HOW WATERPARK IMAGE, PRICE FAIRNESS, AND SATISFACTION CREATE BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS: MODERATING EFFECTS OF NOVELTY-SEEKINGS

BY

MISS THUNYATHORN DULYADHAMAPIROMYA

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (REAL ESTATE BUSINESS) FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC YEAR 2017 COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW HOW WATERPARK IMAGE, PRICE FAIRNESS, AND SATISFACTION CREATE BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS: MODERATING EFFECTS OF NOVELTY-SEEKINGS

BY

MISS THUNYATHORN DULYADHAMAPIROMYA

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (REAL ESTATE BUSINESS) FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC YEAR 2017 COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW

(1)

Thesis Title HOW WATERPARK IMAGE, PRICE FAIRNESS, AND SATISFACTION CREATE BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS: MODERATING EFFECTS OF NOVELTY-SEEKINGS Author MISS THUNYATHORN DULYADHAMAPIROMYA Degree Master of Science (Real Estate Business) Faculty/University Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy Thammasat University Thesis Advisor Assoc. Prof. Supeecha Panichpathom, Ph.D. Academic Years 2017

ABSTRACT

Despite a fast-growing number of waterparks in Thailand, this high capital- intensive business has a very few matured precedent cases in the country. As the challenges are getter greater, the understanding of patron’s behavioral is an extremely important determinant in long-term competitiveness and sustainability in the industry. Thus, this study aims to explore the relationships among the antecedents which are waterpark image, price fairness, and patron’s satisfaction together with their effects on behavioral intentions. The mediating roles of price fairness and satisfaction as well as the moderating role of novelty-seeking are also examined. Regardless of the scant in waterpark literature, a proposed conceptual framework, applied from literature in related fields, was empirically tested using a structured questionnaire. Qualified respondents rated their opinions on scaled items with five- point Likert scale. A structural equation modeling using SmartPLS3.2.7 was performed to examine the proposed hypothetical paths. The analytical results confirm the importance of waterpark image and price fairness in predicting satisfaction and behavioral intentions. While price fairness partially mediates water park image to satisfaction, satisfaction also acts as a partial mediator for waterpark image and price fairness to behavioral intentions. The result reveals that waterpark image has biggest total effect on

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (2) behavioral intentions. And as projected, satisfaction is also another strong predictor of behavioral intentions, novelty-seeking, on the other hand, was not found to have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions. These empirical findings are beneficial to both existing and future waterpark developers for planning limited resources on most influential factors in proper priority that lead to desired behavioral intentions. It reaffirms the necessity for managers to perform a correct combination of marketing mixes that would strengthen the perception of the image and price fairness. In addition, the effect of novelty-seeking on behavioral intentions can be theoretically extended and is recommended for future study to explore in different dimensions other than the moderating role. For managerial implications, the empirical results show that image of waterpark is a main focus to enhance satisfaction and favorable behavioral intentions.

Keywords: Waterpark Image, Price Fairness, Novelty-Seeking, Satisfaction, Behavioral Intentions, PLS-SEM, SmartPLS3.0

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor Assoc. Prof. Supeecha Panichpathom, Ph.D. for the continuous support of my research study. I also would like to acknowledge for her patience, enthusiasm, inspiration, and immense knowledge, her office door was always open whenever I ran into a problem. Her supportiveness steered me in the right direction and her teacher’s spirit does impress me. I would also like to thank the expert professors: Asst. Prof. Kangwan Yodwisitsak, Ph.D. and Assoc. Prof. Yawaman Metapirak who were involved in the useful recommendations and validation of the thesis. Their encouragement, insightful, and hard questions had sharpened my perspective. Next, I must express my very profound gratitude to those who spent their valuable time helping me spread out and complete the questionnaire. I really appreciate the help of my MRE16 classmates and all my friends, especially those who shared the questionnaire links on their social medias. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Last but not the least, I would like to heartfully thank my fiancé and my brother for unfailing support throughout my thesis time. Thank you very much for always having my back.

MISS THUNYATHORN DULYADHAMAPIROMYA

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... (1)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... (3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... (3)

LIST OF TABLES ...... (8)

LIST OF FIGURES ...... (9)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Statements of the problems ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 5 1.3 Research Questions ...... 6 1.4 Benefits ...... 6 1.5 Scope of Study ...... 7

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 8 2.1 Related Theories ...... 8

2.1.1 Expectation-Confirmation Theory ...... 8

2.1.2 Concept of Variety-Seeking ...... 10 2.2 Review of Constructs ...... 10

2.2.1 Water Park Image ...... 11

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (5)

2.2.2 Price Fairness ...... 12

2.2.3 Satisfaction ...... 13

2.2.4 Behavioral Intentions ...... 14

2.2.5 Novelty-Seeking ...... 15 2.3 Related literatures review summary ...... 16

2.4 Definitions ...... 18

2.5 Hypotheses development ...... 19

2.5.1 The effect of Waterpark Image on price fairness ...... 19

2.5.2 The effects of Waterpark Image on satisfaction ...... 20

2.5.3 The effects of Price Fairness ...... 21

2.5.4 The effect of satisfaction on behavioral intentions ...... 22

2.4.5 The moderating effect of Novelty-Seeking ...... 23 2.6 Conceptual framework ...... 24

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 27 3.1 Population and Sample ...... 27

3.1.1 Population ...... 27

3.1.2 Sampling ...... 28 3.2 Research tools ...... 29 3.3 Data Collection ...... 31 3.4 Research Constructs and Measurement ...... 31 3.5 Data Analysis ...... 34

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (6)

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistic ...... 34

3.5.2 Measurement Model Evaluation ...... 35

3.5.3 Structural Model Assessment ...... 37

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 39 4.1 Descriptive Statistic ...... 39

4.1.1. Demographic of Respondents ...... 40

4.2.2 The analysis of demographic and visiting experiences ...... 42

4.2 Model specific ...... 44

4.2.1 Fundamental Statistic Report on Scale items ...... 46 4.3 Measurement Model Evaluation ...... 47

4.3.1 Outer loadings ...... 47

4.3.2 Indicator Reliability ...... 48

4.3.3 Convergent validity ...... 48

4.3.4 Discriminant validity ...... 49 4.4 Structural Model Assessment ...... 51

4.4.1 Coefficient determinant ...... 51

4.4.2 Hypothesis testing ...... 53

4.4.4 Interpretation of empirical finding ...... 56

4.4.5 Structural interpretation ...... 60

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (7)

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 62 5.1 Conclusions ...... 62 5.2 Benefits ...... 64

5.2.1 Theoretical contribution ...... 64

5.2.2 Practical Implications ...... 65 5.3 Recommendations ...... 66 5.4 Limitations and further researches ...... 67

REFERENCES ...... 70

APPENDICES ...... 78 APPENDIX I ...... 79

THAI Waterpark: Patrons’ Experience and Satisfaction Questionnaire ...... 79 APPENDIX II ...... 85 แบบสอบถาม : ความพึงพอใจและประสบการณ์ต่อสวนน้าในประเทศไทยํ ...... 85 APPENDIX III ...... 91

Back Translation (English-Thai-English) Questionnaire ...... 91 APPENDIX IV ...... 96 Information of Waterparks in Thailand ...... 96

BIOGRAPHY ...... 107

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (8)

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page Table 1 Literature Review of Variables ...... 16 Table 2 Definitions of construct ...... 18 Table 3 Relationships Review ...... 24 Table 4 Measurement of scale items ...... 32 Table 5 Demographic of samples ...... 41 Table 6 Basic statistic of scale items ...... 46 Table 7 Results of Measurement Model evaluation ...... 48 Table 8 Discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker Criterion ...... 49 Table 9 Cross loadings ...... 50 Table 10 Coefficient determinant ...... 52 Table 11 Hypotheses test results ...... 57 Table 12 Total effects ...... 61

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW (9)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page Figure 1 Expectation Confirmation Theory, Oliver (1980) ...... 9 Figure 2 Expectation Confirmation Theory (Extended), Bhattacherjee (2001) ...... 9 Figure 3 Conceptual Framework ...... 26 Figure 4 Percentage of waterpark of respondents’ visit ...... 40 Figure 5 Age and accompany bar chart ...... 42 Figure 6 Age and favorite attractions bar chart ...... 43 Figure 7 Marital Status ...... 44 Figure 8 Conceptual framework in SmartPLS3.2.7 ...... 45 Figure 9 Moderating variable on SmartPLS3.2.7 ...... 45 Figure 10 Model specific and Adjusted R2 ...... 52 Figure 11 P-value test result of path coefficients in specific model ...... 57 Figure 12 Model test results ...... 60

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statements of the problems

Theme park industry represents a vast and rapidly growing sector of Real Estate development all around the world, waterpark in turn have become one of the top pick in themes to be invested in (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015). In earlier time, an ordinary pool with a few slides would be a blast for both children and adults. However, those good old days were just memories. Growing middle class with higher disposable income allows demand for entertainment and leisure activities, especially in Asia (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012). As innovation and technology develop, entertaining and recreational facilities have been advanced. Investing huge amount of money in recreation industry might not yet be feasible in earlier days when the market capacity was still low, unlike nowadays that income per capita is constantly rising. Statistic from Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism and Sports shows that spending for Thais who travel locally has increased form 1,724 Bath/ person/ day in 2009 to 2,631 Bath/person/day in 2016 which is equivalent to an increase of 8 percent per annum on average. Increases in per head spending could imply higher capability and willingness to pay in leisure and entertainment activities. Additionally, to add on rising domestic demand, Thailand is now a worldwide popular tourist destination. In 2016, Mastercard's Global Destination Cities had ranked Thailand as the world most visited tourists’ destination over the past seven-year period of 2009 to 2016, overridden London which had long been in her first rank (Schmalbruch, 2017). This incident has widened the opportunities for investors and developers in many sectors including tourism and real estate. According to the rising opportunities in Thai economy and real estate development, number of water parks had been illimitably expanding at a rapid rate in these recent years with the growth rate of 25 percent in value from 2015 to 2016 according to the research by Popermhem (2017). Many large-scale water parks were

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 2 established in these past 2-3 years, especially in tourists’ destination cities; such as Vana Nava in Huahin, Ramayana and Cartoon Network in Chonburi, Splash jungle in Phuket, Scenical World in Khaoyai, and many others in outer main provinces. It is quite apparent that investment in Water Park has grown to be one prospect in consideration of real estate development option regarding the highest and best use of land development. While there are more Water Parks to be soon opened, the operating ones namely; The Ramayana Water Park (Opened in May 2016), The Black Mountain Water Park (Opened in 2011), and The Cartoon Network Amazone (Opened in 2014) acquire their ranks in Asia Water Parks excellence and received Trip Advisor Travellers’ Choice Awards Asia in top 10 ranking. ("Thai water parks make a splash in the rankings - The Nation", 2017) Regardless of diversity in tourism business and robust expansion in number of tourists, Thai real estate developers have been facing severe competition in residential real estate market resulting from mature market and subtle domestic growth of slow economy in these few years. Many vital developers with their strength and excess financial abilities diversify their portfolios to other kind of real estate related developments ( Kasikorn Research Center, 2017) . Anyhow, once they turn to commercial use related real estate, major market shares are reasonably acquired by the existing major players. The phenomenon shows that they in turn try to look for joint venture or develop the estate for mixed uses. Apparently, the growing number of new Water Park illustrates that investment or development in Water Park is certainly one of their reasonable consideration. Mixed-uses strategy of real estate development has recently become a prevalent choice for Thai developers. There are a number of precedent cases for such land development phenomenon in Thailand. “Santorini Park”, located in Cha-Am District in Petchaburi Province, central south of Thailand, is one. They started the project out with retails space, then augment some adventure thrilling rides. In 2010, they invested more than 500 million Baht in water theme park, “Santorini Water Fantasy”, to completed their “Santorini Park” Plan. It is the first waterpark in Asia with RFID technology ("Santorini Park Waterventures", 2018). Another interesting case arose

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 3 in Hua-Hin district, Prachuabkhirikhan Province; a famous destination for beaches and sea. While persisting competition among hotels and residential real estate developments highly remain, Proud Real Estate Group opted to develop their land into a 1,000 million Baht waterpark named “VANA NAVA” aiming it to be a travel destination. The expansion to second phase is 140 meters high-rise hotel building was freshly opened in the fourth quarter of 2017. Free access to waterpark for hotel guests is claimed to be a strategy to compete in high competition hotel market. Next phrase would include VANA NAVA condominium. Total investment of VANA NAVA project is more than 4 billion baht. There are more similar cases such as Scenical World in Khaoyai that started out with water and amusement parks, then developed the area to include convention center, hotel, resort, and shopping mall on the timeline plan. Up to recently, Thai water park industry generates approximately 3,000 billion Baht or around 95 million US dollars annually (Popermhem, 2017). At the present time, there are more than twenty water parks located in every region of Thailand. (Appendix l) The growing number not only fairly represents compatible demands and substantial quality of the parks, it also indicates that the competition is more intense. Recent case was when Ramayana waterpark in Pattaya City was newly opened in late 2016, only 1. 5 years after Cartoon Network Amazone started the operation. The parks were built on similar investment scale and attractions with different character themes (Ramayana and Cartoon Network themes). These two parks are located just 9 kilometers or about 10 minutes away from each other. Lately, one waterpark has to launch competitive promotion accordingly if another does so, resulting in price competition, which may affect the number of years to break even and forecast of revenue in the long-run without prudent studies. Mr. Chaosiri Siwakom, the owner and the developer of Scenical world, also mentioned that many water parks are recently built to become a magnet of the area. Aiming at the same goal, competition may arise, developers have to focus more on detail, such that varieties and novelty experiences are the selling points of his park. In these days, attracting visitor is hard but making them come back is even harder ("Brand Buffet", 2018). The need for researches on water park patrons’ behaviors is emphasized for such reasons.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 4

Unlike many other developed countries with mature and prolong progress in water park segment, the flourishing trend of investment in Thai water park is not yet stable and still growing. Huge initial capital investment required for Water Park business are more or less significant and irreversible (Lo & Leung, 2017), fast pace of such immature market brings along both positive and negative risks to investors. Cautious feasibility study and back up behavioral research studies can alleviate the undesirable risk. Numbers of Research studies emphasize that entertainment and attraction industry need freshness, excitement, novelty, and imaginary characteristics in order to maintain its charm (Graft, 1986). The unique characteristics should be able to lead patrons to escape from the reality and offer them enjoyable thrill and involvement (Lo & Leung, 2017). It is crucial to understand the requirements, preferences, and behavioral intentions of patrons in order to stay competitive. In the context of waterpark, customers are key of business while revenues of waterparks depend very much on consumers’ behaviors (Kasikorn Research Center, 2017). Understanding how customers see image creates value and satisfaction, will enhance the marketing strategy. Literature claims that consumers are willing to incur higher price if the image perception remains positive and attraction industry especially theme and amusement parks depend very much on a strong image to acquire demand (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). Waterpark image and word of mouth can play an important role in pursuing new and returning patrons to the park ("Thai water parks make a splash in the rankings - The Nation", 2017). Besides, heavy price-discount promotion among Thai waterparks to attract patrons represents major price competitiveness among operators ("waterparks | Promotion Deal Discount", 2017). Usually, rack rate of waterpark entry ticket price is not the effective net price patrons pay to operators, discount promotions are regularly applied e.g. coupon and credit card usage promotion, resulting in different net price paid by each patron. On top of price promotion phenomenon, previous empirical studies illustrate diverse results of price fairness effect on behavioral intention both directly and mediately through satisfaction (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). Therefore, present

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 5 empirical study is needed to clarify the issue as well as how direct effect and mediating effect through satisfaction differ in Thailand context. Interestingly, although positive relationship between satisfaction and loyalty has long become commonly accepted among researchers, recent literatures mention an important motivator as such the behavior of “Novelty seeking” which explains why satisfied customers may not return to the same destination (Kim & Kim, 2015) . Accordingly, Popermhem ( 2017) claims that many Thai patrons are more interested in newly opened waterparks and prefer to visit new ones rather than repeat even though they may be fairly satisfied with the previous. To date, empirical studies related to theme park or waterpark image and behavioral intention are unfortunately scant (Line & Merkebu; Lo & Leung, 2017; Jin, 2016; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015) and none of them has reached to explore the moderating role of novelty-seeking on behavioral intention of satisfied patrons in waterpark context. A present of moderating effect of novelty- seeking behavior in the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intention in waterpark context still needs empirical proof.

1.2 Objectives

Behavioral literatures on waterpark context are exceptionally rare especially in Thailand context, regardless of its accelerating growth of the domestic industry. Thus, the determination of this research is to extend the existing framework and to examine the relationships among water park image, price fairness, and behavioral intentions along with the mediating effects of customer satisfaction and price fairness in the context of Thai Waterparks. The moderating role of Novelty-seeking behavior in the relationship between satisfaction to behavioral intention is also explored.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 6

1.3 Research Questions

1. How waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions are interrelated? 2. What are the roles of waterpark image and price fairness on behavioral intention; direct, and/or mediated by satisfaction? 3. Does Novelty- Seeking tendency moderate the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions?

