Chapter Two Literature Review
Chapter Two Literature Review
Chapter Two Literature Review
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to identify the most important push factors that drive tourists to
travel and the most important pull factors that attract them to specific destinations. In
addition, it provides a clear picture concerning the Islamic attributes of destination in the
context of Islamic teachings that may lead to tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty.
It starts with a review of the tourism literature to define tourism motivation, followed
by a discussion of tourism motivation theories with a focus on the theory of pull and push
motivation; the selected theory for this study. Then, the chapter presents the research gaps
related to tourism motivation. Next, the chapter presents a detailed examination of tourist
satisfaction and its relationship with tourism motivation and destination loyalty. Then the
chapter presents the research gaps related to tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty.
Lastly, the Islamic attributes of destination are also discussed followed by related research
gaps.
An investigation of the real reasons related to why people travel and what they want
to enjoy can be quite complex. One way to approach the subject is to investigate the
motivational aspects of tourism, although it is only one of multiple variables that explain
behaviour such as perceptions, cultural, learning, and social influences, motives are the
initial point that starts the decision process (Crompton & McKay, 1997). In psychology and
17
sociology, the motivation is directed towards external and internal motives (Gnoth, 1997).
internal motive is related to feelings, drives, and instincts. Motivation is known as the
primary force that stimulates such behaviour (Iso-Ahola, 1999). Behaviour is a process of
internal psychological factors such as needs and goals, which can, to some extent, produce
tension. This leads to behaviour that is designed to liberate this tension in diverse forms
As a dynamic concept, motivation differs from one destination to another, from one
market segment to another, from one person to another, and from one decision-making
process to the next (Uysal & Hagan, 1993; Witt & Wright, 1992). According to Iso-Ahola
(1989, p. 249), “psychologists generally agree that a search for some optimum level of
internal forces and external goals and incentives that direct, express, and integrate a
the psychological experience of pleasure and recreational travel (Uysal & Hagan, 1993).
Thus, Tourism motivation is a dynamic process of internal emotional factors (wants and
needs) that create tension or disequilibrium within individuals. These internal needs and the
disequilibrium lead to actions being taken that are aimed to restore the equilibrium by
(e.g. Goodall, 1988; Witt & Wright, 1992). The existence of the former creates the latter.
People may plan to take a journey to fulfil their psychological and physiological needs –
18
psychological such as relaxation and adventure, and physiological such as food, health, and
climate (Mayo & Jarvis, 1981). In line with that, Beerli and Martin (2004) defined
motivation as “the need that drives an individual to act in a certain way to achieve the
desired satisfaction”. Motivation is viewed as biological needs and wants that stimulate and
incorporate a person’s behaviour and activity (Dann, 1981; Uysal & Hagan, 1993).
Desiring something and needing something are two different things. Desire is a
recognized need and the difference between needs and desires is awareness. Thus,
motivation comes to mind when an individual aims to satisfy a recognized need (Uysal &
that serves as a driving force to display different kinds of behavior toward certain types of
Jang and Wu (2006) pointed out that “motivation refers to a psychological condition
in which an individual is oriented towards and tries to achieve a kind of fulfillment”. Mook
(1996) also defined motivation as the source of human behaviour. According to Moutinho
certain kinds of action that probably bring satisfaction. Heckhausen (1989) pointed out that
each motive has its different sort of contents in the form of goals of behaviour. “Contents”
means that an individual desires from a range of learned actions, while the “goals” are
Gnoth (1997) pointed out that “drive” is a central concept in both emotion and
behaviourist psychology and it is considered the energizer for behaviour, which may be
19
explained by motivation. Therefore, motivation is one of the factors that help to explain
travel behaviour. It has been suggested that motivation should be seen as only one of the
many factors that contribute to predicting tourist behaviour and several or multi-motives
affect the travel decision (Crompton, 1979; Pearce, 1982). Pizam (1979) suggested that
tourist motivation refers to the set of wants that influence (or push) an individual to travel
revealed a base for different tourism motivation theories; for example Crompton’s theory,
expectancy theory, the means-end theory, and drive theory (Card & Kestel, 1988; Cohen,
1972; Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1976, 1977; Dann, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1980; Iso-Ahola, 1982,
1983; Pearce, 1982; Pyo et al., 1989; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). Although there are many
competing theories that try to explain travel motivation, which is not an easy task, Pearce
(1982) argues that no single theory of travel motivation can completely explain tourist
behaviour. He suggests that travel motivation theory should take into consideration long
term goals, measurement issues, multi motive causes of behaviour, the perspective of the
motivated behaviours.
Fodness (1994) also argued that each travel motivation theory has its strengths and
weaknesses, and empirical support and more operationalization are required. In the current
study, the theory of interest, which the researcher thinks it may serve the objective of the
20
study, is well known with the theory of pull and push motivation by Tolman (1959) and
Most of the competing theories that try to explain travel motivation are based on the
concept of internal and external forces. In the following sections the most popular
expectancy theory. The expectancy theory of motivation has been refined and expanded by
Deci (1975) and Deci and Ryan (1987). Deci and Ryan (1987) argued that motivation is
researchers such as Parrinello (1993) and Gnoth (1997) in terms of expectation, which
Maslow’s needs hierarchy is “perhaps the most popular theory of motivation used by
leisure authors” (Iso-Ahola, 1980, p.233). Maslow categorized human needs into five types
ascending from the most fundamental, which were physiological needs, safety, social,
esteem, and self-actualization needs, and he suggested that one need appears once a more
fundamental need is satisfied. However, Iso-Ahola (1980:p.234) reported that “While the
theory is intuitively appealing its basic tenet (hierarchy of needs) remains highly suspect”.
Moreover, Crompton and McKay (1997) claimed that no empirical evidence for Maslow’s
21
needs hierarchy theory has been found in the tourism literature to this point, and it did not
Maslow’s (1954, cited in Uysal & Hagan, 1993) hierarchy of needs has been
suggested by Hudman (1980) as a basis for push factors of travel. The six levels of needs
that are related to the push factors of travel motivation are (Uysal & Hagan, 1993): (1)Need
for self actualization; (2) Need for self-esteem; (3) Need for recognition/status; (4) Need for
belonging; (5) Need for safety/security; and (6) Need for physiological/requirements.
psychological motives for every individual are expressed explicitly but Crompton has
specifically identified seven social-psychological motives for travel, as follows: (1) Escape
from a perceived mundane environment; (2) Exploration and evaluation; (3) Relaxation; (4)
Prestige; (5) Regression; (6) Enhancement of kinship relationships; and (7) Facilitation of
social interaction.
The idea behind Crompton’s theory is that before the travel experience or the long-
needs. Then, after travelling or during the vacation, equilibrium of those needs is
need, not the gratified (equilibrium) need, energizes and directs human action.
22
2.3.4 The Drive Theory
Gnoth (1997) claimed that the drive theory explains tourists’ expectation formation
generated by feelings of deficiency and the force of the drive is related to the duration of
deficiency. Therefore, the drive theory is part of the stimulus-reaction (S-R) approach to
behaviour (Gnoth, 1997). The drive theory assumes that a result gains its positive value by
its potential for drive-reduction, referring to the physiological deficiency, which produces a
tension that creates non-selective activity. Associations with crucial needs such as food,
relaxation, and rest increase the value for returns (Porter & Lawler, 1968; p.11).
The means-end theory is also used as a practical framework to examine the push and
pull relationship. The ‘means’ refer to the destination attributes, while the ‘ends’ refer to
the motivational forces, which are important to the traveller in selecting potential
destinations (Uysal et al., 2008). Klenosky (2002) used the means-end approach to examine
which factors help in choosing from among the alternative destinations to travel for
vacation. The means-end theory can help to determine the destination attributes that attract
tourists to select specific destinations and examines the relationships between these
destination attributes and the motivational forces. In other words, the means-end theory
provides an alternative approach for examining the extent to which these higher level forces
match the destination attributes that influence tourists to travel to specific destinations.
23
2.3.6 Seeking/Escaping Theory
Dann (1981) determined two basic travel motivations; anomie and ego-enhancement.
Anomie represents the desire to get away from daily life and ego-enhancement obtains
from the need for recognition, which is gained by the status conferred by travel. In the same
context, Iso-Ahola (1982) also recognized two motivational forces that become
determinants of tourism behaviour; seeking and escaping. Escaping is “the desire to leave
the everyday environment behind oneself”, while seeking is “the desire to obtain
the individual’s travel behaviour. Iso-Ahola’s escape-seeking dichotomy and the concept of
generic categories to the push (escape) and pull (seeking) factors, which were introduced by
Dann (1977, 1981) and Crompton (1979). According to Iso-Ahola (1982), an individual
traveller can be found in any one of the four quadrants at a given time and under certain
conditions (See Figure 2.1). Iso-Ahola (1989) suggests that each quadrant by itself or with
other quadrants are the driving forces for travel. The seeking and escape forces were
subdivided into personal and interpersonal aspects. Therefore, a tourist may escape the
personal world such as personal problems and/or the interpersonal world such as family
members. He may seek personal rewards such as rest and relaxation and/or interpersonal
rewards such as interacting with old friends in a new place (Iso-Ahola, 1982, p. 60).
24
Seeking personal rewards
Dann (1977), following Tolman’s work (1959) introduced the concept of pull-push of
tourist motivation in tourism research. In answering the question “what makes tourist
travel” he indicated that there is a distinction between “push” and “pull” factors. The theory
assumes that people travel because they are pushed by internal desire and pulled by external
forces (Uysal et al., 2008). The concepts of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ intimate that people travel
because they are pushed and pulled to do so by “forces”. These forces describe how
25
individuals are pushed by motivational factors to take a travel decision and how they are
motivation based on the theory of push and pull motivation has been generally established
(Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Bogari et al., 2004; Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Jang & Cai,
2002; Kim & Lee, 2002; Kozak, 2002a; Oh et al., 1995; Pyo et al., 1989; Yoon & Uysal,
2005; Yuan &McDonald, 1990). The theory assumes that individuals travel and select their
tourism destinations according to different push and pull motivational factors. Basically,
this is a two-step process involving push factors, which motivate an individual to leave
his/her home, and pull factors, which draw an individual to travel to a specific place. While
much has been written about the theory of push and pull factors and some researchers (e.g.,
Baloglu & Usal 1996; Bogari et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2003; Uysal & Jurowski 1994; You et
al., 2000) have investigated the relationship between the two variables (why people desire
to go on a holiday, and why they select particular places), the relationship, and the theory in
persuade them to travel and help explain the travel desire (Crompton, 1979; Goossens,
2000; Klenosky, 2002; Kozak, 2002b; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Thus, most of the push factors
are fundamental motivators and origin-related factors that generate a desire to satisfy a
travel need (Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Klenosky (2002) claimed that "Push factors refer to
the specific forces in our lives that lead to the decision to take a vacation (i.e., to travel
outside of our normal daily environment)". Furthermore, most of the push factors are
insubstantial desires of the tourists. A review of the literature suggests that people are
26
initially pushed by internal desires to travel, which may include rest and relaxation, escape,
social interaction, meeting with family, health and fitness, increasing knowledge,
adventure, and prestige (Uysal & Hagan, 1993; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994).
Kim et al. (2003) argued that "push factors have been conceptualized as motivational
factors or needs that arise due to a disequilibrium or tension in the motivational system".
