See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286524689

Tourist destination perception and well-being: What makes a destination

attractive?

Article in Journal Of Vacation Marketing · December 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1356766715615914

CITATIONS READS
24 4,292

2 authors:

Bernd F. Reitsamer Alexandra Brunner-Sperdin

University of Innsbruck University of Applied Sciences Kufstein
12 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 444 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bernd F. Reitsamer on 06 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Tourist destination perception and well-being:

What makes a destination attractive?

Bernd Frederik Reitsamera*, Alexandra Brunner-Sperdinb

a
University of Innsbruck, Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism,
Universitätsstraße 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
b
University of Applied Sciences Kufstein, Andreas Hofer-Straße 7, A-6330 Kufstein

The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Journal of Vacation Marketing,
published online before print on December 8, 2015 [doi:10.1177/1356766715615914]
by SAGE Publishing, All rights reserved.

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of place perception on tourist well-being to provide an
understanding of how destination attributes influence tourists’ response behaviors. Data were
collected in a self-administered survey from 631 respondents in three Austrian tourism
destinations. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling (Mplus 7.0) were employed to test
the hypothesized relationships. Results provide empirical evidence that tourists perceive
destination settings holistically and will report higher levels of psychological well-being if a
destination provides an adequate combination of sense-making (i.e., access and amenities) and
exploratory attributes (i.e., attractions and activities, entertainment options and local
community). Findings also show that tourists’ well-being has a significant, positive impact on
their intention to return and their desire to engage in positive word of mouth about the
destination. Most importantly, an indirect-only mediation of well-being on the relationship
between both sense-making and exploratory attributes and behavioral outcomes was found. An
integrated view of the results can provide important considerations for tourism research and
fruitful suggestions for DMOs.

Keywords

Destination attractiveness, destination attributes, place perception, tourist well-being, Mplus,

SEM
 2

In today’s competitive tourism marketplace, business rivalry continually increases, and not

just on a national level. Even smaller destinations have to compete in international terms (Ritchie

and Crouch, 2000; Webster and Ivanov, 2014). Changing needs and attitudes of many tourists

thus require destinations to develop unique leisure experiences based on their destination

profiles. Ways to foster destination attractiveness have thus recently become the focus of

attention for both research and practice (Formica and Uysal, 2006; Gretzel et al., 2006).

The attractiveness of a destination encourages people to visit and spend time there; therefore,

attractiveness has a significant influence on determining a tourist’s destination choice, feelings

and expected behavior (Henkel et al., 2006). Mayo and Jarvis (1981: 22) define the notion of

destination attractiveness as “the perceived ability of a destination to deliver individual benefits”.

Since destinations are places that offer an amalgam of tourism products and services (Buhalis,

2000), an integrated perception of a place’s products and services is a necessary pre-condition

for consumers’ emotional, cognitive and behavioral responses. Tourists who are attracted by

destination resources, for instance, are more likely to envision well-being at a destination and to

recommend it to others (Mayo and Jarvis, 1980; Cracolici and Nijkamp, 2008). Recent research

evaluates the attractiveness of destinations from both supply (Backman et al., 1991; Ferrario,

1979) and demand sides (Kim, 1998; Formica and Uysal, 2006) and regards destination

attractiveness as one of the major components of destination competitiveness (Ritchie and

Crouch, 2003). We connect the supply perspective with the demand-side view (Kim, 1998;

Formica and Uysal, 2006), proposing that tourists perceive an overall product that creates a

vacation experience with a maximum feeling of psychological well-being.

While previous studies explore tourists’ perception of a destination either by focusing on their

needs or by suggesting selected destination resources that reflect a destination’s attractiveness

 3

(Cracolici and Nijkamp, 2008), this study contributes to existing literature in three ways. First, it

adopts Kaplan and Kaplan’s landscape preference model (1989) as a theoretical framework,

arguing that tourists perceive environments in a holistic way. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989)

postulate that individual perception is regarded as the outcome of a complex interaction that

focuses not on single elements of an external environment, but on the organization of space (i.e.,

a tourist destination). Tourists should thus prefer environments that make sense and offer places

to explore. Second, a review of existing literature on destination attractiveness identifies key

factors that tourists and destination managers consider important when evaluating a destination.

In line with Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), factors of destination attractiveness are assigned either to

the sense-making or to the exploratory potential of a destination. Third, this study analyzes the

influence of perceived destination attractiveness on tourists’ well-being and their behavioral

responses (i.e., intention to return and positive word of mouth). In recent years, tourism scholars

have investigated the relationship between destination resources, emotions and behavioral

intentions in leisure and tourism services (Jang and Namkung, 2009). Specific studies aimed at

tourist well-being in a destination context, however, remain limited. In fact, existing definitions

of well-being in tourism focus on physical facets, regarding destinations as multi-attributed

products that enable tourists to achieve a maximum feeling of “tourist well-being” (Cracolici and

Nijkamp, 2008). This study, however, extends the notion suggested by Cracolici and Nijkamp

(2008) and proposes a distinct, psychologically driven form of tourist well-being, capturing both

emotional and cognitive aspects of an individual’s experience. Consequently, we provide an

understanding of the role destination settings play in influencing tourists’ behavior. The

objective of this paper is, thus, to provide a holistic view of destination attractiveness by using

Gestalt theory and the landscape preference approach of Kaplan and Kaplan (1989). We
 4

moreover investigate the impact of destination attractiveness factors on tourists’ psychological

well-being and evaluate their reactions in terms of giving recommendations or returning to the

destination. The current study proceeds as follows. First, the conceptual framework is outlined

through an extensive literature review on destination attractiveness, place perception and

subjective well-being. Section two presents the research design, data collection procedures and

methods of analysis. In section three the study model is empirically tested. The paper concludes

with a presentation of the results, the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.

