See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275032556

Destination Aesthetics and Aesthetic Distance in Tourism Experience

Article  in  Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · April 2015

DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.958608

CITATIONS READS
50 1,439

2 authors:

Ksenia Kirillova Xinran Y. Lehto

Institut Paul Bocuse Purdue University
56 PUBLICATIONS   1,293 CITATIONS    141 PUBLICATIONS   7,129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Airbnb View project

Hotel-Customer Communications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ksenia Kirillova on 16 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University]
On: 16 April 2015, At: 08:21
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Destination Aesthetics and Aesthetic Distance in

Tourism Experience
Ksenia Kirillova & Xinran Lehto
Published online: 14 Apr 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Ksenia Kirillova & Xinran Lehto (2015): Destination Aesthetics and Aesthetic Distance in Tourism
Experience, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.958608

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.958608

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2015
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 online
DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.958608

DESTINATION AESTHETICS AND AESTHETIC

DISTANCE IN TOURISM EXPERIENCE
Ksenia Kirillova
Xinran Lehto

ABSTRACT. Given the paucity of scholarly attention to the aesthetic component of tourism
experience, this research attempted to empirically explore the roles of destination aesthetic qualities
and “aesthetic distance”, that is, the perceived difference between the aesthetic properties of a
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015

destination and those of a tourist’s home environment, in the tourist’s aesthetic judgment and vacation
satisfaction. The results validated a six-factor structure of aesthetic qualities, namely locale character-
istics, scope, upkeep, accord, perceived age, and shape. This research noted that when tourists evaluate
their home environment more positively in terms of upkeep and scope than vacation environment, they
tend to perceive a destination as less beautiful. Only aesthetic distance in scope of experiential features
influences vacation satisfaction. Relevant practical implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS. Tourism aesthetics, aesthetic judgment, satisfaction, experience-based products

1. INTRODUCTION satisfaction. Indeed, among many properties of

The following conversation was overheard that
occurred amid scenic Colorado Rocky Mountains
during a hike. A group of tourists was sharing
positive sentiments about the ongoing trip with
one another when a young man admitted that
nothing about this outing greatly impressed him.
He continued to elaborate that, although landscape
was quite picturesque, the scenery that he had seen
thus far was not remarkable enough. Additionally,
the trails were too crowded, cabins were too rustic,
and, finally, he had seen better views around his
hometown. Although further details of this tour-
ist’s vacation experience are not known, it is also
possible that the subpar impression of the destina-
tion aesthetics adversely affected his trip
tourism destinations, aesthetic qualities represent
an important component of tourism experience yet
it is one of its least studied dimensions (Kirillova,
Fu, Lehto, & Cai, 2014). Prompting tourists to
judge a destination as beautiful or ugly, tourism
aesthetics could significantly influence tourism
experience, linking it to overall satisfaction
(Pizam, Neumann, & Reichel, 1978; Todd,
2009), loyalty (Lee, Jeon, & Kim, 2011), and
intention to return (Baloglu, Pekcan, Chen, &
Santos, 2004). As illustrated in the example, in
addition to aesthetic qualities, the perceived dis-
tance between the aesthetic properties of a tourist’s
home and those of a destination environment
(hereby referred to as “aesthetic distance”) could
be crucial in tourism experience. For instance,

Ksenia Kirillova is a PhD Candidate, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, 900
West State St., Marriott Hall, Room 206F, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA (E‑mail:kkirillo@purdue.edu, ph).
Xinran Lehto is a Professor, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, 900 West
State St., Marriott Hall, Room 257, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA (E‑mail:xinran@purdue.edu).
Address correspondence to: Ksenia Kirillova, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Purdue University, 900 West State St., Marriott Hall, Room 206F, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
(E‑mail:kkirillo@purdue.edu, ph).
1
 2 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
those living in coastal areas could appraise moun-
tainous destinations more favorably than beach
vacations, simply because they tend to find a
novel and diversified scenery more beautiful
(Kirillova et al., 2014). This sense of novelty,
however, could also hinder the vacation experi-
ence, increase anxiety, and ultimately hamper
vacation satisfaction (Reisinger & Turner, 1998).
Tourism research has acknowledged the value
of aesthetics in tourism experience (Alegre &
Garau, 2010; O’Leary & Deegan, 2003; Pizam
et al., 1978). However, although the multidimen-
sional conceptualization of tourism aesthetics has
been recently proposed (Kirillova et al., 2014),
understanding of the beauty in tourism is still
mostly one-dimensional and perfunctory. The
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
major complication arises from the lack of valid
instruments to assess perceived aesthetic qualities
of a destination, since previous studies on this
subject focused on theory building rather than
operationalization or empirical validations (e.g.
Kirillova et al., 2014). There is also a paucity of
attention to the role of contrasting environments
in tourism experience. The cultural distance
research, another area addressing the concept of
distance, recognizes the role of home environ-
ment in tourism experience; however, it ignores
the aesthetic component (Crotts, 2004).
Against this background, the current study is
a pioneering attempt to empirically examine the
role of destination aesthetic qualities as well as
to elaborate on the function of perceived dis-
tance between aesthetic qualities of home and
destination environments in tourism experience.
Specifically, we aim to understand how aes-
thetic qualities and aesthetic distance contribute
to tourist aesthetic judgment and vacation satis-
faction. This knowledge will allow tourism
practitioners to develop effective tools to man-
age tourism experience through influencing
tourist aesthetic judgment and satisfaction.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Role of the Environment in
Consumptive Experience
Environment as consisting of tangible and
intangible elements is known to influence
consumer behavior while contributing to con-
sumptive experience (Bitner, 1992; Hosany &
Gilbert, 2010; Liu & Jang, 2009; Ryu & Jang,
2007). This view emphasizes the point that pro-
ducts are experienced differently in different
contexts. In a restaurant setting, for instance,
consuming food in a fast-food establishment is
experientially different from enjoying a meal in
a fast-casual restaurant. King, Weber,
Meiselman, and Lv (2004, 2007) determined
that varying consumption environments had an
effect on food evaluation; moreover, adding
contextual variables increased acceptance scores
for side products such as salads and teas. In
another study it was shown that fast music
promotes fast eating in restaurants and lowers
bar purchases while slow classical music
increased drinks orders (Milliman, 1986;
North, Shilcock, & Hargreaves, 2003).
To explain the mechanism of the environ-
mental influence on consumers, researchers
widely adopt Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974)
environmental stimuli, organism or emotional
states, and responses (SOR). The model implies
that a stimulus originated from the environment
evokes an emotional response in an individual,
which is then followed by a cognitive or beha-
vioral response. To illustrate, Brunner-Sperdin,
Peters, and Strobl (2012) demonstrated that the
ability of the environment to deliver pleasure
and a sense of immersion as well as tangible,
intangible, and social environmental attributes
significantly influences consumers’ emotional
responses and thus satisfaction with the service
experience. In another instance, Jang and
Namkung (2009) found that positive emotions
mediated the relationship between restaurant
atmospherics and behavioral intentions.
Specifically to the tourism context, Hosany
and Gilbert (2010) reported that destination
environments capable of evoking the emotions
of joy, love, and positive surprise contribute to
tourist satisfaction.
In an emerging stream of research, Lehto
(2013) investigated the role of environment in
tourists’ perception of vacation as restorative.
Conceptually based on Kaplan’s (1995) atten-
tion restoration theory, the study found that
destination environments that fascinate, create
a sense of mental and physical “away-ness”,
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto
possess enough context variability yet a mini-
mum of confusing and chaotic elements, and
that are compatible with a tourist’s self-concept
tend to be perceived as restorative and contri-
bute to vacation satisfaction. In summary,
although not directly addressed in the above
studies, the integral component of a surrounding
environment – its aesthetics – could have the
capacity to induce positive emotions and thus
serve as a source of enjoyment during travel. In
this way, tourists’ assessment of a destination
environment as beautiful or ugly becomes an
important aspect of tourism experience (Todd,
2009).
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
2.2 Aesthetic Judgment
Philosophers through the ages pondered the
question of the nature of aesthetic judgment, or
what it is we find attractive. Earlier thinkers
such as Plato, Aristotle, Saint Thomas
Aquinas, Descartes, and others theorized about
the objective nature of aesthetic judgment.
Although their reasoning differed, they agreed
that an object possesses a set of features that
prompt any individual to judge it as beautiful or
ugly (Beardsley, 1975). In contrast, the eight-
eenth–nineteenth century philosophers such as
Kant, Hegel, Hume, and more contemporary
thinkers argued that because individuals have
diverse backgrounds, they process information
about an object’s features distinctly and there-
fore their resulting aesthetic judgments may
vary (Beardsley, 1975). These thinkers attested
to the subjective perspective of aesthetic judg-
ment. Modern philosophers consider aesthetic
experience as a process. For instance, Leder,
Belke, Oeberst, and Augustin (2004) proposed
a theoretical model for aesthetic experience
where aesthetic judgment is viewed as an out-
come of a cognitive process while aesthetic
emotion is a result of affective evaluation.
These researchers stress that aesthetic judgment
can be assessed by the means of social science
but aesthetic emotions can only be measured by
neuropsychological tools. Markovic (2012)
compares aesthetic experience to the state of
“flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) in a sense
that in that mental state individuals are drawn
3
to the object of appreciation, which evokes a
loss of self-consciousness and a sense of time.
Much discussion of aesthetic appreciation
has centered on an object, usually a piece of
art, with an appreciator acting as an outside
observer. For instance, it is accepted that
round and symmetric objects are typically
judged as more beautiful than angular and
asymmetric objects (Jacobsen, Schubotz,
Höfel, & Cramon, 2006; Silvia & Barona,
2009). A modern branch of philosophy –
environmental aesthetics – focuses on one’s
physical surroundings. These philosophers
postulate that in order to appreciate an environ-
ment, an individual does not only observe but
he/she is also fully immersed in the object of
appreciation (Hepburn, 1966). Unlike art appre-
ciation, which is contemplative, environmental
aesthetic experience is built on active and parti-
cipatory modes of appreciation. Because such
an aesthetic process implies stimulation of all
five human senses, it is experiential in nature
(Berleant, 2005). Additionally, Ittelson (1978)
argued that the environment–appreciator rela-
tionship is multidimensional as environment
could be simultaneously understood as an exter-
nal object, as representation of self, and as an
arena for action. Tourism aesthetics is unique in
this sense. Because tourism entails traveling a
certain distance to a vacation destination, the
appreciated environment is often new or less
familiar to tourists than the usual home environ-
ment. Enhanced by the impression of novelty,
the modes of aesthetic appreciation under these
circumstances are potentially more complex.
2.3 Dimensions of Aesthetic Judgment of
Environments
Environmental psychologists have empiri-
cally studied how individuals perceive land-
scapes. A positive aesthetic judgment in their
research is often equated to aesthetic or envir-
onmental preference because the latter is a
strong predictor of the former (Han, 2007).
For instance, natural environments are consis-
tently preferred to urban environments and
judged as more beautiful (Hartig, 1993).
Because the subjective nature of aesthetic
 4 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

