Next Article in Journal
Factors Affecting the Bidding Decision in Sustainable Construction
Previous Article in Journal
Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Polish Population in the Context of the War in Ukraine: Analysis of Risk Factors and Practical Implications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914227
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tourists’ Revisit Intention and Electronic Word-of-Mouth at Adaptive Reuse Building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage

by
Anita Maulina
1,2,*,
Iwan Sukoco
1,
Bambang Hermanto
1 and
Nenden Kostini
1
1
Business Administration Department, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
2
Business Administration Department, Institut STIAMI, Jakarta 10530, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14227; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914227
Submission received: 15 July 2023 / Revised: 20 September 2023 / Accepted: 23 September 2023 / Published: 26 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to analyze the impact of perceived price, experience quality, perceived authenticity, prior knowledge, and social influence on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and revisit intention at Batavia Jakarta Heritage, with perceived value and revisit intention serving as the mediating variables. Batavia Jakarta Heritage is a tourism destination located in the old town of Jakarta, known for its cultural heritage buildings that have been adaptively reused since the colonial era. Furthermore, to gather relevant data on the tested variables, a questionnaire was distributed to 409 tourists who visited the destination. The primary data were analyzed using partial-least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with the assistance of SmartPLS v.3.2.9 software, and the obtained results showed that not all of the proposed hypotheses were accepted. Specifically, perceived price and perceived authenticity did not directly have an impact on revisit intention or eWOM, even when mediated. This study also proposed several recommendations for destination managers, stakeholders, and future study endeavors.

1. Introduction

The commercialization of historical and cultural tourism can bring about various benefits, including funding the preservation of historical buildings, boosting the economy of residents around the tourism destination, creating job opportunities, and promoting local culture [1]. To effectively compete with other tourist destinations, it is crucial to establish a robust tourism marketing strategy. Indonesia is fortunate to have internationally recognized world heritage tourism destinations endorsed by UNESCO, such as the Borobudur Temple Area, Prambanan Temple Area, Sangiran Early Man Site, Ombilin Sawahlunto Coal Mining, and Subak Bali Cultural Landscape.
Jakarta, as a metropolitan city in Indonesia, has been a center of business and government since the colonial era, and thus, comprises many historical colonial buildings that serve as tourist attractions. Jakarta’s Old Town, also known as Batavia Jakarta Heritage, is managed by the city government, which has undertaken significant efforts to improve and revitalize its historical buildings. Adaptive reuse in this context involves transforming heritage buildings for contemporary purposes while respecting their historical and cultural value. As a result, there has been an increase in tourist visits to the destination, leading to a growing trend of adaptively reusing cultural heritage buildings. This trend is not limited to Jakarta alone; thus, it is expected to be on the rise worldwide. The repurposing of cultural heritage buildings into commercial spaces, such as cafes, museums, or art markets, is part of the commercialization strategy to support tourism in the area. Additionally, this approach helps to protect these valuable buildings from further deterioration caused by aging. It is, therefore, crucial for stakeholders to explore the factors influencing the intention of tourists to revisit Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Preliminary studies have been conducted to examine the behavior of tourists who have visited heritage destinations by various authors [2,3,4,5]. In Indonesia, numerous studies have also been carried out on various aspects of heritage tourism, including authenticity and perception [6], intangible heritage [7], destination governance [8,9], traditional food [10], and building materials of cultural heritage [11,12]. Several studies in Jakarta’s Old Town have also been carried out, such as about potential energy [13,14,15,16], revitalization [17,18], tourist satisfaction [19], and urban planning [20]. However, no study has been conducted to explore the behavior of tourists visiting cultural heritage buildings that have undergone adaptive reuse. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the influence of perceived price, experience quality, perceived authenticity, prior knowledge, social influence, and perceived value on the revisit intention and electronic word of mouth (eWOM) of tourists at Batavia Jakarta Heritage. In this regard, the study evaluated the role of perceived value and revisit intention as the mediating variables. By gaining insights into the needs and preferences of potential tourists, this study is expected to assist stakeholders in identifying market segments and developing effective marketing strategies to enhance their competitiveness among other heritage tourism destinations. It is also important to note that the results obtained from this study provide valuable knowledge for investors, informing their marketing and commercialization strategies.

2. Literature Review and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

2.1.1. Adaptive Reuse Building

Adaptive reuse building refers to the practice of repurposing and renovating existing structures for different functions than what they were originally designed or used for. This concept has emerged as a response to the challenges of sustainable development and cultural heritage preservation [21]. Furthermore, ref. [22] concurs that heritage buildings are essential for passing down cultural identity to future generations. When a heritage building can no longer serve its original purpose, a new use must be proposed to maintain its significance. When historical structures are transformed for new uses, the building’s original design and architectural identity should be preserved [22]. As opposed to the construction of new buildings, building adaptation effectively repurposes existing public infrastructure while saving money, time, energy, and resources. Additionally, well-maintained and managed buildings could reduce the number of unoccupied ones, produce feasible business locales and employment, as well as draw tourists [23].

2.1.2. Electronic Word-of-Mouth

Existing studies in the marketing literature have consistently highlighted the significant role of word-of-mouth information in the selection of consumer products and services [24]. This informal exchange of information among consumers, known as word-of-mouth marketing, is considered one of the most influential sources of information when making purchasing decisions [25]. With the advent of technology, the dissemination of information through word of mouth has rapidly evolved into eWOM (eWOM), which encompasses various digital platforms such as social media, websites, and credible online forums. eWOM involves both positive and negative comments from consumers related to products or companies [26]. According to [27], eWOM is a form of mouth-to-mouth communication carried out on the Internet, disseminated through various applications such as social media, blogs, web forums, and review sites. Compared to traditional word of mouth having a stronger impact than traditional, eWOM had a more profound impact due to its widespread reach and accessibility. Moreover, positive reviews generated through eWOM have the potential to influence prospective tourists or consumers in their purchasing decisions and can contribute to increased consumer visits [28]. Within the context of this study, eWOM can be defined as the dissemination of information about a product or service through Internet media, such as social media, websites, blogs, online community forums, and positive or negative review sites.
Tourism is widely recognized as a significant catalyst for generating experiences wherein travelers actively develop their own unique narratives [29]. This information is shared by consumers based on their personal experiences with the product. It is also important to note that within the tourism industry, product usage refers to visiting tourist destinations. EWOM in marketing tourism refers to the online discussions and recommendations made by travelers and consumers about tourism-related products and destinations. It has a significant influence on travel decision-making, and tourism businesses and destinations must actively engage with and manage eWOM to ensure a positive online reputation and attract more tourists [25,29,30].

2.1.3. Perceived Price

A key factor in forecasting client behavior before, during, and after utilizing a product or service is price. Price is defined as the amount of money a company charges or the total value customers pay for the advantages of owning or using a product or service [31]. According to a previous study [32], a customer’s perception of a product or service is defined as their assessment of it, as well as the average price determined by comparing it to competitors. In the context of consumer behavior, perceived price pertains to the sacrifice acknowledged by individuals when engaging in a purchase transaction. It signifies the extent to which consumers perceive that they are giving up something of value in exchange for a product or service. Consequently, the lower the perceived sacrifice, the lower the perceived price attributed by consumers to the offering [33,34]. The term is understood as the relative price evaluation given by consumers based on the monetary value of the product or service and the assessment of whether the price is considered fair, affordable, and commensurate in comparison with the benefits of the product or service [35]. In a study conducted by [36], it was discussed that the concept of price encompasses factors such as time and effort expended for a tourism product. For example, tourists may prefer to stay near the destination to save travel time and energy. Furthermore, ref. [37] stated that the price sensitivity of tourists decreases when they realize that a percentage of the price is allocated for the restoration and preservation of cultural heritage buildings or archaeological sites. Ref. [38] found that the perception of price can be influenced by the tourism destination. For instance, adventure-seeking tourists may have a higher tolerance for the selected accommodation price. Based on these insights, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 1.
Perceived price has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention to the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

2.1.4. Experience Quality

Experience quality, an integral part of the experiential dimension [39,40], revolves around the psychological responses of tourists, emphasizing their emotional engagement rather than mere utilitarian evaluations of the products or services received [41]. Particularly in heritage tourism, experience quality assumes significant importance through the portrayal of heritage objects or buildings, evoking emotional responses, and providing tourists with immersive encounters tied to the narratives associated with these heritage elements [39].
The concept of experience quality, as defined by [42], encompasses the affective responses of tourists to desired socio-psychological benefits, such as pleasure, tranquility, and knowledge. Furthermore, they emphasized that experience quality is a psychological outcome resulting from the engagement of tourists in tourism activities rather than a controllable attribute that can be managed by tourism professionals. Extensive study in various domains, including historical tourism [43,44,45,46], hospitality [47], island and coastal tourism [48,49], as well as wine tourism [50], has consistently demonstrated the pivotal role of experience quality as a determinant factor that shapes the behaviors of tourists.
In an empirical study related to experience quality conducted by [49], where the focus was on coastal and inland tourism, it was concluded that the overall quality of the tourism expertise significantly impacts the final quality of the destination, thereby influencing repeat visits. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 2.
Experience quality has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention to the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

2.1.5. Perceived Authenticity

The concept of authenticity has long been a subject of study, specifically in the context of historical and cultural heritage sites recognized by UNESCO [51]. Many theoretical experts have provided definitions of authenticity to shed light on its multifaceted nature [52]. Authenticity was first discussed by [53] from a sociological aspect. However, ref. [54] currently sees authenticity as a key concern and fundamental concept that may support sustainable tourism, particularly in the context of historical tourism. Studies on heritage tourism keep underlining how crucial the issue of authenticity has become [51]. Authenticity is linked to truth, history, customs, locations, communities, and culture [55,56]. On the other side, cultural tourism refers to activities carried out by communities to showcase their history, beliefs, artifacts, and monuments [21,57]. Some studies measured the authenticity by absolute, objective criteria, a distinctive, natural, and real version [53,58].
While some argued that authenticity is outdated in the tourism industry [59], others, like [60], contended that further exploration of the concept is crucial for its sustained relevance in the field. It is also important to note that this concept has been extensively studied in the realm of heritage tourism [45,61]. Perceived authenticity, specifically, has garnered significant attention within the domain of heritage tourism [45,61,62,63], as well as in studies of souvenirs [64,65], marine tourism [66], theme parks [67], and culinary experiences [68,69].
Notably, previous study has identified that the concept of authenticity is an important factor in determining the post-visit behavior of tourists [67,68,70]. Accordingly, perceived authenticity has been identified as a major predictor of visitor satisfaction [68], as well as a moderator in the relationship between motivation, information-seeking behavior, destination image, and behavioral intention within the context of heritage tourism [70], tourism destination loyalty [71], and economic value [72]. When tourists perceive a destination as authentic, their intention to revisit it increases [65,70]. With these insights, the following hypothesis was posited:
Hypothesis 3.
Perceived authenticity has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention to the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

2.1.6. Prior Knowledge

Prior knowledge is defined as information about the product or service, evaluating its quality by visual exposure, verbal, and sensory stimuli such as advertisements, articles in newspapers and magazines, and television programming [30,73,74] and rely on the experiences of others who have used a particular product or service. In the context of the tourism industry, tourists seek prior knowledge about their chosen destinations to mitigate potential risks and enhance their sense of security [75,76]. It is important to note that the acquisition of knowledge by tourists about the image of a destination image, including information obtained from movies, can help boost their visit intention [77]. Furthermore, increasing knowledge and altering perceptions and attitudes toward a tourism destination can significantly influence the rate at which tourists visit the area [78]. In the case of heritage destinations, knowledge about the historical significance of sites can ignite the enthusiasm of people to visit them [39]. Extensive study has been conducted to understand the impact of prior knowledge on information-seeking behavior and destination reputation [79,80,81]. Moreover, prior knowledge can shape the imagination of prospective tourists about a destination [82], ultimately influencing their future behavioral intentions. Based on these factors, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 4.
Prior knowledge has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention to the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

2.1.7. Social Influence

Social influence refers to the process by which individuals, groups, or societal norms exert pressure or have an impact on the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, or decisions of others. It encompasses the ways in which people are influenced by the presence, actions, opinions, or expectations of those around them [83,84]. Social influence can lead individuals to conform to group standards, comply with requests or demands, change their attitudes or behaviors, or make decisions based on the influence of others. It plays a crucial role in shaping human behavior, social interactions, and the functioning of societies.
Social influence, in the context of this study, refers to the impact of social norms on individual behavior [85]. This type of influence is usually generated because of the dependence and interaction between individuals, whether consciously or unconsciously [86]. This phenomenon can be understood as the interpersonal influence that shapes attitudes, opinions, and decision-making, playing a significant role in socialization and identity formation [83]. Accordingly, the influence of social norms on individuals occurs through the modification of attitudes and opinions based on interactions with significant others or references [83]. When making purchasing decisions, consumers often consider reviews and recommendations from their relatives, family, or friends. With the advancements in information technology, individuals also rely on reviews from specific groups or even strangers to shape their purchase behavior [84]. The relationship between social influence and purchase behavior has been studied in various contexts within the tourism industry, such as tourism in Taiwan [87], the restaurant industry [88], and international tourism [89]. Considering these findings, it is expected that social influence also plays a crucial role in determining revisit intention. Therefore, the hypothesis was proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 5.
Social influence has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention to the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

2.1.8. Perceived Value

Perceived value, also known as customer value, has various definitions in marketing literature. Beginning with a previous study, based on an assessment of a product’s utility, the term “customer perceived value” started to be used [33]. According to [90], perceived value is the assessment of the service’s or product’s utility based on its gains and losses. Other, more conventional ones are based on benefits and expenses. Theoretical experts in the field of marketing believe that perceived value significantly influences purchase decisions [91,92]. This term can be defined as the benefits and costs perceived by consumers towards both tangible and intangible products while combining aspects of quality, service, and price [93]. Many studies have agreed with the fact that perceived value represents a cognitive trade-off between the price paid and the quality of the product received [36]. In the context of the tourism industry, perceived value denotes the overall assessment of a product, service, or destination based on the perception of acquired benefits relative to the costs incurred [33]. Furthermore, ref. [35] defined perceived value as the alignment between the benefits obtained and the corresponding price paid. When the benefits obtained surpass the price paid, the product or service is perceived to possess high value and vice versa.
To enhance perceived value and influence revisit intention, product or service providers can strategically tailor their facilities and features to align with the needs of tourists [40]. This factor can also be shaped by the interaction between tourists and the destination [77]. It is worth noting that perceived value can change over time, such as during holiday seasons when tourism destinations become more crowded [94]. Accordingly, many studies have explored the impact of perceived value on the future behavioral intention of tourists [5,42,95,96], including its impact on loyalty in heritage tourism [97,98], knowledge [99], experience quality [100], and repeat visits [101]. Considering these findings, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 6.
Perceived value has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention to the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
This study also investigates the role of perceived value as a mediator between other factors, such as perceived price and revisit intention in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage [35], experience quality and revisit intention [42,65], perceived authenticity and revisit intention [65,102], as well as social influence and revisit intention [84]. As a result, the following hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 7a.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between perceived price and revisit intention in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 7b.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between experience quality and revisit intention in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 7c.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between perceived authenticity and revisit intention in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 7d.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between prior knowledge and revisit intention in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 7e.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between social influence and revisit intention in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
The study of [5,103,104] shows that the tourists’ perceived value significantly influences behavioral intentions, demonstrating how they view their perceived price, experience quality, perceived authenticity, prior knowledge, and social influence. Perceived value is a key factor in determining their propensity to take particular actions or engage in particular behaviors, such as returning to or taking part in particular activities at the destination. The marketing literature search also investigates the indirect role of the perceived value of eWOM, including studies on rural tourism in North Dakota, USA [105], war tourism [106], and medical tourism [107]. In addition, the research reveals the significance of tourists’ perceived value. However, there has not been any research that covers all these factors in adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 8a.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between perceived price and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 8b.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between experience quality and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 8c.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between perceived authenticity and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 8d.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between prior knowledge and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 8e.
Perceived value mediates the relationship between social influence and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

