Push and Pull Factors Influencing Destination Satisfaction For Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism Business Model: The Case Of Intramuros
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intramuros is one of the country’s acknowledged premier Cultural Heritage Tourism (CHT) destination site. With the objective of formulating a CHT model toward destination satisfaction and loyalty, the study assessed its destination attributes from the perspectives of the visitors through the PUSH and PULL Framework. It employed a mixed quantitative and qualitative methods using a researcher-made survey questionnaire administered using purposive sampling to 305 visitors. The findings were also examined and justified through a Focused Group discussion (FGD) among different tour operators within the Intramuros area.
 
 Intramuros CHT visitors are predominantly female, young; single; living within Metro Manila; with income up to P500,000 and below; Bachelor’s Degree holder and student/employee or professional; has visited it more than once together with friends, partner and family; for holiday and leisure and family togetherness; and came to know of Intramuros through the Internet and word of mouth; with trip of less than 24 hours; using either his personal car or public transport as mode of transportation. The push factor of “seeking relaxation” and the pull factor of “Cultural Heritage Features” had the strongest influence on levels of satisfaction accounting for 90 per cent of the visitors who signified their intention to go back and recommend the site to other tourists; although there are significant differences of level of satisfaction among them when they are grouped according to their profile.The study found moderate and positive relationships between push and pull factors and the attributes of the heritage site and the overall satisfaction of the visitors. Findings of the study were used to craft a Cultural Heritage Tourism Business Model for Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty for Intramuros.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".