Quality of the
accommodation, Friendliness of the local people, and Unspoiled nature. This result indicates that
this three attributes may not be a choice of visit again or recommended highly to their friends and
relatives. This finding is useful for Hanoi tourism authority in particular and Vietnam in general
recognizes the weakness of destination and has the plane for improving this problem. Regarding the
willingness to visit Hanoi again or recommend to others, 70, 2% of respondent consider coming to Hanoi
again or willingness to introduce to their friends and relatives (mean score = 3.1483). However the mean
score also shows that the rate of agree for destination loyalty just over neutral with mean different is
0.1483. It indicates of low score for the destination loyalty.

From a marketing managerial perspective, the findings should assist the tourism industries to develop
more focused marketing activities and to guide the development of products targeted at international
market. Although some studies argued that there was no direct relationship between tourist satisfaction
and most attractions, facilities and services (Okello and Yerian, 2009, Caruana et al., 2000). This study
consistence with the studies of Hunt (1975), Goodrich (1978) Scott et al. (1978) and Truong and King
(2009) while conclusion that a destinations image can significantly impact on tourists destination
loyalty. As tourists who have enjoyed better than expected experiences are more likely to return in the
future (Ross, 1993), it is vital for Hanoi tourism managers and marketer to gain a competitive advantage
over regional or international competitors through improving customer impressions to develop
destination branding image.

Reference

Andriotis, K., and Vaughan, R. D. 2003. Urban Residents Attitudes toward Tourism Development: The
Case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research. 42(4): 172-185.

Barsky & Labagh (1992). A Strategy for Custmer Satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly. Oct.:32-40

Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination in the future. Tourism Management, 21(1),
97116.

Caruana A, Money AH, Berthon PR. 2000. Service quality and satisfaction: the moderating role of value.
European Journal of Marketing 34(11/12): 13381353.

Cho B. H. (1998). Assessing Tourist Satisfaction: an Exploratory Study of Korean Youth Tourists in
Australia. Tourism Recreation Research, 23 (1), 47-54

Dann, G. M. S. 1981. Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research. 8(2): 187-219.
Dann, G.M.S. 1977. Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 4(4): 184-94
Dwyer, L., and Kim, C. 2003. Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators. Current Issues
in Tourism. 6(5): 369-414.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
42
Fallon, P., & Schofield, P. (2006). The dynamics of destination attribute importance. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 709713.

Formica, S. 2000. Destination Attractiveness as a Function of Supply and Demand Interaction. (online)
http://www.scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11142000 -15560052. September 20.
Global Insight, Inc. 2004. Factors Influencing Visitor's Choices to Visit Urban Destinations. (online) http://
www.tourism.gov.on.ca/english/tourdiv/research/factor s_influencing_visitors_report.pdf. September
11.

Goodrich, J. N. 1978. The Relationship between Preferences for and Perceptions of Vacation
Destinations. Journal of Travel Research. 17(2): 8-13.

Hu, Y. and Ritchie, J.R.B., (1993). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual Approach. Journal
of Travel Research, 32, 2534.

Hunt, J. D. 1975. Image as a Factor in Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research. 13(3): 1-7.

Kim, H. 1998. Perceived Attractiveness of Korean Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research. 25(2): 340-
361.

Klenosky, D. B. 2002. The Pull of Tourism Destinations: A Means-End Investigation. Journal of travel
Research. 40(2): 385-395.

Korzay, M., Alvarez, M. D. (2005). Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Japanese Tourists in Turkey,
Anatolia, An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 16(2), 176-193.
Kozak, M. (2001a). Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two
nationalities. Tourism Management, 22(4), 391401.

Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain as an Off- Season
Holiday Destination. Journal of Travel Research, 39 (3), 260-269.

Lai W.H, Vinh, N.Q (2012) A Study of Analyzing the Selection of Promotion Activities and Destination
Attributes in Tourism Industry in Vietnam - From the Perspective of Tourism Industrial Service Network
(TISN), International Journal of Social and Human Sciences , 6, pp330-336

Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton, J. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary constructs in
determining festival attendees behavioral intention. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 402412.
Luo, X., & Homburg, C. (2007). Neglected outcomes of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing,
71(2), 133149.

Martin, M. B. G. 2005. Weather, Climate and Tourism - A Geographical Perspective. Annals of Tourism
Research. 32(3): 571-591.

McKercher, B. 1998. The effect of market access on destination choice. Journal of Travel Research. 37(3):
39-47.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
JANUARY 2013. VOLUME 5. NUMBER 1
43

Miller, J. 1997. Cultural Tourism Worthy of Note. Journal of Hotel & Motel Management. 212(15): 7-17.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, European Journal of Marketing, 21 (10), 1-44

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill.
Okello MM, Yerian S. 2009. Tourist satisfaction in relation to attractions and implications for
conservation in the protected areas of the Northern Circuit, Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
17(5): 605625.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective of the consumer. New York: Irvin/McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 3344

Parasuraman, A; Zeithaml, V.A and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-37

Pearce, D. (1989). Tourist Development. Wiley, New York.

Pizam, A., and Mansfeld, Y. 1996. Tourism, Crime, and International Security Issues. Chichester: Wiley.
Reilly, M. D. (1990). Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism image assessment. Journal of
Travel Research, 28(1), 2126.

Scott, D. R., Schewe, C. D., and Frederick, D. G. 1978. A Multi-brand/Multi-attribute Model of Tourist
State Choice. Journal of Travel Research. 17(3): 23-29.

Smith, M. K. 2003. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London: Routledge.

Tribe, J., & Snaith, T. (1998). From SERVQAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in Varadero, Cuba. Tourism
Management, 19(1), 2234.

Truong TH, King B. 2009. An evaluation of satisfaction levels among Chinese tourists in Vietnam.
International Journal of Tourism Research 11(6): 521535.

Truong, T. H. (2002). Holiday satisfaction of Australian travellers in Vietnam: An application of the

HOLSAT model. Masters dissertation, Faculty of Business, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Truong, T.-H., & Foster, D. (2006). Using HOLSAT to evaluate tourist satisfaction at destinations: the case
of Australia holidaymakers in Vietnam. Tourism Management, 27(5), 842855.

Viet Nam National Administration of Tourism (2011), Annual the report of

Weber, K. (1996). The Assessment of Tourist Satisfaction Using the Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory:
A Study of the German Travel Market in Australia, Pacific Tourism Review, 14, 35-45

WTTC. 2005. World: The 2005 Travel and Tourism Economic Research. (Online) http:// www.wttc.org.
September 11