Push and pull factors impacting visitors’ loyalty: A case of Saigon Zoo and Botanical Gardens

120 Push and pull factors impacting visitors’ loyalty: A case of Saigon Zoo and Botanical Gardens Nguyen Hoang Sinh1*, Ngo Thi Phuong Anh1 1Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam *Corresponding author: sinh.nh@ou.edu.vn ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS. econ.en.10.1.224.2020 Received: September 16th, 2019 Revised: November 25th, 2019 Accepted: April 20th, 2020 Keywords: push-pull factors, motivations, park tourism, Saigon Zoo, Botanical Gardens This paper aims to build and test the model of the relationship between push and pull factors and visitors’ loyalty to botanic park, a case of Saigon Zoo and Botanical Gardens in Vietnam. The previous studies were used to build and then test the model in which 185 usable responses from botanic park visitors were analyzed among 200 collected responses. The findings contribute to the current literature of park tourism by indicating that push (β = .246) and pull (β = .619) factors have a direct impact on visitors’ loyalty. The study has its implications in park management that focuses on the motivational factors and the psychological reasons why people visit botanic parks to create suitable marketing programs to target them. 1. Introduction When human life is increasingly high, the need to explore the world is growing day by day. One of the favorite activities of humankind is experiencing green landscape beauty. Besides, the speed of urbanization in major cities in the world is increasing rapidly, this leads to reduce significantly the green spaces. To improve the living environment quality of citizens, the urban architects interested in designing the green urban areas seeking natural sanctuaries to relax, rejuvenate and enjoy nature (Chiesura, 2004; Miller, Merrilees, & Coghlan, 2015). The park is defined as a place where includes different attributes to characterize itself and decide its appearance to attract its customers (Hong-Bumm, 1998; Stanford & Guiver, 2015). This means there is created base on its crystalized between nature, culture, and social features that drive (push) and appeal (pull) to customers, serving as tourist attractions for people loving nature from around the world (Phau, Lee, & Quintal, 2013). To support this idea, the research of Sievänen, Neuvonen, and Pouta demonstrated that push motivations encompass the expectation of the visitors why they choose the park for “relaxation,” “nature appreciation” and “enjoyment” (2011), whereas while pull factors include its values contained in “history and culture”, “outdoor resources” and “entertainment activities” (Mcgehee, Loker-Murphy, & Uysal, 1996). It can be seen that the push and pull factors create visitation that is very important for parks. Consequently, this encourages visitors’ mindset in the protection of the parks’ biodiversity, cultural and natural resources (Tourism Research Australia, 2014), maintains communities’ livelihoods and increases 121 economies in the surrounding regions (Findlay, Scot, & Bourdages, 2000; Lundmark, Fredman, & Sandell, 2010; Müller & Jansson, 2006; Reinius & Fredman, 2007; Wolf & Robbins, 2015). Moreover, as people want to enjoy their free time with families or friends in a nature-based entertaining destination where they can fresh their minds in the green landscape and teach their children about natural lives of animals, then they will come to the zoo and botanical gardens as the best choice, especially urban people. Because the urban park in a city can offer recreational and green space to its residents and visitors (Chiesura, 2004). The urban park is described as such an amazing place where contains playgrounds, gardens, fitness trails, paths for hiking or jogging, sports fields and courts, public restrooms, and ideal picnics based on its budget and natural features supported (Low, Taplin, & Scheld, 2009). Also, Luebke and Matiasek (2013) found that the visitors come to the zoo because of not only happy moments but also for its positive educational ability in supplying knowledge and attitudes regarding animal life and the environment. Besides the entertainment purposes, the other reasons why they want to visit the zoo because they want to escape their daily routines. This is mentioned clearly in Crompton’s research “tourists may be tired or bored and desire to escape or seek challenge away from their daily routines by engaging in travel” (1979). Besides giving a wide range of recreational activities for both locals and travelers, the zoo’s role seems to also play another crucial role in preventing the extinction of endangered animals. As a convincing example, Saigon Zoo and Botanical Gardens (SZBG) located in Ho Chi Minh City - the biggest city of Vietnam known as the unique and oldest zoo in the center which has become the must-visit place for traveling to Ho Chi Minh City’s center, thus it has monopolized its position in citizens’ mind. It was built by Pierre Paul Marie Benoît de La Grandière in 1864 - the Governor of the colony of Cochinchina, then re-built or recovered sometimes later. Now it became the irreplaceable green lung and signature of the city where embraces the ecotourism development increasing the young generation’s perception about more responsible towards protecting their ecosystem and beautiful landscape around. Therefore, SZBG should consider seriously to find the appropriate ways to attract more visitors to the zoo but in the sustainable development by exploring and understanding the factors that impact the visitors’ decisions. However, even being the unique zoo and botanic gardens in the center, it is currently facing harsh competition with other entertainments and tourists. Thus, the board of SZBG need to have intensive research for the better prospects of future improvement of the zoo and meeting visitors’ needs. Additionally, although know that the visitors satisfied with a park’s push-pull factors are more likely to express their loyalty behavior by revisiting and recommending that part to others (Chi & Qu, 2008). Also, Pan and Ryan’s (2007) study about a national park in New Zealand figured out that relaxation and intellectual development of push factors significantly contribute to the customers’ making a decision in intention to revisit and to recommend. Further study of national parks in Taiwan suggested that some attributes like supplying adequate information about a park’s wildlife and heritage and good recreational facilities in the park (pull attributes) also impact loyalty behavior (C. M. Chen, Lee, Chen, & Huang, 2011). However, although there are many studies on push-pull factors on part visitation, no one examines the relationship between the push-pull factors and loyalty behavior toward botanic parks. This study focuses on this gap in the specific case of SZBG with following objectives. 122 First, whether the demographic background of visitors to SZBG will determine the visitors’ decision, and then show which group of demographics becoming the largest segment. After that, the zoo managers can consider better services offering their target customers. Second, the study identifies salient push motivations and critical pull park attributes that draw tourists to visit these parks. This means that it aims to find out the true reasons for the visitors’ choices going to SZBG as an ideal place compared to other ranges of entertaining activities (“push motivations”). Besides, the “pull attributes” such as outdoor facilities, features, atmosphere, attraction, and customers’ features will be considered through this study to understand the level of each affection to the visitors’ decision. Third, this study is to understand the visitors’ reaction with the price sensitivity to know more about how much they are willing to pay after the zoo improved its performance. Additionally, the study also clarifies a relationship between customers’ socio-demographics and their wills of paying more. 2. Literature review and conceptual framework There are many studies about the important role of zoos and parks as well as analyzing the visitor’ behaviors of going to these places. Based on these previous studies, the conceptual framework is proposed. 2.1. Loyalty behavior Loyalty behavior is defined as “continued patronage and the act of recommendation” (H. Zhang, Fu, Cai, & Lu, 2014, p. 213). Besides, the loyalty degree as a powerful critical indicator is used to measure the marketing strategy’s success (Flavian, Martinez, & Polo, 2001; Oliver, 1999). Additionally, re-buying or recommending to others is most usually referred to as consumer loyalty in the marketing literature (e.g., Fraering & Minor, 2013; Oliver, 1999; Toufaily, Ricard, & Perrien, 2013). In terms of tourism studies, two indicators measure loyalty behavior are “intention to revisit” (e.g., Assaker & Hallak, 2013; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007; Sirakaya-Turk, Ekinci, & Martin, 2015; Yoon & Uysal, 2005) and “intention to recommend” (e.g., Chi & Qu, 2008; Hui et al., 2007; Oppermann, 2000; Simpson & Siguaw, 2008). Accordingly, intention to revisit is seen as the returning of the visitor to the same destination visited before thanks to the visitor’s impression about travel destination performance in the last visit or by the park’s promotional efforts to recall positive memories (Assaker, Hallak, Assaf, & Assad, 2015; Hossain, Quaddus, & Shanka, 2015; Jung, Ineson, Kim, & Yap, 2015; Lee & Kyle, 2014; Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006). This demonstrated quite clearly in the Hallmann, Zehrer, and Müller’s research (2015) in Austria and Germany that examined tourists for their intention to revisit a travel destination. The researchers concluded that the tourists decided to return because of the very good impact of pull attributes including service quality, fees, and others. Simultaneously, they were also influenced by frequently promotional efforts, and then create a bigger demand for attractions at the same travel destination (Assaker & Hallak, 2013). Next, intention to recommend is seen as the willingness of tourists to spread positive word of mouth (WOM) about a destination (Assaker et al., 2015; Hossain, Quaddus, & Shanka, 2015; Meleddu, Paci, & Pulina, 2015; Quintal, Thomas, & Phau, 2015). When the visitors got the amazing experience about a destination’s services, products, and other resources, then their positive WOM willingly given to friends and relatives or even vial them by social media channels. For example, in the study of Chi and Qu in 2008 at Eureka Springs in Arkansas, US about the 123 tourists’ intention to spread positive WOM about the travel destination which revealed that destination image and attribute satisfaction indirectly and directly impacted on the intention to recommend respectively. Therefore, nowadays, many potential visitors consider the previous visitors’ comments as a more believable information source compared to marketers’ sources (Chu & Kim, 2011). This can explain why recommendations and WOM factors are one of the most sought information sources for travelers (T. T. Kim, Kim & Kim, 2009; Meleddu, Paci, & Pulina, 2015; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). 2.2. Push-pull factors Push factors are conceptualized as motivational needs arise base on a disequilibrium that leads an appeal to travel, while pull factors relate more to the destination’s features, attributes, and the attraction itself which attract visitors to come voluntarily (S. S. Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003). According to Lee, Quintal and Phau (2017), an effective push-pull framework not only generates what attracts and appeals to travelers of the park but also assists park managers to choose appropriate directions and resources to improve specific features, at the same time, it can create more efficient paths to communicate better to park potential customer segment. Acknowledging the benefits of applying the push-pull framework into this research, some further steps should be made to figure out more about different values of parks and zoos determined by visitors as well as uncovering their motivations for choosing those places over other entertainment destinations. The tourism’s desire is a result of two various motivations: anomie and ego enhancement, suggested by Dann (1981) in which anomie motivations are described as a result of an inherent need to escape daily routine while ego-enhancement motivations are a result of the glamour associated with travel. Similar to this opinion, Iso-Ahola (1982) also identified two basic elements of touristic behavior are escaping and seeking. The researchers proposed that these two dimensions concurrently impact on decision of travelers in terms of their travelling purposes and destination choice. For instance, a traveler can select a weekend getaway to escape the stress in daily life. Simultaneously, the traveler can also seek psychological rewards, both personal and interpersonal, that enhance their ego as participating in skydiving. These motivational factors provide insight into why tourists travel, and the travel destinations sorts selected (Dann, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982). 2.3. Pull-push factors impacting visitors’ loyalty Little research has been conducted to examine why customers are pushed or motivated to visit fringe and urban parks. Past research has investigated tourist motivations to visit larger national parks (e.g., C. M. Chen et al., 2011; Scott, Jones, & Konopek, 2007; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). But there are just a few studies in smaller ones (e.g., Mowen, Orsega-Smith, Payne, Ainsworth, & Godbey, 2007; Weaver & Lawton, 2004). These smaller parks are often controlled by a person or non-profitable organization not frequently possess the capabilities to make a sustainable flow of visitors nor enough the resources to determine how and why (Phau, Lee, & Quintal, 2013). In another study, it also explored that more effective pull factors should be given to appeal to more visitors to the fringe and urban parks (Ho et al., 2005). N. S. Kim and Chalip (2004) suggested that identifying key pull factors is instrumental in explaining travel decisions and permits destination marketers to adjust their destination offerings more relevant to travelers’ interest, aware of and lifestyles. (Park, Hsieh, & McNally, 2010). Similarly, the park’s success depends on its attractions, services, and amenities provided (Mowen et al., 2005). Therefore, a push-pull framework theoretically relevant to the fringe and urban parks will generate the powerful 124 motivates and appeals to park visitors and can be adopted by researchers. Additionally, the push- pull framework is managerially able to help park managers to itemize critical push and pull park factors and enhance their appeal. Besides little study about fringe and urban parks, there is even less compared studies between the two. Parks become the unique thing to their regional, cultural, and physical pull attributes, according to Buckley’s study in 2012 suggested that leading it crucial to fully acknowledge differences in tourist push motivations to visit these parks. In the managerial aspect, the policymaker can identify and allocate the park’s resources to improve specific dimensions based on insights into the push and pull factors’ leading as well as can divide the visitors in various segments and appeal each separately (Ryan & Sterling, 2001). Importantly, although there are so many studies on loyalty behavior toward tourism literature (e.g., Assaker & Hallak, 2013; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007; Sirakaya- Turk, Ekinci, & Martin, 2015; Yoon & Uysal, 2005), few studies have considered the loyalty behavior factor in the context of fringe and urban parks (e.g., Howard, Edginton, & Selin, 1988; Moore et al., 2015; Yen, Liu, & Tuan, 2009). They all concluded that positive loyalty behavior creating favorable compliments (WOM) and re-visitation, then finally generates an unstoppable interest and significant tourism profit which upholds the ongoing maintenance and park facilities’ development (Simpson & Siguaw, 2008). To support this, in Benfield’s research emphasized that the positive loyalty behavior should be given to smaller parks running on a not for profit basis and small funds for marketing communications (2013). Theoretically, a push-pull framework can give some appropriate explanations and well positive predictions to loyalty behavior sheds more light on the consumption behavior of park visitors. Managerially, such findings will guide the design and implementation of more effective marketing programs to visitor segments. 2.4. Hypotheses development The push-pull framework comprises key forces of pull motivations and push motivations driving and appealing visitors to target destinations. This frame is also applied in tourism studies for identifying underlying motivations that impact on traveler behavior (e.g., Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; J. S. Chen, Prebensen, Chen, & Kim, 2013; L. J. Chen & Chen, 2015; Jurowski, 1993; S. S. Kim, Lee, & Klenosky, 2003; Prayag & Ryan, 2011; Xiao, So, & Wang, 2015). Demand-related internal needs or drives are push factors as seen as a result of a disequilibrium or tension one’s motivational system (S. S. Kim et al., 2003). These push motivations run as a type of need recognition which happens when personals realize a discrepancy between their actual state and current state (Babin & Harris, 2014). As a result, these personals look for a means to decrease the tension by joining in drive reducing behaviors. Tourism studies have criticized the motivations for visits to national parks (e.g., L. J. Chen & Chen, 2015; S. S. Kim et al., 2003; Uysal, McDonald, & Martin, 1994). To demonstrate this opinion, in the study of Uysal et al. (1994) about Australian visitors to national parks in the US, the writers explored five push factors encompassing “relaxation/hobbies,” “novelty,” “kinship relationship,” “escape,” and “prestige” with different important levels. “Novelty” was the highest in importance, followed by “prestige,” “kinship relationships,” “relaxation/hobbies,” and “escape” respectively. The interesting point in this study was “novelty” and “relaxation/hobbies” rated by never visited to national parks visitors as more important compared to more experienced visitors. Whereas, the research result of S. S. Kim et al. (2003) in Asia got another conclusion as examined 125 the visitors’ motivations to six different Korean national parks. It reveals four distinct push factors: “family togetherness,” “appreciating natural resources,” “escaping from everyday routine,” and “adventure and building friendship” in which “family togetherness” rated by females as more important than males while higher-income earners rated “escaping from everyday routine” as more important. Tourism studies demonstrate that push dimensions can positively impact on revisiting intention (e.g., Crompton, 1979; Yoon & Uysal, 2005) and recommending intention (e.g., Crompton, 1979; McGehee et al., 1996; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Loyalty behavior will be promoted after specific desires and reasons for travel are often recurring (Chi & Qu, 2008). Then, the same push motivations serve as reference points for visitors in planning a next travel destination. For instance, tourists to Cyprus were evaluated their loyalty behavior toward the travel destination revealing that three main reasons of push factors including “relaxation,” “family togetherness,” and “safety and fun” positively impacted on their intentions to revisit and recommend the destination (Yoon & Uysal, 2005).