Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Destination fascination: Conceptualization and scale development

Chyong-Ru Liu a, Yao-Chin Wang b, *, Wen-Shiung Huang c, Shan-Pei Chen d
a
Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University, Chiayi City, Taiwan
b
School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, United States
c
Department of Tourism and Leisure Management, Ling Tung University, Taichung City, Taiwan
d
Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Taipei City University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

h i g h l i g h t s

Based on attention restoration theory, this study develops the Destination Fascination Scale (DFS).

A six-dimensional 24-item DFS is developed through the multi-study method.

The DFS includes six dimensions: mystique, richness, attractiveness, uniqueness, fitness, and friendliness.

The DFS could be applied in both natural and artificial destinations.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study developed a Destination Fascination Scale (DFS) based on the attention restoration theory.
Received 3 October 2016 Through the multi-study method, this study performed a literature review to sort five DFS dimensions.
Received in revised form Then, 13 in-depth interviews are conducted, resulting in 209 statements, which later be narrowed down
13 April 2017
into 30 items under six dimensions. In study two, 470 survey responses from national parks are collected.
Accepted 22 June 2017
Twenty-five items in six dimensions emerged in exploratory factor analysis. In study three, 473 survey
responses from national forest recreation areas are collected for testing confirmatory factor analysis,
resulting the final 24-item DFS. Tests of criterion-related validity showed that the six dimensions were
Keywords:
Destination fascination
significantly related to destination loyalty. In study four, cross-validation analysis was performed using
Fascination 240 survey responses from theme parks to test model stability and model extension of the developed six-
Scale development dimensional 24-item DFS.
Attention restoration theory Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Destination loyalty

1. Introduction fascination in tourism marketing.

Fascination, which is an important concept in attention resto-
The concept of fascination is widely applied in the tourism in- ration theory, refers to involuntary attention and emerges from
dustry. Examples include the webpage called “Fascinating places in exploration of restoration through natural environment in envi-
Spain” on the official Spain tourism website, the term of “Fasci- ronmental psychology (Kaplan, 1995). Kaplan (1995) defined
nating Turku” to introduce the medieval European town in the environment fascination as an environment where people are free
official travel guide of Finland, a popular travel guidebook titled to pursue their interests, explore details in the environment, and
“Kerala Tradition & Fascinating Destinations” to introduce a personally define meanings of the environment. Fascination is the
southern state in India, the activity to vote for “Fascinating His- central and necessary component in a restorative experience,
torical Towns” held by China Central Television (CCTV), and several which also consists of being away, extent and compatibility
homepages named “fascinating destinations” on Facebook and (Kaplan, 1995). Therefore, recent studies in environmental psy-
Pinterest. The above examples show the importance of destination chology suggest that a fascinating environment is needed for effi-
cient restoration (Berto, 2005, 2007; Herzog, Maguire, & Nebel,
2003). That is, people need a fascinating environment to think
about other things, detach physically and mentally from daily tasks,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: crliu@mail.ncyu.edu.tw (C.-R. Liu), yaochin.wang@okstate.edu and reach an effective mental recovery. After Kaplan (1995) pro-
(Y.-C. Wang), wshuang@teamail.ltu.edu.tw (W.-S. Huang), spchen@tpcu.edu.tw posed the definition of environment fascination, related measures
(S.-P. Chen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.023
0261-5177/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
256 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

from items of the one-dimensional environment fascination were 2. Literature review

devedloped by Korpela and Hartig (1996) and Laumann, Ga €rling,
and Stormark (2001). 2.1. Attention restoration theory and DF
Based on the attention restoration theory and other tourism
literature, a study by Lehto (2013) performed surveys of U.S. The concept of DF is derived from discussions of relationships
participants and proposed a six-dimension scale for perceived between human and environment. Based on the attention resto-
destination restorative quality (PDRQ), including dimensions of ration theory, James (1892) argued that attention in an environ-
fascination, compatibility, extent, mentally away, physically away, ment can be classified as voluntary attention and involuntary
and discord. After comparing tourist perceptions between natural attention. Voluntary attention requires effort to achieve voluntary
and urban destinations, Lehto (2013) concluded that, unlike most control, which causes inhibitory influences (James, 1892; Kaplan,
dimensions in the scale, perceived fascination had no significant 1995). High intensity and long length of time in voluntary atten-
differences. A follow-up study by Lehto, Kirillova, Li, and Wu tion result in directed attention fatigue (Kaplan, 1995). To cope with
(2016) used the PDRQ scale in an empirical study of Chinese and recovery from negative outcomes of voluntary attention,
tourists and consistently found that fascination does not signifi- restoration becomes necessary (Kaplan, 1995). In contrast, invol-
cantly differ between natural and urban destinations. Addition- untary attention, as effortless attention, enables the rest of directed
ally, in terms of judging destination aesthetics, Kirillova and attention and provides opportunities for restoration (James, 1892).
Lehto (2016) proved that in both natural and urban destina- Kaplan (1995) further argued that perceived fascination is a form of
tions, fascination is the strongest antecedent among all di- involuntary attention.
mensions of the PDRQ scale. Kirillova and Lehto (2016) further According to Kaplan (1995), fascination is a central component
suggested that the design and management of restorative expe- of restorative environments. A restorative environment requires an
riences must emphasize and prioritize fascination. The findings additional three components: being away, extent and compatibility
of Lehto (2013), Lehto et al. (2016) and Kirillova and Lehto (2016) (Kaplan, 1995). First, being away is later identified by Lehto (2013)
reveal the importance and value to fully focus on studying as mentally away and physically away, representing the importance
destination fascination, and the applicability and feasibility for for people to leave environments that require voluntary attention.
implement a scale for destination fascination in both natural and Being away can change the mindset, even in a familiar physical
urban/artificial destinations. environment; meanwhile, moving to an new place may not ensure
In previous studies, measurements of Destination Fascination being away if people still mentally struggle with old thoughts
(DF) have considered fascination a single dimension under the (Kaplan, 1995). Second, extent refers to whether an environment is
scales such as the restorative components of environments sufficiently rich and coherent to constitute a whole new world for
(Laumann et al., 2001) and PDRQ (Lehto, 2013). However, since restoration (Kaplan, 1995). The extent of a restorative environment
many types and sources of fascination have emerged (Kaplan, should engage the mind, allowing them to think, to experience, and
1995), and since tourism experiences are multisensory (Kirillova, to see (Kaplan, 1995). Third, perceived compatibility could improve
Fu, Lehto, & Cai, 2014), the establishment of a multidimensional psychological and physical health and release stresses (Kaplan,
Destination Fascination Scale (DFS) becomes essential. Kaplan 1983). The person-environment compatibility model developed
(1995) discussed two aspects of environment fascination. First, by Kaplan (1983) indicated that, based on message and resources
environment fascination could be experienced by people through perceived in an environment, people are subjectively aware of the
the experience process, such as losing track of time while gambling, compatibility between self and the environment.
as a participative fascination. Second, environment fascination This study argues that the concept of DF is broader than the
could be experienced through the diverse content of an environ- definition of fascination in Kaplan (1995). Previous scholars
ment, such as people, things, items, and views. In terms of content, consider fascination a one-dimensional concept experienced in a
Kaplan (1995) further distinguished between hard and soft fasci- restorative environment and argue that components of being away,
nation. Hard fascination can occur when watching auto racing extent and compatibility work together with fascination to make an
while soft fascination can occur while walking by a lake, which environment restorative (Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Laumann et al.,
provides a chance for reflection. The types and sources of fascina- 2001; Lehto, 2013). However, unlike other terms used to describe
tion in Kaplan (1995) demonstrate the potential for exploring and fascination (Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Laumann et al., 2001; Lehto,
developing multiple dimensions for DF. Moreover, the study for 2013), this study used the term destination fascination, which
developing dimensions for tourist aesthetic judgment by Kirillova consists of the words “destination” and “fascination.” Tourism
et al. (2014) noted the need to develop multi-faceted dimension- scholars have argued about meanings and contents of being away,
ality for concepts in tourism experiences that involve multisensory extent and compatibility in defining the concept and function of a
“lived experience.” Kirillova et al. (2014) argued that the multi- destination (Hsu, Wolfe, & Kang, 2004; Jeng & Fesenmaier, 1998;
sensory “lived experience” provides chances for phenomenological Leask, 2010). Therefore, DF should be conceptualized as the core
exploration through not only the relationships between tourists concept of fascination combined with features of a restorative
and destinations but also tourists’ interactive experiences with the destination, such as being away, extent and compatibility (Kirillova
destinations. & Lehto, 2016; Lehto, 2013; Lehto et al., 2016). That is, DF is a
Therefore, for efficient promotion and accumulation of DF broader and more complex concept than fascination. Destination
knowledge, this study conceptualized DF and developed a itself refers to an environment that is sufficiently far away to be
multidimensional DFS. The analytical results of this study could called a destination and provides compatibility for tourists’ travel
have important theoretical and practical implications. Regarding purposes and inclination to be satisfied.
theoretical contributions, the DFS developed in this study not Empirical findings of environmental psychologists prove that
only enriches the literature on DF, but also provide a measure- fascinating natural environments has diverse effects on restoration,
ment scale for future studies to apply. Regarding practical con- such as mental recovery through experiencing natural environ-
tributions, the DFS can be used by destination management ments (Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Kaplan, 1995), improve quality
organizations (DMOs) to understand the core contents of DF, and of recovery through visiting favorite natural environments (Korpela
set the content of DFS as directions for destination marketing and & Hartig, 1996; Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001), and high-
management. quality self-reflection and attention restoration through the
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267 257