2.1.9. Revisit Intention

The Theory of Reasoned Action [108] provides a fundamental understanding of human decision-making behavior. This theory states that behavioral intentions are influenced by attitudes and subjective norms. Attitude, in this context, refers to the extent to which a person holds a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or judgment of behavior. Subjective norms, on the other hand, represent the social pressure from the surrounding environment, such as family, relatives, and friends, to either perform or abstain from a particular behavior. Accordingly, in the context of the tourism industry, consumers develop emotions, beliefs, and attitudes towards products or services through their perception and cognition. Ref. [40] highlighted that in the tourism industry, the tendency of consumers to visit a particular destination could be predicted by the extent to which they value positive experiences and hold positive attitudes toward those experiences. Meanwhile, various factors can influence revisit intention, including the type of tourism, location, tourism features, external factors, or even marketing strategies employed [34]. This intention can serve as a mediating factor in the relationship with the eWOM [109].
The revisit intention to adaptive reuse buildings can be caused by an individual’s tendency to preserve historical and cultural values. Revisit intention is an important factor to consider in the success and sustainability of adaptive reuse building projects [23]. This shows whether the transformed building has been able to create a positive impression on visitors and users, thereby encouraging them to visit again. It is important to note that in the field of tourism marketing, the mediating role of revisit intention has been extensively discussed in relation to perceived price, experience quality, perceived authenticity, prior knowledge, and social influence. From these discussions, the following hypothesis was proposed.
Hypothesis 9a.
Revisit intention mediates the relationship between perceived price and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 9b.
Revisit intention mediates the relationship between experience quality and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 9c.
Revisit intention mediates the relationship between perceived authenticity and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 9d.
Revisit intention mediates the relationship between prior knowledge and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Hypothesis 9e.
Revisit intention mediates the relationship between social influence and eWOM in the adaptive reuse building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage.
Based on the explanation of the above hypotheses, the study perspective is displayed in Figure 1:

2.2. Methods

Descriptive analysis was employed to analyze the respondent demographics, including descriptive information about gender, age, education, occupation, and residential location. This analysis not only described the objective information but also reflected the perceptions expressed by respondents for each question in the questionnaire. Furthermore, the collected data were processed using the Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method with the assistance of SmartPLS v.3.2.9 software [110]. The model consisted of several constructs that were assessed for validity and reliability through measurement model evaluation.
This study aims to describe and examine the impact of variables such as perceived price, experience quality, prior knowledge, perceived authenticity, social influence, and perceived value on revisit intention and eWOM. The primary objective of this explanatory study was to test the hypothesized relationships between each variable. The explanatory design was employed to explain sample generalization to its population or elucidate the relationships, differences, or influences among the observed variables. Additionally, this study can contribute to developing and refining or even challenging existing theories [111].
To test the proposed hypotheses, all of which were coined with the aim of establishing interrelationships among the observed variables, a quantitative approach was employed. It is also important to note that the data collection process involved both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were obtained from questionnaires distributed to 500 domestic tourists who were visiting cafes or adaptive reuse buildings in Batavia Jakarta Heritage. The sample size was determined using Hair’s formula, and a purposive sampling technique was applied [110]. However, after excluding questionnaires with either missing or invalid responses, a total of 406 remained for further analysis.
The questionnaire was distributed in the Indonesian language since all the tourists were domestic tourists, making it easier for them to understand. It consisted of nine sections, with Section 1 focusing on capturing respondent characteristics such as gender, age, education level, relationship status and who traveled with them. Sections 2 to 9 presented the data for each measurement item and their respective source (see Table 1).
All observed variable items in this study were measured using a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Furthermore, to test the exogenous and dependent variables, regression analysis was employed, along with the bootstrapping method [115]. This method was utilized to examine indirect influences in the model.

3. Results

3.1. Respondent Profile

During the study, a total of 406 usable responses were obtained out of the 500 questionnaires that were distributed. The exclusion of certain questionnaires was necessary due to incompleteness or failure to meet the respondent criteria, such as those filled out by underage individuals or multiple individuals within the same family, which did not accurately represent the target respondents. Furthermore, the analysis was conducted using the data collected from these 406 questionnaires with complete social demographics as respondent profiles (Table 2).
Among the respondents, 61.6% were female. In terms of age, 32.02% belonged to the 21–25 age group, categorized as Generation Z, known for always seeking new and unique experiences [116]. Most respondents who completed high school education (48.28%) were single (62.07%). Additionally, most traveled with friends, family, or relatives, while only 4.68% traveled as part of a tour group.

3.2. Evaluation of Measurement Model

Evaluation of the measurement model involves indicator loading, internal consistency reliability (composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A), convergent validity using Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity using Fornell and Larcker Criterion. Key measurement variables, perceived price, experience quality, prior knowledge, perceived authenticity, and social influence, were measured using 33 items. Perceived value was measured using three items, revisit intention was measured using four items, and eWOM was measured using five items (see Table 3).
For assessing reflective measurement models, all factor loading is recommended to be above 0.708 [117]. This shows that the construct can explain more than 50 percent of the indicator’s variance, so the items can be declared reliable for measuring the models. Factor loading between 0.40–0.70 is acceptable for social science studies by considering the average variance extracted value [117]. The next step is assessing internal consistency reliability using composite reliability. The composite reliability values are between 0.70 and 0.90 [117]. This indicates higher levels of reliability. Another way to measure internal consistency reliability is using Cronbach’s alpha, which produces lower values than composite reliability [117]. Table 3 shows that Cronbach’s alpha values are lower than composite reliability. Another alternative to measure construct reliability is using rho_A. The recommendation of rho_A value is between Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability [117], and all rho_A values in this study are cleared.
The next step of reflective measurement models’ assessment is considering the convergent validity of each construct measure using average variance extracted (AVE). The acceptable value of AVE is >0.50, and this can indicate that the construct explains at least 50 percent of the indicator’s variance. Table 3 shows that all average variance extracted (AVE) are between 0.610 to 0.863. As seen in Table 3, all the indicators were capable of reflective measurement models.
After reflective measurement models assessment, the next step is discriminant validity evaluation using the Fornell-Larcker Criterion, which compares the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct with the correlations between other constructs [118], as shown in Table 4 in italics. Table 4 indicates that the Fornell-Larcker Criterion is met, allowing the subsequent data processing.

