CC BY
19
INERTIA OF TOURISTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
ARI ARISMAN1- *, RATIH HURRIYATI2, DISMAN3, CHAIRUL FURQON4
1'2'34Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business Education, Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia Email address:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 'Corresponding author
Abstract: The emergence of tourist inertia as a response to theoretical developments and competition for tourist destinations leaves questions and criticisms due to the need for more theoretical foundations, resulting in fragmented understanding and contradictory research. This study used the PRISMA statement as a guideline for a systematic literature review and PICO to synthesize the principal results and answer research questions. This study searched studies with published year restrictions from 2006 to 2022 and collected from Scopus-indexed journals with the ScienceDirect, Springer, Sage, JSTOR, Wiley Online Library, and Taylor & Francis Online databases. This research synthesizes and analyzes 24 relevant articles discussing current tourist inertia, habits, and research limitations. Cognitive, affective, behavioural, rationalization, tolerance, and vitality aspects are the subject of tourist inertia today. Decisions on repeat visits and post-visit experiences are debatable tourist inertial biases. Limitations of the destination domain, research dimensions, data collection techniques, measurements, generalization of findings, variables, and constructs are still limitations in tourist inertia research. The article's end includes conclusions with limitations and recommendations for further research. Keywords: systematic literature review, tourist inertia, tourism.
Abstrak: Munculnya inersia wisatawan sebagai respon dari perkembangan teori dan persaingan destinasi wisata menyisakan tanda tanya dan kritik karena kurangnya landasan teoretis, yang mengakibatkan pemahaman terfragmentasi dan munculnya penelitian yang kontradiktif. Menanggapi hal tersebut, penelitian ini menggunakan pernyataan PRISMA sebagai pedoman tinjauan literatur sistematis dan PICO untuk mensintesis hasil utama dan menjawab pertanyaan penelitian. Pencarian studi dengan batasan tahun terbit dari tahun 2006 hingga tahun 2022 dikumpulkan dari jurnal terindeks Scopus dengan database ScienceDirect, Springer, Sage, JSTOR, Wiley Online Library, dan Taylor & Francis Online. Penelitian ini mensintesa dan menganalisis 24 artikel yang relevan dengan fokus pada pembahasan inersia wisatawan saat ini, kebiasan, dan keterbatasan penelitian. Aspek kognitif, afektif, perilaku, rasionalisasi, toteransi, dan vitalitas, menjadi pokok bahasan inersia wisatawan saat ini. Keputusan kunjungan berulang dan pengalaman pasca kunjungan menjadi bias inersia wisatawan yang dapat diperdebatkan. Keterbatasan domain destinasi, dimensi penelitian, teknik pengumpulan data, pengukuran, generalisasi hasil temuan, variabel, dan konstruk, masih menjadi keterbatasan penelitian inersia wisatawan hingga saat ini. Kesimpulan dengan keterbatasan dan rekomedasi penelitian lanjutan disertakan di akhir artikel.
Kata Kunci: systematic literature review, inersia wisatawan, pariwisata.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHODS
2.1 Search Strategy and Data Sources
2.2 Study Selection Criteria And Process
2.3 Data Management and Extraction
3. RESULTS
3.1 Article Selection Data
3.2 What Is the Subject Matter of Inertia in the Current Tourism Context?
3.3 What and How Can Bias Occur in Different Tours, From Repeat Visit Decisions to Post Visit Experiences?
3.4 What Are the Current Limitations of Tourist Inertia Research?
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Main Discovery
4.2 Important Implications
4.3 Research Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
5. CONCLUSION
1. INTRODUCTION
Along with the recovery phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, the World Tourism Organization in 2022 noted that economic growth in most countries came from the tourism sector. Destination service providers must be able to nurture and retain their tourists, such as understanding the decision-making process and post-purchase behaviour (Anderson & Srinivasan, 2003). In increasing the tourist population, destination service providers seek to form long-term relationships, meeting the needs and desires of tourists. Therefore, destination service providers need to identify tourist behaviour for a better understanding and reveal the formation of tourist behaviour as a tourist urgency for visiting destinations.
In analyzing behaviour, most studies, such as utility theory, use traditional economic disciplines as a basis with the assumption that tourists maximize income in deciding to visit destinations by choosing the best alternative. Under this view, tourists base their choices on rationality, logic, and complex reasoning. Other studies explain tourist visit decisions through psychological theories, such as the theory of planned behaviour, which hypothesizes that a person acts through reasoning and rational choice theory, which assumes that hierarchically choices are selected until decisions are derived. This study assumes tourists rely on comprehensive affective, cognitive, and behavioural processing before deciding on a visit. From this dependence, there is a tendency to resist changes that occur in the future. Resistance to change reflects a concept of inertia in the form of tourist behaviour (tourist inertia).
Tourist inertia is a pattern of behaviour to persist at the same destination despite being confronted with better alternatives The level of tourist inertia varies and affects the speed of adaptation. Inertia is also a seasonal factor, meaning that tourists visit destinations at certain times even though they do not have to. Thus, there is a possibility that tourists make irrational decisions. Cognitive, affective and behavioural limitations make tourists more emotional and subjective. As a result, decision-making deviations from rationality may occur and lead to bad choices. Decision-making deviations illustrate that visiting tourists is more complex than original thinking. The discussion of tourism science is still growing. In 1970-1985, the study of tourism science led to the formation of a grand theory such as the concept of the life cycle of tourism destinations by Butler (1980), which was inspired by the theory of the irration index of sociologists Doxey (1975), the theory of evolution of local communities and tourists from anthropologist Greenwood (1977). The study then developed to the concept of "destinations are life cycle", followed by the concept of spatial tourism-coastal community development by planologist Stansfield (1978). In 1986-2005, the tourism science study seemed to have a pattern as a middle-range theory with the application of grand theory to science that was established along with the rapid development of tourism in parts of the world. The grand theory and the middle range theory, which is the established theory, are still used as a reference like some previously mentioned theories. From 2006 until now, the discussion of theories regarding tourism has been increasingly complex. The study of tourism science is currently leading to a little theory pattern with research focus points explaining and interpreting the diversification of the world of tourism.
