1

Segmenting tourist motivation in Rizal Park: A Factor Analysis

Ciara M. Saquing1, Ma. Christine S. Mediavillo1 and Belinda V. de Castro2

1
Bachelor of Science in Tourism Management, College of Business Administration and Accountancy,
Colegio de San Juan de Letran – Intramuros, Manila
2
Letran Research Center, Colegio de San Jun de Letran-Intramuros, Manila

Abstract. The aim of this quantitative study is three-fold. First, to identify and
categorize the motivational patterns of tourists. Second, to identify the effect
of Torre de Manila on Rizal Park as a tourist destination. And lastly, to
investigate the role of tourists’ demographic profile in ascertaining travel
motivations in going to Rizal Park. Data were gathered, using the multi-aspect
researcher-made instrument (Cronbach Alpha Test = 0.946). Respondents
were first made to fill in a robotfoto for purposes of demographic profiling.
They were later asked to rate the listed motivational factors, using the 8-point
Likert Scale. Using statistical tools such as Factor Analysis and ANOVA, data
were treated in-depth. Factor analysis of respondents’ travel motivation
yielded six significant dimensions, namely: Setting Relevance, Family
Togetherness, Recreational & Aesthetic Value, Environment Novelty and Self-
Indulgence categorize the motivational factors of tourists’ in going to Rizal
Park. Interestingly, Family Togetherness and Environment Novelty were found
to have significant differences with regards to the tourists’ age and marital
status. Summarily, implications and limitations of the study were also
discussed.

Keywords: Rizal Park, travel motivation, factor analysis, heritage sites

Introduction

Heritage Tourism is regarded as one of the oldest types of tourism, which dates back to historical
periods of soldiers, explorers and traders (Timothy & Boyd, 2003 as cited in Oguz, 2014). Visits to
ancient temples, sanctuaries and shrines are also largely considered as the earliest forms of heritage
tourism and some of the very first heritage experiences. (Du Cros, & McKercher, 2015) Hence, Heritage
Tourism is simply conceptualized as a form of tourism that involves “people visiting heritage places or
viewing historical resources” (Timothy, 2011)

Over the past years, the popularity of heritage tourism has grown with travelers and with those
developing new tourism attractions. For example, between 1996 and 2002 heritage travel increased by 13
percent, more than twice the growth of U.S. travel overall (5.6 percent). (http://museum.msu.edu) In
2009, a national study was completed by Mandala Research which indicated that “78 percent of U.S.
adults who traveled for leisure in 2009 (118.3 million travelers) were considered as heritage travelers.
(http://museum.msu.edu)

Many people believed that with regards to Heritage Tourism, conservation is the key factor.
(http://www.icomos.org) Arguably, if a destination only focuses on the conservation of the cultural
 2

heritage of a destination, instead of taking advantage of it as a tourist destination, then it would fail in
business terms. However, if the focus is only set for the economic growth of the destination, the cultural
preservation and significance would be belittled. In the context of Heritage Tourism, conservation and
change are two important factors, however; both are derogatory to one another. (Li, 2003)

This matter had been quite prominent to the heritage sites found in the Philippines, one of the few
examples is the MET (Manila Metropolitan Theater), a Philippine Art Deco building, located near the
Manila Central Post Office in Manila, Philippines. The said building holds importance to the country’s
heritage for it served as a beacon and symbol to Filipinos celebrating their own culture by hosting
Zarzuelas, Filipino opera and much more. It is considered as a gem to the country’s performing arts.
Unfortunately, the building fell victim to politics in the country. The government had tried to restore the
site and revive its beauty, but the lack of competitiveness in terms of business and exploitation in tourism,
did not help them in the maintenance of the site. Many attempts were made for the revival of the site but
none had been deemed to be successful. (http://www.manilatimes.net)

However, MET is not the only one that experienced this issue. According to Macas (2014), a
known heritage site had also been deemed to be “in danger” by the International Council on Monuments
and Sites. The said site, Bagumbayan, which is now known as Rizal Park, had been caught in a
controversy with the DMCI’s condominium-project named Torre de Manila. Cultural activists believed
the said project had been obstructing the sightline of the monument and “can easily steal the attention of
the visitors” (Marquez & Garcia, 2015). The controversy had been so known that it sparked the interest of
thousands in various social sites and television networks debating whether the construction is actually
considered as harm to the country’s prominent heritage site.

Rizal Park as a Heritage Site

A Heritage Site refers to a building or any area considered as important to a country’s history.
(http://stateheritage.wa.gov.au/) The events that happened in a particular heritage site may pertain to a
positive or negative event in the country’s history. Rizal Park was considered as a heritage site since it
had been “the execution ground of the rebels during the Spanish Colonization” (Macas, 2015). An
estimate of 158 patriots and martyrs were killed at the site, including the Philippine’s national hero, Dr.
José P. Rizal.