Push factors motivate or generate a desire to travel (Crompton, 1979; Hanqin & Lam, 1999;
Kim et al., 2006; Uysal et al., 1993). Uysal and Hagan (1993) stressed that push factors are
origin-related and refer to intangible, intrinsic desires of the individual traveller. The push
1981). In other words, push forces are considered as ‘the desire to travel’ and associated
with the decision ‘whether to go’ (Kim et al., 2007). It is believed to be related to an
individual’s intention to use or not to use the entire class of products (e.g., in tourism, to
take a trip or to do an alternative leisure activity). The destination marketing should focus
on push motives to improve the destination’s competitiveness. Knowing why people travel
may help to provide appropriate attractions and activities for them (Correia et al., 2007).
Pull factors, on the other hand, are those emerging from the destination’s
attractiveness, as perceived by individual travellers (Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). They give
signs as to what external attributes attract people and pull them to visit particular
destinations (Klenosky, 2002; Uysal & Hagan, 1993; You et al., 2000; Yuan & Mcdonald,
1990). Klenosky (2002) argued that "Pull factors refer to those that lead an individual to
select one destination over another once the decision to travel has been made”. They
include both tangible resources, such as recreation, facilities, beaches, and cultural
forces are related to the decision ‘where to go’ (Kim et al., 2007).
The pull factors refer to a mixture of facilities and services that all contribute to the
destination attractiveness for people in a selection situation (Hu & Ritchie, 1993). Once a
tourist decides to travel, it is the pull factors that attract the tourist to select a particular
destination (Oh et al., 1995). Pull factors are the ‘destination attributes’ or ‘drawing
powers’, which respond to the push factors of motivations. Destination attributes can either
be material resources or the perceived expectations of the tourist (Uysal & Hagan, 1993).
The push and pull theory of travel motivation can be used for explaining travel
patterns and behaviour. The main elements of travel motivations – pull and push – may
represent two major elements of the market place: demand and supply. Some push factors
are the behaviour results of an inner emotional state and pose opportunities for interaction
and participation. These factors are the essence of travel motivation in the first place,
representing the demand side of the equation. Thus, potential and actual visitors are the
ones who seem to have more control over these attributes. The responses to the demand
side or pull factors, including benefits sought at the destination or desired features in a hotel
would then naturally represent the supply side of the travel experience. Therefore, the pull
factors are mainly maintenance attributes without which one might not achieve some
degree of tourist satisfaction (Uysal et al., 2008). Figure 2.2 shows examples of push and
28
Push factors Traveler Pull factors
utilitarian (Crompton, 1979; Fodness, 1994). After Crompton’s initial effort, some studies
have tried to find push and pull motivational factors in different contexts such as
nationalities (such as Cha et al., 1995; Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Zhang & Lam, 1999),
destinations (Jang & Cai, 2002) and events (such as Lee et al., 2004; Nicholson & Pearce,
2001). The regular push factors revealed in most of the studies may include family
29
togetherness, relaxation, and knowledge-seeking, while most frequent pull factors include
environment, facilities, natural and historic, cost, ease of access, and safety (Jang & Wu,
2006).
According to Uysal et al. (2008) push and pull factors are the forces at play in
choosing a destination. The choices depend on a number of variables. The variables used in
explaining selection decisions usually fall into four groups: (a) internal variables (i.e. push
motivation, lifestyles, values, images, tourists’ personality); (b) external variables (i.e.,
destination pull factors, hindrances, marketing mix, family and reference group influences,
social class, household-related variables such as power structure, lifestyle, and group
decision making style); (c) the features of the proposed trip (party size, distance, time, and
trip duration); and (d) trip experiences (feeling or mood while on vacation, post-purchase
assessment); the nature of interaction among all these variables results in the ultimate
choice of a destination.
behaviour in which the person tries to satisfy diverse needs (Uysal & Hagan, 1993). A
number of researchers claim that tourists could have a variety of motivations to travel
(Crompton, 1979; Kozak, 2002a; Mansfeld, 1992; Mayo & Jarvis, 1981). For example, the
demand for unusual destinations is mainly decided by social and intellectual rewards and
30
2.4 Importance of Tourism Motivation
determining why people travel and why they select a particular destination. Therefore,
understanding the theory of pull and push motivations gives several benefits for destination
marketers (Correia et al., 2007; Crompton & McKay, 1997; Dann, 1977; Fodness, 1994;
Gnoth, 1997; Kim et al., 2007; Klenosky, 2002; Kozak, 2002b; Lee et al., 2004; Uysal &
Hagan, 1993; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Uysal and Jurowski (1994) pointed out that
knowledge about push and pull factors can aid destination marketers and tourism
destination developers in determining the most successful push and full factors.
Crompton and McKay (1997) argued that understanding travel motivations may help
as follows; (a) understanding tourists’ motivations would pave the way for providing better
products and services, (b) satisfaction with the tourism experience is fundamentally related
to the preliminary motives of tourists, and (c) motives must be determined before
Many researchers argued that tourists’ decisions are best expected by the push and
pull approach in decision making travel(Kim et al., 2007). Klenosky (2002) claimed that
the pull and push theory has been known as a useful framework for marketers to examine
the different factors that persuade travellers to take a trip and, given that decision, the
factors that attract that traveller to select a specific destination. Gnoth (1997) also reported
that the push and pull theory help in behaviour explanation for practical and managerial
reasons as well as assist in the satisfaction of its original cognitive and arousing motives.
Uysal and Jurowski (1994) also suggested that simultaneous examination of destination
31
attributes and tourist motivation helps in designing marketing programmes and in decision
making of destination development. Uysal et al. (2008) also pointed out that they allow
The advantage of approaching tourist motivation from the perspective of push and
motivation factors and the degree to which destination marketers might have control over
some of these factors (Uysal et al., 2008). Understanding that tourists are motivated by
several variables is important to destination area developers who must be able to present a
broad array of activities, attractions and services to meet the specific psychological needs of
the individual traveller(Uysal & Hagan, 1993). According to empirical findings, destination
marketers would either promote destination attributes that meet tourist motivations or focus
on a different market where tourist motivations and destination attractions meet each other
(Kozak, 2002a).
tourism marketers can maximize allocation of scarce tourism resources and promote their
tourism destinations (Correia et al., 2007; Huang & Hsu, 2009; Lee et al., 2004; Uysal et
travel motivation (Fodness, 1994). Iso-Ahola (1982) also stated that motivation is one of
32
Getz (1991, p. 84) highlighted the importance of understanding tourists’ motives for
attending festivals and events. In a planning and resource management context, motivation
knowledge enables key players to identify usage levels of specific resources, however, they
The push and pull motivation, as mentioned earlier, represent the base for
understanding tourist behaviour. However, the interaction of pull and push is considered
debateable in tourism literature. In general, these factors have been distinguished as relating
to two split decisions made at two separate spots in time. One of them concentrates on
whether to go and the other on where to go (Kim et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2007; Klenosky,
2002). Although these are separate decisions, many researchers have discussed these
factors and described them as not operating independently of one another. For example,
Kim et al. (2006) pointed out that they are interconnected in that tourists may take vacation
One of the suggestions is that tourists travel because they are pushed by their own
attributes (Cha & McCleary, 1995; Jamrozy & Uysal, 1994). Other researchers described
the pull factors of a destination as responding to the motivational push (Oh et al., 1995).
destination’s ability to pull or attract the tourist. However, the hypothesis is that in order for
33
interactions perspective, using destination ‘pull’ in response to motivational ‘push’ (Uysal
et al., 2008).
Uysal et al. (2008) claimed that people travel or indulge in leisure activities because
they are pushed or pulled by the forces of motivation and destination attributes. Thus, Dann
(1981) pointed out that tourists’ motivation should be examined in a two tiered framework;
‘push’ and ‘pull’ domains. Crompton (1979) argued that push factors “may be useful not
only in explaining the initial arousal, energizing, or ‘push’ to take a vacation, but may also
have directive potential to direct the tourists toward a particular destination” (p. 412). Dann
(1981) also noted that “once the trip has been decided upon, where to go, what to see or
what to do (relating to the specific destinations) can be tackled. Thus, analytically, and
often both logically and temporally, push factors precede pull factors”.
Push factors are said to predispose individuals to travel, while pull factors shed light
on the destination selection decision (Uysal et al., 2008). Although the two variables have
been seen as relating to different decisions, they should not be viewed as operating
completely independently of each other (Dann, 1981, p. 191, p. 206). Uysal and Jurowski
(1994) also supported the correlation between push and pull factors indicating the existing
and psychological needs can be a primary motivation for travel. He suggested that people
live in a socio-psychological equilibrium, which may become unstable over time. This can
occur during a period of routinized and repetitive action, such as at work or in the home
environment. The need for change, relaxation, or escape from a perceived mundane
34
environment results in psychological disequilibrium. The interaction between the two also
has a behavioural dimension that not only includes reasons for travel but also the perception
of destination attributes.
Some studies with canonical correlation analysis (such as Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Oh
et al., 1995; Pyo et al., 1989) demonstrate that there is a reciprocal interaction between push
and pull factors of travel behaviour. For example, Pyo et al. (1989) attempted to delineate
the nature and extent of the relationship between two sets of factors, motives (push) and
that it is possible to combine attraction attributes with motives. One of their four variates
for the US touring trip market revealed that tours to museums and galleries should meet
and amusement parks should try to cater to social and stimulation motives (Uysal & Hagan,
1993).
It is assumed that push and pull factors are interrelated and, thus, should be
understood as critical factors that influence people’s trip decision and their efforts to meet
individual needs and desires (Kim et al., 2006). However, Kim et al. (2007) argue that
while these two sets of forces seem to be independent, it should be noted that they are
decisions on both, and take them in a two-step process. Bogari et al. (2004) also supported
that significant relationships were found between the push and pull factors.
35
2.6 Push and Pull Motivation Factors
Several studies of push and pull factors have been identified in destination marketing
research. However, some studies focus on identifying both push and pull factors (Baloglu
& Uysal, 1996; Crompton, 1979; Oh et al., 1995; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; Yuan &
Mcdonald, 1990), while others give more attention to push factors only (Cha & McCleary,
1995; Fodness, 1994) or pull factors only (Sirakaya & McLellan, 1997). Moreover, the
approaches used in these studies to determine push and pull factors are also different. Some
used qualitative approaches such as personal interviews (Crompton, 1979), others focused
more on scale development approaches (Dann, 1978; Fodness, 1994) and others utilized
multivariate analyses (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Crompton, 1979; Oh et al., 1995; Uysal &
Jurowski, 1994; Yuan & Mcdonald, 1990). Some studies tried to explore the relationship
between push and pull factors (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Jamrozy & Uysal, 1994; Jang &
Cai, 2002; Kim & Jogaratnam, 2002; Kim & Chalip, 2004; Kim et al., 2003; Oh et al.,
1995)
Crompton’s study (1979) first sought to identify push and pull relationships in
tourism. The study used unstructured in-depth interviews and classified nine resulting
cultural motives (pull factors) were “novelty”, and “education”, which are at least partially
36
Devesa et al. (2010) empirically studied the relationship between motivation and
tourist satisfaction in the rural tourism sector in Spain. Seventeen pull and push items were
used in cluster analysis. The study results revealed four market segments, namely: “a visitor
looking for tranquillity, rest and contact with nature”, “cultural visitor”, “proximity-
gastronomic and nature visitor”, and “return tourist”. The results of the study also indicated
that tourists evaluate activities and destination attributes according to the determined
Sangpikul (2008) adopted a push and pull motivations framework to examine tourism
motivations of Japanese senior travellers to Thailand. By using factor analysis, three push
factors were extracted: “novelty and knowledge-seeking”, “rest and relaxation” and “ego-
enhancement”. Four pull factors were also derived, labelled: “cultural and historical
attractions”, “travel arrangements and facilities”, “shopping and leisure activities”, and
“safety and cleanliness”. The study found that “novelty and knowledge-seeking” and
“cultural and historical attractions” are the most important push and pull factors,
respectively. The results also indicated that “psychological well-being” and “education”
Correia et al. (2007) examined the relationships between the push and pull
analysis, fifteen push motives (items) were reduced to three push factors and nineteen pull
motives were reduced to three pull factors. The three push factors were named:
“knowledge”, “leisure”, and “socialization” while the three pull factors were labelled:
“facilities”, “core attractions” and “landscape features”. Moreover, the study used structural
equation modelling to investigate the relationships among push and pull factors and overall
37
perception of the destination. The results indicate that the relationships are weaker than the
relationship between pull and push and the six motivator factors affecting the formation of
seniors. By using twenty-three push and twelve pull items of travel motivation, five push
factors resulted from the factor analysis and were labelled; “ego-enhancement”, “self-
esteem”, “knowledge seeking”, “relaxation”, and “socialization”. Three pull factors were
derived, namely: “cleanliness & safety”, “facilities”, “event & cost”, and “natural &
historical sight”. “Knowledge seeking” and “ego-enhancement” were the most important
factors to motivate the Taiwanese seniors followed by “relaxation” and “socialization”. The
results of the study indicate that the pull motivations are stronger factors in Taiwanese
seniors than the push motivations, and that “health status” and “positive and negative
Kim et al. (2006) conducted a study on how university students are pushed and pulled
respondents were asked to determine how important each item is from a list of thirty-one
push and twenty-five pull motivation items. Seven push factors and six pull factors were
extracted by principal components factor analysis. The push factors were labelled:
“escape”, “seeing and learning”, “adventure and thrill”, “visiting friends and relative”,
“indulgence”, “nature”, and “fun and entertainment”. The pull factors were labelled: “sun
and beaches”, “time and cost”, “sports”, “attractions”, “family”, and “natural environment”.
38
Kau and Lim (2005) conducted a study to understand the factors motivating tourists
from China to visit Singapore and their levels of satisfaction with Singaporean attributes.
Twenty-eight push items were used for factor analysis resulting in six factors, which were
Moreover, the study clustered the respondents into four main segments labelled as
“prestige/knowledge seekers”. The four segments differed significantly from each other.
Bogari et al. (2004) investigated the most important push-pull factors of Saudi
Arabian tourists. Factor analysis was applied to thirty-six push motivational items and forty
pull motivational items. The study identified nine push factors, namely: “cultural value”,
“relaxation”, and “convenience of facilities”. Nine pull factors were also extracted, namely:
“religious”, “budget”, “leisure”, and “upscale”. In addition, the relationship between push
and pull factors was examined by using correlation and regression analysis. The results
supported the significant relationship between the push and pull factors.
Jang and Cai (2002) used a logistic regression (logit) model to determine the
motivation factors that significantly affect the destination choice of British travellers. They
identified twenty-two push items and nineteen pull items. Factor analysis was used,
39
resulting in six push factors and five pull factors. The six push factors were labelled: “novel
experience”, “escape”, “knowledge seeking”, “fun and excitement”, “rest and relaxation”,
and “family and friend togetherness”. The five pull factors were labelled: “natural and
historic environment”, “cleanliness and safety”, “easy to access” and “economical deal”,
“outdoor activity”, and “sunny and exotic atmosphere”. The study identified the
motivational factors that influenced the destination selection by British travellers and
revealed that the British tend to visit the United States for “fun and excitement” and
“outdoor activities”, Oceania for “family and friend togetherness” and Asia for “novel
experience”.
Lee et al. (2002) compared the push and pull motives influencing the destination
selection and holiday activities of German pleasure travellers to the US, Canada, and Asia.
Seventeen push items and twenty-two pull items were factor analysed. Six push factors
were derived and labelled: “escape”, “getaway”, “novelty seeking”, “relaxing”, “bragging
about trip”, and “family togetherness”. Seven pull factors were also extracted, namely:
“atmosphere and weather”, “unique and different people”, and “outdoor activities”.
tourists from the same destination who visited two different countries and across those from
two different destinations who visited the same country. The study investigated the ‘push’
and ‘pull’ motivations of 1,872 British and German tourists visiting Mallorca and Turkey in
the summer of 1998. Fourteen push items were subjected to factor analysis and resulted in
four push factors, which were labelled: “culture”, “pleasure seeking/fantasy”, “relaxation”,
and “physical”. Content analysis was employed on the qualitative data to determine
40
particular factors affecting the tourists’ selection of Mallorca and Turkey. The results
and “access to the sea and beaches” were the most important motivations for British tourists
to visit both Mallorca and Turkey. The most important motivations for German tourists to
visit Mallorca were “weather”, “access to the sea and beaches”, “the length of flight time”,
“level of prices” and “the location of the resort”, respectively. While “weather”, “access to
the sea and beaches”, “level of prices”, “people/culture”, and “scenery and landscape”
were, respectively, the five most important motivations for those selecting Turkey.
You et al. (2000) investigated the differences between the travellers from the United
Kingdom and Japan in terms of push and pull forces. Seventeen push items and fifty-three
pull items were used in this study. The only pull items were subjected to factor analysis.
Ten pull factors were extracted and named: “nature-based activities”, “outdoor sports
activities”, “culture and heritage activities”, “city sightseeing and shopping”, “safety and
services”, “exotic atmosphere and nice weather”, and “camping”. The study supported that
UK and Japanese travel motives differed significantly. In addition, it was found that the top
five push motives for UK travellers were “going places I have not visited before”, “being
together as family”, “increase one’s knowledge about places, people, and things”, “visit
friends and relatives’ and ‘escaping from the ordinary”. For Japanese travellers the top five
push motives were “going places I have not visited before”, “having fun being entertained”,
“getting a change from busy job”, “just relaxing”, “increase one’s knowledge about places,
41
Cha and Jeong (1998) examined the motives of Korean travellers to Australia and
New Zealand. The study revealed four push factors, namely: “sports”, “safety and
maximization of pleasure”, “experience of new culture” and “self improvement”. Five pull
factors were also identified and, named: “tourist attractions”, “natural environment”,
“leisure activities”, “resort environment” and “tourism infrastructure”. The study also
“honeymoon group” and “package group” and supported that the three groups allocated
relationship between fifty-two pull factors and thirty push factors. Their results identified
four market segments in the Australian tourism market. The first segment was labelled:
“safety/comfort seekers” who prefer travelling to secure places as far as possible. The study
suggested that destinations willing to target this category should provide “personal safety”,
“a good standard of hygiene and cleanliness”, and “a warm welcome for these travellers”.
The second segment was named “culture/history seekers” who usually aim to “increase
their knowledge”, “experience different cultures”, “visit historical cities”, “local festivals”,
“see crafts and handiwork”, and “try local cuisine”. The third segment is
“novelty/adventure seekers” who are characterized by looking for novelty and adventure.
The fourth segment is “luxury seekers” who usually target destinations that highlight
products such as “high quality restaurants”, “nightlife and entertainment”, and “first class
accommodation”.
Baloglu and Uysal (1996) replicated the Oh et al. (1995) study by investigating the
relationship between push and pull motivational factors to recognize product bundles in
42
order to structure market segments. Thirty push and fifty-three pull items were determined
and used in canonical analysis. The results identified four significant variates/products
seekers”, and “beach/resort seekers”. The study indicated that “sports activity” pull factors
related to “sports” push factors, and have a relation to “beach-resort factors”. Push motives
such as “learning new things”, “seeing and experiencing foreign destinations” and
“experiencing new and different lifestyles” were matched with destination attributes, which
provide opportunities to “increase knowledge”. The study also found that push motives
such as “travelling to historical”, “safe and secure places” were found to match with
destinations that have attributes such as “high quality restaurants”, “historical sites”, “warm
hospitality”, “guided tours”, “museums and art galleries”, and “safety and cleanliness”.
Travellers who need escape and excitement have been found to be attracted by destinations
In the Uysal and Jurowski (1994) study, twenty-six push items and twenty-nine pull
items were factor analysed. Four push factors were extracted, namely: “re-experience
family togetherness”, “sports”, “cultural experience”, and “escape”. Four pull factors were
“rural/inexpensive”. The study also supported a correlation between the push and pull
Kim and Lee (2002), and Kim et al. (2003) replicated the study by Uysal and
Jurowski (1994) and supported their findings. They argued that the relationship between the
two groups of factors is often positive. Twelve push items and twelve pull items were
extracted to three pull factors and four push factors by factor analysis. Their findings
43
revealed a significant positive correlation between four push factors: “family togetherness
and study, appreciating natural resources and health, escaping from everyday routine, and
adventure and building friendship” and three pull factors “various tourism resources and
information, the convenience of facilities, and easy access to national parks” at the .05 level
of significance. The only exception was the correlation between the pull factor of “easy
access to national parks” and the push factor of “family togetherness and study”.
Hanqin and Lam (1999) based their study on the push and pull model to determine
motivations of Chinese travellers visiting Hong Kong. The study used twenty-two push
motivation items and twenty-six pull items. The results of factor analysis identified five
“relaxation”, and “novelty”, and six pull factors labelled: “hi-tech image”, “expenditure”,
“accessibility”, “service quality and attitude”, “sightseeing variety”, and “cultural links”.
Yuan and McDonald (1990) investigated the push and pull motivations for overseas
travellers by collecting data from four countries: Japan, France, West Germany, and the
United Kingdom. The study used twenty-nine push items and fifty pull items. Five push
Jamrozy and Uysal (1994) attempted to define the role and variations of the pull and
push dimensions of travel and leisure behaviour. By using thirty push items, eight push
environment”, “luxury”, “doing nothing, and prestige”. Fifty-three pull items were also
subjected to factor analysis and resulted in eleven pull factors: “active sports environment”,
culture”, “different culture and cuisine”, and “small towns, villages, and mountains”. The
study identified five travel groups and related them to the delineated factor groupings of
motivational push-and-pull factors. The five groups were alone, wife and husband,
girlfriend and boyfriend, family and friends, and organized tour groups.
Another study by Turnbull and Uysal (1995) investigated push and pull factors and
type of information sources by destination types among German overseas visitors to North
America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Thirty push items and fifty-three pull items
were subjected to factor analysis. Five push factors were extracted; “cultural experience”,
“re-experience family”, “sports”, and “prestige”, and six pull factors were also derived
resources”, and “rural and inexpensive”. The findings of this study also indicated that push-
pull factors of motivations are tied to destination preferences, and that these motivation
Klensoky (2002) examined push and pull motives of university students using fifty-
three on-site interviews. Personal interviews were used to identify a limited number of push
and pull items that arouse students to travel for spring break. The study provided helpful
insights into the relationship between the pull factors and push factors in motivating travel
45
behaviour. However, the study results do not identify the motivational behaviour of college
students.