Along with the development of theory and destination competition, many researchers have highlighted the development of tourist behaviour, including inertia (Chiappa & Correia, 2018; Cui et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022). However, a systematic review of tourist inertia has not been found, so there are still gaps that can be utilized for further research and its relation to the tourism sector.
In particular, this study aims to review the inertia of tourists since 2006 because they have various complexities in tourism. Using relevant peer-reviewed research, the following are some of the questions used in the research:
Question 1: What is the subject of inertia in the current tourism context?
Question 2: What and how can bias occur in different tours, from repeat visit decisions to post-visit experiences?
Question 3: What are the current limitations of tourist inertia research?
The research is structured in the following way: section (1) presents the research background; section (2) presents the methodology of the review process; section (3) presents inertia in the tourism literature; section (4) presents findings of inertia in the tourism literature; and section (5) presents a summary, implications, and areas of potential future research.
2. METHODS
This study uses a systematic literature review approach using the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which refers to the study of This systematic literature review approach reviews previous research on tourist inertia. This approach focuses on systematic procedures for searching, extracting, and synthesizing literature according to the research topic. In addition, this approach identifies the boundaries of knowledge and outlines areas of research that need to be explored. This study provides a reporting flowchart to improve the quality of a systematic literature review and traceability of procedures. 2.1 Search Strategy and Data Sources
A search was carried out using terms/keywords in the search database to determine the research data. According to Snyder (2019), search terms must be based on words and concepts directly related to the research question. Therefore, to find articles that are relevant to the research question, the keywords "inertia behaviour", "tourist inertia", and "visitor inertia" are used. The keywords used to perform the search are directly related to the concept of the question and the PICO elements, namely:
Table 1. PICO Protocol
Population intervention comparison Outcomes
Behavioural Inertia Revisit Decision, Post
Tourist Inertia -
Visit Experience
Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung with specific keywords are: (Inertia Behaviour) AND
(Tourist Inertia OR Visitor Inertia) AND
(Revisit Decision AND Post Visit Experience)
This research identifies Elsevier's Scopus-indexed journals that offer the latest peer-reviewed research on tourist inertia with the databases ScienceDirect, Springer, Sage, JSTOR, Wiley Online Library, and Taylor & Francis Online are databases for identifying other journals. Scopus is used because of its ability to be accepted as a comprehensive data source, proven reliable, and better than other databases (Pranckut, 2021). For research to focus on novelty, the search is limited to the year of publication, namely articles published from 2006 to 2022. References from studies that meet the criteria are then identified for deeper study. 2.2 Study Selection Criteria and Process
The following inclusion criteria were determined to reduce the risk of irrelevant research:
Table 2. Study Selection Criteria
Criteria Description
Study Focus This study focuses on the inertial behaviour of tourists
Publication Language Articles in English
Year of Publication Research publications in the range of 2006 to 2022
Place of Publication Article Availability
Nature of the Article Article Category
Studies with verified publications Articles with open access for analysis Not a book chapter;
PhD, Master and Bachelor theses; reports; conferences, discussions and working papers; duplicates; and the articles are not peer-reviewed
Articles that have at least one type of bias explicitly stated in the body
Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
By following the PRISMA statement 2020, which refers to Page et al. (2021), the process of selecting research studies is shown in a flowchart as follows:
Studies included ir (n = 24)
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Records identified from": Databases (n =2.072) Records removed before screening: Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n =1.772)
Records screened Records excluded**
(n = 300) (n =187)
1
Reports so light for retrieval Reports not retrieved
(n = 113) <n-S3)
1
Reports assessed for eligibility Reports excluded: Not Empirical Evidence (n = 9)
(n = 30)
c
Identification of studies via other methods
Records identified from: Citation searching (n - 5)
J
Reports s xi g ht for retrieval
(n = 5)
1
Reports a isessed tor eligibility
<n=S>
Reports excluded:
Publication year (n = 2)
Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
Following are the results of searching data with the PICO protocol and consideration of inclusion criteria:
Wiley Online Library 148
Tayloy & Francis Online 61
JSTOR 5
Sage 45
Springer «18
ScienceDirect 23
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 2. Database Search Results Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung Based on search results in the database with the keywords (Inertia Behavior) AND (Tourist Inertia OR Visitor Inertia) AND (Revisit Decision AND Post Visit Experience), 2,072 articles were obtained. After exclusion with automation tools according to the study selection criteria, 300 relevant articles were obtained. Then, a full scan was carried out considering the predetermined criteria, and 21
articles were obtained. A manual search was performed according to systematic literature review guidelines to reduce the risk of assessment bias. In selecting studies, the authors considered: (1) searching different journals and publishers and (2) reviewing article references that have the potential to be identified as relevant new articles. With a manual search, three additional main articles were obtained. Therefore, a sample of relevant articles that can contain empirical evidence regarding inertia and bias in tourism is 24 articles. 2.3 Data Management and Extraction
Referring to the PRISMA statement 2020 (Page et al., 2021), the selected studies were analyzed as a whole in data extraction so that synthesis could be carried out to answer research questions. The extracted data includes public information, sample size, bias, and contribution. After data extraction, the data extraction form is reviewed again to ensure accuracy and determine the suitability of categorization.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Article Selection Data
The last 17 years, from January 2006 to December 2022, saw an increase in the number of studies on tourist inertia, especially between 2008 and 2021. Of the 24 articles, ten came from ScienceDirect, three from Sage, two from JSOR, six from Taylor & Francis Online, and three from the Wiley Online Library (See Table 3). For each database, the number of articles increased annually. In addition, tourist inertia takes a central role as the main topic in 21 articles and a supporting role as an explanatory role in the remaining three articles.