1.4 Benefits

The researcher expects that the findings will pave way and provide insight for developer, marketer, and manager of waterpark by understanding the link and effect of relationship and thereby convey to well-planned strategies in short and long run for both existing and upcoming developers in order to satisfy patrons and thereby navigate or play along with patrons’ behavioral intentions. In developers’ aspect, decent feasibility study must be analyzed. Number of patrons, entry price, as well as investment in image and behavioral marketing are critical factors for financial projection (Kemperman, 2000). In Managers’ aspect, knowing the behavior of patrons and what causes and moderates it would equip them with correct marketing apparatus. The researcher hopes that this research will provide intuition and act as a backup tool to lower down the risk that operators may have to come across. Theoretically, the present research study extends the previous frameworks by empirically examining moderating effect of Novelty-seeking tendency and price fairness on satisfaction and behavioral intentions in waterpark context which had not yet been examined. The study emphasizes on understanding of extended framework to cover this new area. It can also be seen as a step toward further implication and development of new framework. Researcher profoundly wishes that the findings will very much add up knowledge in water parks field of research and contribute as a useful literature for future study in this scant field.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 7

1.5 Scope of Study

The present research study examines variables’ measurements and relationship among water park image, price fairness, novelty-seeking, and behavioral intentions using distributed online and offline structured questionnaires on qualified experienced patrons in Thai waterparks.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 8

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Researcher reviews related theories that form the basis of satisfaction and behavioral intentions as well as the concept that may influence their relationship. Although literatures on waterpark are very limited, related literatures on antecedent variables and empirical findings in similar contexts such as theme parks, tourists’ destinations, and other related service industries are also reviewed to support the conceptual framework that is later proposed to form relationships among waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, novelty-seeking, and behavioral intentions. Related theories, literatures, and empirical studies are reviewed as follows;

2.1 Related Theories

Expectation-Confirmation Theory and the widespread concept of Variety- Seeking are examined to support the understanding of constructs in the conceptual framework. 2.1.1 Expectation-Confirmation Theory A well- known Expectation confirmation theory ( ECT) , which enlightened post-purchase satisfaction of products, services, as well as post-purchased complaint, is developed by Oliver in 1980 (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Lin, Tsai & Chiu, 2009; Oliver 1980; Tse & Wilton, 1988). The model is basically based on the expectation or anticipation of what client assume to receive from the service or product. Once the clients obtain a product or a service, they mentally compare what they actually receive with what they expected to receive (perceived performance), this evaluating process in turn form confirmation or disconfirmation of beliefs and thereafter result in satisfaction and dissatisfaction accordingly (Oliver, 1980).

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 9

Figure 1 Expectation Confirmation Theory, Oliver (1980)

Expectation- Confirmation Theory can be extended to explain repurchase intentions (Bhattacherjee, 2001). The enhanced model can be conceptually summarized into three simple steps which are customer desires, interrelation, and repurchase intentions. Firstly, customers’ desire; the customers with expectation are needed to be purchasing the product or service in the first place to start the flow. Secondly, after purchase, product or service is personally experienced, effectiveness of the product or service will be perceived and compare with expectation in order to form confirmation or disconfirmation of belief. Disconfirmation can be sectioned into two parts which are outperform expectation (positive) and underperform expectation (negative). Subsequently, the comparing process will result in customers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction and the level of satisfaction will shape an interrelation between customer and product or service. Thirdly, repurchase intentions; once customers are satisfied either from confirmation of belief or positive disconfirmation, they will intent to repurchase and vice versa (Oliver, 1980; Bhattacherjee, 2001).

Figure 2 Expectation Confirmation Theory (Extended), Bhattacherjee (2001)

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 10

2.1.2 Concept of Variety-Seeking Variety and novelty seeking are based on the same conceptual foundation of consumers seeking for optimal levels of simulation and thus impact the choices and tendency of choosing next visiting destination (Assaker & Hallak, 2013). The concept “True Variety Seeking” is also referred as “switching brands, products or providers for the sake of variety and not because of the functional value of the alternatives” (Bigné, Sánchez and Andreu, 2009). Recognizing this important concept in themed parks patrons’ behavior, Kemperman (2000) mentioned the importance of theme park planning (e.g.: demand forecast) and understanding of targeted customers. Kemperman ( 2000) developed variety seeking and diversification modeling in the context of theme park and conclude that tourists are more selective in term of destination (parks they choose to visit) and activities undertake before and upon arrival.

2.2 Review of Constructs

Waterpark is considered to be one category of theme parks. While, theme park is defined as “extreme example of capital intensive, user-oriented, man-modified, highly developed, recreational environment” that attempt to create pleasant and amazing experiences for visitors, its role in attracting visitors is very vibrant in some countries (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012). Former to each latent variable in the conceptual framework is reviewed, a waterpark is conceptually defined as an aquatically theme that comprises of three or more water slides or water- based activities (Sangree, D., 2014). Applying these definitions in Thailand context, Thai Board of Investment (BOI) has defined a large waterpark as any waterpark with the minimum investment of 500 million baths. Large waterparks to be mentioned in this research study refer to Thai waterparks that that comprise of three or more water slides or water-based activities with the minimum investment of 500 million baths. In Thailand, waterparks have recently become destinations for tourists in many areas. The prosper of waterpark industry in Thailand just arose in the 2010s (Kasikorn Research Center, 2017). In early time, there was only one large waterpark in

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 11

Thailand; Siam Park City which was the only one large scale waterpark in Thailand since 1980. This 38-years-old waterpark is now losing competitive advantages to the new waterparks with more recent technology (Popermhem, 2017). In 2010, Santorini waterpark started its operation as a world class waterpark with Santorini whitish theme waterpark. After that, there are many large world class standard waterparks with specific themes such as The Black Mountain Water Park (Opened in 2011), Vana Nava (Opened in 2014), The Cartoon Network Amazone (Opened in 2014), The Ramayana Water Park (Opened in May 2016), and many more that followed and the waterpark trend in Thailand began to take off since then ("Thai water parks make a splash in the rankings - The Nation", 2017).

2.2.1 Water Park Image Fletcher Pratt (1941) once said, “A word or phrase may have diverse message if it was not acknowledged by the world”, image could apply the saying. The term “Image” has been reviewed by various famous authors and many of them have their own notion to the term. Nonetheless, most behavioral researchers define Image correspondingly; that image is the comprehensive and subjective beliefs, ideas, impression, and perception on the major characteristics that the clients have towards a firm, a product, a place, or a destination (Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998; Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Chen & Tsai, 2007). Customer’ s experiences with the firm may directly or indirectly influence functional and emotional components of image. Image formation may comprise of various information sources such as word of mouth, personal contact, atmospheric environment, service encounter, product characteristics, and other experiences related (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). Theme park image is also commonly explained accordingly; as the customers’ overall perceptions of theme parks based on previous experiences and received information, in particular those arising from emotional responses ( Wu, Li & Li, 2014) . In addition, literature on quick- casual restaurant image also includes customer’s perception of functional attributes such as waiting time, location, and other qualities in the definition of store’s image (Ryu, Han

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 12

& Kim, 2008). In waterpark context, waterpark image is generally defined as the overall perceptions of waterpark’s patron based on vicarious information or prior experience, typically influenced by emotional responses (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). In accordance to these definitions, researcher defines the term Waterpark Image as patron’s subjective overall perception of the waterpark based on prior experience and/or vicarious information related to the waterpark (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016).

2.2.2 Price Fairness Research studies comprising of price fairness and/or perceived value in their context frequently review the work of Zeithaml (1988), “give” and “get” theory, since the concept is broadly accepted. The theory represents a conceptual model that defines connection among price, perceived quality, and perceived value which is referred to as a Means-End model. The theory also overlappingly applies to perceived price fairness which is an individual evaluation of clients’ perception on what they “get” compared to what they “give” or “given up or scarified to obtain the product” (Zeithaml, 1988; Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). In general, price fairness is usually defined as “a judgement of whether an outcome and/or the process to reach an outcome are reasonable, acceptable, or just” ( Young Chung & Petrick, 2016; Xia, Monroe & Cox, 2004). In the context of service and tourism, perceived value is more often applied in research studies and defined as “the visitor’s overall appraisal of net worth of the trip or service, based on the visitor’s or customer’s assessment of what is received (benefits), and what is given (costs or sacrifice in acquiring the service)” (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) Perceived value incorporates both monetary and non- monetary sacrifices such as opportunity cost of what is given. Therefore, scale items used to measure perceived value construct usually incorporate both opportunity cost and monetary sacrifice. The same items measuring monetary sacrifice worthiness

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 13 are usually used to measure implied price fairness, therefore ever these two related concepts are theoretically separated, the review of scale items is related. Generally, customers perceived price as fair when the offering value outweigh the price paid and the same process of evaluation does apply for price fairness theme park and waterpark (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). In this research study, price fairness is preferred over perceived value due to the fact of Thailand that major price promotion competitiveness among Thai waterpark operators apparently exist and Thai patrons are fairly sensitive to price promotion ("waterparks | Promotion Deal Discount" , 2017) . In addition, a claim proposed by Young Chung & Petrick, 2016 regarding how people are more easily perceive price unfairness toward service rather than products add more curiosity for this empirical study toward price fairness in this particular service industry. In this research study, the concept of price fairness is defined as patron’s personal evaluation of whether service prices charged by waterpark operator are legitimate and justifiable or unfair (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016; Zeithaml, 1988).

2.2.3 Satisfaction In general, satisfaction is the feeling of pleasure when a person achieved something or when a person expects something to happen and it actually happens. Referring to 2.1.1, expectation confirmation theory (ECT) represents the comparation process of what clients anticipated to what they truly receive from the product or service, which will in turn result in satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). While most literature describes satisfaction slightly different, essential aspect or core step in defining satisfaction still involves process of customer’s evaluation of product or service experience whether it is (at least) as good as they expect or what they think it is supposed to be (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008; Tsang, Lee, Wong & Chong, 2012) In the context of tourists’ destination and theme parks, satisfaction is defined as overall pleasure response based on expectations and the ability of the service or product possessed to fulfill related visitor’s requirements, pre-expectations, and needs (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Toyama & Yamada, 2012).

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 14

Applying above mentioned meanings, satisfaction is defined as overall pleasure of patrons based on the evaluation of their previous expectation and what they truly received once visited. The degree of satisfaction depends on how much the waterpark outperforms to exceed at or least meet patrons’ pre- visit expectations. (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008; Toyama & Yamada, 2012).

2.2.4 Behavioral Intentions Intention indicates a person’s willingness to engage in some behavior or a stated likelihood to engage in it (Oliver,1980). In the view of tourism industry, intentions are commonly referred to the intention to repurchase or revisit, to say positive things, and to recommend (Chen & Tsai,2007; Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012). In fact, some literatures operationalized behavioral intentions as one composite of loyalty, while loyalty is the integration of attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty is usually referred to as intention to say positive things and to recommend, and behavioral loyalty is usually referred to as intention to repurchase or revisit (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Zhang, Fu, Cai & Lu, 2014). Regarding the extension of above mentioned expectation confirmation theory, after experiencing product or service, confirmation or disconfirmation of belief will determine satisfaction which may or may not lead to behavioral intentions. The post purchase experience usually leads consumers to the process of cognitive decision-making on whether to continue with such product and service. According to number of literatures, they suggest that if customers are satisfied, they will continue to repurchase or revisit (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008). In accordance to definition of behavioral intentions in tourism, theme park and waterpark shares common elements in defining behavioral intentions which also include intention to revisit, to say positive things, and intention to recommend (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012; Toyama & Yamada, 2012; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) . However, definition of behavioral intention can sometimes be extended to other intentions such as intention to search for other

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 15 destinations with similar characteristic which was measured as one component in behavioral intentions and the findings show opposing result from intention to revisit with other factors prevailing (Kim & Kim, 2015). Therefore, giving a clear definition to behavioral intentions is very vital. In this research study, a broader aspect of intentions would be applied, behavioral intention is defined as patron’s intention or a stated likelihood to come back to this waterpark, to recommend this waterpark to friends or other acquaintances, to tell other people positive things about this water park, and to search or visit a destination with similar characteristics (Oliver,1980; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Kim & Kim, 2015). 2.2.5 Novelty-Seeking Novelty is generally referred to as a degree of divergence between customer’s or visitor’s past and present experiences, in tourism and travel context, it serves as a fundamental component and factor in tourists’ choices of destination and travel motivation. It can also be referred to as behavioral curiosity, sensation seeking, true wanderlust, destination wanderlust, or exploratory drive which make opposite to familiarity (Pearson, 1970; Som & Badarneh, 2011; Toyama & Yamada, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2015). Due to the fact that there are so many waterparks, patrons may not choose to revisited the same one even they are satisfied and perceive the price as fair, this type of behavior is especially relevant for patrons who seek variety (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). Novelty or variety-seeking could be the root cause of why satisfied customer do no return and change their interest negatively to behavioral loyalty. Literatures typically describe novelty comprising of four dimensions; thrill, adventure, surprise, and boredom-alleviation (Chang, Wall & Chu, 2006; George & George, 2004). The complication of measurement in novelty construct exists in tourism and travel context, some researchers measure it as a trip with new and unusual discoveries, while some measure it with detail elements more suitable for clustering literatures (Som & Badarneh, 2011). In spite of the controversy, Toyama & Yamada (2012) measures the novelty construct as an evaluation of visitor’s experience toward the destination as if the destination offers visitors unfamiliar experiences. In context of

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 16 waterpark, which is also considered a tourist’s destination, researcher will apply the general definition of novelty and measurements empirically tested by Toyama & Yamada (2012) in tourist city of Japan. In agreement, Novelty- Seeking is defined as a level of contrast between patron’s past and present waterparks experiences in the way that measures whether the waterpark provides patrons with unfamiliar experiences (Pearson,1970; Som & Badarneh, 2011; Toyama & Yamada, 2012).

2.3 Related literatures review summary

The definitions of construct are extracted from review of literature of related latent variables. Although literatures on waterparks are scant, waterpark is considered as a subcategory of the theme park. Definitions of related latent variables in this research study are mainly applied from theme park and tourists’ destination literatures which are most relevant, some other service industries such as restaurant, airline, and telecom are also examined to ensure the coverage of the concept in similar nature. As elaborated in section 2.2, each construct was explained in different settings and re-concluded in Thailand waterpark context. The review of all related literatures is summarized in the Table 1.

Table 1 Literature Review of Variables (BI) (PF) Theories/ Literatures Context (PV) (WPI) (SAT) (NOV) Image or Image Satisfaction Price Fairness Price Novelty- Seeking Novelty- Perceived Value Value Perceived Water Park Image Behavioral Intention Behavioral Expectation confirmation theory (ECT) Theory  (Oliver, 1980) (Bhattacherjee, 2001) Theory  True Variety Seeking Theory  (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) Kemperman (2000) Theory 

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 17

Table 1 Literature Review of variables (Continue) (BI) (PF) Theories/ Literatures Context (PV) (WPI) (SAT) (NOV) Image or Satisfaction Price Fairness Novelty- Seeking Novelty- Perceived Value Perceived Value Water Park Image Behavioral Intention Behavioral Tourist  (Chen & Tsai, 2007) Destination (Zeithaml, 1988) Theory  (Young Chung & Petrick, 2016) Framework  (Xia, Monroe & Cox, 2004) Theory  (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) Restaurant  (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) Water Park   (Lee, Jin & Lee, 2014) Water Park  (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) Water Park  (Lai, Chu & Petrick, 2016) Theme Park  (Aliman, Hashim, Wahid   & Harudin, 2017) Destination (Chen & Tsai, 2007) Destination   (Chi & Qu, 2008) Destination  (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) Restaurant   (Wu, Li & Li, 2014) Theme Park  (Martín-Consuegra,  Molina & Esteban, 2007) Airline Service (Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009) Telecom   (Lee, 2009) Destination  (Basaran, 2016) Destination  (Zhang, Fu, Cai & Lu, 2014) Destination  (Moon, Ko, Connaughton   & Lee, 2013) Sport event (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012) Theme Park  (Hung-Kai, 2018) Theme Park  (Lo & Leung, 2017) Theme Park  (Zhang, Li, Su & Hu, 2017) Theme Park  (Fotiadis & Kozak, 2017) Theme Park  (Tsang, Lee, Wong & Chong, 2012) Theme Park  (Ma, Gao, Scott & Ding, 2013) Theme Park  (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) Destination  (Kim & Kim, 2015) Destination  (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) Destination   (Som & Badarneh, 2011) Destination    (Chang, Wall & Chu, 2006) Attractions  (George & George, 2004) Destination 

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 18

Image has been used as an important factor for determining satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Wu, Li &Li, 2014; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Aliman, Hashim, Wahid & Harudin, 2017; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Lee, 2009; Basaran, 2016; Zhang, Fu, Cai & Lu, 2014; Assaker & Hallak, 2013; Som & Badarneh, 2011; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008; Moon, Ko, Connaughton & Lee, 2013; Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009). A number of empirical studies identified the influence of image on satisfaction but not on behavioral intentions (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Chi & Qu, 2008), while some empirical studies rather identified effect of image directly on behavioral intentions not through satisfaction (Chen&Tsai, 2007). Most studies incorporated the concept of perceived value rather than price fairness. However, price fairness was rather chosen to be studied in the competitive context like airline and restaurant (Martín-Consuegra, Molina & Esteban, 2007; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008). Price fairness was identified as antecedent of satisfaction in such contexts. Antecedents of satisfaction scatters in wide range, however in theme park context, image, perceived value were often proposed.

2.4 Definitions In this research study, all constructs in the conceptual framework are restated in the Table 2 for a convenient glance.

