Printer Friendly

Tourists' perceived value and satisfaction in a community-based homestay in the Lenggong Valley World Heritage Site.

1. Introduction

Growing at a rate in excess of 4% annually, tourism is expected to account for approximately 9.4% of Gross World Product over the course of the next ten years (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2010). Consequently, new tourism destinations have been established to capitalize on this growing demand for tourism products. In turn, the development of these destinations has the potential to stimulate economic progress in less developed destinations. Therefore, according to Mirbabayev and Shagazatova (2006), tourism is potentially one of the largest and most dynamic industries owing to the opportunities it represents in terms of revenue from external economic sources.

Lenggong Valley, in Malaysia, was awarded WHS status by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in June 2012 due to its rich archeological heritage. Lenggong's fossil records indicate the presence of relatively large-scale human settlements as far back as the Paleolithic era. The further discovery of an undisturbed Paleolithic stone tool workshop from this period, the unearthing of the australomelanesoid 'Perak Man' in 1991, and several prehistoric burial sites make Lenggong unique for its sheer wealth of archeological heritage. But such recognition comes with its own pros and cons (Jimura, 2011) as the surrounding communities must now play host to an increasing number of local and international tourists.

Perceived value describes a consumer's opinion or mental assessment of the value of a product or service rendered unto them. Several recent studies have elucidated the importance of tourists' perceived values regarding their satisfaction with tourism destinations (Bajs, 2015; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Iglesias & Guillen, 2004; Oh, 1999; Ryu, Lee, & Kim, 2012; Williams & Soutar, 2009). How tourists perceive the value of a tourism destination influences their satisfaction, their decision to revisit the destination, their recommendations to their friends, and leads to more sustainable future development (Bajs, 2015; Moliner, Sanchez, Rodriguez, & Callarisa, 2007; Petrick, 2004). Various authors have attempted to understand the origins of tourists' perceived values regarding a destination. According to Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad (2011), perceived value is a function of the feelings and attitudes of a tourist in regard to a product or service purchased. Perceived value considers the price of a product or service, and psychological factors, such as the perceived quality and emotional response (Chen & Hu, 2010; Petrick, 2002).

Previous studies have assumed tourist perceived value to be a multi-dimensional construct (Bajs, 2015; Lee, Yoon, & Lee, 2007; Moliner et al., 2007; Oh, 1999; Petrick, 2004; Petrick & Backman, 2001; Ryu et al., 2012). Few studies, however, have considered the reflective or formative nature of these dimensions in establishing overall perceived value (Sanchez-Fernandez & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). A reflective construct assumes that the items used for measurement are similar and interchangeable, that the items share a common theme and meaning, and the direction of causality is from construct to item (Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, & Venaik, 2008). Conversely, in a formative construct, it is the accumulation of indicators that defines the construct. Therefore, the exclusion or inclusion of one or more indicators affects the meaning and content validity of the construct (Coltman et al., 2008). The measurement items in a formative construct are not interchangeable with one another as each indicator represents a distinct aspect of the construct (Fassott & Henseler, 2015).

When attempting to assess the effects of multi-dimensional perceived value on post-purchase, satisfaction or behavioral intention, previous studies have tended to examine the direct effect of various dimensions, such as the price of a product or service and psychological factors, on these dependent factors (Bajs, 2015; Lee et al., 2007; Ryu et al., 2012; Williams & Soutar, 2009). Moreover, few studies have examined the effects of overall integrated perceived value on these dependent factors. In this study, we developed a multi-dimensional formative scale to measure perceived value as a single integrated construct. Using this scale, we assessed the effect of integrated perceived value on tourists' destination satisfaction. We field-tested this integrated multidimensional scale in the context of a homestay in Malaysia's Lenggong Valley.

2. Literature review

21. Concepts of perceived value

The concept of perceived value has its roots in theories of consumer behavior and considers the feelings and attitudes of consumers in order to understand their tendency to be attracted toward the purchase of certain products in a competitive environment (Jamal et al., 2011). Perceived value represents "the consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given" (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). Therefore, perceived value considers not only the price of a product, but the various psychological factors that influence a consumer's decision to purchase a particular product (Zeithaml, 1988).

Perceived value varies based on the type of product or service and is measured differently in different areas (Lee et al., 2007). Traditionally, perceived value was thought to be a function of a product's price, but in recent years 'value for money' has been regarded as the primary indicator of perceived value (Gallarza & Saura, 2006). Value for money acknowledges the value of consumer behavior approaches to the identification of perceived value (Duman, 2002). However, other psychological factors, such as quality, emotional response, and reputation, can also influence the decision to purchase a particular product or service (Petrick, 2002).

