An Analysis of the role of smart tourism technologies in the memorable experience of urban tourists in Iran

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geographical Sciences and Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of Tourism Management, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Planning and Environmental Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

4 Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jut.2024.366326.1160

Abstract

A B S T R A C T
The development of smart technology has led to the birth of smart tourism, which can improve tourists' experience and satisfaction both before, during, and after the trip. A group of factors and features of smart technologies can affect the creation of a memorable experience and the intention of tourists to visit again. This study examines the role of tourists' use of smart technologies in the travel experience of satisfaction and the intention to visit again in Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad, and Tabriz. The data required for this study was collected through a standard questionnaire completed by 540 people who have visited these metropolises in the last two years. The structural equation modeling method and Smart PLS software were used to evaluate the impact of each of these factors. The results of this research showed that there is a significant relationship between the variables of informativeness, interaction, and personalization and memorable experience. Also, memorable experience has led to the satisfaction of tourists and the intention to visit again among them. Anyway, the results of this study showed that the ability to access smart tourism technologies has no significant relationship with a memorable experience
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The development of smart technology has led to smart tourism, which provides information, communication, and support in tourism destinations. The prevalence of information and communication technologies has improved the experiences of tourists and their satisfaction before, during, and after their trips. For example, tourists use mobile phones to organize travel plans, interact with others, and share their experiences. Iranian metropolises have also been moving towards adopting smart technologies in recent years. The initial steps towards smart city development have been taken in five cities as Urmia, Isfahan, Tabriz, Mashhad, and Tehran, aiming to develop tourism technologies in line with the country's overall development policies and a forward-looking approach. This study examines the impact of smart tourism technologies on the formation of memorable experiences and, consequently, the satisfaction and willingness to revisit urban tourists. Four major cities, Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad, and Tabriz, were selected as study destinations to achieve this goal. This research focuses on answering questions such as: What smart tourism technologies are used in smart destinations? How does tourists' use of smart technologies affect their travel experience, satisfaction, and, ultimately, their willingness to revisit? This study bridges theoretical concepts with the realities in the Iranian tourism industry's metropolises. Therefore, this research not only contributes to the development of theoretical knowledge in the field of smart tourism technologies but also, through practical studies in real environments, provides the necessary knowledge for industry planners, policymakers, and decision-makers in Iran's major cities to enhance the creation of memorable experiences and tourist satisfaction, thereby increasing their willingness to revisit.
 
Methodology
This study is applied research in the descriptive-analytical research group that examines the role of smart technologies in the travel experience, tourist satisfaction, and willingness to revisit. The research is based on an existing theoretical framework and uses standard questionnaires for data collection. The questionnaire included various stages, such as determining tourists' travel experiences and the technologies used during their travels and measuring different variables, including accessibility, awareness, interaction, personalization, memorable experience, satisfaction, and willingness to revisit. Out of 1500 online questionnaire requests, 540 respondents completed the questionnaire, and data analysis was conducted using structural equation modeling through Smart-PLS software.
 
Results and discussion
The results of this study indicate that features of smart tourism technologies such as awareness, interaction, and personalization impact the creation of memorable experiences. This is while the impact of accessibility on the travel experience was not confirmed. Additionally, the study showed that the memorable experience of tourists in smart destinations has a direct and meaningful relationship with tourist satisfaction and their willingness to revisit. Among these, tourist satisfaction is another factor that leads to the willingness to revisit smart tourism destinations in the studied metropolises. This study's results reveal similarities and differences when compared to international research conducted in the past. Similar to the study by Chenkupalli et al. (2020), which emphasized the importance of accessibility in the experience of smart tourism technologies, this study also demonstrated the significant impact of accessibility on the memorable experience of tourists. However, Chenkupalli et al. (2020) found that personalization has the least impact on the memorable experience, while the results of this study indicate that personalization significantly influences the travel experience of tourists in smart destinations in Iran. In this study, only the impact of accessibility on the memorable experience was rejected, which is similar to the findings of Heo et al. (2021). Furthermore, the study demonstrated that using smart tourism technologies can create a memorable experience and, consequently, the willingness of tourists to revisit. This finding is consistent with the results of studies by Chenkupalli et al. (2021), Zhang et al. (2017), and Nasir Aziz et al. (2020).
 
