The Authenticity of Heritage Sites,Tourists’ Quest for Existential Authenticity,and Destination Loyalty

Abstract

The aim of this study was to empirically explore existential authenticity from the perspectives of visitors. Given that existentialism invites people to examine the authenticity of their personal lives and their society, an attempt was made in this study to examine the authenticity of visitors’ personal lives and their environments by conducting an empirical study concerning the Kaiping watchtowers site, a well-known Chinese heritage site. Two dimensions of existential authenticity were examined: intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity. The results reveal that the authenticity of toured heritage sites and environments may be irrelevant to existential authenticity and that intrapersonal authenticity exerts a substantial influence on destination loyalty. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

cultural heritage sites perceived authenticity intrapersonal authenticity interpersonal authenticity destination loyalty

Introduction

Since MacCannell (1973) first applied the concept of authenticity to tourism, a number of studies have been conducted by tourism researchers in order to understand the effects of authenticity on perceptions of place and space (e.g., Castéran and Roederer 2013; Cohen 1988; Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Lau 2010; McIntosh and Prentice 1999; McIntosh 2004; Rickly-Boyd 2012). The focus of these studies, however, has been on the perceptions of hosts and guests with regard to place and space. Wang (1999) recognized this limitation and made a significant contribution by dividing authenticity into three subcategories: objective authenticity, constructive authenticity, and existential authenticity. Over the years, researchers have examined these subcategories from various perspectives (Buchmann, Moore, and Fisher 2010; Chhabra 2005; Frisvoll 2013; Reisinger and Steiner 2006; Wong 2015; Zhu 2012) and using various approaches (Lau 2010; Rickly-Boyd 2012). In particular, the subcategory of existential authenticity, which focuses on individuals’ feelings and actions, has received considerable attention (Brown 2013; Kim and Jamal 2007; Steiner and Reisinger 2006), but the majority of such studies have concentrated on hosts’ and guests’ interpretations of place and space.

From a theoretical perspective, past research in this field has mainly consisted of theoretical analyses of existential authenticity (Brown 2013; Kim and Jamal 2007; Steiner and Reisinger 2006) through the use of qualitative research methods (Kim and Jamal 2007; McIntosh and Prentice 1999; Zhu 2012). Wang (1999) suggested that the authenticity of tourist sites and environments (including the objects found within them) might have no relationship with existential authenticity; other studies have emphasized the importance of experiential and emotive processes by examining tourists’ connection with attraction settings (e.g., McIntosh and Prentice 1999).

In the process of traveling, tourists keep in touch with objects or attraction settings. Existentialism is person-centered and emancipatory; existentialists are concerned with the authenticity of personal lives and society (Flynn 2008). In the context of tourism, tourists may be on a quest for existential authenticity (Kim and Jamal 2007); however, whether or not—and how—the authenticity of objects or attraction settings influences the authenticity of a visitor’s self remains unknown.

The empirical investigation of existential authenticity, with a particular focus on intrapersonal authenticity, has attracted increasing attention in recent years (Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim 2013; Zhou et al. 2015; Bryce et al. 2015). Although many researchers have extended Kolar and Zabkar’s (2010) model of authenticity by adding or revising different variables (e.g., Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim 2013; Bryce et al. 2015), the interpersonal aspect of this model has been largely ignored. Only a few researchers have addressed the issue of interpersonal relationships (e.g., Buchmann, Moore, and Fisher 2010). Interestingly, some researchers have confirmed the notion that experiencing existential authenticity at a specific destination positively influences destination loyalty (Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Bryce et al. 2015), although Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim (2013) failed to confirm this. Clearly, there is a significant gap in the existing literature regarding the relationship between existential authenticity and destination loyalty.

Wang (1999) argued that existential authenticity is a state of mind that enables an individual to feel free, within certain environments, to engage in activities they would normally avoid because of their social roles. For instance, individuals may choose to participate in an ethnic dance when on holiday even if in their day-to-day existence they would not choose to dance in public. The concept of existential authenticity is centered on the idea of individuals feeling free to engage with their true selves. Existential authenticity has been examined by several tourism researchers, including Brown (2013), Kim and Jamal (2007), and Steiner and Reisinger (2006). In these studies, existential authenticity has been defined in a wide range of ways resulting in different interpretations due to the use of qualitative research methods. While the concept of existential authenticity has been interpreted using a philosophical approach (Wang 1999; Steiner and Reisinger 2006) or grounded theory (Kim and Jamal 2007; Brown 2013), it has not been empirically evaluated in the context of cultural heritage sites.

The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to investigate existential authenticity and its relationship with destination loyalty in the setting of Chinese cultural heritage sites, using an Eastern perspective and a quantitative approach. One critical question is this: what enables tourists to escape from their normal self-control or self-constraint in the particular setting of cultural heritage sites? Furthermore, if guests do experience existential authenticity, does this inspire their increased loyalty? This study does the following: first, it examines whether or not—and how—the authenticity of toured objects or attraction settings influences existential authenticity; second, it considers the role of interpersonal authenticity, by means of an empirical study; and third, it investigates the relationship between existential authenticity and destination loyalty.

The study contributes to the research on heritage tourism in the following ways. First, it identifies certain tangible and intangible elements of cultural heritage sites that have intrinsic relationships with tourists’ attainment of authentic experiences. Second, it investigates the implications of this for existential authenticity while exploring the relationship between intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity and the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity on destination loyalty. Third, it verifies the theoretical framework regarding existential authenticity in the context of Chinese heritage tourism by examining the concept and theory of existential authenticity in a specific, Asian context.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Many studies have confirmed that both tangible assets (e.g., landscapes, buildings, and artifacts; Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003) and intangible legacies (e.g., folklore and traditions; Caton and Santos 2007; Herbert 1995; Prentice 1993) are important resources in cultural heritage tourism. In terms of the intangible, heritage tourism emphasizes its connection with tourists’ motivations, perceptions, and behavior. At a heritage site, tourists’ behavior depends on whether or not they perceive the place to be part of their own personal heritage (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003). Some tourists visit a heritage site for reasons related to their perception of the site as being connected to their personal heritage and their inclination to be open to emotional experiences (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2004); Poria, Reichel, and Biran (2006) found that there is a distinctive relationship between tourists’ motivation for visiting a heritage site and their perception that the site is related to their own personal heritage. Furthermore, in a study of slavery heritage sites in Ghana, Yankholmes and McKercher (2015) found that tourists’ behavior depends on the intensity of the experiences sought or gained.

Meanwhile, heritage tourism keeps expanding to include more aspects and types of cultural heritage. Wong (2015) verified that there is a cross-level link between national culture, tourists’ cultural interests, the authenticity tourists seek, and tourists’ cultural motives; a historical association with an ancient Chinese poet, for instance, can create historical and cultural value for a place, and his or her poems guide tourists what to gaze and how to gaze and may provide tourists a more uplifting aesthetic experience than they can gain by reading them at home (Yu and Xu 2016).

As Mkono (2012) argued, the study of authenticity should not remain confined to a general Eurocentric perspective but should be more situated and context specific; it should extend to discourse on local cultures. Thus, this study further scrutinizes tangible and intangible cultural heritage resources at a specific heritage site where tourists, especially those with a strong interest in art and people, perceive tourism to be an opportunity for seeking authenticity within local communities (Kim and Littrell 1999).

Architectural Heritage

Preserving local settings and cultural spaces is important; removing a heritage asset from its context may affect its authenticity (Lew 1989; McKercher and Du Cros 2002). Stately and ancestral homes are heritage attractions (Prentice 1993). Historic houses provide a good platform for understanding and enjoying different aspects of past lifestyles (Janiskee 1996). Furthermore, a nation’s or a place’s cultural heritage is in part constituted by cultural sites and the cultural objects found at these sites (Boniface 1995).

Traditional Customs

Intangible heritage needs traditional culture holders to give it life (McKercher and Du Cros 2002). In the process of providing intangible heritage, the simple, traditional techniques used by the local community in manufacturing implements, cooking, and so on are part of a site’s intangible heritage. Souvenirs are themselves part of an authentic experience (Hughes 1995; Kim and Littrell 1999) and authentic experience is gained through eating food prepared in traditional ways (Hughes 1995; Robinson and Clifford 2012; Engeset and Elvekrok 2015), and through experiencing local people’s lifestyles (McIntosh and Prentice 1999; Campelo et al. 2014). In fact, only when they follow a traditional way of life can the local population (who preserve the local traditional culture) make authentic food, products, or souvenirs and give authentic cultural performances. By investigating tourists’ motivations for purchasing souvenirs, Wilkins (2011) identified the key importance of the souvenir as a reminder, to the tourist who buys one, of his or her experience (although souvenirs are, of course, also presented as gifts).

Folk Culture

According to McKercher and Du Cros (2002), intangible heritage consists of traditional culture and folklore; it is intrinsically linked to specific places or contexts; and the collaboration/involvement of local communities is a prerequisite for presenting various aspects of authentic, intangible traditional culture. From a European perspective, folk culture involves ordinary clothes (Roojen 2010), folk songs (Knox 2008), folk festivals or special events (Knox 2008), stories (Chronis 2012; Engeset and Elvekrok 2015), and legends (Robb 1998). Chinese folk culture includes many similar aspects, such as garments, food, transportation, festivals, production and trading, social organization, beliefs, customs, entertainment, language, and various art forms (Ke 2011; Zhong 1998). Some recent research has been conducted on the authenticity of Chinese ritual performances (Zhu 2012) and art forms (such as traditional Chinese calligraphy; Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim 2013). The findings further emphasize that the study of cultural heritage should include both the tangible and intangible aspects of heritage as well as the interaction of the constituent elements of a traditional culture (such as “local memory” and habits). In light of the findings of these prior studies, the following hypothesis is posited:

Hypothesis 1: Architectural heritage (AH), traditional customs (TC), and folk culture (FC) are positively correlated with each other.

The relationship between cultural heritage and existential authenticity

The relationship between cultural heritage and existential authenticity has been examined by many researchers (Handler 1986; McIntosh and Prentice 1999; Venkatesh 1992). This study focuses on tourist sites and environments and on the objects and relevant artifacts that tourists experience physically. Tourists gain their experiences and comprehend the world on their own terms (Reisinger and Steiner 2006). Kim and Jamal (2007) have argued that it would be wrong to overlook the importance of cultural artifacts in relation to authentic experience: local cultural artifacts, including historic buildings and traditional costumes, may facilitate authentic experiences for earnest tourists.

At a heritage site, tourists may experience a wide range of things within the local community, including buildings (Frisvoll 2013), contexts and settings (Beverland 2006; Buchmann, Moore, and Fisher 2010; Daugstad and Kirchengast 2013), and traditional farming and other activities (Buchmann, Moore, and Fisher 2010; Domenico and Miller 2012; McIntosh and Prentice 1999; Prentice, Witt, and Hamer 1998; Wang 2007).

Some tourists may encounter local artisans or craftspeople (Beverland 2006; Castéran and Roederer 2013; Daugstad and Kirchengast 2013; Revilla and Dodd 2003) and local craftwork and folk art (Xu, Wan, and Fan 2014); and they may consume local food and beverages (Daugstad and Kirchengast 2013; Mkono, Markwell, and Wilson 2013). Tourists may witness traditional methods of production (Beverland 2006) and traditional rituals (Cole 2007; Rickly-Boyd 2012) or cultural performances (Halewood and Hannam 2001), buy souvenirs (Halewood and Hannam 2001; Rickly-Boyd 2012; Yu and Littrell 2003), and hear traditional stories or legends (Bryce et al. 2015; Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Mura 2015). At heritage sites, the above activities (which are not experienced by tourists in their daily lives but are associated with tourist excursions) help tourists to be true to themselves and not to be rigidly constrained by their social roles. The above reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1*: The perceived authenticity of a heritage site positively influences the existential authenticity of tourists who visit it.

The Current Understanding of Existential Authenticity

In this study, authenticity refers to that of objects, culture, and so on; existential authenticity refers to that of tourists. Existentialists believe the authenticity of personal lives and contemporary society should be examined (Flynn 2008); that is, existentialists pursue authentic personal lives and the authenticity of contemporary society. In the context of tourism, tourists may also seek their authentic selves and desire a tourism environment and its component elements to be authentic. Only through their own experiences can tourists evaluate the realization of their authentic selves and the authenticity of the tourist environments and their component elements. The study of existential authenticity needs to have a clear understanding of this point.

As Brown (2013) suggested, any discussion of existential authenticity should be underpinned by the ideas of both Heidegger and Sartre. In Heidegger’s view (1962), things in the world are related in some way with other things whereas people are beings who like to do things. The connections between things in the world make people’s, and therefore tourists’, experiences possible and give meaning to them; they allow people to see what things can be useful, what things mean, and how things may be used (Heidegger 1996; Steiner and Reisinger 2006). According to Heidegger (1996), the connections between related things preexist human experience of them. Existentialism requires a person to be truly authentic (Flynn 2008). Sartre also links authenticity to a life that unites a person’s multiple concerns in a meaningful whole, and he exhorts people to embrace authenticity (Flynn 2008).

Exploring Existential Authenticity

Authentic existence unfolds as a “co-happening” within a community (Heidegger 1962). Berger (1973) argued that existential authenticity is a specific state of being in which one is true to oneself. For Heidegger (1996), whether people are authentic or inauthentic is decided primarily by how they mold and project themselves. Shepherd (2015) further evaluated the relevancy of Heidegger and his work in the field of existential authenticity.

To be true to oneself, one must first free oneself of the limitations of day-to-day routines (Wang 1999) and then have genuine experiences that provide opportunities for self-realization (Handler 1986). Authentic or genuine experiences in tourism equate to the achievement of an activated existential state of being within the restricted process of a tour; existential authenticity can be unrelated to the authenticity of toured objects (Wang 1999). Existential authenticity can be categorized into two different aspects: intrapersonal authenticity (including physical feelings and self-making) and interpersonal authenticity (involving family ties and communities of social = Wang 1999). Relevant studies are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Categories/Terms Used by Selected Studies.

Studies	Categories
Heidegger (1962)	“Authentic-self” (p. 167)	“They-self” (p. 167)
Wang (1999)	Intrapersonal authenticity (physical sensations and self-making/self-identity)	Interpersonal authenticity (family ties and touristic communitas)
Steiner and Reisinger (2006)	“Authentic self” (p. 303)	“They-self”/“Conformist self” (p. 306)
Kim and Jamal (2007)	Physical sensations and self-making	Touristic communitas

Note: The notion of communitas is characterized as “equality, acceptance, ludic nature of interaction, and normative communitas” (Kim and Jamal 2007, 193) within which individuals have equal interaction with each other without considering their different social backgrounds, institutionalized norms and values, or preprogrammed rules.

Developing Heidegger’s conceptual framework of existential authenticity, Steiner and Reisinger (2006) stated that to be oneself existentially entails existing in accord with one’s nature or essence and surpassing or surmounting daily behavior or activities. Lau (2010) has argued that, from the introduction into tourism research of the concept of authenticity (MacCannell 1973) to Cohen’s (1988) development of it, authenticity and interest in spiritual meaning (Cohen 1988) have been regarded as being mainly related to object authenticity. In contrast to this, Wang (1999) and Steiner and Reisinger (2006) argued that existential authenticity is not connected with object authenticity.

According to Steiner and Reisinger (2006), if people express an authentic self, they display special potentialities; if people express a conformist self, they display common and shared potentialities. In a study of the experiences of regular festival-goers, Kim and Jamal (2007) supported Wang’s (1999) notions of intrapersonal existential authenticity (which concerns physical feelings and expression and a sense of the desired self) and of interpersonal authenticity (which is about establishing authentic relationships with others—without being affected by inequalities in social status—and relating to others in a friendly, natural, and authentic way).

Tourism can help a visitor to find release from the pressures of daily life and to find his or her true self. Weekend trips and longer vacations help tourists to recover from stress at work or in their daily routines (Chen, Petrick, and Shahvali 2016). Researchers have also verified that, when traveling, tourists want to make contact with family members or other people in a way that is not affected by their social roles and statuses. Caton and Santos (2007) found that tourists enjoyed the experience of being alone with their family members for long periods of time and they felt closer to their family members at the end of a trip. Park and Santos (2016) emphasized the importance of interactions with others in memorable tourism experiences.

Chen and Chen (2011) conducted a valuable study of personal and interpersonal experiences by examining the motivations and expectations of international volunteer tourists. They identified a number of personal motivators; these included seeking an authentic experience and challenge and stimulation, having an interest in travel and other interests, and a number of interpersonal motivators, including the desire to help, to interact with locals and experience the local culture, and to enhance relationships, as well as encouragement from others (Chen and Chen 2011).

To be authentic, people need to make themselves who they want to be. Therefore, the following two hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1-1: The perceived authenticity of a heritage site positively influences the intrapersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

Hypothesis 1-2: The perceived authenticity of a heritage site positively influences the interpersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

MacCannell (1976) suggested that tourists have a desire for authentic experiences. Within the liminal tourism process, tourists’ experiences may help them achieve an authentic state of being (Wang 1999). Steiner and Reisinger (2006) emphasized that tourism has the potential to foster existential authenticity and that existential authenticity is experience oriented. Taking the Texas Renaissance Festival as an example, Kim and Jamal (2007) showed that the liminal characteristics of the festival were closely related to the attainment of existential authenticity. Brown (2013) emphasized that tourism should be seen as a catalyst for existential authenticity and that the places and spaces provided by tourism are intrinsically linked to the experience of existential authenticity.

Berman (1970) proposed that authentic tourism experiences are related to identity, individuality, self-development, and self-realization. Handler (1986) confirmed that authentic experiences allow individuals to free themselves from social constraints and achieve self-realization. Tourists who are in search of their authentic selves need the help of toured objects or activities (Wang 1999). Within the liminal tourism space or context, some social criteria and norms are temporarily abolished and scrutiny is relaxed, allowing the authentic self to be attained (Kim and Jamal 2007). Thus, it can be inferred that an experience involving authentic tangible objects or intangible things can help tourists achieve intrapersonal authenticity. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1-1a: The perceived authenticity of AH positively influences the intrapersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

Hypothesis 1-1b: The perceived authenticity of TC positively influences the intrapersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

Hypothesis 1-1c: The perceived authenticity of FC positively influences the intrapersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

During their travel processes or experiential tourism, tourists may also seek a sense of togetherness and belonging through natural/genuine emotional links and intimacy with others, including family members (Steiner and Reisinger 2006); these ideas echo and support Wang’s (1999) ideas about family ties and touristic communities. Although Wang (1999) stated that toured objects or places are just a means for tourists to come together, Kim and Jamal (2007) corroborated the fact that the spatiotemporal liminality of tourism is a key concept in understanding tourists’ interpersonal experiences. By measuring tourists’ preferences for authentic trip elements, Lacher et al. (2013) concluded that tourists were likely to have a strong desire to experience local character during their vacations. In light of the existentialists’ insights into the ways in which human beings exist in-situation (Flynn 2008), the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1-2a: The perceived authenticity of AH positively influences the interpersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

Hypothesis 1-2b: The perceived authenticity of TC positively influences the interpersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

Hypothesis 1-2c: The perceived authenticity of FC positively influences the interpersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

The Relationship between Intrapersonal Authenticity and Interpersonal Authenticity

According to Flynn (2008), existentialism is a person-centered philosophy. It is concerned with the human individual’s pursuit of identity and meaning amid economic and social pressures. Furthermore, existentialism is a philosophy of escaping restraints or limitations; its foundation is the notion that people can take an objective view of their lives and reflect on what they do. Intrapersonal authenticity consists of two levels. On the lower level, one’s body is free from the self-control or limitations imposed by one’s job or monotonous routine life and one is subjective in one’s own right or become authentic. On the higher level, one seeks extra-mundane or extraordinary experiences (perhaps in the form of an adventure), in order to pursue self-realization or gain self-satisfaction. Only on an adventure or when thrown into an unfamiliar situation can one find one’s true self. In fact, tourism acts as a catalyst for existential authenticity (Brown 2013) and tourist’s authentic experiences obtained within the limited tour are to achieve the existential state of Being (Wang 1999), while Heidegger emphasize community as the source and site of existential authenticity (Shepherd 2015).

Interpersonal interaction requires one to have contact with other people. In Wang’s (1999) opinion, tourists are hunting for not only the authenticity of their own selves but also the authenticity of others. Consequently, Wang (1999) mentioned family ties and touristic communitas, the essence of which is a sense of pure, natural, and authentic togetherness (this is echoed by Kim and Jamal 2007). In touristic communitas, social structures, positions, roles, and statuses disappear. It is worth mentioning that as interpersonal relationships are involved local residents should not be ignored. On organized tours, the promotion of interpersonal authenticity should typically involve three kinds of social contact: contact with local people, contact with family members, and contact with other tourists (including other members of a tour group). The following hypothesis is proposed (see Figure 1):

Hypothesis 2: The intrapersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it positively influences the interpersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model.

Interactions between Tourists and Locals

Local residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, and the interactions between tourists and local residents and hosts, are receiving more and more attention. Taking the village of Cowichan in Canada as an example, Zeppel (2002) found that two key factors—learning about Cowichan history and contact with Cowichan staff—could provide tourists with a genuine experience of native culture. In a study based on the theoretical framework of emotional solidarity and which employed qualitative data analysis, Woosnam, Norman, and Ying (2009) confirmed the existence of intimate relationships between residents and tourists.

Engeset and Elvekrok (2015) showed how authentic local meals and storytelling may strengthen the importance or meaning tourists assign to related aspects of the tourism experience. Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2015) asserted that travelers who desire distinctive experiences in authentic settings and more-meaningful social interactions with local residents are encouraged—when these desires are fulfilled—to travel more, stay longer in the places they visit, and take part in more activities compared to other tourists.

Datta et al. (2015) confirmed that there is a relationship between heritage site ecology (including tangible and intangible cultural ecologies) and tourist loyalty to heritage sites. Through a structural analysis of hosts’ authentic experiences, Zhou et al. (2015) concluded that personal emotional benefit is a key factor for hosts; it mediates the conflict between gaining economic benefits and retaining authentic culture. In studying residents’ perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena, Almeida-García et al. (2016) found that the residents’ perceptions varied greatly, depending on the residents’ educational background, place of birth, and the amount of time they had been living in the community. Through interactions between hosts and guests, a tourism culture emerges; this can influence the evolution of indigenous cultures through their absorption of elements of the tourists’ cultures (Canavan 2016).

According to Steiner and Reisinger’s (2006) study on tourism’s effects on authenticity, existential authenticity concerns two groups of people: hosts and tourists. Only local residents can determine what constitutes authenticity in a host community (Steiner and Reisinger 2006). Some tourists choose to just “go with the flow”; others focus on self-expression and experiences of self-discovery (Steiner and Reisinger 2006). Cole (2007) echoes this view, adding that tourists and villagers have different interpretations of local culture. Therefore, with regard to cultural heritage sites, not only should the relationship between heritage authenticity and existential authenticity be recognized, but the interactions between local residents and tourists should also be considered.

Destination loyalty

Researchers (e.g., Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003) have verified that motivations, perceptions, and (potential) behaviors are related to perceptions of a site. Generally, tourist loyalty is displayed by their revisiting a destination and recommending a destination to others (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003; Kolar and Zabkar 2010). The research on tourist loyalty is continuously being extended. For example, McKercher, Denizci-Guillet, and Ng (2012) have argued that there are three kinds of tourist loyalty: vertical, horizontal, and experiential.

Using structural equation modeling (SEM), many researchers have combined research on such matters as tourist motivations (Yoon and Uysal 2005), destination image (Chi and Qu 2008), destination attachment (Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010), and festival quality (Yoon, Lee, and Lee 2010) with research on tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. Although some researchers have conducted in-depth studies of loyalty from cognitive, affective, and conative perspectives (Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010)—or from vertical, horizontal, and experiential perspectives (McKercher, Denizci-Guillet, and Ng 2012)—an in-depth exploration of existential authenticity and destination loyalty is lacking. Recent studies have shown that existential authenticity can influence tourists’ behavior. Having studied the Strasbourg Christmas Market in France, Castéran and Roederer (2013) concluded that the more loyal the market is to its origins, the more loyal the visitors are to the market itself.

In addition, Kolar and Zabkar (2010) and Bryce et al. (2015) conducted valuable research and verified that existential authenticity positively influences tourist loyalty. Kolar and Zabkar (2010) pointed out that existential authenticity is driven by the desire to escape from daily life and mass tourism, make contact with the true self, and achieve self-actualization; the resulting experience is a sense of pleasure and escape: the individual experiences the true self in an unfamiliar time, space, and culture. In a study of visitors’ engagement with Japanese heritage sites, Bryce et al. (2015) furthered the research on existential authenticity by using similar indicators of measurement. In Kolar and Zabkar’s (2010) and Bryce et al.’s (2015) studies, the authors captured the key elements of existential authenticity, but they mainly focused on components of intrapersonal authenticity and largely neglected interpersonal authenticity. In light of the above findings, the following hypotheses are proposed (see Figure 1):

Hypothesis 3: Existential authenticity has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

Hypothesis 3-1: The intrapersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

Hypothesis 3-2: The interpersonal authenticity of tourists who visit it has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

Methodology

Conceptual Framework

Although the existentialist considers both ethics and freedom to be subjective and relativistic, the underlying concern is to encourage people to assess the authenticity of their own individual lives and of their society. In order to promote this to tourism researchers and stakeholders in the context of heritage tourism, the authenticity of physical objects and certain aspects of local residents’ and tourists’ personal perspectives should be taken into consideration in explicitly explaining the authenticity of cultural heritage sites and existential authenticity.

In Flynn’s view (2008), existence precedes essence, which means that what one is (one’s essence) is the result of one’s choices; in a tourist excursion, what the tourists are results from their choices. Their existential authenticity is related to their experiences of certain heritage objects, contexts, or activities, as well as their experiences with local residents. A basic hypothetical model is proposed; it is based on the findings from the literature review and on the fact that existential authenticity can be divided into intrapersonal authenticity and interpersonal authenticity (see Figure 1). A recursive model of the theoretical hypothesis was developed, which means that the relationships between causes and effects were taken as being unidirectional (Kline 2011).

Data Collection

The Kaiping watchtower site is located in Kaiping city, Guangdong province, China. Three parts of the Kaiping watchtower site—JinJiangli, Majianglong, and Zili village—were added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2007. Two other parts of the Kaiping watchtower site—Li Gardens and the town of Chikan—are also historic. A tourist who buys one ticket may travel to all five of these attractions (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

An overview of the Kaiping watchtower site.

There were three main reasons for choosing the Kaiping watchtower site as the location for conducting the survey: (1) it is the only world cultural heritage site that is located in China’s Guangdong province and the site includes five different locations (the site is quite large and the architectural style integrates Lingnan, a traditional Guangdong style, and European architectural styles); (2) being geographically remote from other, economically developed places in Guangdong, Kaiping Diaolou has suffered less damage (the local culture, especially the architecture, has been preserved quite well); and (3) some of the tourist attractions—and the watchtowers themselves—are still used by the descendants of the watchtower builders, both for tourism purposes and in their everyday activities.

The Pretest

Tourists’ perceptions of destination authenticity have been divided into those related to architectural heritage and those related to intangible aspects of local culture. The preliminary onsite survey was conducted during a tourist off-season (between July 4 and July 6, 2014). A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed; 124 completed questionnaires were returned.

The Main Survey

Following the preliminary analysis of the pretest results, two items (on local stories/legends and appliances used in daily life) were added to the questionnaire for the main survey, which was conducted during the peak visiting season (between October 2 and October 6, 2014). A total of 560 questionnaires were distributed in a ratio that reflected the relative popularity of each of the five sites mentioned above, through the use of a convenience sampling method. In all, 404 valid questionnaires were returned and retained (a response rate of around 72%).

Table 2 shows that more than half (53.4%) of the respondents were male. The majority of the respondents were either 16-25 years old (35.6%) or 26–35 years old (34.3%). Most of the respondents (71.5%) had received a college or university education, meaning that it was unlikely to have been difficult for them to understand the content of the questionnaire. More than 92% of the respondents stated that they were independent travelers and not part of any tour group, and 36.3% of the respondents indicated that they had previously visited between one and three other cultural heritage sites. More than 65% of the respondents reported that they had come from other cities within Guangdong province.

Table 2.

Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics (N = 404).

Composition	n	%	Composition	n	%
Gender			Travel mode
Male	214	53.4	Package tour	27	6.8
Female	187	46.6	Independent traveler	367	92.4
Missing	3		Independent traveler	367	92.4
			Missing	10
Age (years)			Number of previous visits to other cultural heritage sites
16–25	142	35.6	Never	34	8.6
26–35	137	34.3	1–3	144	36.3
36–45	101	25.3	4–6	108	27.2
46–55	16	4.0	7–9	45	11.3
56–65	2	0.5	≥10	66	16.6
≥66	1	0.2	Missing	7
Missing	5
Education			Tourist’s origin
No formal education	2	0.5	Local city	84	21.3
Primary	5	1.3	Other cities within Guangdong	258	65.3
High school	73	18.3	Other cities within Guangdong	258	65.3
University	286	71.5	Outside Guangdong	53	13.4
Postgraduate	33	8.3	Missing	9
Missing	5

Content Validity and Construct Validity

Using DeVellis’s (2012) guidelines, this study first generated a large pool of candidates for the questionnaire items concerning architectural heritage, traditional customs, and folk culture. The candidates for the items concerning existential authenticity were as follows: individuality (Steiner and Reisinger 2006), self-identity (Steiner and Reisinger 2006; Kim and Jamal 2007), meaning-making (Steiner and Reisinger 2006; Kim and Jamal 2007), resoluteness (Steiner and Reisinger 2006), and courage and anxiety (Brown 2013).

This study adopted a scale used in related prior research (Kolar and Zabkar 2010) but expanded it and included local characteristics (see Appendix 1 for the items used). A panel of three academics (all tourism experts) was invited to discuss the adequacy and relevance of the items. A 7-point Likert scale was used for the questionnaire. The panel suggested this study conduct a pilot survey to further test the applicability and content validity of each dimension, and it is done in July 2014. After analyzing the results of the pilot survey and studying the feedback from the local authorities, the authors deleted several invalid or redundant items that are admitted by the panel of experts. For example, two items—on the perceived authenticity of local performances/festivals/events—were deleted because there were no such performances/festivals/events.

According to DeVellis (2012), construct validity depends on the researcher’s primary interest. Because our objective was to predict the explanatory power of certain hypothetical and unobservable constructs, principal components analysis (PCA) was employed to assess construct validity or to divide selected items into different components (Reisinger and Turner 1999). Parallel analysis using R (Kabacoff 2013) was also conducted to test how many factors to extract.

Data Analysis

The number of extracted factors was set at six to ensure that the modeling results would be consistent with the proposed conceptual model. PCA is necessary to reduce multicollinearity problems or errors in variance correlations in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A two-step model-building approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was then adopted. CFA was conducted to identify the strength of the relationships between the observed indicators and unobserved constructs; SEM was then employed to verify the causal relationships in the existential-authenticity model.

PCA Modeling: Results

The appropriateness of PCA was determined by examining both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and conducting Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO value of perceived authenticity was 0.89, that of existential authenticity was 0.83, and that of the total scale was 0.90 (see Table 3); the results of running Bartlett’s test of sphericity suggested that these constructs were appropriate for factor analysis (p < 0.05). Parallel analysis showed that two factors should be extracted from the 11 observed variables; however, only 57% of the cumulative variance was explained; this was unsatisfactory. Three components of perceived authenticity and two of existential authenticity had the desired theoretical validity in their respective dimensions (see the last two columns of Table 3). Altogether, the extracted six factors (covered by 18 questionnaire items) explained 71.16% of the total variance (see the middle part of Table 3). Furthermore, the reliability alphas of the six factors were all above 0.7, suggesting that the reliability was adequate (Kline 2011). The item on local production tools was removed because its factor loading (0.475) was below 0.5. The retained items were both theoretically and empirically acceptable.

Table 3.

PCA Analysis of Existential Authenticity (N = 404).

Factors	Mean	SD	FL	Eigenvalue	VE (%)	α	FL	VE (%)
Architectural heritage				2.42	13.47	0.81		21.80
Local architecture	5.14	1.37	0.79				0.81
Interior furnishing and design	4.90	1.48	0.81				0.82
Environment/atmosphere	4.90	1.45	0.77				0.78	20.34
Traditional customs				2.24	12.42	0.78
Traditional skills of local craftsmen	4.46	1.50	0.67				0.68
Local lifestyle	4.64	1.45	0.72				0.71
Local food and beverages	4.40	1.55	0.76				0.79
Souvenirs	4.01	1.52	0.55				0.58	22.48
Folk culture				2.49	13.81	0.78
Costumes/decorations/ornaments	3.99	1.56	0.73				0.75
Artistic writing/painting/sculptures	4.65	1.48	0.70				0.72
Local stories or legends	5.10	1.47	0.63				0.61
Traditional daily appliances	4.59	1.50	0.72				0.74
Intrapersonal authenticity				1.33	7.38	0.74		33.53
Develop the self and become more subjective	4.76	1.42	0.65				0.87
Pursue self-realization/satisfaction	4.66	1.45	0.74				0.82	43.36
Interpersonal authenticity				2.73	15.15	0.83
With local people	4.96	1.41	0.75				0.77
With family members	5.22	1.37	0.82				0.85
With other travelers	5.06	1.38	0.79				0.83
Destination loyalty				1.61	8.93	0.76
Will revisit site	4.52	1.61	0.87
Will recommend site to others	4.84	1.51	0.71
Total variance explained	71.16		Validity (KMO) of PA	0.89
Total scale reliability	0.91		Bartlett’s test, PA	0.00 p < 0.05
Total scale validity (KMO)	0.90		Validity (KMO) of EA	0.83
Bartlett’s test	0.00	p < 0.05	Bartlett’s test, EA	0.00 p < 0.05

Note: The means are used to illustrate visitors’ preferences. SD = standard deviation; FL = factor loading; VE = variance explained in rotation sums of squared loadings; α = Cronbach’s alpha; PA = perceived authenticity (including AH, TC, FC); EA = existential authenticity.

CFA Modeling: Results

Anderson and Gerbing (1988) argued that two conceptually distinct models are necessary: a measurement model and a structural model. The measurement model focuses on an evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity; the structural model focuses on an evaluation of nomological validity (Schumacker and Lomax 2010).

The measurement model was examined by means of CFA, which can not only evaluate the degree of misspecification but also suggest necessary modifications of a model (Bentler 2010). The results of the CFA (shown in Table 4) demonstrate that the theoretical model is appropriate (with t values ranging from 10.32 to 16.02). Standard errors indicate how precisely the parameters are estimated: the smaller their values, the better (Reisinger and Turner 1999). All standard errors of the coefficients were quite small (see Table 4), which means that the estimation was accurate.

Table 4.

CFA Results.

Factors	FL	SE	t Value	SMC	AVE	CR
Architectural heritage					0.59	0.81
Local architecture	0.707	0.062	13.507	0.499
Interior furnishing and design	0.798	0.069	14.891	0.637
Environment/atmosphere	0.794	NA	NA	0.631
Traditional customs					0.47	0.78
Traditional skills of local craftsmen	0.720	0.091	11.832	0.519
Local lifestyle	0.750	0.089	12.176	0.562
Local food and beverages	0.607	0.091	10.324	0.369
Souvenirs	0.659	NA	NA	0.435
Folk culture					0.47	0.78
Costumes/decorations/ornaments	0.638	0.086	11.141	0.407
Artistic writing/painting/sculptures	0.752	0.084	12.769	0.566
Local stories or legends	0.661	0.082	11.492	0.437
Traditional daily appliances	0.691	NA	NA	0.477
Intrapersonal authenticity					0.59	0.74
Develop the self and become more subjective	0.765	NA	NA	0.586
Pursue self-realization/satisfaction	0.766	0.078	12.985	0.586
Interpersonal authenticity					0.62	0.83
With local people	0.798	NA	NA	0.637
With family members	0.772	0.060	15.508	0.596
With other travelers	0.799	0.061	16.021	0.639
Destination loyalty					0.64	0.78
Will revisit site	0.685	NA	NA	0.470
Will recommend site to others	0.899	0.102	12.090	0.807

Note: SE = standard error; SMC = squared multiple correlations; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct reliability; NA = t value is not available (regression coefficient is fixed to 1.0).

As Reisinger and Turner (1999) showed, the suitability of a measurement model can be evaluated through inspecting the coefficients of the squared multiple correlations (SMCs), which give the reliabilities (convergent validities) of the measures. As Table 4 shows, the majority of the indicators had coefficients of more than 0.50, which equates to relatively good convergent validity. An average variance extracted (AVE) value of above 0.50 is acceptable (Dillon and Goldstein 1984); the AVE value of the majority of the constructs exceeded the recommended threshold, while those of traditional customs and folk culture were close to this threshold. The composite reliability (CR) values of all the constructs exceeded 0.7, suggesting high internal reliability of the measurement models. The structural variables explained the observation variables quite well.

SEM Modeling: Results

Table 5 and Figures 3 and 4 show the results of the original and modified models. Table 6 shows the acceptable goodness-of-fit values of the structural models; they suggest that the proposed structural models fit the data well. Table 7 shows the results for the hypotheses of the conceptual model. The final model was achieved by removing the items with insignificant t values.

Table 5.

SEM Results for the Original Model and the Modified Model.

	Original Model					Modified Model
Factors/constructs	SFL	t Value	SMC	AVE	CR	SFL	SMC	AVE	CR
Architectural heritage				0.59	0.81			0.59	0.81
Local architecture	0.707	13.509	0.500			0.706	0.499
Interior furnishing and designs	0.798	14.889	0.637			0.797	0.636
Environment/atmosphere	0.794	NA	0.631			0.795	0.632
Traditional customs				0.47	0.78			0.47	0.78
Traditional skills of local craftsmen	0.720	11.838	0.518			0.720	0.519
Local lifestyle	0.750	12.189	0.562			0.754	0.568
Local food and beverages	0.607	10.322	0.368			0.605	0.366
Souvenirs	0.660	NA	0.436			0.657	0.431
Folk culture				0.47	0.78			0.47	0.78
Costumes/decorations/ornaments	0.639	11.173	0.409			0.635	0.404
Artistic writing/painting/ sculptures	0.749	12.759	0.562			0.747	0.559
Local stories or legends	0.662	11.516	0.438			0.664	0.440
Traditional daily appliances	0.693	NA	0.480			0.692	0.479
Intrapersonal authenticity				0.45	0.62			0.53	0.69
Develop the self and become more subjective	0.668	NA	0.446			0.729	0.531
Pursue self-realization/satisfaction	0.673	11.827	0.453			0.723	0.522
Interpersonal authenticity				0.62	0.83			0.62	0.83
With local people	0.797	15.986	0.636			0.798	0.637
With family members	0.769	15.425	0.591			0.773	0.597
With other travelers	0.794	NA	0.631			0.799	0.639
Destination loyalty				0.64	0.77			0.63	0.77
Will revisit	0.693	NA	0.480			0.699	0.488
Will recommend site to others	0.889	12.153	0.790			0.881	0.777

Note: SFL = standard factor loading; NA = no t value (regression coefficient is fixed to 1.0); SMC = squared multiple correlations; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct reliability.

Figure 3.

Results of the original model.

Figure 4.

Results of the modified model.

Table 6.

Fit Indices for the Structural Model.

	Absolute Fit				Incremental Fit					Parsimonious Fit
Construct	χ²/df	GFI	AGFI	RMSEA	NFI	RFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	PGFI	PNFI
Recommended levels	<3	>0.8	>0.8	<0.08	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	>0.5	>0.5
Original model	2.294	0.929	0.901	0.057	0.912	0.890	0.948	0.935	0.948	0.668	0.733
Modified model	2.251	0.928	0.904	0.056	0.910	0.892	0.948	0.937	0.947	0.695	0.761

Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFI = normalized fix index; RFI = relative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index; PNFI = parsimonious normalized fit index.

Table 7.

Results for the Hypotheses of the Original Model.

Hypothesis	Standardized Path Effects (t Value)	Results
1-1a	0.228 (2.964)	Supported
1-1b	0.126 (1.019)	Not supported
1-1c	0.381 (3.116)	Supported
1-2a	−0.038 (–0.709)	Not supported
1-2b	−0.052 (–0.611)	Not supported
1-2c	−0.137 (–1.559)	Not supported
2	1.063 (11.495)	Supported
3-1	1.496 (4.275)	Supported
3-2	−0.776 (–2.350)	Not supported

Figure 3 shows that there was an intimate relationship between architectural heritage and traditional customs (standard path coefficient [SPC] = 0.65, t value = 7.87), between traditional customs and folk culture (SPC = 0.81, t value = 8.30), and between architectural heritage and folk culture (SPC = 0.62, t value = 7.76). This indicates that traditional customs and folk culture are highly related to each other and the relationship between architectural heritage and traditional customs is stronger than the relationship between architectural heritage and folk culture. This deepens the existing understanding of the intangible aspects of local culture and gives clear confirmation of previous researchers’ findings concerning the connections between these elements (Steiner and Reisinger 2006).

Architectural heritage had a slight impact on intrapersonal authenticity (SPC = 0.23, t value = 2.96), but it had no significant impact on interpersonal authenticity. This indicates that architectural heritage helps tourists to develop the authentic-self and become more authentic, to escape their monotonous quotidian routines, and to pursue self-realization. Interestingly, folk culture had a greater impact on intrapersonal authenticity (SPC = 0.38, t value = 3.12) than architectural heritage did. This means that folk culture is more effective in helping tourists to develop the authentic-self and become more authentic, to escape their monotonous quotidian routines, and to pursue self-realization. Although existential authenticity is activity-based and a state of being, these findings provide further testimony that (from a perspective that is not a purely geographical one) place matters in existential authenticity (Rickly-Boyd 2013).

The low t values for architectural heritage, traditional customs, and folk culture show that none of these elements had a substantial effect on interpersonal authenticity; this was consistent with Wang’s (1999) findings that the authenticity of toured objects may be irrelevant to existential authenticity. Interestingly, intrapersonal authenticity had a significant effect on interpersonal authenticity (SPC = 1.06, t value = 11.50). This indicates that intrapersonal authenticity has a strong influence on interpersonal authenticity. Helping tourists to escape from their monotonous quotidian routines and pursue self-realization definitely enables tourists to interact with local people, family members, and other tourists in a natural, authentic way.

Intrapersonal authenticity had a significant effect on destination loyalty (SPC = 1.50, t value = 4.28), but interpersonal authenticity did not. This indicates that tourists prefer to cast off the restrictions of day-to-day life and pursue self-realization rather than to interact with others; this may lead to destination loyalty. The findings also reveal that anxiety is indeed a companion of authenticity, which is unavoidable and latent in all beings (Brown 2013); 60.1% of the respondents admitted to having feelings of anxiety about the authenticity of their cultural heritage sites being damaged by external forces from the outside world.

Discussion and Limitations

Since some researchers pointed out those who perceive a site as a part of their personal heritage are the core of heritage tourism (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003), the importance of links between the site in question and the tourists visiting it has been continuously recognized (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2004; Poria, Reichel, and Biran 2006; Lacher et al. 2013). In this study, certain links between individuals and heritage sites were investigated and their existence confirmed.

The findings show that understanding the importance to tourists of heritage and cultural attributes and elements is crucial in developing an understanding of the importance of heritage tourism itself (Lacher et al. 2013); this view partly echoes the view informing prior studies (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2004; Caton and Santos 2007; Tussyadiah and Pesonen 2015) that have explored the ways in which tourists’ meaningful travel experiences include connections with diverse landscapes and authentic settings, and with hosts and local people.

Employing an existentialist perspective, this study examined the concept of authenticity with regard to both individual lives and contemporary society. Given that some tourists search for authentic being and autochthony (Shepherd 2015), this study used quantitative methods to investigate individuals’ quest for their own personal authenticity and the authenticity of the objects in, and other elements of, the environment that surrounds them; this has rarely been done before. This study applied Western philosophers’ abstract theories and points of view to a specific Chinese heritage context.

This study also explored the relationship between individual visitors and heritage sites and found that interpersonal authenticity alone may have no relationship with the authenticity of toured objects. This partially confirms Wang’s (1999) study, which was founded on Western philosophical ideas. While previous studies have focused on discussions of the concept of existential authenticity (e.g., Steiner and Reisinger 2006; Kim and Jamal 2007), the present study enriches the existing literature by demonstrating that existential authenticity can be empirically examined from the perspectives of intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity.

Recent empirical studies of existential authenticity have tended to view it as unitary (Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim 2013). As regards the relationship between existential authenticity and tourist loyalty, the relevant research has mainly been confined to intrapersonal authenticity: interpersonal authenticity seldom receives attention. Although some previous research has found that existential authenticity positively affects tourist loyalty (Kolar and Zabkar 2010), Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim (2013), who employed Kolar and Zabkar’s (2010) consumer-based model, came to the conclusion that it did not. Thus, there is still some uncertainty surrounding the links between existential authenticity and tourist loyalty.

Seldom has research assessed the possible relationship between intrapersonal authenticity and interpersonal authenticity. One of the main contributions of this study is that it divides existential authenticity into its two component elements, studies their relationship, and studies the links each of them has with tourist loyalty. This work provides tentative answers to the questions raised.

The study has the following implications for managers in the heritage tourism sector. First, the positive relationships between architectural heritage, traditional customs, and folk culture suggest that tourism managers and planners should consider preserving all three of these elements when developing heritage tourism sites. Second, the findings show that folk culture had a greater impact on intrapersonal authenticity than architectural heritage did. Consequently, tourism managers can more explicitly enhance the intrapersonal authenticity inducing from folk culture than architectural heritage. Third, the positive relationship between intrapersonal authenticity and interpersonal authenticity suggests that activities that can facilitate the achievement of intrapersonal authenticity should be incorporated into customized heritage tourism products/services and then interpersonal authenticity can be easier achieved. Fourth, in view of the fact that intrapersonal authenticity was found to be positively linked to destination loyalty, site managers might foster destination loyalty (and reap its benefits) if they provide relevant activities that offer site visitors opportunities to enhance their intrapersonal authenticity.

The study has some limitations. First, it was not possible to examine all aspects of the historical authenticity of physical objects and all the intangible aspects of traditional local culture, because of the particular characteristics of the sites and the lack of relevant qualitative research. The perceived-authenticity constructs used in this study were settled upon without consulting any tourists or local residents. Future research could examine more aspects of the historical authenticity of physical objects and of the intangible aspects of traditional local culture by conducting relevant qualitative research and on-site investigations into the characteristics of the sites being studied. Because the things locals care about might not correspond with the things that interest tourists, qualitative research into the views of both locals/hosts and tourists should be conducted.

Second, in this study it was not possible to consider all the elements of existential authenticity. Only two dimensions of intrapersonal authenticity were included, and sensual or sexual experiences were not considered because official surveys of individuals’ sexual experiences are strictly regulated by the Chinese government. Future research could not only include other dimensions of existential authenticity (such as individuality and self-identity) but also investigate the existential authenticity of hosts as well as of tourists. Moreover, if researchers combine the investigation of intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity with different aspects of destination loyalty (e.g., affective, cognitive, and conative aspects; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010), or with vertical, horizontal, and experiential perspectives (McKercher, Denizci-Guillet, and Ng 2012), further insights into the relationship between existential authenticity and destination loyalty will be gained.

Third, the use of the SEM technique limits the research scope of the study, because the conceptual model is built upon theoretically dialectical reasoning and exemplified local contexts. In future studies, researchers could employ mixed methods, first conducting qualitative research by interviewing hosts and tourists and then using the results to help in constructing a theoretical framework for intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity in the tourism context. Quantitative methods could then be used to validate and empirically test the framework; this could, in turn, facilitate comparisons between residents and tourists. Furthermore, the proposed conceptual framework could also be examined in a Western context, to make the findings more generalizable.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Construct Indicators.

Constructs	Indicators
Architectural heritage (AH)	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the site to have one or more original buildings.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the interior design and decoration of the buildings to be original.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the atmosphere or environment of the buildings to be original.
Traditional customs (TC)	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the skills of local craftsmen to be traditional ones.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the local lifestyle or practices to be traditional.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the local food and beverages to be traditional.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived that the handicraft items or souvenirs sold at the local retail stores were examples of traditional craftsmanship and had been made using local materials.
Folk culture (FC)	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the production tools to be traditional.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the local people’s apparel to be traditional.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the local people’s art (paintings, carvings, and so on) to be original or in a traditional style.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the local stories or legends to be traditional.
	During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers site, I perceived the appliances that the local people used in their daily lives to be traditional.
Intrapersonal authenticity (EA1)	On the rest of the tour, my body will be free from the self-control and limitations of daily routines and I become more self and subjective in its own right.
Intrapersonal authenticity (EA1)	On the rest of the tour, I will try to seek extra-mundane or unusual experiences in order to pursue self-realization or self-satisfaction.
Interpersonal authenticity (EA2)	On the rest of the tour, I will seek to have contact with local people in a natural, authentic, and friendly way (unaffected by status differences).
	On the rest of the tour, I will seek to have contact with family members in a natural, authentic, and friendly way (unaffected by status differences).
	On the rest of the tour, I will seek to have contact with other travelers(including other members of my tour group) in a natural, authentic, and friendly way (unaffected by status differences).
Destination loyalty (DL)	If I revisit Guangdong, I will revisit the Kaiping watchtowers site because of its authenticity.
Destination loyalty (DL)	I will recommend the Kaiping watchtowers site to other people (such as my friends or colleagues) because of its authenticity.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our students Haili Shen, Huixing Huang, Cuiting Ye, and others for distributing the questionnaires or creating and checking the database used in this study, and thank Dr. Smith, Wayne William from the College of Charleston, USA, and Dr. Bing Pan from Penn State University, USA, and Prof. Ning Wang from Sun Yat-sen University for previewing and suggestion.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first, second, and fourth authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the High-level University Construction Project in Guangdong Province (Grant No. 88015201; 88016401), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71503231), the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 15BGL110), respectively.

Author Biographies

Xiaoli Yi, is associate professor in the Shenzhen Tourism College of Jinan University, Guangdong, China. His research interests include heritage tourism development and management.

Vera Shanshan Lin, is associate professor in the School of Management at Zhejiang University, China. Her research interests include tourism demand modeling and forecasting.

Wenmin Jin, is a lecturer in the Shenzhen Tourism College of Jinan University. Her research interests include event management and second home tourism.

Qiuju Luo, is professor and deputy dean in the School of Tourism Management at Sun Yat-sen University, P.R. China. She has focused her research on the area of event tourism and has published more than 50 academic articles in major tourism research journals home and abroad. Having completed a series of influential studies, she has recently devoted herself to conducting innovative research on social media and special tourism.

References

Almeida-García

Pelaez-Fernandez

M. A.

Balbuena-Vazquez

Cortes-Macias

2016. “Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Development in Benalmadena (Spain).” Tourism Management 54:259–74.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–23.

Bentler

P. M.

2010. “SEM with Simplicity and Accuracy.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 20:215–20.

Berger

P. L.

1973. “Sincerity and Authenticity in Modern Society.” Public Interest 31:81–89.

Berman

1970. The Politics of Authenticity. London: Allen & Unwin.

Beverland

2006. “The ‘Real Thing’: Branding Authenticity in the Luxury Wine Trade.” Journal of Business Research 59:251–58.

Boniface

1995. Managing Quality Cultural Tourism. New York: Routledge.

Brown

2013. “Tourism: A Catalyst for Existential Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 40:176–90.

Bryce

Curran

O’Gorman

Taheri

2015. “Visitors’ Engagement and Authenticity: Japanese Heritage Consumption.” Tourism Management 46:571–81.

10.

Buchmann

Moore

Fisher

2010. “Experiencing Film Tourism Authenticity and Fellowship.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (1): 229–48.

11.

Campelo

Aitken

Thyne

Gnoth

2014. “Sense of Place: The Importance for Destination Branding.” Journal of Travel Research 53 (2): 154–66.

12.

Canavan

2016. “Tourism Culture: Nexus, Characteristics, Context and Sustainability.” Tourism Management 53:229–43.

13.

Castéran

Roederer

2013. “Does Authenticity Really Affect Behavior? The Case of the Strasbourg Christmas Market.” Tourism Management 36:153–63.

14.

Caton

Santos

C. A.

2007. “Heritage Tourism on Route 66: Deconstructing Nostalgia.” Journal of Travel Research 45 (4): 371–86.

15.

Chen

J. S.

2011. “The Motivations and Expectations of International Volunteer Tourists: A Case Study of ‘Chinese Village Traditions.’” Tourism Management 32:435–42.

16.

Chen

Petrick

J. F.

Shahvali

2016. “Tourism Experiences as a Stress Reliever: Examining the Effects of Tourism Recovery Experiences on Life Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research 55:150–60.

17.

Chhabra

2005. “Defining Authenticity and Its Determinants: Toward an Authenticity Flow Model.” Journal of Travel Research 44 (1): 64–73.

18.

Chi

C. G.

2008. “Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach.” Tourism Management 29:624–36.

19.

Chronis

2012. “Between Place and Story: Gettysburg as Tourism Imaginary.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (4): 1797–1816.

20.

Cohen

1988. “Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 15 (3): 371–86.

21.

Cole

2007. “Beyond Authenticity and Commodification.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (4): 943–60.

22.

Datta

Bigham

Zou

Hill

2015. “A Global Study of Heritage Site Ecology, Proclivity and Loyalty.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 25:19–29.

23.

Daugstad

Kirchengast

2013. “Authenticity and the Pseudo-backstage of Agri-tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 43:170–91.

24.

DeVellis

R. F.

2012. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Dillon

W. R.

Goldstein

1984. Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley.

26.

Domenico

M. D.

Miller

2012. “Farming and Tourism Enterprise: Experiential Authenticity in the Diversification of Independent Small-Scale Family Farming.” Tourism Management 33:285–94.

27.

Engeset

M. G.

Elvekrok

2015. “Authentic Concepts: Effects on Tourist Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (4): 456–66.

28.

Flynn

T. R.

2008. Existentialism—A Very Short Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

29.

Frisvoll

2013. “Conceptualizing Authentication of Ruralness.” Annals of Tourism Research 43:272–96.

30.

Halewood

Hannam

2001. “Viking Heritage Tourism—Authenticity and Commodification.” Annals of Tourism Research 28 (3): 565–80.

31.

Handler

1986. “Authenticity.” Anthropology Today 2 (1): 2–4.

32.

Heidegger

1962. Being and Time, translated by Macquarrie

Robinson

New York: Harper and Row.

33.

Heidegger

1996. Being and Time. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

34.

Herbert

D. T.

1995. Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Pinter.

35.

Hughes

1995. “Authenticity in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 22 (4): 781–803.

36.

Janiskee

R. L.

1996. “Historic Houses and Special Events.” Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2): 398–414.

37.

Kabacoff

R. I.

2013. R in Action: Data Analysis and Graphics with R. Chinese version. Peking: Post & Telecom press.

38.

2011. Chinese Folk Culture. Chinese version. Beijing: Peking University Press.

39.

Kim

Jamal

2007. “Touristic Quest for Existential Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (1): 181–201.

40.

Kim

Littrell

M. A.

1999. “Predicting Souvenir Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research 38:153–62.

41.

Kline

R. B.

2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford.

42.

Knox

2008. “Spectacular Tradition—Scottish Folksong and Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 35 (1): 255–73.

43.

Kolar

Zabkar

2010. “A Consumer-Based Model of Authenticity: An Oxymoron or the Foundation of Cultural Heritage Marketing?” Tourism Management 31:652–64.

44.

Lacher

R. G.

Jodice

L. W.

Norman

W. C.

2013. “The Role of Heritage and Cultural Elements in Coastal Tourism Destination Preferences: A Choice Modeling-Based Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (4): 534–46.

45.

Lau

R. W. K.

2010. “Revisiting Authenticity—A Social Realist Approach.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2): 478–98.

46.

Lew

A. A.

1989. “Authenticity and Sense of Place in the Tourism Development Experience of Older Retail Districts.” Journal of Travel Research 27 (4): 15–22.

47.

MacCannell

1973. “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.” American Journal of Sociology 79 (3): 589–603.

48.

MacCannell

1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.

49.

McIntosh

A. J.

2004. “Tourists’ Appreciation of Maori Culture in New Zealand.” Tourism Management 25 (1): 1–15.

50.

McIntosh

A. J.

Prentice

R. C.

1999. “Affirming Authenticity: Consuming Cultural Heritage.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3): 589–612.

51.

McKercher

Denizci-Guillet

2012. “Rethinking Loyalty.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2): 708–34.

52.

McKercher

Du Cros

2002. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.

53.

Mkono

2012. “Authenticity Does Matter.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 480–83.

54.

Mkono

Markwell

Wilson

2013. “Applying Quan and Wang’s Structural Model of the Tourist Experience: A Zimbabwean Netnography of Food Tourism.” Tourism Management Perspectives 5:68–74.

55.

Mura

2015. “Perceptions of Authenticity in a Malaysian Homestay—A Narrative Analysis.” Tourism Management 51:225–33.

56.

Park

Santos

C. A.

2016. “Exploring the Tourist Experience: A Sequential Approach.” Journal of Travel Research. Published online 3 January. doi:0047287515624017.

57.

Poria

Butler

Airey

2003. “The Core of Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1): 238–54.

58.

Poria

Butler

Airey

2004. “Links between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons for Visiting Heritage Sites.” Journal of Travel Research 43 (1): 19–28.

59.

Poria

Reichel

Biran

2006. “Heritage Site Perceptions and Motivations to Visit.” Journal of Travel Research 44 (3): 318–26.

60.

Prentice

1993. Tourism and Heritage Attractions. New York: Routledge.

61.

Prentice

R. C.

Witt

S. F.

Hamer

1998. “Tourism as Experience – The Case of Heritage Parks.” Annals of Tourism Research 25 (1): 1–24.

62.

Reisinger

Steiner

C. J.

2006. “Reconceptualizing Object Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1): 65–86.

63.

Reisinger

Turner

1999. “Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Application in Tourism.” Tourism Management 20:71–88.

64.

Revilla

Dodd

T. H.

2003. “Authenticity Perceptions of Talavera Pottery.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (1): 94–99.

65.

Rickly-Boyd

J. M.

2012. “Authenticity and Aura—A Benjaminian Approach to Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 269–89.

66.

Rickly-Boyd

J. M.

2013. “Existential Authenticity: Place Matters.” Tourism Geographies 15 (4): 680–86.

67.

Robb

J. G.

1998. “Tourism and Legends—Archaeology of Heritage.” Annals of Tourism Research 25 (3): 579–96.

68.

Robinson

R. N. S.

Clifford

2012. “Authenticity and Festival Foodservice Experiences.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2): 571–600.

69.

Roojen

P. V.

2010. European Folk: Fabric Design and Dress from Central and South-eastern Europe. Amsterdam: Pepin Press.

70.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

2010. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

71.

Shepherd

R. J.

2015. “Why Heidegger Did Not Travel: Existential Angst, Authenticity, and Tourist Experiences.” Annals of Tourism Research 52:60–71.

72.

Steiner

C. J.

Reisinger

2006. “Understanding Existential Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (2): 299–318.

73.

Tussyadiah

I. P.

Pesonen

2015. “Impacts of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Use on Travel Patterns.” Journal of Travel Research. Published online 12 October. doi:0047287515608505.

74.

Venkatesh

1992. The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-modern World. London: Routledge.

75.

Wang

1999. “Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2): 349–70.

76.

Wang

2007. “Customized Authenticity Begins at Home.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (3): 789–804.

77.

Wilkins

2011. “Souvenirs: What and Why We Buy.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (3): 239–47.

78.

Wong

I. A.

2015. “A Multimethod Multilevel Study of Heritage Transmission: The Role of Culture on Tourist Interest and Authenticity.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (5): 672–85.

79.

Woosnam

K. M.

Norman

W. C.

Ying

2009. “Exploring the Theoretical Framework of Emotional Solidarity between Residents and Tourists.” Journal of Travel Research 48 (2): 245–58.

80.

Wan

Fan

2014. “Rethinking Authenticity in the Implementation of China’s Heritage Conservation: The Case of Hongcun Village.” Tourism Geographies 16 (5): 799–811.

81.

Yankholmes

McKercher

2015. “Understanding Visitors to Slavery Heritage Sites in Ghana.” Tourism Management 51:22–32.

82.

Yoon

Lee

2010. “Measuring Festival Quality and Value Affecting Visitors’ Satisfaction and Loyalty Using a Structural Approach.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 29:335–42.

83.

Yoon

Uysal

2005. “An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model.” Tourism Management 26:45–56.

84.

Littrell

M. A.

2003. “Product and Process Orientations to Tourism Shopping.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (2): 140–50.

85.

2016. “Ancient Poetry in Contemporary Chinese Tourism.” Tourism Management 54:393–403.

86.

Yuksel

Bilim

2010. “Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management 31:274–84.

87.

Zeppel

2002. “Cultural Tourism at the Cowichan Native Village, British Columbia.” Journal of Travel Research 41 (1): 92–100.

88.

Zhong

1998. An Introduction to Folklore. Shanghai: Shanghai Literature and Art Publishing House.

89.

Zhou

Zhang

Edelheim

J. R.

2013. “Rethinking Traditional Chinese Culture: A Consumer-based Model Regarding the Authenticity of Chinese Calligraphic Landscape.” Tourism Management 36:99–112.

90.

Zhou

Zhang

2015. “A Structural Model of Host Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 55:28–45.

91.

Zhu

2012. “Performing Heritage: Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (3): 1495–1513.