Anatolia

An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

ISSN: 1303-2917 (Print) 2156-6909 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20

Competitiveness of Malaysian destinations and its

influence on destination loyalty

Philip P. W. Wong

To cite this article: Philip P. W. Wong (2017): Competitiveness of Malaysian destinations and its
influence on destination loyalty, Anatolia, DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2017.1315825

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2017.1315825

Published online: 18 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rana20

Download by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia] Date: 22 April 2017, At: 02:11
Anatolia, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2017.1315825

Competitiveness of Malaysian destinations and its influence on

destination loyalty
Philip P. W. Wong
School of Hospitality, Tourism, and Culinary Arts, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As competition among tourist destinations in the region to attract more Received 14 December 2016
tourists is becoming more intense, it is essential for destinations in Malaysia Accepted 2 April 2017
to identify and evaluate their competitive attributes to enable our different
KEYWORDS
industry stakeholders to manage and maintain the destinations’ tourism Destination competitiveness;
resources more effectively. To evaluate our destinations’ competitiveness, it is destination loyalty;
necessary to look at the elements of both the comparative and competitive destination marketing;
advantage of the destinations. This study seeks to evaluate the different competitiveness attributes;
competitiveness attributes of selected urban destinations in Malaysia and to competitive advantage
examine the relationship between those attributes and destination loyalty.
Results from a regression analysis confirmed the hypothesized relationships
between the competitiveness attributes on destination loyalty.

Introduction
Most studies link competitiveness to the ability of the destination to deliver goods and services related
to the tourist’s overall experience better than other destinations. According to Kozak (1999), the four
main indicators of destination competitiveness are: (1) the number of tourist arrival, (2) the percent-
age of repeat visitors, (3) the amount of tourist receipts and, (4) the proportion of tourism income in
the GNP. A destination’s overall competitiveness is associated with its competitive advantages such as
its tourism infrastructure, and the quality and skills of its workforce, and its comparative advantages
such as its inherited or endowed resources like climate, scenery, flora and fauna (Dwyer, Dragićević,
Armenski, Mihalič, & Cvelbar, 2016; Kozak, 2004; Leung & Baloglu, 2013; Paskaleva-Shapira, 2007).
According to Woodside and Lysonski (1989), destinations constantly compete among themselves
to obtain a place in the consideration set of potential visitors as that will increase the probability of
them being selected as a holiday destination. It is crucial for tourism destinations to evaluate their
competitiveness attributes to enable them to discover their strengths and weaknesses, as the potential
visitor’s destination selection process is greatly influenced by the destination’s overall competitiveness
(Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Dwyer, Cvelbar, Edwards, & Mihalic, 2012; Kozak, 2004).
In order to develop better tourism products for Malaysia’s various tourist generating markets, it
is necessary to identify the competitive attributes of its major destinations, which include its urban
destinations, and evaluate the visitors’ perceptions of these attributes. To date, there is a paucity of
research on the competitiveness attributes of the various urban destinations in Malaysia that receive
the majority of its foreign visitors. In order to be more competitive, tourist destinations need to provide
a superior overall tourist experience to foreign visitors when compared to competing destinations

CONTACT  Philip P. W. Wong  pongweng.wong@taylors.edu.my

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   P. P. W. WONG

(Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). To evaluate our urban destinations competitiveness, it is necessary to look
at the elements of both the comparative and competitive advantage of the destinations.
This study aims to identify and analyse the competitive attributes of selected urban destinations in
Malaysia, and to examine the relationship between those attributes and destination loyalty. In exam-
ining the relationship between the destinations’ competitiveness and destination loyalty, this study
will contribute to the body of knowledge of urban tourism marketing, and the factors influencing
consumer behaviour related to tourism, especially in urban destinations. Specifically, the goal of this
study is to assist in improving the competitiveness of the nation’s tourism destinations which will lead
to an increase in tourism receipts for the country and a better quality of life (QOL) for the residents
in the destinations.
Results of this study will assist in enhancing the competitiveness of these destinations and increase
the effectiveness of the marketing efforts of the relevant national and state tourism organizations to
achieve greater destination loyalty. The specific objectives of this research are to evaluate the com-
petitiveness level of Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Melaka, Kota Kinabalu, and Kuching and to examine the
influence of those competitiveness attributes on destination loyalty. These destinations were selected
because they are among the most popular Malaysian urban destinations visited by international tourists
(Tourism Malaysia, 2013).

Literature review
There are several factors why the measurement and determination of competitiveness is so important
to tourism destinations. Competition has become more intense between destinations for a bigger
share of international tourist arrivals. New destinations appear on the market while existing ones are
trying to expand and introduce new attractions and facilities (Croes, 2011; Dwyer et al., 2012; Kozak
& Rimmington, 1999). A destination’s competitiveness can also be associated with its competitive
advantages such as its tourism infrastructure, and the quality and skills of its workforce, and its com-
parative advantages such as its inherited or endowed resources like climate, scenery, flora and fauna
(Cvelbar, Dwyer, Koman, & Mihalic, 2016; Leung & Baloglu, 2013; Paskeleva-Shapira, 2007).

