Next Article in Journal
Raw Material Stage Assessment of Seating Elements as Urban Furniture and Eco-Model Proposals
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimizing Spatial Layout of Campsites for Self-Driving Tours in Xinjiang: A Study Based on Online Travel Blog Data
Previous Article in Journal
Precision Regulation and Forecasting of Greenhouse Tomato Growth Conditions Using an Improved GA-BP Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/su16104162
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

Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty

by
Jingxuan Liang
1,
Sunbowen Zhang
2 and
Lu Lu
1,3,4,*
1
College of Humanities & Social Development, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
2
College of Digital Economy, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Quanzhou 362406, China
3
China Resources Environment and Development Academy, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
4
Institute of Grand Canal Culture Belt Construction, Branch of Agricultural Civilization, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(10), 4162; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104162
Submission received: 16 April 2024 / Revised: 14 May 2024 / Accepted: 14 May 2024 / Published: 16 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sense of Place, Place Attachment and Sustainability in Culture, Tourism, Hospitality and Events)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agricultural heritage includes both material and immaterial vestiges of past agricultural practices that are directly tied to human agriculture. It holds great ecological, cultural, commercial, and tourism value. There are not many historical sites available for developing agricultural heritage tourism right now, and no experience is ideal. This study used sophisticated PLS-SEM techniques and SmartPLS 3.3.9 software to carefully examine data, examine measurement and structural models, rigorously test hypotheses, determine the validity and reliability of the findings, and investigate potential moderating effects. To address the critical issue of brand loyalty in agricultural heritage tourism, this study developed and tested a comprehensive impact route, which was supported by an examination of 427 visitors’ cultural memories and brand experiences, demonstrating their critical role in influencing brand loyalty. The findings show the importance of cultural memory in shaping travelers’ brand experiences and loyalty. Furthermore, due to their unique characteristics, various groups react differently to each phase of the brand loyalty effect route.

1. Introduction

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) officially proposed the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) initiative in 2002. The goal is to develop methods for protecting GIAHS and related landscapes, biodiversity, knowledge, and culture, and to acquire worldwide recognition and protection as the foundation of sustainable management. GIAHS are common conservation sites for sustainable resource use since they are a type of World Heritage system. It covers the different land use patterns and agricultural landscapes that arise from long-term coevolution and rural people’ dynamic adaptability to their surroundings. Despite their tremendous biodiversity, these ecosystems and landscapes may be able to meet the needs of local socioeconomic and cultural development.
In other words, carefully preserving and utilizing a region’s agricultural past can aid in its social and economic development. Agricultural heritage can have a considerable impact on a variety of industries, including agriculture, product sales, and recreational tourism. Currently, planting and ecological preservation are the fundamental objectives of agricultural heritage protection and exploitation [1]. In some areas, agricultural heritage has resulted in product brands and a distinct commodity market [2]. For example, consider Yunnan’s Hani Rice Terraces and Fujian’s Anxi Tieguanyin Tea. However, just a few examples show the entire scope of agricultural heritage tourism. The FAO defines GIAHS as landscape features, meaning that agricultural history has significant landscape value [3]. In addition, scenery is an important aspect of the tourism industry. As a result, boosting the landscape value of agricultural heritage and exploring ways to produce agricultural heritage tourism are key stages in increasing the multifunctional value of agricultural legacy.
Cultivating tourists’ attachment to historical assets is the fundamental driver of agricultural heritage tourism [2]. First and foremost, how can travelers become more committed to agricultural heritage tourism? The foundation of tourist loyalty to a heritage property is a clear understanding of its image. Managing a tourism destination’s brand image can result in greater tourist loyalty [4]. Furthermore, how can we ensure that tourists have a positive attitude toward the heritage site? There are two elements that influence how tourists perceive heritage sites. First, consider tourists’ impressions of heritage sites. Agricultural heritage includes historical and cultural elements, and history serves as a memory preservation technique. Festivals, rituals, characters, symbols, and other kinds of cultural memory are employed by groups to transmit culture from one generation to the next [5]. It entails the continuity of historical and cultural life and the dissemination of symbolic experience and knowledge. As a result, travelers’ understanding of heritage sites before their trips may be referred to as cultural memory [6]. Second, travelers’ opinions of heritage sites may be altered by their personal interactions with them [7]. Cultural memory predominantly influences the occurrence of this experience behavior [6]. Culture and history have a profound influence on the human psyche, as well as conscious and unconscious experiences. Because of the presence of these memories, a group with a cultural memory of agricultural history will be motivated to visit the tourism location.
Cultural elements of agricultural heritage sites shape groups’ cultural memory. The group’s understanding of the culture at agricultural heritage sites elicits a sense of gratitude, attracting them to tourist activities [8]. Value co-creation helps visitors have a better understanding of how historic locations are viewed while also contributing to the site’s image through tourist actions. Service-dominant logic (SDL) focuses on the customer experience, which is in sharp contrast to traditional commodity-oriented marketing thought. Under SDL, the co-creation of tourists’ brand value is a multidimensional process involving cultural and emotional connection, self-service participation, unique experience sharing, and destination promotion, which jointly enhances the value and satisfaction of the tourism experience [9]. Thus, the image of heritage places is portrayed, influencing tourists’ brand loyalty. Therefore, SDL can be well applied in this study.
Investigating the agricultural heritage’s tourist value provides a new perspective on its inheritance pattern. This study will investigate how cultural memory influences brand loyalty from the perspective of tourists, with the goal of answering the following three questions: (1) How may cultural memory and tourism brand experience help travelers develop brand loyalty? (2) Does any form of intermediary mechanism exist? (3) Was this study’s substance influenced by demographics? On the other hand, the discussion of the above issues, in addition to providing a theoretical framework for the inheritance of agricultural heritage and elucidating the precise function of influencing elements, will help to deepen the academic circle’s understanding of agricultural heritage. Meanwhile, our study not only addressed the pressing issues but also extended the theories of cultural memory, brand management, and value co-creation [10]. On the other hand, this study provides countermeasures and suggestions for the sustainable development practice of agricultural heritage tourism, which is helpful to play the value function of agricultural heritage tourism in contemporary times and protect and inherit cultural heritage. At the same time, it helps to better understand the formation mechanism of tourist loyalty in the context of agricultural heritage tourism and provides practical guidance for the destination management organization of heritage sites [11], so as to provide a pleasant experience for tourists and enhance the brand image of destinations [12], which is of great significance for the high-quality development of agricultural heritage tourism.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Cultural Memory