Literature review

Destination attractiveness

The driving forces of modern tourism are multifaceted in their nature, and destinations need

to provide a consistent set of appealing products and services to be perceived as attractive by the

tourist (Matias et al., 2007; Cracolici and Nijkamp, 2008). Since tourist destinations consist of

specific physical, natural and cultural resources that are unique, exceptional and not replaceable

(e.g., physiography, social-cultural resources or entrepreneurial spirit), these same factors serve

as the underlying basis for their attractiveness (Barney, 1991). In particular, destination

attractiveness refers to the feelings and opinions of tourists about a destination and its perceived

ability to satisfy their needs (Mayo and Jarvis, 1980; Vengesayi, 2003). This demand-side

perspective views destinations as suppliers of spatial tourist services with specific attractiveness

features that have to be managed effectively in order to achieve a maximum feeling of well-

being for the tourists (Cracolici and Nijkamp, 2008).

From a supply-side perspective, a plethora of studies have recognized key factors that tourists

and destination managers consider important when evaluating a destination (Table 1). The

natural form and landscape of a destination constitutes the most basic element in attracting
 5

tourists to a location (e.g., Murphy et al., 2000; Cracolici and Nijkamp, 2008). Besides scenery,

areas with important history and cultural determinants use these features to generate tourism

demand manifested in elements of daily life, architecture or traditions (Ritchie and Zins, 1978;

Deng et al., 2002; Laws, 1995). Apart from naturally and historically inherited pre-conditions,

other economic factors have been identified as driving forces of destination attractiveness. A

destination’s accessibility (i.e., tourists’ relative ease or difficulty in reaching a destination), for

instance, has long been recognized as a major driving force of touristic attractiveness (Kim,

1998). Accessibility, however, is a matter of amenities (e.g., accommodation, lodging

opportunities, restaurants) and infrastructure (e.g., transportation systems) that encompass the

costs of travel and the time it takes to reach a destination (Murphy et al., 2000; Kim, 1998).

Among exploratory factors, attractions and activities can strengthen the uniqueness of a

destination’s product appeal and serve as key motivators for choosing one destination over

another (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003). They cover all forms of indoor and outdoor activities—

natural and man-made attractions as well as cultural and seasonal attractions. Entertainment

represents another particularly broad category of socio-cultural tourism resources. As

experiential and memorable offerings, entertainment creates emotional connections with tourists

and thus can be used as a powerful means for attractive differentiation in the market (Pullman

and Gross, 2004). Local community can complement the natural and experiential resources that

are in place and refers to a feeling of connection and group identity with local people (Kim et al.,

2012).
 6

Table 1. Literature review on destination attractiveness factors

Study Research Aim Methods Sample Location Dimensions of destination attractiveness

Lee et al. Explore and Panel 13 forest Taiwan Tourist attractions

(2010) analyze factors analysis managers, Natural resources; cultural assets
of destination using the tourism Accessibility
attractiveness Analytic enterprises External access; internal access
of forest hierarchy and Amenities
recreation process academic Provision of lodging and catering;
tourism in (AHP) scholars recreation facilities
Taiwan. method Complementary services
Information services; safety and sanitation
Cracolici Assess the Survey 1707 Italy Tourist attributes
and relative design based visitors Reception and sympathy of local residents
Nijkamp attractiveness of on a Artistic and cultural cities
(2008) competing tourist subsample of Landscape, environment and nature
destinations on the AC Hotels and other accommodations
the basis of Nielsen Typical foods
individual SITA survey Cultural events (concerts, art exhibitions)
visitors’ Level of prices, living costs
perceptions by Quality and variety of products
using the feeling Information and tourist services
of “tourist well- Tourist safety
being”. Wine quality
Formica Explain and Content Tourism USA Tourism services and facilities
and Uysal measure the analysis of experts Eating and drinking places; retail sales;
(2006) determinants of secondary (size N/A) souvenir firms; travel agencies; hotel and
tourism data, cluster motel rooms; golf courses
attractiveness of a analysis. Cultural/historical
destination by Historic buildings; museums; historic
measuring districts; Civil War sites; festivals; wineries
supply-and- Rural lodging
demand Campsites; cottages/cabins; bed and
indicators. breakfasts; recreational vehicle parks
Outdoor recreation
Horseback riding; falls; hiking; biking
Vengesayi Conceptual model Literature N/A Australia Intrinsic destination resources and mix of
(2003) of destination Review activities
competiveness Experience environment
and attractive- Supporting services
ness (TDCA). Communication/promotion
Deng et al. Assigning Analytic Tourism Australia Peripheral attractions
(2002) priorities to hierarchy experts Accessibility
tourism attributes process (size N/A) Tourism resources
for national parks. (AHP) Tourism facilities
method Local community
Murphy et Review the Secondary 610 visitors Canada Environment
al. (2000) literature on data analysis Pleasant climate; attractive scenery; clean
destination city; heritage ambience; friendly people
attractiveness and Infrastructure
identify sub- Good food; interesting attractions; good
components of a hotels
destination Quality
product. Overall satisfaction; quality relative to US
Value
Reasonable prices; value for the money;
value for trip; value relative to US
Intention to return
Return to Victoria within 2 years; return to
other island destinations within 2 years
 7

Study Research Aim Methods Sample Location Dimensions of destination attractiveness