Table 2 Definitions of construct Construct Definition Reference Waterpark Patron’s subjective overall perception of the (Jin, Lee & Lee, Image waterpark based on prior experience and/or 2015; Jin, Line & vicarious information related to the waterpark Merkebu, 2016) Price Patron’s personal evaluation of whether service (Line & Merkebu, Fairness prices charged by waterpark operator are 2016; Zeithaml, legitimate and justifiable or unfair 1988)

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 19

Table 2 Definitions of construct (Continue) Satisfaction Overall pleasure of patrons based on the (Jin, Lee & Lee, evaluation of their previous expectation and 2013; Ryu, Han & what they truly received once visited. The Kim, 2008; degree of satisfaction depends on how much Toyama & the waterpark outperforms to exceed at or least Yamada, 2012) meet patrons’ pre-visit expectations Behavioral Patron’s intentions or a stated likelihood to (Oliver,1980; Jin, Intentions come back to this waterpark, to recommend this Lee & Lee, 2013; waterpark to friends or other acquaintances, and Kim & Kim, 2015) tell other people positive things about this water park Novelty- A level of contrast between patron’s past and (Pearson,1970; Seeking present waterparks experiences in the way that Som & Badarneh, measures whether the waterpark provides 2011; Toyama & patrons with unfamiliar experiences Yamada, 2012).

2.5 Hypotheses development

In context of waterpark, literatures and empirical studies regarding patrons’ behaviors are scant. Researcher attempts to develop the existing frameworks by applying related constructs and findings from applicable research studies to enhance the learning. 2.5.1 The effect of Waterpark Image on price fairness The concept of image is vital in behavior research studies, various related researches used image as a representation of customer’s belief, value, and perception and thereafter an important antecedent of price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions (Wu, Li & Li, 2014; Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009; Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). Regarding how image has influence on price fairness, the cognitive aspect or the

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 20 perception of value that consumers makes a judgement of whether the price of product or service is reasonable, acceptable, or just prevail (Xia, Monroe & Cox, 2004). While, number of literatures reveal that higher price is more justifiable if the brand has positive image and vice versa (Aliman, Hashim, Wahid & Harudin, 2017; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008), the reverse has also been found (Chen & Tsai, 2007). Previous studies in waterpark context empirically claimed that consumers are willing to incur higher cost if the image perception remains positive (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). Taking into account the contradiction in precedent empirical findings with most weighted- on waterpark literatures, the following hypothesis is formulated.

Hypothesis 1: Waterpark Image has a positive effect on Price Fairness.

2.5.2 The effects of Waterpark Image on satisfaction and behavioral intentions Although, image is frequently analyzed with other constructs, image alone can also be a critical factor, through its halo and overall attitude effects (Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009) . The important of image has been reassured by numerous empirical findings in determining customer perception, satisfaction and behavioral intentions, both directly and indirectly, especially in hospitality and tourism industry. Many related literatures empirically show that image directly influences satisfaction and subsequent behavioral intentions (Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016; Aliman, Hashim, Wahid & Harudin, 2017; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Wu, Li & Li, 2014; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008). Some proved direct effect of image to behavioral intentions with or without satisfaction as a mediator (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008; Wu, Li & Li, 2014; Basaran, 2016; Zhang, Fu, Cai & Lu, 2014; Moon, Ko, Connaughton & Lee, 2013; Assaker & Hallak, 2013), while many tried to evident and found it insignificant (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Chi & Qu, 2008; Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009; Lee, 2009). The positive direct effect of image on satisfaction is almost in consensus including the field of waterpark except for the what Chen & Tsai (2007) had

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 21 empirically found that there is no significant effect of image on satisfaction but rather a direct significant effect on behavioral intentions. The relationship between image and behavioral intentions are also commonly examined but the empirical findings are not always not as consistent as the effect of image on satisfaction. Some found the relationship significant, while some found the opposite. Thus, this study tries to empirically prove the relationships in Thai waterpark context, so the following hypothesizes are developed in accordingly.

Hypothesis 2: Waterpark Image has a positive effect on Satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: Waterpark Image has a positive effect on Behavioral Intentions.

2.5.3 The effects of Price Fairness on satisfaction and behavioral intentions Price fairness is consistently defined as a monetary sacrifice. Customers simply compare what they sacrifice or “price paid” with what they receive and the comparison may extend to the price that other customers pay for the same products and/or services. Therefore, it could be very important to make sure that customers do not feel that the price is unfair just because they pay higher price than other customers. This is because even customers are satisfied with the product but they do not think that the sacrifice is worthwhile or unfair, it may lead to undesirable behavioral intentions (Zeithaml, 1988; Martín-Consuegra, Molina & Esteban, 2007). The conceptual framework developed by Young Chung & Petrick ( 2016) proposed price fairness, influenced by cognitive attribution and emotional response, to be the antecedent of both satisfaction and behavioral intention. The framework was established from review of related literatures and previous findings, but not yet empirically verified. The authors requested that the conceptual model to be empirically tested in various context. The authors also stated that prior literatures in tourism industry often reveal that “ people are more likely to perceive price unfairness toward services than products” (Chung & Petrick, 2016).

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 22

In tourism and hospitality including theme parks industry, researches usually refer customer’s evaluation of overall value as a perceived value and use it as an antecedent of satisfaction and behavioral intentions to form a conceptual model rather than using monetary value price alone. Nonetheless, literatures applying perceived value, which measurements often include monetary concern as one of the scale items, reveal inconsistent findings of how perceived value influences behavioral intentions, but positive consistent findings on how perceived value influences satisfaction (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Lee, Jin & Lee, 2014; Lai, Chu & Petrick, 2016; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008). In waterpark context, Jin, Line & Merkebu (2016), empirically proved that price fairness has no influences on customer loyalty in Korean context but no antecedent relationship of price fairness on satisfaction or behavioral have been studied. Waterpark price analysis with scant research studies of require more attention, especially when it is a rising industry in Asia market (Kemperman, 2000). While no research studies represent a precedent finding for such relationships in a waterpark context, this present research study proposes an extension of the conceptual framework to waterpark industry. Thus, the following hypothesizes are formulated.

Hypothesis 4: Price Fairness has a positive effect on Satisfaction. Hypothesis 5: Price Fairness has a positive effect on Behavioral Intentions.

2.5.4 The effect of satisfaction on behavioral intentions The relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions is regularly explored in broaden contexts. Satisfaction has long been regarded as a fundamental determinant of revisit and other intentions which are responded for significant energies input used to track and ensure customer’s satisfaction, especially, in service industry (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008; Kim & Kim, 2015). Review of relate literature disclose a consensus finding of positive effect of satisfaction on behavioral intentions (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013; Lai, Chu & Petrick, 2016; Aliman, Hashim, Wahid & Harudin, 2017; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008). On top of that, Kim & Kim

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 23

(2015) reassures the consensus by stating that satisfaction is the most important of all determinants of visitor’s decision to revisit and spread good words. Thus, the following hypotheses agree with accordingly consent.

Hypothesis 6: Satisfaction has a positive effect on Behavioral Intentions.

2.4.5 The moderating effect of Novelty-Seeking on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions Although, satisfaction has been playing an important role in determining behavioral intentions, recent findings show that such strong link is dedicatedly defected by novelty-seeking behavior. Novelty is a key component in travel motivation, and also is empirically evidenced to be an antecedent of satisfaction and intention to recommend and revisit (Toyama & Yamada, 2012). Variety of choices or novelty-seeking may lead satisfied customers to other destinations even they are satisfied with the previous, this is due to visitor’s expectation to experience adventures in an artificial environment like waterpark. The transferring of satisfied customers to other similar destination is “transferred loyalty” (Kim & Kim, 2015; Tsang, Lee, Wong & Chong, 2012) that may dilute the strong relationship of satisfaction and revisit. Novelty-seeking lead visitors to seek out new experiences in other destinations and it acts as the variable used to explain why satisfied visitors may not revisit. Empirically, literatures have shown that novelty-seeking plays a moderating role in weakening the relationship between satisfaction and revisit intension, while strengthening the relationship between satisfaction and recommending and searching for similar destinations intention (Kim & Kim, 2015; Assaker & Hallak, 2013; George & George, 2004; Som & Badarneh, 2011). To briefly elaborate the discoveries, for satisfied patrons, novelty- seeking negatively responds regard potential visit but positively responds potential spread of good words of mouth and recommendation. This extant research will extend the proof of novelty-seeking moderating concept to waterpark context, so the following hypothesis is developed.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 24

Hypothesis 7: Novelty-seeking has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral Intentions.

2.6 Conceptual framework

The empirical findings referred in hypotheses development of relationships on related constructs in section 2.5 are summarized in the Table 3. A note was taken on fact that the influence of service quality on customer’s satisfaction has long been empirically proven across many industries. In attractions industry, service quality, frequently applied the concept of SERVQUAL, is empirically agreed to have a significant positive effect on satisfaction (Tsang, Lee, Wong & Chong, 2012; Wu, Li & Li, 2014; Lai, Chu & Petrick, 2016; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013). In this research study, the conceptual framework is formed to emphasize the roles of waterpark image and price fairness, to include all antecedents of satisfaction and behavioral intentions is redundant and out of focus. Thus, the conceptual framework is primarily formed to serve the objectives of the research study.

Table 3 Relationships Review BI BI PF BI SAT SAT BI)        Literatures Context  (SAT H5: PF H7: NOV H3: WPI H6: SAT H1: WPI H4: PF H2: WPI

(Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) Water Park   (Lee, Jin & Lee, 2014) Water Park    (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) Water Park

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 25

Table 3 Relationships Review (Continue) BI BI PF BI SAT SAT BI)        Literatures Context  (SAT H5: PFH5: H7: NOV H3: WPI H6: SATH6: H1: WPI H4: PF H2: WPIH2:

(Lai, Chu & Petrick, 2016) Theme Park  (Wu, Li & Li, 2014) Theme Park   (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar & Evin, 2012) Theme Park  (Hung-Kai, 2018) Theme Park  (Zhang, Li, Su & Hu, 2017) Theme Park  (Lai, Griffin & Babin, 2009) Telecom    (Moon, Ko, Connaughton  & Lee, 2013) Sport event (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) Restaurant   (Aliman, Hashim, Wahid   & Harudin, 2017) Destination (Chen & Tsai, 2007) Destination   (Chi & Qu, 2008) Destination   (Lee, 2009) Destination   (Basaran, 2016) Destination  (Zhang, Fu, Cai & Lu, 2014) Destination  (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) Destination  (Kim & Kim, 2015) Destination  (Assaker & Hallak, 2013) Destination    (George & George, 2004) Destination  (Martín‐Consuegra,  Molina & Esteban, 2007) Airline Service

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 26

The theories and literatures along with empirical studies suggested that satisfaction is a key antecedent of behavioral intentions. Waterpark image was empirically found to have positive effects on price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Price fairness is examined to answer research question in Thai waterpark background, while novelty- seeking is applied from different context to test its moderator role. An illustration of the conceptual framework is visually shown in this below Figure 3.

Figure 3 Conceptual Framework

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 27

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research study is a quantitative research using Structured questionnaire through both hand-to-hand distributed and online outreaches. Pre-test and pilot test were conducted for navigation and refinery of the questionnaire’ s quality. Scale items measurement uses 5-point Liker-type scale [1(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)]. Structural Equation Modeling with Partial Least Square (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS3.2.7 software is applied to analyze the path and relationships among unobserved variables and to test each hypothesis with data gathered. SEM is chosen over multiple regression due to its ability to comprehensively impute and examine all hypotheses at once. It is regarded as a more powerful tool in predicting a comprehensive path effects. Partial Least Square is a method using Ordinary least square to estimate model parameters by maximizing explained variance in endogenous constructs. The method aims to test paths significant rather than theories verification, assumptions on data distribution may be relaxed applying this method. Moreover, PLS- SEM requires no need to establish goodness-of-fit statistic and it also works well with small sample sizes unlike traditional approaches (Hair, 2016: Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle & Gudergan, 2018).

3.1 Population and Sample

3.1.1 Population The population in this research study include domestic and international patrons that had visited one of the largest waterparks in Thailand central region namely; Ramayana Waterpark ( Chonburi) , VANA NAVA Waterpark ( Huahin) , Cartoon Network Amazone Waterpark (Chonburi), Siam Park City Waterpark (Bangkok), and Santorini Waterpark (Petchburi) ("10 Best Water Parks in Thailand - Family-Friendly Attractions in Thailand", 2017) in the past 24 months. These represents big and major waterparks in Thailand. Since selected waterpark differs in term attractions and service

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 28

attributes, sample patrons may receive slightly or huge different experiences from each park. Therefore, there is a higher potential to generalize the findings from these samples of Thai waterparks rather than sampling from only one waterpark (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008).

3.1.2 Sampling The population in this research study includes all patrons that had visited one of the largest waterparks in Thailand central region (namely as mentioned), the number of population is more or less infinite and the variance is unknown. Therefore, nonprobability sampling size, in case of unknown population, is estimated using convenient sampling formula as follow;

2σ2 0 2

Whereas; 0 = Sample Size required for this research study z = Statistic Confidence interval at 0.05 σ = Variance of population (for 5-point Liker-type scale) e2 = Acceptable Margin of Error (e2 = Lowest Mean *Acceptable Margin of Error)

On top of the limitation in waterpark literatures, most of them use 7-point Liker-type scale which cannot be applied to this study. In this case, a 5-point Likert-type scale was preferred to 7-point Liker-type scale since the number of samples required is rather large. Lower scale reduces complication in responding. In addition, it can also increase response rate and response quality as well as reduce respondents’ “frustration level” (Babakus & Mangold, 1992). Researcher thus had to apply variance and acceptable margin of error from the preceding 50 samples pilot test. The statistic confidence interval to consider is 0.05 which is z=1.96, the variance of pilot test is 0.78, the lowest mean is 3.28 and the acceptable margin of error is 0.05. Once all values

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 29 are applied to the abovementioned equation, number of sample required for the research study is as follow;

The formula suggests a minimal sampling size of at least 87 samples. However, researcher would also practically apply the traditional rule of thumb for just in case. There are 26 scale items used in constructs’ measurement, 10 samples are required per one question, therefore, at least a total 260 samples would be collected for a more accuracy in research findings.

3.2 Research tools

This quantitative research was conducted using a self- administrated questionnaire as a research tool for data collection. An English version of questionnaire was initiated then translated to Thai. Verified bilingual editors were asked to ensure that each wording expresses correct meaning to ensure consistency in communication. The original version of English questionnaire was translated into Thai (Appendix II) and back-translated into English (Appendix III) by graduate students from English-speaking country communication between the two versions (Fotiadis & Kozak, 2017; Ma, Gao, Scott & Ding, 2013). On the foundation of previous research studies, a pre-test is conducted in both languages on 10 random samples who qualified as a patron who had visited one of the abovementioned waterparks in Thailand within the past 24 months. Interactions and responses from participants help shape and refine the questionnaires to ensure correct understanding of each measure. Once a questionnaire is refined, a pilot test will be conducted with 50 other patrons to navigate the findings before last modification and distribution of final version questionnaires.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 30

The questionnaire is comprised of 4 sections to cover the scope of study as follows;

Section 1: Filtering question The screening question is used to qualify samples to our criteria. Please refer to Appendix I (Questionnaire)

Section 2: Visiting Experience In this section, the sample is asked general questions about their visiting information. Please refer to Appendix I (Questionnaire)

Section 3: Experience Evaluation This section consists of measurement of constructs namely; waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, novelty- seeking, and behavioral intentions consecutively. All items were assessed via 5-point Likert-Type Scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The sample is asked about their opinion based on their prior water park visit. Waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, novelty- seeking, and behavioral intentions are assessed by six, five, five, five, and five items respectively. Please refer to Appendix II (Questionnaire).

Scale rating is shown below;

Strongly Agree 5 Points

Agree 4 Points Neither agrees nor disagrees 3 Points

Disagree 2 Points Strongly Disagree 1 Point

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 31

Section 4: Demographic data In this section, samples were asked about their demographic information for instance gender, age, marital status, occupation, education level, and etc. Please refer to Appendix I ( Questionnaire) These data will be analyze afterwards using descriptive statistics which will be shown in Chapter 4.

3.3 Data Collection

Online questionnaire was created via Google Doc Form and distributed through online channels such as Facebook, LINE, E-mail, and etc. Paper questionnaires were distributed in front of the beset Waterparks by researcher and assistants. To ensure standardized procedures for data collection, assistants were clearly instructed. A lunch box remuneration was offered for volunteer respondents to encourage participation. Period of collection starts from January to March 2018. Convenient sampling method was adopted to collect data for both the pilot and final tests due to limited time and manpower.