3.3. Hypothesis Test

A comprehensive hypothesis test was performed in this study, utilizing various analytical techniques such as the coefficient of determination (R2 value), the blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy measure Q2, and the statistical significance and relevance of the path coefficients. R2, a unique measure specific to the endogenous variable, serves as an indication of the degree to which it influences other variables.
Collinearity assessment refers to the process of checking for multicollinearity among predictor variables in a structural equation model (SEM). Multicollinearity occurs when two or more predictor variables in a model are highly correlated with each other, which can pose problems for the stability and interpretability of the model’s coefficients. Collinearity assessment performed by variance inflation factor (VIF) is presented in Table 3. VIF value should be close to 3 or lower [117], and all the VIF values in Table 3 are close to 3 or lower.
The path coefficients, which indicate the direction of the relationship between variables, were analyzed. It is worth noting that all the path coefficients fell within the range of 0 to 1, showing a positive relationship, as presented in Table 5. To determine the significance of the effects, a t-statistic analysis was conducted through bootstrapping. In this analysis, the significance of the constructs is established only if the resulting value is greater than 1.96, as recommended by [118].
The results of the hypothesis test, presented in Table 5, provide insights into the influence of various factors on revisit intention as determined by the t-statistic. The findings are as follows: Perceived price exhibited a positive but insignificant influence on revisit intention (1.521 < 1.96), leading to the rejection of hypothesis 1. Experience quality had a positive and significant influence on revisit intention (2.470 > 1.96), supporting hypothesis 2. Perceived authenticity indicated a positive but insignificant influence (1.821 < 1.96), resulting in the rejection of hypothesis 3. Furthermore, prior knowledge was found to have a positive and significant influence on revisit intention (2.171 > 1.96), confirming hypothesis 4. Social influence had a positive and significant influence on revisit intention (4.275 > 1.96), supporting hypothesis 5. Perceived value also indicated a positive and significant influence (5.976 > 1.96) on revisit intention, resulting in the confirmation of hypothesis 6. Subsequently, an examination was conducted to determine the indirect influences, as shown in Table 5, to test hypotheses involving mediating variables.
In addition to the previous findings, the perceived value was also concluded to mediate the influences of perceived price (2.348), experience quality (3.121), perceived authenticity (2.164), prior knowledge (2.353), and social influence (2.567) on revisit intention. All these values were above 1.96, therefore confirming hypotheses 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, and 7e. This variable was also identified as a mediator to the influences of perceived price (2.165), experience quality (2.862), perceived authenticity (2.187), prior knowledge (2.251), and social influence (2.288) on eWOM, leading to the acceptance of hypotheses 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and 8e. However, not all variables of revisit intention could mediate the exogenous variables. It was found that revisit intention was only able to mediate experience quality (2.354), prior knowledge (2.130), and social influence (3.741), indicating that hypotheses 9b, 9d, and 9e were accepted, while perceived price (1.396) and perceived authenticity (1.814) had t-statistic values below 1.96, resulting in the rejection of hypotheses 9a and 9c.
The next step after the evaluation of the measurement model and hypothesis test are cleared is assessing the PLS-SEM structural model result using the R2 value and Q2 value (see Table 6). In the case of eWOM, the calculated R2 value was 0.559, meaning that this variable is influenced by approximately 55.9% of all the exogenous and intervening variables considered in this study. R2 for perceived value is 0.610 or 61%, and revisit intention is 0.685 or 68.5%. All R2 values are moderate for explanatory power [117].
The predictive relevance (Q2) using the blindfolding test is a procedure to show how well a structural model can predict the endogenous latent variables within the model, as shown in Table 6. Q2 values should be larger than zero for a specific endogenous construct to indicate the predictive accuracy of the structural model. Q2 value rule of thumbs is higher than 0 (small), 0.25 (medium) and 0.50 (large) [117]. Table 6 shows that predictive relevance or Q2 for eWOM and perceived value are medium (0.350 and 0.469) and large for revisit intention (0.500).
The final step is presenting the model fit indices to evaluate how well the structural equation model fits with the data by evaluating the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and normed fit index (NFI). SRMR is determined by dividing the fitted residuals of standard error. The SRMR range is between 0 and 1; the lower the value, the better the model fit [119]. Table 7 shows that the SRMR value is 0.066 and is a good fit for the model. Another way to present model fit is by evaluating the Normed fit index (NFI). It compares chi-square with the independence model, and the recommended value is >0.90 [119]. However, it cannot be considered alone because it is highly affected by sample size. Considering the SRMR value only, it can be concluded that it is a good fit for the model (see Table 7 and Figure 2).

4. Discussion

From this study, it can be concluded that perceived price has a positive but insignificant influence on revisit intention, leading to the rejection of hypothesis 1. Despite tourists considering the cost of visiting Batavia as affordable, cheap, and commensurate with the benefits received, it does not serve as the primary driver of their revisit intention. They perceive the visit to adaptive reuse buildings as a cost-free experience, thus treating the expenses incurred as the price to be paid for services at restaurants, culinary experiences, or museum tickets rather than the price of enjoying the beauty of the buildings. This finding contradicts that of the study conducted by [5]. Therefore, the management of adaptive reuse buildings should provide excellent services to tourists while preserving and conserving these cultural heritage buildings, which are used as museums or restaurants. It is essential for unused cultural heritage buildings to be utilized, specifically for business activities, as tourists can consist of communities of old and historical building enthusiasts who are considered capable of providing a unique tourism experience.
In line with the studies conducted by [39,120], experience quality has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention, which confirms hypothesis 2. The adaptive reuse buildings in Batavia Jakarta Heritage are considered to provide a high-quality visiting experience as tourists are presented with views of old historical buildings. Additionally, the tourists can experience the sensation of riding vintage bicycles, enabling them to feel a sense of traveling through time. It is also worthy of note that the visiting experience can be enhanced by incorporating historical narratives presented in the form of easily understandable dramas.
On the contrary, ref. [70] indicated that perceived authenticity does not significantly influence revisit intention, leading to the rejection of hypothesis 3. Tourists perceive adaptive reuse buildings as not being genuinely authentic and lacking their history. This may be due to certain parts of the buildings undergoing restoration, gradually diminishing their authenticity. Although stakeholders have made efforts to preserve the authentic form of the buildings, it has not been sufficient to shape perceptions of the tourists regarding their authenticity.
The obtained results from this study indicated that prior knowledge has a positive and significant influence on revisit intention, leading to the acceptance of hypothesis 4. This is consistent with the findings of [80,113], where it was suggested that prior knowledge about a tourism destination before the trip could provide an understanding of its reputation. This knowledge can also minimize the risks associated with additional costs, travel time, or getting lost. Furthermore, at the Batavia Jakarta Heritage, tourists can become aware of the availability of tour guides and utilize their services to enhance their historical knowledge, thereby increasing their level of satisfaction during the visit.
Following prior knowledge, the statistical calculations performed in this study showed that social influence had a positive and significant influence on revisit intention, confirming hypothesis 5. This finding is consistent with the studies conducted by [5,89], highlighting the influence of prominent references on the decision of tourists to visit a destination. In this digital age, these references are often obtained through online platforms such as social media, blogs, or credible travel websites. The reviews shared on these platforms are considered more honest and authentic, reflecting the real experiences of visitors. Therefore, tourists’ satisfaction when visiting the Batavia heritage tourism destination can be seen as a key factor in predicting their behavioral intentions. The managers and stakeholders should, thus, maximize digital marketing activities by effectively managing both positive and negative reviews.
Furthermore, this study confirms hypothesis 8 by establishing that perceived value significantly influenced the behavioral visit intention of the tourists. This finding is consistent with that of [95], where it was stated that perceived value significantly influenced revisit intention to green hotel destinations. Similarly, ref. [98] also identified a strong correlation between perceived value, satisfaction, and tourist loyalty. When visiting the Batavia Jakarta Heritage, tourists experience benefits that align with the costs incurred. The visit is also considered meaningful, providing additional knowledge about the history of Jakarta and implicitly fostering closer relationships with fellow visitors.
The indirect influence relationship test confirms that perceived value also acts as a mediating variable in the relationship between perceived price, experience quality, perceived authenticity, knowledge, social influence, and both revisit intention and eWOM at Batavia Jakarta Heritage. This implies that all the proposed hypotheses with mediating variables were accepted. However, revisit intention could not mediate the relationship between perceived price, perceived authenticity, and eWOM. It can, thus, be inferred that tourists do not discuss the costs and authenticity of historical buildings on social media or travel websites. This finding aligns with that of the study conducted by [5], where it was suggested that tourists seek prices in line with their desired benefits. Tourists who visit the Batavia Jakarta Heritage ascertained that the perceived value corresponds with the price or cost incurred, and they usually enjoy a satisfactory visiting experience. Usually, tourists express the intention to revisit Batavia Jakarta Heritage because they believe that the experience, perceived authenticity, and knowledge gained in one visit are not enough to experience the sensation of transcending time fully. They also believe that the adaptive reuse buildings are suitable for photo backgrounds (Instagramable), and therefore, most tourists who are from Generation Z enjoy posting their photos on social media when visiting this destination. It is important to note that this social media activity can generate social influence among electronic media users. Reviews shared on social media and travel websites can also contribute to providing more honest knowledge to tourists. According to [84], social media plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and how tourists perceive destinations.
Despite the findings and conclusions mentioned, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations and suggest areas for future study. This study employed accidental sampling, and although a large sample size was adopted for analysis, the method could not generalize the findings. Therefore, future investigators should consider longitudinal studies in similar fields. It would also be beneficial for future studies to examine the extent to which other attributes can influence tourists with previous experience visiting historical cities compared to those who have not. This goal can be achieved by incorporating the ‘past’ experience element in historical cities as a moderator in the model. With the understanding of different preference profiles, the management and government of Jakarta can develop more appropriate and effective marketing strategies to meet the demands of tourists. Some examples of these potential strategies include organizing situational dramas showing colonial life, forming communities of old building enthusiasts, or even taking over the management of privately owned cultural heritage buildings. Lastly, future studies should investigate determinants related to the construct of repeat visits to Batavia Jakarta Heritage.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study provided theoretical and managerial implications for understanding the determinants of the visit intention of tourists to Batavia Jakarta Heritage, using the Theory of Planned Behavior as the underlying framework. The obtained results showed that the predictors of behavioral beliefs, attitudes, and social influence significantly influenced the intention of tourists to visit tourism destinations, specifically the historical city of Batavia Jakarta Heritage. Specifically, the theoretical relationships between predictors, such as perceived price, experience quality, prior knowledge, perceived authenticity, perceived value, and social influence, as well as the mediating variables of perceived value and revisit intention, were established, tested, and empirically verified. This study also provides empirical evidence within the context of Batavia Jakarta Heritage, contributing to a better understanding of tourist preferences in cultural heritage areas. The significant influence of experience quality on visit intention implied the importance of incorporating attributes related to the characteristics of the tourism type in future studies to enhance prediction accuracy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M. and I.S.; methodology, B.H. and N.K; software, A.M.; validation, I.S., B.H. and N.K.; formal analysis, A.M.; investigation, A.M.; resources, A.M.; data curation, A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, A.M., I.S., B.H., and N.K; visualization, A.M.; supervision, A.M.; project administration, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Institut STIAMI and BerandaLab for supporting data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Jaafar, M.; Kock, N.; Ahmad, A.G. The effects of community factors on residents’ perceptions toward World Heritage Site inscription and sustainable tourism development. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 25, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ali, F. Heritage tourist experience, nostalgia, and behavioural intentions. Anatolia 2015, 26, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage sites. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Poria, Y.; Reichel, A.; Biran, A. Heritage site perceptions and motivations to visit. J. Travel Res. 2006, 44, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. See, G.-T.; Goh, Y.-N. Tourists’ intention to visit heritage hotels at George Town World Heritage Site. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allerton, C. Authentic housing, authentic culture? Transforming a village into a “tourist site” in Manggarai, Eastern Indonesia. Indones Malay World 2003, 31, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Permatasari, P.A.; Cantoni, L. Indonesian Tourism and Batik: An Online Map. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2019, 16, 184–194. [Google Scholar]
