Abstract
Purpose
This study examines how tourists’ buying behavior toward souvenirs plays a pivotal role and explores the moderating role of prominent souvenirs in the marketing context. This study aims to examine the importance and the current status of the souvenir purchase behavior in Raghurajpur and Pipili village of Puri district in Odisha.
Design/methodology/approach
Purchasing behaviors of tourists such as different variables and tourist demographics were examined. The current study used the structural equation model (SEM) and regression in analyzing unique data from 400 tourists visiting the villages.
Findings
The research findings indicate that all the variables taken into consideration for research are accurate and are positively associated with tourist engagement in souvenir buying. All the factors are taken into consideration also proved significant toward the dependent variable, i.e. buying behavior. It is argued that adequate attention to the purchase behavior of tourists was not given by academic scholars, professionals and officials in Odisha.
Research limitations/implications
The current study was limited to the two prominent villages of Odisha famous for handicrafts. Future research might address behavioral studies in other states of India or the place of Odisha. In the present study, data were collected from the tourist sample while exiting the village after shopping. Methods could be developed to elicit responses from tourists after they reached their homes to determine if their responses toward souvenir buying differ. Souvenirs and souvenir buying behavior is an untapped field of research in India.
Practical implications
This study has enormous potential to contribute to the existing literature on souvenir purchase behavior of tourists in Indian context. The current study will use the identified variables to predict the behavior of tourists towards souvenirs so that craftsmen and policy makers can make an effective marketing mix to brand the souvenirs.
Social implications
This study is intended to anchor on souvenir purchase patterns of tourists in Pipili and Raghurajpur. An investigation of tourist shopping orientations for souvenir product holds potential for retailers to better direct marketing efforts to a non-local clientele. Understanding and analyzing variables would give government, craftsmen and other stakeholders to properly make marketing strategies for the handicraft sector. Handicrafts of Odisha are rapidly becoming commercialized items, and the authenticity is dying. This study can make the stakeholders aware of the tourist’s needs and preferences.
Originality/value
The authors provide a holistic and grounded understanding of the souvenir buying behavior of tourists in two prominent villages of Odisha through SEM and other indicators of souvenir buying from tourist’s perspective.
Keywords
Citation
Behera, S.K., Gautam, P. and Lenka, S.K. (2022), "Purchasing behavior of tourists toward prominent souvenirs of Odisha", Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-10-2020-0165
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2021, Sachin Kumar Behera, Punit Gautam and Sarat Kumar Lenka.
License
Published in Vilakshan – XIMB Journal of Management. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
India, being a large country, has different traditional crafts associated with various regions of the country. In earlier days, the crafts were made for personal use, religious purposes, etc., but presently it is mostly being targeted at the tourists. Tourists’ needs are classified mainly into lodging, transportation, meals, recreation and shopping expenditures. Shopping, regardless of the amount, is a must to do in tourism. When a tourist is on holiday, he/she is free from daily work, rest and play. In the short period of holiday, he or she does not have to think about where the next meal is coming from, or getting to work on time – play, in the form of leisure, is in the ascendant (Costello and Fairhurst, 2002). As a result, tourists spend more money in a fortnight than they would normally spend in a month at home (Urry, 1990).
Tourists spend most on souvenirs. As an artifact of tourism, the souvenir serves many purposes. Souvenirs represent the culture and heritage of the tourist destination. Through souvenirs, tourists try to understand the culture of the local people (Hume, 2013).
India is the only lower-middle-income country in the top 35 in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) by the World Economic Forum. It strived to reach the position because of the rich natural, cultural resources and strong price competitiveness among 140 countries (WEF 2019). Odisha (formerly Orissa), an eastern Indian state on the coast of Bay of Bengal, is being marketed as “India’s best kept secret.” The state is bestowed with beauty of nature, historic monuments, exotic sea beaches, luxuriant forests, majestic mountains, captivating wildlife, mystic waterfalls, beautiful handicrafts, vast water bodies, famous classical and folk dances, enchanting music and, most importantly, its hospitable people makes Odisha one of the favorite tourist destinations of India. The tourist arrivals in the state grew at 8.76% for the year 2018–2019 (Department of Tourism. Odisha Tourism Annual Report, 2019).
The area for study here includes Pipili Block in the Puri District of Odisha. The unique attraction of Pipili is its colorful appliqué crafts. This category of craft has received Intellectual Property Protection through the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (Abraham, 2010). All the stages of manufacturing, trade and export of appliqué items from Odisha in the international market are conducted from Pipili. In fact, Pipili has been brought under the Rural Tourism Project based on its appliqué craft – its unique selling point (USP) and its community of talented artisans.
