Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research

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

Destination brand experience and visitor

behavior: Testing a scale in the tourism context
Stuart J. Barnes a,⇑, Jan Mattsson b,1, Flemming Sørensen b,2
a
University of Kent, United Kingdom
b
Roskilde University, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Destination branding has developed considerably as a topic area in

Received 27 December 2013 the last decade with numerous conceptualizations focusing on dif-
Revised 4 June 2014 ferent aspects of the brand. However, a unified view has not yet
Accepted 11 June 2014
emerged. This paper examines destination branding via a new
Available online 5 July 2014
conceptualization, destination brand experience (DBE), which pro-
Coordinating Editor: Metin Kozak vides a more holistic and unified view of the destination brand. It
examines the direct and mediated role of DBE components in
Keywords: determining revisit intentions and word-of-mouth recommenda-
Destination brand experience tions. The findings suggest that DBE is an important determinant
PLS path modeling of all study outcomes, but that there is a strong mediating role of
Satisfaction satisfaction and distinct variation in significant DBE components,
Loyalty with sensory DBE playing a leading role. The paper concludes with
implications for research and practice.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

A brand can provide a significant means of differentiation and thus competitive advantage for
products and services (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Gardner & Levy, 1955;
Keller, 1993). This is important whether the product or service is a razor, breakfast cereal, insurance
policy, or a tourist destination. While branded consumer products have a longstanding academic

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1634 888839; fax: +44 1634 888890.
E-mail addresses: s.j.barnes@kent.ac.uk (S.J. Barnes), mattsson@ruc.dk (J. Mattsson), flemmiso@ruc.dk (F. Sørensen).
1
Tel.: +45 46742506; fax: +45 46743081.
2
Tel.: +45 46743312; fax: +45 46743081.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.002
0160-7383/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
122 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

literature, the literature on destination branding is of much more recent origin. The destination is also
a complex product, not least because it is an amalgam of different tourist products and is ‘‘also a per-
ceptual concept, which can be interpreted subjectively by consumers, depending amongst other
things, on their travel itinerary, cultural background, purpose of visit . . .’’ (Buhalis, 2000, p. 97). More
generally, as noted by Govers, Go, and Kumar (2007), tourism is a consumption experience that
‘‘designates those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive
aspects of one’s experience of products’’ (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982, p. 92). Destination branding
is a powerful marketing tool that can build a positive image and emotional links with visitors and
underpinning destination branding are the perceived experiences that a visitor will have at a destina-
tion (Morgan, Pritchard, & Pride, 2004). For the purposes of this study, destinations are considered as
‘‘a defined geographical region which is understood by its visitors as a unique entity, with a political
and legislative framework for tourism marketing and planning’’ (ibid, p. 98).
To understand, explain and predict consumer behavior with respect to destination brands, many
mainstream marketing concepts, theories and frameworks have been applied. These have included
those on: destination image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Kotler & Gertner, 2004), customer-based
brand equity (Boo, Busser, & Baloglu, 2009; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007), destination brand personality
(Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007), and destination brand identity
(Cai, 2002; Govers & Go, 2004). However, these brand conceptualizations have been criticized for
being incomplete, generalized, and for not capturing the full range of experiences impacting on the
consumer from brand stimuli (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). Recently, a new conceptualiza-
tion has emerged—that of brand experience, which provides a more complete evaluation based on
sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral dimensions of the brand (Brakus et al., 2009). While
brand attitudes are general evaluations, brand experiences ‘‘include specific sensations, feelings, cog-
nitions, and behavioral responses triggered by specific brand stimuli. For example, experiences may
include specific feelings, not just an overall liking.’’ (Brakus et al., 2009, p. 53). This broader conceptu-
alization has yet to be applied to tourism research. The contribution of this paper is to apply this new
theoretical concept to destination brands to focus on the concept of destination brand experience
(DBE).
The purpose of this study is to determine whether DBE is a significant determinant of visitor out-
comes including satisfaction, intention to recommend and intention to revisit a destination. In partic-
ular, we are interested to determine which elements of DBE impact on visitor outcomes by using an
experience model and a range of destinations. The study focuses on purposive sampling of three loca-
tions (a semi-rural region in Denmark and two very different cities in Sweden) for data collection and
utilizes partial least squares path modeling for its analysis.

Literature and hypotheses

Approaches to destination branding

Within the burgeoning literature on tourism marketing, numerous conceptualizations have been
applied to understand and explain tourist behavior, most of them adapted from the mainstream mar-
keting literature (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Keller, 1993). Within this developing literature base, one key strand
of literature is that on destination branding. Table 1 provides an overview of key branding concepts
adapted from the marketing literature and applied to the tourism context. In each case the original
concept name and early marketing sources are provided along with the name and a selected definition
of the adapted concept in the tourism research literature.
Much of the research in the area of destination branding has focused on destination image, but not
necessarily traditional branding (Baloglu, 1996; Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Bigné, Sánchez, & Sánchez,
2001), although more recently some authors have attempted to integrate destination image with
other branding concepts (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2007; Nandan, 2005; Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011). Recent
evidence suggests complex, nested brand associations in tourism. For example, Deng and Li (2014) use
image transfer theory to empirically demonstrate that brand associations from events transfer to des-
tination image, while Nicolau and Mas (2014) use associative network theory to show that some
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 123

Table 1
Overview of Key Branding Concepts Applied in the Tourism Context.

Name of Marketing Source Name of Tourism Definition Definition

Marketing Marketing Source Source
Concept Concept in
Tourism
Brand Image Newman (1957), Destination Image Lawson and ‘‘ . . . the sum of beliefs Kotler and
Dichter (1985), Baud-Bovy and impressions Gertner (2004, p.
Aaker (1991), (1977), people hold about 42)
Keller (1993) Crompton place. Images represent
(1979) a simplification of a
larger number of
associations and pieces
of information
connected to a place.
They are a product of
the mind trying to
process and pick out
essential information
from huge amounts of
data about a place’’
Brand Identity Kapferer (1998), Destination Brand Cai (2002), A general definition Aaker and
Aaker and Identity Govers and from marketing that is Joachimsthaler
Joachimsthaler Go (2004) relevant in the tourism (2000, p. 40)
(2000) context: ‘‘. . . a set of
associations the brand
strategist seeks to
create or maintain’’
Customer-Based Aaker (1991), Consumer-Based Kim and Kim ‘‘Brand equity . . . Nam et al. (2011,
Brand Equity Keller (1993) Brand Equity (for a (2005), encompasses brand p. 1011)
Destination) Konecnik and image (e.g., perception
Gartner of service quality) and
(2007), Boo at brand familiarity . . .
al. (2009) brand equity entails
favourable disposition
that may not
necessarily result in
purchasing behaviour’’
Brand Personality Aaker (1997) Destination Ekinci and ‘‘. . . the set of human Ekinci and
(Brand) Hosany characteristics Hosany (2006, p.
Personality (2006), associated with a 127)
Murphy et al. destination’’
(2007)
Brand Experience Brakus et al. Not yet applied None Not applicable None
(2009)

destinations might free-ride on collective national brands. Stepchenkova and Li (2014) further dem-
onstrate that such brand associations can be captured though top-of-mind evaluations. Overall, the
destination branding literature has developed substantially over the past decade and a half and has
provided significant implications for travel destination management, developing into a rich stream
of practical research (Boo et al., 2009; Buhalis, 2000; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007).
The general marketing literature contains a number of models which authors suggest cover the
essential characteristics of brands such as customer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993; Yoo &
Donthu, 2001), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), brand image (Aaker, 1991), and brand identity
(Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Kapferer, 1998). These models have different foci. For example,
whereas customer-based brand equity attempts assess the differential effects of brand knowledge
to the marketing of the brand, via sub-constructs such as brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived
quality of the brand and brand associations, brand personality strives to catch the personality traits
that consumers see in the brand.
124 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