Qu and Ping (1999) tried to determine the motivation factors of Hong Kong cruise
travellers in addition to identifying their satisfaction level. From eight motivation factors,
namely: “Escape from normal life, Social gathering, Beautiful environment and scenery,
Cultural understanding, Social status, Business purpose, Health and exercise, and Self-
discovery”, the study identified that the major travelling motivation factors were; “escape
from normal life”, “social gathering”, and “beautiful environment and scenery”. By using
Logistic regression analysis, travellers expressed a high satisfaction level with “food and
beverage facilities” and “quality and staff performances”. However, they were dissatisfied
“sport/fitness, shopping and child care facilities”, and “seating space in F&B outlets”. The
most important factors of joining cruise travel again were “accommodation”, “food and
Pyo et al. (1989) utilized canonical correlation analysis to investigate the push and
pull factors of travel behaviour simultaneously. Twenty-two push items and thirty-eight
destination attributes or pull items were identified. The study identified four product
bundles based on the significant relationship between push and pull items. The first
attraction attributes include “first class superstructure and cultural components”. The
second indicated that “tours to museums and galleries” should match intellectual needs.
The third basic items of the touring trip revealed two negatively correlated tourist market
segments. The first segment was “budget conscious people with kinship and relaxation
motives”. They also want “a safe destination environment and good weather” to travel. The
46
second segment wants to “experience different cultures”. The fourth pair of variates
revealed that family oriented and health conscious people visit “natural attractions”, as
nightlife activities”.
Some other empirical studies focused on push motivational factors only. For
example, Boo and Jones (2009) attempted to determine tourist market segments by
metropolitan area. By using factor analysis, six push motivation factors were derived from
Cha et al. (1995) attempted to determine the push factors of Japanese tourists to travel
abroad for tourism. Thirty push motivational items were factor analysed into six main
and relatives”, and “sports activities”. By using cluster analysis, three groups were
determined: (a) the “sport seekers” who are interested in sports activities; (b) the “novelty
seekers” who like increase “knowledge”, “adventure” and “travel bragging”; (c) the
Kim et al. (2007) replicated the study by Cha et al. (1995) to determine the push
motivational factors among US colleges and university students. Using a list of twenty-six
push motivation items, seven factors were extracted from factor analysis, namely:
47
“knowledge”, “sports”, “adventure”, “relax”, “lifestyle”, “travel bragging”, and “family”.
Comparing with the study of Cha et al., only one factor was added, labelled: “lifestyle”.
Beh and Bruyere (2007) in their study identified the tourist motivations for visiting
SNR, BSNR and SHNR; three Kenyan national reserves. Forty-nine items were used as
analysis. The K-means cluster analysis approach was used to determine different tourist
segments based on their motivation. Eight factors were generated from the motivation items
Chiang and Jogaratnam (2006) tried to investigate the patterns of solo women
travellers focusing on their travel motivation. The study used twenty leisure travel
motivations to run factor analysis. Five push motivations were extracted from the analysis,
namely: “experience”, “social”, “self-esteem”, “relax”, and “escape”. Kim and Prideaux
(2005) conducted a study to examine the travel motivation for visiting Korea among five
traveller groups: American, Australian, Japanese, Chinese (Mainland), and Chinese (Hong
Kong SAR). By using twenty-one motivational items, five push factors were identified
from factor analysis. These factors were labelled: “enjoying various tourist resources”,
“culture and history”, “escaping from everyday routine”, “socialization”, and “social
status”.
Mehmet (2005) attempted to cluster nature tourists into two segments (specialists and
general) in northern Norway by using twenty travel motives. Six factors were determined
48
by factor analysis, namely: “nature”, “physical activities”, “novelty/learning”,
Kim and Jogaratnam (2002) conducted a study to investigate the travel motivation of
Asian international and domestic American college students. Seven push factors were
extracted from the factor analysis using twenty-six motivations items labelled:
The study reported that the most important motivation for both domestic and Asian students
was “Having fun or being entertained”, followed by “finding thrills or excitement” for the
domestic students and “seeing and experiencing a foreign destination” for the Asian
students.
Kim and Lee’s study (2000) used twenty-four push motivational items in factor
analysis. The study revealed five push factors, namely: “prestige/status”, “family
togetherness”, “novelty”, “knowledge” and “escape”. Three factors out of a possible five
tourists. Japanese tourists were found to be more interested in the “prestige/status” and the
American tourists were found to be more interested in the “novelty seeking” than Japanese
tourists.
Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola (1991) attempted to determine the important motivations
to sightseeing tourists as well as their satisfaction. They used twenty push motivational
items, which revealed six dimensions from the factor analysis, termed: “general
49
knowledge”, “social interaction”, “escape”, “impulsive decision”, “specific knowledge”,
Lee (2000) identified event motivations between Caucasian and Asian visitors in the
Asian setting of the 1998 Kyongju World Cultural Expo in Korea. The study used thirty-
two motivation items subjected to factor analysis. Seven underlying factors were extracted
socialization”. Lee et al. (2004) duplicated the study conducted by Lee (2000) and
attempted to identify event motivations for visitors attending the 2000 World Culture Expo.
Six factors were derived from thirty-one items by using factor analysis, named: “cultural
“socialization”.
Formica and Uysal (1998) examined the travel motivations of people who attended
the Spoleto Festival in Italy. By using factor analysis, six factors emerged, namely:
“cultural/historical”, “family togetherness” and “site novelty”. Among the six motivation
factors, the most important motivation for attending the festival was “cultural/historical
factor”. Uysal et al. (1993) also examined festival motivations for attending a county Corn
Festival in South Carolina. Using factor analysis, five factors of motivation were extracted
50
Crompton and McKay (1997) attempted to identify festival motivations for attending
a Fiesta in San Antonio, TX. Twenty-eight motivation items were subjected to factor
analysis and six factors were derived, labelled: “cultural exploration”, “novelty/regression”,
and “gregariousness”. Scott (1996) also determined event motivations in three festivals;
Bug Fest, the Holiday Lights Festival and the Maple Sugaring Festival. By using factor
analysis, six factors were extracted from twenty-five motivational items, labelled: “nature
Formica and Uysal (1996) tried to identify festival motivations among those
attending the Umbria Jazz Festival in Italy. Twenty-three items were used in factor
Backman (1996) also examined festival motivations in the Jerash Festival for Culture and
Arts in Jordan. The factor analysis of twenty-three motivations resulted in five factors
“escape”, and “event excitement”. Mohr et al. (1993) also attempted to determine festival
motivations for those attending a Freedom Weekend Aloft (a hot air balloon festival) in
Greenville, South Carolina. Five motivation factors were identified using twenty-three
using exploratory factor analysis, four motivation factors out of five were identified after
51
dropping the “socialization” factor. The four factors of cruise motivation were “self-esteem
Huang and Tsai (2003) identified the travel motivation of Taiwanese seniors. The
most important travel motivation was found to be “get rest and relaxation” (35.6%)
followed by “Meet people and socialization” (20.1%). The study also revealed three travel
barrier factors using factor analysis, termed: “the traveller capabilities”, “direct travel
suppliers” and “indirect travel motivators”. Fleischer and Pizam (2002) also determined
that the most common travel motivations of seniors’ were “rest and relaxation”, “social
Horneman et al. (2002) found that the common travel motivations were
and relatives”.
“attractions and climate”, “dream fulfilment”, “benefits sought” and “trip characteristics”.
Card and Kestel (1988) also identified the travel motivations for travellers who travel to
Germany or are from Germany. The travellers were asked statements representing
McIntosh's four motivational categories. Three motivational categories were extracted from
Josiam et al. (1999) explored the travel motivations of college students on spring
break by conducting focus groups. The study revealed that the major travel motivation for
choosing Panama City Beach was a “good party reputation”, followed by “friends going
52
there”, and “right price”. Sirakaya and McLellan (1997) also investigated the importance of
fifty-six attributes in choosing a spring break destination. Nine factors were extracted from
factor analysis, labelled: “local hospitality and services”, “trip cost and convenience”,
historical link”, “cultural and shopping services”, and “unusual and distant vacation sport”.
Hill et al. (1990) investigated the motivation of resort vacation and how the
motivation differed among four lifecycle stages: (a) single-no children, (b) married-no
children, (c) single with children, and (d) married with children. The study revealed no
significant differences between life cycles for motivations labelled: “relaxation and
escape”, “novelty”, “education”, and “prestige”. The study found that “relaxation and
escape” is the most important motivation for every life cycle, and “novelty”, “education”,
and “prestige” are relatively unimportant to all life cycles. However, the motivation of
enhancement of kinship relationships is more important to those who are married than those
who are single. Health and social motivations are more important to single vacationers than
married vacationers.
From the previous tourism research, it was proposed that people are pushed first by
internal desires such as “the need for escape”, “relaxation”, “adventure”, “prestige”,
and “excitement” (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Cha & McCleary, 1995; Crompton, 1979;
Fodness, 1994; Hanqin & Lam, 1999; Jamrozy & Uysal, 1994; Jang & Cai, 2002; Kim &
Jogaratnam, 2002; Kim & Lee, 2002; Kozak, 2002b; Oh et al., 1995; Uysal & Jurowski,
1994; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). They are then pulled by destination attributes such as “natural
53
scenery”, “historical attractions”, “expenditure”, “sport”, “outdoor activities”, “beaches”,
It is noticed that most of the studies applied exploratory factor analysis to extract the
motivation items. Furthermore, some differences were found between researchers regarding
the items loaded under each motivational factor. Most of the push and pull motivation
It is noticed that very few empirical studies examine the travel motivations for
Muslim tourists only. Moreover, it is very important to recognize that no research has been
done to investigate tourism motivations for Muslim tourists from different nationalities. To
fill this gap, the current study will try to determine the possible tourism motivations that
drive Muslim tourists to travel and select a specific destination. Figures 2.3 shows the push
IAD
PUSM
OTS DEL
PULM
Key: PUSM – Push motivations; PULM – Pull motivations; OTS – overall tourist
satisfaction; DEL – destination loyalty; IAD – Islamic attributes of destination
organizations. Many tourism organizations and travel destinations that compete in the
important and give its achievement high priority (Kozak, 2002b; Turner & Reisinger, 2001;
Wong & Law, 2003; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Yu & Goulden, 2006; Yüksel & Yüksel, 2007),
as it influences the destination selection, the products and services consumption, and the
revisit decision (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000). Tourists generally have primary
expectations regarding the quality of services provided in a specific destination (Akama &
Kieti, 2003). Thus, the success of some destination marketers will depend on how they
2001).
market share, purchase intentions, usage rates, positive word-of-mouth, and customer
loyalty (Arnold et al., 2005; Machleit & Mantel, 2001; Turner & Reisinger, 2001; Yüksel
& Yüksel, 2007). Similarly in the tourism market, satisfaction could enhance the retention
of tourists’ patronage rates, loyalty, which in turn helps in achieving economic goals such
Tourists’ satisfaction is, therefore, vital and logical in this leisure, pleasure and
luxurious industry. This is because satisfied tourists are less price sensitive and if
55
everything goes well during their pleasure trip they will talk positively about the tourist
spots, the travel agents, tour guides, the hotels, caterers and so forth (Nageshwar & Das,
2002). As a result, a positive association between tourist satisfaction and the destination’s
long term economic success does exist (Akama & Kieti, 2003).
academicians for quality improvement. Thus, understanding tourists’ satisfaction with the
destination is vital to marketers to improve the products and services offered, and to
effectively promote them to the target markets for new and repeat tourists (Yu & Goulden,
2006). The level of tourist satisfaction is determined by tourist expectations. If the overall
performance goes beyond or matches initial expectation, then the tourists may be satisfied.