3.4 Research Constructs and Measurement

Scale items in questionnaire are used to reflect each construct for hypotheses testing. The measurements are applied from literature reviews. 10 random samples are interviewed for a pretest to ensure correct communication. A pilot test of 50 other samples’ responses were collected to test for appropriateness and accuracy of measurement before final modification of distributed questionnaires. There are 5 constructs in the conceptual framework namely; waterpark image, price fairness, novelty-seeking, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, novelty-seeking, and behavioral intentions are assessed by six, five, five, five, and five items respectively. Questions used for measurement in scare items are illustrated in Table 4.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 32

Table 4 Measurement of scale items Construct Scale items References (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) WPI1: This water park has good reputation. (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) (Wu, Li & Li, 2014) (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) (Lee, Jin & Lee, 2014) WPI2: This water park provides good service. (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) WPI: (Wu, Li & Li, 2014) Waterpark Image (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) WPI3: This water park has exotic features. (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) (Wu, Li & Li, 2014) WPI4: This waterpark has various facilities. (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) WPI5: This water park has good accessibility. (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) WPI6: Waiting time for a ride was reasonable. (Zhang, Li, Su & Hu, 2017) PF1: The ticket(s) fee for attractions at this (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) waterpark is/are reasonable. PF2: The prices charged by this waterpark are (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) PF: appropriate for the level of service. Price Fairness PF3: The overall quality of this waterpark was (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) worth the money. (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) PF4: The food prices at this waterpark was (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016) worth the money. PF5: Other fees (e.g. locker, towel, etc.) were (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) fairly priced at this water park. (Lee, Jin & Lee, 2014)

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 33

Table 4 Measurement of scale items (Continue) Construct Scale items References SAT1: All things considered, I am pleased to (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) play at this waterpark. (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) SAT2: Considering all my experience with this (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) SA: waterpark, my choice to come was a wise one. (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) Satisfaction SAT3: When compared with my expectation of (Tussyadiah, 2016) this waterpark, the received experience met my expectation or positively went beyond. SAT4: The overall feeling I got from this (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) waterpark put me in a good mood. SAT5: Overall, I am delighted with this (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) waterpark. (Lee, Jin & Lee, 2014) NOV1: This waterpark offers an unusual (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) (extraordinary) attractions experience. NOV2: The environment in this waterpark (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) NOV: offers me new experience. Novelty-Seeking NOV3: This waterpark offers new discoveries to (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) me (e.g. new event, theme, zone, characters, etc.). NOV4: This waterpark is original to me. (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) NOV5: This waterpark provides me initiative. (Toyama & Yamada, 2012)

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 34

Table 4 Measurement of scale items (Continue) Construct Scale items References BI1: I would like to revisit this waterpark in the (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) future. (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) BI2: I would recommend this waterpark to my (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) BI: friends or other acquaintances. (Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008) Behavioral BI3: I want to tell other people positive things (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013) Intentions about this water park. BI4: I would like to search for alternative (Kim & Kim, 2015) waterpark with similar characteristics BI5: I would like to visit other waterparks with (Kim & Kim, 2015) similar characteristics

3.5 Data Analysis

Missing data and incomplete set of questionnaires were deleted. Data was sorted for preparation analytical examination. Data analysis was separated into 3 main sections; descriptive statistic, measurement model evaluation, and structural model assessment. Hypotheses testing was conducted using partial least square structural modeling equation allowing the prediction of path analysis. Steps and techniques used for each section of data analysis are described as follows;

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistic Demographic data were analyzed along with information on visiting experiences using descriptive statistic. Percentage and frequency distribution were examined and further interpreted accordingly to the findings.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 35

3.5.2 Measurement Model Evaluation The objectives of measurement model evaluation are to assess how manifest variables or the scale items use to identify latent variables are congruences and function relevantly. In this research study, observed or indicator variables are reflective for the unobserved, not formative. To elaborate, indicator variables are used to reflect latent variables which cannot be directly observed. The questions or items must measure the same variable so they could be highly correlated, interchangeable, and going in the same direction (Hair, 2016). Another purpose of model evaluation is to test the validity and reliability of research tool. Various types of apparatus used for such purposes are described as followings;

3.5.2.1 Outer Loadings Outer loadings are applied to qualify the scale items whether they are adequately congruence with latent variable they are trying to explain. Standardized outer loadings of each observed variable should be equal or more than suggested value of 0. 70 ( Memon & Rahman, 2014; Hair, 2016) to qualify as the indicators that should be used to explain the variance of that particular latent variable. If the outer loadings of that question are less than 0.70, that particular items should be eliminated. 3.5.2.2 Reliability The research tool, the structured questionnaire, must be tested for its reliability. The reliability test is to ensure that the tool can be used to measure accurately despite the differences in timing and situation. In order to verify the legitimacy of our measurement tool for PLS- SEM, “ Composite Reliability” is preferred to the normally used “Cronbach’s Aplha” (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle & Gudergan, 2018). However, the interpretation of the value is similar, both composite reliability and cronbach’s alpha are ranged from 0.00 to 1.00; while 0.00 signifies no reliability and 1.00 represents high reliability. The acceptable level of coefficient is 0.7 or more which would signify the reliability of structured questionnaire (Hair, 2016: Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle & Gudergan, 2018).

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 36

3.5.2.3 Convergent validity The convergent validity is used to test whether scale items assigned to measure a certain construct are congruence and applicable for that particular construct. Although questions are different, they are trying to reflect the same thing so they will be highly related unlike different items that do not reflect the same thing, they will be poorly related or unrelated. The statistic that is used to measure convergent validity is “Average Variance Extract” (AVE) which must be higher than 0.5 to indicate that latent variable can be explained by variance of observe variables more than 50 percent (Hair, 2016). 3.5.2.4 Discriminant Validity Mainly, there are 2 levels of discriminate validity to be considered; one is items level and another is latent level. For scales items that are used to measure one construct, they must be discriminated from the other set of items that are used to measure another construct. The questions in each set are meant to ask and indicate one particular unobserved variable and not others. For latent discriminant, statistic scores must not be too related. Considering discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the examination of cross-loadings are the dominant approaches used for variance-based structural equation modeling. (1) Fornell-Larcker Criteria Fornell-Larcker Criteria is a discriminate validity criterion using square root of average variance extract (√AVE) of an unobserved variable comparing with other unobserved variables in the model. To ensure the constructs are discriminately valid, the √AVE of each unobserved variable should be higher than the squared of average variance extract between that unobserved variable and other unobserved variables in the model (Hair, 2016). (2) Cross loadings Cross loadings technique is the comprehensive evaluation of how much each question can explain each construct in the model or the distributed factor loadings shown for the construct. The question or item that is meant to indicate one construct should have factor loading for that particular construct of more than

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 37

0.70 to verify that it actually is to explain that particular construct not the other (Hair, 2016).

3.5.2.5 Measurement Model Statistics Descriptive statistic will be applied to each of the rating 5 points liker-scale item; mean, standard deviations, and correlation are calculated to analyze the level of opinion and likelihood of each behavioral intentions in each aspect.

3.5.3 Structural Model Assessment After measurement model evaluation which includes examination of the outer model assessment of tool’s reliability and validity as elaborated earlier. The next step for variance-based structural equation modeling or PLS-SEM is to assess structural model or so called “Inner Model”. Inner model evaluation would include coefficient determinant, hypothesis testing, and structural analysis but does not need to include the testing for goodness-of-fit ("Discriminant Validity Assessment | SmartPLS", 2018). 3.5.3.1 Coefficient determinant Coefficient determinant or R- Square ( R2) is the forecast accuracy indicator of the model which ranges from 0 to 1. It represents the percentage of how much endogenous variables can explain exogeneous variables. R2 ranging from 0.75, 0.50. and 0.25 signpost for high, middle, and low level of forecast accuracy consecutively. Therefore, R2 should not be lower than 0. 25 for the model that exogeneous variables would claim to be able to explain the variance of endogenous variable (Hair, 2016). 3.5.3.2 Hypothesis testing Hypothesis testing would include the prediction of path coefficients and testing for the level of significance in each path of the inner model. Path is how exogeneous variables influence endogenous variable. The path the arrow is pointed from exogeneous variables to the endogenous variables, it also signifies the

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 38 relationship between the two variables. Path coefficient ranges from -1 to 1; whereas 1 implies strongest positive relationship and -1 implies strongest negative relationship. The significant of path coefficient are confirmed by Bootstrapping technique in PLS- SEM. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric resampling test, its process includes repeatedly making new sets of the random existing sampling and the usual number of random set is 5,000 times. It is a two-tailed hypothesis testing and its important feature is that it does not rely on the normality assumption so smaller sample sizes are acceptable (Hair, 2016; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Hadi, Abdullah & Sentosa, 2018). In this study, the significant level is set at 0.05 or p<0.05 meaning that t-Statistic must be higher than 1.96 to statistically verify each assumption. 3.5.3.3 Structural analysis The strength in influences of exogeneous variables on endogenous variable are examined both directly and indirectly in the model. Therefore, all kind of effect must be taken in to account when result is being interpreted. The path of direct effect may or may not be significant while the indirect does vice versa. Each effect must be interpreted individually and then collectively with total effect to comprehends all meanings of the result.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 39

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For the collection period of January to March 2018, the total number of questionnaires collected from both offline and online sources was 358 samples. After sorting qualified ones, the total usable questionnaire is 352 samples. The methodology applied in the analysis is Structural Equation Modeling with Partial Least Square using SmartPLS 3.2.7 For SEM-PLS, there are two layers of model to be considered, the outer and the inner. The outer model concerns the relationships between unobserved variables and constructs (Measurement model evaluation), while the inner concerns structural relationships among constructs (Structural model assessment). Descriptive statistic will be illustrated and analyzed to explain the characteristic of sample group and to support the analysis fundamentally.

4.1 Descriptive Statistic

According to the responses of patrons, most respondents had visited VANA NAVA Waterpark ( VN) , Siam Park City Waterpark ( SP) , Cartoon Network Amazone Waterpark (CN), Santorini Waterpark (ST), Ramayana Waterpark (Chonburi), and others ( OT) waterparks in order respectively as expected as they represent the biggest waterparks in Thailand. The pie chart in Figure 4 illustrated the percentage of Thai waterpark the patrons visited, the combination is regarded as Thai waterpark in general.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 40

3% VN 8% SP 15% 32% CN

ST 16% RM 26% OT

Figure 4 Percentage of waterpark of respondents’ visit

4.1.1. Demographic of Respondents For the collection period of January to March 2018, the total usable number of questionnaire from both online and offline was 352. The descriptive statistics; distributions and percentages are showed in the Table 5. Out of the 352 respondents, 204 of the respondents were female (57.95%) and 148 were male (42.05%). The concentration of age-gap was between 18-39 years old which accounted for 305 respondents (86.65%). Out of the range, 157 respondents are in between 18- 29 (44.60%) and 148 respondents are in 30-29 (42.05%) for separating into 18-29 and 30-39 respectively. The rest are less than 18 or more than 39 years old. Since this research study was conducted in Thailand, most of the respondents were Thai (95.17%) and the rest (4.83%) were American, Indian, Chinese, European and etc. Regarding marital status, majority were single (74.43%) and the rest were Married (23.86%). A total of 337 (95.74%) of the respondents have at least bachelor’s degree, only a small percentage of respondents who have lower level of education. Moving on to employment status, the respondents were either full-time employed (51.14%) or self-employed (32.67%) and the rest were retired, unemployed, or student (16.19%). Overall, for their yearly income, almost two-third of the respondents’ income were averaging around 5,000 – 30,000 USD (62.5%) and the rest were scattered.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 41

Table 5 Demographic of samples Variable Distribution % Gender Male 148 42.05 Female 204 57.95

Age Less than 18 6 1.70 18 – 29 157 44.60 30-39 148 42.05 40-49 24 6.82 50 and above 17 4.83

Nationality Thai 335 95.17 Non-Thai 17 4.83

Marital Status Single 262 74.43 Married 84 23.86 Others 6 1.70

Level of education Lower 15 4.26 Bachelor’s 169 48.01 Master’s and above 168 47.73

Employment Status Employed Full-Time 180 51.14 Self-Employed 115 32.67 Retired 4 1.14 Student 28 7.95 Unemployment 25 7.10

Yearly Income Under 5,000USD 61 17.33 5,000 - 15,000 USD 129 36.64 15,001-30,000 USD 91 25.86 30,001 - 40,000 USD 32 9.09 Over 40,000 USD 39 11.08

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 42

4.2.2 The analysis of demographic and visiting experiences The statistic of demographic population is basically sorted by gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, education level, career, and yearly income. However, to better understand the behavioral of patrons, the questionnaire includes questions on visiting experiences which will be analyzed together with certain demographic data to support the sympathies of the study. From the sample group of 352 patrons, each criterion is described as follows; 4.2.2.1 Age and Accompany Most of the respondents’ age were in between 18-39 years old; a total of 305 (157 and 148) out of 352 representing 86.6 percent of the whole samples as shown in Figure 5. The younger patrons tend to come with friend(s) and the older they get the lesser they come with friend(s). Most of the older patrons rather came with family and it relatively getter more obvious as the age rises. Interestingly, only the respondents’ age between 18-39 years old came with lovers, this could signify that waterpark is a place for young couple not older ones. To understand the relationship of age and accompany may help the managers come up with the right marketing tools by focusing on the prominent target group.

Figure 5 Age and accompany bar chart

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 43

4.2.2.3 Age and Favorite attractions As anticipated, the younger patrons but older than 18 tend to like thrilling rides more than the older as illustrated in bar chart in Figure 6. The proportion of preference in non-thrilling rides get larger with the age of patrons.

Figure 6 Age and favorite attractions bar chart

4.2.2.3 Ethnicity 335 out of 352 respondents were Thai accounting for 95 percent of the whole samples. There were 5 American, 4 Chinese, 3 Indians, 2 European, and 3 others which accounted for another 5 percent. This could be the result of convenient sampling through Google Doc online distribution. The researcher and team did on field distribution but most of the volunteers were Thai, there were only few foreigner volunteer participants. The condition has to be noted on the final result of the structural modeling that could be bias on the basis ethnicity.

4.2.2.4 Marital Status The comparison of respondent’s marital status is illustrated in Figure 7. Most respondents who visited the waterparks are single accounting for 262 out of 352 or 74. 43 percent. This could be related to the younger age of the

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 44 respondents. Married respondents are accounted for 23.86 percent or 84 out of 352. Five respondents are living with partner and one is divorced.

Single

Married

Living with Partner

Divorced

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 7 Marital Status

4.2 Model specific

The conceptual framework is a reflective measurement model comprised of 5 constructs; namely waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, novelty-seeking, and behavioral intentions which are assessed by six, five, five, five, and five scale items respectively with a total of 26 items. The structural model in SmartPLS3.2.7 software is illustrated in Figure 8. The oval (circle-like) represents latent variable, while the rectangular represents observed variable used to reflect the construct.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 45

Figure 8 Conceptual framework in SmartPLS3.2.7

** Please note that it is the default drawing of SmartPLS3.2.7 on how the arrow points to latent variable rather than to the middle of the line of the relationship that it is moderating. The moderating variable shown in Figure 9 must also be drawn as one of the exogenous variable effecting endogenous variable, even we do not illustrate it as one exogenous variable that directly effects the endogenous variable in the conceptual framework, this is required to run the program.

Figure 9 Moderating variable on SmartPLS3.2.7

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 46

4.2.1 Fundamental Statistic Report on Scale items There are no missing values in the questionnaires, this is due to the Google Doc all fill- up requirement before submitting. For the offline paper questionnaire, the team checked each questionnaire before rewarding each respondent with a gift. Some of the unfinished questionnaires are totally disregarded. The baseline statistic of experience evaluation or the measurement of unobserved variables are reported in the Table 6; Table 6 Basic statistic of scale items Standard Excess No. Item Mean Median Min Max Deviation Kurtosis Skewness 1 WPI1 3.918 4 1 5 0.774 1.358 -0.818 2 WPI2 3.724 4 1 5 0.798 0.709 -0.574 3 WPI3 3.665 4 1 5 0.924 -0.338 -0.306 4 WPI4 3.781 4 1 5 0.86 1.011 -0.802 5 WPI5 3.872 4 1 5 0.875 1.228 -0.874 6 WPI6 3.685 4 1 5 0.856 0.966 -0.791 7 PF1 3.412 4 1 5 0.916 0.149 -0.485 8 PF2 3.526 4 1 5 0.856 0.48 -0.64 9 PF3 3.594 4 1 5 0.834 0.536 -0.594 10 PF4 2.935 3 1 5 0.935 -0.406 -0.205 11 PF5 3.213 3 1 5 0.874 -0.073 -0.198 12 SAT1 3.784 4 1 5 0.757 0.748 -0.605 13 SAT2 3.662 4 1 5 0.834 0.604 -0.508 14 SAT3 3.605 4 1 5 0.826 0.571 -0.491 15 SAT4 3.847 4 1 5 0.811 0.924 -0.706 16 SAT5 3.793 4 1 5 0.776 1.905 -0.941 17 NOV1 3.69 4 1 5 0.875 -0.111 -0.403 18 NOV2 3.642 4 1 5 0.854 -0.005 -0.448 19 NOV3 3.645 4 1 5 0.886 0.391 -0.617 20 NOV4 3.457 4 1 5 0.894 -0.159 -0.29 21 NOV5 3.29 3 1 5 0.854 0.231 -0.291 22 BI1 3.412 3 1 5 0.888 0.15 -0.246 23 BI2 3.614 4 1 5 0.859 0.544 -0.627 24 BI3 3.631 4 1 5 0.843 0.716 -0.645 25 BI4 3.42 3 1 5 0.914 0.033 -0.369 26 BI5 3.52 4 1 5 0.941 0.031 -0.489

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 47

The data in Table 6 reveals that the item PF4 which is a question on “The food prices at this waterpark was worth the money.” receives lowest mean of all bands which is 2.935. This is corresponding to the what the researchers received from the written recommendations in questionnaire that many patrons’ responses concerningly on high food and drink prices.

4.3 Measurement Model Evaluation

In reflective model evaluation, it requires a number of examination to verify the research tool. The outcomes of tests for the specific model are illustrated as follows;

4.3.1 Outer loadings On first iteration, the outer loadings of all scales items used to reflect latent variables were accepted except for WPI6 (Waiting time for a ride was reasonable.) which was applied from the empirical study of other industries to reflect image so the measure might not be suitable for the context waterpark. The outer loading of WPI6 is 0.629 which is lower than the acceptable standard of outer loadings at 0.70. Therefore, the item was deleted from the total of 26 items and the rest were proceed for second iteration which is the final iteration. Table 7 shows that the outer loadings of all 25 scale on the second iteration are more than 0.70 meaning that they are in function of reflecting their latent.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 48

Table 7 Results of Measurement Model evaluation First Iteration Second Iteration Scale Composite Cronbach's Composite Cronbach's Construct item Loadings AVE Reliability Alpha Loadings AVE Reliability Alpha WPI1 0.851 0.616 0.905 0.873 0.851 0.677 0.913 0.881 WPI2 0.823 0.833 WPI3 0.791 0.818 WPI4 0.828 0.847 Image WPI5 0.769 0.763 Waterpark Waterpark WPI6 0.629 Deleted PF1 0.841 0.678 0.913 0.883 0.841 0.678 0.913 0.883 PF2 0.895 0.896 PF3 0.871 0.871

Price PF4 0.717 0.716 Fairness PF5 0.780 0.779 SAT1 0.880 0.761 0.941 0.921 0.879 0.761 0.941 0.921 SAT2 0.884 0.884 SAT3 0.822 0.822 SAT4 0.872 0.873

Satisfaction SAT5 0.902 0.903 MOD (Sat*Nov) 1.288 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.288 1.000 1.000 1.000 NOV1 0.820 0.694 0.919 0.890 0.820 0.694 0.919 0.890 NOV2 0.851 0.851 NOV3 0.871 0.871

Novelty- Seeking NOV4 0.803 0.803

(Moderator) NOV5 0.820 0.820 BI1 0.819 0.693 0.919 0.890 0.819 0.693 0.919 0.890 BI2 0.863 0.863 BI3 0.867 0.867 BI4 0.817 0.816 Intention Behavioral Behavioral BI5 0.794 0.794

4.3.2 Indicator Reliability In order to verify the legitimacy of our measurement tool, reliability test is conducted to ensure that the tool can be used to measure accurately despite the differences in timing and situation of measuring. For PLS- SEM, “ Composite Reliability” is preferred to the normally used “Cronbach’s Alpha” (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle & Gudergan, 2018). Referring to Table 7, it reveals that both composite reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha of all indicator variables for all constructs in the specific model are more than standard acceptable value of 0.70. Thus, the measurement tool in this research study is reliable.

4.3.3 Convergent validity The statistic used to test convergent validity is average variance extract (AVE), it is the test to verify that items can reflect the same construct. The AVE must be equal or greater than 0.5 meaning that the construct can explain the variance

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 49 of indicators variable of more than 50 percent. From the Table 7 of the final iteration, AVE of all constructs are more than 0. 50 and they are all statistically significant. Therefore, all constructs are convergently valid and they can explain the variance of indicator variables.

4.3.4 Discriminant validity In this research study, two criterions are considered to test the discriminant validity. The discriminant validity assessment in the PLS path model is to ensure that each set of scale items used to reflect one construct has the strongest relationships with its own indicators and must be exogenous and separated from other items reflecting other construct. The two criterions are for 2 levels testing; the constructs level and the scale items level. Fornell- Larcker Criterion is used test discriminant validity of constructs, while Cross loadings is used for scale items analysis. The tests were performed on final iteration set of data. 4.3.4.1 Fornell-Larcker Criterion Fornell- Larcker Criterion relies on the comparison of the square root of AVE (√AVE) of the reflective construct and other constructs, the standard acceptable value is 0.70. Table 8 shows that square root of AVE of all constructs in the specific model are larger than 0.70 and also larger the corresponding latent variable correlations, implying that all constructs are discriminately valid according to the Fornell-Larcker Criterion. Table 8 Discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker Criterion Price MOD Image Seeking Fairness Novelty- Intention (Sat*Nov) Behavioral Waterpark Satisfaction Behavioral Intention 0.833 MOD (Sat*Nov) -0.227 1.000 Novelty-Seeking 0.674 -0.235 0.833 Price Fairness 0.565 -0.189 0.450 0.823 Satisfaction 0.741 -0.248 0.614 0.649 0.872 Waterpark Image 0.691 -0.219 0.636 0.505 0.692 0.823

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 50

4.3.4.2 Cross loadings The examination of cross- loadings is another dominant approach for evaluating discriminant validity. Cross loadings concern the comparison of item’s outer loadings of the construct it supposes to reflect with other constructs in the model. The item’s loading on its own construct should be higher than its loading on other constructs and also higher than the standard acceptable value of 0.70 to be considered as valid (Hair, 2016). Table 9 Cross loadings Price MOD Image Seeking Fairness Novelty- Intention (Sat*Nov) Waterpark Behavioral Satisfaction BI1 0.819 -0.128 0.573 0.447 0.610 0.565 BI2 0.863 -0.215 0.617 0.516 0.689 0.641 BI3 0.867 -0.222 0.616 0.534 0.695 0.645 BI4 0.816 -0.162 0.497 0.453 0.534 0.494 BI5 0.794 -0.214 0.478 0.382 0.527 0.503 NOV1 0.568 -0.200 0.820 0.362 0.578 0.587 NOV2 0.540 -0.212 0.851 0.374 0.523 0.518 NOV3 0.565 -0.258 0.871 0.377 0.521 0.563 NOV4 0.538 -0.177 0.803 0.400 0.469 0.514 NOV5 0.591 -0.134 0.820 0.362 0.467 0.469 PF1 0.431 -0.211 0.299 0.841 0.526 0.401 PF2 0.602 -0.229 0.440 0.896 0.657 0.535 PF3 0.507 -0.160 0.429 0.871 0.599 0.491 PF4 0.279 -0.044 0.270 0.716 0.324 0.217 PF5 0.413 -0.068 0.373 0.779 0.468 0.333 SAT1 0.647 -0.159 0.518 0.628 0.879 0.642 SAT2 0.674 -0.176 0.531 0.552 0.884 0.648 SAT3 0.578 -0.210 0.577 0.565 0.822 0.545 SAT4 0.663 -0.275 0.529 0.507 0.873 0.601 SAT5 0.667 -0.269 0.530 0.577 0.903 0.576 MOD (Sat*Nov) -0.227 1.000 -0.235 -0.189 -0.248 -0.219 WPI1 0.573 -0.214 0.526 0.441 0.586 0.851 WPI2 0.625 -0.177 0.510 0.475 0.638 0.833 WPI3 0.548 -0.099 0.630 0.312 0.501 0.818 WPI4 0.596 -0.187 0.541 0.409 0.583 0.847 WPI5 0.488 -0.217 0.419 0.427 0.523 0.763

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 51

Loadings of each item are more than 0.70 (Table 9) meaning that each of them explains the construct it is meant to be explaining, so all items are discriminately valid according to the cross loadings examination.

4.4 Structural Model Assessment

After model measurement evaluation which includes reliability, validity, and loadings examination, the research tools were proven to be ready for further assessment. Inner model evaluation or hypothesis testing was then conducted to determine path coefficient, to test for level of significant along with coefficient determinant of the specific model.

4.4.1 Coefficient determinant In structural model evaluation, the coefficient of determinant (R2) value is commonly measured on the basis of how much the combined effect of all exogenous variables can explain endogenous variables. In the specific model of current conceptual framework proposed, there are three endogenous variables which are price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. R2 value should be more 0.25 to entitle that exogenous variables can explain the variance of endogenous variables (Chaweanghong, 2015). The calculated R2 values for the overall model are 0.255, 0.599, and 0.656 and adjusted R2 values are 0.253, 0.597, and 0.651 for price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions respectively. All R2 are above 0.25 which confirm the validity of the models.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 52

Figure 10 Model specific and Adjusted R2 *Please note that calculate R2 are stated in the middle of the oval (circle-like) that represents the endogenous constructs in SmartPLS3.2.7

Table 10 Coefficient determinant

Adjusted R Square R Square

Behavioral Intentions 0.656 0.651 Satisfaction 0.599 0.597 Price Fairness 0.255 0.253

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 53

4.4.1.1 Price Fairness Coefficient Determinant R2 and adjusted R2 for price fairness are 0. 255 and 0. 253 respectively. From the model specific in figure 10, this implies that waterpark image can explain the variance in price fairness by 25.5 percent. 4.4.1.2 Satisfaction R2 and adjusted R2 for satisfaction are 0. 599 and 0. 597 respectively. From the model specific in figure 10, this implies that waterpark image and price fairness can explain the variance in satisfaction by 59.9 percent 4.4.1.3 Behavioral Intentions R2 and adjusted R2 for behavioral intentions are 0.656 and 0.651 respectively. From the model specific in figure 10, this implies that waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, and moderating effect of novelty-seeking can explain the variance in satisfaction by 0.651 percent.

4.4.2 Hypothesis testing The path coefficients as well as measurement model evaluation were computed using PLS algorithm since 4.3. Anyhow, whether these path coefficients are statistically significant is still unknown. The test on significance level for PLS-SEM applies bootstrapping technique with two-tailed test. The level of significant in this research study is set at 0.05 which P<0.05 and t-statistic is equal or more than 1.96 to accept the hypothesis. Result of each hypothesis are described as follows;

Hypothesis 1: Waterpark Image has a positive effect on Price Fairness

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) Waterpark Image -> Price Fairness 0.505 0.507 0.046 11.024 0.000

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 54

Considering the bootstrapping result, the path coefficient of waterpark image to price fairness is 0.505, it is statistically significant at 11.024 t-statistic and p- value at 0. 000. Hypothesis 1 is supported meaning that waterpark image positively and significantly influences price fairness.

Hypothesis 2: Waterpark Image has a positive effect on Satisfaction

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) Waterpark Image -> Satisfaction 0.489 0.488 0.045 10.819 0.000

Considering the bootstrapping result, the path coefficient of waterpark image to satisfaction is 0.489, it is statistically significant at 10.819 t-statistic and p- value at 0. 000. Hypothesis 2 is supported meaning that waterpark image positively and significantly influences satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Waterpark Image has a positive effect on Behavioral Intentions

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) Waterpark Image -> Behavioral Intention 0.222 0.219 0.061 3.668 0.000

Considering the bootstrapping result, the path coefficient of waterpark image to Behavioral Intentions is 0.222, it is statistically significant at 3.668 t-statistic and p-value at 0.000. Hypothesis 3 is supported meaning that waterpark image positively and significantly influences Behavioral Intentions.

Hypothesis 4: Price Fairness has a positive effect on Satisfaction.

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) Price Fairness -> Satisfaction 0.402 0.402 0.042 9.459 0.000

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 55

Considering the bootstrapping result, the path coefficient of price fairness to satisfaction is 0.402, it is statistically significant at 9.459 t-statistic and p- value at 0.000. Hypothesis 4 is supported meaning that price fairness positively and significantly influences satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5: Price Fairness has a positive effect on Behavioral Intentions.

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) Price Fairness -> Behavioral Intention 0.099 0.098 0.049 2.029 0.043

Considering the bootstrapping result, the path coefficient of price fairness to satisfaction is 0.099, it is statistically significant at 2.029 t-statistic and p- value at 0.043. Hypothesis 5 is supported meaning that price fairness positively and significantly influences behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis 6: Satisfaction has a positive effect on Behavioral Intentions.

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) Satisfaction -> Behavioral Intention 0.358 0.358 0.059 6.057 0.000

Considering the bootstrapping result, the path coefficient of satisfaction to behavioral intentions is 0.358, it is statistically significant at 6.057 t- statistic and p-value at 0.000. Hypothesis 6 is supported meaning that satisfaction positively and significantly influences behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis 7: Novelty-seeking has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral Intentionห.

Path Sample Standard Relationship between independent T Statistics Coefficient Mean Deviation P Values and dependent variables (|O/STDEV|) (O) (M) (STDEV) MOD -> Behavioral Intention -0.006 -0.008 0.030 0.211 0.833 Novelty-Seeking -> Behavioral Intention 0.266 0.269 0.056 4.754 0.000

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 56

Considering the bootstrapping result, the moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral Intentions is not statistically supported. Even though, the path coefficient is -0.006 which is a negative effect as hypothesized, the t-statistic is 0.211 (>1.96) and p-value is 0.833 (>0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 is not supported meaning that Novelty-seeking does not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral Intentions. In addition to the finding, novelty-seeking was required to be test on the endogenous variable which is behavioral intentions, it became the by-product of the SEM-PLS moderating effect test. The result shows that novelty- seeking is statistically and positively influence behavioral intentions. The path coefficient of novelty-seeking to behavioral intentions is 0.266, it is statistically significant at 4.754 t-statistic and p-value at 0.000.

4.4.4 Interpretation of empirical finding Path coefficients and result of hypotheses testing are reported in Table 13 while path effects and directions are visualized in Figure 11. The levels of significant on each relationship proposed were tested with bootstrapping method, P- values implies that path coefficients of H1-H6 are statistically significant. The proposed relationships of waterpark image on price fairness ( H1: ꞵ= 0. 505; t= 11. 024) , on satisfaction (H2:ꞵ=0.488; t=10.819), and on behavioral intentions (H3:ꞵ=0.222; t=3.668) are statistically confirmed. Proposed relationships of price fairness on satisfaction (H4:ꞵ=0.402; t=9.459), and behavioral intentions (H5: ꞵ=0.099; t=2.029) are as well confirmed. The positive effect of satisfaction on behavioral intentions (H6: ꞵ=0.266; t=4.754) is also statistically significant. However, the proposed negative moderating effect of novelty- seeking on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions (H7:ꞵ=-0.006; t=0.211) is not statistically confirmed as P-Value exceeds 0.01 even the sign is negative as expected. Intepretations regarding each effect are discussed as follow.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 57

Table 11 Hypotheses test results

Hypothesis Relationship Sign Path Path T-Values P-Values Expected Coefficient Test Result Test H1 Waterpark Image -> Price Fairness + 0.505** 11.024 0.000 Supported H2 Waterpark Image -> Satisfaction + 0.488** 10.819 0.000 Supported H3 Waterpark Image -> Behavioral Intention + 0.222** 3.668 0.000 Supported H4 Price Fairness -> Satisfaction + 0.402** 9.459 0.000 Supported H5 Price Fairness -> Behavioral Intention + 0.099* 2.029 0.043 Supported H6 Satisfaction -> Behavioral Intention + 0.357** 6.057 0.000 Supported H7 MOD -> Behavioral Intention - -0.006ns 0.211 0.833 Not Supported Extra Novelty-Seeking -> Behavioral Intention + 0.266** 4.754 0.000 Supported Note: **p<0.001, *p<0.01, ns= not statistically significant

Figure 11 P-value test result of path coefficients in specific model

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 58

Regarding waterpark image, H1-H3 are supported (Table 11) meaning that waterpark image is a significant variable in positively determing behavioral intentions both directly and indirectly via price fairness and satisfaction. It is a very important factor in chief of others. The better the image of a waterpark, the more patrons tend to perceive that price is fair, they tend to be more satisfied, and engage in postive behavioral intentions. Regarding price fairness, H4-H5 are supported (Table 11) meaning that price fairness is another significant variable in positively determining behavioral intentions both directly and indirectly via satisfaction. Price fairness also performs as a mediator for waterpark image to satisfaction, inferring that as patrons perceive price as fair, they are more satisfied and a positive waterpark image is one of the factor that positively enhance fairness in price. Price fairness also directly influences in a positive way meaning that if the price is fair, patrons have a better chance in revisiting, recommend, say good things, and search or go to similar destinations. However, the level of significant of price fairness to behavioral intentions is at p<0.05 which is the lowest level comparing to other relationships that are significant at p<0.01. Satisfaction has long been proven to be the antecedent of behavioral intentions, and the empirical finding of waterpark context in this research study has affirmed the outcome. It also acts as a partial mediator for waterpark image and price fairness to behavioral intentions. Its role in mediating other factors that may or may not directly influence behavioral intentions has been in interest and this research study has confirmed it for waterpark image and waterpark price fairness. Regarding the role of novelty-seeking in moderating the relationship of satisfaction and behavioral intentions, although the expected negative sign of the coefficient is as anticipated, its moderating effect is not statistically significant. The moderating concept of novelty- seeking is quite new and interesting in tourism literatures. There are empirical findings that supported the hypothesis, however, the effect may not yet apply in the waterpark context of Thailand. In early time, Siam Park City was the only one large scale waterpark in Thailand, it started operation since 1980 making a record of 38 years of age up until now. The prosper of waterpark industry in

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 59

Thailand just arose in the 2010s. Since these waterparks are very new, attractions and rides are also new to Thai patrons. Unlike countries with mature waterpark industry, the number of waterparks in Thailand is still risen sharply. Most Thai may still perceived waterpark experience as novel adventure activities so the effect is not yet taken. Novelty does not play moderating role as empirically proven in the study of Kim & Kim, 2015. The research study showed significant moderating effect of novelty-seeking on the relationship of satisfaction and behavioral intentions. The sample profiles differences of ethnicity could be one of the reason. Most respondents in waterpark study were Thai, while most samples in the tourist destination context were identified to be White or African-American. Moreover, general destination may not apply to waterpark context especially when waterpark product is still very young in the country comparing to major tourist’ s destination like landmarks, shopping malls, or sea provinces. There is no precedent case so the empirical finding in this study helps clarify the theoretical curiosity on the issue. The consequence of PLS technique involuntarily reveals the direct of novelty- seeking on behavioral intentions. The result shows positive significant relationship between the two variables. This implies that as patrons gain more new experiences from the waterpark, they tend to engage in positive behavioral intentions. Conceptually, behavioral intentions can be separated into attitudinal and behavioral intentions which novelty-seeking could moderately result in different effects since a patron may not be willing to revisit but only to recommend. In this research study, behavioral intentions is defined to cover both aspects. Therefore, the insignificant role of novelty-seeking as a moderator could result from contradiction between attitudinal and behavioral intentions in the construct. One of the other possibilities may include the waterpark patrons’ characteristic that could be different to general destination visitors. From sampling, most waterpark patrons are 18-39 years old while visitors of general tourists’ destination could be in a much wider range, the difference in characteristics could power up moderating role of novelty- seeking differently. In addition, some research studies separated samples into clusters of different level in novelty- seeking characteristics, the moderating role of novelty-

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 60 seeking can be examined in other aspects rather than just a reflective construct. Future study on these issues are recommended in chapter 5.