Table 3. Article Distribution
Year WL tf JS SG SP SD Total
2006
2007
2008
2009 1 2 3
2010 1 1
2011 1 1
2012 2 2
2013 1 1 2
2014 2 2
2015 1 1
2016 1 1 2
2017 1 1 2
2018 1 1 2
2019 3 3
2020 1 1
2021 1 1 2
2022
Total 3 6 2 3 - 10 24
Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
2009
2010 2011 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020 2021
Figure 3. Year of Publishing Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
Based on the analysis results, the selected studies applied three research methods. A total of 18 articles adopted quantitative analysis, 3 adopted conceptual reviews, and 3 adopted qualitative analysis. Selected articles are then classified by region and country. The classification results reveal that research on tourist inertia has been carried out worldwide, and most of the research comes from China and South Korea. Most articles from China and South Korea used quantitative research methods (especially experimental designs and questionnaire surveys). In addition, the entire national status of the authors is shown in Figure 4, which comes from developed and developing countries, as shown in Figure 5.
■ USA
■ Hong Kong
■ Australia China South Kore Lebanon UK Spain Turkey France Germany Finland Uruguay
Figure 4. Author's State Status Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
■ Developed Countries ■ Developing Countries
Figure 5. Author Country Categorization Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
The articles obtained are then re-verified to ensure the journal is Scopus indexed. The journal with the most citation references is the Annal of Tourism Research, as shown in figure 6.
Futures
International Journal of Tourism Research Journal of Consumer Research Journal of Business Research Tourism Management Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &..
Current Issues in Tourism Tourism Recreation Research Journal of Sport & Tourism Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management Journal of Travel Research International Journal of Hospitality Management Annals of Tourism Research MIS Quarterly
3
3
0
0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Figure 6. Journal References in Research Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung Besides that, out of 24 articles, 11 focused on discussing inertia in the context of tourists, 17 discussed bias, and 17 provided an overview of the limitations contained in the study.
-1
17
17
11
I
9 14
■ Limitations ■ Bias ■ Tourist Inertia
Figure 7. Study Focus Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
Table 4. Study Focus
19
24
focused
Description
References
Tourist Inertia
Inertia is related to cognition
Inertia is related to affective
Inertia is related to behaviour
Inertia is related to rationalization Inertia is related to the tolerance zone
(Han et al., 2011); (Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012) ; (Han et al., 2017) ; (Alvarez & Brida, 2018) ; (Qu et al., 2021 ) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010) (Han et al., 2011); (Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012) ; (Han et al., 2017) ; (Qu et al., 2021) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010)
(Han et al., 2011); (Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012) ; (Han et al., 2017) (Russell & Reviewed, 2012) ; (Alvarez & Brida, 2018) ; (Cui et al., 2019) ; (Qu et al., 2021 ) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010) (Kim et al., 2014) ; (Cui et al., 2019) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010) ; (Park & Nicolau, 2019)
(Park & Nicolau, 2019) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010)
1
3
4
1
4
Inertia is related to vitality
(Wang, 2018) ; (Qu et al., 2021) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010)
Bias
Bias related to repeat visit decisions
Bias related to post-visit experience
(Han et al., 2011) ; (Hong et al., 2009) ; (Dolnicar et al., 2015) ; (Russell & Reviewed,
2012) ; (Alvarez & Brida, 2018) ; (Humphreys, 2016) ; (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) ; (Huang & Hsu, 2009); (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010) ; (Park & Nicolau, 2019) ; (Antón et al., 2014) ; (Hu et al., 2019) ; (Gallarza et al., 2020) ; (Qu et al., 2021)
(Antón et al., 2014) ; (Lv & Wu, 2021) ; (Kim et al., 2014) ; (Han et al., 2011) ; (Hu et al., 2019) ; (Hong et al., 2009) ; (Brown et al., 2016); (Huang & Hsu, 2009); (Assaker & Hallak,
2013) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010) ; (Park & Nicolau, 2019)
Research Limitations
Limitations related to exploring the domain of visiting other destinations for variations in tourist expectations Limitations related to research dimensions that include various points of view
Limitations related to data collection techniques Limitations related to inertial measurement
Limitations related to the generalization of the findings
Limitations related to the consideration of moderating and mediating variables
Limitations regarding construct development
(Russell & Reviewed, 2012) ; (Yuksel et al., 2010) ; (Lv & Wu, 2021) ; (Jin et al., 2013) ; (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) ; (Huang & Hsu, 2009) ; (Humphreys, 2016) ; (Hong et al., 2009) ; (Polites & Karahanna, 2012)
(Humphreys, 2016) ;
(Assaker & Hallak); (Brown et al., 2016) ; (Han et al., 2017) ; (Huang & Hsu, 2009)
(Qu et al., 2021) ; (Han et al., 2017) ; (Park & Nicolau, 2019) ; (Jin et al., 2013) (Antón et al., 2014) ; (Assaker & Hallak, 2013); (Brown et al., 2016) ; (Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012) ; (Kim et al., 2014) ; (Gallarza et al., 2020) ; (Huang & Hsu, 2009) (Antón et al., 2014) ; (Park & Nicolau, 2019) ; (Brown et al., 2016); (Gallarza et al., 2020) ; (Han et al., 2017); (Huang & Hsu, 2009); (Yuksel et al., 2010) ; (Kim et al., 2014) ; (Polites & Karahanna, 2012)
(Jin et al., 2013) ; (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) ; (Huang & Hsu, 2009) ; (Park & Nicolau, 2019)
(Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012) 2009) ; (Brown et al., 2016) Reviewed, 2012)
(Huang & Hsu, (Russell &
Source: Author Processed Data 2023, Bandung
3.2 What is the subject matter of inertia in the current tourism context?
Inertia is a condition where laziness, inactivity, and passivity lead to repeat purchases. Such repeated purchases result from less goal-directed behaviour, habits, and a lack of awareness to change, even when faced with better alternatives and incentives (Han et al., 2011; Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012). In the tourism context, when tourists have a high level of inertia, they tend to make repeated visits because switching is seen as disruptive, requires various investment efforts, and takes up much time (Han et al., 2017). Inertia implies constant behaviour in uniform motion in
the same straight line instead of seeking variation. This result aligns with the research by Russell & Reviewed (2012), which states that inertia is most easily recognized when other alternatives are ignored. Therefore, high inertia makes tourist visiting behaviour more persistent and weakens the influence of satisfaction (Alvarez & Brida, 2018).
