Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.

1763–1778, 2012
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.029

TOURIST EXPERIENCE AND

WETLAND PARKS: A CASE OF
ZHEJIANG, CHINA
Wanfei Wang
Zhejiang University Hangzhou, China
Joseph S. Chen
Indiana University, USA
Lingling Fan
Jiaying Lu
Zhejiang University Hangzhou, China

Abstract: Following an experiential framework, this research aims to disentangle the factors
influencing tourist experiences in wetland parks in the context of an emerging economy.
Specifically, this study tests the causal relationships among service quality, tourist experience,
and revisit intention in relation to three popular wetland parks in Zhejiang, China. Conse-
quently a series of on-site visitor surveys using a structured questionnaire are conducted in
three wetland parks, resulting in 267 useful responses. The resultant data reveal five dimen-
sions of service quality and three dimensions of tourist experience. The structural model
shows that tourist experience is a mediator between service quality and revisit intention. Apart
from related personnel, the service quality factors are only able to influence post-trip
behavioral intention through aesthetic experience and action experience. Further, the impli-
cations of the findings for experiential marketing and sustainable development are discussed.
Keywords: Wetland parks, China, service quality, tourist experience, post-trip behavioral
intention. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
To achieve the conservation and wise use of wetlands, the Chinese
government has established 550 wetland protected areas and 100 of
them are developed into the experimental units of wetland parks since
the early 1990s. By 2010, the total number of national-level wetland
parks reached 68, containing 38 national wetland parks and 30

Wanfei Wang, PhD is a professor and associate dean of the Department of Tourism
Management, Zhejiang University, China. Joseph S. Chen, PhD is an associate professor at the
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Studies, Indiana University, USA. Lingling Fan,
is a master student at the Department of Tourism Management, Zhejiang University, China.
Jiaying Lu, (Department of Tourism Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China,
310058; Email<jiaying_lu@zju.edu.cn>), PhD is an assistant professor at the Department of
Tourism Management, Zhejiang University, China.

1763
1764 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

national urban wetland parks. Majority of the wetland parks are located
in the Eastern provinces such as Shangdong, Jiangsu, Hebei and
Zhejiang (Wang & Lu, 2009; Wang, Lu, Tang, & Wang, 2010). While
most of these parks are established for protecting the wetland ecosys-
tem, some are promoted as wetland ecotourism destinations. These
parks encourage awareness of the natural environment through vari-
ous educational programs and outdoor recreation activities. Indeed,
wetland parks have been identified as an alternative travel destination
for domestic tourists in general and a major recreational space for ur-
ban dwellers in particular. The burgeoning demand on wetland parks
has promoted tourism scholars to look at critical issues in service
delivery.
Due to the rapid pace of urbanization in China, the number of visits
to wetland parks has increased significantly, which could negatively af-
fect wetland resources. It is thus imperative that wetland park operators
find the best solutions for enhancing the tourist experience without
compromising the viability of natural resources. Although some
researchers have studied the development and layout of wetland re-
sources from ecological and landscape planning perspectives, only a
few have examined wetland parks from the perspective of tourists’
experience. This study aims to understand tourists’ experience of wet-
land parks, and how this experience affects their later behavioral inten-
tion. Specifically, the study tests a social-psychological model that
examines the causal relationships among the factors affecting the expe-
rience, tourist experience, and post-trip behavioral intention of wet-
land park tourists.