Cultural memory research has progressed through three stages: psychology, sociology, and cultural basis. First is the psychological stage. This study of memory began in psychology and was seen as a spiritual reality, but Bartlett claimed that memory is a constructive process under social conditions [13]. The second step is sociological. According to Maurice Halbwachs, individual memory should be purified, eliminated, and perfected by society and culture before being absorbed into the common framework [14]. The third level is that of cultural basis. In the face of several issues generated by modern society, Jan Assmann highlighted the cultural basis for memory. He thought about the law in terms of cultural inheritance [5]. Assmann suggested cultural memory as a collection of rituals, festivals, symbols, and characters. This cultural memory is unique and reusable within a particular civilization or era. Alaida Assmann contends that memory is controlled by a “society of signs and symbols” linked to a cultural system [15]. In this study, cultural memory is introduced into tourism research and, when paired with earlier studies, is characterized as visitors’ historical and cultural cognition prior to the tour and their factual memory after the tour.
According to a previous study, exhibition tourism has the potential to improve the destination brand experience by utilizing its cultural and historical treasures as added value attractions [13]. China’s traditional catering brands, which have cultural characteristics, actively boost clients’ brand experiences [16]. Additionally, tourists from various locations have diverse cultural backgrounds, resulting in unique experiences with tourist destination brands [17]. To increase brand experience, communication should use different tactics in each country or region due to cultural differences [18]. Cultural memory influences not only tourist behavior, but it is also inextricably linked to brand image. Products with local cultural features will shape brand identity and influence consumers’ perceptions of the brand, hence altering the brand image [19]. Existing research has discovered that Hakka culture is included in the cultural and creative product design of tourism companies, hence shaping the brand image of local Hakka cultural tourism [4]. In addition to experience behavior, the group with strong cultural memory engages in value co-creation behavior. People from intangible cultural heritage tourist destinations, for example, form emotional bonds with their local heritage culture and contribute to the value development of intangible cultural heritage tourism brands [20,21]. Sports fans’ enthusiasm for sports culture motivates them to participate in the co-creation of sports value [22]. Research shows that consumers participate in different brand value creations under different brand cultural backgrounds [23]. While cultural differences influence brand loyalty, various brand principles must be effectively communicated to each culture [24]. Furthermore, tourists’ brand loyalty is positively influenced by the history and culture of their destination [25]. As a result, this study believes that tourists’ cultural memory has a beneficial impact on their brand experience, brand value co-creation, historic site brand image, and brand loyalty. Therefore, the hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis (H1a).
Cultural memory has a significant impact on the brand experience.
Hypothesis (H1b).
Cultural memory has a significant impact on brand value co-creation.
Hypothesis (H1c).
Cultural memory has a significant impact on a brand image.
Hypothesis (H1d).
Cultural memory has a significant impact on brand loyalty.

2.2. Brand Experience

The majority of early studies on brand experience concentrated on utilitarian product qualities and category experience, with brand experience defined as “the subjective and intrinsic consumer response composed of brand-related stimuli” [26]. Consumers are exposed to utilitarian product attributes when researching, purchasing, and using brands, which improves product cognition. They are also exposed to a variety of brand-specific stimuli, such as distinctive colors [27,28], shapes [29], fonts, background design elements [30], slogans, mascots, and brand characters [31]. These brand-related stimuli appear in the brand’s design and logo, as well as in the environment of brand promotion or sales (e.g., stores and events). Brakus broadened the word “brand experience” to incorporate subjective, internal customer reactions, and behavioral reactions elicited by brand-related stimuli found in packaging, communication, environment, and design [26]. In contrast to a single point of interaction with a brand, brand experience in the context of tourist brand research refers to the cumulative experience of multiple touch points along a consumer’s journey [32]. A brand’s experience can be divided into four categories: education, escapism, aesthetics, and entertainment [26]. While discomfort with individual brands can elicit negative emotions, it can eventually have an impact on the whole travel experience. When combined with the tourism context of this study, this study believes that brand experience is the intrinsic reaction and behavioral response generated by tourists to direct or indirect contact with brands [33], and the generation process of brand experience is also the reaction of tourists to the interactive stimuli of specific brands [26].
Value co-creation is a mindset and set of behaviors that the organization fosters by improving the customer’s brand experience [34]. Extensive engagement and communication during the value co-creation process, according to research, leads to a stronger sense of psychological ownership, which increases the value of enterprises and users [35]. Brand experience affects value co-creation and the brand’s image in addition, much as it influences objects of cultural memory. For instance, a brand’s creative experience will improve travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s brand [36]. Studies already conducted indicate that luxury hotel brands’ brand experiences have an impact on their image [36]. Brand experience design has become increasingly popular as a response to traditional brand design’s inability to meet consumer expectations. Incorporating emotional experiences into brand design may impact consumers’ impressions of a brand [37]. Additionally, brand experience has the potential to greatly increase brand loyalty [38]. Giving customers a positive brand experience can lead to emotional attachment, which forms repurchases and strengthens brand loyalty [39]. Consequently, the following are the hypotheses:
Hypothesis (H2a).
Brand experience has a significant impact on brand value co-creation.
Hypothesis (H2b).
Brand experience has a significant impact on brand image.
Hypothesis (H2c).
Brand experience has a significant impact on brand loyalty.

2.3. Brand Value Co-Creation

Traditionally, suppliers’ manufactured goods and services are bought by consumers. In the context of competitive strategy, service-dominant logic (SDL) is based on customer demand as the guidance. SDL refers to the focus on co-creation of value between producers and consumers and between other supply and value chain collaborators in the process of continuous interaction [40]. According to SDL, marketing needs to be seen as a collection of tools and procedures that a business uses to try to develop a value offer. Nonetheless, communication between suppliers and customers is now possible during the whole process of designing and delivering a product. This kind of talk should be viewed as a participatory way for everyone to learn together [41]. Value can be created by suppliers and customers through co-produced, customized items. Value co-creation is an attractive goal since it can help a business highlight the perspective of a customer or consumer and improve the front-end process for ascertaining the needs and preferences of the customer. Value co-creation highlights the idea that marketing ought to be seen as a collection of tools and procedures a business uses to try to develop a value proposition [42]. The steps, assignments, controls, activities, and relationships that facilitate value co-creation are all part of this process [43]. Co-creation of brand value is generally divided into the following categories: (1) by luring clients in with emotional investment through marketing and advertising, (2) by giving clients the ability to handle their own job through self-service, (3) by providing a setting where clients feel included, (4) the customer chooses to take care of the specific problem by following the supplier’s suggested course of action, and (5) a particularly important activity in which suppliers and customers collaborate is co-designing products [44]. In addition, in the field of tourism, there is a sixth aspect: after tourists visit the destination, they reminisce about the event, talking about their experiences. There is a sixth element to the tourism industry as well: after travelers arrive at their destination, they reflect on the occasion and share their personal stories. Conducted a study in the hotel management field to examine the empirical and rational factors that motivate employees to engage in hotel brand value co-creation. They concluded that employee perception of the service atmosphere is enhanced by internal and external brand communication on social media, which in turn encourages employee participation in brand value co-creation [45]. This study’s findings are significant for the use of brand value co-creation in intangible goods and experiences. Value co-creation, according to Prahalad and Ramaswamy, is the process by which particular customers co-create value through individualized interactions with significant implications [46]. Value co-creation occurs across the entire course of customer–enterprise engagement and experience building, and personalized interaction is the means and location of value co-creation. Based on previous studies and the tourism scenario in this study, the behaviors of brand value co-creation in tourism destinations are defined as the spontaneous behaviors of tourists as co-creators of brand value, which are conducive to the development of brands, such as actively supporting and advocating the brand of tourism destinations and providing assistance to other tourists [47].
Brand loyalty will be gained from the creation of a valuable brand image [48]. It is worth mentioning that value co-creation is more common on social media. According to a previous study, the Chinese social media network Weibo plays an important role in the value creation process between enterprises and consumers [47]. Customers’ value co-creation behavior on Weibo is positively associated with brand image [49]. Furthermore, a university’s reputation and brand image are significantly influenced by its students’ value co-creation behaviors [50]. As a result, this study believes there is a strong link between co-creating brand value and establishing brand image. Therefore, the hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis (H3).
Brand value co-creation has a significant impact on brand image.