One of the most recent conceptualizations for measuring the response to a brand is that of brand
experience. Brakus et al. (2009) criticize the existing brand constructs for providing incomplete and
generalized conceptualizations that do not capture the full range of experiences impacting on the con-
sumer from brand stimuli. Brand experience, while related, is quite different to concepts such as brand
attitudes, brand personality, brand involvement and brand attachment. Brand experience provides a
more holistic evaluation of a brand—a gestalt of experiences. While brand attitudes are general assess-
ments, brand experiences involve particular sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses
as a result of particular brand stimuli (Brakus et al., 2009, p. 53). Similarly, brand personality is an
inferential type of brand association that does not imply that consumers experience actual sensations,
feelings, cognitions and behavioral responses; in essence, customers merely project particular
characteristics of brand personality onto a specific brand.
Brakus et al. (2009) point out that much of the research on experiences has focused on utilitarian
product attributes and category experiences rather than brands and as such there is a dearth of liter-
ature on service brand experiences. They examine philosophical, cognitive and marketing experience
literature with a view to broadening the concept and measurement of brand experience. Drawing on
the work of the philosopher Dewey (1925) and later research by Dubé and LeBel (2003), Brakus et al.
(2009) suggest that experience goes beyond knowledge to include ‘‘intellectual experiences resulting
from knowledge, experiences also include perceiving (through the senses), feeling, and doing’’ (p. 54).
They further cite the support from Pinker (1997) in cognitive science for these specific human mental
responses to environmental cues. From the experience marketing literature, Brakus et al. (2009) draw
on the work of Pine and Gilmore (1999) in retail environments and Schmitt (1999) for a variety of con-
sumer product brands to identify five key areas of consumer experience: sense, feel, think, act and
relate, stating that ‘‘the feel experience includes moods and emotions. The think experience includes
convergent/analytical and divergent/imaginative thinking. The act experience refers to motor actions
and behavioral experiences. Finally, the relate experience refers to social experiences’’ (p. 54).
Brakus et al. (2009) propose and rigorously test a new scale for brand experience. The scale is devel-
oped based on a comprehensive set of six studies to develop and test the scale items and final scale. Doz-
ens of brands were examined, including LEGO, iPod, Clinique, Sudoku, W Hotels and Tropicana, although
none of the brands examined in the study were specifically tourist destinations. The final brand experi-
ence scale is composed of four aspects: sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral brand experience.
Sensory brand experience refers to bodily experiences based on visual, aural, olfactory, gustatory and
tactile experiences, e.g. the sound of activity in the open-air market, the taste of the food, the feel of
the sand beneath one’s feet, the beauty of the city’s skyline, or the smell of the forest. Affective brand
experience refers to feelings, sentiments and emotions, e.g. feeling welcome in the hotel or a love of
the city’s architecture. Behavioral brand experience refers to physical actions, bodily experiences and
behaviors, e.g. being incited to dance in a nightclub or windsurf in the ocean. Finally, intellectual brand
experience refers to thought, stimulation of curiosity and problem-solving, e.g. a thought-provoking
museum exhibit or economical souvenir purchase. While other authors in tourism marketing have uti-
lized constructs that may be construed as sensory, affective, behavioral or intellectual (e.g. Bigné,
Andreu, & Gnoth, 2005; de Rojas & Camarero, 2008; del Bosque & San Martin, 2008), the Brakus et al.
(2009) model provides the first to formally, rigorously and systematically create a unified model that
captures four key dimensions of DBE. The model appears particularly pertinent for destination branding
and this study provided an opportunity to test the relevance of the model in this context.

Research model and hypotheses

Brand experience applies to all kinds of products and services, including complex experiential
products such as are found in tourism (Buhalis, 2000). There is a developed literature that links aspects
of destination branding, including the scales discussed above, to satisfaction and brand loyalty (e.g.
Chi & Qu, 2008; Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011). Similarly, Brakus et al. (2009), drawing on the earlier
work of Pine and Gilmore (1999), state that ‘‘. . .because experience provides value, we expect that the
more a brand evokes multiple experience dimensions, and therefore has a higher overall score on the
scale, the more satisfied a consumer will be with the brand’’ (p. 63). They argue that since brand
experiences create pleasurable outcomes, these will affect future-oriented decision making: consum-
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 125

ers are more likely to make repeat purchases and recommendations to others (Brakus et al., 2009).
Brakus et al. (2009) further find empirical support for the relationship between the overall brand
experience scale and both customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in the sixth of their studies,
examining brands in a variety of categories including computers, clothing, water, cars, newspapers
and sneakers (shoes). However, the study did not examine the relationship between the individual
brand experience scale components and both satisfaction and brand loyalty or examine these relation-
ships in the context of tourism. Notwithstanding, some of these relationships have been alluded to in
tourism studies. For example, del Bosque & San Martin (2008) examine the cognitive and affective
models of tourist behavior and point out that in the cognitive model ‘‘the key elements are the mental
representations of objects such as knowledge and beliefs, i.e. cognitions. Individuals would process
external information of the tourist experience in order to form their own beliefs and judgments’’ (p.
553) while the emotional model ‘‘is based on the assumption that feelings are an important
component of the experience since destinations are considered to include, for example, sensory plea-
sures, daydreams and enjoyments’’ (p. 553). The brand experience scale, by its very nature, integrates
both of these approaches through affective (emotional model) and intellectual (cognitive model) com-
ponents, while also including sensory and behavioral components. The components are considered
important for explaining decision-making and behavior processes, including satisfaction and loyalty.
We believe that this study provides an important opportunity to both understand the individual
components of brand experience (via the use of a four-dimensional brand experience model) and to
test the relationships in a new context, destination branding. The degree of visitor loyalty is typically
measured via two key constructs: a visitor’s intention to revisit a destination and a visitor’s willing-
ness to recommend a destination to others (Chi & Qu, 2008; del Bosque & San Martín, 2008;
Oppermann, 2000; Simpson & Siquaw, 2008). It is important to note that the pattern of significant
brand experience constructs may vary according to the specific tourism context and characteristics
(in the same way that Gentile, Spiller, & Noci, 2007, find that dimensions of experience vary depending
on product characteristics for consumer goods). Thus, we propose that:

H1. A positive (H2a. sensory, H2b. affective, H2c. behavioral and H2d. intellectual) DBE will increase
visitor satisfaction with the destination.

H2. A positive (H2a. sensory, H2b. affective, H2c. behavioral and H2d. intellectual) DBE will increase
visitor intention to revisit the destination.

H3. A positive (H2a. sensory, H2b. affective, H2c. behavioral and H2d. intellectual) DBE will increase
visitor intention to recommend the destination.
There is a strong body of literature linking visitor satisfaction, typically seen as a post-purchase
assessment (Oliver, 1981), and destination loyalty in the tourism context (Alexandris, Kouthouris, &
Meligdis, 2006; Bramwell, 1998; del Bosque & San Martín, 2008; Nam et al., 2011; Pritchard &
Howard, 1997; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Building on research in marketing, evidence has shown that more
satisfied customers tend to purchase more products or services and to spread positive word-of-mouth
that is likely to influence others to become customers (Maxham, 2001; Mittal & Kamakura, 2001;
Oliver, 1997; Reicheld, 1996), and this has been shown to hold in many different contexts, including
retail banking, mobile commerce, hotels and hairdressing (Lin & Wang, 2006; Maxham, 2001; Rust &
Zahoric, 1993). In the tourism context, the same relationships have been empirically supported in
numerous studies (Assaker, Esponsito Vinzi, & O’Connor, 2011; Campo-Martínez, Garau-Vadell, &
Martínez-Ruiz, 2009; Chi & Qu, 2008; del Bosque & San Martín, 2008; Nam et al., 2011; Yuksel,
Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010). Thus, in this study we posit that:

H4. Higher visitor satisfaction will positively influence visitor intention to revisit the destination.

H5. Higher visitor satisfaction will positively influence visitor intention to recommend the
destination.
126 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Evidence suggests that satisfaction typically plays a mediating role between many branding con-
structs and loyalty. For example, Chi and Qu (2008) found that satisfaction fully mediated the relation-
ship between destination image and destination loyalty. Nam et al. (2011) found that satisfaction
partially mediated several relationships between components of a decomposed consumer-based
brand equity model and brand loyalty. Similarly, Osman and Sentosa (2013) found a significant medi-
ating effect for satisfaction between service quality and visitor loyalty. Brakus et al. (2009) state that:
‘‘brand experience is also likely to result in further processing and thus affect satisfaction and loyalty
indirectly’’ (p. 63) and demonstrate empirical evidence for roughly equal direct and indirect effects of
brand experience on loyalty (through satisfaction). However, as yet, the role of satisfaction in medi-
ated relationships between individual brand experience components and brand loyalty has not been
explored. We therefore intend to examine the mediating role of satisfaction between a model of indi-
vidual DBE constructs and brand loyalty components. The testing of this model in the context of tour-
ism is also a new dimension to the examination of these hypotheses. Thus we posit:

H6. The relationship between (H6a. sensory, H6b. affective, H6c. behavioral and H6d. intellectual)
DBE and visitor intention to revisit the destination will be positively mediated by visitor satisfaction
with the destination.

H7. The relationship between (H6a. sensory, H6b. affective, H6c. behavioral and H6d. intellectual)
DBE and visitor intention to recommend the destination will be positively mediated by visitor satis-
faction with the destination.
To provide a comprehensive test of the research model, illustrated in Fig. 1, in the tourism context,
we took a purposive approach to selecting destination brand locations. Thus, to test the research
model, we developed three different studies in different parts of Scandinavia, each with a very differ-
ent tourist experience. For study one, we wished to select an area which is rural and peripheral, but
that still has a clear name, location, and demarcation as islands. The area selected was Lolland-Falster,
an area of Denmark typically associated with beach holidays. As a contrast, we wished to focus on two
geographically close but very different cities in another country, Sweden. The first is a small city that is
both a cultural and religious centre. It is perceived as traditional and academic, and hosts the largest
university in Scandinavia. The second city is ‘‘in transition’’ from heavy industry to services and high

Sensory
Desnaon Brand
Experience

Intenon to
Revisit
Affecve
Desnaon Brand
Experience

Sasfacon
Behavioral
Desnaon Brand
Experience
Intenon to
Recommend
Intellectual
Desnaon Brand
Experience

Destination Brand Experience

Fig. 1. Research Model.

 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 127

technology. The city is nearly three times as large, the third largest city in Sweden, with a substantial
migrant population and considerable investment in new infrastructure. We selected these two cities
in order to triangulate country against two cities that are geographically close but very different in size
and composition.

Study one: the Lolland-Falster region of Denmark

Background to study one

Tourism is a very developed industry in Denmark, with 4.5 million visitors in 2008 (UNWTO, 2010).
However, its contribution to GDP is relatively small at US$6.2 billion (1.8%) in 2011, ranking it 44th in
the world for absolute value and 152nd in the world for proportion of GDP (World Tourism and Trade
Council, 2012). The study focuses on the Lolland-Falster region of Denmark (http://www.visitlolland-
falster.com/). This comprises two islands in the south-east of Denmark that are a popular tourist des-
tination: Falster (which is known for its beaches along the coast of the Baltic Sea and Denmark’s south-
ernmost point, Gedser, which has ferry links to Germany) and Lolland (a flat island which includes,
among other things, Knuthenborg Safari Park, holiday resorts, cafés, restaurants, discotheques, small
villages, and the Fuglsang Art Museum). The islands have a population of 107,000 people and the larg-
est town is Nykøbing Falster with approximately 20,000 inhabitants (Danish Statistical Institute,
2012). The dominant types of accommodation in the destination are self catering vacation houses
and apartments, as well as camping parks. The area enjoys a significant number of tourists, primarily
repeat visitors of families with children attracted to the beaches; overnight stays plus day visitors
totalled more than 4.5 million in 2008, 70–80% as repeat visitors (Brandt & Thessen, 2011). The des-
tination attracts mainly Danish and German tourists and to a lesser degree Dutch, Norwegian and
Swedish tourists. Due to the nature of the tourist activity—family beach holidays—we anticipate that
the sensory element will play an important role in determining the three outcome measures and that
this will be more important than the other experience measures.

Method for study one

Data were collected via a survey at two tourist offices in Lolland-Falster, Marielyst and Nykøbing
Falster, between the 12th and 18th of July 2010. The questionnaire was respondent-completed, but
assistance was available when requested. The survey utilized the recent brand experience scale of
Brakus et al. (2009), modified to reflect the specific domain under investigation. The scale is composed
of four aspects of brand experience: sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. In addition, the sur-
vey also collected single-item measures of satisfaction (‘‘My stay on Lolland-Falster has been satisfac-
tory’’), intention to recommend (‘‘I will recommend others to visit Lolland-Falster’’), and revisit
intention (‘‘I would like to return to Lolland-Falster again another time’’) (adapted from Oliver,
1997). Within the tourism literature, the disconfirmation paradigm has been widely employed but
heavily criticized due to various issues, including those surrounding the chain of causality and in
the complex and ambiguous nature of products that are hard to evaluate (Assaker, Esposito Vinzi, &
O’Connor, 2011). Consequently, in line with the suggestion of Tse and Wilton (1988), the use of a glo-
bal, single-item measure of tourists’ satisfaction is recommended (Assaker, Esposito Vinzi, & O’Connor,
2011; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000). Items were measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, where 4 = neutral. In all, 360 usable responses were
received, 176 (48.9%) from Marielyst and 184 (51.1%) from Nykøbing Falster. The majority of respon-
dents were German (50.3%), Danish (29.7%) or Norwegian (7.8%). All were tourists. Respondents typ-
ically stayed in the location for 1–2 days (30.6%) or 3–5 days (31.3%).
Tables 2 and 3 present the reliability and validity of the DBE construct based on a confirmatory fac-
tor analysis using XLSTAT. Overall, the composite reliability (CR) for the sub-constructs ranged from
0.791 to 0.851, well above the recommended level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). All items loaded on their
expected constructs very strongly at p < .001. Convergent validity was measured by average variance
extracted (AVE) and ranged from 0.580 to 0.669, again above the recommend level of 0.50 (Fornell &
128 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Table 2
Psychometric analysis of the brand experience construct in study one.

Sub-construct Items Mean Std. Loading Std. Critical

Dev. Error Ratio (t-
value)
Sensory DBE 1: Lolland-Falster makes a strong impression on my 5.488 1.227 0.863 0.020 44.085⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.669; senses, visually and in other ways
CR = 0.851) 2: I find Lolland-Falster interesting in a sensory way 5.127 1.383 0.849 0.027 31.653⁄⁄⁄
3: Lolland-Falster does not appeal to my senses (r) 5.751 1.639 0.736 0.052 14.219⁄⁄⁄
Affective DBE 4: Lolland-Falster induces feelings and sentiments 4.651 1.671 0.822 0.043 19.083⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.601; 5: I do not have strong emotions for Lolland-Falster 5.053 1.826 0.729 0.077 9.456⁄⁄⁄
CR = 0.815) (r)
6: Lolland-Falster is an emotional area 4.463 1.568 0.772 0.050 15.550⁄⁄⁄
Behavioral DBE 7: I engage in physical activities and behaviors 4.990 1.595 0.839 0.064 13.159⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.583; when I am on Lolland-Falster
CR = 0.791) 8: Lolland-Falster gives me bodily experiences 4.792 1.548 0.825 0.062 13.327⁄⁄⁄
9: Lolland-Falster is not activity oriented (r) 5.278 1.780 0.605 0.119 5.069⁄⁄⁄
Intellectual DBE 10: I engage in a lot of thinking when I am on 4.778 1.658 0.752 0.048 15.520⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.580; Lolland-Falster
CR = 0.814) 11: Lolland-Falster does not make me think (r) 5.475 1.628 0.669 0.073 9.101⁄⁄⁄
12: Lolland-Falster stimulates my curiosity and 4.935 1.523 0.853 0.041 20.667⁄⁄⁄
problem solving
⁄⁄⁄
Note: denotes p < .001; (r) indicates reverse-coded items.

Table 3
Test for discriminant validity in study one (Squared correlations < AVE).