While perceived value has been discussed at length in the marketing literature, the concept has only recently made its way into the tourism studies literature (Sanchez, Callarisa, Rodriguez, & Moliner, 2006). A number of studies have examined the effects of perceived value on different aspects of tourist behaviors; such as satisfaction (Bajs, 2015; Iglesias & Guillen, 2004; Lee et al., 2007; Petrick & Backman, 2001; Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008), post-purchase behavior (Moliner et al., 2007; Petrick, 2004), behavioral intention (Bajs, 2015; Chen & Chen, 2010; Ryu et al., 2012; Williams & Soutar, 2009), and loyalty (Gallarza & Saura, 2006). These studies have relied on multi-dimensional scales to measure the perceived value of different tourism products and services. Petrick (2002) developed a scale with five dimensions to measure perceived value; namely monetary price, behavioral price, emotional response, quality, and reputation. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) developed a multi-dimensional scale inclusive of functional (i.e., economic and quality), emotional, and social dimensions. Jamal et al. (2011) also used a multi-dimensional scale to examine perceived value among tourists using homestays. The scale developed by Jamal et al. (2011) included dimensions of functional (i.e., price and establishment), experiential (i.e., activity, culture, knowledge, and host--guest interaction), and emotional value. Sanchez et al. (2006) developed a similar scale to assess the perceived value of tourism products and services. This scale also included dimensions inclusive of functional (i.e., establishment, personnel, product/service, and price), emotional, and social value. While Sanchez et al. (2006) examined these dimensions in the context of travel agencies, they also pioneered a formative higher order construct to measure the overall perceived value of consumers. This integrated perceived value construct was established formatively, with each dimension representing a unique feature of perceived value. These dimensions included functional (i.e., establishment, personnel, product/service, and price), emotional, and social value. Nonetheless, the point is emphasized throughout the perceived value literature that consumers' overall assessment of a product or service is a trade-off between the benefits realized and the costs (Bajs, 2015; Chen & Dubinsky, 2003; Chen & Hu, 2010; Lapierre, 2000; Lee et al. 2007; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Zeithaml, 1988).

2.2. Conceptual framework

This study aims to examine the effects of the tourists' perceived value on their satisfaction with a homestay. Drawing on previous studies having examined the effects of tourists' perceived value (Bajs, 2015; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Lee et al., 2007; Oh, 1999; Petrick & Backman, 2001), the following hypothesis has been developed for this study:

H1. The perceived value of tourists staying in Kampung Beng homestay has a positive effect on their satisfaction.

As mention earlier, perceived value includes two components, benefits and costs, and it is the interplay between these components that contributes to tourists' attitudes and behaviors toward the product or service. To represent this exchange between the perceived benefits and costs, perceived value must be unified into an integrated single construct (Sanchez et al., 2006). Therefore, the current study developed an integrated formative construct inclusive of functional, emotional, and social value based on studies by Jamal et al. (2011) and Sanchez et al. (2006). We categorized establishment, service, host provider (i.e., personnel), and price as functional value dimensions. These dimensions were assessed using indicators that were reflective of the qualities of the dimensions, thereby making these first order reflective constructs. First order constructs are those which are measured directly by observed indicators (i.e., the observed indicator is the question in the questionnaire) (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). These dimensions go toward the creation of functional value as a reflective-formative second order construct. Higher order constructs, such as second order, third order, etc., are constructs whose associated indicators are lower order constructs and not observed indicators (Hair et al., 2014). In addition, we measured the emotional construct based on two dimensions, hedonism and novelty, each comprising a reflective first order construct (Duman & Mattila, 2005). Therefore, these two dimensions established emotional value as a second order construct. Previous studies, however, have demonstrated that these two dimensions are highly correlated and can be interchangeable (Duman & Mattila, 2005). Therefore, we developed emotional value as a reflective--reflective second order construct. Perceived value, therefore, made for a third order formative construct inclusive of functional, emotional, and social value. Fig. 1 shows the conceptual framework for this study.

3. Homestay in Lenggong

A community-based homestay program is an alternative form of accommodation that allows tourists to stay with selected families, to interact with them, and to experience daily life in the host family's culture (Jamal et al., 2011). Most homestays are located in rural or semi-rural areas where the demand for accommodation services might not justify the construction and maintenance of dedicated hotels. But even in urban areas, homestays are an increasingly popular accommodation option because they provide a viable accommodation alternative to more expensive and impersonal hotels (Agyeiwaah, Akyeampong, & Amenumey, 2013).

