Tourism in Thailand

Concepts and relevant theories

1. Theories of tourist motivation

Needs-based Motivation

That the notions of filling wants or requirements and the balance that consequences from meeting desires are basic to most theories of motivation, is broadly acknowledged in the tourist literature. There is an implied hypothesis in all tourist studies, that the customer will opt the type of vacation or holiday that will best suit his/her needs or requirements (Dann, 1977).

Values-based Motivation

Even though intangible in nature, suitable and dependable procedures for individual values have been made. One of the most frequently used procedures is the Rokeach Value Survey, that consists of 18 instrumental values and18 terminal values (Dann, 1981).

Benefits Sought or Realized

From the beginning in 1961, payback required research was used by many of America’s major corporations as a bigger move towards market segmentation with the power being that it depended on fundamental issues t
han eloquent issues and consequently was a high-quality forecaster of prospect consumer behavior (Ekinci, & Chen, 2002).

Expectancy Theory

Forecasting the results of motivation on behavior also needs an perceptive of the procedures whereby wants are changed into aggravated behavior and, in fastidious, of the way people’s outlook give aggravated behavior its track.

Other Approaches to Tourist Motivation

A recurrently talked about advance, in accumulation to the four chief approach previously argued, is pull and push factors, which have been referred in the previous discussion. The push-pull structure is measured by some as a helpful advance for investigating the incentives essential in tourist behavior. There are nine reasons for travel: seven of which were push motives and two of which were pull motives being innovation and learning (Feather, 1975).

2. Tourist typologies

Adventurous Traveler: A type of natural history supported tourism that includes a constituent of danger, advanced levels of bodily hard work, and the requirement for particular ability (Frochot, & Morrison, 2000).     

Ecotourism: In charge of itinerant to natural places that preserve the surroundings and develop the wellbeing of neighboring people (Gitelson, & Kerstetter, 1990). 

Geo - tourism: Tourism that upholds or improves the geographical temperament of consign, its surroundings, inheritance, aesthetics, civilization, and the comfort of its inhabitants. 

Mass tourism: Extensive tourism characteristically linked with ‘SUN, SAND, and SEA’ choices and distinctiveness such as intercontinental possession, nominal direct financial profit to target group of people, season ability, and package tours (Gnoth, 1997). 

Nature-based tourism: Any type of tourism that depends mainly on the usual atmosphere for its magnetism or surroundings (Engel, Fiorillo & Cayley, 2005). 

Pro-poor tourism: Tourism that consequences in augmented net profit for the poor (Haley, 1968).

Responsible tourism: Tourism that makes the most of the profit to local group of people, reduce unconstructive societal or ecological results, and helps neighboring people preserve delicate traditions, customs and species (Hirschman, & Holbrook, 1982).

3. Enclave Tourism

Enclave tourism is a tourism that is resolute in isolated areas in which the categories of amenities and their material site are unsuccessful to take into contemplation the wants and needs of adjacent societies. Furthermore, the goods and services accessible at these amenities are further than the fiscal means of the local group of people and any foreign money produced may have only a negligible consequence upon the financial system of the host area. Enclave tourism is a type of ‘‘inner colonialism’’.

The reliance model is one of the structures that have been used to explain tourism in budding Countries. The model comments that tourism in budding countries is mainly dependent on demand from, and is organized from urbanized countries. This agreement generates a type of tourism known as enclave tourism. In enclave tourism, tourist’s advent points in the side-line are characteristically the main urban centers performing as economic and political centers of previous colonies, now operating as economic and political centers of self-governing states may have only a negligible result upon the financial system of the host area (Jang, Morrison, & O’Leary, 2002).

4. Food and Economy

Food is one of the important components of a tourist’s experience as it does not only add value to the destination, present its authenticity, but also contribute to the local economy (Kahle, 11986). As food is a must during a trip and thus food has become an essential part of the tourist expenditure. A study showed that the international tourists in South Africa spend around 8 per cent of total spending on food and dining out, whereas the spending on food by the domestic tourists takes up 24 per cent out of the total spending. Furthermore, in a study that aimed to determine the activities of the US resident travelers to overseas destinations, dining was the top chosen activity with 87%, followed by shopping, visit historical places, etc. It is doubtless that food acts an important role in contributing to the growth of economy of a tourism destination (Daghfous, Petrof, & Pons, 1999).

Proposed research methodology and analysis

Aim & objective of the report – The aim of the report is to study about tourism in Thailand, mainly food tourism. This research is done to know about preferences of people in Thai food, how do they find the Thai food and do they wish to visit again to Thailand for its food.

Method to be used – Questionnaire method is used to create this research, we have chosen because a questionnaire is inexpensive and less time consuming when compared to other methods of research. Moreover, questionnaires are required to be filled directly by the customer. This ensures that we get first hand information and the information provided is correct in most of the cases. We have also used enough secondary information for this research. Some of the other methods that could have been used are – interviews, using social media, surveys etc.

For the given survey we have prepared a questionnaire of 16 questions to collect data from the respondents. Some of the questions in the questionnaire are chosen to meet the research objectives mentioned earlier whereas the remaining questions are set to identify the demographic profiles of the respondents. Besides multiple-choice and dichotomous questions, open-ended questions are also chosen to determine the perception of the tourists on Thai food. Furthermore, Likert Scale is also used to measure the eating experience of the tourists on Thai food (Bettman, 1975).

Data Collection

The data collection point for this research was the public area under the Bangkok BTS Sky train National Stadium Station where many tourists are found passing by to take the sky train. The survey was conducted on 12 January 2015 from 11.30am to 6.00pm. 97 questionnaires are distributed and 90 of them are returned with complete answer. Non-probability sampling method is used during the survey as the target respondents for this survey were international tourists that travel to Bangkok (Crask, 1981).

Limitations

The weather was not pleasing on the data collection day as there was thundering rain at around 12.30pm to 2.00pm. Some of the respondents are found to be impatient to answer the questionnaires as they wanted to leave faster to avoid the strong winds and thunders. The data collected under such situation might not be accurate and true enough to represent the real opinions and feelings of the respondents to the research topic (Crompton, 1979).

Hypothesis – It is hypothesized that tourists coming to Bangkok are in love with Thai food.

Questionnaire

1. Gender ………………………….

2. Age………………………

3. Education……………………

4. Marital Status………………………..

5. How often do you visit Bangkok?

a. this is first time       b. visit once in a year               c. visit twice a year          d. visit more often

6. How long do you plan to stay in Bangkok?

a. less than a week        b. 7-14 days      c. 14-30 days        d. more than a month

7. What brings you to Bangkok?

a. holiday       b. family staying here              c. business

8. What do you like most in Bangkok?

a. food         b. shopping           c. sightseeing

9. What is your favorite Thai food in Bangkok?

a. Tom Yum Goong (Spicy Seafood Soup)    b. Pad Thai (Thai Style Fried Noodles)      c. Khao Pad (Thai Style Fried Rice) d.Tom Kha Kai (Chicken in Coconut Soup)    e. other

10.  How do you choose Thai food restaurants in Bangkok?

a. through internet    b. advertisements on television c. through newspaper    d. take recommendation from travel agents    e. take recommendation from their relatives f. other

11. How much on an average do you spend per Thai meal?

a. less than 30 THB    b.31 – 70 THB          c. 71 – 100 THB       d. 101-300 THB    e. 301-500 f. 501THB or more than that

12. Where do you prefer to go for Thai food?

12. a. restaurants       b. street food that       c. food courts      d. hotels      e. other places

13. How do you find Thai food?

a. spicy         b. filled with herbs     c. good in taste       d. did not like the Thai food

14. How was your experience with Thai food in Bangkok?

I.    authentic in terms of taste.

a. strongly agree     b. agree      c. neutral           d. disagree      e. strongly disagree

II. I.    authentic in terms of appearance.

a. strongly agree     b. agree      c. neutral           d. disagree      e. strongly disagree

III. Satisfied

a. strongly agree     b. agree      c. neutral           d. disagree      e. strongly disagree

IV. Bangkok is an ideal food destination for tourists

a. strongly agree     b. agree      c. neutral           d. disagree      e. strongly disagree

V. will visit Bangkok for Thai food

a. strongly agree     b. agree      c. neutral           d. disagree      e. strongly disagree

VI. recommend Thai food of Bangkok to family and friends

a. strongly agree     b. agree      c. neutral           d. disagree      e. strongly disagree

15. Which country do you belong to? …………………………..

16. With whom are you travelling?

a. partner, 27      b. friends    c. family or relatives   d. colleagues   e. alone

Results withfindings

1. Gender

Question 1 was about the gender of the respondents, this is the basic question that is asked before starting with other more important questions. According to the data 52 (57.8%) of the respondents were males and remaining 38 (42.2%) were females. It should also be noted that most of the respondents for this research were couples.

2. Age

2. Age is also an important question, which is asked in almost all the questionnaire, as this question helps us with subsequent research work. This research showed that a mere 2.2 % of the respondents were below 18 years of age, a large number of people 39 (43.3%) fell under the age group of 18-28 years, 29 (32.2%) were in the age group of (29-40), (41-60) and (61 & above) were the age groups having minimum numbers of respondents that is 13 (14.4%) and  7 (7.7%) respectively (Kahle, & Kennedy, 1989).

3. Education

3. Like gender, highest education qualification is also a basic question that is asked in any questionnaire, and this question was asked in question number 3 of our questionnaire.  From the result we come to know that (42)46.6% of our respondents were graduates, followed by (26)28.8% post graduates, (15)16.6% high school pass outs, mere (5)5.5% PHDs and only (2) 2.2% of the respondents had primary school their highest education level.

4. Marital Status

4. Like gender, age and education level Marital Status is also a basic question asked in questionnaires, and this question is asked in question number 4 of our questionnaire.  From the information we come to know that 38 (42.2%) are married, 49 (54%) are unmarried, 2 (2.2%) are divorced and only 1 (1.1%) is widow (Cohen, 1979).

5. This question is about the frequency by which the respondents visit Bangkok. From the answer of this question we come to know about the frequency of respondents to visit Bangkok. We can see from this data of the total 82 respondents, for 35 (38.8%) people it was their first trip to Bangkok, 27 (30%) visit once in a year, 17 (18.8%) people visit Bangkok twice in a year and 11 (12.2%) visit Bangkok more frequently (McCool, & Reilly, 1993).

6. How long do you plan to stay in Bangkok?

6. This question is about the trip duration of the respondents. From the above graph we come to know that 34 (37%) of the respondents plan to stay in Bangkok for less than a week, 29 (32.2%) respondents have trip duration of 7-14 days, 20 (22.2%) respondents have trip duration of 15-30 days and only 7 (7.7%) respondents have plans to stay for more than a month (Cohen, 1974).

7.  What brings you to Bangkok?

7. From this question we come to know the reason because off which respondents have come to Bangkok. From this graph we come to know that most of the respondents (62 i.e. 68.8%) have come to Bangkok for holidays, 9 (1%) have come to visit some family member staying in Bangkok and 19 (2.1%) have come to Bangkok for business trip (Madrigal, 1995).

8. What do you like most in Bangkok?

8. This question is asked to know the favorite pass time of respondents in Bangkok, 48 (53.3%) like Bangkok for its food, a mere 5 (5.5%) respondents like shopping in Bangkok, while 37 (41.1%) prefer sigh seeing in Bangkok.

9. What is your favorite Thai food in Bangkok?

9. This question is asked to know about the favorite dish of the respondents, from the above chart we come to know that 39 (43.3%) like Tom Yum Goong (Spicy Seafood Soup), 24 (26.6%) love Pad Thai (Thai Style Fried Noodles), Khao Pad (Thai Style Fried Rice) is the favorite dish of 10 (11.1%) respondents, another 10 (11.1%) like Tom Kha Kai (Chicken in Coconut Soup) remaining 3 (3.3%) like other Thai dishes.

10.  How do you choose Thai food restaurants in Bangkok?

10. This question is asked to know how the respondents choose the Thai food restaurant to visit. From the data collected we come to know that 39 (43.3%) come to know about the restaurant through internet, 16 (17.7%) choose restaurants from the advertisements that they see on television, 7 (7.7%) come to know about the restaurants through newspaper, 3 (3.3%) take recommendation from travel agents, 23 (25.5%) take recommendation from their relatives, who have already visited Bangkok or are staying in Bangkok, another 2 (2.2%) choose other resources to know about good restaurants (McClelland, 1965).

11. How much on an average do you spend per Thai meal?

11. This question is asked to know how much respondents spend on Thai food on an average. From the chart we come to know that most of the respondents i.e. 39 (43.3%) spend 101-300 THB on Thai food, followed by 22 (24.4%) people who spend 31 – 70 THB on food, 16 (17.7%) spend average 71 – 100 THB on Thai food, 9 (10%) spend 301-500 THB on Thai food at a particular time, 3 (3.3%) spend less than 30 THB at a particular time while dinning at a Thai restaurant and only 1 (1.1%) spends 501THB or more than that while on his single to a Thai restaurant (Lewis, 1981).

12. Where do you prefer to go for Thai food?

12. This question was asked to know the preference of food joints when it comes to Thai food. From the answers we come to know that 39 (43.3%) respondents prefer restaurants when it comes to having Thai food outside, 25 (27.7%) prefer street food that is available on roadside, 20 (22.2%) prefer having Thai food in food courts, only 4 (4.4%) respondents prefer hotels, as they are costlier than other available options and 2 (2.2%) having Thai food on other places that were not mentioned in the questionnaire.