Dr. José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda, the Philippine’s national hero, had fought
for the country’s freedom in a silent but powerful way – through words rather than the use of violence. He
fully expressed his love for the country through his novels, essays, articles and poems. This helped the
Filipinos open their eyes to what is really happening to the country during the Spanish colonization.

Five years after the death of Dr. José Rizal, the United States Philippine Commission has
approved that a monument of Rizal will be erected in the park to commemorate the country’s fallen
national hero. The site does not only bear the statue of Dr. José Rizal, but also houses his remains which
were buried beneath the monument. The park since then holds prominence to be considered as one of the
country’s heritage sites.

Once a site for the execution of the rebels, now it changed into a park that holds various
prominent events in the country. Annually, the commemoration of the death of Dr. José Rizal, the
country’s national hero is celebrated. Events such as praise and worship celebrations, ASEAN
Community Day celebrations and concerts also take place within the park. (Manila Bulletin, 2015; Manila
Times, 2016; Philstar, 2013)
 3

However, significant events are not the only ones that took place in the park. The site had been
caught in a controversial issue with Torre de Manila, whereas the cultural activists believed that the said
condominium project is an outside threat (htttp://www.travelandleisure.com) to the heritage site as it
steals the attention of the visitors away from the Rizal monument (Marquez & Garcia, 2015)

It is against the foregoing backdrop (the significant events and the controversial issue with Torre
de Manila) that the study purports to: first, segment tourists’ motivation pattern in visiting Rizal Park.
Second, to determine if the construction of Torre de Manila has an effect on Rizal Park as a tourist
destination, and lastly, to examine the role of tourist socio-demographics in determining travel
motivations in going to Rizal Park.

Results of the study may serve as basis to the Department of Tourism (DOT) Philippines and
National Parks Development Committee of the country for the betterment of Rizal Park in the tourism
field, infrastructure maintenance, cultural preservation and awareness. Findings of the study may serve as
basis for the direction of future researches on Rizal Park or any other heritage sites within or outside the
country.

Theoretical Background

The paper is anchored on the Push and Pull theory of Crompton. According to Crompton (1979),
the essence of a vacation is the individual having a break from their usual routine. Crompton identifies
that these vacationers have two clusters of motives: socio-psychological motives and cultural motives.
The socio-psychological motives, referred to as the push factors are as follows: escape from a perceived
mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of
relations and social interaction; while the cultural motives, referred to as the pull factors, are novelty and
education. (http://www.ukessays.com) In the context of the study, these push and pull factors served as
basis for the segmentation of the reasons why both local and foreign tourists go to Rizal Park. Using the
park’s features as focus and Crompton’s identified motivation patterns as backdrop, the survey
questionnaire was developed for the study.

Literature Review

Travel Motivation

Motivation is described as either an internal or external factor which droves an individual to

remain interested or committed on an activity. (http://psychology.about.com) In tourism research,
motivations are factors that drove or arouse a tourist’s interest on visiting a particular tourist destination.
According to Mohammad and Mat Som (2010), the push and pull motivational factors are generally
accepted as a primary utilization in attempting to understand a wide variety of needs and wants that can
influence and motivate a tourist.

Previous research found that certain push and pull factors motivate a tourist to come to a heritage
site. Rizal Park consists of attributes varying from fun-filled to relaxation. Such attributes found within
the park are the Chinese & Japanese Garden, Children's Playground, Orchidarium, Butterfly Pavilion and
the Musical Dancing Fountain which can bring pleasure (Tibon, 2012; Kanagaraj & Bindu, 2013, Oguz,
2014; Vuuren & Slabbert, 2012; Ndlovu, 2014; Jiang, Scott & Ding, 2014; Li, Zhang & Cai, 2013;
Kassean & Gassita, 2013), the Open-Air Auditorium and the clean open field of the park which is ideal
for social value (Wang & Leou, 2013; Tibon, 2012; Li & Cai, 2011; Vuuren & Slabbert, 2012; Prebensen
 4

& Lee, 2013; Dong, Wang, Morais & Brooks, 2013; Phan, 2010; Kassean & Gassita, 2013), and its offer
of a peaceful and calming ambiance despite being situated amidst the city brings escape (Li & Cai, 2011;
Ndlovu, 2014, Li, Zhang & Cai, 2013; Kassean & Gassita, 2013) to tourists.

