The Influence of Tourist Experience on Revisit Decisions with the Mediation of Tourist Satisfaction

Ida Hidayanti; Marsuni H. Muhammad; Rahmat Sabuhari; Sulfi Abdul Haji

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

The Influence of Tourist Experience on Revisit Decisions with the Mediation of Tourist Satisfaction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read At Nusliko Park, the data show that tourist experience raises revisit intentions both directly and through tourist satisfaction, with satisfaction carrying a significant share of the effect.

desk verdict Routine case study of well-established relationships; sampling and interpretation flaws keep it from supporting the site-specific claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06552 v1 pith:BU5WBMV7 submitted 2025-06-06 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Marsuni H. Muhammad , Ida Hidayanti , Sulfi Abdul Haji , Rahmat Sabuhari This is my paper

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC

keywords touristexperiencesatisfactionrevisitdecisionecotourismNuslikoParkpartialleastsquaresstructuralequationmodelingmediationanalysisNorthMalukutourism

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show why tourists decide to revisit the Nusliko Park ecotourism area in North Maluku. It argues that a tourist's experience—sense, feel, act, and think—directly raises the chance of a return visit, and that satisfaction carries part of that effect. Using survey data from 114 visitors and a partial-least-squares structural model, the authors report positive, statistically significant paths from experience to revisit decisions, experience to satisfaction, and satisfaction to revisit, with an indirect effect through satisfaction of 0.366. If right, the result gives park managers a concrete lever: improving the quality of the experience pays off twice, once directly and once by raising satisfaction.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM), a regression-style technique for testing relationships among survey constructs, run in SmartPLS 4.0. The core device is the four-dimension experience construct inherited from Pine and Gilmore—entertainment, education, escapism, and aesthetics, mapped here as sense, feel, act, and think—measured with indicators from Oh et al. (2007) and Ali et al. (2016) and feeding two outcomes: tourist satisfaction and revisit decision. The load-bearing calculation is the indirect effect: multiplying the experience-to-satisfaction path (0.797) by the satisfaction-to-revisit path (0.459) gives the mediation effect (0.366), whose statistical significance is then tested. Reliability and validity checks (outer loadings above 0.7 after deleting indicator X.11, average variance extracted above 0.5, composite reliability above 0.7) are used to argue that the constructs are clean enough for the paths to be interpretable.

What would settle it

A representative random sample of Nusliko Park visitors collected after the park reopened, with first-time visitors included and the stated eligibility criteria enforced, would settle the claim: if the direct experience-to-revisit path and the satisfaction-mediated indirect path lose significance in that sample, the mediation story is an artifact of the original sampling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the link from tourist experience to the decision to revisit is partly direct and partly mediated by tourist satisfaction. In the sample of 114 Nusliko Park visitors, experience predicts satisfaction strongly (path coefficient 0.797), satisfaction predicts revisit decisions (0.459), and experience also has a direct path to revisit (0.485); the indirect path through satisfaction is 0.366, and all four hypothesized relationships are significant at $p<0.05$. The model explains 80 percent of the variance in revisit decisions. The authors read these results as confirming that satisfaction is a genuine mediator and that experience-based marketing—not just branding—should drive destination management.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 114 purposively sampled respondents—recruited while the park was closed for repairs—represent Nusliko Park visitors well enough that the estimated paths and mediation effect generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Park managers should invest in the experiential dimensions—access, comfort, activities, and perceived value—because the data show these directly raise revisit intention.
Satisfaction is not a side effect but a transmission channel: experience affects return visits partly through satisfaction, so monitoring satisfaction scores gives managers an early warning for loyalty.
Marketing strategy at Nusliko Park should emphasize repeat-visit quality over initial branding, since the paper finds revisit decisions track past experience more than attraction.
The model's 80 percent explained variance in revisit decisions implies that, within this sample, the included experience and satisfaction measures capture most of what drives returns.
The results support prioritizing infrastructure, safety, and staff friendliness as concrete levers in the destination's development plan.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the data are cross-sectional, the mediation claim is statistical, not causal; a visitor who already intends to return may report higher satisfaction, reversing the arrows. A longitudinal or experimental design would be needed to confirm the ordering.
The indirect effect (0.366) is smaller than the direct effect (0.485), so the paper actually supports partial, not full, mediation; a useful testable extension is whether other mediators, such as memory or place attachment, absorb more of the experience-to-revisit link.
The paper's stated respondent criteria differ between the abstract (at least two visits, North Maluku domicile) and the methods (completed tour, willing to respond); re-running the model with a clearly defined, representative post-reopening sample would show whether the mediation claim holds outside this convenience sample.
Sampling while the park was closed for repairs may select visitors with especially strong prior impressions; re-administering the questionnaire to first-time visitors after reopening would reveal how much of the reported path coefficients depends on that sampling window.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it so you don't have to. This is a textbook PLS-SEM study: 114 questionnaires from one ecotourism park, four hypotheses, all supported. The relationships tested—experience to satisfaction, satisfaction to revisit, experience to revisit, and satisfaction as mediator—are already well worn in the tourism literature (Kozak 2001, Campo et al. 2010, Dewi et al. 2023). The only new thing is the site, Nusliko Park. If you want a number for that specific park, this gives you one. If you want a scientific result, there isn't one.

