Development and Validation of the Smart Tourism Experience Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aims to conceptualize and develop a reliable and valid 68 research instrument to measure the smart tourism experiences of nature-based tourists 69 via three studies. However interesting it is, the theoretical background and discussion are missing. There is a crude way of reviewing the literature and shifting to methodology. Even though author used quantitative study, no hypothesis defined. Not enough discussion is made based on findings and what those means. Not enough conclusive remark is given.

Author Response

Reviewer #1

This study aims to conceptualize and develop a reliable and valid research instrument to measure the smart tourism experiences of nature-based tourists via three studies.

Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using blue colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows:

1. However interesting it is, the theoretical background and discussion are missing.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have added and discussed the theoretical background as follows.

Smart tourism experiences involve tourism and smart technology application experiences; thus, drawing on the theoretical frameworks of the experience economy [20], experiential learning cycle [31], the experiential marketing [19], and the TAM [28], the attributes of smart tourism experience include aesthetics, VR/AR presence, usefulness, ease of use, hedonic experience, trust, and learning experience, which are described below. (p.3)

 

2. There is a crude way of reviewing the literature and shifting to methodology.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, the section of literature review has been rigorously carved (p.3, 4, 5). Moreover, the theoretical framework shifts to methodology has been smoothly connected, which is described below.

Based on the above theoretical background, we conduct three empirical studies to effectively conceptualize the smart tourism experience and develop a measurement scale, which is described below. (p.5)

 

3. Even though author used quantitative study, no hypothesis defined.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to suggestions for theory and applications of scale development (Dedeoğlu et al., 2020; DeVellis, 2016; Ghosh & Mandal, 2019; Guan et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Lee & Jan, 2018, 2019; Lee, Jan, & Yang, 2013), no hypotheses have been defined in the current study.

References

Dedeoğlu, B. B., Taheri, B., Okumus, F., & Gannon, M. (2020). Understanding the importance that consumers attach to social media sharing (ISMS): Scale development and validation. Tourism Management, 76, 103954.

DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ghosh, T., & Mandal, S. (2019). Medical tourism experience: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Travel Research, 58(8), 1288-1301.

Guan, X., Gong, J., Xie, L., & Huan, T. C. (2020). Scale development of value co-destruction behavior in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100757.

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2018). Development and validation of the ecotourism behavior scale. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), 191-203.

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

Zhang, P., Meng, F., & So, K. K. F. (2021). Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: Conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1333-1351.

 

4. Not enough discussion is made based on findings and what those means.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, extended debate concerning the discussion has been made based on findings and what those means, which are described below.

Following the studies by Dedeoğlu et al. [72], DeVellis [62], Ghosh and Mandal [73], Guan et al. [74], and Zhang et al. [75], the smart tourism experience was concep-tualized by a literature review and focus group, and its scale was developed using the fuzzy Delphi approach. Two empirical surveys with 2,233 respondents (i.e., study 2: 897; study 3: 1336) were analyzed to identify the convergent validity, discriminant

validity, cross-validation, and criterion-related validity. Thus, the conceptualization, scale development, and validation of the smart tourism experience were rigorous and provide deep insight into the theoretical implications of smart tourism from the

perspective of nature-based tourists. (p.12)

This study’s findings generate a first-order seven-factor model consisting of a 29-item scale to assess the smart tourism experience, extending knowledge of

economic experience [20], experiential marketing [19], the TAM [28], technological innovations transforming the consumer retail experience [36], the trust-building model [53], and experiential learning cycle theory [31]. Developing the understanding of the smart tourism experience is of great value to academic research and extends the knowledge in the smart tourism literature. (p.12)

The tourism experience involves the interaction between tourists and a set of tourism elements (e.g., destination environment, infrastructures, activities) [76]. In other words, different sets of tourism elements may shape different tourism experiences [7]. (p.12)

Most research instruments for conceptualizing and measuring the tourism

experiences of tourists have been developed in Western countries [7, 73,77,78]. Because cultural and racial differences affect individuals’ tourism experiences [79], developing a research instrument to assess smart tourism experiences among nature-based tourists in Eastern countries is a priority. Taiwan’s nature-based destinations, such as the SMLNSA and the YNP, provide diverse opportunities for smart tourism experiences, and conceptualizing and developing a research scale is thus crucial to address current tourism issues [15,16,80]. Nature-based tourists can have smart tourism experiences by actively participating in the creation of smart tourism destinations. Consequently, this study assessed samples at the SMLNSA and the YNP in Taiwan to show that conceptualizing and developing a scale for the smart tourism experience is valuable to fill the research gap and extend the theoretical framework of the smart tourism experience. (p.13)

The applications of smart technology in tourism have expanded recently, forcing destinations to introduce ICT to attract tourists and manage and market destinations. Identifying smart tourism experiences can help managers design appropriate marketing and sustainable development strategies [7, 12, 13, 34]. (p.13)

 

5. Not enough conclusive remark is given.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, enough conclusive remark is given along with more assertive in suggesting future research building from our work. We have revised as follows:

Although tourism experiences have been extensively assessed in past research [12,19,20,24,25], no studies have clarified the conceptualization and research

instruments of smart tourism experiences. The present study rigorously developed and tested a 29-item reliable and valid scale of smart tourism experience using mixed methods. By applying the current study’s theoretical framework, researchers and managers of tourism destinations can focus on smart tourism experiences to promote sustainable tourism. The current study thus contributes significantly to the academic literature on tourism.

When tourists visit a smart tourism destination, they are more likely to respect the natural environment and use smart technology applications, which provides useful information to plan their itineraries and identify diverse and entertaining recreation experiences (such as aesthetics, ease of use, hedonic experience, trust, and learning experience). As a result, these applications increase their satisfaction and loyalty, thus helping develop sustainable tourism. Consequently, the findings of this study extend the theoretical framework for smart tourism experiences into the operational realm of tourism management by rendering smart tourism experiences perceptible and assess-able, which represents a potentially significant contribution to the academic literature.

Although this study is a first attempt to conceptualize the smart tourism experience in nature-based tourism and develop a research instrument to evaluate it effectively, knowledge of the precedents and antecedents of the smart tourism experience remains limited. When applying this study’s theoretical framework, future research is strongly recommended to develop theoretical frameworks for how technology attachment [82], authentic experience [83], tourism image [84], and environmentally responsible behavior [85] relate to the smart tourism experience by employing long-term consequence approaches. Our development of the theoretical framework for smart tourism experiences to extend the understanding of smart tourism will assist in

developing sustainable tourism. Moreover, examining how tourists’ smart tourism experiences impact sustainability is strongly encouraged in addition to assessing how smart tourism experiences impact the carbon footprint [85] and the low-carbon tour-ism experience [24]. That is, can the smart tourism experience contribute to environ-mental sustainability, and how should the promotion of smart tourism experiences relate to tourists’ low-carbon experiences and environmentally responsible behavior to contribute to sustainable tourism? (p.14-15)

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- pg 2, l. 48 - correct "toruism"

- pg 2, l. 50 - correct "effeciviness"

- pg. 6., 3.2.1. Methods - different types of lettering were used, including bold, correct this

- pg. 7, l. 274 - I believe there's an extra Y in SMLNSA

-pg. 13, l 444- "If these smart devices do not correctly": I think a word is missing here

- please check references #43 and #51 and aligned them

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using green colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows:

1- pg 2, l. 48 - correct "toruism"

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, "toruism" has been corrected as “tourism”. (p.2)

 

2- pg 2, l. 50 - correct "effeciviness" (p.2)

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, "effeciviness" has been corrected as “effectiveness”. (p.2)

 

3- pg. 6., 3.2.1. Methods - different types of lettering were used, including bold, correct this.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, different types of lettering has been revised as the same type. (p.6)

 

4- pg. 7, l. 274 - I believe there's an extra Y in SMLNSA

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have revised as “SMLNSA” (p.7)

 

5-pg. 13, l 444- "If these smart devices do not correctly": I think a word is missing here

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, "If these smart devices do not correctly" has been corrected as “If these smart devices do not work”. (p.15)

 

6- please check references #43 and #51 and aligned them.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have checked original version’s #43 and #51 and aligned them. (p.16)

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is totally relevant and topical. All research that contributes to a more sustainable tourism is of great importance.

However, despite the interest that the study raises, the abstract does not reflect it. The abstract does not pose the problem, it goes directly to expose the number of surveys... without exposing the context of the research. I consider it more important to state the problem, the objectives and the contribution of the research than to state the number of samples in each study. The first paragraph of the conclusions should be part of the abstract.

 

The study is well planned and rigorous, however, section 3 includes both the methodology and the results of each of the studies. A methodology section (3) and a different one on results (4) are necessary.

 

Finally, the conclusions are very weak. I believe that after having carried out such a contrasted analysis, it is necessary to delve deeper into the conclusions

Author Response

#Reviewer 3

The topic is totally relevant and topical. All research that contributes to a more sustainable tourism is of great importance.

Response:

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using pale turquoise colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows:

 

1. However, despite the interest that the study raises, the abstract does not reflect it. The abstract does not pose the problem, it goes directly to expose the number of surveys... without exposing the context of the research. I consider it more important to state the problem, the objectives and the contribution of the research than to state the number of samples in each study. The first paragraph of the conclusions should be part of the abstract.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have despite the interest that the study raises, which addresses the problem statement, the objectives and the contribution of the research. We have added the discussion as follows.

Smart technology has been introduced in the tourism industry for several decades. Nature-based tourism destinations contribute to environmental education and sustainable tourism. Tourism experiences have been extensively assessed in past research; however, no studies have clarified the conceptualization and research instruments of smart tourism experiences, especially in nature-based tourism contexts. To fill this research gap, the present study aimed to develop a valid scale to evaluate the smart tourism experience of nature-based tourists. (p.1) 

When tourists visit a smart tourism destination, they are more likely to respect the natural environment and use smart technology applications, which provide useful information to plan itineraries and identify diverse and entertaining recreation experiences. Consequently, these applications increase their satisfaction and loyalty, thus assisting in the development of sustainable tourism. The present study extends the theoretical framework of smart tourism experiences to managerial implications by providing a conception and measure, filling the research gaps and contributing significantly to the tourism literature. (p.1)

 

2. The study is well planned and rigorous, however, section 3 includes both the methodology and the results of each of the studies. A methodology section (3) and a different one on results (4) are necessary.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. Based on suggestions for theory and applications of scale development (Dedeoğlu et al., 2020; DeVellis, 2016; Ghosh & Mandal, 2019; Guan et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Lee & Jan, 2018, 2019; Lee, Jan, & Yang, 2013), we used three studies to collect data to develop a 32-item research instrument, examined a reliable and valid 29-item scale, and provided the criterion-related validity by examining the correlation between five dimensions of the smart tourism experience and overall satisfaction and loyalty. Accordingly, considering each survey involved diverse approaches, we separated three studies and arranged them with Methodology and Results to elucidate the results of each study. Doing so, separating these three studies with methodology and results also can fully reflect their coherence of the work.           

References

Dedeoğlu, B. B., Taheri, B., Okumus, F., & Gannon, M. (2020). Understanding the importance that consumers attach to social media sharing (ISMS): Scale development and validation. Tourism Management, 76, 103954.

DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ghosh, T., & Mandal, S. (2019). Medical tourism experience: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Travel Research, 58(8), 1288-1301.

Guan, X., Gong, J., Xie, L., & Huan, T. C. (2020). Scale development of value co-destruction behavior in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100757.

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2018). Development and validation of the ecotourism behavior scale. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), 191-203.

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

Zhang, P., Meng, F., & So, K. K. F. (2021). Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: Conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1333-1351.

   

3. Finally, the conclusions are very weak. I believe that after having carried out such a contrasted analysis, it is necessary to delve deeper into the conclusions

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we have delved deeper into the conclusions, along with more assertive in suggesting future research building from our work. We have added and discussed as follows.

Although tourism experiences have been extensively assessed in past research [12,19,20,24,25], no studies have clarified the conceptualization and research

instruments of smart tourism experiences. The present study rigorously developed and tested a 29-item reliable and valid scale of smart tourism experience using mixed methods. By applying the current study’s theoretical framework, researchers and managers of tourism destinations can focus on smart tourism experiences to promote sustainable tourism. The current study thus contributes significantly to the academic literature on tourism.

When tourists visit a smart tourism destination, they are more likely to respect the natural environment and use smart technology applications, which provides useful information to plan their itineraries and identify diverse and entertaining recreation experiences (such as aesthetics, ease of use, hedonic experience, trust, and learning experience). As a result, these applications increase their satisfaction and loyalty, thus helping develop sustainable tourism. Consequently, the findings of this study extend the theoretical framework for smart tourism experiences into the operational realm of tourism management by rendering smart tourism experiences perceptible and assess-able, which represents a potentially significant contribution to the academic literature.

Although this study is a first attempt to conceptualize the smart tourism experience in nature-based tourism and develop a research instrument to evaluate it effectively, knowledge of the precedents and antecedents of the smart tourism experience remains limited. When applying this study’s theoretical framework, future research is strongly recommended to develop theoretical frameworks for how technology attachment [82], authentic experience [83], tourism image [84], and environmentally responsible behavior [85] relate to the smart tourism experience by employing long-term consequence approaches. Our development of the theoretical framework for smart tourism experiences to extend the understanding of smart tourism will assist in

developing sustainable tourism. Moreover, examining how tourists’ smart tourism experiences impact sustainability is strongly encouraged in addition to assessing how smart tourism experiences impact the carbon footprint [85] and the low-carbon tour-ism experience [24]. That is, can the smart tourism experience contribute to environ-mental sustainability, and how should the promotion of smart tourism experiences relate to tourists’ low-carbon experiences and environmentally responsible behavior to contribute to sustainable tourism? (p.14-15; with blue colored text)

 

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The current version seems to be modified and addressed some questions related to the previous comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made the suggested changes and the result is a clearer, more legible, orderly and rigorous paper in its approach and conclusions. Congratulations, the paper is ready for publication