In inertial measurements, tolerance zones are often conceptualized as service performance related to customer behavioural responses to unconfirmed expectations (Park & Nicolau, 2019). Thus, inertia is essential in understanding repeat purchase behaviour (Cui et al., 2019). As for its relation to loyalty, the bonds of cognitive, affective, and behaviour may be strengthened or weakened by potential inertia supports. The final stage of loyalty will eventually be reached when a powerful facilitator, such as inertia, is present, which immunizes customers against competitors' counter-marketing efforts (Han et al., 2011).
In history-based tourism, inertia is maintained to provide vitality (Wang, 2018). In addition, tourism destinations that enter the stagnation life cycle usually cannot ensure economic sustainability with a transactional strategy. As such, destinations will likely shift to a relational strategy that relies on loyal travellers, which may be a better alternative. Inertia represents a mechanism of tourists' intrinsic motivation to continue to choose a destination and prevent dissatisfied tourists from switching to competing destinations (Cui et al., 2019).
Conceptually, tourist inertia consists of cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. Inertia is believed to be a psychological barrier to transition. Tourists tend to develop an emotional and psychological attachment, thus becoming an important antecedent and measure of tourist loyalty to destinations (Yuksel et al., 2010). Therefore, tourist inertia can explain certain boundaries, why repeat visit behaviour is insignificant, and why tourists return to the same destination despite dissatisfaction and complaints.
The subject matter of current traveller inertia is also complemented by keyword engagement visualizations created to broaden understanding, verify study categories, and minimize the risk of false positive items that do not complement the existing thematic literature. The visualization created forms a flow that can be identified based on the colour at each node. The nodes and text in each cluster represent the frequency of occurrence of one keyword with another. In addition, keyword spacing and lines indicate how each keyword is related. Based on the findings, the following is a keyword and cluster analysis map:
Figure 8. Keyword and Cluster Analysis Map Source: VOSviewer Result 2023, Bandung
Based on Figure 8, 416 keywords were identified, of which generic terms were re-screened, and only 171 were retained. If analyzed further, researchers often discuss case studies and frameworks. Researchers seem to pay attention to issues related to uncertainty, decision-making processes, post-
visit experiences, and dimensions of tourist inertia. These issues can be observed from keywords such as inertia, behavioural intention, destination image, revisit intention, and motive, often repeated in the studies reported. Regardless of which keyword has the largest nodes, other keywords, such as decision-making process, status quo, and alternatives, are often used. The visualization that describes 171 keywords and 11 clusters consists of red nodes (cluster 1), which display as many as 25 keywords with a flow focus on decision-making. In the dark green node (cluster 2), which displays 24 keywords, flow focus is found on the dimension of inertia. Besides that, other research directions were found at the dark blue node (cluster 3) with the number of keywords as many as 18 who have a flow focus on reconsumption, yellow nodes (cluster 4) with the number of keywords as many as 17 that have a flow focus on behavior, violet nodes (cluster 5) with the number of keywords 14 of which have a flow focus on reference, light blue nodes (cluster 6) with a number of keywords as many as 14 that have a flow focus on emotional response, orange nodes (cluster 7) with a number of keywords as many as 14 of which have a flow focus on service, brown nodes (cluster 8) with the number of keywords 14 of them have a flow focus on novelty, lavender nodes (cluster 9) with a number of keywords 13 of which have a flow focus on experience, lilac nodes (cluster 10) with the number of keywords as many as 11 that have a flow focus on the place/object of the destination , and light green nodes (cluster 11) with the number of keywords as many as 7 who have a flow focus on familiarity. The nodes and text in each cluster represent the frequency of keywords with each other. To see the density of keywords, the following is a visualization of keyword density in tourist inertia research:
Figure 9. Keyword Density Visualization
Figure 9. Keyword Density Visualization Source: VOSviewer Result 2023, Bandung
Based on the keyword density visualization, it is known that each point has a colour that indicates density. The greater the number of keywords around a point and the higher the weight of the neighbouring keywords, the dot's colour is closer to yellow. Conversely, the smaller the number of keywords around the dot and the lower the weight of the neighbouring keywords, the dot's colour is closer to blue (van Eck & Waltman, 2022). This visualization can be used to determine which parts of research are still rarely done and which have been done a lot, which is helpful for further research.
3.3 What and How Can Bias Occur in Different Tours, From Repeat Visit Decisions to Post Visit Experiences?
The theory of reasoned action has shown remarkable resilience over the years, and several adaptations to the basic model have been made, including the theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Most of the research applies the consumer behaviour theory directly to the tourism
context. It assumes that the decision to revisit a destination is processed through nominal decisionmaking based on the satisfaction-repeat-visit-loyalty paradigm. This study again questions this assumption by comparing the decision-making process and trying to understand the phenomenon of return visits based on various behavioural concepts (Hong et al., 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to expand the domain to include actions subject to internal and external disturbances such as tourist inertia (Dolnicar et al., 2015). This inertial behaviour has been reflected in the classic consumer model, where a previously made a choice reinforces a subsequent choice. However, choice modelling suggests that reductions in preference and satisfaction can lead to many variations. As a result, dynamic choice models allow for variability in inertial tendencies or seeking variation (Russell & Reviewed, 2012).
Currently, inertia has described many different phenomena related to resistance to change. In physics, inertia is the resistance of a physical object to any change in its state of motion, including a change in the object's speed, direction, or state of rest. In behavioural economics, inertia is the tendency to repeat choices independently of outcomes that give rise to persistence in suboptimal choices. This inertia affects market concentration and convergence speed but does not affect the equilibrium level of utility (Alvarez & Brida, 2018).
Historically, the travel decision-making model assumed a sequential process, including vacation need recognition, information search, alternative assessment, purchase, and post-purchase evaluation. This classical approach focuses more on the features that are assessed to select the destination rather than respecting the complex decisions made to value the many interrelated components. Decision-making theorists recognize the dynamic, multi-stage process that determines trip planning, in which decisions depend on previous decisions. Some propose hierarchies of decisions related to the component of the trip. Thus, although many factors can represent buying behaviour, it is constrained by certain factors that limit choices (Humphreys, 2016). In the context of inertia, repeat buying behaviour is characterized by shortened stages, a limited information search process and relatively few or even only one alternative (Humphreys, 2016). Caneen's (2003) research, which focused on Japanese and American tourists visiting Hawaii, revealed that culture influences the intention to revisit. This study found that American tourists have low intention to return scores but high return visit rates, while Japanese tourists with high intention to return have low repeat visit rates. (Dolnicar et al., 2015) . In addition, it is interesting to discuss that based on the results of Han et al. (2017), men are in a higher inertia group than women. Recognizing these characteristics, service providers must create different strategies for retaining high and low-inertia tourists.
Tourist satisfaction has been considered a significant predictor of repeat visits. However, this raises controversy in research results that satisfaction may not directly relate to repeat visit intentions (Brown et al., 2016; Huang & Hsu, 2009), in which tourists can revisit a destination despite complaints (Assaker & Hallak, 2013). In other words, satisfaction may have an inverse relationship with repeat visits. Therefore, the relationship between tourist satisfaction and return behaviour appears to be more complex and prompts authors to apply more critical judgments and conceptualizations, where tourist inertia can offer such a critical lens (Cui et al., 2019). If there is no strong preference for a particular activity and tourists show inertia in the array of attributes, the effect of the instrumental component on satisfaction may be limited (Yuksel et al., 2010). If related to the post-visit experience, even though tourists have an unsatisfactory experience with a destination, they may still choose the same destination because it is expected with various transitional barriers. These barriers weaken the relationship between post-purchase behaviour and its predictors (Cui et al., 2019; Han et al., 2011). While inertia may seem mainly beyond the control of service management, this is not necessarily the case. Tourists who receive higher value satisfying experiences, superior service, and better emotional components will develop stronger perceptions that finding better alternatives through comparison will be challenging and time-consuming, then increasing loyalty and discouraging switching (Han et al., 2011). In addition, research by Park & Nicolau (2019) reveals that tourists who have positive experiences during a visit tend to have an unsatisfactory experience on subsequent visits because experience becomes a reference standard
that leads to higher expectations. This assumption supports prospect theory which compares tourist references (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). Therefore, destination service providers need to identify the sensitivity of tourist behaviour by using tolerance ranges to determine inertia, including before and post-trip variations.
Loyal travellers focus on positive experiences and interactions (Kim et al., 2014). In assessing the experience, tourists may be delighted with the tourism experience, but not necessarily a good value for money. Tourists may feel that the experience is worth it economically, but they are dissatisfied with the experience. As such, tourists may not reflect satisfaction but are more objective in judging that the destination is the best and may even be an expression of cognitive dissonance trying to make visitors feel better about the high costs. This satisfaction could imply that the tourist experience stems from sensory overload, which begins in the locomotive phase and progresses through the post-visit phase, which tourists may perceive as judgmental. Although tourists may remember extraordinary sensory experiences for a long time post-visit, their memories may have some inertia (Lv & Wu, 2021).
Throughout its history, tourism has been characterized by two things, namely, dynamism and inertia (Butler, 2009; Clarke et al., 2018). Regarding tourist inertia, empirical evidence suggests that purchase intentions and recommendations do not always go hand in hand. Intention to revisit and recommend destinations is loyalty in general. However, tourists may recommend a destination even if they do not intend to visit repeatedly to seek new experiences (Antón et al., 2014). Likewise, some tourists intend to revisit a destination without recommending it to others (Shabankareh et al., 2022; Xu & Li, 2016). Therefore, in making inertial measurements, the use of value scales in tourism can refer to the opinion of Rossiter (2002), where the choice of measurement should not only depend on the context being studied but must consider the understanding of specific phenomena (Gallarza et al., 2020).
3.4 What Are the Current Limitations of Tourist Inertia Research?
To comprehensively understand inertial behaviour in the context of tourism, the research results must be reinterpreted, considering several limitations. Based on the literature, most current tourist behaviour studies are still measured using a single measurement. Behavioural studies have not used multiple dimensions to gain greater depth of information in testing predictors of return intention (Assaker & Hallak, 2013; Jin et al., 2013; Park & Nicolau, 2019). Several authors have not identified the specific characteristics of an object, even though tourists are not homogeneous (Russell & Reviewed, 2012; Humphreys, 2016). Travellers with different backgrounds may have different preferences when travelling to specific destinations (Hu et al., 2019). Travellers also have different sociodemographic and travel characteristics, including age, gender, education, occupation, and whom they travel with (Brown et al., 2016; Han et al., 2017; Yuksel et al., 2010). Several studies also did not consider the role of cognitive inertia in the post-visit evaluation process (Han et al., 2011). Besides that, there is still research that only pursues hedonic and pleasurable experiences, so it only tests the effect of positive sensory experiences on destinations (Lv & Wu, 2021). If analyzed further, research on tourist behaviour only uses cross-sectional data sets (Assaker & Hallak, 2013; Brown et al., 2016). Besides that, SEM methodology and online surveys dominate the research. Although SEM can provide a better solution for testing the existence of a hypothesized relationship in a structural model, SEM is considered inaccurate in proving the absence of a particular relationship in the model (Huang & Hsu, 2009).
