Factors Affecting Tourist Satisfaction in Ecotourism: A Case Study of the Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, Vietnam

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following ecotour guide?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Language proficiency	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Friendliness, professionalism and enthusiasm	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Presentation skills	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Information and educational content provided	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following shopping and entertainment services?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Various recreational activities	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Various souvenirs	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Staff professionalism and service quality	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

Model summary_

Model	R	R2	Adjusted R2	Std. error of the estimate
1	0.925	0.856	0.840	0.28414

Factors affecting tourist satisfaction_

Factors	Observed variables	Encryption
Destination attraction	Natural and cultural attractions	SS1
	Convenience on travelling to location	SS2
	Safety at attraction	SS3
	Transport safety	TS3
	Variety of cuisine options	FB3
Ecotourism services	Easy access to transport	TS1
	Available means of transport	TS2
	Availability of food and beverage services	FB1
	Standards of hygiene and quality of food services	FB2
	Accommodation availability	AS1
	Accommodation quality	AS2
Staff quality	Language proficiency	ES1
	Friendliness, professionalism and enthusiasm	ES2
	Presentation skills	ES3
	Information and educational content provided	EG4
	Staff professionalism and service quality of food services	FB4
	Staff professionalism and service quality of accommodation	AS3
Price	Entrance ticket	PS1
	Transport	PS2
	Food and beverage	PS3
	Accommodation	PS4
	Entertainment and shopping	PS5
Infrastructure	Communication systems	PF2
	Garbage dumps	PF3
	Parking areas	PF4
	Public signs	PF5
	Security facilities	PF6
	Health facilities	PF7
	Rest areas	PF8
	Interpretative facilities	PF9

Research hypotheses_

Order	Hypotheses
H1	Destination attractions have a positive impact on tourist satisfaction at the PNKBNP.
H2	Ecotourism services have a positive impact on tourist satisfaction at the PNKBNP.
H3	Staff quality has a positive impact on tourist satisfaction at the PNKBNP.
H4	Price has a positive impact on tourist satisfaction at the PNKBNP.
H5	Infrastructure has a positive impact on tourist satisfaction at the PNKBNP.

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following public facilities?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Clean water availability	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Communication systems	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Garbage dumps	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Parking areas	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Public signs	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Security facilities	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Health facilities	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Rest areas	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Interpretative facilities	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following transport services?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Easy access to transport	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Available means of transport	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Transport cost	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Transport safety	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following sightseeing services?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Natural attractions (flora and fauna)	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Price of entrance tickets	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Convenience on travelling to locations	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Safety at attractions (presence of rescue teams)	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each variable_

Independent variables	Cronbach’s alpha	No. of items
Sightseeing	0.834	3
Ecotour guide	0.804	4
Transport	0.810	3
Food and beverage	0.734	4
Accommodation	0.733	3
Price	0.823	5
Public facilities	0.807	8

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following accommodation services?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Accommodation availability (e.g. homestay, hotel, camping)	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Accommodation quality	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Staff professionalism and service quality	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

ANOVA table of regression model_

Model		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p-value
1	Regression	98.568	23	4.286	53.082	0.00
	Residual	16.632	206	0.081
	Total	115.200	229

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following food and beverage services?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Food and beverage availability	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Standards of hygiene and quality of food services	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Variety of cuisine options	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Staff professionalism and service quality	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯

Independent variables of the proposed model_

Independent variables	Observed variables	Encryption	Sources
Sightseeing	Natural and cultural attractions	SS1	Tarlow (2014), Toker, Emir (2023), Mbira (2024), Phung et al. (2024)
	Convenience in travelling to locations	SS2
	Safety at attractions	SS3
Ecotour guide	Language proficiency	EG1	Geva, Goldman (1991), Ap, Wong (2001), Huynh et al. (2024), Zhang, Fukami (2024)
	Friendliness, professionalism and enthusiasm	EG2
	Presentation skills	EG3
	Information and educational content provided	EG4
Transport	Easy access to transport	TS1	Iniesta-Bonillo et al. (2016), Rohini (2024)
	Available means of transport	TS2
	Transport safety	TS3
Food and beverage	Availability of food and beverage services	FB1	Björk, Kauppinen-Räisänen (2016), Stone et al. (2018), Peng, Jiang (2022)
	Standards of hygiene and quality of food services	FB2
	Variety of cuisine options	FB3
	Staff professionalism and service quality	FB4
Accommodation	Availability of accommodation	AS1	Oliver (2014), Carvache-Franco et al. (2022), Sugiama et al. (2022)
	Accommodation quality	AS2
	Staff professionalism and service quality	AS3
Entertainment and shopping	Various recreational activities	ES1	Hong, Saizen (2019), Cheraghzadeh et al. (2023), Shang et al. (2023)
	Various souvenirs	ES2
	Staff professionalism and service quality	ES3
Price	Entrance tickets	PS1	Rivera and Croes (2010), Hau (2014), Chua et al. (2015) and Giao et al. (2021)
	Transport	PS2
	Food and beverage	PS3
	Accommodation	PS4
	Entertainment and shopping	PS5
Public facilities	Clean water availability	PF1	An et al. (2024), Baloch et al. (2023), Giao et al. (2021), Mandić et al. (2018) and Luo et al. (2022)
	Communication systems	PF2
	Garbage dumps	PF3
	Parking areas	PF4
	Public signs	PF5
	Security facilities	PF6
	Health facilities	PF7
	Rest areas	PF8
	Interpretative facilities	PF9

Coefficients of regression analysis_

Hypotheses		Standardised coefficients (β)	p-value	Decision
	Regression constant (β0)	0.197	0.003
H1	Destination attraction → tourist satisfaction	0.322	0.000	Supported
H2	Ecotourism services → tourist satisfaction	0.213	0.005	Supported
H3	Staff quality → tourist satisfaction	0.009	0.000	Supported
H4	Price → tourist satisfaction	0.076	0.006	Supported
H5	Infrastructure → tourist satisfaction	0.096	0.027	Supported

Sociodemographic aspects of respondents (N = 185)_

Demographics	Categories	N	Percentage (%)
Nationality	National	98	53.0
	Foreign	87	47.0
Gender	Male	77	41.7
	Female	108	58.3
Age (years)	18–28	12	6.7
	29–48	78	42
	49–65	52	28.2
	>65	5	2.6
Education level	Primary	3	1.6
	Secondary	40	21.8
	University	115	61.9
	Postgraduate/Master/PhD	27	14.8
Professional activity	Student	46	24.9
	Researcher/scientist	8	4.1
	Businessman	16	8.5
	Private employee	53	28.5
	Public employee	26	14.2
	Unemployed	5	2.6
	Retired	4	2.1
	Other	15	8.3

Exploratory factor analysis_

Factors	Observed variables	Factor loading
Factor 1	SS1	0.772
	SS2	0.706
	SS3	0.710
	TS3	0.688
	FB3	0.606
Factor 2	TS1	0.784
	TS2	0.742
	FB1	0.669
	FB2	0.726
	AS1	0.739
	AS2	0.682
Factor 3	ES1	0.830
	ES2	0.771
	ES3	0.770
	EG4	0.769
	FB4	0.703
	AS3	0.687
Factor 4	PS1	0.706
	PS2	0.692
	PS3	0.678
	PS4	0.619
	PS5	0.625
Factor 5	PF2	0.620
	PF3	0.721
	PF4	0.671
	PF5	0.676
	PF6	0.673
	PF7	0.687
	PF8	0.541
	PF9	0.645

The variance inflation factor (VIF) of regression analysis_

Model		Collinearity statistics
Tolerance		VIF
1	Destination attraction	0.749	1.259
	Ecotourism services	0.766	1.324
	Staff quality	0.730	1.370
	Price	0.793	1.421
	Infrastructure	0.750	1.258

In your opinion, what is your level of satisfaction with the following price of services?

Factors	1	2	3	4	5
Entrance tickets	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Transport	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Food and beverage	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Accommodation	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯
Entertainment and shopping	▯	▯	▯	▯	▯