컨벤션 개최국의 위험지각, 이미지, 방문의도간의 구조적 관계분석

Abstract

위험지각은 관광목적지 선택에 영향을 미치는 주요 변수로서 위험지각과 타변수들과의 관계에 관한 다양한 연구가 수행되었다. 하지만, 위험지각과 타변수들과의 관계에 대한 연구결과는 일관성을 보여주지 못했으며, 일관성이 결여된 주요 원인으로 여행목적지의 특성, 개인적 차이, 연구가 수행된 시기 등 다양한 가능성이 제기되고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 위험지각과 목적지 선택과 관련하여 의미있는 변수로 연구되었던 이미지 및 방문의도간의 구조적 관계를 방문경험의 조절효과를 중심으로 컨벤션 참가자를 대상으로 분석하는데 있다. 위험지각, 이미지 및 행동의도 관련 문헌연구를 바탕으로 변수간의 관계를 설명하는 모형을 제시하고 모형의 실증적 검증을 위한 4개의 가설을 설정하였다. 가설 1은 위험지각과 이미지와의 관계를, 가설 2는 이미지와 방문의도와의 관계를 설명하고 있으며, 가설 3과 4는 이 과정에서 방문경험의 조졀효과를 설명하고 있다. 가설검증을 위하여 측정이 요구되는 주요변수인 위험지각, 이미지 및 방문의도 등의 측정항목은 관련 선행연구를 통하여 도출하였으며 조사대상지인 태국에 부합되게 수정 및 보완하였다. 조사대상자는 기업체에서 업무관련 태국에서 개최되는 컨벤션 참석이 필요한 잠재 컨벤션 참가자로 하였다. 설문조사는 온라인 설문 전문회사가 확보한 패널을 대상으로 실시되었으며, 확보된 총 401매의 유효표본이 통계분석에 활용되었다. 가설검증을 위하여 탐색적 요인분석, 확인적 요인분석, 구조방정식모형분석, 및 다중집단 경로분석 등이 수행되었다. 분석결과 가설 1과 가설 2는 부분적으로 지지되었으며, 위험지각과 방문의도간의 관계에서 이미지의 매개효과를 확인 할 수 있었다. 한편, 방문경험의 조절효과를 설명하는 가설 3과 가설 4는 부분적으로 지지되었다. 본 연구는 위험지각, 이미지 및 방문의도간의 구조적 관계를 방문경험의 조절효과를 중심으로 개념적으로 설명하고 실증적으로 검증하였다는데 의의가 있으나 방법론상의 개선이 요구된다. 향후 설명력제고를 위한 모형의 보완 및 추가적인 실증연구의 필요성이 제기되고 있다.|The perception of risk on the destination might influence on the tourists’ decision making negatively and might be a crucial cause to give up or cancel their travel plan. Nowadays tourism destinations face much more critical and various types of risks such as terrorism, international conflicts, contagious diseases, earthquakes, tsunami, etc. than ever before and it is increasingly important to understand the concept of risk perception. However, earlier studies were not able to reveal how risk perception affects intention to visit a tourism destination properly. That’s why recent studies focus on mediating roles of image, attitude, satisfaction and etc. that might help explain the relation between risk perception and behavioral intention. Although both risk perception and destination image are highly correlated conceptually and might be critical factors to choose the destination, there were very few studies that integrated both concepts in the study. Recently some studies revealed that destination image might relate between risk perception and visit intention. However, their results were not able to prove the moderating role of visit experience between risk perception, destination image and visit intention since the researches focused on the tourists only who either visited the destination or did not although the visit experience might play a significant role between those variables. In addition, there was a lack of researches on convention industry and convention participants even though the industry has contributed to boost related industries such as tourism, hospitality, aviation, transportation, etc. and also enhance the destination image. Therefore, this paper has developed a research model based on previous studies that relates between risk perception and visit intention using the mediator of convention destination image and the moderator of visit experience. Four hypotheses were presented to test the relationship between variables. The first and second ones were to test whether risk perception might significantly influence on the convention destination image negatively and the convention destination image on visit intention positively. The third and fourth ones were to test the moderating effects of visit experience between risk perception and the destination image and between the destination image and visit intention. To test the hypotheses, the study performed an online survey using a quota sampling method with the potential convention participants who work at the companies while designating Thailand as the convention destination. Total 401 effective samples were collected with 201 visitors to Thailand and 200 non-visitors and carried out a structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses. The results showed that risk perception consisted of three factors of facility-financial risk, physical risk and socio-psychological risk and convention destination image also consisted of attractiveness, activities, and accessibility factors. Hypotheses 1 and 2 have been proved partially since only facility-financial risk influenced on accessibility factor, socio-psychological risk on attractiveness and activities factors, and also attractiveness and activities factors influenced on visit intention positively. Hypotheses 3 and 4 tested whether visit experience moderated the relation between risk perception, destination image and visit intention. The results showed that hypotheses 3 and 4 partially proved since the facility-financial risk affected more significantly on attractiveness factor for those who visited before than those who did not. In the other hand, the activities factor more significantly influenced on visit intention for those who didn’t visit than those visited. These were consistent with the previous researches. However, the result that physical risk influenced on attractiveness factor positively needs to be investigated further since this result is contrary to the negative characteristics of risk perception on dependent variable. This study has both academic and practical implications since it has contributed to reveal the moderating effects of visit experience on the relation between risk perception, destination image, and visit intention and the visit experience might be utilized as a market segmentation criteria to attract potential convention visitors to the convention destination because visitors and non-visitors showed different reactions on the destination risks and images. In spite of these contributions, this research has some limitations. First of all, it triggers a necessity to develop both valid and reliable scales of risk perception and destination image since some of measurement items were deleted from statistical analysis with low reliabilities and the extracted factors were not consistent with the model of this study. Second, the factors of risk perception did not consistently influence on the destination image negatively which raised a necessity to study further. Third, it could not reflect the span of time in the research model since this research was done at a specific point in time and was not able to monitor the chronological changes of risk perception and destination image with the lapse of time. A certain disaster or political turmoil might have a big impact on the potential tourists’ decision making for a certain period of time, but the impact might be lessened with the time passed. Finally, this research did not accommodate some variables such as involvement, motivation, trust, knowledge, personality, nationality and etc. in the research model even though they were suggested as valid factors in earlier studies to explain the relation between risk perception, destination image, and visit intention. Future studies with these variables might contribute to explain the relation between risk perception and visit intention.; The perception of risk on the destination might influence on the tourists’ decision making negatively and might be a crucial cause to give up or cancel their travel plan. Nowadays tourism destinations face much more critical and various types of risks such as terrorism, international conflicts, contagious diseases, earthquakes, tsunami, etc. than ever before and it is increasingly important to understand the concept of risk perception. However, earlier studies were not able to reveal how risk perception affects intention to visit a tourism destination properly. That’s why recent studies focus on mediating roles of image, attitude, satisfaction and etc. that might help explain the relation between risk perception and behavioral intention. Although both risk perception and destination image are highly correlated conceptually and might be critical factors to choose the destination, there were very few studies that integrated both concepts in the study. Recently some studies revealed that destination image might relate between risk perception and visit intention. However, their results were not able to prove the moderating role of visit experience between risk perception, destination image and visit intention since the researches focused on the tourists only who either visited the destination or did not although the visit experience might play a significant role between those variables. In addition, there was a lack of researches on convention industry and convention participants even though the industry has contributed to boost related industries such as tourism, hospitality, aviation, transportation, etc. and also enhance the destination image. Therefore, this paper has developed a research model based on previous studies that relates between risk perception and visit intention using the mediator of convention destination image and the moderator of visit experience. Four hypotheses were presented to test the relationship between variables. The first and second ones were to test whether risk perception might significantly influence on the convention destination image negatively and the convention destination image on visit intention positively. The third and fourth ones were to test the moderating effects of visit experience between risk perception and the destination image and between the destination image and visit intention. To test the hypotheses, the study performed an online survey using a quota sampling method with the potential convention participants who work at the companies while designating Thailand as the convention destination. Total 401 effective samples were collected with 201 visitors to Thailand and 200 non-visitors and carried out a structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses. The results showed that risk perception consisted of three factors of facility-financial risk, physical risk and socio-psychological risk and convention destination image also consisted of attractiveness, activities, and accessibility factors. Hypotheses 1 and 2 have been proved partially since only facility-financial risk influenced on accessibility factor, socio-psychological risk on attractiveness and activities factors, and also attractiveness and activities factors influenced on visit intention positively. Hypotheses 3 and 4 tested whether visit experience moderated the relation between risk perception, destination image and visit intention. The results showed that hypotheses 3 and 4 partially proved since the facility-financial risk affected more significantly on attractiveness factor for those who visited before than those who did not. In the other hand, the activities factor more significantly influenced on visit intention for those who didn’t visit than those visited. These were consistent with the previous researches. However, the result that physical risk influenced on attractiveness factor positively needs to be investigated further since this result is contrary to the negative characteristics of risk perception on dependent variable. This study has both academic and practical implications since it has contributed to reveal the moderating effects of visit experience on the relation between risk perception, destination image, and visit intention and the visit experience might be utilized as a market segmentation criteria to attract potential convention visitors to the convention destination because visitors and non-visitors showed different reactions on the destination risks and images. In spite of these contributions, this research has some limitations. First of all, it triggers a necessity to develop both valid and reliable scales of risk perception and destination image since some of measurement items were deleted from statistical analysis with low reliabilities and the extracted factors were not consistent with the model of this study. Second, the factors of risk perception did not consistently influence on the destination image negatively which raised a necessity to study further. Third, it could not reflect the span of time in the research model since this research was done at a specific point in time and was not able to monitor the chronological changes of risk perception and destination image with the lapse of time. A certain disaster or political turmoil might have a big impact on the potential tourists’ decision making for a certain period of time, but the impact might be lessened with the time passed. Finally, this research did not accommodate some variables such as involvement, motivation, trust, knowledge, personality, nationality and etc. in the research model even though they were suggested as valid factors in earlier studies to explain the relation between risk perception, destination image, and visit intention. Future studies with these variables might contribute to explain the relation between risk perception and visit intention.