THE TAIPEI MRT (MASS RAPID TRANSIT) TOURISM ATTRACTION ANALYSIS FROM THE INBOUND TOURISTS' PERSPECTIVES

Figures & data

Table 1. MRT Attractiveness From the Perspective of Inbound Tourists

Attraction Statement	N	Mean*	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
1. Close to the hotel	310	3.85	.973	−.469	−.315
2. Efficient	311	4.44	.724	−1.201	1.051
3. Short waiting time	311	4.46	.655	−.946	.387
4. On‐time	310	4.43	.741	−1.110	.813
5. Safe and reliable	312	4.51	.690	−1.413	2.272
6. Comfortable	312	4.30	.822	−1.036	.591
7. Ticket price is reasonable	311	4.46	.802	−1.447	1.559
8. Process is easy to understand	311	4.33	.832	−1.218	1.292
9. Convenient transfer system	311	4.12	.850	−.731	.213
10. Information is abundant	310	3.83	.903	−.266	−.670
11. Signpost is very clear	312	4.06	.827	−.532	−.222
12. Multi‐language interpretation	309	4.00	.975	−.775	.007
13. Sufficient handicapped facility	291	3.51	.888	.004	.093
14. Environment is clean and neat	312	4.37	.796	−1.116	.742
15. Interior design is unique	310	3.65	.932	−.146	−.740
16. Good landscape design	311	3.63	.906	−.039	−.583
17. Distinct landmark	311	3.61	.891	−.025	−.511
18. Convenient to sightseeing spot	312	4.18	.765	−.707	.406
19. Attached to tourism spots	310	4.16	.818	−.812	.387
20. Comfortable pedestrianization	311	3.75	.839	−.158	−.449
21. Diversified functions of land use	308	3.79	.868	−.059	−.895
22. Convenient for shopping	308	4.15	.749	−.433	−.532
23. Friendly service people	306	3.93	.888	−.283	−.763
Overall	312	4.26	.672	−.815	1.642
Note. *1  =  strongly disagree with the statement to 5  =  strongly agree with the statement.

Table 2. The Importance and Performance Analysis for MRT*

	Consideration for Transportation		Improvement for MRT
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Transfer system	198	64%	56	18%
Bilingual environment	113	36%	70	22%
Service people	40	13%	21	7%
Ticket price	189	61%	19	6%
Shopping environment	98	31%	23	7%
Landscape design	14	5%	40	13%
Information source	107	34%	73	23%
Pedestrianization system	41	13%	50	16%
Other	10	3%	34	11%
Note. *These two questions are multiple choice questions.

Table 3. The Factor Analysis for MRT Attractions

	Holistic Attraction	Service Attraction	Information Attraction	Tourism Image	Station Location
Efficient	.669
Short waiting time	.749
On‐time	.713
Safe and reliable	.743
Comfortable	.657
Ticket price is reasonable	.498
Environment is clean and neat	.507
Multi‐language interpretation		.487
Sufficient handicapped facility		.631
Comfortable pedestrianization		.635
Diversified functions of land use		.635
Convenient for shopping		.457
Friendly service people		.697
Process is easy to understand			.722
Convenient transfer system			.713
Information is abundant			.671
Signpost is very clear			.721
Interior design is unique				.714
Good landscape design				.770
Distinctive landmark				.587
Close to the hotel					.737
Convenient to sightseeing spot					.650
Attached to tourism spots					.655
Factor Loading	3.571	3.146	2.713	2.709	2.102
% variance explained	15.32	13.68	11.80	11.78	9.14
Cumulative % of variance	15.32	29.20	41.00	52.78	61.92

Table 4. The Difference in MRT Tourism Attraction by Socio‐Economic Characteristics

Attraction Factor	Socio‐Economic	t/F Value	Comparison
Holistic attraction	Age	5.798	Above 41 > Under 30 Above 41 > 31‐ to 40‐years‐old
	Marriage status	2.206	Married > Not married
	Nationality	16.018	America > Asia, Europe > Asia
Service attraction	Student status	2.253	Student > Not student
	Nationality	18.150	America > Asia, Europe > Asia
Information attraction	Age	3.573	Above 41 > Under 30
	Married status	3.201	Married > Not married
	Nationality	3.275	America > Asia
Image attraction	Age	3.102
	Nationality	4.921	America > Asia
Location	Nationality	3.439	America > Others

Table 5. Differences in MRT Tourism Attractions by Trip Type

Attraction Factor	Trip Type	N	Mean	SD	t Value	Sig.
Holistic attraction	Group tour	57	4.24	.463	−2.990	.003
	Independent tour	249	4.47	.558
Service attraction	Group tour	54	3.54	.600	−4.298	.000
	Independent tour	57	3.94	.618
Image attraction	Group tour	56	3.41	.716	−2.361	.019
	Independent tour	252	3.69	.802

Table 6. The Difference on MRT Attractions by Different Purposes

Factor	Purposes of Taking MRT	N	Mean	t Value	Sig.
Location attraction	For commuting	267	4.11	3.393	.001
	Not for commuting	41	3.74
Service attraction	For MRT experience	51	4.04	2.216	.027
	Not for MRT experience	238	3.83
Holistic attraction	For transfer purpose	102	4.56	3.029	.003
	Not for transfer purpose	205	4.36
Service attraction	For transfer purpose	96	4.03	3.156	.002
	Not for transfer purpose	193	3.78

Table 7. The Difference in MRT Attraction by Number of Times of Taking Taipei MRT

Attraction Factor	F Value	Sig.	Comparison
Holistic	16.988	.000	Middle > Low, High > Low
Service	12.212	.000	Middle > Low, High > Low
Information	8.403	.000	Middle > Low, High > Low
Image	4.366	.014	Middle > Low
Location	4.549	.011	Middle > Low
Note. * 1 to 3 times (Low), 4 to 10 times (Middle), above 11 times (High).

Table 8. Difference in MRT Attractions by Satisfaction with Taipei MRT

Attraction Factor	F Value	Sig.	Comparison
Holistic	58.442	.000	b > a, c > a, c > b
Service	29.841	.000	b > a, c > a, c > b
Information	41.472	.000	b > a, c > a, c > b
Image	20.533	.000	b > a, c > a, c > b
Location	25.925	.000	b > a, c > a, c > b
Note. * Very dissatisfied and dissatisfied (a), satisfied (b), Very satisfied (c).