assistance of natural environments (Berto, 2005; Herzog, Black, also proved that aboundant tourism resources stimulate revisit
Fountaine, & Knotts, 1997). Kaplan (1995) defined a fascinating intention and allow tourists to enjoy various experiences in a single
environment as one that induces people to pay attention during visit. Taken together, the literature indicate that destination rich-
visits, freely explore the environment, and personally define ness not only improves perceived restoration in the place, but also
meanings of the environment. This study defines DF as the extent to maintains competitiveness of the destination through strong revisit
which a destination gives tourists the freedom to pay attention to intentions of tourists.
their interests, to freely explore details in the destination, and to
freely and personally define meanings of the destination. This DF 2.2.3. Attractiveness
definition focuses the extent of features of fascination itself on a This study defines attractiveness in DF as the extent to which a
“destination,” extending the needed consideration for covering destination motivates tourists to take time to enjoy a pleasant
restorative features at destinations, such as “freely pay attention to experience. Destination attractiveness is mainly determined by
their interests,” to “freely explore details” in the destination, and to tourists' own aesthetic judgment (Kirillova et al., 2014). Notably,
“freely personally define meanings” of the destination. Meanwhile, destination attractiveness is related to the subjective preferences of
in this DF definition, the extent to “freely pay attention to their tourists. For example, Moscardo (2004) argued that tourists
interests,” “freely explore details” and “freely personally define consider destinations with big shopping malls attractive only when
meanings” is derived from the Kaplan (1995) definition of a fasci- their preferred activities are shopping activities. Another difference
nating environment, pointing out the features of fascination itself. between attractiveness and the proposed dimension of richness is
that a single item or event can still be attractive for tourists to see
2.2. Dimensions of DF and experience. A review of the literature on destination attraction
by Botti, Peypoch, and Solonandrasana (2008) classified attraction
In reviewing literature for dimensions of DF, this study further into major attraction and minor attraction. Major attraction of a
extends DF as a multidimensional concept, and proposed five di- destination could sustain longer, guiding tourists for both discovery
mensions of DF: mystique, richness, attractiveness, uniqueness, and and escape. In contrast, a minor attraction of a destination can only
fitness. These dimensions are explained as follows. be maintained for a short time and can only guide in visiting ex-
periences. That is, minor atttractions provide tourists with chances
2.2.1. Mystique to take a look at an environment while major attractions assist
This study defines mystique in DF as follows: the extent to which tourists in fully detaching from daily work mode and enjoy a
a destination arouses the motivation of tourists to explore and complete restoration. Destinations with high attractiveness appeal
discover stories of the destination. In terms of forms of fascination, to tourists and make them interested to know more about the
Kaplan (1995) proposed that fascination can be experienced place. Since attraction is the first step to inducing desire to visit,
through a process. Berto, Massaccesi, and Pasini (2008) later argued advertisements for destinations often focus on attractiveness (Du
“storytelling” is an example about the form of process for fascina- Rand & Heath, 2006; Getz & Sailor, 1994). Kyle and Chick (2007)
tion. Destination studies have addressed mystique-related issues in further proved that destination attractiveness improves the desti-
rural tourism (Chen & Kerstetter, 1999), mountain image (Silva, nation attachment of tourists by developing deep connections with
2012), and film tourism (Hudson & Ritchie, 2006). Destinations the place. Overall, the literature agree that attractiveness has an
with mystique stimulate fascination, which induces exploration important role in DF for transferring tourists’ mind from daily
and discovery, such as tales about ghosts in mysterious Scottish works into a fascinating environment.
historical destinations (Inglis & Holmes, 2003) and the sense
making process to search for Shangri-La in southwest China based 2.2.4. Uniqueness
on the novel titled Lost Horizon (Kolås, 2004). Moreover, mystique This study defines uniqueness in DF as follows: the difficulty of
contributes to the tourist experience of hard or soft fascination. For replacing one destination with other destinations. Tourists sub-
example, when visiting haunted Scottish destinations at midnight, jectively determine the extent of uniqueness of a destination ac-
tourists could experience hard fascination proposed by Kaplan cording to their perception of how special the destination is and the
(1995) through the exciting and frightening process. In contrast, difficult to replace the destination by other destinations. According
walking in Shangri-La allows tourists to experience full relaxation, to Kaplan (1995), destination fascination occurs when something
mental reflection, and the tranquility of the natural settings, as soft unique drives involuntary attention and causes tourists to engage
fascination of Kaplan (1995). in exploring uniqueness of a destination through a fascinating
experience process. Perceived uniqueness of a destination also al-
2.2.2. Richness lows tourists to enjoy the sense of mentally being away, which
This study defines richness in DF as diversity of tourism re- detaches them from daily obligations and daily routine (Lehto,
sources in a destination. High richness causes tourists’ attention to 2013). Echtner and Ritchie (1993) noted that uniqueness is a key
flow around various interesting and meaningful tourism resources measure of destination image because is shapes differences among
in a destination. Kaplan (1995) also argued that restorative envi- destinations and makes tourists understand what is special about a
ronment should have extent, meaning “rich” and “coherent” destination. The trend of destination branding forther recalls the
enough for people to involve in the fascinating experience. The importance of destination uniqueness. Many destination branding
richness dimension covers part of the concept of extent from studies agreee that the purpose of branding is to improve the
Kaplan (1995) to require the feelings of “rich enough” in DF. uniqueness of destinations, enable tourists to identify destinations,
Transferring attention into various tourism resources could release and then enable destinations to establish long-term relationships
attention to daily works, which also achieves the restoration with tourists (Blain, Levy, & Ritchie, 2005; Kim, Han, Holland, &
function of DF (Kaplan, 1995). From the tourist perspective, richness Byon, 2009). Findings of Qu, Kim, and Im (2011) also revealed
of tourism resources, including both natural and cultural resources, that unique image should be emphasized as cognitive image and
is essential for destination competitiveness (Dwyer & Kim, 2003; affective image in destination branding to enhance the revisit
Gomezelj & Mihali c, 2008). The study of Aktaş, Aksu, and Çizel intention of tourists and to enhance positive word-of-mouth. In
(2007) further reported that tourists prefer to visit destinations summary, destination uniqueness enables tourists to experience
with widely varying tourism resources. Wang, Wu, and Yuan (2010) something special that cannot be experienced in daily life,
258 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

enhancing the overall feelings of fascination of the destination. performs cross-validation analysis with data collected in the third
round of data collection, which should be done through sites
2.2.5. Fitness different from both the first and the second round. Details of these
This study defines fitness in DF as the subjective perceptions of four studies are described as follows. All four studies are conducted
tourists about the fit between their self image and a destination. in Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan.
The proposed dimension, fitness, differs from the concept of
compatibility by Kaplan (1995). Kaplan (1995) stated compatibility 3.1. Study 1: item generation
as the fit “between the environment and one's purposes and in-
clinations” (p. 173). According to the definition of fitness proposed Based on the multi-study method for scale development by
in this study, the feeling for tourists to perceive that experiences at Churchill (1979) and Rossiter (2011), this study defines the defini-
a destination has fitness with their own self image, allowing them tion of DF and each DFS dimension through literature review, and
to freely being themselves in the destination for enjoying invol- then generates items for the DF scale through in-depth interviews.
untary attention. Most previous studies of fitness have focused on According to Churchill (1979), a scale must rigorously delineate
the fit between employees and their work environment. For what the concept includes and excludes. Therefore, a complete item
example, Caplan (1987) found that fitness with a work environ- list was generated through a literature review followed with in-
ment could improve employees' overall well-being and reduce depth interviews. A literature review revealed five DF di-
work stress. Destination studies usually apply the concept of fitness mensions: mystique, richness, attractiveness, uniqueness, and
in perceived self congruity with a destination. Sirgy and Su (2000) fitness. To further understand the content of DF, in-depth in-
stated that tourists establish congruity with destinations by sub- terviews were conducted to collect information for extracting items
jectively matching destination image with actual self, ideal self, and and ensuring information saturation. This study invited 13 in-
social self. Empirical findings of Beerli, Meneses, and Gil (2007) terviewees (age, 25e57 years), including five tourism and recrea-
confirmed the arguments of Sirgy and Su (2000) by showing that tion experts and eight tourists who frequently visited national
self-congruity significantly affects the destinations choices of parks, forest recreation areas, themes parks, or museums. As shown
tourists. Stokburger-Sauer (2011) further pointed congruity be- in Table 1, the interviews had six males and seven females. Three
tween tourists and a destination enhances their identity with the had bachelor degrees, and ten had graduate degrees. The length of
place, and then motivates their revisit intention. In sum, high the interviews ranged from 90 min to 125 min. After the in-depth
destination fitness results in high loyalty of tourists and their high interview with the 13th interviewee, no new information was
willingness to spend to maintain a long-term relationship with the found compared to the former 12 interviews, representing satura-
destination. tion of the collected information by these 13 interviewees.
Before the in-depth interviews, each DFS dimension was defined
3. Developing the DF scale based on literature review. Interviewees read definitions of each
dimension first. During in-depth interviews, each participant was
The DF scale was developed according to the guidelines sug- asked open-ended questions to elicit their ideas and experiences of
gested by Churchill (1979) and Rossiter (2011), as a multi-study each dimension. The open-ended questions include the following
method. According to the following steps, this study defines con- questions: (1) based on your personal experience, please share how
structs, generates items, purifies measures, and assesses reliability to present or experience “mystique” at destinations; (2) based on
and construct validity for the DF scale. The overall procedure for your personal perspective, please share how to present or experi-
developing DFS requires four studies. Study 1 generates items by ence “richness” at destinations; (3) based on your personal expe-
literature review and in-depth interviews. Study 2 purifies the rience, please share how to present or experience “attractiveness”
measures with the first round of data collection. Study 3 confirms at destinations; (4) based on your personal experience, please share
the measures with the second round of data collection. Study 4 how to present or experience “uniqueness” at destinations; and, (5)

Table 1
Interviewees’ profile.

No. Institution Position Gender Age Education Tenure1 Length2

1 Graduate Institute of Travel and Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Professor Female 47 Ph.D. 18 120
Tourism
2 Taiwan Institute of Landscape Architects Honorary Male 56 Master 31 120
chairman
3 Tourism Bureau, Republic of China (Taiwan) Technical Female 42 Bachelor 17 125
specialist
4 Kenting National Park Headquarters Technical Male 51 Bachelor 25 120
specialist
5 Alishan National Scenic Area Administration Secretary general Male 57 Master 32 120
6 Pengfu Sightseeing Yachts Co. Manager Female 28 Master 3 120
7 Graduate Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science Graduate student Male 26 Master 0 90
and Technology
8 Lotus Tours Limited, Taiwan Operations Male 25 Master 1 90
assistant
9 Southern Region Branch, Agriculture and Food Agency, the Council of Agriculture Director Male 36 Master 11 95
10 NA Housewife Female 33 Master 0 100
11 Chiayi Pei Shin Public Junior High Art teacher Female 48 Master 23 100
School
12 NA Housewife Female 52 Bachelor 0 95
13 Feng Shu Elementary School Teacher Female 28 Master 3 95

Note: 1 Length of job tenure is measured by years.

2
Length of each interview is measured by minutes.
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267 259

based on your personal experience, please share how to present or Finally, 30 DFS statements were identified and categorized into
experience “fitness” at destinations. Besides, to assist interviewees six dimensions, including five statements for fitness, five state-
share rich statements for these five questions, interviewers ments for friendliness, six statements for uniqueness, five state-
recommend interviewees take national parks, museums, and/or ments for attractiveness, four statements for mystique, and five
theme parks as sample settings to answer the questions. After they statements for richness.
answered the above five questions, interviewees were also
encouraged to share their own experiences and perspectives about 3.2. Study 2: purification of measures
DF, especially the information not covered in the proposed
dimensions. After study 1, the 30 initially generated items were turned into a
The in-depth interviews were recorded on recording pen and survey questionnaire. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
later transcribed into transcripts. Content analysis was used for a (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used to rate each item.
systematic categorization of recorded responses (Kassarjian, 1977). In the first round of data collection, this study selected top three
Two researchers, one with a background in recreation management national parks in Taiwan as settings and distributed survey ques-
and the other familiar with content analysis, served as assessors tionnaires onsite through convenience sampling. The 470 valid
and independently coded the transcripts into 209 statements. Two responses collected in the survey included 174 samples from
assessors iteratively read, classified, reread, and reclassified items. Yangmingshan National Park, 154 samples from Kenting National
Finally, the 209 statements were narrowed down into 30 state- Park, and 142 samples from Taroko National Park. The subjects to
ments. Table 2 shows the results of the content analysis. Sample item ratio was 15.67:1, which is better than 5:1, passing the criteria
coded statements for each item are listed. The code number is suggested by Gorsuch (1974).
named by “number of the interviewee-sorted dimension-sorted In data analysis, firstly, item-to-total correlations were
item of the dimension.” For example, A7-1-2 is the coded statement computed for the 30 items, which should exceed 0.30 (Churchill,
from the seventh interviewee, which is sorted into the second item 1979). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a component
of the first dimension. For each dimension, the number of coded analysis and oblique promax method was then performed. For
statements ranged from 24 to 57. For each item, the number of selecting numbers of factors, the results found 6 factors based on
coded statements ranged from 2 to 12. The inter-assessor reliability eigenvalue higher than one, identified 6 factors by scree plot, and
(Davis & Cosenza, 1993) exceeded 0.90, indicating the classification extracted 7 factors from the parallel analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, &
had content validity. During the process, items were then extracted Anderson, 2010; Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004). Considering
and sorted into six dimensions. The sixth dimension that emerged the relatedness between factors and items, this study defined 6
was friendliness, which is frequently mentioned by interviewees, factors for the DF scale. Items were retained if they had eigenvalues
especially when discussing artificial destinations or social in- greater than one or if they had factor loadings larger than 0.4 on
teractions with other people during travel. one factor and less than 0.3 on other factors. Based on the above
Friendliness is a newly added dimension used to represent criteria, 5 items were deleted. Table 3 presents the EFA results. The
feelings of human interactions and services in destination visits. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett test of sphericity
This study defines friendliness in DF as: tourists' subjective were used to ensure that the data had sufficient inherent correla-
perception about friendliness of human interactions and services. tions to run EFA. The KMO index was 0.864, and Bartlett's test of
Destinations with high friendliness make tourists feel welcome, sphericity was significant at the level of 0.001, which justified the
reduce their anxiety to stay in an unfamiliar place, and empower use of EFA. The scree plot showed that a six-factor solution (fitness,
them to explore a fascinating destination. Service employees at friendliness, uniqueness, attractiveness, mystique, and richness)
service encounters in the hospitality industry directly influence with 25 items was the optimal solution. The combined factor
tourists' judgment of friendliness about a place because tourists loadings accounted for 62.64% of the total variance.
expect high on service employees’ service attitude and behavior
(Kuo, 2009). Neal, Uysal, and Sirgy (2007) even empirically proved 3.3. Study 3: re-purification of measures
that tourism services could help travelers improve their quality of
life by improving their leisure life. In contrast, interactions with 3.3.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
local residents could be the essential human interaction for tourists The purpose of study 3 is to re-evaluate the factor structure of
to perceive friendliness of a place when the destination is mainly the DFS using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and examine the
formed by local people, such as festivals. Apart from human in- criterion-related validity of the DFS. The CFA model is a first-order
teractions, tourists could also perceive friendliness of destinations six-factor oblique model produced from the EFA in study 2 and was
through thoughtful facility design or supportive policy to promote re-verified with a confirmatory analysis model. The convergent and
tourism, such as the care for handicap tourists (Bizjak, Knezevic, & discriminant validities of the scale were also determined. To in-
Cvetre znik, 2011) or the awareness to plan green tourism policies in crease the generalizability to a wide range for any destination, the
a region (Whitford, 2009). The term in describing facility design, setting for the second round of data collection was changed to the
thoughtful, refers to the feelings when people feeling “You are so three most popular national forest recreation areas in Taiwan. The
sweet!” in human interactions, representing the received consid- survey questionnaire, which included 25 DFS items, was distributed
erate and thoughtful treatments. One interviewee said (A6-4-5): by onsite convenience sampling. The 473 valid responses included
170 responses from Alishan National Forest Recreation Area, 168
I think the community is very sweet. As famous for wall paint-
responses from Xitou National Forest Recreation Area, and 135 re-
ings done by local senior residents, I can not only take pictures
sponses from Taipingshan National Forest Recreation Area. The
with these walls but also talk with the local painters. These
subjects to item ratio was 15.67:1, which is better than minimum of
friendly senior residents are willing to share their life stories
5:1 suggested by Gorsuch (1974). For follow-up cross-validation
with me, and explain meanings behind their art works.
analysis in study 4, the 473 valid responses collected in study 3
were randomly separated into 236 calibration samples (sample 2a)
Taken together, friendliness in DF could be experienced through and 237 validation sample (sample 2b).
diverse approaches, including human interactions, thoughtful fa- The CFA was performed using LISREL 8.80 to perform
cility design, and supportive policies. maximum-likelihood analysis of the calibration samples (sample
260 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

Table 2
Results of the content analysis.

Items Sample coded statements Number1

Mystique 28
X1. My curiosity toward the place is aroused “Alishan has a famous song to describe beautiful aboriginal girls in the mountain areas. When I visit Alishan, 5
while visiting the place through the lyric of the song, the smoky forests enhance my curiosity about the local aboriginal culture.” (A3-1-1)
X2. This place has people, items, and things “National Palace Museum has lots of historical treasures to explore. Some of the famous ancient paintings are 8
worth to explore displayed once per two to three years. There is always something special for me to take a look.” (A7-1-2)
X3. This place has mystery “The Baiyang Trail is full of mystery. The entrance is a tunnel, which makes me feel like I am walking to 8
somewhere I don't know. Since the trail has several tunnels, walking through tunnel to tunnel in the mountain
area brings senses of mystery.” (A5-1-3)
X4. This place provide experiences different “As an urban resident, I am fascinated by the experience to watch flying squirrels and fluorescent mushrooms at 7
from my daily life night with the guide of local residents.” (A6-1-4)
Richness 32
X5. This place offers many stops and things “The theme park has different exotic zones, such as Arab World, American Cowboy, and African Animal World. For 10
worth to explore people who never travel abroad like me, I have so much to explore.” (A2-1-1)
X6. During visiting this place, I can “The National Museum of Natural Science in Taichung hosts exhibitions through innovative design to stimulate 3
experience different feelings visitors' interests of science. The museum changes exhibitions around every four to six months. Some exhibitions
are held through cooperation with foreign institutions. With the use of modern technology, knowledge of science
could vividly shown by interactive ways to visitors. Every time when I visit it, I gain different feelings.” (A8-2-2)
X7. This place provides various leisure “I like the variety of experiential activities in the theme park. Both parents and kids can have fun there.” (A1-2-3) 8
activities
X8. This place provides me diverse sensory “National Palace Museum amazed me by different ways. The Qianlong Emperor's curio releases fun and 6
experiences exquisiteness, while the paintings bring you peace and hope.” (A7-2-4)
X9. I am not bored while staying at this place “Like the Sheng Yang Leisure Farm in Yilan, I never feel bored there. Others may think a farm famous for a variety 5
of water grass must be a super boring place. However, the owner links everything with water grass for us to
experience. Even the dishes offered at their restaurant are featured by water grass. The dining environment also
decorated by diverse species of water grass” (A10-2-5)
Attractiveness 39
X10. In this place, I can find stops and things “Trails around this area is amazing. In just a short time of walk, I can see Japanese Cedar, Taiwan Hemlock, and 10
worth for me to savor some other special species. I like to stand under these tall trees, and quietly appreciate the spirituality and natural
beauty of them.” (A9-3-1)
X11. I can transfer my mood in this place “Every time when I walk into Xitou, I feel relaxed. I prefer to slow down my steps on the trails, enjoy sunlight 2
changing among trees, and feel the breeze passing by the quiet forest.” (A4-3-2)
X12. Sensory experiences offered by this “Yeah! I cannot forget the joyful feelings to play the clean water with schools of fish in Shakadang River.” (A5-3-3) 11
place appeals me
X13. This place helps me perceive good “I went to visit Europe last November. That was the season for trees to change color from green to red. For people 11
feelings who had never seen that like me, the scenery was really pretty cool. I was extremely excited about the gold and
red tree leafs, and cannot stop taking pictures of them.” (A10-3-4)
X14. I would like to stay longer in this place “I remember last time when I climbed at Hsuehshan, there is a stop I really want to stay longer. I want to fully 5
enjoy the fresh air breeze from the valley, relax from the special smell of the Taiwan White Pine, and simply listen
to the birds' voices.” (A6-3-5)
Uniqueness 57
X15. This place offers unique experiences “The Leofoo Resort Guanshi in the theme park is very special. I still remember that I can just watch giraffes 11
walking by in the hotel room.” (A2-4-1)
X16. This place performs unique style “I think the canyon and cliff at the Taroko National Park are very unique. Accompanying with the local aboriginal 11
culture, the landscape delivers unique style. It is hard to be replaced by other places.” (A5-4-2)
X17. This place looks visually different from “I think Taipei city looks different from other big cities. By MRT, I can walk on the Tamsui old street and watch the 10
others sunset on Tamsui river, enjoy the hot spring in Yangmingshan, find local food on Yongkang street, or visit Taipei
101. From natural environments to artificial wonders and from old to new, the city looks different from others.”
(A10-4-3)
X18. I feel this place is different from others “One special thing is that one time the museum had an exhibition about dinosaurs. Through technology, we could 6
see as if dinosaurs were walking around us. Narrators were like tour guides in the jungle to lead us and explain
each dinosaurs' traits. Some of the exhibitions are so special in the museum, which I never seen in other
museums.” (A8-4-4)
X19. This place has local features “I love the forest very much! It has broad-tailed Swallowtail butterfly, Taiwan sassafras, Taiwan cypress, and 7
Taiwan red cypress. These are the local treasures in this place. It's hard for me to find all of them together in other
forests.” (A9-4-5)
X20. This place has special themed areas “There is an area called skywalk in Xitou. Through skywalk, I can visit the forest by a totally different view. For 12
visiting a forest filled with thousands-years-old trees, the skywalk is very special. ” (A4-4-6)
Fitness 29
X21. This place could link with my life “From night markets to department stores, my daily life is full of shopping activities. I think it is interesting to go 7
experiences around and find funny stuff to buy. So, when I go abroad, I also prefer to visit shopping malls and find new things
over there.” (A10-5-1)
X22. The atmosphere in this place is the style “I really like the feelings last time when I visited Iceland. I like outdoor activities which allow me to see natural 4
I like wonders. Iceland is exactly the place in such style which I like most.” (A12-5-2)
X23. This place truly reflects parts of my “I like mountain areas. The shapes of mountains are like the variation of our life stories. Watching mountains is 9
personal style like my life philosophy to experience each moment in my life. I appreciate the peaks and valleys to make my life
complete.” (A3-5-3)
X24. This place reflects the real me “I consider myself as a hospitable person. So, I like visit traditional towns or communities to enjoy the warm 3
human interactions among local residents. Like Jiufen, it is a place where I could imagine the social cohesion and
residents' mutual support existed traditionally in the mountain village.” (A13-5-4)
X25. Visiting this place could represent how I “Well, I think trying these cool facilities at the theme park shows others I want to be modern and brave.” (A1-5-5) 6
want to be
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267 261

Table 2 (continued )

Items Sample coded statements Number1

Friendliness 24
X26. This region supports tourism “I think the local farms and communities support the tourism development of this area very much. Some of them 4
development in this place produce souvenirs and DIY activities with logo of the forest to promote this place. I joined one DIY activity there to
make a kite by local bamboo. That's very fun! ” (A9-6-1)
X27. This place has hospitable and friendly “I had a wonderful travel experience in Japan. Although I have language barrier to speak Japanese, the local 3
local residents residents were still kindly and patiently point out directions for me.” (A11-6-2)
X28. This place has warm service employees “Narrators at National Palace Museum are well-trained. They not only tell me the facts of treasures, but also 6
vividly share stories and meanings behind these historical collections” (A7-6-3)
X29. Service facilities in this place can satisfy “I really like the facilities of National Palace Museum, especially its nicely designed spaces for visitors to take a rest 7
my needs and have a cup of tea after long walks.” (A7-6-4)
X30. This place provides thoughtful tourism “I think the community is very sweet. As famous for wall paintings done by local senior residents, I can not only 4
services take pictures with these walls but also talk with the local painters. These friendly senior residents are willing to
share their life stories with me, and explain meanings behind their art works.” (A6-4-5)
Total 209
1
Note: Number of coded statements.