In making target goals, researchers only consider one destination. In reality, tourists rarely make travel decisions considering only one destination. Instead, tourists usually make the final choice from several available options. The possibility of tourists with a high tendency to seek novelty to go to a new place is a research obstacle that cannot be considered because the destination is unknown (Hong et al., 2009).
Scenario-based experimental research hinders the research's external validity (Kim et al., 2014). There is also research showing that the gender composition is unbalanced in the characteristics of the respondents. In addition, the scale used in this study is still relatively new and needs further validation in future research. Some of the aggregate construct dimensions have little weight. One
reason for this is a factor related to status quo bias which varies according to context (Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012).
Quantitatively measured visits are by no means a perfect and total reflection of the experience (Antón et al., 2014). Some tourists may experience intensive experiences on short visits but consume large products and services, while other tourists may experience intensive experiences on extended visits involving less expenditure. Even the traveller's experience may be tied to their preferences and limitations regarding time and money.
Tourists' expectations of destinations may differ from their travel companions (Hu et al., 2019). However, subjectivity was found when assessing the degree of adaptation in other destinations (Gallarza et al., 2020). Research only considers goal attributes as puller motivation, so the process is still subjective (Qu et al., 2021). Research data collection was only conducted from one group, so it cannot be generalized to every tourist behaviour (Antón et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2016; Huang & Hsu, 2009; Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012).
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Main Discovery
The emergence of inertia in the tourism sector is essential for destination service providers to consider market trends affecting the intention to return. The pattern of development and growth of tourism is currently experiencing ambiguity in describing the central dichotomies of tourism, one of which is caused by inertia. Inertia is often at odds with other attributes in tourism, causing complexity in predicting future patterns (Butler, 2009). In turn, inertia mediates the impact of tourism construction through psychological commitments based on cognitive, affective, and behavioural consistency. Inertia leads to decreased perceptions of relative convenience and advantages of destinations and lower intentions to visit new destinations (Polîtes & Karahanna, 2012). However, this cannot be generalized to tourists with a high tendency to seek novelty, even though inertia represents a mechanism for tourists' intrinsic motivation to continue to choose the same destination (Cui et al., 2019). When tourists have high inertia, the relationship between revisit intention and other variables may weaken.
Inertia is often manifested as a status quo bias due to attachment, persistence, and behaviour patterns (some are habituated), even when there are better alternatives and incentives to change. This discussion of inertia becomes increasingly complex with the argument that inertia produces loyalty because habitual behaviour and routines strengthen choices (Han et al., 2011). While traveller inertia is beneficial for reducing costs and increasing the efficiency of destination marketing and management, it is risky because the resulting repeat buying behaviour is unstable. Fixed inertia is only a significant crutch for tourist loyalty (Han et al., 2011). In particular, the levels of satisfaction, commitment, intention to revisit, and loyalty varied significantly based on the effect of the level of inertia (Han et al., 2011). This kind of behaviour refers to what tourists do in search of various types of experiences while travelling. Many tourists tend to seek out something new and thus may be less likely to revisit the same destination. Conversely, tourists may present contrasting tendencies. Tourists will choose the same destination to achieve leisure time relaxation. Many tourists travel to the same destination repeatedly, even though it may be unsatisfactory (Cui et al., 2019). This behaviour can be interpreted that tourist behaviour is multidimensional.
In understanding variation-seeking behaviour with a novelty-seeking theory basis which is an inertia bias, tourists often cannot define points in estimating destination services. Therefore, in conceptualizing the performance of a destination, the tolerance zone can be used as a range of service performance related to inertia in tourist responses. Tourists may be indifferent to minor variations in service quality within the tolerance zone, reflecting an individual's willingness to accept service variations. Instead of holding one level of expectations, tourists have different desired expectations and adequate services (Park & Nicolau, 2019). When the service experience is better than the desired service level, tourists will perceive the service as excellent, which results in superiority. However, tourists will not be happy and will look for alternative services to other
destinations if the destination's service level is below the adequate service level (Park & Nicolau, 2019).
4.2 Important Implications
Inertia occurs when tourists rationalize an incident (Kim et al., 2014). Tourist inertia can explain certain limitations, reasons for insignificant repeat visit behaviour, and reasons for returning to the same destination despite dissatisfaction and complaints. Tourist inertia has a relationship similar to the concept of false loyalty, so it needs to be studied in depth. The consensus of researchers in marketing and consumer behaviour is that inertia is part of the barriers to switching and facilitators of loyalty.
Inertial behaviour has been reflected in the classic consumer model of making choices, where the previous choice reinforces the next choice (Russell & Reviewed, 2012). However, choice modelling suggests that reductions in preference and satisfaction can lead to many variations. As a result, dynamic choice models allow for variability in inertial tendencies or seeking variation (Russell & Reviewed, 2012). Inertia affects market concentration and convergence speed but does not affect the equilibrium level of utility. Although greater inertia leads to lower convergence rates, the utility level of the equilibrium is independent of the individual's level of inertia. This inertia may be related to the persistence of a steady state with inertia and the biased concept of the status quo (Hu et al., 2019). Psychological switching barriers related to inertia play a moderating role in the decisionmaking process and post-purchase behaviour (Han et al., 2011).