Figure 12 Model test results

4.4.5 Structural interpretation The use of SEM- PLS is a comprehensive analysis of the specific model, it allows the complete examination and also provides direct, indirect, and total effects of the exogenous variables. Considering total effect in the Table 12, waterpark image has the most total effect on satisfaction. Interestingly, waterpark image also has the most total effect on behavioral intentions, about half of its effect is direct and another half is through satisfaction. On the other hand, price fairness has its direct effect on behavioral intentions lower than its indirect effect through satisfaction. Managerial and application interpretations will be further disucssed in chapter 5.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 61

Table 12 Total effects Direct Indirect Total Relationship Effect Effect Effect Waterpark Image -> Price Fairness 0.505** 0.505** Waterpark Image -> Satisfaction 0.489** 0.203** 0.692** Waterpark Image -> Behavioral Intention 0.222** 0.297** 0.520** Price Fairness -> Satisfaction 0.402** 0.402** Price Fairness -> Behavioral Intention 0.099* 0.144** 0.243** Satisfaction -> Behavioral Intention 0.358** 0.358** MOD -> Behavioral Intention -0.006ns -0.006ns Novelty-Seeking -> Behavioral Intention 0.266** 0.266**

Tourism destination marketing research studies has emphasized the effects of satisfaction on favorable future behavioral intentions such as revisit and recommendation (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chi & Qu, 2008; Assaker & Hallak, 2013). The empirical findings of this research study found it accordingly. Moreover, as satisfaction was hypothesized as a mediator of waterpark image and price fairness, indirect effects were taken into consideration. The result of total effects shown in Table 12 reveals the importance of waterpark image as antecedent of price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions both direct and indirectly (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016; Ryu, Han & Kim, 2008; Wu, Li & Li, 2014; Assaker & Hallak, 2013). Waterpark image has the biggest total effect on satisfaction (ꞵ=0.692) and behavioral intentions (ꞵ=0.520) respectively. Price fairness is less in total effect both on satisfaction ( ꞵ=0.402) and behavioral intentions ( ꞵ=0.234). Therefore, managers must focus mainly on waterpark image to enhance satisfaction and favorable behavioral intentions. In order to do so, the overall image consisting of good reputation, good service, availability of exotic feature and facilities must be kept at high standard. On top of good service, accessibility is also a key and should be well-thought-out.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 62

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter comprehensively concludes the research study. The empirical finding as well as their benefits on theoretical and managerial implications are also discussed. To end, limitations of this research study are exposed then future research are further suggested.

5.1 Conclusions

According to a rapid rising number of water parks in Thailand (Appendix IV) with the growth rate of 25 percent in value from 2015 to 2016 (Popermhem, 2017), it not only represents fairly compatible demands and substantial quality of the parks, it also indicates that the competition is more intense as discussed in Chapter 1. Although waterpark is mostly invested as one of the functions in mixed uses of real estate development, huge capital investment required are more or less significant and irreversible (Lo & Leung, 2017) resulting in a need for the business to nourish itself. Fast pace of such immature market brings along both positive and negative risks to managers and investors. The understanding of patrons’ behavior is extremely important to set the strategies for management. It also is a necessary element in investors’ feasibility study which will alleviate the undesirable risk. To date, empirical studies related to theme park or waterpark image and behavioral intentions are unfortunately scant (Line & Merkebu; Lo & Leung, 2017; Jin, 2016; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015). This research study aims to add on the knowledge of antecedents of behavioral intentions. The relationships among waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions were studied to ensure existing scant empirical proofs especially in the waterpark context as well as to extend the test of moderating role of novelty-seeking in the relationship of satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 63

This research study applied a variance based partial least square structural equation modeling or PLS-SEM, it is a method using Ordinary least square to estimate model parameters by maximizing explained variance in endogenous constructs. The technique allows a comprehensive analysis of the specific model. Measurement model evaluation was examined to verify the reliability and the validity of research tool before proceeding to structural model assessment. The empirical findings support all hypotheses except for the role of moderator; novelty-seeking. The hypothesized relationships among waterpark image, price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions are confirmed. Waterpark image plays the most vital role in determining behavioral intentions, about half of its effect is transmitted through satisfaction. Price fairness in turn plays less effect in determining behavioral intentions, its direct effect on behavioral intentions is even less than its effect transmitted through satisfaction then to behavioral intentions. Satisfaction is again empirically reaffirmed to be an important antecedent of behavioral intentions. It also acts as a partial mediator of waterpark image and price fairness to behavioral intentions meaning that it is a transmitter on the way to behavioral intentions. Regarding the role of novelty-seeking in moderating the relationship of satisfaction and behavioral intentions, although the expected negative sign of the coefficient is as anticipated, its moderating effect is not statistically significant. The moderating concept of novelty- seeking is quite new and interesting in tourism literatures. There are empirical findings that supported the hypothesis, however, the effect may not apply in the waterpark context. In early time, Siam Park City was the only one large scale waterpark in Thailand, it started operation since 1980 making a record of 38 years of age up until now. The prosper of waterpark industry in Thailand just arose in the 2010s. Since these waterparks are very new, attractions and rides are also new to Thai patrons. Unlike countries with mature waterpark industry, the number of waterparks in Thailand is still risen sharply. Possibly, most Thai may still perceived waterpark experience as novel adventure activities so the effect is not yet taken. Novelty does not play moderating role as empirically proven in the study of Kim & Kim, 2015. The research study showed significant moderating effect of novelty-seeking

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 64 on the relationship of satisfaction and behavioral intentions. The sample profiles differences of ethnicity could be one of the reason. Most respondents in waterpark study were Thai, while most samples in the tourist destination context were identified to be White or African-American. Moreover, general destination may not apply to waterpark context especially when waterpark product is still very young in the country comparing to major tourist’ s destination like landmarks, shopping malls, or sea provinces. There is no precedent case so the empirical finding in this study helps clarify the theoretical curiosity on the issue. The consequence of PLS technique involuntarily reveals the direct of novelty- seeking on behavioral intentions. The result shows positive significant relationship between the two variables. This implies that as patrons gain more new experiences from the waterpark, they tend to engage in positive behavioral intentions. In brief, this research study has empirically contributed on the role of waterpark image and the extension of price fairness in waterpark context, to further understand the antecedents of behavioral intentions. It also applies the previous findings in tourism by empirically examining moderating effect of Novelty- seeking tendency and price fairness on satisfaction and behavioral intentions to clarify the curiosity and to add on further knowledge in this field.

5.2 Benefits

Waterpark segment in Thailand is a new open opportunity but recently is facing rising competition and the challenges are getter greater. It is essential to gain a better understanding what driven the desirable behavioral intentions. The empirical findings of this research study provide both theoretical and practical benefits as to be elaborated.

5.2.1 Theoretical contribution The research study attempts to identify the role of waterpark image for influencing patrons’ perception of price fairness, satisfaction, and behavioral

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 65 intentions and to extend the role of price fairness in determining behavioral intentions in waterpark context. In addition, it outspreads and reassures the coverage of expectation confirmation theory in waterpark field. The disconfirmation process is applicable to satisfaction of waterpark product. On the other hand, price fairness is usually neglected as most researchers choose to examine perceived value, however researcher believes that the concept of price fairness is more suitable and important in Thai waterpark context. The findings confirm the fame of equity theory for the waterpark segment. The only available waterpark literature that empirically tests the effect of price fairness on behavioral intentions before this one found insignificant direct influence of price fairness in the context of Korean theme park, however the researcher regarded the result as less conclusive and further research should be done (Jin, Line & Merkebu, 2016). In this regard, this research study found the opposite. In Thailand, price fairness does have significant positive influence on behavioral intentions both directly and indirectly. The reason could be the difference in culture and characteristics of nations. Therefore, price fairness of waterpark should not be overlooked in the framework study of behavioral intentions. Moreover, the extension of the role of novelty-seeking in moderating the relationship of satisfaction and behavioral intentions to waterpark context is new. There was no precedent finding so this study adds on the knowledge and extend the framework to new area. Its moderating role is clarified in Thai waterpark context but this does not confirm the same in different culture. Hopefully, the study draws some attention to the context especially the role of novelty-seeking. The concept of variety- seeking can be seen in many prospects, other aspects of its effect should be further explored. As such, this research can be seen as a step toward the development to advance the knowledge in tourism and real estate literature in several important ways.

5.2.2 Practical Implications The structural relationship analysis indicates that waterpark image appears to have the most important total effect on behavioral intentions. Waterpark image thus is not only a strong predictor of pre-entry decision making process of

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 66 patrons but it also sets an after decision making behavior of patrons. Hence, improvement or positive sustainability of image is very critical for the success of waterpark development. Price fairness was also found to have a significant effect on behavioral intentions but not as strong as waterpark image. It effects is partially mediated by satisfaction. Anyhow, managers must understand the concept of price fairness. It is the comparison of monetary sacrifice to what is received in equity. If the patrons perceive current prices as fair, further reduction in price may not be a good choice since lower in price would generally induce lower revenue and consequently the profit. However, it is important to make sure that patrons perceive the price as fair since it is a significant antecedent of satisfaction and positive behavioral intentions. The fairness in price would include price comparison with competitors as well as with what other patrons paid to receive the same services at the same waterpark. For novelty-seeking, even the empirical findings reveal that its moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions is not statistically significant, the consequence of PLS technique involuntarily reveals the significant direct of novelty-seeking on behavioral intentions. Thus, novelty or the new experience is the key to positive behavioral intentions that managers should pay attention.

5.3 Recommendations

As stated, the marketplace for waterpark become more saturated and the competition recently increases, understanding behavioral intentions and knowing how to manage them are likely to become a focal point in strategic marketing. In reality, ensuring that customers are satisfied is only winning half of the battle (Aliman, Hashim, Wahid & Harudin, 2017). To stay competitive, waterparks must engage in ongoing process of image development and maintenance and to ensure perception of fairness in price Price is one of the most important elements in marketing mix, a critical activity for service manager is to set and mange price as well as to ensure that the price difference does not evoke the perception of price unfairness. Managers must stay

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 67 up to the new promotions of competitors and to provide the channel of feedback from patrons, especially in Thai market that operators focus very much on price promotion ("waterparks | Promotion Deal Discount", 2017). Up to date technology is also required for effective launch of strategic move, online promotion and social media click-like must be tracked. From the data collected, food and drink prices are the most unfair in patrons’ perception. A solution to this issue would enhance the fairness score and consequently satisfaction and positive behavioral intentions in Thailand context. Image of waterpark includes variety of variables, to enhance the image quality would result in higher satisfaction and positive behavioral intentions. In Thailand context the most mentioned complain are about standard and safety, they are considered as basic but a serious concern. A whisper of bad reputation would result in negative image and result in dissatisfaction and negative behavioral intentions. It is very important for mangers to maintain positive image. In novelty aspect, plan on new activities and events or even new zone should be considered to draw repeat patrons. With low switching cost, patrons may easily choose to visit other parks that offer them new experiences. Surprises may not have to always include big investment of new attractions or new zone but managers may consider temporary events or special services that possible impress patrons. However, in long run, developers might want to consider phrasing plan on expansion in feasibility study since the first day of the project.

5.4 Limitations and further researches

While this research study extended the existing framework and contributes to the continued understanding of behavioral intentions in waterpark industry, several limitations provide potentially interesting avenues for further advancement. The first limitation lies in the sampling frame, the collected data is limited to Thai waterpark which is considered in initial stage of development, the number of waterpark in Thailand rapidly raised in these few years. As such, the findings should not be prematurely generalized to the other contexts with different stage of development.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 68

To generalize the findings, further studies in different culture must be performed. If there are enough findings in different culture, further research could also be further developed by creating a culturally based moderator in the framework to explain differences in findings. It is also important to note that data were collected from patrons during January to March which is considered to be winter time. Although, weather difference is not very much an issue in Thailand since it is warm most of the time. In cold countries, summer is the most prefer period for visiting a waterpark. Seasonal effect in this case stays ambiguous, to find out if there is limitation in season is interesting. The best way to exclude seasonal effect is to spread the timespan in collecting the data throughout the year or repeat the research in different seasons. Patrons who visit in different seasons may form different opinions of the waterpark. But due to limited time and budget, this research cannot eliminate the boundary leaving a room for future research to advance. To enhance the efficiency of the study, samples can be divided into percentage of targeted market set in the strategy of waterpark management plan. Most respondents in this research study are Thai but Thais are not the only targeted group for Thai waterpark. Many waterparks are landmark for the area or province and they do target foreign visitors. These findings could be bias toward Thai respondents. Better reflecting combination of respondents can be achieved with the cooperation of operating waterparks in sharing their percentages of patrons in each group. Additionally, different aspect of research can be conducted especially the longitudinal study that explains the differences effects in short-term, medium-term, and long-term or in pre-visit, in-visit, and post-visit (Assaker & Hallak, 2013). This aspect should be further investigated on the basis of novelty- seeking moderating role. Different time span may affect its role differently, as new and repeat groups of patrons behave differently (Jin, Lee & Lee, 2013). Moreover, the elaborated construct as such behavioral intentions can be further divided into attitudinal and behavioral dimensions since different strategies aim for different behaviors. Researches should correspond with specific objectives. In term of demographic, further researches on segmentation

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 69 and other possible moderators such as personality traits or companions would also be fruitful.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 70

REFERENCES

Articles

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, 52(5), 600-613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478497 Anderson, E., & Sullivan, M. (1993). The Antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125-143. Aliman, N., Hashim, S., Wahid, S., & Harudin, S. (2017). The Effects of Destination Image on Trip Behavior: Evidences from Langkawi Island, Malaysia. European Journal Of Business And Social Sciences, 3(3), 279-291. Retrieved from http://www.ejbss.com/recent.aspx Aziz, N., Ariffin, A., Omar, N., & Evin, C. (2012). Examining the Impact of Visitors’ Emotions and Perceived Quality towards Satisfaction and Revisit Intention to Theme Parks. Jurnal Pengurusan, 35(2012), 97-109. Babakus, E., Mangold, G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical Investigation. Health Service Research, 26, 767-780. Baloglu S, Brinberg D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal of travel research, 35(4): 11–15. Basaran, U. (2016). Examining the Relationships of Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Destination Image: A Research on Safranbolu, Turkey. International Business Research, 9(5), 164. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n5p164 Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quarterly, 25 (3), 351-370. Bigné, J., Sánchez, I., & Andreu, L. (2009). The role of variety seeking in short and long run revisit intentions in holiday destinations. International Journal Of Culture, Tourism And Hospitality Research, 3(2), 103-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962113

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 71

Bloemer J, De Ruyter K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32(5/6): 499– 513. Chang, J., Wall, G., & Chu, S. (2006). Novelty seeking at aboriginal attractions. Annals Of Tourism Research, 33(3), 729-747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.03.013 Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29(4), 624-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007 Chen, C., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115-1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007 Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. Advances In Consumer Research, 12(1), 85-90. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Journal Of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Fotiadis, A., & Kozak, M. (2017). Managing the perception of service quality; the importance of understanding differences between demographic and behavioural customer segments amongst theme park visitors. Facilities, 35(9/10), 486-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/f-01-2016-0016 George, B., & George, B. (2004). Past Visits and the Intention to Revisit a Destination: Place attachment as the mediator and novelty seeking as the moderator. The Journal Of Tourism Studies, 15(2), 51-66. Graft, J. (1986). The future of amusement parks and attraction industry. Tourism Management, 7(1), 60-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(86)90059-2

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 72

Hadi, N., Abdullah, N., & Sentosa, I. (2018). Making Sense of Mediating Analysis: A Marketing Perspective. Review Of Integrative Business & Economics Research, 5(2), 62-76. Jin, N., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2015). 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, 17(1), 82- 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1968 Jin, N., Line, N., & Merkebu, J. (2016). The effects of image and price fairness. International Journal Of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(9), 1895-1914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2015-0094 Kemperman, A. (2000). Temporal aspects of theme park choice behavior: modeling variety seeking, seasonality and diversification to support theme park planning. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2015). Moderating Effects of Tourists' Novelty-Seeking Tendencies on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention. Tourism Analysis, 20(5), 511-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354215x14411980111415 Lai, F., Griffin, M., & Babin, B. (2009). How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal Of Business Research, 62(10), 980-986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.10.015 Lai, Y., Chu, J., & Petrick, J. (2016). Examining the relationships between perceived value, service quality, satisfaction, and willingness to revisit a theme park. Tourism Travel And Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally, 2011 ttra International Conference, 2-4. Lee, S., Jin, N., & Lee, H. (2014). The Moderating Role of Water Park Service Quality, Environment, Image, and Food Quality on Perceived Value and Customer Loyalty: A South Korean Case Study. Journal Of Quality Assurance In Hospitality & Tourism, 15(1), 19-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528008x.2014.855102