Competitiveness of tourism destinations – comparative and competitive advantage

To explain the concept of competitiveness in the tourism industry context, Crouch and Ritchie (1999),
developed a framework based on Porter’s (1980) model of “five forces” of competition and his “dia-
mond” of national competitive advantage (Porter, 1990). According to Crouch and Ritchie (1999), the
natural, historical, and cultural attractions represent some of the factor conditions which represent
one of the most important sources of competitiveness in a tourist destination as they remain the main
reasons for a tourist to visit the destination. Related and supporting industries such as entertainment,
shopping, and dining facilities can act as a catalyst for the growth in domestic and international demand
(Sirakaya-Turk, Ekinci, & Martin, 2015). Porter’s diamond’s fourth point states that firm strategy,
structure, and rivalry can encourage competition which leads to overall improvement in the industry
and helps to prevent a destination from going into decline stage of the product life cycle. In support
of Porter’s theory, Crouch and Ritchie (1999) argued that in evaluating a tourism destination’s com-
petitiveness, it is essential to look at both the elements of comparative advantage as well as elements
of competitive advantage of the destination.
Having comparative advantage means that a destination possesses those natural or man-made
attributes or factors which attract visitors to that destination. Competitive advantage, on the other hand,
refers to how effectively the destination manages those resources in the long-run. Proper management
of these resources is therefore paramount to maintaining the attractiveness and competitiveness of a
destination. Effective management strategies need to be created so as to train a destination’s human
resources to maintain the condition of its natural assets, and to develop and expand its tourism
infrastructure (Assaker, Hallak, Vinzi, & O’Connor, 2014). A destination which is not endowed with
 ANATOLIA   3

a lot of resources may be more competitive than a well-endowed destination if the former manages
to use its limited resources more effectively (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Such a destination is aware of
its limitations, but it is able to market itself more successfully than its competing destinations, and
normally it has set clear objectives in its tourism development strategy.
Ultimately, according to Porter (2004), true competitiveness is dependent on a nation’s productivity.
He believes that a nation’s sources of prosperity lie in the productivity of its economy. Productivity
depends on the value of the goods and services a nation produce, and the production cost per unit
incurred, in terms of labour, capital, and natural resources. Therefore, high productivity should be
the goal of all nations that strive to improve the standard of living for its citizens (Porter, 2004). In a
study on the drivers of destination competitiveness, a productivity-related measure, “total tourism
contribution to GDP per employee in tourism” was used by Cvelbar et al. (2016) to determine a des-
tination’s competitiveness.

Attributes of destination competitiveness

Although there have been a number of studies conducted on national competitiveness, there have
been relatively few attempts in developing conceptual models of destination competitiveness. The
elements of comparative and competitive advantage are generally regarded as the theoretical under-
pinning for the development of a conceptual framework for destination competitiveness (Ritchie &
Crouch, 2003). Dywer and Kim (2003), Dwyer, Knezevic, Mihalic, and Koman (2014), Dwyer, Mellor,
Livaic, Edwards, and Kim (2004), and Heath (2003), did come out with their models on destination
competitiveness, all of which, were adapted from the model developed by Crouch and Ritchie (1999).
It is generally agreed that the conceptual model developed by Crouch and Ritchie remains the most
widely cited research on competitiveness of tourism destinations (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Ritchie &
Crouch, 2000, 2003). The model developed by Crouch and Ritchie (1999) is highlighted in Figure 1.
The two main determinants of competitiveness i.e. comparative advantage and competitive advan-
tage are featured on the left and right-hand sides of the model. The rest of the model highlights the
many attributes of these two main determinants of competitiveness. The macro environment has a
significant global influence on tourist destinations as events that happened in one region can affect
travel to another destination. The Bali bombing in 2005 and the 2002 outbreak of SARS disease in

Figure 1. General conceptual model of destination competitiveness. Source: Adopted from Ritchie and Crouch (2003).
4   P. P. W. WONG