In Malaysia, the homestay program was begun in order to increase the involvement of rural communities in the tourism industry and to promote the economic development of host communities (Ahmad, Jabeen, & Khan, 2014). Currently, 159 rural communities nationwide are participating in the homestay program (Ahmad et al., 2014). The homestay program was emphasized in the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006--2010) through the Rural Residents Tourism Program and the Homestay Tourism Program (Economic Planning Unit, 2006) to enable tourists to experience traditional life in a Malaysian village.

Lenggong Valley is located in the state of Perak, about 50 km north of the royal city of Kuala Kangsar and 90 km from the state capital of Ipoh. Lenggong Valley was declared a WHS by UNESCO 30th June, 2012. Kampung Beng is one of eight homestay programs registered with the Perak Council and was acknowledged as the state's best homestay in 2009. Kampung Beng covers an area of approximately 9797 ha and is comprised of six smaller villages: Durian Lubuk, Dusun, Beng Daam, Sekolah, Durau, and Batu Ring (Abdul Aziz, Hassan, & Jaafar, 2014) (Fig. 2).

Kampung Beng is located in Mukim Durian Pipit, a traditional Malay village near Chenderoh Lake (Fig. 3). Nearby attractions include Piah Forest Reserve, Piah Mountain, and the Titiwangsa Mountains near Bintang Hijau Forest Reserve. The population of Kampung Beng totals approximately 896, with 195 houses occupying 48 ha. The homestay is a cooperative involving 42 houses (Abdul Aziz et al., 2014).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Kampung Beng attracts domestic and international tourists alike, with visitors coming from as far afield as the United States, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan. In 2012, Perak received the highest number of domestic tourists. According to the Malaysian Department of Statistics, 5.7 million domestic tourists visited Perak in 2012 and the state is expected to receive over 6 million tourist in 2014 (Abdul Aziz et al., 2014). Billed as 'Railway Tourism' in the Visit Malaysia Year 2014 campaign, the homestay package includes accommodation, transportation, food, and tourism activities. Homestay programs are promoted through websites, brochures, and by word-of-mouth. The cost of staying in a homestay is roughly RM70 (equal USD 22) per night, of which RM50 is given to the host family and the remaining RM20 goes toward transportation and program development (Abdul Aziz et al., 2014).

4. Research method

We conducted a quantitative survey among tourists staying at the Kampung Beng homestay in Lenggong Valley, Malaysia. A questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was developed to measure perceived value and satisfaction. The items used to measure perceived value were adapted from similar measures as used by Duman and Mattila (2005), Jamal et al. (2011), and Sanchez et al. (2006). The items used to measure satisfaction were adapted from Bajs (2015), Gallarza and Saura (2006) and Lee et al. (2007). The questionnaire was organized into three sections: the profile of respondents, the perceived value dimensions, and satisfaction. Questions regarding perceived value and satisfaction were answered on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting strongly disagree, and 5 strongly agree.

The questionnaires were self-administered via the drop-off and collect method. This method involved the researchers traveling to Kampung Beng and delivering the questionnaires to a local representative who hand-delivered the survey questionnaires to the respondents and collected them again after the respondents had completed answering the questions. Eighty of the 100 questionnaires delivered to the representative were returned as complete.

Partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to assess both the measurement and structural models. PLS-SEM was used because the model included a combination of formative and reflective constructs. Several researchers have suggested the use of PLS SEM when a model includes both formative and reflective constructs (Chin, 2010; Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). In addition, our small sample size leads us to the use PLS-SEM as it is well suited to analyzing small samples. A sample size rule of thumb for PLS-SEM analysis is the 'ten times rule' (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011). According to this rule, the minimum sample size for PLS-SEM analysis is 10 times the largest number of paths appointed to a particular construct or, if there are formative constructs, the number of indicators of the formative constructs. Therefore, a sample comprising 80 completed questionnaires was acceptable. This study used WarpPLS 4.0 (Kock, 2013) to perform the PLS-SEM analysis. By using PLS regression algorithms for analyzing the outer model (measurement model), WarpPLS is suitable for assessing complex constructs, such as perceived value (Kock, 2013).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

5. Analysis and findings

5.1. Descriptive analysis

Most of the respondents in this study were female (67.5%), single (65%), and ethnic Malay (80%), indicative of the popularity of homestays with the domestic tourism market. Most were under 40 years of age (80%), and had a higher (72.5%) or tertiary level of education. The overwhelming majority of respondents (97.5%) had stayed at the homestay for at least two nights. Just over half of the respondents (52.5%) had gone to Kampung Beng to experience the homestay itself as a novel experience. Other reasons why the respondents had utilized the services of the homestay included being in the area for work purposes (22.5%) or as part of an overall holiday experience (20%) (see Table 1).

