The Influence of Tourist Satisfaction against the Intention to Revisit of the Indonesian Tourist to Malaysia

dx

According to the Malaysia Tourism Report 2021, ASEAN nations, which include Vietnam (-78.7%),Thailand (83.2%),Singapore (-85.7%), and Indonesia (-75%) have seen significant declines in tourist arrivals due to the epidemic.result, citing statistics from the Pacific Travel Association (PATA) and the National Tourism Organization (NTO).Despite this, Malaysian tourism expenditure fell by 85.3% between 2019 and 2020, from 86.14 billion to 12.69 billion.The mean expense per worker was RM2,928, a decrease of 11.3% from RM3,300 in 2019.
The estimated total number of tourists has dropped to 4.33 million by 2020, according to data provided to the Malaysian Ministry of Tourism & Culture.On the other hand, the trend varies from 2017 to 2019.With a total number of arrivals until the end of 2019 of 26.10 million people.In addition, 2020 was the most affected year since the pandemic situation hit the country with only 4.33 million arrivals and 12.7 billion (Malaysia, 2021).Naturally, several elements, such as perceived worth and image, can contribute to this drop, but contentment is the most common cause.Accordingly, perception and image, along with general pleasure, might have an impact on travelers' propensity or want to return and use different tourism amenities.(Ramli, et al, 2022) The phrase "intention to revisit" is commonly employed in research studies to statistically analyze the factors that could influence it.
Osman and Sentosa assert that recurrent visits are predicated on a visitor's initial impression of a location (Thipsingh et al., 2022).Repeat visitors are more inclined to go back to places they have been before, which influences their chances of going there again in the future, according to Kozak's 2001 study (Thipsingh et al., 2022).In addition, many studies show that reputation perceived value, and satisfaction with a destination significantly influence the intention to revisit.