judgment implies that aesthetic judgments of an TABLE 1. Dimensions of Tourist Aesthetic

environment could vary among individuals, Judgment
scholars have been particularly interested in
how people realize their judgments, or against Dimensions Dimensions
which dimensions individuals judge a landscape
Scale Diversity
as beautiful or ugly. It was found, for instance, Bright–Dull Diverse–Alike
that physical attributes such as relief lacked Grand–Quaint Novelty
predictive properties for aesthetic judgment Presence of People–Absence Novel–Typical
while perception-based variables such as open- of People
Abundance–Scarcity Shape
ness, smoothness (Kaplan, Kaplan, & Brown, Openness–Narrowness Sophisticated–Simplistic
1989; Rogge, Nevens, & Gulinck, 2007), coher- Time Round–Angular
ence, complexity, and mystery (Van den Berg, Modern–Historic Symmetric–Asymmetric
Vlek, & Coeterier, 1998) were the most power- Young–Old Uniqueness
Condition Unique–Ordinary
ful in determining the preference. Additionally, Clean–Dirty
Real, Arce, and Sabucedo (2000) discovered Well-kept–Run-down
that artificiality, presence of water, roughness Sound
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015

of landscape, and human presence were asso- Lively-Peaceful

ciated with high beauty scores.
While the majority of studies in environment
appreciation considered natural settings, some
researchers focused on aesthetic appreciation
of urban environments. Nasar (1984), for
instance, contrasted aesthetic appraisals of
urban landscapes among experts, Japanese,
and American students, and found that all
three groups utilize the ratings of order and
diversity in the environmental appraisal process.
Interestingly, students rated scenes from another
country as more beautiful than scenes from their
own country, also attesting to the dimension of
novelty. A variety of other predictors were also
empirically shown to influence environmental
preference in the urban setting: naturalness,
maintenance (Galindo & Rodriguez, 2000),
vegetation, visual richness, congruence, lumin-
osity, historicity (Galindo & Hidalgo, 2005),
stylistic uniformity, homogeneity of scale, and
symmetry (Weber, Schnier, & Jacobsen, 2008).
Despite plentiful research on general envir-
onmental preference, tourism aesthetics remains
largely unexplored. Focusing on a specific set-
ting, Fyhri, Jacobsen, and Tommervik (2009)
discovered that the type of vegetation, degree
of human influence, and prototypicality affected
tourists’ perceptions of the Norwegian coast as
beautiful. In the tourism domain specifically,
Kirillova et al. (2014) conceptualized nine
themes and 21 dimensions against which tour-
ists realize aesthetic judgments in both nature-
based and urban settings (Table 1). Unlike
Human-made-Nature-made
Loud–Quiet
Balance
Human touch–No human touch
Authentic–Non-authentic
Organic–“Eye sore”
Adopted from Kirillova et al. (2014)
research in environmental psychology, this qua-
litative study did not intend to uncover which
landscapes are preferred; rather, it aimed to
identify the dimensions utilized in aesthetic
judgments of any landscape. Many themes in
this study are supported by the literature outside
the tourism domain (e.g. diversity, novelty,
shape) while other themes such as uniqueness
and time seem to be exclusive to tourism aes-
thetics. Although this theoretical framework
provides a valuable insight into tourists’ “lived
experiences” of aesthetic qualities of tourism
destinations, it lacks empirical validation.
2.4 Aesthetics and Tourist Satisfaction
As a component of tourism experience,
aesthetics is viewed as an integral element of
vacation satisfaction (see for example Alegre &
Garau, 2010; O’Leary & Deegan, 2003; Pizam
et al., 1978). For example, Meng, Tepanon, and
Uysal (2008) found that natural scenery was the
third most important attribute in destination
attribute importance, and beautiful scenery was
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto
the fourth critical factor in tourist attribute satis-
faction. Validating Oliver’s (1989) expectancy–
disconfirmation theory in the tourism context,
Weber (1997) found that “seeing spectacular
landscapes” and “watching unique fauna” were
among the highest in terms of expectation,
demonstrating the importance of these attributes
to overall satisfaction with tourism experience.
Despite the fact that numerous studies have
recognized the importance of aesthetic qualities
of a destination in tourism experience, these
qualities have been mostly reduced to a single
dimensional variable such as “beautiful scen-
ery” in destination attribute satisfaction scales.
However, considering that beauty is an impor-
tant criterion in environmental preference, it is
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
worthwhile to zoom in on this aesthetic compo-
nent and to estimate its contribution to tourism
experience.
2.5 Novelty in Tourism Experience
Novelty as well as familiarity has been asso-
ciated with product preferences in consumer
behavior research where the interplay of both
is known to predict a product choice (Hekkert,
Snelders, & van Wieringen, 2003) and the for-
mation of consumer loyalty (Toyama &
Yamada, 2012). Unlike a conventional consu-
mer choice scenario, in tourism, the notion of
novelty can be linked to exploratory behavior
(Berlyne, 1966) and thus the desire to travel
(Lee & Crompton, 1992). Based on Mehrabian
and Russell’s (1973) idea that people exhibit
arousing-seeking tendencies, Wahlers and Etzel
(1985) showed that dispositional optimal level
of stimulation contributes to preference for tour-
ism experience and environments. For example,
stimulation seekers prefer vacations that are
different, unique, and unusual while stimulation
avoiders desire familiar environments and
planned experiences. A related idea is found in
Mannell and Iso-Ahola’s (1987) theory of tour-
ism experience that considers the interplay of
the motives to escape from routine environ-
ments and to seek recreational opportunities as
a foundation of tourist motivation. It was further
found that tourists tend to enact their preferred
roles when a tourism environment provides an
5
optimal balance of familiarity–strangeness, sti-
mulation–tranquility, and structure–indepen-
dence (Yiannakis & Gibson, 1992). Lee and
Crompton (1992) also showed that the novelty
motive is influential in the vacation decision-
making process.
From this perspective, it is possible that the
perception of the distance between aesthetic
qualities of one’s home environment and of
vacation environment (aesthetic distance) posi-
tively contributes to tourism experience.
Similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne &
Nelson, 1965), on the other hand, predicts that
familiarity rather than novelty favorably affects
tourism experience ratings. Reisinger and
Turner (1998) showed that cultural differences
result in stress and anxiety, eventually leading
to dissatisfaction. Likewise, Ng, Lee, and
Soutar (2007) determined that cultural distance
was negatively correlated with intentions of
Australian residents to visit foreign destinations.
Based on these findings, perceived aesthetic
distance could hinder rather than enhance tour-
ism experience. Thus, tourism research on the
effect of contrasting environments on tourist
satisfaction is inconclusive and requires further
exploration.
3. OBJECTIVES
Tourism experience entails a full immersion
of an individual into the object of aesthetic
appreciation, which is often a novel environ-
ment. Thus, the dimensions of tourists’ aesthetic
judgment at a destination could be distinct from
that of an object or their routine home environ-
ment. As the literature review demonstrated,
aesthetic qualities of vacation destinations are
an important source of satisfaction. Judgment of
these qualities as beautiful, conceptualized in
this research as aesthetic judgment, could con-
tribute to overall satisfaction with vacation
experience and thus destination loyalty and
future return intentions. In this case, destination
aesthetic qualities as perceived by tourists
become of crucial importance in destination
marketing and management. Previous studies
also showed that not only destination attributes
themselves influence tourists’ perceptions, the
 6 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
perceived distance between home and tourism
environment characteristics could be a catalyst
or deterrent of tourism. Hence, this study had
the following objectives: (1) to explore the
primary dimensions of perceived destination
aesthetic qualities (PDAQ); (2) to understand
how these dimensions contribute to tourist aes-
thetic judgment and vacation satisfaction; and
(3) to investigate how aesthetic distance can
impact tourist aesthetic judgment and ultimately
vacation satisfaction.
4. METHOD
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
4.1 Survey Instrument
The study utilized a survey as a research
instrument. The questionnaire was concerned
with respondents’ most recent vacation experi-
ence and consisted of five parts. The first section
contained trip-related questions that asked for
information regarding the most recent vacation
experience such as trip duration, party size,
repeat visit, and a vacation setting (nature-
based versus urban). To operationalize destina-
tion aesthetic qualities, we adopted the dimen-
sionality conceptualization of Kirillova et al.
(2014) with a collection of 21 items comprising
nine dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.
This conceptualization was not empirically vali-
dated prior to this research; thus, the starting
point of our analysis was instrument develop-
ment. The first version of the measure contained
Kirillova et al.’s (2014) 21 items on a 7-point
semantic differential scale. Two researchers,
both with domain expertise in tourism manage-
ment and many years of professional experience
in the tourism industry, were consulted to ensure
the content validity of the instrument, and the
anchoring words of some dimensions were
reworded as a result. For example, “round–angu-
lar” was changed to “smooth–rugged” . Then, a
focus group with 26 graduate students enrolled
in the research methods class was conducted to
verify face validity of the measure, after which
the wording was further refined.
The questions in the next section assessed the
perceived aesthetic qualities of a town from
which respondents departed to go on vacation.
With appropriate adjustments in wording
(“vacation destination” was replaced with “the
town I live in”), the measure from the second
section was utilized for home environment eva-
luation, too. The fourth survey section consisted
of the questions addressing aesthetic judgment
(“overall, I think the vacation destination was
beautiful”) and vacation satisfaction (“overall, I
had a great time at the destination I visited”).
All the questions asked the respondents to
indicate their level of agreeableness on a
7-point Likert scale. The survey concluded
with questions regarding respondents’ socio-
demographics.
4.2 Sampling and Data Collection
Powered by Qualtrics®, an on-line survey was
distributed to Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurks) members. Amazon MTurks is the web-
site that recruits human intelligence workers to
complete various tasks such as sorting and tran-
scribing data, and answering surveys. This online
organization includes a large participant pool,
integrated participant recruitment, and compen-
sation systems. It was shown that MTurk parti-
cipants are demographically more diverse than
conventional Internet samples, obtained data
quality is not affected by realistic compensation
rates, and data are generally as reliable as infor-
mation collected via traditional methods
(Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). In this
study, each participant was compensated US$
0.70 for a completed survey. An attention filter
question was designed to ensure data quality. The
data were collected in a two-stage process. First,
a pilot study with 100 Amazon MTurks partici-
pants was conducted to further verify face valid-
ity of the PDAQ measure and explore emerging
dimensionality. A full-scale survey was con-
ducted in July 2013. The study sample consisted
of individuals aged 18 years and older who had
returned from a vacation trip within a year. Of
500 completed responses of the full-scale survey,
59 questionnaires were excluded from further
analysis because of substantial missing data,
leaving 441 completed responses for statistical
treatment.
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto
4.3 Data Analysis
To statistically validate the measure of
PDAQ, this research utilized a split-sample
approach. Using a randomly selected subsample
of 220 respondents as a calibration sample, a
principal component exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) with varimax rotation was first run to
reduce the set of variables to a set of compo-
nents of the PDAQ scale. The principal compo-
nent factor extraction method is seen as
appropriate when the goal is to reduce the mea-
sured variables to a smaller set of composite
components that capture as much information
as possible in as few components as possible
(Brown, 2012; Costello & Osborne, 2005;
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
Hooper, 2012). Given that the current study is
the first attempt to empirically treat the frame-
work of tourist aesthetic judgment (Kirillova
et al., 2014), capturing and retaining as much
information as possible was the goal of the
analysis. Factors were retained and considered
significant if their eigenvalues were located
above the elbow of the scree plot and if their
items had factor loadings greater than |.40|
(Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2005). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
using the remainder of the responses as a vali-
dation sample followed to further verify the
identified dimensional structure.
Data were then analyzed by means of multi-
ple regressions where the dimensions (as veri-
fied by EFA and CFA procedures) of PDAQ
were independent variables, and aesthetic judg-
ment and vacation satisfaction acted as depen-
dent variables. Before implementation of the
statistical analysis, the data were screened to
check that all necessary assumptions for a mul-
tiple regression procedure were satisfied.
Because aesthetic preference could depend on
vacation setting (nature versus urban) (Hartig,
1993), a dummy variable was included in the
regressions to control for this effect. Aesthetic
distance between respondents’ home environ-
ment and vacation destination environment
was calculated by subtracting the overall score
of the factor of a vacation destination environ-
ment from the one of home environment. The
analytical procedure included two multiple
regressions with aesthetic distances for each
7
factor, a dummy variable for setting as predic-
tors and aesthetic judgment and satisfaction as
dependent variables. A summated mean proce-
dure was used for factor score calculation.
5. RESULTS
The data collection yielded 441 usable ques-
tionnaires. Among those, about 39% of the
respondents were female. The average age of
respondents was 31 years old, although it ran-
ged from 18 to 70 years old. The majority of
the surveyed have completed a Bachelor’s
degree (48.6%), followed by high school
(14.9%), and Master’s degrees (10.4%). Half
of respondents visited a nature-based destina-
tion while the other half took a trip to an
urban locale. The nature-based destinations
varied from such domestic landmarks as the
Grand Canyon and the Catskill Mountains to
such international destinations as Ooty in
India, and the Cayman Islands. The urban des-
tinations ranged from such well-known loca-
tions as Chicago and New Orleans in the
United States (US) to such global cities as
London in the United Kingdom (UK), and
Shanghai in China. On average, the respondents
traveled with four other people and stayed 5.6
nights at their respective destinations. For 50%
of the respondents, this recent vacation was a
repeat visit.
5.1 EFA
A principal component EFA with varimax
rotation, conducted on 21 items of PDAQ,
revealed a six-factor solution, which accounted
for 66.42% of total variance. The result of the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sam-
pling adequacy indicated an acceptable level of
.818 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). The Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was also found to be signifi-
cant (p < .001). As Table 2 shows, there were
no significant cross-loadings; thus, all items
were retained. The six factors explained
26.10%, 15.00%, 8.65%, 6.01%, 5.80%,
4.80% of the variance respectively. The first
factor, labeled as Locale characteristics signifies
 8 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis for PDAQ