5.2. Assessing the model using PLS

Assessment of a model via PLS generally follows a two-step process involving assessment of the measurement and structural models respectively (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011). Assessment of the measurement model entailed an examination of the validity and reliability of the relationships between the latent variables (LVs) and the associated observable variables. Assessment of the structural model focused on the relationships between the constructs (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

5.2.1. Assessment of the measurement model

The final model for this study involved a formative third order construct called 'perceived value' and a reflective construct, namely 'satisfaction'. Perceived value was inclusive of functional, emotional, and social value. While functional value was a reflective-formative second order construct, emotional value was a reflective--reflective construct, and social value was a reflective first order construct. Therefore, perceived value comprised a very complex higher order construct needing to be assessed in this model. In the initial assessment of the measurement model, the eight first order constructs (i.e., establishment, service, host provider, price, novelty, hedonism, social value, and satisfaction) were evaluated together (Akter, D'Ambra, & Ray, 2011). All first order constructs in this model were reflective. Therefore, to assess the measurement model, the criteria for the assessment of the reflective measurement model had to be considered. The reflective measurement model evaluated reliability and validity, as measured by Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (Chin, 2010; Hair et al. 2011).

Tests of indicator reliability and construct reliability were conducted in order to ascertain the reliability of the reflective measurement model. In assessing indicator reliability, the loading of each indicator on its associated latent construct should be higher than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2011; Hulland, 1999). However, a loading between 0.4 and 0.7 can be considered acceptable if the CR and AVE of the associated construct are higher than the threshold (Hair et al., 2011). Table 2 indicates that most of the indicator loadings were higher than 0.7, with FE4 and FS1 being the exceptions, in which the CR and AVE of the establishment and service constructs were higher than the threshold. Two coefficients are typically considered when assessing construct reliability: CR and the more common Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Chin, 2010). However, CR is more suitable for PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2011). Table 2 indicates that both the CR and Cronbach's alpha for all first order LVs in the measurement model exceeded 0.7. These results indicate that the measurement model was internally consistent and reliable.

The construct validity of the reflective measurement model was a function of the convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2011). Therefore, the AVE values of the LVs had to be higher than 0.5 for their convergent validity to be considered acceptable (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 20H). AVE is used to measure the amount of variance in an LV as a product of its indicators (Chin, 2010). Table 2 shows that the AVE for all the constructs exceeded 0.5. Therefore, the measurement model's convergent validity was highly acceptable.

Discriminant validity is the extent to which each construct is distinct from other constructs in a model (Chin, 2010). Two measures must be assessed to determine discriminant validity. The AVE of each construct should be higher than the highest squared correlation of the construct with any other LV in the model and an indicator's loading with its associated LV must be higher than its loading with any other LV (Chin, 2010; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2011). The comparison of the square root of the AVE for each construct with the correlation of the remaining constructs is depicted in Table 3 and indicates the acceptability of the discriminate validity for all of the constructs in this framework.

WarpPLS 4.0 calculates an important measure that other PLS software packages are unable to process, a measure called 'full collinearity'. Full collinearity refers to the vertical and lateral collinearity of one construct in relation to other constructs (Kock & Lynn, 2012). According to Hair et al. (2011), this measure should be below 5. Table 2 indicates that the full collinearity of all the constructs was less than 5.

In the second step, the measurement model was analyzed by generating 2 s order factors, functional value, and emotional value. Establishment, service, host provider, and price are dimensions of functional-formative constructs, while novelty and hedonism are involved to establish emotional reflective constructs. To create these second order constructs, we used a two-stage approach that is the default approach in WarpPLS and is recommended by Becker, Klein, and Wetzels (2012). Consequently, the measurement model was assessed with 2 s order constructs and two first order constructs; namely social value and satisfaction, in this step. This step involves the assessment of one formative construct (i.e., functional value) and three reflective constructs (i.e., emotional value, social value, and satisfaction). The criteria necessary to assess the formative construct is inherently different to that used to assess the reflective construct. The Variance Inflated Factor (VIF), or collinearity between the associated indicators of the formative construct, should be lower than 5 and the outer weight of the indicators should be significant (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011).

Table 4 shows the results of the assessment of functional value as a second order formative construct in relation to three reflective constructs (i.e., emotional value, social value, and satisfaction). The VIFs between the associated indicators of the functional value construct were lower than 5 and the outer weights were significant. Therefore, the results revealed the acceptability of the measurement model for the second order formative constructs.

