Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

How do smart tourism experiences affect visitors’ environmentally

responsible behavior? Influence analysis of nature-based tourists in Taiwan
Tsung Hung Lee a, *, Fen-Hauh Jan b
a
Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
b
Department of Tourism and Hospitality, TransWorld University, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on experiential learning cycle theory, in the present study, a theoretical framework is constructed by
Biospheric value performing an influence analysis of smart tourism experiences regarding biospheric value and environmentally
Environmentally responsible behavior responsible behavior (ERB) among 1172 visitors at two smart tourism destinations in Taiwan, providing theo­
Smart tourism
retical and practical implications for sustainable tourism perspectives. The analytical findings reveal that the
Experiential learning cycle
constructs of aesthetic experience, ease of experience, and learning experience significantly impacted the
biospheric value for visitors at the two destinations. Moreover, biospheric value significantly impacted site-
specific ERB for visitors at the two destinations. The findings thus extend the application of experiential
learning cycle theory, updating and extending the knowledge of smart tourism experience and ERB. It is
concluded that an individual with stronger smart tourism experiences of aesthetic experience, ease experience,
and learning experience will enhance his or her biospheric value, which subsequently may increase his or her
site-specific ERB.

1. Introduction (Femenia-Serra & Ivars-Baidal, 2021), increases innovation (Ivars-Bai­

Due to the rapid growth and advancement of information and
communication technology (ICT), the leisure/tourism industry faces
great challenges for innovation. Based on smart city frameworks, ICTs
such as big data (Fan et al., 2022), social media (Shen et al., 2020),
online platform systems (Lam et al., 2020), augmented reality (Tus­
syadiah et al., 2018a), virtual reality (Tussyadiah et al., 2018b), and
mobile guide systems (Kang et al., 2018) have been introduced in the
tourism industry for efficiency, enriched tourism experiences, and sus­
tainability management (Gretzel & Koo, 2021). For example, at the
macro level, big data provide air pollution monitoring (Fan et al., 2022),
which is helpful in evaluating the sustainability of tourism. From the
perspective of tourists, ICT enhances their tourism experiences (Feme­
nia-serra & Neuhofer, 2018; Jeong & Shin, 2020; Pai et al., 2021),
destination image (Tavitiyaman et al., 2021), attitude toward destina­
tions (Alyahya & McLean, 2022), behavioral intentions (Park & Tus­
syadiah, 2017), and environmentally responsible behavior (ERB;
Kiatkawsin et al., 2020), contributing to the economic and environ­
mental sustainability of their destination. For destination management,
ICT provides data for decision-making and marketing purposes
dal et al., 2019), improves governance (Wang et al., 2016), enhances
destination competitiveness (Del Chiappa & Baggio, 2015), and dis­
tributes information and knowledge among stakeholders (Del Chiappa &
Baggio, 2015). Moreover, at some accommodations, managers adopting
ICT are better able to monitor energy and water consumption, and
further control this consumption, which assures sustainability manage­
ment (Koo & Chung, 2014). In particular, smart green technology
adaptation in environmental sustainability will also enhance the image
of green (Gomis-López & González-Reverté, 2020) or corporate social
responsibility (Stylos et al., 2021). Accordingly, inducing ICT innovation
in the tourism industry may ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of
destination management and improve tourism experiences.
Recreation experience has been regarded as a catalyst for behavior
change (Hofman et al., 2022). According to Kolb’s (1984) experiential
learning cycle, when tourists encounter natural resources for the first
time, their senses are stimulated; subsequently, they stimulate their
reflective engagement and think about their behavior and ultimately
adopt new behaviors. Based on Kolb’s work, scholars have elucidated
the relationship between recreation experience and environmental
behavior such as wildlife watching (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Hofman

* Corresponding author. Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123, Section 3, University Road,
Touliu, Yunlin, 640, Taiwan.
E-mail address: thlee@yuntech.edu.tw (T.H. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.02.016
Received 22 October 2022; Received in revised form 23 January 2023; Accepted 24 February 2023
Available online 28 February 2023
1447-6770/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION. All
rights reserved.
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan
et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2021), ancient trail hiking (Lin & Lee, 2020),
cultural heritage tourism (Alazaizeh et al., 2019), and island-based
tourism (Lee et al., 2018). Hence, tourists’ recreation experience may
contribute to sustainable tourism.
Personal and non-personal interpretations can affect tourists’ expe­
rience and satisfaction differently; personal interpretation provokes
more recreation experience and satisfaction than non-personal inter­
pretation (Wang et al., 2021). Moreover, interpretation services could
encourage tourists’ environmental learning through their recreation
experiences and reflective engagement, which could foster visitors’ ERB
or the ecotourism behavior of nature-based visitors (Ballantyne et al.,
2011; Lee et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021). ICT has improved interpretation
services and the recreational environment. For example, virtual systems
applied in wine tourism experiences will effectively arouse tourists’ five
senses of experience (Martins et al., 2017). Virtual reality (VR) provides
a new stimulus for tourists to promote their recreation experience and
conservation behavior (Hofman et al., 2022). In particular, during the
COVID-19 pandemic period, a virtual reality experience has become
regarded as an alternative to a real-life experience (Hofman et al., 2022).
Moreover, introducing co-creation strategies in heritage interpretation
increases tourists’ tourism experiences and satisfaction (Ross, 2020).
Accordingly, introducing ICT into the tourism environment may
enhance tourists’ recreation experiences and environmental behavior.
Although smart tourism experiences and ERB have been hotly
debated in tourism contexts, several undetermined issues remain. First,
although previous studies have focused on specific ICT technology ex­
periences, such as VR (Hofman et al., 2022) and smart interpretation
systems (Ross, 2020), they lack any assessment of holistic smart envi­
ronmental experiences (e.g., mobile applications, destination platforms,
social media, and smart vehicle scheduling). This study thus introduces
smart tourism experiences rather than recreation experiences, primarily
focusing on tourists’ recreation experiences when using smart technol­
ogy during on-site activities to affect their environmentally responsible
behavior. Second, the relationships between recreation experiences and
ERB as well as biospheric value and ERB have been well examined
(Ballantyne et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2021; Lee & Jan 2015), and
biospheric value has been regarded as an important antecedent of ERB
(Lee & Jan 2015). Unfortunately, how smart tourism experiences relate
to the biospheric value of nature-based tourists has not been elucidated;
how biospheric value can be aroused by smart tourism experiences and
subsequently influence their ERBs, remains undetermined. To fill the
above research gaps, this study develops a theoretical model by
analyzing the influence of smart tourism experiences on the biospheric
value and environmental behavior of nature-based visitors, thereby
elucidating theoretical and practical implications for sustainable smart
tourism.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Theoretical background
In nature-based tourism, destination managers appeal to tourists to
engage in ERB by experiencing natural resources and learning and
reflecting on themselves (Lee et al., 2021). Based on Kolb’s (1984)
experiential learning cycle, tourists’ experiential learning cycle forms in
four stages: having concrete experiences, observing resources and
reflecting on themselves, forming abstract concepts and generalizations,
and then testing these new concepts in novel situations. Walter (2016)
developed a community-based transformative learning framework for
tourists using the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984). Ballantyne
et al. (2011) and Lee et al. (2021) also indicated that ecological inter­
pretation services lead to tourists’ reflective engagement and sequential
engagement in ERB. It is thus likely that the smart tourism experience of
a nature-based tourist could arouse his or her learning experience cycle,
enhancing his or her biospheric value and ERB (Kolb, 1984).
2
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10
2.2. Smart tourism experience
The smart tourism experience refers to tourists’ perception of the
smart services provided by destinations during travel (Femenia-serra &
Neuhofer, 2018). A smart tourism experience can be measured by using
a specific smart technology during pre-on-site, and post-trips, for
example, VR technology (VR experience, Tussyadiah et al., 2018b),
smartphones (online experience, Xia et al., 2018), or user-generated
content platforms (co-creation experience, Lam et al., 2020). Feme­
nia-serra and Neuhofer (2018) conceptualized smart tourism experi­
ences in a holistic smart destination context (with Wi-Fi, beacons,
mobile devices, websites, recommendation systems, and QR codes)
using data-driven, real-time, context-awareness, and co-creation as the
dimensions of smart tourism experiences. Pai et al. (2021) indicated that
the constructs of smart tourism experiences include informativeness,
accessibility, interactivity, personalization, and security in the smart
city tourism context. Accordingly, the constructs of smart tourism ex­
periences are different in various smart technology environments.
Scholars have suggested that smart technology should be easy to
utilize and useful for tourists, offering useful information and friendly,
timely interfaces during a whole trip (Kang et al., 2018; Pai et al., 2021;
Zhang et al., 2018). Based on the technology acceptance model (TAM;
Davis, 1989), ease of use and usefulness affect users’ attitudes and in­
tentions to adopt new technology. Tourists perceive smart technology to
be useful and easy to use, which promotes their satisfaction and revisit
intention (Kang et al., 2018; Lee & Jan 2022). Reliable information leads
tourists to make suitable decisions that enhance their satisfaction (Lee &
Jan 2022; Pai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018). Moreover, security and
privacy are the most considered issues in terms of using smart tech­
nology when tourists access information or complete transactions by
mobile payment (Lee & Jan 2022; Pai et al., 2021). Jeong and Shin
(2020) argued that trustworthy smart technology provides tourists with
memorable experiences and drives their behavioral intentions. There­
fore, ease of use, usefulness and trust experience should be the attributes
of smart tourism experiences.
Zhang et al. (2018) also indicated that aesthetics is a crucial element
in attracting tourists’ attitudes toward using platforms. In nature-based
tourism, some destination managers introduce their magnificent natural
resources via social media, AR/VR technology, and mobile interpreta­
tion (Yangmingshan National Park, 2022); thus, the layout and beautiful
media on a platform may offer an aesthetic experience to tourists.
Tourists also have hedonic experiences when adopting these innovation
technologies (Tussyadiah et al., 2018a; b). Additionally, smart tech­
nology provides tourists with opportunities to learn new knowledge and
about new technology (Verleye, 2015). Morteo (2018) addressed how
smart technology enhances tourists’ ability and learning quality. In the
nature-based tourism context, environmental education provokes tour­
ists to have improved biospheric value, attitude, and environmental
behavior (Lee & Jan 2018). Lee and Jan (2019) also showed that tour­
ists’ learning experience is a vital factor in promoting sustainable
tourism. As mentioned above, aesthetic, hedonic, and learning experi­
ences are included in smart tourism experiences.
2.3. Biospheric value
Biospheric value comprises individuals’ guidelines that they strive
toward in their lives and environmental worldview, which is a crucial
link between their belief and ERB (Zeiske et al., 2021). Based on
value-belief-norm theory, Stern et al. (1999) indicated three values of
environmental concern: altruistic value, egoistic value, and biospheric
value. Different types of biospheric values may have different impacts on
individuals’ environmental attitudes, which in turn affect their ERB
(Stern et al., 1999). Most studies have shown that while egoistic value
negatively affects environmental attitude and ERB, altruistic and
biospheric values positively influence environmental attitude and ERB
(Megeirhi et al., 2020; Stern et al., 1999; Su et al., 2021). However, some
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan
studies have identified egoistic value as a health concern (e.g., benefits
for health, quality life and families), such as buying organic/envir­
onmentally friendly products being regarded as benefits for personal
health and land (Ditlevsen et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020). In this regard,
consumers buying organic products may mitigate environmental im­
pacts; therefore, egoistic value may positively influence green consumer
behavior (Sadiq et al., 2022).
Biospheric value represents individuals’ concern for environmental
issues and encourages them to engage in environmental behavior
(Martin & Czellar, 2017; Van der Werff et al., 2014); thus, biospheric
value is an important antecedent of environmental behavior. Martin and
Czellar (2017) argued that when individuals have more connection with
nature, they appreciate natural resources, have greater biospheric value,
and thus adopt environmental behavior. Han and Hyun (2018) found
that tourists with greater biospheric value exhibit water-saving behavior
in hotels. Lee and Jan (2015) argued that tourists with greater
biospheric value are likely to perform general and site-specific envi­
ronmental behavior.
2.4. Environmentally responsible behavior (ERB)
Due to serious climate change and increasing environmental prob­
lems, promoting ERB is regarded as an effective way to mitigate envi­
ronmental impacts and contribute to sustainable tourism (Lee et al.,
2015). In tourism research, scholars have classified ERB into daily ERB
and destination ERB (Lee & Jan 2015). Several studies have suggested
that there is a spillover effect between daily and destination ERB (Liu
et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020); however, daily ERB does not affect towel
use and energy consumption in the hotel realm (Dolnicar et al., 2017).
Exploring the factors that influence destination ERB is thus warranted.
To better understand the mechanism for enhancing tourists’ ERB,
scholars have adopted theoretical frameworks, such as the theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and value-belief-norm theory (Stern
et al., 1999), which suggest that environmental attitudes and biospheric
value enhance individuals’ ERB. Moreover, identity theory has been
introduced to explain individuals’ ERB, whereby individuals with a
greater environmental identity are more willing to engage in ERB
(Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
In the tourism context, several scholars have suggested that recrea­
tion experiences foster tourists’ sensory, affective, reflective, and
behavioral experiences, catalyzing changes in their behavior (Ballan­
tyne et al., 2011). Through recreation experiences, tourists appreciate
natural resources, gain empathy toward natural resources, reflect on
their behavior, and ultimately engage in ERB (Ballantyne et al., 2011;
Kolb, 1984; Lee et al., 2021). Moreover, previous studies have revealed
the positive influence of recreation experience on ERB (Le Corre et al.,
2021; Lee et al., 2018; Lee & Jan 2015).
In the national park context, tourists’ behavior has received more
attention for conserving natural resources (Esfandiar et al., 2022).
Esfandiar et al. (2020) indicated that raising tourists’ environmental
attitudes and personal norms may provoke tourists’ ERB. Xu et al.
(2020) also argued that environmental attachment and environmental
identity may foster tourists’ ERB in protected areas. In protected area
management, environmental education activities may provoke tourists’
environmental value, attitude, and ERB, which contributes to destina­
tion sustainable development (Andrade et al., 2022; Lee & Jan 2015).
By introducing ICT in the natural-based tourism context, environ­
mental knowledge can be communicated more quickly and effectively,
e.g., through social media (Shen et al., 2020) and VR (Tussyadiah et al.,
2018b; Yangmingshan National Park, 2022). Several studies have
examined whether ICT-based experiences can enhance ERB more than
non-ICT-based experiences (Kiatkawsin et al., 2020; Martínez-Borre­
guero et al., 2020).
3
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10
2.5. Hypothesized model
Tourism experiences are regarded as an effective means to change
tourists’ attitudes, ERB, and behavioral intentions (Lee et al., 2018; Lee
& Jan 2015; Lin & Lee, 2020; Wu et al., 2020). An aesthetic experience is
when visitors are involved in a natural setting and interpret their
physical environment (Hosany & Witham, 2010). Bonn et al. (2007)
indicated that aesthetic experiences impact tourists’ attitudes, behav­
ioral intentions, and behavior. When contacting nature-based destina­
tions, visitors learn that negative environmental impacts may change
the aesthetics of these destinations, increasing their reflective engage­
ment, and they may ultimately decide to adopt ERB to assist the sus­
tainability management of these destinations (Lee et al., 2021). Scholars
have reported how nature-based tourists’ aesthetic experiences can in­
crease their sense of engaging in ERB (Lee et al., 2015).
Individual values have been provoked effectively by VR experiences,
which in turn can influence individuals’ sustainable food choices
(Meijers et al., 2022). AR experiences may enhance tourists’ perceived
values, which leads tourists to apply these to locals (Jiang et al., 2019).
The experience of ICT adoption norms can effectively encourage
households to have greater biospheric value and enhance their intention
to adopt energy efficiency behavior (Mansoor & Paul, 2022). Martí­
nez-Borreguero et al. (2020) and Kiatkawsin et al. (2020) found that ICT
provokes students’ biospheric value and behavior.
According to the TAM, usefulness and ease of use experiences drive
individuals to have a positive attitude toward new technology (Davis,
1989; Kang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Mota et al. (2016) indicated
that usefulness and ease of use are key factors compelling residents to
use bike systems. Usefulness experience provides a cognitive or func­
tional experience that may enhance tourists’ biospheric value (Chung
et al., 2015). In the museum tourism context, usefulness and ease of use
experiences lead visitors to have a positive evaluation of a mobile
interpretation, which encourages them to gain knowledge about a
museum.
Hedonic and utilitarian values can effectively predict one’s envi­
ronmental attitude toward pro-environmental behavior. For example,
Ghazali et al. (2017) indicated that providing a hedonic experience leads
consumers to enhance their biospheric value and intention to buy
organic food. When tourists enjoy a mobile interpretation system, they
have a positive attitude toward the relevant system and will revisit the
museum (Kang et al., 2018). Thus, smart facilities providing hedonic
experiences may lead tourists to absorb environmental knowledge and
increase their biospheric value (Lee & Jan 2015).
A trust experience means that tourists perceive trustworthiness in the
information and security provided by their destination smart service
(Mota et al., 2016). By engaging with a trustworthy platform and in­
formation, individuals develop a positive attitude toward bike-sharing
systems (Mota et al., 2016). In the sharing economy context, the trust­
worthiness of the transaction platform and host are two key elements
that influence tourists’ attitudes toward Airbnb (Mao et al., 2020).
Accordingly, a destination that provides trustworthy environmental
knowledge and platforms compels tourists to develop a biospheric value.
In the nature-based tourism context, environmental education
should be included in destination services, as this fosters tourists’
biospheric value (Lee & Jan 2015). A learning experience is a vital
element in a recreation experience and is a strong predictor of tourists’
ERB (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2021). Introducing smart tech­
nology into environmental education services during tourists’ learning
experiences may therefore enhance their biospheric value (Kiatkawsin
et al., 2020; Martínez-Borreguero et al., 2020).
By using smart technology, tourists may gain cognitive and affective
values for natural resources (Jiang et al., 2019), provoking their
biospheric value. As aforementioned, smart tourism experience has been
classified into seven dimensions (i.e., aesthetics experience, VR/AR
presence experience, usefulness experience, ease of use experience, trust
experience, learning experience) that can enable tourists enhance their
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan
biospheric value. Accordingly, as smart tourism experiences influence
tourists’ biospheric value, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1. Aesthetics experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
H2. VR/AR presence experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
H3. Usefulness experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
H4. Ease of use experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
H5. Hedonic experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
H6. Trust experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
H7. Learning experiences significantly affect biospheric value.
Biospheric values have better predictive power in ERB than egoistic
values and altruistic values (Beall et al., 2021). Yadav et al. (2019) also
indicated that biospheric value is the most vital antecedent of in­
dividuals’ intention to choose green hotels by introducing the theory of
planned behavior. Moreover, Gupta et al. (2019) argued that biospheric
value moderates the relationship between green perception and green
trust, which in turn provokes tourists’ green hotel choice. In the
nature-based tourism realm, tourists feel they have more connection
with natural resources, which drives them to have greater biospheric
value and to be more inclined to perform ERB (Martin & Czellar, 2017).
Van der Werff et al. (2014) also indicated that tourists have greater
biospheric value, which indicates that they have a more environmental
identity and greater ERB intention. Moreover, several studies have
adopted biospheric value to elucidate the relationship among biospheric
value, environmental attitude, and environmental behavior (Lee & Jan
2015; Yadav et al., 2019), demonstrating that biospheric value posi­
tively influences ERB. Accordingly, this study presents the following
hypothesis:
H8. Biospheric value significantly affects ERB.
3. Methods
3.1. Study sites
Two study sites, i.e., Yangmingshan National Park (YNP) and Sun-
Moon-Lake National Scenic Area (SMLNSA), were selected since they
are renowned for nature-based recreation destinations with varied smart
recreational experiences, which are addressed below.
YNP is located in northern Taiwan, which is renowned for the figu­
rative unusual volcanic activities and beautiful scenery (Yangmingshan
National Park, 2022). SMLNSA is situated in central Taiwan, and most
Taiwanese have visited there at least once. These two study areas offer
diverse smart recreation opportunities to visitors, such as interpretation
service applications, mobile applications, VR, beacons, and Quick
Response code scanning to connect to a website for environmental ed­
ucation purposes (Sun-Moon-Lake National Scenic Area, 2022; Yang­
mingshan National Park, 2022).
3.2. Research instrument
The research instrument was developed by employing the constructs
of smart tourism experience, biospheric value, and site-specific ERB.
Three scholars specializing in tourism and one manager at SMLNSA were
invited to evaluate the content validity of the questionnaire. A pilot
study for surveying visitors at SMLNSA was conducted between late July
and early August 2021, and 122 useable questionnaires were collected.
The questionnaire was modified according to the item analysis as well as
specialists’ feedback. Six items were worded for clarity, and three items
were dropped. The formal questionnaire was then developed as follows.
All the measures were adopted from the literature and modified with
regard to the circumstances of respondents in the two study areas. Smart
tourism experience was measured with seven dimensions, including
4
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10
aesthetics (four items), VR/AR presence (four items), usefulness (four
items), ease of use (three items), hedonic experience (seven items), trust
(three items), and learning experience (four items), based on the results
by Lee et al. (2015), Lee and Jan (2022), Tussyadiah et al. (2018b),
Davis (1989), and Femenia-Serra and Ivars-Baidal (2021). The measures
of biospheric value were borrowed from Lee and Jan (2015) and
comprised three items. Measures of site-specific ERB were adopted from
the findings on site ERB by Lee et al. (2013) and comprised six items. The
responses to the measures were evaluated using a seven-point Likert
scale: from extremely disagree (1) to extremely agree (7). Demographics
were also included to show the respondents’ profiles.
3.3. Questionnaire survey
The survey was conducted between October 9, 2021 and February
28, 2022. A questionnaire survey was performed during daylight hours
in the two study areas with a systematic sampling approach (one out of
every ten). Five trained research assistants conducted the on-site ques­
tionnaire surveys. A screening yes/no question was used to select the
target subjects by asking them if they had experienced smart tourism
applications at this destination. The Xiangshan Visitor Center of
SMLNSA and the Visitor Center and Lengshuikeng Recreation Area of
YNP were selected as the questionnaire-distributed sites have several
smart tourism experiences and high popularity with tourists. During
daylight hours, a systematic sampling approach (one of ten was selected)
was employed to collect the data. A ballpoint pen was given to the re­
spondents who completed the questionnaire. In total, 1172 valid ques­
tionnaires were obtained: 473 from YNP and 699 from SMLNSA. This
total appeared adequate for performing structural equation modeling
(SEM; Westland, 2010).
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the dimensions of smart
tourism experience, biospheric value, and ERB were 0.91, 0.95, 0.93,
0.92, 0.95, 0.91, 0.93, 0.85 and 0.86, respectively, for YNP and 0.90,
0.93, 0.92, 0.91, 0.95, 0.91, 0.93, 090 and 0.84, respectively, for
SMLNSA, all of which exceeded the 0.70 criterion (Hair et al., 2019),
illustrating that this study had acceptable reliability for further
examination.
3.4. Data analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM were analyzed with
LISREL 8.80 for Windows. A two-stage analysis was used to perform the
data analysis. First, CFA was applied to assess the measurement model
(including the fit indices, composite reliability, and convergent and
discriminant validity). Second, SEM was conducted to test the hypoth­
eses via maximum likelihood estimation.
4. Results
4.1. Respondents’ demographics
Table 1 illustrates the respondents’ profiles. Briefly, 53.1% were
female at YNP, and 50.6% were male at SMLNSA; 53.5% were single at
YNP, and 56.2% were single at SMLNSA; 36.2% were between 21 and 30
years old at YNP, while 34.3% were between 21 and 30 years old at
SMLNSA; 65.5% at YNP and 64.5% at SMLNSA had received a univer­
sity/college degree; 25.8% at YNP and 22.5% at SMLNSA were laborers;
34.9% at YNP had a salary ranging between NT$20,001 and NT$40,000,
while 30.5% at SMLNSA had a salary ranging between NT$40,001 and
NT$60,000; 33.0% at YNP lived in Taipei and New Taipei, and 33.0%
lived in Taichung, Chunghwa, and Nantou, and 48.0% at SMLNSA lived
in Taichung, Chunghwa, and Nantou. Based on the chi-square test, vis­
itors to the two study areas differed significantly only in terms of their
residence, which may be due to the effect of the destination locations.
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10

Table 1
Profiles of the respondents.
Variable YNP SMLNSA Total Chi-square

N % N % N % χ2 p

Gender
Male 222 46.9 354 50.6 576 49.1 1.554 0.213
Female 251 53.1 345 49.4 596 50.9
Marital status
Single 253 53.5 392 56.2 645 55.1 0.863 0.353
Married 220 46.5 305 43.8 525 44.9

Age (years old)

21–30 years old 171 36.2 240 34.3 411 35.1 3.702 0.448
31–40 years old 116 24.5 185 26.5 301 25.7
41–50 years old 83 17.5 124 17.7 207 17.7
51–60 years old 65 13.7 110 15.7 175 14.9
Over 61 years 38 8.0 40 5.7 78 6.7
Educational level
Junior high school and below 10 2.1 14 2.0 24 2.0 0.280 0.964
High school 55 11.6 88 12.6 143 12.2
University or college 310 65.5 451 64.5 761 64.9
Graduate school 98 20.7 146 20.9 244 20.8
Occupation
Office worker or teacher 65 13.7 109 15.6 174 14.8 8.395 0.299
Agriculturist, farmer, or fisherman 12 2.5 13 1.9 25 2.1
Laborer 122 25.8 157 22.5 279 23.8
Businessperson 94 19.9 150 21.5 244 20.8
Housewife 29 6.1 31 4.4 60 5.1
Retire or none 23 4.9 38 5.4 61 5.2
Student 49 10.4 98 14.0 147 12.5
Others 79 16.7 103 14.7 182 15.5
Monthly income (NT＄*) 7.076 0.215
≦20,000 74 15.6 126 18.1 200 17.1
20,001–40,000 165 34.9 193 27.7 358 30.6
40,001–60,000 130 27.5 212 30.5 342 29.3
60,001–80,000 56 11.8 86 12.4 142 12.1
80,001–100,000 25 5.3 39 5.6 64 5.5
≧100,001 23 4.9 40 5.7 63 5.4
Residence
Taipei, New Taipei City, Ilan 156 33.0 335 48.0 491 41.9 30.778 0.000
Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Miaoli 68 14.4 75 10.7 143 12.2
Taichung, Chunghwa, Nantou 156 33.0 158 22.6 314 26.8
Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan 53 11.2 65 9.3 118 10.1
Kaohsiung, Pingtung 37 7.8 59 8.5 96 8.2
Hualien, Taitung 2 0.4 4 0.6 6 0.5
Ponghu, Chinmen, Matsu 1 0.2 2 0.3 3 0.3

* 1 US$ = 32.07 NT$ as of October 21, 2022.

4.2. Measurement model
Table 2 illustrates the model fits, composite reliability (CR) and
average variance extracted (AVE) for the measurement model of YNP
and SMLNSA. According to these fit indices, the measurement model
seemed to fit the sample survey data well (Hair et al., 2019). Each CR
value was greater than 0.60, suggesting acceptable CR (Hair et al.,
2019). All of the factor loadings were greater than 0.50, and all achieved
statistical significance level, indicating acceptable convergent validity.
All of the AVE values exceeded 0.50, suggesting that the measurement
model had satisfactory discriminant and convergent validity (Hair et al.,
2019). Table 3 shows the correlations between the square root of the
AVE values and the constructs. The correlation coefficients ranged from
0.30 to 0.83, which were below the 0.85 criterion, suggesting satisfac­
tory discriminant validity (Kline, 2005). Moreover, each intercorrela­
tion between pairs of constructs was below the square root of the AVEs
of the two respective constructs, suggesting satisfactory discriminant
validity of the measurement model (Table 4). Accordingly, the mea­
surement models showed that multi-collinearity in the analysis data was
not created.
Since the present study used the same questionnaire to collect the
data under a period, common method variance bias was tested via
Harman’s one-factor model (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The theoretical
nine-factor model (the fit indices also see Table 2), which was better
than the one-factor model, evaluated whether all 37 items were included
in the same factor (for YNP: Δχ2 was 6164.10 with 36 df and achieved
the significance level, GFI = 0.53, NNFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, and RMSEA
= 0.154; for SMLNSA: Δχ2 was 8855.85 with 36 df and achieved the
significance level, GFI = 0.54, NNFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, and RMSEA =
0.153) and indicated that common method variance bias did not appear
in the survey.
4.3. Structural model
Table 3 shows the measurement invariance among visitors at YNP
and SMLNSA. The Δχ2 for models B and A was 10.09 with 28 df (p >
0.05), suggesting that the factor loadings were equal for visitors at YNP
and SMLNSA. Next stage analysis revealed that the equality of residual
error and variance and covariance appeared invariant in the statistical
analysis. Accordingly, H9 was supported, and the eight hypotheses of
YNP and SMLNSA were thus separately assessed as follows:
The structural model and path coefficients at YNP and SMLNSA are
illustrated in Table 5. Aesthetic experience significantly impacted
biospheric value for visitors at both YNP and SMLNSA; therefore, hy­
pothesis 1 (H1) was confirmed. AR/VR experience impacted biospheric
value and did not reach a significance level at YNP and SMLNSA;

5
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10

Table 2
Factor loading, t-value*, average variance extracted (AVE)**, and composite reliability (CR)*** of the measurement model.
Latent Variables Factor loading AVE CR

YNP SMLNSA Whole YNP SMLNSA Whole YNP SMLNSA Whole

Smart tourism experience

Aesthetics 0.69 0.77 0.74 0.90 0.93 0.92
The design of the smart platform looks aesthetic 0.76 0.83 0.81
This smart tourism experience is full of charm with its landscape resources 0.82 0.89 0.87
This smart tourism experience inspires my curiosity about natural scenery 0.80 0.90 0.89
This smart tourism experience inspires my imagination of natural scenery 0.85 0.89 0.87

VR/AR Presence 0.79 0.84 0.82 0.94 0.95 0.95

I feel like I was actually there in the VR environment 0.85 0.91 0.89
I felt as though I was physically present in the VR environment 0.92 0.92 0.92
It seemed as though I actually took part in the action of the VR things that I do 0.91 0.92 0.92
I felt as if I am part of the virtual environment 0.87 0.91 0.90

Usefulness 0.72 0.81 0.80 0.91 0.94 0.94

Using the smart platform enables me to find the information more quickly 0.81 0.85 0.86
Using the smart platform enhances my travel effectiveness 0.86 0.90 0.90
Using the smart platform makes my journey smoother 0.88 0.93 0.92
The smart platform is useful during the journey 0.84 0.90 0.90

Ease of use 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.89 0.93 0.93

It is easy to use the smart platform 0.86 0.92 0.91
This smart platform is easy to learn how to use 0.87 0.92 0.92
It is easy to get the smart platform to do what I want it to do 0.83 0.88 0.88

Hedonic experience 0.75 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.97 0.97

This smart tourism experience is nice 0.88 0.90 0.89
This smart tourism experience is fun 0.87 0.91 0.90
This smart tourism experience is pleasant 0.89 0.93 0.92
This smart tourism experience makes me very happy 0.87 0.93 0.91
I enjoy the smart tourism experience 0.86 0.91 0.90
This smart tourism experience is exciting 0.84 0.91 0.89
This smart tourism experience is immersive 0.84 0.90 0.89

Trust 0.72 0.81 0.79 0.89 0.93 0.92

The smart platform looks trustworthy 0.84 0.88 0.87
I can use this smart platform to control the quality of my travel 0.85 0.91 0.90
I trust the reliability of information found on this smart platform 0.86 0.91 0.90

Cognitive/Learning Experience 0.73 0.82 0.80 0.92 0.95 0.94

I learned something new during this smart tourism experience 0.85 0.90 0.89
This smart tourism experience allows me to keep up with new ideas and innovation 0.86 0.91 0.90
This smart tourism experience enables me to come up with new ideas 0.85 0.89 0.88
I am being educated and informed effectively through this smart tourism experience. 0.87 0.91 0.90

Environmental value 0.57 0.75 0.71 0.80 0.90 0.88

I can protect nature and the environment 0.81 0.91 0.89
I am at one with nature 0.70 0.79 0.76
I respect the earth and live in harmony with other species 0.76 0.90 0.87

Site-specific ERB 0.54 0.67 0.67 0.90 0.94 0.94

I observe the nature and wildlife detailed 0.61 0.69 0.69
I voluntarily visit a favorite spot less if it needed to recover from environmental 0.76 0.75 0.77
damage
I voluntarily stop visiting a favorite spot if it needed to recover from environmental 0.75 0.74 0.77
damage
I do not intend to disturb any creature and vegetation 0.72 0.91 0.89
I tell my companions not to feed the animals. 0.72 0.85 0.85

YNP:YangmingshanYangmingshan National Park.

SMLNSA: Sun-Moon-Lake National Scenic Area.
*All the t-value of factor loadings larger than 1.96.
**AVE: Average variance extracted=(Σλ2)/[Σλ2 +Σ(θ) ] ***CR: Composite reliability= (Σλ)2/[(Σλ)2 +Σ(θ) ] (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996).

consequently, hypothesis 2 (H2) was rejected. Useful experience
impacted the biospheric value but did not achieve a significant level at
YNP but significantly impacted the biospheric value at SMLNSA;
consequently, hypothesis 3 (H3) was partly confirmed. Ease experience
significantly impacted the biospheric value at both YNP and SMLNSA;
hypothesis 4 (H4) was thus confirmed. Hedonism experience did not
significantly impact biospheric value for visitors at either YNP or
SMLNSA; consequently, hypothesis 5 (H5) was rejected. Trust experi­
ence impacted the biospheric value but did not achieve a significance
level at the YNP but significantly impacted the biospheric value at
SMLNSA; consequently, hypothesis 6 (H6) was partly confirmed.
Learning experience significantly impacted the biospheric value for
visitors at both YNP and SMLNSA; accordingly, hypothesis 7 (H7) was
confirmed. Biospheric value significantly impacted ERB for visitors at
both YNP and SMLNSA; accordingly, hypothesis 8 (H8) was supported.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implication
Previous studies have examined whether individuals’ ERB mitigates
environmental impacts (Lee et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2020; Zeiske et al.,
2021). In the tourism context, recreation experience has been shown to
provoke tourists’ biospheric value and environmental attitude, which in

6
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10

turn may provoke tourists’ ERB (Han & Oh, 2021; Lee & Jan 2015). ICT

SMLNSA
may enhance consumers’ shopping experience and purchase behavior
(Ebrahim et al., 2016). Likewise, ICT may enhance tourists’ recreation

0.82
experience, attitude, perception, and future behavior. Through ICT,
tourists obtain more effective, efficient, and real-time experiences than

0.73
YNP
9 in traditional recreation experiences (Jeong & Shin, 2020; Pai et al.,
2021), which in turn enhances their biospheric value and ERB (Kiat­
kawsin et al., 2020). Additionally, Lee and Jan (2022) reported that the
SMLNSA

smart tourism experience was related to overall satisfaction and loyalty.

0.87
0.79
Thus, tourists’ smart tourism experiences affect their visiting satisfac­
tion, loyalty, biospheric value and ERB, which is beneficial for sustain­
able tourism development.

0.75
0.72
YNP

The current study first develops a theoretical framework of national

8

park visitors’ ERB destination via the smart tourism experience by

SMLNSA

examining the relationships of factors contributing to ERB that had not

previously been identified. These variables have been assessed in pre­
0.91
0.74
0.70

vious studies, but few studies have elucidated the relationships among
these variables. The present study thus contributed to the literature on
0.85
0.62
0.54
YNP

ERB theoretical frameworks in smart tourism studies.

7

The study’s findings indicated that aesthetic experience, ease expe­

rience, and learning experience positively affect biospheric value at
SMLNSA

these two destinations. With beautiful scenery introduced by platforms

0.90
0.80
0.74
0.73

and social media, nature-based tourism destinations attract tourists

(Zhang et al., 2018). Zhang et al. (2018) indicated that tourists’
emotional perceptions are aroused via aesthetic experiences by desti­
0.85
0.83
0.60
0.48
YNP

nation platforms, which leads tourists to visit destinations. In the envi­

6

ronmental education context, Lee and Jan (2015) also indicated that
SMLNSA

aesthetic experiences drive tourists’ empathy, which raises their

biospheric value and ERB; thus, the study’s findings are consistent with
0.91
0.80
0.78
0.68
0.65

the aforementioned studies. Evidence based on the technology accep­

tance model (Davis, 1989) suggests that ease of experience helps tourists
0.87
0.81
0.81
0.52
0.42
YNP

not resist new technology or feel a sense of accomplishment in using

5

these smart applications, driving them to increase their biospheric value

and ERB, which is consistent with the results of Huang et al. (2019). In
SMLNSA

the nature-based tourism context, the recreation experience not only

0.91
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.71
0.67

provides enjoyment but also provides environmental education mes­

sages to tourists (Lee & Jan 2015). Through personal and non-personal
interpretations, tourists receive environmental education, reflect on
0.85
0.76
0.84
0.78
0.65
0.53
YNP

their behavior, and ultimately change their behavior (Lee et al., 2021).
4

Kiatkawsin et al. (2020) and Martínez-Borreguero et al. (2020) indicated

SMLNSA

that ICT introduced in environmental education prompts individuals’

YNP: Yangmingshan National Park; SMLNSA: Sun-Moon-Lake National Scenic Area.

biospheric value and ERB, which is identical to the findings of the pre­
0.90
0.82
0.81
0.82
0.80
0.73
0.70

sent study regarding the smart tourism context.

Previous studies introduced value-belief-norm theory and norm-
The square root of the AVE values display in the diagonal with bold font.
0.85
0.84
0.74
0.77
0.76
0.61
0.50
YNP

activation theory to examine the relationship between biospheric

3

value and ERB (Han, 2015; Kiatkawsin et al., 2020; Lee & Jan 2018); the
present study’s analytical results indicate that biospheric value posi­
SMLNSA

tively influences tourists’ ERB, which is coherent with the aforemen­

0.92
0.75
0.73
0.82
0.73
0.78
0.58
0.56

The correlations between constructs are below the diagonal.

tioned studies’ results. Therefore, this study demonstrates how smart

tourism experiences positively affect biospheric value and subsequently
influence tourists’ ERB, contributing new knowledge and thus extending
0.89
0.60
0.57
0.77
0.62
0.70
0.45
0.30
YNP

the smart tourism and environmental education literature.

2

The empirical results indicate that useful experience and trust

Squared correlation matrix of the constructs.

SMLNSA

experience positively affect biospheric value, but only at SMLNSA. Lam

et al. (2020) suggested that a useful and trustworthy platform will
0.88
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.69
0.64

encourage tourists to form destination images (including cognitive and

affective components). Similarly, tourists perceived smart services and
0.83
0.81
0.74
0.72
0.78
0.71
0.76
0.58
0.40
YNP

content to be useful and trustful, which may reinforce their environ­

1

mental knowledge and biospheric value (cognitive components). How­

ever, this study found that useful experience and trust experience have
7.Learning experience
5.Hedonic experience

no significant relationship with biospheric value at YNP. There are

8.Biospheric value
2.VR/AR presence

different smart facilities at these two destinations, which may provide

4.Ease of use

disparate smart experiences to tourists. According to the study’s find­

3.Usefulness
1.Aesthetics

ings, the destination effect thus acts as a moderator, while discrete

6.Trust
Table 3

9.ERB

components of smart tourism experiences influence biospheric value at

different destinations; thus, destinations can influence the relationship

7
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10

Table 4
Multigroup analysis for visitors at YNP and SMLNSA.
Models χ2 d.f. GFI IFI NFI SRMR RMSEA Nested models Δχ2 Δd.f. Significance level

Model I 4010.51 1200 0.84 0.99 0.99 0.036 0.063

Model II 4020.60 1228 0.84 0.99 0.99 0.037 0.062 II-I 10.09 28 p > 0.05
Model III 4889.79 1265 0.82 0.99 0.98 0.035 0.070 III-II 869.19 37 p < 0.05
Model IV 5178.36 1295 0.81 0.99 0.98 0.066 0.072 IV-III 280.57 30 p < 0.05

Model I = Baseline model (unconstrained).

Model II = Equality of factor loading.
Model III = Equality of factor loading and redidual error.
Model VI = Equality of variance and covariance.

Table 5
Effects of the final model for the visitors of the YNP and SMLNSA.
Relationships YNP SMLNSA

Path coefficient Hypothesis Path coefficient Hypothesis

Aesthetic experience→Biospheric value (H1) 0.19* Accepted 0.18* Accepted

AR/VR experience→Biospheric value (H2) − 0.04 Rejected − 0.1 Rejected
Useful experience→Biospheric value (H3) 0.11 Rejected 0.18* Accepted
Ease experience→Biospheric value (H4) 0.33** Accepted 0.19* Accepted
Hedonism experience→Biospheric value (H5) 0.11 Rejected − 0.27** Rejected
Trust experience→Biospheric value (H6) 0.04 Rejected 0.18* Accepted
Learning experience→Biospheric value (H7) 0.30* Accepted 0.47*** Accepted
Biospheric value→Environmentally responsible behavior (H8) 0.69*** Accepted 0.89*** Accepted

*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.

between smart experience and biospheric value differently.
The study’s findings illustrate how AR/VR experience and hedonism
experience have no significant effect on biospheric value, which is
inconsistent with the findings of Tussyadiah et al. (2018b) and Hosany
and Witham (2010). The possible reason for this may be that
nature-based tourism experiences are different from museum tourism
experiences (Tussyadiah et al., 2018b) or cruise tourism experiences
(Hosany & Witham, 2010). Although previous studies have confirmed
the relationship between AR/VR experience and use attitude or behav­
ioral intention (Alyahya & McLean, 2022, 2022b), biospheric value was
not aroused by AR/VR experience in this study. Another possible reason
is that most relevant AR/VR facilitates were completely or partially
unavailable due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have caused
tourists to lack enough opportunities to enjoy these AR/VR facilitates.
Accordingly, AR/VR experience and hedonic experience may not serve
as predictors of biospheric value in the smart tourism area.
Although this study adopted Lee et al.’s (2013) ERB scale to measure
ERB, which is an effective instrument for measuring community-based
tourists, assessing visitors’ ERB in a national park may be limited. To
resolve this issue, further research is recommended to develop a
research instrument to precisely measure ERB in a national park context.
Moreover, as this study focused on national parks only in Taiwan, the
question remains open of different ERB perspectives in relation to
different nations’ destinations owing to potential cultural or racial dif­
ferences (Lazri & Konisky, 2019). To resolve this issue, future research is
encouraged to develop an ERB scale for measuring national park tourists
according to their ERBs in different areas, providing multicultural
and/or international perspectives to extend the current study’s appli­
cability to other countries.
5.2. Practical implication
As an aesthetically pleasing platform design will induce tourists’
good impression of a platform and destination (Zhang et al., 2018), the
interfaces of smart devices are recommended to take colors, images, and
layouts into account when drawing tourists’ attention. For example, the
color, icons, and layouts of destination homepages should be designed
based on aesthetic considerations to attract tourists’ attention to have
more understanding about this destination. Moreover, smart facilities (e.
g., homepages, VR) should highlight the beauty of flora, fauna, and
landscapes in their destinations to provoke tourists’ aesthetic experi­
ences. Through destinations’ aesthetic experiences, tourists may have
empathy with natural resources, which will arouse their biospheric
value and ERB.
According to the TAM, ease of use is a key factor affecting an in­
dividual’s usage of a system. Kang et al. (2018) also suggested that the
design of smart facilities should be rendered easy to understand for
every user in terms of language, knowledge background, and de­
mographic characteristics. To promote biospheric value, managers may
segment different channels based on tourists’ environmental knowledge
and ensure that the content of each interface is easy to understand to
arouse tourists’ biospheric value. Moreover, destinations may provide
staff or interpreters to encourage and help tourists use smart facilitates,
which will foster tourists to acquire environmental knowledge and raise
biospheric value while visiting a destination.
Previous studies have suggested that the learning experience is
crucial in provoking tourists’ ERB (Lee & Jan 2018). As such, developing
smart facilities to stimulate tourists’ learning experiences is warranted.
Lee and Jan (2018) indicated that useful environmental knowledge
provokes tourists’ learning behavior. To arouse tourists’ curiosity, smart
facility interfaces may have interaction designs to stimulate tourists’
learning experiences (Lee et al., 2021). Managers may design smart fa­
cilities by providing environmental messages that are related to tourists’
personal interests. Through these environmental messages, tourists may
seek environmental knowledge and become encouraged to engage in
ERB.
As this study revealed that biospheric value significantly relates to
ERB in nature-based tourists, managers of national parks should design
and provide smart tourism experience opportunities for visitors that
focus on experiencing ecosystem change owing to human stressors,
including climate change and habitat degradation, to arouse nature-
based tourists’ biospheric value and induce them to perform ERB (Lee
& Jan 2015; Martin & Czellar, 2017). Moreover, practical implication is
recommended to use multimedia relevant to smart tourism platforms of
environmental education to enhance the biospheric value and conse­
quently promote the engagement of ERBs, ultimately benefitting sus­
tainable tourism.

8
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan
6. Conclusion
The biospheric value and ERB of visitors are influential factors in
fostering sustainable tourism. Smart tourism experiences involve the
opportunity to increase the mediated tourism experiences of smart
technologies, which is the current trend in contemporary tourism
development. Although these factors contribute to the sustainability
management of a nature-based destination, developing a theoretical
framework with these factors has been heavily neglected. This study has
thus employed a rigorous approach and provided meaningful data,
specifically to evaluate the relationships among visitors’ smart tourism
experiences, biospheric value, and ERB via an examination of two
typical and famous nature-based destinations.
Although Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle has been inten­
sively employed to elucidate the recreation experience and ERBs (Bal­
lantyne et al., 2011; Hofman et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2021), the
mechanism regarding how smart tourism experiences affect ERBs re­
mains undetermined. Drawing on experiential learning cycle theory, in
this study, a theoretical framework is effectively developed by per­
forming an influence analysis of smart tourism experiences regarding
biospheric value and ERBs among 1172 visitors that seems to be
adequate to carry out CFA and SEM at two smart tourism destinations in
Taiwan and to develop a theoretical model.
The study’s findings extend the application of experiential learning
cycle theory, updating the theoretical framework of the “smart tourism
experience – biospheric value – site-specific ERB” and extending this
framework to nature-based visitors. Some important theoretical and
practical implications of smart tourism have been deeply discussed. The
theoretical framework developed in this paper therefore provides a
better understanding of the behavioral frameworks for assessing the
frontier progress in smart tourism and sustainability management,
filling research gaps and contributing to the literature.
Finally, this study concludes that visitors with stronger smart tourism
experiences in terms of their aesthetic experience, ease experience, and
learning experience increase their biospheric value and, subsequently,
may increase their ERB. The current theoretical and practical contri­
butions thus expand the knowledge on smart tourism experiences
impacting visitors’ ERB and ultimately assist in developing sustainable
nature-based tourism.
Declaration of competing interest
No Conflict of Interest in This Paper.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology, the
Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research
under Contract No.: MOST 109-2410-H-224-031-SS2.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Alazaizeh, M. M., Jamaliah, M. M., Mgonja, J. T., & Ababneh, A. (2019). Tour guide
performance and sustainable visitor behavior at cultural heritage sites. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 27(11), 1708–1724.
Alyahya, M., & McLean, G. (2022). Examining tourism consumers’ attitudes and the role
of sensory information in virtual reality experiences of a tourist destination. Journal
of Travel Research, 61(7), 1666–1681.
Andrade, R., van Riper, C. J., Goodson, D., Johnson, D. N., & Stewart, W. (2022).
Learning pathways for engagement: Understanding drivers of pro-environmental
behavior in the context of protected area management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 323, Article 116204.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental
sustainability: Testing short-and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences
using structural equation modelling. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1243–1252.
Beall, J. M., Boley, B. B., Landon, A. C., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021). What drives
ecotourism: Environmental values or symbolic conspicuous consumption? Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 29(8), 1215–1234.
9
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10
Bonn, M. A., Joseph-Mathews, S. M., Dai, M., Hayes, S., & Cave, J. (2007). Heritage/
cultural attraction atmospherics: Creating the right environment for the heritage/
cultural visitor. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 345–354.
Chung, N., Lee, H., Lee, S. J., & Koo, C. (2015). The influence of tourism website on
tourists’ behavior to determine destination selection: A case study of creative
economy in korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 130–143.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, (September), 319–340.
Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations:
Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 4(3), 145–150.
Ditlevsen, K., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2019). Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food
is healthy because it is pure: The negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish
consumers of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 46–53.
Dolnicar, S., Knezevic Cvelbar, L., & Grün, B. (2017). Do pro-environmental appeals
trigger pro-environmental behavior in hotel guests? Journal of Travel Research, 56(8),
988–997.
Ebrahim, R., Ghoneim, A., Irani, Z., & Fan, Y. (2016). A brand preference and repurchase
intention model: The role of consumer experience. Journal of Marketing Management,
32(13–14), 1230–1259.
Esfandiar, K., Dowling, R., Pearce, J., & Goh, E. (2020). Personal norms and the adoption
of pro-environmental binning behaviour in national parks: An integrated structural
model approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(1), 10–32.
Esfandiar, K., Pearce, J., Dowling, R., & Goh, E. (2022). Pro-environmental behaviours in
protected areas: A systematic literature review and future research directions.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 41, Article 100943.
Fan, W., Li, Y., Upreti, B. R., Liu, Y., Li, H., Fan, W., & Lim, E. T. (2022). Big data for big
insights: Quantifying the adverse effect of air pollution on the tourism industry in
China. Journal of Travel Research, 61(8), 1947–1966.
Femenia-Serra, F., & Ivars-Baidal, J. A. (2021). Do smart tourism destinations really
work? The case of benidorm. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(4),
365–384.
Femenia-serra, F., & Neuhofer, B. (2018). Smart tourism experiences: Conceptualisation,
key dimensions and research agenda. Investigaciones Regionales – Journal of Regional
Research, 42, 129–150.
Ghazali, E., Soon, P. C., Mutum, D. S., & Nguyen, B. (2017). Health and cosmetics:
Investigating consumers’ values for buying organic personal care products. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 154–163.
Gomis-López, J. M., & González-Reverté, F. (2020). Smart tourism sustainability
narratives in mature beach destinations. Contrasting the collective imaginary with
reality. Sustainability, 12(12), 5083.
Gretzel, U., & Koo, C. (2021). Smart tourism cities: A duality of place where technology
supports the convergence of touristic and residential experiences. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research, 26(4), 352–364.
Gupta, A., Dash, S., & Mishra, A. (2019). All that glitters is not green: Creating
trustworthy ecofriendly services at green hotels. Tourism Management, 70, 155–169.
Hair, J. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data
analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Han, H. (2015). Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context:
Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism
Management, 47, 164–177.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2018). Eliciting customer green decisions related to water saving
at hotels: Impact of customer characteristics. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(8),
1437–1452.
Han, J. H., & Oh, C. O. (2021). The causal mechanisms of environmentally responsible
behaviors using value orientations and recreation specialization. Leisure Sciences, 43
(5), 471–493.
Hofman, K., Walters, G., & Hughes, K. (2022). The effectiveness of virtual vs real-life
marine tourism experiences in encouraging conservation behaviour. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 30(4), 742–766.
Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and
intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351–364.
Huang, Y. C., Chang, L. L., Yu, C. P., & Chen, J. (2019). Examining an extended
technology acceptance model with experience construct on hotel consumers’
adoption of mobile applications. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28
(8), 957–980.
Ivars-Baidal, J. A., Celdrán-Bernabeu, M. A., Mazón, J. N., & Perles-Ivars, Á. F. (2019).
Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: A new scenario for destination
management? Current Issues in Tourism, 22(13), 1581–1600.
Jeong, M., & Shin, H. H. (2020). Tourists’ experiences with smart tourism technology at
smart destinations and their behavior intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8),
1464–1477.
Jiang, S., Scott, N., & Tao, L. (2019). Antecedents of augmented reality experiences:
Potential tourists to shangri-La potatso national park, China. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 24(10), 1034–1045.
Kang, J. H., Jang, J. C., & Jeong, C. (2018). Understanding museum visitor satisfaction
and revisit intentions through mobile guide system: Moderating role of age in
museum mobile guide adoption. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(2),
95–108.
Kiatkawsin, K., Sutherland, I., & Lee, S. K. (2020). Determinants of smart tourist
environmentally responsible behavior using an extended norm-activation model.
Sustainability, 12(12), 4934.
Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
T.H. Lee and F.-H. Jan
Koo, C., & Chung, N. (2014). Examining the eco-technological knowledge of smart green
it adoption behavior: A self-determination perspective. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 88, 140–155.
Lam, J. M., Ismail, H., & Lee, S. (2020). From desktop to destination: User-generated
content platforms, co-created online experiences, destination image and satisfaction.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 18, Article 100490.
Lazri, A. M., & Konisky, D. M. (2019). Environmental attitudes across race and ethnicity.
Social Science Quarterly, 100(4), 1039–1055.
Le Corre, N., Saint-Pierre, A., Hughes, M., Peuziat, I., Cosquer, A., Michot, T., &
Bernard, N. (2021). Outdoor recreation in French Coastal and Marine Protected
Areas. Exploring recreation experience preference as a way for building conservation
support. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 33, Article 100332.
Lee, T. H., Fu, C. J., & Chen, Y. Y. (2020). Trust factors for organic foods: Consumer
buying behavior. British Food Journal, 122(2), 414–431.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental
attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of
nature-based tourists. Environmental Management, 56(1), 193–208.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2018). Ecotourism behavior of nature-based tourists: An
integrative framework. Journal of Travel Research, 57(6), 792–810.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). The low-carbon tourism experience: A multidimensional
scale development. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(6), 890–918.
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2022). Development and validation of the smart tourism
experience scale. Sustainability, 14(24), Article 16421.
Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., & Chen, J. C. (2021). Influence analysis of interpretation services on
ecotourism behavior for wildlife tourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism (in press).
Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., & Huang, G. W. (2015). The influence of recreation experiences on
environmentally responsible behavior: The case of Liuqiu Island, Taiwan. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 947–967.
Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., Tseng, C. H., & Lin, Y. F. (2018). Segmentation by recreation
experience in island-based tourism: A case study of taiwan’s liuqiu island. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 26(3), 362–378.
Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring
environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based
tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 454–468.
Li, T., Liu, F., & Soutar, G. N. (2021). Connecting tourism experience and environmental
learning. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(13), 1792–1797.
Lin, Y. H., & Lee, T. H. (2020). How do recreation experiences affect visitors’
environmentally responsible behavior? Evidence from recreationists visiting ancient
trails in taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(5), 705–726.
Liu, A., Ma, E., Qu, H., & Ryan, B. (2020). Daily green behavior as an antecedent and a
moderator for visitors’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
28(9), 1390–1408.
Mansoor, M., & Paul, J. (2022). Impact of energy efficiency-based ICT adoptions on
prosumers and consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 331, Article 130008.
Mao, Z. E., Jones, M. F., Li, M., Wei, W., & Lyu, J. (2020). Sleeping in a stranger’s home:
A trust formation model for Airbnb. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
42, 67–76.
Martin, C., & Czellar, S. (2017). Where do biospheric values come from? A connectedness
to nature perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 56–68.
Martínez-Borreguero, G., Perera-Villalba, J. J., Mateos-Nunez, M., & Naranjo-
Correa, F. L. (2020). Development of ICT-based didactic interventions for learning
sustainability content: Cognitive and affective analysis. Sustainability, 12(9), 3644.
Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., Branco, F., Barbosa, L., Melo, M., & Bessa, M. (2017).
A multisensory virtual experience model for thematic tourism: A port wine tourism
application proposal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(2), 103–109.
Megeirhi, H. A., Woosnam, K. M., Ribeiro, M. A., Ramkissoon, H., & Denley, T. J. (2020).
Employing a value-belief-norm framework to gauge Carthage residents’ intentions to
support sustainable cultural heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(9),
1351–1370.
Meijers, M. H., Smit, E. S., de Wildt, K., Karvonen, S. G., van der Plas, D., & van der
Laan, L. N. (2022). Stimulating sustainable food choices using virtual reality: Taking
an environmental vs health communication perspective on enhancing response
efficacy beliefs. Environmental Communication, 16(1), 1–22.
Morteo, I. (2018). Influencers as enhancers of the value co-creation experience. Global
Journal of Business Research, 12(2), 91–100.
Mota, F. P. B., Bellini, C. G. P., Souza, J. M. D. S., & Oliveira, T. D. J. N. (2016). The
influence of civic mindedness, trustworthiness, usefulness, and ease of use on the use
of government websites. Revista de Administracao, 51, 344–354.
Pai, C., Kang, S., Liu, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2021). An examination of revisit intention based on
perceived smart tourism technology experience. Sustainability, 13(2), 1007.
Pai, C. K., Liu, Y., Kang, S., & Dai, A. (2020). The role of perceived smart tourism
technology experience for tourist satisfaction, happiness and revisit intention.
Sustainability, 12(16), 6592.
10
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 55 (2023) 1–10
Park, S., & Tussyadiah, I. P. (2017). Multidimensional facets of perceived risk in mobile
travel booking. Journal of Travel Research, 56(7), 854–867.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Ross, D. (2020). Towards meaningful co-creation: A study of creative heritage tourism in
alentejo, Portugal. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(22), 2811–2824.
Sadiq, M., Adil, M., & Paul, J. (2022). Eco-friendly hotel stay and environmental attitude:
A value-attitude-behaviour perspective. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 100, Article 103094.
Shen, S., Sotiriadis, M., & Zhou, Q. (2020). Could smart tourists be sustainable and
responsible as well? The contribution of social networking sites to improving their
sustainable and responsible behavior. Sustainability, 12(4), 1470.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm
theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human
Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
Stylos, N., Fotiadis, A. K., Shin, D. D., & Huan, T. C. T. (2021). Beyond smart systems
adoption: Enabling diffusion and assimilation of smartness in hospitality.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 98, Article 103042.
Sun-Moon-Lake National scenic area. Retrieve from https://www.sunmoonlake.gov.
tw/en, (2022).
Su, H., Zhao, X., Wang, W., Jiang, L., & Xue, B. (2021). What factors affect the water
saving behaviors of farmers in the Loess Hilly Region of China? Journal of
Environmental Management, 292, Article 112683.
Tavitiyaman, P., Qu, H., Tsang, W. S. L., & Lam, C. W. R. (2021). The influence of smart
tourism applications on perceived destination image and behavioral intention: The
moderating role of information search behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 46, 476–487.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Embodiment of wearable
augmented reality technology in tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 57
(5), 597–611.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality,
presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism
Management, 66, 140–154.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014). I am what I am, by looking past the
present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-
identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626–657.
Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its
measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 321–342.
Walter, P. G. (2016). Catalysts for transformative learning in community-based
ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(13), 1356–1371.
Wang, X., Li, X. R., Zhen, F., & Zhang, J. (2016). How smart is your tourist attraction?
Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA
approach. Tourism Management, 54, 309–320.
Wang, J., Wang, G., Zhang, J., & Wang, X. (2021). Interpreting disaster: How
interpretation types predict tourist satisfaction and loyalty to dark tourism sites.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 22, Article 100656.
Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487.
Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-
environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-
environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.
Wu, S. T., Chiu, C. H., & Chen, Y. S. (2020). The influences of innovative technological
introduction on interpretive experiences of exhibition: A discussion on the intention
to use augmented reality. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(6), 662–677.
Xia, M., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, C. (2018). A TAM-based approach to explore the effect of
online experience on destination image: A smartphone user’s perspective. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 259–270.
Xu, F., Huang, L., & Whitmarsh, L. (2020). Home and away: Cross-contextual consistency
in tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(10),
1443–1459.
Yadav, R., Balaji, M. S., & Jebarajakirthy, C. (2019). How psychological and contextual
factors contribute to travelers’ propensity to choose green hotels? International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 385–395.
Yangmingshan National Park. (2022). Visitor center. Retrieve from https://www.ymsnp.
gov.tw/main_ch/com_tourmap_m.aspx?id=1&uid=1385&pid=16.
Zeiske, N., Venhoeven, L., Steg, L., & van der Werff, E. (2021). The normative route to a
sustainable future: Examining children’s environmental values, identity and
personal norms to conserve energy. Environment and Behavior, 53(10), 1118–1139.
Zhang, H., Gordon, S., Buhalis, D., & Ding, X. (2018). Experience value cocreation on
destination online platforms. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8), 1093–1107.