883034

research-article2019
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287519883034Journal of Travel ResearchJeong and Shin

Empirical Research Article

Journal of Travel Research

Tourists’ Experiences with Smart Tourism

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Technology at Smart Destinations and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047287519883034
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519883034

Their Behavior Intentions journals.sagepub.com/home/jtr

Miyoung Jeong1,2 and Hyejo Hailey Shin1

Abstract
This study attempts to assess how tourists use smart tourism technologies at destinations and measure the effects of STT
usage on overall travel experience and future revisit intention. Although STTs have received growing attention, little research
has evaluated tourists’ experience with STTs available at various smart tourism destinations and potential consequences.
Building on studies on online tourism information sources, this study develops a conceptual framework to test hypotheses
related to STT experiences and consequences. Based on an online survey with travelers to top five US smart cities, this
study classifies the most frequently used STTs and examines tourists’ overall experience and satisfaction with STTs as well
as their revisit intention. Findings suggest that three attributes of STTs—informativeness, interactivity, and personalization—
are the key factors affecting tourists’ experience, satisfaction, and revisit intentions. The level of perceived security/privacy
moderates the relationships between three STT attributes and tourists’ memorable experience.

Keywords
Memorable experience, Smart tourism, Smart tourism destination, Smart tourism technology, Revisit intention

Introduction Seoul, South Korea, has launched a mobile application,

Because of the exponential development of technologies, it
is hard to find places that no technology is available.
According to the Pew Research Center, there has been a
notable increase in the number of Internet and smartphone
users worldwide (Poushter 2016). While early technology
adopters continue using the Internet and innovative devices
more, others begin to use technologies for their daily and
professional lives (Poushter 2016). Today, technology is
increasingly becoming a necessity and requirement rather
than a subsidiary tool, as the utilization of smart technologies
is prevalent within all matters ranging from civil infrastruc-
tures to education services (Hall et al. 2000). For instance,
the Internet of Things (IoTs) and sensors provide large
amounts of information and allow city officials to track not
only critical incidents but also real-time traffic and air pollu-
tion levels; personal smart devices and applications help citi-
zens directly communicate with public administrators and
solve problems (Totty 2017).
Tourism destinations are not an exception for smart tech-
nology utilization, as technology has significantly affected
the tourism industry in various ways (Huang et al. 2017).
Encouraged by the development of a smart city—a place
where smart technologies are integrated with city sources—
tourism destinations have embraced smart technologies (i.e.,
artificial intelligence, cloud computing, IoTs, and mobile
communication) to enrich tourists’ experiences. For example,
Deoksugung in My Hands, to provide tourists with relevant
and interesting information about the city and nearby attrac-
tions (Korea Tourism Organization 2013; Chung et al. 2018).
Likewise, many tourism destinations have adopted the con-
cept of “smart tourism” as more destinations are becoming
“smarter” by means of integrated technology platforms
through which tourism stakeholders can instantly share and
exchange tourism activity information with others (Buhalis
and Amaranggana 2014). By embedding advanced informa-
tion and communication technologies (ICTs) (i.e., smart tech-
nologies) in smart tourism destinations, destination marketers
are striving to enrich tourist experience as well as to enhance
destination competitiveness.
Despite the prevalent use of smart technologies to enrich
tourist experiences at the smart tourism destinations, research
on smart tourism destinations has been limited in that most
previous studies focused on describing STTs. Few studies
have investigated the impact of STTs on overall tourist
experience, satisfaction, and other outcomes. Moreover, few
1
School of Hotel, Restaurant & Tourism Management, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
2
Universidad de La Sabana, Chia, Cundinamarca, Colombia
Corresponding Author:
Miyoung Jeong, School of Hotel, Restaurant & Tourism Management,
University of South Carolina, 701 Assembly St, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Email: jeongm@mailbox.sc.edu
2 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
researchers attempted to tap into the psychological mecha-
nism that explains the relationship between tourists’ use and
experience of STTs and meaningful outcomes for destination
marketing. Learning from how cities adopted smart technol-
ogies, smart tourism destinations have accommodated vari-
ous technologies in an effort to offer tourists convenient,
comfortable, and enjoyable travel experiences. Thus, tour-
ists’ experiences with STTs at tourism destinations can be an
integral part of their overall satisfaction with the destination
and their revisit intention. This study attempted to investi-
gate the type of STTs used by travelers and the benefit of
using STTs. One of the key research questions lies in whether
technology-embedded tourism experiences can add to tourist
satisfaction and revisit intention. Understanding the relation-
ship of tourists’ use of STTs at smart tourism destinations
with their overall travel experience is critical because travel
experience is a key antecedent of satisfaction and behavior
intention (J.-H. Kim 2018; Carbonell and Escudero 2015).
To address these gaps in the literature, this study examines
STTs available at tourism destinations and their impacts on
tourists’ experience, satisfaction, and revisit intentions. More
specifically, the goals of this study are to (1) explore the type
of STTs available for and used by tourists at smart tourism
destinations, (2) examine how tourists’ use of STTs enhance
their overall destination experience and satisfaction, which
lead to their revisit intention, and (3) identify whether the tour-
ist’s sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., gender, purpose of
trip, status of residence, and STT familiarity) affect their STT
preferences or perceptions. By answering these questions, this
study intends to provide destination marketers with useful
suggestions for future degitization of destinations.
Theoretical Background
The concept of smartness originates in the 1990s and has
since been drawing attention from people (Hollands 2008,
2015). The smartness of a city relates to the embedment of
ICTs. A smart city is defined as a city that integrates the city’s
sources with ICTs (i.e., artificial intelligence, cloud comput-
ing, IoTs, and mobile communications) (X. Wang et al.
2016). As cities adopt diverse technologies to enhance the
quality of residents’ life, tourism destinations also begin to
embrace technologies in order to enhance not only tourists’
travel experience but also destination competitiveness,
thereby giving rise to the concept of smart tourism destina-
tions (Buhalis and Amaranggana 2014). In essence, smart
cities or smart tourism destinations aim to elevate the com-
petitiveness of a place and improve the quality of life for all
stakeholders including residents and tourists (Boes, Buhalis,
and Inversini 2016).
Smart Tourism Technologies (STTs)
Smart destinations integrate technologies into their tourism
resources and use the technologies as a marketing platform
(Buhalis and Foerste 2015; Pan et al. 2011). In general, STTs
refer to both general and specific applications that can
enhance tourists’ experiences as well as generate added val-
ues (Neuhofer, Buhalis, and Ladkin 2015). Examples of STTs
include ubiquitous computing and Internet of Things (IoT),
cloud computing, ubiquitous connectivity through Wi-Fi,
near field communication (NFC), and radio-frequency identi-
fication (RFID), sensors, smartphones, mobile connected
devices, beacons, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality
(AR), mobile apps, integrated payment methods, smart cards,
and social networks sites, etc. (Gretzel et al. 2015; Huang
et al. 2017; D. Wang, Li, and Li 2013). In order to measure the
effectiveness of STTs in destinations, researchers (e.g., Huang
et al. 2017; Lee et al. 2018; No and Kim 2015) have catego-
rized STTs by four unique attributes such as accessibility,
informativeness, interactivity, and personalization. Building
on these studies, this study additionally examines the role of
security/privacy in technology-mediated tourism destinations
in a sense that the use of STTs in smart tourism destinations is
fully dependent on the level of protection of tourists’ privacy
and their perceptions of security for transactions that require
sharing digital information (No and Kim 2015).
Adopting these key STT attributes, this study identifies
the most influential STT attributes that affect tourists’ mem-
orable experience in smart tourism destinations, their satis-
faction, and future behavioral (i.e., revisit) intentions. The
first attribute, accessibility, refers to how easily an individual
can access and use the information offered at the destination
by using different types of STTs. High levels of accessibility
of STTs contribute to perceived ease of use, because tourists
can use more information and enhance their memorable
travel experience as well as satisfaction with the destination
(Huang et al. 2017; Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier 2007, 2009).
Accessibility can be an enabler for cocreating experiences,
becoming a significant predictor of memorable tourism
experience (Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier 2009).
Informativeness refers to a composite of the quality and
trustworthiness of information provided by STTs at tourism
destinations (Huang et al. 2017; No and Kim 2015). Because
of the intangible nature of tourism, information quality and
credibility are critical factors that can affect tourists’ overall
experience at the destination. W. G. Kim, Lee, and Hiemstra
(2004) state that there is a significant relationship between
informativeness and tourists’ perceptions of the destination. In
a study of social media by Chung and Koo (2015), information
reliability is a key predictor of the value of social media in
tourists’ information search (Chung and Koo 2015). Utilizing
STTs (e.g., augmented reality or virtual reality) at smart tour-
ism destinations, tourists can easily appreciate the depth and
scope of information for their tourism activities. Obtaining
such rich information helps them be motivated and stimulated
to enrich their travel experience at smart tourism destinations.
The interactivity of STTs is defined as reciprocal commu-
nications among stakeholders (Alba et al. 1997). Interactivity
promotes bilateral interactions between stakeholders when
Jeong and Shin 3
individuals use STTs. Users’ active participation allows STTs
to provide more applicable and relevant information, which
in turn facilitates in searching for travel information effi-
ciently. Thus, a higher level of interactivity leads to more
positive perceptions of information technologies (Berthon,
Pitt, and Watson 1996). Moreover, STTs’ interactivity allows
smart tourism destinations to collect dynamic tourist data,
helping destination marketers design and offer more tailored
services.
Personalized services satisfy tourists’ needs and maxi-
mize their travel experience as well as their satisfaction with
smart tourism destinations (Madu and Madu 2002; No and
Kim 2015). Studies of personalized services demonstrate the
positive influence of personalization on satisfaction by
reducing the time spent on information search (Schaupp and
Bélanger 2005; Ball, Coelho, and Vilares 2006). Both inter-
activity and personalization allow STTs to provide constantly
the most relevant and appropriate information to tourists,
thereby enhancing and maximizing tourists’ travel experi-
ence. Traffic-routing apps, for example, provide tourists with
the most efficient route so that the tourists can reduce driving
time, have less stress from traffic congestion, and eventually
improve their experience at smart tourism destinations.
Considering the significance of tourist experience and
demand for information technology, hospitality and tourism
entities at smart tourism destinations are becoming more
active and dynamic in providing STTs in collaboration with
tourists to generate more meaningful travel experiences
(Buonincontri and Micera 2016). To satisfy the needs of
tourists, smart tourism destinations should be prepared to
stage experiences, which requires providing memorable con-
sumption experiences (Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007).
Providing personalized services at smart tourism destina-
tions is one effective way to meet tourists’ needs and maxi-
mize touristic experiences, because personalized services
allow destinations to customize the information to offer. By
virtue of STTs, smart tourism destinations are capable of
gathering tourist information easily, interacting and commu-
nicating with tourists spontaneously, and tailoring services to
satisfy the needs of each tourist.
Tourists’ Memorable Experience
A memorable experience, in this study, refers to a pleasant
and unforgettable experience at smart tourism destinations
that is remembered and recalled positively (Loureiro 2014;
Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007). The experiential nature of the
tourism industry offers each tourist a distinctive experience
through his or her own interactions with and feelings about
STTs. Even though each tourist may engage in similar activi-
ties at the same destination, the memorability of his or her
experiences is not the same but leads to a different evaluation
of his or her experience (J.-H. Kim 2018). The adoption and
use of STTs might affect the memorability of tourist experi-
ence by allowing tourists to access relevant information
about their travel activities or to interact with tourism
resources available at the smart tourism destination. For
example, if a tourist can access historical information about
a heritage site and interact with the resources provided by
STTs, the degree of immersion and engagement into the
smart tourism destinations would increase, which in turn
enhances the memorability of the tourist’s experience.
All key STT attributes enable smart tourism destinations
to provide tourists with memorable experiences in various
ways. First, STTs are key enablers at smart tourism destina-
tions by making tourists directly communicate and interact
with other tourism stakeholders in efficient ways. The IoTs
provide a network connection to anything at any time and in
any place via real-time interactions (Buhalis and Amaranggana
2014). Second, mobile communication technology allows
tourists to easily access information about tourism destina-
tions (Y. Wang et al. 2016). Hence, it enhances the tourist
experience by providing relevant information (e.g., history of
the city provided via city guide applications and real-time
traffic information). STTs have been assisting the tourism
industry in developing effective marketing strategies to attract
customers to smart tourism destinations and offer tourist
experiences that are unique to the smart tourism destination.
Based on the relationships addressed in previous studies
above, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: STTs’ accessibility has a positive relation-
ship with tourists’ memorable experience at smart tourism
destinations.
Hypothesis 1b: STTs’ informativeness has a positive rela-
tionship with tourists’ memorable experience at smart
tourism destinations.
Hypothesis 1c: STTs’ interactivity has a positive relation-
ship with tourists’ memorable experience at smart tourism
destinations.
Hypothesis 1d: STTs’ personalization has a positive rela-
tionship with tourists’ memorable experience at smart
tourism destinations.
Security and Privacy
Besides the aforementioned four attributes of STTs, protect-
ing and securing personal and private information is a
required feature in the technology-mediated environment.
Previous studies (e.g., Huang et al. 2017; Xiang et al. 2015)
discuss potential risks of data breach and imminent issues
related to security and privacy as key factors that can affect
usage of STTs. If a tourism destination cannot accommodate
individual tourists’ needs for security and privacy, it would
present a serious inhibitor to tourists for visiting the destina-
tion. Thus, STTs’ ability to perform and protect personal
information has been a key factor for travelers’ use of STTs
to enhance their travel experience at smart tourism destina-
tions. However, this study considers security/privacy as a
conditioning variable rather than a core attribute of STTs,
4 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
because each individual’s perceptions of security/privacy
would be highly subjective. Such subjective evaluations may
vary the strength and nature of the relationships between the
attributes of STTs and their consequences (Y. Wang, So, and
Sparks 2017). For example, tourists who are sensitive to the
issues of security/privacy may consider their SST experi-
ences less memorable than those who are insensitive to secu-
rity/privacy. Thus, this study proposes that the security/
privacy attribute can moderate the relationship between the
four STT attributes and tourists’ memorability of travel expe-
rience. This reasoning leads to the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 2a: Security/privacy has a moderating effect
on the relationship between accessibility and tourists’
memorable experience at smart tourism destinations.
Hypothesis 2b: Security/privacy has a moderating effect
on the relationship between informativeness and tourists’
memorable experience at smart tourism destinations.
Hypothesis 2c: Security/privacy has a moderating effect
on the relationship between interactivity and tourists’
memorable experience at smart tourism destinations.
Hypothesis 2d: Security/privacy has a moderating effect
on the relationship between personalization and tourists’
memorable experience at smart tourism destinations.
Relationships of Memorable Experience with
Satisfaction and Behavior Intentions
In light of the memorability of tourist experiences at smart
tourism destinations, this study examines two potential con-
sequences: satisfaction and behavior (revisit) intention.
Satisfaction is defined as an individual’s positive evaluation
of an experience (J. Singh, Goolsby, and Rhoads 1994). In
the tourism context, satisfaction indicates the tourist’s posi-
tive assessment of his or her psychological state resulting
from a travel experience. According to balance theory
(Heider 1946), individuals change their attitudes when they
perceive contradiction. In other words, individuals tend to
maintain their attitude in accordance with their perceptions.
Tourists tend to feel satisfied when they have a positive expe-
rience with activities they participate in at tourism destina-
tions. When tourists perceive their experience at a destination
to be memorable and valuable, therefore, they tend to feel
satisfied. Otherwise, dissatisfaction is in order.
Studies (e.g., Carbonell and Escudero 2015; Ozturk and
Hancer 2015; X. Wang et al. 2016) have investigated how
technology affected consumers’ memorable experience, sat-
isfaction, and behavioral intentions. Carbonell and Escudero
(2015), for example, identify customers’ negative techno-
logical experience has a significant negative effect on their
satisfaction and intentions to use the technology again.
Additionally, customers’ past experience appears to have a
strong positive relationship with their satisfaction with the
use of technology as well as their behavior intentions (Ozturk
and Hancer 2015).
Ajzen (1991) argues that behavior intentions are the best
way to predict a person’s behavior and to reflect his or her
willingness to perform a behavior. In the study by Kwok and
Gao (2005), individuals tend to engage in a particular behav-
ior when they have a positive intention to perform the behav-
ior. Thus, a strong intention to perform a behavior is highly
predictive of an execution of that particular behavior (Ajzen
1991). According to the theory of planned behavior, behav-
ioral intentions are an antecedent to actual behavior in gen-
eral (Moutinho 1987). Behavior intention in this study refers
to tourists’ intent or commitment to visit and recommend a
focal smart tourism destination.
Memorable experience has also been recognized as a driv-
ing factor for future decision making (J.-H. Kim 2014; Hoch
and Deighton 1989), indicating that memorable experience
affects behavior intention directly (J.-H. Kim 2018).
Memorable experience shapes positive behavioral intentions
(Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007; Hosany and Witham 2010). The
significant impact of memorable experience on tourists’ inten-
tions is found to be positive (Loureiro 2014). Furthermore,
memorable experience at a tourism destination has a signifi-
cant impact on word of mouth (Zhong, Busser, and Baloglu
2017). Previous studies have found that satisfaction has a
direct effect on behavioral intention (Oliver 1980; E. W.
Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Chen 2008; Chen and Chen
2010). Tourists tend to revisit a tourism destination or to rec-
ommend the destination to others when they are satisfied with
the destination (Yang et al. 2015; Chen and Chen 2010; J.-H.
Kim 2018; Prayag et al. 2017). Conversely, tourists are less
likely to revisit the destination or spread positive word of
mouth when they are dissatisfied with their travel experience
(Reisinger and Turner 2003; Chen and Chen 2010). In essence,
satisfaction plays as a mediator in the relationship between
experience and intention (Hosany and Witham 2010).
The literature is replete with studies that investigate how
technology affects an experience, satisfaction, and intention.
Ozturk and Hancer (2015) find a significant relationship
between past technology experience and intention to adopt
radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology in the hos-
pitality industry. The experience with mobile technology
positively moderates an intention to adopt technology while
traveling (Rivera, Gregory, and Cobos 2015). Technological
competence has a significant, positive impact on individuals’
intention to use mobile hotel reservation systems. However,
the complexity of the mobile application negatively influ-
ences the adoption of mobile hotel reservation systems
(Y. Wang et al. 2016). Technological turbulence negatively
influences usage of the information and experience produced
by, in part, technologies (Carbonell and Escudero 2015).
These studies confirm that technology could significantly
affect individuals’ behavior intentions in both positive and
negative ways. The significant impact of technology on indi-
vidual behavioral outcomes has motivated the tourism indus-
try to embed technologies in smart tourism destinations for
the purpose of enhancing the travel experience.
Jeong and Shin 5
Figure 1.  Impact of Smart Tourism Technology on Tourists’ Experience and Their Psychological Behavior.
Building on these previous studies on the relationships
between memorable experience, satisfaction, and behavior
intentions, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: Tourists’ memorable experience at smart
tourism destinations positively affects their satisfaction
with STTs.
Hypothesis 4: Tourists’ satisfaction with STTs positively
affects their behavioral intention to revisit the smart tour-
ism destination.
Hypothesis 5: Tourists’ memorable experience at smart
tourism destinations positively affects their behavioral
intention to revisit the smart tourism destination.
Figure 1 depicts the study’s conceptual framework by
incorporating key STT attributes into tourists’ behavioral
outcomes.
Methodology
Data Collection and Instruments
This study used a convenient, yet national, sampling
approach by working with an online survey and database
marketing company, Qualtrics, to contact those who had
traveled to one of the following smart tourism destinations
during the year of 2016: Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; New
York City, NY; San Francisco, CA; and Seattle, WA. These
five cities ranked top five smart cities in the United States,
representing three different regions (East, West, and Midwest
of the United States) where advanced ICTs were embedded
in the city and they were top US tourism destinations as well
(Cohen 2017). Furthermore, in the year 2017, four of the five
cities ranked top 15 smart cities in the world—New York
City (1st), Boston (4th), San Francisco (5th), and Chicago
(12th) (Dhiraj 2017). For these reasons, the five US destina-
tions provided the sample setting for this study. Prior to the
nationwide survey, this study conducted a series of prelimi-
nary tests including a pretest and expert reviews of the sur-
vey instrument to enhance its clarity and reliability. The
pretest sampled 155 students majoring in hospitality and
tourism management at a southeast university in the United
States who helped refine the wordings and readability of the
instrument. Three hospitality and tourism researchers then
reviewed the instrument again to provide feedback for addi-
tional refinement before field administration.
The nationwide survey questionnaire included four sec-
tions. The first section consisted of an informed consent form
and a screening question asking whether the respondent trav-
eled to one of the five sample cities in the previous 12
months. If the respondent did not choose one of the five cit-
ies, the survey terminated his or her participation. The sec-
ond section included questions asking about what type of
technology devices the respondents used during their travel
and questions inquiring about the type of STTs they used
during their visit to one of the five destinations. Before
responding to the question, they read the definition of STTs
to understand what STTs were. The questionnaire listed 28
different STTs (e.g., mobile payment, such as Apple Pay and
Samsung Pay) from which the respondents checked the ones
they used at the visited destination. The third section con-
tained items measuring the key constructs of the study. All
measurement items in the third section were adopted from
previous studies to secure their initial reliability and validity:
four STT attributes and security/privacy from the study of
Huang et al. (2017), memorable experience from Oh, Fiore,
and Jeoung (2007), and satisfaction and behavior intentions
from Lin and Hsieh (2007). All constructs had multiitem
measures, anchored on a scale ranging from 1=strongly dis-
agree to 7=strongly agree: three items for accessibility, three
for informativeness, three for interactivity, three for person-
alization, four for security/privacy, four for memorable expe-
rience, three for satisfaction, and three for intention (see
Table 3). The last section contained questions about sociode-
mographic backgrounds of the respondents.
Data Analysis
A descriptive analysis summarized the characteristics of the
respondents’ sociodemographic profile and the mean values
of each measure. The main analysis to test the hypotheses
was two-step structural equation modeling (SEM) via IBM
6 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)

SPSS AMOS 25. First, based on J. C. Anderson and Gerbing Table 1.  Demographic Profile (n=1,010).
(1988), the measurement model in application of confirma- Characteristics Frequency (%)
tory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the quality of measure- Gender  
ment. Second, SEM by the maximum likelihood estimator  Male 500 (49.5)
tested the hypothesized relationships between the latent vari-  Female 510 (50.5)
ables. Provided the chi-square was sensitive to sample size Ethnicity  
(Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993), several fit indices helped eval-  White 752 (74.5)
uate the goodness of the model and they included compara-   African American 126 (12.5)
tive fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), incremental fit  Asian 77 (7.6)
index (IFI), and root mean square error of approximation   American Indian or Alaska Native 18 (1.8)
  Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 13 (1.3)
(RMSEA). CFI, NFI, and IFI values greater than 0.90 and an  Other 24 (2.4)
RMSEA value smaller than 0.08 are indicative of a good Generation  
model fit (Hair et al. 1995). Tests of hypotheses 2a to 2d,   Baby boomers 129 (12.8)
which addressed whether the level of security/privacy would   Generation X 175 (17.3)
vary according to the interaction effect of STT attributes and   Generation Y 590 (58.4)
memorable experience (high vs. low groups), employed a   Generation Z 116 (11.5)
multigroup approach. The multigroup analysis method could Employment Status  
test whether the same path model was tenable across the dif-   Employed full time 552 (54.7)
ferent groups of respondents. That is, if there was any signifi-  Unemployed 166 (16.2)
  Employed part time 140 (13.9)
cantly different causal path between two groups (i.e., high
 Retired 82 (8.1)
vs. low groups), there is a stronger (or weaker) causal rela-   Self-employed or business owner 70 (6.9)
tionship between STT attributes and memorable experience Income Level  
in one group than the other.   Less than $50,000 414 (41.0)
  $50,001 to $70,000 181 (17.9)
  $70,001 to $90,000 142 (14.1)
Findings   $90,001 to $110,000 111 (11.0)
The survey resulted in 1,010 complete responses. About half   $110,001 to $130,000 66 (6.5)
of the respondents were male, with two-thirds holding at   $130,001 to $150,000 29 (2.9)
  More than $150,000 67 (6.6)
least an associate degree and above and 39% earning at least
Education Level  
$70,000 annually. The number of respondents who visited
  High school graduate 346 (34.3)
one of the smart tourism destinations during the year of 2016   Associate degree in college 225 (22.3)
ranged from 172 to Seattle to 225 to New York City, and two-   Bachelor’s degree in college 323 (32.0)
thirds of them visited the destinations for pleasure. About   Postgraduate degree 116 (11.5)
58% of the respondents were Generation Y, followed by Smart Tourism Destination Visited  
Generation X (17%), Baby Boomers (13%), and Generation   Boston, MA 209 (20.7)
Z (12%) (see Table 1). As expected, the majority of respon-   Chicago, IL 196 (19.4)
dents (95%) used a smartphone as their primary smart device   New York City, NY 225 (22.3)
for communicating, connecting, and enhancing their travel   San Francisco, CA 208 (20.6)
  Seattle, WA 172 (17.0)
experience at the smart tourism destinations.
Purpose  
Table 2 summarizes the type of STTs that the respondents
  For business 83 (8.2)
used while traveling in the smart tourism destinations to sup-   For pleasure 670 (66.3)
port or enjoy their trip and their sociodemographic character-   For both business and pleasure 240 (23.8)
istics. Of the 1,010 respondents, more than three quarters  Other 17 (1.7)
(780) used “Google Maps,” followed by “ride-sharing pro- Smart devices used at the destination  
gram” (508), “city guide app” (422), “mobile payment”  Smartphone 965 (95.5)
(411), and “parking apps” (267). Interestingly, not many  Tablet 524 (51.9)
respondents used “bike sharing” (7.3%) and other advanced  Camera 435 (43.1)
digital technologies such as “virtual reality,” “Internet of   Apple watch 179 (17.7)
Things (IoTs),” “mobile NEF/RFID boarding,” “augmented
reality,” “beacon,” and “mobile concierge.”
Of the 28 different STTs listed, the respondents used 5 to more SSTs (5.9 STTs), followed by Generation Y (5.7 STTs),
6 different STTs on average while visiting the smart tourism Generation Z (5.00 STTs), and Baby Boomers (4.2 STTs).
destinations. More specifically, males (5.8 STTs) used Respondents had different STT usage preferences by gender,
slightly more STTs than females (5.1 STTs), and “bleisure” trip purposes, and generation. Females preferred to use
travelers (7.6 STTs) used more STTs than business (5.1 Google Maps, ride-sharing program, city guide app, and
STTs) or leisure travelers (4.8 STTs). Generation X used mobile payment more than males, while males used Airbnb,
Jeong and Shin 7

Table 2.  Tourists’ Use of Smart Technology Applications at the Destination (n=1,010).

Type of Tripa Gender Generation

Frequency
List of smart technology applications (%) 1 2 3 Male Female Boomer GenX GenY GenZ
Google Maps 780 (77.2) 38 558 169 354 426 99 135 460 86
Ride-sharing program 508 (50.3) 27 345 130 241 267 50 91 316 51
CityGuideApp (museums, parks, landmarks, 422 (41.8) 35 275 111 200 222 48 77 251 46
public art, restaurants, real-time traffic)
Mobile payment 411 (40.7) 21 282 103 191 220 40 63 258 50
Parking Apps 267 (26.4) 11 173 80 136 131 28 53 157 29
Touchscreens (buying a MetroCard) 254 (25.1) 15 171 67 131 123 26 45 161 22
Airbnb 247 (24.5) 21 138 87 134 113 29 45 156 17
Charging stations 242 (24.0) 18 137 84 130 112 27 44 136 35
Traffic rerouting apps (Greenway, Waze) 237 (23.5) 17 141 75 124 113 25 55 135 22
Rec&Park APP 191 (18.9) 12 101 77 106 85 23 29 114 25
Dynamic kiosk (real-time information about 182 (18.0) 14 97 71 100 82 10 30 127 15
traffic, weather, local news) like Urbanflow
My TSA 182 (18.0) 19 98 63 104 78 24 47 93 18
Ubiquitous WiFi 150 (14.9) 15 94 39 82 68 17 28 93 12
Smart climate control 140 (13.9) 15 66 59 75 65 8 24 84 24
Emergency alert system 136 (13.5) 7 76 51 70 66 12 25 82 17
Apps for Charities 132 (13.1) 19 39 73 90 42 8 27 84 13
Flight Track Pro 122 (12.1) 10 56 55 67 55 14 18 82 8
Smart street lights 115 (11.4) 18 48 49 72 43 8 26 69 12
Virtual Reality 101 (10.0) 14 39 47 64 37 5 24 56 16
Internet of Things 93 (9.2) 9 41 43 56 37 10 23 49 11
Street bump 91 (9.0) 10 35 46 59 32 5 22 55 9
Mobile NFC/RFID Boarding 90 (8.9) 10 45 33 45 45 7 14 58 11
Surveillance system 83 (8.2) 11 33 39 56 27 6 17 51 9
Augmented Reality 81 (8.0) 13 22 46 62 19 4 20 49 8
Bikesharing 74 (7.3) 8 33 31 50 24 4 18 49 3
CycleTracks 72 (7.1) 9 24 38 49 23 1 14 51 6
Beacon 51 (5.0) 8 19 24 33 18 3 8 36 4
Mobile concierge 48 (4.8) 3 23 22 28 20 5 8 33 2
No. of STTs used 5.6 5.1 4.8 7.6 5.8 5.1 4.2 5.9 5.6 5.0
a
Type of Trip: 1 = business; 2 = leisure; 3 = bleisure.

charging stations, and traffic routing apps more than females
did. Three types of tourists, business, leisure, and bleisure,
had similar patterns in their use of STTs at the destinations.
However, both leisure and bleisure travelers used Google
Maps and ride-sharing program comparatively, while busi-
ness travelers used city guide app and My TSA more often.
Regardless of age, the respondents used “Google Maps” the
most. Younger generations (i.e., Generations Y and Z) used
ride-sharing programs, mobile payment, and charging sta-
tions more frequently than the other generations.
Measurement and Structural Models and
Hypothesis Testing
CFA indicated that the overall fit of the measurement model
was satisfactory (χ² = 853.9, df = 186, p = 0.00, CMIN/df
= 4.591, NFI = 0.955, CFI = 0.965 IFI = 0.965, and
RMSEA = 0.060). As shown in Table 3, the factor loadings
were greater than 0.73. The factor loadings and average
amount of variance extracted (AVE) provided evidence for
the construct validity of the measures at both the item and
construct levels. All individual item loadings greater than
0.70 indicated that the constructs were with more measured
variance than with error variances (Gefen, Straub, and
Boudreau 2000). An AVE greater than 0.50 indicated that the
construct shared more variance with its indicators than with
error variance (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Thus, all mea-
surement items exhibited good convergent validity as sug-
gested. Following Fornell and Larcker (1981), this study
tested discriminant validity by comparing the correlations
among constructs to the AVE values. All constructs demon-
strated acceptable discriminant validity because all intracon-
struct correlations were lower than the square root of each
construct’s AVE, implying that all indicators were better
explained by their respective construct than the other con-
structs (see Table 4).
8 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)

Table 3.  Results of the Measurement Model (n=1,010).

Construct and Measurement Items Mean (SD)a Factor Loadings

Accessibility (composite reliability =0.939; Cronbach α = 0.904; AVE = 0.838)
  I used smart technology applications anytime and anywhere in the selected city. 5.58 (1.56) 0.89
  Smart technology applications were easily available to use in the selected city. 5.75 (1.43) 0.94
  In the selected city, smart technology applications were easily accessible. 5.80 (1.37) 0.92
Informativeness (composite reliability = 0.927; Cronbach α = 0.883; AVE = 0.810)
  Smart technology applications provided useful information on the selected city. 5.86 (1.33) 0.89
  Smart technology applications assisted me in touring in the selected city. 5.82 (1.34) 0.92
  Use of smart technology applications in the selected city completed my trip successfully. 5.85 (1.29) 0.90
Interactivity (composite reliability = 0.948; Cronbach α = 0.918; AVE = 0.788)
  Many other users’ questions, answers, and reviews were available on smart technology 5.48 (1.31) 0.88
applications.
  Smart technology applications were highly responsive to users. 5.65 (1.20) 0.89
  It was easy to share local information through smart technology applications. 5.65 (1.28) 0.89
Personalization (composite reliability = 0.921; Cronbach α = 0.872; AVE = 0.796)
  Smart technology applications allowed me to receive tailored information. 5.60 (1.29) 0.88
  I could interact with smart technology applications to get personalized information. 5.64 (1.22) 0.91
  The personalized information provided by smart technology applications met my need. 5.78 (1.25) 0.89
Memorable Experience (composite reliability = 0.927; Cronbach α = 0.895; AVE = 0.761)
  I had wonderful memories using smart technology applications in the selected city during 5.37 (1.40) 0.89
my trip.
  Smart technology applications made my trip enjoyable in the selected city. 5.54 (1.28) 0.90
  Smart technology applications made my trip beneficial in the selected city. 5.59 (1.24) 0.81
  My experience with using smart technology applications was unforgettable. 5.23 (1.45) 0.89
Satisfaction (composite reliability = 0.918; Cronbach α = 0.867; AVE = 0.790)
  Overall, I was satisfied with the smart technology available in the selected city. 5.59 (1.09) 0.88
  The smart technology available in the selected city exceeded my expectations. 5.87 (1.13) 0.89
  The smart technology available in the selected city was close to my ideal technology. 5.42 (1.29) 0.89
Behavior Intention (composite reliability = 0.948; Cronbach α = 0.918; AVE = 0.859)
  I want to visit the selected city again. 6.15 (1.23) 0.92
  I would recommend the selected city to family and friends. 6.09 (1.22) 0.94
  I would say positive things about the selected city to other people. 6.09 (1.21) 0.93

Note: AVE = average variance extracted.

a
A 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being strongly agree.

Table 4.  Correlation Matrix and Discriminant Assessment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Accessibility 0.916  
2. Informativeness 0.774 0.900  
3. Interactivity 0.632 0.708 0.888  
4. Personalization 0.619 0.694 0.796 0.892  
5. Memorable experience 0.540 0.621 0.696 0.677 0.872  
6. Satisfaction 0.549 0.610 0.717 0.700 0.797 0.889  
7. Behavior Intention 0.471 0.563 0.543 0.550 0.600 0.633 0.927

Note. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ²=853.9, df = 186, p = 0.00, χ²/df = 4.591, NFI = 0.955, CFI = 0.965 IFI = 0.965, TLI =
0.956, RMSEA = 0.060.

The structural model showed a good fit with the data
(χ2 = 517.74, df = 219, CMIN/df = 2.36, p = 0.00; NFI =
0.92; IFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.95; RFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.95;
RMSEA = 0.067). All model fit index values were accept-
able. Table 5 indicates that the relationships between three of
the four SST constructs (informativeness, interactivity, and
personalization) and memorable experience were statisti-
cally significant at p<.01, lending support for hypotheses
1b, 1c and 1d. However, the data showed that the relationship
between accessibility and memorable experience was
Jeong and Shin 9

Table 5.  Standardized Structural Estimates and Hypotheses Tests.

Hypothesis/Path Estimate SE t Value Results

Hypothesis 1a: Accessibility → Memorable experience 0.06 0.05 1.25 Not supported
Hypothesis 1b: Informativeness → Memorable experience 0.22* 0.07 2.93 Supported
Hypothesis 1c: Interactivity → Memorable experience 0.53** 0.10 5.21 Supported
Hypothesis 1d: Personalization → Memorable experience 0.28* 0.10 2.84 Supported
Hypothesis 3: Memorable experience → Satisfaction 0.75** 0.03 28.94 Supported
Hypothesis 4: Satisfaction → Intention 0.50** 0.12 4.13 Supported
Hypothesis 5: Memorable experience → Intention 0.26* 0.10 2.65 Supported

R2 for memorable experience = .70; R2 for satisfaction = .86; R2 for Intention = .51.
χ² = 1084.61, df = 196, CMIN/df = 5.53, NFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.067.
*p < .01, **p < .001.

Table 6.  Moderating Effect Tests of Security/Privacy.

Δχ² Regression weight (L)a Regression weight (H)b Hypothesis Test

Hypothesis 2a Accessibility 3.28 −0.08 −0.04 Not supported
Memorable Experience
Hypothesis 2b Informativeness 8.01 0.10 0.28 Supported
Memorable Experience
Hypothesis 2c Interactivity 4.73 0.60 0.48 Supported
Memorable Experience
Hypothesis 2d Personalization 4.69 0.37 0.23 Supported
Memorable Experience

Note: χ² = 1412.38, df = 392, CMIN/df = 3.60, NFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.051.
a
Less concerned about security/privacy.
b
highly concerned about security/privacy.
**p < .01, ***p < .001, Δχ²0.05,1 = 3.84.

insignificant, leading to rejecting hypothesis 1a. Memorable
experience exerted significant positive effects on both satis-
faction and behavioral intention and satisfaction had a sig-
nificant positive relationship with behavioral intention,
supporting hypotheses 3 to 5, respectively. Squared multiple
correlations indicated that the measurement items extracted
70% variance of tourists’ memorable experience, 86% of
their satisfaction, and 51% of their behavior intentions. All
the R2 of the endogenous constructs in the model exceeded
the 10% benchmark recommended by Falk and Miller
(1992).
To examine moderating effects of tourists’ perceptions of
security/privacy when using STTs at the destination, this
study conducted a series of group comparisons by dividing
the data set into two groups: low (less concerned about secu-
rity and privacy) and high (highly concerned about security
and privacy). The data grouping was based on the median of
the security/privacy construct (Nlow= 511 vs. Nhigh= 499)
(DeCoster, Iselin, and Gallucci 2009; Ro 2012). A proposed
model with free parameters was compared to a constrained
model to evaluate whether the model fit and parameter esti-
mates changed significantly between the two models (Kline
1998). The change was assessed by the ratio of the χ2 differ-
ence to the difference in the degree of freedom between the
low and high groups. The proposed relaxed model was con-
sidered superior in its explanatory power to the constraint
model when it showed a smaller value of χ² than 3.84 (χ²0.05,1
= 3.84) for one less degree of freedom. Compared with the
proposed model (χ² = 1412.38, df=392, p<.000), χ2 differ-
ence tests resulted in significant differences in three paths
from informativeness to memorable experience (Δχ² =
8.01), from interactivity to memorable experience (Δχ² =
4.73), and from personalization to memorable experience
(Δχ² = 4.69) (see Table 6).
Additionally, to identify whether different sociodemo-
graphic groups (i.e., gender, residence, and STT familiarity)
of respondents had different relationships for the path from
STT attributes and their memorable experience, this study
conducted multigroup moderation tests by generating the
critical ratios for the differences in regression weights
between the two groups (V. Singh and Sharma 2016). Only
STT familiarity (Nlow= 530, Nhigh= 480) showed significantly
different perceptions in informativeness and personalization.
Consequently, a group comparison of STT familiarity was
conducted by dividing the data into two groups by using the
median of the total number of STT used by the respondents
(DeCoster, Iselin, and Gallucci 2009; Ro 2012): low (low
familiarity with STTs) and high (high familiarity with STTs).
10 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
The effect of informativeness on memorable experience was
significantly stronger for the low familiar group (β = 0.300,
p<.01) than the high familiar group (β = 0.01, p>.05),
which indicated that the less familiar respondents wanted
more reliable, real-time, and accurate information than the
more familiar respondents did for enhancing their travel
experience. However, personalization significantly and posi-
tively affected the high familiar group (β = 0.506, p<.001)
stronger than the low familiar group (β = 0.124, p>.05).
Thus, respondents with high STT familiarity had more mem-
orable experience than those with low STT familiarity when
STTs suited their own needs and offered personalized and
customized features.
Conclusion
As one of a few empirical studies in the field of STTs and
tourists’ experience at the smart tourism destinations, this
study identified, in general, tourists used various STTs and
had memorable travel experience in the select US smart tour-
ism destinations. As expected, such STTs as Google maps,
ride-sharing programs, city guide app, mobile payment, and
parking apps were tourists’ top five most used STTs at the
smart tourism destinations. Even though the majority of
respondents consisted of generation Y, advanced digital
STTs such as virtual reality, IoTs, augmented reality, and
mobile concierge were not commonly used at smart tourism
destinations, yet.
Adopting the four attributes of STTs from the studies of
Huang et al. (2017) and No and Kim (2015), this study
attempted to measure key STT attributes that affected tour-
ists’ memorable experience, which in turn led to their satis-
faction with STTs and future behavior intention to visit the
destination again. Findings of this study indicated that inter-
activity, personalization, and informativeness appeared to be
the key factors that affected tourists’ memorable experience.
Accessibility was not a main factor for tourists to maximize
the memorability of their experience. This might be due to
the current technological infrastructure of smart tourism des-
tinations in the sense that the cities selected for this study
were all advanced smart cities in the United States and were
fully equipped with a high capacity of bandwidth.
Of the three significant STT attributes, interactivity was
the most influential contributor to tourists’ memorable travel
experience. Reasons may be that various interactive features
of STTs at the destinations helped tourists be more engaged
in tourism activities, keep them informed about all events
and activities, build social space in a digital environment,
and share with others about their memorable and unique
travel experience. These technology-based travel experi-
ences could induce high satisfaction with STTs and stronger
intent to visit the destinations again. STTs’ personalization
was also an influential feature that enhanced tourists’ experi-
ence at the destinations. By recognizing individual tourists’
requests, needs, and issues and by offering tailored responses
and services, STTs could play a role of self-operated tour
guides and help tourists actively participate in their inter-
ested tourism activities. Another influential attribute of STTs
was informativeness. STTs’ quality and trustworthy features
were starting points for tourists to build a loyal relationship
with the destination. Using STTs at destinations enables
tourists to enjoy their trip with degrees of freedom and inde-
pendence and to participate selectively in unique and memo-
rable tourism activities to maximize their travel experience.
The perceptions of security/privacy in using STTs at des-
tinations moderated the relationships between the three STT
attributes—informativeness, interactivity, and personaliza-
tion—and tourists’ memorable experience. Findings showed
that the respondents would use STTs more for their memo-
rable experience in a high-security/privacy-protected envi-
ronment than in a less protected environment in the sense
that they viewed STTs as carriers of high quality and trust-
worthy information as well as enhancers of tailored service
and interactions. Thus, for an effective use of STTs at smart
tourism destinations, tourists need a technological environ-
ment with a high level of guaranteed security and privacy of
the users.
Findings of this study offer both theoretical and practical
implications. Although the researchers adopted four attri-
butes of STTs from the previous studies (i.e., Huang et al.
2017), the context of the present study was different from
that of Huang et al.’s (2017). Their study examined how trav-
elers used STTs in planning their travel in order to maximize
their travel satisfaction, while the present study focused on
evaluating respondents’ actual use of STTs at smart tourism
destinations in the post travel stage. Apparently, the results of
this study are slightly different from those of Huang et al.’s
(2017). From the theoretical perspective, by examining the
importance of the four STT attributes and their relationships
with tourists’ memorable experience, this study found that
three of the four STT attributes, Interactivity (β=.53),
Personalization (β=.27), and Informativeness (β=.21), were
positively and statistically significant factors affecting tour-
ists’ memorable experience at smart tourism destinations.
The memorable experience appears to be a key predictor of
tourists’ satisfaction with STTs (β = .75, p <0.001) and
behavior intention (β = .26, p <0.01). In contrast, Huang
et al. (2017) examined tourists’ perceived travel satisfaction
(i.e., transaction and travel experience) by using second-
order STT attributes to understand how respondents per-
ceived and used STTs at the pretravel stage. In their study,
STTs included online-based tourism applications and travel
agents, blogs, websites, social media, and smartphone apps.
The present study, however, examined how the respondents
used 28 different STTs and tested their effectiveness based
on the four attributes of STTs.
The current study seems to be one of the first attempts to
evaluate tourists’ holistic experience with STTs after they
used them at smart tourism destinations, instead of measur-
ing the effects of STT usage on tourists’ travel satisfaction at
Jeong and Shin 11
the pretravel stage. Although Huang et al. (2017) identified
the key STT attributes and examined customers’ satisfaction
with STTs, their study focused on use of STTs for travel
planning, while this study centered on SST usage at smart
tourism destinations based on actual experiences and recall
of such experiences. Additionally, by examining the explana-
tory power of tourists’ memorable experience with STTs in
the proposed model (R2 = .70), this study asserted that the
three STT attributes could be key indicators in measuring the
effectiveness of STTs in smart tourist destination. This study
also confirmed the importance of perceived security/privacy
when tourists used STTs at destinations as shown in its mod-
erating effects in multigroup analyses.
This study provides destination tourism organizations with
practical insights into effective deployment of STTs at destina-
tions to enhance tourists’ memorable experience. Regardless
of tourists’ age, the majority of tourists used at least two STTs
from their smartphone while traveling in the destination.
Tourists’ usage rate of STTs at destinations expects to increase
in the future. To accommodate tourists’ needs and their pre-
ferred environment for STT usage, destination marketers
should ensure high performance on at least three key
STT attributes, namely, Interactivity, Personalization, and
Informativeness. When tourists use STTs to browse destina-
tions, they expect STTs to be highly interactive sharing local
information, highly personalized to their preferences and
requests, and reliable and useful for their trip. When tourists
use City Guide Apps to find a local museum in San Francisco,
for example, they want to have information about the exact
location of the museum, the distance from their location, local
traffic conditions incorporating accidents and constructions,
reliable reviews about local restaurants, and so forth.
Because one fundamental goal in most trips is to have a
memorable experience through participation in various
activities, marketers of smart tourism destinations should
ensure tourists’ privacy by providing a secure and worry-free
environment for those who use STTs at the destination.
Findings of this study indicated that although three STT attri-
butes were key predictors of tourists’ memorable experience,
such memorable experience with STT usage would deterio-
rate if security and privacy were concerns in using STTs.
Thus, destination tourism organizations must have IT secu-
rity personnel check their Internet platforms on a regular
basis and update their security system frequently.
Although there are various destination-specific factors
that affect tourists’ behavior, their satisfaction with STTs
and intention to visit the destination again are highly depen-
dent on how they experienced STTs in the highly digital
tourism destination environment. It is clear that tourism
organizations of smart destinations should pay more atten-
tion to enhancing tourists’ memorable experience with
STTs. Although tourists’ use of augmented reality, virtual
reality, and other STTs appeared to be relatively low in this
study, local smart tourism organizations need to begin
incorporating these features in their destinations, as tourists
start showing interest.
The findings of this study are subject to several limita-
tions. This study selected only five smart tourism destina-
tions in the United States to test the study’s model. These
five smart tourism destinations are located in large, metro-
politan areas representing key US smart cities. The findings
could be different if smart tourism destinations were located
in suburban or smaller cities. Future studies can sample dif-
ferent scales of smart tourism destinations featuring different
levels of STTs’ availability and functionality in an effort to
increase generalizability of the findings across more destina-
tions and tourists’ memorable experiences.
Of another question is whether the proposed framework is
applicable to smart tourism destinations in different coun-
tries and across travelers of foreign origins. More studies are
encouraged to replicate this study in different countries with
different travelers in order to assess the model’s applicabil-
ity. As a starting point, this study used security/privacy as a
moderator and found outcomes of theoretical as well as prac-
tical importance. Examinations of additional moderators
and/or mediators along the destination location and traveler
origins or cultural background will greatly enhance the
explanatory power of tourists’ memorable experience.
Because of a potential selection bias in sampling STT
users, the results of the study may be unique to the sample.
Future studies may explore differences and similarities of
STT users versus nonusers in responding to STT attributes
and their relationships with tourism experience and intention
to revisit the smart tourism destinations. It would be also
interesting to investigate and understand what kind of digital
environments can cater to tourists’ STT needs and usage.
Lastly, since tourists’ perceived destination image has been
one of the key pull factors in destination marketing, assess-
ing the effects of STTs on destination image may result in
valuable contributions to theoretical progress as well as to
industry practice.
Acknowledgments
We greatly thank USC College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport
Management for the financial support for this research.
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) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Miyoung Jeong https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9008-0996
Hyejo Hailey Shin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8273-9719
12 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
References
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50
(2): 179–211.
Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard
Lutz, Alan Sawyer, and Stacy Wood. 1997. “Interactive Home
Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to
Participate in Electronic Marketplaces.” Journal of Marketing
61 (3): 38–53.
Anderson, Eugene W., and Mary W. Sullivan. 1993. “The
Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for
Firms.” Marketing Science 12 (2): 125–43.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411.
Ball, Dwayne, Pedro S. Coelho, and Manuel J. Vilares. 2006.
“Service Personalization and Loyalty.” Journal of Services
Marketing 20 (6): 391–403.
Berthon, Pierre, Leyland F. Pitt, and Richard T. Watson. 1996.
“The World Wide Web as an Advertising Medium.” Journal of
Advertising Research 36 (1): 43–54.
Boes, Kim, Dimitrios Buhalis, and Alessandro Inversini. 2016.
“Smart Tourism Destinations: Ecosystems for Tourism
Destination Competitiveness.” International Journal of
Tourism Cities 2 (2): 108–24.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Aditya Amaranggana. 2014. “Smart Tourism
Destinations.” In Information and Communication Technologies
in Tourism, 553–64. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Marie Foerste. 2015. “SoCoMo Marketing
for Travel and Tourism: Empowering Co-creation of Value.”
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (3): 151–61.
Buonincontri, Piera, and Roberto Micera. 2016. “The Experience
Co-creation in Smart Tourism Destinations: A Multiple Case
Analysis of European Destinations.” Information Technology
& Tourism 16 (3): 285–315.
Carbonell, Pilar, and Ana Isabel Rodriguez Escudero. 2015. “The
Negative Effect of Team’s Prior Experience and Technological
Turbulence on New Service Development Projects with
Customer Involvement.” European Journal of Marketing 49
(3/4): 278–301.
Chen, Ching-Fu, and Fu-Shian Chen. 2010. “Experience Quality,
Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions for
Heritage Tourists.” Tourism Management 31 (1): 29–35.
Chen, Ching-Fu. 2008. “Investigating Structural Relationships
between Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and
Behavioral Intentions for Air Passengers: Evidence from
Taiwan.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
42 (4): 709–17.
Chung, Namho, and Chulmo Koo. 2015. “The Use of Social Media
in Travel Information Search.” Telematics and Informatics 32
(2): 215–29.
Chung, Namho, Hyunae Lee, Jin-Young Kim, and Chulmo Koo.
2018. “The Role of Augmented Reality for Experience-
Influenced Environments: The Case of Cultural Heritage
Tourism in Korea.” Journal of Travel Research 57 (5): 627–43.
Cohen, B. 2017. “The 10 Smartest Cities in North America.”
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3021592/the-10-smartest-cities-
in-north-america (accessed March 6, 2017).
DeCoster, Jamie, Anne-Marie R. Iselin, and Marcello Gallucci.
2009. “A Conceptual and Empirical Examination of
Justifications for Dichotomization.” Psychological Methods 14
(4): 349.
DeCoster, Jamie, Anne-Marie R. Iselin, and Marcello Gallucci.
2009. “A Conceptual and Empirical Examination of
Justifications for Dichotomization.” Psychological Methods 14
(4): 349.
Dhiraj, A. 2017. “What Are the Top 20 Smartest Cities in the World
for 2017.” http://ceoworld.biz/2017/06/05/what-are-the-top-
20-smartest-cities-in-the-world-for-2017/ (accessed October
24, 2017).
Falk, R. Frank, and Nancy B. Miller. 1992. A Primer for Soft
Modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating
Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):
39–50.
Gefen, David, Detmar Straub, and Marie-Claude Boudreau. 2000.
“Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for
Research Practice.” Communications of the Association for
Information Systems 4 (1): 7.
Gretzel, Ulrike, Hannes Werthner, Chulmo Koo, and Carlos
Lamsfus. 2015. “Conceptual Foundations for Understanding
Smart Tourism Ecosystems.” Computers in Human Behavior
50:558–63.
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William
C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliff,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, Robert E., B. Bowerman, J. Braverman, J. Taylor, H.
Todosow, and U. Von Wimmersperg. 2000. The Vision of a
Smart City. No. BNL-67902; 04042. Upton, NY: Brookhaven
National Lab.
Heider, Fritz. 1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.”
Journal of Psychology 21 (1): 107–12.
Hoch, Stephen J., and John Deighton. 1989. “Managing What
Consumers Learn from Experience.” Journal of Marketing 53
(2): 1–20.
Hollands, Robert G. 2008. “Will the Real Smart City Please Stand
Up? Intelligent, Progressive or Entrepreneurial?” City 12 (3):
303–20.
Hollands, Robert G. 2015. “Critical Interventions into the Corporate
Smart City.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and
Society 8 (1): 61–77.
Hosany, Sameer, and Mark Witham. 2010. “Dimensions of Cruisers’
Experiences, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend.”
Journal of Travel Research 49 (3): 351–64.
Huang, C. Derrick, Jahyun Goo, Kichan Nam, and Chul Woo
Yoo. 2017. “Smart Tourism Technologies in Travel Planning:
The Role of Exploration and Exploitation.” Information &
Management 54 (6): 757–70.
Jöreskog, K. G., and D. Sörbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural
Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kim, Jong-Hyeong. 2014. “The Antecedents of Memorable
Tourism Experiences: The Development of a Scale to Measure
the Destination Attributes Associated with Memorable
Experiences.” Tourism Management 44: 34–45.
Jeong and Shin 13
Kim, Jong-Hyeong. 2018. “The Impact of Memorable Tourism
Experiences on Loyalty Behaviors: The Mediating Effects
of Destination Image and Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel
Research 57 (7): 856–70.
Kim, Woo Gon, Chang Lee, and Stephen J. Hiemstra. 2004.
“Effects of an Online Virtual Community on Customer Loyalty
and Travel Product Purchases.” Tourism Management 25 (3):
343–55.
Kline, Rex B. 1998. “Methodology in the Social Sciences. Principles
and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.” New York:
Guilford.
Korea Tourism Organization. 2013. “Seoul Palace Launched
Augmented Reality Mobile App.” VisitKorea. http://english.vis-
itkorea.or.kr/enu/FU/FU_EN_15.jsp?cid=1786566. (accessed
April 26, 2018)
Kwok, S. H., and S. Gao. 2005. “Attitude towards Knowledge
Sharing Behavior.” Journal of Computer Information Systems
46 (2): 45–51.
Lee, Hanna, Jimin Lee, Namho Chung, and Culmo Koo. 2018.
“Tourists’ Happiness: Are There Smart Tourism Technology
Effects?” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 23 (5):
486–501.
Lin, Jiun-Sheng Chris, and Pei-Ling Hsieh. 2017. “The Influence
of Technology Readiness on Satisfaction and Behavioral
Intentions toward Self-Service Technologies.” Computers in
Human Behavior 23 (3): 1597–615.
Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia. 2014. “The Role of the Rural
Tourism Experience Economy in Place Attachment and
Behavioral intentions.” International Journal of Hospitality
Management 40:1–9.
Madu, Christian N., and Assumpta A. Madu. 2002. “Dimensions
of E-quality.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 19 (3): 246–58.
Moutinho, Luiz. 1987. “Consumer Behaviour in Tourism.”
European Journal of Marketing 21 (10): 5–44.
Neuhofer, Barbara, Dimitrios Buhalis, and Adele Ladkin. 2015.
“Smart Technologies for Personalized Experiences: A Case
Study in the Hospitality Domain.” Electronic Markets 25:
243–54.
No, Eunjung, and Jin Ki Kim. 2015. “Comparing the Attributes of
Online Tourism Information Sources.” Computers in Human
Behavior 50:564–75.
Oh, Haemoon, Ann Marie Fiore, and Miyoung Jeoung. 2007.
“Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism
Applications.” Journal of Travel Research 46 (2): 119–32.
Oliver, Richard L. 1980. “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents
and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.” Journal of
Marketing Research 17 (4): 460–69.
Ozturk, Ahmet Bulent, and Murat Hancer. 2015. “The Effects
of Demographics and Past Experience on RFID Technology
Acceptance in the Hospitality Industry.” International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 16 (3):
275–89.
Pan, Bing, Zheng Xiang, Rob Law, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier.
2011. “The Dynamics of Search Engine Marketing for
Tourist Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (4):
365–77.
Poushter, J. 2016. “Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage
Continues to Climb in Emerging Economies.” http://www.
pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-
internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/
(accessed October 18, 2017).
Prayag, Girish, Sameer Hosany, Birgit Muskat, and Giacomo Del
Chiappa. 2017. “Understanding the Relationships between
Tourists’ Emotional Experiences, Perceived Overall Image,
Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend.” Journal of Travel
Research 56 (1): 41–54.
Reisinger, Yvette, and Lindsay W. Turner. 2003. Cross-Cultural
Behavior in Tourism; Concept and Analysis. Oxford: Elsevier
Science Limited.
Rivera, Manuel, Amy Gregory, and Liza Cobos. 2015. “Mobile
Application for the Timeshare Industry: The Influence
of Technology Experience, Usefulness, and Attitude on
Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology 6 (3): 242–57.
Ro, Heejung. 2012. “Moderator and Mediator Effects in Hospitality
Research.” International Journal of Hospitality Management
31 (3): 952–61.
Schaupp, L. Christian, and France Bélanger. 2005. “A Conjoint
Analysis of Online Consumer Satisfaction1.” Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research 6 (2): 95.
Singh, Jagdip, Jerry R. Goolsby, and Gary K. Rhoads. 1994.
“Behavioral and Psychological Consequences of Boundary
Spanning Burnout for Customer Service Representatives.”
Journal of Marketing Research 31 (4): 558–69.
Singh, Vedant, and Somesh K. Sharma. 2016. “Analyzing the
Moderating Effects of Respondent Type and Experience on the
Fuel Efficiency Improvement in Air Transport Using Structural
Equation Modeling.” European Transport Research Review 8
(12): 1–20.
Totty, M. 2017. “The Rise of the Smart City.” https://www.wsj.
com/articles/the-rise-of-the-smart-city-1492395120 (accessed
October 24, 2017).
Tussyadiah, Iis P., and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 2007. “Interpreting
Tourist Experiences from First-Person Stories: A Foundation
for Mobile Guides.” In ECIS 2007 Proceedings, 2259–70.
Tussyadiah, Iis P., and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 2009. “Mediating
Tourist Experiences: Access to Places via Shared Videos.”
Annals of Tourism Research 36 (1): 24–40.
Wang, Dan, Xiang Robert Li, and Yunpeng Li. 2013. “China’s
‘Smart Tourism Destination’ Initiative: A Taste of the Service-
Dominant Logic.” Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management 2 (2): 59–61.
Wang, Xia, Xiang Robert Li, Feng Zhen, and JinHe Zhang. 2016.
“How Smart Is Your Tourist Attraction? Measuring Tourist
Preferences of Smart Tourism Attractions via a FCEM-AHP
and IPA Approach.” Tourism Management 54:309–20.
Wang, Yi-Shun, Hsien-Ta Li, Ci-Rong Li, and Ding-Zhong
Zhang. 2016. “Factors Affecting Hotels’ Adoption of Mobile
Reservation Systems: A Technology-Organization-Environment
Framework.” Tourism Management 53 (2016): 163–72.
Wang, Ying, Kevin Kam Fung So, and Beverley A. Sparks. 2017.
“Technology Readiness and Customer Satisfaction with Travel
Technologies: A Cross-Country Investigation.” Journal of
Travel Research 56 (5): 563–77.
14 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
Xiang, Zheng, Dan Wang, Joseph T. O’Leary, and Daniel R.
Fesenmaier. 2015. “Adapting to the Internet: Trends in Travelers’
Use of the Web for Trip Planning.” Journal of Travel Research
54 (4): 511–27.
Yang, Yan, Xiaoming Liu, and Jun Li. 2015. “How Customer
Experience Affects the Customer-Based Brand Equity for
Tourism Destinations.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
32 (Suppl 1): S97–113.
Zhong, Yun Ying Susan, James Busser, and Seyhmus Baloglu. 2017.
“A Model of Memorable Tourism Experience: The Effects
on Satisfaction, Affective Commitment, and Storytelling.”
Tourism Analysis 22 (2): 201–17.
Author Biographiess
Miyoung Jeong is a Professor in the School of Hotel, Restaurant
and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina. Main
areas of her research include hospitality operations and technology
with emphasis on social media, mobile technology, sharing econ-
omy, and business analytics.
Hyejo Hailey Shin is a Ph.D candidate in the School of Hotel,
Restaurant, and Tourism Management at the University of South
Carolina. Her research interests are in the areas of consumer behav-
ior toward technology adoption in the tourism and hospitality
industry and data analytics.