Research Gap
Referring to the previous studies, Soonsan & Sukah Bot (2019) illustrate how to assess visitors from overseas, it is vital to describe the picture of society and the location, as well as the cause and effect model.Aside from that, more research is required to gain a deeper understanding of the connection between behavioral goals and image in tourism.The study's findings indicate a favorable and substantial association between destination image and intention to revisit.The findings of the research by Purnama & Wardi (2019) show that the destination's picture has significant consequences on intent to revisit.This study also found that the government must constantly promote tourism attractions through official government websites to maintain the destination image.Siregar et al., (2019) provide information that a tourism business can maintain its sustainability through destination image because, in the end, it will determine people's desire to return to using the tourist attraction.This demonstrates that destination image, which comprises attractions, services and attractions, infrastructure, hospitality, and pricing, have a significant impact, both in terms of indicators and elements, on 384 h#ps://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/jurnal_Mixintention to revisit (Foster & Sidharta, 2019;Cham et al., 2021;Nguyen Viet et al., 2020;and Al-Dweik, 2020).Findings from the study by Rosli et al., (2023) suggest that Malaysian tourism managers have to comprehend the connections between destination image and intention to revisit because it determines not only visitor happiness but also desire to revisit.The results of Rosli et al. differ from this study because, although they did not analyze perceived value, their study sample was limited to local visitors, while that study used a foreign sample, namely Indonesia.As reported by Santini et al., (2018) perceived value (utilitarian and hedonic) is a factor that directly influences the intention to revisit, although the utilitarian effect is stronger.Other research has found that perceived value impacts the intention to revisit (Damanik & Yusuf, 2022;Morshed et al., 2022;and Intuluck et al., 2024), but these studies do not employ tourist satisfaction as a mediator and only use national (local) samples.Syakier & Hanafiah (2021) indicate that if visitors are pleased with various tourist amenities, they tend to return to tourist attractions.In other words, tourist pleasure might lead to a desire to return, according to a study undertaken by Safian et al., (2021); Atmari & Putri (2021); and Morshed et al., (2022) concluded that the perception of destination not only impacts loyalty but may also contribute to tourist satisfaction while quantitative studies show that it has a considerable impact on tourist visitor contentment.According to opinions, destination image affects visitor satisfaction as well as loyalty.Quantitative research also indicates that it significantly affects how satisfied visitors are.In the opinion of Lu et al., (2020) and Lea et al., (2020) visitor customers would rely their decision to visit more on the destination image since they have been satisfied with various services at tourist attractions.Meanwhile, findings from studies by Libre et al., (2022) and Preko et al., (2020) clarify that based on their perceptions of what they obtain and receive, consumers form general opinions on the worth of a good or service, which is known as perceived value i.e. the difference between the advantages and costs encountered by tourists.
Since the mediation of satisfaction on the relationship between image and perceived value on the intention of returning Indonesian tourists to Malaysia has not been examined in the entirety of prior research.For example, the results of research (Rismawati & Sitepu, 2021) are similar to this research, but have not studied perceived value, and only used a local sample (Medan City Tourism, Indonesia) while this research used a sample of Indonesian tourists visiting Malaysian tourist attractions.Likewise with the results of Atmari research using tourists visiting Purbalingga, Indonesia.Apart from that, there is still an empirical gap, namely the research results of Rismawati & Sitepu (2021) showing a significant influence of 20.70% which is different (bigger) from the research results of Atmari & Putri (2021) which is 18.70%.The research results of Rames et al., (2021) are based on a correlation significance value of 12.00% which is different (smaller) from the research results of Lu et al., (2020) which is 95.00% regarding the link between visitor happiness and destination image.These two studies also have different analytical methods, where Rames' research uses regression while Lu et al., uses equation modeling and PLS analysis.Based on multiple empirical gap investigations and the existence of these gaps, the research purpose is to seek the connection between destination image and perceived value on intention to return to Malaysia, indirectly as well as directly through visitor satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Destination image
Destination image is an essential component in numerous conceptual frameworks that represent visitor decision-making procedures (Libre et al., 2022) a collection of ideas, views, sentiments, visualizations, and intents that entice visitors to visit a specific location (Imaningsih et al., 2022;Marlina et al., 2024;Rohman et al., 2020;Tasci & Gartner, 2007).Furthermore, according to Jenkins (1999), the key theme for tourist locations is related to brand image, which impacts travel and travel product sales (Thipsingh et al., 2022).The design further shows that image relates to both exogenous and endogenous features that visitors derive from trip net worth in terms of expenses and advantages.Some authors define destination image as a holistic perception of a location, including beliefs, information, and sentiments about the place as a tourist attraction (Lutfi et al., 2023;Supryadi et al., 2023).The idea differs from brand image in that it refers to the image of a product brand, involving both goods and services (Murtiningsih et al., 2024;Putro et al., 2024).
According to Sharma and Nayak (2018), as quoted by Libre et al., (2022) this are three indication factors in measuring destination image: (1) mental abilities which define a person's perception of the end destination, which is made up of beliefs and relevant information that represent an assessment of the qualities perceived from the destination; (2) emotionally charged, which embodies the sentiment behind the evaluation of the travel destination; and (3) cumulative, which illustrates visitors activities.

Perceived Value
According to Oliver (2015), there are three aspects to the concept of value: the first is the benefits of consumer products for consumers regardless of their value and costs -where, if they are not present, individuals will feel worthless and deficient; due to the second, value must be assessed in light of alternatives, regardless of how they differ from one another; and the third shows the outcomes of an algorithm that compares losses to determine the best buy value (Atasoy & Eren, 2023).Perceived value is the value felt by customers regarding price and service costs (Sriwidadi & Prabowo, 2023).The project additionally states that perceived value by the consumer is the outcome of the potential client's assessment of all the benefits and expenses of an offer, as well as the alternatives they perceive.The overall customer benefits covered include aspects that include functional, psychological, and pecuniary.Total cost is the sum of all predicted prices related to obtaining, utilizing, and releasing an offering, including financial, time, and energy charges, as well as psychological costs (Kotler & Keller, 2016).A tourist's perceived value comprises an overall appraisal of a location according to the advantages realized (Chen & Tsai, 2007).Many experts feel that perceived value has a major impact on visitors' propensity to visit (Libre et al., 2022).Perceived value indicators include quality/performance value, emotional, price, and social value (Tjiptono, 2015;An et al., 2021).

Tourist Satisfaction
Satisfaction originates from travel interactions which consequently cause an emotional state that originates from a particular vacation spot (Ulfy et al., 2021).In theory, satisfaction is an individual's perception of pleasure and unhappy feelings caused by a discrepancy between the output (or outcomes) of an operation or commodity and their needs (Karyatun et al., 2023;Kotler & Keller, 2016).According to Cole & Scott from a tourism perspective, satisfaction is a pleasant feeling obtained after a tourist visit (Amalia et al., 2023).the measurement of tourist pleasure is based on emotional reactions that come after the cognitive reactions learned throughout the service interaction, as well as the difference between expectations before and 386 h#ps://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/jurnal_Mixafter the visit.In other words, tourist consumer satisfaction can be fulfilled if a tourist attraction can see the factors that influence tourist satisfaction, one of which is facilities (Purnama & Wardi, 2019).Indicators for measuring tourist satisfaction consist of Knowledge gained after the visit; desire to visit; understanding of the history of the destination; value for money at tourist attractions; expectations and experience of the visit (Vien, 2021).

Intention to Revisit
Several researchers suggest that repeat travelers stay in longer in a place, participate more actively in consumer activities, are happier, and generate excellent word of mouth, despite spending substantially less advertising costs than first-time visitors (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020).According to Pamela, the intention to revisit is the intention to plan a certain behavior.This indicates that when individuals have a strong purpose to carry out a behavior, they choose to carry out recreational behavior in the tourist sector.This takes back tourism services or leisure services, or repeat visits from locations or visitors (Purnama & Wardi, 2019;Rizkiatami et al., 2023;Supryadi et al., 2023).Additionally, it indicates that interest in revisiting relates to travelers' readiness to return to the same place or additional tourist sites throughout the same country.
Indicators that can be used to measure tourist intentions are the desire to visit in the future; frequent visits; and designated favorite places (Soonsan & Sukahbot, 2019, Abbasi et al., 2021).

Research Hypothesis and Framework Image of the Destination and the Plan to Return
Destination image is a system of ideas, beliefs, feelings, visions, and intentions that individuals use to make specific decisions (Tasci & Gartner, 2007).Intention to return happens when people have a strong intention to carry out an activity, which influences specific behaviors, such as revisiting tourist locations they have previously visited (Purnama & Wardi, 2019;Soelton et al., 2020).This suggests that the tourist image will have an overall influence on the propensity to return to certain tourist destinations.In other words, someone will return to a tourist destination because it has a history of providing complete service.According to studies done by: Siregar et al., (2019); Cham et al., (2021); Al-Dweik (2020); Morshed et al., (2022);and Rosli et al., (2023).According to this description, this hypothesis is: H1: The intention to return is significantly influenced by the destination's image.

Perceived Value and Intention to Revisit
Tourists' perceived value is their total opinion of a location based on the benefits it provides (Chen & Tsai, 2007).Consequently, perceived value is a social psychology manifestation of the whole external appraisal, which will eventually influence the decision to reuse tourism.The study's findings reveal that perceived value has a direct effect on the intention to revisit, which is backed by five aspects (Nadarajah & Ramalu, 2018).Meanwhile, the results of Libre et al., (2022);and Intuluck et al., (2024) illustrate that perceived value has a positive influence on intention to return if tourism marketers make all tourism services and security simply available and consistent.According to this description, the theory is: H2: Recurrence intention is significantly impacted by perceived value.

Tourist Satisfaction and Intention to Revisit
Pleasure is a person's feeling of pleasure or discontent with the output of a service or product in comparison to their demands (Kotler & Keller, 2016;Madiawati & Pardede, 2023;Ricardianto et al., 2024).Intention to revisit juga berhubungan dengan perilaku konsumen untuk membeli produk termasuk produk dalam bentuk jasa (Timotius & Putra, 2023).Therefore, diversity in tourist satisfaction will also emerge when obtaining various inputs when using various facilities available at the tourist destination.This indicates that tourist satisfaction can increase or decrease the intention to revisit.Research results have proven that there is an influence on the level of tourist satisfaction on the decision to return to the tourist attractions they have visited (Syakier & Hanafiah, 2021); (Safian et al., 2021); (Thipsingh et al., 2022); (Wiganda & Marsasi, 2023); and (Amalia et al., 2023).Following this description, the study the prediction is: H3: Tourist satisfaction has an important influence on the intention to revisit

Destination Image and Tourist Satisfaction
The effect of destination image on tourist satisfaction has been widely studied and the relationship is positive and significant, although several current researchers (e.g.Lea et al., 2020;Lu et al., 2020;and Rames) differ on the value of R2. et al., 2021).However, according to the definition, a destination image is developed in a person's head, especially those with the status of a client, after they have finished using different tourist amenities.So, the destination image has a direct and considerable influence on tourist satisfaction.Research results by Rames et al., (2021) found that destination image has a considerable influence on visitor satisfaction, although travelers continue to complain, particularly about the cleanliness of tourist sites.Based on this reasoning, The following theory is put forward: H4: The destination image has a considerable impact on tourist satisfaction.

Perceived Value and Tourist Satisfaction
Perceived value, apart from influencing intention to revisit, can also influence tourist satisfaction.The research results show that perceived value can increase the number of tourists because there is a sense of satisfaction with various facilities or services Putra et al., (2020); An et al., (2021);and Nurfauzi et al., (2023).Other authors also explain that perceived value has a direct or indirect impact on tourist satisfaction (Preko et al., 2020).So, consumer feelings towards various tourism values (benefits and costs) are important for various tourist management to understand to increase visits through tourist satisfaction.but is also a mediator of the relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables.The research results of Rismawati &Sitepu (2021), andThipsingh et al., (2022) found that perceived value has a direct influence on tourist satisfaction, while destination image and perceived value have an indirect relationship on intention to revisit via tourist satisfaction variable.Based on this reasoning, the following ideas are proposed: H5 : H6 :

H7 :
Perceived value has a big impact on tourist satisfaction.Tourist satisfaction influences the association between destination image and intention to return.Tourist satisfaction influences the link between perceived value and the inclination to revisit.Based on the description above, it can be illustrated in the image below.

Figure 1. Framework for Research RESEARCH METHODS
The current study uses an explanatory survey method for its research or design, the purpose of which is to collect information about subjects in the field, utilizing a questionnaire and a population sample as the primary methods of data collection.Therefore, a quantitative (positivist) approach was used in this study.A multivariate statistical method for comparing exogenous and endogenous variables in structural equation modeling research is SmartPls 4.1.0.1v.Exogenous variables are destination image and perceived value, as well as visitor satisfaction, which acts as a mediator, and intention to stay as an endogenous variable.The responses are 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (disagree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree) for each item in the variables X1, X2, Y1, and Y2.Hair et al ( 2019) defined the path of the largest number of exogenous variables multiplied by 10 as the minimum sample size path for SEM analysis.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
As stated by R et al., ( 2019), the PLS-SEM used Indicator loadings, convergent validity, discriminant validity (Fornell-Lacker criteria and a heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of 0.90), and composite reliability used to assess the measurement model (external model).
Collinearity (VIF 3-5), Q2 value (numbers above 0, 0.25, and 0.50 characterize small, medium, and big), and R2 value (values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 are regarded significant, moderate, and weak), Other things to take into account are goodness of fit and PLSpredict, which compares MAE (or RMSE) with LM for each measure.

Outer Model Evaluation
The first procedure in analyzing the reflective accounting model is to check the indicator loading.According to external load evaluation results in Table 2, the convergence of the validity test using reflective indicators is interesting overall, as the factor loading specific indicators onto the variables under study exceeds the value of 0.70.In addition, Hair et al (2019) found that the average variance value of the loading indicator variables X1 was > 0.50.It also indicates that all exogenous and endogenous variable indicators require further investigation.The Fornell-Larcker value, which shows that the AVE of the average variance is higher than the correlation between the latent variables (indicators), is then used to assess the discriminant validity.An instance, the reflective construct Y2 (revised test) is 0.802 greater than the column's correlation value Y2.As a result, all items in this questionnaire are discriminative.However, the Fornell Larcker criteria fail to operate effectively, particularly when the indicator loadings of the construct vary slightly, according to Henseler et al., 2015Hair et al., (2019).(for example, all indicator loadings are between 0.65 and 0,85).Henseler et al. (2015) presented the heterotraitmonotrait correlation relationship (HTMT) to facilitate this assessment.Voorhees et al., 2016, cited by Hair et al., (2019), described as the ratio of the average (geometric) correlation of elements assessing the same construct to the average (item) correlation in the relative fraction of constructions.Henseler et al. ( 2015) discussed the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) technique as the process for evaluating discriminant validity.Stating that the distribution of ratio values is below 0.85 and/or <0.90, establishing the upper limit of the ratio at the standard measurement value of 0.85, was pronounced valid biased.The complete variation in HTMT values is: X2 _(Perceived Value) <-> X1 _(Destination Image) = 0,117; dan Y2 _(Intention _to Revisit) <-> X1 _(Destination Image) = 0,893 not valid; Y1_(Tourist Satisfaction) <-> X1 _(Destination Image) = 0,737; Y1_(Tourist Satisfaction) <-> X2 _(Perceived Value) = 0,634; Y2 _(Intention _to Revisit) <-> X2 _(Perceived Value) = 0,871; dan Y2 _(Intention _to Revisit) <-> Y1_(Tourist Satisfaction) = 0,799, indicating that is still less than 0.90, implying that the whole construct is a valid discriminant.
Finally, composite reliability or internal consistency is often assessed using Jöreskog's ( 1971 into "acceptable for research studies", while values between 0.70 and 0.90 range from "satisfactory to good" (Hair et al., 2019).According to the SmartPLS output data, Table 2 shows that all the constructs have composite reliability values above 0.60 to 0.70.In addition, Cronbach's alpha exceeds 0.60 (eg, AVE X1 target image 0.753 > 0.60).Therefore the structures are very reliable.Hair and others.( 2019) Using the same criterion, Cronbach's alpha is an additional internal consistency reliability test that yields a lower result than composite reliability.

The Reflective Structural Model of Assessment
The VIF calculation findings in Table 3 indicate that the model used in this study lacks a collinearity problem since it has a VIF value (2.921; 3.192; 2.921; 2.971; and 1.510) that is less than 5, which Hair et al. ( 2019) believe is ideal.A VIF score of > 3-5 indicates no multicollinearity in the study model.As shown in Table 3, the R2 (R-Squares) score is the determinant coefficient value, which indicates the overall impact of exogenous and endogenous latent variables in a structural model.According to Figure 3, the determination coefficients may be interpreted as follows.(1) Destination image, perceived value, and tourist satisfaction predict the endogenous variable (intention to revisit) by 58.80%, which is in the moderate category; and (2) Destination image and perception influence life satisfaction by 0.338 (33.80%), which is also in the moderate category.As to the findings of Ghozali & Latan (2015), a model is classified as powerful when its R-squares value is 0.67, moderate when it is 0.33, and bad when it is 0.19.F 2 examination of endogenous constructs examines the extent of the exogenous substantive influence (f 2 effect sizes) as well as the overall effect.The impact that outside substantives on endogenous conceptions is determined by the f2 value.The variable X2 Perceived's contribution value can be seen in Table 3.The extent of the exterior substantive influence (f2 effect ratios) and the total effect are the main points of focus in the f2 assessment or evaluation of endogenous constructs.The variable Y2 (Intention to Revisit) has a contribution value of 0.192 at the medium level.The following criteria coincide with Cohen's 1988 conclusions as stated by Hair et al. (2019): "F2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively, represent small, medium, and large effects of the exogenous latent variable," according to recommended guidelines.In other words, on average, the models in the research have medium predictive power.Table 4 shows that, based on the PLS predict evaluation (RMSE against LM), the majority prediction error of the PLS-SEM-RMSE and PLS-SEM-MAE from PLS-SEM analysis is greater than that of the linear regression model (LM).These results imply that the study's model has limited predictive potential.According to Hair et al. ( 2019), "the majority (low predictive power), the minority or the same number (medium diagnostic power), or none of the indicators (high predictive power)."This grade concurs with their findings.
It is also necessary to look at the GoF index study, which can only be done using an analytical measurement model-that is, by multiplying the geometric average communality by the average R square-as the root (Yamin, 2023).Communality is equal to the loading factor squared.Wetzels et al. (2009) interpreted the GoF index values as 0.1 (low), 0.25 (mid), and 0.36 (high).For example, the calculation results reveal that the Y1 and Y2 GoF indexes are respectively √ 0,338  0,279 = 30.70%;and +0,588  0,475 = 52.84%includes the high category.In other words, empirical data can explain measurement models, particularly those with a high degree of appropriateness or goodness of fit.
The method involves comparing the linear regression model with the root mean squared error (RMSE) result.The result of PLSpredict is shown in the following table:
According to Table 4, tourist satisfaction (Y1) has a role in mediating the indirect impact at the high group structure level, as indicated by the partial mediation value of 0.175.Regarding the mediation of the indirect effects of X2 on Y2, tourist satisfaction has an impact in the low group but not in the other group.According to Cohen's assessment in Ogbeibu et al., (2021), there was a 0.175 (high mediation effect), 0.075 (medium mediation effect), and 0.01 degree of mediation.

Discussion
The perception of the location has a big impact on the desire to go back.This study demonstrates that the destination picture has a substantial favorable influence on the intention to revisit since the significance level is less than 0.05.This implies that the destination picture indication might urge users to return after a particular amount of time.These findings are consistent with Siregar et al., (2019) argument that a tourist business may maintain its sustainability through destination image, which, in the end, determines people's willingness to return to tourism in locations they have visited.
However, several things need to be paid attention to by tourism management in Malaysia, namely the need to study the costs of using facilities because they still seem expensive for some tourists.The results of this investigation are consistent with the outcomes of Cham et al., (2021); Al-Dweik, (2020); and Morshed et al., (2022) showing that destination image can make a positive contribution to intention to revisit.However, the results of this research have differences in correlational values with previous research.For example, the results of Cham et al.'s previous research had a correlation value of 0.194 (19.40%) while the research was 0.321 (32.10%).
The intention to revisit is significantly influenced by perceived value.This study demonstrates that perceived value has a considerable positive influence on the intention to revisit since the significance value is less than 0.05.This means that the perceived value indicator can encourage people to make return visits.These results show that evaluation outcomes about the overall costs and advantages of tourism have an impact on the intention of returning consumers or potential customers.
However, several things need to be paid attention to by tourism management in Malaysia, namely the need to provide services such as building communication that does not offend customers, therefore tourism management needs to understand various customer backgrounds, especially the culture of each country.Apart from that, there is a need for continuous travel cost surveys because it is the main source of evaluation from customers.(Ramli et al, 2022) This research also has similarities with previous research, namely : Meeprom & Silanoi (2020); Atasoy & Eren (2023);and Intuluck et al., (2024) which shows that perceived emotional value, social value, performance value, and price value have a constructive influence on intention to revisit.However, the results of this study have differences in correlational values with previous

Tourist satisfaction has a significant influence on Intention to Revisit.
As stated by Kotler and Keller (2016) satisfaction is a person's sense of fulfillment and unhappiness caused by a mismatch between the output (or outcomes) of a service or product and a person's requirements.Tourist pleasure occurs as a result of using various tourist service amenities, which impacts the decision to return to that location.This study shows that tourist satisfaction has a substantial influence on the intention to return since the p-value is less than alpha 0.05.These findings demonstrate that people's contentment with tourist attractions is a crucial issue to examine, particularly when it comes to tourism characteristics such as the history of tourist attractions, prices, and the consistency of information provided by tourists.
The significance of the results of this investigation aligns with the findings of Safian et al., (2021); Thipsingh et al., (2022);and Amalia et al., (2023) which fundamentally explain that tourist happiness immediately impacts the intention to return.As a result, if tourist clients are satisfied with many parts of the service during and after visiting tourist sites, their desire to return may rise or contribute positively.