Raghurajpur is another small village in Puri district renowned for pattachitra, a traditional form of painting, a place where arts and crafts have reached its stage of brightness. There are 103 households having 311 artisans in the village. The village is around 1.5 km from Chandanpur and 14 km away from Hindu pilgrimage town of Puri, on the southern banks of river Bhargabi (Bhargavi). This is also the only village in India, where each family is engaged in one craft or the other such as patta paintings, tusser paintings, palm leaf engravings, papier mache toys and masks and cow dung toys. Raghurajpur was recognized as a Heritage Village in 2000 by the Government of India.
The researchers in this study reported greater emphasis on demographic profile of tourists and understanding buying behavior through different variables for ignition of local economic benefits. In spite of all such studies covering various aspects connected with tourist buying behavior and souvenir shopping behavior, still no focus is accorded to the study areas where the current research is done. Creation of specific tourist’s demographic profile and describing the variables with the extent of buying behavior on souvenirs, which are locally made, will provide a deeper insight into the role of souvenirs in strengthening the image of Odisha and providing marketing strategies for stakeholders to present the souvenirs. A number of studies have examined tourists’ psychological characteristics, such as personal values, and their travel activities, including involvement in souvenir making. However, very few studies were found that focus on souvenirs of India and specifically of Odisha. The present study was intended to explore such predictive linkages to fill the gap in research. Having the above information will be very useful for stakeholders to build a marketing strategy, in accordance with tourist’ preferences toward souvenirs. So far, no studies investigated about tourist purchasing behavior in Odisha, especially in the abovementioned villages. The study leads to a better understanding of the topic and provides useful insights for practitioners in the souvenir industry.
Related literature
Consumer behavior is closely related to decision-making. The Engel, Kollatt and Blackwell (EKB) (Engel et al., 1993) model of consumer behavior served as a theoretical framework for proposing relationships between the variables expected to influence tourists’ souvenir-purchasing behavior. The EKB model proposes that the product evaluation process leading to purchase decision consists of four key components: attitudes, evaluative criteria, beliefs and intention. In addition, product evaluation is influenced by individual characteristics, including motives, personality, values, reference groups, lifestyles and norms (Engel et al., 1993); a model was developed on the basis of the EKB model for this study that incorporated the souvenir evaluation process and variables influencing souvenir evaluations. Consumers’ general characteristics such as personal values and attitude toward other cultures were expected to influence their travel-specific characteristics (tourism styles). It was anticipated that these, in turn, would influence souvenir evaluation, including attitude toward souvenirs (a combination of evaluative criteria and beliefs) and intention to purchase souvenirs.
Purchase behavior is the decision processes and acts person involved in purchasing and using products, which includes social and mental process (Kotler, 1977). The human nature is to return from traveling with a souvenir or memento of the experience. “The desire to visit and collect a souvenir from a strange or unfamiliar place has always been an unquashable yearning in the human soul” (Petersen, 1985). Souvenir includes arts and crafts, jewelry, antiques, collectibles, clothing and food (Swanson and Horridge, 2004).
Hitchcock (2000) defined souvenirs as the material counterpart of travels, events, relationships and memories of all kinds and a souvenir’s “function is to store or stimulate memories.”
Popelka and Littrell (1991) termed souvenir as an economic commodity and can be used for economic gain by craftsmen by understanding the dynamics of product and market development and consumer desires. They also emphasized tourist art reflects the economic, cultural and aesthetic goals of its producers and the expectations of its consumers.
Tourism has been a boon for the souvenir industry and the local environment of the destination. Tourism, on the one hand, has contributed to the growth of the souvenir industry, the retention of many “authentic” features and its significance in local communities (Singh, 2017).
Shopping of souvenirs is a component of tourist shopping, and tourists perceive purchasing souvenirs as an important part of their shopping experience. Souvenirs are tangible objects that preserve intangible trip memories, and reminders of the people, places and events associated with the visit experience. Souvenir acquisitions might satisfy a visitor’s social or cultural obligations (Moscardo, 2004), and might be seen as a tangible proof of the interaction between the traveler and the host community.
The movement of destination-embedded souvenirs outside of a destination may attract future travelers, with souvenirs serving as a positive reinforcement. Past visitors of a destination often show and present purchased souvenirs to others while also gifting souvenirs to others. These acts typically show the positive side of a destination and could encourage others to visit in the future (Prebensen, 2006).