Asia affected travel patterns of international tourists. Any destination must overcome or adjust to the
forces of the macro environment in order to maintain its competitiveness.
A destination’s microenvironment on the other hand consists of competing firms such as travel
agencies, tour operators, event management companies, and other stakeholders such as the local
residents, hospitality organizations, and local government bodies involved in the destination’s tour-
ism activities and these microenvironment forces tend to focus on providing better service to their
customers in relation to their competitors to remain more competitive. It is critical for destination
management organizations to be aware that both the macro environment and microenvironment are
constantly changing and therefore requires continuous monitoring in order to maintain and sustain
the destination’s competitiveness (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999).
The core resources and attractors listed in Figure 1 such as the destination’s physiography and the
culture and history are the destination’s naturally endowed or man-made factors that provide the
key reasons for travellers to select and visit the destination. Another dimension of the core resources
and attractors is the market ties dimension which refers to the linkages between the visitors from
the tourism originating countries and the destination they travel to. These sort of linkages could be
the historical, cultural, or business ties between the visitor countries and the destination (Crouch &
Ritchie, 1999). Examples would be visitors from the United Kingdom travelling to Malaysia due to
their colonial ties, or Chinese Malaysian tourists visiting China because of the cultural linkages.
Supporting factors and resources, as the term implies, include elements such as infrastructure,
accessibility, and political will that are required to build a strong base for the development of a suc-
cessful tourism industry. Without the necessary supporting factors and resources, a destination which
is well-endowed with core resources and attractors may face a serious hindrance in developing its
tourism industry when compared with a less well-endowed destination (Crouch, 2006). Singapore is a
good example of a destination which is relatively less well endowed with core resources and attractors
but has consistently outperformed some of its regional competitors in the development of its tourism
industry because of its strong supporting factors and resources. Supporting factors such as the repu-
table shopping facilities found in Singapore plays an important role in influencing revisit intentions
to a destination (Sirakaya-Turk et al., 2015).
The destination management component of the model includes activities which can improve the
quality of the core resources and attractors as well as reinforcing the efficacy of the supporting factors
and resources. Examples of these activities would be the marketing activities conducted by the relevant
tourism authorities, such as organizing and implementing promotional campaigns, product develop-
ment, and market targeting strategies. Another dimension of destination management is the service
dimension and Otto and Ritchie (1995) has argued that to improve the quality of service (QOS), it is
necessary to provide a total quality of experience, which requires the bearing of responsibility by the
destination managers for the maintenance of the core resources of the destination. Overall QOS which
influences a visitor’s satisfaction is also an important determinant of destination loyalty (Meleddu,
Paci, & Pulina, 2015)
The component of destination policy, planning and development sets up the framework for the
policies and strategies required to guide the destination in achieving its tourism development goals
and objectives. According to Zehrer and Hallmann (2015), policy factors have a significant positive
influence on destination competitiveness. The ultimate goal for a destination would be to achieve a
level of competitiveness that is sustainable while at the same time enabling it to provide a QOL that
is compatible with the hopes and aspirations of the local residents (Crouch, 2006; Uysal, Sirgy, Woo,
& Kim, 2016).
The last component in the model, qualifying and amplifying determinants, “moderate, modify, or
mitigate destination competitiveness by filtering the influence of the other three groups of factors”
(Crouch & Ritchie, 1999, p. 149). This component consists of factors that can be very important to
the extent that they influence tourists’ demand for the destination but are largely outside the span of
control of the destination managers. One such qualifying determinant is the location of the destina-
tion as geographic proximity is a major influencing factor in tourists’ destination selection, and yet
 ANATOLIA   5

there is nothing much a destination can do to change its location. Safety and security in a destination
is another important qualifying determinant as most tourists will avoid a destination which is not
able to provide them with adequate hygiene standards, and/or a destination with a high crime rate.
The cost factor can also be considered a qualifying determinant and the cost of a destination such as
transportation costs, exchange rates, and costs of living are also largely influenced by socio-economic
forces outside the control of destination managers.
Enright and Newton (2004) expanded on the work of Crouch and Ritchie (1999) by identifying an
assortment of business-related factors within the components of supporting factors and resources, des-
tination management and qualifying and amplifying determinants, as well as tourism-specific factors
(attractors) within the component of core resources and attractors which can be used as measures of
a destination’s competitiveness. In doing so, Enright and Newton (2004) were able to operationalize
the concept of destination competitiveness and to obtain quantitative measures of competitiveness.

Destination loyalty
A study by Gitelson and Crompton (1984) identified five factors for repeat visits and they are: (1) Risk
reduction due to familiarity with the destination’s content, (2) Risk reduction due to finding the same
people, (3) Emotional bonds with the destination, (4) Exploration of new attractions in destination,
and (4) To act as a guide to new visitors. The above findings were supported by Ryan’s (1995) study on
mature travellers to the Mediterranean resort of Majorca. The high loyalty rate of the mature travellers
can also be attributed to the above risk avoidance theory and high satisfaction of previous holiday
experiences in Majorca (Ryan, 1995).
Another study by Rittichainuwat, Qu, and Leong (2003) concluded that the bundle of travel deter-
minants of destination image, travel motivation, travel inhibitors were the three most important
factors that influence a tourist to revisit a destination. However, they also found in the same study,
that satisfaction does not play a significant role in influencing tourists’ revisit intentions. This result
supports Bello and Etzel’s (1985) findings that “unlike other types of consumer behaviour in which
satisfaction results in repeat purchases, the very attraction of a travel destination for one market
segment discourages a repeat visit because familiarity decreases or eliminates novelty” (p. 24). More
recent studies have found that holistic image, QOS, shopping value, satisfaction and travel experience
of a destination has a major influence on revisit intention (Meleddu et al., 2015; Sirakaya-Turk et al.,
2015; Stylos, Vassiliadis, Victoria Bellou, & Andronikidis, 2016; Wu, 2016).