Kim (1998) Analyze tangible Survey 287 visitors Korea Seasonal and cultural attractiveness
and intangible interviews Seasonal attractiveness
attributes specific within five Uniqueness of the place
to a tourist’s Korean Plenty of fun and sightseeing
decision-making destinations Cultural experience and historic sites
context of Clean and peaceful environment
destination. Quiet and peacefulness
Cleanness and sanitation
Natural environment, fresh air, clean water
Price levels
Quality of accommodations/relaxing facilities
Availability and quality of lodging
Resting and relaxing facilities
A variety of types of foods and beverages
Family-oriented amenities and safety
Suitability for families with children
Safety of the place
Experiencing new and different lifestyle
with others
Accessibility and reputation
Time spent travelling to the place
Site reputation and famous image
Convenient traffic and location
Entertainment and recreational opportunities
Night life and evening entertainment
Scenery and landscape
Sports and recreational opportunities
Laws Identifying Literature N/A Australia Primary destination features
(1995) features that Review Climate
contribute to the Ecology
overall Culture
attractiveness of a Traditional architecture
tourist Secondary destination features
destination. Hotels
Catering
Transport
Entertainment
Hu and Analyzing Telephone 400 visitors Canada Availability/quality of accommodations
Ritchie vacation survey Sports/recreational opportunities
(1993) experiences to Scenery
measure Climate
destination Food
attractiveness. Entertainment
Historic attractions
Uniqueness
Cultural attractions
Accessibility
Festivals/special events
Shopping
Local transportation
Price levels
 8

Study Research Aim Methods Sample Location Dimensions of destination attractiveness

Backman et To study tourism Content N/A USA Coastal counties

al. (1991) supply variables analysis of Tourism-supporting services
that attract secondary Accommodations/resort amenities
tourists to three data (South Mid-state counties
distinct tourism Carolina). Tourism-supporting services
regions. Scenic/camping
Outdoor activity
Up-state counties
Tourism-supporting services
Outdoor recreation
Historic/environment

Goodall Identifying major Content N/A UK, Attractions

and components of analysis of Nether- Facilities and services available
Bergsma the tourism place ski resort lands Accessibility
(1990) product. brochures Image
and tour Total price to the customer
operators’
brochures.
Ferrario Identify the Visitor 5053 South Scenery and landscape
(1979) tourist product analysis, visitors Africa Zoos and wildlife
and the panel expert Natural vegetation
assessment of its investigation Sun and beaches
intrinsic value to and content Historical monuments
the tourist market. analysis. Sport amenities
Town visits and shopping
Participation in local life
Night life entertainment
Ritchie and Examine how Telephone 135 Canada General factors
Zins (1978) manifestations of interviews tourism Natural beauty and climate
culture are related and Culture and social characteristics
to the cultural Sport, recreation and educational facilities
attractiveness of a affairs Infrastructure
tourism region. experts Price levels
Attitude towards tourists
Accessibility of the region
Dimensions of cultural attractiveness
Elements of daily life
Remnants of the past
Good life
Work
Var, Beck Establish an Interviews 60 trade Canada Natural factors
and Loftus index of touristic with trade experts Social factors
(1977) attractiveness as a experts in 19 Historical factors
basis for making destinations Recreation and shopping opportunities
comparisons in British Accessibility
among touristic Columbia Accommodations
regions and
districts.
Gearing et Explore Expert panel 26 tourism Turkey Natural factors
al. (1974) travellers’ investigation experts Social factors
perception of a Historical factors
destination’s Recreational and shopping facilities
resources and Food and shelter
attractions.
 9

Although a broad array of studies review factors constituting destination attractiveness, the

majority of studies choose an exploratory approach based on expert interviews, panel data or

secondary data analysis. Empirical studies focused on establishing, for instance, an index of

touristic attractiveness (Var et al., 1977) dedicate their efforts to specific destinations or specific

forms of tourism, such as national parks (Deng et al., 2002) or forest recreation (Lee et al.,

2010), or compare certain tourism regions based on their regional tourism attractiveness profiles

(Formica and Uysal, 2006). A theory-driven perspective, however, that assigns existing factors

of destination attractiveness to a theoretical foundation of place perception, is missing so far. The

present study, thus, links supply and demand sides and assigns key factors of destination

attractiveness to the theoretical framework of place perception provided by Kaplan and Kaplan

(1989).

Place Perception

Competition among tourism regions is usually focused not on micro-aspects of the tourism

product (environmental resources, transportation, attractions or hospitality), but on the tourist

experience as an integrated and compound set of services for tourists (Buhalis, 2000; Ritchie and

Crouch, 2000), creating a unified experience of the area, place or country visited (Murphy et al.,

2000). Supporting recent work on Gestalt psychology (e.g., Brunner-Sperdin et al., 2014),

research attempts to understand psychological phenomena by viewing them as organized and

structured wholes rather than the sum of their constituent parts. The total configuration of

environmental cues should thus determine consumers’ responses towards a servicescape.

Referring to destinations, tourists are envisioned as perceiving a destination holistically, as a

multi-attributed tourism product, able to generate a great experience or a maximum feeling of

“tourist well-being” (Cracolici and Nijkamp, 2008).

 10

To answer the question of how tourists perceive destination settings, this study focuses on

environmental psychology literature of place perception, specifically on Kaplan and Kaplan’s

model of landscape preference (1989). This model suggests that tourists have a preference for

environments that are more likely to enable them to meet their needs in the future. Preferences

for environments (i.e., tourism destinations) are prompt, automatic reactions that extend the

perceptual process (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Following the landscape-preference model,

individuals prefer landscapes that offer a promise of tourist involvement and of making sense.

Sense-making refers to whether tourists can figure out their position relative to the offerings and

amenities provided in a destination and understand what is going on in the immediate here and

now. The supportive environment of involvement (exploratory dimension), by contrast, refers to

the ways tourists are stimulated within a destination and whether they can figure out new things

there. Involvement contains rich landscape components and is thus related to the process of

engaging and sustaining tourists’ interest in a destination (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Linking

this notion back to the concept of destination attractiveness, an integrated perspective of demand

comes to light. Both sense-making and exploratory dimensions need to be perceived as a holistic

bundle of offerings (Buhalis, 2000) to foster tourist well-being and facilitate a satisfying

destination experience.

Well-being in destinations

To analyze the impact of a destination’s sense-making and exploratory potential on tourists’

response behavior, this study assumes that human behavior is primarily influenced by

environmental stimuli that elicit emotional, cognitive and behavioral responses. Research on

subjective well-being has advanced steadily during the past four decades (Diener et al., 1999)
 11

and includes a broad array of phenomena involving people’s emotional responses, domain

satisfactions and global judgments of life satisfaction.

Subjective well-being has been defined in ethical, theological, political, economic and

psychological terms, resulting in several categories used as descriptors, including happiness,

quality of life and life satisfaction (Gilbert and Abdullah, 2002). In particular, subjective well-

being is made up of two aspects in the appraisal of life as a whole: an affective or hedonic aspect

and a cognitive aspect (Campbell, 1976). The hedonic aspect refers to the degree to which

various affects a person experiences are pleasant, for instance, how well one usually feels. The

cognitive aspect represents the degree to which a person perceives his or her aspirations to have

been met (i.e., the extent to which one is contented with life in general) (Campbell, 1976). An

alternative conceptualization is provided by Sen (1993: 35); it views the well-being achievement

of a person as an evaluation of the “‘wellness’ of the person’s state of being”, which depends on

a person’s actual ability to achieve various valuable functionings (i.e., parts of the state of a

person, such as being adequately nourished or being in good health). Alternative combinations of

functioning that a person can achieve, then, represent capabilities. Drawing these findings

together, subjective well-being incorporates three major characteristics. First, it is subjective and

resides within the experience of the individual (Campbell, 1976). Second, it is not just the

absence of negative factors, but also includes positive measures. And third, it includes a global

assessment rather than only a narrow assessment of one’s life domain (Diener, 1984; Gilbert and

Abdullah, 2002).

Prior studies in the tourism industry devote their efforts towards tourists’ emotional

experiences (Hosany and Gilbert, 2010), defined as “subjective mental states felt by participants

during a service encounter” (Otto and Ritchie, 1996: 166), or attempt to understand the
 12

relationship between tourists’ emotions and their behavioral intentions (Bigné et al., 2005; Jang

and Namkung, 2009). Other studies examine the concept of wellness or well-being tourism,

which refers to a connection with nature, spas, saunas, relaxation and other forms of treatment

(Pesonen and Komppula, 2010). Whereas wellness tourism is usually connected to luxury

products, well-being tourism usually comprises a wider set of tourism products and services.

Few empirical studies, however, conceptualize the state of well-being from a tourism perspective

or investigate the impact of a destination’s attractiveness factors on tourist well-being. Cracolici

and Nijkamp (2008), for instance, address well-being in a destination context, but conceptualize

it in a rather physical sense. Well-being thus provides a functional definition of a tourist’s state

of being and is made up of the available and reliable mix of tourist commodities in place.

Extending the approach suggested by Cracolici and Nijkamp (2008), this study proposes a

“distinct, psychologically-driven form of tourist well-being by capturing both tourists’ emotional

and cognitive perceptions of their experiences” (Kahneman and Krueger, 2006: 4). Since prior

studies either focus on other emotional constructs, such as, for instance, pleasure or arousal (Jang

and Namkung, 2009), or measure only cognitive facets of tourist well-being (Cracolici and

Nijkamp, 2008), this study suggests an integrated perspective on tourist well-being, one that

generates an optimal emotional and cognitive state that helps to establish long-lasting customer

relationships with tourists. Linking findings from previous studies on destination attractiveness

with the conceptual foundations of place perception (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), we argue that a

destination’s sense-making and exploratory potential influences tourists’ well-being within a

destination.

In a second step, we draw on current studies proposing that emotional and cognitive states

(i.e., well-being) affect travelers’ behavioral intentions (Bigné et al., 2005) and their decisions to
 13

purchase tourism and leisure services (Chuang, 2007; Kwortnik and Ross, 2007). We thus

suggest that tourists’ well-being within a destination, as elicited by sense-making and exploration

resources, affects their intention to revisit (Bigné et al., 2001) and their desire to spread positive

word of mouth (Berger and Schwartz, 2011) about the destination. This procedure is in

accordance with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), an approach extensively used to

study consumers’ responses and their subsequent behaviors. The following hypotheses result

from the proposed research model (Figure 1):

H1: Sense-making attributes of a tourist destination, defined in terms of its (a) accessibility and

(b) amenities, positively influence tourists’ well-being.

H2: Exploratory attributes of a tourist destination, defined in terms of its (a) attractions and

activities, (b) entertainment, and (c) local community, positively influence tourists’ well-

being.

H3: Tourists’ well-being in a destination positively influences their responses in terms of (a)

intention to revisit and (b) word of mouth recommendations.

 14

Figure 1. Research model

Sense-making Attributes

Accessibility

H1a
Amenities Word of mouth

H1b H3a

Well-being

H2a H3b

Attractions &
Intention to return
activities H2b
Exploratory Attributes

Entertainment H2c

Local
community
 15

Research method

The methodology for this study is based on a three-step procedure. First, primary and

secondary literature on destination attractiveness, place perception and subjective well-being was

reviewed (for an overview see Table 1). Subsequently, in line with Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989)

model of landscape preference, attractiveness factors were assigned to either the sense-making or

exploratory potential of a destination and linked to tourists’ well-being and their behavioral

responses (measurement model). In a second step, interviews with destination managers were

conducted to refine the selected scales and items. A pre-test of 32 visitors was used to ensure

reliability and content validity of the selected scales. Third, a visitor survey (n = 631) in three

Austrian tourism destinations was conducted to measure the influence of sense-making and

exploratory attributes of destination attractiveness on tourists’ well-being and their subsequent

intention to return and to spread positive word of mouth about the destination.

Research design and data collection

The study was conducted as a self-administered field survey. The majority of respondents

(68.4%) were between 21 and 50 years old (46.6% being female). Most respondents were from

Germany (41.6%), Russia (11.9%), Austria (10.8%), Sweden (8.4%) or the United Kingdom

(4.8%), stayed one to two weeks (47.2%) and travelled with their family (48.2%) or friends

(30.9%). Data collection took place during February and March 2014 in three Austrian Alpine

winter destinations (Saalbach-Hinterglemm, Kühtai, Skiwelt Wilder Kaiser Brixental), all of

which offer a wide range of winter sport activities such as skiing, snowboarding, tobogganing,

winter walking and cross-country skiing. They all show an excellent snowfall record and are

characterized by typical landscape with sufficient offerings to cover all dimensions defined in the
 16

theoretical model. Participation in the study was voluntary. A promotion booth was offered along

with basic information about the study. The survey design was self-administered, with three

scheduled interviewers standing by during the process.

Item selection for measuring the constructs was based on valid scales from the literature using

7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Access (α =.87) was measured

by a three-item scale adopted from Deng et al. (2002) and Cracolici and Nijkamp (2008).

Amenities (α =.79) were measured by three items suggested by Javalgi et al. (1992). For

attractions and activities (α =.83) we adopted scales by Lee et al. (2010). For the

operationalization of entertainment (α =.73) in a destination, we used a three-item scale adapted

from Oh et al. (2007). Local community (α =.81) was operationalized by two items from Deng et

al. (2002) and Kim et al. (2012). Scales measuring subjective tourist well-being (α =.85) were

based on studies by Cracolici and Nijkamp (2008) and Diener et al. (1999). Among tourists’

behavioral outcomes, intention to return (α =.92) was measured by scales of Murphy et al.

(2000) and word of mouth (α =.87) was operationalized by three items adapted from Zeithaml et

al. (1996) (Appendix 1).

Data analysis and results

Exploratory analysis. In a first step, unidimensionality, reliability and construct validity were

examined with SPSS 23. Thereafter, measurement properties were tested using CFA based on

Mplus 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2009). All constructs loaded on a single factor (EFA with

principal component analysis and Varimax rotation), exceeded the 0.70 standard for Cronbach α

as suggested by Nunally and Bernstein (1994) and fulfilled the benchmark of 0.60 in composite

reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Factor loadings of all constructs were greater than 0.5 with t-
 17

values exceeding 1.96, thus supporting convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). As

shown in Table 3, all AVE estimates exceeded 0.5 with intercorrelations among constructs less

than the square root of the AVE estimates, thus supporting discriminant validity (Fornell and

Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2009).

Table 2. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis results

Factor Cronbach’s Standardized

Constructs Variables loadings α loadings CR AVE
Access AC1 0.924 0.869 0.899 0.878 0.710
AC2 0.917 0.921
AC3 0.829 0.686
Amenities AM1 0.883 0.785 0.573 0.799 0.577
AM2 0.869 0.802
AM3 0.756 0.872
Attractions and activities AA1 0.893 0.829 0.758 0.834 0.627
AA2 0.855 0.884
AA3 0.842 0.725
Entertainment ET1 0.878 0.722 0.922 0.754 0.518
ET2 0.809 0.644
ET3 0.733 0.537
Local community LC1 0.917 0.811 0.799 0.814 0.686
LC2 0.917 0.857
Well-being WB1 0.882 0.847 0.827 0.849 0.652
WB2 0.881 0.824
WB3 0.863 0.771
Intention to return IR1 0.910 0.922 0.830 0.926 0.757
IR2 0.909 0.902
IR3 0.906 0.850
IR4 0.886 0.897
Word of mouth WM1 0.916 0.869 0.856 0.878 0.706
WM2 0.900 0.907
WM3 0.858 0.751
CR: construct reliability; AVE: average variance extracted
 18

Table 3. Results of discriminant validity: first-order latent variable with reflective indicators
(squared correlations for any pair of latent variables < AVE)

Attract- Local Intention

Amen- ions and Enter- communit Well- to Word of
Access ities activities tainment y being return mouth
Access 1 0.406 0.283 0.253 0.170 0.274 0.113 0.167
Amenities 0.406 1 0.491 0.518 0.335 0.419 0.173 0.257
Attractions and 0.283 0.491 1 0.428 0.243 0.202 0.084 0.124
activities
Entertainment 0.253 0.518 0.428 1 0.490 0.507 0.209 0.310
Local community 0.170 0.335 0.243 0.490 1 0.407 0.168 0.249
Well-being 0.274 0.419 0.202 0.507 0.407 1 0.413 0.613
Intention to return 0.113 0.173 0.084 0.209 0.168 0.413 1 0.692
Word of mouth 0.167 0.257 0.124 0.310 0.249 0.613 0.692 1
Mean communalities 0.710 0.577 0.627 0.519 0.686 0.652 0.757 0.706
(AVE)
AVE: average variance extracted

Structural model. The hypotheses were tested through structural equation modelling using

Mplus version 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2009). The final structural model showed the

following fit indices: χ²= 803.27 (df = 234, p < 0.001), RMSEA = 0.064, CFI = 0.919, TLI =

0.905). The results indicate a good fit by exceeding the cut-off criteria suggested by Baumgartner

and Homburg (1995) and Hu and Bentler (1999).

The results of the study show support for all hypotheses. H1 proposed a positive relationship

between a destination’s sense-making potential, measured in terms of (a) access (ß=.169,

p<.001), (b) amenities (ß=.240, p<.001) and tourists’ well-being. In line with the obtained

results, the hypothesis can be supported. As proposed in H2, (a) attractions and activities (ß=-

.200, p<.001), (b) entertainment (ß=.424, p<.001) and (c) local community (ß=.229, p<.001)

have a significant effect on well-being. However, due to the negative path in H2a, hypothesis 2

can be only partially supported. H3 addresses the impact of tourists’ well-being on their (a)

intention to return (ß=.643, p<.001) and (b) positive word of mouth (ß=.783, p<.001) and can be

supported.
 19

Figure 2. Model results

Sense-making Attributes

Accessibility

.169**
Amenities Word of mouth

.240** .783**

Well-being

-.200** .643**

Attractions &
Intention to return
activities .424**
Exploratory Attributes

Entertainment .229**

Local
community

CFI = 0.919 TLI = 0.905 RMSEA = 0.064 SRMR = 0.054

**significant at p<.01

Additional findings from a Bootstrap estimation with 1000 resamples (χ²= 987.73 (df = 224, p

< 0.001), RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90) in Mplus 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-

2012) underline the important mediating role of tourists’ well-being in our model, as all

destination attractiveness factors in our model did not show a significant, direct effect on

tourists’ intention to return. In a similar manner, all factors except entertainment (ß=.196, p<.1)

did not exert a direct influence on tourists’ intended word of mouth. Specific indirect effects, by

contrast, all showed a significant impact on intention to return and word of mouth. The results

thus indicate an indirect-only mediation (Zhao et al., 2010) of tourists’ well-being for the
 20

relationships among (a) access, (b) amenities, (c) attractions and activities, (d) entertainment and

(e) local community and intention to return. Also, well-being showed an indirect-only mediation

(Zhao et al., 2010) for (a) access, (b) amenities, (c) attractions and activities and (e) local

community and word of mouth. A complementary mediation of well-being could be identified

for the relationship among entertainment and word of mouth. The total indirect effect (ß=.286,

p<.001), however, exceeded the direct effect (ß=.196, p<.1) in both size and statistical

significance.

Table 4. Bootstrap model

Effect of/on Intention to Return Word of Mouth

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Access -0.022 n.s. 0.106** 0.085 n.s. -0.021 n.s. 0.131*** 0.110*
Attractions and Activities 0.122 n.s. -0.123** 0.000 n.s. -0.017 n.s. -0.151** -0.167**
Amenities -0.030 n.s. 0.146** 0.116 n.s. -0.004 n.s. 0.179* 0.175 n.s.
Entertainment 0.081 n.s. 0.233** 0.314*** 0.196* 0.286*** 0.483***
Local Community -0.071 n.s. 0.156** 0.084 n.s. -0.119 n.s. 0.191*** 0.072 n.s.

A further comparison of first-time vs. repeat visitors revealed that that for first-time visitors,

only entertainment (ß=.471, p<.01) significantly impacts tourists’ well-being, whereas for repeat

visitors results similar to our main model were found. Access (ß=.202, p<.01), amenities

(ß=.262, p<.1), attractions and activities (ß=-.297, p<.01), entertainment (ß=.298, p<.05) and

local community (ß=.390, p<.01) all exert a significant impact on tourist well-being, with path

coefficients higher than in our main model. Most importantly, tourists visiting the destination

more frequently seem to place the most emphasis on local community, as this path showed the

highest positive change compared to our initial model (ß=.229 vs ß=.390, p<.01).
 21

Conclusion, discussion and implications

The present study provides empirical evidence that tourists perceive destination settings

holistically and will report higher levels of psychological well-being if destination features

emphasize an adequate combination of sense-making and exploratory attributes. Moreover, an

indirect-only mediation of well-being on the relationship between both sense-making and

exploratory attributes and behavioral outcomes was found. An integrated view of our results can

provide fruitful suggestions for DMOs.

Findings within the sense-making dimension confirm that convenient ways to access

destinations and excellent amenities in place positively contribute to tourists’ well-being. In line

with existing literature (Crouch and Ritchie, 1999; Murphy et al., 2000), results suggest that

DMOs can increase a destination’s attractiveness by strategically planning the provision of

supporting services and offering multiple, convenient methods of access. DMOs should also

consider that the relationship between destination accessibility and well-being shows a weaker

effect than amenities exert on tourists’ well-being. Reasons for this could be that tourists make

use of the provided infrastructure during their entire stay, but get in touch with opportunities for

access only prior to and following their vacation. Accordingly, DMOs should instead place

emphasis on providing excellent infrastructure, supporting local cuisine and building and

promoting cooperation with high-quality restaurants. Among exploratory resources,

entertainment and a sense of local community were found to positively contribute to tourists’

psychological well-being. Particularly for first-time visitors, entertainment represents the most

important and only attractiveness component affecting their sense of well-being. Repeat visitors,

by contrast, place most emphasis on experiencing local culture, getting in touch with local

people, and taking into account the views and aspirations of the host community (Kim et al.,
 22

