The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-9880.htm

Smart tourism
How smart tourism technologies technologies
affect tourist destination loyalty
Nasir Azis
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Muslim Amin Received 11 January 2020
Revised 5 April 2020
School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, 17 June 2020
Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia, and 17 July 2020
Accepted 22 July 2020
Syafruddin Chan and Cut Aprilia
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate how smart tourism technologies and memorable
tourism experiences affect tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, 360 were returned (60%
response rate) and a covariance-based structural equation modeling technique was used to test the hypotheses.
Findings – The results of this study explain that smart tourism technologies and memorable tourism
experiences play essential roles in enhancing tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty.
Practical implications – This study specifies that tourists have pleasant memories and are satisfied at a
tourist destination; as a result, they are more likely to revisit and recommend a tourist destination to their
friends, family and other tourists. If a tourist has a negative experience with smart city info-structure
facilities, a tourist might reach an overall conclusion to not revisit or recommend the location to other tourists.
Originality/value – This study provides empirical evidence to support the importance of smart tourism
technologies and memorable tourism experiences in enhancing tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty.
Keywords Smart tourism technologies, Memorable tourism experiences, Tourist satisfaction,
Tourist destination loyalty
Paper type Research paper

摘要
论智慧旅游科技如何影响游客对目的地的忠诚度
研究目的 – 本论文旨在研究智慧旅游科技和难忘的旅游体验如何影响游客满意度和游客对目的地的
忠诚。
研究设计/方法/途径 – 共600份问卷发放, 并收回360份数据（回应率为60%）, 本论文采样基于协方
差的结构方程模型以测验假设。
研究结果 – 研究结果表明智慧旅游科技和难忘的旅游体验对增强游客满意度和游客对目的地的忠诚
度起到至关重要的作用。
研究实践启示 – 本论文证实游客有着美好的旅游回忆与对旅游目的地满意, 因此, 他们更愿意重游以
及向他们的朋友、家人、以及其他游客推荐这个目的地。如果游客对智慧城市信息基础建设有不好
的体验, 那么他们则会决定不会重游或者推荐这个城市给其他游客。
Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology
The authors would like to extend the appreciation to the Universitas Syiah Kuala, Aceh, Indonesia, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-9880
for support this research under Grant No. 31/UN11.2/PP/PNBP/SP3/2019. DOI 10.1108/JHTT-01-2020-0005
JHTT 研究原创性/价值 – 本论文为证实智慧旅游科技和难忘的旅游体验对加强游客满意度和游客对目的
地忠诚度的至关重要的作用方面, 提供了强有力的实践证实。
关键词 – 智慧旅游科技, 、难忘的旅游体验, 、游客满意度, 、游客目的地忠诚度
文章类型： 研究型论文

1. Introduction
Information technology plays an essential role in the tourism industry. The effect of
information technology on tourism has received attention with the birth of smart tourism
(Yoo et al., 2017) and this phenomenon of digital transformations has reached all sectors
(Ballina et al., 2019). Therefore, the concept of smart tourism technology has become the
most critical element of the tourism industry. It integrates tourist resources and advanced
information technologies, and thus it is able to provide meaningful, timely data and
interconnectivity among tourism stakeholders (Buhalis, 2019; Gretzel et al., 2015c; Johnson
and Samakovlis, 2019). By using advanced information and communication technologies
(ICTs) in smart tourism destinations, most industry players are endeavoring to enhance
tourist experiences to achieve competitive advantages. For example, by providing smart
tourism apps, tourists can use their smartphones to manage their future trip plans and
receive reviews and feedback from other travelers on their past experiences before selecting
a tourist destination (Lee et al., 2018).
Tourist experiences are critical for the tourism industry, and how smart tourism
technologies will affect tourist experiences are challenging. For example, Jeong and Shin
(2019) and Lee et al. (2018) conducted a study on smart tourism technologies in different cities
and explained that smart tourism technologies had created memorable tourism experiences
and tourist happiness. However, both studies are only focused on one destination and the
findings cannot be generalized, as different countries with different tourists will have
different experiences and familiarity with smart tourism technologies; such differences may
lead to individual tourist’s dissatisfaction with smart tourism technologies (Yoo et al., 2017).
Moreover, the intrinsic characteristics of tourists might affect how they perceive and use
technology, whereas different experiences are influenced by destination and trip
characteristics (Femenia-Serra and Ivars-Baidal, 2018). In addition, memorable tourism
experiences are recognized as an essential antecedent of future behaviors. Memorable
tourism experiences refer to the ability of tourists to remember and recall the events that have
occurred (Kim and Chen, 2019; Kim and Ritchie, 2014; Tung and Ritchie, 2011). In this part, a
fundamental outcome of a tourist experience is memorability and it will affect the tourist
satisfaction (Vada et al., 2019) and tourist destination loyalty (Jiang et al., 2016). Although the
existing studies in the literature have proposed several results related to memorable tourism
experiences, novel concepts regarding the degree to which tourists are satisfied and loyal to a
tourist destination are gaining more attention in tourism studies. Therefore, other studies are
encouraged to reach a better understanding of how smart tourism technologies will improve
memorable tourism experiences (Jeong and Shin, 2019; Lee et al., 2018) and investigate the
consequences of smart tourism technology (STT) and memorable tourism experience (MTE)
as the best predictors of future behaviors. To fill these gaps, this study proposes an
integrated model to explore the effects of smart tourism technologies and memorable tourism
experiences on enhancing tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty. More
specifically, this study intends to address the following research questions:

RQ1. How will smart tourism technologies affect memorable tourism experiences?
RQ2. Do memorable tourism experiences enhance tourist satisfaction and tourist
destination loyalty?
To answers these two research questions, this study is conducted at the individual level by Smart tourism
distributing a survey to tourists who visited smart cities in Indonesia. Interestingly, smart technologies
city infrastructures are playing an essential role in affecting tourist behavior, as tourists
receive benefits from smart city services during their stays (Um and Chung, 2019).
Currently, there are 75 cities actively involved in the development of smart cities in
Indonesia and it is expected that 70% of the country’s population will live in cities by 2025.
There are four elements to becoming a smart city in Indonesia, namely, regional structures,
infrastructures, superstructures and six smart city pillars (smart governance, branding, the
economy, living, society and the environment) (Mahesa et al., 2019). Although the
importance of information technology in the tourism industry has caused many smart cities
to upgrade their info-structure to enhance tourists’ experiences, a holistic model that
understands tourists’ decision-making process in the Indonesia context is still lacking in the
literature. In this study, relevant items from SST constructs (Jeong and Shin, 2019; Lee et al.,
2018) and MTE constructs (Jeong and Shin, 2019; Kim, 2018) are adapted. These items
emphasize more the technical aspects of SST, where the interaction between SST and
information of communication technology is an essential tool to confirm the quality of travel
experiences (Koo et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2018). To attract tourists to visit a destination, tourist
satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty are incorporated in this study. The tourist
satisfaction constructs are adapted from (Jeong and Shin, 2019; Kim, 2018) and
tourist destination loyalty is adapted from (Kim, 2018; Wang et al., 2019). The results of this
study are expected to provide a significant contribution to the existing literature on the
tourism industry to achieve competitive advantages and be able to compete with other
tourist smart destinations.

2. Literature review
2.1 Smart tourism technologies
According to Neuhofer et al. (2015), smart tourism refers to particular applications that
increase tourists’ experiences and creates added value for customers. More specifically,
smart tourism technologies are specific tools, products and services that will generally add
value by cultivating higher connectivity, interaction, personalization and co-creation
(Buonincontri and Micera, 2016; Neuhofer et al., 2015) and raise overall travel experiences
(Femenia-Serra and Ivars-Baidal, 2018; Simeon et al., 2017). Moreover, smart tourism can
also be assumed to be an ecosystem established by a smart business network, smart
destinations and smart technology infrastructures to maximize the value of the services and
experiences for tourists (Femenia-Serra et al., 2019; Gretzel et al., 2015a; Um and Chung,
2019), mediate the tourist experience (Tussyadiah et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2012) and provide
the info-structure for value cocreation (Buhalis, 2019; Buhalis and Foerste, 2015). Central key
elements of STTs and the development of smart tourism are ICTs and the integration of
ICTs into physical infrastructures; therefore, smart tourism has become prominent among
academics and practitioners. For this reason, tourists will select a destination that provides a
better information infrastructure such as faster internet connectivity and networking
(Ghaderi et al., 2019; Kelly and Lawlor, 2019; Li et al., 2017). Huang et al. (2017) suggest that
STTs have to include all forms of online tourism applications and information sources such
as online travel agents, personal blogs, public websites, company websites, social media and
smartphones. Other scholars have incorporated smart tourism systems such as decision
support systems, ambient intelligence, mobile-connected devices, beacons, virtual reality
(VR), augmented reality (AR), mobile apps, integrated payment methods, smart cards, cloud
computing and radio-frequency identification (Gretzel et al., 2015b, 2015c; Huang et al., 2017;
Jeong and Shin, 2019). In a smart tourism context, the application of these technologies will
JHTT play a significant part in providing tourism consumers and service providers with correct
information, better decision support, greater mobility and quality tourism experiences
(Cimbaljevic et al., 2019; Sigala and Chalkiti, 2014).
Most of the scholars have defined smart tourism technology in the literature, and most of
them have agreed that STTs are multidimensional constructs and categorized them into
four dimensions, namely, accessibility, informativeness, interactivity and personalization
(Huang et al., 2017; Jeong and Shin, 2019; Lee et al., 2018; No and Kim, 2015). According to
Jeong and Shin (2019), accessibility refers to how an individual can access and use the
information offered at the destination by using the different types of SSTs. Accessibility or
reachability assumes that travelers and technology have the capability of being connected,
reached and accessed by other entities (Kim and Garrison, 2009). Moreover, Domínguez Vila
et al. (2019) point out that internet access plays an essential role in promoting destinations
and attracting potential visitors. Therefore, accessibility becomes an important factor at
tourism destinations and it plays a significant role in influencing tourists’ intentions and
behaviors (Shafiee and Es-Haghi, 2017).
Lee et al. (2018) specify informativeness as the volume, frequency, sincerity and accuracy of
the information received by travelers from the advanced ICT systems that are available. By
using STTs such as AR or VR, tourists will receive the full attractions and range of information
for their tourism activities (Jeong and Shin, 2019). Additionally, Pavlou et al. (2007) defined
informativeness as the degree to which a website provides travelers with the information they
perceived as resourceful and helpful. If the information is believed to be accurate, relevant and
credible, it will enrich a traveler’s perception of a seller’s website’s informativeness (Pavlou
et al., 2007). Due to the intangible nature of tourism, No and Kim (2015) classified tourism
informativeness as consisting of personal or travel blogs, public websites, company websites
and social media websites. Furthermore, Jeong and Shin (2019) emphasize that information
quality and credibility play a significant role in influencing tourists’ overall experiences and
enrich their travel experiences at smart tourism destinations.
According to Jeong and Shin (2019), interactivity promotes bilateral interaction and
mutual communication between stakeholders when individuals use STTs. Following this
definition, the more reciprocal the communication between a traveler and a website owner is,
the more the site can respond to the particular needs of the traveler (Ha and James, 1998; Yoo
et al., 2015). This advanced smart system will enhance two-way communication, connect all
users, encourage travelers to explore and boost their travel service experiences (Gretzel et al.,
2015b; Pavlou et al., 2007). In addition, Jeong and Shin (2019) emphasize that interactivity
will allow smart tourism destinations to accumulate dynamic tourist data and offer more
attractive tailored services.
Huang et al. (2017) define personalization as the ability of a traveler to obtain specific
information to determine his/her personal trip planning needs. Fundamentally,
personalization is a process of gathering and using the individual information of the
customers’ preferences and needs to provide them with information and proposals that are
suitable for the customers’ requirements (Buhalis and Amaranggana, 2015). Other scholars
defined personalization as individual attention to a particular product, service and
information (No and Kim, 2015; Park and Gretzel, 2007). Moreover, Jeong and Shin (2019)
emphasize that personalization will allow STTs to provide the most important and accurate
information for tourists to enhance their travel experiences.

2.2 Memorable tourism experiences

Most researchers develop their definition of memorable tourism experiences from
psychology, anthropology, sociology, tourism and hospitality and marketing perspectives;
therefore, memorable tourism experiences are becoming attractive cross-disciplinary Smart tourism
research areas. Memorable tourism experiences and tourist experiences are two concepts technologies
interconnected with each other but with dissimilar meanings, connotations and extensions
(Seyfi et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Memorable tourism experiences are selectively created
by individual tourists according to how tourists evaluate their tourism experiences (Kim
et al., 2012; Tsai, 2016; Tung and Ritchie, 2011). Meanwhile, a tourist experience is defined as
the subjective and psychological mental state felt by a tourist during a service encounter
and this definition does not explain a memorable tourism experience adequately (Kim et al.,
2012; Otto and Ritchie, 1996; Tsai, 2016; Zhang et al., 2018). Therefore, most of the scholars
argued that not all tourism experiences would automatically be converted into a memorable
tourism experience because a tourist experience is influenced by several aspects that are out
of the control of management (Farber and Hall, 2007; Knobloch et al., 2017) and tourists
subjectively interpret tourism activities and destinations (Knobloch et al., 2017; Zhang et al.,
2018). In addition, memorable tourism experiences are rebuilt by tourists when they are
describing a specific travel experience (Kim et al., 2012; Seyfi et al., 2019) based on what they
can remember and recall after a trip experience (Sthapit et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018).
Drawing on this concept, transforming staged experience offerings into personal
experiences is the most challenging task for the tourism industry. Therefore, most scholars
emphasize the importance of memorable tourism experiences for tourists’ future decision-
making (Kim and Chen, 2019; Seyfi et al., 2019), whereas tourists would rely on previous
experiences and memories to formulate future trips (Lehto et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2018) and
determine whether to revisit a particular destination.
Interestingly, Tung and Ritchie (2011) and Kim et al. (2012) were pioneers who conducted
studies to identify scales for memorable tourism experiences. Tung and Ritchie (2011)
identified four dimensions (affect, expectations, consequentiality and recollection) that
represent aspects of memorable tourism experiences. Meanwhile, Kim et al. (2012)
categorized memorable tourism experiences into seven constructs (hedonism, refreshment,
local culture, meaningfulness, knowledge, involvement and novelty) with 24 indicators that
are expected to affect a person’s memory as it relates to tourism experiences. Subsequently,
many researchers have used and further developed these dimensions across industries and
countries. For example, several scholars such as Kim and Ritchie (2014) and Tsai (2016)
validated the memorable tourism experience constructs developed by Kim et al. (2012) and
confirmed the MTE scales. Although Kim et al. (2012) established the foundational concepts
of memorable tourism experiences, this notion would affect the memorability of experiences,
whereas an experience was created by each person based on the individual’s unique
assessment and perception (Sthapit and Coudounaris, 2018). At this point, the varied
backgrounds of tourists lead to diverse interpretations of tourist products (Tsai, 2016).
Therefore, MTE scales need to be further verified according to the context of the study (Kim
and Ritchie, 2014; Zhang et al., 2018).
Additionally, a survey conducted at major tourist sites in Australia by Chandralal and
Valenzuela (2015) validated 10 constructs that can be used to measure memorable tourism
experiences (authentic local experiences, novel experiences, self-beneficial experiences,
significant travel experiences, serendipitous and surprising experiences, local hospitality,
social interactions, impressive local guides and tour operators, the fulfillment of personal
travel interest and affective emotions). More recently, Seyfi et al. (2019) conducted a
qualitative study with 29 tourists at cultural sites in Paris and confirmed five characteristics
of a memorable cultural tourism experience including authenticity, quality of service,
engagement, cultural exchange and culinary attraction. Although most tourists may
participate in similar activities at the same destination, the memorability of their
JHTT experiences is different and they may form dissimilar assessments of his or her experience
(Kim, 2018). More specifically, the relative importance of these constructs would be different
according to the places, destinations and travelers’ demographic characteristics; therefore,
there is no consensus on what constitutes MTEs (Zhang et al., 2018). In this study, the
concept of memorable tourism experiences is defined and measured as a unidimensional
construct based on the memorable tourism experiences scales developed by Kim (2018) and
Vada et al. (2019).

2.3 Tourist satisfaction

Most scholars have defined customer satisfaction from several perspectives. The most
popular customer satisfaction definition is based on the expectancy-disconfirmation
paradigm developed by Oliver (1980), which described customer satisfaction as a global
evaluation of the differences between customer expectations and performance (Oliver, 2014).
The expectancy-disconfirmation framework assumes that consumers postulate a
comparison between expectation and performance during the post-consumption stage. In
this theory, if the service exceeds the customer’s expectation, the customer would be
satisfied; however, if the service does not meet their expectations, the customer would be
dissatisfied (Amin and Nasharuddin, 2013; Oliver, 1980; Shahijan et al., 2018). These
conceptualizations suggested that customer satisfaction form an overall judgment process
of the perceived inconsistency between customer expectations and actual consumption
(Meng and Han, 2019). Following this theory, the effects of positive or negative experiences,
which arise from the cognitive process of the disconfirmation paradigm, will contribute to
satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Homburg et al., 2005; Oliver, 2014; Oliver et al., 1997);
therefore, consumers prefer a positive disconfirmation than a negative disconfirmation
paradigm.
Although the expectancy-disconfirmation theory is the most extensively used for
explaining satisfaction, the problems also exist in the operationalization of the
disconfirmation construct (Oliver, 1980). This concept takes place at the individual attribute
level; therefore, focusing on an attribute-specific measure would yield better insights (Ali
et al., 2016a, 2016b; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980). Another scholar argued
that satisfaction reflects the degree to which a consumer believes that the custody and use of
a service induce positive sentiment based on the disconfirmation paradigm in process theory
(Amin and Nasharuddin, 2013; Amin et al., 2013a, 2013b). Although satisfaction is strongly
influenced by customer expectations (Amin et al., 2013a, 2013b; Cooil et al., 2007; Rust and
Zahorik, 1993), the disconfirmation paradigm can be minimized, as performance remains
within acceptable or tolerable zones (Amin, 2016; Kim et al., 2008; Wirtz and Mattila, 2001).
In the tourism context, satisfaction is referred to as a function of pretravel expectations
and post-travel experiences, which is a comparison between pretravel expectations with the
actual travel experiences (Chen and Chen, 2010; Chi and Qu, 2008; McDowall, 2010; Sirgy,
2010; Suhartanto et al., 2019). Drawing on this concept, the tourist will compare their
experiences to their expectations, which may result in the feeling of fulfillment and then the
tourist would be satisfied (Cong, 2016). Conversely, when the result is unhappiness, the
tourist would be dissatisfied (Han et al., 2019; McDowall, 2010; Song et al., 2012). Moreover,
Shahijan et al. (2018) specify that the tourist’s expectation is important, as it would affect the
individual’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a specific tourism destination. In this study,
tourist satisfaction refers to a cognitive-evaluative process derived from the objective overall
assessment of tourists that visit a specific destination (Ali et al., 2016b; Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982; Cong, 2016; Hultman et al., 2015; San Martín et al., 2019).
2.4 Tourist destination loyalty Smart tourism
Most of the scholars have defined the concept of tourism destination loyalty following the technologies
theory of customer loyalty that was developed by (Amin, 2016; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978;
Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Tabrani et al., 2018; Zeithaml et al., 1996). In this theory, customer
loyalty is measured by behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. According to Zeithaml et al.
(1996), behavioral loyalty refers to a customer’s behaviors such as liking a particular
product or service and their repurchase intentions. This theory does not provide a clear
explanation of the existence of loyalty (Amin, 2016; Høst and Knie-Andersen, 2004).
Attitudinal loyalty refers to the psychological and emotional state of the customer and their
intentions to repurchase and recommend a particular product or service to others. In the
tourism context, attitudinal loyalty is most frequently used to interpret and measure
tourists’ destination loyalty (Chi and Qu, 2008; Wang et al., 2019; Yoon and Uysal, 2005) and
it contains a perspective that reflects tourists’ intentions to revisit a destination based on
their previous travel experiences (Chi and Qu, 2008; Oppermann, 2000). Thus, destination
loyalty means tourists’ commitment to a destination (Chen and Gursoy, 2001; Lv and
McCabe, 2020). Following this concept, Schall (2003) explained that the attitudinal loyalty
components consisting of both attitudinal and emotional commitment should be the main
focus of hospitality research (Chen et al., 2020).
In addition, Chen et al. (2020) specify destination loyalty as revisit and recommendation
intentions. According to Shahijan et al. (2018), revisit intention is a tourist’s willingness to
revisit a particular destination in the future. For example, tourists who have higher
intentions to visit a destination are expected to recommend it to their friends, relatives and
other potential tourists (Chen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019). Tourists’ recommendations
regarding their previous travel experiences will also significantly affect other tourists’
decision-making processes and choices (Chen et al., 2020) and tourists’ future travel
intentions (Chi et al., 2020). According to Lv and McCabe (2020), in the tourism context, the
tourist destination choice is typically affected by novelty-seeking together with the
complexity of the decision-making process (Chew and Jahari, 2014). At this point,
destination loyalty is more difficult to achieve than general customer loyalty; therefore,
excellent marketing strategies and effort are required. In this study, a tourist’s intention to
revisit and recommend a place to other tourists will be used as the main indicator to measure
destination loyalty.

3. Hypothesis development
3.1 Impact of smart tourism technologies and memorable tourism experiences
In tourism research, several studies provide empirical evidence to support the effects of
smart tourism technologies on memorable tourism experiences. For example, a bibliometric
survey points out that the aim of smart tourism is to describe the integration of various
technology components that interact with humans to enhance tourist experiences (Johnson
and Samakovlis, 2019). Furthermore, Johnson and Samakovlis (2019) emphasize that a
smart city tourism destination has to build advanced technologies to create tourist
experiences and interconnected tourist experiences (Chang and Caneday, 2011).
Sophisticated technology accessibility such as internet access, cloud services and mobile
phone or portable device connectivity will significantly generate automatic real-time desires
to explore tourism destinations (Buhalis and Amaranggana, 2015; Jovicic, 2019). At this
point, most of the scholars have formed a consensus and similar conclusion that tourist
accessibility using advanced technology has become an essential strategy for promoting
tourism destinations and attracting the attention of potential tourists (Domínguez Vila et al.,
2019; Lee and Gretzel, 2012). For example, Jeong and Shin (2019) describe that when a tourist
JHTT has access to relevant information on their travel activities or share local information
through smart technology applications, and they able to interact with tourism staff,
memorable tourism experiences will be developed. Additionally, Lee et al. (2018) explain that
when a tourist is assessing the information received from smart tourism technologies, it will
help a tourist to save time in their decision-making process and improve their travel
experiences and it would be a significant element to enhance a memorable tourism
experience (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Thus, the following hypothesis is formed:

H1. Smart tourism technologies have significant impacts on memorable tourism

experiences.