Objectives of the study
Following are the broad objectives of the study:
to know the current status of purchasing behavior of tourists toward prominent souvenirs of Odisha;
to examine different variables related to souvenir buying and tourist demographics in the study area; and
to contribute toward literature of souvenir buying behavior of Odisha.
Research hypothesis
The research hypotheses are as follows:
Purchasing behavior of tourists does not have a significant impact toward prominent souvenirs of Odisha.
Purchasing behavior of tourists has a significant impact toward prominent souvenirs of Odisha.
Methodology
Population of the study
The population of the study is the tourists visiting Raghurajpur and Pipili villages. The population of non-residents of the villages originating from within and outside the country with the motives of leisure, religion, handicrafts and souvenirs culture, history, adventure and to have relaxed time with families were selected as respondents. In case of tourists coming as family group, mostly one person of the family was asked for details.
The questionnaire
A questionnaire was designed as a survey instrument to collect structured information, specifically from tourists visiting Raghurajpur and Pipili of Puri district in Odisha, India. Both open- and closed-ended questions were used.
Data collection method
Using a visitor exit survey (Baruah and Sarma, 2016), tourists visiting Raghurajpur and Pipili of Puri were interviewed. The survey was carried out in two exit points in the rural tourism villages. In Raghurajpur, the data was collected at the exit point village and in Pipili in front of souvenir shops. Data were collected by using the random sampling method. The respondents were interviewed personally, and they were requested to fill their responses in questionnaire. The survey was designed to assess the purchasing behavior of those individuals who visited the villages. The survey also requested information on age, gender, qualification and income level. Specifically, the survey requested information on the preference to purchase authentic/modern/fusion crafts, participation in souvenir making, repurchase and revisit to the village during their visit. Those products included patta paintings, tusser paintings, palm leaf engravings, papier mache toys, masks and cow dung toys of Raghurajpur Village and appliqué work of Pipili village. These handicrafts are the ones that are most often prepared in the villages with the intention of selling to tourists. Tourists were asked to indicate factors of importance that influenced their decision to purchase the souvenirs.
Sample size
A total of 430 domestic and international tourists visiting the two rural tourism villages were interviewed, of which 400 questionnaires were finally accepted for analysis. The ground for rejection of 30 questionnaires was incomplete and improper responses. Data was collected only from those tourists who purchased at least one souvenir from the villages.
Analytical tools
The database for this survey has been developed in MS Excel. Suitable data checks and validation techniques have been used while getting input (raw data) into the database. For the statistical analysis purpose, the database is converted into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) format. Proper definition of variables, data type descriptions, value label descriptions are performed on the SPSS databases. Demographic items were analyzed to determine if differences existed for individuals who visited the villages. Frequency tables to highlight the representation of population to the sample were also developed. Reliability of the variables was ensured through item analysis. Reliability test was followed by an analysis of internal homogeneity of the items by factor analysis. Structural equation model (SEM of buying behavior) was done finally.
Results and discussion
The primary data is obtained through a well-framed questionnaire circulated among different tourists coming from different parts of India to Raghurajpur and Pipili of Odisha. The questionnaire comprises of personal details to be filled by the respondents. The frequency and percentage analysis is applied to identify different categories of tourists and their backgrounds (Table 1).
Among the tourists, 57.5% were female and 42.5% were male. They ranged in age from 18 to older than 61 years, with the highest percentage (34.7%) being between the ages of 40 and 60. This age group was followed by those 25–40 years (26.3%). The highest percentage of tourists, 43%, reported family incomes of below INR2 lakhs. This was followed by 20.1% reporting INR2–5 lakhs and 19.8% reporting INR5–10 lakhs. Referring to education, tourists (55 %) had completed college or university and had a graduate degree, followed by 19% having postgraduate degree and 17.8% had completed higher secondary education. Only 7.8% had a doctorate degree. Coming to occupation, most tourists were privately employed (34.5%), followed by dependents and homemakers making equal 22%.
Reliability analysis (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
Item analysis was done to ensure the reliability of the variables, followed by calculation of item sum correlation. For summation, items with more than 0.5 correlations with the sum were included (Hair et al., 1998). To check for internal consistency of the scale for each variable, the item sum correlations and the Cronbach α were calculated. In all cases, the Cronbach α values are higher than 0.7. Hair et al. (1998) considered an α value of 0.6 and above appropriate in exploratory studies. In the following below, the range of the item sum correlations and reliability coefficients is given (Table 2).
The above table represents the reliability statistics of the scales (souvenir buying behavior of tourists) used for the measurement of shopping attributes of different tourists coming to Raghurajpur and Pipili of Odisha. The combined Cronbach’s α value of all the items is more than 0.6, which reveals that the items used in the questionnaire are internally homogenous and consistent. Therefore, the factors and variables in the questionnaire are significantly contributing the study.
In the above table, tourist prefers to purchase authentic crafts during their visit because mean value is coming 4.56, i.e. highest (scale as always). Whereas purchase of fusion crafts and modern crafts mean value is coming 2.37 and 2.26, which reveals never. This reveals that tourist purchase authentic crafts during their visit instead of fusion crafts and modern crafts.
Factor analysis (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
Analysis of internal homogeneity of the items by factor analysis (souvenir buying behavior of tourists).
All the eight variables related to respondents’ views influencing the souvenir were made to undergo factor analysis. Further, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of factor analysis was 0.826, indicating that factor analysis is reliable for all eight variables. Again, it was cross-validated by Bartlett’s test of sphericity, wherein the value turned out to be 0.000 (Table 3).
It is recommended by Kaiser (1974) to accept values greater than 0.5. If values below 0.5 is obtained in the above tests, one should either collect more data or rethink about the choice of variable to be included (Table 4).
In this research, the value comes out to be 0.826, which is considered appreciable. Hence, factor analysis becomes the most appropriate method for the above data (Table 5).
After the factor analysis was done, the eight variables are reduced to three different factors, which explains around 63.622% of the total variance.
The factors with the percentage of explanation with variance is shown below.
The first factor explains about 27.21% of the variance as its loading pattern shows a general factor runs throughout all the items. The second and third factors explain about 22.087 and 14.326% of the total variance, respectively (Table 6).
All the eight variables are now reduced to three factors, which are extracted by the varimax method and through principal component analysis. The eigenvalues are also greater than 1 (Tables 7, 8 and Figure 1).
The above results proved the data to be of appropriate fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
where,
CFI= Comparative fit index
RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation
NFI= Normed fit index
GFI= Goodness of fit
RFI= Relative fit index
A confirmatory factor analysis through AMOS is used to test the construct adequacy and discriminate validity of the factors and its association with respective constructs influencing souvenir buying behavior. As each indicator loaded significantly with its intended construct, the fit of the model is, thus, examined and verified. All the p-values of regression weights is acceptable at a significance level of 0.05. The significant value of p is less than 0.01.
As the significant value of χ2 test is coming 0.000 (< 0.05), null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted, i.e. purchasing behavior of tourists has a significant impact toward prominent souvenirs of Odisha.
Conclusions
There are many states in India that produce and market souvenirs that have been made in their states by traditional craftsmen and handicraft agencies. The tourism department of the states has launched campaigns designed to encourage purchasing by tourist. Data has only been reported on the type of state-made handicrafts but not on most frequently purchased and characteristics of purchasing behavior. This research begins to identify those characteristics of the visitors and their purchases of Odisha-made handicrafts as souvenirs.
Authenticity of the souvenirs was the most important attribute considered when purchasing. Tourists preferred to purchase modern crafts due to high utility. Most tourists want to revisit the destination that shows higher satisfaction level toward the souvenirs. Communities in the village and across Odisha must develop strategies to market their locally produced souvenirs to tourists visiting their place.
Almost every tourist purchased a souvenir for themselves. Local retailers need to market purchasing for “your own desires.” Knowing demographic factors about your tourists can help determine product preferences. In addition, an attempt should be made to study the tourist’s purchasing behaviors in other destinations famous for handicrafts. It may be useful to replicate this study in different venue.
Tourism in India is increasing at an annual rate of nearly 3.5% (Ministry of Tourism, 2019). Significance of tourism is being recognized by many states because of its contributions in revenue generation and employment.
Tourists spend most on souvenirs after personal goods. An analysis of the breakup of the shopping expenditure of the foreign tourists shows that of the total shopping expenditure, nearly 25.36% was towards purchase of textiles (souvenir), which is the highest (Ministry of Tourism, 2002), but no attempt was made to determine the buying behavior, souvenir attributes, satisfaction and preference were made. Additional research is needed to help retailers, craftsmen and government to market and develop their locally made souvenir.