As for pull factors, the park’s features such as the Artist's Haven/Kanlungan ng Sining, Artworks
of some renowned Filipino artists (Dancing Rings, The New Filipino/Ang Bagong Pinoy, Ang Pagbabago
(The Change) Mosaic Murals and Soul waves), Diorama of Rizal's Martyrdom, Filipino-Korean Soldier
Monument, The Flower Clock, The Gomburza Marker, The Gallery of Heroes, Independence Flagpole,
La Madre Filipina, Lapu-Lapu Monument (or the Statue of the Sentinel of Freedom), Noli me Tangere
Garden, Relief map of the Philippines and Valor's Hall/Bulwagan ng Kagitingan bring forth knowledge
(Tibon, 2012; Wang & Leou, 2013; Kanagaraj & Bindu, 2013; Hsu, Cai & Li, 2010; Oguz, 2014; Yolal &
Negrusa, 2012; Yousefi & Marzuki, 2012; Li & Cai, 2011; Vuuren & Slabbert, 2012; Li, Zhang & Cai,
2013; Phan, 2010) to its tourists, while attributes that may be found new by the tourists offers novelty
(Yousefi & Marzuki, 2012; Li & Cai, 2011; Prebensen & Lee, 2013; Kassean & Gassita, 2013; Al-Haj
Mohammad & Mat Som, 2010; Ndlovu, 2014; Phan, 2010; Hsu, Cai & Li, 2010; Kasetnholz, Euse’bio &
Carneiro, 2013) for them.

Other factors found in previous researches that motivate people to go to a heritage site includes:
Weather (Yiamjanya & Wongleedee, 2014), popularity (Peter & Anandkumar, 2015), familiarity with the
site (Jiang, Scott & Ding, 2014), media (Josiam et al, 2015), safety (Peter & Anandkumar, 2015;
Esichaikul, 2012), site development (Peter & Anandkumar, 2015), cost of travel (Baird, 2013),
experiences (Tibon, 2012; Kanagaraj & Bindu, 2013; Hsu, Cai & Li, 2010, Wang & Leou, 2013; Jeong,
2014; Li & Cai, 2011; Vuuren & Slabbert, 2012; Peter & Anandkumar, 2015), scenic value (Sirisack,
Xayavong, Phongsavath & Vongsanga, 2014; Wang & Leou, 2013; Hsu, Cai & Li, 2010; Ngoc Khuong
& Thu Ha, 2014; Ndlovu, 2014; Jiang, Scott & Ding, 2014; Dong, Wang, Morais & Brooks, 2013;
Kasetnholz, Euse’bio & Carneiro, 2013; Esichaikul, 2012) and food (Yiamjanya & Wongleedee, 2014).

Therefore, it can be hypothesized that these factors may or may not be evident in Rizal park depending on
how the tourists perceive its value as a heritage site.

H1: There are certain push (escape from environment, self-evaluation, relaxation, enhancement of
relations, social interaction) and pull (novelty and education) factors that motivate tourists to come to
Rizal Park.

A number of researches found that certain demographic characteristics of tourists are affecting
their motivation patterns on particular destinations. For instance, the female gender appears to be more
inclined to visit a destination if safety is ensured (Remoaldo, Vareiro, Ribeiro & Santos, 2014) and that
culture and entertainment factors are present (Yolal & Negrusa, 2012). Seemingly, it was found that
students are more motivated to visit a destination for pleasure (Yolal & Negrusa, 2012). Oguz (2014), yet,
difference in tourist’s religious affiliation and country of birth also affect their motivation toward a
destination. Whereas Van Vuuren and Slabbert (2011) discussed that relatively middle-aged and married
tourists are attracted in visiting a site because of relaxation.

Majority of the researches found that the top three motivation factors includes: the intellectual
value of a site (Yousefi & Marzuki, 2012; Sirisack, Xayavong, Phongsavath & Vongsanga, 2014;
Kanagaraj & Bindu, 2013; Li, Zhang & Cai, 2013; Phan, 2010; Oguz, 2014), novelty (Yousefi &
Marzuki, 2012; Yiamjanya & Wongleedee, 2014) and pleasurement (Kassean & Gassita, 2013; Li, Zhang
& Cai, 2013). Corollary to this, Oguz (2014) found that there are two main motivation factors in visiting a
heritage site, namely: Heritage/Emotion Motivations and Recreation motivations. Moreover, he stated that
foreign tourists visit a heritage site because they link the heritage presented at the site to their own
heritage.
 5

Thus, it can be hypothesized that

H2: There is a significant difference in the motivation patterns of tourists in coming to Rizal Park when
grouped according to gender, age bracket, professional and marital status, nationality and location.

Conceptual Framework

Push Factors Motivations to go to Rizal Park Push Factors

- novelty
- escape from
environment Gender, Age Bracket, Nationality, - education
- self- Professional and Marital Status
evaluation
- relaxation
- enhancement
of relations

Figure I. The Conceptual Model of Factors affecting motivation of Local and Foreign Tourists in coming
to Rizal Park

Method

Research Design

Quantitatively, the study employed the descriptive-comparative design in order to surface the
motivation patterns of tourists in coming to Rizal Park. Additionally, the study intends to compare and
contrast tourist motivations when grouped according to age, gender, professional and marital status and
nationality.

Subjects and Study Site

The study was conducted in Rizal Park located at Manila, Philippines from November 2015 to
February 2016, wherein the researchers had selected a total number of 149 tourists (both local and
foreign) as the respondents of the study. Random sampling was used in fielding the survey instrument for
the reason that Rizal Park has no entrance fees. A priori power analysis using the Gpower software
version 3.1 which accounts for the indeterminate population of tourist visitation to the site was employed
to compute for the acceptable value of the sample size. Using an effect size of 0.3, a significance level α
of 0.05 and a statistical power (1- β) of 0.95 yielded a required sample size of at least 148 respondents.

Data Measures

A two-part researcher-made survey was used as the tool to gather data needed in the study. The
first part consists of 6 questions measuring the respondents’ robotfoto, a Dutch term meaning
cartographic sketch (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002 as cited in de Castro & de Guzman, 2010), namely:
gender, age, professional status, marital status and nationality and their frequency visit to the park. The
second part consists of 37 items depicting their motivation patterns as to why they go to Rizal Park using
an 8-point Likert scale (1= disagree to a much extent and 8= agree to a much extent)
 6

Prior to fielding of the instrument, the survey instrument was content validated by three experts (2
content experts & 1 research expert). After experts’ approval, the instrument was pilot tested to 20 student
respondents from the Colegio de San Juan de Letran. Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.946, suggested that the
items are internally consistent and reliable.

Respondents of the study are the local and foreign tourists who visited Rizal Park in January
2016. Participants were first asked for their willingness to answer the survey and are informed about the
purpose of the study. The researchers secured consent from the security office of Rizal Park for the
conduct of the survey. Out of the 180 questionnaires fielded, only 149 (82.78%) were retrieved and
considered usable for the study.

Data/Mode Analysis

Using SPSS version 19, descriptive statistical tools such as frequency, percentage was used to
show the profile of the respondents. Factor analysis, a data reduction tool, was used to segment the
motivational patterns of the respondents in coming to Rizal park. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to show significant differences in their motivation patterns when grouped according to their
demographic profile.

Findings

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents (n=149)

Respondents n % Respondents n %
Gender Laguna 4 2.7
Female 77 51.7 Las Pinas 1 0.7
Male 72 48.3 Nueva Ecija 1 0.7
Age Palawan 1 0.7
15-18 years old 34 22.8 Rizal 1 0.7
19-25 years old 81 54.4 Other Countries of origin
26 years old and above 34 22.8 Australia 3 2.0
Marital Status Austria 2 0.14
Single 124 83.2 Canada 5 3.4
Married 22 14.8 England 1 0.7
Single Parent 3 2.0 Korea 4 2.6
Nationality United Kingdom 3 2.0
Filipino 130 87.2 USA 1 0.7
Foreigner 19 12.8 Professional Status
Place of residence Student 91 61.1
Within Metro Manila 96 64.4 Employee 52 34.9
Outside Metro Manila Administrator/Manager 4 2.7
Batangas 1 0.7 Retired 2 1.3
Bulacan 13 8.7 Frequency
Cavite 9 6.0 Almost everyday 11 7.4
Cebu 3 2.0 Once or twice a week 20 13.4
 7

Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. Most of the respondents were students
(61.1%), single (83.2%) between the ages of 19-25 years old (54.4%). Notably, a slight difference in the
percentage (3.4%) was depicted in the gender profile of the respondents with the female gender (51.7%)
having an edge over the male gender (48.3%). Majority of the respondents are Filipinos (87.2%) with
64.4% of them residing within Metro Manila. Only 12.8% of the respondents were foreigners, from
Canada (3.4%), Korea (2.6%), United Kingdom (2%), Australia (2%), Austria (0.14%), USA (0.7%) and
England (0.7%).

Motivation Patterns of Tourists in Rizal Park

Factor analysis using the principal component method with varimax rotation was applied to the
37 motivation statements to identify the underlying dimensions of motivational patters of tourists to go to
Rizal Park. (Table 2). Prior to factor analysis, the Kasier Meyer Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling
Adequacy and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were applied to test the fitness of data. The KMO was found to
be 88.8% adequate and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was found to be 3683.906, with significance lower
than 0.001. Both statistical data supported the use of factor analysis.

Reliability coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) was computed for each factor dimension to determine
the internal consistency of the items in each scale. All factors with 60% and above reliability coefficients
were considered acceptable in the study. Relatively high coefficients, ranging from 68.9% to 94.6% were
indicated by all factors. Final reduction in the number of items was done by discarding items with the
factor loading and communalities less than 0.40 and eigenvalues less than 1.

Decision rules resulted to discarding only 1 item in the survey questionnaire measuring six
dimensions, labeled in the order of decreasing explained variance (Table 2), namely: Setting Relevance,
Family Togetherness, Recreation & Aesthetic Value, Socialization, Environment Novelty and Self-
Indulgence.

Factor 1, labelled as “Setting Relevance”, refers to the historical and cultural-related intentions
of the respondents in going to Rizal Park such as seeing the Rizal & Lapu-Lapu’s Monument, the huge
Philippine Map, the Orchid Garden and the progress of building Torre de Manila. Factor 2, “Family
Togetherness”, refers to outdoor activities that serve as bonding occasions for the family. Factor 3,
labeled as “Recreation & Aesthetic Value”, pertains to the value that an object or activity possesses by
virtue of its capacity to stimulate pleasure when significantly appreciated or experienced by a person.
Factor 4, “Socialization”, categorizes activities which involves respondent interaction-based motives in
the Rizal Park. Factor 5, “Environment Novelty”, refers to the motive to see the state or quality of a new
or unusual setting. Finally, Factor 6, labeled as “Self-Indulgence”, illustrates motives of the respondents
that either boosts their intellectual and emotional health.

Table 2. Factor analysis of the Motivation Pattern of Tourists in coming to Rizal Park
Factor Eigen % Reliability
Factor Dimension Loading Value Variance Coefficient
SETTING RELEVANCE 6.79 22.54 0.946
.802
To commemorate Rizal's Heroism 0.6430917
To see Lapu-Lapu's Monument .781 0.6092828
Because it is beside the National Museum .779 .606
Because it is where Dr. Jose Rizal was executed .764 0.5838008
To go to the Orchid Garden .711 0.5061076
To see Torre De Manila Personally .681 0.463122
 8

To see the huge Philippine Map in the park .642 0.4116971

For a photoshoot .636 0.4040177
Because of the walk tour .626 0.3917335
To see how Torre de Manila affected the view of .605
Rizal Monument sceneries .366
Because it is a cultural attraction .579 0.3350755
To see the progress of building Torre de Manila .567 0.3216857
For aesthetic photography .566 0.3199239
Because of its cultural significance .541 0.2929168
Because it is an ideal dating place .528 0.279176
Because it is a requirement in our course .503 0.2534021
FAMILY TOGETHERNESS 1.95 8.89 0.704
.787
To spend time together with my family 0.6195533
To help my family learn about Dr. Jose Rizal .779 0.6063324
To enjoy spare time with my family .725 0.5261253
To increase family affinity .440 0.1931655
RECREATIONAL & AESTHETIC VALUE 1.92 8.35 0.817
.643
To enjoy outdoor activities 0.4138774
To take pictures of daily life scenarios .635 0.403683
For its historical significance .625 0.3903732
To take pictures of natural sceneries .609 0.3706856
To see the Rizal Monument .584 0.3416231
SOCIALIZATION 1.70 7.97 0.797
To be with people who enjoy the same things as I do .708 0.5015973
Because it offers excitement .676 0.4567841
To be with people who seem to enjoy themselves .673 0.4530407
To enjoy time with my friends .539 .291
ENVIRONMENT NOVELTY 1.31 6.81 0.689
.721
For a change of ambiance 0.5201022
To just stroll around .688 0.4738913
Out of curiosity .563 0.3164589
SELF-INDULGENCE 1.409 6.508 0.727
.749
To relieve stress and relax
To enjoy nature .588 0.3452904
To relieve boredom .534 0.2848863
To reflect .466 0.2173217
*Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.888, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity = 3683.906

Results of factor analysis also surfaced that the construction of Torre de Manila have a moderate effect on the
motivation of the tourists. This was indicated by the factor loading of the following motivation items: To see
 9

Torre De Manila Personally (0.681), to see how Torre de Manila affected the view of Rizal Monument sceneries
(0.605) and to see the progress of building Torre de Manila (0.567).

Table 3. Significant Differences in the motivation patterns of tourists in coming to Rizal Park when
grouped according to demographic profile

Recreational
Setting Family & Aesthetic Environment Self-
Profile Relevance Togetherness Value Socialization Novelty Indulgence
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Gender Female 4.38 (1.73) 4.16 (2.47) 5.13 (1.62) 4.76 (1.78) 5.25 (1.62) 5.45 (1.38)

Male 4.19 (1.67) 4.17 (1.98) 4.77 (1.72) 4.72 (1.70) 4.94 (1.70) 5.04 (1.65)

F-ratio 0.48 0.00 1.75 0.01 1.31 2.76

Age 15-18 4.25 (1.64) 4.31 (2.17) 4.85 (1.64) 4.72 (1.91) 5.10 (1.44) 5.13 (1.70)
19-25 4.27 (1.77) 3.77 (1.75) 4.89 (1.75) 4.72 (1.60) 4.71 (1.53) 5.27 (1.47)
26 and above 4.36 (1.62) 4.96 (3.05) 5.21 (1.52) 4.81 (1.89) 6.03 (1.83) 5.35 (1.51)
F-ratio 0.04 3.58* 0.53 0.03 8.28* 0.20
Professional
Student 4.14 (1.69) 3.72 (1.87) 4.76 (1.68) 4.68 (1.70) 4.93 (1.46) 5.08 (1.45)
Status
Employee 4.54 (1.68) 4.94 (2.57) 5.30 (1.56) 4.91 (1.85) 5.18 (1.90) 5.53 (1.68)
Administrator
/Manager/ 4.95 (2.19) 4.19 (2.70) 4.95 (2.74) 4.69 (0.99) 6.83 (1.48) 5.81 (1.05)
Retired
F-ratio 1.24 5.28* 1.75 0.29 2.79 1.75
Marital
Single 4.23 (1.72) 3.98 (2.00) 4.90 (1.70) 4.77 (1.70) 4.94 (1.63) 5.24 (1.59)
Status
Married/Sing
4.52 (1.63) 5.28 (3.17) 5.35 (1.40) 4.76 (1.94) 5.95 (1.67) 5.33 (1.25)
le Parent
F-ratio 0.54 6.48* 1.32 0.00 7.21* 0.07
Nationality Filipino 4.33 (1.71) 4.25 (2.28) 4.90 (1.68) 4.82 (1.71) 4.92 (1.56) 5.31 (1.55)
Foreigner 3.96 (1.65) 3.63 (1.93) 5.28 (1.59) 4.20 (1.82) 6.35 (1.85) 4.88 (1.33)
F-ratio 0.80 1.25 0.86 2.15 13.37* 1.31
*significant at p < .05

Table 3 indicates the significant differences in the tourist’s reasons for going to the Rizal Park
when grouped according to their demographic profile. Only the gender profile posted no significant
differences in all factor dimensions. The table shows that respondents with age brackets 26 years old and
above were more motivated in visiting Rizal park on terms of Family Togetherness (F= 3.580, p < .05)
and Environment Novelty (F=8.278, p < .05). Likewise, no significant differences were noted in any of
the tourists’ profile in motivation patterns such as setting relevance, recreation and aesthetic value,
socialization and self-indulgence when grouped according to age bracket and marital status, significant
differences were noted in family togetherness (F= 3.580 and F=6.475, respectively, p < 0.05) and
environment novelty (F=8.278 and F=7.210, respectively, p < 0.05).
 10

Notably, both motivation patterns revealed that tourists with ages 26 and above ( X FT= 4.96,
X EN= 6.03) and married and single parents ( X FT= 5.28, X EN= 5.95) are more motivated to come to
the park for family togetherness and environment novelty.

Additionally, the employees ( X =4.94) were found to be more motivated for family
togetherness (F=5.275, p < 0.05) while foreigners ( X = 6.35) are more for environment novelty
(F=13.374, p < 0.05).

Discussion

Profile of tourist visiting Rizal Park

Luneta Park, as a heritage site, are being visited by a diverse set of visitors. In regard to gender
and marital status, results revealed that females and singles are more inclined to visit the site due to the
fact that they are more induced in broadening their knowledge to gratify their curiosity in something
(Manierre, 2015) since seemingly, they have more control of their own time to wander around and
appreciate the place. When it comes to professional status, findings revealed that the students are the more
dominant tourists of Rizal Park, probably because the location of the park is situated near universities and
colleges. (http://www.gooogle.com/maps/) Additionally, results also indicated that tourists residing within
Metro Manila are the foremost goers of the park which could be due to its proximity to residential areas
and other informative establishments such as National Museum, Museum of the People and Manila Ocean
Park. Furthermore, since Rizal Park is also known for leisure, both local and foreign tourists frequent the
place as a quick escape from the busy streets of Manila whenever they want to.

Push and Pull factors in visiting Rizal Park

Investigation of the tourists’ motivation patterns in coming to Rizal Park revealed six dimensions,
namely: setting relevance, family togetherness, recreational & aesthetic value, environment novelty and
self-indulgence motives. Foremost identified reason in visiting Rizal Park is Setting Relevance. This
could be due to the fact that Rizal Park as a heritage site possesses significant historical attributes which
arouses the interest of the tourist. This motive may be rooted in one’s intent to seek knowledge through
the things that the park offers such as Artist's Haven/Kanlungan ng Sining, Artworks of some renowned
Filipino artists (Dancing Rings, The New Filipino/Ang Bagong Pinoy, Ang Pagbabago (The Change)
Mosaic Murals and Soul waves), Diorama of Rizal's Martyrdom, Filipino-Korean Soldier Monument, The
Flower Clock, The Gallery of Heroes, The Gomburza Marker, Independence Flagpole, La Madre
Filipina, Lapu-Lapu Monument (or the Statue of the Sentinel of Freedom), Noli me Tangere Garden,
Relief map of the Philippines and Valor's Hall/Bulwagan ng Kagitingan. (Yolal & Negrusa, 2012).
Independence Flagpole, Relief map of the Philippines

The second motivation dimension involves family togetherness, which shows that the tourists are
motivated to visit the park for activities that can develop family affinity. This could be due to the close
family ties which Filipinos are known for since most of the visitors coming to the park are Filipino locals
and married people. With the area offered by park, visitors can stroll around, enjoy picnics and make use
of the Children’s playground.

Recreational and Aesthetic Value reasons refer to the picturesque and social attributes of the site
that catch the interest of the park goers. This is similar to the study of Sirisack, Xayavong, Phongsavath
& Vongsanga (2014) wherein sites such as Rizal & Lapu-Lapu’s monument, Dancing Musical Fountain,
Relief map of the Philippines and Open-Air Auditorium could capture their attention. Seeing these
 11

scenarios can be a form of escape from their daily activities (Li & Cai, 2011) since the park is not only
situated near universities and colleges, but also surrounded by business establishments.

Environment novelty reasons, may be rooted on the tourist’s motivation to experience new
destinations. This is quite evident to the foreign tourists whose environment is different from ours.
Foreign tourists, especially those coming from countries with autumn and winter seasons, would love to
experience an open space under a tropical climate such as the Rizal Park.

Lastly, self-indulgence reasons motivate tourists to visit the park in order to experience self-
gratification which is parallel in the findings Yang, Kim & Lee (2012) wherein parks are used not only as
a physical space but also for enjoying nature and taking rest. Similar to the study of Yolal and Negrusa
(2012), findings has revealed that students and the females are mainly interested in visiting the park
because it offers them self-entertaining activities such as Chinese & Japanese Garden, Musical Dancing
Fountain and Children’s Playground.

Conclusion

This study attempted to identify the motivation patterns of tourist visiting Rizal Park, to
determine if the construction of Torre de Manila has an effect on tourists’ decision to visit the place and
identify significant differences in their motivation when grouped according to demographic profile.
Results revealed six motivational pattern dimensions which magnified the features of Luneta Park. These
include the reminders of moments in the history of the Philippines such as the Rizal Monument, the
Quirino Grandstand, Independence Flagpole, The Gomburza Marker, The Gallery of Heroes; amenities
that offer a variety of leisure time activities such as the Children’s Playground and Open-Air Auditorium
and a scenic environment offered by the Rizal & Lapu-Lapu’s monument, Relief map of the Philippines,
Musical Dancing Fountain in the Central Lagoon and the horizon showing the Manila Bay sunset.

Collectively, the identified set of motivations surfaced the value of the park which served as a
basis for the betterment of the site in terms of sustainability. This means that the local government as well
as the park’s administrators and park goers should look into the sustainable development of the park so as
to conserve and preserve the features of the park that do not only speak of the history and culture of the
country but also a testament of its freedom.

Through the years, Rizal Park continue to be many things to many people, a place for
socialization, recreation, relaxation and reflection. Every day, people will come and go carrying with
them moments and memories of the place. It is but reasonable enough for all of us to consider
maintaining and sustaining its features for the future generations to enjoy. Though the study is limited to
only a select group of respondents who are willing to surveyed, the study provided us a glimpse of the
relevance of Rizal Park that can contribute to the paucity of researches done on Heritage Tourism in the
country. Future studies in a wider context and more respondents for this type of research is needed in
order to make sound judgment to policy formulation regarding the management of the park.
 12

References

Baird, L. (2013). Perceptions and Motivations for Travel to California’s Central Coast. 28-31.
De Castro, B. & de Guzman, A. (2010), Push and Pull factors affecting Filipino students Shadow
Education (SE) participation. Kedi Journal of Educational Policy, 7(1), 43-66.
Dong, E., Wang, Y., Morais, D., & Brooks, D. (2013). Segmenting the rural tourism market: The case of
Potter County, Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19(2).
Gatenbein, D. (2011, January 26). Our National Parks Are in Danger. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from
http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/our-national-parks-are-in-danger
Heritage at risk from Tourism. (2001-2002). Retrieved February 19, 2016 from
http://www.icomos.org/risk/2001/tourism.htm
Hsu, C. H., Cai, L. A., & Li, M. (2010). Expectation, motivation, and attitude: A tourist behavioral model.
Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 282-296.
Importance of Heritage. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://stateheritage.wa.gov.au/about-
us/importance-of-heritage
Importance of Heritage Tourism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2016 from
http://museum.msu.edu/?q=node/705
Jeong, C. (2014). Marine tourist motivations comparing push and pull factors. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(3).
‘Jesus Reigns’ celebration set at Rizal Park. (2015, November 23). Retrieved February 18, 2016 from
http://www.mb.com.ph/jesus-reigns-celebration-set-at-rizal-park/
Kanagaraj, D., & Bindu, T. (2013). An Analysis of push and pull travel motivations of domestic tourists
to Kerala. IJMBS, 3(2), 2230-9519.
Kassean, H., & Gassita, R. (2013). Exploring tourists push and pull motivations to visit Mauritius as a
tourist destination. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 2(3), 10.
Kastenholz, E., Euse´bio, C., & Carneiro, M. (2013). Studying factors influencing repeat visitation of
cultural tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19(4), 8.
Khuong, M. N., & Ha, H. T. (2014). The Influences of Push and Pull Factors on the International Leisure
Tourists’ Return Intention to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam — A Mediation Analysis of Destination
Satisfaction. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5(6), 5.
Li, M., & Cai, L. A. (2011). The Effects of Personal Values on Travel Motivation and Behavioral
Intention.Journal of Travel Research, 10.
Li, M., Zhang, H., & Cai, L. A. (2013). A Subcultural Analysis of Tourism Motivations. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 20.
Liên, P. T. (2010). Tourist Motivation and Activities A Case Study of Nha Trang, Vietnam.
Macas, T. (2014, November 18). Pia Cayetano: Rizal Monument named one of world’s threatened
heritage sites. Retrieved February 18, 2016 from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/388642/lifestyle/artandculture/pia-cayetano-rizal-
monument-named-one-of-world-s-threatened-heritage-sites
Manierre, Matthew J. "Gaps in knowledge: tracking and explaining gender differences in health
information seeking." Social Science & Medicine 128 (2015): 151-158.
Manila Metropolitan Theater restoration begins. (2015, August 24). Retrieved from
http://www.manilatimes.net/manila-metropolitan-theater-restoration-begins/212623/
Marquez, B., & Garcia, A. (2015, February). A soaring eyesore: Torre de Manila's construction threatens
Rizal Park's skyline. Retrieved February 19, 2016 from http://thepalladium.ph/legal/soaring-
eyesore-torre-de-manilas-construction-threatens-rizal-parks-skyline/
Mohammad, B. A., & Som, A. P. (2010). An analysis of push and pull travel motivations of foreign
tourists to Jordan. IJBM International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12).
NCCA, DFA lead ASEAN Community Day celebration. (2016, January 9). Retrieved February 19, 2016
from http://www.manilatimes.net/ncca-dfa-lead-asean-community-day-celebration/238549/
 13

Ndlovu, J. (2015). Authenticity, emotion and experience: tourists’ motivation for visiting reenactment
sites in KwaZulu-Natal. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 4(1), 9.
Oguz, U. K. (2014). Heritage tourists’ motivation: the case of Hagia Sophia. 57-62.
Peter, S., & Anandkumar, V. (2015). Travel motivation-based typology of tourists who visit a shopping
festival An empirical study on the Dubai shopping festival. Journal of Vacation Marketing.
PPO stages an Out of the Box concert at Rizal Park. (2013, November 23). Retrieved February 19, 2016
from http://www.philstar.com/ccp/news/2013/11/23/1260002/ppo-stages-out-box-concert-rizal-
park
Prebensen, N. K., & Lee, Y. S. (2013). Why visit an eco-friendly destination? Perspectives of four
European nationalities. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19(2).
Push And Pull Factor In Tourism Tourism Essay. (2015, March 23). Retrieved February 15, 2016 from
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/tourism/push-and-pull-factor-in-tourism-tourism-essay.php
Remoaldo, P., Vareiro, L., Ribeiro, J., & Santos, J. (2014). Does gender affect visiting a world heritage
site? 17(1).
Sirisack, D., Xayavong, S., Phongsavath, S., & Vongsanga, N. (2014). The characteristics and
motivations of foreign tourists who visit Luang Prabang Province, Lao PDR. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(9), 7.
Tibon, M. P. (2012). A push motivation model of Filipino youth travel. Journal of Modern Accounting
and Auditing, ISSN 1548-6583, 8(9), 1392-1397, 5.
Vuuren, C. V., & Slabbert, E. (2011). Travel motivations and behaviour of tourists to a South African
Resort. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 17(4).
Wang, X., & Leou, C. H. (2015). Study of tourism motivation, perceived value and destination loyalty for
Macao cultural and heritage tourists. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7(6), 1918-
7203, 89.
What Is Motivation? (2015, December 17). Retrieved from March 1, 2016
http://psychology.about.com/od/mindex/g/motivation-definition.htm
Yanga, J., Kim, G., & Lee, T. J. (2012). Parks as leisure spaces for older adults’ daily wellness: a Korean
case study. Annals of Leisure Research, 15(3).
Yiamjanya, S., & Wongleedee, K. (2014). International tourists’ travel motivation by push-pull factors
and the decision making for selecting Thailand as destination choice. International Journal of
Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8(5), 3-5.
Yolal, M., & Negruşa, A. (2012). Analysis of cultural tourism motivation: the case of Turkish students.
Chinese business review, 11(3), 283-291, 6-8.
Yousefi, M., & Marzuki, A. (2012). Travel motivations and the influential factors: the case of Penang,
Malaysia. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(2).