SEN AFF BEH INT SAT WOM REV AVE

Sensory DBE (SEN) 1 0.420 0.168 0.342 0.193 0.231 0.218 0.669
Affective DBE (AFF)) 0.420 1 0.139 0.412 0.085 0.094 0.074 0.601
Behavioural DBE (BEH) 0.168 0.139 1 0.143 0.063 0.062 0.079 0.583
Intellectual DBE (INT) 0.342 0.412 0.143 1 0.093 0.117 0.085 0.580
Satisfaction (SAT) 0.193 0.085 0.063 0.093 1 0.521 0.417 –
Intention to Recommend (WOM) 0.231 0.094 0.062 0.117 0.521 1 0.595 –
Intention to Revisit (REV) 0.218 0.074 0.079 0.085 0.417 0.595 1 –
AVE 0.669 0.601 0.583 0.580 – – –

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.

Larcker, 1981). Similarly, all items loaded more strongly on their own construct (Chin, 1998) and the
AVEs for constructs were considerably larger than squared intercorrelations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Results of study one

The results of testing the research model using PLS path modeling in XLSTAT are presented in
Table 4 (testing Hypotheses 1 to 5). The results of mediation tests using Preacher and Hayes (2008)
are shown in Table 5 (testing Hypothesis 6 and 7). Overall, the research model has a good fit with
the data. The goodness of fit indices shown in Table 4 appear acceptable, with the relative goodness
of fit above the 0.90 level (Esposito Vinzi, Chin, Henseler, & Wang, 2010; Henseler & Sarstedt, 2013).
As we can see from Tables 4 and 5, there is demonstrable support for each of the hypotheses. In
particular, in Table 4 there is very strong support for the sensory DBE component of the DBE scale
in significantly determining satisfaction (H1a: b = 0.347, p < .001), intention to revisit (H2a:
b = 0.227, p < .001) and intention to recommend (H3a: b = 0.259, p < .001). None of the other DBE com-
ponents were significant in determining the outcome measures. Similarly, there is strong support for
the relationships between satisfaction and both intention to revisit (H4: b = 0.492, p < .001) and
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 129

Table 4
Test of research model in study one.

Relationship Path Coeff. St. error t Pr > |t| f2

Sensory DBE ? Satisfaction 0.347 0.061 5.684 <0.001 0.091
Affective DBE ? Satisfaction 0.054 0.065 0.836 0.404 0.002
Behavioural DBE ? Satisfaction 0.081 0.050 1.613 0.108 0.007
Intellectual DBE ? Satisfaction 0.089 0.063 1.409 0.160 0.006
Satisfaction: R2 = 0.200; F = 31.052; p < .001
Sensory DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.227 0.049 4.651 <0.001 0.061
Affective DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.031 0.049 0.623 0.534 0.001
Behavioural DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.036 0.038 0.924 0.356 0.002
Intellectual DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.016 0.048 0.331 0.741 0.000
Satisfaction ? Intention to Recommend 0.607 0.040 15.053 <0.001 0.640
WOM: R2 = 0.539; F = 84.604; p < .001
Sensory DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.259 0.056 4.609 <0.001 0.060
Affective DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.067 0.057 1.171 0.243 0.004
Behavioural DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.060 0.045 1.353 0.177 0.005
Intellectual DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.000 0.056 0.002 0.998 0.000
Satisfaction ? Intention to Revisit 0.492 0.047 10.512 <0.001 0.312
Revisit Intention: R2 = 0.411; F = 48.020; p < .001
Goodness of Fit Index GoF GoF (Bootstrap) St. Error Critical ratio (CR)
Absolute 0.48 0.029 16.933
0.49
Relative 0.91 0.026 35.546
0.90
Outer model 0.99 0.006 153.383
0.99
Inner model 0.92 0.024 37.784
0.91

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.

Table 5
Mediated effects through satisfaction in the research model: study one.

IV DV Effect St. Err. Z p

Sensory DBE Intention to Revisit .076 .014 5.547 <.001
Affective DBE Intention to Revisit .055 .013 4.339 <.001
Behavioral DBE Intention to Revisit .054 .014 4.028 <.001
Intellectual DBE Intention to Revisit .051 .013 3.899 <.001
Sensory DBE Intention to Recommend .084 .015 5.691 <.001
Affective DBE Intention to Recommend .060 .014 4.420 <.001
Behavioral DBE Intention to Recommend .057 .015 3.828 <.001
Intellectual DBE Intention to Recommend .058 .014 4.100 <.001

Note: IV – independent variable; DV – dependent variable.

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.

intention to recommend (H5: b = 0.607, p < .001). Overall, significant proportions of variance in the
outcome measures are explained by the research model including 54% of intention to recommend
(R2 = 0.539; F = 84.604; p < .001), 41% of intention to revisit (R2 = 0.411; F = 48.020; p < .001) and
20% of satisfaction (R2 = 0.200; F = 31.052; p < .001).
In investigating the mediating effect of satisfaction on the relationship between DBE and both
intention to revisit and intention to recommend we again find strong support. Satisfaction acts as a
very strong mediator for all elements for DBE but this is particularly strong for sensory DBE, with
an effect size of .076 for intention to revisit (H6a: z = 5.547, p < .001) and .084 for intention to recom-
mend (H7a: z = 5.691, p < .001).
130 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Study two: the city of Malmö in Sweden

Background to study two

The second study focuses on Malmö (http://www.malmotown.com/en/), the third largest city in
Sweden and one of the largest in Scandinavia with 309,105 residents (on 31st March 2013)
(Statistics Sweden, 2013). Travel and tourism makes a relatively small contribution to the Swedish
economy, with a direct contribution of SEK60.9 billion (US$9.4 billion) in 2011 (1.8% of GDP), ranking
it 38th in the world for absolute value and 155th in the world for proportion of GDP contribution
(World Travel & Tourism Council, 2012). Sweden’s local tourism is very strong: of a total of 36.7 mil-
lion nights spent in Sweden by tourists in 2010, only 11.2 million were spent by non-residents from
outside Sweden (Eurostat, 2012).
Overnight and day visitors in Malmö spent SEK6.9 billion in 2012 (Malmö Turism, 2013). Overall,
1.8 million visitors stayed overnight for a total of 4.3 million overnight stays, and 5.1 million day
trips to Malmö took place: Swedish visitors accounted for 65% of visits (Malmö Turism, 2013).
The majority of overseas visitors were from Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Malmö
is a cosmopolitan city where one third of the population are from other countries, contributing to
aspects such as the culture and food of the city. Cultural attractions include museums, galleries,
and exotic food and goods from Asia and the Middle East. The European Song Contest was held
in the city’s new Malmö Arena in 2013, and could contribute towards image transfer (Deng & Li,
2014). A number of sites in the centre of the city are presently being redeveloped, including a
new central train station. We expect that sensory DBE will be important in determining visitor out-
comes—particularly via the variety of exotic sights, sounds and tastes given the ethnic and cultural
diversity and ‘‘transition state’’ of the city centre.

Method for study two

Data were collected in February 2013 using a survey administered via both iPad and iPhone. The
questionnaire was respondent-completed, but research assistants helped if requested. The survey
again utilized the brand experience scale of Brakus et al. (2009) from study one. Based on feedback
from academic colleagues regarding the use of single-item scales in study one, multi-item measures
of outcome variables were used in this study. For satisfaction the measurement items were: ‘‘I am
pleased overall with Malmö as a destination’’, ‘‘Malmö is a delightful destination’’, and ‘‘I am com-
pletely satisfied with the visit to Malmö’’. These items were modified for the tourism context based
upon Seiders, Voss, Grewal, and Godfrey (2005). For intention to revisit the survey items were: ‘‘I
would like to revisit Malmö in the future’’, ‘‘It is likely that I will revisit Malmö’’, and ‘‘I intend to revisit
Malmö in the future’’ (adapted from Oliver, 1997; Ziethaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). For inten-
tion to recommend, the scale items used were: ‘‘I would recommend the destination of Malmö to
my friends’’, ‘‘If my friends were looking for a holiday destination, I would tell them to try Malmö’’,
and ‘‘I am likely to spread positive word-of-mouth about the destination of Malmö’’ (after Maxham
& NeteMeyer, 2003). All items were measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree, where 4 = neutral.
A total of 179 valid responses were received. The majority of respondents were Swedish (91.1%),
male (63.7%) and business travelers (94.4%). The mean age was 47 years (SD = 11.5 years). Respon-
dents typically stayed in the location for one day (48.6%) or two days (37.4%). Most respondents
had visited the destination before, with 79.1% visiting four or more times previously.
Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate the reliability and validity of the DBE construct via a confirmatory factor
analysis using XLSTAT. Overall, the CR for the sub-constructs exceeded the recommended level of 0.7
(Nunnally, 1978), ranging from 0.841 to 0.935, and all items loaded on their expected constructs very
significantly (p < .001). Convergent validity, as measured by AVE, ranged from 0.610 to 0.828, well
above the recommend level of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Further, all measurement items loaded
more strongly on their own construct than any other (Chin, 1998) and the AVE for each construct
was considerably larger than the squared intercorrelations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 131

Table 6
Psychometric data for constructs in study two.