However, if perceived performance is less than the initial expectation then the tourist is
considered dissatisfied (Akama & Kieti, 2003). In other words, tourist satisfaction is a
function of the closeness between the tourist’s product expectations and the product’s
generally recognized as a post-purchase variable that is related to how much customers like
or dislike a product or service after trying it (Woodside et al., 1989). Oliver (1997, p. 13)
levels of under or over fulfillment”. Hunt (1977) also defined customer satisfaction by
56
Table 2.1: Concepts of Satisfaction
Author Definition Key words Object
Oliver (1981, p. Final psychological state resulting Evaluation, Surprise,
27) from the disconfirmed expectancy Final Disconfirmed
related to initial consumer psychological expectancy with
expectations state, relation to pre
Emotional purchase
response expectations
57
Tse and Wilton Consumer response to the Response made Perceived difference
(1988, p. 204) evaluation of the perceived by evaluation between
difference between expectations expectations (other
and final result after consumption measures of results)
and the actual result
of the product
58
In the tourism field, Tribe and Snaith (1998) defined tourists’ satisfaction with a
destination exceeds his or her expectations for those attributes”. Similarly, Pizam et al.
(1978) define tourist satisfaction as “the results of the comparison between a tourist’s
experience at the destination visited and the expectations about the destination”. Moutinho
(1987) also reported that tourists’ satisfaction is a post-purchase variable that generally
In the tourism literature, several researchers have assessed tourist satisfaction using
various theories, such as the norm theory, expectation/disconfirmation theory, equity theory
and overall actual performance model (Assaker et al., 2010; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000;
Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Although the expectancy-disconfirmation theory is considered the
most acceptable theory to assess tourist satisfaction, its use has been questioned (Assaker et
al., 2010). Therefore, the overall actual performance model suggested by Tse and Wilton
disconfirmation model (Assaker et al., 2010; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Qu & Ping, 1999).
have some expectations about a product/service before they buy and then they compare the
performance is better than expectations and this leads to customer satisfaction. However,
negative disconfirmation happens when expectations are greater than performance and this
59
According to the perceived performance model suggested by Tse and Wilton (1988),
evaluated, regardless of their expectations. This model is successful when tourists have no
idea about what they enjoy and have no knowledge regarding their destination
The reason behind using overall actual performance as a better measure to assess
tourist satisfaction is because the actual performance and initial expectations should be
considered separately, which is better than comparing performance with past experiences
(Pizam et al., 1978; Tse & Wilton, 1988). Moreover, tourist satisfaction is influenced
independently by service performance from expectations and matters of equity (Qu & Ping,
1999). Thus, Pizam et al. (1978) used the actual performance model to assess tourist
satisfaction with particular destinations. Qu and Ping (1999) also adopted the actual
performance model to determine the satisfaction level of Hong Kong cruise travellers.
Kozak and Rimington (2000) conducted a study to identify destination attributes critical to
the overall satisfaction levels of tourists. As a result, the overall/actual performance model
There is a need to examine the relationship between tourism motivation and tourists’
reasons, a theory of tourism motivation may help to explain tourist behaviour (Gnoth,
60
1997). Therefore, motivation and satisfaction are fundamental constructs to understand
tourism behaviour (Devesa et al., 2010; Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991; Lee et al., 2004).
Since motivation is multidimensional and tourists want to experience more than one
attribute in a destination (Pyo et al., 1989), marketers may provide tourism products and
packages with aspects that meet the satisfaction of expressed wants (Gnoth, 1997).
satisfaction in a future situation (Deci, 1975; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In line with that, Lubbe
(1998) reported that a tourists’ motivation to travel starts when the tourist becomes aware
of specific needs and perceives that particular destinations may satisfy those needs. Gnoth
(1997) also argued that once the needs and/or values of the tourist have been stimulated, the
often expected to generate personal satisfaction (Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991). In other
words, motives occur before the travel experience and satisfaction occurs after that. For
example, Crompton and McKay (1997) pointed out that if needs are met, then satisfaction
will be achieved. Thus, knowing the needs that visitors are seeking to satisfy is very
important for monitoring satisfaction. Mannell and Iso-Ahola (1987) also supported that
research also supported that a more diversified tourist experience could possibly improve
61
tourist satisfaction (Beh & Bruyere, 2007). Furthermore, Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) also
level has also been supported in destination marketing literature (Crompton & McKay,
1997; Dann, 1981; Devesa et al., 2010; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Zabkar et al., 2010).
1994), little research has been conducted to assess overall tourist satisfaction other than
identifying particular motivation factors (Beh & Bruyere, 2007). Since customers have their
motives before their actual vacation experiences and satisfaction has been established after
the experience (Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991), satisfaction is fundamentally related to the
McKay (1997) also claim that understanding travel motivation lies in their close
relationship with satisfaction. Dann (1981, p. 203) supported that by his comment; “It
The destination attributes may arouse and strengthen intrinsic push motivations.
Different combinations of push and pull factors are then anticipated to increase different
perception levels of a tourist destination (Yoon &Uysal, 2005). Correia et al. (2007)
pointed out that perceptions are predicted by push motivations, and also by pull
62
Fisher and Price (1991) reported that a significant relationship between intercultural
interaction and travel motivation was found, such as “meeting new people”, “education”,
“escape”, and “kinship”, which were linked to the travellers satisfaction. Devesa et al.
(2010) reported that tourist satisfaction of certain tourism factors or destination attributes is
determined by the reasons that motivated or determined the trip, which means that tourist
behaviour and establishes different kinds of tourist activity (Devesa et al., 2010). Therefore,
identifying travel motivations for specific destinations can be seen as a significant construct
(Crompton, 1979; Fodness, 1994). Kim et al. (2006) also reported that the identification of
push and pull motives towards multiple international destinations should form the basis for
the development of effective marketing plans and a means to attract as well as satisfy
tourists.
Empirically, some studies have found relationships between travel motivation and
tourist satisfaction. For example, Devesa et al. (2010) empirically confirmed that
motivation is a determinant of the visit evaluation criteria and influences the level of tourist
satisfaction. The study suggested that product/service providers should give more attention
to particular destination attributes and services, as they will affect the level of satisfaction
of tourists. Moreover, the study findings revealed that the existence of particular aspects
“gastronomy quality”, “opening hours”, “availability of services like restaurants and leisure
modelling. The data were collected from 1,056 tourists at four tourist destinations in
Slovenia. The study results found that the pull factors “destination attributes” affect the
Chi and Qu (2008) examined the relationship between destination image, tourist
attributes and overall satisfaction, and destination loyalty using Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM). The data were collected in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. The study
supported that satisfaction with destination attributes have a positive impact on overall
tourist satisfaction. Fang et al. (2008) reported that destination attributes importance,
Yoon and Uysal (2005), in their study, explored the theoretical and empirical evidence on
the causal relationships between the push and pull motivations and satisfaction. It indirectly
Alegre and Cladera (2006) analysed the impact of visitation repeat rates on
destination revisit intention and on tourists’ satisfaction in the Balearic Islands. The study
supported that the overall satisfaction level is affected by the satisfaction levels with
destination attributes. It was found that the main destination attributes contributing to
overall tourist satisfaction are “sun and sand product”, “the climate”, “beaches”, “quality of
the accommodation” and “surroundings”. Other factors were also reported as contributing
64
Lee et al. (2004) used two-way ANOVA tests to assess the potential importance of
four motivation clusters as factors influencing overall satisfaction. The study findings
revealed that there was a significant major impact of four clusters on overall satisfaction
level. The study supported that the motivation factors affect overall satisfaction level.
Turner et al. (2001) also investigated the level of importance for service attributes identified
by tourists from Australia, USA/Canada, Japanese and Mandarin speaking Chinese and
satisfaction levels with their visit to Melbourne. The results of the study revealed that there
is modest support of a causal relationship between service quality attribute and satisfaction.
Some studies examined the level of satisfaction related to tourists for some
destination attributes. For example, Yu and Goulden (2006) examined international tourism
attractions, facilities, services and prices by surveying international tourists from four
regions: Europe, the US, Japan and other Asia/Pacific countries. The study revealed that
there was relatively positive satisfaction with their visit to Mongolia. Ryan and Mo (2002)
investigated the satisfaction level of Chinese visitors to New Zealand with different
activities. The study reported that the factors achieved high rating importance and
satisfaction were: “visiting sites of Maori culture”, “national parks”, “city parks and
gardens”, “city tours”, “farms”, “museums and historical sites”, and “taking scenic boat
cruises”.
Kau and Lim (2005) found that the “family travellers” were the most satisfied overall
with Singapore, however, indicating the lowest probability of a repeat visit to Singapore.
Nevertheless, family travellers were more likely to suggest Singapore to others. The
“novelty seekers” got the lowest overall satisfaction and the lowest probability of
65
suggesting to others, although they indicated a more modest level of repeat visit likelihood.
The “prestige/knowledge seekers” got the second highest overall satisfaction, however, the
highest level of repeat visits likelihood. The “adventure seekers” were more modest in all
Japanese travellers according to thirty-one travel attributes on Hong Kong. The study
revealed that “overall accessibility” was the most satisfactory attribute, and
“accommodation and food” were the most important factors in the assessment of overall
satisfaction and likelihood of suggesting Hong Kong to other tourists, followed by “price
and culture”.
attributes affecting Japanese tourists’ satisfaction in Hawaii and the Gold Coast of
Australia. Twenty-seven items of satisfaction with destination selection were used and
compared between the two destinations. Japanese tourists were more satisfied with
destination attributes in Hawaii than those on the Gold Coast. The study reported that more
destination attributes in Hawaii were rated with higher satisfaction levels by Japanese
tourists and the multifaceted attribute of the Gold Coast was not acknowledged by Japanese
Chinese who visited Hong Kong. The study found that tourists were satisfied with all the
Tourism motivation should be considered the main element for destination marketing
strategies (Pyo et al., 1989). If travel destinations are interested in the satisfaction of
66
tourists, and perhaps increasing it, they could do well to identify the travel motivations first
and then try to meet them by tours (Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991). Thus, the quality and
the availability of tourism supply resources are significant aspects in meeting the needs of
the ever-changing and upward tourism market. It is critical for destination management to
monitor visitor satisfaction with pull factors such as facilities, services and programmes to
Using the travel motivation theory (push and pull) as a base, many researchers have
tried to give more attention in the pull and push relationship by frequently modifying items
associated with the constructs. However, very limited research focused on empirically
testing the overall tourist satisfaction relationship with the existing model. To fill this gap,
in addition to studying the tourism motivation for Muslim tourists only, this research will
investigate the relationship between tourism motivation and overall tourist satisfaction, as
IAD
PUSM
OTS DEL
PULM
Key: PUSM – Push motivations; PULM – Pull motivations; OTS – overall tourist
satisfaction; DEL – destination loyalty; IAD – Islamic attributes of destination
communication and the willingness to repurchase (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998). The
defined as the customer’s intention to maintain the relationship with the seller (Maxham,
2001). Thus, a customer who repeats purchases or recommends the product to other people
and repeat sales in the literature (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Baker & Crompton, 2000;
Cronin et al., 2000; Taylor & Baker, 1994; Williams, 2002). If customers are delighted with
the quality of products and services, they are more willing to spread positive WOM, and are
people are also well known in the theoretical context of destination loyalty (Alegre &
Cladera, 2006; Bigné et al., 2001; Chen & Chen, 2010; Hui et al., 2007; Zabkar et al.,
2010). The willingness to recommend a destination to other people and the intention to
revisit the destination in the future are positively influenced by satisfaction (Chen & Chen,
2010; Chi & Qu, 2008; Del Bosque & Martín, 2008; Bigne´ et al 2005; Bigne´ et al 2001;
Jang & Feng, 2007; Kozak & Rimmington 2000; Lee et al., 2005; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).