  8. Setiawati, T.W.; Marjo; Paksi, T.F.M. Reformation on Local Tourism Permit Practice in Indonesia: A Case in Semarang Regency. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; Institute of Physics Publishing: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  9. Widaningrum, A.; Damanik, J. Improving Tourism Destination Governance: Case of Labuan Bajo City and the Komodo National park, Indonesia. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 5043–5051. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ardiyati, W.; Wiwaha, J.A.; Hartono, B. An exploratory study on traditional food of Semarang as a cultural and heritage product. In Heritage, Culture and Society: Research Agenda and Best Practices in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry, Proceedings of the 3rd International Hospitality and Tourism Conference, IHTC 2016, Guangzhou, China, 14–17 July 2016; Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Tourism, ISOT 2016, Bandung, Indonesia, 10–12 October 2016; Radzi, S.M., Hanafiah, M.H.M., Sumarjan, N., Mohi, Z., Eds.; CRC Press: Bandung, Indonesia; Balkema: Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 2016; pp. 667–670. [Google Scholar]
  11. Permata, D.D.; Kuswandy, A.S.; Riza, A.I.; Sakti, P.F.; Diana, T.I. The Centrum-Bandung: Adaptive Reuse at Heritage Building as Sustainable Architecture. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; Institute of Physics Publishing: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rahmadina, M.; Kusuma, N.; Arvanda, E. Wall finishing materials and heritage science in the adaptive reuse of Jakarta heritage buildings. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; Institute of Physics Publishing: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Putri Nurmala, D.N.; Abduh, S.; Sari, T.K. Floating photovoltaic in Kota Tua Jakarta. In Proceedings of the 3rd Borobudur International Symposium on Science and Technology 2021, Magelang, Indonesia, 15 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bhikuning, A.; Priambodo, B.; Sukarnoto, T. Potential waste to energy in Kota Tua–Jakarta. In Proceedings of the 3rd Borobudur International Symposium on Science and Technology 2021, Magelang, Indonesia, 15 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. Purwantiasning, A.W.; Bahri, S. Enhancing the quality of historical area by delivering the concept of transit-oriented development within Kota Tua Jakarta. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Sustainable Architecture and Engineering, ICoSAE 2020, Jakarta, Indonesia, 28 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bahri, S.; Purwantiasning, A.W. Designating the preference of tram shelter as a part of transit-oriented development’s concept within Kota Tua Jakarta using fuzzy logic. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Sustainable Architecture and Engineering, ICoSAE 2020, Jakarta, Indonesia, 28 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ramadhani, A.; Wartaman, A.S.; Fatimah, E.; Adriana, M.C.; Sitorus, A.M.; Zikra, A. The Best Alternative for Revitalising the Asset Area of PT. In KAI in Kota Tua, Jakarta. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Indonesian Architecture and Planning, ICIAP 2022, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 13–14 October 2022. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rahmayanti, K.; Rachmayanti, I.; Wulandari, A.A.A. Revitalization of Kerta Niaga Kota Tua building in Jakarta as a boutique hotel. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Biospheric Harmony Advanced Research, ICOBAR 2020, Jakarta, Indonesia, 23–24 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pratiwi, W.D.; Nagari, B.K.; Nagari, B.K.; Suryani, S. Visitor’s Intentions To Re-visit Reconstructed Public Place In Jakarta Tourism Heritage Riverfront. Alam Cipta 2022, 15, 2–9. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fauzi, F.N.; Herlily. Transit-oriented development principle exploration of Kampung Muka, Ancol, North Jakarta. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Quality in Research, QiR 2019–2019 International Symposium on Sustainable and Clean Energy, ISSCE 2019, Padang, Indonesia, 7–10 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kovačić, S.; Pivac, T.; Ercan, M.A.; Kimic, K.; Ivanova-Radovanova, P.; Gorica, K.; Tolica, E.K. Exploring the Image, Perceived Authenticity, and Perceived Value of Underground Built Heritage (UBH) and Its Role in Motivation to Visit: A Case Study of Five Different Countries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mısırlısoy, D.; Günçe, K. Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: A holistic approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Owojori, O.M.; Okoro, C.S.; Chileshe, N. Current status and emerging trends on the adaptive reuse of buildings: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gilly, M.C.; Graham, J.L.; Wolfinbarger, M.F.; Yale, L.J. A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information Search. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1998, 26, 83–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Litvin, S.W.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Pan, B. Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goldsmith, R.E.; Horowitz, D. Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. J. Interact. Advert. 2006, 6, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jeong, E.; Jang, S. Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Litvin, S.W.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Pan, B. A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xu, L.; Zhang, J.; Nie, Z. Role of Cultural Tendency and Involvement in Heritage Tourism Experience: Developing a Cultural Tourism Tendency–Involvement–Experience (TIE) Model. Land 2022, 11, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hanif, M.; Hafeez, S.; Riaz, A. Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction. Int. Res. J. Financ. Econ. 2010, 60, 44–52. [Google Scholar]
  32. Keaveney, S.M. Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rondan-Cataluña, F.J.; Rosa-Diaz, I.M. Segmenting hotel clients by pricing variables and value for money. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014, 17, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chiang, C.-F.; Jang, S.S. The Effects of Perceived Price and Brand Image on Value and Purchase Intention: Leisure Travelers’ Attitudes Toward Online Hotel Booking. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2007, 15, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gallarza, M.G.; Saura, I.G. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nicolau, J.L. Differentiated price loss aversion in destination choice: The effect of tourists’ cultural interest. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1186–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, G.; Law, R.; Vu, H.Q.; Rong, J. Discovering the hotel selection preferences of Hong Kong inbound travelers using the Choquet Integral. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Calver, S.J.; Page, S.J. Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tour. Manag. 2013, 39, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sparks, B. Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1180–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jin, N.; Lee, S.; Lee, H. The Effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 17, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, C.-F.; Chen, F.-S. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Domínguez-Quintero, A.M.; González-Rodríguez, M.; Paddison, B. The mediating role of experience quality on authenticity and satisfaction in the context of cultural-heritage tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Domínguez-Quintero, A.M.; González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Roldán, J.L. The role of authenticity, experience quality, emotions, and satisfaction in a cultural heritage destination. Authent. Authentication Herit. 2021, 14, 103–117. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lu, W.; Su, Y.; Su, S.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, L. Perceived Authenticity and Experience Quality in Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism: The Case of Kunqu Opera in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mansour, J.S.A.; Ariffin, A.A.M. The Effects of Local Hospitality, Commercial Hospitality and Experience Quality on Behavioral Intention in Cultural Heritage Tourism. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 18, 149–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Alnawas, I.; Hemsley-Brown, J. Examining the key dimensions of customer experience quality in the hotel industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2019, 28, 833–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moon, H.; Han, H. Destination attributes influencing Chinese travelers’ perceptions of experience quality and intentions for island tourism: A case of Jeju Island. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Soler, I.P.; Gemar, G. A measure of tourist experience quality: The case of inland tourism in Malaga. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2019, 30, 1466–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fernandes, T.; Cruz, M. Dimensions and outcomes of experience quality in tourism: The case of Port wine cellars. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chhabra, D. Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 427–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cohen, E. Authenticity in tourism studies: Apres ia lutte. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2007, 32, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  53. MacCannell, D. Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Place in Tourist Setting. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 79, 589–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rickly-Boyd, J.M. Existential Authenticity: Place Matters. Tour. Geogr. 2013, 15, 680–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Asplet, M.; Cooper, M. Cultural designs in New Zealand souvenir clothing: The question of authenticity. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Waitt, G. Consuming Heritage Perceived Historical Authenticity. Ann. Tour Res. 2000, 27, 835–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Silberberg, T. Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tour. Manag. 1995, 16, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. MacCannell, D. The Tourist: A New Theory of Leisure Class; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  59. Olsen, K. Staged authenticity: A grande ide’e? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2007, 32, 83–85. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pearce, P.L. Persisting with authenticity: Gleaning contemporary insights for future tourism studies. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2007, 32, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhang, T.; Yin, P.; Peng, Y. Effect of commercialization on tourists’ perceived authenticity and satisfaction in the cultural heritage tourism context: Case study of Langzhong ancient city. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Genc, V.; Seray, G.G. The effect of perceived authenticity in cultural heritage sites on tourist satisfaction: The moderating role of aesthetic experience. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2023, 6, 530–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Seyitoğlu, F.; Çakar, K.; Davras, Ö. Motivation, perceived authenticity and satisfaction of tourists visiting the monastery of Mor Hananyo-Mardin, Turkey. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2022, 8, 1062–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fu, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Chao, R.-F. How experiential consumption moderates the effects of souvenir authenticity on behavioral intention through perceived value. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, C.-H.; Wang, W.-C. Effects of Authenticity Perception, Hedonics, and Perceived Value on Ceramic Souvenir-Repurchasing Intention. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2012, 29, 779–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Su, Y.; Xu, J.; Sotiriadis, M.; Shen, S. Authenticity, perceived value and loyalty in marine tourism destinations: The case of Zhoushan, Zhejiang province, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tan, W.-K.; Huang, S.-Y. Why visit theme parks? A leisure constraints and perceived authenticity perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Muskat, B. Perceived quality, authenticity, and price in tourists’ dining experiences: Testing competing models of satisfaction and behavioral intentions. J. Vacat. Mark. 2019, 25, 480–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Youn, H.; Kim, J.-H. Effects of ingredients, names and stories about food origins on perceived authenticity and purchase intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 63, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramkissoon, H.; Uysal, M.S. The effects of perceived authenticity, information search behaviour, motivation and destination imagery on cultural behavioural intentions of tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 537–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Meng, B.; Han, H. Determinants of working holiday makers’ destination loyalty: Uncovering the role of perceived authenticity. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 32, 100565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kim, H.; Oh, C.O.; Lee, S.; Lee, S. Assessing the economic values of World Heritage Sites and the effects of perceived authenticity on their values. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bloch, P.H.; Sherrell, D.L.; Ridgway, N.M. Consumer Search: An Extended Framework. J. Consum. Res. 1986, 13, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Huang, L.; Gursoy, D.; Xu, H. Impact of Personality Traits and Involvement on Prior Knowledge. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 48, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ferns, B.H.; Walls, A. Enduring travel involvement, destination brand equity, and travelers’ visit intentions: A structural model analysis. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2012, 1, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tasci, A.D.A.; Knutson, B.J. An argument for providing authenticity and familiarity in tourism destinations. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2004, 11, 85–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Buchmann, A.; Moore, K.; Fisher, D. Experiencing film tourism. Authent. Fellowsh. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tessitore, T.; Pandelaere, M.; Van Kerckhove, A. The Amazing Race to India: Prominence in reality television affects destination image and travel intentions. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gursoy, D.; McCleary, K.W. Travelers’ Prior Knowledge and its Impact on their Information Search Behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2004, 28, 66–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sharifpour, M.; Walters, G.; Ritchie, B.W. Risk perception, prior knowledge, and willingness to travel: Investigating the Australian tourist market’s risk perceptions towards the Middle East. J. Vacat. Mark. 2014, 20, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yamashita, R.; Takata, K. Relationship between prior knowledge, destination reputation, and loyalty among sport tourists. J. Sport Tour. 2020, 24, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Le, D.; Scott, N.; Wang, Y. Impact of prior knowledge and psychological distance on tourist imagination of a promoted tourism event. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Friedkin, N.E.; Johnsen, E.C. Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv. Group Process. 1999, 16, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  84. Alsheikh, D.H.; Aziz, N.A.; Alsheikh, L.H. Influencing of E-Word-of-Mouth Mediation in Relationships Between Social Influence, Price Value and Habit and Intention to Visit in Saudi Arabia. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Lett. 2022, 10, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. White, K.M.; Smith, J.R.; Terry, D.J.; Greenslade, J.H.; McKimmie, B.M. Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 48, 135–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Peres, R.; Muller, E.; Mahajan, V. Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: A critical review and research directions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2010, 27, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lam, T.; Hsu, C.H.C. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Long, X. The impacts of geographic and social influences on review helpfulness perceptions: A social contagion perspective. Tour. Manag. 2023, 95, 104687. [Google Scholar]
  89. Boto-García, D.; Baños-Pino, J.F. Social influence and bandwagon effects in tourism travel. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 93, 103366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhang, L.; Yang, S.; Wang, D.; Ma, E. Perceived value of, and experience with, a World Heritage Site in China—The case of Kaiping Diaolou and villages in China. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, H.; Woo, E.; Uysal, M. Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Woo, E.; Kim, H.; Uysal, M. Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 50, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chiu, Y.-T.H.; Lee, W.-I.; Chen, T.-H. Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gallarza, M.G.; Gil, I. The concept of value and its dimensions: A tool for analysing tourism experiences. Tour. Rev. 2008, 63, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ahn, J.; Kwon, J. Green hotel brands in Malaysia: Perceived value, cost, anticipated emotion, and revisit intention. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1559–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Armbrecht, J. Event Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions in an Event Context. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 21, 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Moreno-Manzo, J.; Gassiot-Melian, A.; Coromina, L. Perceived value in a UNESCO World Heritage Site: The case of Quito, Ecuador. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Valverde-Roda, J.; Moral-Cuadra, S.; Aguilar-Rivero, M.; Solano-Sánchez, M.Á. Perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty in a World Heritage Site Alhambra and Generalife (Granada, Spain). Int. J. Tour. Cities 2022, 8, 949–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tkaczynski, A.; Xie, J.; Rundle-Thiele, S.R. The role of environmental knowledge and interest on perceived value and satisfaction. J. Vacat. Mark. 2022, 29, 428–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhou, Q.; Pu, Y. Impact of cultural heritage rejuvenation experience quality on perceived value, destination affective attachment, and revisiting intention: Evidence from China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 27, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Damanik, J.; Yusuf, M. Effects of perceived value, expectation, visitor management, and visitor satisfaction on revisit intention to Borobudur Temple, Indonesia. J. Heritage Tour. 2022, 17, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kim, H. Authenticity: Do tourist perceptions of winery experiences affect behavioral intentions? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 839–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Dalimunthe, G.P.; Suryana, Y.; Kartini, D.; Sari, D. The effect of experience quality on behaviour intention: The mediating role of tourists’ perceived value in subak cultural landscape of Bali, Indonesia. Int. J. Bus. Syst. Res. 2022, 16, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Maulina, A.; Ruslan, B.; Ekasari, R.; Tinggi, S.; Bagasasi, I.A. How Experience Quality, Prior Knowledge and Perceived Value Affect Revisit Intention to Batavia Jakarta. Maj. Ilm. Bijak 2022, 19, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Phillips, W.J.; Wolfe, K.; Hodur, N.; Leistritz, F.L. Tourist Word of Mouth and Revisit Intentions to Rural Tourism Destinations: A Case of North Dakota, USA. Int. J. Tour. Research. 2013, 15, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lee, C.-K.; Yoon, Y.-S.; Lee, S.-K. Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: The case of the Korean DMZ. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Taheri, B.; Chalmers, D.; Wilson, J.; Arshed, N. Would you really recommend it? Antecedents of word-of-mouth in medical tourism. Tour. Manag. 2021, 83, 104209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philos. Rhetor. 1975, 6, 244–245. [Google Scholar]
  109. Iriobe, O.C.; Abiola-Oke, E. Moderating effect of the use of eWOM on subjective norms, behavioural control and religious tourist revisit intention. Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2019, 7, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hair Joseph, F.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle Christian, M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer On Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  111. Creswell, J. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. In Research Design; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  112. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Seyfi, S.; Hall, C.M.; Hatamifar, P. Understanding memorable tourism experiences and behavioural intentions of heritage tourists. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 21, 100621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. San Martín, H.; Rodríguez del Bosque, I.A. Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Han, H.; Kim, Y. An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Szromek, A.R.; Hysa, B.; Karasek, A. The Perception of Overtourism from the Perspective of Different Generations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Henseler, J.; Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput. Stat. 2013, 28, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 173, 121092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sharma, P.; Nayak, J.K. Examining experience quality as the determinant of tourist behavior in niche tourism: An analytical approach. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 15, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14227 g001