13. How do you find Thai food?

13. Question number 13 is asked to know how the respondents liked the Thai food. From the data collected we come to know that a large number of i.e. 38 (42.2%) respondents found Thai food very spice, 17 (18.8%) respondents felt that the Thai food is filled with herbs, 27 (30%) found the Thai food is good in taste, there was also a small number of people i.e. 8 (8.8%) who did not like the Thai food at all.

14. How was your experience with Thai food in Bangkok?

14. In question 14 we have made a set of 7 questions  to know about the experience of respondents with Thai food and weather will they recommend Bangkok to their family and friends and whether they will want to visit Bangkok again for Thai food or not. We have chosen Liket scale in place of simple option off “yes” or “no” so that the answers of the respondents can be a bit detailed and we can know about the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement.
    
The first statement was that the Thai food is authentic in terms of taste, 23 (25.5%) respondents strongly agreed with this statement; half o the respondents i.e. 50% responded that they agree with the statement, 18 (20%) respondents stood neutral. Only 3 (3.3%) respondents disagreed with the statement and only one person (1.1%) strongly disagreed with the statement that the taste of Thai food in Bangkok was authentic in terms of its taste. Like the first statement, the second statement was about the authenticity of Thai food in term of its appearance, 14 respondents (15.5%) strongly agreed with the statement that the appearance of Thai food in Bangkok was authentic, more than half of the respondents (54.4%) agreed with the statement, while 25 (27.7%) of the 90 respondents stood neutral on the statement. Only 2 (2.2%) respondents disagreed with the statement and only no respondent strongly disagreed with the statement that the taste of Thai food in Bangkok was authentic in terms of its appearance (Krippendorf, 1984). The third statement was asking the respondents about their satisfaction level in eating Thai food in Bangkok, we came to know that 25 respondents (27.7%) were strongly satisfied with their Thai food eating experience, 39 respondents (43.3%) were satisfied with the food experience, 18 of the 90 (20%) respondents were neutral, 6 (6.6%) respondents were dissatisfied with Thai food in Bangkok, while 2 (2.2%) respondents were strongly dissatisfied with the Thai food.
    
The forth was to know whether the respondents agreed that Bangkok is an ideal food destination for tourists or not, 19 (21.1%) respondents strongly agreed with this statement, 35 (38.8%) respondents agreed with the statement, 29 respondents (32.2%) respondents were neutral, 5 (5.5%) respondents disagreed, while 2 (2.2%) strongly disagreed with the statement. In the fifth question the respondents were required to answer whether they will visit Bangkok for Thai food or not, 15 (16.6%) respondents strongly agreed with the statement, 27 (30%) respondents agreed with the statement, 30 (33.3%) respondents stood neutral on the issue, 16 (17.7%) respondents disagreed with the statement and 4 (4.4%) respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. The sixth sub-question was asking about the willingness of the respondents to recommend Thai food of Bangkok to their family and friends. 20 (22.2%) respondents strongly agreed that they will recommend to their family/friends, 35 respondents (38.8%) agreed with the statement, 20 (22.2%) respondents stood neutral on the statement, 13 (14.4%) respondents disagreed to the statement and 2 (2.2%) respondents strongly disagreed that they will make any recommendation about Thai food.

15. Which country do you belong to?

15. Question 15 was about the country to which the respondents belonged. Results show that most of the respondents(three fourth of the total 90 respondents) were from USA i.e. 22 (24.4%), followed by 13 (14.4%) respondents from UK, 12 (13.3%) respondents were from Spain, 9 (10%) respondents were from China, 6 (6.6%) of the total respondents were from Malaysia and New Zealand each, (4.4%) respondents were from Singapore, 3 (3.3%) of the total respondents were from Australia and Germany each , 2 (2.2%) respondents were from South Korea, India and other countries, whereas 1 (1.1%) respondent each was from  Sweden, Belgium, France, Netherland, Canada and Turkey.

16. With whom are you travelling?

16. Question 16 was asked with whom the respondents were travelling. Results showed that 37 (41%) of the total respondents visited Bangkok with their partner, 27 (30%) of the respondents were accompanied by their friends, 13 (14.4%) respondents travelled with their family or relatives, 5 (5%) respondents were travelling alone and 8 (8.8%) respondents were recorded to be travelling with their colleagues.

Conclusions

From the report we can conclude that Bangkok, Thailand is an ideal food destination for food tourists as this city and its food are full with its local uniqueness and authenticity. It has been found out that most of the tourists prefer to have street food as opposed to dining in hotels, and people usually use internet to find about the eating outlets near them. From the research it has also been found out that Tom Young Goong is the most favorite dish of the people and many of the people find Thai food spicy. It can also be concluded in the end that most people like Thai food and will recommend it to their family and friends and will also come again to visit Bangkok.

