Creative tourism a preliminary examination of creative tourists

Description
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intentions to creative tourism destinations. The ever-growing
concept of creativity has been introduced into the tourism field. Creative tourism has been viewed as a
strategy to regenerate destinations physically, culturally and socially. To develop tourism products and
provide services that integrate the concept of creativity to satisfy tourists’ needs by developing a more
active and long-lasting form of experience, this study aims to examine tourist consumption psychology
in the context of creative tourism destinations. Past studies have identified motivation, perceived value
and experience as three major antecedents affecting tourists’ revisit intentions.

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived
value and revisit intention
Lan-Lan Chang Kenneth F. Backman Yu Chih Huang
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lan-Lan Chang Kenneth F. Backman Yu Chih Huang , (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative
tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 401 - 419
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 123 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2317 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Klaus Weiermair, (2000),"Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the cross-cultural service
encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management", Managing Service Quality: An International J ournal, Vol. 10
Iss 6 pp. 397-409http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010351220
L. Taylor Damonte, Michael D. Collins, Carol M. Megehee, (2012),"Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures
at new festivals", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 279-286 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211250613
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Creative tourism: a preliminary
examination of creative tourists’
motivation, experience, perceived value
and revisit intention
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman and Yu Chih Huang
Lan-Lan Chang is an
Assistant Professor at the
Department of Leisure
and Recreation
Management, Asia
University, Wufeng,
Taiwan.
Kenneth F. Backman is a
Professor at the
Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism
Management, Clemson
University, Clemson,
South Carolina, USA.
Yu Chih Huang is an
Assistant Professor at the
Department of Hotel and
Restaurant Management,
National Pingtung
University of Science and
Technology, Neipu,
Taiwan.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intentions to creative tourism destinations. The ever-growing
concept of creativity has been introduced into the tourism ?eld. Creative tourism has been viewed as a
strategy to regenerate destinations physically, culturally and socially. To develop tourism products and
provide services that integrate the concept of creativity to satisfy tourists’ needs by developing a more
active and long-lasting form of experience, this study aims to examine tourist consumption psychology
in the context of creative tourism destinations. Past studies have identi?ed motivation, perceived value
and experience as three major antecedents affecting tourists’ revisit intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical study was carried out in three popular creative
tourismspots, Meinong, Shuili and Yingge, located, respectively, in the north, middle and south Taiwan.
These creative tourism sites provide pottery, crafts, arts, workshops and other creative activities that
integrate authentic local culture to engage tourists with ful?lling and meaningful experiences. The
on-site survey was conducted on both weekdays and weekends during March 2012. Self-administrated
questionnaires were distributed to participants who were systematically selected at the main gate of the
study areas. In total, 417 questionnaires were collected.
Findings – The results indicated that on-site tourism experience was the most in?uential antecedent of
revisit intention to creative tourism sites in terms of the magnitude of the standardized coef?cient. The
unique variances of motivation factors and perceived value were too small to be statistically signi?cant
to explain revisit intentions. The present study contributes to the ever-increasing tendency for creative
industries in Taiwan to develop creative tourism products and services that encompass authentic local
culture and art in enhancing tourist experience.
Originality/value – For business operators, this study suggests that if owners of creative destinations
would like to attract repeat tourists, the tourists’ experiences are surely critical in developing service
blueprints to meet the needs and wants of customers; they should pay more attention to understanding
what tourists experience when they visit creative tourism attractions.
Keywords Tourism, Taiwan, Perceived value, Creative tourism, Tourists’ experience,
Revisit intention
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Cultural tourism is one of the main trends in the global tourism market in bringing economic
growth for destination countries. In the age of the experience economy, tourists are
becoming more active and looking to involve new experiences, and they want to have
holiday experiences that will change them rather than simply ?lling them with a variety of
entertaining experiences (Godbey, 2008; Richards, 2001). Growing competition and the
development of undifferentiated cultural products are making success for tourism
Received 23 April 2014
Revised 22 July 2014
Accepted 4 August 2014
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2014-0032 VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014, pp. 401-419, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 401
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
destination marketers more dif?cult (Richards, 2002). The ever-growing concept of
creativity has been introduced in the tourism ?eld by addressing:
[. . .] how host cities that harbor the entire range of cultural heritage events and actors, can be
re-designed and regenerated as creative cultural spaces using all their tangible and intangible
cultural assets (Salman, 2010, p. 1).
The recent canvassing such as that of “Creative Economy” (Howkins, 2001), “Creative
Industries” (Hartley, 2005) and “Creative Class” (Florida, 2002) has led to a transformation
from cultural tourism to creative tourism. From a business economics perspective, it is clear
that cultural tourism needs to have more interactivity and creativity to satisfy the needs and
wants of contemporary consumers.
In response to the emergence of creativity for tourism development and marketing,
destination organizations began to plan and act in accordance with movements of
creativities to develop unique cultural, social and physical characteristics and develop
competitive advantages (Stojanovic et al., 2012). Richards and Raymond (2000, p. 18)
de?ned creative tourism as “tourism, which offers visitors the opportunity to develop their
creative potential through active participation in learning experiences which are
characteristic of the holiday destination where they are undertaken.” As Richards (2008)
contended, creative tourism is a new form of tourism that has the potential to make a
signi?cant contribution in differentiating and changing the tourism experience. Compared
to other traditional forms of cultural tourism, creative tourism appears to meet the needs of
tourists wishing to develop a more active and longer-lasting form of experience (Richards
and Wilson, 2006).
Creative tourism has been viewed as a strategy to regenerate destinations physically,
culturally and socially, contributing to local economies and fostering tourist learning of
social and cultural characteristics of the places (Salman, 2010); many countries and
tourism destinations such as America, Australia, New Zealand, Rome and South Africa are
eager to develop different forms of creative tourism (Ooi, 2006; Rogerson, 2006; Gemmiti,
2008; Raymond, 2007). Because the creative tourism market has shown an increasing
trend, it is crucial for researchers and managers to understand the consumption
psychology of tourists (Crouch et al., 2004; Fodness, 1994; Mannell and Iso-Ahola, 1987;
Mayo and Jarvis, 1981) when engaging in creative tourism. Reviewing current literature,
and despite increased attention being given to the concept of creative tourism (Fernandes,
2011; Gretzel and Jamal, 2009; Ohridska-Olson and Ivanov, 2010; Salman and Uygur,
2010), there has been little empirical work focused on the tourists’ consumption psychology
of creative tourism. To develop tourism products and provide services that integrate the
concept of creativity to satisfy tourists’ needs by developing a more active and long-lasting
from of experience, there is a need to examine tourist consumption psychology in the
context of creative tourism destinations.
Tourist consumption behavior has been acknowledged in tourism studies as key to
grasping an understanding of the travel decision process. Woodside and Dubelaar (2002)
argued that tourist decisions and behaviors are determined by a set of variables including
previous trip behavior, such as the primary motivation for a trip, behavior during and after
a visit to the destination (on-site experience and evaluation of the destination and events)
and post-trip actions affecting future revisit intentions. Among various variables, motivation
(Huang and Hsu, 2009; Yoon and Uysal, 2005), perceived value (Petrick and Backman,
2002; Umet al., 2006; Prebensen et al., 2012) and experience (Chen and Chen, 2010; Tung
and Ritchie, 2011) have been identi?ed as three major antecedents affecting tourists revisit
intentions.
Tourist motivation is described in terms of a driving force that motivates people to take a
vacation or revisit destinations. Tourism scholars that have explored and tested this
construct in research include Crompton (1979), Dann (1977), Iso-Ahola (1982), Gnoth
(1997) and Yoon and Uysal (2005). Following the lead of those scholars, the present paper
PAGE 402 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
acknowledges tourist motivation as an antecedent of destination revisit intentions.
Additionally, perceived value has been examined as one of the main constructs of tourist
consumption studies (Petrick et al., 2001; Ryu et al., 2008) and is depicted as the tourist’s
overall assessment of a tourism product or service based on perceptions of the trade-off
between what is given and what is received (Lo and Lee, 2011; Zeithaml, 1988; Woodruff,
1997). This study follows the lead of previous works concerning the effects of perceived
value on revisit intentions in a creative tourism context. In a similar vein, the construct of
experience has been examined as a way to understand tourist’s encounters involving
commercial exchange relationships of all types of services that are different from daily life
(Quan and Wang, 2004; Ryan, 1997; Uriely, 2005). The concept of “experience economy”
(Pine and Gilmore, 1998) was introduced in tourism research and has been well-studied for
its potential effects on tourist consumption behavior in developing and designing tourism
services (Mannell and Iso-Ahola, 1987; Mossberg, 2007; Prentice et al., 1998; Ritchie and
Hudson, 2009). This study, therefore, proposes motivation, perceived value and
experience as the antecedents of revisit intentions to creative tourism destinations.
Literature review
Creative tourism
The concept of combining cultural tourism with creativity was mentioned by Pearce and
Butler (1993). Early connections between tourism and creativity were made through
evaluations of creative activities, such as participating in creative performances or making
crafts while visiting destinations (Zeppel and Hall, 1992); for example, Creighton (1995)
analyzed silk-weaving holidays in Japan. Until now, creativity has been relocated in tourism
studies “from a narrow market niche related mainly to the arts and craft products into a
much broader phenomenon which touches a wide range of tourism actives” (Richards,
2011, p. 1,236). Richards and Raymond (2000) de?ned the concept of combining cultural
tourism and creativity as creative tourism. According to Landry (2008), the experience of
creative tourism is lived of being there, rather than borrowing its landscape, sights and
delights and keeping them to oneself. He also points out that what creative tourists seek is
an engaged, unpackaged, authentic experience that promotes an active understanding of
the speci?c cultural features of a place. In addition, Richards (2003) clari?ed that the
consumption involved in creative tourism is active rather than passive and that the purpose
of creative tourism is developing the potential of the individual and her or his personal
experience. Thus, creative tourism not only helps develop bonds between the visited and
the visitor, the host and the guest, but also encourages tourists’ “self-actualization”, as
described by Maslow (1943).
Revisit intention
In current tourism literature, exploring tourists’ revisit intentions in engaging diverse types
of tourism is one of the main foci (Lam and Hsu, 2006). The preferences and needs for
consumers vary and change with different outlooks constantly. For tourism proprietors, how
to fully understand the purchasing behaviors of tourists and predict their future purchasing
intentions is one of the main crucial tasks. According to a study by Wang (2004), the cost
of attracting repeat visitors is less than new customers. In addition, compared with ?rst-time
visitors, repeat visitors tend to spend more money (Lehto et al., 2004) and stay longer
(Wang, 2004). As Reichheld and Sasser (1990, p. 105) contended, “companies can boost
pro?ts by almost 100 per cent by retaining just 5 per cent more of their customers.” Thus,
to sustain competitiveness, designing a memorable experience to attract tourists to revisit
their destination year after year should be a key mission and a signi?cant measure for
managers.
In previous studies, intention is de?ned as “a stated likelihood to engage in a behavior”
(Oliver, 1997, p. 28) or “a buyer’s forecast of which brand he will buy” (Howard and Sheth,
1969, p. 480). As Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) pointed out, intention is the individual’s
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 403
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
subjective probability that he or she will perform a speci?c behavior. Tourists’ revisit
intentions can be viewed as an individual’s anticipated future travel behavior. In other
words, having a better predictive technique and explanation of tourists’ revisit intentions
may be helpful in understanding their future behavior (Ajzen and Driver, 1992).
As Um et al. (2006) pointed out, because of a lack in theoretical and empirical evidence,
there is still a need to explore what the antecedents of tourists’ revisit intentions are and how
they differently affect the tourist’s revisit intention for a destination. Tourist behavior is an
aggregate term (Chen and Tsai, 2007). More speci?cally, from the perspective of the tourist
consumption process, tourist behavior can be divided into three stages, including pre-,
during- and post-visitation (Williams and Buswell, 2003). Reviewing the current literature,
most of the studies that explore tourists’ revisit intentions are focused on revealing the
relationship between revisit intention and post-visitation in?uence factors and ignore the
in?uence of pre- and during-visitation factors in the tourist decision-making process.
Although several studies have focused on examining the relationship between
pre-visitation in?uence factors and revisit intentions such as destination image (Baloglu and
McCleary, 1999), motivation (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Huang and Hsu, 2009) or the
effect of pre-visit motivation and post-visit satisfaction to tourists’ revisit intention (Huang
and Hsu, 2009), there remains a lack of studies focusing on exploring the relationship
among pre-, during- and post-visitation in?uence factors and revisit intention. Thus, this
study is designed to ?ll this gap by examining the in?uence of motivation, experience and
perceived value to tourists’ intentions to revisit creative tourism attractions.
Motivation
As Crompton (1979, p. 408) pointed out, “motivation is the only one of many variables which
may contribute to explaining tourist behavior.” People engage in behavior for many
reasons. Everyone may have several different needs to be satis?ed when they plan to
engage in some behavior. Since the beginning of tourism research, researchers have
focused on exploring the reasons why people travel. For the reason that tourists’ motivation
is related to the reason why people travel, it remains a hot and hard issue in tourism
research. In the current literature, there are a number of studies exploring motivations of
people in engaging a diversity of behaviors. Some studies (Baloglu, 1999; Huang and Hsu,
2009) point out that motivation is not only useful for explaining tourist behavior but it is also
a predictor of visit intention. As Li et al. (2010) declared, travel motivation is not only
probably the most signi?cant factor in understanding tourist behavior but also one
in?uential factor in understanding tourists’ revisit intentions.
Motivation has been identi?ed as a signi?cant determinant of behavioral intentions in
visiting tourism destinations. Baloglu (1999) tested a model to examine the organization of
informational, motivational and mental constructs on visitation intention. In the results of his
study, the model empirically demonstrated that travel motivation is a predictor of visit
intention and pointed out that two out of three motivational factors (escape and prestige)
were found to have statistically signi?cant but not plentiful direct effects on tourists’ visit
intentions. In the same way, Huang and Hsu (2009) explored the relationship between
tourists’ motivation to revisit and their intention to revisit Hong Kong. In the results, they
found that the shopping dimension of motivation had a signi?cant in?uence on revisit
intention. Also, Yoon and Uysal (2005) explored tourist motivation to visit the destination of
Northern Cyprus and discussed the relationships among push and pull motivations,
satisfaction and destination loyalty. In the results, they suggested destination marketers
should consider the practical implications of motivation variables because they can be
basic factors in increasing satisfaction with destination services and enhance tourists’
destination loyalty. Thus, in this study, motivation can be considered a vital antecedent of
intention to revisit destination of creative tourism. The ?rst hypothesis is as follows:
H1. Motivation has a positive in?uence on tourists’ revisit intentions to creative tourism
attractions.
PAGE 404 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Experience
Consumer experience mainly lies in a set of complex interactions between subjective
responses of customers and objective features of a product (Addis and Holbrook, 2001).
In tourism research, tourists’ experience during trips has mainly been concerned with
visiting, seeing, learning, enjoying and living different lifestyles (Stamboulis and Skayannis,
2003). As Mcintosh and Siggs (2005) point out, tourists’ experiences as shaped in the
human mind are unique and emotional with high personal value. Reviewing current
literature, experience has played a main construct in travel and tourism (Oh et al., 2007).
Since the 1970s, tourist experience has become a popular academic topic. Especially
since Pine and Gilmore (1998) coined the term “experience economy”, there are an
increasing number of studies exploring the issue of tourist experience.
Prior studies point out that a tourist’s experience has a direct relationship with revisit
intentions (Cole and Chancellor, 2009; Hosany and Witham, 2010; Hsu and Crotts, 2006;
Oh et al., 2007). Most of them found that tourists’ experiences and their revisit intentions are
positively related. In other words, tourists’ intentions to revisit are believed to in?uence their
positive evaluations of the experience (Um et al., 2006). As Petrick et al. (2001) pointed out,
if people are satis?ed and have a positive experience during an activity, then they are more
likely to repeat it. Weed (2005) pointed out that sporting event participants who enjoy their
sport tourism experience would likely repeat the experience in the future. Lee et al. (2005)
reported that individuals with a favorable destination image would perceive their on-site
experiences positively, which may lead to a higher satisfaction level and behavioral
intentions to revisit the site. In the same way, Gnoth (1997) mentioned that emotional
reactions to the tourism experience are essential determinants of post-consumption
behaviors such as intention to recommend. Furthermore, Hosany and Witham (2010)
explored cruisers’ experiences by applying the four realms of consumer experiences
identi?ed by Pine and Gilmore (1998) and investigated the relationships among cruisers’
experiences, satisfaction and intention to recommend. In the results, they found that all the
four dimensions of cruisers’ experiences are signi?cant and positively related to their
intention to recommend, and they suggested that cruise management professionals create
pleasant and memorable experiences that can motivate stronger behavioral intentions
among passengers. Thus, the second hypothesis of this study would be:
H2. Experiences have a positive in?uence on tourists’ revisit intentions to creative
tourism attractions.
Perceived value
Since the 2000s, the concept of perceived value has received considerable attention by
researchers (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Kashyap and Bojanic, 2000; Murphy et al., 2000; Oh,
2000; Petrick, 2004; Petrick et al., 1999; 2001; Petrick and Backman, 2002) in the ?eld of
tourism. As Holbrook (1994, p. 22) pointed out, customer value is “the fundamental basis
for all marketing activity.” From the consumer’s point of view, the primary purchase goal is
obtaining value (Holbrook, 1994). Thus, in the process of consumption, perceived value
does play an important role.
In the ?eld of marketing, perceived value has been receiving increasing signi?cance in
academic research and practical implications, and it can be viewed as the most important
indicator of repurchase intentions (Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000). Similarly, in the study
by Um et al. (2006), the authors identi?ed the relative weight of tourist evaluation constructs
affecting revisit intention based on the results of surveys of pleasure tourists in Hong Kong
and found that tourists’ revisit intentions could be determined more from what they
perceived from destination performance than by what actually satis?ed them. Thus, it is
easy to draw the conclusion that using perceived value to predict tourists’ revisit intention
can lead to a better understanding of tourists’ after-decision-making behaviors.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 405
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Studies on the determinants of re-visit intentions suggested the positive impact of
perceived value on future behavioral intentions. Kuo et al. (2009) constructed a model to
evaluate service quality of mobile value-added services and explored the relationships
among customer service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and post-purchase
intention. In the results, they found that perceived value positively in?uences customers’
post-purchase intentions. Also, Chen and Tsai (2007) pointed out that perceived value has
a positive impact on both future behavioral intentions and behaviors. According the results
of their study, they also concluded that “perceived value does play an important role in
affecting the level of satisfaction and future behavioral intentions of customers” (p. 1,121).
In keeping with the ?ndings summarized above, tourists’ perceived value is expected to be
positively related to revisit intention in this study. Thus, the third hypothesis of this study
would be:
H3. Perceived value has a positive in?uence on tourists’ revisit intentions to creative
tourism attractions.
Methodology
Data collection
The empirical study was carried out in three popular creative tourism spots, Meinong, Shuili
and Yingge, located, respectively, in the north, middle and south Taiwan. These creative
tourism sites provide pottery, crafts, arts, workshops and other creative activities that
integrate authentic local culture to engage tourists with ful?lling and meaningful
experiences. The target populations for this study were the visitors who visited these
creative tourism attractions. Although there is growing attention in research of creative
tourism, researchers seem to have diverse views on the de?nitions of creative tourists.
Jelinc? ic´ and Žuvela (2012) describe postmodern tourists who are involved in the
destination’s cultural activities, Ohridska-Olson and Ivanov (2010) focus on the experience
of authenticity among creative activity seeking travelers and Richards (2009) demonstrate
how creative consumers actively participate in co-creation tourism activities to develop
creative potential by interacting with local culture. At the beginning of the research process
for this exploratory study, we decided that because there was no clear way to identify
creative tourists, we would de?ne “creative tourist” as any tourist who has visited any of the
three identi?ed creative tourist attractions. With the intention of collecting a representative
sample of tourists, the on-site survey was conducted on both weekdays and weekends of
March 2012. Self-administrated questionnaires were distributed to participants who were
systematically selected at the main gate of the study areas. A total of 417 questionnaires
were collected from the 483 visitors who were contacted. After eliminating unusable
responses, 395 questionnaires (82.2 per cent usable response rate) were coded and used
for data analysis.
Measurements
Creative tourists’ motivation in this study was measured by using Ryan and Connell’s (1989)
Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC) dimension which draws from Heider’s (1958) concept
of perceived locus of causality. Four dimensions, which are external regulation, introjected
regulation, identi?ed regulation and intrinsic motivation, were included. Intrinsic motivation
was measured according to Ryan and Deci’s (2000) study, by evaluating an individual’s
tendency to seek out inherent satisfaction while involved in an activity. External regulation,
introjections and identi?cation regulation are classi?ed as extrinsic motivation on a
continuum of increasing self-determination. External regulation assesses behaviors that
have not been internalized and are encouraged only by external contingencies
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Conversely, introjected regulation measures individual
behavioral regulation that involves “internalized rules and demands that press one to
behave” (Deci et al., 1991, p. 329). Identi?ed regulation assesses people’s behavior that is
PAGE 406 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
regulated by their personal values and volition when performing the behaviors (Deci and
Ryan, 2008).
Furthermore, the 4E tourist experience measurement scales developed by Oh et al. (2007)
were used as a framework to measure tourist experience. Twenty-two experience economy
questions were included in these four tourist experience scales, including education,
escapism, esthetics and entertainment dimensions. For perceived value measuring,
Sweeney and Soutar’s (2001) PERVAL scale was modi?ed to measure creative tourists’
perceived value for four dimensions, including emotional, social, quality and price, and 16
question items from the PERVAL scale were included in this study. Tourists’ revisit
intentions in this study were operationalized by ?ve items based on previous studies (Ajzen
and Driver, 1992; Petrick and Backman, 2002). Respondents were asked to indicate their
opinions by checking the appropriate response to all of the questionnaire items using a
7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1? strongly disagree to 7 ? strongly agree.
Results
Pro?le of respondents
Frequency analysis was used to analyze the demographic characteristics of samples. The
largest number of tourists was aged between 31 and 40 years (34.4 per cent). With regard
to gender, males comprised 40.8 per cent of the sample and females made up 59.2 per
cent of the sample. Tourists who came from the southern part of Taiwan were predominant
(45.6 per cent). A modest number of the samples had College or University degrees (68.2
per cent). More than the half tourists were married (56.8 per cent). In the sample, 38.5 per
cent of the tourists had a monthly income between NTD 20,001 and NTD 40,000 (US$1 ?
$ 29.8 NTD). Almost a quarter of the tourists had a monthly income between NTD 40,001
and NTD 60,000.
Most tourists were accompanied by their family (43.8 per cent) and friends (31.8 per cent).
Only a few people (1.6 per cent) came alone. Half of the tourists’ travel information came
from their friends and family. A quarter of tourists used a Web site to search for their travel
information. Most of the people in this study were not part of a group (81.1 per cent). The
vast majority (74.9 per cent) of tourists within the sample had visited creative tourism
attractions like the one they were visiting before. More than half of tourists (62.1 per cent)
didn’t make any handicrafts on their visit. Most of tourists (93.9 per cent) indicated that they
would recommend this attraction to their friends, family, colleagues, etc.
Reliability
Reliability tests were performed to examine the internal consistency of the measurements
used in this study. This study used Cronbach’s Alpha, which has frequently been used in
various social science research projects. In social psychology research, a reliability
coef?cient exceeding 0.6 is usually acceptable (Robinson et al., 1991). As Table I
indicates, the results show that each factor (external, introjection, identi?cation, intrinsic,
education, esthetics, entertainment, escapism, quality, price, emotional, social and revisit
intention) was reliable. Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients ranged from 0.64 to 0.95, as shown
in Table I.
Con?rmatory factor analysis
The measured variables used in this study are adapted from previous research to the
context of creative tourism. As suggested by past studies (Bollen, 1989; Fox, 1983; Hair
et al., 2009), con?rmatory factor analysis (CFA) could be used to determine whether the
measured variables were consistent with hypothesized latent variables. Brown (2006)
suggested that CFA has a “hypothesis-driven nature” for construct testing and provides an
analytic possibility to evaluate method effects and the stability of the factor model over time.
CFA was, thus, used to examine model ?t for motivation, experience and perceived value.
Within a structural equation modeling software (EQS), each factor of variables was run by
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 407
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
?xing variance loading to 1.0 and Lagrange multiplier (LM) tests were selected. The LM test
determines which parameters were signi?cant at the 0.05 alpha orders. Either the cross
loadings or error covariance between variables with different target factors indicates that
the instrument items are multidimensional and potentially bad items (Kline, 2005). As the
results showed from the LM test, ten cross loading items were identi?ed as problematic.
According to Kaplan (2009) and Woosnam (2011), these items were deleted with
consideration of the issue of dimensionality. After deleting the items, each factor of
motivation, experience and perceived value was added in each subsequent model and the
results of each subsequent model showed that no parameters were signi?cant in LM tests,
which needed to be added. In goodness-of-?t indices of the subsequent model,
comparative ?t index (CFI) and non-normed ?t index (NNFI) were higher than 0.9 and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.06, as per the suggestion of current
literature (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Fan and Sivo, 2007).
Satorra and Bentler (2001, 2010) proposed the scaled difference Chi-square Test Statistic
to compare two nested models for scaling correction. As Chen et al. (2005) suggested that
the use of Satorra–Bentler Chi-square test can assess the measurement invariance for
comparing the ?rst-order and second-order factor models when second-order factors are
more applicable in accounting for the relations among ?rst-order factor models. The
advantage of applying second-order factor models can address “whether items or
subscales accurately re?ect the intended factor structure” (Marsh and Hocevar, 1988).
Furthermore, in estimating con?rmatory measurement models of each latent construct, the
test of the difference between the chi-square and Satorra–Bentler Chi-square of two
competing CFA models showed that the chi-square and Satorra–Bentler chi-square of the
?rst-order motivation measurement model was signi?cantly different from the chi-square of
the second-order motivation measurement model. Thus, the ?rst-order motivation
measurement model was used for the following data analysis. In addition, the results
showed that the chi-square and Satorra–Bentler chi-square differences between ?rst- and
second-order experience and perceived value measurement models was not signi?cant.
Thus, the second-order experience and perceived value measurement model was used for
the following data analysis.
Measurement model
In the data analysis result of the measurement model, Mardia’s standardized coef?cient
was 67.53. Thus, the robust version of goodness-of-?t indices was used (Table II). The
results of CFA showed a Satorra–Bentler Scaled Chi-square value of 2041.30 with 1,098 df,
CFI statistic of 0.9, normed ?t index (NFI) statistic of 0.9 and RMSEA statistic of 0.47, all of
Table I Results of the scale reliability
Scales Items Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha
Motivation
External 4 3.48 1.51 0.64
Introjection 4 3.93 1.71 0.89
Identi?cation 4 5.20 1.19 0.73
Intrinsic 4 5.41 1.09 0.87
Experience
Education 6 5.13 1.13 0.90
Esthetics 5 5.49 1.06 0.89
Entertainment 5 5.14 1.12 0.85
Escapism 6 4.52 1.38 0.87
Perceived value
Quality 4 5.24 1.12 0.87
Price 4 5.12 1.28 0.92
Emotional 4 5.61 1.01 0.93
Social 4 4.43 1.35 0.90
Revisit intention 5 5.66 1.17 0.95
PAGE 408 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
which indicate perfect ?t (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Fan and Sivo, 2007). As for the results
shown from the LM test, the error covariance between motivation factor 2, Esthetics, and
the error term of perceived value factor 4, Social, had chi-square changes of 83.39 by
adding it to the model. In the same way, the results from LM test also showed that
motivation factor 1, Education, and the error term of perceived value factor 4, Social, and
error term of experience factor 4, Escapism, and error term of perceived value factor 4,
Social, had chi-square changes of 99.50 and 68.51 by adding them to the model. After
adding signi?cant parameters, the results of the revised measurement model showed no
parameters were signi?cant in LM tests which needed to be added and a noticeable
improvement in model ?t (Satorra–Bentler Scaled Chi-square ? 1,851.37 with df ? 1,094;
CFI ? 0.92; NNFI? 0.92; RMSEA ? 0.042) was achieved.
Additionally, as shown in Table III, all the factor loadings between observed items and
variables ranged from 0.49 to 0.91, which means items are highly correlated with the
variables (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Each of the t-values corresponding with items was
signi?cant, indicating that the variables in the model demonstrate convergent validity
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Bollen, 1989). As seen in Table IV, the estimated value of the square
root of average variance extracted (AVE) was greater than the correlation of motivation
factor two and perceived value. The correlation of motivation factors one, three, four and
experience were greater than the estimated values of square root of AVE. However,
according to Kline (2005), if correlations between the factors are not greater than 0.85, then
discriminant validity can be established. As shown in Table IV, only the correlation of
experience was greater than 0.85. Thus, discriminant validity of most measurement scales
was established.
Structural model
Once the revised measurement model was established with a good model ?t, the process
of building the structural model to test the hypotheses was started. The results of the
structural model showed a Satorra–Bentler Scaled Chi- square value of 1851.74 with 1,094
df, CFI statistic of 0.92, NFI statistic of 0.92 and RMSEA statistic of 0.42, all of which indicate
acceptable ?t (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Fan and Sivo, 2007) (Table V). To test whether
tourists’ motivation, experience and perceived value are statistically signi?cant in
predicting their intention to revisit creative tourism attractions, three hypotheses were test.
The results of the structural model are shown in Table VI and Figure 1. The overall model
explained 50.2 per cent of the total variance in revisit intention. H1 stated that motivation
has a positive impact on tourists revisit intentions to creative tourism attractions. The result
of structural model does not ?nd statistical support for the motivations of external
regulation, introjected regulation, identi?ed regulation and intrinsic motivation (? ? 0.057,
?0.035, 0.238, 0.144, respectively, p ? 0.05); hence, H1 is not supported. H2 posited that
experience has a positive in?uence on revisit intentions to creative tourism attractions. Our
?nding indicated that experience (? ? 0.489, p ? 0.05) was statistically signi?cant in
predicting revisit intention to creative tourism attractions; therefore, H2 is supported. H3
predicted that perceived value has a positive impact on revisit intentions to creative tourism
attractions. The results indicated that perceived value does not have a signi?cant effect on
revisit intentions to creative tourism attractions (? ? ?0.073, p ? 0.05); thus, H3 is not
supported.
Table II Goodness-of-?t indices of measurement model
Models &
suggested value ?
2
Satorra – Bentler
(S-B) ?
2
df CFI NNFI RMSEA
90% con?dence
interval of RMSEA
Model (Original) 2536.29 2041.30 1098 0.90 0.90 0.047 (0.043, 0.050)
Model (Revised) 2292.11 1851.37 1094 0.92 0.92 0.042 (0.038, 0.045)
Suggested value
a
? 0.9 ? 0.9 ? 0.06
Notes:
a
Suggested values were based on Hu and Bentler (1998) and Fan and Sivo (2007)
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 409
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Table III Con?rmatory factor analysis results for revised measurement model
Variable (factor) Items Standardized (Unstandardized) factor loading Standard error
Motivation
(External) CC1 0.49 (n/a) n/a
CC13 0.67 (1.63)** 0.221
CC15 0.74 (1.77)** 0.221
(Introjection) CC2 0.76 (n/a) n/a
CC6 0.83 (0.92)** 0.048
CC8 0.90 (1.07)** 0.050
CC11 0.81 (0.96)** 0.055
(Identi?cation) CC3 0.66 (n/a) n/a
CC7 0.63 (0.77)** 0.077
CC10 0.77 (0.93)** 0.080
CC12 0.49 (0.81)** 0.098
(Intrinsic) CC4 0.80 (n/a) n/a
CC9 0.81 (1.07)** 0.055
CC14 0.80 (0.97)** 0.067
CC16 0.78 (1.01)** 0.058
Experience
(Education) 0.82 (0.66)** 0.065
EE1 0.78 (n/a) n/a
EE4 0.87 (1.14)** 0.070
EE5 0.87 (1.17)** 0.066
EE7 0.83 (1.10)** 0.066
(Esthetics) 1.00 (0.67)** 0.051
EE2 0.74 (n/a) n/a
EE8 0.80 (1.20)** 0.093
EE16 0.71 (1.27)** 0.094
EE17 0.82 (1.23)** 0.090
EE19 0.86 (1.50)** 0.106
(Entertainment) 0.94 (0.74)** 0.063
EE10 0.70 (n/a) n/a
EE12 0.84 (1.13)** 0.079
EE22 0.83 (1.20)** 0.086
(Escapism) 0.60 (0.66)** 0.065
EE13 0.74 (n/a) n/a
EE15 0.80 (1.01)** 0.072
EE18 0.75 (1.00)** 0.076
EE21 0.71 (0.98)** 0.072
Perceived value
(Quality) 0.94 (0.79)** 0.055
FF2 0.79 (n/a) n/a
FF4 0.71 (0.98)** 0.060
FF15 0.82 (1.08)** 0.073
(Emotional) 0.82 (0.89)** 0.061
FF8 0.86 (n/a) n/a
FF11 0.87 (1.04)** 0.067
FF13 0.90 (1.07)** 0.048
(Price) 0.94 (0.78)** 0.046
FF1 0.88 (n/a) n/a
FF7 0.90 (1.07)** 0.049
FF10 0.89 (1.11)** 0.045
(Social) 0.66 (0.58)** 0.055
FF3 0.71 (n/a) n/a
FF6 0.88 (1.33)** 0.094
FF9 0.85 (1.30)** 0.103
FF14 0.84 (1.30)** 0.113
Revisit intention
DD2 0.80 (n/a) n/a
DD4 0.87 (1.04)** 0.042
DD6 0.93 (1.15)** 0.053
DD7 0.91 (1.12)** 0.048
DD9 0.91 (1.18)** 0.046
Note:
**
Standardized factor loadings are signi?cant at p ? 0.05
PAGE 410 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
In this study, the factors of motivation and perceived value were not statistically signi?cant
in predicting tourists’ intention to revisit creative tourism attractions. After checking the
correlation coef?cients between variables, it was found that the correlation coef?cient
between motivation factors one and two was 0.75; the correlation coef?cient between
motivation factors three and four was 0.89; the correlation coef?cient between
motivation factor four and the variable of experience was 0.82; the correlation
coef?cient between motivation factor four and the variable of perceived value was 0.79;
and the correlation coef?cient between variables experience and perceived value was
0.95. This meant that unique variances of the motivation factors one-four and perceived
value were too small to be statistically signi?cant enough to explain revisit intention.
Conclusion
The rapid development of creative strategies in the ?eld of tourism re?ects the revolutions
of tourist demand and contemporary tourism policy agenda (Richards and Marques, 2012).
With the growing scope of creative tourism, destinations need to incorporate aspects of
creativity into tourism products that link to the place culturally and socially in offering
Table IV Revised measurement model factor correlation coef?cients matrix and AVE
Constructs Mo1 Mo2 Mo3 Mo4 Ex PV RI
Mo1 0.64
a
Mo2 0.75
b
0.83
Mo3 0.11 0.40 0.66
Mo4 0.07 0.39 0.84 0.80
Ex 0.12 0.32 0.72 0.82 0.85
PV 0.03 0.25 0.67 0.79 0.95 0.85
RI 0.09 0.26 0.62 0.66 0.68 0.64 0.89
Notes:
a
The diagonal elements are the square root of the average variance extracted (the shared
variance between the factors and their items);
b
the off-diagonal elements are the correlations
between factors; Mo1 ? motivation factor 1 (External); Mo2 ? motivation factor 2 (Introjection);
Mo3 ? motivation factor 3 (Identi?cation); Mo4 ? motivation factor 4 (Intrinsic); Ex ? experience;
PV ? perceived value; RI ? revisit intention
Table V Goodness-of-?t indices of structural model
Models &
suggested value ?
2
S-B ?
2
df CFI NNFI RMSEA
90% con?dence
interval of RMSEA
Structural model 2292.29 1851.74 1094 0.92 0.92 0.042 (0.038, 0.045)
Suggested value
a
? 0.9 ? 0.9 ? 0.06
Note:
a
Suggested values were based on Hu and Bentler (1999) and Fan and Sivo (2007)
Table VI Standardized parameter estimates
Regression
paths ? (Standard FL)
Standard
error
Test of alternative
hypotheses R
2
TPB SEM 0.502
Mo ¡ RI Rejected
Mo1 ¡ RI 0.057 (0.041) 0.145
Mo2 ¡ RI ?0.035 (?0.051) ?0.066
Mo3 ¡ RI 0.238 (0.210) 0.233
Mo4 ¡ RI 0.144 (0.128) 0.284
Ex ¡ RI 0.489 (0.508)*** 0.285 Accepted
PV ¡ RI ?0.073 (?0.076) ?0.248 Rejected
Notes:
***
p ? 0.01; Mo1 ? motivation factor 1; Mo2 ? motivation factor 2; Mo3 ? motivation factor
3; Mo4 ? motivation factor 4; Ex ? experience; PV ? perceived value; RI ? revisit intention
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 411
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
tourists authentic experience (Richards and Raymond, 2000; Richards and Wilson, 2006).
However, there has been limited empirical research on creative tourism, particularly
surveying tourists who visit the regions where creative tourism products were developed
(Richards, 2011). This study not only attempts to reveal tourists’ intentions to revisit creative
tourism attractions or their motivation, experience and perceived value regarding creative
tourism attractions, but also examines separately the relationships between tourists’
motivation, experience, perceived value and their intention to revisit creative tourism
attraction. One of the main ?ndings of this study revealed that the scales of motivation,
experience, perceived value adopted from existing literature have demonstrated good
reliability and validity.
In addition, by identifying the in?uence of motivation, experience and perceived value on
creative tourists’ revisit intentions, the regression coef?cients indicated that only
experience was statistically signi?cant in predicting creative tourists’ revisit intentions;
neither motivation nor perceived value were statistically signi?cant enough to explain
tourists’ intentions to revisit creative tourism attractions. The unique variances of motivation
factors and perceived value were too small to be statistically signi?cant to explain revisit
intention, although the correlations between perceived value and revisit intention were high.
The results indicated that on-site tourism experience was the most in?uential antecedent of
revisit intention to creative tourism in terms of the magnitude of standardized coef?cient.
The ?nding of the link between experience and revisit intentions to creative tourism
attractions is consistent with that of past research (Gnoth, 1997; Hosany and Witham, 2010;
Hsu and Crotts, 2006) in that positive tourism experiences are essential determinants of
post-trip tourist behavior affecting future behavior as revisit intentions. The result of the
non-signi?cant result on the relationship between perceived value and revisit intentions is
similar to that of Chen and Tsai (2007) but contradicts Kuo et al. (2009) and Hutchinson
et al. (2009). Due to the perplexing literature on the causal relationship between perceived
value and revisit intentions to tourism destinations, future study should further investigate
why perceived value does not appear to be a signi?cant antecedent of revisit intentions to
Figure 1 Structural model of testing proposed hypotheses
PAGE 412 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
creative tourism attractions. Moreover, the four motivation factors of external regulation,
introjected regulation, identi?ed regulation and intrinsic motivation were found insigni?cant
as antecedents of behavioral intentions to revisit creative tourism attractions, which is
contrary to the ?ndings of Standage et al. (2003) but is consistent with the previous
motivation research by Hagger et al. (2002) that demonstrated how motivation in?uences
behavioral intentions through mediating variables. The present ?ndings suggest that the
impacts of motivational factors may differ in creative tourism contexts, indicating that future
empirical research should attempt to incorporate additional antecedents as mediating
variables with motivational factors in predicting revisit intentions.
From a theoretical perspective, this study used measurement dimensions and items from
the current literature to measure tourists’ motivation and perceived value. With regard to
motivation, this study used Ryan and Connell’s (1989) PLOC dimension, which drew from
Heider’s (1958) concept of perceived locus of causality and has been used to assess
motivation, which was conceptualized by self-determination theory in several studies
(Chatzisarantis and Hagger, 2009; Hagger et al., 2002; Ntoumanis, 2001; Shen et al.,
2007). In Ryan and Connell’s (1989) study, the questionnaire of PLOC contained four
dimensions which were external regulation, introjected regulation, identi?ed regulation and
intrinsic motivation. However, from the results of this study, correlation coef?cients between
external regulation and introjected regulation, as well as between identi?ed regulation and
intrinsic motivation, were high. This implies that these four dimensions for creative tourists
were not exactly individual. The insigni?cant result on the relationship between motivation
and re-visit intentions should be considered in future studies that attempt to use Ryan and
Connell’s (1989) PLOC dimension to measure tourists’ motivation in the context of creative
tourism. Furthermore, with regard to perceived value, this study used Sweeney and
Soutar’s (2001) perceived value scale, called PERVAL. This was one of the scales with the
most methodological support. However, the results of this study indicated that perceived
value was not statistically signi?cant in predicting tourists’ intentions to revisit creative
tourism attractions because the correlation between perceived value and experience was
high, which meant that unique variances of perceived value were too small to be
statistically signi?cant in explaining revisit intention; nevertheless, perceived value should
still be considered as an important concept for future studies that attempt to predict
tourists’ revisit intention or behavioral intention.
This study explores tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention
with regard to creative tourism attractions and will bene?t creative tourism proprietors in
designing thematic characteristics, planning marketing strategies, and targeting consumer
recognition. For business operators, this study suggests that if creative attraction owners
would like to attract repeat tourists, the tourists’ experience was surely critical for
developing service blueprints to meet the needs and wants of customers; they should pay
more attention to understanding what tourists experience when they visit creative tourism
attractions. Furthermore, the results of this study revealed that vast majority of tourists within
the sample had visited creative tourism attractions like the one they were visiting in this
study before. Thus, for creative attraction owners, cooperation with other creative tourism
attractions should be a way to attract tourists to visit their attractions. The concept of
creative industries was taken up by the Ministry of Culture in Taiwan in 2002 as a speci?c
development strategy for stimulating a range of cultural, economic and social bene?ts to
the local communities (www.moc.gov.tw). The development of creative tourism was also
included in the Taiwanese government’s National Development Plan by creating a tourism
destination brand identity that attracts tourists. The present study contributes to the
ever-increasing tendency for creative industries in Taiwan to develop creative tourism
products and services that encompass authentic local culture and art in enhancing tourist
experience.
Finally, the limitations of this study should be discussed in providing a foundation of future
study on investigating the revisit intentions of creative tourists. The sample of the current
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 413
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
study was mainly collected in three creative tourism spots in Taiwan and the results might
not be generalizable to the broad population of creative tourists. For future study, the
sampling group should incorporate target populations across different cultures. In addition,
this study attempts to examine the antecedents of creative tourist revisit intentions by using
the quantitative research methodology of structural equation modeling. In future studies,
the integration of qualitative research frameworks such as a Grounded Theory Approach
(Tan et al., 2013) into the creative tourism research would disclose more in-depth
knowledge about antecedents of revisit intentions to creative tourism destinations.
Moreover, the present study was limited because of the number variables used. It is
suggested that future studies should add other variables, particularly the evaluation of
onsite experience such as satisfaction (Petrick et al., 2001), service quality (Bigné et al.,
2001) or post trip experiences such as word of mouth recommendations (Kim et al., 2009;
Hui et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2007) to test the relationship between the antecedents of revisit
intentions to creative tourism destinations in increasing the predictability of the
developmental model.
References
Addis, M. and Holbrook, M. (2001), “On the conceptual link between mass customization and
experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 50-66.
Ajzen, I. and Driver, B.L. (1992), “Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice”,
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 207-224.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, T. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baloglu, S. (1999), “The relationship between destination images and sociodemographic and trip
characteristics of international travelers”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-233.
Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K.W. (1999), “A model of destination image formation”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 868-897.
Bigné, J.E., Sánchez, M.I. and Sánchez, J. (2001), “Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behaviour: inter-relationship”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 607-616.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brown, T.A. (2006), Con?rmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, The Guilford Press, New York,
NY.
Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. and Hagger, M.S. (2009), “Effects of an intervention based on self-determination
theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Chen, C.F. and Chen, F.S. (2010), “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Chen, C.F. and Tsai, D.C. (2007), “How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1115-1122.
Chen, F.F., Sousa, K.H. and West, S.G. (2005), “Testing measurement invariance of second-order
factor models”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 471-492.
Cole, S.T. and Chancellor, H.C. (2009), “Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor experience,
satisfaction and re-visit intention”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 323-333.
Creighton, M.R. (1995), “Japanese craft tourism: liberating the crane wife”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 463-478.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), “Motivations for pleasure vacation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 408-424.
Crouch, G.I., Perdue, R.R., Timmermans, H.J.P. and Uysal, M. (2004), Consumer Psychology of
Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, CABI Publishing, London.
Dann, G. (1977), “Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 184-194.
PAGE 414 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation,
development, and health”, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 182-185.
Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G. and Ryan, R.M. (1991), “Motivation and education: the
self-determination perspective”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4, pp. 325-346.
Fan, X. and Sivo, S.A. (2007), “Sensitivity of ?t indices to model misspeci?cation and model types”,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 509-529.
Fernandes, C. (2011), “Cultural planning and creative tourism in an emerging tourist destination”,
International Journal of Management Cases, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 629-636.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction To Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Fodness, D. (1994), “Measuring tourist motivation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 555-581.
Fox, R.J. (1983), Con?rmatory factor analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Gemmiti, R. (2008), “Creative cities, culture, tourism”, The experience of Rome, Proceeding of the 48th
Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Liverpool, CD.
Gnoth, J. (1997), “Tourism motivation and expectation formation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 283-304.
Godbey, G. (2008), Leisure in Your Life: New Perspectives, Venture Publishing, State College, PA.
Gretzel, U. and Jamal, T. (2009), “Conceptualizing the creative tourist class: technology, mobility, and
tourism experiences”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 471-481.
Hagger, M.S., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. and Biddle, S.J.H. (2002), “A meta-analytic review of the theories
of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: predictive validity and the contribution of
additional variables”, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-32.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis,
7th ed., Pearson-Prentice Hall, NJ.
Hartley, J. (2005), Creative Industries, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of International Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Holbrook, M.B. (1994), “The nature of customer value: an anthology of services in the consumption
experience”, in Rust, R. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 21-71.
Hosany, S. and Witham, M. (2010), “Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to
recommend”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 351-364.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Howkins, J. (2001), The Creative Economy, Allen Lane, London.
Hsu, C. and Crotts, J.C. (2006), “Segmenting mainland Chinese residents based on experience,
intention and desire to visit Hong Kong”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 279-287.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to under
parameterized model misspeci?cation”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Huang, S.S. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2009), “Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived
constraint, and attitude on revisit intention”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
Hui, T.K., Wan, W. and Ho, A. (2007), “Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting
Singapore”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 965-975.
Hutchinson, J., Lai, F. and Wang, Y. (2009), “Understanding the relationships of quality, value, equity,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 298-308.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982), “Intrinsic motivation–an overlooked basis for evaluation”, Parks and Recreation,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 32-33.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 415
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Jelinc? ic´ , D.A. and Žuvela, A. (2012), “Facing the challenge? Creative tourism in Croatia”, Journal of
Tourism Consumption and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 78-90.
Kaplan, D. (2009), Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kashyap, R. and Bojanic, D.C. (2000), “A structural analysis of value, quality, and price perceptions of
business and leisure travelers”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Kim, T., Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.B. (2009), “The effects of perceived justice on recovery satisfaction,
trust, word-of-mouth, and revisit intention in upscale hotels”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 51-62.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford, New York, NY.
Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M. and Deng, W.J. (2009), “The relationships among service quality, perceived value,
customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 887-896.
Lam, T. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2006), “Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 589-599.
Landry, C. (2008), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan.
Lee, C.K., Lee, Y.K. and Lee, B.K. (2005), “Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 world cup”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 839-858.
Lee, C.K., Yoon, Y.S. and Lee, S.K. (2007), “Investigating the relationships among perceived value,
satisfaction, and recommendations: the case of the Korean DMZ”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 204-214.
Lehto, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (2004), “The effect of prior experience on vacation
behavior”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 801-818.
Li, M., Cai, L.A., Lehto, X.Y. and Huang, J. (2010), “A missing link in understanding revisit intention: the
role of motivation and image”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 335-348.
Lo, A.S. and Lee, C.Y.S. (2011), “Motivations and perceived value of volunteer tourists from Hong
Kong”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 326-334.
Mcintosh, A.J. and Siggs, A. (2005), “An exploration of the experiential nature of boutique
accommodation”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 74-81.
Mannell, R.C. and Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1987), “Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 14, pp. 314-331.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1998), “A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod
analyses: application of second-order con?rmatory factor analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 107-117.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4,
pp. 370-396.
Mayo, E.J. and Jarvis, L.P. (1981), The Psychology of Leisure Travel-Effective Marketing and Selling of
Travel Services, CBI, Boston, MA.
Mossberg, L. (2007), “A marketing approach to the tourist experience”, Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P. and Smith, B. (2000), “The destination product and its impact on traveller
perceptions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001), “A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical
education”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 225-242.
Oh, H. (2000), “Diners’ perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 58-66.
Oh, H., Fiore, A.M. and Jeoung, M. (2007), “Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism
applications”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 119-132.
Ohridska-Olson, R.V. and Ivanov, S. (2010), “Creative tourism business model and its application in
Bulgaria”, Proceedings of the Black Sea Tourism Forum Cultural Tourism–The Future of Bulgaria,
available at:http://ssrn.com/abstract?1690425
PAGE 416 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Ooi, C.S. (2006), “Bounded creativity and the push for the creative economy in Singapore”, 16th Asian
Studies Association of Australia Refereed Conference Proceedings, Wollongong, Australia, 26–29 June
2006.
Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (2000), “The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty
chain: a research agenda”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 168-174.
Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (1993), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, Routledge,
London.
Petrick, J.F. (2004), “The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’
behavioral intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 397-407.
Petrick, J.F. and Backman, S.J. (2002), “An examination of the construct of perceived value for the
prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 38-45.
Petrick, J.F., Backman, S.J. and Bixler, R. (1999), “An investigation of selected factors effect on golfer
satisfaction and perceived value”, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 40-59.
Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), “An examination of the determinants of
entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the experience economy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 97-105.
Prebensen, N.K., Woo, E., Chen, J.S. and Uysal, M. (2012), “Motivation and Involvement as
antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 253-264.
Prentice, R.C., Witt, S.F. and Hamer, C. (1998), “Tourism as experience: the case of heritage parks”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Quan, S. and Wang, N. (2004), “Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: an illustration
from food experiences in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 297-305.
Raymond, C. (2007), “Creative tourism New Zealand: the practical challenges of developing creative
tourism”, in Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (Eds), Tourism, Creativity and Development, Routledge,
London, pp. 145-157.
Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W. (1990), “Zero defection: quality comes to services”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 105-111.
Richards, G. (2001), Cultural Attractions and European Tourism, ATLAS, London.
Richards, G. (2002), “From cultural tourism to creative tourism: European perspectives”, Tourism,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 235-248.
Richards, G. (2003), “Social capital: a measure of quality of life and determinant of quality of
experience?”, paper presented at the ATLAS Annual Conference, Leeuwarden.
Richards, G. (2008), “Creative tourism and local development”, in Wurzburger, R., Aageson, T.,
Pattakas, A. and Pratt, S. (Eds), Creative Tourism: A Global Conversation: How to Provide Unique
Creative Experiences for Travelers Worldwide, Santa Fe: Sunstone, pp. 78-90.
Richards, G. (2009), Tourism Development Trajectories: From Culture To Creative?”, The Asia-Paci?c
Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism, Jeju Island.
Richards, G. (2011), “Creativity and tourism: the state of the art”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 1225-1253.
Richards, G. and Marques, L. (2012), “Exploring creative tourism: editors introduction”, Journal of
Tourism Consumption and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, available at: www.tourismconsumption.org/JTCPVO
L4NO2RICHARDSMARQUES.pdf
Richards, G. and Raymond, C. (2000), “Creative tourism”, ATLAS News, Vol. 23, pp. 16-20.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2006), “Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial
reproduction of culture?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1209-1223.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 417
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Ritchie, J.R. and Hudson, S. (2009), “Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist
experience research”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-126.
Robinson, J., Shaver, P. and Wrightsman, L. (1991), “Criteria for scale selection and evaluation”, in
Wrightsman, L.S. and Shaver, P.R. (Eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes,
Academic Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 1-16.
Rogerson, C.M. (2006, “Creative industries and urban tourism: South African perspectives”, Urban
Forum, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 149-166.
Ryan, C. (1997), The Tourist Experience: A New Introduction, Cassell, London.
Ryan, R.M. and Connell, J.P. (1989), “Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining
reasons for acting in two domains”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 749-761.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Kim, T.H. (2008), “The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 459-469.
Salman, D. (2010), “Rethinking of cities, culture and tourism within a creative perspective”, Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Heritage, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1-5.
Salman, D. and Uygur, D. (2010), “Creative tourism and emotional labor: an investigatory model of
possible interactions”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 186-197.
Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M. (2001), “A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure
analysis”, Psychometrika, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 507-514.
Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M. (2010), “Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test
statistic”, Psychometrika, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 243-248.
Shen, B., McCaughtry, N. and Martin, J. (2007), “The in?uence of self-determination in physical
education on leisure-time physical activity behavior”, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 328-338.
Stamboulis, Y. and Skayannis, P. (2003), “Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based
tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Standage, M., Duda, J.L. and Ntoumanis, N. (2003), “A model of contextual motivation in physical
education: using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical
activity intentions”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 97-110.
Stojanovic, M., Petkovic, N. and Mitkovic, P. (2012), “Culture and creativity as driving forces for urban
regeneration in Serbia”, International Journal of Social, Human Science and Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 7,
pp. 18-23.
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Analysis, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Tan, S.W., Kung, S.F. and Luh, D.B. (2013), “A model of ‘creative experience’in creative tourism”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 41, pp. 153-174.
Tung, V.W.S. and Ritchie, J.R. (2011), “Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1367-1386.
Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y.H. (2006), “Antecedents of revisit intention”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-1158.
Uriely, N. (2005), “The tourist experience: conceptual developments”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 199-216.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W. and Deci, E.L. (2006), “Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: another look at the quality of academic motivation”, Educational
Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Wang, D. (2004), “Tourist behavior and repeat visitation to Hong Kong”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 99-118.
PAGE 418 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Weed, M. (2005), “Sports tourism theory and method: concepts, issues and epistemologies”,
European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 229-242.
Williams, C. and Buswell, J. (2003), Service Quality in Leisure and Tourism, CABI Publishing,
Cambridge, MA.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-153.
Woodside, A.G. and Dubelaar, C. (2002), “A general theory of tourism consumption systems: a
conceptual framework and an empirical exploration”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 120-132.
Woosnam, K.Y. (2011), “Comparing residents’ and tourists’ emotional solidarity with one another: an
extension of Durkheim’s model”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 615-626.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zeppel, H. and Hall, C.M. (1992), “Arts and heritage tourism”, in Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (Eds),
Special Interest Tourism, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 47-68.
Further reading
Holbrook, M.B. and Schindler, R.M. (1994), “Age, sex, and attitude toward the past as predictors of
consumers’ aesthetic tastes for cultural products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 412-422.
Kassem, N.O., Lee, J.W., Modeste, N.N. and Johnston, P.K. (2003), “Understanding soft drink
consumption among female adolescents using the theory of planned behavior”, Health Education
Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 278-291.
About the authors
Lan-Lan Chang graduated from Clemson University in the Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Tourism Management. Currently, she is an Assistant Professor in
Department of Leisure and Recreation Management at Asia University. Her research
interest areas are creative tourism and tourist experience. Lan-Lan Chang is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Kenneth F. Backman is a Professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Management at Clemson University and Editor-in-Chief of Event Management: An
International Journal. He serves on several peer-reviewed editorial boards such as the
Journal of Ecotourism, and Tourism Analysis. His research areas of interest are virtual and
social networking travel, sustainable community tourism development, ecotourism and
international tourism development. He has conducted research and outreach in over 25
counties and 5 continents. He is currently working on capacity-building of local residents
and local universities in Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda.
Yu Chih Huang received his PhD from the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
Management at Clemson University in August 2011. Currently, he is an Assistant Professor
in the Department of Hotel and Restaurant Management at National Pingtung University of
Science and Technology. Yu-Chih is interested in the research ?elds of tourist consumption
behavior, virtual tourism experience and tourism marketing. He has been published in
Tourism Management, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Journal of Teaching in
Travel and Tourism and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 419
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
2
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

doc_450032944.pdf