Figure 1. Study Model.
Figure 1. Study Model.
Sustainability 15 14227 g001
Sustainability 15 14227 g002
Figure 2. PLS-SEM Output.
Figure 2. PLS-SEM Output.
Sustainability 15 14227 g002
Table 1. Sources of measurement scale items.
Table 1. Sources of measurement scale items.
SectionVariable MeasuredAdapted from
1Social demographic[40]
2Electronic word-of-mouth[112]
3Experience Quality[39]
4Perceived Authenticity[70]
5Perceived Price[35]
6Perceived Value[35]
7Prior Knowledge[113]
8Revisit intention[114]
9Social Influence[40]
Table 2. Social Demographic.
Table 2. Social Demographic.
Sample Characteristic%Sample Characteristic%
Gender Education
Male38.4Completed year nine or less20.94
Female61.6Completed High school48.28
Completed Higher education30.79
Age
15–2027.09Relationship Status
21–2532.02Single62.07
26–3013.55Married35.22
31–357.64Separated/divorced/widowed2.71
36–409.11
41–453.45Traveled with
46–502.22Friends/family/relatives89.16
50+4.93Alone6.16
Tour group4.68
Table 3. Measurement Key Variables.
Table 3. Measurement Key Variables.
Construct/ItemMeanFactor
Loading 		Cronbach’s αrho_AComposite Reliability (CR)AVEVIF
Perceived Price 0.9440.9450.9500.596
PEP1: Museums ticket prices are cheap 0.600 1.784
PEP2: Food prices are affordable4.1060.745 2.481
PEP3: Souvenir prices are cheap3.9610.782 2.664
PEP4: The price of renting a vintage bicycle is cheap4.1550.777 2.624
PEP5: The museum ticket price is in accordance with the services4.2510.780 2.466
PEP6: Food prices are in accordance with the taste4.0620.822 3.142
PEP7: Souvenir prices are in accordance with the product quality4.0960.802 2.901
PEP8: Vintage bicycle renting is in accordance with the rental time4.2000.775 2.566
PEP9: Food prices can be reached4.0640.787 2.806
PEP10: The price of renting a vintage bicycle is affordable4.1480.763 2.709
PEP11: The average museum ticket price is normal4.2960.714 2.184
PEP12: Food prices are normal4.1130.824 3.306
PEP13: The price for renting a vintage bicycle is normal4.2240.840 3.267
Experience Quality 0.9080.9100.9260.610
EXQ1: Adaptive reuse interior design buildings can relieve stress4.3320.792 2.876
EXQ2: Adaptive reuse architectural design buildings can relieve stress4.3560.811 3.146
EXQ3: I hope I can get a surprising experience by visiting the Kota Tua Jakarta4.4250.768 2.342
EXQ4: I hope I can gain valuable experience by visiting Kota Tua Jakarta4.4380.767 2.475
EXQ5: Kota Tua Jakarta gave me information about history and art4.3940.752 1.883
EXQ6: Kota Tua Jakarta fueled my interest in history and art4.3410.803 2.256
EXQ7: I love spending time in Kota Tua Jakarta4.2810.805 2.610
EXQ8: I love enjoying my relaxing time in Kota Tua Jakarta4.3520.745 2.242
Prior Knowledge 0.8340.8380.8900.669
PRK1: I already know the public facilities (parking, toilets, mosque) in Kota Tua Jakarta before I visited4.0570.848 2.262
PRK2: I already knew the restaurants in Kota Tua Jakarta before I visited4.0640.856 2.404
PRK3: I already know there are tour guides in Kota Tua Jakarta3.8990.824 1.811
PRK4: I already knew about the ease of transportation in Kota Tua Jakarta before visiting4.3010.738 1.491
Perceived Authenticity 0.8860.8860.9130.637
PEA1: In my opinion, the museum with adaptive reuse building concept has its own history4.4740.778 2.027
PEA2: In my opinion, a restaurant/cafe with adaptive reuse building concept has its own history4.3680.804 2.197
PEA3: In my opinion, the old buildings in Kota Tua Jakarta have been recognized as historic buildings by UNESCO4.4110.841 2.468
PEA4: In my opinion, the old buildings in Kota Tua Jakarta have been recognized as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO4.3530.758 1.850
PEA5: In my opinion, the museums in Kota Tua Jakarta have their own past in Jakarta4.4550.802 2.140
PEA6: In my opinion, adaptive reuse building on restaurants/cafes have their own past in Jakarta4.3530.802 2.131
Social Influence 0.9210.9210.9500.863
SOI1: I would like to visit Kota Tua Jakarta. I have heard about it from family/friends/travel agents.4.2520.921 3.107
SOI2: I would like to visit Kota Tua Jakarta, which is popular among my family/friends/travel agents4.2790.935 3.640
SOI3: I would like to visit Kota Tua Jakarta, which has been recommended by family/friends/travel agents.4.2990.931 3.509
Perceived Value 0.8590.8590.9140.780
PEV1: Kota Tua Jakarta offers good value for the stay4.3920.893 2.314
PEV2: A stay at a heritage hotel gives the tourist his/her money worth4.3400.894 2.406
PEV3: The overall expected experience for staying at Kota Tua Jakarta is high4.2320.862 1.928
Revisit Intention 0.8840.8840.9200.742
REI1: I will be revisiting Kota Tua Jakarta in the future4.4210.869 2.715
REI2: I have more benefits if I revisit Kota Tua Jakarta4.3670.882 2.762
REI3: I will come more often to Kota Tua Jakarta4.0540.814 1.918
REI4: I would recommend Kota Tua Jakarta to family, friends, colleagues4.4060.878 2.485
Electronic Word-of-Mouth 0.8580.8610.8990.640
EWM1: I will spread good things about this destination on social media4.2410.830 2.131
EWM2: I am happy to share my beautiful experience visiting Kota Tua Jakarta on social media4.2610.853 2.703
EWM3: I will be posting fun pictures/videos about Kota Tua Jakarta on social media4.2390.830 2.409
EWM4: I will share my beautiful experience on a credible tourism destination site3.8620.767 1.793
EWM5: I would say positive things about Kota Tua Jakarta to my friends or family via my personal social networks4.0940.712 1.529
Note: factor loading > 0.708, CR between 0.70 and 0.90, AVE > 0.50.
Table 4. Fornell-Larcker Criterion.
Table 4. Fornell-Larcker Criterion.
Electronic Word-of-MouthExperience QualityPerceived AuthenticityPerceived PricePerceived ValuePrior KnowledgeRevisit IntentionSocial Influence
Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.800
Experience Quality0.6490.781
Perceived Authenticity0.6490.7400.798
Perceived Price0.6880.6870.6730.787
Perceived Value0.6720.7000.6910.6600.883
Prior Knowledge0.6520.5980.6510.6600.6300.818
Revisit Intention0.7260.7040.7070.6650.7580.6420.861
Social Influence0.6390.6100.6560.5980.6320.5940.6770.929
Note: The square root of the average variance extracted for each construct.
Table 5. Path Coefficient and Bootstrapping.
Table 5. Path Coefficient and Bootstrapping.
HypothesisOriginal Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p ValuesResult
Direct Effect
H1: Perceived Price -> Revisit Intention0.0810.0800.0531.5210.064Rejected
H2: Experience Quality -> Revisit Intention0.1510.1590.0612.4700.007Accepted
H3: Perceived Authenticity -> Revisit Intention0.1230.1220.0671.8210.035Rejected
H4: Prior Knowledge -> Revisit Intention0.0970.0990.0442.1710.015Accepted
H5: Social Influence -> Revisit Intention0.1850.1840.0434.2750.000Accepted
H6: Perceived Value -> Revisit Intention0.3360.3280.0565.9760.000Accepted
Indirect Effect
H7a: Perceived Price -> Perceived Value -> Revisit Intention0.0520.0520.0222.3480.010Accepted
H7b: Experience Quality -> Perceived Value -> Revisit Intention0.0900.0870.0293.1210.001Accepted
H7c: Perceived Authenticity -> Perceived Value -> Revisit Intention0.0600.0580.0282.1640.015Accepted
H7d: Prior Knowledge -> Perceived Value -> Revisit Intention0.0510.0500.0222.3530.010Accepted
H7e: Social Influence -> Perceived Value -> Revisit Intention0.0560.0540.0222.5670.005Accepted
H8a: Perceived Price -> Perceived Value -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0440.0460.0202.1650.015Accepted
H8b: Experience Quality -> Perceived Value -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0770.0770.0272.8620.002Accepted
H8c: Perceived Authenticity -> Perceived Value -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0520.0500.0242.1870.015Accepted
H8d: Prior Knowledge -> Perceived Value -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0440.0440.0192.2510.012Accepted
H8e: Social Influence -> Perceived Value -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0480.0470.0212.2880.011Accepted
H9a: Perceived Price -> Revisit Intention -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0410.0420.0291.3960.082Rejected
H9b: Experience Quality -> Revisit Intention -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0770.0810.0332.3540.009Accepted
H9c: Perceived Authenticity -> Revisit Intention -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0620.0620.0341.8140.035Rejected
H9d: Prior Knowledge -> Revisit Intention -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0490.0500.0232.1300.017Accepted
H9e: Social Influence -> Revisit Intention -> Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.0940.0940.0253.7410.000Accepted
Table 6. R2 Value and Q2 Value.
Table 6. R2 Value and Q2 Value.
R2 Adjusted ValueQ2 Value
Electronic Word-of-Mouth0.5590.350
Perceived Value0.6100.469
Revisit Intention0.6850.500
Note: R2 value rule of thumbs: 0.75 (substantial), 0.50 (moderate), 0.25 (weak); Q2 value rule of thumbs: higher than 0 (small), 0.25 (medium) and 0.50 (large).
Table 7. Model fit indices.
Table 7. Model fit indices.
Saturated ModelEstimated ModelThreshold Value
SRMR0.0580.066Between 0 to 1
NFI0.7760.772>0.90
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maulina, A.; Sukoco, I.; Hermanto, B.; Kostini, N. Tourists’ Revisit Intention and Electronic Word-of-Mouth at Adaptive Reuse Building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14227. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914227

AMA Style

Maulina A, Sukoco I, Hermanto B, Kostini N. Tourists’ Revisit Intention and Electronic Word-of-Mouth at Adaptive Reuse Building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14227. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914227

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maulina, Anita, Iwan Sukoco, Bambang Hermanto, and Nenden Kostini. 2023. "Tourists’ Revisit Intention and Electronic Word-of-Mouth at Adaptive Reuse Building in Batavia Jakarta Heritage" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14227. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914227

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop