sustainability

Article
The Influence of Smart Technologies on Customer
Journey in Tourist Attractions within the Smart
Tourism Management Framework
Shiwei Shen *, Marios Sotiriadis and Yuwen Zhang
Ningbo University—University of Angers Joint Institute/Sino-European Institute of Tourism and Culture,
Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China; sotermarios@outlook.com (M.S.);
zhangyuwen05291124@163.com (Y.Z.)
* Correspondence: shiwei_shen@163.com; Tel.: +86-13484214362




Received: 1 May 2020; Accepted: 18 May 2020; Published: 19 May 2020


Abstract: Nowadays, smartness and smart management of tourism destinations and suppliers are
becoming a top priority and big challenge. This article focuses on tourist attractions and aims at
exploring how smart technologies influence the customer journey. The main research question is
how smart technologies are influencing the tourists’ visit experience. The study takes a consumer
behavior perspective with a specific focus on the visit cycle (prospective, active, and reflective phases),
based on the theoretical foundations of customer journey process model. First, a research framework
was elaborated, encompassing three hypotheses. Then, this model was empirically tested and
validated by means of a quantitative research using as a study site the Ningbo Museum, Ningbo,
China. This investigation allows us to get insights into consumer behavior, which is useful for tourist
attraction to become ‘smarter’. The study’s findings indicate that smart technologies have an influence
on the customer journey at all three phases, the most significant being at the prospective and active
phases, without neglecting the reflective one. This article extends our knowledge by providing new
insights into the influence of smart technologies that have theoretical and marketing implications for
tourist attraction.

Keywords: Smart tourism framework; smart technologies; customer journey; visit experience cycle;
tourist attractions

1. Introduction
Within the general context of digitalization—which is not a trend any more, but an everyday
reality—the extensive use of smart technologies constitutes an essential component in the field
of tourism [1]. These technologies render tourist consumers more active and exhibiting higher
expectations in terms of experience at a destination or a specific tourist attraction. Tourism destinations
and attractions have to address this challenge by adopting and implementing smart infrastructure
and technologies in their offering to tourists by designing and crafting an attractive and memorable
tourism experience [2].
Academic literature [3,4] suggests that smart tourism (ST) is a management framework combining
tourism infrastructure with ICT tools to increase destination and business efficiency and tourists’
experiences. Countries and organizations all over the world are working hard to promote the ST
development [2,3], and China could not be an exception. Over the last decade, local and national
authorities in China have been very active in this field [1]. In 2018, the planning and design of 5A-level
scenic spots in all Chinese provinces as “smart tourism scenic spots” were promoted. By this year, all
scenic spots rewarded with 4A-level or higher in China should offer free of charge full coverage of
Wi-Fi, smart tour guide, online booking, and other smart services [5].

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157; doi:10.3390/su12104157 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 2 of 18

The ST ecosystem is determined by cutting-edge technologies. However, ST is not merely a

‘tourism + technology’ issue, it is about enhancement and facilitation of tourism activities by means of
technological media. It constitutes the process of using smart technologies to improve the experience
quality through the entire trip/visit or ‘customer journey’. Therefore, ST is essentially an approach
and framework for planning, designing, and managing tourism resources, assets, and experiences at
destination level, supported by smart technologies [4]. It is believed that smart technologies contribute
to the improvement of customer knowledge and innovation [6], and of destination and business
competitiveness and sustainability [7].
Scholars suggest that ST is an ecosystem, formed by smart destination (spatial zone), a smart
business network, and a smart technologies infrastructure. It is an ecosystem beneficial to the
destination and to all actors and stakeholders involved [3,8]. There are three fundamental principles of
ST, namely (i) enhancement of tourism experiences, (ii) improvement of asset/resource management,
and (iii) attainment of competitiveness with a focus on sustainability [3,8]. ST also helps the design
of value propositions offering the potential for co-creation of customized experiences. ST is about
contextualizing the experience to visitors/tourists’ needs [2,4,8]. Therefore, enhancing and facilitating
tourism experiences by means of smart technologies is a key principle, strategic aim of, and challenge
for smart tourism destinations and Smart Tourist Attractions (STAs).
Academic research on ST as a novel management framework is at its initial steps [4,8]. It has mainly
explored related issues in the context of tourism destinations and the hotel industry. Tourist attractions
are under-researched within the ST management framework. The same is valid for the studies focusing
on consumer behavior. Our study is aimed at addressing this gap. It is driven by the motivation to
acquire a better knowledge of smart tourists’ consumer behavior in order to apprehend ST, in the sense
that they constitute one of the key actors/stakeholders [4,8].
It is the argument of this paper that there is an imperative for tourist attractions to follow the
technological advances and incorporate Smart Tourism Technologies (STTs) in their management
functions for a series of reasons, mainly: (i) To achieve better efficiency and effectiveness in terms of
operations and performance; (ii) to become more attractive in terms of offering value propositions,
and (iii) to attain a competitive advantage in the market. Our approach consists of putting a special
emphasis and focus on the role of smart tourists as co-creators of experiences at tourist attractions.
The main research question is: “Are the smart technologies useful and influential on the customer
journey to a tourist attraction?”. In other words, what makes a tourist attraction smart according to
consumers’ perceptions, and expectations?
In order to address this question, the study’s aim is to analyze the influence of smart technologies
in terms of experience in tourist attractions within the Chinese context. Hence, the study takes a
consumer behavior perspective to investigate the perceptions of tourists through their visit experience
based on the ‘customer journey’ model/approach: Prospective phase (pre-visit period), active phase
(during the active visit experience itself), and reflective phase (the post-visit period).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature related to
main elements of ST framework; i.e., technologies, tourists, and tourism businesses and attractions.
Section 3 discusses the suggested framework for use of STTs by tourist attractions and the research
hypotheses regarding the influence of these technologies on customer journey. It also presents the
research design and methodology of the empirical study implemented in Ningbo Museum, Ningbo,
China. Section 4 presents and discusses the results of statistical analyses of data. Then, the theoretical
and marketing implications of the findings are discussed in last section. The study’s limitations are
outlined, and pathways for future research are suggested.

2. Literature Review
As already highlighted, the combination of smart technologies and tourism has given birth
to the ST ecosystem/framework [2,3]. Over the last five years, this field has attracted academic
interest, with scholars attempting to explore related elements, issues, and aspects. This section reviews
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 3 of 18

the three main elements of ST ecosystem; namely, smart technologies, smart tourists, and smart
tourism businesses.

2.1. Smart Technologies

The concept of ‘smart technologies’ encompasses new forms of cooperation and value creation
technologies [2–4]. It is worth noticing that ‘smart’ is not the advance of a single technology,
but the interconnection and collaborative progress/advance of various technologies simultaneously.
Smart technologies include a variety of computing and information technologies, as depicted in Table 1.

Table 1. Smart Technologies: Form and short description.

Form of Smart Technology Short Description

Internet of Things
(IOT)
Cloud computing technology
Artificial Intelligence
Mobile communication technology
Mobile devices and applications
Big Data
Ubiquitous connection between
Wi-Fi and other networks
Virtual Reality
Augmented Reality
Intelligent chat robot
Wearable devices
Beacon network
Source: Elaborated from various sources [8–14].
A network capable to process identification, location, tracking, monitoring, and
management through RFID, infrared sensor, GPS, laser scanning, and other
information sensing equipment, and connect the goods with the network for
information exchange and communication.
This technology has two meanings: (i) It refers to the system platform used to
construct applications, whose status is equivalent to the operating system on a
personal computer, (called cloud platform); and (ii) it describes the cloud
computing application built on this platform (cloud application).
Technology allowing use of computer software and hardware to simulate
intelligent human behaviors to effectively process and analyze data and
information, and to support decision-making and problem-solving. Examples:
Driverless cars, virtual assistants.
The technology used for wireless communication allowing wireless real-time
connection between systems and remote devices. 5G is the fifth-generation mobile
communication technology, much faster and reliable than the previous (4G).
Electronic equipment, such as mobile phones and tablets, and the technology
connected with them. The mobile internet comprises various different devices
and platforms; i.e., smartphones, tablets, in-car systems, and wireless home
devices. It includes personal and business applications.
Big data is a term that describes the large volume of data—both structured and
unstructured—that inundates a business on a day-to-day basis. Big data can be
analyzed for insights that lead to better decision-making. It is worth noticing that
this is exclusively used by businesses, not consumers.
A technology that allows electronic devices to connect to a wireless local
area network.
A form of information technology which enables users to navigate in
computer-simulated environments. VR is a computer-generated environment in
which people can experience places and situations as if they were actually present.
Example: Virtual tour
An enhanced version of reality by which people see the real world with a digital
display superimposed technology. AR enhances people’s current perception of
reality and enhances and leverages visitor experience through additional
digital content.
A robot able to understand and talk using human language with users.
A portable device that can be worn directly on the body or integrated into the
user’s clothes or accessories. For example, smart watch, smart bracelet, etc.
Transparent GIF or PNG images that can be hidden in any web element or email
are often used to collect data such as online habits of targeted computer users.

These technologies provide real-time connection and advanced analysis of the physical world,
helping companies/organizations to optimize business processes and improve their performance [12,13].
STTs are technological media that tourist consumers use at all phases of their stages of
decision-making process and customer journey [13,14]. These technologies enable tourism destinations
and suppliers to acquire better knowledge and understanding of tourists’ needs and to improve
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 4 of 18

their resource/asset management and performance [2,3]. They also create value for tourist consumers
and assist them in making the right decisions through their experience [6,8,14,15]. In this regard,
STTs provide a significant potential for co-creation of experiences at both destination and business
levels [6,16].

2.2. Smart Tourists

Literature suggests that tourist consumers use smart technologies to interact dynamically with
other stakeholders and to create their own experiences [17]. Smart tourists are recipients and users
of services provided by STTs. Nowadays, smart tourists are active; they are creating and sharing
information, and attempting to influence other users. In this smart context, digital media and
platforms—e.g., Web 2.0, social media (SM), and smartphones—have become much more than an
information source for tourists, as they are used for various purposes [17,18].
Over the last two decades, the widespread adoption and extensive use of ICTs have resulted
in a radical shift of the tourist consumer behavior [14,15,17]. Tourists are now independent and
skilled. The main impact comes from the Web 2.0 tools [19], the extensive use of mobile technologies,
applications, smart devices [20], and context and location-aware services [16]. STTs help tourists to
integrate content and improve the quality of their decision-making [21]. These changes have shaped a
smart tourist profiting from cutting-edge technologies [8,14].
It is believed that the key issues and aspects related to tourist consumers—a key element of
ST management framework—are under-researched by academic research [2,4,15]. Only one study
has focused on smart tourist behavior [22] and found that all stages of tourist/visit experience are
important in terms of smart technologies. That is the reason why Femenia-Serra et al. [8] call for a more
conceptual and broader empirical research to acquire a better knowledge on and deeper understanding
of tourist consumers in the ST management framework. This study was performed in this vein and in
the context of tourist attractions.

2.3. Smart Tourism Businesses and Attractions

Smart tourism businesses are the suppliers of tourism services and value propositions/experience
opportunities within the ST ecosystem; in simple terms, suppliers that are adopting and making
efficient use of smart technologies. Literature suggests that these technologies have the potential to
contribute to asset management and business efficiency improvement and value co-creation [2,23–25].
Smart technologies help tourism businesses and other stakeholders to break through the limitations
of traditional data analysis, process huge amounts of data, and produce meaningful and valuable
information [25], expand consumers’ social intelligence, improve the quality of the interpersonal
communication, and make SM more intelligent and effective [24].
Literature also indicates that smart technologies promote the resource allocation and cooperation
between suppliers/firms and improve the quality of tourism experience [26]. According to these
authors [26], the design of smart tourist attraction depends on the integration of these two dimensions.
Smart businesses can benefit from big data analysis. When the concept of smartness is applied to the
design, management, and operation of tourist attractions, it means that these tourism businesses have
moved from the concept to practice [27]. Their strategic aim should be to enhance the co-creation of
tourist experiences and to improve the resource management efficiency [26,28]. Only a few studies
were performed in this field from a supply/destination perspective, with a specific focus on the
interrelation between tourism destinations and smart tourists and the impact of smart services on
tourism experiences. The study by Wang et al. [28] investigated tourists’ preferences in a STA context.
Findings suggest that tourists apply a series of key evaluation factors for STA. Therefore, the study’s
focus was on tourist consumers’ evaluation and preferences [28].
A number of studies explored this topic from the technology perspective. Smart environments are
exploited to rejuvenate consumers’ interest in the cultural heritage by guaranteeing really interactive
cultural experiences [29]. Hereafter are outlined some studies analyzing projects/initiatives that were
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 5 of 18