Factors Factor loadings

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

Locale characteristics
Quaint – Massive .523 .240 −.090 .025 .391 .207
Not crowded – Crowded .753 .049 .048 .003 .193 .155
Tightly-spaced – Open-spaced −.601 −.081 −.057 .384 .275 −.004
Peaceful – Lively .842 .073 −.050 .124 .119 −.080
Nature-made – Man-made .793 .061 .039 −.319 −.121 .030
Quiet – Loud .896 .005 −.117 −.040 .143 −.020
Presence of nature – Presence of people .859 −.017 .095 −.155 −.011 .194
Simplistic – Sophisticated .737 .094 .134 −.064 −.015 .083
Scope
Nothing to see – Lots of things to see .139 .728 .084 .095 −.022 .154
All alike – Diverse .214 .649 .187 .236 .050 −.162
Familiar – Novel −.030 .677 −.210 −.152 .057 −.201
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015

Ordinary – Unique .003 .874 .083 .015 .009 .088

Upkeep
Dirty – Clean −.086 .053 .873 .065 .047 .225
Run-down – Well-maintained .128 .064 .906 .121 .109 .039
Accord
Dark – Bright .102 −.149 .245 .551 .356 −.237
Unbalanced – Balanced −.162 .176 .119 .736 −.122 .318
Artificial – Authentic −.390 .212 .038 .634 −.272 .075
Perceived age
Historic – Modern .172 −.118 .085 −.053 .749 .170
Old – Young −.036 .179 .074 .010 .739 .160
Shape
Rugged – Smooth .141 .139 .275 .066 .198 .686
Asymmetric – Symmetric .171 −.187 .047 .074 .214 .728

Note. PDAQ: perceived destination aesthetic qualities.

the distinction between human-influenced and
nature environments. This factor attests to the
destination appearance of size, degree of human
influence, sound, and the sophistication of fea-
tures. The second factor, Scope, represents more
experiential dimensions of aesthetic qualities of
tourism destinations and largely attests to the
richness of a sense of novelty, uniqueness,
diversity, and abundance of visual and auditory
cues at a destination. The factor Upkeep refers
to the perceived hygienic conditions at a desti-
nation and the degree of maintenance of its
attributes. Although consisting of similar items
as Kirillova et al.’s (2014) theme “condition”,
the factor was named Upkeep to better reflect
the rewording of the items. The factor Accord
includes the items that attest to the degree of
authenticity and balance of physical features of
a destination. The factor Perceived age illus-
trates the apparent age of a destination and
people within the locale while Shape attests to
classic dimensions of aesthetic judgment, as
elaborated in the art appreciation studies.
5.2 CFA
Further verification of the six-factor solution
with CFA performed on the remainder of the
sample initially indicated a poor fit
(χ2 = 266.32, df = 121, p < .001; χ2/df = 3.97;
comparative fit index (CFI) = .794; adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI) = .790; root
mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .093); however, after three items
with loadings less than |.4| were removed
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto 9

TABLE 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for PDAQ

Factor Standardized factor Cronbach Composite Average variance

loading alpha reliability extracted

Factor 1: Locale characteristics (7

items)
Not crowded–Crowded .66 .75 .84 .54
Open-spaced–Tightly-spaced .43
Peaceful–Lively .88
Nature-made–Man-made .78
Quiet–Loud .90
Presence of nature–Presence of .81
people
Simplistic–Sophisticated .48
Factor 2: Scope (3 items)
Nothing to see-Lots of things to see .60 .53 .47 .24
All alike-Diverse .44
Ordinary-Unique .62
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015

Factor 3: Upkeep (2 items)

Run-down–Well-kept .82 .78 .76 .62
Dirty–Clean .78
Factor 4: Accord (2 items)
Artificial–Authentic .60 .54 .53 .38
Unbalanced–Balanced .67
Factor 5: Perceived age (2 items)
Historic–Modern .76 .68 .66 .53
Old–Young .69
Factor 6: Shape (2 items)
Rugged–Smooth .77 .75 .71 .55
Asymmetric–Symmetric .51

Notes. PDAQ: perceived destination aesthetic qualities; Open-spaced–Tightly-spaced was reverse-coded to align its direc-
tionality with the rest of the items; fit indices: X2 = 278.32, df = 119, p < .000; X2/df = 2.34; comparative fit index (CFI) = .887;
adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = .816; Tucker-Lewis index = .858; goodness of fit index (GFI) = .897; root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08.

(quaint–massive, dark–bright, and familiar –
novel), the fit notably improved (Table 3).
Although the overall chi-square statistics indi-
cated that the data did not fit the model well
(χ2 = 278.32, df = 119, p < .001), given the
sensitivity of this statistics to the sample size
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980), other fit indices were
examined. The normed chi-squared, a statistics
that reduces the sensitivity of the chi-square
statistics to sample size, indicated that the
model fits the data well with χ2/df = 2.34,
which is lower than a recommended threshold
of 3 (Bentler, 1990). Additionally, an acceptable
fit is achieved when CFI is greater than .90,
AGFI is greater than .80, and RMSEA is less
or equal to.08 (Hair et al., 2005). Although CFI
for the model was slightly below the threshold
(CFI = .887), other indices indicated an ade-
quate fit with AGFI = .816 and RMSEA = .08.
The standardized loadings for all 18 items
ranged from |.43| to |.90|. Cronbach alphas for
four factors were above a recommended cut-
off point of .6 (Mueller, 2004), indicating
acceptable internal consistency. Factors Scope
and Accord, however, exhibited reliability
coefficients slightly below the recommended
threshold. Convergent validity was also some-
what compromised for Scope and Accord as
the value for composite reliability was less
than a minimum criteria of .6 (Bagozzi & Yi,
1988). Discriminant validity was estimated by
comparing the average variance extracted
(AVE) with the correlation between the six
factors. If the variance explained by a factor
is higher than correlation among the factors,
the factors are considered as different from
one another (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Generally, discriminant validity was
 10 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 4. Factor Correlations significant (F = 24.36, p < .001) predicting

28.00% of variance in tourists’ aesthetic judg-
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 ment. Of this portion, Scope (t = 5.347,
p < .001), Upkeep (t = 4.328, p < .001), and
Locale 1
characteristics
Accord (t = 5.120, p < .001) were all significant.
Scope .167 1 It is important to remember that two of the three
Upkeep −.160 .618 1 significant factors, namely Scope and Accord,
Accord −.477 .473 .636 1 exhibit low reliability. Since the most likely pro-
Perceived age .475 .157 .064 −.173 .1
Shape .284 .118 .271 −.033 .470 1
blem resulting from low reliability is the reduction
in the statistical power necessary to detect the
effect (e.g. Nelson, Rosenthal, & Rosnow,
1986), the significant effects from these factors
confirmed. However, because AVE for Scope attest to their more dramatic influence on depen-
and Accord were below a recommended dent variables than if reliability and statistical
threshold of .5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), power were at accepted levels. The result provides
discriminate validity was compromised for support for the claims that, unlike object apprecia-
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015

these factors as well. Table 4 depicts bivariate
correlations between the factors.
5.3 PDAQ, Aesthetic Judgment, and
Vacation Satisfaction
Two separate multiple regression analyses
were conducted on the PDAQ factors as indepen-
dent variables, and aesthetic judgment and vaca-
tion satisfaction as dependent variables, while
controlling for the effect of setting. The results
are presented in Table 5. The multiple regression
model with aesthetic judgment as an outcome was
tion, tourism environment appreciation is unique
in that tourists consider destinations with salient
experiential aesthetic features that are satisfactory
in Scope and are in Accord with overall surround-
ings, and are well-maintained,. A similar pattern is
evident in relation to vacation satisfaction. Scope
(t = 5.601, p < .001), Upkeep (t = 3.119, p < .001),
and Accord (t = 3.213, p < .001) were significant
predictors of vacation satisfaction, explaining
17.6% of variance (F = 13.822, p < .001). This
is an expected result considering that the aesthetic
aspect of destinations is known to be an important
determinant of satisfaction (e.g. Kozak &
Rimmington, 2000).

TABLE 5. Multiple Regressions for PDAQ Predicting Aesthetic Judgment and Vacation Satisfaction

Model Aesthetic judgment Vacation satisfaction

Standardized Standardized
Unstandarzied coefficients coefficients Unstandarzied coefficients coefficients

B SE β B SE β

(Constant) 2.659*** .397 3.107*** .398

Urban −.055 .123 −.023 .191 .051 .085
Locale characteristics −.077 .051 −.086 −.014 .054 −.017
Scope .287*** .054 .252 .301*** .049 .282
Upkeep .213*** .049 .207 .154*** .049 .160
Accord .248*** .049 .262 .156*** .038 .176
Perceived age −.059 .038 −.072 −.064 .041 −.083
Shape −.044 .123 −.023 −.035 .123 −.043
Adjusted R2 .280 .176
F-value 24.235*** 13.822***

Notes. PDAQ: perceived destination aesthetic qualities; SE: standard error; ***p < .001.
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto 11

5.4 Aesthetic Distance, Aesthetic
Judgment, and Vacation Satisfaction
Two separate multiple regressions were run
with aesthetic distance for each factor of PDAQ
as independent variables, and aesthetic judg-
ment and vacation satisfaction as dependent
variables, while controlling for the effect of
setting (Table 6). Insightful findings emerged
from regressing aesthetic distance on tourists’
aesthetic judgment (F = 8.53; p < .001; adj.
R2 = .112). Controlling for the setting effect,
which was significant (t = −3.58, p < .001), only
the distances in Scope (t = −2.820, p = .005)
and Upkeep (t = −3.036, p = .003) were influ-
ential in tourists’ aesthetic judgment of a desti-
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
negative aesthetic distance, the more beautiful
the destination appears to tourists. When vaca-
tion satisfaction is treated as a predicted vari-
able (F = 5.479; p < .001; adj. R2 = .067), only
the distance in Scope was significant
(t = −3.784, p < .001), affecting vacation satis-
faction in a similar manner as it did aesthetic
judgment. In general, the results showed that
more experiential components enhanced by the
contrasting sense of novelty constitute a critical
source of satisfaction in vacation experience.
6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Previous research mainly treated tourism aes-

nation. Since the distance score was calculated
by subtracting the overall score of the factor of
a vacation destination environment from the one
of home environment, negative coefficients
mean that a one-unit increase in distance, or
when home environment is rated more posi-
tively than tourism environment, decreases tour-
ist aesthetic judgment and vacation satisfaction
by the value of the coefficient. It is shown that
when tourists evaluate their home environment
more positively in terms of Upkeep and Scope
of its aesthetic featured than the vacation envir-
onment, they tend to perceive a destination as
less beautiful. In other words, the farther the
thetics as a one-dimensional destination attri-
bute whereas the particular content, or which
aspects of a destination comprise its beauty, has
not received much analysis. Moreover, a con-
trast in aesthetic qualities between one’s home
and the vacation environments, or aesthetic dis-
tance, has not been considered. The current
research, motivated by the need to systemati-
cally and empirically assess the function of the
aesthetic component in tourism experience, has
attempted to link destination aesthetic qualities
to aesthetic judgment and vacation satisfaction.
It has also uncovered associations between aes-
thetic qualities of a home environment, tourists’

TABLE 6. Multiple Regressions for Aesthetic Distance Predicting Aesthetic Judgment and Vacation
Satisfaction

Model Aesthetic judgment Vacation satisfaction

Standardized Standardized
Unstandarzied coefficients coefficients Unstandarzied coefficients coefficients

B SE β B SE β

(Constant) 6.010*** .087 5.858*** .089

Urban −.424*** .120 −.177 −.001 .116 −.001
Locale characteristics .084 .046 .122 .060 .044 .095
Scope −.101** .036 −.156 −.134*** .035 −.222
Upkeep −.144** .047 −.206 −.049 .038 −.076
Accord −.009 .047 −.013 −.045 .042 −.069
Perceived age .063 .040 .085 −.015 .038 −.022
Shape .039 .036 .056 .016 .034 .024
Adjusted R2 .112 .067
F-value 8.530*** 5.479***

Notes. SE: standard error; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
 12 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
satisfaction, and their perception of a destina-
tion as beautiful, thus providing a practical
device for tourism destination marketers in mar-
ket segmentation, selection, and promotion
efforts. The results of this research deliver
important insights for both destination man-
agers and consumers in search of satisfying
vacation experiences.
6.1 The Role of PDAQ in Tourism
The findings suggest a six-dimensional struc-
ture of PDAQ, and they are: locale characteris-
tics, scope, upkeep, accord, perceived age, and
shape. A relatively low variance explained
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
when predicting tourist aesthetic judgment is
consistent with previous theorizations of aes-
thetic judgment as people often link “the beauty
of a tourism destination to other domains of life
such as religion, history, poverty, safety, life-
style …” (Kirillova et al., 2014, p. 288). Thus,
as is evident from the findings, purely aesthetics
aspects of tourism experience, which were the
focus in this research, account for only a portion
of tourists’ aesthetic judgment. Even though
destination aesthetic qualities are important in
prompting tourists to classify a destination as
beautiful or ugly, it appears that they are not the
only constituents of aesthetic judgment.
Aesthetic qualities that characterize the vacation
locale accounted for most of the variation
(26.10%), which is not surprising considering
that people are cognizant of the type of setting
(urban versus nature) in which their vacation
takes place and thus judge a destination against
the dimensions most appropriate for the setting.
The items comprising this dimension corrobo-
rate the previous studies in environmental psy-
chology as naturalness (Galindo & Rodriguez,
2000; Nasar, 1984; Real et al., 2000), natural
sounds (Yu & Kang, 2010), openness (Rogge
et al., 2007), cultivatedness (Van den Berg
et al., 1998), and a degree of human influence
(Fyhri et al., 2009) were all found to influence
environmental preference.
The experiential aspects of tourism aesthetics
that attest to its scope are also supported by past
literature to a certain extent, for such criteria as
diversity (Galindo & Hidalgo, 2005; Kaplan et al.,
1989; Nasar, 1984; Rogge et al., 2007) and abun-
dance (Ohta, 2001) were noted as important in
individuals’ aesthetic appreciation. However, this
investigation revealed that this component is not
simply important; in fact, it is the second most
salient dimension of tourists’ aesthetic judgment,
and, as such, deserves further scrutiny. While
upkeep (also previously elaborated on in environ-
mental psychology and tourism research) was also
a prominent dimension of tourism aesthetics, such
factors as accord, perceived age, and shape were
only incrementally salient. This result is consis-
tent with Kirillova et al.’s (2014) qualitative
assessment of tourists’ aesthetic judgment in
that, although still influential, classic dimensions
of aesthetics such as symmetry and round shape
are not as critical as its more experiential compo-
nents such as diversity, abundance, and
authenticity.
This study has also established that the
dimensions of scope, accord, and upkeep posi-
tively affect tourists’ aesthetic judgment and
vacation satisfaction. The abundance of authen-
tic, well-maintained, diverse, and unique fea-
tures that are in harmony with natural and
cultural surroundings significantly contribute to
tourists’ judgments of a destination as beautiful.
The latter particularly coincides with Lehto’s
(2013) conceptualization of perceived restora-
tive qualities of vacation destinations where
the compatibility dimension stresses the impor-
tance of a destination to be perceived as “true to
itself”, holistic, and in harmony with natural
surroundings.
Furthermore, similar to abundance and diver-
sity, Lehto’s extent dimension attests to the
content variability and the sense of environmen-
tal depth at a destination. These concurrences
suggest the possible interrelationship between
perceived aesthetic and restorative qualities of
vacation destinations, warranting future
research in this direction.
The findings invite a variety of opportunities
for destination planners and managers. Because
the dimension of scope in tourism aesthetics is
critical in providing aesthetic pleasure and deli-
vering an enjoyable tourism experience, a des-
tination should strive to create a sense of
complete immersion into the destination envir-
onment in order to prompt tourists to
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto
experience the destination in its richest and
most expansive scope. One strategy could be
to provide tourists with many things to see and
to do that are unique to a destination. While
some destinations already have a number of
unique features in their inventories (e.g. the
Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, or the Chicago
Bean in Chicago, US), others, especially emer-
gent destinations, may lack the attributes easily
identifiable with the locale, and, in this case,
such features should be designed. For instance,
a town could consider building an exclusively
projected monument or a fountain with which it
could potentially be uniquely associated. In
addition to abundance of unique attributes, des-
tination managers should also ensure that these
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
features are also diverse and captivating enough
in order for tourists to sustain their admiration
for the duration of a trip. In other words, these
features must provide an optimal level of aes-
thetic stimuli for favorable aesthetic judgment
to occur.
Besides the overall level of upkeep at a des-
tination, which is widely recognized as essential
to tourist satisfaction (see for example Baloglu
& McCleary, 1999; Kozak, 2003), destinations’
perceived integrity to its core character and
surrounding environment also appears to be
crucial to tourists’ aesthetic evaluations and
satisfaction. Destination managers should make
any effort to present destination features as
authentic and fitting the surroundings. In order
to design and deliver a satisfying experience,
Pine and Gilmore (1998), for example, suggest
that positive cues fulfilling the theme should be
maximized while negative cues, or those not
directly related to the theme, must be reduced.
In the tourism context, the theme signifies the
core essence of a destination, and destination
aesthetic qualities should be assessed on the
degree of their compatibility with the core.
Destination attributes should also appear to be
in harmony with natural and cultural surround-
ings. For instance, planners should avoid pla-
cing an ultra-modern skyscraper next to a
historic building and vice versa to preserve the
distinct architecture. Thus, instituting and enfor-
cing zoning ordinances becomes essential to
protecting an authentic character of a place
and the integrity of its aesthetic features.
13
6.2 Aesthetic Distance in Tourism
Experience
The findings indicated that the contrast in
aesthetic qualities between tourists’ home set-
ting and destination environment has an effect
on tourists’ aesthetic judgment and satisfaction.
Specifically, when home environment is evalu-
ated more favorably in terms of upkeep and the
abundance of diverse and unique aesthetic cues,
a destination tends to be judged as less beauti-
ful. In the case when destination aesthetics is
perceived as superior on these dimensions, tour-
ists consider a destination as more attractive.
Interestingly, although a similar relationship
exists between aesthetic distance and satisfac-
tion, only the contrast in features reflecting the
scope of destination aesthetics influences tour-
ists’ satisfaction. The prediction of how per-
ceived aesthetic distance affects tourists’
satisfaction and aesthetic judgment, therefore,
depends not on the absolute distance between
the two points of comparison but rather on the
direction of this comparison. As a whole, these
results support previous discussions on the
value of novelty in tourism (Lee & Crompton,
1992) and provide insights into why, under
certain conditions, the sense of novelty may be
counterproductive to tourists’ enjoyment, as
evidenced by Reisinger and Turner (1998) and
Ng et al. (2007).
In general, the experiential aspect of tourism
as exemplified in the criticality of the dimen-
sions of scope has been extensively discussed in
the literature (see for example Cohen, 1979;
Curtin, 2005; Otto & Ritchie, 1996; Uriely,
2005); however, the extent of its influence on
tourists was not determined. Focusing on aes-
thetics, the current study demonstrated that
experiential aspects of tourism are pervasive in
tourism consumption, influencing how a desti-
nation is perceived, admired, and evaluated.
However, besides destination aesthetics, experi-
ential components of aesthetic qualities of a
home environment are also relevant to tourists’
satisfaction and aesthetic judgment as they con-
stitute a benchmark against which all tourism
environments are judged. It is then a natural
outcome that if tourism aesthetics exceed the
baseline level of what a tourist is used to at
 14 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
home, a destination is considered as beautiful.
Then, aesthetic judgment and satisfaction in
tourism is not just a function of destination
attributes and tourists’ personal characteristics
but also of their living environments.
Emphasizing the importance of home envir-
onment, the idea that aesthetic distance could
define tourists’ satisfaction and the perception
of a destination as beautiful offers guidance for
destination marketers. First, the strategic mar-
keting process should begin with compiling a
destination’s aesthetic inventory, in which aes-
thetic qualities are to be classified into the six
dimensions as suggested in this research. Given
the criticality of scope in tourism aesthetics,
destinations should strive to acquire as many
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
aesthetic features as possible in this dimension.
Second, in their market segmentation efforts,
destination marketing organizations (DMOs)
should emphasize geographic segmentation
that is based not purely on the distinction
between geographic areas but rather on a type
and quality of aesthetic features contained
within these locales. For example, although
Moscow and St. Petersburg are geographically
close and located within one country, Russia,
they possess distinct aesthetic qualities and, for
this reason, their residents would not constitute
a homogeneous market segment. Third, destina-
tion aesthetic inventory should be matched with
that of targeted locales to determine the seg-
ments with the highest likelihood of engender-
ing favorable aesthetic judgments of destination
and tourists being satisfied with the entire tour-
ism experience. Therefore, the optimal target
market would include individuals from locales
with the farthest negative aesthetic distance to a
tourism destination, and DMOs should specifi-
cally channel their efforts into maximizing the
distance in terms of upkeep and experiential
aspects.
Maximizing a negative aesthetic distance is
also instrumental in facilitating extraordinary
experiences at tourism destinations. These deep-
ly intense positive experiences stand in opposi-
tion to everyday life events and include “peak”,
transformative, or “flow” moments. When com-
bined with physical surroundings, such experi-
ences may be particularly powerful,
contributing to tourists’ evaluation of the entire
tourism experience. Thus, if the aesthetic dis-
tance between destination and home environ-
ment is large and negative, the distinction
between ordinary and extraordinary is clearly
demarcated and tourists are more likely to
experience “flow”. Taken as a whole, when
considered in marketing plans, a properly
defined aesthetic distance has the potential to
benefit destinations as well as tourists.
7. CONCLUSION
Tourism environment implies a unique process
of aesthetic appreciation. This study is a pioneer-
ing effort to empirically address the role of desti-
nation aesthetics in tourism experience.
Conceptually, it has expanded the notion of beau-
tiful scenery to be understood as a multidimen-
sional construct, encompassing traditional
dimensions (e.g. shape) as well as dimensions
unique to landscape aesthetics (e.g. accord). The
six dimensions provide the baseline measure for
destination aesthetic qualities as perceived by
tourists. Having introduced the concept of aes-
thetic distance, this research further demonstrated
the criticality of contrasting environments in tour-
ism experience and the relevance of home envir-
onment in aesthetic evaluation of destinations and
tourist satisfaction. The measure of perceived
aesthetic qualities of a tourism destination could
allow the aesthetic components to be linked to
such tourism concepts as motivation, loyalty, and
behavioral intentions, further solidifying our
understanding of the value of aesthetics in tour-
ism experience.
Aside from the conceptual value, the study
also bears practical significance. It empirically
verified how tourists evaluate aesthetic proper-
ties of vacation destinations, and thus it invites
opportunities to influence tourists’ aesthetic
judgment and assists destination planners in
the evaluation of destinations’ aesthetic inven-
tory. The developed instrument could serve as a
useful tool in destination planning and market-
ing as it allows for a more comprehensive eva-
luation of destination aesthetic components.
Practitioners may be able to inventorize the
aesthetic qualities and assess the relative impor-
tance of aesthetic dimensions in tourists’
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto
aesthetic judgment and satisfaction with a des-
tination. By locating the dimensions on which a
destination has the highest and lowest scores,
destination marketers can develop appropriate
marketing strategies to capitalize on strong
aspects of destination aesthetics. Furthermore,
the method to measure the aesthetic distance
enables marketers to identify the market seg-
ments with aesthetic distances that optimally
increase the likelihood of positive aesthetic
judgment and satisfaction.
7.1 Limitations and Future Research
Despite the contributions, it is important to
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
acknowledge the limitations of this study.
Having focused on the relationship between aes-
thetics and outcomes of tourism experience such
as aesthetic judgment and vacation satisfaction,
this study neither considered tourists’ motivations
beyond a vacation nor accounted for the types of
vacations undertaken by respondents. Because
certain types of tourism experiences (e.g. cultural
or heritage tourism) would imply greater attention
to destination aesthetic qualities than others, this
information could be an important source of var-
iation in responses. Future research is encouraged
to relate motivation, aesthetics, and type of tour-
ism experience to tourism outcomes. In this
research, aesthetics has been discussed and illu-
strated from a Western perspective, obscuring the
relevance of the findings to cross-cultural travel
and travel within the non-Western world. Further
research is needed to frame and validate the find-
ings in a cross-cultural and non-Western context:
how does aesthetic judgment in tourism differ
among tourists of various cultural backgrounds
and how is destination beauty evaluated in a
non-Western world? Further research is invited
to explore the role of perceived aesthetic distance
in destination choice and destination image eva-
luation. It would also be of practical significance
to verify whether people from the same locale
arrive at similar aesthetic judgments of a
destination.
Validation of the measure used in this
research raised the issue of construct validity
of two factors – scope and accord – indicating
that the results should be interpreted with
15
caution. Therefore, future research is needed
to provide additional support for the dimen-
sionality of the measure proposed in the cur-
rent study. Nonetheless, it represents an initial
attempt to operationalize tourists’ perceptions
of destination aesthetic qualities, providing
insights into how aesthetic judgments are rea-
lized in the tourism context. Although every
effort was made to sample vacationer popula-
tion with as varied experiences and destina-
tions as possible, it should be acknowledged
that by asking respondents to recall the most
recent trip, a recollection bias could occur.
The current study also used a non-probability
sampling technique that could have further
biased the results thus limiting their general-
izability. Given the experiential nature of tour-
ism, future studies should adopt a
phenomenological perspective to examine the
aesthetic judgment in tourism and its role in
tourists’ satisfaction with a destination.
REFERENCES
Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2010). Tourist satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1),
52–73. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.07.001
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of struc-
tural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. doi:10.1007/
BF02723327
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination
image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4),
868–897.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S., & Santos, J. (2004). The
relationship between destination performance, overall
satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct seg-
ments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 4(3–4), 149–165. doi:10.1300/J162v04n03_10
Beardsley, M. C. (1975). Aesthetics from classical Greece to
the present (Vol. 13). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Berleant, A. (2005). Aesthetics and environment:
Variations on a theme. Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Publishing Company.
 16 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Berlyne, D. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science,
153(3731), 25–33. doi:10.1126/science.153.3731.25
Bitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical
surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of
Marketing, 56, 57–71. doi:10.2307/1252042
Brown, T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis for
applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brunner-Sperdin, A., Peters, M., & Strobl, A. (2012). It is
all about the emotional state: Managing tourists’ experi-
ences. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
31(1), 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.03.004
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011).
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive,
yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
Byrne, D., & Nelson, D. (1965). Attraction as a linear
function of proportion of positive reinforcements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1,
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
659–663. doi:10.1037/h0022073
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experi-
ences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201. doi:10.1177/
003803857901300203
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in
exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for
getting the most from your analysis. Practiceal
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
Crotts, J. (2004). The effect of cultural distance on over-
seas travel behaviors. Journal of Travel Research,
43(1), 83–88. doi:10.1177/0047287504265516
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxi-
ety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Curtin, S. (2005). Nature, wild animals and tourism: An
experiential view. Journal of Ecotourism, 4(1), 1–15.
doi:10.1080/14724040508668434
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382–388. doi:10.2307/3150980
Fyhri, A., Jacobsen, J., & Tømmervik, H. (2009). Tourists’
landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian
coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4),
202–211. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.002
Galindo, M., & Hidalgo, M. (2005). Aesthetic preferences
and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categor-
ization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes.
International Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 19–27.
doi:10.1080/00207590444000104
Galindo, M., & Rodriguez, J. (2000). Environmental aes-
thetics and psychological wellbeing: Relationships
between preference judgments for urban landscapes
and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in
Spain, 4(1), 13–27.
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, A., & Tatham, R.
(2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Prentice Hall.
Han, K. T. (2007). Responses to six major terrestrial
biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and
restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39(4),
529–556. doi:10.1177/0013916506292016
Hartig, T. (1993). Nature experience in transactional per-
spective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25(1–2),
17–36. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(93)90120-3
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. (2003).
‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and
novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in
industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94,
111–124. doi:10.1348/000712603762842147
Hepburn, R. (1966). Contemporary aesthetics and the neglect
of natural beauty. In B. Williams & A. Montefiore (Eds.),
British analytical philosophy (pp. 285–310). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hooper, D. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. In H. Chen
(Ed.), Approaches to quantitative research - theory and
its practical application: A Guide to dissertation stu-
dents (pp. 1–33). Cork: Oak Tree Press.
Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’
emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destina-
tions. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 513–526.
doi:10.1177/0047287509349267
Ittelson, W. (1978). Environmental perception and urban
experience. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 193–
213. doi:10.1177/0013916578102004
Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R., Höfel, L., & Cramon, D.
(2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of
beauty. Neuroimage, 29(1), 276–285.
Jang, S., & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emo-
tions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an
extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants.
Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 451–460.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.038
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989).
Environmental preference: A comparison of four
domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior,
21(5), 509–530. doi:10.1177/0013916589215001
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature:
Toward an integrative framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182. doi:10.1016/
0272-4944(95)90001-2
King, S., Meiselman, H., Hottenstein, A., Work, T., &
Cronk, V. (2007). The effects of contextual variables
on food acceptability: A confirmatory study. Food
Quality and Preference, 18, 58–65. doi:10.1016/j.
foodqual.2005.07.014
King, S., Weber, A., Meiselman, H., & Lv, N. (2004). The
effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical
environment and choice on food acceptability. Food
Quality and Preference, 15, 645–653. doi:10.1016/j.
foodqual.2004.04.010
Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X., & Cai, L. (2014). What
makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist
 Ksenia Kirillova and Xinran Lehto
aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management, 42, 282–293.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006
Kozak, M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with
multiple destination attributes. Tourism Analysis, 7(3/
4), 229–240. doi:10.3727/108354203108750076
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction
with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destina-
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260–269.
doi:10.1177/004728750003800308
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004).
A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judg-
ments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
doi:10.1348/0007126042369811
Lee, S., Jeon, S., & Kim, D. (2011). The impact of tour
quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The
case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism
Management, 32(5), 1115–1124. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2010.09.016
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
Lee, T., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seek-
ing in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4),
732–751. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(92)90064-V
Lehto, X. (2013). Assessing the perceived restorative quali-
ties of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research,
52(3), 325–339. doi:10.1177/0047287512461567
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). The effects of dining atmo-
spherics: An extended Mehrabian–Russell model.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,
28(4), 494–503.
Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological
nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of
Tourism Research, 14(3), 314–331. doi:10.1016/0160-
7383(87)90105-8
Markovic, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience:
Aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic
emotion. I-perceptions, 3, 1–17. doi:10.1068/i0450aap
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to
environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1973). A measure of
arousal seeking tendency. Environment and Behavior,
5(3), 315–333. doi:10.1177/001391657300500303
Meng, F., Tepanon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2008). Measuring
tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation: The case
of a nature-based resort. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
14(1), 41–56. doi:10.1177/1356766707084218
Milliman, R. E. (1986). The influence of background
music on the behavior of restaurant patrons. Journal
of Consumer Research, 13, 286–289. doi:10.1086/
209068
Mueller, C. (2004). Reliability. In M. Lewis-Beck (Ed.),
The Sage encyclopedia of social science research meth-
ods (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban street scenes:
A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the
United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
15(1), 79–93. doi:10.1177/0022002184015001005
17
Nelson, N., Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1986).
Interpretation of significance levels and effect sizes by
psychological researchers. American Psychologist,
41(11), 1299–1301. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.11.1299
Ng, S., Lee, J., & Soutar, G. (2007). Tourists’ intention to
visit a country: The impact of cultural distance.
Tourism Management, 28(6), 1497–1506.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.11.005
North, A., Shilcock, A., & Hargreaves, D. (2003). The
effect of musical style on restaurant customers’ spend-
ing. Environment and Behavior, 35(5), 712–718.
O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2003). People, pace, place:
Qualitative and quantitative images of Ireland as a tour-
ism destination in France. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
9(3), 213–226. doi:10.1177/135676670300900302
Ohta, H. (2001). A phenomenological approach to natural
landscape cognition. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 21(4), 387–403. doi:10.1006/
jevp.2001.0233
Oliver, R. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response
in consumption: A suggested framework and research
propositions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfcation and Complaining Behavior, 2, 1–16.
Otto, J., & Ritchie, J. (1996). The service experience in
tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3), 165–174.
doi:10.1016/0261-5177(96)00003-9
Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience
economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97–105.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978).
Dimentions of tourist satisfaction with a destination
area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314–322.
doi:10.1016/0160-7383(78)90115-9
Real, E., Arce, C., & Sabucedo, M. (2000). Classification
of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data,
and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western
Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(4),
355–373. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0184
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998). Cross-cultural differ-
ences in tourism: A strategy for tourism marketers.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 79–
106. doi:10.1300/J073v07n04_05
Rogge, E., Nevens, F., & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception
of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aes-
thetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82, 159–174.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. S. (2007). The effect of environmental
perceptions on behavioral intentions through emotions:
The case of upscale restaurants. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Research, 31(1), 56–72. doi:10.1177/
1096348006295506
Silvia, P., & Barona, C. (2009). Do people prefer curved
objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference.
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25–42.
doi:10.2190/EM.27.1.b
Tabachnik, B., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using multivriate
statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
 18 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Todd, C. (2009). Nature, beauty, and tourism. In J. Tribe
(Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 154–170).
Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Toyama, M., & Yamada, Y. (2012). The relationships
among tourist novelty, familiarity, satisfaction, and des-
tination loyalty: Beyond the novelty-familiarity conti-
nuum. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4, 6.
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual
developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1),
199–216. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.07.008
Van den Berg, A., Vlek, C., & Coeterier, J. (1998). Group
differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature devel-
opment plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 18, 141–157. doi:10.1006/
jevp.1998.0080
Wahlers, R., & Etzel, M. (1985). Vacation preference as a
manifestation of optimal stimulation and lifestyle experi-
ence. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(4), 283–295.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 08:21 16 April 2015
Weber, K. (1997). The assessment of tourist satisfaction
using the expectancy disconfirmation theory: A study
View publication stats
of the German travel market in Australia. Pacific
Tourism Review, 1(1), 35–45.
Weber, R., Schnier, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2008). Aesthetics
of streetscapes: Influence of fundamental properties on
aesthetic judgments of urban space. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 106, 128–146. doi:10.2466/pms.106.1.
128-146
Yiannakis, A., & Gibson, H. (1992). Roles tourists play.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 287–303.
doi:10.1016/0160-7383(92)90082-Z
Yu, L., & Kang, J. (2010). Factors influencing the sound
preference in urban open spaces. Applied Acoustics, 71
(7), 622–633. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.02.005
SUBMITTED: March 11, 2014
FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:
July 21, 2014
ACCEPTED: August 12, 2014
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY