Open Access

Smart Destination Selection Process: Research on Generation Y Tourists

Metin Sürme
Metin Sürme
 and 
Ercan Ince
Ercan Ince
   | Nov 18, 2023
European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Nov 18, 2023
Page range: 26 - 39
Received: Dec 13, 2021
Accepted: Nov 29, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2023-0003
Keywords
© 2023 Metin Sürme et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1:

Research model
Research model

Figure 2:

Structural equation model
Structural equation model

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

Items Factor loadings M SD Explained variance KMO Significance
1 2 3
Attitude
AT1 0.838 4.0642 0.85626 68.202 0.795 0.000
AT2 0.884 4.0872 0.86228
AT3 0.823 3.8349 0.90583
AT4 0.788 3.8257 0.84072
AT5 0.793 3.9450 0.86226
Behaviour
BEH1 0.779 3.9541 0.85745 56.008 0.702 0.000
BEH2 0.572 3.0642 1.04969
BEH3 0.870 3.8945 0.76373
BEH4 0.742 3.8624 0.81425
Travel intention
TI1 0.867 3.7798 0.76632 75.531 0.727 0.000
TI2 0.871 3.7706 0.82733
TI3 0.869 3.7018 0.93478

t test for gender variable

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

Structural model regression weights

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

ANOVA test for education variable.

Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance
Attitude Between groups 2.632 2 1.316 2.617 0.075
Within groups 108.093 215 0.503
Total 110.725 217
Behaviour Between groups 0.117 2 0.058 0.141 0.869
Within groups 89.133 215 0.415
Total 89.249 217
Travel Intention Between groups 5.067 2 2.533 4.885 0.008
Within groups 111.503 215 0.519
Total 116.569 217

Values of Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient

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

Model goodness-of-fit values

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

Validity and reliability analysis.

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

Tukey test for age variable

Dependent variable Mean difference (I–J) SE Significance 95% CI
Lower bound Upper bound
Travel Intention 18–23 24–29 0.31499 0.15114 0.162 −0.0764 0.7064
30–35 −0.29700 0.16831 0.293 −0.7328 0.1388
36–41 −0.20573 0.14886 0.512 −0.5912 0.1797
24–29 18–23 −0.31499 0.15114 0.162 −0.7064 0.0764
30–35 −0.61199* 0.20946 0.020 −1.1544 −0.0696
36–41 −0.52072* 0.19418 0.039 −1.0235 −0.0179
30–35 18–23 0.29700 0.16831 0.293 −0.1388 0.7328
24–29 0.61199* 0.20946 0.020 0.0696 1.1544
36–41 0.09127 0.20782 0.972 −0.4468 0.6294
36–41 18–23 0.20573 0.14886 0.512 −0.1797 0.5912
24–29 0.52072* 0.19418 0.039 0.0179 1.0235
30–35 −0.09127 0.20782 0.972 −0.6294 0.4468

Demographic findings

Frequency Percent
Gender
  Male 104 47.7
  Female 114 52.3
Age
  18–23 142 65.1
  24–29 27 12.4
  30–35 21 9.6
  36–41 28 12.8
Education
  Associate degree 136 62.4
  Undergraduate 59 27.1
  Postgraduate 23 10.6

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

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

CFA goodness-of-fit values

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

ANOVA test for age variable

Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance
Attitude Between groups 3.193 3 1.064 2.118 0.099
Within groups 107.531 214 0.502
Total 110.725 217
Behaviour Between groups 0.912 3 0.304 0.737 0.531
Within groups 88.337 214 0.413
Total 89.249 217
Travel Intention Between groups 5.661 3 1.887 3.641 0.014
Within groups 110.909 214 0.518
Total 116.569 217

Tukey test for education variable

Dependent variable Mean difference (I - J) SE Significance 95% CI
Lower bound Upper bound
Travel Intention Associate degree Undergraduate −0.05874 0.11227 0.860 −0.3237 0.2062
Postgraduate −0.50703* 0.16236 0.006 −0.8902 −0.1238
Undergraduate Associate degree 0.05874 0.11227 0.860 −0.2062 0.3237
Postgraduate −0.44829* 0.17703 0.032 −0.8661 −0.0305
Postgraduate Associate degree 0.50703* 0.16236 0.006 0.1238 0.8902
Undergraduate 0.44829* 0.17703 0.032 0.0305 0.8661

Values for normal distribution

Scale N Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro-Wilk (p) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (p)
Attitude 218 −0.109 −0.350
Behaviour 218 −0.165 1.656 0.000 0.000
Travel Intention 218 −0.071 −0.250
eISSN:
2182-4924
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
3 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Business and Economics, Business Management, other, Industries, Tourism, Hospitality, Travel, Event Industry, Leisure Industry, Sports and Recreation
Journal RSS Feed