Development of hypotheses and research framework

Based on the literature review, the following hypotheses and research framework were developed (see
Figure 2). The component of destination policy, planning and development was not included in the

Competitiveness Attributes

- Core resources and attractors

Destination Loyalty
- Supporting factors and resources

- Destination management

- Qualifying and amplifying

determinants

Figure 2. Proposed research framework.

6   P. P. W. WONG

evaluation because that component relates to the policies and strategies implemented by the relevant
governmental bodies to guide the destination in its tourism development, and foreign visitors, gen-
erally, will not possess the necessary knowledge to provide an accurate evaluation of such strategies.
According to Ritchie and Crouch’s (2003) conceptual model on destination competitiveness, the
two main determinants of a destination’s competitiveness are comparative advantage and competitive
advantage. Their model asserts that all the competitive attributes can have an influencing effect on
either the destination’s comparative or competitive advantage and a destination’s competitiveness
is described as its ability to increase visitor arrivals by providing them with satisfying, memorable
experiences and doing it in a profitable and sustainable manner (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Two main
indicators of destination competitiveness highlighted by Kozak (1999) and Opperman (2000) is the
number of repeat visitors and the intention to recommend the destination. We therefore postulate that
a favourable evaluation of a destination’s competitiveness attributes consisting of: (1) core resources
and attractors, (2) supporting factors and resources, (3) destination management, and (4) qualifying
and amplifying determinants will positively influence destination loyalty:
H1. There is a positive relationship between core resources and attractors and destination loyalty.

H2. There is a positive relationship between supporting factors and resources and destination loyalty.

H3. There is a positive relationship between destination management and destination loyalty.

H4. There is a positive relationship between qualifying and amplifying determinants and destination loyalty.

Methodology
The population for this study is defined as all international tourists who visited and stayed at least
one night in the Malaysian urban destinations of Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Melaka, Kota Kinabalu, and
Kuching. Although probability sampling based on random selection is normally required to achieve
representativeness of the population, this technique was not practical in a study of this nature. As
there is no available list of international tourists who have visited the above destinations from which
a random selection can be made, a purposive/criterion, non-probability sampling technique was
employed in this study. The sample was chosen from international tourists who met the criteria of
having visited and stayed at least one night, in the cities of Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Melaka, Kota
Kinabalu, and Kuching. The sample size was set at 200 respondents per destination so that a reasonable
number of respondents can be obtained for the evaluation of the level of competitiveness of each of
the five destinations.

Instrumentation
The survey instrument used in this study was a self-administered questionnaire. The measurement
questions listed in the questionnaire were mainly close-ended questions using a 5-point Likert scale.
As reliability and validity can be improved if the rating-scale points are labelled (Krosnick, 1999), all
points of the Likert scale in the questionnaire will be labelled with words such as (1) Extremely poor,
(2) Poor, (3) Moderate, (4) Good, and (5) Excellent. The questionnaire is made of three sections, com-
prising of section A, B, and C. Section A and B are made up of items related to the main constructs
of destination competiveness and destination loyalty, respectively. These sections are presented in a
single column to gauge the level of agreeableness to the items listed under each of the major constructs.
Section C of the questionnaire consists of items that are required to obtain the relevant demographic
data for this study. The constructs and items were developed based on the review of past literature,
with the assistance of marketing and tourism researchers.
Although potential errors can exist by a using a 5-point Likert scale, where there is a likely prefer-
ence for the “neutral” response (Johns, 2005), the neutral mid-point was included in the questionnaire
to prevent forcing the respondents into either agreeing or disagreeing when they might not possess
 ANATOLIA   7

a clear opinion. Furthermore, when views are sought on topics of a non-controversial nature such as
those found in a tourism survey, it is acceptable to use the standard 5-point scale to avoid compelling
respondents into agreement or disagreement with a statement (Johns, 2005).
The items on destination competitiveness for this study were adopted from the business-related
factors and attractors developed by Enright and Newton (2004). The “business-related factors” were
derived from the components of supporting factors and resources, destination management and qual-
ifying and amplifying determinants found in Crouch and Ritchie’s (1999) conceptual model, and the
tourism “attractors” were extracted from the component of core resources and attractors. Respondents
in the survey were asked to evaluate business-related factors such as international access, good retail
sector, and quality of accommodation; and attractors such as safety, cuisine, and dedicated tourism
attractions on a five-point Likert scale from extremely poor to excellent.
To measure destination loyalty, two items were adopted from measures used in Pike’s (2007) model,
and three items were selected from the possible measures for brand-building developed by Keller
(2008) which will be modified to put them into a tourism destination context. Respondents were asked
to indicate how strongly they agree to statements (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree)
such as “I would advise other people to visit the destination”.
The pretest was carried out on a sample of 75 international tourists. The instrument was assessed
for its reliability by means of the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The closer the Cronbach’s Alpha is to
1, the better, and any score that is below 0.60 is considered poor (Malhotra, 2002). Similarly, Nunnally
(1998) recommends a minimum Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.70 to be considered reliable, and results
from the pretest showed that this criterion for reliability was met.