3.2 Impacts of memorable tourism experiences on tourist satisfaction and tourist

destination loyalty
Previous studies have investigated the effects of memorable tourism experiences on tourist
satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty across countries. For example, Tung and Ritchie
(2011) point out that memorable tourism experiences will develop an indescribable
experience that flushes tourists’ emotions with delighted experiences. Other scholars argued
that destination loyalty is influenced by other factors including travel motivations and
memorable tourism experiences (Chen and Rahman, 2018; Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
According to Jeong and Shin (2019), when a tourist has a beautiful memory that they
perceive as valuable on their trip, then they tend to feel satisfied and increase their revisit
intentions. In addition, past tourists’ experiences associated with novelty and emotional
feelings are the most memorable aspects that enhance tourist satisfaction and behavioral
intentions (Ali et al., 2016c; Coudounaris and Sthapit, 2017). More specifically, when a tourist
describes his/her positive emotions such as joy, love and positive surprise, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions will be enhanced (Hosany and Gilbert, 2010; Hosany et al., 2015).
Similarly, when a tourist has fun, enjoyment and excitement, it will positively impact
experiential tourist satisfaction and cause tourists to stay longer (Dickinson et al., 2011;
Jiang et al., 2016). Other studies emphasize the positive effects of memorable tourism
experiences on enhancing revisit intentions and positive word-of-mouth (Chen and Rahman,
2018; Woodside et al., 2004). Additionally, Kim and Chen (2019) suggest that tourists’ social
interaction, novelty, destination enthusiasm and learning are dimensions of memorable
tourism experiences and the most important predictors that enhance tourists’ satisfaction
and destination loyalty. Thus, the following hypotheses are formed:

H2. Memorable tourism experiences have a significant impact on tourist satisfaction,

and
H3. Memorable tourism experiences have a significant impact on tourist destination
loyalty.

3.3 Impact of tourist satisfaction on tourist destination loyalty

In the tourism industry, most of the scholars argued that satisfaction played an essential
role in predicting and understanding tourist reactions after a consumption tourist
experience. For example, San Martín et al. (2019) conducted a study in Spain and described
that tourist satisfaction appears to be the main factor in developing loyalty in terms of
tourists’ intentions to revisit and recommend destinations to other friends. Other scholars
argued that positive word-of-mouth is created from tourist satisfaction when tourist
experiences exceed expectations and satisfied tourists are more likely to have a deep sense Smart tourism
of belonging with a visited destination (Hou et al., 2005; Hultman et al., 2015). Tourists are technologies
typically influenced by word-of-mouth when they are judging the quality of any destination
and willing to share their own experiences in the dialogue (Eid et al., 2019). For this reason,
most scholars have formed a consensus that tourists tend to revisit a tourist destination or
recommend the destinations to other tourists when they are satisfied with the tourist
activities and destinations (Jeong and Shin, 2019; Kim, 2018; Prayag et al., 2017; Prayag et al.,
2013). Tourists are also willing to spread negative word-of-mouth and will not recommend
or revisit the tourist destinations if they are dissatisfied (Chen and Chen, 2010; Jeong and
Shin, 2019). According to Lee et al. (2018) and Prebensen et al. (2012), tourist satisfaction is
established when a product, service or travel experience is simultaneously apparent to a
traveler at the destination. Thus, the following hypothesis is formed:

H4. Tourist satisfaction has a significant impact on tourist destination loyalty.

4. Methodology
4.1 Questionnaire development
The operational definitions of STTs were developed using the definitions of Huang et al.
(2017), Jeong and Shin (2019) and Lee et al. (2018) consisting of four dimensions, namely,
accessibility (four items), informativeness (four items), interactivity (four items) and
personalization (four items). The MTE construct consisting of four items was adapted by
using the unidimensional concept developed by Kim et al. (2018) and Jeong and Shin (2019).
Three items on tourist satisfaction and three items on tourist destination loyalty were
adapted from Kim et al. (2018) and Jeong and Shin (2019). Appendix shows the measurement
scales of this study. The questionnaire was written in both Bahasa Indonesia and English
languages. Three Indonesian experts from public universities assessed both the facial and
content validity, and minor modifications were made to follow the context of the study. A
five-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) was used to
measure the smart tourism technologies, memorable tourism experiences and tourist
destination loyalty constructs. In addition, the tourist satisfaction construct was measured
with a five-point scale ranging from “strongly dissatisfied” (1) to “strongly satisfied” (5).

4.2 Data collection method

The target population in this study is international and domestic tourists who are visiting
three tourist cities in Aceh province of Indonesia: Banda Aceh, Sabang and Takengon from
April 2019 to August 2019. Aceh province is also well known for tsunami tourism in
Indonesia, and the tsunami museum is one of the most visited tourist attractions in Aceh.
According to the Aceh Tourism and Culture Agency of Aceh province (ATCA, 2019 Report),
35,000 international tourists visited Aceh in 2018 and that number was expected to increase
to 40,000 in 2019, which is a rational target, as Aceh was named as World’s Best Halal
Cultural Destination in 2016 by International Travel Week. In addition, the agency has
launched 100 tourist attraction events in 2019 and these were allocated into two groups: 10
Aceh Top Events 2019 and 90 Aceh Highlighted Events 2019. According to the Statistics of
the Aceh Province Report (2019), 2.5 million domestic tourists and 107.037 international
tourists visited Aceh Province in 2019. Most of them are from Malaysia, the UK, the USA,
Germany and Taiwan.
The selection of tourist destinations across the different cities was to enhance the
generalizability of the findings and representativeness of attractive tourist destinations.
JHTT Banda Aceh has several historical museums with Dutch architecture and it has several
Tsunami monuments that were dedicated to those who lost their lives when the tsunami hit.
Banda Aceh also has a historical cemetery called Kherkhof, which is a large cemetery that is
filled with Indonesian and Dutch graves. Sabang is an island destination that attracts
numerous tourists from around the world because of its rich, unique natural resources, local
lifestyles and beauty, the best beaches in the country and excellent snorkeling areas.
Takengon is located at the center of Aceh and is well known as a coffee plantation zone for
agro-tourism due to it being cold and pleasant all year long.
A pretest was conducted at Sultan Iskandar Muda Airport, Banda Aceh. Thirty
questionnaires were distributed to international tourists and domestic tourists who were
arriving and departing at the main building of the airport. A minor change to the questionnaire
was made, and the pilot test respondents were not used for further analysis. A real survey
using judgment sampling was implemented to distribute the questionnaires to the appropriate
respondents in three cities, namely, Banda Aceh, Sabang and Takengon. Judgment sampling
involves the selection of subjects who are most advantageously placed or in the best position to
provide the required information and it is applied when a limited number of people have the
information that is sought (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). The process of selecting a respondent
using judgmental sampling involves the researchers carefully picking and selecting
respondents to be a part of the sample. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed in the
three cities at several tourist attractions, namely, cafés and restaurants, museums, beaches and
national parks. In total, 500 questionnaires were distributed in Banda Aceh and Sabang, and
100 questionnaires were distributed in the central zone (Takengon).
A total of 15 students from private and public universities were recruited and trained to
conduct the survey, and five students were allocated to each city. The respondents were
approached politely to participate in the survey. To reduce participation referrals, tourists
were informed of the purpose of the research study and the questionnaires were distributed
to those tourists who were willing to participate in the survey. A total of 370 respondents
participated in the survey and 10 respondents did not complete the survey. A total of 360
respondents met the sample size requirements for structural equation modeling analysis, as
suggested by (Hair et al., 2010). Table 1 shows the demographic profiles of the respondents.

5. Data analysis
5.1 Measurement model
A covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) using AMOS 25 was used to
run the data analysis following the step suggested by Amin (2016) and Amin et al. (2013a,
2013b). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run to confirm that each item loads to a
specific construct. The first-order CFA result shows that the goodness-of-fit was moderately
satisfied with 16 items retained from the original to test the model fit. In the next step,
second-order CFA was conducted and the results show that the goodness-of-fit
was satisfied. Similarly, CFA was used to examine memorable tourism experiences, tourist
satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty. Table 2 shows the first-order and second-order
CFA results for smart tourism technologies, memorable tourism experiences, tourist
satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty.
In addition, to assess the convergent validity of each construct, the standardized factor
loadings were calculated to determine the validity of each construct (Hair et al., 2010).
Convergent validity is supported if the factor loadings are greater than 0.5, the composite
reliabilities are greater than 0.7 and the AVEs are greater than 0.5 (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988, 1991; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). As shown in
Table 3, the factor loadings ranged from 0.501 to 0.932, the AVEs ranged from 0.523 to 0.780
Respondent characteristics No. of respondents (%)
Smart tourism
technologies
Gender
Male 169 47
Female 191 53
Ages
20–30 66 0.18
31–40 111 0.31
41–50 76 0.21
51 and above 107 0.30
Types of tourist
International 132 0.37
Domestic 268 0.74
Length of stay (days)
1–3 days 13 0.04
4–5 days 79 0.22
6–7 days 58 0.16
8–9 days 29 0.08
10 days above 180 0.50
Source of Information about the destination
Travel agent 44 0.12
Website 76 0.21
Tourism apps 22 0.06
Personal blogs 36 0.10
Social network 27 0.08
Online review site 18 0.05
Tourism info center 18 0.05
Other 120 0.33
Purpose
Business 13 0.04 Table 1.
Pleasure 284 0.79 Tourist respondent
Others 62 0.17 profiles

Construct GFI CFI x 2/df RMSEA Sig.

Measurement model: 0.883 0.934 4.236 0.10 0.000

First-order CFA for smart tourism technologies
Second-order CFA for smart tourism technologies 0.880 0.932 4.230 0.09 0.000 Table 2.
Measurement model: 0.855 0.785 11.325 0.11 0.000 Goodness-of-fit
Memorable tourism experiences statistics for
Tourist satisfaction measurement model
Tourist destination loyalty of STTs

and the CRs was ranged from 0.767 to 0.934. Thus, this provides evidence that construct
validity has exceeded the recommended levels. Table 4 shows the discriminant validity of
the constructs. As the square root of the AVE between each part of the constructs was
higher than the correlation estimated between constructs, discriminant validity is confirmed
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2010). Table 5 shows the comparison of cross-loadings
JHTT Construct Items Factor loadings AVE CR

Accessibility ACS1 0.872 0.560 0.831

ACS2 0.814
ACS3 0.752
ACS4 0.501
Informativeness INF1 0.877 0.718 0.911
INF2 0.839
INF3 0.892
INF4 0.778
Interactivity INT1 0.797 0.780 0.934
INT2 0.879
INT3 0.919
INT4 0.932
Personalization PER1 0.844 0.767 0.929
PER2 0.909
PER3 0.882
PER4 0.866
Memorable tourism experiences MTE1 0.666 0.517 0.810
MTE2 0.670
MTE3 0.775
Table 3. MTE4 0.759
Tourist satisfaction TS1 0.819 0.542 0.778
Standardized factor
TS2 0.759
loadings, average TS3 0.616
variance extracted Tourist destination loyalty TDL1 0.697 0.523 0.767
(AVE) and composite TDL2 0.748
reliability (CR) TDL3 0.724

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Tourist destination loyalty 0.723

2. Memorable tourist experiences 0.305 0.736
3. Tourist satisfaction 0.321 0.603 0.719
4. Personalization 0.139 0.278 0.201 0.876
5. Interactivity 0.293 0.587 0.424 0.193 0.883
6. Informativeness 0.412 0.826 0.596 0.272 0.573 0.847
7. Accessibility 0.315 0.633 0.457 0.208 0.439 0.617 0.748
Table 4. Notes: Below the diagonal: correlation estimated between the factors; diagonal: square root of AVE;
Discriminant validity Significant level at 5%.

between constructs and demonstrates indicator loadings are higher than other loadings in
the same column and row, thus confirming discriminant validity.

5.2 Structural equation modeling

Structural equation modeling was conducted to test the hypotheses. As shown in Figure 1
and Table 6, all hypotheses were supported at the 0.05 significance level. Overall, the results
were close to the threshold and represented an acceptable model fit. The relationship
between smart tourism technologies and memorable tourism experiences was significant
(p = 0.000, b = 0.654). Memorable tourism experiences were related to tourist satisfaction
Construct Personalization Interaction Informativeness Accessibility TDL TS MTEs
Smart tourism
technologies
PER1 0.877 0.198 0.213 0.182 0.162 0.382 0.682
PER2 0.839 0.213 0.230 0.196 0.179 0.407 0.407
PER3 0.892 0.207 0.223 0.191 0.187 0.355 0.380
PER4 0.778 0.203 0.219 0.187 0.189 0.787 0.763
INT1 0.187 0.797 0.395 0.733 0.158 0.170 0.165
INT2 0.206 0.879 0.436 0.809 0.174 0.188 0.182
INT3 0.216 0.919 0.456 0.846 0.182 0.196 0.190
INT4 0.219 0.932 0.462 0.858 0.185 0.199 0.193
INF1 0.222 0.435 0.877 0.466 0.187 0.201 0.196
INF2 0.212 0.416 0.839 0.446 0.179 0.193 0.187
INF3 0.226 0.442 0.892 0.474 0.190 0.205 0.199
INF4 0.197 0.386 0.778 0.414 0.166 0.179 0.173
ACS1 0.188 0.803 0.464 0.872 0.159 0.171 0.166
ACS2 0.176 0.749 0.433 0.814 0.148 0.16 0.155
ACS3 0.162 0.692 0.400 0.752 0.137 0.148 0.143
ACS4 0.108 0.461 0.266 0.501 0.091 0.098 0.095
TDL1 0.621 0.179 0.542 0.522 0.697 0.211 0.228
TDL2 0.504 0.166 0.185 0.505 0.748 0.226 0.245
TDL3 0.421 0.135 0.172 0.173 0.724 0.219 0.237
TS1 0.423 0.134 0.139 0.160 0.248 0.819 0.743
TS2 0.576 0.135 0.139 0.130 0.230 0.759 0.689
TS3 0.564 0.184 0.139 0.129 0.186 0.616 0.559
MTE1 0.467 0.180 0.190 0.130 0.185 0.514 0.666
MTE2 0.390 0.323 0.186 0.177 0.186 0.517 0.670
MTE3 0.392 0.439 0.442 0.173 0.254 0.703 0.775 Table 5.
MTE4 0.534 0.430 0.433 0.589 0.248 0.689 0.759 Cross loadings

Figure 1.
Structural model

and tourist destination loyalty (p = 0.000, b = 0.653; and p = 0.000, b = 0.268). Moreover,
tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty were significant (p = 0.000, b = 0.247).
Thus, H1, H2, H3 and H4 were supported.