Future research: This study opens up a wide range of future research questions that might be addressed as the research was exploratory in nature. The current study was limited to the two prominent villages of Odisha famous for handicrafts. Future research might address behavioral study in other states of India or place of Odisha. In the present study, data were collected from the tourist sample while exiting the village after shopping. Methods could be developed to elicit responses from tourists after they reached their homes to determine if their responses toward souvenir buying differ. Souvenirs and souvenir buying behavior is an untapped field of research in India. This study was intended to stimulate the minds of researchers and practitioners in the marketing potential of souvenirs.
Figures
Demographic profile of the respondents (N = 400)
| Category | Frequency | (%) | Cumulative (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 170 | 42.5 | 42.5 |
| Female | 230 | 57.5 | 100.0 |
| Total | 400 | 100.0 | |
| Age | |||
| Below 18 | 16 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| 18–25 | 71 | 17.8 | 21.8 |
| 25–40 | 105 | 26.3 | 48.0 |
| 40–60 | 138 | 34.7 | 82.5 |
| Above 60 | 70 | 17.5 | 100.0 |
| Total | 400 | 100.0 | |
| Qualification | |||
| Higher secondary | 71 | 17.8 | |
| Graduate | 222 | 55.5 | 63.3 |
| PG | 76 | 19.0 | 100.0 |
| Doctorate degree | 31 | 7.8 | 7.8 |
| Total | 400 | 100.0 | |
| Occupation | |||
| Business | 22 | 5.5 | 5.5 |
| Dependent | 88 | 22.0 | 27.5 |
| Government employee | 51 | 12.8 | 40.3 |
| Homemaker | 88 | 22.0 | 62.3 |
| Private sector employee | 138 | 34.5 | 96.8 |
| Self-employed | 13 | 3.3 | 100.0 |
| Total | 400 | 100.0 | |
| Income | |||
| Below INR2 lakhs | 172 | 43.0 | 43.0 |
| INR2–INR5 lakhs | 80 | 20.1 | 63.1 |
| INR5–INR10 lakhs | 79 | 19.8 | 82.8 |
| INR10–INR20 lakhs | 44 | 11.0 | 93.8 |
| Above INR20 lakhs | 25 | 6.3 | 100.0 |
| Total | 400 | 100.0 | |
Source: Developed from the survey data
Descriptive and reliability analysis (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
| Sl. | Particulars | Mean | SD | Cronbach’s α | N | Cronbach’s α | No. of items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I purchase souvenir during my visit | 4.62 | 0.631 | 0.864 | 400 | 0.824 | 8 |
| 2 | I participate in tde souvenir making in village wherever I go | 4.01 | 1.232 | 0.863 | 400 | ||
| 3 | I prefer to purchase only autdentic crafts during my visit | 4.56 | 0.549 | 0.829 | 400 | ||
| 4 | I prefer to purchase fusion crafts | 2.37 | 1.218 | 0.812 | 400 | ||
| 5 | I prefer to purchase modern crafts | 2.26 | 1.153 | 0.869 | 400 | ||
| 6 | I like to repeat tde purchase which I like more | 4.20 | 0.964 | 0.817 | 400 | ||
| 7 | I will revisit tde village for purchase of souvenir | 4.49 | 0.769 | 0.856 | 400 | ||
| 8 | I will refer to my peer group to purchase souvenir | 4.72 | 0.676 | 0.811 | 400 |
Source: Developed from tde survey data
KMO and Bartlett’s test (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
| KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.826 |
| Bartlett’s test of sphericity | |
| Approximate χ2 | 781.447 |
| Df | 28 |
| Sig. | 0.000 |
Source: Developed from the survey data
Kaisen values and remarks
| Values | Remarks |
|---|---|
| Between 0.5 and 0.7 | Average |
| Between 0.7 and 0.8 | Good |
| Between 0.8 and 0.9 | Appreciable |
| Above 0.9 | Excellent |
Total variance explained (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
| Component | Initial eigenvalues | Extraction sums of squared loadings | Rotation sums of squared loadings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | (%) of variance | Cumulative (%) | Total | (%) of variance | Cumulative (%) | Total | (%) of variance | Cumulative (%) | |
| 1 | 2.631 | 32.886 | 32.886 | 2.631 | 32.886 | 32.886 | 2.177 | 27.210 | 27.210 |
| 2 | 1.424 | 17.796 | 50.682 | 1.424 | 17.796 | 50.682 | 1.767 | 22.087 | 49.296 |
| 3 | 1.035 | 12.940 | 63.622 | 1.035 | 12.940 | 63.622 | 1.146 | 14.326 | 63.622 |
| 4 | 0.847 | 10.582 | 74.204 | ||||||
| 5 | 0.766 | 9.576 | 83.780 | ||||||
| 6 | 0.632 | 7.898 | 91.678 | ||||||
| 7 | 0.486 | 6.079 | 97.757 | ||||||
| 8 | 0.179 | 2.243 | 100.000 | ||||||
| Extraction method: principal component analysis | |||||||||
Source: Developed from the survey data
Rotated component matrix (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
| Particulars | Component | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 1. I purchase souvenir during my visit | 0.654 | ||
| 2. I participate in the souvenir making in village wherever I go | 0.519 | ||
| 3. I prefer to purchase only authentic crafts during my visit | 0.853 | ||
| 4. I prefer to purchase fusion crafts | 0.884 | ||
| 5. I prefer to purchase modern crafts | 0.856 | ||