In carrying out inertial measurements outside of the inertial logic of replication of value scales in tourism, measurements should not only depend on the context studied but must consider the understanding of the phenomena (Gallarza et al., 2020). Based on the results of the phenomenon analysis, popular tourist destinations tend to be more crowded with visitors than less popular tourist destinations. This phenomenon can lead to a decrease in the diversity of tourist destinations and a loss of the unique appeal of less popular destinations. This phenomenon is one of the implications of tourist inertia which reduces the diversity of tourist destinations. Inertia, in turn, mediates the impact of tourism construction through psychological commitment based on cognitive, affective, and behavioural consistency (Cui et al., 2019). Therefore, destination service providers need to identify the sensitivity of tourist behaviour by using tolerance ranges to determine inertia. From the tourism perspective, tourists' novelty search plays a vital role in decision-making. The search for variety and novelty has a conceptual basis that tourists seek the optimal stimulation level, thereby influencing behaviour. Tourist return visits in the context of tourist inertia result from less goal-directed behaviour, habits, and lack of awareness to change, even when presented with better alternatives and incentives. This behaviour is supported by the social-ecological theory, which considers experience to be the primary predictor of visitation intention, in which decisions about future behaviour are based on dynamic interactions between an individual's attributes and his social and physical environmental systems. Thus, studying the behaviour of repeat visitors generates invaluable market information for destinations to maintain competitive advantage. Besides that, the intention to visit is determined by a series of interrelated stimuli, psychological, cognitive, and affective factors. When repeat visiting behaviour becomes automatic, it will lead to the development of habits that conserve the traveller's cognitive resources but have the potential to trigger cycles of addictive and obsessive repeat visits where the traveller's will wears off. Moreover, this allows the unconscious to become aware and move forward.
4.3 Research Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
This study has limitations in finding studies that may be relevant. The author limits the range of search years according to the development of tourism studies as a benchmark for implementing inertia in the tourism context. The results of the study provide implications for the need for further research. In addition, a linear relationship alone is not enough to present an overall picture of the factors that lead to tourist behaviour and the factors that interact with each other in shaping behaviour. Thus, this study complements the study of tourist inertia and provides a comprehensive theoretical overview of repeat visit behaviour.
Although tourist inertia has been a recent research topic, its concept and operationalization are debatable. Due to the limited number of previous studies on tourist inertia, these findings cannot be compared and validated by findings from other studies. Research on tourist inertia also often uses limited samples, especially in specific tourist destinations or in certain groups of tourists. This research makes the conclusions difficult to generalize. Tourist inertia is often measured using subjective measurements such as the intention to return to the same tourist destination or the desire to repeat the same tourist experience. This measurement can lead to bias in the inertial assessment of tourists. Research on tourist inertia also often does not consider the influence of external variables such as changing situations (Assaker & Hallak, 2013; Huang & Hsu, 2009; Park & Nicolau, 2019). This condition can make research results irrelevant to the current situation. In conducting research using the survey method, ideally, the survey should be carried out pre-trip and post-trip on the same sample to avoid potential measurement bias. However, a large sample to answer pre- and post-travel surveys is a considerable challenge. Some bias is possible, and better measurements may offer a more realistic effect on the absolute impact (Park & Nicolau, 2019). Therefore, further research can carry out post-visit surveys by dividing the survey into seven stages, namely: (1) description of the destination; (2) adjustment of the destination description based on information and experience; (3) the decision to travel; (4) the actual journey to the destination; (5) experience at the destination; (6) round trip; and (7) accumulation of new destination images derived from experience. This proposition aligns with the destination selection process in Hong et al. (2009) research.
For further research, it is necessary to measure tourist inertia more objectively, one of which is by looking at the level of repeat visits to the same destination within a certain period or by considering the factors influencing tourists' decisions to return to the same tourist destination. Psychological dimensions, behaviour, and attitudinal orientation can be adopted to study tourist inertia. In addition, further research can assume the value of comparison scales in inertial measurements such as quality, price, emotional, and social values. As for the inertia study of tourists originating from the status quo bias, measurements related to attachment, persistence, and habits are recommended. In addition, creating an inertial ranking based on laziness, inactivity, and passivity can also be considered.
Besides that, research is needed to compare the inertia of tourists in different tourist destinations. This comparison can add to understanding the factors influencing tourist inertia at each destination. Research on tourist inertia in developing and developed countries is also needed to complete the comparison. This comparison can help to understand the differences in the factors that affect tourist inertia in each country and provide appropriate recommendations for developing tourism marketing and development strategies.
In line with the globalization era, research on the effect of digital technology on tourist inertia is needed. For example, how travel apps or social media platforms influence tourists' decisions to return to the same tourist destination or seek new tourist destinations. Along with the occurrence of a pandemic, it is necessary to conduct research on the effect of a pandemic on tourist inertia, such as the effect of a pandemic on the tendency of tourists to return to the same destination for safety reasons or vice versa.
5. CONCLUSION
This systematic literature review was born out of 3 research questions about tourist inertia as a response to theoretical developments and tourism destination competition. In conducting the review, the PRISMA statement was used as a guideline. There are 24 selected articles which are reviewed in depth. This research shows that tourist inertia in the studies still experiences many biases and limitations, which is debatable. Besides, inertia related to cognitive, affective, behaviour, rationalization, tolerance, and vitality is today's subject of tourist inertia. Decisions on repeat visits and post-visit experiences are debatable tourist inertial biases. Limitations of the destination domain, research dimensions, data collection techniques, measurements, generalization
of findings, variables, and constructs are still research limitations. Therefore, further research can
use the research recommendations that have been proposed in the discussion.