2012). To cater to the specific needs of both first-time and repeat visitors, DMOs could thus

focus on cultural shows, international events or nightlife opportunities, accompanied by

authentic or historic storylines. Attractions and activities (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003) were found

to negatively impact on tourist well-being, implying that the more DMOs foster their temporary,

purpose-built attractions, the lower is tourists’ well-being. This could be because most of the

destinations studied are well-established places where tourists focus mainly on relaxing and

enjoying great sport activities in a scenic environment. For repeat visitors, the negative impact of

attractions and activities actually increases with the number of stays. DMOs should thus not

exclusively target their marketing efforts towards specific attractions, as repeat visitors in

particular report a desire for authentic, natural and human resources in the present study and

expect high levels of infrastructure in line with convenient access.

In terms of the behavioral consequences of tourist well-being, both intention to revisit and

word-of-mouth recommendations were found to be strongly related to well-being. Tourists

scoring high in their well-being levels will thus be more likely to spread positive word of mouth

and more frequently return to the destination.

Most importantly, our results show an indirect-only mediation of tourists’ well-being for all

destination attractiveness factors and for intention to return, as well as an indirect-only mediation

for access, amenities, attractions, local community and intended word of mouth. A

complementary mediation was found for well-being and the relationship among entertainment

and word of mouth. These findings underline that tourist well-being acts as a crucial driving

force for tourists’ behavioral intentions. Both sense-making and exploratory resources will

impact tourists’ desire to return and their intention to spread positive word of mouth only if they

achieve a state of well-being during their vacation. For DMOs it is thus vital to create, stage and
 23

maintain attractive destination resources in order to facilitate tourist well-being; they will

subsequently serve as key prerequisite for positive word of mouth and intention to return.

Limitations and future extensions

The presented study has several shortcomings. First, it examined the influence of five

destination attractiveness factors on well-being and subsequently on intentions to return and

word of mouth. However, attractive destinations are not always popular among tourists and

therefore do not always generate positive word of mouth, due, for instance, to geopolitical

situations (Webster and Ivanov, 2015). On the other hand, tourists may also travel to destinations

that are not perceived as attractive for holidaying by the broader public (e.g., backpacking

expeditions in the Himalaya region). Second, the current study was restricted to a holiday setting

made up of three Alpine destinations, providing both a plethora of experiential offerings and

adequate infrastructure. Third, drawing on the environmental psychology framework, the authors

decided to measure a specific form of psychological tourist well-being (Sen, 1993; Diener et al.,

1999) instead of exclusively measuring tourists’ emotional responses. Further knowledge on how

to measure tourist well-being and destination attractiveness is thus needed in order to refine the

results of the present study. Future research testing the presented model in a different tourism

context, however, could require different variables to properly reflect both sense-making and

exploratory attributes of destination attractiveness. Refining the suggested constructs could thus

lead to the generation of additional items or attributes explaining an even greater amount of

variance (Formica and Uysal, 2006). Fourth, our results reveal differences among first-time and

repeat visitors, as a destinations’ attractiveness potential exerts different and larger effects on

repeat visitors versus first-timers. The frequency of prior visitation thus plays a vital role in this

context and should be considered by future studies in greater depth. The study adds significant
 24

value to theory as it links established theories (i.e., landscape preference model) to destination

attractiveness research for the first time. The study moreover addresses the notion of tourists’

psychologically driven well-being by capturing both emotional and cognitive aspects of an

individual’s experience.
 25

References

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behavior and Human Decision

Processes 50: 179–211.

Agarwal S (1997) The resort cycle and seaside tourism: An assessment of its applicability and

validity. Tourism Management 18 (1): 65–73.

Backman SJ, Uysal M and Backman K (1991) Regional analysis of tourism resources. Annals of

Tourism Research 8(1): 323–327.

Bagozzi RP, Yi Y and Phillips LW (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational

research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 421–458.

Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management

17(1): 99–120.

Beerli A and Martin J (2004) Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research

31(3): 657–681.

Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin.

Psychological Bulletin 112: 400–404.

Berger J and Schwartz EM (2011) What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth? Journal

of Marketing Research 48 (October): 869–880.

Bigné JE, Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) The theme park experience: An analysis of pleasure,

arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management 26(6): 833–844.

Brunner-Sperdin A, Scholl-Grissemann US, and Stokburger-Sauer NE (2014) The relevance of

holistic website perception: How sense-making and exploration cues guide consumers’

emotions and behaviors. Journal of Business Research 67: 2515–2522.

 26

Buhalis D (2000) Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management 21:

97–116.

Campbell A (1976) Subjective measures of well-being. American Psychologist 31(2): 117–124.

Cracolici MF and Nijkamp P (2008) The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist

destinations: A study of southern Italian regions. Tourism Management 30 (3): 336–344.

Crouch G and Ritchie BJ (1999) Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of

Business Research 44: 137–152.

Deng J, King B and Bauer T (2002) Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 29(2): 422–438.

Diener E (1984) Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95: 542–575.

Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE and Smith LH (1999) Subjective well-being: Three decades of

progress. Psychological Bulletin 125: 276–302.

Ferrario FF (1979) The evaluation of tourist resources: An applied methodology. Journal of

Travel Research 17(3): 18–22.

Formica S and Uysal M (2006) Destination attractiveness based on supply and demand

evaluations: An analytical framework. Journal of Travel Research 44(4): 418–430.

Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(3): 39–50.

Gilbert D and Abdullah J (2002) A study on the impact of the expectation of a holiday on an

individual’s sense of well-being. Journal of Vacation Marketing 8(4): 352–361.

Goodall B and Bergsma J (1990) Destinations as marketed in tour operators’ brochures. In

Ashworth J and Goodall B (ed) Marketing Tourism Places. London and New York:

Routledge, pp. 161–179.

 27

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ and Anderson RE (2009) Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Henkel R, Henkel P, Agrusa W and Tanner J (2006) Thailand as a tourist destination:

Perceptions of international visitors and Thai residents. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism

Research 11(3): 269–287.

Hosany S and Gilbert D (2010) Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic

holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research 49(4): 513–526.

Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model 6: 1–55.

Hu Y and Ritchie JRB (1993) Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach.

Journal of Travel Research 32(2): 25–34.

Jang S and Namkung Y (2009) Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions:

Application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model to restaurants. Journal of Business

Research 62(4): 451–460.

Javalgi R, Thomas E and Rao S (1992) U.S. pleasure travellers’ perceptions of selected European

destinations. European Journal of Marketing 26(7): 45–67.

Kaplan D (2008) Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Los Angeles: Sage

Publications.

Kaplan S and Kaplan R (1989) The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Kim HB (1998) Perceived attractiveness of Korean destinations. Annals of Tourism Research

25(2): 340–361.
 28

Laws E (1995) Tourist destination management: Issues, analysis and policies. New York:

Routledge.

Lee CF, Huang HI and Huery-Ren Y (2010) Developing an evaluation model for destination

attractiveness: Sustainable forest recreation tourism in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism 18(6): 811–828.

Matias AP, Nijkamp P and Neto P (2007) Advances in modern tourism research. Heidelberg:

Physika-Verlag.

Mayo EJ and Jarvis LP (1981) The psychology of leisure travel: Effective marketing and selling

of travel service. Boston, MA: CBI Publishing.

Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2007). Mplus User’s Guide. 5th Ed. Los Angeles: Muthén &

Muthén.

Murphy P, Pritchard MP and Smith B (2000) The destination product and its impact on traveller

perceptions. Tourism Management 21(1): 43–52.

Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oh H, Fiore A and Jeoung M (2007) Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism

applications. Journal of Travel Research 46(2): 119–132.

Otto JE and Ritchie BR (1996) The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management 17(3):

165–174.

Pesonen J and Komppula R (2011) Rural wellbeing tourism: Motivations and expectations.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 17(1): 150–157.

Pullman ME and Gross MA (2004) Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions and

loyalty behaviors. Decision Sciences 35(3): 551–578.

 29

Ritchie BJ and Crouch GI (2000) The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective.

Tourism Management 21(1): 1–7.

Ritchie JRB and Zins M (1978) Culture as determinant of the attractiveness of tourism regions.

Annals of Tourism Research 5(2): 252–267.

Sen A (1993) Capability and well-being. In Nussbaum M and Sen A (eds) The Quality of Life.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 30–53.

Snepenger D, Snepenger M, Dalbey M and Wessol A (2007) Meanings and consumption

characteristic of places at a tourism destination. Journal of Travel Research 45: 310–321.

Tucker LR and Lewis C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.

Psychometrika 38: 1–10.

Vengesayi S (2003) A conceptual model of tourism destination competitiveness and

attractiveness. ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings, Adelaide, 1-3 December, pp. 637–

647.

Var T, Beck RAD and Loftus P (1977) Determination of touristic attractiveness of the touristic

areas in British Columbia. Journal of Travel Research 15(3): 23–29.

Webster C and Ivanov S (2014) Transforming competitiveness into economic benefits: Does

tourism stimulate economic growth in more competitive destinations? Tourism Management

40: 137–140.

Webster C and Ivanov S (2015) Geopolitical drivers of future tourist flows. Journal of Tourism

Futures 1: 58 – 68.

Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr and Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths

about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2): 197–206.

 30

Appendix 1. List of measurement attribute items and corresponding measurement scales used in
the structural model

List of attributes Attributes’ measurement items Attributes’ measurement scale

AC1 Access There are many alternative ways to get to Each attribute item is measured on a
this destination 7-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly
AC2 There are many convenient ways to get to disagree to 7 = strongly agree
this destination
AC3 There are many convenient transportation
possibilities for getting around
AM1 Amenities There are interesting places to visit within
this destination
AM2 The destination offers excellent local
cuisine
AM3 There are high-quality restaurants in this
destination
AA1 Attractions and activities The destination offers man-made
attractions originally built for other
purpose such as cathedrals
AA2 The destination offers man-made,
purpose-built attractions such as theme
parks
AA3 The destination offers temporary, non-
physical attractions such as events or
festivals
ET1 Entertainment The destination offers plenty of fun and
entertainment
ET2 The destination offers sports and
recreational opportunities
ET3 The destination has places with excellent
night life and evening entertainment
LC1 Local community Local people made a good impression on
me
LC2 Local people were friendly
WB1 Well-being I was happy when staying at this
destination
WB2 I was pleased when staying at this
destination
WB3 I was satisfied when staying at this
destination
IR1 Intention to return It is very likely that I will visit this
destination again
IR2 It is very probable that I will visit this
destination again
IR3 It is very possible that I will visit this
destination again
IR4 It is certain that I will visit this
destination again
WM1 Word of mouth I would say positive things about this
destination to other people
WM2 I would recommend this destination to
someone who seeks my advice
WM3 I would encourage my friends and
relatives to visit this destination

View publication stats