6. Discussion and conclusions

6.1 Conclusions
The objective of this study is to investigate how smart tourism technologies and memorable
tourism experiences will enhance tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty in a
JHTT Description Estimate p-values Results

Accessibility <— smart tourism technologies 0.664 0.000 Supported

Informativeness <— smart tourism technologies 0.918 0.000 Supported
Interaction <— smart tourism technologies 0.615 0.000 Supported
Personalization <— smart tourism technologies 0.271 0.000 Supported
Memorable tourism experiences <— smart tourism technologies 0.654 0.000 Supported
Tourist satisfaction <— memorable tourism experiences 0.653 0.000 Supported
Tourist destination loyalty <— memorable tourism experiences 0.268 0.004 Supported
Tourist satisfaction <— tourist destination loyalty 0.247 0.005 Supported
Table 6.
Hypothesis testing Notes: Significance at 0.05 level, x 2 = 1,751.254; x 2/df ratio 5.542; GFI = 0.874; CFI = 0.902; RMSEA = 0.11

developing country. The results indicated that the smart tourism technology construct
consisting of four variables has appropriate reliability to measure smart tourism
technologies. More specifically, accessibility and informativeness played important roles as
critical drivers of smart tourism technologies, followed by interactivity and personalization.
The results show that tourists prefer to visit a tourism destination if accessibility and
informativeness are well developed. The results indicated that tourists had used several
smart tourism technology devices in selecting attractive tourist destinations. The most
important factors of tourists’ use of STTs at the smart tourism destinations are city guide
apps, mobile payments, Google maps and tourist attractions’ map locations. The findings
also suggest that the more tourists engage with smart tourism technologies, the more they
search for a deeper understanding of smart city destinations.
H1 indicated that smart tourism technologies are related to memorable tourism
experiences. The results support that a high level of smart tourism technology
infrastructures will significantly affect memorable tourism experiences. Tourists’
technology-based experiences might increase the level of memorable tourism experiences.
Most of the tourists have used STTs and they have motivated tourists to participate in
tourism activities to exploit their memorable travel experiences. For example, Jeong and
Shin (2019) specify that is fully equipped with a high bandwidth capacity will significantly
influence the memorable tourism experiences in advanced smart cities. H2 and H3 indicated
that memorable tourism experiences are related to tourist satisfaction and tourist
destination loyalty. This means that tourists who have excellent tourist experiences will
experience significantly enhanced tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty. For
example, Kim (2018) describes that tourists prefer to revisit tourist destinations of which
they have positive memories. H4 identified the relationship between tourist satisfaction and
tourist destination loyalty. When a tourist receives a high level of satisfaction at a tourist
destination, they will have higher revisit intentions and are more likely to recommend the
destination to other tourists. The findings are supported by previous studies (Ali et al.,
2016c; Chen and Rahman, 2018; Jeong and Shin, 2019).

6.2 Theoretical implications

This study provides several theoretical implications. First, this study will contribute to the
literature by providing a comprehensive concept of smart tourism technologies in a
developing country. The dimensions of smart tourism technologies have been explored.
Although previous studies have used this construct across countries, these constructs must
be replicated within a specific context. As suggested by Jeong and Shin (2019), the
operationalization of this construct has to fit one particular context. This study provides a
significant contribution to the literature that STTs is a multidimensional construct Smart tourism
consisting of accessibility, informativeness, interactivity and personalization. Second, technologies
minimal empirical research has focused on smart tourism technologies in a developing
country such as Indonesia. To fill this gap, this study focused on the roles of smart tourism
technologies and memorable tourism experiences in enhancing tourist satisfaction and
tourist destination loyalty. This finding is in line with other previous studies conducted in
developed countries (Domínguez Vila et al., 2019; Jeong and Shin, 2019; Lee et al., 2018; Vada
et al., 2019). Third, this study also identifies how smart tourism technologies and memorable
tourism experiences will develop and improve tourist satisfaction and tourist destination
loyalty. The results highlight the importance of memorable tourism experiences in
establishing tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty. The previous studies that
supported this notion indicated that when a tourist receives excellent memorable tourism
experiences, tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty will be established (Chen and
Rahman, 2018; Eid et al., 2019; Seyfi et al., 2019).

6.3 Managerial implications

The results and findings of this study provide several managerial implications. First, STTs
and MTEs form a strong foundation for enhancing tourist satisfaction and tourist
destination loyalty. To this point, the implementation of smart tourism technologies has
provided several benefits for tourists including the more efficient use of resources, the
effective management of city tourism and reduced decision-making time and effort, which
will consequently improve travel experiences. Using STTs when visiting a tourist
destination provides an opportunity to explore more alternates for planning trip decisions
that are more efficient and smoother processes than traditional methods. Furthermore,
tourist experiences using STTs have allowed them to use several social media platforms
including Trip Advisory, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to interact or engage with
tourism authorities, travel agencies, hotels, restaurants and airline industries. Second, most
tourists had pleasant memories and were satisfied at a tourist destination; as a result, they
are more likely to revisit and recommend a tourist destination to their friends, family and
other tourists. For this reason, tourism authorities and industry players have to make sure
that tourists’ expectations are met accordingly. For example, if a tourist has a negative
experience with smart city info-structure facilities, a tourist might reach an overall
conclusion not to revisit and recommend the location to other tourists. In fact, the tourism
city info-structure is the main item affecting tourists’ experience and consequently
enhancing tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty. Third, Indonesia is a tropical
country with a beautiful and exotic culture and a plethora of beauty, tourist activities and
destinations. This unique tourist destination has built memorable tourism experiences,
tourist satisfaction and tourist destination loyalty. Although Indonesia is an attractive
tourist destination, tourism authorities should upgrade the smart tourism technology
infrastructures by providing high-speed internet accessibility, improve their tourism
information systems and support the local government in upgrading their tourist facilities.
Tourists have experience using several STTs and developed memorable tourism
experiences at Indonesia’s smart tourism destinations. In addition, tourists’ interactions
with local authorities and tourism industry players are important factors in creating
memorable tourism experiences. Therefore, local tourist authorities, tourism industry
players and tourist stakeholders have to work together to upgrade and improve their tourist
facilities and train their staff to have a more customer-oriented focus. In addition, tourist
authorities, travel agents, hotels, restaurants and media have to develop attractive tourist
activities and be aggressive at promoting tourist destinations such as the Aceh international
JHTT diving festival in Sabang, the Saman (traditional dance) festival in Takengon and the
culinary and traditional food festival in Banda Aceh.

6.4 Limitations and future research

The research findings and implications of this study are based on tourists who visited three
cities in the Aceh province of Indonesia; thereby, the results cannot be generalized to
represent all smart city destinations in Indonesia. Therefore, expanding the research to
cover more regions, cities and sample sizes might form different results and conclusions.
This study is a quantitative approach, and thus using mixed methods for a future research
study with different samples of the population will enhance the validity of the findings. The
data were collected from attractive tourism areas, and using other platforms such as
TripAdvisor might provide more diverse tourist backgrounds and verify the appropriate
conclusions (Lv and McCabe, 2020). Another limitation is that the STT measurement items
are very general statements and specific to websites and app usage at a destination.
Therefore, incorporating other factors of smart tourism technologies will provide more
details of the operational definition of STTs. In addition, MTEs were measured as
unidimensional constructs, and thus the results cannot be generalized for the holistic
concept of MTEs. Therefore, measuring MTEs as multidimensional constructs and their
mediating role should be studied in future research. Considering other variables such as
tourist engagement and the destination image as dependent variables and tourist familiarity
with technologies as a moderating variable should be considered in future research.

References
Ali, F., Amin, M. and Cobanoglu, C. (2016a), “An integrated model of service experience, emotions,
satisfaction, and price acceptance: an empirical analysis in the Chinese hospitality industry”,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 449-475.
Ali, F., Amin, M. and Ryu, K. (2016b), “The role of physical environment, price perceptions, and
consumption emotions in developing customer satisfaction in Chinese resort hotels”, Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-70.
Ali, F., Ryu, K. and Hussain, K. (2016c), “Influence of experiences on memories, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions: a study of creative tourism”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Amin, M. (2016), “Internet banking service quality and its implication on e-customer satisfaction and
e-customer loyalty”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 280-306.
Amin, M. and Nasharuddin, S.Z. (2013), “Hospital service quality and its effects on patient satisfaction
and behavioural intention”, Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 238-254.
Amin, M., Isa, Z. and Fontaine, R. (2013a), “Islamic banks: contrasting the drivers of customer
satisfaction on image, trust, and loyalty of Muslim and non-Muslim customers in Malaysia”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 79-97.
Amin, M., Yahya, Z., Ismayatim, W.F.A., Nasharuddin, S.Z. and Kassim, E. (2013b), “Service quality
dimension and customer satisfaction: an empirical study in the Malaysian hotel industry”,
Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 115-125.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, p. 411.
ATCA (2019), available at: https://acehtourism.travel/en/home/
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1991), “Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research”, Journal of Smart tourism
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 426-439.
technologies
Ballina, F.J., Valdes, L. and Del Valle, E. (2019), “The phygital experience in the smart tourism
destination”, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 656-671.
Buhalis, D. (2019), “Technology in tourism-from information communication technologies to eTourism
and smart tourism towards ambient intelligence tourism: a perspective article”, Tourism Review,
Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 267-272.
Buhalis, D. and Amaranggana, A. (2015), “Smart tourism destinations enhancing tourism experience
through personalisation of services”, Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2015, Springer, pp. 377-389.
Buhalis, D. and Foerste, M. (2015), “SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: empowering co-creation
of value”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 151-161.
Buonincontri, P. and Micera, R. (2016), “The experience co-creation in smart tourism destinations: a
multiple case analysis of European destinations”, Information Technology and Tourism, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 285-315.
Chandralal, L. and Valenzuela, F.-R. (2015), “Memorable tourism experiences: scale development”,
Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 3.
Chang, G. and Caneday, L. (2011), “Web-based GIS in tourism information search: perceptions, tasks,
and trip attributes”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1435-1437.
Chen, C.-F. and Chen, F.-S. (2010), “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Chen, H. and Rahman, I. (2018), “Cultural tourism: an analysis of engagement, cultural contact,
memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty”, Tourism Management Perspectives,
Vol. 26, pp. 153-163.
Chen, J.S. and Gursoy, D. (2001), “An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 79-85.
Chen, R., Zhou, Z., Zhan, G. and Zhou, N. (2020), “The impact of destination Brand authenticity and
destination brand self-congruence on tourist loyalty: the mediating role of destination brand
engagement”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 15, p. 100402.
Chew, E.Y.T. and Jahari, S.A. (2014), “Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and
revisit intention: a case of post-disaster Japan”, Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 382-393.
Chi, C.G.-Q. and Qu, H. (2008), “Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 624-636.
Chi, H.-K., Huang, K.-C. and Nguyen, H.M. (2020), “Elements of destination brand equity and
destination familiarity regarding travel intention”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 52.
Churchill, G.A., Jr and Surprenant, C. (1982), “An investigation into the determinants of customer
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 491-504.
Cimbaljevic, M., Stankov, U., Demirovic, D. and Pavlukovic, V. (2019), “Nice and smart: creating a
smarter festival–the study of EXIT (Novi Sad, Serbia)”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, pp. 1-13.
Cong, L.C. (2016), “A formative model of the relationship between destination quality, tourist
satisfaction and intentional loyalty: an empirical test in Vietnam”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 50-62.
Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. (2007), “A longitudinal analysis of customer
satisfaction and share of wallet: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
JHTT Coudounaris, D.N. and Sthapit, E. (2017), “Antecedents of memorable tourism experience related to
behavioral intentions”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1084-1093.
Dickinson, J.E., Lumsdon, L.M. and Robbins, D. (2011), “Slow travel: issues for tourism and climate
change”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 281-300.
Domínguez Vila, T., Alén Gonzalez, E. and Darcy, S. (2019), “Accessible tourism online resources: a
Northern European perspective”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 140-156.
Eid, R., El-Kassrawy, Y.A. and Agag, G. (2019), “Integrating destination attributes, political (in)
stability, destination image, tourist satisfaction, and intention to recommend: a study of UAE”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 839-866.
Farber, M.E. and Hall, T.E. (2007), “Emotion and environment: visitors’ extraordinary
experiences along the Dalton highway in Alaska”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 248-270.
Femenia-Serra, F. and Ivars-Baidal, J.A. (2018), “Do smart tourism destinations really work? The case of
Benidorm”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research:, pp. 1-20.
Femenia-Serra, F., Neuhofer, B. and Ivars-Baidal, J.A. (2019), “Towards a conceptualisation of smart
tourists and their role within the smart destination scenario”, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 109-133.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ghaderi, Z., Hatamifar, P. and Ghahramani, L. (2019), “How smartphones enhance local tourism
experiences?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 778-788.
Gretzel, U., Reino, S., Kopera, S. and Koo, C. (2015a), “Smart tourism challenges”, Journal of Tourism,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z. and Koo, C. (2015b), “Smart tourism: foundations and developments”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 179-188.
Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C. and Lamsfus, C. (2015c), “Conceptual foundations for understanding
smart tourism ecosystems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 558-563.
Ha, L. and James, E.L. (1998), “Interactivity reexamined: a baseline analysis of early business web
sites”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 457-474.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective,
Pearson Prentice Hall, USA.
Han, H., Meng, B., Chua, B.-L., Ryu, H.B. and Kim, W. (2019), “International volunteer tourism and
youth travelers–an emerging tourism trend”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 36
No. 5, pp. 549-562.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N. and Hoyer, W.D. (2005), “Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of
the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 84-96.
Hosany, S. and Gilbert, D. (2010), “Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday
destinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 513-526.
Hosany, S., Prayag, G., Deesilatham, S., Cauševic, S. and Odeh, K. (2015), “Measuring tourists’
emotional experiences: further validation of the destination emotion scale”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 482-495.
Høst, V. and Knie-Andersen, M. (2004), “Modeling customer satisfaction in mortgage credit companies”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Hou, J.-S., Lin, C.-H. and Morais, D.B. (2005), “Antecedents of attachment to a cultural tourism
destination: the case of Hakka and non-Hakka Taiwanese visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 221-233.
Huang, C.D., Goo, J., Nam, K. and Yoo, C.W. (2017), “Smart tourism technologies in travel planning: the Smart tourism
role of exploration and exploitation”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 757-770.
technologies
Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P. and Beheshti, H.M. (2015), “Achieving tourist loyalty through
destination personality, satisfaction, and identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68
No. 11, pp. 2227-2231.
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY.
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Jeong, M. and Shin, H.H. (2019), “Tourists’ experiences with smart tourism technology at smart
destinations and their behavior intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, p. 0047287519883034.
Jiang, Y., Ramkissoon, H. and Mavondo, F. (2016), “Destination marketing and visitor experiences: the
development of a conceptual framework”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 653-675.
Johnson, A.-G. and Samakovlis, I. (2019), “A bibliometric analysis of knowledge development in smart
tourism research”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 600-623.
Jovicic, D.Z. (2019), “From the traditional understanding of tourism destination to the smart tourism
destination”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 276-282.
Kelly, P. and Lawlor, J. (2019), “Adding or destroying value? User experiences of tourism self-service
technologies”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 839-866.
Kim, H. and Chen, J.S. (2019), “The memorable travel experience and its reminiscence functions”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 637-649.
Kim, J.-H. (2018), “The impact of memorable tourism experiences on loyalty behaviors: the mediating
effects of destination image and satisfaction”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57 No. 7,
pp. 856-870.
Kim, J.-H. and Ritchie, J.B. (2014), “Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience scale
(MTES)”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 323-335.
Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J.B. and McCormick, B. (2012), “Development of a scale to measure memorable
tourism experiences”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 12-25.
Kim, S. and Garrison, G. (2009), “Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: an extension of the
technology acceptance model”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 323-333.
Kim, Y.-K., Cho, C.-H., Ahn, S.-K., Goh, I.-H. and Kim, H.-J. (2008), “A study on medical services quality
and its influence upon value of care and patient satisfaction–focusing upon outpatients in a
large-sized hospital”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 19 No. 11,
pp. 1155-1171.
Knobloch, U., Robertson, K. and Aitken, R. (2017), “Experience, emotion, and eudaimonia: a
consideration of tourist experiences and well-being”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 56 No. 5,
pp. 651-662.
Koo, C., Gretzel, U., Hunter, W.C. and Chung, N. (2015), “The role of IT in tourism”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 99-104.
Lee, H., Lee, J., Chung, N. and Koo, C. (2018), “Tourists’ happiness: are there smart tourism technology
effects?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 486-501.
Lee, W. and Gretzel, U. (2012), “Designing persuasive destination websites: a mental imagery
processing perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1270-1280.
Lehto, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (2004), “The effect of prior experience on vacation
behavior”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 801-818.
Li, Y., Hu, C., Huang, C. and Duan, L. (2017), “The concept of smart tourism in the context of tourism
information services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 58, pp. 293-300.
JHTT Lv, X. and McCabe, S. (2020), “Expanding theory of tourists’ destination loyalty: the role of sensory
impressions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 77, p. 104026.
McDowall, S. (2010), “International tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: Bangkok, Thailand”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 21-42.
Mahesa, R., Yudoko, G. and Anggoro, Y. (2019), “Dataset on the sustainable smart city development in
Indonesia”, Data in Brief, Vol. 25, p. 104098.
Meng, B. and Han, H. (2019), “Multiple attributes of cycling tourism in travelers’ decision-making
process”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 317-338.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2015), “Smart technologies for personalized experiences: a
case study in the hospitality domain”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 243-254.
No, E. and Kim, J.K. (2015), “Comparing the attributes of online tourism information sources”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 564-575.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (2014), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer, Routledge.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997), “Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial
insight”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-336.
Oppermann, M. (2000), “Tourism destination loyalty”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 78-84.
Otto, J.E. and Ritchie, J.B. (1996), “The service experience in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 165-174.
Park, Y.A. and Gretzel, U. (2007), “Success factors for destination marketing web sites: a qualitative
meta-analysis”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 46-63.
Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 105-136.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S. and Odeh, K. (2013), “The role of tourists’ emotional experiences and satisfaction
in understanding behavioral intentions”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 118-127.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B. and Del Chiappa, G. (2017), “Understanding the relationships
between tourists’ emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to
recommend”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 41-54.
Prebensen, N.K., Woo, E., Chen, J.S. and Uysal, M. (2012), “Experience quality in the different phases of
a tourist vacation: a case of Northern Norway”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 617-627.
Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993), “Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 193-215.
San Martín, H., Herrero, A. and García de los Salmones, M. D M. (2019), “An integrative model of
destination Brand equity and tourist satisfaction”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 16,
pp. 1992-2013.
Schall, M. (2003), “Best practices in the assessment of hotel-guest attitudes”, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 51-65.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2016), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, John
Wiley and Sons.
Seyfi, S., Hall, C.M. and Rasoolimanesh, S.M. (2019), “Exploring memorable cultural tourism
experiences”, Journal of Heritage Tourism:, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Shafiee, M.M. and Es-Haghi, S.M.S. (2017), “Mall image, shopping well-being and mall loyalty”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 1114-1134.
Shahijan, M.K., Rezaei, S. and Amin, M. (2018), “Qualities of effective cruise marketing strategy: Smart tourism
cruisers’ experience, service convenience, values, satisfaction and revisit intention”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 10,
technologies
pp. 2304-2327.
Sigala, M. and Chalkiti, K. (2014), “Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management
in the Greek tourism industry: an utilisation–importance analysis”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 800-812.
Simeon, M.I., Buonincontri, P., Cinquegrani, F. and Martone, A. (2017), “Exploring tourists’ cultural
experiences in Naples through online reviews”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 220-238.
Sirgy, M.J. (2010), “Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 246-260.
Song, H., Van der Veen, R., Li, G. and Chen, J.L. (2012), “The Hong Kong tourist satisfaction index”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 459-479.
Sthapit, E. and Coudounaris, D.N. (2018), “Memorable tourism experiences: antecedents and outcomes”,
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 72-94.
Sthapit, E., Coudounaris, D.N. and Björk, P. (2018), “The memorable souvenir-shopping experience:
antecedents and outcomes”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 628-643.
Suhartanto, D., Brien, A., Primiana, I., Wibisono, N. and Triyuni, N.N. (2019), “Tourist loyalty in
creative tourism: the role of experience quality, value, satisfaction, and motivation”, Current
Issues in Tourism:, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1-13.
Tabrani, M., Amin, M. and Nizam, A. (2018), “Trust, commitment, customer intimacy and customer
loyalty in Islamic banking relationships”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 823-848.
Tsai, C.T. (2016), “Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 536-548.
Tung, V.W.S. and Ritchie, J.B. (2011), “Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1367-1386.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Jung, T.H. and Tom Dieck, M.C. (2018), “Embodiment of wearable augmented reality
technology in tourism experiences”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 597-611.
Um, T. and Chung, N. (2019), “Does smart tourism technology matter? Lessons from three smart
tourism cities in South Korea”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research:, pp. 1-19.
Vada, S., Prentice, C. and Hsiao, A. (2019), “The influence of tourism experience and well-being on place
attachment”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 47, pp. 322-330.
Wang, D., Park, S. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2012), “The role of smartphones in mediating the touristic
experience”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 371-387.
Wang, Y.-C., Liu, C.-R., Huang, W.-S. and Chen, S.-P. (2019), “Destination fascination and destination
loyalty: subjective well-being and destination attachment as mediators”, Journal of Travel
Research:, Vol. 59 No. 3, p. 0047287519839777.
Wirtz, J. and Mattila, A.S. (2001), “The impact of expected variance in performance on the
satisfaction process”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 342-358.
Woodside, A.G., Caldwell, M. and Albers-Miller, N.D. (2004), “Broadening the study of tourism:
Introduction to the special issue on the consumer psychology of travel/tourism behavior”,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Yoo, C.W., Goo, J., Huang, C.D., Nam, K. and Woo, M. (2017), “Improving travel decision support
satisfaction with smart tourism technologies: a framework of tourist elaboration likelihood and
self-efficacy”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 123, pp. 330-341.
JHTT Yoo, C.W., Kim, Y.J. and Sanders, G.L. (2015), “The impact of interactivity of electronic word of mouth
systems and E-Quality on decision support in the context of the e-marketplace”, Information and
Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 496-505.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zhang, H., Wu, Y. and Buhalis, D. (2018), “A model of perceived image, memorable tourism
experiences and revisit intention”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 8,
pp. 326-336.
Appendix Smart tourism
technologies