Data collection and analysis

The survey was carried out over a period of approximately four months and tour operators, hoteliers,
and tourist information centres located in Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Melaka, and Kota Kinabalu, and
Kuching assisted in the distribution of the questionnaire. The English questionnaire was also translated
into Chinese and Arabic utilizing the services of professional translators. Approximately 350 ques-
tionnaires in the three languages (300 in English, 30 in Chinese, and 20 in Arabic) were distributed
in each of the five destinations. Out of 1750 questionnaires distributed, a total of 944 usable question-
naires were collected, representing a response rate of nearly 54%. The highest number of returned
questionnaires was collected from Kota Kinabalu (245) or 26% of total followed by the gateway city
of Kuala Lumpur (244) or nearly 26% of total, Kuching (200) or 21% of total collected. The response
rate from tourists in Melaka and Penang, was quite low; with only 139 or 14.7% and 116 or 12.3% of
questionnaires returned, respectively.

Results
As reflected in Table 1, the majority of the tourists surveyed belong to the age group of 20–30 years
(50.1%) and most of the respondents earn USD 20,000 or less per year (39.9%). In terms of marital
status and educational background, a vast majority (55.1%) of the respondents are single (never mar-
ried) and most of the respondents possess a bachelor’s degree (41.6%). The top ten nationalities of
respondents in descending order are: (1) China (20.2%), (2) Singapore (11.3%), (3) United Kingdom
(8.4%) (4) Australia (7.9%), (5) Indonesia (6.1%), (6) Germany (4.6%), (7) the Netherlands (3.7%),
(8) Thailand (3.3%), (9) Korea (2.6%), and (10) United Arab Emirates (2.5%).

Influence of demographic factors

ANOVA tests using SPSS were conducted to ascertain if there were any significant differences among
the various demographic groups in their evaluation of a destination’s competitiveness attributes.
ANOVA tests results reveals that demographic factors such as nationality, (F  =  2.023, p  =  0.000);
8   P. P. W. WONG

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: demographic profile.

Frequency Per cent

Age
19 or less 19 2.0
20–30 473 50.1
31–40 219 23.2
41–50 116 12.3
51–60 71 7.5
>61 46 4.9
Income (USD)
≤20,000 or less 377 39.9
20,001–30,000 163 17.3
30,001–40,000 181 19.2
40,001–50,000 97 10.3
50,001–60,000 59 6.3
>60,001 67 7.1
Marital status
Single (never married) 520 55.1
Single (divorced, separated, or widowed) 104 11.0
Married 320 33.9
Education
High/secondary school 139 14.7
Diploma 198 21.0
Bachelor’s degree 393 41.6
Master’s degree/Phd 126 13.3
Professional qualifications 88 9.3
Nationality
China 191 20.2
Singapore 107 11.3
U.K. 79 8.4
Australia 75 7.9
Indonesia 58 6.1
Germany 43 4.6
Netherlands 35 3.7
Thailand 31 3.3
Korea 25 2.6
U.A.E. 24 2.5

age (F = 3.782, p = 0.002); income levels (F = 8.46, p = 0.000); marital status (F = 18.444, p = 0.000);
educational levels (F = 8.906, p = 0.000) have an impact on destination competitiveness.
While ANOVA tests can show differences among groups, they are not able to tell which group
differs from each other. Therefore, post hoc Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) tests using
SPSS were conducted on the various demographic variables to detect significant differences within
groups in the sample. “Nationality” (with more than 50 groups), was the only demographic variable
not tested as post hoc tests cannot be performed when there are more than 50 groups in the sample.
Analysis on the evaluation of destination competitiveness showed there was a significant difference
in the “19 years or less” age group with the “31–40 years” and the “41–50 years” cohorts. In terms of
income level, respondents in the “USD 20,000 or less” category differ significantly with most other
income groups except with those in the “USD 20,001–USD 30,000” and “USD 60,0001 and above”
category. As for marital status, there is a significant difference for respondents who are married when
compared to respondents who are single. With regards to educational level, respondents with a bach-
elor’s degree are significantly different from those with a high school, diploma or master/Ph.D. qual-
ification. In terms of previous experience with the destination, there are no major differences among
the respondents in their evaluation of competitiveness irrespective of the number of times they have
visited the destination.
 ANATOLIA   9

Validity and reliability

Convergent validity and internal reliability were assessed by using SPSS. Convergent validity can be
deduced if the item-total correlations showed a value of 0.3 or greater (Nunnally, 1998). As all the
items showed values for corrected item-total correlation that ranged from 0.561 to 0.737, convergent
validity is deemed present. A Cronbach’s alpha value of a minimum of 0.70 is generally agreed as the
acceptable limit for reliability (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The Cronbach’s alpha scores for
all the destination competitiveness attributes and destination loyalty exceeded 0.70 and can therefore
be considered reliable.