Sub-construct Items Mean Std. Dev. Loading Std. Error Critical Ratio (t-value)
Sensory DBE SENSORY1 4.322 1.273 0.836 0.031 27.064⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.742; CR = 0.896) SENSORY2 4.374 1.288 0.871 0.028 31.551⁄⁄⁄
SENSORY 3 4.833 1.623 0.869 0.035 24.909⁄⁄⁄
Affective DBE AFFECTIVE1 4.615 1.216 0.726 0.083 8.900⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.744; CR = 0.892) AFFECTIVE2 4.690 1.865 0.970 0.011 89.761⁄⁄⁄
Behavioral DBE BEHAVIORAL1 3.029 1.978 0.684 0.177 4.052⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.610; CR = 0.841) BEHAVIORAL2 2.908 1.676 0.857 0.099 9.000⁄⁄⁄
BEHAVIORAL3 4.506 1.338 0.721 0.116 6.228⁄⁄⁄
Intellectual DBE INTELLECTUAL1 3.920 1.821 0.792 0.061 13.244⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.629; CR = 0.841) INTELLECTUAL2 4.546 1.680 0.776 0.059 13.514⁄⁄⁄
INTELLECTUAL3 3.966 1.538 0.781 0.048 16.118⁄⁄⁄
Satisfaction SATISFACTION1 5.408 1.278 0.896 0.023 39.130⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.744; CR = 0.900) SATISFACTION2 4.701 1.331 0.905 0.019 46.348⁄⁄⁄
SATISFACTION3 5.379 1.243 0.772 0.059 13.270⁄⁄⁄
Intention to Revisit REVISIT1 5.759 1.326 0.924 0.026 34.742⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.680; CR = 0.880) REVISIT2 6.184 1.165 0.817 0.069 12.006⁄⁄⁄
REVISIT3 6.397 1.092 0.671 0.113 6.013⁄⁄⁄
Intention to Recommend INTELLECTUAL1 5.287 1.575 0.930 0.014 68.157⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.828; CR = 0.935) INTELLECTUAL2 4.316 1.735 0.904 0.015 60.799⁄⁄⁄
INTELLECTUAL3 5.241 1.497 0.900 0.025 36.071⁄⁄⁄
⁄⁄⁄
Note: denotes p < .001.

Table 7
Test for discriminant validity in study two (Squared correlations < AVE).

SEN AFF BEH INT SAT WOM REV AVE

Sensory DBE (SEN) 1 0.403 0.072 0.251 0.442 0.349 0.528 0.742
Affective DBE (AFF)) 0.403 1 0.070 0.205 0.284 0.163 0.327 0.744
Behavioural DBE (BEH) 0.072 0.070 1 0.068 0.044 0.032 0.076 0.610
Intellectual DBE (INT) 0.251 0.205 0.068 1 0.148 0.087 0.200 0.629
Satisfaction (SAT) 0.442 0.284 0.044 0.148 1 0.315 0.490 0.744
Intention to Recommend (WOM) 0.349 0.163 0.032 0.087 0.315 1 0.430 0.680
Intention to Revisit (REV) 0.528 0.327 0.076 0.200 0.490 0.430 1 0.828
AVE 0.742 0.744 0.610 0.629 0.744 0.680 0.828

Results of study two

As in study one, the research model was tested using PLS path modeling in XLSTAT and the results
are given in Table 8 (testing Hypotheses 1 to 5). The results of mediation tests (Preacher & Hayes,
2008) are shown in Table 9 (testing Hypothesis 6 and 7). Again the research model displayed accept-
able metrics for goodness of fit, with a relative goodness of fit above the recommended level of 0.90
(Esposito Vinzi et al., 2010).
Tables 8 and 9 provide support for each of the hypotheses in our research model. As in study one,
Table 8 shows that sensory DBE is very significant in determining satisfaction (H1a: b = 0.534,
p < .001), intention to revisit (H2a: b = 0.391, p < .001) and intention to recommend (H3a: b = 0.381,
p < .001). In addition, and in contrast to study one, affective DBE is significantly related to satisfaction
(H1b: b = 0.175, p < .001). The effect sizes are moderate, ranging from 0.109 to 0.284 (Cohen, 1988).
None of the other DBE components were significant in determining the outcome measures. There is
also confirmation of the relationships between satisfaction and both intention to revisit (H4:
b = 0.323, p < .001) and intention to recommend (H5: b = 0.362, p < .001). Overall, there is a good level
of variance explained by the research model including 63% of intention to revisit (R2 = 0.628;
132 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Table 8
Test of research model in study two.

Relationship Path Coeff. St. error t Pr > |t| f2

Sensory DBE ? Satisfaction 0.534 0.077 6.933 <.001 0.284
Affective DBE ? Satisfaction 0.175 0.075 2.333 0.021 0.032
Behavioural DBE ? Satisfaction 0.011 0.060 0.185 0.853 0.000
Intellectual DBE ? Satisfaction 0.033 0.067 0.492 0.623 0.001
Satisfaction: R2 = 0.463; F = 36.415; p < .001
Sensory DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.381 0.073 5.231 <.001 0.163
Affective DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.095 0.064 1.495 0.137 0.013
Behavioural DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.056 0.050 1.130 0.260 0.008
Intellectual DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.060 0.056 1.073 0.285 0.007
Satisfaction ? Intention to Recommend 0.362 0.064 5.646 <.001 0.190
WOM: R2 = 0.414; F = 23.781; p < .001
Sensory DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.391 0.091 4.281 <.001 0.109
Affective DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.001 0.080 0.006 0.995 0.000
Behavioural DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.009 0.062 0.150 0.881 0.000
Intellectual DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.022 0.070 0.316 0.752 0.001
Satisfaction ? Intention to Revisit 0.323 0.081 4.006 <.001 0.096
Revisit Intention: R2 = 0.628; F = 56.755; p < .001
Goodness of Fit Index GoF GoF (Bootstrap) St. Error Critical ratio (CR)
Absolute 0.60 0.60 0.029 20.881
Relative 0.92 0.90 0.021 44.069
Outer model 0.99 0.98 0.008 117.090
Inner model 0.93 0.91 0.020 47.200

Table 9
Mediated effects through satisfaction in the research model: study two.

IV DV Effect St. Err. Z p

Sensory DBE Intention to Revisit .109 .045 2.450 .014
Affective DBE Intention to Revisit .156 .037 4.208 <.001
Behavioral DBE Intention to Revisit .059 .027 2.186 .029
Intellectual DBE Intention to Revisit .113 .030 3.827 <.001
Sensory DBE Intention to Recommend .288 .054 5.373 <.001
Affective DBE Intention to Recommend .324 .056 5.806 <.001
Behavioral DBE Intention to Recommend .125 .055 2.274 .023
Intellectual DBE Intention to Recommend .231 .051 4.502 <.001

Note: IV – independent variable; DV – dependent variable.

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.

F = 56.755; p < .001), 46% of satisfaction (R2 = 0.463; F = 36.415; p < .001) and 41% of intention to rec-
ommend (R2 = 0.414; F = 23.781; p < .001).
Table 9 examines the mediating effects of satisfaction between individual DBE components and
both intention to revisit and intention to recommend. Satisfaction significantly mediates the relation-
ships between all components of DBE and outcome measures, including between sensory DBE and
intention to revisit (H6a: effect = .109, z = 2.450, p = .014) and sensory DBE and intention to recom-
mend (H7a: effect = .288, z = 5.373, p < .001), and between affective DBE and intention to revisit
(H6b: effect = .156, z = 4.208, p < .001) and affective DBE and intention to recommend (H7b:
effect = .324, z = 5.806, p < .001).

Study three: the city of Lund in Sweden

Background to study three

Lund is a small city in the Scania province of southern Sweden (http://www.visitlund.se/en) with a
population of 113,309 (as of March 31, 2013) (Statistics Sweden, 2013). It is an ancient and culturally
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 133

rich city, dating from the 10th century, with many historic buildings and the largest and second oldest
university in Sweden, Lund University. The city has an impressive cathedral (the second largest in
Scandinavia, built 1103), a design centre funded by the founder of IKEA, and a botanical garden. There
are four major museums and a large variety of entertainment and arts, particularly live performance
theatre. Lund also benefits from a mild, oceanic climate and is very close to Denmark and Copenhagen.
It is a safe city that is easily accessible on foot and by public transport. We foresee that sensory com-
ponents of the DBE construct will be important in determining visitor outcomes, especially first-time
visitors, particularly due to its small and intimate layout, beautiful medieval streets, mild climate,
green location and visual arts attractions.

Method for study three

Data were collected using a paper-based questionnaire in the tourist office of Lund in August 2013.
The survey items from study two were used. The questionnaire was respondent-completed, but the
survey administrator assisted the respondents when requested. A total of 215 visitors responded to
the survey. The majority of respondents were female (57.7%) and tourists (87.9%). Nationalities were
mixed with the greatest proportions being Swedish (40.9%), Danish (14.9%) and German (12.6%). The
mean age was 45 years (SD = 20.2 years). The mean duration within the destination was 4.5 days
(SD = 9.5 days)
Tables 10 and 11 document tests for the reliability and validity of the DBE construct based on a
confirmatory factor analysis using XLSTAT. All levels of CR for the DBE sub-constructs are above the
recommended level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), ranging from 0.785 to 0.942. All items loaded very signif-
icantly on their expected constructs at p < .001. The level of AVE for each construct ranged from 0.540
to 0.801—above the recommended level of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and demonstrating conver-
gent validity. An examination of cross-loadings revealed that all items loaded more strongly on their
own construct (Chin, 1998) and that the AVEs for constructs were considerably larger than the
squared intercorrelations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 10
Psychometric data for constructs in study three.

Sub-construct Items Mean Std. Dev. Loading Std. Error Critical Ratio (t-value)
Sensory DBE SENSORY1 5.493 0.752 0.858 0.034 25.432⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.801; CR = 0.924) SENSORY2 5.470 0.828 0.914 0.018 50.527⁄⁄⁄
SENSORY 3 5.507 0.973 0.899 0.022 41.240⁄⁄⁄
Affective DBE AFFECTIVE1 5.284 0.856 0.698 0.036 19.272⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.648; CR = 0.863) AFFECTIVE2 4.851 1.386 0.909 0.019 46.918⁄⁄⁄
AFFECTIVE3 4.260 1.271 0.794 0.042 18.938⁄⁄⁄
Behavioral DBE BEHAVIORAL1 4.851 1.420 0.818 0.053 15.505⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.540; CR = 0.785) BEHAVIORAL2 4.130 1.092 0.683 0.070 9.716⁄⁄⁄
BEHAVIORAL3 4.833 1.290 0.688 0.069 10.173⁄⁄⁄
Intellectual DBE INTELLECTUAL1 5.070 1.137 0.895 0.021 42.600⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.831; CR = 0.940) INTELLECTUAL2 5.079 1.234 0.892 0.020 44.950⁄⁄⁄
INTELLECTUAL3 4.744 1.442 0.941 0.012 78.508⁄⁄⁄
Satisfaction SATISFACTION1 6.265 0.545 0.635 0.059 10.776⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.596; CR = 0.846) SATISFACTION2 5.940 0.984 0.789 0.045 17.713⁄⁄⁄
SATISFACTION3 5.577 1.415 0.865 0.043 20.356⁄⁄⁄
Intention to Revisit REVISIT1 6.386 0.665 0.637 0.041 15.433⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.757; CR = 0.942) REVISIT2 5.135 1.183 0.970 0.008 118.332⁄⁄⁄
REVISIT3 5.177 1.119 0.962 0.010 98.187⁄⁄⁄
Intention to Recommend INTELLECTUAL1 6.293 0.589 0.645 0.046 13.994⁄⁄⁄
(AVE = 0.587; CR = 0.887) INTELLECTUAL2 3.828 1.568 0.951 0.019 49.593⁄⁄⁄
INTELLECTUAL3 6.274 0.657 0.660 0.046 14.312⁄⁄⁄
⁄⁄⁄
Note: denotes p < .001.
134 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Table 11
Test for discriminant validity in study three (Squared correlations < AVE).

SEN AFF BEH INT SAT REV WOM AVE

Sensory DBE (SEN) 1 0.297 0.044 0.171 0.174 0.192 0.264 0.801
Affective DBE (AFF)) 0.297 1 0.132 0.232 0.161 0.214 0.196 0.648
Behavioural DBE (BEH) 0.044 0.132 1 0.098 0.058 0.073 0.075 0.540
Intellectual DBE (INT) 0.171 0.232 0.098 1 0.093 0.122 0.120 0.831
Satisfaction (SAT) 0.174 0.161 0.058 0.093 1 0.130 0.103 0.596
Intention to Revisit (REV) 0.192 0.214 0.073 0.122 0.130 1 0.337 0.757
Intention to Recommend (WOM) 0.264 0.196 0.075 0.120 0.103 0.337 1 0.587
AVE 0.801 0.648 0.540 0.831 0.596 0.757 0.587

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.

Table 12
Test of research model in study three.

Relationship Path Coeff. St. error t Pr > |t| f2

Sensory DBE ? Satisfaction 0.264 0.074 3.572 <.001 0.061
Affective DBE ? Satisfaction 0.187 0.079 2.369 0.019 0.027
Behavioural DBE ? Satisfaction 0.094 0.066 1.428 0.155 0.010
Intellectual DBE ? Satisfaction 0.076 0.072 1.057 0.292 0.005
Satisfaction: R2 = 0.231; F = 15.741; p < .001
Sensory DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.351 0.071 4.909 <.001 0.115
Affective DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.150 0.075 1.998 0.047 0.019
Behavioural DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.106 0.062 1.700 0.091 0.014
Intellectual DBE ? Intention to Recommend 0.075 0.068 1.116 0.266 0.006
Satisfaction ? Intention to Recommend 0.066 0.065 1.012 0.313 0.005
WOM: R2 = 0.323; F = 19.939; p < .001
Sensory DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.204 0.073 2.800 0.006 0.038
Affective DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.222 0.077 2.895 0.004 0.040
Behavioural DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.086 0.064 1.353 0.178 0.009
Intellectual DBE ? Intention to Revisit 0.090 0.069 1.306 0.193 0.008
Satisfaction ? Intention to Revisit 0.138 0.066 2.083 0.038 0.021
Revisit Intention: R2 = 0.296; F = 17.605; p < .001
Goodness of Fit Index GoF GoF (Bootstrap) St. Error Critical ratio (CR)
Absolute 0.44 0.46 0.033 13.205
Relative 0.78 0.76 0.036 21.484
Outer model 0.98 0.98 0.003 284.976
Inner model 0.79 0.78 0.037 21.333

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.

Table 13
Mediated effects through satisfaction in the research model: study three.

IV DV Effect St. Err. Z p

Sensory DBE Intention to Revisit .123 .037 3.321 <.001
Affective DBE Intention to Revisit .094 .028 3.332 <.001
Behavioral DBE Intention to Revisit .081 .026 3.090 .002
Intellectual DBE Intention to Revisit .073 .021 3.385 <.001
Sensory DBE Intention to Recommend .085 .030 2.844 .005
Affective DBE Intention to Recommend .080 .024 3.253 .001
Behavioral DBE Intention to Recommend .068 .022 3.055 .002
Intellectual DBE Intention to Recommend .062 .019 3.352 <.001

Note: IV – independent variable; DV – dependent variable.

Bold values indicate significance at p < .05.
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 135

Results of study three

The results of testing the research model using PLS path modeling are presented in Table 12 (test-
ing Hypotheses 1 to 5). The results of mediation tests are shown in Table 13 (testing Hypothesis 6 and
7). The metrics for goodness of fit are not quite as strong as the first two studies, and this appears to be
due particularly to the inner model (where several of the factor loadings were noted below 0.7).
Each of the hypotheses finds support in the data presented in Tables 12 and 13. Table 12 demon-
strates support for both the sensory and affective DBE components of the DBE scale in significantly
determining satisfaction (H1a: b = 0.264, p < .001; H1b: b = 0.187, p = .019), a finding shared with
study two. In line with the previous studies, sensory DBE significantly determines intention to revisit
(H2a: b = 0.204, p = .006) and intention to recommend (H3a: b = 0.351, p < .001). In addition, affective
DBE is also significantly related to intention to revisit (H2b: b = 0.222, p = .004) and intention to rec-
ommend (H3a: b = 0.150, p < .047). This is quite different to studies one and two, which demonstrated
only the effects of sensory DBE on these two outcome measures. None of the other DBE components
were significant in determining the outcome measures. There is support for the relationship between
satisfaction and intention to revisit (H4: b = 0.138, p = .038). However, unlike studies one and two,
there is no support for H5. Overall, the levels of variance explained in the outcome measures are more
modest than in the first two studies, including 32% of intention to recommend (R2 = 0.323; F = 19.939;
p < .001), 41% of intention to revisit (R2 = 0.296; F = 17.605; p < .001) and 23% of satisfaction
(R2 = 0.231; F = 15.741; p < .001).
A test for the mediating effect of satisfaction on the relationships between DBE and both intention
to revisit and intention to recommend again reveals confirmation of hypotheses 6 and 7. Satisfaction
acts as a significant mediator for all elements of DBE in our model, including sensory DBE upon inten-
tion to revisit (H6a: effect = .123, z = 3.321, p < .001) and intention to recommend (H7a: effect = .085,
z = 2.844, p = .005), and affective DBE upon intention to revisit (H6a: effect = .094, z = 3.332, p < .001)
and intention to recommend (H7a: effect = .080, z = 3.253, p = .001).

Discussion

As a result of the three studies documented above, we have found at least partial support for each
hypothesis in our research model (see Table 14). Regarding hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, which test the rela-
tionships between DBE and satisfaction, intention to revisit and intention to recommend respectively,
we have found partial support from the results. The research model is based upon an experience scale
consisting of four components of DBE and therefore we would expect only the particular aspects of
DBE that are perceived by the visitors to be revealed as significant determinants of outcomes in a par-
ticular location. Not all aspects would be expected to be significant in each location and we would

Table 14
Summary of results of hypothesis testing across the three studies.

Hypothesis Relationship Results: Study 1 Results: Study 2 Results: Study 3

H1 DBE ? Satisfaction Partially Partially Supported: Partially Supported:
Supported: H1a H1a, H1b H1a, H1b
H2 DBE ? Intention to Revisit Partially Partially Supported: Partially Supported:
Supported: H2a H2a H2a, H2b
H3 DBE ? Intention to Recommend Partially Partially Supported: Partially Supported:
Supported: H3a H3a H3a, H3b
H4 Satisfaction ? Intention to Revisit Supported Supported Supported
H5 Satisfaction ? Intention to Recommend Supported Supported Supported
H6 Mediation: Supported Supported Supported
DBE ? Satisfaction ? Intention to
Revisit
H7 Mediation: Supported Supported Supported
DBE ? Satisfaction ? Intention to
Recommend
136 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

expect the pattern to vary according to the particular destination brand experience. Generally, it
appears that the most universal element of DBE determining visitor outcomes across the studies is
sensory DBE. This construct is a significant influence on satisfaction, intention to revisit and intention
to recommend in all studies. In addition to sensory DBE, affective DBE is also a significant determinant
of outcomes in two of the studies. In the Lund study, affective DBE significantly determines satisfac-
tion, intention to revisit and intention to recommend. In the Malmö study, only satisfaction is signif-
icantly influenced by affective DBE.
The mediating role of satisfaction in our study is also notable and both H6 and H7 were supported
in all three of our studies. In all cases where a DBE construct was supported in H1, H2 or H3, the medi-
ation of that DBE construct by satisfaction was partial rather than complete. These results point to the
important supplementary nature of satisfaction in processing DBE for visitors, particularly sensory and
affective DBE. Satisfaction is not just an outcome but an important part of the process of creating
stronger DBE for visitors and should be developed and managed accordingly.
The generally superior influence of sensory DBE over affective DBE in our three studies (with the
exception of affective DBE for revisit intention in study three), provides an interesting juxtaposition
with the salient literature on destination branding. A large part of the literature appears to suggest
that emotional and cognitive experiences (typically with the former uppermost) are likely to be key
in influencing visitor satisfaction and loyalty (Bigné et al., 2005; Oliver, 1994; Phillips &
Baumgartner, 2002). However, examining the DBE construct reveals a slightly different picture, where
sensory DBE is dominant and this is then followed by affective DBE in importance. Intellectual DBE or
behavioral DBE were not significant in our studies and this is likely to be due to the type of destina-
tion: a sports-oriented destination, such as one related to skiing, would most likely rate highly for
behavioral DBE, while a murder mystery weekend at a country manor is more likely to create intellec-
tual DBE.
The results suggest that visitors’ outcomes are most driven by how they feel physiologically as their
senses encounter rich stimuli from the destination: bodily experiences based on visual and other
senses, such as aural, olfactory, gustatory and tactile experiences, e.g. the sound of activity in the
open-air market, the taste of the food, the feel of the sand beneath one’s feet, the beauty of the archi-
tecture, or the smell of the botanical garden. Affective brand experience—feelings, sentiments and
emotions—are clearly important but are not always triggers for visitor outcomes in every case. In
our research, Lund appears to trigger greater affective DBE, and this may be a function of the greater
level of religious, cultural and arts tourism in the city. However, to know more about this it would be
preferable to conduct further qualitative research to understand why certain aspects of DBE become
dominant for specific locations.

Conclusion

Destination brands are complex experiential brands. This research suggests that destination brand
experience is a significant determinant of visitor outcomes, specifically satisfaction, intention to revisit
and intention to recommend, and that satisfaction plays a key role in further processing of visitor
experiences. The validity and reliability of the scale are supported within the new destination brand
context of this study, which, to our knowledge, is the first to comprehensively apply the brand expe-
rience scale in the context of destination branding. The scale has been tested in multiple, differenti-
ated, purposively-selected studies. The application of the experience scale to understanding visitor
outcomes and examination of the mediating role of satisfaction are also important contributions of
this research. The scale appears to be a comprehensive and unified composite instrument for captur-
ing four key dimensions of DBE.
The results of our research imply that visitor outcomes are primarily driven by sensory experi-
ences, which suggest an underlying desire to fulfill hedonic needs. Sensory experiences appear to
trump affective experiences, although the latter are also very important in certain circumstances.
Behavioral and intellectual experiences appear more difficult to achieve in a tourism context (or at
least in the specific studies documented in this paper). This suggests that tourism marketers should
particularly focus on drawing attention to sensory experiences and delights in the marketing of
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 137

destination brands, drawing attention to touch, sights, sounds, tastes, and smells. Travel agents and
tourism providers should focus more on sensory aspects of visits and to design tourism experiences
from a sensory and affective perspective. For example, Arnould and Price (1993) find key mechanisms
for providing extraordinary hedonic tourist experiences, including personal growth and renewal and
‘‘communitas’’. This implies that the design of tourist experiences should provide scope for individuals
to learn and to be challenged, and to develop new, social perspectives on life.
The fulfillment of expectations has been found to be key to satisfaction and behavioral outcomes in
tourism (Yuksel & Yuksel, 2001), suggesting that visitors should be provided with brand messages that
are consistent with the destination, and ‘‘over-selling’’ should be avoided. Satisfaction acts as a proces-
sor of sensory and affective DBE, governing the relationship between DBE and visitor loyalty. In addi-
tion, current satisfaction is a strong predictor of future satisfaction (Verhoef et al., 2009). Tourism
providers should therefore take every opportunity to plan for and ensure consistent visitor relation-
ship management throughout all touch-points with a visitor and to measure and monitor the level
of satisfaction with the services delivered to visitors.
The results suggest that the DBE profile is likely to vary according to the specific destination and
that the management of the perceived DBE profile is vital. Indeed, the whole set of services and con-
text should be addressed in a systematic and consistent way, and the specific sensory experiences that
should characterize the tourism offer must be carefully selected depending on its characteristics
(Gentile et al., 2007). Tourism experiences are typically co-created, and it therefore important to fol-
low the experiential path of visitors and to provide them with all the experiential materials needed to
co-create the DBE (Cabiddu, 2013). Tourism providers that focus on customer experience-based strat-
egies are likely to outperform competitors, although typically this is the case only when combined
with efficient processes, due to the expense of such initiatives (Verhoef et al., 2009).
The results of the study suggest that DBE is a complex concept that must be carefully managed to
provide different types of DBE for different destinations. Logically, we would also expect that there
would be variation by visitor type. This paper is limited in that it is beyond its scope to examine
DBE among visitor types. For example, we might expect the DBE size and profile to vary by visitor
age, gender, purpose or nationality (Pizam & Sussmann, 1995). Further research is needed to under-
stand the role of characteristics in the relationship between DBE and visitor outcomes. If clear varia-
tion is found then successful brand experiences will need to be carefully tailored to the variations
between tourists in different international markets. This would appear to indicate that tourism mar-
keters and providers should place emphasis on comprehensive profiling of different visitors to under-
stand how they experience a destination brand in multiple dimensions, including sensory, affective,
intellectual and behavioral.
One possible limitation of our study is that the existing scale items from Brakus et al. (2009) may
have further room for improvement. For example, ‘‘gives me bodily experiences’’ could perhaps be
worded more clearly, while ‘‘stimulates my curiosity and problem solving’’ includes two terms and
could be simplified. This research is also limited in that it has focused on three destinations in two
countries in Scandinavia and received only partial support for the salient dimensions. This could be
due to difficulty in measuring some experiences, calling for further refinement of the scale. Future
research will seek to test the brand experience scale for a wider range of destination brands in a wider
variety of countries and different types of destinations that are more representative of a range of DBE
profiles, e.g. sporting activity holidays that are likely to exhibit greater behavioral DBE. We also hope
to collect larger quota samples to further test for the effect of different respondent characteristics on
DBE.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., & Meligdis, A. (2006). Increasing customers’ loyalty in a skiing resort. International Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 18(5), 414–425.
138 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139

Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20, 24–45.
Assaker, G., Esposito Vinzi, V. E., & O’Connor, P. (2011). Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination
image on tourists’ return pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism Management, 32, 890–901.
Baloglu, S. (1996). An empirical investigation of determinants of tourist destination image. Unpublished dissertation. Virginia
Polytechnic University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destination. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 11–15.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868–897.
Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism
Management, 26(6), 833–844.
Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I., & Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behavior: Inter-
relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–616.
Boo, S., Busser, J., & Baloglu, S. (2009). A model of consumer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations.
Tourism Management, 30, 219–231.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?
Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68.
Bramwell, B. (1998). User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism. Tourism Management, 19(1), 35–47.
Brandt, C. U., & Thessen, T. (2011). Turismens Økonomiske betydning i Danmark 2008 (The Economic Importance of Tourism in
Denmark 2008). Copenhagen: Visit Denmark.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21, 97–116.
Cabbidu, F. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 86–107.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720–742.
Campo-Martínez, S., Garau-Vadell, J. B., & Martínez-Ruiz, M. P. (2009). Factors influencing repeat visit to a destination: The
influence of group composition. Tourism Management, 21, 862–870.
Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination
loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29, 624–636.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern
methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillside, NJ.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424.
Danish Statistical Institute (2012). Data extracted from www.statbank.dk (January 2012).
de Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: Evidence from an
interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29(3), 525–537.
del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2),
551–573.
Deng, Q., & Li, M. (2014). A model of event-destination image transfer. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 69–82.
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. New York: Dover.
Dichter, E. (1985). What’s in an image? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2(1), 75–81.
Dubé, L., & LeBel, J. L. (2003). The content and structure of laypeople’s concept of pleasure. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2),
263–295.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of
Travel Research, 45(2), 127–139.
Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of partial least squares. New York: Springer.
Eurostat (2012). Eurostat regional yearbook 2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33, 33–39.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of experience components that
co-create value with the customer. European Management Journal, 25(5), 395–410.
Govers, R., & Go, F. M. (2004). Cultural identities constructed, imagined and experienced: A 3-gap tourism destination image
model. Tourism Interdisciplinary Journal, 52(2), 165–182.
Govers, R., Go, F. M., & Kumar, K. (2007). Virtual destination image: A new measurement approach. Annals of Tourism Research,
34(4), 977–997.
Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28,
565–580.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of
Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination personality. International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 1(1), 62–81.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1998). Strategic brand management. London: Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Kim, H. B., & Kim, W. G. (2005). The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain
restaurant. Tourism Management, 26, 549–560.
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2),
400–421.
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2004). Country as brand, product and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective.
In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding (2nd ed., pp. 40–56). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. Journal of
Travel Research, 38(1), 260–269.
 S.J. Barnes et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 48 (2014) 121–139 139

Lawson, F., & Baud-Bovy, M. (1977). Tourism and recreational development. London: Architectural Press.
Lin, H. H., & Wang, Y. S. (2006). An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts.
Information & Management, 43(3), 271–282.
Malmö Turism (2013). Malmö: Malmö Turism.
Maxham, J. (2001). Service recovery’s influence on consumer satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions.
Journal of Business Research, 54, 11–24.
Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they sow: The effects of shared values and perceived organizational
justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 46–62.
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating
effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 131–142.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (Eds.). (2004). Destination branding (2nd ed.. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations.
Journal of Travel Research, 46, 5–14.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3),
1009–1030.
Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage: A communications perspective. Brand
Management, 12(4), 264–278.
Newman, J. W. (1957). New insight, new progress, for marketing. Harvard Business Review, 35, 95–102.
Nicolau, J.L. & Mas, F.J. (2014). Detecting free riders in collective brands through a hierarchical choice process. Journal of
Travel Research (in press). doi: 10.1177/0047287513517419. http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/07/
0047287513517419.abstract.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25–48.
Oliver, R. L. (1994). Conceptual issues in the structural analysis of consumption emotion, satisfaction and quality: Evidence in a
service setting. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 16–22.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78–84.
Osman, Z., & Sentosa, I. (2013). Mediating effect of customer satisfaction on service quality and customer loyalty relationship in
Malaysian rural tourism. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 2(1), 25–37.
Phillips, D., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Consumption emotions in the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12,
243–252.
Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton.
Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourism behavior? Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 901–917.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Pritchard, M., & Howard, D. R. (1997). The loyal trader: Examining a typology of service patronage. Journal of Travel Research,
35(4), 2–10.
Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination
image. Tourism Management, 32, 465–476.
Reicheld, F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rust, R. T., & Zahoric, A. J. (1993). Customer loyalty, customer retention and market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193–215.
Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing. New York: The Free Press.
Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Grewal, D., & Godfrey, A. L. (2005). Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating influences in
a retailing context. Journal of Marketing, 69, 26–43.
Simpson, M. P., & Siquaw, J. (2008). Destination word-of-mouth: The role of traveler type, residents, and identity salience.
Tourism Management, 52, 465–478.
Statistics Sweden (2013). Folkmängd i riket, län och kommuner 31 Mars 2013 och befolkningsförändringar 1 Januari – 31 Mars
2013, available from: <http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____228187.aspx>.
Stepchenkova, S., & Li, X. (2014). Destination image: Do top-of-mind associations say it all? Annals of Tourism Research, 45,
46–62.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25,
204–212.
UNWTO (2010). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 8(2), June, available from: <http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/
UNWTO_Barom10_2_en.pdf>.
Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation:
Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41.
World Travel and Tourism Council (2012). Travel and tourism economic impact 2012: Sweden. London: WTTC.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multi-dimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of
Business Research, 51, 1–14.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural
model. Tourism Management, 26, 45–56.
Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2001). The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm: A critique. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
25(2), 107–131.
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and
conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31, 274–284.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60,
31–46.