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 73

Lee, T. (2009). A Structural Model to Examine How Destination Image, Attitude, and Motivation Affect the Future Behavior of Tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31(3), 215-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400902837787 Lin, C., Tsai, Y., & Chiu, C. (2009). Modeling Customer Loyalty from an Integrative Perspective of Self-Determination Theory and Expectation–Confirmation Theory. Journal Of business And Psychology, 24(3), 315-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9110-8 Ma, J., Gao, J., Scott, N., & Ding, P. (2013). Customer delight from theme park experiences. Annals Of Tourism Research, 42, 359-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.02.018 Martín-Consuegra, D., Molina, A., & Esteban, Á. (2007). An integrated model of price, satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis in the service sector. Journal Of Product & Brand Management, 16(7), 459-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420710834913 Memon, A., & Rahman, I. (2014). SEM-PLS Analysis of Inhibiting Factors of Cost Performance for Large Construction Projects in Malaysia: Perspective of Clients and Consultants. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/165158 Moon, K., Ko, Y., Connaughton, D., & Lee, J. (2013). A mediating role of destination image in the relationship between event quality, perceived value, and behavioral intention. Journal Of Sport & Tourism, 18(1), 49-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2013.799960 Oliver, R. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469. Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 199- 204.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 74

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03206553 Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879 Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal Of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 459-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.001 Som, A., & Badarneh, M. (2011). Tourist Satisfaction and Repeat Visitation; Toward a New Comprehensive Model. International Journal Of Economics And Management Engineering, 5(2). Toyama, M., & Yamada, Y. (2012). The Relationships among Tourist Novelty, Familiarity, Satisfaction, and Destination Loyalty: Beyond the Novelty- familiarity Continuum. International Journal Of Marketing Studies, 4(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v4n6p10 Tsang, N., Lee, L., Wong, A., & Chong, R. (2012). THEMEQUAL—Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Theme Park Services: A Case of Hong Kong Disneyland. Journal Of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(5), 416-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.691391 Tse, D. and Wilton, P. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 204-212. Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016). Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 70- 80.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 75

Wu, H., Li, M., & Li, T. (2014). A Study of Experiential Quality, Experiential Value, Experiential Satisfaction, Theme Park Image, and Revisit Intention. Journal Of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(1), 26-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348014563396 Xia, L., Monroe, K., & Cox, J. (2004). The Price Is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price Fairness Perceptions. Journal Of Marketing, 68(4), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.42733 Young Chung, J., & Petrick, J. (2016). A Conceptual Framework of Perceived Price Fairness: An Attributional Approach. Tourism Travel And Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally., (2). Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal Of Marketing, 52(3), 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446 Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006 Zhang, Y., Li, X., Su, Q., & Hu, X. (2017). Exploring a theme park's tourism carrying capacity: A demand-side analysis. Tourism Management, 59, 564-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.019

Electronic Media

Brand Buffet. (2018). Brand Buffet. Retrieved 19 February 2018, from https://www.brandbuffet.in.th/2016/03/scenical-world-new-destination-kao- yai/ Discriminant Validity Assessment | SmartPLS. (2018). Smartpls.com. Retrieved 14 March 2018, from https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/algorithms- and-techniques/discriminant-validity-assessment

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 76

Lo, J., & Leung, P. (2017). The Preferred Theme Park. Article.sapub.org. Retrieved 2 December 2017, from http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.economics.20150505.05.html Popermhem, P. (2017). The growth of Water Parks in Thailand. [online] Marketeer. Available at: http://marketeer.co.th/archives/42085 [Accessed 27 Nov. 2017]. Santorini Park Waterventures. (2018). Santoriniparkwaterventures.com. Retrieved 19 February 2018, from http://www.santoriniparkwaterventures.com/ Sangree, D. (2014). Indoor and Outdoor Waterparks Show Growth in 2014. Retrieved from http://ishc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-Waterpark-Resorts-Supply- and-Demand.pdf Schmalbruch, S. (2017). The 20 most popular travel destinations in the world. Business Insider. Retrieved 2 December 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-popular-travel-destinations-in- the-world-2016-9/#1-bangkok-thailand-20 Thai water parks make a splash in the rankings - The Nation. (2017). The Nation. Retrieved 2 December 2017, from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/Travel_log/30320443 Waterpark |Promotion Deal Discount. (2017). Promotions.co.th. Retrieved 30 December 2017, from https://promotions.co.th/

Books and Book Articles

Hair, J. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS- SEM). Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage. Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Gudergan, S. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Los Angeles [etc.]: SAGE. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 77

Dissertations Other Materials

Chaweanghong, K. (2015). USERS' POST-ADOPTION BEHAVIORS OF CLOUD STORAGE SERVICES (Master of Science Program). Thammasat University. Sansuwan, P. (2015). THE HABIT FORMATION TO SUPPORT USING THE LINE APPLICATION CONTINUOUSLY (Master of Science Program). Thammasat University. Hung-Kai, H. (2018). THE STUDY ON SATISFACTION OF THEME PARK-ATTACHED HOTEL (Postgraduate). The University of Greenwich

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 78

APPENDICES

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 79

APPENDIX I THAI Waterpark: Patrons’ Experience and Satisfaction Questionnaire

Date: ______Cover letter: This questionnaire is a part of a Master Degree Thesis in Real Estate Program at Thammasat University. The purpose of this research is to analyze relationship among the impulsive factors effecting Behavioral Intention of the waterpark patrons. We do heartfully appreciate your participation in completing this questionnaire.

Please fill in the blanks or place an X or check mark next to the word or phrase that best matches your response.

[Section 1: Filtering questions]

Have you ever visited any of the following waterpark in Thailand in the past 24 months? (If there are more than one, choose the latest one that you have visited. If you have never been to any of the park listed below, please discard this questionnaire.)

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 80

[Section 2: Visiting Experience]

Is this your first-time visiting a waterpark in Thailand? Yes, this is my first time No, I have been to waterpark(s) in Thailand

Is this your first time visiting this water park or you have been here before? Yes, this is my first time No, I have been here before

Who did you visit (or visiting) the waterpark with? Alone Friend(s) Family Lover(s) other; please specify______

How long did you spend (or planning to spend) in this water park? Less than 4 Hours 4-7 Hours 7 Hours or more

During your visit, which kind of rides do you prefer; the thrilling or the non-thrilling rides? Thrilling rides Non-thrilling rides Both

Do you feel that there are diverse varieties of rides in this waterpark? Yes No Probably

Did you use any of the following services provided by the water park? (Please select all services you experienced) Food services Locker Rental Towel Rental Photo services Temporary-accommodations (e.g. private hut) Swimming equipment other; please specify______

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 81

On your journey to the waterpark, did you find any difficulties on accessibility? No Yes, because______

[Section 3: Experience Evaluation] Please rate how much you agree with these statements by ticking in the boxes that you most agree. WPI: Water Park Image agree Agree Neutral Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) WPI1: The water park has good reputation. WPI2: The water park provides good service. WPI3: The water park has exotic features. WPI4: The waterpark has various facilities. WPI5: The water park has good accessibility. WPI6: Waiting time for a ride was reasonable.

PF: Price Fairness agree Agree Neutral Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) PF1: The ticket(s) fee for attractions at this waterpark is/are reasonable. PF2: The prices charged by this waterpark are appropriate for the level of service. PF3: The overall quality of this waterpark was worth the money. PF4: The food prices at this waterpark was worth the money. PF5: Other fees (e.g. locker, towel, etc.) were fairly priced at this water park.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 82

SAT: Satisfaction agree Agree Neutral Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SAT1: All things considered, I am pleased to play at this waterpark. SAT2: Considering all my experience with this waterpark, my choice to come was a wise one. SAT3: When compared with my expectation of this waterpark, the received experience met my expectation or positively went beyond. SAT4: The overall feeling I got from this waterpark put me in a good mood. SAT5: Overall, I am delighted with this waterpark.

NOV: Novelty-Seeking agree Agree Neutral Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) NOV1: This waterpark offers an unusual (extraordinary) attractions experience. NOV2: The environment in this waterpark offers me new experience. NOV3: This waterpark offers new discoveries to me (e.g. new event, theme, zone, characters, etc.). NOV4: This waterpark is original to me. NOV5: This waterpark provides me initiative.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 83

BI: Behavioral Intentions agree Agree Neutral Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BI1: I would like to revisit this waterpark in the future. BI2: I would recommend this waterpark to my friends or other acquaintances. BI3: I want to tell other people positive things about this water park. BI4: I would like to search for alternative waterpark with similar characteristics BI5: I would like to visit other waterparks with similar characteristics

[Part 4: Demographic]

What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age (years)? Under18 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-60 over 60

What is your marital status? Married Single Separated Divorced Living with Partner Other; please specify______

How would you describe your race or ethnicity? (Eg. Thai, American, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) Thai Chinese European American Others, please specify ______

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 84

What is your highest level of education? High School Diploma Vocational/Technical degree or certificate Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctorate Degree Other; please specify______

How would you describe your current employment status? Unemployment Employed – Full Time Freelance or Self-employed Student Retired Other; please specify______

What is your household average income per year? Under 5,000 USD (Under 150,000THB) 5,000-10,000 USD (150,001-300,000THB) 10,001-15,000 USD (300,001-450,000THB) 15,001-20,000 USD (450,001-600,000 THB) 20,001-25,000 USD (600,001-750,000THB) 25,001-30,000 USD (750,001-900,000 THB) 30,001-35,000 USD (900,001-1,050,000THB) 35,001-40,000 USD (1,050,001-1,200,000THB) Over 40,000 USD (Over 1,200,000THB)

**END OF THE QUESTIONAIRE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONAIRE**

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 85

APPENDIX II แบบสอบถาม : ความพึงพอใจและประสบการณ์ต่อสวนน้ําในประเทศไทย

วันที่: ______

คําชี้แจง: แบบสอบถามนี้เป็นส่วนหนึ่งของวิทยานิพนธ์ของนักศึกษาปริญญาโท คณะพาณิชยศาสตร์ และการบัญชี สาขาธุรกิจอสังหาริมทรัพย์ (Real Estate) มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ วัตถุประสงค์ของ การวิจัยเพื่อศึกษาความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างปัจจัยต่าง ๆ ที่ส่งผลต่อแนวโน้มพฤติกรรม (Behavioral Intention) ของลูกค้าสวนน้ําในประเทศไทย ขอขอบคุณเป็นอย่างสูงที่ให้ความร่วมมือและสนับสนุน การศึกษาในครั้งนี้

กรุณาเติมคําตอบในช่องว่าง หรือ ทําเครื่องหมายกากบาท [X] ในช่องที่ตรงกับความคิดเห็นของ ท่านมากที่สุด

[ส่วนที่1: คําถามคัดกรอง]

ท่านเคยไปสวนน้ําเหล่านี้ภายใน 24 เดือนที่ผ่านมาหรือไม่? (โปรดทําเครื่องหมายกากบาทในสวน น้ําที่ทานเคยไป่ หากท่านเคยไปมากกว่า 1 แห่ง กรุณาเลือกแห่งที่ท่านพึ่งไปล่าสุด หากท่านไม่ เคยไปกรณาจบแบบสอบถามุ )

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 86

[ส่วนที่2: ประสบการณ์ที่ไดร้ ับ]

นี่คือครั้งแรกทที่ ่านมาเที่ยวสวนน้ําในประเทศไทย?  ใช่,เป็นครงแรกั้  ไมใช่ ่,เคยไปสวนน้ําในประเทศไทยที่อื่นมาก่อน

นี่เปนคร็ ั้งแรกที่ท่านมาเที่ยวสวนน้ําแห่งน?ี้  ใช่,มาที่นี่เป็นครั้งแรก  ไมใช่ ่,เคยมาสวนน้ําแห่งนี้แล้ว

ท่านมาเที่ยวสวนน้ํากับใคร?  ไปคนเดียว  เพื่อน  ครอบครวั  คนรัก  อื่นๆ; โปรดระบุ______

ท่านใช้เวลาทากํ ิจกรรมในสวนน้ํานานเท่าไร?  น้อยกว่า 4 ชั่วโมง  4-7 ชั่วโมง  มากกว่า 7 ชั่วโมง

ท่านชนชอบเครื่ ื่องเลนประเภทใดในสวนน่ ้ํา?  เคร่องเลื ่นประเภทหวาดเสียว เครื่องเล่นประเภทไม่หวาดเสียว ทั้งสองอย่าง

ท่านรสู้ ึกว่าสวนน้ําที่แห่งนี้มความหลากหลายของเครี ื่องเลน่ ?  ใช ่ ไม่ใช ่ ไมแน่ ่ใจ

ท่านได้ใช้บริการใดบางเม้ ื่อท่านไปสวนนาหร้ํ ือไม่? อาหาร/เครื่องดื่ม ตู้เช่าฝากสัมภาระ(Locker) เช่าผ้าเช็ดตัว บริการถ่ายภาพ ที่พักส่วนตัวชั่วคราว อปกรณุ ์ว่ายน้ํา  อื่นๆ; โปรดระบุ______

ท่านพบกับอุปสรรคในการเดนทางไปยิ ังสวนน้ําดงกลั ่าว ใช่หรือไม่? ไม ่  ใช่; โปรดระบุ______

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 87

[Part 3: การประเมนผลประสบการณิ ์ที่ได้รับ] กรุณาเลือกระดับคะแนนที่ตรงกับความคิดเห็นของท่านมากที่สุด

WPI: ภาพลักษณ์สวนนา้ํ ิ ่ ง ิ ่ ง ้ วย ้ วย

้ วย ้ วย ็ นด ็ นด ่ างย ่ างย ็ นด ็ นด เฉยๆ ่ เห ่ เห อย อย เห เห ไม ไม (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) WPI1: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีชื่อเสียงที่ดี WPI2: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีการใหบร้ ิการที่ดี WPI3: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีคุณลักษณะที่แปลกใหม่ WPI4: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีสิ่งอํานวยความสะดวกและ เครื่องเล่นที่หลากหลาย WPI5: สวนน้ําสามารถเข้าถึงได้ง่าย WPI6: ระยะเวลารอเครื่องเล่นมีความสมเหตุสมผล

PF: ราคายุตธรรมิ ิ ่ ง ิ ่ ง ้ วย ้ วย

้ วย ้ วย ็ นด ็ นด ่ างย ่ างย ็ นด ็ นด เฉยๆ ่ เห ่ เห อย อย เห เห ไม ไม (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) PF1: บัตรสําหรับเครื่องเล่นมีราคาสมเหตุสมผล PF2: ระดับการบริการที่ได้รับมีความเหมาะสมกับ ราคาที่จ่ายไป PF3: คณภาพโดยรวมของสวนนุ ้ํานี้คุ้มค่ากับเงินที่จ่าย PF4: ราคาค่าอาหาร/เครื่องดื่มมีความคุ้มคา่ PF5: ราคาค่าธรรมเนียมอื่นๆ (เช่น ค่าล็อคเกอร์, ค่า เช่าผ้าเช็ดตัว ฯลฯ) มีความเป็นธรรม

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 88

SAT: ความพึงพอใจ ิ ่ ง ิ ่ ง ้ วย ้ วย

้ วย ้ วย ็ นด ็ นด ่ างย ่ างย ็ นด ็ นด เฉยๆ ่ เห ่ เห อย อย เห เห ไม ไม (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SAT1: เมื่อพิจารณาถึงทุก ๆ ปัจจัยแล้ว ข้าพเจ้ามี ความพอใจที่ได้มาเล่นในสวนน้ําแห่งนี้ SAT2: จากประสบการณ์ได้รับ ข้าพเจ้าตัดสินใจไม่ผิด ที่มาเล่นสวนน้ําแห่งนี้ SAT3: เมื่อเทียบกับความคาดหวัง ประสบการณ์ที่ ข้าพเจ้าได้รับเทียบเท่าหรือ ดีกว่าที่คาดหวังไว้ SAT4: ความรู้สึกที่ได้จากสวนน้ําแห่งนี้ทําให้ข้าพเจ้า อารมณ์ดี SAT5: โดยรวมแล้ว ข้าพเจ้าพึงพอใจสวนน้ําแห่งนี้

NOV: ประสบการณ์ใหม ่ ิ ่ ง ิ ่ ง ้ วย ้ วย

้ วย ้ วย ็ นด ็ นด ่ างย ่ างย ็ นด ็ นด เฉยๆ ่ เห ่ เห อย อย เห เห ไม ไม (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) NOV1: สวนนาแห้ํ ่งนี้ให้ประสบการณ์เครื่องเล่นที่ แปลกใหม่กับขาพเจ้ ้า NOV2: สิ่งแวดล้อมในสวนน้ําแห่งนี้ให้ประสบการณ์ ใหม่แกข่ ้าพเจ้า NOV3: สวนนาแห้ํ ่งนี้ทําให้ขาพเจ้ ้าได้พบเห็นสิ่งใหมๆ่ เช่น กิจกรรม การตบแต่ง บรรยากาศ เครองเลื่ ่น โซน ใหม่ ฯลฯ NOV4: สําหรบขั ้าพเจ้า สวนน้ําแห่งนี้ไม่เหมือนที่อื่น NOV5: สวนนาแห้ํ ่งนี้มีความคิดริเริ่ม ทสี่ ่งต่อมายัง ข้าพเจ้า

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 89

BI: ความตั้งใจเชิงพฤติกรรม ิ ่ ง ิ ่ ง ้ วย ้ วย

้ วย ้ วย ็ นด ็ นด ่ างย ่ างย ็ นด ็ นด เฉยๆ ่ เห ่ เห อย อย เห เห ไม ไม (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BI1: ข้าพเจ้าจะกลับมาสวนน้ําแห่งนี้อีก BI2: ข้าพเจ้าจะแนะนําสวนน้ําแห่งนี้กับผู้อื่น BI3: ข้าพเจ้าจะพูดถึงสิ่งที่ดีของสวนน้ําแห่งนี้กับผู้อื่น BI4: ข้าพเจ้าคิดจะเสาะหาสวนน้ําที่มีความคล้ายคลึง กับสวนน้ํานี้ BI5: ข้าพเจ้าคิดจะไปสวนน้ําอื่น ๆ ที่มีความคล้ายคลึง กับสวนน้ํานี้

[ส่วนที่4: ผู้ตอบแบบสอบถาม]

เพศ ของท่าน  ชาย  หญิง

อายุ ของท่าน  น้อยกว่า 18 ป ี  18-29 ป ี  30-39 ป ี  40-49 ป ี  50-60 ป ี  มากกว่า 60 ป ี

สถานภาพ ของท่าน  สมรส  โสด  แยกกันอย ู่  หย่าร้าง  อยู่โดยไม่แต่งงาน  อื่นๆ; โปรดระบุ______

โปรดระบุสัญชาติของท่าน (เช่น ไทย, อเมริกา, ญี่ปุ่น, จีน เป็นต้น)  ไทย  จีน  ยุโรปเปียน  อเมริกัน อื่นๆ; โปรดระบุ ______

การศึกษาสูงสดุ ของท่าน  มัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย หรือ ต่ํากว่า  อาชีวะศึกษา  ปริญญาตรี  ปริญญาโท  ปริญญาเอก  อื่นๆ; โปรดระบุ______

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 90

สถานภาพการงาน ของท่าน  ว่างงาน  พนักงานประจํา  อาชีพอิสระ/ธุรกิจส่วนตัว  นักเรียน  เกษียณ  อื่นๆ; โปรดระบุ______

รายได้ต่อปี ของท่าน  น้อยกว่า 150,000 บาท  150,001-300,000 บาท  300,001-450,000 บาท  450,001-600,000 บาท  600,001-750,000 บาท  750,001-900,000 บาท  900,001 -1,050,000 บาท  1,050,001 -1,200,000 บาท  มากกว่า 1,200,000 บาท

**ส้นสิ ดแบบสอบถามุ ขอขอบคุณเป็นอยางส่ ูงทรี่ ่วมตอบแบบสอบถาม**

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 91

APPENDIX III Back Translation (English-Thai-English) Questionnaire

The original version of English questionnaire was translated into Thai and back-translated into English by graduated students from English-speaking country to ensure consistency in communication between the two versions.