2.4. Brand Image

Customers’ mental representations of a product, including any symbolic meaning they associate with specific qualities of the object or service, are known as their brand image [51]. Customers may perceive it as a mental image of the brand linked with the goods or as a set of feelings they have developed about the brand, as demonstrated by brand association [51]. Thus, it can be defined as a consumer’s emotional and intellectual perception of a particular brand [52]. In commercial markets, brand image can be extremely important, especially when it is difficult to distinguish goods or services based on observable quality standards [53]. A destination brand is a way for a location to promote its unique characteristics and distinguish itself from others. Destination brands provide two critical functions, comparable to what is well known about brands: identification and differentiation [54]. According to this study, the brand image of a tourism destination is the manifestation of tourists’ knowledge, impressions, prejudices, imagination, and emotions about the destination [55].
The traditional brand image influences brand loyalty in either a direct or indirect manner [56]. In the context of worldwide markets, effectively positioning the brand is critical [57]. In order to handle multiple brand images and encourage consumer loyalty in a globalized market, practitioners develop appropriate global brand strategies [58]. As a result, this study suggests that passengers’ brand loyalty to the tourist destination will be influenced by their view of the brand. So, the hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis (H4).
Brand image has a significant impact on brand loyalty.

2.5. Brand Loyalty

Attitude loyalty and behavioral loyalty are two types of brand loyalty [59,60]. Behavioral loyalty refers to recurring purchases at a specific frequency [61]. Attitude loyalty refers to customers’ psychological commitment to their purchasing behaviors, such as their desire to make a purchase or advocate a product, without regard for their real pattern of recurrent purchases [62]. In the context of tourism, brand loyalty is indicated by tourists’ willingness to return or refer friends and family [63,64]. In the tourism literature, Chen and Gursoy sharply attacked the behavioral approach and suggested that the attitude approach was more appropriate for investigating traveler loyalty, pointing out that passengers can remain loyal to a destination even if they do not visit it [65]. Tourists that demonstrate behavioral commitment to specific sites are more likely to have good sentiments regarding them [66,67]. They tend to remain longer in their destinations [68], disseminate positive word of mouth, and engage in more intensive consumer activities [69]. Repeat visitors are also more cost-effective than first-time visitors because they incur much lower marketing expenses [70]. According to this study, brand loyalty refers to tourists’ awareness and happiness with a destination, which leads to repeat visits or recommendations to others [71].

2.6. Mediation Effects

Brand image serves as a mediator between tourist brand association (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and unique image components) and tourist behavior [54,72]. Cultural memory and brand experience are essential cognitive and emotional aspects for travelers, and they also have a substantial impact on their perception of the tourist destination’s brand image [73,74]. According to Zhang, cultural travel motivation means consumers are interested in cultural elements that influence brand image, perceived value, satisfaction, and brand loyalty [49]. Liu stated that the brand experience of high-end hotel brands will influence tourists’ brand image, product qualities, brand loyalty, and customer satisfaction [7]. Furthermore, the perceived innovation experience has a strong beneficial impact on brand loyalty, as well as an indirect positive impact via brand image [75]. To summarize, cultural memory and brand experience are essential pre-variables that influence brand image, and brand image has a significant impact on tourist behavior. As a result, this study believes that cultural memory and brand experience can influence the development of brand loyalty via brand image as a mediating variable. As a result, the hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis (H5a).
Brand image has a mediation effect on the relationship between cultural memory and brand loyalty.
Hypothesis (H5b).
Brand image has a mediation effect on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty.

2.7. Serial Mediation Effects

The marketing strategy for tourism locations should start with visitors, consider their needs, and use their potential to increase the destination’s brand value [76]. On the one hand, tourism to agricultural heritage sites has historical and cultural significance, and tourists drawn to the name have an intrinsic cultural memory of the place. On the other hand, in the tourist industry, the quality of the destination experience will influence subsequent selection [77]. In other words, tourists’ cultural memory and brand experience influence their value co-creation behavior toward locations. In the subsequent impact path, as previously said, tourists’ brand value co-creation will change the destination’s brand image, affecting tourists’ brand loyalty. As a result, this study contends that visitors’ brand image of a location can be influenced by both their brand experience and cultural memory when it comes to brand value co-creation. Finally, traveler brand loyalty will be influenced by brand image. As a result, the hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis (H6a).
Brand value co-creation and brand image have serial mediation effects on the relationship between cultural memory and brand loyalty.
Hypothesis (H6b).
Brand value co-creation and brand image have serial mediation effects on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty.
To sum up, the theoretical model of this study is as follows (Figure 1).

3. Methodology

3.1. Case Introduction

This study uses the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System agricultural legacy as a case study. Figure 2 depicts the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System agricultural legacy, which is located in Anxi County, Quanzhou City, China. The core areas of its development are Lutian Town, Xiping Town, and Huqiu Town, which are marked with blue triangles. The Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System, which has a rich history and culture, dates back to the late Tang Dynasty and thrived during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. According to folklore, at the turn of the Tang and Song dynasties, Monk Pei of Anxi taught villagers how to manufacture “Holy Tree” tea. In Yuanfeng’s sixth year (1083), once master Puzu’s rain prayer was answered, he stayed in Qingshuiyan, built walkways and temples, and learned about tea cultivation from people, transplanting the “Holy Tree”. Puzu was amazed to see a phoenix and a goral enjoying the tea and referred to it as a true “Holy Tree”. He produced “Heavenly Holy Tea” to cure peasants with spring water, viewing it as a shared treasure between celestial beings and monks. “Heavenly Holy Tea” is the current Anxi Tieguanyin tea [2].
China’s second batch of national valuable agricultural heritage lists was updated in 2014, and the Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System was listed [20]. The Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) received official recognition in 2022. Anxi County’s Work Plan for Developing and Supporting Leisure Agriculture, published in 2014, states that a specific fund of 500,000 yuan must be set aside annually to assist in the development of leisure agriculture parks. Using this, Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System establishes multiple tea manor tourism bases and continuously enhances its tourism image. Huayangyuan Tea Estate, Gao Jianfa Tea Estate, Guoxin Green Valley Tea Estate, Tianshou Fudi Tea Estate, Zhongmin Wei Tea Estate, Guanhe Tea Estate, Defeng Tea Estate, Bama Tea Estate, Sanhe Tea Estate, and Green Gold Forest Tea Estate are the current “ten gold medal tea estates” that have been established in Anxi. By doing this, Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System builds a number of tea manor tourist foundations and consistently improves its tourism reputation.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

The questionnaire was disseminated via random sampling. We handed out questionnaires to travelers both online and offline. Questionnaires were distributed at the agricultural historic site between 20 January and 5 February 2023. Later, online questionnaires were distributed from 7 February to 27 February 2023. Our academic committee ruled that the project was free from regulation as human subject research. After deleting inaccurate questions, there were 427 valid data points. Table 1 summarizes the participants’ comprehensive statistics.