Evaluation of the competitiveness attributes

Based on the mean scores of the competitiveness attributes of the selected destinations, Kota Kinabalu
(4.20) is strongest in its core resources and attractors followed by Kuching (3.91), Penang (3.86), Kuala
Lumpur (3.84), and Melaka (3.73). In terms of supporting factors and resources, Kota Kinabalu (4.10)
is again on top followed by Kuching (3.51), and Kuala Lumpur (3.50) tied with Melaka (3.50). Kota
Kinabalu (4.12) also possesses the highest score for destination management, trailed by Kuching (3.80),
Penang (3.74), Kuala Lumpur (3.61), and Melaka (3.42). Not surprisingly, Kota Kinabalu (4.04) once
again took the honour of having the highest level of qualifying and amplifying determinants trailed by
Kuching (3.82), Penang (3.65), Kuala Lumpur (3.61), and Melaka (3.58).
Based on the above results, the East Malaysian destinations of Kota Kinabalu and Kuching seem
to be the leaders in most of the competitiveness attributes when compared to their counterparts in
peninsula Malaysia. The high competitiveness level of Kota Kinabalu and Kuching can be due to the
well-known natural and cultural attractions located in those two destinations. The states of Sabah and
Sarawak on the island of Borneo (where Kota Kinabalu and Kuching are the, respective, state capitals)
are famous for their natural and cultural attractions and are magnets for nature and cultural tourists.
Sabah has some of the best diving sites in the world, while both Sabah and Sarawak are well known
for their rainforests, wildlife, and cultural diversity.
However it is surprising to note that both Penang and Melaka seem to be lagging behind in their
competitiveness ranking for most of the competitiveness attributes, even though both of these cities
have been listed as United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
World Heritage Sites since 2007 (Tourism Penang, 2011). Penang is well known for its beaches as
well as its cultural events such as the annual Dragon Boat Festival and the Chingay Procession (a
procession of giant flags measuring up to 15 m tall which are balanced on the shoulders and heads of
“Chingay” exponents). Melaka on the other hand, boasts a host of historical attractions such as the
Portuguese-built fortress, A Famosa, one of the oldest surviving European architectural remains in
Asia, and Cheng Hoon Teng temple, the oldest Chinese temple in Malaysia.
Melaka obtained the lowest score for its destination management and supporting factors and resources
attributes. The low score for destination management indicates that staff skills and managerial skills pos-
sessed by the employees in tourism establishments are not up to expectations while the poor evaluation
for supporting factors and resources shows that international access and internal transportation services
in Melaka need to be improved. Penang was ranked lowest in its qualifying and amplifying determinants
and supporting factors and resources which highlight the possible need for providing a higher level of
safety for tourists as well as for improving the standard of its local transportation services.

Influence of competitiveness on destination loyalty

The results from a multiple regression analysis (see Table 2) support hypotheses 1–4 which posited
that the competitiveness attributes of core resources and attractors, supporting factors and resources,
destination management, and qualifying and amplifying determinants are positively correlated with
destination loyalty.
10   P. P. W. WONG

Table 2. Regression analysis of the relationship between competitiveness attributes and destination loyalty.

Competitiveness attributes Standardized beta coefficients t Sig.

Core resources and attractors .290 7.551 .000
Supporting factors and resources .152 3.004 .003
Destination management .174 4.214 .000
Qualifying and amplifying determinants .149 3.146 .002
Note: R2 = .478, F = 214.617.

As expected, core resources and attractors (which normally provide the key reasons for travellers
to visit a destination) with its highest beta coefficient value was the strongest predictor of destination
loyalty (β  =  .290, p = <.000). The second most important predictor was destination management
(β = .174, p = <.000) which includes activities such as implementing marketing campaigns and product
development. Supporting factors and resources which include elements of tourism infrastructure and
accessibility was the third strongest indicator of destination loyalty (β = .152, p = <.003). Finally, the
attribute of qualifying and amplifying determinants (β = .149, p = <.002) which influence demand for
the destination but are largely outside the span of control of the destination mangers was the fourth
most important element in predicting destination loyalty. These qualifying determinants include factors
such as safety, security, and living costs in the destination.
These significant relationships reiterate the importance of having a high level of destination com-
petitiveness in garnering a more favourable response from consumers in the form of increased brand
loyalty and greater profitability (Aaker, 1991; Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). The R2 value of .478 indicates
that there is a moderately positive correlation between destination competitiveness and destination
loyalty and competitiveness accounts for nearly 48% of the variation in destination loyalty. However,
more than 50% of the variance in the correlation is still unexplained due to other influencing factors.