2a, 236). Before CFA, the initial DFS has 25 items under six di- adequate discriminant validity. Composite reliability (CR) of all
mensions. One low-loading item in CFA was, “This region supports constructs was 0.66e0.86, and almost all were above the recom-
tourism development.” This item was removed, which resulted in mended value of 0.6, indicating adequate internal consistency (Hair
24 items under six dimensions. The six-dimension 24-item DFS in et al., 2010). These results indicated that the 6-dimension, 24-item
CFA showed high fit indices (c2 ¼ 525.67, df ¼ 237, p < 0.05, c2/ DFS was reliable and valid (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
df ¼ 2.22, GFI ¼ 0.84, SRMR ¼ 0.06, RMSEA ¼ 0.07, NFI ¼ 0.91,
NNFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.95, and AGFI ¼ 0.80). Table 4 shows the CFA 3.3.2. Conceptual model of the DF
results. All items were significant (p < 0.01) with factor loading of Environment fascination can directly affect attitudes and be-
0.55e0.84. All factor loadings are larger than 0.45. The t-values of haviors in environments (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2009), while the extent
factor loading in all measurement items were significant (p < 0.01). of environment fascination could be considered as level of positive
The composite reliabilities of all constructs exceeded 0.6, while the place image. A positive destination image reportedly improves
average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded 0.4. destination loyalty (Chi & Qu, 2008; Phillips, Wolfe, Hodur, &
To achieve discriminant validity, the coefficient for a correlation Leistritz, 2013; Tasci & Gartner, 2007). Therefore, destination loy-
between a pair of constructs should be lower than 0.85 (Hung & alty can be considered a strong indicator of DF outcome. Thinking
Petrick, 2010), and should be lower than the squared root of AVE from dimensions of DF, diverse tourism resources reportedly
of each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 5 shows that all improve the revisit intention of tourists (Wang et al., 2010) while
constructs in the model achieved this requirement, indicating fitness with a destination has also proved to cause tourists’ loyal

Table 3
Results of EFA (sample 1, n ¼ 470).

Items Mean Factor loading Variance (%) Cronbach's a

Factor 1: Fitness 27.89 0.85

X23. This place truly reflects parts of my personal style 3.40 0.90
X24. This place reflects the real me 3.38 0.90
X25. Visiting this place could represent how I want to be 3.14 0.76
X22. The atmosphere in this place is the style I like 3.75 0.69
X21. This place could link with my life experiences 3.41 0.65
Factor 2: Friendliness 10.52 0.83
X28. This place has warm service employees 3.66 0.87
X30. This place provides thoughtful tourism services 3.53 0.81
X27. This place has hospitable and friendly local residents 3.78 0.78
X29. Service facilities in this place can satisfy my needs 3.40 0.71
X26. This region supports tourism development in this place 3.97 0.56
Factor 3: Uniqueness 8.38 0.79
X18. I feel this place is different from others 3.99 0.83
X19. This place has local features 4.10 0.78
X20. This place has special themed areas 4.03 0.74
X17. This place looks visually different from others 4.04 0.71
X16. This place performs unique style 3.97 0.64
Factor 4: Attractiveness 6.18 0.80
X11. I can transfer my mood in this place 4.44 0.85
X13. This place helps me perceive good feelings 4.24 0.78
X14. I would like to stay longer in this place 4.03 0.65
X12. Sensory experiences offered by this place appeals me 4.10 0.65
Factor 5: Mystique 5.01 0.73
X1. My curiosity toward the place is aroused while visiting the place 3.78 0.84
X3. This place has mystery 3.68 0.76
X2. This place has people, items, and things worth to explore 3.62 0.72
Factor 6: Richness 4.67 0.68
X7. This place provides various leisure activities 3.20 0.91
X6. During visiting this place, I can experience different feelings 3.49 0.77
X8. This place provides me diverse sensory experiences 3.81 0.54
262 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

Table 4
Results of CFA (calibration sample, sample 2a, n ¼ 236).

Items Mean Factor loading t-value offactor loading Construct reliability Average variances extracted

Factor 1: Fitness 0.84 0.52

X21. This place could link with my life experiences 3.54 0.60 9.46
X22. The atmosphere in this place is the style I like 4.00 0.69 11.32
X23. This place truly reflects parts of my personal style 3.44 0.84 14.97
X24. This place reflects the real me 3.37 0.77 13.25
X25. Visiting this place could represent how I want to be 3.17 0.68 11.17
Factor 2: Friendliness
X27. This place has hospitable and friendly local residents 3.78 0.74 12.58 0.86 0.61
X28. This place has warm service employees 3.68 0.73 12.40
X29. Service facilities in this place can satisfy my needs 3.45 0.84 15.15
X30. This place provides thoughtful tourism services 3.59 0.80 14.00
Factor 3: Uniqueness
X16. This place performs unique style 3.92 0.60 9.51 0.81 0.46
X17. This place looks visually different from others 4.00 0.73 12.12
X18. I feel this place is different from others 3.97 0.70 11.49
X19. This place has local features 4.03 0.76 12.74
X20. This place has special themed areas 3.89 0.58 9.07
Factor 4: Attractiveness 0.85 0.58
X11. I can transfer my mood in this place 4.54 0.79 13.64
X12. Sensory experiences offered by this place appeals me 4.22 0.79 13.76
X13. This place helps me perceive good feelings 4.37 0.81 14.34
X14. I would like to stay longer in this place 4.21 0.64 10.37
Factor 5: Mystique 0.72 0.47
X1. My curiosity toward the place is aroused while visiting 3.82 0.81 11.73
the place
X2. This place has people, items, and things worth to 3.66 0.65 9.42
explore
X3. This place has mystery 3.69 0.57 8.25
Factor 6: Richness 0.66 0.40
X6. During visiting this place, I can experience different 3.56 0.55 7.79
feelings
X7. This place provides various leisure activities 3.19 0.66 9.66
X8. This place provides me diverse sensory experiences 3.88 0.67 9.85

Table 5
Correlations and squared roots of AVE (calibration sample, sample 2a, n ¼ 236).

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 Factor6

Factor 1: Fitness 0.72

Factor 2: Friendliness 0.49 0.78
Factor 3: Uniqueness 0.36 0.45 0.68
Factor 4: Attractiveness 0.37 0.33 0.67 0.76
Factor 5: Mystique 0.09 0.26 0.42 0.36 0.69
Factor 6: Richness 0.55 0.46 0.58 0.49 0.48 0.63

Notes: 1. The diagonal elements are the squared root of the average variance extracted.
2. The off-diagonal elements are the correlations between the constructs (p < 0.05).

intention and willingness to invest more reosourses to maintain Table 6

long-term relationship (Sirgy & Su, 2000). That is, dimensions of DF Results of criterion-related validity (calibration sample, sample 2a,
n ¼ 236). Note: ** Correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01
covers major antecedents of loyalty mentioned by Dick and Basu
level.
(1994), which indicates that DF can enhance the destination loy-
alty of tourists. Factor Destination loyalty

1. Fitness 0.45**
2. Friendliness 0.52**
3. Uniqueness 0.50**
3.3.3. Criterion-related validity
4. Attractiveness 0.54**
We hypothesized that, as the ability of a DMO to create DF in- 5. Mystique 0.49**
creases, destination loyalty for its tourists also increases. Therefore, 6. Richness 0.55**
this study investigated whether destination loyalty increases as
destination fascination increases by using a 4-item 5-point Likert-
type rating scale ranging from (1) for “strongly disagree” to (5) related validity of the scale was supported.
for “strongly agree.” The measure of destination loyalty was revised
from Baker and Crompton (2000). The criterion-related validity
was assessed by examining the relationships between the six fac- 3.4. Study 4: cross-validation analysis
tors and the respondents’ destination loyalty. The assessment is
also used by studies for scale development of Chen and Huang 3.4.1. Model stability
(2017) and Kim and Eves (2012). Table 6 shows that all co- A reliable and valid scale should be replicable in different
efficients were significant at the 0.01 level. Therefore, criterion- research settings (Yi & Nassen, 1992). The purpose of study 4 is to
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267 263

examine such replicability through cross-validation analysis. The collected at three artificial destinations (theme parks). With the 24-
cross-validation analysis includes two sections: model stability and item DFS, through onsite convenience sampling, a total of 240 valid
model extension. The first section of the cross-validation analysis survey samples were collected (sample 3), including 83 samples
tests model stability in samples from the same population. Through from Leofoo Village Theme Park in north Taiwan, 77 samples from
multi-group analysis (Jo € reskog & So € rbom, 1993), stability of a Lihpao Land in central Taiwan, and 80 samples from Janfusun
model is reached when findings from both the calibration sample Fancyworld in south Taiwan. In sample 3, the subjects to item ratio
and the validation sample are similar. The cross-validation was was 8.33:1, passing the criteria of 5:1 suggested by Gorsuch (1974).
tested by comparing the results of different strategies, including Table 8 shows the results of the cross-validation analysis based on
loose replication, moderate replication, and tight replication the 24-item DFS from sample 2a and sample 3, including the
(MacCallum, Roznowski, Mar, & Reith, 1994). The loose replication strategies of loose replication, moderate replication, and tight
strategy ensures the applicability between the validation sample replication (MacCallum et al., 1994). Table 8 indicates that contri-
and the calibration sample which has the non-invariance param- butions to the Chi-square test for the validation sample were 50.17%
eters setting. The moderate replication strategy assumes invariant in loose replication, 50.20% in moderate replication, and 50.87% in
between the calibration sample and the validation sample in terms tight replication.
of factor loading, model structure, and parameter coefficient. Findings of the loose replication posited that the same factor
Furthermore, the tight replication strategy assumes invariant be- structure could be found in both the natural destinations (forest
tween the two samples in factor loading, model structure, param- recreation areas, sample 2a) and artificial destinations (theme
eter coefficient, and error covariance. parks, sample 3). The Dc2 value for these two models between
Table 7 indicates that the contributions to the Chi-square test loose replication and moderate replication was 27.08 (with 24 df,
results for the validation sample were 52.36%, 52.26%, and 52.18% in p > 0.05), which indicated that the two samples were equivalent to
the loose, moderate, and tight strategies, respectively, indicating the factor loadings across the samples. Interestingly, the Dc2 value
the replicability of both the calibration model (sample 2a) and the for models between moderate replication and tight replication was
validation model (sample 2b). 117.20 (with 39 df, p < 0.05), which revealed an inconsistency be-
The loose replication strategy posits that calibration and vali- tween these two samples’ measurement errors and construct-level
dation have the same factor structure for these two models metrics. Besides, the moderate replication model has the lowest
(Bentler, 1980). The Dc2 value for models between loose replication value of ECVI. Taken together, factor loading matrix invariance ex-
and moderate replication was 20.49 (with 24 df, p > 0.05), indi- ists in the DFS cross samples collected from different populations
cating that the two groups were equivalent to the factor loadings (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), showing that the extended DFS model
across the samples. The Dc2 value for models between moderate had good external validity.
replication and tight replication was 26.23 (with 39 df, p > 0.05),
indicating that all model parameters were fixed as constants when 4. Discussion
the calibration sample (sample 2a) solution was refit to the
covariation matrix of the validation sample (sample 2b). Moreover, This study developed a comprehensive and systematic set of
the tight replication model has the lowest value of the expected items for the proposed DFS by applying the theoretical foundation
cross-validation index (ECVI). The ECVI is an approximation of the of attention restoration theory. A 6-dimension, 24-item DFS was
goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another obtained by applying the multi-study method of Churchill (1979)
sample of similar size. It is mostly used in comparing the perfor- and Rossiter (2011). The scale development process includes four
mance of one model to another; the model with relatively low ECVI studies, from literature review and in-depth interview, EFA, CFA, to
is considered as better than the one with relatively high ECVI. The cross-validation analysis. Mystique, richness, attractiveness,
cross-validation process thus also supports our conclusion that the uniqueness, and fitness are the five dimensions of DFS extracted
model of tight replication is the best fit to our data. Empirical from former literature (e.g., Kaplan, 1983, 1995; Korpela & Hartig,
analytical results thus suggest that the DFS with the fullest form of 1996; Laumann et al., 2001). In addition to these five dimensions,
tight replication cross-validation works well under strict conditions based on in-depth interviews of study one, this study added
(MacCallum et al., 1994). friendliness as the sixth dimension of DFS and showed why, in
contrast with the literature (e.g., Kuo, 2009; Neal et al., 2007),
3.4.2. Model extension friendliness should be included in the DFS.
Step two of the cross-validation analysis is to test model Then, results of EFA of study two assisted in purifying items from
extension by examining whether good model fit exists in samples the initial 30 items into 25 items. The CFA results of study three
€ reskog
from different populations. Through multi-group analysis (Jo further suggested deletion of one item, confirming the 6-dimension
& So € rbom, 1993), model extension was examined based on the 24-item DFS. Additionally, the test of criterion-related validity
calibration sample (sample 2a, 236) and the third data collection. proved that the developed six dimensions are significantly related
Since sample 2a was collected from natural destinations (forest to destination loyalty. The cross-validation analysis was conducted
recreation areas), the extended model was tested using data in study four, confirming model stability and model extension of

Table 7
Model fits of the forest recreation areas samples’ cross-validation model.

Strategy Overall model fit Contribution to Chi-square %

MFFc2 (df) WLSc2 (df) ECVI MFFc2 (df)

Loose replication 970.24 (474) 981.94 (474) 2.62 508.03 (474) 52.36
Moderate replication 990.73 (498) 1008.71 (498) 2.57 517.78 (498) 52.26
Dc2 ¼ 20.49, Ddf ¼ 24, p > 0.05 Dc2 ¼ 9.35, Ddf ¼ 24, p > 0.05
Tight replication 1016.96 (537) 1037.29 (537) 2.47 530.64 (537) 52.18
Dc2 ¼ 26.23, Ddf ¼ 39, p > 0.05 Dc2 ¼ 12.86, Ddf ¼ 39, p > 0.05
Note: sample 2a, n ¼ 236; sample 2b, n ¼ 237.
264 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

Table 8
Model fits of the cross-validation model by samples of forest recreation areas and theme parks.

Strategy Overall model fit Contribution to Chi-square %

MFFc2 (df) WLSc2 (df) ECVI MFFc2 (df)

Loose replication 1012.67 (474) 1022.19 (474) 2.69 508.03 (474) 50.17
Moderate replication 1039.75(498) 1051.23 (498) 2.65 521.98 (498) 50.20
Dc ¼ 27.08, Ddf ¼ 24, p > 0.05
2
Dc ¼ 13.95, Ddf ¼ 24, p > 0.05
2

Tight replication 1156.95 (537) 1204.61 (537) 2.81 588.50 (537) 50.87
Dc2 ¼ 117.20, Ddf ¼ 39, p < 0.05 Dc2 ¼ 66.52, Ddf ¼ 39, p < 0.05
Note: sample 2a, n ¼ 236; sample 3, n ¼ 240.

the DFS. After testing with samples collected from natural desti- voluntary attention to take care of personal safety all the time. In
nations such as the national parks in study two and national forest contrast, traveling to a friendly destination allows tourists to enjoy
recreation areas in study three, the extended model was tested their trips freely and comfortably at the destination, assisting the
using samples collected from artificial destinations, three theme form of involuntary attention for fascination. After Kaplan (1995)
parks. The tests showed that the developed DFS has high reliability argued that fascination could come from process, Berto et al.
and validity in both natural and artificial destinations. (2008) added examples of gambling and problem solving as the
process type of fascination. Both gambling and problem solving are
4.1. Theoretical implications human behaviors that could be experienced through friendly hu-
man interactions at destinations.
This study has several important theoretical implications. First, In some destinations, friendliness is considered the core
this study enriches the knowledge of DF by proposing DFS as a element for destination management and marketing. For example,
multi-dimensional concept. This study extends Korpela and Hartig some hot spring destinations in Japan emphasize on promoting the
(1996) and Laumann et al. (2001), who developed items for one tradition of service interactions delivered by the Okami (landlady)
dimension of environment fascination, and extends the work of and Nakai-san (room maids) at Ryokan (traditional Japanese inns)
Lehto (2013), who established fascination as one dimension of (Japan Ryokan & Hotel Association, 2006). The service culture at
PDRQ, by arguing that DF is a multi-dimensional concept and Ryokan is fascinating to both Japanese and international tourists
developed a six-dimensional DFS. This study argues the concept of (Kang, Okamoto, & Donovan, 2004). Some Japanese hot spring
DF is broader than the concept of fascination in Kaplan (1995) and destinations even use photos of Okami and Nakai-san with Ryokan
former one-dimension scales for fascination (Korpela & Hartig, as the background in marketing communications at international
1996; Laumann et al., 2001; Lehto, 2013). Based on the term con- travel fairs to emphasize the key role of friendliness in representing
sisted by destination and fascination, the content of DF should fascination at the destinations. Another example in Taiwan is the
include features of destination rather than fascination itself. That is, tourism brand, “Taiwan-The Heart of Asia.” Taiwan Tourism Bureau
concept of DF is broader and more complex than the concept of proposes this tourism brand through emphasizing the word, heart,
fascination. The function of destination itself is to enable people to for promoting friendliness and warmth of Taiwanese people. In-
be away as tourists, which requires an environment where the terviews performed by the Taiwan Tourism Bureau when devel-
extent is enough for tourists to call it as destination, and provides oping the tourism brand also found that interviewees reported
compatibility for tourists’ travel purposes and inclination to be Taiwanese people's friendliness as the top one fascinating element
satisfied. Therefore, dimensions of DFS overlap with the component which should be introduced to the international tourism market.
of fascination and other three components in a restorative envi- Third, the developed DFS has useful applications in future
ronment proposed by Kaplan (1995), including being away, extent studies. The process of developing one single-dimensional
and compatibility. construct into a multi-dimensional construct has been reported
In contrast, Kaplan (1995) embedded types and sources of previously in studies of destination image (Baloglu & McCleary,
fascination in the proposed dimensions of DFS, systematically 1999; Martín & del Bosque, 2008; Qu et al., 2011) and service
enriching the knowledge of DF. The concepts of hard fascination quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). With the six di-
and soft fascination proposed by Kaplan (1995) are covered by mensions of DFS developed in this study, future studies could
mystique dimension with examples of visiting Scottish hanuted perform a further cross-cultural comparison of DFS to enrich our
destinations for hard fascination and walking in Shangri-La for soft knowledge of DF. Scholars can directly use the DFS in follow-up
fascination. Limited former measures of fascination could be found empirical studies. Like the former work of Tasci and Gartner
to cover the concept of both hard fascination and soft fascination. (2007) in proposing functional relationships of destination image
Second, this study highlights the importance of friendliness in after image studies reached certain maturity and consensus in the
DFS. In previous works, the settings of studies of person- multiple-dimensional structure of destination image, with the DFS,
environment compatibility and environment fascination were future studies should consider examining functional relationships
natural environments (e.g., Kaplan, 1983, 1995; Korpela & Hartig, of DF.
1996; Laumann et al., 2001). The selection of natural environ-
ments limits potential to explore the participation of human in- 4.2. Practical implications
teractions or friendly feelings in experiencing environment
fascination. A clear understanding of DF requires a study of the role This study also has valuable practical implications. First, the DFS
of friendliness in the experience of fascination, especially when provides DMOs with complete and systematic information about
emphasizing service experiences delivered by service employees DF. Although several DMOs emphasize “fascination” in destination
during a trip (Kuo, 2009; Neal et al., 2007). The proposed definition marketing, the literature have not defined or clearly explained DF.
and items for friendliness are still consistent with the arguments Previous works done by environmental psychologists in the natural
for fascination by Kaplan (1995). Unfriendly human interactions at environment (e.g., Kaplan, 1983, 1995; Korpela & Hartig, 1996;
destination make tourists feel nervous and uncomfortable, causing Laumann et al., 2001) have not convinced DMOs under different
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267 265

destination types to apply the concept of environment fascination destinations. The DFS enriches knowledge of fascination in the
directly in DF. Through the established dimensions and items in this tourism literature and provides a crucial platform for future studies
study, DMOs could now gain clear information about the content of to build knowledge in DF. Finally, it contributes valuable informa-
DF. tion for DMOs to develop strategies for destination management
Second, the DFS could be applied in managing tourism experi- and marketing.
ences. A DMO can consider matching dimensions of the DFS with
their destination positioning and utilize the information for follow- Acknowledgement
up longitudinal monitoring works. For example, a DMO managing a
destination full of cultural heritage and located in cloudy remote The authors thank the Ministry of Science and Technology in
mountain area, may positioning the destination with high Taiwan for financially supporting this research under Contract No.
uniqueness and high mystique. Both the uniqueness and mystique MOST 104-2410-H-018 -029 -MY2.
items of the DFS can then be used as references in planning tourism
experiences in the destination. The DFS can then be used in lon- Appendix A. Questions for interview
gitudinal surveys of tourists to ensure that tourists consistently
consider the destination's fascination mainly experienced through 1. Destination fascination is defined as a destination where
its uniqueness and mystique. tourists could freely pay attention to whatever they are interested
Third, the DFS can be used in destination marketing to about, freely explore details in the destination, and freely person-
emphasize how fascinating a destination is. Through matching di- ally define meanings of the destination. Please read the following
mensions of DFS with a destination's positioning, DMOs could definitions about dimensions of destination fascination:
strategically market a destination by focusing on core dimensions
of their destinations and by differentiating their destinations from (1) Mystique: the extent of a destination to arouse tourists'
major competitors. For example, a DMO of a hot spring destination motivations in exploring and discovering the destination.
famous for Japanese service tradition may focus on friendliness as (2) Richness: diversity of tourism resources in a destination.
the core element of DF and design their marketing communications (3) Attractiveness: the extent of a destination to appeal tourists'
to emphasize the fascinating friendly experiences delivered by attention.
hospitable residents and businesses to potential tourists. For mar- (4) Uniqueness: the level of difficulty of one destination to be
ket differentiation, major competitors of the hot spring destination replaced by other destinations.
may consider adopting different styles of friendliness or focusing (5) Fitness: tourists' subjective perception about their fitness
on other dimensions of the DFS. Maybe one major competitor could with a destination.
emphasize on family-friendly or elder-friendly facilities/programs/
policies in marketing to show another type of DF. Another possi- 2. Now, based on the definitions mentioned above, please take
bility is for one major competitor to emphasize on another national parks, museums, and/or theme parks as sample settings to
dimension of DFS, richness, in marketing communications to ex- answer the following questions:
press diverse tourism resources and experiences the destination
could offer. (1) Based on your personal experience, please share how to
present or experience “mystique” at destinations.
4.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research (2) Based on your personal experience, please share how to
present or experience “richness” at destinations.
Although this study contributes several implications, several (3) Based on your personal experience, please share how to
limitations must be addressed. First, cross-cultural reliability and present or experience “attractiveness” at destinations.
validity (Knight, 1997) of the DFS were not measured in this study. (4) Based on your personal experience, please share how to
Future studies are encouraged to perform empirical studies of DFS present or experience “uniqueness” at destinations.
in other cultures. Second, further studies of structures models of (5) Based on your personal experience, please share how to
DFS are needed to clarify functions of DFS in tourism. Scholars could present or experience “fitness” at destinations.
examine behavioral and psychological outcomes of DF from the
tourist perspective. Third, from the multi-stakeholder perspective 3. Now, please share your own experiences and perspectives
(Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013), with different cultural beliefs, about destination fascination, especially the information not
values, and life experiences, stakeholders may differ in their covered in the above proposed dimensions.
experience of DF in the same destination. Fourth, further studies
are needed to perform a longitudinal analysis of the DFS, especially Appendix B. Survey items
the dimensions (friendliness, attractiveness and mystique) that
cover the process form of fascination. The survey for sample 1 includes the whole 30-item DFS and
demographic information. The survey for sample 2 covers 25 items
5. Conclusion of DFS (without X4, X5, X9, X10, and X15), destination loyalty and
demographic information. The survey for sample 3 contains 24
Based on the attention restoration theory, this study defines DF items of DFS (without X4, X5, X9, X10, X15, and X26) and de-
as the extent to which a destination gives tourists the freedom to mographic information.
pay attention to their interests, to freely explore details in the
destination, and to freely and personally define meanings of the Destination fascination scale (DFS)
destination. The major contribution of this study is to propose and
confirm DFS as a multi-dimensional construct, which includes a X1. My curiosity toward the place is aroused while visiting the
total of 24 items under six dimensions: mystique, richness, place
attractiveness, uniqueness, fitness, and friendliness. Besides, find- X2. This place has people, items, and things worth to explore
ings of the cross-validation analysis also proved that the extended X3. This place has mystery
DFS model is stable and can be applied in both natural and artificial X4. This place provide experiences different from my daily life
266 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267

X5. This place offers many stops and things worth to explore 7. Monthly income:
X6. During visiting this place, I can experience different feelings , No income ,NT $1e20,000 , NT $20,001e40,000
X7. This place provides various leisure activities , NT $40,001e60,000 ,NT $60,001e80,000 ,NT $80,001 and
X8. This place provides me diverse sensory experiences above
X9. I am not bored while staying at this place
X10. In this place, I can find stops and things worth for me to References
savor
X11. I can transfer my mood in this place Aktaş, A., Aksu, A. A., & Çizel, B. (2007). Destination choice: An important-
satisfaction analysis. Quality & Quantity, 41(2), 265e273.
X12. Sensory experiences offered by this place appeals me
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
X13. This place helps me perceive good feelings Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74e94.
X14. I would like to stay longer in this place Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
X15. This place offers unique experiences
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
X16. This place performs unique style Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868e897.
X17. This place looks visually different from others Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destination choice.
X18. I feel this place is different from others Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571e587.
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional
X19. This place has local features capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249e259.
X20. This place has special themed areas Berto, R. (2007). Assessing the restorative value of the environment: A study on the
X21. This place could link with my life experiences elderly in comparison with young adults and adolescents. International Journal
of Psychology, 42(5), 331e341.
X22. The atmosphere in this place is the style I like Berto, R., Massaccesi, S., & Pasini, M. (2008). Do eye movements measured across
X23. This place truly reflects parts of my personal style high and low fascination photographs differ? Addressing Kaplan's fascination
X24. This place reflects the real me hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 185e191.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling.
X25. Visiting this place could represent how I want to be Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 419e456.
X26. This region supports tourism development in this place Bizjak, B., Kne zevi
c, M., & Cvetre
znik, S. (2011). Attitude change towards guests with
X27. This place has hospitable and friendly local residents disabilities: Reflections from tourism students. Annals of Tourism Research,
38(3), 842e857.
X28. This place has warm service employees
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and
X29. Service facilities in this place can satisfy my needs practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel
X30. This place provides thoughtful tourism services Research, 43(4), 328e338.
Botti, L., Peypoch, N., & Solonandrasana, B. (2008). Time and tourism attraction.
Note: Measured by a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly
Tourism Management, 29(3), 594e596.
disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree) Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commen-
surate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31(3), 248e267.
Chen, G., & Huang, S. (2017). Toward a theory of backpacker personal development:
Destination loyalty Cross-cultural validation of the BPD scale. Tourism Management, 59, 630e639.
Chen, P.-J., & Kerstetter, D. L. (1999). International students' image of rural Penn-
X1. Comparing to other similar destinations, I will choose this sylvania as a travel destination. Journal of Travel Research, 37(3), 256e266.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
place as the top one choice testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233e255.
X2. I want to revisit this place again Chi, C. G.-Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination
X3. I will recommend this place to other people image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach.
Tourism Management, 29(4), 624e636.
X4. I will share positive experiences of the place to others Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
Note: Measured by a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64e73.
disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree) Davis, D., & Cosenza, R. M. (1993). Business research for decision making. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99e113.
Demographic information Du Rand, G., & Heath, E. (2006). Towards a framework for food tourism as an
element of destination marketing. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(3), 206e234.
Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and in-
1. Gender: ,Male ,Female dicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369e414.
2. Marital status: ,Single ,Married without children ,Married Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An
with children empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3e13.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
3. Education: ,High school and under ,College ,Graduate servable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
school 39e50.
4. Age: ,18e24 ,25e34 ,35e44 ,45e54 ,55e64 ,65 and Getz, D., & Sailor, L. (1994). Design of destination and attraction-specific brochures.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2(2e3), 111e131.
above Gomezelj, D. O., & Mihali c, T. (2008). Destination competitivenessdapplying
5. Occupation: different models, the case of Slovenia. Tourism Management, 29(2), 294e307.
,Public agencies/administrative managers/business managers Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
, Agriculture/forestry/fishing analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
,Technical employees/service employees/operational workers/ Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environ-
retail sales workers ment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3e26.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in
,Student ,Housewife ,Retired ,Unemployed ,Others exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational
6. Place of residence: Research Methods, 7(2), 191e205.
, North Taiwan (Taipei, New Taipei, Keelung, Taoyuan, Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and
attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal
Hsinchu)
of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 165e170.
, Central Taiwan (Miaoli, Taichung, Nantou, Changhua) Herzog, T. R., Maguire, P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative compo-
, South Taiwan (Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung) nents of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159e170.
, East Taiwan (Yilan, Hualien, Taitung) Hsu, C. H. C., Wolfe, K., & Kang, S. K. (2004). Image assessment for a destination with
limited comparative advantages. Tourism Management, 25(1), 121e126.
, Offshore Islands of Taiwan Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2006). Film tourism and destination marketing: The case
, Others of Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(3), 256e268.
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 255e267 267

Hung, K., & Petrick, J. (2010). Developing a measurement scale for constraints to Business Media.
cursing. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 206e228. Silva, C. M. A. (2012). Mountain destination image held by residents and tourists.
Inglis, D., & Holmes, M. (2003). Highland and other haunts: Ghosts in scottish European Journal of Tourism Research, 5(2), 176e181.
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 50e63. Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior:
James, W. (1892). Psychology: The briefer course. NY: Holt. Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340e352.
Japan Ryokan & Hotel Association. (2006). Okami, the landlady. Retrieved June 15, Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2011). The relevance of visitors' nation brand embedded-
2016, from http://www.ryokan.or.jp/past/english/okami/index.html. ness and personality congruence for nation brand identification, visit intentions
Jeng, J.-M., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Destination compatibility in multidestination and advocacy. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1282e1289.
pleasure travel. Tourism Analysis, 3(2), 77e87. Tasci, A. D., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional re-
€reskog, K. G., & So
Jo €rbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the lationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413e425.
SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A
Kang, S.-S., Okamoto, N., & Donovan, H. A. (2004). Service quality and its effect on multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management,
customer satisfaction and customer behavioral intentions: Hotel and ryokan 36, 342e353.
guests in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9(2), 189e202. Wang, Y.-J., Wu, C., & Yuan, J. (2010). Exploring visitors' experiences and intention to
Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and revisit a heritage destination: The case for Lukang, Taiwan. Journal of Quality
Behavior, 15(3), 311e332. Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(3), 162e178.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative Whitford, M. (2009). A framework for the development of event public policy:
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169e182. Facilitating regional development. Tourism Management, 30(5), 674e682.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: Yi, Y., & Nassen, K. (1992). Multiple comparison and cross-validation in evaluating
The Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Envi- structural equation models. Developments in Marketing Science, 15, 407e411.
ronmental Psychology, 29(3), 329e339.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 4(1), 8e18. First author: Chyong-Ru Liu Chyong-Ru Liu is a Professor
Kim, Y. G., & Eves, A. (2012). Construction and validation of a scale to measure of Department of Marketing and Tourism Management at
tourist motivation to consume local food. Tourism Management, 33(6), National Chiayi University in Taiwan. Her research inter-
1458e1467. ests include tourism branding, ecotourism, festival
Kim, S.-H., Han, H.-S., Holland, S., & Byon, K. K. (2009). Structural relationships tourism, destination management, tourism interpretation,
among involvement, destination brand equity, satisfaction and destination visit recreation planning, and tourism marketing. Chyong-Ru
intentions: The case of Japanese outbound travelers. Journal of Vacation Mar- Liu can be contacted at: crliu@mail.ncyu.edu.tw
keting, 15(4), 349e365.
Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X., & Cai, L. (2014). What makes a destination beautiful?
Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management, 42, 282e293.
Kirillova, K., & Lehto, X. (2016). Aesthetic and restorative qualities of vacation
destinations: How are they related? Tourism Analysis, 21(5), 513e528.
Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm
entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 213e225.
Kolås, å (2004). Tourism and the making of place in Shangri-La. Tourism Geogra-
Second author: Yao-Chin Wang (corresponding author)
phies, 6(262), 262e279.
Yao-Chin Wang is an Assistant Professor of School of Hu-
Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of
man Environmental Sciences at University of Arkansas in
Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221e233.
the United States. His research interests include strategic
Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience
brand management, festival and event management, ser-
and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33(4),
vices marketing, employee positive psychology, and tourist
572e589.
psychology and behavior. Yao-Chin Wang can be contacted
Kuo, C.-M. (2009). The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist profiles and
at: yaochin.wang@okstate.edu
international hotel employee service attitude. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(3), 302e309.
Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2007). The social construction of a sense of place. Leisure
Sciences, 29(3), 209e225.
Laumann, K., G€ arling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of
restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
21(1), 31e44.
Leask, A. (2010). Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective Third author: Wen-Shiung Huang Wen-Shiung Huang is
management. Tourism Management, 31(2), 155e166. an Assistant Professor of Department of Tourism and Lei-
Lehto, X. Y. (2013). Assessing the perceived restorative qualities of vacation desti- sure Management at Ling Tung University in Taiwan. His
nations. Journal of Travel Research, 52(3), 325e339. research interests include leisure participants' place
Lehto, X., Kirillova, K., Li, H., & Wu, W. (2016). A cross-cultural validation of the attachment, tourism employees' leisure life, and outdoor
perceived destination restorative qualities scale: The Chinese perspective. Asia recreation management. Wen-Shiung Huang can be con-
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ tacted at: didon@mail.uma.org.tw
10941665.2016.1250794.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C. M., & Reith, J. V. (1994). Alternative stra-
tegies for cross-validation of covariance structure models. Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 29, 1e32.
Martín, H. S., & del Bosque, I. A. R. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29, 263e277.
Moscardo, G. (2004). Shopping as a destination attraction: An empirical examina-
tion of the role of shopping in tourists' destination choice and experience. Fourth author: Shan-Pei Chen Shan-Pei Chen is an Asso-
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(4), 294e307. ciate Professor of Department of Tourism and Hospitality
Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers' at Taipei City University of Science and Technology in
quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154e163. Taiwan. Her research interests include tourism marketing,
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item customer relationship management, e-commerce in
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of tourism, and the MICE industry. Shan-Pei Chen can be con-
Retailing, 64(1), 12e37. tacted at: spchen@tpcu.edu.tw
Phillips, W. J., Wolfe, K., Hodur, N., & Leistritz, F. L. (2013). Tourist word of mouth
and revisit intentions to rural tourism destinations: A case of North Dakota,
USA. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 93e104.
Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating
the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management,
32(3), 465e476.
Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the social sciences: The C-OAR-SE method and
why it must replace psychometrics. Wollongong, Australia. Springer Science &