Tourist experience and Wetland parks: A case of Zhejiang, China

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 1763–1778, 20120160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.029www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

TOURIST EXPERIENCE ANDWETLAND PARKS: A CASE OF

ZHEJIANG, CHINA

Wanfei WangZhejiang University Hangzhou, China

Joseph S. ChenIndiana University, USA

Lingling FanJiaying Lu

Zhejiang University Hangzhou, China

Abstract: Following an experiential framework, this research aims to disentangle the factorsinfluencing tourist experiences in wetland parks in the context of an emerging economy.Specifically, this study tests the causal relationships among service quality, tourist experience,and revisit intention in relation to three popular wetland parks in Zhejiang, China. Conse-quently a series of on-site visitor surveys using a structured questionnaire are conducted inthree wetland parks, resulting in 267 useful responses. The resultant data reveal five dimen-sions of service quality and three dimensions of tourist experience. The structural modelshows that tourist experience is a mediator between service quality and revisit intention. Apartfrom related personnel, the service quality factors are only able to influence post-tripbehavioral intention through aesthetic experience and action experience. Further, the impli-cations of the findings for experiential marketing and sustainable development are discussed.Keywords: Wetland parks, China, service quality, tourist experience, post-trip behavioralintention. � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

To achieve the conservation and wise use of wetlands, the Chinesegovernment has established 550 wetland protected areas and 100 ofthem are developed into the experimental units of wetland parks sincethe early 1990s. By 2010, the total number of national-level wetlandparks reached 68, containing 38 national wetland parks and 30

Wanfei Wang, PhD is a professor and associate dean of the Department of TourismManagement, Zhejiang University, China. Joseph S. Chen, PhD is an associate professor at theDepartment of Recreation, Park and Tourism Studies, Indiana University, USA. Lingling Fan,is a master student at the Department of Tourism Management, Zhejiang University, China.Jiaying Lu, (Department of Tourism Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China,310058; Email<[email protected]>), PhD is an assistant professor at the Department ofTourism Management, Zhejiang University, China.

1763

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.029

1764 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

national urban wetland parks. Majority of the wetland parks are locatedin the Eastern provinces such as Shangdong, Jiangsu, Hebei andZhejiang (Wang & Lu, 2009; Wang, Lu, Tang, & Wang, 2010). Whilemost of these parks are established for protecting the wetland ecosys-tem, some are promoted as wetland ecotourism destinations. Theseparks encourage awareness of the natural environment through vari-ous educational programs and outdoor recreation activities. Indeed,wetland parks have been identified as an alternative travel destinationfor domestic tourists in general and a major recreational space for ur-ban dwellers in particular. The burgeoning demand on wetland parkshas promoted tourism scholars to look at critical issues in servicedelivery.

Due to the rapid pace of urbanization in China, the number of visitsto wetland parks has increased significantly, which could negatively af-fect wetland resources. It is thus imperative that wetland park operatorsfind the best solutions for enhancing the tourist experience withoutcompromising the viability of natural resources. Although someresearchers have studied the development and layout of wetland re-sources from ecological and landscape planning perspectives, only afew have examined wetland parks from the perspective of tourists’experience. This study aims to understand tourists’ experience of wet-land parks, and how this experience affects their later behavioral inten-tion. Specifically, the study tests a social-psychological model thatexamines the causal relationships among the factors affecting the expe-rience, tourist experience, and post-trip behavioral intention of wet-land park tourists.

Types of Tourist Experience

The principal theories of consumer experience focus on situationalexperience, flow experience, binary experience, two-factor experience,and strategic experiential modules. Toffler (1970) divides customerexperience into direct and indirect experiences according to differenttypes of situation. In this case, direct experience reflects the customerexperience of the real environment. According to Csikszentmihalyim(1988), customers’ best experiences are when they have an overallsense of flow, which in turn requires eight elements: clear goals,immediate feedback, the match of individual skills and challenges,an inherent sense of control, loss of self-awareness, changes of timeperception, purposive experience, and concentration on activity. Froma product-based perspective, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) proposethat customers have both functional experience and enjoyable experi-ence, with the two types differing by proportion and weight. Functionalcustomer experience arises from the consumption of a product’sfunction, whereas enjoyable experience derives from the sensationsgenerated when consumers buy products.

Pine and Gilmore (1998) develop a two-function perspective by sug-gesting that customers can be either actively or passively involved inconsumption. They further argue that two environmentally-related

W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1765

factors, absorption and immersion, link customers to consumptionevents. This allows them to divide customer experience into four types:entertainment, educational, escapist, and aesthetic experience.

Schmitt (1999), the founder of experience marketing, divides expe-rience into five dimensions or strategic experiential modules: sensoryexperience (sensing), emotional experience (feeling), thinking experi-ence (thought), operational experience (action), and related experi-ences (belonging). The first two categories refer to the formation ofcustomer experience based on the senses and emotions. Thinkingexperience relates to the creative and cognitive experience of an event,and operational experience is the experience arising from thecustomer’s physical activity or participation in activities with othermembers. Finally, related experiences arise from belonging to a partic-ular social group and other related cultural factors.

The five theories outlined above have both advantages and disadvan-tages. The flow experience relates to how customers can get the bestexperience of an event, but it can only be used to consider a limitednumber of areas (mostly in relation to sporting events, outdoor recre-ation, and art activities). In contrast, the notion of dual experiencescan be applied to many fields, although it places greater importanceon enjoyment experience than on functional experience, which limitsits practical implications from a business perspective. Although thetwo-factor and situational theories of experience have greater implica-tions for business development, the way they compartmentalize differ-ent types of experience is not sufficient. The strategic experientialmodule approach places business development at the center ofresearch, but does not pay enough attention to the customer’sperspective.

Ecotourism Experience

Ecotourism experience is often discussed in relation to the definitionof ecotourism, which can be seen as a type of tourism product, a way oftravel, and a means to achieve sustainable development. Viewing eco-tourism as a unique tourism product, Eagles (1992, P3) defines ecotour-ism experience as ‘‘nature oriented experiences in pristine naturalenvironments’’. From the behavioral approach, ecotourism experienceis interpreted as trips to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated nat-ural areas, in which tourists hope to admire, study, and enjoy the scen-ery and local wild plants and animals, as well as any past and presentcultural features (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991). Focusing on the moraloutcomes of ecotourism such as sustainability, Young (1996) definesecotourism experience as enlightening experience that encourages nat-ural understanding, appreciation and conservation and maintains theunique culture and well-being of local communities. To date, the defi-nition of ecotourism experience is quite general, and thus different eco-tourism experiences can be described using a continuum ranging from‘‘hard’’ to ‘‘soft’’ (Blamey & Braithwaite, 1997; Krider, Arguello, Camp-bell, & Mora, 2010). The ‘‘hard’’ ecotourism experience often involves


people with a higher level of environmental commitment who travel topristine and undisturbed destinations with limited facilities. The ‘‘soft’’ecotourism experience can apply to any nature-oriented travels.

Ecotourism in China, a fast-growing sector of the tourism industry, isviewed as a model for sustainable rural development (Li, 2004;Zhuang, Lassoie, & Wolf, 2011). For this study, ecotourism is definedas a form of sustainable tourism which integrates environmentalprotection, public education and socioeconomic growth. Wetlandtourism can be considered as a new frontier of ecotourism since itembodies the essence of the meaning of eco-tourism: nature based,conservation focused, socio-economic development oriented. Wetlandtourism experience in China is often described as ‘‘soft’’ ecotourismexperience, which involves walking and sightseeing, requires greatercomfort and services, and involves less conservation participation.

Factors Affecting Tourist Experience

The past few decades have produced a substantial body of research onfactors affecting tourist experience. Among the various factors affectingtourist experience, service quality has been recognized as the majordeterminant of tourist experience (Crompton & Mackay, 1989; Kyle,Absher, & Chancellor, 2005; Palmer & O’Neill, 2003). Service qualityis the gap between tourists’ expectations and their perceived perfor-mance of the service (Ryan, 1997). To obtain customers’ perceptionsof quality, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) propose a five-dimensional framework of tangibles, reliability, assurance, empathy,and responsiveness. Controlling the quality of tourist experience canhelp solve three problems: identifying the actual or potential undesir-able effects of tourist experience, investigating the reasons for these ef-fects, and developing suitable management strategies to improve theeffects (Graefe & Vaske, 1987).

In the context of nature-based tourism, the influence of personalbackground, psychological factors, and external factors on tourists’experience has also been noted. For example, Jackson, White, andSchmierer (1996) reveal that tourists usually attribute positive and ac-tive experiences to personal factors, and negative and passive touristexperiences to external factors. Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia, andHuyze (1999) investigate the authenticity of tourist experience. Theydivide authenticity of tourist experience into three categories: objectiveauthenticity (linked to the landscape), construction authenticity(linked to activities), and existence authenticity (divided into individ-ual authenticity and interpersonal authenticity). Vittersø, Vorkinn, Vis-tad, and Vaagland (2000) investigate tourist experience with the flow-simplex method and find significant correlation between tourists’ cul-tural background and tourist experience.

More recently, Chhetri, Arrowsmith, and Jackson (2004) study hikersin natural tourism destinations to identify factors that influence hikingexperiences. The results show that geographic stimulus variables andpsychological factors can affect hikers’ experience. In a study of the


factors that influence the quality of tourist experience, Obenour,Patterson, Pedersen, and Pearson (2006) propose an informationprocessing approach and a meaning-based approach as two ways ofimproving the tourist experience. Using online tourism media as amediating factor, Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier (2009) find that onlinevideos can stimulate potential tourists’ imagination and memoriesand improve their experiences.

Post-trip Behavioral Intention

Based on Cronin and Taylor’s (1992) research, tourists’ post-tripbehavioral intentions can be divided into three types: re-visit intention,recommendation intention, and alternative intention. A growing bodyof research has investigated the relationship between tourist experi-ence and post-trip intention. Beeho and Prentice (1997) find that iftourists are satisfied with their recreational experiences, they will rec-ommend their destinations to friends and relatives. When examiningexperiential marketing, Schmitt (1999) notes that consumers whoare satisfied with their overall experience are more likely to have activepost-experience behavioral responses. Petrick (2002) proposes thattourists’ intention to revisit is influenced by three factors: past travelexperience, recreational experience, and satisfaction.

Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel (2001) point out that consumers whohave negative experiences not only reduce the frequency of their con-sumption, but also have a negative effect on the will and purchasingbehavior of people around them. Alegrea and Garaua (2010) suggestthat negative or unsatisfactory travel experiences influence tourists’continuing intention to visit the destination. Ibrahim and Ng (2002)find that consumers’ perceptions of shopping in stores directly affecttheir enjoyment of the experience, which further affects their revisitbehavior. Lee and Overby (2004) find that consumers’ ultimate expe-rience is positively correlated with satisfaction, and also significantlyassociated with customer loyalty. Guided by consumer involvement the-ory, Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison (2004) comprehensively investigatethe relationship between past travel experience and tourists’ currentvacation behaviors. They suggest that prior experience impacts currenttrips in terms of activity participation and expenditure pattern. In sum,much of the foregoing research reveals a significantly positive relation-ship between experience and future behavioral intention.

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

An on-site survey was conducted from July 20 to August 15, 2009.Three parks in Zhejiang Province were selected as study sites: the XixiNational Wetland Park, Xiazhu Lake National Wetland Park, and JianLake National Urban Wetland Park (See Figure 1). The sites wereselected not only because they were representative of environmental

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of National Wetlands in China


and residential conditions of wetland parks in China, but also for theirconvenient accessibility by the field research team. Systematic randomsampling was used and survey questionnaires were distributed to everyfifth tourist at the gate as they left the park. Data were collected at var-ious hours of weekdays and weekends. At Xixi National Wetland Park,200 questionnaires were distributed, of which 166 were completed on-site. At Xiazhu Lake National Wetland Park, 100 questionnaires weredistributed, of which 75 were returned completed. At Jian Lake Na-tional Urban Wetland Park, 100 questionnaires were distributed, ofwhich 68 were returned completed. After eliminating the question-naires with missing data, 267 responses were retained for further anal-ysis. The response rate of the survey is 66.8%.

Measurements

To measure the tourist experience dimensions, Schmitt’s (1999) stra-tegic experiential modules were applied to divide tourist experience intosensory experience, emotional experience, thinking experience, opera-tions experience, and related experiences. The respondents were askedto indicate their agreement or disagreement with statements designed tomeasure tourist experience on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from‘‘totally agree’’ to ‘‘totally disagree.’’

Due to the scarcity of research on wetland ecotourism, no measure-ment scales were readily available for measuring factors affectingtourist experience. Thus, the study adopted the comprehensive proce-


dure for developing measures recommended by Churchill (1979).Four techniques were employed: a literature search, a panel of experts,a pilot study, and an onsite survey. This study modified the SERVQUALscale (Parasuraman et al., 1988) to investigate factors affecting touristexperience. Based on the literature review and expert panel discussion,five factors relating to resource conditions, recreational activities, tour-ism facilities, integrated management factors, and related personnelwere employed in the survey with 5-point Likert-type scales. In particu-lar, the resource condition items were adopted from Parasuraman et al.(1988), Ross (1991), and Jackson et al. (1996). The recreational activityitems came from Chhetri et al. (2004), Gao (1999), Liang (2005), Para-suraman et al. (1988), and Xie (2005). The tourism facility items wereadopted from Faulkner (2001), Gao (1999), Liang (2005), Lukashinaand Amirkhanov (1996), Parasuraman et al. (1988), Ross (1991), andWei and Wei (2004). The integrated management items were adoptedfrom Kim and Prideaux (2003), Parasuraman et al. (1988), andVandermey (1984). The related personnel items were adopted fromFreeman (1984), Jackson et al. (1996), and Ross (1991).

