sustainability

Article
Identifying Causes for the Decline in International
Arrivals to China−Perspective of Sustainable
Inbound Tourism Development
Guanghui Qiao 1 , Shuai Peng 2 , Bruce Prideaux 3 and Man Qiao 4, *
1 School of Tourism and Urban-Rural Planning, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China;
[email protected]
2 School of Geography and Tourism, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou 510320,
China; [email protected]
3 Centre for Tourism and Regional Opportunities, School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University,
Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia; [email protected]
4 College of Tourism, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou 450046, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 28 February 2019; Accepted: 19 March 2019; Published: 21 March 2019


Abstract: Chinese inbound tourism growth peaked in 2012 and in following years, arrivals have
exhibited a downward trend. Over the same time Chinese outbound tourism has increased
significantly and by 2016 the number of Chinese outbound tourists (52.7 million) was nearly twice
that of international arrivals to China (28.1 million) (CTA, 2018). The aim of this paper is to identify
the determinants of international tourists visiting China based on destination attributes. For the
purposes of this research, Australia was selected as a study site on the grounds that China has been
a popular destination for Australian residents. This study examines a range of behavioral factors
that may affect intentions to travel to China including: past travel experience to China; perceptions
of overseas destination attributes; beliefs in China’s ability to satisfy the needs and constraints that
appear to prevent Australian residents from traveling to China; and tourists’ intentions to visit or
revisit. Data collected from Australian residents on aspects of travel to China included perceptions,
beliefs, constraints, information sources, and past experience. The research shows that past experience
was positively associated with intention to visit or revisit. Five constraint factors were identified.
Based on these findings, the study discusses practical implications for management and government
officials needed to boost Chinese inbound tourism.

Keywords: Chinese inbound tourism; Australia; perception and beliefs; constraints;

sustainable development

1. Introduction
There are a growing number of studies that explore the determinants of international tourism at a
national level [1], however in the case of China there are relatively few studies into the factors that
determine inbound tourism. [2,3] This is surprising given that the Chinese inbound tourism market had
grown rapidly from 1.8 million in 1978 when the “open-up” policy commenced, to 58 million in 2012.
In 2013 the rate of growth in inbound visitors began to fall and by 2016 had declined to 28.1 million.
Chinese outbound tourism has, however, continued to grow rapidly, rising from 1.12 million in 1992 to
122 million in 2016. The difference between inbound and outbound tourism has created a significant
tourism deficit that amounted to 68.4 million by 2016 [4]. As part of any strategy to reduce the size of
the tourism deficit there is a need to develop a more detailed understanding of the factors that attract,
or in some cases fail to attract, international visitors.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723; doi:10.3390/su11061723 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 2 of 18

The aim of this paper is to identify factors that may be inhibiting further growth of inbound
travel to China. Australia was selected as a case study on the basis that China has been a popular
destination for Australian residents. Between 2012 and 2014, the number of Australian visitors to China
declined from 1.18 million to 0.91 million while China’s ranking as a preferred outbound destination
for Australians declined from 5th in 2008 to 10th in 2014 [5].
Psychology and travel behavior have been used widely to study tourist travel preferences. As a
first step, this paper examined the level of satisfaction with tourists’ past travel experience to China
based on destination attributes to develop an understanding of the relationship between past travel
experience and intention to revisit. The samples of respondents were divided into two groups, based on
those who had visited China and those who had not. We then analyzed tourists’ perceptions and
beliefs about China as a tourism destination to identify the gap between what tourists perceived and
what they believed. Furthermore, the research investigated constraint factors that appeared to be
preventing Australian residents travelling to China. Finally, the paper surveyed information sources
that Australian residents used for their travel decision-making to learn more about how the different
information sources may affect tourists’ perceptions.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis

2.1. Destination Attributes

Tourists’ decision-making processes for visiting a destination have been a focal point for tourism
researchers and industry practitioners. Extensive studies have been undertaken to identify the key
factors that trigger tourists’ decision-making and the determinants that influence this process. Because
of the intangible nature of tourism destinations, tourists generally evaluate destinations using multiple
attributes. This may include attributes such as shopping, heritage, landscape, activities, safety issues,
reputation and cost [6]. Any given trip undertaken by a tourist includes numerous factors, many of
which can be attributed to the organizations and agencies that influence the journey to and from
the destination and within the destination. Stylos [7] described a destination as “an area with
different natural attributes, features, or attractions that appeal to non-local visitors—that is, tourists
or excursionists”. Collectively, these attributes contribute to tourists’ experiences during their trips.
Satisfaction with these destination attributes effects the level of tourists’ enjoyment, their intention to
undertake a repeat visit, and their intention to give positive recommendations.
From a destination perspective, understanding how tourists experience the services they
encounter during a holiday experience is important for understanding how attitudes towards the
destination are formed and change over time [8]. Sparks et al. [9] described attitude as an individual’s
positive or negative feelings (evaluation) about a target object. Attitude is the evaluation of key
destination attributes (expectancy-value perspective), which will, in turn, influence intentions to
engage in a particular type of tourism activity. The evaluation of destination attributes may also effect
intended behavior [10]. When converted into travel behaviors, tourists’ evaluation of a destination
will affect their intentions to visit or revisit. Safety, beautiful scenery, well-equipped tourism facilities,
different cultural and historical resources, and good weather were taken as the five most important
destination attributes [9]. In terms of destination attributes, this research seeks to understand how the
perception of Australian residents may shape the beliefs they hold towards China. It is argued that
individuals may not necessarily believe in the existence of the object they perceive, that is, there is a
gap between what is perceived and what is believed. In the case of Australian residents, what they
believed about China may differ from what they perceive about China.
Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1. Four groups of Australian residents have different perceptions about overseas
destination attributes.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 3 of 18

Hypothesis 2. Four groups of Australian residents have different beliefs about the ability of China to satisfy
their perceptions regarding destination attributes.

2.2. Past Travel Experience

Researchers [11–13] have stated that theories of human behavior could predict an individual’s
behavioral intentions and actual actions based on past relevant behaviors. A number of studies have
supported the view that past travel experiences positively influence visitors’ revisit intentions [14,15],
and found that past travel experiences increased the likelihood of revisiting. The relationship between
tourist satisfaction [16–18] and revisit intentions has been frequently discussed in the literature.
Past research has also suggested that satisfied visitors tend to recommend the destination to other
people [19,20], indicating that satisfied visitors hold positive attitudes towards a destination.
Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3. For Australian visitors, past travel experiences in China have a positive influence on their
intention to visit or revisit.

2.3. Travel Constraints

Travel constraints, or barriers, are an important consideration in why tourists chose, or do
not chose, a specific destination. Theoretical frameworks to explain travel constraints emerged in
the 1980s [21,22]. According to the literature, travel constraints, as discussed by Kerstetter, Yen,
and Yarnal [23], refer to the factors that keep people from initiating or continuing to travel. Tourists
who are unable to maintain or increase the frequency of their travel may develop negative views on
the quality of travel by those constraints [24]. In general, travel barriers may be categorized into three
dimensions: intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints [10]. Intrapersonal constraints are
associated with an individual’s psychological state and their personal interests, such as sickness and
time. Interpersonal constraints are related to an individual’s interactions with others (e.g., friends’ and
families’ negative opinions). Structural constraints are classified as external factors, such as economic
barriers, availability of time, access, and opportunity. Collectively, these may affect an individual’s
ability to achieve their intentions of visiting a particular country [25]. Analysis of intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and structural constraints suggest the existence of rules that have been adopted by many
researchers [26–28]. Included in these findings were conclusions that money and time were more
important than other constraints. In terms of predicting intentions to travel, intrapersonal constraints
and interpersonal constraints were two of the most influential elements based on the theory of planned
behavior models.
Past research focused on identifying constraints associated with commencing, maintaining,
and increasing involvement in particular pursuits [29], as well as reasons for dropping out of certain
activities [30,31], compared the price competitiveness of 19 destinations, including Australia and
China, finding that for Australian tourists, China is ranked low as a long-haul destination, although is
quite competitive in terms of goods and services they purchased.
Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 4. Intrapersonal constraints have more impact on Australian residents than interpersonal
constraints and structural constraints.

2.4. Extended Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) provides a useful framework for understanding tourists’
intended and actual behaviors [32]. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) [33] has also been used to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 4 of 18

assist in understanding and predicting social behavior. Ajzen [32,34] extended the TRA model by
adding perceived behavioral control (PBC). TPB holds that human behavior is the result of deliberate
plans, which may explain how people change their behavior patterns. TPB can also be used to predicate
human behavior and explain tourists’ behavioral intentions [35]. In the 185 studies investigated by
Armitage and Conner [36], TPB explained 39% of behavior intention and 27% of behavior variance,
and is often used in the study of tourist behavior. In TPB, attitude towards a behavior (AT) is a
determinant factor of behavioral intentions (BI). TPB assumes that behavioral intentions explain the
motivation for particular behaviors. It was found that there was a significant positive correlation
between tourists’ attitudes and tourists’ behavioral intentions. TPB suggests that tourists’ visits start
with three major components: travel experience, post trip evaluation, and revisit intention. Drawing
upon the TPB model, this research was undertaken in Australia and investigated potential tourists’
perceptions and beliefs in terms of destination attributes, as well as constraints on international travel
to China.

2.5. Information Sources

The study also surveyed the sources of information used by Australian residents when considering
China as a possible travel destination. Previous research has determined that various sources of
information play a role in forming destination image [37–39]. Information sources are likely to
include organic (self-experience or non-commercial sources) and induced (advertiser message derived)
components [9]. Beverley and Grace [9] found that information sources, such as television programs,
friends, magazines, travel books and personal experience, are highly ranked by tourists. The TPB
model has been applied in this study to identify information sources that could influence Australian
residents’ travel decisions about China.
Lang and O’Leary [40] stated that “benefit pursued, activity participation and destination
preference” are the most important traveler information categories. Therefore, the combined use
of destination attributes, the perceived importance of tourist behavior and the levels of satisfaction
with travel experience were used to provide a comprehensive overview of Australian tourists’ behavior.

3. Methodology

Research Method
A cross-sectional sample survey was used to test Australian residents’ overseas perceptions and
beliefs about Mainland China and included items designed to identity constraints, past experience,
satisfaction level, perceived image and intention to visit. Survey items were based on past research,
including the measurement of destination attributes [41], beliefs about travel destination [42],
constraints and travel intention [5,9], and past experience and intention of visit [43].
The survey had three sections: Section 1 requested respondents provide a range of demographic
data. Section 2 included three subsections and was aimed at respondents who had not previously
visited mainland China. Section 2 (i) contained a series of questions about the attributes that
respondents looked for in overseas destinations. Survey items were drawn from previous research
studies, including Echtner and Ritchie [44], Beeri and Martin [45], and Baloglu and Brinberg [46].
Responses were measured by using a 5-point Likert Scale with scores ranging from “not at all important
(1)” to “very important (5)’. Section 2 (ii) asked respondents if they thought China had similar attributes
to those that they desired when travelling to a new destination. Section 2 (iii) asked respondents
a series of items that represented constraints they believed may affect their decisions about travel
to China.
Part 3 of the survey was designed to collect data from respondents who had previously travelled to
mainland China. Survey items included number of previous visits and satisfaction levels. Satisfaction
items were drawn from previous research [47,48]. Eleven satisfaction attributes were identified and
included in the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction level on
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 5 of 18

a scale from “not satisfactory (1)” to “highly satisfactory (7)”. Respondents were then requested to
indicate their level of satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale that ranged from “very unsatisfied (1)”
to “highly satisfied (5)”. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would
recommend mainland China as a destination to other people.
A self-administered questionnaire was distributed at sites in Brisbane, Cairns, and Townsville
between July and September 2015. A total of 500 surveys were distributed through a random street
intercept method by five trained interviewers. A further 1000 surveys were placed in household
mailboxes. A total of 453 street intercept and 249 mail box surveys were collected. Of these, 319 street
intercepts and 181 mail out surveys were able to be used, giving an overall response rate of 33.3%.

4. Results

Demographic Characteristics Description

Descriptive statistics of the questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS22.0 software. As shown
in Table 1, 40.6% of respondents were female. They were predominately young, with 56.4% under
35 years old. In terms of education, 28.4% of respondents reported held a bachelor’s degree or a
qualification from a secondary or vocational college (38.2%), and 22.2% of respondents reported yearly
earnings of between AU$32,000–69,000. In terms of occupation, 39% of respondents were students,
18.2% were professionals, 5.4% worked in the service sector, and 4.4% indicated office or clerical roles.
Of the respondents who had visited China, 82.2% were independent travelers.

Table 1. Respondents’ Demographic Profiles (N = 500).

Portion Portion
Content N Content N
(%) (%)
Male 203 40.6 Self-employed 41 8.2
Gender
Female 297 59.4 Professional 91 18.2
Below 18 30 6.0 Retail 25 5.0
19–25 192 38.4 Domestic duties 10 2.0
26–35 90 18.0 Occupation Management 7 1.4
Age 36–45 62 12.4 Office or Clerical 22 4.4
46–55 50 10.0 Public service 21 4.2
56–65 36 7.2 Manual or Factory worker 15 3.0
Above 65 40 8.0 Service industry 27 5.4
Single 287 57.4 Trade person 17 3.4
Marital Married 148 29.6 Student 195 39.0
Status
Others 65 13.0 Retired 29 5.8
Type of Follow a tour group 89 17.8 AU$31,000 and under 291 58.2
Trip Independent traveler 411 82.2 Annual AU$32,000–69,000 111 22.2
Income
Alone 74 14.8 AU$70,000–99,000 61 12.2
Partner/spouse 138 27.6 AU$100,000 plus 37 7.4
Favorite Strangers from blog 4 0.8 USA 124 24.8
Travel Preferred
Friends 145 29.0 New Zealand 116 23.2
Party Destination
Family with children 109 21.8 (top 5) UK 70 14.0
With relatives 27 5.4 Japan 68 13.6
Club 3 0.6 China 33 6.6
Brisbane 185 37.0 Secondary 191 38.2
Townsville 111 22.2 Educational Trade/TAFE 83 16.6
Original
Level
Location Cairns 204 40.8 Bachelor 142 28.4
(N = 500) Graduate School 84 16.8
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 6 of 18

Respondents were divided into two groups: Group 1 (G1) refers to respondents who have not
been to China, while Group 2 (G2) refers to respondents who have previously visited China (Table 2).
Respondents who have previously visited China and intended to visit China in the next 5 years were
marked as G1-1(positive), while the remainder were classified as G1-2(negative). Respondents who
had never visited China but intend to visit in the next 5 years were classified as G2-1 (positive), with the
remainder classed as G2-2 (negative). Only 105 respondents had previously visited China. Of the 395
respondents who had never been to China, 156 reported that they planned to visit China in the next
5 years (40%). Of the respondents who had been to China previously (80/105), 76% felt positively
about revisiting China (G2-1). The results indicated that the recommendation and satisfaction level
for Group 2-1 (positive) and Group 2-2 (negative) was 95% and 68% and 5.10 and 4.31, respectively.
Most respondents had a high level of satisfaction and positive recommendation about visiting China.
However, as Table 2 illustrates, there is a significant difference in the mean value of attitude to China’s
image between G1 (4.64) and G2 (6.38). Results indicate that past experience has a positive influence
on intention for further visits. Respondents who had previously visited China (G2) had a better image
perception about China than respondents who have never been to China (G1).

Table 2. Differences between the four Respondent Groups.

Willingness of Visit or Revisit 1 Mean of Recommendation Mean of Overall

Sample No. Attitude to Satisfaction of Last
Segment No. Percentage to the others
China 2 Visit 2
Positive
Never 156 40% _ _
395 (G1-1) 3.25
Been (G1)
Negative
239 60% _ _
(G1-2)
Positive
Have Been 80 76% 95% (76/80) 5.10
105 (G2-1) 4.47
(G2)
Negative
25 24% 68% (17/25) 4.31
(G2-2)
Note: 1 Willingness of visit or revisit refers in the next 5 years; 2 Seven-point scale was used for attitude and
overall satisfaction.

Table 3 compares satisfaction between respondents visiting China before 2012 and after 2012.
The number of Australian visitors to China began to decline in 2012. The mean values of overall
satisfaction between the two groups were 3.57 and 3.46, showing a slight decrease after 2012. In respect
to the satisfaction mean score for 11 destinations attribute items, only the score for “shopping and
retail” improved after 2012.

Table 3. Satisfaction of Past Travel Experience Based on Destination Attributes Before and After 2012.

Mean of Destination Destination

Sample Time No. Overall Attribute Mean Attribute Mean
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
Courteous and
3.69 Public transport 3.67
friendly staff
Accommodation
3.84 Visit information 3.31
value for money
Have been Tours gave value for
Before 3.84 Feel safe and secure 3.87
to China 45 3.57 money
2012
(G2)
Attractions offered
3.76 Food 3.82
value for money
Standard of Environment
3.71 2.69
restaurants (cleanness, air, etc.)
Shopping and retail 3.4
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 7 of 18

Table 3. Cont.

Mean of Destination Destination

Sample Time No. Overall Attribute Mean Attribute Mean
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
Courteous and
3.62 Public transport 3.3
friendly staff
Accommodation
3.52 Visit information 3.25
value for money

After Tours gave value for

60 3.46 3.42 Feel safe and secure 3.68
2012 money
Attractions offered
3.62 Food 3.67
value for money
Standard of Environment
3.52 2.35
restaurants (cleanness, air, etc.)
Shopping and retail 3.52

Perceptions and beliefs about important destination attributes by different groups are shown in
Table 4. Analysis of the importance of destination attributes found that the four groups of respondents
had very similar perceptions in aspects such as “safety of the place you visiting”, “clean and safe local
food”, “experiencing different lifestyle and cultures”, “cost of trip”, and “natural environment of fresh
air and blue sky”, showing similar mean scores. For beliefs that China will offer desired destination
attributes, most of the mean values for beliefs were lower than 4, which means that Australian
respondents thought that China would not satisfy these attributes. A comparison of perception and
beliefs of important destination attributes illustrated in Table 4 indicates that there were significant
differences in the top seven attributes: Natural environment of fresh air and blue sky (−1.99); Casinos
(1.23); Skyscrapers and modern city (1.21); Ease of communication with locals (−1.21); Safety of the
place you are visiting (−0.91); Sunshine and beach (−0.87); and clean and safe local food (−0.83).
This finding indicates that the natural environment, clean and safe food, and safety are very important
attributes when choosing an overseas destination. Respondents felt that China was not able to offer a
suitable standard for these attributes. Interestingly, respondents believed that China could offer casino
entertainment, which is incorrect. The only area in China able to offer casino facilities is Macau.

Table 4. Mean Scores of Perception and Beliefs Based on Destination Attributes for Different Groups.

Mean Score of Perception to Overseas Mean Score of Beliefs whether China can Two Mean
Destination Destination Attributes Satisfy their Perception Comparison
Attributes G G G G Average G G G G Average
A.2-A.1
1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 1 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 2
Natural
environment of
3.91 4.22 3.96 3.98 4.01 2.88 2.39 2.40 2.40 2.02 −1.99
fresh air and blue
sky
Casinos 1.71 1.76 1.44 1.69 1.65 3.01 3.45 2.64 2.40 2.88 1.23
Skyscrapers and
2.88 2.57 2.52 2.68 2.66 3.79 3.89 4.04 3.76 3.87 1.21
modern city
Ease of
communication 3.58 3.71 3.32 3.25 3.47 2.94 2.56 2.56 2.96 2.26 −1.21
with locals
Safety of the place
4.42 4.40 4.32 4.35 4.37 3.51 3.43 3.24 3.64 3.46 −0.91
you visiting
Sunshine and
3.40 3.4 3.40 3.13 3.33 2.90 2.16 2.16 2.61 2.46 −0.87
beach
Clean and safe
4.34 4.46 4.28 4.26 4.34 3.59 3.46 3.48 3.51 3.51 −0.83
local food
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 8 of 18

Table 4. Cont.

Mean Score of Perception to Overseas Mean Score of Beliefs whether China can Two Mean
Destination Destination Attributes Satisfy their Perception Comparison
Attributes G G G G Average G G G G Average
A.2-A.1
1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 1 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 2
Experiencing
different lifestyle 4.27 4.13 4.16 4.26 4.21 4.21 3.87 4.12 4.13 4.08 −0.13
and culture
Cost of trip 4.21 4.37 4.04 4.16 4.20 3.50 3.29 3.56 3.54 3.47 −0.73
Easy access to
4.04 3.97 3.88 3.65 3.89 3.59 3.27 3.36 3.75 3.47 −0.42
destination
Quality of
accommodation 3.94 4.05 3.96 3.70 3.91 3.70 3.73 3.56 3.76 3.69 −0.22
facilities
Unique
3.53 3.54 4.08 3.44 3.65 3.88 3.55 3.68 3.80 3.73 0.08
architecture
Historic and
3.91 3.71 4.00 3.91 3.88 4.09 3.97 3.92 3.95 3.98 0.1
cultural heritage
Shopping 3.33 3.05 3.40 2.93 3.18 4.12 3.81 4.04 3.83 3.95 0.77
Quality of services
provided at tourist 3.87 3.85 3.96 3.75 3.86 3.60 3.49 2.64 3.53 3.32 −0.54
sites and hotels
Nightlife and
evening 2.79 2.86 2.52 2.60 2.69 3.33 3.44 3.12 3.38 3.32 0.63
entertainment
Local
3.96 3.93 3.72 3.71 3.83 3.44 3.27 3.00 3.49 3.3 −0.53
transportation
Easy to make new
3.15 3.04 3.04 3.16 3.10 3.16 2.58 2.24 3.16 2.79 −0.31
friends
Restfulness and
3.67 3.98 3.32 3.60 3.64 3.22 2.75 2.88 3.24 3.02 −0.62
relaxation
Language that I
3.37 3.38 3.48 3.13 3.34 2.85 2.20 2.48 2.86 2.60 −0.74
can understand
Having good
3.58 3.58 3.72 3.48 3.59 3.85 3.64 3.60 3.78 3.72 0.13
restaurants
Festivals and
3.58 3.23 3.44 3.56 3.45 3.80 3.52 3.60 3.58 3.63 0.18
events
National parks and
3.61 3.80 3.56 3.48 3.61 3.41 2.86 2.96 3.29 3.13 −0.48
forests
Being by a
mountain or a 3.22 3.33 3.32 3.16 3.26 3.36 3.04 3.28 3.43 3.28 0.02
river
Natural heritage 3.59 3.75 3.80 3.70 3.71 3.58 3.32 3.40 3.68 3.50 −0.21
Beautiful
3.69 3.86 3.68 3.63 3.72 3.59 3.11 3.28 3.25 3.31 −0.41
countryside
Note: Group 1-1: respondents who have not been to and would visit China within the next 5 years; Group 1-2:
respondents who have not been to and were not interested in visiting China within the next 5 years; Group 2-1:
respondents who have been to and intended to revisit China within the next 5 years; Group 2-2: respondents who
have been to China but did not plan to revisit China within the next 5 years.

Table 5 shows six important factors after factor analysis (sightseeing, natural beauty and climate,
interactions with locals, cost and convenience, infrastructure and safety, and leisure) of destination
attributes. The results indicate that for sightseeing and leisure factors, the mean value of belief
exceeded the mean value of importance. In contrast, for natural beauty and climate, interaction
with locals, cost and convenience, and infrastructure and safety, the mean value of importance is
significantly higher than the corresponding mean value of beliefs that China could provide a satisfying
travel experience.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 9 of 18

Table 5. Factor Loading for Target Destination Beliefs and Mean Comparison with Importance
of Attributes.

Mean
Factor % Variance Cronbach’s Mean Beliefs
Destination Attributes Importance
Loading Explained alpha of China
Rating
Sightseeing 22.658 0.755 3.927 (0.961) 3.605 (0.909)
Historic and cultural heritage 0.819
Festivals and events 0.699
Skyscrapers and modern city 0.618
Experiencing different life style and
0.576
cultures
Natural beauty and climate 13.525 0.783 3.123 (1.043) 3.606 (0.9)
National parks and forests 0.762
Being by a mountain or a river 0.73
Beautiful countryside 0.725
Natural heritage 0.557
Natural environment of fresh air
0.541
and blue sky
Sunshine and beach 0.51
Interactions with locals 8.673 0.712 2.831 (1.075) 3.341 (1.011)
Easy to make new friends 0.573
Language that I can understand 0.768
Ease of communication with locals 0.827
Cost and Convenience 6.095 0.708 3.508 (0.924) 3.977 (0.838)
Cost of trip 0.659
Easy access to destination 0.64
Local transportation 0.485
Having good restaurants 0.513
Clean and safe local food 0.675
Infrastructure and safety 5.826 0.752 3.584 (0.882) 4.05 (0.856)
Quality of accommodation facilities 0.781
Quality of services provided at
0.858
tourist sites and hotels
Safety of the place you visiting 0.618
Leisure 4.613 0.704 3.383 (1.091) 2.539 (1.103)
Casinos 0.777
Nightlife and evening
0.768
entertainment
Shopping 0.528
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) = 0.792; Bartlett’s test = 4455.972; df (degrees of freedom) = 276;
Sig (Significance) = 0.000.

To test which of the factors of views about mainland China as a tourist destination were important,
a predicted intention to visit China was conducted using multiple regression with the six belief scales
used as predictors (shown in Table 6). According to the p-value, sightseeing (0.000), natural beauty and
climate (0.000), cost and convenience (0.000), and infrastructure and safety (0.000) have a significant
impact on intention to visit.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 10 of 18

Table 6. Regression analysis of six important destination attributes.

Main Factors of
B β T P F R2 VIF
Destination Attributes
Constant 6.068 75.98 0.000
Sightseeing 0.316 0.162 3.948 0.000 **
Natural beauty and 17.323 0.174 1.0
0.45 0.231 5.636 0.000 **
climate
Interactions with locals 0.078 0.04 0.976 0.329
Cost & Convenience 0.335 0.171 4.183 0.000 **
Infrastructure and safety 0.493 0.253 6.176 0.000 **
Leisure 0.014 0.007 0.176 0.861
Adjusted R2 = 0.164; p = 0.000 **
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; B: Beta, β: standardized Beta, T: T-value, P: P-value, F: F-value, R2 : mathematically
describe the strength of a correlation between two variables, VIF: Variance Inflation Factor.

The constraints identified for each of the four groups were clustered by descriptive analysis
(Table 7). We chose the top five constraints for each group and undertook a comparison analysis.
For G1-1 respondents, the top five constraints were pollution, air quality, water quality, language
barriers, and food quality. For G1-2 respondents, the main concerns were pollution, air quality,
water quality, language barrier, and security and safety. For G2-1 respondents, pollution, air quality,
food quality, water quality, and security and safety were considered as the top constraints factors.
For G2-1 respondents, pollution, air quality, visa regulation and cost, food quality, and water quality
were the factors most likely to prevent them from a future return visit. It is clear that the three
constraint factors of pollution, air quality, and water quality apply to all groups and indicates that
for all Australian respondents, pollution, air quality, and water quality are considered as the most
negative factors when considering travel to China.

Table 7. Description of Tourists’ Constraints Based on the Segmentation of Australian Residents.

Constraints of Intention to Visit for Different Groups

Feature Group 1-1 Group 1-2 Group 2-1 Group 2-2
Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev
Pollution 3.76 0.93 4.33 0.82 4.08 1.04 3.84 1.17
Air quality 3.69 1.02 4.32 0.84 4.08 1.00 3.85 1.16
Visa regulations and cost 3.32 0.95 3.32 0.95 3.36 1.38 3.46 1.23
Food quality 3.39 1.02 3.40 1.09 3.44 1.19 3.49 1.18
Transportation in China 3.18 1.04 3.14 1.09 3.32 1.11 2.93 1.12
No one to go with 2.74 1.14 3.29 1.19 3.24 1.36 2.69 1.22
Water quality 3.63 0.95 3.81 1.05 4.08 1.32 3.64 1.08
Language barriers 3.44 1.05 3.79 1.17 2.88 1.20 2.81 1.14
Trip Cost 3.32 1.08 3.49 0.90 2.84 1.25 3.04 1.15
Political reasons 2.75 1.24 3.25 1.16 3.16 1.03 2.46 1.21
Security and safety 3.33 1.21 3.71 1.15 3.56 1.33 3.09 1.35
I might be a victim of terrorism 2.71 1.25 2.85 1.37 2.56 1.16 2.49 1.30
Climate and weather 2.93 1.01 3.05 1.07 2.88 0.88 2.76 1.17
Quality of goods and souvenirs 2.78 1.00 2.78 1.28 2.72 0.98 2.66 0.95
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 11 of 18

Table 7. Cont.

Constraints of Intention to Visit for Different Groups

Feature Group 1-1 Group 1-2 Group 2-1 Group 2-2
Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev Mean StDev
Convenient access to China 3.05 1.07 2.77 1.10 3.12 1.05 2.71 1.09
Currency exchange 2.93 1.01 2.76 1.07 2.92 1.08 2.64 1.15
Accommodation in China 3.05 1.02 3.08 1.12 3.04 1.06 2.65 1.09
Risk of a natural disaster 2.95 1.12 3.03 1.26 3.36 1.32 3.04 1.16
Risk of a tourism accident 3.27 1.19 2.89 1.29 3.4 1.19 3.09 1.09
I have no enough time 3.05 1.05 3.16 1.09 3.4 1.08 3.09 1.10
Service level provided 3.11 0.98 2.98 0.93 3.56 1.16 2.98 0.97
Country reputation 2.93 1.01 3.32 1.23 3.52 1.16 2.54 1.02
It might be overcrowded 3.21 1.01 3.34 1.09 3.12 1.20 3.04 1.28
Local people’s behaviors 2.90 0.98 3.19 1.06 3 1.04 2.80 1.10
I might get poor value for
2.78 0.93 2.82 1.01 2.84 0.69 2.40 1.09
money
I might get sick 2.90 1.01 2.98 1.14 2.92 1.38 2.69 0.96
I might feel socially
2.72 0.96 2.90 1.13 2.52 0.92 2.23 1.08
uncomfortable
I might travel to exotic and
2.93 1.15 2.71 1.20 2.64 1.35 2.50 1.24
unusual places
I might injure myself 2.69 1.07 2.53 1.11 2.24 1.05 2.43 1.06
People might have a bad
2.53 0.96 2.13 1.02 2.4 1.29 1.98 1.16
opinion of me
I might not have a great time 2.55 0.94 2.42 0.96 2.6 1.04 2.28 1.18
It might be a waste of time 2.35 1.03 2.31 1.01 2.36 0.86 2.05 1.05
Travel partners not interested 2.43 1.08 2.73 1.28 2.36 0.86 2.36 1.08
Travel partners do not have
2.61 1.00 2.67 1.12 2.44 0.77 2.55 0.99
time
Travel partners cannot afford it 2.66 1.02 2.67 1.11 2.72 0.89 2.58 1.03
Note: StDev means Standard Deviation.

The results from the exploratory factor analysis are shown in Table 8, together with the reliability
test for each factor. After deleting two high cross-loading factors, two rounds of factor analysis were
conducted. This process resulted in a five-factor solution explaining 65.32% of the total variance.
The reliability coefficients ranged from 0.667 to 0.871, indicating a satisfactory level of internal
consistency. The factors were labeled as “structural constraint”, “interpersonal constraint”, “safety
constraint”, “intrapersonal constraint”, and “cost constraint”.
The first factor explained 34.065% of the total variance and included 11 items. Since all the
items loaded in this dimension are related to material or physical constraints, this factor was
labeled “structural constraint”. The second factor labeled “interpersonal constraint” included 4 items,
which accounted for 9.079% of the total variance. All the indicators reflect the difficulties caused
by interaction with others. The third factor explained 7.27% of the construct variance and consists
of 4 items. This dimension is related to perceptions of safety resulting in this factor being labeled
as “safety constraint”. The fourth factor contained 5 items and explained 5.051% of variance of
this construct. Items loaded in this dimension are concerned with the psychological conditions of
individuals. Therefore, this factor was labeled as “intrapersonal constraint”. The last factor explained
4.168% of the total variance and includes two items that were loaded on this dimension and related to
the cost of a visit. This factor was labeled as “cost constraint”.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 12 of 18

Table 8. Reliability and Validity of Constraint Factors.

Factor Variance Cronbach’s

Constraint Factors Eign-Value
Loading Explained % alpha
Structural constraint 8.857 34.065 0.871
Air quality 0.899
Pollution 0.884
Quality of goods and souvenirs 0.756
Convenient access to China 0.692
Currency exchange 0.675
Transportation in China 0.644
Accommodation in China 0.63
Climate and weather 0.619
Water quality 0.634
Food quality 0.559
Service level provided 0.532
Interpersonal constraint 2.36 9.079 0.869
Travel partners do not have time 0.916
Travel partners cannot afford it 0.88
People might have a bad opinion of me 0.776
Travel partners not interested 0.771
Safety constraint 1.89 7.27 0.821
Risk of a tourism accident 0.822
Risk of a natural disaster 0.794
I might be a victim of terrorism 0.622
Security and safety 0.561
Intrapersonal constraint 1.313 5.051 0.795
I might not have a great time 0.759
It might be a waste of time 0.742
I might feel socially uncomfortable 0.689
I might injure myself 0.699
I might get sick 0.605
Cost constraint 1.084 4.168 0.667
Trip Cost 0.823
Visa regulations and cost 0.756
KMO = 0.89; Bartlett’s = 6856.166; df = 325; Sig. = 0.000.

To test which of the constraint dimensions was a factor preventing travel, a multiple regression
analysis using the five constraint scales as predictors was undertaken (shown as Table 9). According to
p-values, interpersonal constraint (0.002), intrapersonal constraint (0.000), and cost constraint (0.007)
have significant impacts on intention to visit.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

Visa regulations and cost 0.756

KMO = 0.89; Bartlett’s = 6856.166; df = 325; Sig. = 0.000.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 13 of 18
To test which of the constraint dimensions was a factor preventing travel, a multiple regression
analysis using the five constraint scales as predictors was undertaken (shown as Table 9). According
to p-values, interpersonal Table 9. Regression
constraint (0.002),Analysis of Travelconstraint
intrapersonal Constraints.(0.000), and cost constraint
(0.007) have significant impacts on intention to visit. 2
Variable B β t P F R VIF
Constraints Table 6.067 71.571
9. Regression Analysis of 0.000
Travel Constraints.
Structural constraint 0.005 0.003 0.060 0.952
Variable B β t P F R2 VIF
Interpersonal constraint6.067 −0.264 −0.136 71.571
−3.121 0.000 0.002 ** 6.457 0.073 1.0
Constraints
StructuralSafety constraint 0.005 −0.102 0.003−0.052 0.060
constraint −1.201 0.952 0.230
Interpersonal constraint
Intrapersonal constraint-0.264−0.374 -0.136
−0.192 -3.121
−4.421 0.002**
0.000 ** 6.457 0.073 1.0
Safety constraint -0.102 -0.052 -1.201 0.230
Cost constraint 0.229 0.117 2.702 0.007 **
Intrapersonal constraint -0.374 -0.192 -4.421 0.000**
Adjusted 2 p = 0.0000.007**
Cost constraint 0.229 0.117 R = 0.062;
2.702 **
Note: * p R
Adjusted ** pp=
=0.062;
<20.05, .000**
< 0.01.
Note: *p＜0.05, ** p＜0.01.
To further understand the factors that influence Australians’ perceptions of China, the study also
To further understand the factors that influence Australians’ perceptions of China, the study
surveyed information sources used by respondents in their travel decision-making. As illustrated
also surveyed information sources used by respondents in their travel decision-making. As
in Figure 1, the Internet was the most important information source for all four groups, followed
illustrated in Figure 1, the Internet was the most important information source for all four groups,
by friends’ and families’ viewpoints. Specially, if their friends and family had been to China before,
followed by friends’ and families’ viewpoints. Specially, if their friends and family had been to China
their past experiences and recommendations were an important source of information. For G1-2
before, their past experiences and recommendations were an important source of information. For
respondents, TV and radio, newspapers and magazines, and school and university were major sources
G1-2 respondents, TV and radio, newspapers and magazines, and school and university were major
of information. For G2-2 respondents, Facebook, newspapers, and magazines were the most important
sources of information. For G2-2 respondents, Facebook, newspapers, and magazines were the most
sources of information compared to G2-1 respondents. Based on this finding it can be reasoned that
important sources of information compared to G2-1 respondents. Based on this finding it can be
negative reports in these media are likely to have a negative impact on perceptions of China and
reasoned that negative reports in these media are likely to have a negative impact on perceptions of
intentions to visit.
China and intentions to visit.

Figure 1. Use of Information Sources to Find out Information about China by four Groups.
Figure 1. Use of Information Sources to Find out Information about China by four Groups.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding to how perception and beliefs of destination
This study
attributes, aimed to
constraints, gain
and a deeper understanding
information to how
sources influenced perception
the intentionsand
of beliefs of destination
Australian residents
attributes,travel
towards constraints, and information
to mainland China. The sources influenced
results help the why
to explain intentions of Australian
the numbers residents
of international
towards travel to mainland China. The results help to explain why the numbers of international
arrivals to mainland China have declined in recent years. The findings indicate that the key elements
arrivals to mainland
influencing China have
China’s inbound declined
tourism in recent
market years.
are past The findings
experience, indicate
perception, and that the key
beliefs elements
about China,
influencing China’s inbound tourism
constraints, and information sources. market are past experience, perception, and beliefs about
China, constraints, and information sources.
The number of international arrivals to China started to decrease significantly after 2012.
The results showed that after 2012, the mean of overall satisfaction of travel was lower than before
2012. Only one of the eleven attributes of satisfaction slightly increased after 2012. This indicates an
urgent need for Chinese tourism organizations to reconsider the type of products and experiences
offered to foreign tourists.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 14 of 18

For Australian respondents, 40% of G1 respondents are willing to visit China, while 76% of Group
2 respondents indicated an intention to revisit China. Based on this finding, past travel experience
positively influenced the intention to visit. Further, friends’ and family’s past travel experiences was
also an important influence factor.
China is generally recognized as a popular destination, however, there remain a number of
problems in relation to perceptions about the quality of the natural environment, air quality, safety,
and communication with locals. Respondents viewed “natural environment of fresh air and blue
sky” (−) as their most preferred attribute. Importantly, most respondents who treated this item as the
most important factor when choosing an overseas destination were not convinced that China could
offer a good natural environment. Respondents also viewed skyscrapers and modern cities (+) as
the dimension that China can offer. Ease of communication with locals (−) and safety (−) were also
important influence factors, however, respondents did not believe that China could satisfy their needs,
although respondents who had been to China were less worried about communication issues.
The factor analysis identified six factors that were labeled as sightseeing, natural beauty
and climate, interactions with locals, cost and convenience, infrastructure, and safety and leisure.
Sightseeing, natural beauty and climate, cost and convenience, and infrastructure and safety were
found to have a significant impact on respondents’ intentions to visit.
Constraints were compared between the four groups of respondents (G1-1, G1-2, G2-1, and G2-2).
Pollution, air quality, and water quality were the items of most concern for respondents in all
four groups. Australian respondents view China as heavily polluted, which may encourage
them to select other destinations over China. Factor analysis revealed five constraint factors that
most influenced respondent’s intention to return: interpersonal constraint, intrapersonal constraint,
and cost constraints.
The Internet, individual experiences, and friends’ and family’s viewpoints were the most
important information sources used by respondents. This result indicates that a satisfactory
travel experience is the most efficient way to encourage potential tourists to visit China. Positive
word-of-mouth recommendations and satisfied personal experiences should be considered as
important tools to develop China’s inbound tourism market.
It should be noted that a number of potentially relevant issues related to TPB were not investigated.
For example, Flack and Morris [15] and Mingming et al. [8] propose that tourists’ cultural environment
has an important impact on final behavioral decision-making. Although respondents were asked
about demographic characteristics, perceptions, and attitudes towards China, constraints on travel
to China and sources of information, the respondents’ attitude towards China, and the impact
that Australia’s cultural environment had on holiday decision making were not investigated. As a
number of researchers have stated, tourism motivation is also an important factor affecting tourism
decision-making [20,48], pointing to a need to investigate similarities and differences between tourist
motivations and tourist preferences. While this study investigated Australian residents’ preferences
for overseas tourism, it did not investigate tourist motivation, which may also be an important factor
in understanding the decline in China’s inbound tourist market.

6. Conclusions
This study provided unique insights into different groups of Australian tourists by examining their
perception of overseas destination attributes and belief of China as a travel destination, and the impact
on their intention to visit or revisit. This study affirmed that there is a positive relationship between
tourist’ trip satisfaction, tourists perception and beliefs of destination attributes, and tourists’ intention
to travel. The results also supported Kim et al.’s [49] finding that safety and beautiful scenery were
still important attributes for Australians. The results did not confirm Kim et al.’s [49] findings about
the importance of equipped tourism facilities, cultural and historical resources, and good weather.
Secondly, in regard to trip satisfaction with China before 2012 and after 2012, it appears that the
quality of China’s inbound tourism has not improved, and in most aspects may has declined. In the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 15 of 18

current competitive international market, it is important that the Chinese government encourages the
tourism sector to offer novel, high quality, and original tourism experiences and addresses issues such
as pollution and food and water quality.
Thirdly, it is apparent that pollution, air quality, water quality, and safety are significant areas of
concern. China has experienced a number of problems with food and water safety, and some problems,
such as the death of four babies because of contaminated milk powder, have received wide coverage
in the international media [50]. These negative reports may have negatively impacted perceptions of
China as a holiday destination.

6.1. Practical Implications of this Study

Several practical implications arise from this research, and these may be of interest to destination
managers and marketers. First, at a more general level, most of the respondents who had previously
visited mainland China had a positive attitude towards China and indicated a willingness to revisit,
while respondents who had never visited China had negative attitudes and indicated an unwillingness
to visit China in the near future. The former group obtained their information about China from the
Internet, friends’ and family’s viewpoints, and their past travel experience, while the latter group
were more likely to use the Internet, TV and radio, and newspapers and magazines. This finding
suggests that the China Tourism Organization should focus on the Internet and word-of-mouth.
Internet platforms, like Facebook, could offer more information compared with TV and newspapers,
which seem to be more selective in the news that they report about China.

6.2. Theoretical Implications of this Study

On the one hand, this study extends the theoretical model of planned behavior at the academic
level. In this study, it investigated the importance of destination attributes when Australian residents
choose overseas tourism destinations, and asked them to judge whether China could meet these
important destination attributes factors. The comparison between the importance of destination
attributes and the residents’ beliefs enriches the influencing factors of decision-making in the theory
of planned behavior. On the other hand, the results of this study show that even though Australian
residents do not think that China can satisfy certain important preference factors, they still choose
to go, which suggests a new aspect of the theoretical understanding of constraints. This shows that
constraints are not all negatively correlated with decision-making behavior.

6.3. Further Research

It would be useful for future research to focus on tourism motivation and the cultural environment
of foreign residents, then compare their tourism decision-making and tourism constraint factors
with travel motivations and cultural environments. In addition, outbound tourism from China has
developed rapidly and now greatly exceeds inbound tourism. Future research could be directed
at comparing and contrasting inbound and outbound tourism markets to identify the factors that
have created this imbalance. For example, it might be that China has an enormous population and is
unlikely to ever achieve a tourism balance, or that there are areas of China’s tourism offering that need
to be upgraded to enable the country to offer a competitive tourism experience.
The findings provide some interesting results, however, like most studies, they have limitations.
First, the sample was derived from only one country (Australia), and it is quite possible that
international tourists in other countries could hold different views about mainland China due to
various cultural considerations. Future research should attempt to obtain samples from other countries,
such as tourists from South Asian countries, from the perspective of geographical and cultural distance.
Secondly, the sample was biased toward young people and it would be preferable to gain the views of
a broader range of age groups. In this study, concerns about safety issues were quite high, however
China’s safety index is high [51]. Future research could compare the perception of safety level and the
destination safety level to identify the gap in the tourists’ perspective.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 16 of 18

Author Contributions: Data curation, S.P.; methodology, M.Q.; writing—original draft, G.Q.; writing—review
and editing, B.P.
Funding: This research was funded by Education Ministry Scientific Research Fund for Returned Overseas Talents
[Grant Number (2013)1792], National Natural Science Foundation of China [41671144].
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the reviewers for their careful reading and for providing some
pertinent suggestions. Many thanks to Nan Chen (Henan University) for giving this study so much support and
suggestion. Thanks to all the people who gave help and support for this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, J.; Jensen, C. Comparative advantage: Explaining tourism flows. Ann. Tour. Res. 2007, 34, 223–243.
[CrossRef]
2. Wang, D.Y.; Yang, Q.Z. Inbound tourism development and grey correlative analysis on its affecting factors in
Sichuan city. Interdisp. J. Contemp. Res. Bus. 2012, 4, 684–690.
3. Witt, S.F.; Turner, L.W. Trends and forecasts for inbound tourism to China. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2002, 13,
99–109. [CrossRef]
4. China Tourism Academy 2017. Available online: http://www.ctaweb.org/html/lysjzx/index.html (accessed
on 29 July 2017).
5. Abascal, T.E.; Fluker, M.; Jiang, M. Domestic demand for indigenous tourism in Australia: Understanding
motivations, berries, and implications for future development. J. Herit. Tour. 2014, 10, 1–20.
6. Chi, C.G.-Q.; Qu, H.-L. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and
destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 624–636. [CrossRef]
7. Stylos, N.; Bellou, V.; Andronikidis, A.; Vassiliadis, C.A. Linking the dots among destination images,
place attachment, and revisit intentions: A study among British and Russian tourists. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60,
15–29. [CrossRef]
8. Mingming, C.; Xin, J.; Ipkin, A.W. Ecotourism site in relation to tourist attitude and further behavioural
changes. Curr. Issues Tour. 2013, 17, 303–311.
9. Sparks, B.; Pan, G.W. Chinese Outbound tourists: Understanding their attitudes, constraints and use of
information sources. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 483–494. [CrossRef]
10. Mark, A.B.; Meehee, C.; Jun, J.L.; Joo, H.K. A multilevel analysis of the effects of wine destination attributes
on travel constraints and revisit intention. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2399–2421.
11. Huang, H.C.; Huang, L.S.; Chou, Y.J.; Teng, C.I. Influence of Temperament and Character on Online Gamer
Loyalty: Perspectives from Personality and Flow Theories. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 398–406.
[CrossRef]
12. Van den Putte, B. On the Theory of Reasoned Action. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993.
13. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Gendered theory of planned behaviour and residents’ support for tourism.
Curr. Issues Tour. 2010, 13, 525–540. [CrossRef]
14. Huang, S.; Hsu, C.H. Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived constraint, and attitude on
revisit intention. J. Travel Res. 2009, 48, 29–44. [CrossRef]
15. Flack, M.; Morris, M. The temporal relationship between gambling related beliefs and gambling behaviour:
A prospective study using the theory of planned behaviour. Int. Gambl. Stud. 2017, 17, 508–519. [CrossRef]
16. Lawrence Teng, I.L.; Amy Siu, I.S.; Iris, S.L.; Lawrence Hoc, N.F. Does the quality of tourist shuttles influence
revisit intention through destination image and satisfaction? The case of Macao. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017,
32, 115–123.
17. Spreng, R.A.; Mankenzie, S.B.; Olshavsky, R.W. A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction.
J. Mark. 1996, 60, 15–32. [CrossRef]
18. Young, H.K.; Jen, D.; Byung, W.C. Involvement, Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Revisit Intention: A Case
Study of a Food Festival. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2015, 13, 133–158.
19. Kozak, M.; Rimmington, M. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination.
J. Travel Res. 2000, 38, 260–269. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 17 of 18

20. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty:
A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [CrossRef]
21. Jie, G.; Deborah, L.K. Using an intersectionality perspective to uncover older Chinese females perceived
travel constraints and negotiation strategies. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 128–138.
22. Crawford, D.W.; Jackson, E.L.; Godbey, G. A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leis. Sci. 1991, 13,
309–320. [CrossRef]
23. Kerstetter, D.; Yen, I.; Yarnal, C. Plowing uncharted waters: A study of perceived constraints to cruise travel.
Tour. Anal. 2005, 10, 137–150. [CrossRef]
24. Hung, K.; Petrick, J. Developing a measurement scale for constraints to cruising. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37,
206–228. [CrossRef]
25. Crawford, D.; Godbey, G. Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leis. Sci. 1987, 9, 119–127. [CrossRef]
26. Loucks-Atkinson, A.; Mannell, R.C. Role of self-efficacy in the constraints negotiation process: The case of
individuals with fibromyalgia syndrome. Leis. Sci. 2007, 29, 19–36. [CrossRef]
27. Nyaupane, G.P.; Morais, D.B.; Graefe, A.R. Nature tourism constraints: A cross-activity comparison. Ann.
Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 540–555. [CrossRef]
28. Park, S.Y. Tapping the Invisible Cruise Market: The Case of the Cruise Industry. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, 2006.
29. Backman, S.J. An investigation of the relationship between activity loyalty and perceived constraints. J. Leis.
Res. 1991, 23, 332–344. [CrossRef]
30. Boothby, J.; Tungatt, M.F.; Townsend, A.R. Ceasing participation in sports activity. J. Leis. Res. 1981, 13, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
31. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Rao, P. The price competitiveness of travel and tourism: A comparison of 19
destinations. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 9–22. [CrossRef]
32. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to
Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39.
33. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research;
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975.
34. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
35. Qiu, H.L. Study on the relationship moral norm and tourists’ civilization tourism behavioral intention:
An extended theory of planned behavior model. Zhejiang Soc. Sci. 2016, 3, 96–103.
36. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc.
Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [CrossRef]
37. Letheren, K.; Martin, B.A.S.; Jin, H.S. Effects of personification and anthropomorphic tendency on destination
attitude and travel intentions. Tour. Manag. 2017, 62, 65–75. [CrossRef]
38. Baloglu, S.; McCleary, K. A Model of Destination Image Formation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 868–897.
[CrossRef]
39. Baloglu, S.; McCleary, K.U.S. International Pleasure Travelers’ Images of Four Mediterranean Destinations:
A comparison of Visitors and Nonvisitors. J. Travel Res. 1999, 38, 114–129. [CrossRef]
40. Lang, C.; O’leary, J. Motivation, Participation, and Preference: A Multi-Segmentation Approach of the
Australian Nature Travel Market. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1997, 6, 159–180. [CrossRef]
41. IpKin, A.W. Using Destination Attributes to Promote Event Travel: The Case of Macau. J. Conv. Event Tour.
2011, 12, 241–252.
42. Ignatius, C.; Lori, P.-G.; Brijesh, T.; Siva, S.; Jorge, V.; Corene, M.; Spiro, K. Predicting information seeking
regarding hurricane evacuation in the destination. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 264–275.
43. Bamberg, S.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past
behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 25, 175–187. [CrossRef]
44. Echtner, C.; Ritchie, J. The meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. J. Tour. Stud. 1991, 2, 2–12.
45. Beeri, A.; Martin, J.D. Factors Influencing Destination Image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681. [CrossRef]
46. Baloglu, S.; Brinberg, D. Affective Images of Tourism Destination. J. Travel Res. 1997, 35, 11–15. [CrossRef]
47. Oliver, R.L. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20,
418–430. [CrossRef]
48. Qiao, G.H.; Chen, N.; Guan, Y.Y.; Kim, S.C. Study on Chinese Tourists’ Motivation and Satisfaction to Visit
South Korea. Int. J. Tour. Sci. 2008, 8, 17–38. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1723 18 of 18

49. Kim, S.M. International tourism in Korea. Int. J. Tour. Sci. 2003, 3, 151–162. [CrossRef]
50. Parry, J. China’s tainted milk scandal spreads around the world. BMJ 2008, 337, 1890. [CrossRef]
51. NUMBEO. 2017. Available online: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2017
(accessed on 23 July 2017).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).