Destination Fascination and Destination Loyalty: Subjective Well-Being and Destination Attachment as Mediators

Abstract

Following the Reasonable Person Model, this study examines the effects of destination fascination on subjective well-being and destination attachment as well as looking at the subsequent outcome of destination loyalty. A total of 936 responses were collected from tourists to national parks (302), forest recreational areas (300), and theme parks (334). The results of this study prove the effect of destination fascination on improving subjective well-being and destination attachment and shows the effects of subjective well-being and destination attachment on enhancing destination loyalty. Subjective well-being and destination attachment fully mediated effects from destination fascination to destination loyalty. Moreover, extensive validity of the proposed model was verified by engaging different destination types. The findings of this study enrich the base of knowledge about destination fascination in the tourism academy and contributes practical implications for destination management and marketing.

Keywords

destination fascination subjective well-being destination attachment destination loyalty

Introduction

Discussions about destination fascination began with studies of human restoration through natural environments in environmental psychology (S. Kaplan 1995). Environmental psychologists pointed out that people spend considerable physical and psychological resources on “directed attention” activities in their work lives, and that these can cause feelings of fatigue, burnout, stress, anxiety, high incidence of mistakes, and low intention toward helping coworkers (Cohen and Spacapan 1978; Moray 1990). Several studies have suggested that a fascinating environment promotes more efficient mental recovery (e.g., Berto 2005; Herzog, Maguire, and Nebel 2003; R. Kaplan and Kaplan 2011). Based on attention restoration theory, Liu et al. (2017) established a 24-item Destination Fascination Scale with six dimensions: fitness, friendliness, uniqueness, attractiveness, mystique, and richness.

Model examination is a common method used in scale development studies to examine criterion-related validity for new measurement scales (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009). Using model examination for destination fascination, this study demonstrates the importance of destination fascination by clarifying its outcomes. The Reasonable Person Model (RPM), which shows how fascination (S. Kaplan 1995) leads to human–environment relationships, was proposed by S. Kaplan and Kaplan (2009) to explain the benefits of environment fascination from an integrated and systematic perspective. Based on a person’s information needs and his or her recognition of the information perceived in an environment, the RPM is conceptualized into three phases: model building, effectiveness, and meaningful action (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). The public’s perceived fascination with an environment may shape their recognition of the environment (model building), assist in recovery from fatigue, improve competence (effectiveness), and prompt willingness and attention toward environmentally sustainable development (meaningful action).

Based on RPM, this study proposes the model of destination fascination by conceptualizing (a) destination fascination in the model-building phase, (b) subjective well-being and destination attachment in the effectiveness phase, and (c) destination loyalty in the phase of meaningful action. By reviewing trends in place relationship literature in the field of environmental psychology (Gifford 2014; Gustafson 2001; Lewicka 2011; Raymond, Brown, and Weber 2010; Scannell and Gifford 2010, 2017; Sundstrom et al. 1996), this study further extends the effectiveness phase to include both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects. Through perceived destination fascination, this study argues the “effectiveness” phase happens on the intrinsic side by improving tourists’ subjective positive mental feelings. These include subjective well-being, stress release, and fatigue reduction caused by long-term intention-intensive tasks (Ábrahám, Velenczei, and Szabo 2012; Berto et al. 2010; R. Kaplan and Kaplan 2011; Uysal et al. 2016; White et al. 2010). Since subjective well-being can reflect overall inner feelings (Diener 1984), this study argues subjective well-being as an outcome of perceived destination fascination on the intrinsic side. On the other hand, this study argues that the “effectiveness” phase happens on the extrinsic side, inducing tourists to establish relationships with a fascinating destination. In former studies, the human–environment relationship could be extended to include aspects such as environment attachment, emotional connection to a place, or the willingness to support pro-environmental actions (Corbett 2005; Fielding and Head 2012; Morgan 2010; Ramkissoon, Mavondo, and Uysal 2018). Funk and James (2001) proposed the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM), stating that people’s psychological connection with fascinating leisure engagement takes place on four levels: awareness, attraction, attachment, and allegiance. Following PCM, this study argues destination attachment is an outcome of perceived destination fascination on the extrinsic side.

Moreover, this study considers the validity of the proposed model of destination fascination in regard to model extension, specifically to different types of destinations. In prior empirical studies of RPM, researchers have generally selected natural places as research settings to examine how fascinating natural environments positively influence humans (Hartig et al. 2011; Herzog and Strevey 2008; White et al. 2010). However, tourists can perceive destination fascination from not only natural destinations (such as national parks or botanic gardens) but also from artificial destinations (such as theme parks or shopping malls). Velarde, Fry, and Tveit (2007) also noted that environmental psychologists commonly categorize landscapes into natural and urban, which supports the division of this study by destination types into natural destinations and artificial destinations. Additionally, Velarde, Fry, and Tveit (2007) found that people generally become healthier in natural landscapes than urban landscapes. Using this concept, the proposed model for destination fascination should be examined in different types of destinations in order to clarify model extension and enrich the systematic understanding of destination fascination.

Using RPM, the purpose of this study is to propose and examine the effects of destination fascination on destination loyalty applying both subjective well-being and destination attachment as mediators. Findings of this study will potentially contribute theoretical and practical implications to tourism academy and industry. Theoretically, this study may demonstrate the role of destination fascination on tourism by proposing and examining its effects on subjective well-being, destination attachment, and destination loyalty. By conceptualizing both the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the “effectiveness” phase in RPM, the proposed model can enrich the systematic understanding of destination fascination. Additionally, results from examining the effectiveness of the destination fascination model in different types of destinations can clarify the applicability of destination fascination. Practically, findings from this study should provide valuable information for destination marketing organizations about the benefits of and tourists’ behavioral changes caused by fascinating destinations.

Literature Review

Destination Fascination

Liu et al. (2017) defined destination fascination as “the extent to which a destination gives tourists the freedom to pay attention to their interests, to freely explore details in the destination, and to freely and personally define meanings of the destination” (p. 257). Theoretical foundations of destination fascination are generated from discussions about human–environment relationships. S. Kaplan (1983) proposed the Model of Person–Environment Compatibility, arguing that subjective compatibility toward an environment is based on information released by the environment. High person–environment compatibility promotes physical and psychological health and releases stress (S. Kaplan 1983). Later, S. Kaplan and Kaplan (2009) proposed the Reasonable Person Model (RPM) which explains the effects of environment fascination on human sense-making and behaviors. As shown in Figure 1, the RPM begins with model building in which people absorb environmental information and gain sense about the environment. This phase is followed by effectiveness and meaningful action. Model building has the potential to directly influence meaningful action and to influence meaningful action by being effective (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). In the long term, the meaningful action phase can also influence model building through experience accumulation, or it may indirectly influence model building through the effectiveness phase (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009).

Figure 1.

The reasonable person model.

First, the model building phase allows people to store memories and experiences of an environment in order to explain, plan, and analyze that environment (Johnson-Laird 2005). Model building is important for understanding and exploring an environment, utilizing information from the environment to interpret meaning, involving oneself or interacting with the environmental information, and feeling a sense of fascination for the environment (R. Kaplan and Kaplan 1978). According to Liu et al. (2017), fitness, friendliness, uniqueness, attractiveness, mystique, and richness are six dimensions of destination fascination that allow tourists to accumulate information about a destination during the model-building phase. Second, in regard to effectiveness, by processing and managing stored information about an environment, fascinating environments have the potential to strengthen a person’s self-confidence and awareness, increase focus for future works tasks, support recovery from fatigue, and rejuvenate energy for daily work life (Berto 2005; Berto et al. 2010; S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). Third, during the meaningful action phase, people participate in an environment to fulfill a need to make a difference, to achieve goals, or to influence the world around them (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). Participation in meaningful action is actualized through behavior, attitude, beliefs, listening, respect, and having a voice (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). Previous studies of environment fascination have explored participation in meaningful action as emotional engagement for environmental protection (Morgan 2010), intention of revisiting a place (White et al. 2010), and awareness and action of protecting natural resources (Fielding and Head 2012).

Based on RPM, this study focuses on the ways destination fascination influences the follow-up phases of effectiveness and meaningful action. Figure 2 shows the research framework for this study. This study looks at both the direct and indirect effects of model building on effectiveness and meaningful action. For the mediating mechanism of effectiveness, this study analyzes the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of effectiveness as a mediator to destination fascination. Intrinsically, this study emphasizes tourists’ subjective well-being, which reflects positive emotion, stress release, and fatigue reduction in a fascinating destination (Ábrahám, Velenczei, and Szabo 2012; Berto et al. 2010; R. Kaplan and Kaplan 2011; White et al. 2010). Extrinsically, this study concentrates on destination attachment, which refers to the extent tourists mentally connect with a destination (Corbett 2005; Fielding and Head 2012; Morgan 2010).

Figure 2.

The research framework.

Place relationship literature in environmental psychology (Gifford 2014; Gustafson 2001; Lewicka 2011; Raymond, Brown, and Weber 2010; Scannell and Gifford 2010, 2017; Sundstrom et al. 1996) supports the examination of both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects in the proposed model. Gustafson (2001) conceptualized place meaning as an individual’s reflections on the intrinsic self along with meaning created through extrinsic connections to others and the environment. For the intrinsic quality, Scannell and Gifford (2017) focused on well-being created through human–place relationships and identified several psychological benefits such as memories, belonging, relaxation, and positive emotions. For the extrinsic aspect, studies in place attachment (Raymond, Brown, and Weber 2010; Scannell and Gifford 2010) focus on bonds developed with a place through social/community interactions, natural/environmental connections, and the place experience process. Taken together, this study proposes that tourists’ perceived destination fascination can directly improve destination loyalty by directly enhancing subjective well-being (intrinsic aspect) and destination attachment (extrinsic aspect). Justifications for the proposed hypotheses are explained in the following sections.

Destination Fascination and Destination Loyalty

Dick and Basu (1994) defined customer loyalty as a customer’s relative attitude and loyalty behavior toward a product, brand, service, or store. Strengthening customer attitudes is achieved through cognitive antecedents (i.e., trust, contact, and information clarity), affective antecedents (i.e., emotion, satisfaction, and affection), and conative antecedents (i.e., sunk cost and switching cost) (Dick and Basu 1994). Loyal behavior is an outcome of a loyal relationship and includes the motivation to search for related information, positive word of mouth, repurchase/revisit, and resistance to related negative information (Dick and Basu 1994). Oliver (1999) further classified loyalty into four phases: cognitive loyalty, affective loyalty, conative loyalty, and behavioral loyalty. Cognitive loyalty refers to customers’ recognition of and beliefs about a product; affective loyalty is a customer’s preference for and attitude toward a product accumulated through long-term satisfaction experiences; conative loyalty refers to the customers’ behavioral intentions toward a product, such as a promise for repurchase; and behavioral loyalty represents the integration of the previous three phases to actually engage in repurchase (Oliver 1999). In former destination loyalty studies, conative loyalty is commonly used to measure tourists’ destination loyalty (Chi and Qu 2008; Yoon and Uysal 2005); therefore, this study uses conative loyalty to measure destination loyalty and understand tourists’ revisit intentions and willingness to spread positive word-of-mouth.

Destination loyalty encompasses a perspective that indicates tourists’ long-term revisit behavior toward a destination that connects with their previous travel experiences at the same destination (Oppermann 2000). Revisit intention and positive word of mouth are two behavioral intentions widely used in measuring destination loyalty (Chi and Qu 2008; Hutchinson, Lai, and Wang 2009; Phillips et al. 2013; Yoon and Uysal 2005). In terms of revisit intention, former studies have considered tourists’ intentions toward visiting the same destination as well as tourists’ intentions of visiting the same type of destination or a destination in the same region as a top priority (T. Kim, Kim, and Kim 2009; Lam and Hsu 2006; Loureiro and Kaufmann 2012). Positive word of mouth is achieved when tourists actively spread positive information about a specific destination (Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008; Phillips et al. 2013; Simpson and Siguaw 2008). Tourists’ willingness and frequency of providing positive word of mouth varies based on destination type and tourists’ familiarity with the destination (Phillips et al. 2013; Simpson and Siguaw 2008). Unlike traditional methods of communication, modern technology allows tourists to engage in more vivid, more interactive, and more updated electronic word of mouth (Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008).

According to RPM, environment fascination can directly influence visitors’ participation in environment-related actions (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). The extent of a person’s perceived destination fascination can be thought of as the level of perceived positive image of the destination. Destination image studies have proved that destinations with a positive image strengthen tourist loyalty toward the destination (Chi and Qu 2008; Phillips et al. 2013; Tasci and Gartner 2007). Additionally, fascinating environments are more appealing and attract more attention (Berto, Massaccesi, and Pasini 2008). A study by Um, Chon, and Ro (2006) found that destination attractiveness is more powerful than tourist satisfaction in stimulating revisit intentions. Moreover, using the dimensions of destination fascination established by Liu et al. (2017), a fascinating destination motivates tourists to continue exploring the destination, possesses richness of resources that motivate tourists to enjoy diverse experiences, and supplies attractiveness that helps tourists forget daily work stress. The dimensions of destination fascination suggested by Liu et al. (2017) comprise the major types of loyalty antecedents proposed by Dick and Basu (1994), revealing that destination fascination can strengthen tourists’ destination loyalty. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Destination fascination exerts positive effects on destination loyalty.

Subjective Well-Being as the Mediator

Subjective well-being is a person’s subjective, positive evaluation toward their overall life, including work life and leisure life (Carter 2004; Diener and Lucas 2004; Kashdan 2004). Diener (1984) pointed out three features of subjective well-being: (1) it is a subjective feeling, (2) it is evaluated in positive terms, and (3) it includes an individual’s overall evaluation of life. Carter (2004) argued that subjective well-being is the frequency of fluctuation between positive emotions during a certain time period and mentioned that subjective well-being may influence a person’s mid- and long-term behavior. Furthermore, Kashdan (2004) noted that a high subjective well-being involves three elements: (1) frequency and strength of positive emotion, (2) relative lack of depression and anxiety, and (3) overall life satisfaction. From a review of well-being in tourism literature, Uysal et al. (2016) pointed out the necessity of studying the significant mechanism of subjective well-being on tourists’ tourism experiences.

The positive effect of environment fascination on subjective well-being can be considered as positive mental feelings aroused by leisure participation. In prior leisure participation studies, the quality and pleasantness of leisure activities may significantly improve subjective well-being (Ábrahám, Velenczei, and Szabo 2012; Brajša-Žganec, Merkaš, and Šverko 2011; Newman, Tay, and Diener 2014). Brajša-Žganec, Merkaš, and Šverko (2011) explained that leisure activities provide chances to pursue value in life and fulfill a demand by providing people with opportunities to establish social networks, experience positive emotions, and gain skills and knowledge, all of which improve subjective well-being. Ábrahám, Velenczei, and Szabo (2012) sorted leisure activities into seven categories (balance of the intrinsic mind, regular activities, self-awareness and growth, passive leisure, improve health, intelligent leisure, and social leisure), and showed that joyful experiences gained through leisure activities significantly improve subjective well-being. Newman, Tay, and Diener (2014) reviewed 363 studies related to leisure and subjective well-being and summarized five psychological mechanisms to explain how leisure activities improve subjective well-being: (1) provide time for mental recovery and escape from daily life; (2) provide opportunities to be alone; (3) allow for challenging experiences and opportunities to learn new things; (4) create meaning-making experiences; and (5) establish affiliations with others. As a result of positive mental feelings gained through leisure, tourists become motivated to sustain loyalty for a fascinating destination in order to improve subjective well-being.

According to RPM, fascinating environments provide mental recovery, establish meaningful connections to the environment and motivates visitors to interact with the environment (S. Kaplan and Kaplan 2009). Following this logic, mental recovery gained from visiting a fascinating environment may help tourists improve subjective well-being; to sustain this improvement, tourists would tend to maintain loyalty toward that fascinating destination. Guite, Clark, and Ackrill (2006) argued that a good environment allows freedom from crowds and depression, as well as a feeling of comfort and safety; a good environment is like a fascinating environment where people could gain subjective well-being. Based on a sampling of tourists at a national park in Australia, Ramkissoon, Mavondo, and Uysal (2018) found that tourists’ place satisfaction, defined as “the ability of a setting to meet or exceed the emotional, physical and intellectual growth needs of visitors” (Ramkissoon, Mavondo, and Uysal 2018, p. 344), can improve their perceived quality of life. Ramkissoon, Mavondo, and Uysal’s (2018) measurement of place satisfaction includes tourists’ pleasure with their destination experience, which includes multiple destination fascination dimensions (Liu et al. 2017), such as fitness, attractiveness, and uniqueness. Lee, Kruger, Whang, Uysal, and Sirgy (2014) also found that tourists’ perceived well-being in natural wildlife tourism can improve their loyalty toward a destination. In regard to nature-based tourism, H. Kim et al. (2015) further found that tourists’ subjective well-being is improved by perceived values (e.g., self-fulfillment, warm relationships, excitement) associated with a destination, comparable to the destination fascination dimensions of fitness, friendliness, and richness in Liu et al. (2017). This perception of subjective well-being can improve tourists’ revisit intentions toward the destination (H. Kim et al. 2015). This study by H. Kim et al. (2015) supports the potential mediating role of subjective well-being as a driver of the relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty. Accordingly, this study argues that subjective well-being is a mediator of the relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Destination fascination exerts positive effects on subjective well-being.

Hypothesis 2b: Subjective well-being exerts positive effects on destination loyalty.

Hypothesis 4: Subjective well-being mediates the positive relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty.

Destination Attachment as the Mediator

Morgan (2010) states that the sense of attachment comes from dependence on and emotional engagement with parents in childhood, and that, as people grow and gain chances to explore new environments, they transfer the target of attachment to other objects, things, or environments. Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) defined place attachment as a person’s emotional connection with a place and argued that place attachment consists of both social-level attachment and physical-level attachment. Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) applied the concept of place attachment to destination attachment and summarized that destination attachment consists of two dimensions: place dependence and place recognition. Place dependence is a physical-level attachment that is sustained by the functional value of a place; place recognition is a social-level attachment that is a mental connection maintained through the investment of psychological resources (Prayag and Ryan 2012; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). The study by Prayag and Ryan (2012) found that tourists’ engagement with a destination may strengthen destination attachment, and destination attachment can improve destination satisfaction, revisit intention, and positive word of mouth. This study uses the scale of destination attachment developed by Prayag and Ryan (2012) for its reliability and validity and has been applied to other studies such as Veasna, Wu, and Huang (2013). Based on prior literature (Prayag and Ryan 2012; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010), this study defines destination attachment as tourists’ psychological engagement with a destination and proposes that destination fascination strengthens destination attachment and indirectly enhances destination loyalty.

The Psychological Continuum Model (PCM) developed by Funk and James (2001) supports the mediating role of destination attachment as a link between destination fascination and destination loyalty. Funk and James (2001) developed the PCM in the setting of sport fan involvement; however, fans’ feelings of involvement in leisure sports can be similarly conceptualized as tourists’ involvement with fascinating destinations. Following the PCM developed by Funk and James (2001), fans’ psychological connections can be ranked on four levels: awareness, attraction, attachment, and allegiance. Applying this scale to destination fascination, the awareness level is based on information received from extrinsic environments that provide chances to learn about leisure destinations and gain opportunities to participate in leisure; the attraction level is formed when the extrinsic information matches a person’s intrinsic leisure preference and demand (i.e., high attraction is assessed when the match is high); the attachment level represents a person’s perception about the importance and meaningfulness of a destination and considers leisure at the destination an extension of personal core values and self-awareness, and the allegiance level is the decision to commit to a stable and continuous psychological involvement with a destination and considers self as a disciple of the destination producing the behavior of repeatedly visiting the destination (Funk and James 2001). PCM has been widely applied to explain fans’ passionate involvement in leisure sport activities and how they invest psychological resources into leisure activities (Beaton and Funk 2008). Applying PCM to this study, levels of awareness and attraction in PCM can be compared to the formation and perception of destination fascination, the level of attachment as tourist destination attachment, and allegiance as tourist destination loyalty.

The flow of levels in PCM by Funk and James (2001) support the logic of destination attachment as a mediator of the shift from destination fascination to destination loyalty. Through a qualitative approach to explore visitors’ preferences of environments, Korpela et al. (2001) also found that visitors tend to experience positive emotional feelings and connections toward environments that have fascinating features that support relaxation, escape, freedom from worry, and opportunities for reflection. In RPM, environment fascination strengthens people’s relationship with the environment and motivates them to participate in long-term actions with the environment (Kaplan and Kaplan 2009); this strengthened relationship through environment fascination can be considered as destination attachment in this study. Previous studies on environment fascination and environmental restoration have found that people establish emotional connections and a sense of belonging with fascinating environments followed by the accumulation of visits to that environment (Korpela et al. 2001; Morgan 2010).

Literature about destination image and destination attachment show the existence and effects of destination fascination in tourism experiences (Prayag and Ryan 2012; Veasna, Wu, and Huang 2013). In island tourism, Prayag and Ryan (2012) found that place attachment can be improved through destination image, a concept that considers cultural diversity, level of service, and exoticness of the place and is parallel to the destination fascination dimensions of richness, friendliness, and mystique in Liu et al. (2017). In heritage tourism, Veasna, Wu, and Huang (2013) adopted Prayag and Ryan’s (2012) measure of destination image and found it consistently produced a positive effect on destination attachment. Findings from both Prayag and Ryan (2012) and Veasna, Wu, and Huang (2013) demonstrate the positive relationship between destination fascination and destination attachment. To determine destination attachment, Stylos, Bellou, Andronikidis, and Vassiliadis (2017) sampled both British and Russian tourists and found that tourists’ place attachment consistently and positively determined their intention to revisit, showing destination loyalty is a key outcome of destination attachment. In festival tourism, Davis (2016) conducted interviews and summarized that tourists develop place attachment to host places of festivals and that this attachment later improves tourists’ sense of belonging and destination loyalty to the place. Interviewees in Davis’s (2016) festival experience study quoted multiple dimensions of destination fascination described in Liu et al. (2017), including uniqueness, friendliness, and attractiveness. Davis’s (2016) study supports the mediating role of destination attachment as an influencer that moves a fascinating destination experience to destination loyalty. Taken together, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Destination fascination exerts positive effects on destination attachment.

Hypothesis 3b: Destination attachment exerts positive effects on destination loyalty.

Hypothesis 5: Destination attachment mediates the positive relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty.

Method

Sampling and Data Collection

This study uses on-site surveys conducted in 2016 targeting tourists to national parks (Kenting National Park, Taroko National Park, and Yanmingshan National Park), forest recreation areas (Alishan National Forest Recreation Area, Xitou National Forest Recreation Area, and Taipingshan National Forest Recreation Area), and theme parks (Leofoo Village, Janfusun Fancyworld, and Lihpao Land Theme Park) in Taiwan. The population sampled for this study included tourists to these nine destinations. Using convenience sampling, researchers distributed 120 survey questionnaires to tourists exiting each destination, for a total of 1,080 distributed questionnaires. Of these, this study collected 936 usable responses with a usable response rate of 86.67%, including 302 samples from national parks, 300 samples from forest recreation areas, and 334 samples from theme parks.

Measurement

This study adapted scale items developed in previous studies (Grzeskowiak and Sirgy 2007; T. Kim, Kim, and Kim 2009; Liu et al. 2017; Prayag and Ryan 2012) to measure all constructs (see appendix). A five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), was used to rate all scale items. The operational definition for destination fascination is described as the destination where tourists could freely pay attention, explore details, and define meanings. The 24-item scale established by Liu et al. (2017) was used to measure destination fascination. The operational definition for subjective well-being is described as a person’s positive, subjective evaluation of their overall life. A four-item scale developed by Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2007) was applied to measure subjective well-being. The operational definition for destination attachment is described as a person’s emotional connection with a destination. The eight-item scale from Prayag and Ryan (2012) was applied to measure destination attachment. The operational definition of destination loyalty is described as tourists’ revisit intention and willingness to provide positive word of mouth for a destination. The four-item scale established by T. Kim, Kim, and Kim (2009) was used to measure destination loyalty.

Data Analysis

This study used SPSS 19 for descriptive analysis of the collected data. LISREL 8.8 was used to run confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and multi-group analysis. Structural equation modeling was conducted to examine the proposed hypotheses, and multigroup analysis was performed to check model extension of the proposed model in different destination types.

Results

Profile of Participants

Descriptive analysis of the sample showed that there were more female respondents (51.7%) than male (48.3%). Most participants identified as single (48.6%) with a significant percentage also being married with children (38.1%). Around 62.1% of participants had earned a college degree, and 21.6% participants completed high school. Near half of participants were professional technicians (48.2%) followed by students (17.4%), government employees (11.4%), and business executives (9.1%). Additionally, 40.1% of the participants came from Northern Taiwan, followed by 30.8% from southern Taiwan and 26.8% from central Taiwan. In terms of income status, 36% of participants had incomes ranging between $9,000 and 18,000, 26.8% had annual incomes under $9,000, 22.4% participants had annual incomes between $18,000 and 27,000, and 14.7% earned more than $27,001, annually. Taiwan’s average annual income was $19,626 in 2016 (National Statistics R.O.C. 2017).

Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test measurement reliability and validity. CFA results indicated an acceptable model fit, including χ²/df of 4.74, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.063, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.98, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.056, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.98, and normed fit index (NFI) of 0.98 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993). As shown in Table 1, all items were significantly related to their corresponding constructs (p < 0.01), and standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.58 to 0.86. Average variance extracted (AVE) from these constructs ranged from 0.43 to 0.64. Composite reliability (CR) of all constructs ranged from 0.69 to 0.91. On the basis of CFA results, constructs of this study were reliable and valid (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Gerbing and Anderson 1988; Hair et al. 2010). Table 2 shows correlation of the constructs. To achieve discriminant validity, the coefficient for a correlation between a pair of constructs should be lower than the squared root of AVE for each construct (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Most constructs in the model achieved this requirement, indicating adequate discriminant validity.

Table 1.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Variable/Construct	Mean	t Value	SFL	ME	IR	CR(AVE)
Destination Fascination Scale
Fitness
This place could be associated with my life experiences	3.27	20.52	0.63	0.60	0.40	0.85 (0.54)
The atmosphere in this place is the kind I like	3.62	24.95	0.73	0.47	0.53
This place truly reflects my personal style	3.35	29.77	0.83	0.31	0.69
This place reflects the real me	3.36	27.95	0.80	0.36	0.64
Visiting this place could represent how I want to be	3.06	21.92	0.67	0.55	0.45
Friendliness
This place has hospitable and friendly local residents	3.82	23.28	0.70	0.51	0.49	0.85 (0.59)
This place has warm service employees	3.74	27.44	0.79	0.38	0.62
Service facilities in this place can satisfy my needs	3.48	26.77	0.78	0.39	0.61
This place provides thoughtful tourism services	3.59	27.67	0.80	0.36	0.64
Uniqueness
This place has a unique style	3.77	22.42	0.68	0.54	0.46	0.84 (0.52)
This place looks visually different from others	3.80	28.01	0.80	0.36	0.64
I feel this place is different from others	3.77	28.44	0.80	0.36	0.64
This place has local features	3.79	23.00	0.69	0.52	0.48
This place has special themed areas	3.85	19.14	0.60	0.64	0.36
Attractiveness
This place can transform my mood	4.32	25.02	0.73	0.47	0.53	0.85 (0.58)
Sensory experiences offered by this place appeal to me	3.97	26.52	0.76	0.42	0.58
This place helps me perceive good feelings	4.10	30.05	0.83	0.31	0.69
I would like to stay longer in this place	3.86	24.99	0.73	0.47	0.53
Mystique
My curiosity toward the place is aroused while visiting the place	3.62	25.22	0.77	0.41	0.59	0.78 (0.54)
This place has people, items, and things worth exploring	3.42	23.16	0.72	0.48	0.52
This place has mystery	3.39	23.05	0.72	0.48	0.52
Richness
While visiting this place, I can experience different feelings	3.38	18.75	0.63	0.60	0.40	0.69 (0.43)
This place provides various leisure activities	3.37	17.15	0.58	0.66	0.34
This place provides me diverse sensory experiences	3.83	23.01	0.75	0.44	0.56
Subjective well-being
This place met my overall well-being needs	3.71	27.35	0.78	0.39	0.61	0.83 (0.56)
This place played a very important role in my social well-being	3.63	25.14	0.74	0.45	0.55
This place played an important role in my travel well-being	3.70	25.83	0.75	0.44	0.56
This place played an important role in enhancing my quality of life	3.58	23.62	0.71	0.50	0.50
Destination attachment
This place is a very special destination to me	3.87	25.70	0.74	0.45	0.55	0.91 (0.55)
I identify strongly with this destination	3.47	25.11	0.72	0.48	0.52
No other place can provide the same holiday experience as this destination	3.70	24.79	0.72	0.48	0.52
Holidaying in this destination means a lot to me	3.81	27.01	0.76	0.42	0.58
I am very attached to this holiday destination	3.94	24.70	0.72	0.48	0.52
This destination is the best place for what I like to do on holidays	3.60	27.03	0.76	0.42	0.58
Holidaying here is more important to me than holidaying in other destinations	3.36	26.36	0.75	0.44	0.56
I would not substitute any other destination for the types of things that I did during my holidays in this place	3.51	25.85	0.74	0.45	0.55
Destination loyalty
Comparing to other similar destinations, I will choose this place as the top one choice	3.41	24.53	0.71	0.50	0.50	0.88 (0.64)
I want to revisit this place	3.82	31.61	0.85	0.28	0.72
I will recommend this place to other people	3.98	32.25	0.86	0.26	0.74
I will share positive experiences of the place to others	4.07	27.95	0.78	0.39	0.61

Note: SFL = standardized factor loading; ME = measurement error; IR = item reliability; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 2.

Correlation Table.

Dimensions	DF1	DF2	DF3	DF4	DF5	DF6	SW	DA	DL
DF1-Fitness	0.74
DF2-Friendliness	0.48	0.77
DF3-Uniqueness	0.52	0.40	0.72
DF4-Attractiveness	0.61	0.40	0.74	0.76
DF5-Mystique	0.49	0.39	0.63	0.63	0.74
DF6-Richness	0.55	0.48	0.55	0.69	0.57	0.66
SW	0.69	0.51	0.59	0.73	0.64	0.59	0.75
DA	0.60	0.43	0.79	0.71	0.69	0.55	0.74	0.74
DL	0.59	0.46	0.69	0.75	0.66	0.54	0.79	0.87	0.80

Note: The diagonal elements are the squared roots of the AVE.

Structural Model

Based on CFA results, this study considered destination fascination as a second-order construct with six dimensions in structural equation modeling. Fits indices of the estimated structural model (χ²/df = 8.38, RMSEA = 0.089, GFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.074, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.96) indicated that the model provided an acceptable fit (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993). As Figure 3 shows, destination fascination was positively related to subjective well-being (β = 0.71, p < 0.01) and destination attachment (β = 0.75, p < 0.01), supporting hypotheses 2a and 3a. Additionally, subjective well-being (β = 0.36, p < 0.01) and destination attachment (β = 0.66, p < 0.01) were positively related to destination loyalty, supporting hypotheses 2b and 3b. This research found that the effect of destination fascination on destination loyalty was not significant (β = −0.01, p > 0.05), thereby rejecting hypothesis 1. The rejection of hypothesis 1, however, indicates important indirect paths for destination fascination to improve destination loyalty by increasing subjective well-being and destination attachment. Table 3 summarizes results of these proposed hypotheses.

Table 3.

Results of the Hypothesized Paths.

Paths	Standardized Estimate	t Value	Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Destination fascination→ Destination loyalty	−0.01	−0.22	Not supported
Hypothesis 2a: Destination fascination→ Subjective well-being	0.71	18.71^**	Supported
Hypothesis 3a: Destination fascination→ Destination attachment	0.75	19.33^**	Supported
Hypothesis 2b: Subjective well-being→ Destination loyalty	0.36	9.15^**	Supported
Hypothesis 3b: Destination attachment→ Destination loyalty	0.66	13.85^**	Supported

p<0.05; ^**p<0.01.

Figure 3.

Standardized theoretical path coefficients.

Assessment of Mediating Effects

Based on Judd and Kenny (2010), this study used three steps to examine the proposed mediating effects. Results of the three-step testing are shown in Table 4. Focusing on destination loyalty as the outcome variable in step 1, destination fascination exerted significant positive effects (β = 0.68, p < 0.01), resulting in R² of 0.46. In step 2-1, destination fascination was positively and significantly related to subjective well-being (β = 0.65, p < 0.01), causing R² of 0.43. In step 2-2, destination fascination was positively and significantly related to destination attachment (β = 0.71, p < 0.01), causing R² of 0.51. In step 3, destination fascination was not significantly related to destination loyalty though both subjective well-being (β = 0.31, p < 0.05) and destination attachment (β = 0.61, p < 0.01) positively influenced destination loyalty, resulting in R² of 0.81. Taken together, the effect of destination fascination on destination loyalty decreased when including subjective well-being and destination attachment as mediators, demonstrating significant mediating effects of subjective well-being and destination attachment on destination loyalty, thus supporting hypotheses 4 and 5.

Table 4.

Mediator Analysis of Full Model.

Steps	Variable	β	R ²
Step 1
Outcome	Destination Loyalty		.46
Predictor	Destination Fascination	.68^**
Step 2-1
Mediator	Subjective Well-being		.43
Predictor	Destination Fascination	.65^**
Step 2-2
Mediator	Destination Attachment		.51
Predictor	Destination Fascination	.71^**
Step 3
Outcome	Destination Loyalty		.81
Mediator	Subjective Well-being	.31^**
Mediator	Destination Attachment	.61^**
Predictor	Destination Fascination	.05

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01.

Further analysis was performed in the proposed model to determine and clarify the direct and indirect effects of subjective well-being and destination attachment as mediators. Based on results of the full model, Table 5 shows that the total effect of destination fascination on destination loyalty was 0.74 (t = 18.60, p < 0.01), indicating that destination fascination improved destination loyalty. On the other hand, the mediating effects of subjective well-being and destination attachment on the relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty was 0.75 (t = 13.95, p < 0.01). Taken together, these results clarify the complete mediating effects of subjective well-being and destination attachment on the relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty.

Table 5.

Direct and Indirect Effects in the Proposed Model.

Independent Variable	Dependent Variable
Independent Variable	SubjectiveWell-Being (R²=0.50)	Destination Attachment(R²=0.56)	Destination Loyalty(R²=0.80)
Destination Fascination
Direct effects	0.71 (18.71^**)	0.75 (19.33^**)	−0.01 (−0.22)
Indirect effects	−	−	0.75 (13.95^**)
Total effects	0.71 (18.71^**)	0.75 (19.33^**)	0.74 (18.60^**)
Subjective Well-being
Direct effects			0.36 (9.15^**)
Indirect effects			−
Total effects			0.36 (9.15^**)
Destination Attachment
Direct effects			0.66 (13.85^**)
Indirect effects			−
Total effects			0.66 (13.85^**)

Note: Values in parentheses are t values.

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01.

Extensive Validity of the Proposed Model

The overall collected usable data (936 samples) were sorted into three groups based on destination types: national parks (302 samples), forest recreation areas (300 samples), and theme parks (334 samples). Multigroup analysis was performed to test the model equivalence of destination type on the research model to examine differences among the three groups (Kline 2005). Table 6 summarizes the multi-group analysis. Model A shows the baseline with no constraints among the three groups (χ² = 2,133.13, df = 612), model B shows the factor loading invariance among the three groups (χ² = 2,169.99, df = 648), and model C shows the path invariance among the three groups (χ² = 2,176.54, df = 658). A factor loading invariance among the three groups was conducted by testing the significance of the chi-square differences between two models, one in which the factor loadings were constrained to be the same as the three groups and the other without constraints (Bollen 1989). As shown in Table 6, the chi-square difference was nonsignificant, △χ² (36) = 36.86, p > .05, suggesting the existence of factor loading invariance. Therefore, a series of multisample SEMs was later conducted to test and identify the path coefficient invariance of these three groups. Results of testing the path coefficient invariance revealed that there was no significant difference in the chi-square values, △χ²(10) = 6.55, p > .05, thereby accepting the model equivalence of destination type in this research model. Taken together, the analytical results show extensive validity of this research model, proving that no differences exist among the three examined destination types.

Table 6.

Results of Multigroup Analysis.

Models	χ ^²	df	Δχ ^²	Δdf	p Value
A: Baseline (no constraints)	2133.13	612
B: Factor Loading Invariance	2169.99	648	36.86 (B-A)	36	0.43
C: Path Invariance	2176.54	658	6.55 (C-B)	10	0.77

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of destination fascination on destination loyalty, with subjective well-being and destination attachment as mediators. Results of the study showed that destination fascination significantly improved both subjective well-being and destination attachment and that subjective well-being and destination attachment significantly enhanced destination loyalty. Interestingly, there was no significant direct relationship between destination fascination and destination loyalty, supporting the full mediation of both subjective well-being and destination attachment. The full mediating roles of both subjective well-being and destination attachment demonstrate the originality of this study in proposing intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes of destination fascination. These findings enrich the knowledge of destination fascination in the tourism academy (Liu et al. 2017) and extend the understanding of place relationship in environmental psychology (Gifford 2014; Gustafson 2001; Lewicka 2011; Raymond, Brown, and Weber 2010; Scannell and Gifford 2010, 2017; Sundstrom et al. 1996). Moreover, this study examined model equivalence of destination type and found no differences among national parks, forest recreation areas, and theme parks in this model. Since the proposed hypotheses are justified using empirical findings from research in different types of tourism (e.g., island tourism, heritage tourism, nature tourism, and festival tourism) (Davis 2016; Prayag and Ryan 2012; Ramkissoon, Mavondo, and Uysal 2018; Veasna, Wu, and Huang 2013), findings from the model equivalence demonstrate the generalizability of this destination fascination study to apply to other types of destinations. The following sections address theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Theoretical Implications

Following S. Kaplan and Kaplan’s (2009) RPM, this study shows the full mediating roles of subjective well-being and destination attachment in transferring the effects of destination fascination to destination loyalty. It is important to note that by examining the flow of model building–effectiveness–meaningful action of RPM to destination fascination, there is no direct effect of destination fascination (model building) on destination loyalty (meaningful action). This finding validates the applicability of RPM to destination fascination and emphasizes the importance of the effectiveness parameter. In regard to the effectiveness phase, this study enriches the RPM by proposing and examining both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of destination fascination. The significant existence of two mediators, subjective well-being and destination attachment, provide important empirical evidence to add to place relationship literature in environmental psychology regarding ways place experience influences individuals intrinsically (Scannell and Gifford 2017) and extrinsically (Raymond, Brown, and Weber 2010; Scannell and Gifford 2010).

A significant intrinsic aspect of effectiveness, subjective well-being, recalls the study of Brajša-Žganec, Merkaš, and Šverko (2011) regarding values and opportunities for leisure activities to improve subjective well-being. A fascinating destination allows tourists to experience dimensions of fitness, friendliness, uniqueness, attractiveness, mystique, and richness (Liu et al. 2017), creating an experience in which tourists improve subjective well-being. This gain in subjective well-being from a fascinating destination is a key intrinsic mechanism in tourists’ minds because it enables them to enjoy mental recovery, improve mental health, balance the intrinsic mind, and establish a positive attitude toward future work tasks (Ábrahám, Velenczei, and Szabo 2012; Brajša-Žganec, Merkaš, and Šverko 2011; Newman, Tay, and Diener 2014). The intrinsic mechanism of effectiveness as it relates to subjective well-being motivates tourists to extend loyalty toward a fascinating destination because they want to regain or re-experience improved subjective well-being that is generated through destination fascination. Findings about subjective well-being in this study add knowledge to tourism literature regarding antecedents and outcomes of tourists’ subjective well-being (Guite, Clark, and Ackrill 2006; H. Kim et al. 2015; Lee et al. 2014; Ramkissoon, Mavondo, and Uysal 2018).

On the other hand, significant extrinsic aspects of effectiveness in destination attachment recall the function of PCM by Beaton and Funk (2008). The role of destination attachment in effectiveness expands the scope of effects of destination fascination from changing tourists’ intrinsic minds to establishing an extrinsic mental connection. As Beaton and Funk (2008) argued in PCM, passionate sports fans mentally build attachments to leisure sports, and this study found that tourists who experience fascination for a destination may also perceive strong attachment to the destination. Findings about destination attachment in this study extend understanding about the antecedents and outcomes of destination fascination in tourism literature (Davis 2016; Prayag and Ryan 2012; Stylos et al. 2017; Veasna, Wu, and Huang 2013). Through destination attachment, tourists identify dependence on and recognition for a fascinating destination (Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010) and, further, retain loyalty toward the destination (Prayag and Ryan 2012). Tourists who perceive attachment with a fascinating destination possess loyalty toward that destination because the destination has meaning to them, and they tend to sustain stable psychological involvement and mental attachment to the destination (Funk and James 2001; Korpela et al. 2001; Morgan 2010).

Another theoretical contribution of this study is the examination of the extensive validity of this research model in national parks, forest recreation areas, and theme parks. As suggested by former studies (e.g., Bacharach 1989), testing a research model in different types of settings is meaningful and clarifies the validity and reliability of the model within other boundaries. Different from Velarde, Fry, and Tveit (2007), who found that people generally feel better and become healthier in natural environments than urban environments, it is exciting that this study found model equivalence across national parks (natural environments), forest recreation areas (natural environments), and theme parks (artificial environments). The multigroup analysis of destination type in this study provides insightful implications supporting the argument that although people generally feel differently in natural and urban environments (Velarde, Fry, and Tveit 2007), the mechanism driving these outcomes may be the same. That is, tourists may experience high fascination in different types of destinations, improve subjective well-being and destination attachment by visiting different fascinating destinations, and accumulate loyalty toward certain fascinating destinations as a result of the mediating effects of subjective well-being and destination attachment.

Practical Implications

From the analytical results, this study contributes two practical implications for destination marketing organizations (DMOs): one focuses on the intrinsic mechanism of subjective well-being and the other emphasizes the extrinsic mechanism of destination attachment. First, DMOs should make sure they establish fascination for a destination that could significantly improve their targeted tourists’ subjective well-being. Dimensions of destination fascination, such as fitness, friendliness, uniqueness, attractiveness, mystique, and richness (Liu et al. 2017) should be used as elements in creating well-being–driven fascinating destination experiences. For example, DMOs of destinations targeting dating couples could improve tourists’ subjective well-being by guiding tourists to experience fascination in love-related dimensions, such as mystique from local love stories, friendliness from customized memorable dating services, or richness from diverse dining locations and designs. By generating fascinating elements to attract tourists to their destination, DMOs can help tourists improve subjective well-being. Dating couples who gain subjective well-being from such a fascinating destination then potentially develop loyalty to the destination as a unique place to experience and relive romantic feelings.

Second, DMOs should design experiences to help their target tourists develop attachments for their fascinating destination. For example, destinations targeting family tourism could offer co-creation art activities for parents and children to create uniqueness in the destination, tour activities for families to enjoy attractiveness at the destination, and family-friendly facilities and services for tourists to promote friendliness at the destination. By strengthening dimensions of destination fascination based on features of family tourism, DMOs could increase their targeted tourists’ destination attachment because parents and children feel the destination has meaning to them; the parents and children would then be motivated to share good things about the destination and plan their next visit because of the connection they feel for the destination and the significance of the destination to them.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Although this study attempts to examine the proposed model at different types of destination, the sample destinations are all in Taiwan, and the majority of participants are Taiwanese. Future studies could meaningfully explore tourists’ experiences with destination fascination across cultural settings to determine if outcomes for destination fascination are different in cross-cultural settings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits a deeper understanding of the longitudinal dynamic outcomes of destination fascination. Therefore, future studies would do well to seek tourists for longitudinal participation with an expectation of augmenting findings through continued reporting about tourists’ feelings and actions toward a fascinating destination. Third, this study only examines the direct and indirect effects of destination fascination and lacks testing of moderating effects. Therefore, future studies should propose moderators to strengthen or reduce the proposed effects of this model.

Footnotes

Appendix: Survey Items

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research under Contract No. MOST 104-2410-H-018-029-MY2.

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 authors thank the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan for financially supporting this research under Contract No. MOST 104-2410-H-018 -029 -MY2.

ORCID iDs

Yao-Chin Wang

Wen-Shiung Huang

Author Biographies

Yao-Chin Wang is an Assistant Professor in the School of Human Environmental Sciences at the University of Arkansas in the United States. His research interests include strategic brand management, festival and event management, services marketing, employee positive psychology, and tourist psychology and behavior.

Chyong-Ru Liu is a Professor in the Department of Marketing and Tourism Management at National Chiayi University. Her research interests include tourism branding, ecotourism, festival tourism, destination management, and tourism marketing.

Wen-Shiung Huang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Tourism and Leisure Management at Ling Tung University. His research interests include leisure participants’ place attachment, tourism employees’ leisure life, and outdoor recreation management.

Shan-Pei Chen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Tourism and Hospitality at Taipei City University of Science and Technology. Her research interests include tourism marketing, customer relationship management, e-commerce in tourism, and the MICE industry.

References

Ábrahám

Velenczei

Szabo

. 2012. “Perceived Determinants of Well-Being and Enjoyment Level of Leisure Activities.” Leisure Sciences 34 (3): 199–216.

Bacharach

S. B.

1989. “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 496–515.

Bagozzi

R. P.

. 1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94.

Beaton

A. A.

Funk

D. C

. 2008. “An Evaluation of Theoretical Frameworks for Studying Physically Active Leisure.” Leisure Sciences 30 (1): 53–70.

Berto

2005. “Exposure to Restorative Environments Helps Restore Attentional Capacity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3): 249–59.

Berto

Baroni

M. R.

Zainaghi

Bettella

. 2010. “An Exploratory Study of the Effect of High and Low Fascination Environments on Attentional Fatigue.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 494–500.

Berto

Massaccesi

Pasini

. 2008. “Do Eye Movements Measured across High and Low Fascination Photographs Differ? Addressing Kaplan’s Fascination Hypothesis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (2): 185–91.

Bollen

K. A.

1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brajša-Žganec

Merkaš

Šverko

. 2011. “Quality of Life and Leisure Activities: How Do Leisure Activities Contribute to Subjective Well-Being?” Social Indicators Research 102 (1): 81–91.

10.

Brakus

J. J.

Schmitt

B. H.

Zarantonello

. 2009. “Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing 73 (3): 52–68.

11.

Carter

S. D.

2004. “Reexamining the Temporal Aspects of Affect: Relationships between Repeatedly Measured Affective State, Subjective Well-Being, and Affective Disposition.” Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2): 381–91.

12.

Chi

C. G.-Q.

. 2008. “Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach.” Tourism Management 29 (4): 624–36.

13.

Cohen

Spacapan

. 1978. “The Aftereffects of Stress: An Attentional Interpretation.” Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior 3 (1): 43–57.

14.

Corbett

J. B.

2005. “Altruism, Self-Interest, and the Reasonable Person Model of Environmentally Responsible Behavior.” Science Communication 26 (4): 368–89.

15.

Davis

2016. “Experiential Places or Places of Experience? Place Identity and Place Attachment as Mechanisms for Creating Festival Environment.” Tourism Management 55:49–61.

16.

Dick

A. S.

Basu

. 1994. “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2): 99–113.

17.

Diener

1984. “Subjective Well-Being.” Psychological Bulletin 95 (3): 542–75.

18.

Diener

Lucas

R. E

. 2004. “Subjective Emotional Well-Being.” In Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed., edited by M. Lewis Haviland-Jones

J. M.

, 325–37. New York: Guilford.

19.

Fielding

K. S.

Head

B. W

. 2012. “Determinants of Young Australians’ Environmental Actions: The Role of Responsibility Attributions, Locus of Control, Knowledge and Attitudes.” Environmental Education Research 18 (2): 171–86.

20.

Fornell

C. R.

Larcker

D. F

. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.

21.

Funk

D. C.

James

. 2001. “The Psychological Continuum Model: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding an Individual’s Psychological Connection to Sport.” Sport Management Review 4 (2): 119–50.

22.

Gerbing

D. W.

Anderson

J. C

. 1988. “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment.” Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2): 186–92.

23.

Gifford

2014. “Environmental Psychology Matters.” Annual Review of Psychology 65:541–79.

24.

Grzeskowiak

Sirgy

. 2007. “Consumer Well-Being (CWB): The Effects of Self-Image Congruence, Brand Community Belongingness, Brand Loyalty, and Consumption Recency.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 2 (4): 289–304.

25.

Guite

Clark

Ackrill

. 2006. “The Impact of the Physical and Urban Environment on Mental Well-Being.” Public Health 120 (12): 1117–26.

26.

Gustafson

2001. “Meanings of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical Conceptualizations.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (1): 5–16.

27.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E

. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

28.

Hartig

van den Berg

A. E.

Hagerhall

C. M.

Tomalak

Bauer

Hansmann

Ojala

Syngollitou

Carrus

van Herzele

, et al. 2011. “Health Benefits of Nature Experience: Psychological, Social and Cultural Processes.” In Forests, Trees and Human Health, edited by Nilsson

Sangster

Gallis

Hartig

de Vries

Seeland

Schipperijn

, 127–68. Berlin: Springer Science.

29.

Herzog

T. R.

Maguire

Nebel

M. B

. 2003. “Assessing the Restorative Components of Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2): 159–70.

30.

Herzog

T. R.

Strevey

S. J

. 2008. “Contact with Nature, Sense of Humor, and Psychological Well-Being.” Environment and Behavior 40 (6): 747–76.

31.

Hidalgo

M. C.

Hernandez

. 2001. “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (3): 273–81.

32.

Hutchinson

Lai

Wang

. 2009. “Understanding the Relationships of Quality, Value, Equity, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions among Golf Travelers.” Tourism Management 30 (2): 298–308.

33.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

2005. “Mental Models and Thought.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, edited by K. J. Holyoak Morrison

R. G.

, 185–208. New York: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

. 1993. LISREL8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

35.

Judd

C. M.

Kenny

D. A

. 2010. Data Analysis in Social Psychology: Recent and Recurring Issues. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Kaplan

. 1978. Humanscape: Environments for People. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

37.

Kaplan

. 2011. “Well-Being, Reasonableness, and the Natural Environment.” Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 3 (3): 304–21.

38.

Kaplan

1983. “A Model of Person-Environment Compatibility.” Environment and Behavior 15 (3): 311–32.

39.

Kaplan

1995. “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (3): 169–82.

40.

Kaplan

. 2009. “Creating a Larger Role for Environmental Psychology: The Reasonable Person Model as an Integrative Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (3): 329–39.

41.

Kashdan

T. B.

2004. “The Assessment of Subjective Well-Being (Issues Raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire).” Personality and Individual Differences 36 (5): 1225–32.

42.

Kim

Lee

Uysal

Kim

Ahn

. 2015. “Nature-Based Tourism: Motivation and Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32:S76–96.

43.

Kim

W. G.

Kim

H.-B

. 2009. “The Effects of Perceived Justice on Recovery Satisfaction, Trust, Word-of-Mouth, and Revisit Intention in Upscale Hotels.” Tourism Management 30 (1): 51–62.

44.

Kline

R. B.

2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.

45.

Korpela

K. M.

Hartig

Kaiser

F. G.

Fuhrer

. 2001. “Restorative Experience and Self-Regulation in Favorite Places.” Environment and Behavior 33 (4): 572–89.

46.

Lam

Hsu

C. H

. 2006. “Predicting Behavioral Intention of Choosing a Travel Destination.” Tourism Management 27 (4): 589–99.

47.

Lee

D.-J.

Kruger

Whang

M.-J.

Uysal

Sirgy

M. J

. 2014. “Validating a Customer Well-Being Index Related to Natural Wildlife Tourism.” Tourism Management 45:171–80.

48.

Lewicka

2011. “Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (3): 207–30.

49.

Litvin

S. W.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Pan

. 2008. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Hospitality and Tourism Management.” Tourism Management 29 (3): 458–68.

50.

Liu

C. R.

Wang

Y. C.

Huang

W. S.

Chen

S. P

. 2017. “Destination Fascination: Conceptualization and Scale Development.” Tourism Management 63:255–67.

51.

Loureiro

S. M. C. L.

Kaufmann

H. R

. 2012. “Explaining Love of Wine Brands.” Journal of Promotion Management 18 (3): 329–43.

52.

Moray

1990. “Designing for Transportation Safety in the Light of Perception, Attention, and Mental Models.” Ergonomics 33 (10/11): 1201–13.

53.

Morgan

2010. “Towards a Developmental Theory of Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 11–22.

54.

National Statistics R.O.C. 2017. “National Income Statistical Common Information.” August 10, 2017. http://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=37407&CtNode=3564&mp=4.

55.

Newman

D. B.

Tay

Diener

. 2014. “Leisure and Subjective Well-Being: A Model of Psychological Mechanisms as Mediating Factors.” Journal of Happiness Studies 15 (3): 555–78.

56.

Oliver

R. L.

1999. “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing 63:33–44.

57.

Oppermann

2000. “Tourism destination loyalty.” Journal of Travel Research 39 (1): 78–84.

58.

Phillips

W. J.

Wolfe

Hodur

Leistritz

F. L

. 2013. “Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations: A Case of North Dakota, USA.” International Journal of Tourism Research 15 (1): 93–104.

59.

Prayag

Ryan

. 2012. “Antecedents of Tourists’ Loyalty to Mauritius: The Role and Influence of Destination Image, Place Attachment, Personal Involvement, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (3): 342–56.

60.

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

Uysal

. 2018. “Social Involvement and Park Citizenship as Moderators for Quality-of-Life in a National Park.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26 (3): 341–61.

61.

Raymond

C. M.

Brown

Weber

. 2010. “The Measurement of Place Attachment: Personal, Community, and Environmental Connections.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 422–34.

62.

Scannell

Gifford

. 2010. “Defining Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 1–10.

63.

Scannell

Gifford

. 2017. “The Experienced Psychological Benefits of Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 51:256–69.

64.

Simpson

P. M.

Siguaw

J. A

. 2008. “Destination Word of Mouth: The Role of Traveler Type, Residents, and Identity Salience.” Journal of Travel Research 47 (2): 167–82.

65.

Stylos

Bellou

Andronikidis

Vassiliadis

C. A

. 2017. “Linking the Dots Among Destination Images, Place Attachment, and Revisit Intentions: A Study among British and Russian Tourists.” Tourism Management 60:15–29.

66.

Sundstrom

Bell

P. A.

Busby

P. L.

Asmus

. 1996. “Environmental Psychology 1989–1994.” Annual Review of Psychology 47 (1): 485–512.

67.

Tasci

A. D.

Gartner

W. C

. 2007. “Destination Image and Its Functional Relationships.” Journal of Travel Research 45 (4): 413–25.

68.

Chon

. 2006. “Antecedents of Revisit Intention.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4): 1141–58.

69.

Uysal

Sirgy

M. J.

Woo

Kim

H. L

. 2016. “Quality of Life (QOL) and Well-Being Research in Tourism.” Tourism Management 53:244–61.

70.

Veasna

W.-Y.

Huang

C.-H

. 2013. “The Impact of Destination Source Credibility on Destination Satisfaction: The Mediating Effects of Destination Attachment and Destination Image.” Tourism Management 36:511–26.

71.

Velarde

M. D.

Fry

Tveit

. 2007. “Health Effects of Viewing Landscapes—Landscape Types in Environmental Psychology.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6 (4):199–212.

72.

White

Smith

Humphryes

Pahl

Snelling

Depledge

. 2010. “Blue Space: The Importance of Water for Preference, Affect, and Restorativeness Ratings of Natural and Built Scenes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 482–93.

73.

Yoon

Uysal

. 2005. “An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model.” Tourism Management 26 (1): 45–56.

74.

Yuksel

Bilim

. 2010. “Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management 31 (2): 274–84.