Types of Tourist Experience

The principal theories of consumer experience focus on situational
experience, flow experience, binary experience, two-factor experience,
and strategic experiential modules. Toffler (1970) divides customer
experience into direct and indirect experiences according to different
types of situation. In this case, direct experience reflects the customer
experience of the real environment. According to Csikszentmihalyim
(1988), customers’ best experiences are when they have an overall
sense of flow, which in turn requires eight elements: clear goals,
immediate feedback, the match of individual skills and challenges,
an inherent sense of control, loss of self-awareness, changes of time
perception, purposive experience, and concentration on activity. From
a product-based perspective, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) propose
that customers have both functional experience and enjoyable experi-
ence, with the two types differing by proportion and weight. Functional
customer experience arises from the consumption of a product’s
function, whereas enjoyable experience derives from the sensations
generated when consumers buy products.
Pine and Gilmore (1998) develop a two-function perspective by sug-
gesting that customers can be either actively or passively involved in
consumption. They further argue that two environmentally-related
 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1765

factors, absorption and immersion, link customers to consumption

events. This allows them to divide customer experience into four types:
entertainment, educational, escapist, and aesthetic experience.
Schmitt (1999), the founder of experience marketing, divides expe-
rience into five dimensions or strategic experiential modules: sensory
experience (sensing), emotional experience (feeling), thinking experi-
ence (thought), operational experience (action), and related experi-
ences (belonging). The first two categories refer to the formation of
customer experience based on the senses and emotions. Thinking
experience relates to the creative and cognitive experience of an event,
and operational experience is the experience arising from the
customer’s physical activity or participation in activities with other
members. Finally, related experiences arise from belonging to a partic-
ular social group and other related cultural factors.
The five theories outlined above have both advantages and disadvan-
tages. The flow experience relates to how customers can get the best
experience of an event, but it can only be used to consider a limited
number of areas (mostly in relation to sporting events, outdoor recre-
ation, and art activities). In contrast, the notion of dual experiences
can be applied to many fields, although it places greater importance
on enjoyment experience than on functional experience, which limits
its practical implications from a business perspective. Although the
two-factor and situational theories of experience have greater implica-
tions for business development, the way they compartmentalize differ-
ent types of experience is not sufficient. The strategic experiential
module approach places business development at the center of
research, but does not pay enough attention to the customer’s
perspective.

Ecotourism Experience
Ecotourism experience is often discussed in relation to the definition
of ecotourism, which can be seen as a type of tourism product, a way of
travel, and a means to achieve sustainable development. Viewing eco-
tourism as a unique tourism product, Eagles (1992, P3) defines ecotour-
ism experience as ‘‘nature oriented experiences in pristine natural
environments’’. From the behavioral approach, ecotourism experience
is interpreted as trips to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated nat-
ural areas, in which tourists hope to admire, study, and enjoy the scen-
ery and local wild plants and animals, as well as any past and present
cultural features (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991). Focusing on the moral
outcomes of ecotourism such as sustainability, Young (1996) defines
ecotourism experience as enlightening experience that encourages nat-
ural understanding, appreciation and conservation and maintains the
unique culture and well-being of local communities. To date, the defi-
nition of ecotourism experience is quite general, and thus different eco-
tourism experiences can be described using a continuum ranging from
‘‘hard’’ to ‘‘soft’’ (Blamey & Braithwaite, 1997; Krider, Arguello, Camp-
bell, & Mora, 2010). The ‘‘hard’’ ecotourism experience often involves
1766 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

people with a higher level of environmental commitment who travel to

pristine and undisturbed destinations with limited facilities. The ‘‘soft’’
ecotourism experience can apply to any nature-oriented travels.
Ecotourism in China, a fast-growing sector of the tourism industry, is
viewed as a model for sustainable rural development (Li, 2004;
Zhuang, Lassoie, & Wolf, 2011). For this study, ecotourism is defined
as a form of sustainable tourism which integrates environmental
protection, public education and socioeconomic growth. Wetland
tourism can be considered as a new frontier of ecotourism since it
embodies the essence of the meaning of eco-tourism: nature based,
conservation focused, socio-economic development oriented. Wetland
tourism experience in China is often described as ‘‘soft’’ ecotourism
experience, which involves walking and sightseeing, requires greater
comfort and services, and involves less conservation participation.