Conclusion and implications

A major practical implication of this study is the potential application of its findings to destination
marketing, especially in urban destination marketing. This study helped to assess the competitiveness
attributes of the individual urban destinations selected for this research and the findings can be used
by the national and state Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs) to identify the destination’s
strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitiveness attributes. A destination can identify which
competitiveness attribute is below expectations and can work towards strengthening that particular
element. In terms of theoretical contributions, this study can lead to a better understanding of the
antecedents of destination loyalty through examining the relationship between the constructs of des-
tination competitiveness and destination loyalty which will enhance the body of knowledge in urban
destination marketing. The findings of the study suggest that not all competitiveness attributes are equal
in importance, and the results highlight the probability that there are different levels of importance
attached to each competitiveness attribute of a destination.
Based on the results of the study, Kuala Lumpur and Melaka obtained the lowest scores for their
destination management while Melaka and Penang scored poorly for supporting factors and resources
attributes. DMOs in these destinations can highlight these findings to the tourism service providers
such as hoteliers, restaurateurs, and tour operators to look at how they can garner the support of the
tourism ministry and human resource ministry to develop comprehensive training programmes for
their employees to improve their staff and managerial skills. To improve the rating of the supporting
factors and resources attributes such as local transportation services especially with regards to the local
taxi service in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, DMOs can suggest to the relevant state government to look
into devising a new fare structure for taxis, and to have a more stringent enforcement of existing laws
covering taxi operators to minimize tourists’ complaints. Another supporting factor that Melaka should
look into for the longer term would be on improving its international access. This would require the
 ANATOLIA   11

state government to work together with the federal government to upgrade its local airport in order
to facilitate and encourage direct international flights into Melaka.
Lastly, the findings of this study can be used for the creation of promotional messages by the DMOs
for future marketing campaigns to help improve the image perception for these two destinations. For
example, evaluation of the destination management attribute can be improved by projecting images of
service providers who are well trained, knowledgeable and friendly in their promotional campaigns.
To improve their overall competitiveness scores, Melaka and Penang can also take advantage of their
UNESCO World Heritage Site status (Tourism Penang, 2011) to emphasize their attractiveness as
world-renowned historical destinations in their promotional messages.
As to the study limitations, the sampling technique used in this study was a purposive/criterion
non-random sampling method. Therefore, the demographic profiles of the sample respondents might
not be truly representative of incoming tourists to Malaysia although the percentage breakdown of
the top five nationalities of the survey respondents is somewhat representative of the actual tourists
arrivals to Malaysia in 2012 (Tourism Malaysia, 2013), when the top 10 markets were (1) Singapore,
(2) Indonesia, (3) China, (4) Thailand, (5) Brunei, (6) India, (7) Philippines, (8) Australia, (9) Japan,
and (10) U.K.
The logistical demand and manpower requirements of carrying out surveys in five different destina-
tions in Malaysia required seeking the assistance of tour operators, hoteliers, and tourist information
centres located in those destinations in distributing the questionnaires. Even though clear instruc-
tions on how to complete the questionnaire were provided to pass on to potential respondents, it was
not possible to monitor the questionnaire distribution process by the staff of these organizations.
Respondents chosen to participate in this study were assumed to meet the operational definition of an
international tourist provided by UNWTO. Some of the tour operators who assisted in the distribution
of questionnaires specialize in student groups while others may focus more on certain geographic
markets such as the Singaporean, China, or Australian markets. Hence, there is an apparent dominance
of young and single travellers from Singapore, China, and Australia in the sample.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Philip P W Wong is a senior lecturer in Marketing at Taylor’s University, Malaysia, and has spent 18 years working in
the hotel and travel industry. Currently, he teaches Tourism Marketing and Integrated Marketing Communications for
undergraduate students, and Strategic Marketing for master’s degree students. His research interests are in destination
branding and destination competiveness.

References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Assaker, G., Hallak, R., Vinzi, V. E., & O’Connor, P. (2014). An empirical operationalization of countries’
destination competitiveness using partial least squares modeling. Journal of Travel Research, 53, 26–43.
doi:10.1177/0047287513481275
Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The role of novelty in the pleasure travel experience. Journal of Travel Research, 24,
20–26. doi:10.1177/004728758502400104
Croes, R. (2011). Measuring and explaining competitiveness in the context of small island destinations. Journal of Travel
Research, 50, 431–442. doi:10.1177/0047287510368139
Crouch, G. I. (2006, June 15–18). Destination competitiveness: Insights into attribute importance. International
Conference of Trends, Impacts, and Policies on Tourism Development, Hellenic Open University, Heraklion, Crete.
Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research,
44, 137–152.
Cvelbar, L. K., Dwyer, L., Koman, M., & Mihalic, T. (2016). Drivers of destination competitiveness in tourism: A global
investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 1041–1050.
12   P. P. W. WONG