Bibliography

Bettman, J. (1975). Information Integration in Consumer Risk Perception: A Comparison of Two Models of Component Conceptualisation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp.381-385.

Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a Tourist? A Conceptual Clarification. Sociological Review, 22(4), 527-555.

Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology, 13, 179-201.  

Crask, M.R. (1981). Segmenting the Vacationer Market: Identifying the Vacationer Preferences, Demographics, and Magazine Readership of Each Group. Journal of Travel Research, 20(2), 29-34.

Crompton, J.L. (1979). Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408-424.

Daghfous, N., Petrof, J., & Pons, F. (1999). Values and Adoption of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(4), 314-331.

Dann, G.M.S. (1977). Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4) 184-194.

Dann, G.M.S. (1981). Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187-219.

Deci, E.L. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Dowling,G.R. (1986). Perceived Risk: the Concept and Its Measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 3(Fall), pp.193-210.

Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., & Peterson, G.L. (1991). Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Ekinci, Y., & Chen, J.S. (2002). Segmenting Overseas British Holidaymakers by Personal Values. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9(3/4), 5-15.

Feather, N.T. (1975). Values in Education and Society. New York: The Free Press.

Frochot, I., & Morrison, A.M. (2000). Benefit Segmentation: A Review of Is Applications to Travel and Tourism Research. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(4), 21-45.

Gitelson, R.J., & Kerstetter, D.L. (1990). The Relationship Between Socio-Demographic Variables, Benefits Sought and Subsequent Vacation Behavior: A Case Study. Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 24-29.

Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism Motivation and Expectation Formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283-304.

Haley, R. (1968). Benefit Segmentation: A Decision Oriented Research Tool. Journal of Marketing, 23(July), 30-35.

Haley, R. (1971) Benefit segmentation: A Decision Oriented Research Tool. In J.F.

Engel, H.F. Fiorillo & M.A. Cayley. Market Segmentation: Concepts and Applications (pp. 196-205), New York: Reinehart & Winston.

Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer), pp.92-101.

Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research. 9(Sept), pp.132-140.

Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982). Towards a Sociol Psychology Theory of Tourism Motivation: A Rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256-262.

Jang S.C., Morrison, A.M., & O’Leary, J.T. (2002). Benefit Segmentation of Japanese Pleasure Travelers to the USA and Canada: Selecting Target Markets Based on the Profitability and Risk of Individual Market Segments. Tourism Management, 23, 367- 378.

Kahle, L.R. (1986). The Nine Nations of North America and the Value Basis of Geographic Segmentation. Journal of Marketing, 50(April), 37-47.

Kahle, L.R., & Kennedy, P. (1989). Using the List of Values (LOV) to Understand Consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(3), 5-12.

Kamakura, W.A., & Novak, T. (1992). Value System Segmentation: Exploring the Meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(June), 119-132.

Kim, S.S., Lee, C-K., & Klenosky, D.B. (2003). The Influence of Push and Pull Factors at Korean National Parks. Tourism Management. 24(2), 169-180.

Krippendorf, J. (1984). The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December 2003 611.

Lang, C-T., & O’Leary, J.T. (1997). Motivation, Participation, and Preference: A Multi-Segmentation Approach of the Australian Nature Travel Market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 6(3/4), pp.159-180.

Lewis, R.C. (1981). Marketing for Full Service Restaurant – An Analysis of Demographic and Benefit Segmentation. In J.H. Donnelly and W.R. George, Marketing of Services (pp.43-46), Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Loker, L.E., & Perdue, R.R. (1992). A Benefit-Based Segmentation of a Nonresident Summer Travel Market. Journal of Travel Research, 31(1), 30-35.

Lundberg, D.E. (1971). Why Tourists Travel. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 26(February), 75-81.

Lundberg, D.E. (1972). The Tourist Business. Chicago: Institutions/Volume Feeding Management Magazine.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The Tourist. New York: Schocken.

McClelland, D. (1965). Achievement and Entrepreneurship: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, April, pp.1,389-392.

McClelland, D.C. (1955). Studies in Motivation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

McCool, S.F., & Reilly, M. (1993). Benefit Segmentation Analysis of State Park Visitor Setting Preferences and Behavior. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(4), pp.1-14.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Personal Values, Traveller Personality Type and Leisure Travel Style. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(2). 125-42.

Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L.R. (1994). Predicting Vacation Activity Preferences on the Basis of Value-System Segmentation. Journal of Travel & Tourism Research, 32(3), 22- 28.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370- 396.

Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.