Table 1.

0
Level of Competitiveness in terms of Facilitating Resources
Items Resort Resort Resort Resort Resort Grand Interpretation
A B C D E Mean
Visitor Information 3.50 3.20 3.40 3.40 4.10 3.52
Center Competitiv
e
Availability of money 3.00 3.10 2.90 3.20 4.00 3.24 Less
changer Competitiv
e
Pasalubong center and 3.40 3.50 3.10 3.30 3.70 3.40 Less
Souvenir shops. Competitiv
e
Resort links with major 3.40 3.40 3.10 3.20 4.20 3.46 Competitiv
origin markets. e

Accessibility of the 3.10 3.40 3.20 3.10 4.00 3.36 Less

resort. Competitiv
e
Overall 3.28 3.32 3.14 3.24 4.00 3.40 Less
Mean Competitiv
e
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Highly Competitive
3.41-4.20 Competitive
2.61-3.40 Less Competitive
1.81-2.60 Not Competitive
1.00-1.80 Highly Not Competitive

It can be gleaned from the table 1.0 that 2 out of 5 statements “Visitor Information
Center” and “Resort links with major origin markets” got a grand mean of 3.52 and 3.46
respectively and interpreted as Competitive. While 3 of 5 statements “Availability of
money changer, “Pasalubong center and Souvenir shops” and “Accessibility of the
resort” and interpreted as Less Competitive. From the 5 resorts they got an overall
mean of 3.40 interpreted as Less Competitive.

This means that in terms of the level of competitiveness particularly the

Facilitating Resources the said 5 resorts are in the level of progressing that means
respondents are looking into improvement of the resources in years coming.
Table 1.1
Level of Competitiveness in terms of Spirit of Hospitality
Items Resort Resort Resort Resort Resort Grand Interpretation
A B C D E Mean
Friendly high-spirited 3.50 3.60 3.30 3.40 4.00 3.56
and hospitable Competitiv
employees. e
Employees can 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.30 4.10 3.40 Less
communicate well to Competitiv
tourists. e
The resort can get 2.90 3.10 2.80 2.70 4.00 3.10 Less
people to stay longer. Competitiv
e
Tourist-oriented 3.40 3.30 2.90 3.10 4.30 3.40 Less
employees. Competitiv
e
The resort delivers 3.30 3.40 3.10 3.10 4.10 3.40 Less
quality guest service. Competitiv
e
The resort can provide 3.20 3.60 3.10 3.30 3.80 3.40 Less
pleasure and Competitiv
satisfaction e
Overall 3.25 3.37 3.07 3.15 4.05 3.38 Less
Mean Competitiv
e
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Highly Competitive
3.41-4.20 Competitive
2.61-3.40 Less Competitive
1.81-2.60 Not Competitive
1.00-1.80 Highly Not Competitive

As depicted in the table 1.1 only “Friendly high-spirited and hospitable

employees” got an average of 3.56 as interpreted as in competitive level. While 4 out 5
statements were interpreted as Less Competitive. That means in terms of having Spirit
of Hospitality they are less Competitive but employees are friendly high spirited and
hospitable according to the results stated.
 But Among the 5 resorts, Resort E is the only resort that interpreted Competitive.
It only implies that employees in Resort E are trained well as far as spirit of Hospitality is
concerned.

Table 1.2
Level of Competitiveness in terms of Safety & Security
Items Resort Resort Resort Resort Resort Grand Interpretation
A B C D E Mean
Security personnel are 3.40 3.70 3.40 3.40 4.30 3.50
visible and always Competitiv
available for assistance. e
Security equipment are 3.40 3.70 3.60 3.20 4.00 3.58 Competitiv
visible (CCTV camera, e
fire extinguisher, etc).
Helpful police services 3.60 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.70 3.50 Competitiv
around the area. e

Availability of fire 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.20 4.20 3.46 Competitiv

extinguisher and other e
safety equipment.

Maintain or secure 3.10 3.40 3.70 3.60 3.70 3.50 Competitiv

guests privacy. e

Overall 3.32 3.46 3.52 3.32 3.98 3.51 Competitiv

Mean e
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Highly Competitive
3.41-4.20 Competitive
2.61-3.40 Less Competitive
1.81-2.60 Not Competitive
1.00-1.80 Highly Not Competitive

As shown in the table 1.2 it is clearly shows that guests or tourists were

evaluated all the said resorts as in competitive level in terms of Safety and Security. But

as we look into detail respondents were not satisfied in terms of their Safety and
Security in Resort A and Resort D as they have resulted both 3.32 in their overall mean

and interpreted as Less Competitive. That goes to show that Resort A and Resort D

must strengthen their system of securing the safety and security of their guests.

Table 1.3
Level of Competitiveness in terms of Cost and Value
Items Resort Resort Resort Resort Resort Grand Interpretation
A B C D E Mean
Reasonable fees. 3.40 3.10 3.70 3.20 3.60 3.40 Less
Competitiv
e
Value for money. 3.30 3.00 3.30 3.20 3.80 3.32 Less
Competitiv
e
No hidden charges. 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.30 3.50 3.28 Less
Competitiv
e
Appropriate prices for 3.20 3.60 3.10 3.40 3.90 3.44 Competitiv
the services received. e

Promotes energy 3.00 3.60 3.20 3.20 3.60 3.32 Less

consumption. Competitiv
e
Overall 3.20 3.30 3.32 3.26 3.68 3.35 Less
Mean Competitiv
e
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Highly Competitive
3.41-4.20 Competitive
2.61-3.40 Less Competitive
1.81-2.60 Not Competitive
1.00-1.80 Highly Not Competitive

As depicted in the table, the level of Competitiveness in terms of Cost and Value in

overall rating is 3.35 interpreted as Less competitive. And as we look into the resorts itself it is

clearly stated that only Resort E is in competitive level.

 It only means that guests believe that among the 5 resorts only resort E has the budget

friendly cost and value and 4 out 5 resorts have a quiet expensive cost and value for their

resorts.

Table 2.0
Mean Difference between Level of Competitiveness between competing Resorts in Guiuan,
Eastern Samar

Attributes MD SD 95% CI t df p-value

LL UL
Pair 1. Resort A to B 0.03 0.29 -0.06 0.10 0.466 49 0.322

Pair 2. Resort A to C -0.14 0.43 -0.27 -0.02 -2.341 49 0.012

Pair 3. Resort A to D 0.17 0.45 0.04 0.30 2.658 49 0.005

Pair 4. Resort B to C -0.12 0.35 -0.22 -0.02 -2.475 49 0.008

Pair 5. Resort C to D 0.04 0.37 -0.06 0.15 0.829 49 0.206

Note: N=50, df=49, CI=Confidence Interval, LL=Lower Limit, UL=Upper Limit, p<0.05

Table 2 portrays the Mean Differences of level of competitiveness between five

competing Resorts in Eastern Samar. Using Analysis of Variance at significance level of 0.05

from the 50 respondents, the following are the result for p-value.

For Resort A to B the p-value from the ANOVA table is 0.322 and greater than the

significance level of 0.05. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence that Resort A and Resort B has

statistically significant difference between mean scores of level of competitiveness of two

competing resorts.
 For Resort A to C the p-value from the ANOVA table is 0.012 and it is less than the

significance level of 0.05. Hence, there is a sufficient evidence that Resort A and Resort C has

statistically significant difference between mean scores of level of competitiveness of two

competing resorts.

For Resort A to D the p-value from the ANOVA table is 0.005 and it is less than the

significance level of 0.05. Hence, there is a sufficient evidence that Resort A and Resort D has

statistically significant difference between mean scores of level of competitiveness of two

competing resorts.

For Resort B to C the p-value from the ANOVA table is 0.008 and it is less than the

significance level of 0.05. Hence, there is a sufficient evidence that Resort B and Resort C has

statistically significant difference between mean scores of level of competitiveness of two

competing resorts.

For Resort C to D the p-value from the ANOVA table is 0.206 and greater than the

significance level of 0.05. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence that Resort A and Resort B has

statistically significant difference between mean scores of level of competitiveness of two

competing resorts.