Dwyer, L., Cvelbar, L. K., Edwards, D., & Mihalic, T. (2012). Fashioning a destination tourism future: The case of Slovenia.
Tourism Management, 33, 305–316. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.03.010
Dwyer, L., Dragićević, V., Armenski, T., Mihalič, T., & Cvelbar, L. K. (2016). Achieving destination competitiveness:
An importance–performance analysis of Serbia. Current Issues in Tourism, 19, 1309–1336. doi:10.1080/13683500.
2014.944487
Dwyer, L., Knezevic, C., Mihalic, T., & Koman, M. (2014). Integrated destination competitiveness model: Testing its
validity and data accessibility. Tourism Analysis, 19(1), 1–17. doi:10.3727/108354214X13927625340073
Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6,
369–414.
Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards, D., & Kim, C. (2004). Attributes of destination competitiveness: A factor
analysis. Tourism Analysis, 9, 91–101. doi:10.3727/1083542041437558
Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: A quantitative approach. Tourism Management,
25, 777–788. doi:10.1016/j.tourman2004.06.008
Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Research,
11, 199–217. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(84)90070-7
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heath, E. (2003). Towards a model to enhance destination competitiveness: A Southern African perspective. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10, 124–141.
Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion
and Parties, 15, 237–264.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kozak, M. (1999). Destination competitiveness measurement: Analysis of effective factors and indicators. European Regional
Science Conference (ERSA) Papers, p. 289. Retrieved from http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa99/
Papers/a289.pdf
Kozak, M. (2004). Destination benchmarking: Concepts, practices and operations. Wallingford: CABI.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1999). Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: Conceptual considerations and
empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 273–283. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(99)000034-1
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
Leung, X. I., & Baloglu, S. (2013). Tourism competitiveness of Asia Pacific destinations. Tourism Analysis, 18, 371–384.
doi:10.3727/108354213X13736372325876
Malhotra, N. K. (2002). Basic marketing research: Application to contemporary issues. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meleddu, M., Paci, R., & Pulina, M. (2015). Repeated behaviour and destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 50,
159–171. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.032
Nunnally, J. (1998). Pychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Opperman, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 78–84. doi:10.1177/004728750003900110
Otto, J., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1995). Exploring the quality of the service experience: A theoretical and empirical analysis.
Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 4, 37–61. doi:10.1016/s1067-5671(95)04005-6
Paskaleva-Shapira, K. A. (2007). New paradigms in city tourism management: Redefining destination promotion. Journal
of Travel Research, 46, 108–114. doi:10.1177/0047287507302394
Pike, S. (2007). Consumer-based brand equity for destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22, 51–61. doi:
10.1300/J073v22n01_04
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12, 51–64.
Porter, M. E. (1980). How competitive forces shape strategy. The Mckinsey Quarterly, Spring, 34–50. doi:10.1007/978-
1-349-20317-8_10
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (2004). Building the microeconomic foundations of prosperity: Findings from the business competitiveness
index. In M. E. Porter, K. Schwab, X. Sala-i-Martin, & A. Lopez-Claros (Eds.), The global competitiveness report
2004–2005 (pp. 19–50). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, World Economic Forum.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. (2000). The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective. Tourism Management,
21(1), 1–7.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Wallingford: CABI.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., & Leong, J. K. (2003). The collective impacts of a bundle of travel determinants on repeat
visitation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27, 217–236. doi:10.1177/1096348003027002005
Ryan, C. (1995). Learning about tourists from conversations: The over-55s in Majorca. Tourism Management, 16, 207–215.
doi:10.1016/0261-5177(95)00005-9
Sirakaya-Turk, E., Ekinci, Y., & Martin, D. (2015). The efficacy of shopping value in predicting destination loyalty. Journal
of Business Research, 68, 1878–1885. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.016
 ANATOLIA   13

Stylos, N., Vassiliadis, C. A., Victoria Bellou, V., & Andronikidis, A. (2016). Destination images, holistic images
and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination. Tourism Management, 53, 40–60.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.006
Tourism Malaysia website. (2013). Retrieved April 20, 2013, from www.tourismmalaysia.gov.my/corporate/research.
asp?page=facts_figures
Tourism Penang website. (2011). Retrieved April 23, 2011, from www.tourismmalaysia.gov.my/corporate/research.
asp?page=facts_figures
Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism
Management, 53, 244–261. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27, 8–14.
Wu, C. W. (2016). Destination loyalty modeling of the global tourism. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2213–2219.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.032
Zehrer, A., & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of destination competitiveness. Journal
of Destination Marketing and Management, 4, 120–126. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.003