Rural areas in Kansas has struggle to attract new economic investment, however countries like Spain and Wales, England has been successful at attracting urban citizens, and provided a legit experience for natural and trails meanwhile created more jobs and secured more funding for natural preservation. The study find out some unique outlets within the data.

1. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Testing Multigroup Mediation Using Hierarchical Component Models:
A Comparison Between New and Repeat Visitors
Naiqing Lin, Kevin R. Roberts

2. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Introduction
 Destination equity (DE) is a set of assets (and liabilities) linked
to a destination’s name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts
from) the value provided by the tourism service1.
 DE is a complex construct and can be operationalized at
higher levels of abstraction2.
1. Aaker, 2009; Pike et al., 2010
2. Boo, Busser & Baloglu 2009; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007;
Gartner & Ruzzier, 2011

3. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Introduction
 DE can be more encompassing and abstract1.
 DE can be a representation of cross-acting hierarchy2.
1. Boo, Busser & Baloglu 2009; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007;
Gartner & Ruzzier, 2011
2. Cattel, 1966

4. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Introduction
 DE can be more
encompassing and
abstract1.
 DE can be a
representation of
cross-acting
hierarchy2.
Hierarchy of Destination Equity Terms
1. Boo, Busser & Baloglu 2009; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007;
Gartner & Ruzzier, 2011
2. Cattel, 1966

5. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Introduction
 DE can be more encompassing and abstract1.
 DE can be a representation of cross-acting hierarchy2.
1. Boo, Busser & Baloglu 2009; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007;
Gartner & Ruzzier, 2011
2. Cattel, 1966

6. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Purpose
 Using the Destination Marketing Theory to examine the destination equity creation
process and examine the differences between new/repeat visitors.

7. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Methods
 Participants for the main study were recruited from a marketing company panel to ensure
domestic tourists who visited Kansas at least once were reached.
 To control for common method biases, survey was pilot tested1. Participants were
prescreened, recruited from multiple states1, during month2, and Harman’s Single-factor
show low indications (38%)3.
Data Collection
1. Podsakoff et al., 2003; 2. Fernandez-Morales et al., 2016;
3. Harman, 1976

8. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Methods
 A standard two-step approach was conducted using SPSS V.22 and SmartPLS 3.01.
 A formative model with bootstrapping method was used to validated a higher-order destination
equity model using destination awareness, quality and value as indicators. Significant path
coefficient (t > 1.96, p < 0.05) was reported2.
 Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.7), Composite reliability (CR > 0.7), and convergent and
discriminant validity was examined2.
Data Analysis
1. IBM Inc: Armonk, NY; Ringle et al., 2015
2. Hair et al., 2017; Dijkstra & Schermelleh-Engel, 2014

9. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Results
 A sample of 222 valid responses were recorded, with approximate equal in male and
female distribution and a mean age of 36.
 Most participants were white (82%) and married (54%), with some college credits (14%)
and full employment status (74%).

10. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Results
 A formative model with bootstrapping method validated a higher-order destination equity model
using destination awareness, quality and value as indicators with substantial coefficient of
determination (R 2 > 0.75) and significant path coefficient (t > 1.96, p < 0.05)2.
 Results show acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.7), robust factor structure,
composite reliability (CR > 0.8), and good convergent and discriminant validity (all AVE > 0.7)2.
Validity
1. IBM Inc: Armonk, NY; Ringle et al., 2015
2. Hair et al., 2017; Dijkstra & Schermelleh-Engel, 2014

11. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Results Formative Measurement Model with Second-Order Components

12. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Results
 A post-hoc Henseler’s method showed the difference between the original indirect
effect path coefficients was not substantial (J 2=0.17, p =0.15)1.
Multigroup structural equation modeling (MSEM)
Note: Path-Diff = Path Coefficients-differences; BCI 2.5% = Bootstrapping confidence intervals limit at 2.5% quantiles; BCI 97.5% = Bootstrapping confidence intervals limit at 97.5%
quantiles; Path-CE = Path Coefficients Estimates with Mean ± Standards Deviation; Indirect Effect = Indirect Effect Path Coefficients Estimates with Mean ± Standards Deviation.
Note: New Visitors = Visitors been Kansas one or two times; Repeat Visitors = Visitors been Kansas three or more times.
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05 1. Henseler et al., 2009
Visitors
Path-Diff
(p-value)
BCI 2.5% BCI 97.5% Path-CE Indirect Effect
New (n=130) 0.16 (0.16) 0.18 0.68 0.53 ± 0.13** 0.28 ± 0.11**
Repeat (n=92) 0.81 (0.81) 0.33 0.85 0.68 ± 0.13** 0.11 ± 0.13
Table. Multigroup Mediation from Destination Equity to Revisit Intention Through
Destination Loyalty Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects with 5000 Resampling.

13. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Discussion
 Verified an abstraction layer to address DE creation process1.
 Used destination awareness, quality, value as indicators and demonstrated great
predictability (p < 0.001) and substantial explanation of variance (R 2 > 0.57)2.
Theoretical Implications
1. Buil, Chernatony, Martinez, 2013
2. Hair et al., 2011
3. Henseler et al., 2009
 Verified a full mediator using ‘Destination Loyalty Commitment’
(BCI 0.18 – 0.68) to explain revisit intention among new visitors.
 Investigated heterogeneous nature of tourists using MSEM
between new and repeat visitors (J 2 = 0.17, p = 0.15)3.

14. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Discussion Practical Implications for Destination Management Organizations
 New visitors consider more of the branding/reputation of the
destination, compared to quality and price.
 New visitors tends to justify their future purchase through
the loyalty commitment process, where a deeply held
commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred service.
 Repeat visitors are more directly concerned with quality and
value of the visit, however seems didn’t affected by holding
commitments.

15. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Limitation and Future Research
 The data were collected using only English-language survey, which may not fully
reflect the demographic and sociographic population of international visitors in the
United States. Future research should verify and confirm our results with a variety of
minority groups.
 The degree to which the measurement differ in terms of modification indices is
unknown. Future research should aim at develop domain specific group level
measurement as comparison to existing theory.
 Although authors adopted procedures to control common methods biases, given the
cross-sectional nature of this study, study results should be interpreted with caution.

16. Department of Hospitality Management
College of Human Ecology
Questions?
Correspondence
Naiqing Lin
nlin@ksu.edu
SSRN # 3092285
References are available upon request.