| 6. I like to repeat the purchase that I like more | 0.637 | ||
| 7. I will revisit the village for purchase of souvenir | 0.787 | ||
| 8. I will refer to my peer group to purchase souvenir | 0.780 | ||
| Extraction method: principal component analysis, rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization | |||
| Rotation converged in 5 iterations | |||
Source: Developed from the survey data
New factors named (souvenir buying behavior of tourists)
| Factors | Variables | New name |
|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 (BB1) | 4, 5 | Craft purchase |
| Factor 2 (BB2) | 2, 6, 7, 8 | Repeat purchase |
| Factor 3 (BB3) | 1, 3 | Preference |
Source: Developed from the survey data, BB: buying behavior
SEM results of souvenir buying behavior
| Particulars | CFI | RMSEA | GFI | NFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 = 72.825 | 0.921 | 0.0823 | 0.918 | 0.915 |
| Degrees of freedom = 17 | RFI | |||
| Probability level = 0.000 | 0.919 |
Source: Developed from the survey data
References
Abraham, P. (2010), Steps to Keep Pipili Alive, The Telegraph, October 26.
Baruah, U. and Sarma, M. (2016), “Tourists expenditure on shopping and souvenirs: an analysis of association(s) across trip typologies”, Amity Journal of Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 32-45.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K. and Long, J. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. 136-162.
Costello, C. and Fairhurst, A. (2002), “Purchasing behavior of tourists towards Tennessee-made products”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 7-17.
Department of Tourism. Odisha Tourism Annual Report (2019), Bhubaneswar, Govt of Odisha,
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1993), Consumer Behavior, 7th ed., Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Hitchcock, M. (2000), “Introduction”, in Hitchcock, M. and Teague, K. (Eds), Souvenirs: The Material Culture of Tourism, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 1-17.
Hu, L‐T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Kotler, P. (1977), “From sales obsession to marketing effectiveness”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 (November-December), pp. 67-75.
Ministry of Tourism (2019), India Tourism Statistics, New Delhi, Govt of India.
Ministry of Tourism (2002), Survey of Foreign Tourists’ Expenses on Handicrafts, New Delhi, Govt of India.
Petersen, G. (1985), Yellowstone Pioneers: The Story of Hamilton Stores and Yellowstone Park, Yellowstone National Park, Hamilton Stores.
Popelka, C. and Littrell, M. (1991), “Influence of tourism on handcraft evolution”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 392-413.
Prebensen, N.K. (2006), “Segmenting the group tourist heading for warmer weather: a Norwegian example”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 27-40.
Singh, M. (2017), “Community perspective on role of souvenirs in tourism promotion – a case study of Basholi, Jammu, J&K”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 28-33.
Swanson, K.K. and Horridge, P.E. (2004), “A structural model for souvenir consumption, travel activities, and tourist demographics”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 4 (May), pp. 372-380, doi: 10.1177/0047287504263031.
Urry, J. (1990), “The consumption of tourism”, Sociology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 23-35.
World Economic Forum (2019), “Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report”.
Further reading
Fishbein, M. (Ed.) (1967), “A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object”, in Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, New York, NY, John Wiley, pp. 389-400.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1991), “Leisure shopping”, Tourism Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-14.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1994), “They synergy between shopping and tourism: the Japanese experience”, in Theobald, W. (Ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, London, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 347-362.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2001), Principles of Marketing, 9th ed., NJ, Prentice Hall.
Ministry of Tourism (2006), International Passenger Survey, New Delhi, Govt of India.
Moscardo, G. (1994), “Shopping as a destination attraction: an empirical examination of the role of shopping in tourists’ destination choice and experience”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 294-307.
Paraskevaidis, P. and Andriotis, K. (2015), “Values of souvenirs as commodities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48, pp. 1-10.
Acknowledgements
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.