The Low-Carbon Tourism Experience: A Multidimensional Scale Development

Abstract

This study first conceptualized and developed a reliable and valid scale to assess low-carbon tourism experience (LCTE) from the perspective of nature-based tourists. In Stage 1, a 66-item scale was developed using a series of qualitative methods. In Stage 2, 662 usable questionnaires were collected; in turn, confirmatory factor analysis was used to develop a 40-item reliable and valid scale consisting of seven constructs: sensory experience, affective experience, learning experience, sociocultural experience, behavioral experience, escapism experience, and prestige experience. In Stage 3, the cross-validation of this 40-item scale was verified by demonstrating moderate replication of the data using 466 and 523 respondents from forest- and wetland-based destinations, respectively. The application of this LCTE scale may provide guidance to tourists and managers alike for reducing the carbon emissions caused by tourism activities, thereby potentially contributing to sustainable tourism development. This study extends the theoretical LCTE framework into the operational realm of tourism management by rendering LCTE perceptible and assessable, which represents a significant contribution to the sustainable tourism literature.

Keywords

low-carbon tourism experience scale development cross-validation

Introduction

Recently, the issue of climate change has been widely discussed (Font & Hindley, 2017; Scott & Becken, 2010), and according to Cabrini, Simpson, and Scott (2009), approximately 5% of CO₂ emissions originate from the tourism industry; however, when radiative forcing is considered, that percentage may increase to 14% (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017). Transportation represents approximately 75% of the CO₂ emissions of the tourism industry (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017). The intensive use of energy in the lodging industry is also contributing to the gradual worsening of climate change (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017).

Consuming much electricity, water, fuel, and food, tourism is regarded as a hedonistic consumerism (Font & McCabe, 2017). For reducing carbon emission in tourism context, low-carbon tourism is proposed as an alternative tourism type to reduce carbon emissions during tourism activities (Becken, 2017). As nature-based tourism activities are sensitive to forecast climate change impacts (Scott, Jones, & Konopek, 2007), nature-based tourists may experience climate change more acutely than other tourist types (Tervo-Kankare, 2011). With this as a motivation, this study chooses nature-based tourism rather than another tourism typology to conceptualized and developed a valid scale to assess low-carbon tourism experience (LCTE) from the perspective of nature-based tourists.

Becken (2017) suggested that transportation is the most important issue to overcome for developing low-carbon tourism. To reduce the environmental impact of tourism, several scholars have proposed alternative travel modes to mass tourism, such as “slow travel” (Dickinson, Lumsdon, & Robbins, 2011), “compassion tourism” (Weaver & Jin, 2016), and “low-carbon tourism” (Becken, 2017) to encourage sustainable tourism development. Tourists can reduce emissions in the tourism sector by modifying how they travel, including by traveling fewer miles, using lower emission transportation options (Becken, 2017), staying longer in one destination, using environmentally friendly products (Dickinson et al., 2011), and using alternative energies (Becken, 2017). Meanwhile, Dickinson et al. (2011) have indicated that tourists can reduce emissions by using low-carbon emission transportation options and experiencing local history, food, and culture in depth. Thus, tourists’ adoption of low-carbon practices is crucial to reducing carbon emissions.

In the marketing context, experience is an important element that influences customer behavior and intention. For example, Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) have indicated that past experiences affect customers’ future behavior. Moreover, a company that provides unforgettable and satisfactory experiences may foster tourists’ recommendation intention and subsequently increase customer satisfaction and loyalty (Hosany & Witham, 2010). In the context of nature-based tourism, tourism experiences can be considered predictors of environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) among tourists (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b; Lee, Jan, & Huang, 2015). Lee, Jan, Tseng, and Lin (2018) suggested that different recreation experience segments have different ERB engagements. Providing educational experiences may also increase environmental attitudes among tourists/students, which may in turn encourage them to engage in ERB (Duerden & Witt, 2010; Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). As discussed above, because on-site recreation experiences may affect both human environmental behavior and behavioral intention, a detailed exploration of LCTEs, which indicate that tourists enjoy tourism destinations, is warranted to promote sustainable tourism.

Schmitt (1999) has proposed that experience should include five components (i.e., sensing, feeling, thinking, acting, and relating) from a marketing perspective. Several scholars have adopted Schmitt’s (1999) construct to study tourism experiences, such as wine tourism experience (Lee & Chang, 2012) and wildlife experience (Ballantyne, Packer, & Sutherland, 2011a). However, Pine and Gilmore (1998) have suggested that experience should also include entertainment, educational, escapist, and esthetic experiences. Several studies have used Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) findings to measure cruising experience (Hosany & Witham, 2010), show experience (Pearce & Wu, 2018), and nature-based recreation experience (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). Unfortunately, the conceptualization of LCTE remains undetermined; more work is needed to help conceptualize LCTE.

Low-carbon tourism provides a high-quality travel experience and in a low-carbon economy, a new form of tourism (Becken, 2017). Low-carbon tourism has recently become popular as an alternative tourism model for tourists interested in mitigating climate change (Becken, 2017). The “International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development 2017” has identified “resource efficiency, environmental protection and climate change” as the one of the five goals of tourism (International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, 2018). The UNWTO (2016b) also provided an energy-saving solution, namely, near zero-energy consumption. As such, low-carbon efforts have garnered increased attention in the tourism industry. By experiencing low-carbon tourism, tourists’ sensory and emotion experiences can be aroused, which may help tourists find participating low-carbon tourism necessary and engage in environmental behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2011a; Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). For promoting sustainable tourism, tourists and destination managers would have a better understanding of LCTE, which will reduce carbon emissions as much as possibly during and planning tourism activities. However, no studies have been conducted that conceptualize and measure tourists’ LCTE. Thus, conceptualizing and developing a scale to measure tourists’ LCTE is necessary to extend our knowledge of low-carbon tourism and to support the promotion of sustainable tourism.

This study aims to fill the gaps in the current literature by conceptualizing and developing a reliable and valid scale to measure LCTE of tourists via three stages. First, a literature review was conducted, and the Delphi method was used to establish the measurement items. Second, the instrument was developed and tested. Third, cross-validation was used to assess and verify the scale.

Theoretical Framework

Low-Carbon Tourism

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) increased between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and its Fifth Assessment Report (Victor et al., 2014), and the continuing increase of GHGs is causing climate change, which substantially affects humans and all of nature. Tourism has become an important industry in recent years, contributing to 9.8% of global GDP and providing 284 million jobs in 2015 (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2016). However, nearly 54% of overnight tourists travel by air, and air travel is growing faster than surface transport modes (UNWTO, 2016a). Moreover, emissions produced by the energy used for accommodations constitute another major contributor to GHGs. The Davos Declaration has indicated that the tourism industry must take action to mitigate GHGs resulting from transport and accommodation (UNWTO, 2007). In the tourism context, a carbon footprint is calculated based on both the entire industry (Dwyer, Forsyth, Spurr, & Hoque, 2010) and specific tourism activities (Dawson, Stewart, Lemelin, & Scott, 2010). Previous studies have indicated that the tourism industry’s carbon footprint derives primarily from air travel. Although travelers are aware of climate change and global warming, most remain unwilling to make any changes in their travel modes (McKercher, Prideaux, Cheung, & Law, 2010).

To promote carbon neutrality, voluntary carbon offsetting options are offered by several airlines. European tourists exploit these voluntary options more frequently than Asian tourists because there is more emphasis on carbon offsetting in social marketing in Europe than in Asia (McLennan, Becken, Battye, & So, 2014). Lumsdon and McGrath (2011) have suggested that an alternative travel mode such as slow travel may reduce air travel and carbon emissions from tourism. Short-haul travel encourages tourists to use low-carbon transportation (e.g., walking, bicycling, trains, and carpooling) instead of traveling by air, which effectively reduces the environmental impact of their travel and allows them to enjoy local experiences (Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011).

Scholars have demonstrated the “tourist paradox” of climate change awareness and tourism destination choice (McKercher et al., 2010), and tourism suppliers are reluctant to adopt emission-reduction practices (Kasim & Ismail, 2012). Unfortunately, because of the impact of global warming, some fragile areas (e.g., Antarctica, Arctic, and glaciers) will become “last chance tourism” destinations (Dawson et al., 2010; Dawson et al., 2011). Thus, promoting low-carbon tourism is urgent.

Conceptualizing the Low-Carbon Tourism Experience

Kolb’s (1984) proposed the experiential learning cycle theory, which suggests that an individual can change behaviors through experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. As such, experience is an important factor to change individual behavior (e.g., adapting a low-carbon travel mode). Experience involves philosophy, cognitive science, marketing, and management; thus, it is complex and should be measured multidimensionally (Brakus et al., 2009; Schmitt, 1999). Schmitt (1999) has suggested that customer experience should include rational and emotional experiences, which can be classified as sense, feel, think, act, and relate. Based on customer participation and connection to the environment, Pine and Gilmore (1998) have suggested that there are two dimensions of memorable experiences—customer participation and connection to the environment—that can be categorized into four constructs: entertainment, education, esthetics, and escapism. Based on the findings of Brakus et al. (2009), Pine and Gilmore (1998), and Schmitt (1999), sensory, affective, educational, and escapism experiences are important factors of the consumer experience.

Similar to consumer experience, tourism experience is crucial and has been intensively assessed in the literature, such as island-based recreation experience (Lee, Jan, et al., 2018), rural tourism experience (Kastenholz, Carneiro, Marques, & Loureiro, 2018), cuisine experience (Lee, Chao, & Lin, 2018), and camping tourism experience (Mikulić, Prebežac, Šerić, & Krešić, 2017). Tourism experience influences tourists’ satisfaction in a positive manner (Kastenholz et al., 2018), provides destination managers’ management and marketing strategies (Mikulić et al., 2017), represents tourists’ culture awareness (Lee, Chao, et al., 2018) and ERBs (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b; Lee, Jan, et al., 2015; Lee, Jan, et al., 2018). Hence, tourism experience can be regarded as a consumer experience, and thus, sensory, affective, learning, and escapist experiences can be included in the constructs of the LCTE.

According to Scott and Becken (2010), slow travel, which is similar to low-carbon tourism, is an alternative travel mode that reduces carbon emissions as much as possible while traveling. Lumsdon and McGrath (2011) have suggested that the primary element of the travel experience involves interacting with local people, culture, and landscapes. Thus, the sociocultural experience and behavior can be included in the constructs of the LCTE.

Kim (2012) has suggested that tourists may feel prestige because they undertake a wonderful journey, and prestige is a pull factor that motivates tourists to visit a tourism destination (McIntosh & Gupta, 1977). Therefore, tourists who engage in an LCTE have opportunities to distinguish themselves and demonstrate their prestige by participating in a wonderful journey that also helps reduce global warming and promote sustainable tourism.

Low-carbon tourism is a type of tourism, a slow-travel mode, and an alternative tourism (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). Nature-based destinations such as national parks or wetlands attract tourists to visit by walking, trails, or slowly travel to have their recreation experiences (Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011), which meets the requirement of low-carbon tourism. Nature-based tourists in such destinations can be typically regarded as low-carbon tourists (Weston & Mota, 2012). Nature-based tourists choose to experience nature-based destinations because they seek a learning experience, sensory experience, and affective experience about other parts of the environments and ecosystems (Mehmetoglu, 2007). As the nature-based tourists devote their attention to specific activities that may increase their environmental and sociocultural knowledge and behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2011b; Lee, Jan, et al., 2015), they feel prestige experience (O’Reilly, 2006). It is interesting, assessing and integrating these dimensions relate to LCTE of nature-based tourists. We thus conceptualize LCTE as involving dimensions of sensory, affective, learning, sociocultural, behavioral, escapist, and prestige experience.

Sensory Experience

Sensory experience during travel is derived from sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell (Lee & Chang, 2012). By using low-carbon emission transport options, tourists may have more opportunities to view beautiful scenery, hear the sounds of animals, taste local food, and smell the scents of nature (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). Sensory experiences can help tourists identify tourism products, increase the value of tourism, and encourage individuals to engage in tourism (Schmitt, 1999). Moreover, sensory experiences provide a better understanding of a locality than indirect experience (Ballantyne et al., 2011a). Brakus et al. (2009) have suggested that sensory experience consists of the esthetic experience suggested by Pine and Gilmore (1998), which elicits important responses from tourists. Sensory experiences provide a deep impression that may last for an extended period of time (Ballantyne et al., 2011b).

Affective Experience

Affective experience arouses tourists’ positive emotions and feelings regarding tourism (Schmitt, 1999). Emotions come from contact and interaction with the local area and people during a visit. Scholars have indicated that emotional responses include the dimensions of arousal, pleasure, and dominance (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). A destination’s environment stimulates a psychological response among tourists that involves emotional experiences and behaviors (Lee, Fu, & Chang, 2015). Tourists convert sensory experiences into empathy for a locality and feel an emotional connection with a place, which may cause them to reflect and change their behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2011a). Thus, affective experience is an important dimension of LCTE.

Learning Experience

Learning experiences involve cognitive and problem-solving experiences during travel (Schmitt, 1999). Pine and Gilmore (1998) have suggested that learning/education experiences attract tourists who want to learn something new. Learning may increase the richness of tourists’ experiences when tourists perceive challenges and the learning environment is controlled by them (Poulsson & Kale, 2004). For tourists, gaining environmental knowledge during tourism activities is an important and achievable travel goal (Duerden & Witt, 2010).

Scholars have indicated that the educational/learning construct of tourism experience has affected tourists’ on-site ERB (Lee, Jan, et al., 2015). Providing learning settings that motivate tourists to learn and that reinforce their future behavior is important. In the tourism context, Fennell and Weaver (2005) have indicated that ecotourism should provide learning opportunities for tourists to learn to reduce their impact on the environment. Tourists with more environmental and ecosystem concerns may exhibit ERBs voluntarily, which benefits sustainable tourism (Lee & Jan, 2015a).

Sociocultural Experience

Sociocultural experience involves eating local food and engaging with hosts and cultures during travel (Dickinson et al., 2011). Engagement with people and places is an important motivation and tourism experience (Dickinson et al., 2011). Tourists are generally unfamiliar with the local culture, and they can become familiar with a great deal about local culture, local history, and traditions through sociocultural experiences (Stem, Lassoie, Lee, Deshler, & Schelhas, 2003). Thus, tourists can experience local culture and people slowly and in more depth using low-emission travel modes.

Low-carbon tourism provides more opportunities for tourists to interact with local culture, food, and people than mass tourism (Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). By endeavoring to understand the society and culture of local residents, tourists may gain respect for a local area and develop a sense of place (Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011).

Behavioral Experience

Behavioral experience refers to certain types of behavioral responses to a tourism destination through specific tourism stimuli (Brakus et al., 2009), and behavioral experience focuses on physical changes or new behaviors (Ballantyne et al., 2011b; Schmitt, 1999). By participating in opportunities for environmental education, tourists may take different/new actions (e.g., they can look for more information on environmental issues, talk about environmental issues with friends and family, and accept more responsibility at home and when traveling) to reduce their environmental impact (Ballantyne et al., 2011a). Behavioral experience may influence individuals’ behavior and is thus is a crucial component of sustainable tourism (Brakus et al., 2009).

Escapism Experience

Escapist experiences are highly immersive events in which tourists participate actively; tourists are engrossed and absorbed in activities that are completely different from those they experience in their daily lives (Hosany & Witham, 2010). Escapist experiences have been considered a dimension for assessing nature-based recreation experiences, such as cruising experiences (Hosany & Witham, 2010), wildlife tourism experiences (Ballantyne et al., 2011a), and intertidal zone experiences (Lee, Jan, et al., 2015). Participating in an on-site tourism experience that involves recreation experiences can motivate them to implement general ERBs in their daily lives and site-specific ERBs at tourist destinations (Lee, Jan, et al., 2015). Involving tourists and obtaining their input and feedback may increase the escapism experience (Poulsson & Kale, 2004).

Destination managers can provide engaging, interesting, and enjoyable environments to enhance tourists’ escapist experiences (Shernoff, Csikszentmihaiyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003). Moreover, through escapist experiences, tourists learn about specific activities and the environment, which can increase their environmental attitudes and encourage them to engage in ERBs, thus contributing to sustainable tourism (Lee, Jan, et al., 2015).

Prestige Experience

Prestige is an important motivation for tourism that meets tourists’ interpersonal needs (Correia & Moital, 2009). Individuals perceive prestige for themselves and others around them while engaging in certain types of tourism activities (Kim, 2012; R. W. Riley, 1995). These tourism activities are extraordinary compared with typical tourism (R. W. Riley, 1995), and include activities such as luxury cruises (Hwang & Han, 2014), backpacking (O’Reilly, 2006), and tourists’ food consumption (Mak, Lumbers, Eves, & Chang, 2013). Prestige experience may be influenced by sociodemographic variables (Correia & Moital, 2009; R. W. Riley, 1995), different perspectives (R. W. Riley, 1995), and different situations (R. W. Riley, 1995). Moreover, prestige experience may influence consumers’ attitude on luxury tourism’s loyalty (Hwang & Han, 2014), destination food consumption (Mak et al., 2013), and backpacker tourism engagement (O’Reilly, 2006). Because low-carbon tourism is an alternative type of tourism that may enhance individuals’ status and increase their prestige by implementing environmental sustainability (O’Reilly, 2006). Prestige experiences therefore may be a pivotal dimension of LCTE.

The Empirical Survey

Stage 1: Development of the Measures

Developing the Measurement Items

This stage aimed to develop the measurement items for LCTEs. Using the above LCTE constructs, the measurement items were obtained from the related literature via various database. Related articles were identified using keywords such as “Low-carbon tourism experience,” “Low-carbon recreational experience,” “Low-carbon tourism,” “Slow travel,” “Slow tourism,” “Slow tourism,” “Carbon footprints,” “Ecological footprints,” “Locality experience,” “Benefit to local community,” and “Benefit to destination.” The measurement items that were originally in English were translated into Chinese by the authors to develop a Chinese version. Subsequently, to minimize translation bias, we invited two native English speakers who are acquainted with Chinese to back-translate the items into English. The authors then developed the Chinese version by comparing the meaning of each translated item with that of the item in its original language. Any inconsistencies between the Chinese and English versions were discussed by repeating the back-translation until the final wording was determined (Van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996).

Next, applying the Delphi approach, opinions were solicited regarding the importance of the measurement items, and consensus was reached for specific concerns (Miller, 2001). Because fuzzy set theory can improve shortcomings in the method by avoiding distortion in individual expert opinions and clearly expressing the semantic structure of predicted items (Murray, Pipino, & Gigch, 1985), a fuzzy Delphi survey was employed to assess the conceptualization and measurement of LCTEs. Thirteen experts (including 10 professors of tourism and 3 tourism managers) were selected to carry out the fuzzy Delphi survey in October 2015. The consensus values were determined using two triangular fuzzy numbers (Cheng & Lin, 2002).

Results

After searching for the aforementioned keywords, 32 articles with topics relevant to tourism experience, low-carbon tourism, and slow travel were identified, assuring the suitability for the assessment of LCTE. In total, 148 items for initially measuring LCTE were collected from the 32 articles. These 148 items were screened because of similar meanings, not suitable for low-carbon tourism or Taiwanese culture, and not related to experience attributes. After the screening, 67 items remained. These 67 items were classified into seven constructs: sensory, affective, learning, sociocultural, behavioral, escapist, and prestige experiences.

According to the analytical results of the first round of the fuzzy Delphi survey, one item was added based on the experts’ suggestions. Because consensus did not exist for three of the items, a second round of fuzzy Delphi examination was conducted. After the second round, consensus was not achieved for two items. In sum, two items were dropped, and one item was added after the second round. Therefore, the research instrument for Stage 2 consisted of 66 items (see the Appendix).

Stage 2: Refine the Research Instrument

Study Sites

To overcome mobility, carbon emission, local development, and tourists’ satisfaction issues, slow travel has emerged to represent low-carbon tourism (Becken, 2017; Dickinson et al., 2011). Nature-based tourism destinations are often located on rural or remote areas and offer various activities, which is suitable for developing low-carbon tourism or slow travel (Pouta, Neuvonen, & Sievänen, 2006). From these experiencing activities, tourists may understand a locality in great detail (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). As such, two nature-based tourism destinations were introduced in this stage.

The Yushan National Park and Najenshan Ecological Reserve Area (in Kenting National Park) were selected as the study areas because one represents the largest national park and the other represents the first national park in Taiwan. Moreover, these two national parks are important and representative nature-based tourism destinations in Taiwan and can provide various LCTE opportunities for nature-based tourists. These two study areas have been frequently used to assess the various behavioral frameworks of nature-based tourists (e.g., Lai, Hsu, & Wearing, 2016; Lee & Jan, 2015a; Lee, Jan, et al., 2018).

Research Instrument

A pretest was conducted at Yushan National Park in October 2015 using the 66 items obtained in Stage 1. In total, 131 valid questionnaires were collected using a systematic sampling approach (sampling 1 out of every 10 tourists), which was adjusted in accordance with the number of tourists pass the survey site at any given time (Neuman, 2006). An item analysis was performed to assess the Likert-type scales. Each questionnaire item was assessed by item analysis using parameters that included Cronbach’s alpha, the mean, the standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, relation coefficients, and factor loadings; any item with two or more unacceptable criteria was deleted. Based on the item analysis and feedback from the six tourists, five items were dropped. Moreover, based on suggestions made by three of the experts, 16 items were removed because they were not suitable for low-carbon tourism or Taiwanese social structure or had similar meanings; three items were modified to clarify the meanings, leaving 41 items. The final questionnaire contained seven sections: sensory experience (8 items), affective experience (9), learning experience (9), sociocultural experience (7), behavioral experience (3), escapism experience (6), and prestige experience (3). The item responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

The respondents’ characteristics (including gender, marital status, age, educational level, occupation, residential region, and monthly income) were also collected via the questionnaire.

Sample and Survey

The questionnaire survey was conducted between early November 2015 and early January 2016. Nine well-trained research assistants administered the survey. The sampling locations were positioned at sites where tourists would be sure to visit at the two study areas. Respondents were sampled as they departed via the exit areas of the selected locations using a systematic sampling approach (Neuman, 2006; every 10th tourist was sampled) during daylight hours. A small gift was given to respondents when they finished the questionnaire. A total of 662 valid questionnaires were obtained.

Statistical Analysis

Based on the sample size of 662, the survey results were accurate within a sampling error of 3.8% with a confidence level of 95%. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the latent variables of sensory experience, affective experience, learning experience, sociocultural experience, behavioral experience, escapism experience, and prestige experience were .895, .935, .929, .899, .819, .892, and .878, respectively. All the values were larger than the benchmark of .70 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010), suggesting that the research instrument had a satisfactory internal consistency to assess the items in the same latent variables. Finally, we employed confirmatory factor analysis to assess the model’s effectiveness by using LISREL 8.80 for Windows. The measurement model was assessed by testing the model fit, composite reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the constructs.

Descriptive Findings

Briefly, 53.6% of respondents were female and 46.4% were male; 55% were married; 27.6% were 21 to 30 years of age; 63.1% had a university/college degree; 24.8% were laborers; 26.6% lived in the Kaohsiung or Pingtung region; and 36.6% had a monthly income between NT$20,001 and NT$40,000 and 26.1% had a monthly income ranging from NT$40,001 to NT$60,000 (US$1 = NT$ 31.12 as of August 15, 2018). These two destinations seemed to attract tourists who were married couples and middle-aged tourists, which is consistent with the profile of slow-travel tourists (Oh, Assaf, & Baloglu, 2016).

Measurement Refinement

Based on the CITC (corrected item-to-total correlation) analysis for each construct, a cutoff value below 0.3 was applied (Lee, Jan, & Yang, 2013), and two items were dropped. A confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the overall measurement model. The chi-square (χ²) value was 2790.82, degrees of freedom (df) = 171, p < .05, indicating that the measurement model did not fit the data well. Given that the sample size can influence the χ² value, other model fit indices were calculated for the measurement model: adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) of 0.80, normed fit index (NFI) of 0.98, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.066, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.061. Based on these fit indices, the measurement model fit the sample well (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 1 shows the t-values, the average variance extracted values, and the composite reliability for the latent variables. All the composite reliability values were greater than 0.6, indicating a high internal consistency for the latent variables. The measurement achieved convergent validity at the item level because all factor loadings were larger than 0.5 and significant (t > 1.96, p < .05), which provided evidence of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). According to Deery, Iverson, and Erwin (1999), discriminant validity can be achieved when the parameters of covariance among pairs of latent constructs are free to be estimated (the model fit is described above and was demonstrated by AGFI = 0.80, NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.061), which has a better model fit than a model in which pairs of latent constructs are fixed to perfectly covary (in this study, Δχ² was 1982.20 with 17 df, p < .001, and the model fit indices were as follows: AGFI = 0.59, NFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.121, SRMR = 0.39). Consequently, the measurement model for LCTE had acceptable convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 1

Factor Loadings, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) of the Measurement Model

	Factor Loading^a	t	AVE^b	CR^c
Sensory experience			0.54	0.89
1. This low-carbon tourism experience made a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses.	0.76	22.29
2. I found this low-carbon tourism experience interesting in a sensory way.	0.83	25.79
3. I felt a real sense of harmony during this low-carbon tourism.	0.81	24.51
4. I felt a real sense of harmony during this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.57	15.41
5. The landscape was very charming in this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.72	20.82
6. I associated certain sights, smells, sounds, tastes, and textures within this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.69	19.84
7. The overall design of this activity can arouse tourists’ interest in this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.75	22.14
Affective experience			0.66	0.94
8. This low-carbon tourism experience induced feelings and sentiments.	0.65	18.66
9. This low-carbon tourism experience was cheerful.	0.88	28.69
10. This low-carbon tourism experience was enjoyable.	0.90	29.64
11. This low-carbon tourism experience was comfortable.	0.88	28.44
12. This low-carbon tourism experience was exciting.	0.87	28.03
13. I felt a sense of awe during this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.67	19.09
14. This low-carbon tourism experience was relaxing.	0.81	24.87
15. This low-carbon tourism experience was interesting.	0.82	25.46
Learning experience			0.59	0.93
16. I engaged in a lot of thinking when I participated in this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.75	22.35
17. I found myself reflecting on new ideas about animals and their environments.	0.74	21.65
18. I am being educated and informed through this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.77	22.88
19. I discussed new information with my companions.	0.79	23.81
20. It was an exploratory experience.	0.79	24.11
21. It was a new cultural experience.	0.81	24.91
22. I gained a new perspective on my life.	0.79	23.87
23. I reflected more on myself.	0.74	21.72
24. I experienced different things on this trip.	0.73	21.50
Sociocultural experience			0.67	0.91
25. I interacted with people at the destination.	0.88	28.20
26. I understood the unique characters of local people at the destination.	0.88	27.75
27. I had good impressions about the local people.	0.82	25.02
28. The local people at the destination were friendly.	0.79	23.67
29. I had opportunities to meet new people and do new things.	0.70	20.07
Behavioral experience			0.71	0.83
30. I engaged in physical actions and behaviors when I had this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.77	22.10
31. I experienced low-carbon tourism.	0.91	27.56
Escapism			0.59	0.90
32. I completely escaped from my daily routine.	0.63	17.58
33. I experienced something new.	0.74	21.62
34. I am involved in this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.85	26.51
35. Participating in this low-carbon tourism experience made me feel as if I was in another world.	0.80	24.31
36. While I was playing, I forgot that time was passing.	0.78	23.56
37. I felt that I totally belonged to the environment.	0.80	24.24
Prestige			0.71	0.88
38. This low-carbon tourism helps me make a good impression on others.	0.85	26.43
39. With this low-carbon tourism experience, I can convey social status.	0.87	27.14
40. I am proud of paying attention to environmental issues by engaging in this low-carbon tourism experience.	0.81	24.37

All the t-values of factor loadings larger than 1.96, p < .05.

AVE = (Σλ²) / [Σλ² + Σ(θ)].

CR = (Σλ)² / [(Σλ)² + Σ(θ)] (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996).

Stage 3: Cross-Validation of This Research Instrument

Study Sites

The Guandu and Cigu are the largest wetlands and have been developed as popular tourism sites. These two wetlands have been identified as an Important Bird Area by Bird Life International. The government and NGOs have carried out environmental protection campaigns to protect these valuable wetlands (Guandu Nature Park, 2017; Lee, 2009). These two wetlands are famous for nature-based destinations with particularly plentiful biodiversity in Taiwan, providing various LCTE opportunities for nature-based tourists. The theoretical framework of tourists in these wetlands have been intensively debated in the literature (e.g., Kerstetter, Hou, & Lin, 2004; Lee, 2009; Lee, Jan, et al., 2018). Thus, two types of nature-based tourism destinations (i.e., Yushan National Park and Najenshan Ecological Reserve Area are forest-based destinations; Guandu Nature Park and Cigu Wetland are wetland-based destinations) were chosen.

Sample and Survey

The questionnaire survey was conducted between the end of February to mid-May 2016. The sampling locations were positioned at sites where tourists would be sure to visit at the four study areas. We used the same sampling technology as Stage 2 to collect the data. Overall, 466 usable surveys were obtained from the forest-based destinations, and 523 usable surveys were obtained from the wetland-based destinations.

Results

Table 2 lists the respondents’ characteristics according to the two types of nature-based destinations. Of the tourists who visited the forest destinations, 53.2% were male; 64.4% were married; 29.4% were 31 to 40 years old; 59.7% had a university/college degree; 30.3% were in the service industry; 34.3% had monthly incomes ranging from NT$20,000 to NT$40,000; and 28.8% lived in Yunlin, Chiayi, or Tainan. Of those who visited the wetland destinations, 52.4% were male; 52.6% were unmarried; 35.4% were between 21 and 30 years old; 66.3% had a university/college degree; 34.4% were laborers; 40.0% had monthly incomes ranging from NT$20,000 to NT$40,000; and 35.0% lived in Taipei, New Taipei City, or Ilan.

Table 2

Profiles of the Respondents

Variable	Forest		Wetland		Total		Chi-square test
Variable	N	%	N	%	N	%	χ²	p
Gender							0.039	.844
Male	248	53.2	274	52.4	522	52.8
Female	218	46.8	249	47.6	467	47.2
Marital status							28.003	.000
Single	166	35.6	275	52.6	441	44.6
Married	300	64.4	248	47.4	548	55.4
Age (years old)							100.086	.000
16-20	30	6.4	40	7.6	70	7.1
21-30	70	15.0	185	35.4	255	25.8
31-40	137	29.4	174	33.3	311	31.4
41-50	123	26.4	93	17.8	216	21.8
51-60	92	19.7	26	5.0	118	11.9
Above 60 years	14	3.0	5	1.0	19	1.9
Educational level							12.244	.007
Junior high school and below	22	4.7	7	1.3	29	2.9
High school	93	20.0	92	17.6	185	18.7
University or college	278	59.7	347	66.3	625	63.2
Graduate school	73	15.7	77	14.7	150	15.2
Occupation							19.488	.007
Office or teacher	70	15.0	55	10.5	125	12.6
Agriculturist, farmer, fisherman	15	3.2	17	3.3	32	3.2
Laborer	128	27.5	180	34.4	308	31.1
Service industry	141	30.3	125	23.9	266	26.9
Housewife	34	7.3	36	6.9	70	7.1
Retired	11	2.4	6	1.1	17	1.7
Student	45	9.7	79	15.1	124	12.5
Others	22	4.7	25	4.8	47	4.8
Monthly income (NT$^a)							24.090	.000
≤20,000	69	14.8	116	22.2	185	18.7
20,001-40,000	160	34.3	209	40.0	369	37.3
40,001-60,000	140	30.0	133	25.4	273	27.6
60,001-80,000	55	11.8	36	6.9	91	9.2
80,001-100,000	28	6.0	14	2.7	42	4.2
≥100,001	14	3.0	15	2.9	29	2.9
Residence							151.630	.000
Taipei, New Taipei City, Ilan	45	9.7	183	35.0	228	23.1
Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Miaoli	37	7.9	70	13.4	107	10.8
Taichung, Chunghwa, Nantou	130	27.9	76	14.5	206	20.8
Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan	134	28.8	147	28.1	281	28.4
Kaohsiung, Pingtung	119	25.5	39	7.5	158	16.0
Hualien, Taitung	1	0.2	8	1.5	9	0.9

US$1 = NT$31.12 as of August 15, 2018.

These two types of study sites differed significantly in terms of marital status, age, occupation, monthly income, and residence according to the chi-square tests. The forest-based destinations attracted tourists who were married, middle-aged, and living in Central Taiwan, whereas the wetland-based destinations attracted tourists who were single, young adults, and living in Northern Taiwan.

To assess the cross-validation of the research model, the seven-dimension model that was obtained in Stage 2 was examined using the two samples (i.e., forest and wetland settings). The forest setting was specified as a calibration sample, and the wetland setting was specified as a validation sample. Three strategies, including loose replication (fixed factor structure), moderate replication (fixed factor structure and factor loadings), and tight replication (fixed structure, factor loadings, and residuals) were used to test the cross-validation of the LCTE scale (Cudeck & Browne, 1983).

Using the loose, moderate, and tight strategies, the contributions to chi-square for the cross-validation models were 52.76%, 53.18%, and 52.43%, respectively (Table 3), suggesting that replication between the calibration and validation models could be examined. The loose replication strategy specified that the factor structure of the calibration and validation models was equal.

Table 3

Comparison Among the Loose, Moderate, and Tight Replication for Cross-Validation Model

Strategy	Overall Model Fit						Contribution to χ²
Strategy	MFFχ² (df)	WLSχ² (df)	ECVI	NNFI	CFI	SRMR	MFFχ²	%
Loose replication	5696.55 (1438)	6316.74 (1438)	6.81	0.97	0.97	0.069	3003.59 (1438)	52.76
Loose replication
Moderate replication	5728.90 (1478)	6357.65 (1478)	6.77	0.97	0.97	0.064	3023.09 (1478)	53.18
Moderate replication	Δχ² = 32.35, Δdf = 40, p > .05	Δχ² = 40.91, Δdf = 40, p > .05					Δχ² = 19.50, Δdf = 40, p > .05
Tight replication	5906.12 (1539)	6641.24 (1539)	6.93	0.97	0.97	0.066	3096.66 (1539)	52.43
Tight replication	Δχ² = 177.22, Δdf = 61, p < .05	Δχ² = 283.59, Δdf = 61, p < .05					Δχ² = 73.57, Δdf = 61, p < .05

Note. MFF = minimum fit function; df = degree of freedom; WLS = weighted least square; ECVI = expected cross-validation index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

The Δχ² value for the models when moving from loose replication to moderate replication was 32.35 (df = 40, p > .05), indicating that the two samples had equivalent factor loadings. Moreover, according to the fit indices (ECVI and SRMR), moderate replication resulted in a better fit to the data than loose replication. The Δχ² value for the models when moving from moderate replication to tight replication was 177.22 (df = 61, p < .05), showing significant differences between the two samples. Moreover, the fit indices (ECVI and SRMR) showed moderate replication and resulted in a better fit to the data than tight replication. Overall, the cross-validation data supported the analytical results that the moderate replication model was the best fit to the data. Thus, cross-validation with moderate replication was adopted.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

As global warming issues have received increasing attention and discussion, low-carbon tourism has emerged as an alternative tourism model and has been promoted as an international trend (Scott & Becken, 2010). Dickinson et al. (2011) and Lumsdon and McGrath (2011) have proposed slow travel as a way to reduce carbon emissions from tourism. According to Dickinson et al. (2011) and Lumsdon and McGrath (2011), recreation experience is a crucial component of the slow-travel context. Scholars have also noted that recreation experience is an important factor influencing the ERBs of nature-based tourists (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b; Lee, Jan, et al., 2015). However, studies assessing LCTE are scarce (Dickinson et al., 2011). This study represents an attempt to fill that research gap by conceptualizing LCTE and developing a general measurement scale for tourists.

Schmitt’s (1999) experiential marketing, Brakus et al.’s (2009) brand experience, Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) economy experience, and Hosany and Witham’s (2010) cruising experiences are extended into LCTE in this study. The components of LCTE include customer experience, tourism experience, and alternative tourism experience. Therefore, sensory experience, affective experience, learning experience, sociocultural experience, behavioral experience, escapism experience, and prestige experience are included in LCTE.

According to Schmitt (1999), experiential marketing involves sensory, affective, cognitive, physical, and social-identity experiences. Previous studies have adopted Schmitt’s constructs to measure brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009) and wine tourism (Lee & Chang, 2012). In the competitive tourism market, tourism experience providers focus not only on entertaining customers but also on engaging them in activities (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Low-carbon tourism provides activities for tourists that help them acquire environmental knowledge and interact with local culture. Encouraging tourists’ engagement in activities and obtaining their feedback are crucial steps in understanding the tourism experience (Poulsson & Kale, 2004). However, Schmitt’s experience constructs do not include a means of measuring the degree of engagement in various activities. Escapism represents the degree of engagement in activities in the experience economy, which is meaningful for educational activities (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). LCTEs include not only leisure activities but also educational activities (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). Measuring tourists’ escapism experiences is warranted to more clearly understand tourists’ engagement in and feedback regarding these activities. To fill this gap in the research, our LCTE scale includes the escapism construct.

Pine and Gilmore (1998) have conceptualized experience as education, entertainment, esthetics, and escapism on the basis of the experience economy. Studies of the experience economy primarily measure the degree of customer participation and engagement in activities. Several studies have adopted Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) notion of the experience economy to measure cruise experience (Hosany & Witham, 2010) and community-based tourism recreation experience (Lee & Jan, 2015b). However, research on the experience economy focuses more on commercial (Poulsson & Kale, 2004) than sociocultural experiences. Understanding local sociocultural contexts and becoming immersed in a local area is the only way to engender respect for place and to promote sustainable tourism (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). Thus, this study fills this research gap by investigating sociocultural experience in LCTEs. The notion of prestige is seldom discussed in the tourism context (R. W. Riley, 1995). A prestige experience may originate from engaging in a travel experience that is unusual in an individual’s reference groups (R. W. Riley, 1995), such as film tourism (Kim, 2012), luxury cruise tourism (Hwang & Han, 2014), international budget travel (P. J. Riley, 1988), and backpacker travel (O’Reilly, 2006). Low-carbon tourism is a new and alternative travel mode that promotes sustainable tourism. However, few studies have assessed prestige experience in relation to low-carbon tourism. To obtain the holistic perspective of LCTEs, this study includes prestige experience as one of the LCTE constructs to expand the knowledge of the tourism literature.

Based on a review of several existing conceptualizations of or scales for experience, few studies have focused on environmental issues. For example, brand experiences (Brakus et al., 2009), and cruising experiences (Hosany & Witham, 2010), focus primarily on consumer experiences rather than on environmental concerns. The LCTE scale developed from the findings of this study pays more attention to proenvironmental considerations such as “I did something important to save energy and reduce carbon emissions” and “I experienced low-carbon tourism.” Assessing these environmental behaviors provides a better understanding of how LCTE can aid in reducing environmental impacts and in developing sustainable tourism; thus the findings of this study contribute to the literature.

The LCTE scale measures the LCTE of tourists and was developed and validated rigorously with tourists in forest-based destinations, and the scale’s cross-validation was tested with tourists in both forest- and wetland-based destinations. This study contributes to the literature by filling research gaps noted in the findings of Brakus et al. (2009), Pine and Gilmore (1998), Schmitt (1999), and Brakus et al. (2009). The measurement scale developed during the study includes 40 items covering seven constructs (i.e., sensory experience, affective experience, learning experience, sociocultural experience, behavioral experience, escapism experience, and prestige experience) to effectively measure the LCTE of tourists. Ultimately, based on experiential learning cycle theory (Kolb, 1984), tourists may change their travel mode to engage in low-carbon tourism through high-quality LCTE. Applying the LCTE theoretical frameworks and measure scale, a researcher can assess the differences between pre- and post-LCTE of a tourist effectively. Moreover, a long-term study focusing on changes in LCTE can be conducted by collecting multiyear data.

Managerial Implications

Raising tourism experience has been regarded as a marketing strategy to provoke tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty (Hosany & Witham, 2010). In addition, for promoting tourists’ ERB, previous research has suggested that recreation experience is an important factor that influences human behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2011a; Duerden & Witt, 2010; Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). Similarity, LCTE may influence tourists to engage in low-carbon tourism for reducing carbon emission. Due to growing environmental awareness, low-carbon tourism has been an important alternative travel mode. As such, destination managers may plan and manage destinations based on LCTE to raise tourists’ LCTE for sustainable tourism development. The findings of this study offers valuable insights for LCTE for mangers who are able to determine the critical factors that increase LCTE among the tourists, contribute to managerial implications for practitioners; for examples of the success stories also see Buijtendijk, Blom, Vermeer, and van der Duim (2018), Ekinci (2014) and Varley and Semple (2015).

In the context of travel modes, destination managers may design and provide diverse trails or bicycle routes for tourists to easily access and explore a local area by walking or bicycling, which may allow tourists to gain a greater appreciation for the beauty of natural resources and local culture. Simultaneously, by reducing the use of cars, the carbon emissions caused by a visit could be significantly reduced (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). By experiencing local nature resources and social culture in detail, tourists’ sensory and affective experiences will be aroused; knowledge from locals (e.g., learning experience) will also increase, which may promote tourists to have more empathy with locals (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b).

In the context of appreciating local culture, by providing interpretation services that explain local culture and history, destination managers can help tourists expand their perspectives through experiences with local heritage and interactions with local people. Tourists who gain a better understanding of local cultural assets will respect local culture and relate well to local people (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). Additionally, destination managers may encourage tourists to taste or make local foods. Tourists can experience local materials and ingredients while cooking and tasting traditional local foods and therefore will both experience the local food culture and reduce the food mileage effect and its associated carbon emissions (Jang & Jung, 2015). Through these culinary and cultural learning activities, tourists will gain an understanding of and respect for local culture and will develop an interest in local or traditional food, which will ultimately promote the cultural inheritance of culinary experiences and sustainable tourism (Lee, Chao, et al., 2018a).

In the context of appreciating local nature resources, destination managers may provide environmental education for tourists to educate them about the importance of precious natural resources at the beginning. Ballantyne et al. (2011b) have indicated that wildlife experiences begin with a sensory experience that may last for a long time and arouse tourists’ emotions. Consequently, destination managers can design itineraries that involve all five senses to help tourists experience nature resources in depth and to promote an appreciation for the natural environment. By providing interpretation services and trails, tourists will enjoy and observe nature in detail and will have their empathy to nature resources aroused (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). In particular, managers can provide environmental programs that cultivate tourists’ environmental awareness, concern, and attitudes, which may motivate tourists to engage in ERBs and develop a better understanding of the impacts of climate change and may ultimately motivate them to reduce their carbon emissions (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2013; Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). Through the provided environmental messages, tourists’ learning experience is aroused, which may affect their behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2011a). Moreover, regarding LCTE, tourists’ prestige experience may be aroused by sharing alternative tourism experiences, making tourists admired by friends and family (O’Reilly, 2006).

To develop and promote low-carbon tourism, host residents could design slow-travel packages and LCTEs, provide green accommodations to encourage tourists to stay longer, and inspire tourists to interact with local culture, history, food, and nature resources by walking or bicycling. By implementing LCTEs, the impacts of carbon emissions from tourism might be reduced, which could support the development of sustainable tourism (Dickinson et al., 2011; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011).

To promote and market LCTE destinations, destination managers could use the LCTE scale developed in this study to design and provide attractions that offer unique sensory, affective, learning, sociocultural, behavioral, and escapism experiences. This strategy may enhance the prestige of tourists who have demonstrated their concern for environmental issues by engaging in low-carbon tourism. Ultimately, managers can generate a sense of prestige among tourists by emphasizing that low-carbon tourism is an alternative travel mode of which they can be proud because they have contributed to mitigating climate change (O’Reilly, 2006). Such marketing strategies will benefit sustainable tourism in a destination.

Although the above managerial implications may be applicable for national parks and wetlands, but they may not be suitable for other tourism settings such as theme parks, island tourism, and resorts.

Limitations and Further Research

Notwithstanding its contributions, this study has certain limitations that should be addressed. First, a 40-item scale was developed based on Taiwanese tourism destinations using rigorous statistic method. Due to sociocultural factors, tourists’ LCTE may be different from other countries. To overcome this limitation, future studies are recommended to assess different countries or races to reflect LCTE implications for international and multicultural perspectives.

Second, this study represents the first attempt to conceptualize LCTE and develop a scale to measure it effectively. Based on this study’s theoretical framework and 40-item scale, future studies are strongly encouraged to focus on the precedents, such as environmental attitude and place attachment, which affect LCTE, using a long-term consequence approach. Examining the structural models of LCTE and extending our knowledge of LCTE will be beneficial for sustainable tourism implications.

Finally, determining how LCTE contributes to sustainability is strongly recommended when examining the relationship between LCTE and carbon footprint (Dwyer et al., 2010) or performance of the sustainability indicators (Lee & Hsieh, 2016). That is, we can determine how a LCTE tourism model for building sustainable tourism can promote LCTE by contributing to sustainable development.

Conclusions

Currently, carbon emissions are a topic of great interest in the tourism context (Scott & Becken, 2010; United Nations Environment Programme, 2017). Low-carbon tourism is a growing travel mode and plays a role in mitigating the carbon emissions of tourism. LCTE has been aroused in the context of low-carbon tourism, which may attract more tourists to low-carbon tourism. However, there have been no integrated studies of LCTE using the suggestions for scale development proposed by Brakus et al. (2009) and Lee et al. (2013). Thus, we conceptualized and developed a valid scale to assess LCTE using a mixed method approach involving qualitative and quantitative methods related to drawing and referencing from three stages of investigation (Molina-Azorín & Font, 2016). This study conceptualizes LCTE and develops a scale that exhibits high internal consistency, content validity, construct validity, and cross-validation to measure LCTEs, indicating that the research instrument was rigorously developed and validated. Thus, the findings of this study represent a considerable advance in assessing the theoretical and managerial implications of sustainable tourism.

The LCTE scale contributes not only to academic research but also to tourism practice. As destination managers plan low-carbon tourism, they may adopt a LCTE scale to evaluate, monitor, or improve tourists’ experience in low-carbon tourism. By increasing LCTE, tourists may increase their satisfaction (Brakus et al., 2009), loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009), and ERB (Lee & Jan, 2015a, 2015b). As such, LCTE may contribute to mitigating climate change.

Carbon emissions are becoming increasingly problematic, and this study represents the first attempt to measure tourists’ LCTE, which may be useful both in reducing carbon emissions and in supporting the development of low-carbon behavior models and theoretical models of the implications of sustainable tourism. By applying this LCTE scale, tourists will understand how to reduce the carbon emissions caused by tourism activities, and tourism managers may have a guideline for reducing carbon emission and increasing LCTE by designing activities, providing tourism services, and environmental management.

Finally, we conclude that when people visit a tourism destination, such as those that offer LCTEs, they are more likely to respect the natural environment, local history, and culture and to interact with local residents, thus strengthening their sensory, affective, learning, sociocultural, behavioral, escapism, and prestige experiences. Consequently, when tourists engage in LCTE, they are likely to support the development of sustainable tourism. Thus, the findings of this study extend the theoretical framework for LCTE into the operational realm of tourism management by rendering LCTE perceptible and assessable, which represents a potentially significant contribution to the academic literature.

Footnotes

Appendix

66-Item Scale of Low-Carbon Tourism Experience

Sensory experience ^a,b,c,d,e

1. This low-carbon tourism experience made a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses.

2. I found this low-carbon tourism experience interesting in a sensory way.

3. It was a great experience to taste local food.

4. I felt a real sense of harmony during this low-carbon tourism experience.

5. I was able to get a good view of the animals during this low-carbon tourism experience.

6. There was plenty of activity to see during this low-carbon tourism experience.

7. The landscape was very charming in this low-carbon tourism experience.

8. The overall design of this activity can arouse tourists’ interest in this low-carbon tourism experience.

9. I associated certain sights, smells, sounds, tastes, and textures with this low-carbon tourism experience.

10. I was aware of the different activities I could do at the destination.

Affective experience ^f,g

11. This low-carbon tourism experience induced feelings and sentiments.

12. Something I saw or heard in this low-carbon tourism experience made me feel sad or angry about environmental problems.

13. This low-carbon tourism experience was cheerful.

14. This low-carbon tourism experience was enjoyable.

15. This low-carbon tourism experience was comfortable.

16. This low-carbon tourism experience was exciting.

17. This low-carbon tourism experience was caring.

18. This low-carbon tourism experience was romantic.

19. This low-carbon tourism experience was passionate.

20. I felt a sense of awe during this low-carbon tourism experience.

21. This low-carbon tourism experience was relaxing.

22. This low-carbon tourism experience was peaceful and calm.

23. This low-carbon tourism experience was interesting.

Learning experience ^c,h

24. I engaged in a lot of thinking when I participated in this low-carbon tourism experience.

25. I found myself reflecting on new ideas about animals and their environments.

26. It was a great opportunity to learn more about the interesting stories of the local cuisine through this low-carbon tourism experience.

27. It was a great experience to learn many stories about this low-carbon tourism destination.

28. I am being educated and informed through this low-carbon tourism experience.

29. I discussed new information with my companions.

30. This low-carbon tourism experience made me more knowledgeable and I learned a lot.

31. It was an exploratory experience.

32. It was a new cultural experience.

33. I gained a new perspective on my life.

34. I reflected more upon myself.

35. I developed my personal and spiritual values.

36. I learned about something new.

37. I experienced different things on this trip.

Sociocultural experience ^i,j

38. I interacted with people at the destination.

39. I understood the unique characters of local people at the destination.

40. I had good impressions about the local people.

41. I closely experienced the local culture.

42. The local people at the destination were friendly.

43. I had opportunities to meet new people and do new things.

44. I was immersed in the local culture.

45. I have a closer relationship with my family/friends.

46. I expected to see local characteristics or exotic cultures.

Behavioral experience ^a,f,g

47. I engaged in physical actions and behaviors when I had this low-carbon tourism experience.

48. This low-carbon tourism experience is action oriented.

49. Playing promotes tourists’ association with others.

50. I bought local produce at the destination.

51. I tried local street food at the destination.

52. I did something meaningful.

53. I did something important to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.

54. I experienced low-carbon tourism.

Escapism ^c,d,e,h,k

55. I completely escaped from my daily routine.

56. This was different from previous experiences.

57. I experienced something new.

58. I am involved in this low-carbon tourism experience.

59. I became so involved when I participated in this low-carbon tourism experience that I forgot everything else.

60. Participating in this low-carbon tourism experience made me feel as if I was in another world.

61. While I was playing, I forgot that time was passing.

62. I would like to experience all the facilities or as many as possible.

63. I felt that I totally belonged to the environment.

Prestige ^b,l,m,n

64. This low-carbon tourism helps me make a good impression on others.

65. With this low-carbon tourism experience, I can convey social status.

66. I am proud of paying attention to environmental issues by engaging in this low-carbon tourism experience.

Reference: ^aBrakus et al. (2009); ^bKim (2012); ^cOh et al. (2007); ^dLee and Jan (2015b); ^eLee, Jan, et al. (2015); ^fBallantyne et al. (2011a); ^gBallantyne et al. (2011b); ^hHosany and Witham (2010); ⁱDickinson et al. (2011); ^jLumsdon and McGrath (2011); ^kPine and Gilmore (1998); ^lHwang and Han (2014); ^mO’Reilly (2006); ⁿR. W. Riley (1995).

Authors’ Note:

We would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China (Taiwan) for financially supporting this research under Contract No. MOST-104-2410-H-224 -035. We thank Miss Y. L. Hwang, C. H. Hwang, and M. Y. Lee, and Mr. C. Z. Hung, P. C. Lin, C. W. Yu, Y. C. Chen, and Y. H. Lin for the assistances in conducting questionnaire survey.

ORCID iD

Tsung Hung Lee

Tsung Hung Lee, PhD (e-mail: thlee@yuntech.edu.tw), is distinguished professor in the Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies at National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan.

Fen-Hauh Jan, PhD (e-mail: fenhauhjan@gmail.com), is professor in the Department of Tourism and Hospitality at TransWorld University, Taiwan.

References

Ballantyne

Packer

Sutherland

L. A.

(2011a). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management, 32, 770-779.

Ballantyne

Packer

Falk

(2011b). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 32, 1243-1252.

Becken

(2017). Evidence of a low-carbon tourism paradigm? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 832-850.

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.

Buijtendijk

Blom

Vermeer

van der Duim

(2018). Eco-innovation for sustainable tourism transitions as a process of collaborative co-production: The case of a carbon management calculator for the Dutch travel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26, 1222-1240.

Cabrini

Simpson

Scott

(2009). From Davos to Copenhagen and beyond: Advancing tourism’s response to climate change. In UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/537_from_davos_to_copenhagen_and_beyond_unwto_paper_electronic-version_lr.pdf

Cheng

C. H.

Lin

(2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142, 174-186.

Correia

Moital

(2009). Antecedents and consequences of prestige motivation in tourism: An expectancy-value motivation. In Kozak

Decrop

(Eds.), Handbook of tourist behavior: Theory and practice (pp. 16-34). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cudeck

Browne

M. W.

(1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 147-167.

10.

Dawson

Johnston

M. J.

Stewart

E. J.

Lemieux

C. J.

Lemelin

R. H.

Maher

P. T.

Grimwood

B. S. R.

(2011). Ethical considerations of last chance tourism. Journal of Ecotourism, 10, 250-265.

11.

Dawson

Stewart

E. J.

Lemelin

Scott

(2010). The carbon cost of polar bear viewing tourism in Churchill, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 319-336.

12.

Deery

Iverson

Erwin

(1999). Industrial relations climate, attendance behaviour and the role of trade unions. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37, 533-558.

13.

Dickinson

J. E.

Lumsdon

L. M.

Robbins

(2011). Slow travel: Issues for tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19, 281-300.

14.

Duerden

M. D.

Witt

P. A.

(2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 379-392.

15.

Dwyer

Forsyth

Spurr

Hoque

(2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 355-376.

16.

Ekinci

M. B.

(2014). The Cittaslow philosophy in the context of sustainable tourism development: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 41, 178-189.

17.

Fennell

D. A.

Weaver

(2005). The ecotourism concept and tourism-conservation symbiosis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13, 373-390.

18.

Font

Hindley

(2017). Understanding tourists’ reactance to the threat of a loss of freedom to travel due to climate change: A new alternative approach to encouraging nuanced behavioural change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 26-42.

19.

Font

McCabe

(2017). Sustainability and marketing in tourism: Its contexts, paradoxes, approaches, challenges and potential. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 869-883.

20.

Guandu Nature Park. (2017). Introduction. Retrieved from http://gd-park.org.tw/en/introduction

21.

Hair

J. J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

22.

Hosany

Witham

(2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 351-364.

23.

Hwang

Han

(2014). Examining strategies for maximizing and utilizing brand prestige in the luxury cruise industry. Tourism Management, 40, 244-259.

24.

Jang

H. J.

Jung

(2015). Go slow and curvy: Understanding the philosophy of the Cittaslow slowcity phenomenon. Basel, Switzerland: Springer.

25.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Scientific Software International.

26.

Kasim

Ismail

(2012). Environmentally friendly practices among restaurants: Drivers and barriers to change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20, 551-570.

27.

Kastenholz

Carneiro

M. J.

Marques

C. P.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

(2018). The dimensions of rural tourism experience: Impacts on arousal, memory, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35, 189-201.

28.

Kerstetter

D. L.

Hou

J. S.

Lin

C. H.

(2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behavioral approach. Tourism Management, 25, 491-498.

29.

Kim

(2012). Audience involvement and film tourism experiences: Emotional places, emotional experiences. Tourism Management, 33, 387-396.

30.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

31.

International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. (2018). About: 2017 International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. Retrieved from http://www.tourism4development2017.org/about/

32.

Lai

P. H.

Hsu

Y. C.

Wearing

(2016). A social representation approach to facilitating adaptive co-management in mountain destinations managed for conservation and recreation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 227-244.

33.

Lee

T. H.

(2009). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and motivation affect the future behavior of tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31, 215-236.

34.

Lee

T. H.

Chang

Y. S.

(2012). The influence of experiential marketing and activity involvement on the loyalty intentions of wine tourists in Taiwan. Leisure Studies, 31, 103-121.

35.

Lee

T. H.

Chao

W. H.

Lin

H. Y.

(2018). Cultural inheritance of Hakka cuisine: A perspective from tourists’ experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 7, 101-111.

36.

Lee

T. H.

C. J.

Chang

P. S.

(2015). The support of attendees for tourism development: Evidence from religious festivals, Taiwan. Tourism Geographies, 17, 223-243.

37.

Lee

T. H.

Hsieh

H. P.

(2016). Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s wetland. Ecological Indicators, 67, 779-787.

38.

Lee

T. H.

Jan

F. H.

(2015a). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environmental Management, 56, 193-208.

39.

Lee

T. H.

Jan

F. H.

(2015b). The influence of recreation experience and environmental attitude on the environmentally responsible behavior of community-based tourists in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23, 1063-1094.

40.

Lee

T. H.

Jan

F. H.

Huang

G. W.

(2015). The influence of recreation experiences on environmentally responsible behavior: The case of Liuqiu Island, Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23, 947-967.

41.

Lee

T. H.

Jan

F. H.

Tseng

C. H.

Lin

Y. F.

(2018). Segmentation by recreation experience in island-based tourism: A case study of Taiwan’s Liuqiu Island. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26, 362-378.

42.

Lee

T. H.

Jan

F. H.

Yang

C. C.

(2013). Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 454-468.

43.

Lumsdon

L. M.

McGrath

(2011). Developing a conceptual framework for slow travel: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19, 265-279.

44.

Mak

A. H.

Lumbers

Eves

Chang

R. C.

(2013). An application of the repertory grid method and generalised Procrustes analysis to investigate the motivational factors of tourist food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 327-338.

45.

McIntosh

Gupta

W. S.

(1977). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Grid.

46.

McKercher

Prideaux

Cheung

Law

(2010). Achieving voluntary reductions in the carbon footprint of tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 297-317.

47.

McLennan

C. L. J.

Becken

Battye

K. K. F.

(2014). Voluntary carbon offsetting: Who does it? Tourism Management, 45, 194-198.

48.

Mehmetoglu

(2007). Typologising nature-based tourists by activity: Theoretical and practical implications. Tourism Management, 28, 651-660.

49.

Mehrabian

Russell

J. A.

(1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

50.

Mikulić

Prebežac

Šerić

Krešić

(2017). Campsite choice and the camping tourism experience: Investigating decisive campsite attributes using relevance-determinance analysis. Tourism Management, 59, 226-233.

51.

Miller

(2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351-362.

52.

Molina-Azorín

J. F.

Font

(2016). Mixed methods in sustainable tourism research: An analysis of prevalence, designs and application in JOST (2005–2014). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 549-573.

53.

Murray

T. J.

Pipino

L. L.

Gigch

J. P.

(1985). A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Systems Management, 5, 76-80.

54.

Neuman

W. L.

(2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

55.

Assaf

A. G.

Baloglu

(2016). Motivations and goals of slow tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 205-219.

56.

Marie

A. F.

Jeoung

(2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 119-132.

57.

O’Reilly

C. C.

(2006). From drifter to gap year tourist: Mainstreaming backpacker travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 998-1017.

58.

Pearce

P. L.

M. Y.

(2018). Entertaining international tourists: An empirical study of an iconic site in China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42, 772-792.

59.

Pine

B. J.

Gilmore

J. H.

(1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97-105.

60.

Poulsson

S. H.

Kale

S. H.

(2004). The experience economy and commercial experiences. Marketing Review, 4, 267-277.

61.

Pouta

Neuvonen

Sievänen

(2006). Determinants of nature trip expenditures in Southern Finland: Implications for nature tourism development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6, 118-135.

62.

Riley

P. J.

(1988). Road culture of international long-term budget travelers. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 313-328.

63.

Riley

R. W.

(1995). Prestige worthy tourist behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 630-649.

64.

Schmitt

(1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 53-67.

65.

Scott

Becken

(2010). Adapting to climate change and climate policy: Progress, problems and potentials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 283-295.

66.

Scott

Jones

Konopek

(2007). Implications of climate and environmental change for nature-based tourism in the Canadian Rocky Mountains: A case study of Waterton Lakes National Park. Tourism Management, 28, 570-579.

67.

Shernoff

D. J.

Csikszentmihaiyi

Schneider

Shernoff

E. S.

(2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176.

68.

Stem

C. J.

Lassoie

J. P.

Lee

D. R.

Deshler

D. D.

Schelhas

J. W.

(2003). Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 387-413.

69.

Tervo-Kankare

(2011). The consideration of climate change at the tourism destination level in Finland: Coordinated collaboration or talk about weather? Tourism Planning & Development, 8, 399-414.

70.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Climate change. Nairobi, Kenya: Author. Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/climate-change-adaptation-and-mitigation-tourism-sector-frameworks-tools-and

71.

Van de Vijver

Hambleton

(1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.

72.

Varley

Semple

(2015). Nordic slow adventure: Explorations in time and nature. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15, 73-90.

73.

Victor

D. G.

Zhou

Ahmed

E. H. M.

Dadhich

P. K.

Olivier

J. G. J.

Rogner

H-H.

. . . Yamaguchi

(2014). Introductory chapter. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change (Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

74.

Weaver

D. B.

Jin

(2016). Compassion as a neglected motivator for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 657-672.

75.

Weston

Mota

J. C.

(2012). Low carbon tourism travel: Cycling, walking and trails. Tourism Planning & Development, 9, 1-3.

76.

World Tourism Organization. (2007). Davos Declaration. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/decladavose.pdf

77.

World Tourism Organization. (2016a). UNWTO tourism highlights, 2016 edition. Retrieved from http://marketintelligence.unwto.org/publication/unwto-tourism-highlights-2016-edition

78.

World Tourism Organization. (2016b). Press release. Retrieved from http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2016-07-12/unwto-and-partners-launch-e-toolkit-help-hotels-reach-zero-energy-consumpti

79.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2016). Economic impact analysis. London, England: Author.