The destination's reputation has a big impact on how satisfied tourists are.
This study also demonstrates that the destination image has a favorable and substantial influence on visitor satisfaction since the p-value is less than 0.05.These results are comparable to the study performed by (Lu et al., 2020) which states that tourist satisfaction, including emotions of enjoyment, experience, and how to make decisions, is an indicator that leads to tourist satisfaction.This means that customers experience satisfaction if the tourist attractions they visit meet their expectations.
Other researchers also revealed that tourist satisfaction is a very important factor because this variable is directly related to the number of visits in the future (Lea et al., 2020;Rames et al., 2021;Ulfy et al., 2021).This is of course greatly influenced by the destination image which is closely related to ideas, feelings, and especially people's intent to return to tourist sites they have previously experienced.
Tourist satisfaction is significantly impacted by perceived value.Since the p-value is higher than 0.05, the research findings show that perceived value has little to no effect.On the other hand, the f2 value indicates that the correlation value, at 18.20%, belongs to the medium group.Future tourist management must therefore take perceived worth into account.Sentiments or emotions, together with tourist expenditures that are influenced by visitor satisfaction, are closely linked to perceived value.The findings of this study contradict prior studies (Kusumawati & Rahayu, 2020;Jaleel et al., 2021;and Hafidz & Dominicius, 2023).
Furthermore, this study demonstrates that visitor satisfaction can partially mediate the association between destination image and intention to revisit, but it cannot mediate the relationship between perceived worth and the desire to come back.This means that tourist satisfaction is important in contributing to the influence between exogenous and endogenous variables, but also disrupts or reduces tourists' desire to visit the same tourist spot again.In 396 h#ps://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/jurnal_Mixother words, tourists who do not feel satisfied with services or various tourist facilities tend to feel dissatisfaction which ultimately reduces customer interest in traveling.

CONCLUSION
Destination image, perceived value, and tourist satisfaction can predict intention to revisit which is in the moderate category, and destination image and perceived influence on life satisfaction are also in the moderate category.PLSpredict examination reveals that partial last square-mean absolute error and from last square-structural modeling analysis provides a greater majority prediction error than the linear regression model.The findings of the SEM-PLS statistical test reveal that destination image, perceived value, and visitor satisfaction all have an impact on the intention to return.Destination image has a significant impact on tourists' enjoyment, whereas perceived value has less of an impact.Even though it falls under the medium range, perceived value is still important.The findings of these computations reveal that the influence of Meanwhile, tourist satisfaction has no mediating effect on the connection between perception and inclination to return.Additionally, the R2 value of this study (42.40%) differs from earlier studies (for example, Rames et al., 2021;and Alcocer et al., 2019)).The R2 values of 69.70% and 30%, respectively, reflect the association between destination image and tourist satisfaction.This implies that the findings of this study are still relevant to earlier quantitative research, but the strength of the association is measured differently.This is due to the shifting attitudes of visitors over time, and the research approach in this study was survey-based.Following this conclusion, Malaysian tourism management must take multiple measures, involving consistently improving the destination image by improving various tourist facilities following internal observations, as well as several notes in scientific articles.This means that there is a need to study the costs of using facilities because they still seem expensive for some tourists, and to conduct continuous surveys of travel costs because they are the main source of evaluation from customers.Next, there is a need to advertise or promote tourist destinations not only outside but also internally.Internal promotion means that management needs to create a promotional event when tourists are visiting.The research results cannot be generalized to all tourist destinations throughout the country.Apart from that, This study only considers how destination image affects satisfaction and propensity to return.As is common knowledge, a broad spectrum of other factors also influence pleasure (such as the caliber of the experience, the caliber of the product, the civic conduct of the consumer, etc.).As a consequence, future researchers can utilize these factors to continue this research, and they may be able to employ both an experimental and a survey design. ps://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/jurnal_Mix ) composite reliability.Reliability estimations, for instance, ranging from 0.60 to 0.70 are taken ps://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/jurnal_Mix

Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Volume 14 Number 2 | June 2024 p-ISSN: 2088-1231 e-ISSN: 2460-5328 390 h
Table 2 summarizes the reflective measurement model.It should be noted, however, that the external model test using SEM-SmartPls 4.1.0.1 was the first to reveal the presence of detectors with loadings below 0.708; To test and remove indicators of exogenous and endogenous factors that were not yet valid, this was done right away.MIX: #ps://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/jurnal_Mix