REFERENCES
[1] Alvarez, E., & Brida, J. G. (2018). An Agent-based Model of Tourism Destinations Choice. Int J Tourism Res, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2248
[2] Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-Satisfaction and E-Loyalty: A Contingency Framework. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10063
[3] Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Laguna-garcía, M. (2014). Towards a New Approach of Destination Loyalty Drivers: Satisfaction, Visit Intensity and Tourist Motivations. Current Issues in Tourism, 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.936834
[4] Assaker, G., & Hallak, R. (2013). Moderating Effects of Tourists' Novelty-Seeking Tendencies on Destination Image, Visitor Satisfaction, and Short- and Long-Term Revisit Intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 20(10), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478497
[5] Brown, G., Smith, A., & Assaker, G. (2016). Revisiting the Host City: An Empirical Examination of Sport Involvement, Place Attachment, Event Satisfaction and Spectator Intentions at the London Olympics. Tourism Management, 55, 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.010
[6] Butler, R. (2009). Tourism in the Future: Cycles, Waves or Wheels? Futures, 41(2009), 346-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.11.002
[7] Butler, R. W. (1980). The Concept of A Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer, XXIV(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980.tb00970.x
[8] Caneen, J. M. (2003). Cultural Determinants of Tourist Intention to Return. Tourism Analysis, 8(2), 237242. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354203774076805
[9] Chiappa, G. Del, & Correia, H. (2018). Factors Shaping Tourists' Inertia Towards Behaving Responsibly. In Tourist Behavior (pp. 49-63). Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78553-0
[10] Clarke, J., Bowen, D., Clarke, J., & Bowen, D. (2018). Familiar Tourists, their Behaviours and Place Attachments: An Empirical Framework. Tourism Recreation Research, 0(0), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2018.1498158
[11] Cui, R., Huang, S., Chen, H., Zhang, Q., & Li, Z. (2019). Tourist Inertia in Satisfaction-Revisit Relation. Annals of Tourism Research, 102771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102771
[12] Dolnicar, S., Coltman, T., & Sharma, R. (2015). Do Satisfied Tourists Really Intend to Come Back? Three Concerns with Empirical Studies of the Link between Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention. Journal of Travel Research, 54(2), 152-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513513167
[13] Doxey, M. (1975). Sanctions Revisited. International Journal, 31(1), 53. https: //doi. org/10.2307/40201303
[14] Fishbein, M. A., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
[15] Gallarza, M. G., Maubisson, L., & Rivière, A. (2020). Replicating Consumer Value Scales: A Comparative Study of EVS and PERVAL at a Cultural Heritage Site. Journal of Business Research, 1-10. https: //doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2020.01.070
[16] Greenwood, D. J. (1977). Culture by the Pound: an Anthropological Perspective on Tourism as Cultural. Hosts and Guests: The Antropolgy of Tourism, 129-138. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812208016.169
[17] Han, H., Kim, W., Lee, S., Song, H., Han, H., Kim, W., Lee, S., & Song, H. (2017). Key Determinants of Upscale Restaurant Patrons' Repeat Purchase Behavior: Testing the Impact of Inertia Key Determinants of Upscale Restaurant Patrons' Repeat Purchase Behavior: Testing the Impact of Inertia. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2017.1331153
[18] Han, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, E. (2011). Cognitive, Affective, Conative, and Action Loyalty: Testing the Impact of Inertia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1008-1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.03.006
[19] Hong, S., Lee, S., & Lee, S. (2009). Selecting Revisiting Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 268-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.01.001
[20] Hu, F., Teichert, T., Liu, Y., Li, H., & Gundyreva, E. (2019). Evolving Customer Expectations of Hospitality Services: Differences in Attribute Effects on Satisfaction and Re-Patronage. Tourism Management, 74, 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.010
[21] Huang, S. (Sam), & Hsu, C. H. C. (2009). Effects of Travel Motivation, Past Experience, Perceived Constraint, and Attitude on Revisit Intention. Journal of Travel Research.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508328793
[22] Humphreys, C. (2016). Travelling with Golf Clubs : The Influence of Baggage on the Trip Decision-making Process. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 0(0), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2016.1249017
[23] Jin, N. P., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2013). The Effect of Experience Quality on Perceived Value, Satisfaction, Image and Behavioral Intention of Water Park Patrons: New versus Repeat Visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr
[24] Kim, M. G., Lee, C. H., & Mattila, A. S. (2014). Determinants of Customer Complaint Behavior in a Restaurant Context: The Role of Culture, Price Level, and Customer Loyalty. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(8), 885-906. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.896762
[25] Lv, X., & Wu, A. (2021). The Role of Extraordinary Sensory Experiences in Shaping Destination Brand Love: An Empirical Study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(2), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2021.1889447
[26] Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
[27] Park, S., & Nicolau, J. L. (2019). Annals of Tourism Research Image effect on customer-centric measures of performance. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 226-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.04.007
[28] Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the Status Quo: The Inhibiting Effects of Incumbent System Habit, Switching Costs, and Inertia on New System Acceptance. Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, 36(1), 21-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410404
[29] Pranckut, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World. Publications, 9(12), 1-59. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
[30] Qu, Y., Dong, Y., & Xiang, G. (2021). Attachment-triggered Attributes and Destination Revisit. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103202
[31] Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305-335. https://doi.org/1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6
[32] Russell, C. A., & Reviewed, S. J. L. (2012). The Temporal and Focal Dynamics of Volitional Reconsumption: A Phenomenological Investigation of Repeated Hedonic Experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1086/662996
[33] Shabankareh, M., Nazarian, A., Seyyedamiri, N., Jandaghi, G., & Ranjbaran, A. (2022). Influential Factors of Loyalty and Disloyalty of Travellers towards Traditional-resorts. Anatolia, 33(3), 362-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2021.1934882
[34] Snyder, H. (2019). Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
[35] Stansfield, C. A. (1978). Atlantic City and the Resort Cycle. Background to the Legalisation of Gambling. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(78)90222-0
[36] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956
[37] van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2022). VOSviewer Manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden.
[38] Wang, F. (2018). Space, Function, and Vitality in Historic Areas: The Tourismification Process and Spatial Order of Shichahai in Beijing. Int J Tourism Res, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2185
[39] Wang, G., Jia, H., Tian, J., Lin, Y., Wu, R., Liu, Z., & Gao, H. (2022). A Quantitative Method to Delineate the Influence Area of Work Zone Considering Route Choice Inertia and Elastic Demand. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2507107
[40] Xu, X., & Li, Y. (2016). The Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction toward Various Types of Hotels: A Text Mining Approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 57-69. https: / /doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.03.003
[41] Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2), 274-284. https: //doi. org/10.1016/j. tourman. 2009.03.007