3.3. Measurement

The research model’s 5 dimensions are represented by 24 items, each of which is scored on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This study scale includes the following structures: cultural memory, brand experience, brand image, brand loyalty, and brand value co-creation. The Chinese version of the scale was eventually translated from its English counterpart. To obtain the Chinese version of the scale while retaining the original meaning of the components, the researchers used reverse translation. (1) The Cultural Memory Scale consists of five items designed to assess tourists’ cultural memory of agricultural heritage [2]. (2) We used six items to evaluate brand experience to measure tourists’ feelings about the agricultural heritage tourism experience [26,59]. (3) Using four projects to assess brand value co-creation illustrates tourists’ behavior in adding value to cultural sites [47]. (4) Five items are used to assess the brand image of agricultural heritage among tourists [78]. (5) Four items were used to assess brand loyalty, demonstrating tourist loyalty to agricultural heritage sites [71]. (6) The final section analyzes the participants’ demographics, including their gender, age, employment status, degree of education, and monthly income.

3.4. Data Analysis

The survey results were evaluated using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM, unlike standard structural equation models, is suitable for theoretical development and predictive research because it does not require data to follow a perfect normal distribution. Because the model has not been evaluated by scholars and is in the development and exploratory stages of the theory, SmartPLS 3.3.9 software was used for hypothesis testing. SmartPLS is broken into two phases: measurement model and structural model evaluation. We examined the measurement model’s internal consistency, reliability, discriminant validity, and convergence validity. We evaluated the path coefficients and p-values for the structural model, as well as whether the hypotheses were supported. Before evaluating the model’s structural relationships, this approach seeks to confirm the measurements’ reliability and validity. Finally, using the non-parametric confidence set method proposed by Hensele, multigroup comparison (PLS-MGA) in SmartPLS 3.3.9 was used to verify the moderating impacts of different population features on the model path [79].

4. Data Analyses and Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

In this study, SmartPLS 3.3.9 was used to assess the reliability and validity of questionnaire data [80]. The items are tested for discriminant validity and reliability as part of the measurement model evaluation. To determine the dependability of individual items, the factor load of each relevant construct was examined. According to Hair’s study findings, projects with an individual load of 0.6 or more are acceptable for acceptance and retention for further examination, whereas those with less than 0.6 can be eliminated [80]. Every item in this study was examined separately, and each item’s dependability was found to be higher than the acceptable requirement (0.6). It was discovered that every latent variable included in this study met the internal consistency standards, with CR and Cronbach alpha greater than 0.70. To determine whether the variable met the criterion for internal consistency, the average variance extracted (AVE) was also examined. According to Fornell and Larcker’s advice [81], it was revealed that every latent variable tested in this study had variability greater than 0.5 [82]. As a result, this study’s findings (as shown in Table 2) strongly support internal consistency.
In addition, discriminant validity is the assessed model’s final judgment. The square root of the AVEs of the constructions included in this study was compared to other constructs using Fornell and Larcker’s criterion [81]. According to the analysis results, each diagonal value was significantly higher than the values in the related rows and columns, demonstrating that each construct in the model is distinct from the others (Table 3).

4.2. Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

The multicollinearity test is the initial stage in determining the rationality of the model structure. The test method is the same as that used to evaluate multiple regression models: calculate the variance inflation factor (VIF) or variable tolerance to determine the model’s degree of multicollinearity. As a result, to further confirm the presence of severe multicollinearity in our study model, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of exogenous variables (all in the range of 2.686–6.542) were less than the recommended maximum of 10. As a result, the multicollinearity issue in this study was not substantial [83].
The second element of the PLS-SEM procedure involves evaluating the structural model. First, a high R2 value is required to ensure that the model is understandable. The R2 values for brand experience (0.766), brand value co-creation (0.745), brand image (0.678), and brand loyalty (0.783) show that the whole model fits well. We then tested the model’s prediction capacity with the Stone-Geisser Q2 and blindfolding procedures. Stone-Geisser Q2 values of 0.628 > 0 (brand experience), 0.647 > 0 (brand value co-creation), 0.548 > 0 (brand image), and 0.650 > 0 (brand loyalty) indicate good predictive relevance [80].
To assess the structural model’s performance, we computed the route coefficients using the PLS technique, as described by Hair [80] (Table 4 and Figure 3). The PLS-SEM analysis results in Table 4 show that cultural memory has a significant positive effect on brand experience (β = 0.875, t = 42.155, p < 0.05), brand value co-creation (β = 0.326, t = 4.645, p < 0.05), brand image (β = 0.272, t = 3.506, p < 0.05), and brand loyalty (β = 0.263, t = 4.319, p < 0.05). Brand experience positively impacted brand value co-creation (β = 0.563, t = 8.314, p < 0.05), brand image (β = 0.411, t = 4.921, p < 0.05), and brand loyalty (β = 0.479, t = 7.353, p < 0.05). Brand value co-creation significantly improves brand image (β = 0.182, t = 2.478, p < 0.05). Brand image significantly improves brand loyalty (β = 0.192, t = 3.303, p < 0.05).
As shown in Table 5, we also discovered that brand image mediates the two channels of cultural memory to brand loyalty and brand experience to brand loyalty: cultural memory → brand image → brand loyalty (β = 0.052, t = 2.649, p < 0.05) and brand experience → brand image → brand loyalty (β = 0.079, t = 3.424, p < 0.05). Furthermore, brand value co-creation and brand image play a serial mediation role in the preceding two main paths: cultural memory leads to brand value co-creation, brand image, and brand loyalty (β = 0.011, t = 1.383, p = 0.167), while brand experience leads to brand value co-creation, brand image, and loyalty (β = 0.020, t = 1.452, p = 0.147). As a result, H5a and H5b were supported, but H6a and H6b were not (see Table 5).

4.3. Multigroup Analysis

Multigroup comparison (PLS-MGA) in SmartPLS3.0 was used to confirm the moderating effects of various population features on the model path, and the non-parametric confidence set technique given by Henseler was used as a reference. For multigroup comparison, the sample size of the group with the most cases in the category variable must be less than twice that of the group with the fewest cases [79]. According to the sample data from this study, the gender, occupation, and monthly income classifications meet this requirement. The survey objects are divided again to investigate brand loyalty among visitors with various features and contributing factors (Table 6).
Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 show that cultural memory has a significant gender-based impact on brand experience, brand value co-creation, brand image, and brand loyalty in both male and female populations. Overall, brand experience has a significant impact on brand value co-creation, brand image, and brand loyalty in both male and female groups. Brand image has a tremendous influence on brand loyalty. Brand value co-creation has a major impact on brand image for women but not for men.
In terms of occupation, it is consistent with the overall findings that cultural memory has a significant impact on brand experience, brand value co-creation, brand image, and brand loyalty in both students and non-students. Similarly, brand experience influences brand value co-creation, brand image, and brand loyalty in both student and non-student populations. However, the student group has a lower impact on brand image than the non-student group.
Cultural memory has a significant impact on brand experience, brand value co-creation, and brand image in the monthly income categories of less than 6000 yuan and more than 6000 yuan. However, the impact of cultural memory on brand loyalty is less noticeable in the group with a monthly income of more than 6000 yuan. In the income levels below and over 6000 yuan, brand experience has a significant impact on brand value co-creation and brand image. However, in the group with a monthly income of more than 6000 yuan, brand experience had no meaningful effect on brand loyalty. Similarly, in the group with a monthly income of more than 6000 yuan, brand value co-creation has no substantial impact on brand image or brand loyalty.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Discussion of the Findings

The development path of agricultural historic site tourism has always been a challenge that necessitates theoretical solutions [84]. This study found that brand experience and cultural memory are important for brand loyalty by examining the distinguishing qualities of agricultural heritage sites. This study first establishes the importance of cultural memory as a leading factor, then demonstrates how cultural memory and brand experience interact to promote the co-creation of brand value and brand image, which has a direct impact on brand loyalty. A visitor’s cultural memory of agricultural heritage sites, as well as their brand experience from field excursions, will have a direct impact on the overall image of these places. The findings support earlier research on cultural memory, brand experience, brand value co-creation, brand image, and brand loyalty. This relationship remains true in the sphere of agricultural cultural heritage tourism [20,21,23,24,34,36,39,48,57], which improves the application of pertinent conclusions.
Second, brand image is a key mediator in the development of brand loyalty. This paper analyzes the characteristics of tourists in agricultural heritage sites, introduces tourists’ cultural memory of the destination based on the strong cultural attributes of the heritage sites, and considers tourists’ brand experience during field travel. It has been discovered that visitors’ cultural memory and brand experience have a favorable impact on brand image, increasing tourists’ loyalty to heritage site tourism. To put it another way, the construction of a brand image acts as a crucial intermediary. However, the effects of chain intermediation on brand value co-creation are not considerable. Tourists’ cultural memory and brand experience do not increase their brand loyalty as a result of brand value co-creation and image. This research finding contradicts Nadeem’s [77]. This could be because the tourism project of Anxi Tieguanyin Agricultural Cultural Heritage Site is not ideal and mature enough, so its brand value co-creation does not increase tourist brand loyalty.
Third, in the multigroup analyses, several direct impacts were discovered to be of varying significance among populations. Existing research also shows that demographic characteristics such as gender, educational background, and age are major predictors of behavioral proclivities [85], which influence the formulation of tourists’ behavioral intentions [86]. The impact of brand value co-creation on brand image reflects this varied level of relevance. The value co-creation behavior of males and those with monthly incomes of 6000 yuan or more has no substantial impact on brand image. It is worth noting that the student group is less important than the non-student group. This could be because men’s rational perception allows them to have an objective understanding of brand image; people with a monthly income of more than 6000 yuan have high requirements for brand image evaluation due to their high consumption level; non-student groups have more mature cognition than student groups, so the behavior of co-creating brand value is difficult to change the views of these three groups. Furthermore, high-income groups find it difficult to modify their cognition of tourism destination brand image based on their experience with the tourism destination brand, and their cultural memory and brand image cognition make it tough to change their loyalty to the tourism destination brand as well. This could be because high-income tourists have a more diverse travel experience and higher expectations for tourist destinations, and current tourism of agricultural cultural heritage sites falls short of their expectations, making it difficult to improve their brand loyalty to tourism destinations.

5.2. Contributions to Theory

Given the scarcity of research in this area, the findings of this study are significant theoretically and constitute an important achievement in the field of agricultural heritage tourism development.
For the first time, this study outlines a precise strategy for increasing tourism brand loyalty at agricultural heritage sites. The theoretical process explains the basic factors driving cultural memory and brand experience, as well as the catalysts for value co-creation. Despite the fact that several academics have highlighted agricultural heritage’s ecological and commercial value [1,3], a few academics have focused on the theoretical framework for examining the tourism potential of agricultural heritage sites and building tourism brand loyalty, particularly when examining these sites from the perspective of visitors rather than heritage site administrators. Importantly, the primary driving forces behind the co-creation of brand value are combining traveler characteristics with tourism destinations, emphasizing visitor distinctiveness in agricultural heritage sites, and recognizing the significant role that cultural memory plays in addition to the tourist experience.
Second, this study provides a different perspective for examining the increase in tourism at agricultural heritage sites. While prior research has highlighted the significance of visitor experiences in driving tourism growth [36], very few have discussed the value of co-creation and even fewer have classified cultural memory as a form of tourism. This paper extends the research on the relationship between brand experience, cultural memory, and brand loyalty. More significantly, the research shows that the brand value co-creation of tourists at Anxi Tieguanyin Agricultural Heritage Site has not contributed to brand loyalty at present, which also reminds the management staff of the heritage site to improve the value co-creation degree of tourism projects so that tourists can effectively participate in the brand construction of the tourism site so as to better improve the tourism of the heritage site.
Third, this study’s findings contribute to the understanding of the various elements that influence how different groups develop brand loyalty to agricultural heritage places. This conclusion addresses earlier claims of how cultural distance affects people [6]. The multigroup analysis of this study contributes to our comprehension of the ways in which different visitors’ cultural backgrounds affect them. The various ways that tourists act directly influence the formation of tourism brands [36]. Upon conducting an analysis of the factors contributing to the distinct characteristics of tourists, it becomes evident that agricultural heritage possesses robust cultural elements. Consequently, comprehending the cultural knowledge surrounding agricultural heritage is crucial in motivating tourists to partake in the experience and augmenting their brand loyalty.