Therefore, if there is high quality performance and high satisfaction levels, the loyalty and
68
Yoon and Uysal (2005) pointed out that destinations should be viewed as products,
and tourists may recommend or revisit destinations to other potential tourists such as
relatives or friends. Thus, the degree of tourists’ destination loyalty may be viewed in their
willingness to suggest it and in their intention to repeat visit to the destination (Oppermann,
2000a). Crompton and McKay (1997) claim that for tourists to revisit, they must be
relatively delighted with their previous experience. Chi and Qu (2008) agreed with
Crompton and McKay and reported that tourists’ positive experiences of services, products,
and other resources offered by travel destinations could be a source of repeat visits as well
Oppermann (1998) pointed out that the importance of repeat visitation in destination
marketing comes from four advantages: (a) the marketing costs to attract repeat tourists are
less than those needed for first timers, (b) repeat visitation is a positive sign of tourist
satisfaction, (c) repeat tourists are the type of visitor most likely to revisit a destination, and
(d) they might suggest the destination to relatives and friends. Yoon and Uysal (2005)
argue that understanding destination loyalty should take into consideration both motivation
and satisfaction constructs simultaneously. Satisfied tourists are more likely to revisit the
same destination, and are more willing to share their positive travelling experience with
Kozak (2001) suggested that the overall tourist satisfaction impact on the intention to
revisit the same destination effectively indicates that the experience with certain
destinations could arouse future behaviour and revisits. Akama and Kieti (2003) reported
that tourist satisfaction usually increased the retention rates of tourists’ patronage. Hui et
69
al. (2007) pointed out that quality services and tourist satisfaction build a long-term
has been viewed as one of the main constructs to explain destination loyalty, suggest the
destination to other people, and repeat visit intention. For example, Zabkar et al. (2010)
confirmed that satisfaction is linked to destination loyalty and represents a viable element
for increasing customer retention. Kim (2008) confirmed the significant association of
tourist satisfaction with destination loyalty. Yu and Goulden (2006) in their study also
supported that the satisfied tourists in Mongolia would like to repeat visit to Mongolia and
would like to suggest Mongolia highly to others. Kau and Lim (2005) also provided
Chen and Chen (2010) examined the relationships between the perceived value,
equation modelling (SEM) technique. The study provided empirical evidence that the
behavioural intentions are influenced by satisfaction. Huang and Hsu (2009) examined the
experience, and attitude on their intention of repeat visiting Hong Kong. The study
Del Bosque and Martín (2008) attempted to examine a model explaining the
interrelationships between psychological variables of the tourist. The data were collected
from 807 tourists visiting Spain. The study findings revealed that satisfaction has a positive
tourist motivations, tourist complaints, tourist satisfaction and tourist loyalty of Chinese
tourists in the Republic of Korea using path analysis. The study revealed that the tourist
travellers’ perceptions of quality, equity, value, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. The
data were collected from 309 golf travellers. The study supported that both value and
intention to revisit.
satisfaction and destination loyalty. Yüksel and Yüksel (2007) also supported that the
existence of tourist’s shopping satisfaction has a direct effect on loyalty intentions. Yoon
and Uysal (2005) supported that destination loyalty has a causal relationship with
motivation and satisfaction. Um et al. (2006) also recommended that repeat visit intentions
perceived value for money. They also conclude that revisits are determined more by
perceived attractiveness than by overall satisfaction. Chen and Tsai (2007) also provided
Jang and Feng (2007) attempted to explore the effects of tourists’ novelty seeking and
precursor of shorter visits. Bigné et al. (2005) supported that visitor satisfaction positively
71
influences the loyalty towards a theme park while Rittichainuwat et al. (2002), in their
relationship between satisfaction and intention to repeat visit to Thailand. Bigné et al.
(2001) also supported that satisfaction does influence the intention to return and makes
tourists willing to recommend the destination to others. Bitner (1990) supported that
Lee et al. (2004) found that there was a significant difference between first and repeat
visitors in respect of satisfaction levels –repeat visitors satisfaction is higher than first
visitors satisfaction. Furthermore, Kozak and Rimmington (2000) supported that overall
tourist satisfaction with vacation experiences had an impact on the intention to repeat visit
The research on how tourist satisfaction influences future purchase intentions remains
limited. Oppermann (2000, 1998) suggested that there is a need for additional study of the
link between overall tourist satisfaction and revisiting. Del Bosque and Martín (2008) claim
that the study of loyalty is a more current phenomenon in tourism. Therefore, it is time to
conduct more research on loyalty to increase the knowledge of this construct in tourism.
Furthermore, no research has examined the relationship between overall tourist satisfaction
and destination loyalty in the context of Islamic countries. To fill this gap, destination
loyalty was added to the proposed theoretical framework as shown in Figure 2.5. Thus, the
possible causal relationships between overall tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty will
be examined.
72
IAD
PUSM
OTS DEL
PULM
Key: PUSM – Push motivations; PULM – Pull motivations; OTS – overall tourist
satisfaction; DEL – destination loyalty; IAD – Islamic attributes of destination
The relationship between tourism and religion has been addressed in the tourism
research literature (see for example Chattopadhyay, 2006; Digance, 2003; Erik, 2003; Aliza
Fleischer, 2000; Joseph & Kavoori, 2001; Poria et al., 2003; Richard & Priya, 2005;
Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). Although religion is associated with a large number of tourism
issues, most of these issues have been linked to pilgrimage. Poria et al. (2003) suggests that
religion is associated with three main areas of tourism research: research relating to the
supply of tourism, research relating to the link between religion and tourism on a more
theoretical level, and research investigating tourist behaviour. Religious tourism, which is
classified as one tourism type, represents the interconnectedness between religion and
73
While many studies have been conducted to investigate the various types of
destination attributes, there has been a lack of research on the religious attributes of the
destination and its impact on tourist’s choice as well as satisfaction. Moreover, when it
comes to Islamic religious attributes, the lack of study is more noticeable and profound.
The Muslim tourism segment may be considered a target for destination marketers.
Assuming religion represents one of the important factors in the decision-making process
with regard to travel destinations (Collins & Tisdell, 2002), it is important to ensure that
Islamic attributes are available in those destinations. This may lead to tourist satisfaction as
well as encourage multiple return visits. Muslims are well-ordered to follow Islamic
teachings, which directly and indirectly impact on their decisions concerning leisure and
travel plans (Zamani-Farahani & Henderson, 2010). In this regard, plans to market
destinations for Muslim tourists should be guided by Shariah (Islamic code of life) rules,
The negative side of western tourism, which has a negative impact on the Muslim
kissing in public and open affection between sexes in public, is causing Halal tourism to be
continue to attract Muslim families, including those from the Arab Gulf region who are
considerations when a Muslim decides to travel abroad. Given the potential problems
74
expected from non-Islamic tourism, a Muslim tourist may decide not to travel to a
particular destination due to the absence of these attributes. Uysal et al. (2008, p. 413)
suggest that studying the specific attributes of a destination would give destination
marketers clues or insights for developing and marketing their tourism destinations. Bogari
et al. (2004) argue that destination attributes and issues related to Islamic culture were not
adequately researched. In effect, the current study focuses on the Islamic attributes of
marketing programmes.
2008b) because of the variance between the demands of western tourists and the Islamic
teachings. Therefore, exploring Islamic attributes may help destination marketers to tailor
products and services that satisfy Muslim tourists, which may increase the number of
inbound tourists and improve economic growth. Marketers may also use Islamic attributes
in promotional programmes. In addition, this study attempts to offer insights into the
tourism expectations and experiences of followers of the Islamic religion. Muslim tourists
Religion plays a major influence on many people’s behaviour as customers (Essoo &
Dibb, 2004). In the context of tourism, religion may influence the choice of destination and
tourists’ product preferences (Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). According to Poria et al.(2003),
the effects of religious belief on behaviour come from two main sources: first, the explicit
and clear guidelines on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour or practices, and second,
75
religion shapes the culture, attitudes and values of society. This is supported by Grigg
(1995) whose research provides evidence on the influence of religion and religiosity on
dietary habits. Further support is found in Essoo and Dibb (2004) who demonstrated the
according to various social settings. In spite of this widely acknowledged fact, research that
explores the relationships between religion, behaviour and tourist destination choice
remains highly limited (Din, 1989; Fleischer, 2000; Howe, 2001; Poria et al., 2003;
Rinschede, 1992; Weidenfeld, 2006; Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). Din (1989) argues that
social scientists have tended to overlook the importance of religion in tourism studies. Its
importance is emphasized by Weidenfeld and Ron (2008) who underline the general
importance of the relationship between tourism and religion. For this reason Heo et al.
(2004) recommend more related studies that identify and discuss special tourist
et al. (2008) conclude that tourists are more likely to choose destinations that are believed
Studies conducted in this area include Weidenfeld (2006) who investigated the
religious needs of Christian tourists in the hospitality industry and Fleischer and Nitzav
(1995), who investigated the religious needs of Christian pilgrims in the tourism industry.
research by discussing the religious requirements in the tourism food sector. For example,
76
Dugan (1994) presents the religious necessities in food supply for Muslim, Christian, Jews,
When it comes to the relationship between tourism and religion, the lack of literature
is more noticeable, especially regarding religious attributes and their impact on tourist
needs. Very few of the available studies typically focus on the needs of tourist pilgrims.
tourists who join dynamic multipurpose packages, especially from developing countries of
What does the term ‘religious attributes’ of destinations really mean? Many aspects
can constitute ‘religious attributes’ of destinations. The following sections present the
Additional religious services and provisions in hotels may result in attracting new
markets and improved hotel rates (Weidenfeld, 2006). A study in Israel conducted by
Mansfeld et al. (2000) recommended placing ‘Makkah stickers’ or ‘Qibla stickers’ (Stickers
with ornamented arrows pointing towards the city of Makkah in Saudi Arabia for prayer
directions) as well as placing a copy of the Holy Qur’an in every room occupied by Muslim
visitors. Din (1989) found that hotels in Kuantan, Malaysia, catered to Muslim needs in the
hospitality industry by requiring first class hotels to provide prayer rooms fully equipped
with prayer mats, the Holy Qur’an, Suruh Yasin, and Tasbih, plus Qibla stickers.
77
Weidenfeld (2006) presented a number of suggestions to improve the religion-
friendliness of hotels. The suggestions begin by simply providing a Bible in hotel rooms
along with providing information on religious activities and institutions. This keeps
religiously minded tourists in direct contact with scripture and informed of available
services. Employment of Christian workers creates a religious atmosphere in the hotel. The
hotel may choose to organize its own religious activities. It should provide a place of
worship within the hotel itself or be in close proximity to a church. Christian symbols
within a hotel such as a cross and images of the Virgin Mary help to provide a religious
Religious values play a role in catering to religious needs. For example, Collins-
Kreiner and Kliot (2000) hypothesize the Protestants’ need for a Bible in hotel rooms based
on their belief in direct communication with God. Fleischer (2000) compares between
Catholic and Protestant pilgrims in terms of the peculiarities of their tourist needs. The
study reveals that Protestants appreciate religious symbols and opt for religious-sensitive
catering to such Christian needs in the hotel room as that may increase the satisfaction of
Christian tourists.
Empirical studies on the impact of catering to Islamic religious needs and the level of
satisfaction of Muslim tourists are rare. Some of the studies that discuss services of this
nature may include Muslim religious restrictions such as activities of vice and forbidding
entry for unmarried couples (Din, 1989; Henderson, 2003; Zamani-Farahani & Henderson,
2010). They also found that hotels may provide religious information such as the location
of nearby mosques or prayer times and nearby Halal restaurants (Henderson, 2003).
78
Furthermore, as Muslims avoid free mixing between the sexes, hotels could offer separate
swimming pools and recreational facilities (Al-Hamarneh & Steiner, 2004; Henderson,
2003; Timothy & Iverson, 2006). Hashim et al. (2007a) suggested that the availability of
Halal food and a list of nearby Halal restaurants satisfy Muslims during their holidays.
Timothy and Iverson (2006) also suggested that hotels should educate their staff on cross-
cultural communication to allow them to treat Muslim tourists with respect and consider
recruiting religious staff. In addition, it may be better if there are staff hostels for men and
Prayer is the greatest virtue in Islam and is considered one of the five pillars. The
Holy Qur’an states: “And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down
your heads with those who bow down in worship” (Holy-Qur’an, 2:43). Muslims are
ordered to pray five times daily (Early morning, Noon, Mid-afternoon, Sunset, and
Evening) in Masjid (a Muslim house of worship). One of the five pillars of Islam and
perhaps the most witnessed manifestation of Islamic teachings is the Muslim five time daily
prayer. Prayer keeps a Muslim regularly thinking of his Lord, communicating to Him his
fears and aspirations, and giving thanks for the blessings He has provided.
The five time daily prayers are organized in specific timeframes. A Muslim is not
permitted to delay his/her prayer outside of the designated time frame without due cause.
This reason alone makes it necessary for the tourism and hospitality industry to provide
sufficient facilities for Muslims to perform their religious obligation. Tourist sites, along
with hotels, should make the necessary arrangements to accommodate Muslim tourists.
79
According to the Holy Qur’an and Islamic tradition, Muslims around the world must face
Makkah (where the sacred masjid is located) during their daily prayers. The Holy Qur’an
states:
“We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the
heaven, and We will surely turn you to a Qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn
your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces
toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is
the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do” (Holy-Qur’an,
2:144).
The five daily prayers are of great importance to practicing Muslims. Therefore, the
mosque (a Muslim house of worship) or prayer room is considered to be one of the most
crucial facilities for Muslims (Al-Hamarneh & Steiner, 2004; Syed, 2001). Weidenfeld
(2006) suggests that proximity to a mosque may influence Muslim tourist preferences when
making hotel reservations. Mohsin (2005) conducted a study to assess the attitude of
Peninsular Malaysians towards choosing the Northern Territory of Australia for a holiday
as a tourism destination and found that Muslim respondents were concerned about the
availability of mosques.
Mohsin and Ryan (1997) recommend that the ease of access to Islamic services are
important when they explored the attitudes of Malaysian and Indonesian business people
towards the possibility of holidaying in Australia. It is also suggested that Middle Eastern
countries take concrete steps to develop Islamic tourism internally by having prayer rooms
at tourism sites (WTM, 2007). Syed (2001) also suggested that the availability of mosques
80
at tourist destinations may increase satisfaction levels. The mosque itself may be
considered as a tourist attraction if they are unique and outstanding (Henderson, 2003).
Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. Evidence from Brown’s (1996) ethnographic study
services provided by a hotel such as appropriate ingredient choice and preparation. This is
further supported by Williams (2002) who identified the role of the Jewish Kashrus (Jewish
For Muslims, the issue is centred on the concept of Halalness. Halal food refers to
food that can be lawfully consumed when conditions for Islamic food preparation are met.
Foods that are unlawful to Muslims include pork, pork-derived foods including lard and
bacon and meat and other products from carnivorous animals or those that feed on carrion.
The Holy Qur’an states: “He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh
of swine and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But
if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,
then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.” (Holy-Qur’an, 2:173). The
verse instructs on the types of foods prohibited to Muslims. Consumption of any food or
drink with alcoholic content is also prohibited (Dugan, 1994). One important distinguishing
feature of the Halal label is that animals must be slaughtered in a specific way and with the
person carrying out the slaughter reciting the name of Allah (God).
81
Many studies show the importance of the availability of Halal food to Muslims in
choosing their tourist destinations (Mohsin, 2005; Mohsin & Ryan, 1997; Syed, 2001;
Weidenfeld, 2006; Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). The importance of this to some Muslims is
reflected by the fact that even when served Halal food, many are still concerned over
whether the food is genuinely Halal. Henderson (2003) found that some firms in the
Western tourism industry are concerned over this issue. Some Muslims ask about the
ingredients the meal is made up of because pork and alcohol in all its many forms are
forbidden. Therefore, meals provided to Muslims have to be free from alcohol and pork and
Catering to Muslim tourists’ needs in terms of providing Halal food in any particular
destination may increase their overall satisfaction and loyalty. Mansfeld et al. (2000) gives
explicit recommendations for providing food that complies with Shariah laws. Therefore, a
caterer who is aware of how to satisfy Muslims or who offers religious groups’ dietary
sell alcohol. Muslims are also prohibited from gambling and being involved in the
gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination–of
5:90). Moreover the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) said: “Alcohol is
82
the mother of all evils and it is the most shameful of evils.” (Ibn Majah, 2004). It is also
not permissible for Muslims to visit places where alcohol is consumed and gambling is
practiced (Al-Hamarneh & Steiner, 2004; Din, 1989; Hashim et al., 2007b; Henderson,
Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh and Pakistan implement very
restrictive policies on the public consumption of alcohol and gambling. However in some
other Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Turkey the situations are not so restrictive. For
example, in most states in Malaysia alcohol is freely available although Muslims can be
Activities deemed conducive to sexual permissiveness are not allowed to take place in
public. This is based on many verses in the Holy Qur’an including:“Nor come nigh to
adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).” (Holy-
Qur’an, 17:32).
Many Muslim scholars take the view that it is Haram or not permissible to visit, for
the sake of tourism, places where sexual permissiveness is rampant. Their opinion is based
on the principle that Islam came to impede all roads leading to evil. If some tourist
activities result in the facilitation or the commission of sins then it is not permissible for
83
Most Muslim countries including Malaysia prohibit adultery. The Malaysian
licensing policy prohibits prostitution and behaviour such as public or indecent displays of
affection (Din, 1989; Henderson, 2003, 2008a; Zamani-Farahani & Henderson, 2010).
explicitly forbid unmarried couples from being in close proximity (Din, 1989). Many
Muslim authorities frown on tourism in general due to the perception that tourism is
associated with sexual permissiveness (Din, 1989). Therefore, some Muslim scholars
prohibit sex tourism as practiced by some Arab Muslims from the Middle East in travelling
techniques must not use sexual appeal in international marketing (Saeed et al., 2001).
Female images are, therefore, not featured in tourism promotion in some Malaysian states
like Terengganu (Henderson, 2003). Mohsin (2005) is of the opinion that the use of
sexually provocative images of bikini-clad girls to promote a destination will not attract
Muslim tourists.
According to the Islamic teachings, Muslim women must not expose their hair and
body. The Holy Qur’an states: “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the
believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are
among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not
84
annoyed…” (Holy-Qur’an, 33:59). Men are supposed to cover their thighs (Timothy &
Iverson, 2006).
In deciding tour destinations, Muslims look at the local dress codes in that particular
region of the world that is being considered. Such considerations are to gauge the level of
conformity to Islamic dress norms in order to determine if they will or will not be
comfortable visiting that particular destination. This is particularly so for Arab tourists who
have to observe strict dress codes in their native countries and prefer not to expose
themselves and families to environments that may threaten their sense of proper dressing.
traditional Malay Muslim dress codes. Women with headscarves and men wearing
Songkoks – a black rimless hat worn by Malay men usually for praying – were depicted on
advertising billboards and home pages. Some conservative Malaysian states enforce
appropriate dress norms prohibiting people from disturbing cultural norms by wearing
revealing clothes such as bikinis. Furthermore, western tourists are expected to adorn the
Islamic attire when visiting religious places like mosques (Henderson, 2003).
improper dressing. Al-Hamarneh and Steiner (2004) assert that considerations of the
religious conservatism of any particular region including prescribed dress codes should be
respected. Such cultural considerations are expected more so of tourism operators in all
aspects of the tourism industry as they are interacting directly and regularly with foreign
Each religion has an impact on its believers or followers. In Islam, it is Islamic law
(Shariah) that addresses all trade and industry related issues including domestic and global
tourism. True Islamic teachings emerge from two main streams: Al-Qur’an, the Holy Book
of Islam and the Sunnah or documented deeds and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him). Tourism in Arabic, which is the original language of the Holy Qur’an,
has many connotations but in current practice it is confined to a few meanings – travelling
the earth recreationally or for research purposes and not for the sake of earning money,
Islamic teachings regulate this type of tourism to conform with the higher objectives
of Shariah, which uphold five necessities; the protection of religion, life, mind, lineage and
property. Some Muslim scholars are of the view that all five necessities, by which all
heavenly religions are in agreement, are necessary ingredients without which communities
cannot live and prosper (Badhdah, 2005). Therefore, understanding and observing Islamic
advantage as the needs of Muslim customers traveling overseas may be a source of anxiety
for themselves and others (Syed, 2001). In the following sections the term “Shariah” is
on tourism practice.
2.9.3.1 Shariah
Increasing Muslim concern for products and services that compliment their faith has
led Muslim scholars to review contemporary knowledge and disciplines. This critically
86
analytical trajectory is termed ‘Islamization’. Based on the belief that Islam is a
comprehensive way of life with solutions for all predicaments, the term Islamization
consists of a wide variety of approaches that seek to implement Islamic values into any
increasing awareness amongst Muslims resulting in the need for Islamic options for their
needs as opposed to the majority of options currently available. The crux of the problem
rests however in the question of how to formulate and deliver practical Islamic solutions to
The term ‘Shariah’ is literally understood as meaning the fountainhead from which
water springs. ‘Shariah’ refers to the set of divine rules and regulations ordering human life
and man’s interaction with all creatures in this world.1 With a mixture of broadly defined
purposes and objectives and detailed injunctions Shariah determines man’s place in this
world. In Islam man exists with a particular purpose and is given a special responsibility to
build and inhabit this world in truth and righteousness according to the rules set by his
Through Shariah man engages this world with the higher consciousness of the
hereafter. Heavenly values are injected into worldly affairs. In this there is a symbolic
relationship between the rules and regulations that is Shariah and its literal meaning as a
source of water since water is the source of life (Edge, 1996, p. xv). Accordingly, Shariah
various places in which Shariah is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an (5: 48; 7: 163; 42: 13 and
1
These divine rules and regulations are based on interpretations of the Holy Qur’an and Hadith by Muslim
scholars. Since these scholars lived in different time periods, faced different circumstances, their opinions
differ on some matters. Some are very strict and some are less so.
87
21; 45: 18) testify to its dynamic and comprehensive nature. It can be easily claimed that
the practical manifestation of Islam is none other than Shariah (Murad, 1981, p. 86).
The holistic meaning of Shariah embracing both the practical and spiritual
dimensions of life means that a large spectrum of issues is addressed. From mundane rituals
of everyday life both private and public, individual and social, attitudes and behaviourisms;
comprehensiveness in addressing all spheres of life Shariah is well equipped to guide man
in all that he does. Islam teaches that success is found in conforming to the rules and
regulations, or perhaps more aptly put as ‘guidance’ directing man to the best conduct and
fragmented and we cannot pick and choose as we wish. This may be considered to be at the
very heart of the Islamic message, as dutiful Muslims who wilfully conform to Shariah
norms increasingly find it the source of internal happiness and worldly success. For a
In the eighth-century hijrah Imam Abu Ishaq Al-Shatibi (790 H, p. 393) expounded
the higher objectives ordering Shariah. Imam Al-Shatibi numbered them as five, in order of
importance they are the protection of religion, self, mind, wealth and property, and lastly
lineage or the ability to procreate. The entire Shariah, Imam Al-Shatibi correctly observes,
serves one of these five objectives and all objectives serve the highest objective of the
preservation of religion. From here extends the plethora of legal rulings, which,
collectively, can be traced to serving one or more of these five higher objectives. All
actions of any nature directly or indirectly threatening the preservation of the higher
88
objectives is prohibited in Islam, similarly, actions promoting them are encouraged in
condones ethical practices through legislation, in other words Shariah is itself ethical. The
Shariah requires that whosoever observes and practices its injunctions is sincere and does
There are two main sources of the Shariah –the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In addition to the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah,
there are secondary sources of the Shariah such as Ijma (consensus), Qiyas (analogical
Islamic Shariah is not the product of collective or individual genius. It is not the result
of moments of brilliance or years of perfected legislation though years of trial and practice.
Shariah is far from human limitation and imperfection. In Islam it is the divine practical
guide to a virtuous life. Shariah is in principal the expression of the teachings of the Holy
Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an is the beating heart of Islam. It is Allah’s words to mankind
revealed to His last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) through the Archangel
Gabriel. The Holy Qur’an is Islam. It is the primary source of Shariah, its fountainhead and
the indisputable source of divine authority for all Muslims (Edge, 1996, p. XVII). For this
89
reason the answers to all questions posed to Muslims regarding any issue whatsoever must
Following the Holy Qur’an is the second source of authority in Islam –Al-Sunnah.
Literally it is held to mean ‘practice’, ‘tradition’ and ‘precedent’ (Edge, 1996, p. XVII).
Sunnah is second only to the Holy Qur’an and its authority extends from the Holy Qur’an
itself in that the Messenger Muhammad (PBUH) was the Messenger of Allah to all
mankind conveying only that which has been inspired to him by his Lord. The Holy Qur’an
states; “To obey him is to obey God” (Holy-Qur’an, 4:80). Sunnah is technically defined as
the verbal and physical teachings of the Prophet along with his attributes and the decisions
he made. No action of the Messenger (PBUH) in what is related to conveying the Message
doubt. There exists a primary significance in the fact that Allah chose Muhammad (PBUH),
The significance is that Muhammad (PBUH) was a human being who shares in the
one and same human nature shared by all defined as human. This means that the prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) shares the same biological and intellectual constitution as other
members of the human race. He, PBUH, could not breathe under water or fly in the air, he
tired and slept, he hungered and ate, he came of age and married, he participated in the
seemingly infinite activities humans are capable of. What all this means is that,
fundamentally, the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) is repeatable by all human beings. His
Sunnah is an example we can emulate. It is then no surprise that the Sunnah is highly
regarded by most Muslims. The Sunnah has been preserved through the tireless efforts of
90
Muslim scholars throughout the ages who spared no resource and energy in collecting and
consensus. Ijma is where scholars gather and unanimously agree on a ruling for a specific
issue. There are several types of Ijma, which range in authority and degree of binding. The
Ijma of the Sahabah or the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) is the highest and most
upon a certain issue. This form of Ijma cannot be annulled and replaced by another, later
Ijma. The reason for this is based on the status of the Companions as having graduated
from the Prophetic school of religious instruction and having witnessed revelation and
championed its cause, not to mention their keen religious perception, religious commitment
Ijma in itself, not being a religious authority, derives its authority from the Holy
Qur’an and must subsequently conform to the general teachings of Islam. Ijma cannot
contradict the established teachings of the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. Rather it is a
mechanism that allows for a continuous provision of ongoing legislation that meets an ever
changing world (Murad, 1981, p. 55). The exercise of Ijma presupposes the ability for
problems.
is perhaps the most significant level in the process of formulating rulings in Islam in
contemporary times. Ijtihad denotes a method of inquiry into Islamic sources and consists
91
of a variety of steps that use the tool of ‘Qiyas’ (analogical reasoning) in various ways.
Other initiatives from the varied schools of Islamic Jurisprudence are ‘Istihsan’ (equity) ‘al-
Maslahah al-Mursalah’ (public good) ‘Sad al-Thariah’ (preventing harm) among others
(Edge, 1996, p. 200). Having said this, it can never be over emphasized that all attempts to
engage the sources of Shariah must conform to the overall framework of Islamic teaching.
Although the tourism and hospitality industry in Muslim countries aims to attract
many non Muslim tourists, currently the increasing numbers of Arab and Muslim travellers
and their high purchasing power have motivated the industry to implement Islamic
teachings to directly meet the needs of Muslim tourists. In other words, Muslim travellers
have become an important target market, especially in the Arabic Gulf region. As a
consequence, Islamic tourism has emerged as a new concept based on Shariah and ethical
codes. Shakiry (2007) says; “Islamic Tourism has been putting the spotlight on new
dimensions of tourism in addition to the traditional one by adopting the moral principles of
tourism appears to focus more on the Middle Eastern demographic, in particular the Gulf
families, with their conservative customs and traditions and desire for Islamic Shariah
teachings.
Since the September 11th attacks the United Arab Emirates has increasingly attracted
Muslim Middle Eastern tourists. In recent years it has become a popular attraction for
regional short-term travel. It is not uncommon to find weekend vacationers enjoying the
92
wide plethora of activities and services offered. They find the common culture a source of
security and the short travel distance attractive (Al-Hamarneh & Steiner, 2004). Dubai
investment agencies have invested in Halal tourism through the introduction of Islamic
hotels, which are becoming increasingly popular, in the aim to profit from regional
investment in the tourism sector. They serve only Halal foods, are alcohol free, and provide
Cliftonwood, Adham and Wings–and operates under universal Shariah rules, which are
illustrated in Table 2.2. Moreover, the Shariah board was formed along the lines of Shariah
committees of the Islamic financial institutions to control facilities, work and performance
compliant hotels around the world by 2013 at the forecasted cost of $2 billion, first
targeting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt and Malaysia, followed by Thailand and
Europe (Greaves, 2008). There are other companies in the UAE that have Shariah-
compliant hotels such as Shaza Hotels from Kempinski Hotel, the Rezidor Hotel Group,
Tamani Hotels & Suites from the KM Group and Rotana Hotels, which recently launched
93
Table 2.2: Almulla Hospitality Shariah Rules
Halal services in Almulla hotels
No alcohol to be served on the premises
No entertainment such as nightclubs
Halal food served, no pork allowed
Gender segregated prayer rooms
Male staff for single men and female staff for women and families
In-house religious figures that host seminars and preaching sessions
Traditional uniforms
Markers indicating direction of Makkah
Staff to be predominantly Muslim
Separate wellness facilities such as gyms
Conservative TV channels
Plumbing considerations –toilets not to be facing Makkah
Art should not depict the human form
Beds not to be placed in the direction of Makkah
Holy Qur’an, prayer mats, tasbi (rosary beads) in each room or at the front desk
itself strongly in recent years as the ideal destination for Arab Gulf families who are
looking for enjoyable ecological and urban tourism without undermining Islamic customs
and traditions. Malaysian international hotels provide Halal food slaughtered according to
the Shariah and pork-free fat. In addition, they provide Muslim employees who speak
Arabic to help those who are not proficient in other languages. It has become familiar to
find Arab television stations providing Arabic news and some religious programmes within
a whole range of television channels offered by hotels. Markers are placed inside hotel
rooms to indicate the direction of Makkah with prayer rugs and prayer times provided
(Shakiry, 2008).
Saudi Arabia is the Muslim country that implements the strictest Shariah rules.
Alcohol, nightclubs and free intermingling of men and women are strictly prohibited.
94
Women are forbidden from checking into hotels or travelling without the presence of a
male family member. The Rosewood Corniche Hotel in Jeddah considers a Halal-based
business strategy to meet the needs of Muslim female travellers a good business choice and,
therefore, offers a floor exclusively for women (Abdullah, 2007). Similarly, in 2007 under
a ministerial decision in Bahrain, alcohol was limited to five-star hotels and forbidden in all
restaurants near mosques, schools or residential areas. Moreover, about 85% of non-five-
star hotels have been obligated to close nightclubs on their premises and to stop selling
In May 2008, in Egypt, Saudi sheikh Abdel Aziz Ibrahim owner of the Grand Hyatt
Hotel, ordered his staff to empty every alcohol bottle on the premises into the Nile (Shenker
2008). Thus the Grand Hyatt Hotel, which occupies one of the most expensive sites
overlooking the River Nile, became alcohol free and alcoholic drinks were replaced with
juices. The Hyatt management said the owner did that because foreign tourists have to
respect Muslim cultural norms and to conform with Islamic law. On a similar note,
(Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). Bogari et al. (2004) recommended research in the area of
Islamic culture and destination attributes. Furthermore, it is noticed that no research has
been done to explore the Islamic attributes of destinations, which may be important to the
Muslim tourist. Furthermore, no study currently exists that provides a model that includes
Islamic attributes of destination that test their impact on Muslim tourist satisfaction.
95
Therefore, as a moderating variable in the proposed model, Islamic attributes of destination
IAD
PUSM
OTS DEL
PULM
In this chapter, the theory of pull and push motivations has been presented. The
literature on the push and pull approach suggests that people are initially pushed by internal
desires or emotional factors. They are then pulled by external or tangible factors. Recent
researchers supported that these push factors and pull factors influence overall tourist
satisfaction, which also has an impact on destination loyalty (Chi & Qu, 2008; Fang et al.,
2008; Um et al., 2006; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Therefore, tourist satisfaction was discussed
as well as its relationship with push and pull motivation, and destination loyalty. The
Islamic attributes of destination were also discussed. Research gaps were presented at the
end of each section and discussed with the intention of developing the theoretical
framework.
96