Journals / Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1

Components of Destination Experience: A Comparative Research on Antalya and İstanbul Destinations

Destinasyon Deneyimi Bileşenleri: Antalya ve İstanbul Destinasyonları Üzerinde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma

Pages
77–89
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that destination experience components are obtained as follows: local culture, activities, hospitality, substructure, novelty opportunities, service quality, superstructure esthetics, gastronomy, accessibility, physiography, economic value and emotions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Forming the destination’s DNA nucleons and becoming like integrated structure, the destination experience components such as architechture, gastronomy, substructure have the potential to effect tourists’ travel experiences and their behaviours.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The current study aims (a) to put forward the experiential components of resort and cultural destinations on the basis of comparative research approach, (b) to find out whether there are statististically significant differences between tourists’ nationalities related to experiential components.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that destination experience components are obtained as follows: local culture, activities, hospitality, substructure, novelty opportunities, service quality, superstructure esthetics, gastronomy, accessibility, physiography, economic value and emotions.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Forming the destination’s DNA nucleons and becoming like integrated structure, the destination experience components such as architechture, gastronomy, substructure have the potential to effect tourists’ travel experiences and their behaviours. In this context, it is thought that destination managers should discover and notice the experiental components of tourism destinations by developing particular point of views. The current study aims (a) to put forward the experiential components of resort and cultural destinations on the basis of comparative research approach, (b) to find out whether there are statististically significant differences between tourists’ nationalities related to experiential components. For this purpose, embracing the quantitative research method and using ‘questionnaire forms’ as data collection method, the study is carried out in Antalya and İstanbul. 1281 foreign tourists in total took part in the study. The findings indicate that destination experience components are obtained as follows: local culture, activities, hospitality, substructure, novelty opportunities, service quality, superstructure esthetics, gastronomy, accessibility, physiography, economic value and emotions. The all of dimensions are discovered in both destinations with two exceptions. It is seen that the ‘physiography’ for İstanbul and ‘accessibility’ for Antalya couldn’t form a dimension. The results indicate that the German tourists have more negative perceptions than Russians and English regarding the substructure, service quality, accessibility of İstanbul; and economic value and emotional aspects of Antalya.

Özet

Destinasyon DNA’larının yapı taşlarını oluşturan ve birbiriyle bağlantılı bütünsel bir yapı haline gelen, mimari, gastronomi, altyapı gibi çeşitli destinasyon deneyimi bileşenleri, turistlerin davranışlarını ve tatil boyunca edindikleri tecrübeleri etkileyebilmektedir. Bu bağlamda destinasyonların deneyimsel bileşenleri konusunda destinasyon yöneticileri ve turizm paydaşları arasında farkındalık yaratarak farklı bakış açıları geliştirmek büyük önem arz etmektedir. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı; (a) destinasyon deneyimini bileşenlerini sahil ve kültür destinasyonları üzerinde karşılaştırmalı ortaya koymak ve (b) bu deneyim bileşenlerine yönelik milliyetler bazında farklılıkları değerlendirmektir. İstanbul ve Antalya destinasyonlarında gerçekleştirilen bu çalışma kapsamında, veri toplama aracı olarak anket tekniğinden faydalanılmıştır. Toplam 1281 yabancı turistin katılımcı olarak yer aldığı araştırmada elde edilen bulgulara göre, destinasyon deneyimi bileşenleri olarak; yerel kültür, aktiviteler, misafirperverlik, altyapı, yenilik fırsatları, hizmet kalitesi, üstyapı estetiği, gastronomi, ulaşım, fiziki coğrafya, ekonomik değer ve duygular boyutları ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu boyutlardan fiziki coğrafya boyutu İstanbul’da, ulaşım boyutu ise Antalya’da faktörleşmemiştir. İstanbul’un altyapı, hizmet kalitesi ve ulaşım özellikleri, Antalya’nın ise duygular ve ekonomik değer özellikleri konularında Alman turistlere ilişkin algıların İngiliz ve Ruslara göre daha negatif yönlü olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHİN, İ., GÜZEL, F. Ö. (2018). Components of Destination Experience: A Comparative Research on Antalya and İstanbul Destinations. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1, 77–89. https://ajindex.com/articles/145058

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Boorstin, D. (1964). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Newyork: Harper. Burkart, A. J. ve Medlik, S. (1992).
  2. Tourism, Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Chew, J. (1987). Transport and Tourism in the Year 2000, Tourism Management, 8 (2): 83-85.
  3. Chi, C. ve Qu, H. (2008). Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach, Tourism Management, 29: 624-636.
  4. Crompton, J. (1979).
  5. Motivations for Pleasure Vacation, Annals of Tourism Research, 408-424.
  6. Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination Competitiveness: An Analysis of Determinant Attributes, Journal of Travel Research, 50 (27): 27-45.
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  8. Çetin, G. ve Bilgihan, A. (2014). Components of Cultural Tourists’ Experiences in Destinations, Current Issues in Tourism, 19 (2): 1-18.
  9. Driscoll, A., Lawson, R. ve Niven, B. (1994). Measuring Tourists’ Destination Perceptions, Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3): 499–511.
  10. Dwyer, L. ve Kim, C. (2003). Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators, Current Issues in Tourism, 6 (5): 369-414.
  11. Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N. ve Mules, T. (2000). Forecasting the Economic Impacts of Events and Conventions, Event Management, 6 (3): 175-191.
  12. Edensor, T. (2001).
  13. Performing Tourism, Staging Tourism, Tourist Studies, 1: 59–81.
  14. Fields, K. (2002). Demand for the Gastronomy Tourism Product: Motivational Factors. İçinde A. M. Hjalager ve G. Richards (Editörler), Tourism and Gastronomy (ss. 36- 50), Londra: Routledge. Go, F. M. ve Govers, R. (2000). Integrated Quality Management for Tourist Destinations: A European Perspective on Achieving Competitiveness, Tourism Management, 21(1): 79-81.
  15. Gunn, C. (1988). Tourism Planning. New York: Taylor & Francis. Huberty, C. J. ve Petoskey, M. D. (2000). Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance. İçinde H. T. Brown (Editör), Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling. New York: Academic Press.
  16. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Ivanovic, M., Khunou, P. S., Reynish, N., Pawson, R., Tseane, L. ve Wassung, N. (2009). Tourism Development 1: Fresh Perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education and Prentice Hall. Jang, S. ve Feng, R. (2007). Temporal Destination Revisit Intention: The Ef