Three kinds of post-trip behavioral intention were included in the sur-vey: re-visit intention, willingness to recommend, and alternative inten-tion. The respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert-typescale ranging from ‘‘completely unwilling’’ to ‘‘quite willing’’ whetherthey would be willing to visit the park again, would recommend it to theirrelatives or friends, and would change tourist destinations to travel to thewetland park. Based on the above discussion, the hypothesized modeland the relations among the constructs are presented in Figure 2. In thismodel, it is primarily concerned with the first order relations among thedimensions underlying each of the constructs. In this model, servicequality (i.e. resource conditions, recreational activities, tourism facilities,integrated management, and related personnel) directly predicts touristexperience (i.e. sensory experience, emotional experience, thinkingexperience, operations experience, and related experiences) and post-trip behavioral intentions. Tourist experience directly predicts post-tripbehavioral intentions. We also hypothesize all the path relationships tobe positive.

Service Quality

Recreational Activities

Resource Conditions

Tourism Facilities

Integrated Management

Related Personnel

Tourist experience

Sensory Experience

Emotional Experience

Thinking Experience

Operations Experience

Associated Experience

Post-trip Behavioral Intention

Re-visit Intention

Recommendation

Intention

Alternativ Intention

Figure 2. Research Conceptual Framework

Table 1. Remaining Measurement Scale Properties

Constructs and Indicators FactorLoading

ConstructReliability

GroupDifference

Post-trip Behavioral Intention .740Would you be willing to visit this park again? NWould you recommend this park to your relatives

or friends?N

Would you travel to this Wetland Park instead ofothers?

N

Action Experience .877The Wetland Park makes visitors think about

their own life.843 N

Playing in the Wetland Park reminds tourists ofcertain social norms

.828 N

Playing in the Wetland Park changes sometourists’ activities

.822 N

Playing makes visitors think about their ownactivities.

.803 N

Playing promotes tourists’ association with others .795 NPlaying makes me think about my relationship

with others.744 N

The Wetland Park inspires tourists’ relevantthinking

.717 N

Aesthetic Experience .836The Wetland Park is full of charm with its

landscape resources.874 N

The Wetland Park’s overall design can arousetourists’ interests

.846 S

The Wetland Park can maintain its attractivenessto tourists

.845 S

The Wetland Park can inspire tourists’ curiosity .811 NThe Wetland Park can inspire tourists’ creative

thoughts.793 S

Emotional Experience .765The Wetland Park is good for recreation and

relaxation.826 N

The Wetland Park inspires happiness .818 NThe Wetland Park can make tourists escape from

reality and trouble.803 N

Resource Conditions .863Unique and diverse aquatic resources .821 SGood water quality .750 NUnique and diverse animal resources .759 NClean air .706 NRich in cultural resources .652 NRecreational Activities .858Recreation activities are rich and unique .774 NA high degree of participation .761 NEnvironmental protection of tourism activities .737 NEducational eco-tourism .694 NRelaxed and happy atmosphere for activities .676 N


Table 1 (continued)

Constructs and Indicators FactorLoading

ConstructReliability

GroupDifference

Tourism Facilities .883Catering facilities are unique and

environmentally friendly.787 S

Transport infrastructure is convenient .750 SRest facilities are eco- and adequate .772 NSanitation facilities are adequate and ecological .672 NInterpretation system along the route is

informational.646 S

The facilities are in harmony with the naturalenvironment

.644 S

Integrated Management .912The degree of crowding is acceptable .885 SPark charges are reasonable .881 SOpening times are reasonable .883 NAppropriate management of tourists’ bad

behavior.867 N

Related Personnel .834The staff’s attitude and service is good .837 NThe guides are professional .830 NThe behavior of tour companion is appropriate .806 NOther tourists’ (unknown) speech and behavior

are appropriate.764 N

The local community residents are supportive .776 N


RESULTS

Profile of Respondents

Of the usable questionnaires, 59.9% were from females and 40.1%from males. Among the 267 respondents, 58.8% were single and41.2% were married. The respondents were mostly young and well-edu-cated, with 67.4% under 35 years old and 44.9% having an undergrad-uate degree or above. A large proportion of the respondents (84.5%)reported a moderate income level (less than $850). In terms of occu-pation, the two largest groups were clerical workers (17.2%) and stu-dents (19.9%).

Model Testing Results

To detect scale dimensionality, the measurement items for servicequality, tourist experience, and post-trip behavioral intention were sub-jected to exploratory factor analysis. An eigenvalue >1 was used as thecriterion for extracting factors. The threshold for inclusion in a factorwas 0.5. The results showed that each construct’s KMO value was high-er than 0.8 (P < .000), suggesting that the data were suitable for factoranalysis. As shown in Table 1, the analysis yielded a five-factor solutionfor service quality scale, which explained 73.4% of the total variance.


Cronbach’s alphas were .863, .858, .883, .912, and .834. Twenty-five ser-vice quality indicators that could influence tourists’ experiences of wet-land parks were included in the resource conditions, recreationalactivities, tourism facilities, integrated management, and related per-sonnel factors. Five indicators deleted from the original scales weregood soil environment, low levels of environmental damage, safety ofactivities, informational and complete tour maps and other materials,and environmentally friendly tour trail designs. Different from thehypothesized model, only three constructs of tourist experience wereextracted from the exploratory factor analysis, explaining 76.3% ofthe total variance. The Cronbach’s alphas were .877, .836, and .765.These factors were labeled ‘‘action experience,’’ ‘‘aesthetic experi-ence,’’ and ‘‘emotional experience’’. The factor analysis yielded onefactor for post-trip behavioral intention, which explained 87.5% ofthe total variance. The Cronbach’s alpha was .740.

Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to illustrate results of test-ing the fit of measurement models. The modification indices (x2/df = 2.311, RMSEA = .056, CFI = .922, NFI = .880, IFI = .910) revealedan acceptable model fit for tourist experience scale. The fit indicesfor the service quality scale (x2/df = 2.843, RMSEA = .088, CFI = .943,NFI = .911, IFI = .952) suggested a satisfactory model fit. The modifica-tion indices suggested no need for further model specification. Thestructural model based on the confirmatory factor analysis hypothe-sized that the three dimensions of tourist experience positively predictpost-travel behavioral intention. The model also hypothesized thattourist experience is positively influenced by the wetland parks’ re-source conditions, recreational activities, tourism facilities, integratedmanagement, and related personnel.

A full structural model with all parameter estimates was computedusing Schmitt’s (1999) strategic experiential modules (See Figure 3).The overall fit of the full structural model was satisfactory based onthe fit indices: v2/d.f. = 1.979, NFI = 0.873, CFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.942,and RMSEA = 0.052. The modification indices were examined to

Resource Conditions

Recreational Activities

Tourism Facilities

Integrated Management

Related Personnel

Post-tripBehavioral Intention

ActionExperience

EmotionalExperience

AestheticExperience

res4 .87

res1

res3

res2 .30

.70

.86

.62

.52

.33

.23

.31.35

.34

.28

.26

.28

.14.44

.66

.69

.46

.51

.52

.48

.64

.54

.54

.62

Figure 3. Modified Model: Determinants of Post-trip Behavior Intention


identify model mis-specification and no further model modificationwas considered to be required. The parameter estimates were exam-ined to identify non-significant structural coefficients. Ten hypothe-sized paths were trimmed from the model on the basis of non-significant t-values. The overall fit of the final model was satisfactorybased on the fit indices: v2/d.f. = 1.230, NFI = 0.911, CFI = 0.932,IFI = 0.932, and RMSEA = 0.029.

In conclusion, the resultant model entailed 25 indicators, eliminat-ing five indicators (e.g., good soil environment, low levels of environ-mental damage, safety of activities, informational and complete tourmaps and other materials, and environmentally friendly tour trail de-sign) from the proposed model. The first possible reason for this resultis that soil environmental quality and the degree of environmentaldamage cannot be perceived directly by tourists. Second, the indicatorfor the safety of activities was deleted because tourists may attachimportance to their interests but overlook the safety of the tourism des-tination. Another possibility is that the current activities in wetlandparks are so traditional that tourists are not concerned about safety.In addition, the indicator for the environmentally friendly design oftour trails was deleted because respondents were vague about the def-inition of a tour trail.

This study investigated the dimensions of the tourist experience ofwetland parks based on the consumption experience measurementscale designed by Schmitt (1999). It found that three components—aesthetic, action, and emotional experience—were different from Sch-mitt’s findings. The main differences are as follows. First, associatedexperience and action experience are amalgamated into a single cate-gory because the measurement items are related. For example, ‘‘Play-ing in the Wetland Park reminds tourists of certain social norms,’’the item for associated experience, is related to ‘‘Playing in the Wet-land Park changes tourists’ behavior,’’ the item for action experience.Second, the two items that measure thinking experience, ‘‘The Wet-land Park inspires creative thoughts’’ and ‘‘The Wetland Park triggersmy curiosity,’’ are amalgamated with the item for sensory experiencebecause most of the ideas that the respondents got from their tourswere based on the resource conditions and layout of the wetland parks.Although differences exist between this study and that of Schmitt(1999), they are reasonably similar.

Thirteen of the twenty-three hypotheses were retained in the ac-cepted modified model. All the paths in the modified model were ina positive direction and were statistically significant at the .05 probabil-ity level. As shown in the modified model, resource conditions, tourismfacility, integrated management, and related personnel can positivelyinfluence the aesthetic dimension of tourist experience. Resource con-ditions, recreation activities, and related personnel were positive pre-dictors of the emotional experience. The action experience waspositively predicted by recreation activities, tourism facility, and inte-grated management. Further, related personnel, aesthetic experience,and action experience can positively influence post-trip behavioralintention.


The hypothesis the recreational activities factor can positively influence atourists’ aesthetic experience was rejected. The lack of association betweenthese two constructs indicated that interesting and rich recreationalactivities do not enhance tourists’ aesthetic experience. In addition,the results did not support the hypothesis tourism facilities and integratedmanagement can positively influence tourists’ emotional experience. Twohypotheses related to action experience (There is a significant positive cor-relation between resource conditions factors and action experience; and There isa significant positive correlation between related personnel factors and actionexperience) were rejected, suggesting that these two constructs are unli-kely to influence tourists’ action experience.

In addition, five paths were eliminated because they do not have anysignificant relationship with post-trip behavioral intention: resourceconditions, recreational activities, tourism facilities, integrated manage-ment, and emotional experience. This means that apart from relatedpersonnel, the service quality factors are only able to influence post-tripbehavioral intention through aesthetic experience and action experi-ence. In addition, the path from related personnel to post-trip behaviorintention indicated that related personnel not only affects post-tripbehavior intention indirectly through aesthetic and emotional experi-ence, but also has a direct effect on post-trip behavioral intention.

Comparisons of Group Difference

Although the selected wetland parks are located in the sameprovince, they might be culturally, aesthetically, and recreationallydifferent. For instance, one of the study site (Xixi) is a constructed(artificial) wetland and the other two sites (Xiazhu and Jin) are naturalwetlands. Also, Xixi national wetland park, as the first national wetlandpark in China, receives more visitation than the other two parks. Thus,a pertinent question to explore is whether service quality, tourist expe-rience, and post-trip behavior intention actually differ across parks. Asshown in Table 2, a MANOVA demonstrated significant differences inperceived service quality (Wilks’ lambda = 0.02, F = 753.35, p < 0.000)and tourist experience (Wilks’ lambda = 0.21, F = 763.05, p < 0.000).The post hoc analysis indicated clear differences between the threeparks in terms of resource condition, tourism facility, integratedmanagement, and aesthetic experience. In addition, there existed

Table 2. Invariance Tests for Group Comparison

Model v2 df Dv2 Ddf P RMSEA IFI CFI

Unconstrained 2442.014 1420 .044 .921 .922Measurement weights 2459.959 1452 17.945 32 >.05 .045 .921 .920Structural weights 2481.074 1468 22.115 16 >.05 .047 .920 .918Structural covariances 2503.534 1483 22.46 15 >.05 .50 .914 .911Measurement residuals 2553.021 1530 50.487 47 >.05 .50 .891 .890


more differences between Xixi and the other two parks. Specifically,Xixi had more negative ratings on the crowding and park chargesand more positive ratings on catering facilities, transportation, andinterpretation system compared to the other two parks. Xixi was alsorated higher on its aquatic resource and overall park design than Jin.Tourists at Xixi demonstrated a higher level of arousal on creativethoughts compared to the other two parks.

Following MANOVA results and taking into consideration of thesample size limitation for Xiazhu and Jin, the invariance tests wereused for model comparison between Xixi and the other two parks com-bined (Bollen, 1989). Five nested models were compared using a seriesof increasingly restrictive parameter constraints: (1) unconstrained; (2)measurement weights; (3) structural weights; (4) structural covari-ances; and (5) measurement residuals. After each test, goodness offit indices was inspected to observe the effect of the imposed con-straint. If, after the hierarchy of tests, no significant differences (asdetermined by the v2 difference test) have been observed, this studyconcludes that the park type had no effect on the relationships testedin the hypothesized model. As shown in Table 3, each of the v2 differ-ence test for four models was non-significant (p > 0.05), indicating thateach constraint did not significantly impair model fit. Thus, there wasno evidence that the pattern of measurement weights, structuralweights, structural covariances, and measurement residuals differacross groups.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study is to develop and test a model examiningthe tourist experience, its antecedents, and its consequences in wet-land park setting. The model is tested using data generated by a surveyof tourists at three national wetland parks in adjacent cities of Zhejiangprovince, China. Structural equation modeling is employed to furtherrefine the model.

The major theoretical contribution of this study is the use of quanti-tative analysis to identify factors affecting tourist experience in wetlandparks and to examine how these factors are likely to influence touristexperience and post-trip behavioral intention. The study demonstrateshow recreational activities, tourism facilities, integrated management,and related personnel affect each of the three types of tourist experi-ence in wetland parks. It also shows the interplay among these con-structs, and how these constructs influence tourists’ post-tripbehavioral intention. Another important theoretical contribution isthe division of tourist experience into three dimensions to explorehow they interact in affecting the specific tourist experience of wetlandparks and thus post-trip behavioral intention.

Those seeking to develop wetland parks as tourism destinations needto realize the complexity of the issues affecting post-trip behavioralintention. The findings of this and other studies suggest that the man-agers and developers of wetland parks need to consider the opinions


and feelings of tourists before they begin new development projects.Hence, the results of this study may be of value to planners, policymak-ers, and business operators who are considering the type, layout, andcomplexity of developments.

The findings also indicate that action experience and aestheticexperience are the two factors that are most likely to influence touristexperience in wetland parks. To improve action experience, opera-tors may develop diversified recreational activities that offer touristsa totally different life experience. The management of wetland parksshould also be conducted in a more personalized, user-friendly man-ner. For example, park operators could enhance the relationships be-tween stakeholders by managing queues and catering and personnelservices in ways that strengthen tourists’ awareness of environmentalprotection and resource conservation. It is not surprising to learnthat the tourists are in particular longing for an aesthetic experiencewhen visiting wetland parks. Nevertheless, the appearance of man-made facilities, such as restaurants and visitor center, could have animpact of the aesthetic experience. Thus, from a managerial perspec-tive, it is important to consider minimizing the impact on aestheticbeauty when constructing the infrastructures in wetland parks cater-ing to urban inhabitants.

The findings reveal five factors that are likely to influence touristexperience: resource conditions, recreational activities, tourism facili-ties, integrated management, and related personnel. These factorssuggest that before attempting to develop wetland park tourism facil-ities, planners should investigate the tourism resources, design richand unique recreational activities, and set up convenient andinformative tourism facilities. Equally importantly, developers shouldtake notice of management standards and fully assess the environ-mental impact and economic benefits of any development to limitthe scope and scale of tourism activities to the capacity of the naturalenvironment.

Despite these significant findings, this study is not free from limita-tions. The findings of the study are limited to three wetland parks; ifother wetland parks had been included in the study, the magnitudeand direction of the relationships may have been different. Futurestudies should thus investigate other wetland parks. In addition, theformal investigation was conducted between July 20 and August 152009, during the Chinese summer. Due to the hot weather, somerespondents did not have the patience to fill out the questionnairecarefully, which resulted in a number of poorly completed question-naires. Data collection methods that utilize more in-depth approaches,such as focus groups, should also be considered in the future. Some ofthe results from this paper are close to the cut-off points, and thereforeshould be treated with caution. Furthermore, the measurement itemswere based on items relating to tourists’ experiences of natural scenicspots. The integrity and independence of these items may thus beinadequate. As a result, the new scales need to be further validatedin future studies.


REFERENCES

Alegrea, J., & Garaua, J. (2010). Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Annals ofTourism Research, 37(1), 52–73.

Beeho, A. J., & Prentice, R. C. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritagetourists: A case study of New Lanark World Heritage Village. TourismManagement, 18(2), 75–87.

Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior. Orlando,FL: The Dryden Press.

Blamey, R., & Braithwaite, V. (1997). A social values segmentation of the potentialecotourism market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 29–45.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1991). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Parks, 2,

31–35.Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., & Jackson, M. (2004). Determining hiking experiences

in nature-based tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 25(1), 31–43.Churchill, G. A. Jr., (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of

marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.Crompton, J. L., & Mackay, K. J. (1989). Users’ perceptions of the relative

importance of service quality dimensions in selected public recreationprograms. Leisure Sciences, 11(4), 367–375.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. R. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexaminationand extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.

Csikszentmihalyim, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow inconsciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eagles, P. F. (1992). The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal ofTravel Research, 31(2), 3–7.

Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management.Tourism Management, 22(2), 135–147.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Gao, C. (1999). Visitors’ recreational experience towards the environment of stated leisure

farm: A case study of a farm in Wuling. Unpublished master’s thesis.Gomez-Jacinto, L., Martin-Garcia, J. S., & Huyze, C. B. (1999). A model of tourism

experience and attitude change. Annuals of Tourism Research, 26(4),1024–1027.

Graefe, A. R., & Vaske, J. J. (1987). Framework for managing quality in the touristexperience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 390–404.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects ofconsumption, consumer fantasies, feeling and fun. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9(2), 132–140.

Ibrahim, F. M., & Ng, C. W. (2002). Determinants of entertaining shoppingexperiences and their link to consumer behavior: Case studies of shoppingcenters in Singapore. Journal of Leisure Property, 1(2), 338–357.

Jackson, M. S., White, G., & Schmierer, C. L. (1996). Tourist experience within anattributional framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 798–810.

Kim, S. S., & Prideaux, B. (2003). Tourism, peace, politics and ideology: Impacts ofthe Mt. Gumgang tour project in the Korean Peninsula. Tourism Management,24(6), 675–685.

Krider, R. E., Arguello, A., Campbell, C., & Mora, J. D. (2010). Trait and imageinteraction in ecotourism preference. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3),779–801.

Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., & Chancellor, C. (2005). Segmenting forest recreationistsusing their commitment profiles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,23(2), 64–86.

Lee, E., & Overby, J. W. (2004). Creating value for online shoppers: Implicationsfor satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction andComplaining Behavior, 17, 54–67.

Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (2004). The effect of priorexperience on vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 801–818.


Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China’snature reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. TourismManagement, 25(5), 559–564.

Liang, Y. (2005). The design of tourism products based on visitors’ experience.Jiangsu Business Forum, 5, 71–73.

Lukashina, N. S., & Amirkhanov, M. M. (1996). Tourism and environmentaldegradation in Sochi, Russia. Annals of Tourism Research, 12(3), 654–666.

Obenour, W., Patterson, M., Pedersen, P., & Pearson, L. (2006). Conceptualizationof a meaning-based research approach for tourism service experiences.Tourism Management, 27(1), 34–41.

Palmer, A., & O’Neill, M. (2003). The effects of perceptual processes on themeasurement of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), 254–274.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal ofRetailing, 64, 12–40.

Petrick, J. F. (2002). An examination of golf vacationers’ novelty. Annals of TourismResearch, 2(2), 384–400.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. HarvardBusiness Review, 76(7–8), 97–105.

Ross, G. (1991). Tourist destination images of the wet tropical rainforests of NorthQueensland. Australian Psychologist, 26(2), 153–157.

Ryan, C. (Ed.). (1997). The tourist experience: A new introduction. London: Cassell.Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, thank,

act and relate to your company and brands. New York: The Free Press.Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Amereon Ltd..Tussyadiah, L. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences:

Access to places via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 24–40.Vandermey, A. (1984). Assessing the importance of urban tourism: Conceptual

and measurement issues. Tourism Management, 46(2), 123–135.Vittersø, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistad, O. I., & Vaagland, J. (2000). Tourist experiences

and attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 432–450.Wang, L. L., & Lu, L. (2009). Research progress on wetland ecotourism. Chinese

Journal of Applied Ecology, 20(6), 1517–1524.Wang, L. L., Lu, L., Tang, Y., & Wang, C. (2010). Running status, distribution

pattern and type classification of the state-level wetland parks in China. ActaEcologica Sinica, 30(9), 2406–2415.

Wei, X., & Wei, S. (2004). The planning of tourism scenario and the design ofproject experience. Tourism Tribune, 19(4), 45–51.

Xie, Y. (2005). The research of tourist experience: A phenomenological perspective. Tianjin:Nankai University Press.

Young, M. (1996). Ecotourism-profitable conservation? In J. E. Hay (Ed.),Ecotourism business in the Pacific: Promoting a sustainable experience (pp. 55–60).Conference proceedings. Auckland: Environmental Science, University ofAuckland.

Zhuang, H., Lassoie, J. P., & Wolf, S. A. (2011). Ecotourism development in China:Prospects for expanded roles for non-governmental organizations. Journal ofEcotourism, 10(1), 46–63.

Submitted 15 March 2011. Resubmitted 25 June 2011. Resubmitted 13 October 2011.Resubmitted 22 April 2012. Final version 7 May 2012. Refereed anonymously. CoordinatingEditor: Francis Eric Amuquandoh.

Tourist experience and Wetland parks: A case of Zhejiang, China

Documents

Transcript of Tourist experience and Wetland parks: A case of Zhejiang, China