The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 show that the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity for the three reflective constructs met acceptability criteria. Perceived value is a third order construct that has been created formatively with the inclusion of functional value, emotional value and social value. In this, functional value is a reflective-formative second order construct, emotional value is a reflective--reflective second order factor, and social value is a reflective first order construct. We used a two-stage approach suitable for such complex conditions to create the third order perceived value construct (Becker et al., 2012). The VIFs for the indicators of the perceived value construct were 3.29, 2.80, and 2.90 for functional value, emotional value, and social value respectively. Therefore, the VIFs were lower than 5 and acceptable. In addition, the p-value of the outer weights was lower than 0.01 and significant. Therefore, the results of the assessment of the measurement model show that the third order perceived value construct was acceptable.

5.2.2. Assessment of structural model

Two tests were necessary in order to complete a preliminary assessment of the structural model and the conceptual framework; namely the R-square ([R.sup.2]) measure for the endogenous constructs and the path coefficients (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011). The path coefficients must be significant; however, [R.sup.2] can be vary depending on the research area. Chin (2010) suggested values of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 as measures of [R.sup.2] to be considered substantial, moderate, and weak respectively. The [R.sup.2] value of the endogenous construct in this study was 0.43; therefore, these values were considered moderate and acceptable. The value of the path coefficient was 0.66, and the p-value was lower than 0.01. Therefore, the results show the large effect of perceived value on the satisfaction of homestay guests at Kampung Beng (see Fig. 4).

6. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate perceived value and the satisfaction of tourists staying at the Kampung Beng homestay located in Lenggong Valley, a new recognized WHS in Malaysia. The results of descriptive analysis showed that most of the respondents were female, single and below 40 years of age. These results coincide with previous studies undertaken in the context of homestays (Agyeiwaah et al., 2013; Campbell, 2004; Musa, Kayat, & Thirumoorthi, 2010). Women tend to use homestays more frequently because the environment of the homestay allows them to experience a 'home away home' (Agyeiwaah et al., 2013). Furthermore, people without a family or younger children may desire more adventurous and esthetic locations. Therefore, the respondent profile highlights the similarities between the characteristics of the homestay guests in Lenggong Valley and other homestay guests as observed in previous studies.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

This study used a multi-dimensional scale to assess the perceived value of homestay guests. While previous studies have also used multi-dimensional scales to assess perceived value (Bajs, 2015; Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Jamal et al., 2011; Sanchez et al., 2006; Williams & Soutar, 2009), few studies have developed perceived value as a single integrated construct (Sanchez et al., 2006). Most studies have assessed individual dimensions of perceived value and examined the effects of these dimensions on various aspects of tourists' behaviors; such as satisfaction (Bajs, 2015; Lee et al., 2007; Petrick & Backman, 2001; Ryu et al., 2008) and loyalty (Gallarza & Saura, 2006). However, we assessed perceived value as an integrated formative construct and the results of the assessment of the measurement model demonstrated the acceptability of perceived value as an integrated formative construct inclusive of functional, emotional, and social value. This result was supported by similar findings elucidated by Sanchez et al. (2006). Assessing perceived value as an integrated construct is consistent with the basic definition of the perceived value concept, that perceived value is the overall feeling of customers regarding the benefits and costs of a product or service (Bajs, 2015; Boksberger & Melsen, 2011; Lee et al. 2007; Sanchez-Fernandez & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Zeithaml, 1988). Moreover, the findings demonstrated the acceptability of having developed functional value as a second order reflective-formative construct and emotional value as a second order reflective--reflective construct. The results verified that establishment, service, host provider, and price constitute formative dimensions of functional value, and that novelty and hedonism are dimensions reflective of emotional value. Although previous studies might not have examined these as higher order constructs, when the findings of these earlier studies are examined more closely in terms of categorizing establishment, service, host provider, and price as features of functional value (Jamal et al., 2011; Sanchez et al., 2006), and hedonism and novelty under emotional value (Duman & Mattila, 2005), the results of the current study are consistent with the findings of these previous studies.

In addition, the results of our analysis revealed a strong positive effect of the perceived value of homestay guests on their satisfaction. In other words, if the tourist perceived the benefits to outweigh the costs of having used the Kampung Beng homestay, they were inclined toward satisfaction; and if they perceived that the costs outweighed the benefits, they were dissatisfied, not inclined to recommend the homestay to their friends, and were unlikely to reuse the homestay service. This finding is consistent with previous investigations of the effects of perceived value on satisfaction in tourism (Bajs, 2015; Lee et al., 2007; Petrick & Backman, 2001).