Constructs Items Sources

Smart tourism technologies:

Accessibility I can use tourism websites and apps anytime and anywhere Jeong and Shin
(2019)
I can easily use tourism websites and apps Lee et al. (2018)
I can easily find tourism websites and apps
I can search without a complicated sign-up process at tourism
Informativeness Tourism websites and apps provide me with useful information about the Jeong and Shin
travel destination(s) and the trip (2019)
Tourism websites and apps are helpful for evaluating the destination(s) and Lee et al. (2018)
the trip
Tourism websites and apps enable me to complete my trip with the trip
detailed information provided
Tourism websites and apps enable me to minimize my worries about my trip
Interactivity I can find many other travelers’ questions and answers on tourism websites Jeong and Shin
and apps (2019)
Tourism websites and apps that I use are highly responsive to me Lee et al. (2018)
Tourism websites and apps that I use are interactive
It is easy to share tourism information content on tourism websites and apps
Personalization Tourism websites and apps allow me to receive tailored information Jeong and Shin
(2019)
Tourism websites and apps provide me with easy-to-follow paths and links Lee et al. (2018)
I can interact with tourism websites and apps to get personalized information
The tourism information provided by tourism websites and apps meets my
needs
Memorable tourism I really enjoyed this tourism experience Jeong and Shin
experiences (2019)
I revitalized through this tourism experience Kim (2018)
I learned something about myself from this tourism experience
I had a chance to closely experience the local culture of a destination area
Tourist satisfaction I am satisfied with this travel experience Kim (2018)
I feel enjoyable about this travel experience
I feel pleased about this travel experience
Tourist destination I want to visit the selected city again Jeong and Shin
loyalty (2019)
I would recommend the selected city to family and friends Kim (2018) Table A1.
I would say positive things about the selected city to other people Measurement scales

Corresponding author
Muslim Amin can be contacted at: muslim.amin@taylors.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com