designed and are taking place in other countries, especially in Italy. The paper by Ceipidor et al. [30]
presents the design of a mobile multimedia guide for the visitors of the Wolfsoniana Museum,
Genoa, Italy. Their study is based on the assumption that the visitor experience could become more
interactive and engaging through a mobile application implementing along with smart technologies.
Authors discuss an application of Usability and User Experience (UX) of Near Field Communication
(NFC) technology applied to the cultural tourism field. Another study by Chianese et al. [31] outlines
and discusses a location-based application, called ‘Smartweed’, developed within a high technology
district for cultural heritage management. The project was aiming at exploiting several location-based
services and technologies to craft a smart multimedia guide system able to detect the closest artworks
to visitors, make them able to ‘tweet’ and ‘talk’ during their visit and be capable of automatically
telling their stories using multimedia facilities. Moreover, the project deployed some sensors that allow
the visitors’ mobile devices—by using Wi-Fi technology—to detect the closest artwork in a museum
context. The study by Amato et al. [32] presents a project, named Talking Museum and developed
within the same technology district (cultural heritage management). The project exploits the IoT
technologies in order to make objects of a museum exhibition able to “talk” during the customer’s
visit and capable of automatically telling their story using multimedia facilities. As a case study,
these authors used an example of a talking museum as a smart guide of sculptures’ art exhibition
within the Maschio Angioino Castle, Naples, Italy. The final outcome of both projects should be the
facilitation and increased stimulation of visits.
The study by Alletto et al. [29] discusses the design and validation of an indoor location-aware
architecture able to enhance the visit experience in a museum. In particular, the proposed system relies
on a wearable device that combines image recognition and localization capabilities to automatically
provide the visitors with cultural content related to the observed artworks. The smart infrastructure
provides localization information, and the system interacts with the cloud to store multimedia content
produced/shared by visitors. All the above-mentioned studies illustrate the valuable contribution and
utility of smart technologies in making customer journeys more interesting and memorable.
The above discussion highlights the key elements of the ST management framework and points
out that there is a need for more conceptual and empirical research in the field of ST management
framework to apprehend the tourist consumer behavior in general, and the influence of STTs on
consumers’ experience in specific contexts and settings in particular. Our study attempts to address a
knowledge gap in this field. The main argument is that tourist attractions must adopt the appropriate
approach and make adequate use of STTs in order to meet the customers/visitors’ requirements and
render their visit experience more attractive, interesting, and memorable.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials

3.1.1. Theoretical Background

This study applied the ‘customer journey’ model as a theoretical background. This journey
model has its origins in the work on service blueprinting and service mapping by Shostack [33] and
further developed by other studies [34,35]. The services provided by tourist attractions constitute
experiential services where the focus is on the experience of the visitor/customer when interacting with
the business/organization, rather than just the functional benefits following from the products and
services delivered. The experiential services should be considered from the perspective of the ‘customer
journey’ rather than as a single product or transaction, as suggested by some authors [6,36,37].
This ‘customer journey’ model puts the emphasis on the central role of the visitor/customer.
This model implies that a customer experience is built over an extended period of time, starting before
and ending after the actual experience to include pre- and post-purchase phases. Hence, the ‘customer
journey’ consists of three phases: A prospective pre-trip period phase, an active tourism experience,
and a reflective post-trip phase [36–38]. The prospective phase (before the actual visit/trip) involves
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 6 of 18

information search, decision-making, and the purchase process [9,39]. In the second phase, the active
one, the customer is on-site, at the business/attraction, having on-site interactions. The latter are most
intense, and value is co-created through participation and engagement [6,8,36]. Finally, the reflective
phase encompasses a recollection of the experience, satisfaction or otherwise, sharing memories
and making recommendations. It is argued that all three phases have to be properly managed and
marketed [18,23,35].
Therefore, a visitor experience cycle in terms of ‘customer journey’ includes anticipation, arrival,
the visit itself, departure, recollecting, and sharing the experience [38]. The journey starts with
information search about a tourist attraction, and includes the trip, visiting the attraction, venues and
exhibits (experiencing the attraction itself), recollecting, and sharing the experience.
This model has been applied in or suggested by several studies in various settings, such as,
for instance, in the context of innovation in experiential services in general [36]; to acquire insights
into the responsible tourist experience [37]; for customer knowledge, in the context of learning from
customers [6]; and in the context of customer value creation [39]. Other studies opted for the model
of consumption behavior purchase (decision-making) of tourists; see [40,41], for instance. It is the
argument of this study that the ‘customer journey’ model is more suitable because it refers specifically
to experiential services as are those provided by tourist attractions.
Therefore, STAs should have a comprehensive/integrated approach to visitor behavior, considering
all three phases of the customer journey. A framework considering the uses of smart technologies in all
three phases is suggested in the following section.

3.1.2. Suggested Framework for the Influence of Smart Technologies

STA can be defined as smart scenic spots that are designed on the integration of cutting-edge
technologies, as outlined in Section 2. The purpose is to improve the experience quality of tourists and
combine innovative service and management concepts. The main benefits should be the efficient and
effective management of STA; provision of smart services and value propositions to visitors, and efficient
and effective marketing of the tourist attraction. The ultimate outcome would be the integrated,
coordinated, and sustainable development of the tourist attraction, local society, and economy [38].
In STAs, visitors can co-create their experience through the digitalization of core business processes,
design of services and value propositions, and marketing communications as well [28].
The strategic goal of every STA should be to make the customer journey more attractive, interesting,
and memorable. Therefore, the STTs are the tool/medium for achieving the abovementioned goals.
Table 2 summarizes how visitors use smart technologies at different phases of the customer journey
and the influence of these technologies on their behavior.
This outline leads us to postulate the research hypotheses regarding the influence of smart
technologies on customer journey/visit experience at STAs.

Table 2. Impact/influence of smart technologies on customer journey.

Phase of Journey/Visit Experience Uses of Smart Technologies Their Influence on Visitors’ Experience
• Collecting information,
opinions, and feedback from
various sources. • Searching and planning
• Getting information about • Reducing decision risk
Prospective phase (Pre-visit) tourist attractions • Increasing interest in
• Searching related tourism • Building an understanding
products and services
• Planning the trip/visit
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 7 of 18

Table 2. Cont.

Phase of Journey/Visit Experience
Active phase (On-site, the visit itself)
Reflective phase (Post-visit)
Source: Authors’ own elaboration, based on suggestions by various studies [6,8,14,37,40,41].
Uses of Smart Technologies
• Reading online reviews
and comments
• Making short-term decisions
• Making mobile
communication
and transactions
• Collecting and recording
moments/memories of the
experience in form of video,
image, audio, etc.
• Sharing videos, images, texts,
etc., on SM/SNSs
• Sharing data and knowledge
• Posting reviews and
giving advice
Their Influence on Visitors’ Experience
• Facilitating navigation
and communication
• Enhancing convenience and speed.
• Enhancing experience, flexibility,
engagement, and enjoyment
• Making short-term decisions
• Recording and
storing/collecting memories
• Recollecting memories
• Sharing experiences
• Evaluating (making recommendations
and suggestions)

3.1.3. Research Hypotheses: Impact/Influence of Smart Technologies on Visit Experience

As already indicated, over the last years, tourists are making use of various smart technologies
throughout their visit cycle; they use them at all phases of the consumption experience, ‘customer
journey’ [18,35,36,41]. The services provided by smart systems are influencing tourists in all tourism
contexts and settings. This paper suggests the following influence/impact of smart technologies on the
visit experience to tourist attractions in terms of phases of customer journey (i.e., prospective, active,
and reflective).
Prospective phase (Pre-visit): Before their visit experience, tourists use smart technologies to
search for information on relevant tourism services and select the tourist attractions that meet their
own requirements from a large number of tourist attractions [26,42,43], and make their reservation and
book in advance all tourism products and services needed for their visit or trip [20,35,40]. It is worth
mentioning that at this stage of searching, comparing, and planning, tourists trust in the reviews of real
experiences and recommendations by their peers and influencers on social networks [29,42], because
the tourism product purchase has certain risk. An increasing number of tourists are using ‘shared
knowledge of all tourists’ on digital platforms, and tourists depend on other user generated content
(UGC) to get input so as to make their decision [43,44]. This knowledge on tourist attractions is the
outcome of real experiences shared by other tourists in SM, and is very useful in reducing the risk of
decision-making [23,40].
Within the ST context, tourist attractions can propose their offerings and make their services more
convenient and faster, and to a certain extent, increase the attractiveness of their business [28]. At the
same time, STAs have to use and implement the appropriate integrated marketing communications
with the aim to convey a consistent, relevant, and effective message without creating higher/excessive
expectations [18]. Furthermore, a segment of tourists will use smart technologies to actively search and
learn relevant knowledge about the tourist attractions, the aim being to increase their understanding
about the tourist attractions, to fully enjoy and cherish the visit, and make their experience more
meaningful [30,31,42]. Based on this discussion, it can be claimed that smart technologies can be
influential at the prospective phase of customer journey to a STA. Hence, the following hypothesis
is stated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Smart technologies do positively influence the prospective phase (PP) of customer journey
by providing updated and reliable information and conveying the right, consistent message to make an Attractive
and Memorable Visit Experience (AMVE) in Tourist Attractions.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 8 of 18

Active phase (On site, visit itself): Human–computer interaction is the most direct
reflection of tourists’ use of smart technologies in tourism activities, mobile tourism guides [45],
mobile recommendation systems [46], navigation systems [47], congestion management systems [48],
which are some of the most commonly used smart technologies for tourism activities. These smart
technologies enhance tourists’ ability to co-create and co-manage their visit experience process, attaining
more emotion and action to the tourism experience activity, thus increasing the degree of tourists’
input [49]. When tourists can get a higher degree of involvement in the process of tourism activities,
they can give more positive emotional responses during the visit, thus improving the tourists’ sense
of pleasure [50]. Electronic tour guides provide explanations for tourists instead of manual guides,
which liberates tourists to a certain extent and maximizes tourists’ ability to move freely on the
premise of getting the most accurate and timely explanation. Mobile devices (smart phones and
tablets) can be used for access to information, communication, and self-entertainment during a trip or
visit [20]. These technologies can enhance/help tourists to solve problems, make the visit/journey more
flexible [8,17], and immediately provide (in real-time) their comments on their experience.
Therefore, it is argued that smart technologies can be influential in all actions and interactions
during the visit itself, on site at tourist attractions. Hence, the following hypothesis is advanced:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Smart technologies do positively influence the active phase (AP) of customer journey,
the visit itself by enhancing flexibility, providing convenience and speed, and facilitating engagement and
enjoyment in making an Attractive and Memorable Visit Experience (AMVE) in Tourist Attractions.

Reflective phase (Post-visit): Likewise, once the visit experience has been completed, smart
technologies will be used to comment on and recommend their experiences [4,18,20]. Tourists will
post their experiences on social networking sites [23], and use these social networking sites to depict,
reconstruct, and revisit their trips [51] in order to form a complete chain of opinions that will influence
their peers and potential visitors. The study by Wu and Yan [52] found that writing and publishing
post-trip experiences can help tourists strengthen and build tourism experience, and at the same time
have an impact on the decision-making behavior of potential tourists. Tourists directly present their
experiences on digital platforms in various forms, and this has important reference value for tourists to
make future travel plans and to influence their behavior [19,53].
Hence, this study suggests that smart technologies can be influential in helping smart tourists
to identify and address issues, to provide their feedback, and make suggestions about their visit
experience. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Smart technologies positively influence the reflective phase (RP) of customer journey by
providing the platforms to tourists to share their knowledge and information, as well as to evaluate their experience,
with the aim of rendering an Attractive and Memorable Visit Experience (AMVE) in Tourist Attractions.

The research framework/model is composed based on the above three hypotheses (Figure 1)
depicting the predictor constructs (the three phases of customer journey) to dependent construct
(Attractive and Memorable Visit Experience).
This research framework has been tested by means of an empirical study.
Sustainability 2020,12,12,
Sustainability 2020, 4157PEER REVIEW
x FOR 9 of 18 9 of 18

Prospective
phase (PP)

Influence
Attractive and
of smart Active phase
Memorable Visit
(AP)
technologies Experience (AMVE)

on visitors in Tourist Attractions

Reflective phase
(RP)

Figure 1. Research framework/model.

3.2. Empirical Study: Research Design and MethodologY

Figure 1. Research framework/model.

3.2.1. Study Site

This research framework has been tested by means of an empirical study.
Ningbo Museum is located in Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, China. It covers
3.2. Empirical Study: Research Design and MethodologY
an area of 10 acres, with a total construction area of 30,000 square meters and a total exhibition hall
area of 8000 square meters. It was built in 2006, completed and opened to the public free of charge in
3.2.1. Study Site
2008, with a volume of visitors more than 1.2 million per year [54]. It is a national first-class museum,
Ningbo Museum is located in Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, China. It covers
and focuses on the Ningbo area history and traditional customs. The collection includes more than
an area of 10 acres, with a total construction area of 30,000 square meters and a total exhibition hall
60,000 pieces of precious bronze, porcelain, bamboo, jade, calligraphy and painting, gold and silver,
area of 8000 square meters. It was built in 2006, completed and opened to the public free of charge in
folk customs, and other cultural relics from culture in prehistory to modern times [54,55].
2008, with a volume of visitors more than 1.2 million per year [54]. It is a national first-class museum,
NingboonMuseum
and focuses the Ningbo currently operates
area history and one of the most
traditional advanced
customs. intelligent
The collection management
includes more thansystems in
China. A variety of smart technologies are applied, such as AR, VR, Wi-Fi, and
60,000 pieces of precious bronze, porcelain, bamboo, jade, calligraphy and painting, gold and silver, Artificial Intelligence.
The museumand
folk customs, management
other culturalsystem is fully
relics from smart,
culture from thetoelectronic
in prehistory modern times security inspection system to
[54,55].
Ningbo Museum
the electronic currently
navigation operates
system [54].oneNingbo
of the most advanced
Museum was intelligent
chosen management
as the site forsystems
the empirical
in China.
study A variety
mainly for theoffollowing
smart technologies
reasons. Itare applied, such
is classified as 5Aastourist
AR, VR, Wi-Fi, and
attraction by theArtificial
China National
Intelligence.
Tourism The museum management
Administration. Following asystem
seriesisoffully smart, from
interviews the electronic
conducted security2020
in February inspection
with managers
system to the electronic navigation system [54]. Ningbo Museum was chosen as the site for the
of tourist attractions in Ningbo—to explore the uses of smart technologies by the tourist attraction,
empirical study mainly for the following reasons. It is classified as 5A tourist attraction by the China
i.e., which technologies and for what purposes—the research team realized that the tourist attraction
National Tourism Administration. Following a series of interviews conducted in February 2020
has prioritized smart technologies at the highest level compared to other attractions. Many visitors
with managers of tourist attractions in Ningbo—to explore the uses of smart technologies by the
of Ningbo Museum
tourist attraction, are local
i.e., which residents;
technologies andaccording to the Management
for what purposes—the research of Ningbo
team realizedMuseum,
that the the local
residents are around
tourist attraction 50 per cent.
has prioritized smartThese reasonsatjustified
technologies thelevel
the highest option made to
compared byother
the research team.
attractions.
Many visitors of Ningbo Museum are local residents; according to the Management of Ningbo
3.2.2.
Museum,Instrument Development
the local residents are around 50 per cent. These reasons justified the option made by the
research
Thisteam.
study applied a quantitative research, using the technique of online survey. The initial
plan was to conduct the questionnaires with personal interview, face-to-face; however, this plan was
3.2.2. Instrument Development
abandoned due to the lockdown and restrictions imposed in China because of the Covid-19 outbreak.
That This study
is the applied
reason whyathe
quantitative
research research, using
team opted forthe technique
plan of online
B, the online survey.
survey The initial which
technique, plan was the
was to conduct the questionnaires with personal interview, face-to-face; however, this plan was
only feasible and realistic one. The research instrument (questionnaire, see Supplementary Materials)
abandoned due to the lockdown and restrictions imposed in China because of the Covid-19 outbreak.
encompassed three sections: (i) One section on opinion about smart technologies during the visit
That is the reason why the research team opted for plan B, the online survey technique, which was
experience (6 items);
the only feasible and (ii) one section
realistic about
one. The the research
research instrumentconstructs (influence
(questionnaire, see of smart technologies on
Supplementary
customer journey, i.e., prospective, active, and reflective phases) with 5 questions; and (iii) one section
on demographics (with five items).
As for Section 2 of the questionnaire, the research constructs and items were measured as follows.
A total of 12 items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale by rating from not all influence/useful to very
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 10 of 18

strong influence/useful, and strongly disagree to strongly agree. Items used to measure the consumers’
perceptions were derived from previous studies [6,19,37,40,41] and the suggested framework. A pilot
test was performed with 10 persons to assure clarity and internal coherence. Following the pilot test,
the questionnaire was accordingly finalized.

3.2.3. Data Collection

The technique of online survey was used to collect data. The study used a convenient sampling
method on one condition; that is, they have visited Ningbo Museum at least one time over the last
12 months. Sampling procedures included post links to the questionnaire on WeChat platform (the
most used among Chinese consumers) and snowballing. The research team considered that this
strategy was suitable for attaining the research aim, as suggested by [56].
In total, the research team collected 503 questionnaires from Chinese consumers aged 18 years or
older and having had a visit experience to Ningbo Museum over the last 12 months. The questionnaires
were conducted over February to March 2020. It is believed that the sample size is suitable in the
sense it provides reliability and validity [57]. A summary of the sample/respondents’ profile is shown
in Table 3.

Table 3. Sample profile (n = 503).

Characteristics Frequency (n) Percentage (%)

Gender
Male 147 29.2
Female 356 70.8
Age group
18 to 25 257 51.1
26 to 30 103 20.5
31 to 40 78 15.6
41 to 50 55 10.9
51 to 60 9 1.8
60+ 1 0.1
Educational level
Junior high school 7 1.4
High school 27 5.4
Undergraduate student 288 57.2
Postgraduate student 165 32.8
Other 16 3.2
Occupation
Student 199 39.5
Teacher 94 18.7
Worker 8 1.6
Freelancer 58 11.5
Civil servant 27 5.4
Admin/Office employee 33 6.6
Enterprise staff 68 13.5
Other 16 3.2
Visits to Ningbo Museum (in numbers)
1 384 76.3
2 104 20.7
3+ 15 3

The statistical analysis of data was performed on SPSS Version 25.0. The following section
discusses the analyses and results.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 11 of 18

4. Results: Data Analysis and Discussion

This study used a regression analysis to undertake a correlational analysis [57]. This analysis
determines the influence of smart technologies on tourists at the three phases of customer journey
to a tourist attraction; in other words, to have an Attractive and Memorable Visit Experience
(AMVE). Statistical analyses were used to determine the role of the three phases (PP, AP, and
RP, which are constructs/independent variables) in predicting the influence of smart technologies
on AMVE (dependent variable). The confirmatory procedure to examine the interrelationships in
the measure and an Exploratory Factor Analysis were conducted to test whether constructs are
inter-correlated and suitable for factor analysis.

Reliability and Validity Testing

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the composite construct reliability were used to check the
measuring reliability. The results are shown in Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha of the constructs was varying
between 0.717 and 0.796. At the same time, the composite reliability of constructs was between 0.783
and 0.831, which was higher than 0.700, the minimum level/value for reliability [53]. The average
variance (AVE) of all constructs had a value between 0.534 and 0.587, which was higher than the
minimum of 0.500. The results showed that the structure can explain a large part of variance, so the
measured value had enough convergence. Therefore, it is estimated that the measurement scale had
sufficient internal consistency [56,57].

Table 4. Tests for reliability and validity.

Average
Standard Standard Composite Cronbach’s
Construct Items Mean t-test Variance
Deviation Loading Reliability Alpha
Extracted (AVE)
1.1 Searching and
4.27 0.642 0.720 6.259
planning
1. Prospective
1.2 Reducing 0.821 0.534 0.777
Phase (PP)
4.01 0.710 0.733 1.291
decision risk
1.3 Increasing interest in 4.02 0.770 0.735 1.233
1.4 Building an
4.11 0.700 0.737 2.819
understanding
2.1 Facilitating
navigation and 4.25 0.660 0.674 0.764
communication
2. Active Phase
2.2 Enhancing 0.831 0.553 0.717
(AP)
4.18 0.699 0.777 1.511
convenience and speed
2.3 Enhancing flexibility,
engagement, and 4.35 0.687 0.782 1.548
enjoyment
2.4 Making short-term
4.03 0.749 0.838 5.936
decisions
2.5 Recording and
storing/collecting 4.10 0.742 0.674 4.009
memories
3.1 Recollecting
4.05 0.722 0.783 2.972
3. Reflective Phase memories
0.783 0.547 0.783
(RP)
3.2 Sharing experiences
(posting photos and 4.09 0.777 0.713 3.909
reviews)
3.3 Evaluating (making
recommendations and 3.94 0.714 0.721 0.303
suggestions)
Attractive and Prospective Phase 4.10 0.541 0.770 4.300
Memorable Visit 0.810 0.587 0.796
Active Phase 4.32 0.512 0.785 14.218
Experience
(AMVE) Reflective Phase 4.02 0.616 0.744 0.868
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 12 of 18

Table 5 depicts the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The factor load of each measurement
item is between 0.588 and 0.801, which is higher than the standard of 0.500. These results prove that
the measurement scale had very good internal consistency and reliability [57].

Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis.