7. Implications and future research

Lenggong Valley, being a new recognized WHS, in order to attract and increase the number of tourists visiting, the coordinators of the homestay program must consider the satisfaction of the tourists taking advantage of their products and services. Therefore, we argue that the coordinators of the homestay program should give due consideration to tourist perceived value as an important predictor of satisfaction. On a pragmatic level, the local authorities and host residents of Kampung Beng homestay should consider the different dimensions of perceived value; including functional, emotional, and social value, to make an overall positive impression among homestay guests. On the one hand, they must consider the condition of the accommodation itself, that it should be comfortable, clean, accessible, and peaceful; the activities provided must be enjoyable, the host family must be welcoming and friendly, and the price should be reasonable. On the other hand, the local community and host families of Kampung Beng homestay have to attempt to make new and memorable experiences for visitors as well as formulating good relationships and interactions with the tourists. In so doing, they can improve visitor satisfaction, thereby encouraging the tourist to return and to recommend the homestay to their friends.

This study broke new ground by having assessed perceived value as an integrated higher order formative construct inclusive of functional, emotional, and social value in the context of a homestay form of accommodation. Furthermore, this was the first time that the effect of perceived value, as an integrated single construct, has been examined on satisfaction. These are the significant theoretical contributions of the current study to the perceived value literature. Notwithstanding, this study is not without its limitations. The limited capacity of the Kampung Beng homestay resulted in a smaller than expected sample size; there the perceived value concept might be further examined under different contexts and with larger sample sizes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.01.005

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 12 March 2015

Received in revised form

24 August 2015

Accepted 18 January 2016

Available online 19 February 2016

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) for the research grant entitled (Heritage Awareness and Interpretation) [Grant No. 1001/PTS/ 8660012] that make this paper possible.
Appendix 1. The adapted items to measure perceived value and
satisfaction.

                Questions

Establishment
FE1             The house was cozy and comfortable
FE2             The houses was neat and clean
FE3             The house preserved some traditional facet
FE4             The homestay village was accessible
FE5             The surrounding area was quiet and peaceful

Service
FS1             The basic amenities provided by the host were
                  sufficient
FS2             The activities were well organized
FS3             The cultural show was perform as expected
FS4             The traditional games and pastimes were enjoyable
FS5             The festival and events organized by the host
                  community were satisfying installation

Host provider
FH1             The host family was friendly and courteous
FH2             The host was able to converse well
FH3             The family members were entertaining
FH4             The local community was hospitable and friendly
FH5             The community welcomed the visitors to the village

Price
FP1             The overall homestay experience offers value for money
FP2             The homestay program is an economical holiday package
FP3             Most of the local products available were reasonably
                  priced
FP4             The handicraft sold were worth buying

Novelty
EN1             My experience at this homestay was something new and
                  different
EN2             Experiencing this homestay program was something
                  relaxing
EN3             It was a memorable experience

Hedonism
EH1             My visit to this homestay was fun
EH2             It was something that I really like to do
EH3             My visit to this homestay is something that I enjoyed

Social value
SOC1            I had a good relationship with my host family members
SOC2            I had a good relationship with other residents in the
                  community
SOC3            I had a good relationship with other visitors during
                  my visit
SOC4            My visit to this homestay strengthen my feeling of
                  belonging to the host family and the community
SOC5            I had a better knowledge of my host family members
                  and other residents in the community

Satisfaction
SAT1            I feel I benefited from coming here
SAT2            I found the visit worthwhile
SAT3            The visit was as good as I had hoped
SAT4            I would recommend this place or tour to a friend
SAT5            If I had the opportunity, I would like to come back
                  here again
SAT6            Overall, I was satisfied with the visit


References

Abdul Aziz, N. I., Hassan, F., & Jaafar, M. (2014). Exploring tourist experiences in Kampung Beng Homestay programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 1(3), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1467358413517895.

Agyeiwaah, E., Akyeampong, O., & Amenumey, E. K. (2013). International tourists' motivations to choose homestay: do their socio-demographics have any influence? Tourism and Hospitality Research, 13(1), 16-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1467358413517895.

Ahmad, S. Z., Jabeen, F., & Khan, M. (2014). Entrepreneurs choice in business venture: motivations for choosing home-stay accommodation businesses in Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 31-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.006.

Akter, S., D'Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2011). Trustworthiness in mHealth information services: an assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating and moderating effects using partial least squares (PLS). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 100-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21442.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF02723327.