5.3. Implications for Management

This study’s conclusions provide an important direction for further investigation and improvement targeted at enhancing visitors’ brand loyalty to agricultural heritage sites. To realize the group’s cultural memory of agricultural legacy, the first steps are to teach agricultural history in the school and to promote it on social media. In elementary school, students can be exposed to agricultural heritage through scientific popularization, which emphasizes the need for conserving and utilizing agricultural heritage. This will help them appreciate the value of their agricultural legacy. However, in order to create a cultural memory of agricultural history, it is imperative that social groups are informed about it through documentaries, propaganda films, plays on TV, movies, and other media. Travelers to heritage sites are mostly motivated by a desire to preserve their cultural legacy.
Second, because cultural memory development takes time, in addition to the long-term goal of developing cultural memory, the key is to improve the brand experience and value co-creation of agricultural heritage sites. For example, it plans to create historical and cultural films about agricultural history, as well as entertainment programs and themed accommodation experiences. More importantly, a variety of platforms must be fully established to persuade tourists to contribute to the growth of brand value. Managers, for example, create Weibo and Wechat public accounts for agricultural heritage, design columns such as a landscape photo contest and a travel journal submission contest, assess awards based on the number of “likes”, and provide suitable rewards such as consumption coupons. This allows travelers to virtually participate in the process of establishing brand value. The occurrence of activities such as “like” raises awareness of agricultural heritage tourism among potential tourists.
Third, individualized tourism project planning is performed based on the unique characteristics of distinct groups. Varied groups have varied needs for heritage site tourism due to their unique qualities or lifestyles. As a result, in addition to accomplishing the overall theme of agricultural history, tourist projects must also implement distinct play initiatives and themed accommodation design. Furthermore, in view of the low feedback degree of brand value co-creation, it is necessary to improve the interaction of tourism projects at agricultural heritage sites. Since the brand value co-creation behavior of males, high-income groups, and non-students is low, it is necessary to add tourism projects that they are more interested in, such as the Chashan panoramic VR experience, the traditional handmade Tieguanyin tea experience, and the tea tasting experience.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

While the current study developed a novel way to address the issue of brand loyalty in agricultural heritage tourism and provided valuable insights, it is crucial to highlight many shortcomings that could be addressed in future research. In the age of the Internet, the majority of visitors’ brand value co-creation activities occur online. As a result, future research can use qualitative research methods such as grounded theory on travel notes and evaluations related to agricultural heritage tourism on the Internet, analyze the content of rich text materials, and supplement and improve the promotional path of the agricultural heritage tourism brand.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L. and S.Z.; methodology, J.L. and S.Z.; software, S.Z. and J.L.; validation, J.L. and S.Z.; formal analysis, J.L. and S.Z.; investigation, J.L. and S.Z.; resources, L.L.; data curation, J.L. and S.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L. and S.Z.; writing—review and editing, J.L., S.Z. and L.L.; visualization, J.L. and S.Z.; supervision, L.L.; project administration, L.L.; funding acquisition, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education: Research on the historical context of the Grand Canal and the construction of national image (grant number: 21JZD041).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as data came from a questionnaire, and the interviewees completed the questionnaire voluntarily.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. We gratefully thank the Sustainability journal and the journal Academic Editor, for their helpful input and feedback on the content of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Heyao, L.; Siyuan, H.; Qinwen, M.; Huilin, Z.; Lianyong, W. Evaluation of the Xinghua Duotian Traditional Agrosystem in Jiangsu Province based on the evaluation methods of the Important Agricultural Heritage Systems. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2020, 28, 1370–1381. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zheng, Q.E.; Zhang, S.; Liang, J.X.; Chen, Y.C.; Ye, W.J. The Impact of Cultural Memory and Cultural Identity in the Brand Value of Agricultural Heritage: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Siyuan, H.; Qinwen, M.; Heyao, L.; Moucheng, L.; Wenjun, J.; Yanying, B. Value typology and evaluation of important agricultural heritage systems. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2020, 28, 1314–1329. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, R. Hakka culture brand image design based on the human-computer interaction model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 956615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Assmann, J., II. Formen kollektiver Erinnerung: Kommunikatives und kulturelles Gedchtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identitt in frühen Hochkulturen. In Das Kulturelle Gedächtnis; CH Beck: Munich, Germany, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lai, S.Z.; Zhang, S.N.; Zhang, L.; Tseng, H.W.; Shiau, Y.C. Study on the Influence of Cultural Contact and Tourism Memory on the Intention to Revisit: A Case Study of Cultural and Creative Districts. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, K.N.; Hu, C. The incorporation of Mainland Chinese tourists’ experiences into the Taiwan hotel branding process. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022, 34, 1368–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, B.; Chen, Y. The effects of spirituality on visitor behavior: A cognitive-affective-conative model: The effects of spirituality on visitor behavior. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 23, 1151–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Prahalad, C.K. The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Res. Technol. Manag. 2004, 47, 62. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hyun, S.S. Creating a model of customer equity for chain restaurant brand formation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Su, D.N.; Nguyen, N.; Nguyen, Q.; Tran, T.P. The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination: The role of visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 100634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ndubisi, N.O.; Nair, S. International tourism: Inimitable vs imitable core tourism resources and destination image. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2023, 27, 100756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bartlett, F.C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1932; p. 317. [Google Scholar]
  14. Halbwachs, M. On Collective Memory; Coser, L.A., Ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  15. Assmann, A. Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media and Archives; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zhang, S.N.; Li, Y.Q.; Liu, C.H.; Ruan, W.Q. A study on China’s time-honored catering brands: Achieving new inheritance of traditional brands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahn, J.; Back, K.J. Cruise brand experience: Functional and wellness value creation in tourism business. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2205–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Diallo, M.F.; Siqueira, J.R. How previous positive experiences with store brands affect purchase intention in emerging countries A comparison between Brazil and Colombia. Int. Mark. Rev. 2017, 34, 536–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shi, J.R.; Jiang, Z.H. Chinese cultural element in brand logo and purchase intention. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2023, 41, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lan, T.N.; Zheng, Z.Y.; Tian, D.; Zhang, R.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Resident-Tourist Value Co-Creation in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Context: The Role of Residents’ Perception of Tourism Development and Emotional Solidarity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guzmán, F.; Paswan, A.K. Cultural Brands from Emerging Markets: Brand Image Across Host and Home Countries. J. Int. Mark. 2009, 17, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kolyperas, D.; Maglaras, G.; Sparks, L. Sport fans’ roles in value co-creation. Eur. Sport. Manag. Q. 2019, 19, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pongsakornrungsilp, S.; Schroeder, J.E. Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community. Mark. Theor. 2011, 11, 303–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hur, W.M.; Kang, S.; Kim, M. The moderating role of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in the customer-brand relationship in China and India. Cross Cult. Manag. 2015, 22, 487–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cheng, Q.; Fang, L.; Chen, H.Z. Visitors’ brand loyalty to a historical and cultural theme park: A case study of Hangzhou Songcheng, China. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brakus, J.J.; Schmitt, B.H.; Zarantonello, L. Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? J. Mark. 2009, 73, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bellizzi, J.A.; Hite, R.E. Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychol. Mark. 1992, 9, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gorn, G.J.; Chattopadhyay, A.; Dahl, Y.D.W. Effects of Color as an Executional Cue in Advertising: They’re in the Shade. Manag. Sci. 1997, 43, 1387–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Veryzer, R.W.; Wesley, H.J. The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 374–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mandel, N.; Johnson, E.J. When Web pages influence choice: Effects of visual primes on experts and novices. J. Consum. Res. 2002, 29, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lane, K.K. Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 14, 316–333. [Google Scholar]
  32. Prentice, C.; Wang, X.Q.; Loureiro, S. The influence of brand experience and service quality on customer engagement. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tang, J.W.; Wang, J.N.; Zhang, M.; Huang, W.Z. How destination brand experience influences tourist citizenship behavior: Testing mediation of brand relationship quality and moderation effects on commitment. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1080457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Shamim, A.; Ghazali, Z.; Albinsson, P.A. An integrated model of corporate brand experience and customer value co-creation behaviour. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2016, 44, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhou, W.; Li, S.T.; Meng, X. Study on the Effect of Customer Psychological Ownership on Value Co-Creation under Service Ecosystem. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, C.E.; Liu, C.H. The creative experience and its impact on brand image and travel benefits: The moderating role of culture learning. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, X.R. Brand design in the era of 5 g new media and its impact on consumers’ emotional experience. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 956490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kim, J.; Yu, E.A. The holistic brand experience of branded mobile applications affects brand loyalty. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2016, 44, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khan, I.; Rahman, Z. Brand Experience and Emotional Attachment in Services: The Moderating Role of Gender. Serv. Sci. 2017, 9, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ballantyne, D. Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific knowledge. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2004, 19, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhou, G.F.; Chen, W.K. Agritourism experience value cocreation impact on the brand equity of rural tourism destinations in China. Tour. Rev. 2023, 78, 1315–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lusch, R.F.; Vargo, S.L.; O’Brien, M. Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. J. Retail. 2007, 83, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Van Nguyen, L.T.; Duy Nguyen, P.N.; Nguyen, T.Q.; Nguyen, K.T. Employee engagement in brand value co-creation: An empirical study of Vietnamese boutique hotels. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, L.; Halepoto, H.; Liu, C.; Yan, X.; Qiu, L. Research on Influencing Mechanism of Fashion Brand Image Value Creation Based on Consumer Value Co-Creation and Experiential Value Perception Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Lee, T.J. A culture-oriented model of consumers’ hedonic experiences in luxury hotels. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Foroudi, P.; Yu, Q.L.; Gupta, S.; Foroudi, M.M. Enhancing university brand image and reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2019, 138, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dobni, D.; Zinkhan, G.M. In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. Adv. Consum. Res. 1990, 17, 110–119. [Google Scholar]
  52. Low, G.S.; Lamb, C.W. The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. J. Prod. Brand. Manag. 2000, 9, 350–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mudambi, M.D.; Doyle, P.; Wong, V. An exploration of branding in industrial markets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 1997, 26, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Qu, H.L.; Kim, L.H.; Im, H.H. A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Embacher, J.; Buttle, F. A Repertory Grid Analysis of Austria’s Image As A Summer Vacation Destination. J. Travel Res. 1989, 27, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, J.; Prayag, G.; Song, H.Q. The effects of consumer brand authenticity, brand image, and age on brand loyalty in time-honored restaurants: Findings from SEM and fsQCA. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 107, 103340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pike, S.; Gentle, J.; Kelly, L.; Beatson, A. Tracking brand positioning for an emerging destination: 2003 to 2015. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 18, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lang, L.D.; Behl, A.; Guzman, F.; Pereira, V.; Del Giudice, M. The role of advertising, distribution intensity and store image in achieving global brand loyalty in an emerging market. Int. Mark. Rev. 2023, 40, 127–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Schmitt, B. The consumer psychology of brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dick, A.S.; Basu, K. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1994, 22, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Turunç, Ö.; Karayalçin, C. Bridging Brand Parity with Insights Regarding Consumer Behavior. Economics 2024, 18, 20220054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Raddats, C.; Roper, S.; Ashman, R. The role of services in creating brand loyalty for B2B manufacturers. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 174, 114506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pramanik, S.A.K. Influences of the underlying dimensions of destination image on destination loyalty in a cultural heritage destination. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2023, 28, 984–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chen, J.S.; Gursoy, D. An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2001, 13, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Backman, S.J.; Crompton, J.L. The usefulness of selected variables for predicting activity loyalty. Leis. Sci. 1991, 13, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Iwasaki, Y.; Havitz, M.E. A path analytic model of the relationships between involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty. J. Leis. Res. 1998, 30, 256–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Murray, A.; Kline, C. Rural tourism and the craft beer experience: Factors influencing brand loyalty in rural North Carolina, USA. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1198–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shoemaker, S.; Lewis, R.C. Customer loyalty: The future of hospitality marketing. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 1999, 18, 345–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lehto, X.Y.; Leary, J.O.; Morrison, A.M. The effect of prior experience on vacation behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 801–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cuiling, L.; Xuzhong, Q.; Hong, Z. An Empirical Research on the Factors that Affect Tourism Destination Brand Loyalty and Overall lmpression:Evidence from Changji Region in Xinjiang. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 82–92. [Google Scholar]
  72. Veasna, S.; Wu, W.Y.; Huang, C.H. The impact of destination source credibility on destination satisfaction: The mediating effects of destination attachment and destination image. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 511–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ramos, R.F.; Biscaia, R.; Moro, S.; Kunkel, T. Understanding the importance of sport stadium visits to teams and cities through the eyes of online reviewers. Leis. Stud. 2023, 42, 693–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Peng, L.; Adeel, I.; Ayub, A.; Rasool, Z. Investigating the Roles of Word of Mouth and Brand Image Between Social Media Marketing Activities and Brand Equity. Sage Open 2024, 14, 21582440231220113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, B.L.; Gao, Y.B.; Su, Z.X.; Li, J. The structural equation analysis of perceived product innovativeness upon brand loyalty based on the computation of reliability and validity analysis. Clust. Comput. 2019, 22, S10207–S10217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wilden, R.; Gudergan, S. Service-dominant orientation, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. J. Serv. Theor. Pract. 2017, 27, 808–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nadeem, W.; Tan, T.M.; Tajvidi, M.; Hajli, N. How do experiences enhance brand relationship performance and value co-creation in social commerce? The role of consumer engagement and self brand-connection. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2021, 171, 120952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Iglesias, O.; Markovic, S.; Singh, J.J.; Sierra, V. Do Customer Perceptions of Corporate Services Brand Ethicality Improve Brand Equity? Considering the Roles of Brand Heritage, Brand Image, and Recognition Benefits. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 441–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Henseler, J.R.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bagozzi, R.P. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. O’Brien, R.M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 673–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sun, Y.H.; Jansen-Verbeke, M.; Min, Q.W.; Cheng, S.K. Tourism Potential of Agricultural Heritage Systems. Tour. Geogr. 2011, 13, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. van der Schyff, K.; Flowerday, S.; Kruger, H.; Patel, N. Intensity of Facebook use: A personality-based perspective on dependency formation. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2022, 41, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cheah, J.H.; Amaro, S.; Roldán, J.L. Multigroup analysis of more than two groups in PLS-SEM: A review, illustration, and recommendations. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04162 g001
Figure 1. The theoretical model of this study.
Figure 1. The theoretical model of this study.
Sustainability 16 04162 g001
Sustainability 16 04162 g002
Figure 2. Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System agricultural heritage location condition.
Figure 2. Anxi Tieguanyin Tea Culture System agricultural heritage location condition.
Sustainability 16 04162 g002
Sustainability 16 04162 g003
Figure 3. Hypothesis model test results. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Hypothesis model test results. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 16 04162 g003
Table 1. Background of participants.
Table 1. Background of participants.
ItemsFrequencyPercent (%)
Gender
Male22953.6
Female19846.4
Age
18–3029268.4
31–408018.7
41–50429.8
51–6071.6
61 or over61.4
Educational background
Junior high school and below204.7
Senior high school337.7
Junior college4510.5
Undergraduate28767.2
Graduate and above429.8
Monthly income (RMB)
4000 or below15436.1
4001–60008920.8
6001–80006214.5
8001–10,000419.6
10,000 or over8119
Occupation
Full-time student20648.2
Employees of enterprises and public institutions7517.6
Civil servant143.3
Teacher184.2
Retirees30.7
Other staff11126
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis.
ConstructsFactor LoadingsCronbach’s AlphaCRAVE
Cultural memory 0.9660.9730.879
I know something about the culture and history of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system.0.941
I know the tea ceremony spirit of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system.0.938
I have heard about the mythological origins of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system.0.925
I have heard of religious beliefs associated with the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system.0.947
I know the tea customs of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system, such as tea competitions or tea king competitions.0.937
Brand experience 0.9590.9670.829
I think I have a strong sense of culture in the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tourism.0.902
The systematic tour of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture left a deep impression on my vision.0.927
Traveling in the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system made me think.0.913
Traveling in the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system makes me feel relaxed.0.915
Traveling in the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system makes me interesting.0.926
Traveling in the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system makes me feel happy.0.879
Brand value co-creation 0.9550.9670.881
I have already shared information about the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tour with others.0.922
I frequently mention the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system when discussing travel and cultural exploration options with friends and family.0.952
I expressed what I wanted the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tourism brand to do.0.934
I have given others advice on the tourism brand construction of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system.0.946
Brand image 0.9460.9590.823
The Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tourism value for money.0.921
There is a reason to go to the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system and not choose other destinations.0.911
The Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tourism brand is very unique.0.915
The Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tourism brand is very interesting.0.914
I have a distinct sense of the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system tourist.0.875
Brand loyalty 0.9370.9550.841
Traveling to the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system satisfies me.0.933
Traveling to the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system develops my personality and style very well.0.94
I am willing to visit the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system again.0.871
I am willing to recommend people around me experience the Anxi Tieguanyin tea culture system.0.924
Table 3. Discriminant validity (FORNELL).
Table 3. Discriminant validity (FORNELL).
Latent VariableBVCBIBLCMBE
BVC0.938
BI0.7520.907
BL0.8790.7820.917
CM0.8190.780.8320.938
BE0.8490.8020.8630.8750.911
Remark: Bold front = square root of AVE.
Table 4. Direct effect test.
Table 4. Direct effect test.
HypothesesEffect
(β-Value)		Boot SE
(STDEV)		t-Valuep-Value
CM→BE0.8750.02142.1550.000 ***
CM→BVC0.3260.0694.6450.000 ***
CM→BI0.2720.0803.5060.000 ***
CM→BL0.2630.0624.3190.000 ***
BE→BVC0.5630.0678.3140.000 ***
BE→BI0.4110.0824.9210.000 ***
BE→BL0.4790.0677.3530.000 ***
BVC→BI0.1820.0732.4780.013 *
BI→BL0.1920.0583.3030.001 **
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Mediation effect test.
Table 5. Mediation effect test.
HypothesesEffect
[β-Value]		Boot SE
[STDEV]		t-Valuep-Value
CM→BI→BL0.0520.022.6490.008 **
BE→BI→BL0.0790.0233.4240.001 **
CM→BVC→BI→BL0.0110.0081.3830.167
BE→BVC→BI→BL0.0200.0131.4520.147
** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Classification criteria for multigroup analysis.
Table 6. Classification criteria for multigroup analysis.
Variable NameDefine and Assign ValuesProportion
GenderMale53.6%
Female46.4%
Occupationstudents48.2%
non-students51.8%
Monthly income (RMB)<600056.9%
≥600043.1%
Table 7. Multigroup analysis result (male or female).
Table 7. Multigroup analysis result (male or female).
β
(Male)		β
(Female)		STDEV (Male)STDEV (Female)t
(Male)		t
(Female)		p
(Male)		p
(Female)
CM→BE0.8900.8560.0260.03434.18924.934******
CM→BVC0.3290.3070.1040.0873.1623.5330.002 *****
CM→BI0.3040.2350.1020.1232.9871.9210.003 **0.049 *
CM→BL0.2310.2900.0920.0782.5023.70.012 ****
BE→BVC0.5630.5770.1020.0815.5467.083******
BE→BI0.4160.4000.1080.1293.8553.105***0.002 **
BE→BL0.4990.4670.0950.0855.245.481******
BVC→BI0.1320.2420.110.0961.22.5170.230.012 *
BI→BL0.1990.1850.0890.0612.2393.0250.025 *0.002 **
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 8. Multigroup analysis result (students or non-students).
Table 8. Multigroup analysis result (students or non-students).
β
(Students)		β (Non-Students)STDEV
(Students)		STDEV
(Non-Students)		t
(Students)		t (Non-Students)p
(Students)		p (Non-Students)
CM→BE0.8130.8970.0460.02417.86937.791******
CM→BVC0.4170.2250.1030.0794.0542.83***0.005 **
CM→BI0.2640.2750.1130.1062.3332.60.02 *0.009 **
CM→BL0.3000.2140.0780.0883.8422.427***0.015 *
BE→BVC0.3860.6950.0960.0774.0199.022******
BE→BI0.3900.4050.1070.1343.6493.013***0.003 **
BE→BL0.4320.5230.0810.1015.3425.203******
BVC→BI0.1340.2110.0870.1241.5311.7010.1260.089
BI→BL0.170.2080.0540.1013.1262.0620.002 **0.039 *
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 9. Multigroup analysis result (<6000 or ≥6000).
Table 9. Multigroup analysis result (<6000 or ≥6000).
β (<6000)β (≥6000)STDEV (<6000)STDEV
(≥6000)		t (<6000)t (≥6000)p (<6000)p (≥6000)
CM→BE0.8460.9030.0330.02625.77335.252******
CM→BVC0.3240.3130.1010.083.1943.910.001 *****
CM→BI0.2510.3030.0990.1242.5362.4390.011 *0.015 *
CM→BL0.3160.1640.0710.0994.4211.657***0.098
BE→BVC0.5390.6000.0970.0795.5597.599******
BE→BI0.4630.3440.0990.1434.72.405***0.016 *
BE→BL0.3980.6000.070.1055.665.74******
BVC→BI0.1670.2000.0790.1352.11.4770.036 *0.14
BI→BL0.2290.1630.060.0933.8171.743***0.081
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
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

Liang, J.; Zhang, S.; Lu, L. Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104162

AMA Style

Liang J, Zhang S, Lu L. Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty. Sustainability. 2024; 16(10):4162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liang, Jingxuan, Sunbowen Zhang, and Lu Lu. 2024. "Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty" Sustainability 16, no. 10: 4162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104162

APA Style

Liang, J., Zhang, S., & Lu, L. (2024). Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty. Sustainability, 16(10), 4162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104162

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