To be fair, the paper does a competent job of assembling the prior literature and the measurement model is standard. The indirect effect arithmetic checks out (0.797 × 0.459 = 0.366), so this isn't a numbers game. The reliabilities and AVE look fine.

But the inferential foundation is weak. The abstract says respondents had to have visited at least twice and be domiciled in North Maluku; the Methods only require having completed the tour and willingness to respond. That's a real mismatch. The park was closed for repairs during data collection, so the actual sampling frame is unclear. The sample size is also problematic: with 27 indicators, their own 5-times rule gives 135 responses minimum, but they set a target of 114. So they're below their own bar. One indicator (X.11) was deleted after the fact because of a near-zero loading, with no sensitivity analysis. None of that is fatal to the general claim—we already know these relationships exist—but it does mean this paper cannot say anything reliable about Nusliko Park visitors specifically.

The discussion also goes off the rails in a couple of places. The R-squared for revisit decisions (0.80) is attributed to the tourist experience variable alone, but the model includes satisfaction as well. And the indirect effect of 0.366 is described as making the influence 'stronger' than the direct effect, which is backwards—the direct effect is 0.485. The correct reading is partial mediation, and the total effect is larger than the direct effect, but that's not what they say.

Who is this for? Maybe local tourism managers in North Maluku who want a rough indication that satisfaction matters. That's about it. There's no theoretical advance, no new measure, no data to reanalyze. I would not cite it in my own work. The paper deserves a desk rejection, not a referee slot. If the authors want to improve it, they need to fix the sampling description, do a sensitivity analysis, and correct the interpretations—but even then the contribution is a case study at best.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a PLS-SEM study of 114 questionnaires from visitors to the Nusliko Park Ecotourism Area in North Maluku, Indonesia. The authors test four hypotheses: that tourist experience positively affects revisit decisions (H1), that tourist experience positively affects tourist satisfaction (H2), that tourist satisfaction positively affects revisit decisions (H3), and that tourist satisfaction mediates the experience-to-revisit relationship (H4). They report path coefficients of 0.485 (experience to revisit), 0.797 (experience to satisfaction), and 0.459 (satisfaction to revisit), with an indirect effect of 0.366, all significant at p < 0.05. The abstract and conclusion assert that tourist experience and satisfaction positively influence revisit decisions and that satisfaction mediates the relationship. The paper also provides measurement-model results, including outer loadings, reliability, and R-squared values.

Significance. If the empirical claims were credible, the paper would offer a modest replication of well-established relationships between tourist experience, satisfaction, and revisit intentions in a new ecotourism context, along with practical marketing recommendations. However, the scientific contribution is severely constrained by the study design: the data come from a non-probability purposive sample collected while the park was closed for repairs, the eligibility criteria differ between the abstract and the Methods section, and the sample size of 114 falls below the 5-per-indicator threshold the authors themselves invoke. The paper has some transparency strengths, such as reporting outer loadings and reliability in full tables, and the indirect effect is arithmetically consistent with the direct path coefficients (0.797 × 0.459 = 0.366). These strengths do not compensate for the lack of a defensible sampling frame and the post hoc deletion of an indicator without sensitivity analysis.

major comments (4)

[Abstract vs. Section III (Methods)] The sampling criteria are inconsistent: the abstract states that respondents must have visited Nusliko Park at least twice and be domiciled in North Maluku, while the Methods section only requires that respondents 'had completed the tour and were willing to complete the questionnaire.' Because data were collected while the park was closed for repairs, it is unclear how any on-site sampling took place and which criteria were actually applied. This inconsistency leaves the sampling frame undefined, so the reported path coefficients cannot be generalized from this convenience sample to Nusliko Park visitors as claimed.
[Section III, sample size] The sample-size justification is arithmetically incorrect. The manuscript states that 27 indicators require 5–10 times as many responses, which it gives as 100–200 respondents, but 5×27 = 135 and 10×27 = 270. With n = 114, the sample is below the lower bound of the authors' own 5-per-indicator rule. This undermines the stability of the PLS-SEM estimates and the claimed conformance with Hair et al. (2010).
[Table 1 and Section IV] Indicator X.11 has an outer loading of -0.026 and is deleted post hoc after initial validity testing. The manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis showing whether the path coefficients, indirect effect, or substantive conclusions change if X.11 is retained or if the model is estimated with the original 27 indicators. Because the deletion is driven by the data, the measurement model loses its confirmatory status and the reported results may be overfitted.
[Tables 4 and 5] No bootstrap confidence intervals are reported for any path coefficient or for the indirect effect, even though bootstrapped confidence intervals are standard practice in PLS-SEM and are essential for assessing precision. Given the small non-probability sample and the post hoc model modification, point estimates with p-values alone are insufficient to support the mediation claim.

minor comments (5)

[Section II.C] There is an incomplete sentence: 'According to customer satisfaction theory, which states that positive experiences during a tourist .' This should be completed and the surrounding text smoothed.
[Table 2] Decimal commas are used in the reported reliability and AVE values (e.g., 0,965) while decimal points are used elsewhere; please standardize to decimal points throughout.
[Table 3 and Section IV] The text states that the R-squared of 0.80 for the revisit decision is explained 'by the tourist experience variable,' but the structural model includes both tourist experience and tourist satisfaction as predictors; the attribution should be stated as the combined explanatory power of the model.
[Section III] The Methods section does not mention ethical approval, informed consent, or data-collection procedures (e.g., online or paper questionnaire, recruitment channel). Reporting these details would help readers assess the sampling process.
[Section IV] The manuscript reports p-values but no effect sizes beyond path coefficients; reporting confidence intervals and, where possible, standardized effect sizes would aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model paths are estimated from data, and the mediation effect is a tested output, not a built-in assumption.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. Hypotheses H1-H4 are tested with SmartPLS using 114 questionnaires, and the reported path coefficients (0.485, 0.797, 0.459) and the indirect effect (0.366) are model outputs, not inputs that are relabeled as findings. The indirect effect is the product of the estimated Experience->Satisfaction and Satisfaction->Revisit paths, and its significance is bootstrapped; because the direct Experience->Revisit path is reported separately, the mediation claim could have failed empirically. The questionnaire items adopted from Oh et al. (2007) and Ali et al. (2016) are a standard scale use and do not define revisit decisions in terms of tourist experience or force the estimated relationships. There is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter is presented as an out-of-sample prediction. The paper's own limitations regarding non-probability purposive sampling while the park was closed are external-validity concerns, not circularity in the statistical inference.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted path coefficients, factor loadings, and several domain assumptions about sample representativeness and measurement validity. No new theoretical entities are introduced. The rationale for each assumption is given in the ledger entries.

free parameters (5)

Path coefficient: Tourist Experience -> Decision to Revisit = 0.485
Fitted to the 114 responses; H1 is accepted based on this coefficient and its p-value.
Path coefficient: Tourist Experience -> Tourist Satisfaction = 0.797
Fitted to the same data; H2 and the first leg of the mediation depend on it.
Path coefficient: Tourist Satisfaction -> Decision to Revisit = 0.459
Fitted to the same data; H3 and the second leg of the mediation depend on it.
Indirect effect: Tourist Experience -> Tourist Satisfaction -> Decision to Revisit = 0.366
Computed from the PLS-SEM model; used to claim mediation in H4.
Outer loadings for 26 retained indicators = 0.798 to 0.955
Each loading is estimated in the measurement model and used to compute AVE and reliability; X.11 with loading -0.026 was deleted before retesting.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The 114 purposively sampled respondents represent the visitor population of Nusliko Park.
The abstract requires at least two visits and North Maluku domicile, while the Methods only says completed tour and willing; the park was closed for repairs, so responses may be retrospective and non-representative.
domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses measure the three latent constructs without systematic common-method bias.
All constructs come from the same questionnaire; no procedural or statistical common-method-bias control is reported.
ad hoc to paper Deleting indicator X.11 after seeing its outer loading is a valid model modification.
The retest is reported only after deletion; the paper does not show whether the path estimates are robust to keeping X.11.
domain assumption The linear PLS path model with no control variables captures the causal structure.
No tests for omitted variables, nonlinearity, or multicollinearity are reported; the model assumes no confounders.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Influence of Tourist Experience on Revisit Decisions with the Mediation of Tourist Satisfaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BU5WBMV7

@misc{pith2026250606552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Influence of Tourist Experience on Revisit Decisions with the Mediation of Tourist Satisfaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BU5WBMV7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06552}
}

read the original abstract

Nusliko Park Ecotourism Area is a combination of natural and artificial tourism with the background of Lake Nusliko, which can be developed as a leading tourist attraction. Marketing strategies can be formulated by analyzing the factors influencing the decision to revisit. The decision to revisit is a key indicator that shows the success of a tourism marketing strategy. This study aimed to test and analyze the relationship between tourist experience and tourist satisfaction with the decision to revisit the Nusliko Park Ecotourism area. This type of research is descriptive research. The population in this study was visitors to the Nusliko Park Ecotourism area. The sample criteria were visitors who had visited the Nusliko Park Ecotourism area at least twice and were domiciled in North Maluku. Data were collected through questionnaires, and 114 questionnaires were returned. The research method used non-probability sampling with purposive sampling techniques. These two techniques were used to make it easier for the author to obtain samples because the Nusliko Park Ecotourism area was closed when the research was conducted. After all, it was under repair. Data were processed and analyzed using SEM and through SmartPLS 4.0 software. The study results indicate that the tourist experience and satisfaction positively influence the decision to revisit. Through this study, the satisfaction variable was also found to mediate the relationship between the tourist experience and the decision to revisit

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Ali, F., Ryu, K., & Hussain, K. (2016). Influence of experiences on memories, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A study of creative tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1038418

work page arXiv 2016
[2]

A., & Crompton, J

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 7 85–804, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383%2899%2900108-5

work page doi:10.1016/s0160-7383 2000
[3]

Dewi, L. P. T. A., & Musmini, L. S. (2023). Literature Review: Pengalaman dan Kepuasan Wisatawan terhadap Niat Berkunjung Kembali ke Desa Wisata. Jurnal Manajemen Perhotelan dan Pariwisata. https://doi.org/10.23887/jmpp.v6i2.67540E-Journal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha

work page doi:10.23887/jmpp.v6i2.67540e-journal 2023
[4]

Dewi, M. I. P., Tirtawati, N. M., & Liestiandre, H. K. (2023). Pengaruh Memorable Tourism Experience terhadap Kepuasan Wisata wan dan Niat Berkunjung Kembali di Desa Wisata Penglipuran. Jurnal Sains Pemasaran Indonesia, 22(2), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.14710/jspi.v22i2.132-148 Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha+3Undip E-Journal+3Journal Arimbi+3

work page doi:10.14710/jspi.v22i2.132-148 2023
[5]

Gustari, S., Kusumah, A. H. G., & Nurazizah, G. R. (2022). Pengaruh Pengalaman Wisatawan terhadap Niat Berkunjung Kembali Ke Ciwangun Indah Camp dengan Mediator Memories. Tourism and Hospitality Essentials Journal. https://doi.org/10.17509/jtee.v10i1.76961 Ejournal UPI

work page doi:10.17509/jtee.v10i1.76961 2022
[6]

F., Black, W

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education

work page 2010
[7]

Ikwanadi, K. E. (2020). Pengaruh Customer Experience dan Servicescape terhadap Word of Mouth Ekowisata Kampung Blekok Situbon do dengan Kepuasan Konsumen sebagai Variabel Intervening. Repository Universitas Jember. http://repository.unej.ac.id/handle/123456 789/99576Repository UNEJ

work page 2020
[8]

A., & Andriani, N

Irsyadi, N. A., & Andriani, N. (2023). Pengaruh Pengalaman Wisatawan Terhadap Minat Berkunjung Kembali Melalui Mediasi Kepuasan Pelanggan Di Pantai Sembilan Kecamatan Gili Genting Kabupaten Sumenep. Management Science and Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 1 -10. https://doi.org/10.37385/msej.v5i1.3779YRPI Journal

work page doi:10.37385/msej.v5i1.3779yrpi 2023

Show all 25 references

[9]

Izhar, H., & Suasti, Y. (2023). Pengaruh Kepuasan Wisatawan Terhadap Niat Berkunjung Kembali Pada Objek Wisata Nagari Tuo Pariangan. Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, 3(5), 6083–6090.J-Innovative

2023
[10]

Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J. R. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510385467

2012 doi
[11]

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management, (15th ed.). Pearson

2016
[12]

W., & Kristianto, Y

Leonita, W., Suardana, I. W., & Kristianto, Y. (2022). Pengaruh Motivasi dan Persepsi Risiko terhadap Minat Berkunjung Kembali ke Ekowisata Taman Hutan Raya Ngurah Rai pada Masa Pandemi Covid -19. Jurnal IPTA (Industri Perjalanan Wisata). https://doi.org/10 .24843/IPTA.2022.v1...

2022
[13]

N., & Mananda, I

Martalia, D., Sudiarta, I. N., & Mananda, I. G. P. B. S. (2022). Pengaruh Pengalaman Terhadap Kepuasan dan Niat Berkunjung Ke mbali Wisatawan Nusantara Pada Masa Pandemi di Taman Nasional Baluran. Jurnal Master Pariwisata (JUMPA). https://doi.org/10.24843/JUMPA.2022.v09.i01.p0...

2022 doi
[14]

Maulana Noto Prasojo, M. F. (2022). Pengaruh Customer Experience dan Servicescape terhadap Word of Mouth Ekowisata Kampung Blekok Situbondo dengan Kepuasan Konsumen sebagai Variabel Intervening. Repository Universitas Yudharta Pasuruan. https://repository.yudharta.ac.id/4403/1...

2022
[15]

M., & Jeoung, M

Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507304039

2007 doi
[16]

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill

1997
[17]

J., & Gilmore, J

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business Press

1999
[18]

Primadi, R., Simanjuntak, M., & Muflikhati, I. (2021). Faktor Penentu Kepuasan dan Minat Kunjung Ulang Ekowisata. Jurnal Apli kasi Manajemen dan Bisnis, 7(1), 110-120.ResearchGate

2021
[19]

Y., Pujiastuti, E

Ramadhani, N. Y., Pujiastuti, E. E., & Sugiarto, M. (2022). Pengaruh Pengalaman Emosional dan Atribut Destinasi terhadap Kepuasan Wisatawan serta Loyalitas Wisatawan. Business UHO: Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis, 11(2), 45-56. https://ojs.uho.ac.id/index.php/BUSSINESUHO/article/vi...

2022
[20]

Sugiyono. (2018). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R\&D. Alfabeta

2018
[21]

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469

1980
[22]

A., & Santoso, B

Wicaksono, Y. A., & Santoso, B. (2015). Fasilitas dan pengaruhnya terhadap kepuasan wisatawan. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 19(1), 87–98

2015
[23]

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 784–807

2001
[24]

M., & Yagüe, M

Campo, S., Díaz, A. M., & Yagüe, M. J. (2010). Hotel innovation and performance in times of crisis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(5), 620–636

2010
[25]

Y., Chen, K

Wang, C. Y., Chen, K. Y., Su, C. T., & Chang, H. T. (2015). Tourist behavior intention of heritage tourism site: The moderate role of satisfaction and place attachment. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 39(3), 345–365

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ali, F., Ryu, K., & Hussain, K. (2016). Influence of experiences on memories, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A study of creative tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1038418

work page arXiv 2016

[2] [2]

A., & Crompton, J

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 7 85–804, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383%2899%2900108-5

work page doi:10.1016/s0160-7383 2000

[3] [3]

Dewi, L. P. T. A., & Musmini, L. S. (2023). Literature Review: Pengalaman dan Kepuasan Wisatawan terhadap Niat Berkunjung Kembali ke Desa Wisata. Jurnal Manajemen Perhotelan dan Pariwisata. https://doi.org/10.23887/jmpp.v6i2.67540E-Journal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha

work page doi:10.23887/jmpp.v6i2.67540e-journal 2023

[4] [4]

Dewi, M. I. P., Tirtawati, N. M., & Liestiandre, H. K. (2023). Pengaruh Memorable Tourism Experience terhadap Kepuasan Wisata wan dan Niat Berkunjung Kembali di Desa Wisata Penglipuran. Jurnal Sains Pemasaran Indonesia, 22(2), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.14710/jspi.v22i2.132-148 Jurnal Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha+3Undip E-Journal+3Journal Arimbi+3

work page doi:10.14710/jspi.v22i2.132-148 2023

[5] [5]

Gustari, S., Kusumah, A. H. G., & Nurazizah, G. R. (2022). Pengaruh Pengalaman Wisatawan terhadap Niat Berkunjung Kembali Ke Ciwangun Indah Camp dengan Mediator Memories. Tourism and Hospitality Essentials Journal. https://doi.org/10.17509/jtee.v10i1.76961 Ejournal UPI

work page doi:10.17509/jtee.v10i1.76961 2022

[6] [6]

F., Black, W

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education

work page 2010

[7] [7]

Ikwanadi, K. E. (2020). Pengaruh Customer Experience dan Servicescape terhadap Word of Mouth Ekowisata Kampung Blekok Situbon do dengan Kepuasan Konsumen sebagai Variabel Intervening. Repository Universitas Jember. http://repository.unej.ac.id/handle/123456 789/99576Repository UNEJ

work page 2020

[8] [8]

A., & Andriani, N

Irsyadi, N. A., & Andriani, N. (2023). Pengaruh Pengalaman Wisatawan Terhadap Minat Berkunjung Kembali Melalui Mediasi Kepuasan Pelanggan Di Pantai Sembilan Kecamatan Gili Genting Kabupaten Sumenep. Management Science and Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 1 -10. https://doi.org/10.37385/msej.v5i1.3779YRPI Journal

work page doi:10.37385/msej.v5i1.3779yrpi 2023