Conclusion
Considering the positive impact of smart tourism technologies on tourists' experiences and satisfaction, it is recommended that policymakers and implementers in the tourism sector pay more attention to smart tourism technologies in tourist destinations. To create a memorable experience for tourists, developing and deploying smart tourism technologies with features such as awareness, interaction, and personalization should be encouraged. Furthermore, upgrading technical infrastructure and access to these technologies for tourists should be prioritized. In addition, measures to protect the privacy of tourists when using these technologies should be implemented to enhance their trust in these systems. These actions will align with the needs of tourists in a smart world and increase their satisfaction and willingness to revisit. This study provides valuable evidence for smart tourism development in Iran, demonstrating the positive impact of smart tourism technologies on tourists' experiences, satisfaction, and willingness to revisit. However, there are some limitations to this research that need to be considered in future research analysis and investigation. First, this study was conducted in four major cities in Iran, while future research could focus more deeply on a single city or region. This topic can also be explored in rural areas and small to medium-sized cities. Furthermore, this study examined the impact of smart tourism technologies on memorable experiences. However, other factors, such as pricing and community engagement, can also influence tourists' experiences and willingness to revisit, which could be the focus of future research. Ultimately, future research can investigate the effective factors in promoting smart tourism technologies and creating a more memorable experience for tourists, including enhancing technical facilities and better integrating these technologies with the local environment.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
  2. Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S. (1997). Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100303.
  3. Azis, N., Amin, M., Chan, S., & Aprilia, C. (2020). How smart tourism technologies affect tourist destination loyalty. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 11(4), 603-625. DOI:10.1108/jhtt-01-2020-0005.
  4. Ball, D., Coelho, P. S., & Vilares, M. J. (2006). Service personalization and loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 391-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040610691284.
  5. Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., & Watson, R. T. (1996). The World Wide Web as an advertising medium. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(1), 43-54. DOI:10.1017/S0021849996960067.
  6. Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart tourism destinations. In Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 553-564). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_40.
  7. Buhalis, D., & Foerste, M. (2015). SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: Empowering co-creation of value. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.001.
  8. Buonincontri, P., & Micera, R. (2016). The experience co-creation in smart tourism destinations: A multiple case analysis of European destinations. Information Technology & Tourism, 16, 285-315. DOI:10.1007/s40558-016-0060-5.
  9. Carbonell, P., & Rodriguez Escudero, A. I. (2015). The negative effect of team’s prior experience and technological turbulence on new service development projects with customer involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 49(3/4), 278–301. DOI:10.1108/EJM-08-2013-0438.
  10. Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2015). The use of social media in travel information search. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.08.005.
  11. Dasht La'li, Z., Aligholi, M., & Nourbakhsh, S. K. (2020). Identifying and prioritizing factors affecting smart tourism in Iran. Business Management Quarterly, 14(84), 196-212. [In Persian]
  12. Dasht La'li, Z., Aligholi, M., & Nourbakhsh, S. K. (2020). Presenting an applicable model of smart tourism in urban areas: Case study: Isfahan city. Journal of Urban Tourism, 7(2), 127-141. doi: 10.22059/jut.2020.308582.826 [In Persian]
  13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
  14. Faghihi, M., Chavoushi, S., Bagheri, R., Mansourian, M., Sharafat, M., & Mahmoudi, S. E. (2016). Smart city and legal requirements. Report of the Office of Communication and New Technology Studies, 14971, 8-12. [In Persian]
  15. Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations for understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 558–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.043.
  16. Hailey Shin, H., Jeong, M., & Cho, M. H. (2021). The impact of smart tourism technology and domestic travelers' technology readiness on their satisfaction and behavioral intention: A cross-country comparison. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(5), 726-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2437.
  17. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
  18. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135. DOI:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
  19. Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351–364. DOI:10.1177/0047287509346859.
  20. Huang, C. D., Goo, J., Nam, K., & Yoo, C. W. (2017). Smart tourism technologies in travel planning: The role of exploration and exploitation. Information & Management, 54(6), 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.11.010.
  21. Jeong, M., & Shin, H. H. (2020). Tourists’ experiences with smart tourism technology at smart destinations and their behavior intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8), 1464-1477. DOI:10.1177/0047287519883034.
  22. Karami, G., Ghanbari, A., & Abdolazimi Davari, S. (2021). Investigating the impact of cultural intelligence of Tabriz Bazaar merchants on domestic tourists’ loyalty. Journal of Urban Tourism, 8(2), 51-64. [In Persian]
  23. Karimzadeh, G., Ghanbari, A., & Hashemi Amin, S. (2021). Examining and measuring the effect of dimensions of enjoyment on the behavioral intentions of tourists in rural and nomadic areas of Kaleybar County. Tourism Planning and Development, 10(36), 73-97. [In Persian]
  24. Kim, J.-H. (2014). The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences. Tourism Management, 44, 34–45. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.007
  25. Kim, Jong-Hyeong. (2018). The impact of memorable tourism experiences on loyalty behaviors: The mediating effects of destination image and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 57(7), 856–870. DOI:10.1177/0047287517721369.
  26. Kim, S. E., Lee, K. Y., Shin, S. I., & Yang, S. B. (2017). Effects of tourism information quality in social media on destination image formation: The case of Sina Weibo. Information & Management, 54(6), 687-702. DOI:10.1016/j.im.2017.02.009.
  27. Kim, W. G., Lee, C., & Hiemstra, S. J. (2004). Effects of an online virtual community on customer loyalty and travel product purchases. Tourism Management, 25(3), 343-355. DOI:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00142-0.
  28. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
  29. Lee, H., Lee, J., Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2018). Tourists’ happiness: Are there smart tourism technology effects? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(5), 486–501. DOI:10.1080/10941665.2018.1468344.
  30. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114. DOI:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.114.
  31. Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.010.
  32. Madu, C. N., & Madu, A. A. (2002). Dimensions of e-quality. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(3), 246-258. DOI:10.1108/02656710210415668.
  33. Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004718.
  34. Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2015). Smart technologies for personalized experiences: A case study in the hospitality domain. Electronic Markets, 25, 243–254. DOI:10.1007/s12525-015-0182-1.
  35. No, E., & Kim, J. K. (2015). Comparing the attributes of online tourism information sources. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 564–575. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.063.
  36. Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132. DOI:10.1177/0047287507304039.
  37. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. DOI:10.1177/002224378001700405.
  38. Pai, C., Kang, S., Liu, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2021). An examination of revisit intention based on perceived smart tourism technology experience. Sustainability, 13(2), 1007. DOI:10.3390/SU13021007.
  39. Pan, B., Xiang, Z., Law, R., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2011). The dynamics of search engine marketing for tourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), 365–377. DOI:10.1177/0047287510369558
  40. Park, J. H., Lee, C., Yoo, C., & Nam, Y. (2016). An analysis of the utilization of Facebook by local Korean governments for tourism development and the network of smart tourism ecosystem. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1320-1327. DOI:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.027.
  41. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
  42. Pourang, A., Pourang, N., & Ghiyur Baghbani, S. M. (2020). Presenting a model of destination-focused factors affecting the inclination to the destination and length of stay of tourists: Case study: Mashhad city. Journal of Urban Tourism, 7(2), 51-69. doi: 10.22059/jut.2020.290397.732 [In Persian]
  43. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behavior in tourism: Concept and analysis. Oxford: Elsevier Science Limited. DOI:10.1002/jtr.463
  44. Rivera, M., Gregory, A., & Cobos, L. (2015). Mobile application for the timeshare industry: The influence of technology experience, usefulness, and attitude on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 6(3), 242–257. DOI:10.1108/JHTT-01-2015-0002
  45. Schaupp, L. C., & Bélanger, F. (2005). A conjoint analysis of online consumer satisfaction. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(2), 95.
  46. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. DOI:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
  47. Tussyadiah, I. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2007). Interpreting tourist experiences from first-person stories: A foundation for mobile guides. In ECIS 2007 proceedings (pp. 2259–2270).
  48. Tussyadiah, I. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences: Access to places via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.10.001
  49. Wang, Y.-S., Li, H.-T., Li, C.-R., & Zhang, D.-Z. (2016). Factors affecting hotels’ adoption of mobile reservation systems: A technology-organization-environment framework. Tourism Management, 53, 163–172. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.021
  50. World Tourism Organization. (2013). UNWTO Annual Report 2012. Madrid.
  51. Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Li, J. (2015). How customer experience affects the customer-based brand equity for tourism destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(Suppl 1), S97–S113. DOI:10.1080/10548408.2014.997959.
  52. Zhong, Y. Y. S., Busser, J., & Baloglu, S. (2017). A model of memorable tourism experience: The effects on satisfaction, affective commitment, and storytelling. Tourism Analysis, 22(2), 201–217. DOI:10.3727/108354217X14888192562366
  53. Zolfaqari, M., & Heshmat-Nejad, A. (2021). New and smart technologies in the tourism industry: Challenges and opportunities. Third International Conference on Management, Tourism, and Technology, November 28, 2021, Penang, Malaysia, 1-6. [In Persian]
urban tourism
Volume 11, Issue 4
October 2024
Pages 19-37

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics