Push and pull factors impacting visitors’ loyalty: A case of Saigon Zoo and botanical gardens - TRƯỜNG CÁN BỘ QUẢN LÝ GIÁO DỤC THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH

<span class='text_page_counter'>(1)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=1>

120

Push and pull factors impacting visitors’ loyalty:

A case of Saigon Zoo and Botanical Gardens

Nguyen Hoang Sinh1*_{, Ngo Thi Phuong Anh}1
1_{Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam}

*_{Corresponding author:}

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).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(2)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=2>

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 Bent 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).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(3)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=3>

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).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(4)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=4>

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

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(5)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=5>

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 push-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.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(6)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=6>

“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).

Adapting from previous studies mentioned, the push factors identified in this study’s
utilization of the push-pull framework include “escape”, “interpersonal relationships”,
“relaxation”, and “education”. Consequently, the first hypothesis is proposed:

H1: The push factors have a positive impact on visitors’ loyalty to botanic parks.

Pull factors are supply-related external appeals or attractions that attract travelers to a
specific destination (Prayag & Ryan, 2012). These pull factors encompass tangible properties (e.g.,
beaches and resorts) and historical or cultural artefacts (e.g., cathedrals and carvings) as well as

the destination’s reputation (e.g., destination image) (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Baloglu &
Uysal, 1996).

Seven pull factors including “budget,” “culture and history,” “wilderness,” “ease of travel,”
“cosmopolitan environment,” “facilities,” and “hunting” were judged by Yuan and McDonald as
researching about the potential visitors’ perceptions to Canadian national parks in 1990. The
authors found that these pull factors differentiated significantly among potential visitors from other
countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France. However, “budget” ranked the highest and
“hunting” ranked the lowest for all countries. While in Australia, McGehee et al. (1996) found that
gender differences in the relative importance placed on five pull factors of national parks: “heritage
and culture,” “recreational activities,” “comfort and relaxation,” “outdoor resources,” “resort
enclave,” and “budgetary environs”, in which females rated “Budgetary environs,” “comfort and
relaxation,” and “heritage and culture” to be more important. Moreover, “budgetary environs” as
the most important feature of an overseas travel destination rated by both genders. Studies on other
national parks have also observed sociodemographic differences in pull motivations (e.g., Jönsson
& Devonish, 2008; S. S. Kim et al., 2003; Sievänen, Neuvonen, & Pouta, 2011), with females
appreciating “budget,” “convenience,” “relaxing activities,” and “cultural heritage” more than
males.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(7)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=7>

126

Badarneh, 2011). Further, Kozak and Rimmington (2000) reported that nightlife, beaches,
shopping facilities, and historical sites promote positive word of mouth by tourists as strong
dimensions of the attractiveness of various attributes at a travel destination.

Adapting from previous studies mentioned, the pull factors identified in this study’s
utilization of the push-pull framework include “facilities,” “culture and heritage,” and “comfort
and relaxation”. Consequently, the study proposes the second hypothesis:

H2: The pull factors have a positive impact on visitors’ loyalty to botanic parks.

2.5. The Research Model

Based on the above discussions, the research model is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research model

3. Methodology

The quantitative research is used in this study. Based on previous studies, measurement of
pull factors, push factors and park visitors’ loyalty were built. Qualitative research was used to
check appropriate for the measurement in Vietnam context. An in-depth interview with 2 experts
in marketing and tourism was taken. Measures were checked for the appropriate and then the
questionnaire was modified.

3.1. Sampling and data collection

Data is collected from visitors who went to SZBG in Ho Chi Minh (HCM) City. The sample
was randomly selected. A total of 200 questionnaires were sent and 190 returned. Of all 190
responses 5 have excluded because of lack of information, the remaining 185 were used to analyze.

3.2. Measurement

Each of the variables was measured by a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

3.3. Data analysis

The study used SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) statistical software
version 20.0 to analyze the data. First, Factor Analysis and Reliability Test were conducted to
ensure the reliability and validity of them. Subsequently, Multiple Regression and Correlations

were employed to explore the correlated relationships among variables and then conclude in the
research hypotheses.

4. Results

4.1. Factor analysis and reliability

Table 1 shows the result of independent variables, which was grouped into 2 components
(PUSH and PULL). All the factor loadings of remaining items exceed .80. Similarly, the factor
loadings of remaining dependent items (LOY) exceed .65 ranged from .682 to .777.

Push Factors Visitors’ Loyalty to

botanic park Pull Factors

</div>

<!--links-->