Constructs
Prospective Phase Active Phase Reflective Phase
Items
1.1 Searching and planning 0.716
1.2 Reducing decision risk 0.642
1.3 Increasing interest in 0.741
1.4 Building un understanding 0.733
2.1 Navigation and communication 0.702
2.2 Enhancing convenience and speed 0.713
2.3 Flexibility, engagement, and enjoyment 0.756
2.4 Making short-term decisions 0.588
2.5 Recording and storing memories 0.801
3.1 Recollecting memories 0.766
3.2 Sharing experiences (posting reviews) 0.723
3.3 Evaluating (making recommendations) 0.792
Note: Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

These results indicate that the three research hypotheses are supported. In order to test the research
model, the relationship between the constructs must be significant. The Pearson product-moment
correlation was conducted to determine the inter-relationships between the constructs (see Table 6).
Results showed that Pearson correlation coefficient (R) was between 0.348 and 0.601, n = 503 (p ≤ 0.01),
which had a strong correlation. Hence, there was a significant correlation between all factors, so we
can explore the feasibility of the research model.

Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficient.

Constructs Prospective Phase Active Phase Reflective Phase AMVE

Prospective Phase 1 0.601 ** 0.573 ** 0.458 **
Active Phase 0.601 ** 1 0.550 ** 0.411 **
Reflective Phase 0.573 ** 0.550 ** 1 0.348 **
AMVE 0.458 ** 0.411 ** 0.348 ** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level/Sig. (2-tailed).

The model and results of regression analysis are shown in Table 7.

The Durbin-Watson coefficient had a value of 1.975, which is within the required range of 1.00-2.00.
The results indicated that the three phases of customer journey (the influence of smart technologies
on tourist behavior at the three phases of visit experience to a tourist attraction) were significantly
correlated with the quality of visit experience, an AVME.
A simple linear regression was conducted between the influence of smart technologies on tourists
at the three phases of customer journey, X1 (=0.300, t = 5.754, Sig. = 0.000), X2 (=0.201, t = 3.983,
Sig. = 0.000, and X3 (=0.069, t = 1.398, Sig. = 0.16) explained of variance of 62.4% of influence (see
Table 7). Based on these results, it can be claimed the model works well. Results showed that the
dependent variable (AMVE) is influenced by all three phases of the customer journey/visit experience;
the most determining being the Prospective and Active phases. In the two phases, corresponding Sig.
value of F is 0.000, indicating that the use of smart technologies has a significant influence on improving
the quality of visit experience. At the third phase (Reflective), the influence is also significant, but in
lesser extent.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 13 of 18

Table 7. Regression analysis: Model and results.

Parameter Test
Std. Error of
Model R* R2 Adjusted R2 Durbin-Watson F Sig.
the Estimate
1 0.794 0.624 0.620 0.684 1.835 52.391 0.000
Predictors (Independent variables) are PP, AP, RP; and dependent variable is AMVE
* R, correlation coefficient; R2 , coefficient of determination; ∆R2 , adjusted coefficient of determination.
Regression Model
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
AMVE * 0.447 0.280 1.594 0.111
Prospective Phase 0.434 0.075 0.300 5.754 0.000
1
Active Phase 0.307 0.077 0.201 3.983 0.000
Reflective Phase 0.088 0.063 0.069 1.398 0.163
* Dependent variable: AMVE (Attractive and Memorable Visit Experience).

These results support the research model as prediction model. Smart technologies are influential
at all three phases of visit experience in having an Attractive and Memorable Visit Experience (AMVE)
in a tourist attraction.
The present study proposed a research framework to explore the impact of smart technologies
on tourists to obtaining an attractive and memorable experience. This influence was considered and
analyzed in terms of three phases (i.e., prospective, active, and reflective) of a visit to a tourist attraction,
based on the theoretical background of ‘customer journey’ model. The studies in this specific field
are very rare. Findings by this study can be compared and contrasted only to two similar studies.
The study by Gajdosik [22]—which was about the complete tourist experience, not only to a tourist
attraction—indicates that the use of smart technologies is significant before the trip to and during
the stay in the destination. It does not provide more detailed findings (what is the level/degree of
influence at each phase), and the reflective phase (post-trip) was not investigated. The second study
by Shen et al. [41] explored the influence of a specific type of smart tourism technologies (i.e., Social
Networking Sites—SNSs) within the context of responsible consumer behavior. It was found that
SNSs were influential in adopting a sustainable and responsible behavior by smart tourists. It was also
found that all three phases of tourist experience were equally significant.
This study’s findings confirm the results of the previous two studies and indicate that the influence
of smart technologies is significant at all three phases, the stronger influence being at the first two
phases (prospective and active phases).

5. Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

Within the digital era and smart tourism management framework, markets are technology-driven
and consumer-dominated, and tourists are one of the key actors. Technological developments and
advances have already transformed the way in which tourist consumers search, plan, and purchase
their trips and perceive and conduct their experiences. Smart technologies are used by tourists in a
wide spectrum of settings and contexts. At all phases of a tourist/visit experience, the consumer is
open to external influence, and smart technologies have become an increasingly important influence,
especially in the crucial first phase.
In this context, the aim of this study was to explore the influence of smart technologies on
tourists to have an attractive and memorable experience in the setting of tourist attractions. The study
took a consumer perspective to investigate this impact on visit experience to a Chinese cultural
tourist attraction.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 14 of 18

5.1. Main Conclusions: Theoretical Contribution and Marketing Implications

The study’s aim was to analyze the influence of smart technologies on the visit experience in
the context of tourist attractions. Firstly, a research framework/model was proposed to explore the
impact of smart technologies on tourists to have an attractive and memorable experience, based on the
theoretical background of ‘customer journey’ model. This influence was considered and analyzed in
terms of phases of ‘customer journey’; that is, prospective, active, and reflective phases of the experience.
Hence, this study advanced three hypotheses related to the positive impact smart technologies can
have on the quality of visit experience.
The suggested research framework was then empirically tested in the context of tourist attractions,
using as a study site the Ningbo Museum, Ningbo, China. The results support the crafted research
framework for the influence of smart technologies; the findings of our study support all three
research hypotheses. There was a significantly positive correlation between them, showing that smart
technologies have an influence in attaining an attractive and memorable visit experience in tourist
attractions implementing these kinds of technologies. It was found that the stronger influence was at
the first phase (prospective) and second phase (active). The third phase (reflective) was also important
in terms of influence, but to a lesser extent. These findings are therefore valuable from a theoretical
perspective, and have practical/marketing implications.
Our study has a theoretical contribution in the sense that it extends our knowledge in the field
of smart tourism management framework in terms of conceptual approach and empirical research
into the influence of smart technologies on the visit experience. It makes a theoretical contribution in
that (i) it provides better understanding of tourist consumer behavior in the smart tourism ecosystem;
(ii) it extends the field of application of the ‘customer journey’ model in the context and setting of
experiential services provided by tourist attractions; and (iii) it suggests the integrated/ comprehensive
consideration of design and use of smart technologies in specific activities of tourist attraction settings.
The suggested framework encompasses the three phases of ‘customer journey’ and provides an
integrated consideration to effectively investigate the impact of smart technologies on tourist behavior
for visit experiences to tourist attractions. It is argued that it is imperative to consider and analyze all
three phases having an influence on a visit experience in the context of ST management framework.
Furthermore, the study has marketing implications for industry practitioners. It was found
that smart technologies—that are used for various tourist purposes—can positively influence the
visit experience in all three phases and effectively make this visit an attractive and memorable one.
Therefore, it is crucial for tourism suppliers in general, and tourist attractions in particular, to apprehend
contemporary (and future) tourists and their requirements and expectations. These tourists require
and have high expectations in terms of experience quality. These expectations are technology-driven
and are have augmented due to technological advances. Hence, tourist attractions have to craft value
propositions for their visitors/customers, based on the principles of Service-Dominant Logic (SDL).
These tourist suppliers have to design, craft, and implement the appropriate smart infrastructure and
services according to the key principles of SDL entails, as suggested by some authors [7,28].
Smart technologies are tools/media that can contribute to addressing tourists’ requirements and to
meeting their expectations, if they are properly designed. These technologies can be used by tourism
suppliers (and tourist attractions) to make more persuasive, visually appealing value proposition
displays and to provide a pleasant and memorable visit experience.
Likewise, smart technologies constitute a valuable marketing tool that should not be
underestimated, and tourism suppliers must respond actively to the opportunities that they offer—or
suffer the consequences. The challenge for tourist attractions is how to manage effectively and
efficiently the smart infrastructure, technologies, and services. It is evident that their influence starts
well ahead/prior to the actual visit on site. Therefore, the study’s findings are useful for the marketing
communications, which should convey consistently the right message/s, because they must build up the
adequate expectations, and avoid creating high expectations. Understanding tourists’ motivations and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 15 of 18

uses is imperative. and this knowledge should be incorporated into the crafting of attractive/suitable
value propositions.
Hence, the study’s findings provide a kind of guidance and directions for the adequate designing
and uses of smart technologies by tourist attractions for marketing purposes, according to tourists’
expectations and requirements aiming at improving their visit experience. This study argues that the
adequate use of smart technologies can contribute to attractive and memorable experiences that create
benefits for all actors in the smart tourism management framework.

5.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

It should be acknowledged that our study encompasses some limitations, despite its contribution.
First, the sampling techniques due to specific circumstances. This study used a convenience sample
of tourists who have visited the Ningbo Museum over the last twelve months. In addition, a very
large proportion of respondents are students, causing a problem of the sample’s representativeness.
These sampling techniques may make the results vulnerable and do not allow generalizing the study’s
findings. The tourist behavior of other age groups could be explored by future research projects with the
aim to identifying similarities and differences in generational perceptions and behavior. Second, there
is a limitation regarding the research design; that is, the study site was limited to one tourist attraction
(Ningbo Museum). The latter was chosen based on robust criteria/factors; however, it constitutes just
a cultural tourist attraction. Future research should investigate the proposed research framework
in more tourist attractions, cultural and natural. Further research could explore the similarities and
differences between the two types of tourist attractions.
Another limitation is the empirical testing of the model, which was performed in the Chinese
context. China has an impressive number of cultural and natural tourist attractions; however, the
country is not unique, and the same is valid for other countries around the world. Comparative analysis
should investigate the influence of smart technologies on tourists’ visit experiences in other developed
and/or emerging tourist markets. Likewise, other empirical studies could be undertaken, taking as
sample international and domestic tourists; they might have differences in terms of behavior. Another
interesting pathway could be incorporate and assess some additional variables, such as mediating
factors (e.g., value propositions).

Supplementary Materials: Available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4157/s1

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.S. and M.S.; methodology, M.S. and Y.Z.; software, Y.Z.; validation,
S.S. and M.S.; formal analysis, S.S., M.S., and Y.Z.; investigation, S.S. and Y.Z.; resources, S.S.; data curation, Y.Z.;
writing—original draft preparation: M.S.; writing—review and editing: S.S. and M.S.; and project administration
and supervision: S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
No. LY20D010001 and Ningbo Municipal Social Science Foundation of China under Grant No. G20-ZX02.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, L.; Yang, J. Smart tourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism; Jafari, J., Xiao, H., Eds.; Springer: New York,
NY, USA; Wien, Austria, 2016; pp. 862–863.
2. Koo, C.; Mendes-Filho, L.; Buhalis, D. Guest editorial: Smart tourism and competitive advantage for
stakeholders. Tour. Rev. 2019, 74, 1–128. [CrossRef]
3. Gretzel, U.; Zhong, L.; Koo, C. Application of smart tourism to cities. Int. J. Tour. Cit. 2016, 2, 106–108.
[CrossRef]
4. Femenia-Serra, F.; Neuhofer, B. Smart tourism experiences: Conceptualization, key dimensions and research
agenda. J. Reg. Res. 2018, 42, 129–150.
5. Wang, L.; Zhongqiang, C. Reconstruction of new pattern of tourism development by tourism science and
technology. J. Hebei Radio Telev. Univ. 2019, 24, 69–72.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 16 of 18

6. Yachin, J.M. The ‘customer journey’: Learning from customers in tourism experience encounters.
Tour. Manag. Pers. 2018, 28, 201–210. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, D.; Li, X.R.; Li, Y. China’s “smart tourism destination” initiative: A taste of the service-dominant logic.
J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2013, 2, 59–61. [CrossRef]
8. Buonincontri, P.; Micera, R. The experience co-creation in smart tourism destinations: A multiple case
analysis of European destinations. Inf. Technol. Tour. 2016, 16, 285–315. [CrossRef]
9. Buhalis, D.; Sinarta, Y. Real-time co-creation and nowness service: Lessons from tourism and hospitality.
J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 563–582. [CrossRef]
10. Serravalle, F.; Ferraris, A.; Vrontis, D.; Thrassou, A.; Christofi, M. Augmented reality in the tourism industry:
A multi-stakeholder analysis of museums. Tour. Manag. Pers. 2019, 32, 100549. [CrossRef]
11. OECD. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2018; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018; Available online:
www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm (accessed on 11 November 2019).
12. Washburn, D.; Sindhu, U.; Balaouras, S.; Dines, R.A.; Hayes, N.; Nelson, L.E. Helping CIOs Understand
“Smart City” Initiatives. 2010. Available online: http://www.uwforum.org/upload/board/forrester_help_
cios_smart_city.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2020).
13. Khan, S.M.; Woo, M.; Nam, K.; Chathoth, K.P. Smart city and smart tourism: A case of Dubai. Sustainability
2017, 9, 2279. [CrossRef]
14. Neuhofer, B. Smart technologies for personalized experiences: A case study in the hospitality domain.
Electron. Mark. 2015, 25, 243–254. [CrossRef]
15. Buhalis, D.; Amaranggana, A. Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience through
personalisation of services. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015; Tussyadiah, I.,
Inversini, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 377–389.
16. Buhalis, D.; Foerste, M. SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: Empowering co-creation of value.
J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015, 4, 151–161. [CrossRef]
17. Neuhofer, B.; Buhalis, D.; Ladkin, A. Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences. J. Destin.
Mark. Manag. 2012, 1, 36–46. [CrossRef]
18. Morrison, A.M. Marketing and Managing Tourism Destinations, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; Oxon,
UK, 2019.
19. Park, O.-J.; Kim, M.G.; Ryu, J.-H. Interface effects of online media on tourists’ attitude changes.
Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 30, 262–274. [CrossRef]
20. Dorcic, J.; Komsic, J.; Markovic, S. Mobile technologies and applications towards smart tourism—State of the
art. Tour. Rev. 2019, 74, 82–103. [CrossRef]
21. Xiang, Z.; Magnini, V.P.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Information technology and consumer behavior in travel and
tourism: Insights from travel planning using the internet. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 244–249.
[CrossRef]
22. Gajdosik, T. Smart tourists as a profiling market segment: Implications for DMOs. Tour. Econ. 2019, in press.
[CrossRef]
23. Sotiriadis, M. Sharing tourism experiences in social media: A literature review and a set of suggested
business strategies. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 179–225. [CrossRef]
24. Guo, Q. Research on the current situation, influence and countermeasures of social media intelligence.
Publ. Distr. Res. 2019, 6, 55–62.
25. Shi, H. Review and research on evaluation mechanism of intelligent tourism construction. Henan Agric. 2015,
16, 54–56.
26. Boes, K.; Buhalis, D.; Inversini, A. Smart tourism destinations: Ecosystems for tourism destination
competitiveness. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2016, 2, 108–124. [CrossRef]
27. Ivars-Baidal, J.A.; Celdrán-Bernabeu, M.A.; Mazón, J.N.; Perles-Ivars, Á.F. Smart destinations and the
evolution of ICTs: A new scenario for destination management? Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 1581–1600.
[CrossRef]
28. Wang, X.; Li, X.R.; Zhen, F.; Zhang, J.H. How smart is your tourist attraction? Measuring tourist preferences
of smart tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 309–320. [CrossRef]
29. Alletto, S.; Cucchiara, R.; Del Fiore, G.; Mainetti, L.; Mighali, V.; Patrono, L.; Serra, G. An indoor location-aware
system for an IoT-based smart museum. IEEE Internet Things 2015, 3, 244–253. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 17 of 18

30. Ceipidor, U.B.; Medaglia, C.M.; Volpi, V.; Moroni, A.; Sposato, S.; Carboni, M.; Caridi, A. NFC technology
applied to touristic-cultural field: A case study on an Italian museum. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Workshop on Near Field Communication (NFC), Zurich, Switzerland, 5 February 2013; pp. 1–6.
31. Chianese, A.; Marulli, F.; Moscato, V.; Piccialli, F. SmARTweet: A location-based smart application for
exhibits and museums. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Signal-Image Technology &
Internet-Based Systems, Kyoto, Japan, 2–5 December 2013; pp. 408–415.
32. Amato, F.; Chianese, A.; Mazzeo, A.; Moscato, V.; Picariello, A.; Piccialli, F. The Talking Museum project.
Procedia Comp. Sci. 2013, 21, 114–121. [CrossRef]
33. Shostack, G.L. Designing services that deliver. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1984, 62, 133–139.
34. Bitner, M.J. Managing the evidence of service. In The Service Quality Handbook; Scheuing, E.E., Christopher, W.F.,
Eds.; AMACOM: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 358–370.
35. Shaw, C.; Ivens, J. Building Great Customer Experiences; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2002.
36. Voss, C.; Zomerdijk, L. Innovation in experiential services—An empirical view. In Innovation in Services; DTI,
Ed.; DTI: London, UK, 2007; pp. 97–134. Available online: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39965.pdf (accessed
on 20 January 2020).
37. Ingram, C.; Caruana, R.; McCabe, S. PARTicipative inquiry for tourist experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 2017,
65, 13–24. [CrossRef]
38. Dunn, M.; Davis, S.M. Building brands from the inside. Mark. Manag. 2003, 12, 32–37.
39. Malone, C.; McKechnie, S.; Tynan, C. Tourists’ emotions as a resource for customer value creation, concretion,
and destruction: A customer-grounded understanding. J. Travel Res. 2017, 57, 843–855. [CrossRef]
40. Choi, S.; Lehto, C.; Morrison, A.M.; Jang, S. Structure of travel planning processes and information use
patterns. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 26–40. [CrossRef]
41. Shen, S.; Sotiriadis, M.; Zhou, Q. Could smart tourists be sustainable and responsible as well? The contribution
of social networking sites to improving their sustainable and responsible behavior. Sustainability 2020,
12, 1470. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, L.X. A Study on the Use Behavior of Tourism App by Tourists. Master’s Thesis, Anhui University,
Hefei, China, 2016.
43. Litvin, S.W.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Pan, B. Electronic word-of-mouth inhospitality and tourism management.
Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 458–468. [CrossRef]
44. Li, W.; Shi, D.; Zhang, B. A review of the research on tourists’ behavior in the new media era. J. NE Univ.
Fin. Econ. 2018, 6, 29–36.
45. Bellotti, V.; Begole, J.; Chi, E.H. Activity-based serendipitous recommendations with the Magitti Mobile
Leisure Guide. In Proceedings of the Human Factors in Computing, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008;
pp. 1157–1166.
46. Ricci, F. Mobile recommender systems. Inf. Technol. Tour. 2010, 12, 205–231. [CrossRef]
47. Burigat, S.; Chittaro, L. Location-aware visualization of VRML models in GPS-based mobile guides.
In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Web3D’05, Bangor, UK,
29 March–1 April 2005; pp. 57–64.
48. Brown, A.; Kappes, J.; Marks, J. Mitigating theme park crowding with incentives and information on mobile
devices. J. Travel Res. 2013, 52, 426–436. [CrossRef]
49. Noah, B.; Li, J.; Rothrock, L. An evaluation of touchscreen versus keyboard/mouse interaction for large screen
process control displays. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 64, 1–13. [CrossRef]
50. Diehl, K.; Zauberman, G.; Barasch, A. How taking photos increases enjoyment of experiences. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 2016, 111, 119–140. [CrossRef]
51. Tussyadiah, I.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Mediating tourist experiences: Access to places via shared videos.
Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 24–40. [CrossRef]
52. Wu, Y.; Yan, X. Post tourism experience behavior of tourists from the perspective of performance science:
Mining the information of online travel notes. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 8, 1–6.
53. Lee, I.-J.; Chen, C.-H.; Su, C.-Y. App based souvenirs and entry tickets: A new means of enhancing post visit
memories: A case study from Taiwan. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 24, 177–185. [CrossRef]
54. Ningbo Museum. Available online: www.nbmuseum.cn (accessed on 10 January 2020).
55. Wikipedia. Ningbo Museum. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningbo_Museum (accessed on
10 January 2020).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4157 18 of 18

56. Somekh, B.; Lewin, C. (Eds.) Research Methods in the Social Sciences; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2005.
57. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.;
Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).