Bajs, I. P. (2015). Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik. Journal ofTravel Research, 54(1), 122-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287513513158.

Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5), 359-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001.

Boksberger, P. E., & Melsen, L. (2011). Perceived value: a critical examination of definitions, concepts and measures for the service industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3), 229-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041111129209.

Campbell, N. (2004). Home (stay) is where the heart (ache) is: a study of Chinese international students living with local families in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 107-134.

Chen, C.-F., & Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008.

Chen, Z., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: a preliminary investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 323-347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.10076.

Chen, P. T., & Hu, H. H. (2010). How determinant attributes of service quality influence customer-perceived value: an empirical investigation of the Australian coffee outlet industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 535-551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111011042730.

Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655-690). Berlin, Germany: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29.

Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250-1262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2008.01.013.

Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-4359(00)00028-2.

Duman, T. (2002). A model of perceived value for leisure travel products [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism Management, 26(3), 311-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2003.11.014.

Economic Planning Unit. (2006). Ninth Malaysia plan, 2006-2010. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.

Fassott, G., & Henseler, J. (2015). Formative (measurement). In Wiley encyclopedia of management (Vol. 9, pp. 1-4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom090113.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150980.

Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students' travel behavior. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G.T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2%3C195::AID-SMJ13%3E3.0.CO;2-7.

Iglesias, M. P., & Guillen, M.J. Y. (2004). Perceived quality and price: their impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), 373- 379.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110410550824.

Jamal, S. A., Othman, N., & Muhammad, N. M. N. (2011). Tourist perceived value in a community-based homestay visit: an investigation into the functional and experiential aspect of value. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(1), 5-15. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356766710391130.

Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities: a case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2), 288-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.005.

Kock, N. (2013). WarpPLS 4.0 user manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.

Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546-580.

Lapierre, J. (2000). Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3), 122-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 08858620010316831.

Lee, C.-K., Yoon, Y.-S., & Lee, S.-K. (2007). Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: the case of the Korean DMZ. Tourism Management, 28(1), 204-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2005.12.017.

McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040010340937.

Mirbabayev, B., & Shagazatova, M. (2006). The economic and social impact of tourism. National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. Retrieved from: http://www. grips.ac.jp/alumni/UzbekistanTourism(2http://www.grips.ac.jp/alumni/ UzbekistanTourism(2).pdf.

Moliner, M. A., Sanchez, J., Rodriguez, R. M., & Callarisa, L. (2007). Relationship quality with a travel agency: the influence of the post-purchase perceived value of a tourism package. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3-4), 194-211. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.thr.6050052.

Musa, G., Kayat, K.,&Thirumoorthi, T. (2010). The experiential aspect of rural home-stay among Chinese and Malay students using diary method. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(1), 25-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/thr.2009.26.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4319(98)00047-4.

Petrick, J. F. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 119-134.

Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers' behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397-40 .

Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2001). An examination of golf travelers' satisfaction, perceived value, loyalty, and intentions to revisit. Tourism Analysis, 6(3/4), 223-237.

Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. H. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 459-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.001.

Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Kim, W. G. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(2), 200-223. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09596111211206141.

Sanchez-Fernandez, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165.

Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R. M., & Moliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.11.007.

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.

Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.02.002.

World Travel and Tourism Council. (2010). Travel and tourism economic impact of Laos. London, UK: World Travel and Tourism Council.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446.

S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh (a),*, Norziani Dahalan (b), Mastura Jaafar (a)

(a) School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

(b) School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: mostafa@usm.my, rasooli1352@yahoo.com (S.M. Rasoolimanesh), norziani@usm.my (N. Dahalan), masturaj@usm.my (M. Jaafar).
Table 1
Demographic profile of respondents.

Description                    Frequency   Percentage (%)

Gender
Male                           26          32.5
Female                         54          67.5

Marital status
Single                         52          65
Married                        28          35

Ethnicity
Malay                          64          80
Chinese                        4           5
Others                         12          15

Age
Under 25                       30          37.5
26-40                          34          42.5
Above 40                       16          18

Education
Secondary school and lower     22          27.5
Diploma                        26          32.5
Degree                         24          30
Master or PhD                  8           10

Length of stay
2 days and 1 night             2           2.5
2 days and 2 nights            14          17.5
3 days and 2 nights            64          80

Purpose of participating in
homestay program
New experience                 42          52.5
Holiday                        16          20
Work                           18          22.5
Others                         4           5

Table 2
Results of the assessment of measurement model for first order
constructs.

Construct       Items   Factor loading   CR      Cronbach's alpha

Establishment                            0.845   0.771
                FE1     0.708
                FE2     0.772
                FE3     0.739
                FE4     0.654
                FE5     0.736
Service                                  0.909   0.867
                FS1     0.459
                FS2     0.848
                FS3     0.887
                FS4     0.919
                FS5     0.905
Host provider                            0.91    0.876
                FH1     0.86
                FH2     0.828
                FH3     0.711
                FH4     0.846
                FH5     0.839
Price                                    0.901   0.853
                FP1     0.83
                FP2     0.768
                FP3     0.907
                FP4     0.826
Novelty                                  0.889   0.810
                EN1     0.805
                EN2     0.932
                EN3     0.816
Hedonism                                 0.925   0.876
                EH1     0.815
                EH2     0.922
                EH3     0.948
Social value                             0.940   0.920
                SOC1    0.766
                SOC2    0.882
                SOC3    0.912
                SOC4    0.916
                SOC5    0.872
Satisfaction                             0.972   0.966
                SAT1    0.878
                SAT2    0.885
                SAT3    0.938
                SAT4    0.939
                SAT5    0.945
                SAT6    0.957

Construct       AVE     Full collinearity

Establishment   0.523   2.247

Service         0.676   2.526

Host provider   0.670   2.240

Price           0.696   3.563

Novelty         0.727   3.88

Hedonism        0.804   4.351

Social value    0.760   3.496

Satisfaction    0.854   2.940

Table 3
Discriminant validity assessment for first order constructs.

                 Establishment   Service   Host provider   Price

Establishment    0.723#
Service          0.326           0.822#
Host provider    0.614           0.231     0.819#
Price            0.442           0.699     0.503           0.834#
Novelty          0.411           0.455     0.582           0.718
Hedonics         0.446           0.642     0.501           0.701
Social value     0.635           0.489     0.624           0.678
Satisfaction     0.484           0.33      0.532           0.472

                 Novelty   Hedonism   Social value   Satisfaction

Establishment
Service
Host provider
Price
Novelty          0.853#
Hedonics         0.745     0.897#
Social value     0.703     0.676      0.872#
Satisfaction     0.674     0.715      0.471          0.924#

Note: Square roots of average variance extracted (AVE) shown on
diagonal in bold.

Note: Square roots of average variance extracted (AVE) are indicated
with #.

Table 4
Results of the assessment of measurement model after generating
second order constructs.

Construct      Items           Scale type   Loading/weights   CR

Functional                     Formative                      NA
  value        Establishment                0.316
               Service                      0.299
               Host provider                0.312
               Price                        0.357
Emotional                      Reflective                     0.932
  value        Novelty                      0.934
               Hedonism                     0.934
Social value                   Reflective                     0.94
               SOC1                         0.766
               SOC2                         0.882
               SOC3                         0.912
               SOC4                         0.916
               SOC5                         0.872
Satisfaction                   Reflective                     0.972
               SAT1                         0.878
               SAT2                         0.885
               SAT3                         0.938
               SAT4                         0.939
               SAT5                         0.945
               SAT6                         0.957

Construct      Items           AVE     Full collinearity   VIF

Functional                     NA      3.346
  value        Establishment                               1.708
               Service                                     2.081
               Host provider                               1.910
               Price                                       2.583
Emotional                      0.872   4.31
  value        Novelty                                     NA
               Hedonism                                    NA
Social value                   0.76    3.057
               SOC1                                        NA
               SOC2                                        NA
               SOC3                                        NA
               SOC4                                        NA
               SOC5                                        NA
Satisfaction                   0.854   2.347
               SAT1                                        NA
               SAT2                                        NA
               SAT3                                        NA
               SAT4                                        NA
               SAT5                                        NA
               SAT6                                        NA

Table 5
Discriminant validity assessment after generating second order
constructs.

                    Functional   Emotional   Social
                    value        value       value    Satisfaction

Functional value    NA#
Emotional value     0.772        0.934#
Social value        0.783        0.738       0.872#
Satisfaction        0.586        0.744       0.471    0.924#

Note: Square roots of average variance extracted (AVE) shown on the
diagonal in bold.

Note: Square roots of average variance extracted (AVE) are indicated
with #.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Elsevier, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rasoolimanesh, S. Mostafa; Dahalan, Norziani; Jaafar, Mastura
Publication:Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management
Article Type:Statistical data
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 1, 2016
Words:7429
Previous Article:Searching for the perfect wave: Profiling surf tourists who visit the Mentawai Islands.
Next Article:Australian contributions--papers from CAUTHE fellows.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters