L13 TRI Rural Tourism

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Tourism Review International, Vol. 24, pp. 23–36 1544-2721/20 $60.00 + .

00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/154427220X15791346544761
Copyright © 2020 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-4421
www.cognizantcommunication.com

SEGMENTING THE DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA

NIMIT CHOWDHARY,* RAHUL PRATAP SINGH KAURAV,† AND SHAILJA SHARMA‡

*Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India


†Prestige Institute of Management, Gwalior, India
‡Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management, Noida, India

Rural tourism in India is increasingly becoming competitive. Customers expect better services and
unique experiences. It is therefore essential for the service providers to better understand the expec-
tations of the visitors and carefully match their offers. Segmentation and targeting of the market are
accepted principles of business and there has been a lot of research on the basis of segmentation. The
primary objective of this article is to identify the profile of the different clusters (popularly known
as segments) of motivations of tourists traveling within rural India. The intention is to decipher the
causative clusters, which influences the tourists to visit the rural areas. These variables are used to
identify the various rural domestic tourist market segments. A self-administered instrument was used
to collect the data. Four factors have been identified through exploratory factor analysis: socializa-
tion, escape, rural experience, and self-indulgence. After identifying factors, K-means clustering was
used to segment the market. The researchers have identified two relevant segments of domestic rural
tourists. These are family retreaters and rural escapists. The study advances the understanding of the
Indian domestic rural tourism market. It will help policymakers and practitioners to design products
and marketing programs matching the expectations of these targeted markets.

Key words: Domestic rural tourism; Segmentation; K-means clustering; India

Introduction Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza-


tion (UNESCO). A Department of Tourism report
Domestic tourism has existed in India for a long (2015) indicated that domestic tourism in India was
time because of its cultural, heritage, natural, and increasing by 13.92%. This figure is higher than the
landscape diversity. Today, India attracts a large foreign tourist growth, which is 12.13%.
number of domestic tourists because of the natu- The Indian Ministry of Tourism (MoT) is also
ral topography, the diverse seasonality, and the focusing on developing domestic tourism. They have
varied culture. As of August 2019, India is a home launched several schemes to develop domestic tour-
of 38 world heritage sites of the United Nations ism. During 2014–2015, the MoT has launched two

Address correspondence to Rahul Pratap Singh Kaurav, Assistant Professor, Prestige Institute of Management, Gwalior, India.
Tel: +91.9826569573; E-mail: rsinghkaurav@gmail.com

23
24 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

of their popular schemes: Pilgrimage Rejuvenation be a significant contributor to the economic growth
and Spirituality Augmentation Drive (PRASAD) at tourism destinations. A report of the National
and Heritage City Development and Augmentation Sample Survey Office (2015) indicated that during
Yojna (yonja means plan) (HRIDAY). For imple- 2014–2015, the total contribution of rural tourism
menting PRASAD 12 cities of religious importance was 21%, with an annual growth of 11.85%. There
were identified. For HRIDAY, another 12 cities of are numerous examples of the contribution of tour-
heritage importance were recognized. These cities ism to the rural economy. Rural tourism, while still
will be developed by the 12th 5-year plan to make preferred by a few tourism markets, is attracting
the stay of tourists—foreign and domestic—com- significant funds to the rural economies (Nagaraju
fortable. The objective is to develop these place as & Chandrashekara, 2014). Rural tourism promises
tourism-friendly destinations. several possible benefits for rural development. It
Nearly 70% of the Indian population lives in rural can therefore be considered a powerful intervention
areas (Census of India, 2011). The rural communi- for development (Graffe, 1994).
ties are the trustees of India’s diverse culture. Often, India is attracting tourists from all over the
far from the urban settlement, which is increasingly world due to its vast rural diversity, heritage, and
becoming cosmopolitan, each village continues a large number of destinations to choose from.
to preserve the local cultural legacy as differenti- However, many destinations are yet to be identi-
ated from the others. Culture, lifestyle, vocation, fied and developed as tourist attractions leading to
tradition, and tangibles like vernacular architec- organized and sustainable growth (Chandrashekara
tures, dresses, cuisine, etc., manifest rurality. Apart & Anitha, 2018). Rural Indian villages are idio-
from this, rural communities are often considered syncratic spaces with a vibrant social and cultural
close to nature. There is a global trend in travel essence that are intertwined on the ethos of an age-
from urban to rural destinations (Rid, Ezeuduji, & old tradition (Kapur, 2016). There are various plans
Probstl-Haider, 2014; United Nations World Tour- proposed and put in motion by the government of
ism Organization [UNWTO], 2001). Further, cul- India (GoI) and governments in various states that
tural tourists who seek unspoiled, authentic cultural aim to promote tourism of rural sites in the country.
experiences also tend to travel to rural destinations The GoI, realizing the importance of rural tourism,
(Delener, 2010). took several initiatives to develop this sector in its
A more recent estimate in 2017 by Ashok Gulati various plans, identifying tourism as a driver for
for the Indian Council for Research on Interna- the socioeconomic development in the rural areas
tional Economic Relations (ICRIER) suggested (Planning Commission, 2008). It is believed that
that nearly 49% of India’s workforce is engaged this will benefit the residents as they interact with
in farming. Since rural households are larger than the tourists for a more soothing tourism experience.
urban households, this can be projected to suggest The MoT and GoI have outlined tourism in rural
that nearly 60% of the population is dependent on places. Government intends to promote rural tour-
farming and agriculture. It is also estimated that ism to showcase rural lifestyle, their arts, crafts,
agriculture contributes only 17% to India’s total culture, and traditions at rural locations. Around
gross domestic product (GDP). The rural commu- the world, people recognize the “Incredible India”
nities in India are confronting several challenges, brand. It is now supported by another initiative
including the relocation of locals and uneven aging of the government as a subbrand “Explore Rural
of the rural community, to name a few. These prob- India” that further targets to strengthen the tourist
lems are aggravated by losses in rural jobs and destinations in India, aiming at higher visitor yields
decreasing incomes from the farm and agricultural (Department of Tourism, 2015).
sector. These challenges have retarded the growth Tourism is a significant source of employment.
of the rural economy, which has resulted in the From the hotel or home stay to catering trades, it
not-so-good quality of rural life. Infrastructure and also includes transport, retailing, heritage interpre-
amenities have not improved over the years. tation, etc. Tourism generates additional income for
Tourism has evolved into an attractive, fast- the locals and the entire rural community is directly
growing activity, and therefore it has turned out to benefited. It contributes to the viability of small
DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA 25

communities. It also helps women to be employed. Rural Tourism in India


For example, women workers at the tourist village
The popularity of rural tourism is increasing in
of Kamarpukur are engaged in handloom weaving
the Indian market (in fact throughout the world)
and stitching of garments. This project, in 2010,
due to its ability to generate revenues for social and
under Ramakrishna Mission provided job opportu-
economic prosperity. These revenues can be uti-
nities to 33 poor and destitute women who earn in
lized by the host community for their development.
the range of ₹1,000–5,000 (US$15 to $75) per head
A study has projected that ₹4,300 crores (approxi-
per month (Ray, Das, Sengupta, & Ghosh, 2012).
mately US$621 million) additional income can be
As incomes from conventional farming are gradu-
extracted through tourism at rural places in India.
ally decreasing, villagers are looking for additional
It is going to have a very significant role in fill-
revenue flows. When tourism jobs are created at a
ing the perceptual differences between urban and
destination it also helps to check migration from
rural India (Nagaraju & Chandrashekara, 2014).
rural to urban places. These kinds of tourism activi-
As of now, the MoT has endorsed 153 projects of
ties are widely recognized and appreciated because
rural tourism in 28 states or union territories, which
it can help in shaping the agrarian society by obtain-
excludes 36 rural sites where the United Nations
ing positive transformations in monetary and social
Development Program (UNDP) has supported
norms (Singh & Gantait, 2016).
capacity building.
Rural tourism in India is believed to induce
The MoT (GoI) supports rural tourism projects
better living conditions. It generates employment
across the country. Further, various governments of
and develops a prominent local community, which
the states in forms of the Regional Tourism Orga-
helps in regenerating the traditional art and crafts
nizations (RTOs) have also taken steps to develop
alongside preserving the essence of the rural Indian
and promote tourism at rural sites. The MoT pro-
culture (Kar & Sahoo, 2016). Given the potential of
poses to create necessary infrastructure and ameni-
tourism in rural development, in recent years, the
ties at sites having the potential for rural tourism.
GoI has shown discernible interest in rural tourism.
The idea is to show the world the rural culture, life,
It has supported several rural tourism projects as
art, and tradition at rural sites in India (Ministry of
a means of regional development. It has also been
Tourism, Government of India, 2017).
observed that, due to the well-established travel
Nowadays, India is globally known for the
market, higher disposable income, changing tastes,
“Incredible India” brand. The brand is furthered by
and shifting preferences are attracting the Indian
the MoT’s new campaign for the subbrand “Explore
tourists towards rural tourism.
Rural India.” This subbrand is likely to attract more
While it is observed that rural tourism around the
tourists from around the world. This initiative is
world has generally been a successful product, in
expected to present India as a multi-interest destina-
India, rural tourism has yet to make a mark. It also
tion. The Ministry is now ready to promote 29 of its
has not attracted investment and visitor spending
36 sites through its www.exploreruralindia.org site
in volumes that would contribute to rural devel-
(Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, 2017).
opment. The demand for rural tourism in India is
This portal can help policymakers in prioritizing
increasing, but the providers have not been able to
what to offer, to whom offer, and when to offer. The
design experiences and amenities that would return
portal also facilitates in how to sell rural tourism in
satisfied customers. Rural tourism providers must
India to travelers, including the domestic tourist.
understand their markets and develop rural prod-
ucts and services targeting the potential segments
(Kaur & Chowdhary, 2016).
The Research Issues
Increasing demand combined with substantial
investment from the government generates a con- Effective tourism marketing and management
vincing need to study the markets of tourism in rural requires that relevant market segments can be tar-
areas and to optimize their offers. This study aims geted. Identification of a distinct and clear market
at identifying and decoding the relevant market segment permits directed and more effective pro-
segments for rural tourism in the Indian market. motional programs and marketing efforts aimed at
26 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

specific segments. Understanding the tourist moti- of domestic tourists traveling to rural areas within
vation in the ever-changing environment is vital for India. It also aims at understanding the needs of
the survival and growth of every destination. The tourists in rural places, by using a segmentation
strategy of market segmentation is essential in prod- approach (using cluster analysis) of motivations.
uct development and for positioning the marketing Thus, this study has the objective to offer a better
material to the identified segment comprising visi- understanding of tourism in rural places and among
tors having similar traits, needs, and interests. These rural tourists.
identified segments include homogenous elements Eventually, gaining keen insights into the profiles
within a group but these are heterogeneous when of niche tourism segments practicing rural tourism
compared to each other. Identifying and categoriz- shall further help in providing useful information
ing the market based on travel motivation enables for devising advertising strategies for promoting
the organizations to tailor their products and ser- rural tourism in the country. Thus, this study sets
vices to enhance the satisfaction of customers. forth the following research questions:
Indian customers are divided into three broad
groups based on geographical and sociological RQ1: What are the travel motives of rural tourist?
characteristics. These are urban, rural, and rurban RQ2: Does the rural tourism market have different
(Jha, 2003)—“rurban” being the overlap between expectations? If yes, what are the segments?
urban and rural, with pretensions of being closer How to define different segments as part of
to urban in physical features, but with deep rural the marketing strategy?
social moorings (Dogra, 2010). Variations in eco-
nomic and sociocultural backgrounds influence the
customer’s willingness to accept innovation and
new products in different areas. Therefore, there is Review of Related Literature
no similarity in rural areas and variations in behav-
Motivations
ior, local resources, rural activities, motivations,
lifestyle, demographic, and geographic patterns Motivation inspires people to initiate action and
demand segmentation. understand the mechanics of the travel industry.
Research papers published over the years in Travel motivation is a fundamental psychological
Indian settings have dealt with the motivation of process that supports tourism analysis (Cromp-
tourist rather than understanding tourist behavior ton, 1979; Wight, 1996; Young, 1999). The ear-
and demand. Similarly, challenges such as visitor lier research on consumer behavior suggests that
behavior, benefits sought, visitation patterns, and motives represent intrinsic factors that lead to the
visitor motivation have mostly been unnoticed in act of purchase. Researching motivations for travel
the current empirical studies, related to rural tour- help to comprehend tourism as an emotional and
ism literature, especially in established journals. social construct. Such research findings help desti-
Motivations of tourists have been studied for quite nation leaders in practical decision-making (Prayag
some time (Bansal & Eiselt, 2004; Crompton, 1979; & Hosany, 2014; Wight, 1996; Young, 1999).
Dann, 1981; Kozak, 2002; Nicholson & Pearce, According to Kim, Crompton, and Botha (2000)
2001; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Gender, age, and and Kim and Lee (2002), travel motivation is a set
wealth have shown an excellent predictive power to of needs and wants that leads a person to participate
influence buying behavior, which is situation depen- in tourism-based activities. Goeldner and Ritchie
dent because they are ultimately forming and deter- (2003) have classified these drives according to
mining purchase intentions. Earlier studies (Goeldner typologies, like physical relaxation or recreation;
& Ritchie, 2003; Johns & Gyimothy, 2002; Kotler, cultural and status, which includes self-worth and
Bowen, & Makens, 2003; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994) self-actualization; and, interpersonal (e.g., meeting
have pointed out that purchase behavior is the most new people and socializing with them). Pearce and
pertinent predictor of travelers’ response. Lee (2005) have directed that the factors named
Indian rural destinations are placed in a differ- knowledge-seeking, recreation, and family inti-
ent setting. This research aims to study the profile macy are the common push factors. Other studies
DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA 27

have identified costs, infrastructure, natural envi- the market (Lee, Lee, Bernhard, & Yoon, 2006).
ronments, history and legacy, safety and security, The ultimate aim of segmenting the market is to
accessibility, etc., as essential factors (Jang & Wu, explore and identify the segment with the maximum
2006; Kaurav et al., 2016; Park & Yoon, 2009). amount of interest in a particular product or service
There are multiple versions of the theories that and then, by adopting the best marketing styles, the
have been developed for explaining motivations of organizations attempt to deliver utmost satisfaction
travel and tourism. One of the popular theories is to the customers (Camilleri, 2018; Jang, Morrison,
Push and Pull theory, which is frequently applied & O’Leary, 2002).
to understand travel behavior (Dean & Suhartanto, Researchers in the field of tourism have used a
2019; Kaurav et al., 2016; Kim & Lee, 2002; Suni different criterion for segmenting the tourism mar-
& Pesonen, 2019; Wong, Musa, & Haha, 2017). kets. Of late, these include posteriori or factor group
This theory identifies the motives of visitors and segmentation compared to the earlier segmenta-
tries to explain why they travel. Dean and Suhar- tion studies. Choosing a target market is an essen-
tanto (2019) found that there is a set of individual tial consideration before the decision-makers get
needs. These needs can be satiated by visiting a involved in rolling out a promotional effort. Many
destination. It is argued that businesses, research- researchers have also highlighted the importance of
ers, and academics need to understand the impor- market segmentation in tourism (Jang, Morrison,
tant factors that explain visitor needs (Suhartanto, & O’Leary, 2004; Jurowski, Uysal, & Noe, 1993).
Brien, Sumarjan, & Wibisono, 2018; Zhang, Wu, & In recent literature, researchers have utilized vari-
Buhalis, 2018). ous labels and descriptors to segregate the market.
When tourists consider their goals, which can be These include qualities for an excursion, benefits
achieved after the visit, these are called “push moti- looked for by explorers, inspirations, social attri-
vations.” A tourist’s push motivations can be driven butes, and item packages.
by internal needs, like relaxation, escape, interac- There has also been research on country-specific
tion with friends, knowledge improvement, as well tourism market segmentation. An investigation
as discovery and adventure (Rid et al., 2014; Yoon based in France highlighted elements recognizing
& Uysal, 2005). the specific segments arranged by significance.
The pull motivation factors can be visible aspects These are quiet and serenity, unwinding, pure air,
of an attraction like specific facilities, inexpensive- and greenery (Federation nationale des syndicats
ness, available services, performances, or some- d’exploitants agricoles [FNSEA], 1989). These
thing tangible in nature (Suni & Pesonen, 2019). investigations demonstrate that natural assets and
There may be some intangible aspects of the pull separation from the urban way of life are essential
factors, which depend on the perception of the tourism measurements for rural tourism in country-
tourist like expectations and interpretation, unique- specific territories.
ness, and perceived contrast food, and surround- There can be numerous motives for different
ings (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Pull motivation factors people to visit a destination. In the case of visiting
commonly consist of attributes that have the poten- a rural destination, different purposes could be rel-
tial to satisfy the visitor’s push motivation factors ishing the natural environment of rural areas, cul-
(Suni & Pesonen, 2019). tural or opportunities for activities, etc. To sum up,
different segments are available in terms of moti-
vation sought by visitors (Frochot, 2005; Sharpley
Tourist Segmentation
& Sharpley, 1997). The push and pull factors are
Usually, segmentation is based on sociodemo- not the new terms underlining the concept of moti-
graphic variables. However, in the tourism and vation; more specifically, these are the reasons for
travel industry, the study of behavioral aspects of deciding the course of action of a traveler. Push fac-
the people is a prerequisite to better understand the tors are internal reasons and pull factors are the des-
market. Having a good knowledge of market seg- tination’s attributes (Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). As
mentation will allow organizations to efficiently cited in the work of Devesa, Laguna, and Palacios
use travel marketing tools to have a stronghold over (2010), undoubtedly travel motivation has emerged
28 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

as a meta-concept that deals with three underlin- confirmed that they are not visiting their hometown
ing determinants to have a better understanding or native place.
of the market. These are: (1) “why”—reasons of
traveling; (2) “where”—destination that the cus-
Instrument of Measurement
tomer wants to visit; and (3) “satisfaction”—how
satisfied the customer is with the tour. Finding the Data were gathered by using a self-administered
characteristics of the visitors of various segments survey, which was mainly designed to collect the
and their motivations play a significant role when data on the respondents’ or participants’ motiva-
the need to diversify is the priority. Poon (1998) tions for traveling to rural areas. Measurement of
also pointed out that firms are increasingly target- motivations involved analyzing inherent charac-
ing segments identified based on motive rather than teristics and lifestyles. The items in the question-
any other sociodemographic variables. naire were formulated based on a review of the
literature on travel motivations (Jang & Cai, 2002;
Park & Yoon, 2009; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Initially,
Methodology researchers screened 26 statements (items). After
the panel discussion, 22 statements were finalized.
The Geographical Spread of Study Sites
The panel comprised industry practitioners, aca-
In 2011, the MoT had identified 172 rural destina- demics, research scholars, and some of the rural
tions in 29 states with different unique selling prep- tourists. The panel has ensured the face and content
ositions (USPs). These sites were evaluated by MoT validity of the items in the questionnaire. A Likert-
in 2014 and it was found that 52 destinations were type scale (where 1 indicated not at all impor-
offering rural tourism. Out of the rural tourism vil- tant and 5 indicated very important) was given to
lages being promoted by the MoT, 12 rural tourism respondents.
villages (destinations) were selected for the study. The final questionnaire was then translated into
These 12 destinations were randomly selected from Hindi and retranslated back to English. The resulted
all over India. These rural sites include Chaugan, questionnaire did not deviate much. The question-
Orchha, Seondha, Pranpur, Budhni, Konaseema, naire, for data collection, was distributed in Hindi.
Hodka, Banavasi, Samode, Padmapuri, Longsa, A pilot study was conducted with 23 person sample
and Lachen. All these villages had unique selling size and it was found that the questionnaire was
propositions, such as ecotourism, heritage tourism, well-understood by the respondents. No correction
handicraft, and adventure tourism. was introduced after the pilot study.

Data Collection Methods Data Analysis


This investigation was instituted to comprehend The data collected were analyzed in three stages.
the market of rural tourism in India. Research- The first stage was of the descriptive analysis,
ers used purposive sampling. Data were collected where the demographic profile of the sample was
over a year to eliminate seasonality. The respon- explored. The second stage was used for Explor-
dents were visitors to rural tourism sites in India atory Factor Analysis (EFA) using Principal Com-
from March 2018 to April 2019. Out of 200 self- ponent Analysis (PCA) and varimax rotation,
­administered questionnaires circulated at the des- which are very popular tools to establish the travel
tinations of rural tourism villages a total of 168 motivations. As per the bibliometric study at Web
usable (legible and filled) questionnaires were of Science, researchers have found that there are
returned from visitors who traveled and stayed at 812 studies in tourism using factor analysis. Fac-
least overnight at sampled rural destinations (which tor analysis has been very popularly used in visitor
is an 84% response rate). It may be mentioned here segmentation research (Park & Yoon, 2009; Rid et
that the respondents were travelers aged 18 years or al., 2014; Shoemaker, 1994).
older (considered adults). All the respondents were In the third stage of analysis, segmentation
domestic tourists. Before interviewing them, it was was done by using cluster analysis deploying the
DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA 29

K-means clustering technique. Many authors have rural areas. The results of the demographic analysis
used the same method for understanding segmenta- show that the profile of the respondents reflected
tion (Park & Yoon, 2009; Rid et al., 2014). general sociodemographic information.

Analysis and Interpretation Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)


Profile of Respondents It is evident from the literature that researchers
have widely used EFA for segmentation of visitors
Table 1 presents the profile of respondents and
(Cha, McCleary, & Uysal, 1995; Formica & Uysal,
their basic characteristics. The descriptive analysis
1998; Kastenholz, Davis, & Paul, 1999; Kaurav et
has shown that there were more females (64%) than
al., 2016; Park & Yoon, 2009). The present study
males. The table shows that most of the respon-
used the standards advised by Hair, Black, Babin,
dents belong to the 18–30 year old age group
and Anderson (2015) and the following points were
(44%), in comparison to the four other groups. It
noted: 1) factor loading of all the items should be
is very heartening to note that the majority of the
above 0.40; 2) eigenvalues for all the factors should
respondents are highly educated and belong to the
be more than 1.0; and 3) the results of the analysis
postgraduate and above segment, which is 75%.
should explain the minimum of 61% of the vari-
Nearly half of the respondents visit rural areas once
ance in total.
a year (47%). As expected by the researchers, a
EFA was performed to extract underlying factors
more substantial number of respondents visit the
from the 22 statements that were used to understand
rural areas with their families (71%). Almost half
the interest in rural tourism. The EFA has gener-
of the respondents use their vehicles for the visit to
ated a four-factor solution, where eigenvalues were
higher than 1. This solution explains 66.8% of the
Table 1 total variance.
Demographic Profile of the Sample All the communalities were higher than 0.4,
which indicates that item-to-total correlation is
Characteristics Frequency (%)
reasonably significant. No statement had less than
Gender 0.4 factor loading. Therefore, no statement was
Male 60 (35.9%) deleted after the analysis. The Kaiser–Mayer–
Female 107 (64.1%)
Age groups Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.927. This measure
18–30 years 74 (44.3%) means that the sample size was adequate to per-
31–40 years 42 (25.1%) form the EFA. Cronbach’s alpha for all four factors
41–50 years 31 (18.6%)
50 years and above 20 (12%) was between 0.608 and 0.919. The four factors that
Qualification were extracted represent the important influences
Up to school 6 (3.6%) that push visitors to rural tourism (Table 2).
Graduation 35 (21%)
Postgraduation and above 126 (75.4%) Socialization is the first factor. It explained
Frequency of visit 22.65% of the variance. The reliability coefficient
Once a year 78 (46.7%) of the items was 0.919. The factor incorporated
Twice a year 38 (22.8%)
Multiple times 51 (30.5%) nine items of motivation (enjoy, education, meeting
Travel companion with like-minded, new knowledge, togetherness,
Alone 14 (8.4%) community consciousness, historical heritage sites,
With family 118 (70.7%)
With friends 35 (21%)
elegant travel, and excitement). It can be observed
Transportation mode that family togetherness had the highest mean,
Personal vehicle 77 (46.1%) which indicates that people consider rural tourism
Public transport 8 (4.8%) as a way to retrieve the family. “Meet people of
Hired 25 (15%)
Combination 57 (34.1) similar interests” had the lowest mean, which sug-
Average spending gests that people, generally, do consider this form
Less than INR 20,000 112 (67%) of tourism for professional networking and search-
INR 20,000 to 40,000 55 (33%)
ing a new mate or friend.
30 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

Table 2
Factor Analysis of Motivations of Rural Tourism
Variance Cronbach’s
Items Factor Loading Mean (±SD) Eigenvalue Explained Alpha

Socialization 4.2 (4.982) 0.863 22.645 0.919


Enjoy famous place with others 0.787 4.28 (0.766)
Educational time for their children 0.777 4.31 (0.765)
Meet people with similar interests 0.738 3.97 (0.707)
Learn new knowledge 0.645 4.17 (0.675)
Family togetherness 0.616 4.51 (0.567)
Inspire community consciousness 0.580 4.20 (0.498)
Travel to historical heritage sites 0.573 4.27 (0.781)
Gentle and elegant travel 0.525 3.99 (0.781)
Feel excitement 0.522 4.11 (0.698)
Escape 4.33 (4.026) 0.782 18.302 0.867
Unusual experiences 0.682 3.79 (0.767)
Indulge in reminiscence 0.663 4.24 (0.786)
Get refreshed 0.651 4.74 (0.658)
Relax from daily tension 0.606 4.67 (0.586)
Escape from a busy job 0.602 4.73 (0.568)
Enjoy a calm ambiance 0.586 4.29 (0.784)
Experience the simple life 0.534 4.18 (0.871)
Find thrills and excitement 0.509 4.47 (0.743)
Rural experience 4.75 (3.899) 0.756 17.722 0.887
View rural scenery 0.787 4.72 (0.872)
Rural experience 0.763 4.78 (0.674)
Enjoy the rural life 0.762 4.76 (0.639)
Self-indulgence 4.12 (1.804) 0.749 8.202 0.608
Experience loneliness 0.831 4.57 (0.717)
Indulge in luxury 0.692 3.43 (0.847)

Factor 2 named “Escape” identified unusual Rid et al., 2014). This factor suggests that loneliness
experience, reminiscence, refresh, relax, escape, is a better idea, in comparison to luxury. Generally,
calm ambiance, experience the simple life, and find luxury is not expected at places like rural settings.
excitement. The second factor explained approxi- That is why the mean score has a lower score.
mately 18% of the variance in the data, with 0.867
as the reliability score. The highest mean in this fac-
Cluster Analysis
tor is get refreshed, which has the idea of refresh-
ment and recreation during rural tourism. However, Clustering is one of the most prominent research
it is perceived that the idea of getting into the situa- tools in marketing for market segmentation (Dolni-
tion of unusual experiences is liked less. car, 2008). Cluster analysis has been used to divide
Factor 2, “Rural experience” (17.7% of the vari- the dataset into different subgroups according to
ance), had items like rural scenery, experience, and some specified criteria. Cluster analysis works
rural life. All statements are about rural life and on the assumption that, in the given dataset, there
exposure. It is therefore aptly termed. Interestingly, exists similarity of individuals within subgroups
all the statements had similar means, which sug- and dissimilarity between different subgroups. Two
gests that all the activities are considered (almost) different types of cluster analyses were performed
equal in importance. to identify the groups and the initial seed points in
Factor 4, “Self-indulgence,” had only two state- the dataset.
ments about loneliness and luxury; the total vari- The K-means clustering analysis, a nonhierar-
ance is 8% and the reliability of this factor was low chical method, was applied to determine the ini-
(0.608) (a large number of studies have accepted tial seed points (Huh, Yusal, & McCleary, 2006).
the lower alpha value; Allan & Shavanddasht, 2017; According to the authors, these initial seed points
DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA 31

carry the future values of the cluster that has been that the identified clusters are statistically signifi-
qualitatively interpreted to know the group repre- cant. Finally, two distinct clusters were identified:
sentation of each cluster. Initially, cluster centers Family retreaters and Rural escapists (Table 3).
can be chosen at will as it is a prerequisite for Table 3 also describes the segments’ profiles and
K-means clustering to have a specified number of their socioeconomic profiles. Statistically significant
clusters in advance. This study has used hierarchi- differences were determined by chi-square tests. The
cal clustering to distinguish different clusters. higher number is for Rural escapist in comparison
Hierarchical clustering has been used to sort the to Family retreaters. Family retreaters are higher in
respondents in similar groups and outliers by elicit- number and their trends and primary motives indi-
ing the partition to the set of the class by drawing cate that they should be considered to be attracted
horizontal lines through the hierarchy (Contreras & against “pull’ factors of motivation whereas Rural
Murtagh, 2015; Saunders, 1980). The tree of clus- escapists are being attracted by “push” factors.
ters, known as a dendrogram best describes the dif- The summary of the discriminant analysis result
ferent classes. However, Chen, Tai, Harrison, and is provided in Table 4. Discriminant analysis was
Pan (2005) pointed out that hierarchical cluster- used on both the clusters. The resulted discrimi-
ing fails to filter the different clusters with similar nant functions was subjected to a chi-square test
expression patterns. It is also noted that the actual to decide the importance of all the functions. The
expression patterns become less relevant when functions measured by the chi-square statistics
clusters grow in size. were found statistically significant.
The segments were designed in a way to show To determine the significance of both the clus-
that segment elements were similar (homogeneous) ters so identified, a Wilks’s lambda test along with
to each other, whereas, at the same time, they are necessary statistical functions was applied, which
different from other segments’ elements. The hier- could be interpreted that all the clusters have made
archical clustering was applied to determine the a statistically significant contribution to the out-
number of clusters. come, which is a discriminant function in this case
In the next step, the K-means clustering tech- (see Table 5).
nique was adopted to understand the sample profile
based on demographics. Researchers suggest that
Family Retreaters. The Family retreaters (44% of
clustering should be the best discriminating vari-
the sample) segment valued the family and this
able out of all others (Cha et al., 1995; Formica
is the principal segment of members. Their main
& Uysal, 1998; Kau & Lee, 1999). Clusters were
intention to visit the rural destination is to enjoy
profiled based on demographics using a chi-square
traditional rural tourism activities. They are keen
test. Different univariate and multivariate statisti-
to immerse themselves in local experience and tra-
cal procedures delineated segment characteristics.
ditions. They want their children to see and feel
Discriminant analysis was used to offer evidence
the rural culture. In most of the cases, they visited
on the accuracy of classification of membership of
the places of the family’s roots. This segment fre-
respondents in one segment.
quently visited rural destinations and participated in
rural activities. Their stay in rural tourism villages
Segmentation of Rural Tourists is likely to be higher than the other segment. Two
different age groups were majorly available in this
As the researchers were not aware of the avail-
group: 41–50 years old and the other was older than
able number of segments in the data, a hierarchical
50. For the larger sample they visited once a year
cluster analysis was conducted. The hierarchical
and their transportation mode is a personal vehicle.
clustering technique was used with Euclidean dis-
Hence, they were named as Family retreaters. The
tance as a likeliness degree among the cases. This
members of this cluster were highly educated.
technique resulted in a two-cluster classification,
which is preserved by the measure of the pairwise
comparative growth of the dendrogram and agglom- Rural Escapists. The Rural escapist cluster (the
eration coefficient. Scheffe test helped to establish largest group) valued all four factors of the study.
32 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

Table 3
Means of Motivational Factors Among the Clusters and Profile of Respondents
Cluster 1: Family Cluster 2: Rural
Retreaters (“Pull”) Escapists (“Push”)
Factor (n = 73, 43.7%) (n = 94, 56.2%) Total Mean

Socializationa 3.89 3.65 3.77


Escapea 4.56 3.68 4.12
Rural experiencea 2.72 4.54 3.63
Self-indulgencea 3.39 3.49 3.44
Gender***
Male 71% 66%
Female 29% 34%
Age group***
18–30 years 11.15% 8.33%
31–40 years 12.34% 24.75%
41–50 years 33.67% 31.47%
50 years and older 42.56% 35.45%
Qualification**
Up to school 12.85% 11.5%
Graduation 69.48% 56.75%
Postgraduation and above 17.67% 31.75%
Frequency of visit**
Once a year 14.85% 24%
Twice a year 67.5% 48.5%
Multiple times 17.65% 27.5%
Travel companion*
Alone 15.5% 78%
With family 68.5% 19%
With friends 16% 3%
Mode of transportation**
Personal vehicle 34.6% 36%
Public transport 42.5% 34%
Hired 11.9% 12%
Combination 10% 18%
Spending**
Less than INR 20,000 49.5% 56%
INR 20,000 to 40,000 50.5% 44%
Note. aBased on a scale of 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important. Chi-square test was used
to test for significant differences between the two segments.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 4
Discriminant Analysis Summary
% of Variance
Explained by Canonical Wilks’
Functions Eigenvalue the Function Correlation Lambda Chi-Square df Sig.

1. Two-cluster solution 1.52 68.73 0.67 0.15 467.33 18 0.000


2. Three-cluster solution 1.16 23.27 0.58 0.26 263.91 13 0.000
3. Four-cluster solution 0.72 7.75 0.47 0.74 17.67 6 0.000
Discriminant Loading Function 1 Function 2 Function 3
Cluster1 0.31 0.25 0.47
Cluster 2 0.51 0.42 0.26
Note. 96.5% of originally grouped respondents correctly categorized; 96.5% of cross-validated grouped cases appropriately
classified.
DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA 33

Table 5 important economic activity in the rural communi-


Clusters and Their Independence ties of India. However, the case of European and
other contexts have shown an entirely different
Rural Tourist Cluster Statistics (χ2, Sig.)
experience (Park & Yoon, 2009).
Family retreaters 5.30 (0.002) In spite of this contribution much needs to be
The rural escapist 4.32 (0.011) done to realize the full potential of Indian villages,
which are also the custodians of Indian culture and
have the ability to offer distinct “Indianness” to a
Overall, this segment considers that all types of visitor’s experience as the differentiator. However,
motives are significant. The primary characteris- not much thought has gone into strategizing the
tics of this segment are as follows. The members of business of rural tourism. As competitive pressures
this group were comparatively educated. They have grow, rural tourism providers need better strategies.
studied only up to high school, higher secondary A starting point is a segmentation followed by tar-
or even less than that in a few cases. They love to geting the appropriate segment and, after that, posi-
engage in local rural activities. They travel to single tioning the offer for the targeted segment. This study
destinations and they would tend to be repeat visi- contributes to establishing that the entire domestic
tors to the rural destination. This segment prefers rural tourism market is not one monolithic block.
agricultural and pastoral experience. This expe- The Indian destinations offering rural tourism
rience includes ecoactivities like plantation and need to understand that different types of domes-
water harvesting. They also enjoy traditional rus- tic tourists seek different rural experiences. They
tic activities like making cow dung cake, crème may decide to target one or more market segments.
extraction out of milk, preparing buttermilk, and Accordingly, they may design their offers to meet
enjoying chaupal (traditional village meeting), etc. the expectations of the targeted segments. This study
Here agricultural experience refers to farming and on Indian rural tourists recommends that based on
helping the rural community in agrarian activities, tourists’ travel motivations the Indian rural tourism
and ecoactivities include participation in cleanli- market may be divided into two major segments:
ness drives, waste disposal, etc. They love enjoying Family retreaters and Rural escapists.
the fresh air. The pastoral life experience refers to The results of this study will benefit agencies
living in mud houses, cooking at traditional stoves like destination management organizations, rural
(chulha), enjoying the stories and the village meet- communities (host), and the private enterprises
ings (chaupal), etc. Age groups were between 18 engaged in tourism in rural areas. Proprietors of
and 30 years old and 31 and 40 years old and this different forms of accommodations in rural settings
was in the majority in this cluster. For the larger like farm stays and rural leaders may be benefitted
sample, it is more than once a year visit and their by segmenting rural tourists based on their motiva-
transportation mode is also a personal vehicle. This tion and their expectations. The segmentation can
group is somewhat educated and very active in be a very useful tool that can help in devising pro-
participating in all the activities and love the rural motion and business strategies by both the destina-
experience. This cluster was therefore called Rural tion leadership and the service providers.
escapists. The profiles of Indian rural tourism market seg-
ments can help develop marketing strategies for the
concerned segment. A better understanding of dif-
Conclusion and Implication
ferent rural market segments will also return useful
Rural communities are experiencing completely insight into the markets to be targeted for a particu-
different economic challenges. Tourism in rural lar rural tourism destination. Findings of this study
places is considered an effective panacea to the can be used by marketers, policymakers, educators,
problem. It was observed that rural tourism is con- etc., for further developments.
tinuously growing in India, which in turn is con- There may be regions that do not have many natu-
tributing to the local economy. Since the political ral resources to attract rural tourists. They can focus
transformation in 1996, tourism has become an on offering activities in rural settings. The activities
34 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

should be typical of the given rural areas. Their pri- means) for microarray analysis. 2005 IEEE Computa-
mary motivation for visiting rural areas is to engage tional Systems Bioinformatics Conference-Workshops
(pp. 105–108). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
with rural recreational activities. They also contrib- Contreras, P., & Murtagh, F. (2015). Hierarchical clustering.
ute to local life and learn, which is very satisfying In M. Meilă, C. Hennig, R. Rocci, & F. Murtagh (Eds.),
for them. The findings of this study suggest that Handbook of cluster analysis (pp. 103–120). Boca Raton,
visitors to rural destinations want to participate in FL: CRC Press.
agrarian activities that include ploughing, tillage, Crompton, J. (1979). Motivation for pleasure vacation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 408–424.
cropping, seeding, cultivating, and harvesting. Dann, G. (1981). Tourism motivations: An appraisal. Annals
As of now, rural tourism in India (and in fact of Tourism Research, 8(2), 189–219.
throughout the world) is in the early stages of devel- Dean, D., & Suhartanto, D. (2019). The formation of visi-
opment and there is not even an established defini- tor behavioral intention to creative tourism: The role of
tion (or very contrary definitions) of rural tourism. push-pull motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 24(5), 393–403.
Divergence in the definition and understanding of Delener, N. (2010). Current trends in the global tourism
the concept may be one of the reasons why outcomes industry: Evidence from the United States. Revista de
vary greatly across the research studies (Sharma & Administrcao Publica, 44(5), 1125–1137.
Chowdhary, 2016). The segmentation proposed in Department of Tourism. (2015). Rural tourism. Retrieved
this study will also help understand why different from http://tourism.gov.in: http://tourism.gov.in/rural-
tourism.
segments of the Indian rural tourism market partici- Devesa, M., Laguna, M., & Palacios, A. (2010). The role of
pate in rural tourism-related activities. motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in
rural tourism. Tourism Management, 31(4), 547–552.
Dogra, B. (2010). Rural marketing: A conceptual frame-
Acknowledgment work. In B. Dogra (Ed.), Rural marketing. Boston, MA:
This article is an outcome of a major project CAB International.
Dolnicar, S. (2008). A review of data-driven market segmen-
Deciphering Rurality in Rural Tourism funded tation in tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-
by Indian Council of Social Science Research ing, 12(1), 1–22.
(ICSSR), New Delhi, India. Federation nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles.
(1989). Les Touristes Français en Espace Rural. Analyse
References Qualitative. Paris, France: FNSLA.
Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (1998). Market segmentation of
Allan, M., & Shavanddasht, M. (2017). Rural geotourist an international culturalhistoric event in Italy. Journal of
segmentation by motivation in weekends and weekdays. Travel Research, 36(4), 16–24.
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(1), 74–84. Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural
Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. (2004). Exploratory research of areas: A Scottish perspective. Tourism Management,
tourist motivations and planning. Tourism Management, 26(1), 335–346.
25(1), 387–396. Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Tourism: Principles, prac-
Camilleri, M. (2018). Market segmentation, targeting and tices, philosophies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
positioning. In M. Camiller, Travel marketing, tourism Graffe, X. (1994). Is rural tourism a lever for economic and
economics and the airline product (pp. 69–83). Cham, social development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Switzerland: Springer. 2(1–2), 22–40.
Census of India. (2011). Rural urban distribution of popu- Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2015). Multi-
lation (Provisional population totals). Retrieved from variate data analysis. Noida, India: Pearson India.
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_ Huh, J., Uysal, M., & McCleary, K. (2006). Cultural heritage
files/india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf destinations: Tourist satisfaction and market segmenta-
Cha, S., McCleary, M., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motiva- tion. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 14(3),
tions of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster seg- 81–99.
mentation approach. Journal of Travel Research, 33(2), Jang, S., & Cai, L. (2002). Travel motivations and destina-
33–39. tion choice: A study of British outbound market. Journal
Chandrashekara, D., & Anitha, K. P. (2018). Assessment of of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 13(3), 111–133.
opportunities and challenges of tourism industry in Kar- Jang, S., Morrison, A., & O’Leary, J. (2002). Benefit seg-
nataka. International Journal of Academic Research and mentation of Japanese pleasure travelers to the USA and
Development, 3(2), 1675–1678. Canada: Selecting target markets based on the profit-
Chen, B., Tai, P. C., Harrison, R., & Pan, Y. (2005). Novel ability and risk of individual market segments. Tourism
hybrid hierarchical-k-means clustering method (H-K- Management, 23(4), 367–378.
DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISTS IN INDIA 35

Jang, S., Morrison, A., & O’Leary, J. (2004). A procedure for Nagaraju, L. G., & Chandrashekara, B. (2014). Rural tour-
target market selection in tourism. Journal of Travel and ism and rural development in India. International Jour-
Tourism Marketing, 16(1), 17–31. nal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies,
Jang, S., & Wu, C. (2006). Seniors’ travel motivation and the 1(6), 42–48.
influential factors: An examination of Taiwanese seniors. National Sample Survey Office. (2015). Domestic tourism in
Tourism Management, 27(1), 306–316. India. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Statistics and Pro-
Jha, M. (2003, September). Understanding rural buyer gramme Implementation, Government of India.
behaviour. IIM-B Management Review, 15(3), 89–92. Nicholson, R., & Pearce, D. (2001). Why do people attend
Johns, N., & Gyimothy, S. (2002). Market segmentation events: A comparative analysis of visitor motivations at
and the prediction of tourist behaviour: The case of four South Island events? Journal of Travel Research,
Bornholm, Denmark. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 39(1), 449–460.
316–327. Park, D., & Yoon, Y. (2009). Segmentation by motivation
Jurowski, C., Uysal, C., & Noe, F. (1993). U.S. Virgin Islands in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tourism Manage-
National Park: A factor cluster segmentation study. Jour- ment, 30(1), 99–108.
nal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(4), 3–31. Pearce, P., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career
Kapur, S. (2016). Rural tourism and economic development: approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel
Relevance and prospects in India. In Rural tourism, Research, 43(1), 226–237.
economic development and employment. doi: 10.13140/ Planning Commission. (2008). Eleventh five year plan
RG.2.1.4150.3121/1. (2007–2012). New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Kar, S., & Sahoo, D. K. (2016). Rural Tourism in India: A Poon, A. (1998). Tourism, technology and competitive strat-
Glance. Adarsh Journal of Management Research, 9(1), egies. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
61–70. Prayag, G., & Hosany, S. (2014). When Middle East meets
Kastenholz, E., Davis, D., & Paul, G. (1999). Segmenting West: Understanding the motives and perceptions of
tourism in rural areas: The case of North and Central young tourists from United Arab Emirates. Tourism
Portugal. Journal of Travel Research, 37(1), 353–363. Management, 40, 35–45.
Kau, A., & Lee, J. (1999). Determining tourist role typolo- Ray, N., Das, D. K., Sengupta, P. P., & Ghosh, S. (2012).
gies: An exploratory study of Singapore vacationers. Rural tourism and its impact on socioeconomic condi-
Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 382–390. tion: Evidence from west. Global Journal of Business
Kaur, J., & Chowdhary, N. (2016). The implications on Research, 6(2), 11–22.
challenges faced by rural tourism businesses in Pun- Rid, W., Ezeuduji, L. O., & Probstl-Haider, U. (2014). Seg-
jab. IJRDO Journal of Social Science and Humanities mentation by motivation for rural tourism activities in
Research, 2(8), 101–107. The Gambia. Tourism Management, 40, 102–116.
Kaurav, R., Singh, C., Mukherjee, K., Bhardwaj, A., Pandey, Saunders, J. (1980). Cluster analysis for market segmenta-
A., & Chauhan, S. (2016). Motives behind holiday jour- tion. European Journal of Marketing, 14(7), 422–435.
ney: Cluster analysis approach. In S. Bhakar & G. Mathur Sharma, S., & Chowdhary, N. (2016). Deciphering rurality
(Eds.), A systematic guide from research to manuscript in rural tourism. In K. Sharma, V. Chauhan, K. Nagar, &
(pp. 295–306). New Delhi, India: Bharti Publications. Rachna (Eds.), Marketing of tourism and allied services
Kim, S., Crompton, J., & Botha, C. (2000). Responding to (pp. 205–216). New Delhi, India: Kanishka Publishers
competition: A strategy for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. and Distributors.
Tourism Management, 21(1), 33–41. Sharpley, J., & Sharpley, R. (1997). Rural Tourism: An intro-
Kim, S., & Lee, C. (2002). Push and pull relationships. duction. London, UK: International Business Press.
Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 257–260. Shoemaker, S. (1994). Segmenting the U.S. travel mar-
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (2003). Marketing for ket according to benefits realized. Journal of Travel
hospitality and tourism (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, Research, 32(3), 8–21.
NJ: Prentice Hall. Singh, K., & Gantait, A. (2016). Rural tourism: Need, scope
Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourism moti- and challenges in Indian context. In D. A. Kumar (Ed.),
vations by nationality and destination. Tourism Manage- Hospitality and tourism: Challenges, innovation, prac-
ment, 23(1), 221–232. tices and product development (pp. 1–20). New Delhi,
Lee, C., Lee, Y., Bernhard, B., & Yoon, Y. (2006). Segment- India: Adhyayan Publishers & Distributor.
ing casino gamblers by motivation: A cluster analysis of Suhartanto, D., Brien, A., Sumarjan, N., & Wibisono,
Korean gamblers. Tourism Management, 27(5), 856–866. N. (2018). Examining attraction loyalty formation in
Mazanec, J. (1992). Classifying tourists into market seg- ­creative tourism. International Journal of Quality and
ments: A neural network approach. Journal of Travel and Service Sciences, 10(2), 163–175.
Tourism Marketing, 1(1), 39–60. Suni, J., & Pesonen, J. (2019). Hunters as tourists—
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. (2017). Rural an exploratory study of push-pull motivations. Scan-
tourism. Retrieved from http://tourism.gov.in/rural- dinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(2),
tourism 175–191.
36 CHOWDHARY, KAURAV, AND SHARMA

United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2001). Tour- Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the
ism 2020 vision Vol. 7 global forecast and profiles of effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination
market segments. Madrid, Spain: Author. ­loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management,
Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull 26(1), 45–56.
factors. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 844–846. Young, M. (1999). The relationship between tourist motiva-
Wight, P. (1996). North American ecotourism markets: tions and the interpretation of place meaning. Tourism
Motivations, references, and destinations. Journal of Geographies, 1(4), 387–405.
Travel Research, 35(1), 3–10. Zhang, H., Wu, Y., & Buhalis, D. (2018). A model of per-
Wong, B., Musa, G., & Taha, A. (2017). Malaysia my second ceived image, memorable tourism experiences and
home: The influence of push and pull motivation on sat- revisit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing &
isfaction. Tourism Management, 61, 394–410. Management, 8, 326–336.

You might also like