Original Sentences Thai translations Back translations to English WPI: Waterpark Image WPI: ภาพลักษณ์สวนนา้ํ WPI: Waterpark Image WPI1: This water park has WPI1: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีชื่อเสียง This water park has a good reputation. ที่ดี good reputation. WPI2: This water park WPI2: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีการ This water park provides provides good service. ให้บริการที่ดี good services. WPI3: This water park has WPI3: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มี This water park has its exotic features. คุณลักษณะทแปลกใหมี่ ่ own unique features. WPI4: This waterpark has WPI4: สวนน้ําแห่งนี้มีสิ่ง This water park provides various facilities. อํานวยความสะดวกและเครื่อง various service facilities เล่นที่หลากหลาย and wide varieties of rides. WPI5: This water park has WPI5: สวนน้ําสามารถเข้าถึง This water park has good good accessibility. ได้ง่าย accessibility. WPI6: Waiting time for a WPI6: ระยะเวลารอเครื่องเล่น Waiting time for a ride ride was reasonable. มีความสมเหตสมผลุ was acceptable.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 92

Original Sentences Thai translations Back translations to English PF: Price Fairness PF: ราคายุตธรรมิ PF: Price Fairness PF1: The ticket(s) fee for PF1: บัตรสําหรับเครื่องเล่นมี Attraction ticket fees are attractions at this ราคาสมเหตุสมผล reasonable. waterpark is/are reasonable. PF2: The prices charged PF2: ระดับการบริการที่ได้รับ The level of service is by this waterpark are มีความเหมาะสมกับราคาที่ appropriate for what is appropriate for the level จ่ายไป charged. of service. PF3: The overall quality PF3: คณภาพโดยรวมของสวนุ The overall quality of this of this waterpark was น้ํานี้คุ้มค่ากับเงินที่จ่าย waterpark was worth the worth the money. money. PF4: The food prices at PF4: ราคาค่าอาหาร/เครื่องดื่ม The food and drink prices this waterpark was worth มีความคุ้มค่า were worth the money. the money. PF5: Other fees (e.g. PF5: ราคาค่าธรรมเนียมอื่นๆ Other fees (e.g. locker, locker, towel, etc.) were (เช่น ค่าล็อคเกอร์, ค่าเช่า towel, etc.) were fairly fairly priced at this water ผ้าเช็ดตัว ฯลฯ) มีความเป็น priced. park. ธรรม

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 93

Original Sentences Thai translations Back translations to English SAT: Satisfaction SAT: ความพึงพอใจ SAT: Satisfaction SAT1: All things SAT1: เมื่อพิจารณาถึงทุก ๆ Considering all factors, I considered, I am pleased ปัจจัยแล้ว ข้าพเจ้ามีความ am pleased to visit this to play at this waterpark. พอใจที่ได้มาเลนในสวนน่ ้ําแหง่ waterpark. น้ี SAT2: Considering all my SAT2: จากประสบการณ์ได้รับ Considering all my experience with this ข้าพเจ้าตัดสินใจไม่ผิดทมาเลี่ น่ experience, I had made a waterpark, my choice to สวนน้ําแห่งนี้ good decision to visit this come was a wise one. waterpark. SAT3: When compared SAT3: เมื่อเทยบกี ับความ The experiences I with my expectation of คาดหวัง ประสบการณ์ที่ received was better or as this waterpark, the ข้าพเจ้าได้รับเทียบเท่าหรือ good as what I had received experience met ดีกว่าที่คาดหวังไว้ expected. my expectation or positively went beyond. SAT4: The overall feeling I SAT4: ความรสู้ ึกที่ได้จากสวน The overall feelings I got got from this waterpark น้ําแห่งนี้ทําใหข้ ้าพเจ้าอารมณ์ from this waterpark make put me in a good mood. ดี me happy. SAT5: Overall, I am SAT5: โดยรวมแล้ว ข้าพเจ้า Overall, I am satisfied delighted with this พึงพอใจสวนน้ําแห่งนี้ with this waterpark. waterpark.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 94

Original Sentences Thai translations Back translations to English NOV: Novelty-Seeking NOV: ประสบการณ์ใหม่ NOV: Novelty-Seeking NOV1: This waterpark NOV1: สวนนาแห้ํ ่งนี้ให้ The attractions in this offers an unusual ประสบการณ์เครื่องเล่นที่ waterpark offer me (extraordinary) attractions แปลกใหม่กับขาพเจ้ ้า extraordinary experience. experience. NOV2: The environment NOV2: สิ่งแวดล้อมในสวนน้ํา The environment in this in this waterpark offers แห่งนี้ให้ประสบการณ์ใหม่แก่ waterpark provides me me new experience. ข้าพเจ้า new experience. NOV3: This waterpark NOV3: สวนนาแห้ํ ่งนี้ทําให้ This waterpark provides offers new discoveries to ข้าพเจ้าได้พบเห็นสิ่งใหมๆ่ เชน่ me new encounters e.g. me (e.g. new event, กิจกรรม การตบแต่ง event, decoration, theme, theme, zone, characters, บรรยากาศ เครื่องเล่น โซน rides, zone, etc. etc.). ใหม่ ฯลฯ NOV4: This waterpark is NOV4: สําหรบขั ้าพเจ้า สวน For me, this waterpark is original to me. น้ําแห่งนี้ไม่เหมือนที่อื่น unique. NOV5: This waterpark NOV5: สวนนาแห้ํ ่งนี้มี This waterpark has provides me initiative. ความคิดริเริ่ม ที่ส่งต่อมายัง initiative that influences ข้าพเจ้า me.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 95

Original Sentences Thai translations Back translations to English BI: Behavioral Intentions BI: ความตั้งใจเชิงพฤติกรรม BI: Behavioral Intentions BI1: I would like to revisit BI1: ข้าพเจ้าจะกลับมาสวนน้ํา I would like to return to this waterpark in the แห่งนี้อีก this waterpark again. future. BI2: I would recommend BI2: ข้าพเจ้าจะแนะนําสวนน้ํา I would like to this waterpark to my แห่งนี้กับผู้อื่น recommend this friends or other waterpark to other acquaintances. people. BI3: I want to tell other BI3: ข้าพเจ้าจะพูดถึงสิ่งที่ดี I would like to tell other people positive things ของสวนน้ําแห่งนี้กับผู้อื่น people positive things about this water park. about this waterpark. BI4: I would like to search BI4: ข้าพเจ้าคิดจะเสาะหาสวน I would like to search for for alternative waterpark น้ําที่มีความคลายคล้ ึงกับสวน other waterpark with with similar characteristics น้ํานี้ similar characteristics. BI5: I would like to visit BI5: ข้าพเจ้าคิดจะไปสวนน้ํา I would like to visit other other waterparks with อื่น ๆ ที่มีความคล้ายคลึงกับ waterparks with similar similar characteristics สวนน้ํานี้ features.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 96

APPENDIX IV Information of Waterparks in Thailand

Santorini Water Fantasy Owner : Theme Assets Park and Hotel Co.,Ltd. Address : 555 Moo 3, Khao yai, Cha-am, Phetchaburi 76120 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿900 Fee: Children – ฿500 Senior – ฿500 Operating Day: All Day Operating 08.30 - 18.30 hour: Website : www.santoriniparkchaam.com

Cartoon Network AMAZONE Owner : Amazon Falls Co.,Ltd. Address : 888 Moo 8 Najomtien, Chonburi, Thailand 20250 Admission Adult – ฿1,290 Fee: Children – ฿890 Senior – ฿890 Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:00 – 19:00 hour: Website : www.cartoonnetworkamazone.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 97

Vana Nava Huahin water Jungle Owner : Vana Nava Co., Ltd. Address : 129/99 Soi Moo Baan Nong Kae, Tambon Nong Kae, Amphoe Hua Hin, Chang Wat Prachuap Khiri Khan, Thailand Admission Adult – ฿1,000 Fee: Children – ฿600 Senior – ฿600 Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www.vananavahuahin.com

Splashdown Waterpark Pattaya Owner : N/A Address : 105/2 Moo 2, Pong, Banglamung, Pattaya

20150, Thailand Admission Thai – ฿650 Fee: Foreigner – ฿1,500 Operating Day: All Day Operating 9:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www.splashdownwaterparkpattaya.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 98

Black Mountain Water Park Owner : Nordic Property Co., Ltd Address : 1 Moo 2 Hin Lek Fai Hua Hin 77110, Thailand Admission Adult – ฿600 Fee: Children – ฿300 Senior – ฿600 Operating Day: All Day Operating 10.00 - 17.00 hour: Website : www.blackmountainwaterpark.com

Siam Park City Owner : Siam Park Bangkok Co., Ltd. Address : 203 Suan Siam Rd., Kannayao, Bangkok 10230, Thailand

Admission Adult – ฿900 Fee: Children – ฿500 Senior – ฿500 Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www.siamparkcity.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 99

Ramayana Water Park Owner : RWP Co., Ltd.

Address : 9 Moo 7, Ban Yen Rd., Na Chom Thian, Sattahip, Chon Buri, 20250 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿1,190 Fee: Children – ฿890 Senior – ฿590 Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www.ramayanawaterpark.com

Scenical World Owner : The Scenical Co., Ltd. Address : 777 Moo 5 Thanarat Road, Moo See, Pakchong, Nakhon Ratchasima 30130 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿890 Fee: Children – ฿680 Senior – ฿680 Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www.scenicalworld.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 100

Pororo AquaPark Owner : Central Pattana Public Co., Ltd. Address : Central Plaza Bangna (6th floor) 585 Bangna-trad Rd. Bangna Bangna, Bangkok 10260 Admission Adult – ฿400 Fee: Children – ฿280 Senior – ฿280 Operating Day: All Day Operating Mon – Fri 10.30 – 19.00 hour: Sat – Sun and holiday 10.00 – 19.00 Website : www.pororoaquapark.com

Coco Splash Waterpark Koh Samui Owner : HACIA Resort & Amusement Co., Ltd. Address : 124/5-7 Moo 3, Maret, Koh Samui, Surat Thani 84310 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿600 Fee: Children – ฿500 Infant – Free Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:30 – 17:30 hour: Website : www.samuiwaterpark.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 101

Fantasy Water Park Owner : Khaoyai Fantasy Resort Co., Ltd. Address : 421 Moo 1, Tanarat Road, Nongnumdang, PakChong 30130, Thailand Admission Fee: Adult – ฿200 Children – ฿200 Infant – Free Operating Day: All Day Operating 9:00 -18:00 hour: Website : www.khaoyaifantasy.com

Korat Zoo Lagoon Owner : Zoological Park Organization Address : 111 Moo 1 Chaimongkol, Muang, NakhonRatchasima, 30000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿100 Fee: Children – ฿20 Infant – Free Operating Day: All Day Operating 9:00 – 17:00 hour: Website : www.korat.zoothailand.org

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 102

Phukradueng Waterpark and Zoo Owner : N/A Address : Ro Pho Cho Loei 3113 Road, Phu Kradueng, Phu Kradueng, Loei 42180, Thailand Admission Adult – ฿60 Fee: Children – ฿40 Operating Day: All Day Operating 9:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : https://www.facebook.com/สวนนําสวนส้ ตวั ์ ภกระดู งึ -Phukradueng-Waterpark-and-Zoo- 1453020518268535/ Play Park Buriram Owner : N/A Address : 222 Ban Yang, Mueang, Buri Ram, 31000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿70 Fee: Children – ฿50 Infant and Senior – Free Operating Day: All Day Operating 10:00 – 19:00 hour: Website : www.facebook.com/playparkburiram/

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 103

Jurassic Water Park Owner : N/A Address : 97 Moo 13, Petchkaseam Road, ProngMaduea, Muang, Nakornpratom, 73000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿299 Fee: Children - ฿200 Infant – Free Operating All Day Day: Operating Mon-Thurs 11.00-20.00 hour: Fri – Sun 10.00-21.00 Website : www.facebook.com/jurassicwaterpark/

Space Water Park Owner : Chainat Provincial Administration Organization Address : Moo 4, Phahonyothin Road, Khao Tha Phra, Mueang, Chai Nat 17000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿30 Fee: Children – ฿15 Operating All Day Day: Operating 10:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www3.chainatpao.go.th

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 104

The Resort Waterpark Owner : The Resort at Suanphueng Co., Ltd. Address : 546 Moo 8, Suanphueng, Ratchburi, 70180 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿100 Fee: Children – ฿60 Operating All Day Day: Operating 9:00 – 18:00 hour: Website : www.theresortatsuanphueng.com

Usotel Water Land Owner : N/A Address : 288/8 Phibun, Ban Lueam, Mueang, Udon Thani 41000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿250 Fee: Children – ฿120 Infant - Free Operating All Day Day: Operating 10:30 – 20:00 hour: Website: www.usotelwaterland.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 105

Dino Water Park Khon Kaen Owner : Pratunam KhonKaen Group Address : 456 Moo12, Mitraphap Road, MuangKao, Muang, KhonKaen, 40000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿300 Fee: Children – ฿300 Infant - Free Operating All Day Day: Operating Mon-Fri 11.00-18.00 hour: Sat – Sun 10.00-20.00 Website : www.dinowaterpark.com

BK Water Park Owner : BK Place and Resort Co., Ltd. Address : 168 Moo9, Beungkarn-Pungkon Road, Beungkarn, Mueng, Buengkarn, 38000 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿70 Fee: Children – ฿59 Operating All Day Day: Operating Mon – Fri 13.00 – 21.00 hour: Sat – Sun and holiday 10.00 – 21.00 Website : www.bkplacehotel.com

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 106

Funny Park at Play La Ploen Owner : Play La Ploen Boutique Resort Co., Ltd. Address : 252 Moo 7, Nong kaman, Kumuang, Buriram, 31190 Thailand Admission Adult – ฿40 Fee: Children – ฿40 Operating All Day Day: Operating 09:00 -18:00 hour: Website : www.playlaploen.com

Note: Service fees may be varied due to different conditions which are up to the service providers.

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW 107

BIOGRAPHY

Name Miss Thunyathorn Dulyadhamapiromya Date of Birth June 23, 1986 Educational Attainment 2008: Master of Arts in International Economics and Finance, CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY 2007: Bachelor of Arts in Economics, THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY Work Position Deputy Managing Director MAGICWARE Co., LTD

Publications

Dulyadhamapiromya, T., & Unakul, N. (2018). เจาะลึกความตกลง FTA ของไทยและนัยะ ต่อการค้าระหว่างประเทศ. Bot.or.th. Retrieved 17 March 2018, from https://www.bot.or.th/Thai/MonetaryPolicy/ArticleAndResearch/WE_MPG/W EMPG_Jun10.pdf

Work Experiences 2012-Present: Deputy Managing Director MAGICWARE CO., LTD. 2010-2011: Economist, International Organizations Team, International Economics Department BANK OF THAILAND 2008-2010: Negotiator/ Economist, International Investment Agreements Bureau, International Economics Department BANK OF THAILAND

Ref. code: 25605902034544UBW