Factors Affecting Tourist Experience

The past few decades have produced a substantial body of research on
factors affecting tourist experience. Among the various factors affecting
tourist experience, service quality has been recognized as the major
determinant of tourist experience (Crompton & Mackay, 1989; Kyle,
Absher, & Chancellor, 2005; Palmer & O’Neill, 2003). Service quality
is the gap between tourists’ expectations and their perceived perfor-
mance of the service (Ryan, 1997). To obtain customers’ perceptions
of quality, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) propose a five-
dimensional framework of tangibles, reliability, assurance, empathy,
and responsiveness. Controlling the quality of tourist experience can
help solve three problems: identifying the actual or potential undesir-
able effects of tourist experience, investigating the reasons for these ef-
fects, and developing suitable management strategies to improve the
effects (Graefe & Vaske, 1987).
In the context of nature-based tourism, the influence of personal
background, psychological factors, and external factors on tourists’
experience has also been noted. For example, Jackson, White, and
Schmierer (1996) reveal that tourists usually attribute positive and ac-
tive experiences to personal factors, and negative and passive tourist
experiences to external factors. Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia, and
Huyze (1999) investigate the authenticity of tourist experience. They
divide authenticity of tourist experience into three categories: objective
authenticity (linked to the landscape), construction authenticity
(linked to activities), and existence authenticity (divided into individ-
ual authenticity and interpersonal authenticity). Vittersø, Vorkinn, Vis-
tad, and Vaagland (2000) investigate tourist experience with the flow-
simplex method and find significant correlation between tourists’ cul-
tural background and tourist experience.
More recently, Chhetri, Arrowsmith, and Jackson (2004) study hikers
in natural tourism destinations to identify factors that influence hiking
experiences. The results show that geographic stimulus variables and
psychological factors can affect hikers’ experience. In a study of the
 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1767

factors that influence the quality of tourist experience, Obenour,

Patterson, Pedersen, and Pearson (2006) propose an information
processing approach and a meaning-based approach as two ways of
improving the tourist experience. Using online tourism media as a
mediating factor, Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier (2009) find that online
videos can stimulate potential tourists’ imagination and memories
and improve their experiences.

Post-trip Behavioral Intention

Based on Cronin and Taylor’s (1992) research, tourists’ post-trip
behavioral intentions can be divided into three types: re-visit intention,
recommendation intention, and alternative intention. A growing body
of research has investigated the relationship between tourist experi-
ence and post-trip intention. Beeho and Prentice (1997) find that if
tourists are satisfied with their recreational experiences, they will rec-
ommend their destinations to friends and relatives. When examining
experiential marketing, Schmitt (1999) notes that consumers who
are satisfied with their overall experience are more likely to have active
post-experience behavioral responses. Petrick (2002) proposes that
tourists’ intention to revisit is influenced by three factors: past travel
experience, recreational experience, and satisfaction.
Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel (2001) point out that consumers who
have negative experiences not only reduce the frequency of their con-
sumption, but also have a negative effect on the will and purchasing
behavior of people around them. Alegrea and Garaua (2010) suggest
that negative or unsatisfactory travel experiences influence tourists’
continuing intention to visit the destination. Ibrahim and Ng (2002)
find that consumers’ perceptions of shopping in stores directly affect
their enjoyment of the experience, which further affects their revisit
behavior. Lee and Overby (2004) find that consumers’ ultimate expe-
rience is positively correlated with satisfaction, and also significantly
associated with customer loyalty. Guided by consumer involvement the-
ory, Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison (2004) comprehensively investigate
the relationship between past travel experience and tourists’ current
vacation behaviors. They suggest that prior experience impacts current
trips in terms of activity participation and expenditure pattern. In sum,
much of the foregoing research reveals a significantly positive relation-
ship between experience and future behavioral intention.

METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
An on-site survey was conducted from July 20 to August 15, 2009.
Three parks in Zhejiang Province were selected as study sites: the Xixi
National Wetland Park, Xiazhu Lake National Wetland Park, and Jian
Lake National Urban Wetland Park (See Figure 1). The sites were
selected not only because they were representative of environmental
1768 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of National Wetlands in China

and residential conditions of wetland parks in China, but also for their
convenient accessibility by the field research team. Systematic random
sampling was used and survey questionnaires were distributed to every
fifth tourist at the gate as they left the park. Data were collected at var-
ious hours of weekdays and weekends. At Xixi National Wetland Park,
200 questionnaires were distributed, of which 166 were completed on-
site. At Xiazhu Lake National Wetland Park, 100 questionnaires were
distributed, of which 75 were returned completed. At Jian Lake Na-
tional Urban Wetland Park, 100 questionnaires were distributed, of
which 68 were returned completed. After eliminating the question-
naires with missing data, 267 responses were retained for further anal-
ysis. The response rate of the survey is 66.8%.

Measurements
To measure the tourist experience dimensions, Schmitt’s (1999) stra-
tegic experiential modules were applied to divide tourist experience into
sensory experience, emotional experience, thinking experience, opera-
tions experience, and related experiences. The respondents were asked
to indicate their agreement or disagreement with statements designed to
measure tourist experience on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
‘‘totally agree’’ to ‘‘totally disagree.’’
Due to the scarcity of research on wetland ecotourism, no measure-
ment scales were readily available for measuring factors affecting
tourist experience. Thus, the study adopted the comprehensive proce-
 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1769

dure for developing measures recommended by Churchill (1979).

Four techniques were employed: a literature search, a panel of experts,
a pilot study, and an onsite survey. This study modified the SERVQUAL
scale (Parasuraman et al., 1988) to investigate factors affecting tourist
experience. Based on the literature review and expert panel discussion,
five factors relating to resource conditions, recreational activities, tour-
ism facilities, integrated management factors, and related personnel
were employed in the survey with 5-point Likert-type scales. In particu-
lar, the resource condition items were adopted from Parasuraman et al.
(1988), Ross (1991), and Jackson et al. (1996). The recreational activity
items came from Chhetri et al. (2004), Gao (1999), Liang (2005), Para-
suraman et al. (1988), and Xie (2005). The tourism facility items were
adopted from Faulkner (2001), Gao (1999), Liang (2005), Lukashina
and Amirkhanov (1996), Parasuraman et al. (1988), Ross (1991), and
Wei and Wei (2004). The integrated management items were adopted
from Kim and Prideaux (2003), Parasuraman et al. (1988), and
Vandermey (1984). The related personnel items were adopted from
Freeman (1984), Jackson et al. (1996), and Ross (1991).
Three kinds of post-trip behavioral intention were included in the sur-
vey: re-visit intention, willingness to recommend, and alternative inten-
tion. The respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from ‘‘completely unwilling’’ to ‘‘quite willing’’ whether
they would be willing to visit the park again, would recommend it to their
relatives or friends, and would change tourist destinations to travel to the
wetland park. Based on the above discussion, the hypothesized model
and the relations among the constructs are presented in Figure 2. In this
model, it is primarily concerned with the first order relations among the
dimensions underlying each of the constructs. In this model, service
quality (i.e. resource conditions, recreational activities, tourism facilities,
integrated management, and related personnel) directly predicts tourist
experience (i.e. sensory experience, emotional experience, thinking
experience, operations experience, and related experiences) and post-
trip behavioral intentions. Tourist experience directly predicts post-trip
behavioral intentions. We also hypothesize all the path relationships to
be positive.

Service Quality Post-trip Behavioral

Tourist experience Intention

Resource Conditions Sensory Experience

Re-visit Intention

Recreational Activities Emotional Experience

Recommendation
Tourism Facilities Thinking Experience
Intention

Integrated Management Operations Experience

Alternativ Intention

Related Personnel Associated Experience

Figure 2. Research Conceptual Framework

1770 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

Table 1. Remaining Measurement Scale Properties

Constructs and Indicators Factor Construct Group

Loading Reliability Difference

Post-trip Behavioral Intention .740

Would you be willing to visit this park again? N
Would you recommend this park to your relatives N
or friends?
Would you travel to this Wetland Park instead of N
others?
Action Experience .877
The Wetland Park makes visitors think about .843 N
their own life
Playing in the Wetland Park reminds tourists of .828 N
certain social norms
Playing in the Wetland Park changes some .822 N
tourists’ activities
Playing makes visitors think about their own .803 N
activities.
Playing promotes tourists’ association with others .795 N
Playing makes me think about my relationship .744 N
with others
The Wetland Park inspires tourists’ relevant .717 N
thinking
Aesthetic Experience .836
The Wetland Park is full of charm with its .874 N
landscape resources
The Wetland Park’s overall design can arouse .846 S
tourists’ interests
The Wetland Park can maintain its attractiveness .845 S
to tourists
The Wetland Park can inspire tourists’ curiosity .811 N
The Wetland Park can inspire tourists’ creative .793 S
thoughts
Emotional Experience .765
The Wetland Park is good for recreation and .826 N
relaxation
The Wetland Park inspires happiness .818 N
The Wetland Park can make tourists escape from .803 N
reality and trouble
Resource Conditions .863
Unique and diverse aquatic resources .821 S
Good water quality .750 N
Unique and diverse animal resources .759 N
Clean air .706 N
Rich in cultural resources .652 N
Recreational Activities .858
Recreation activities are rich and unique .774 N
A high degree of participation .761 N
Environmental protection of tourism activities .737 N
Educational eco-tourism .694 N
Relaxed and happy atmosphere for activities .676 N
 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1771

Table 1 (continued)

Constructs and Indicators Factor Construct Group

Loading Reliability Difference

Tourism Facilities .883

Catering facilities are unique and .787 S
environmentally friendly
Transport infrastructure is convenient .750 S
Rest facilities are eco- and adequate .772 N
Sanitation facilities are adequate and ecological .672 N
Interpretation system along the route is .646 S
informational
The facilities are in harmony with the natural .644 S
environment
Integrated Management .912
The degree of crowding is acceptable .885 S
Park charges are reasonable .881 S
Opening times are reasonable .883 N
Appropriate management of tourists’ bad .867 N
behavior
Related Personnel .834
The staff’s attitude and service is good .837 N
The guides are professional .830 N
The behavior of tour companion is appropriate .806 N
Other tourists’ (unknown) speech and behavior .764 N
are appropriate
The local community residents are supportive .776 N

RESULTS
Profile of Respondents
Of the usable questionnaires, 59.9% were from females and 40.1%
from males. Among the 267 respondents, 58.8% were single and
41.2% were married. The respondents were mostly young and well-edu-
cated, with 67.4% under 35 years old and 44.9% having an undergrad-
uate degree or above. A large proportion of the respondents (84.5%)
reported a moderate income level (less than $850). In terms of occu-
pation, the two largest groups were clerical workers (17.2%) and stu-
dents (19.9%).

Model Testing Results

To detect scale dimensionality, the measurement items for service
quality, tourist experience, and post-trip behavioral intention were sub-
jected to exploratory factor analysis. An eigenvalue >1 was used as the
criterion for extracting factors. The threshold for inclusion in a factor
was 0.5. The results showed that each construct’s KMO value was high-
er than 0.8 (P < .000), suggesting that the data were suitable for factor
analysis. As shown in Table 1, the analysis yielded a five-factor solution
for service quality scale, which explained 73.4% of the total variance.
1772 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

Cronbach’s alphas were .863, .858, .883, .912, and .834. Twenty-five ser-
vice quality indicators that could influence tourists’ experiences of wet-
land parks were included in the resource conditions, recreational
activities, tourism facilities, integrated management, and related per-
sonnel factors. Five indicators deleted from the original scales were
good soil environment, low levels of environmental damage, safety of
activities, informational and complete tour maps and other materials,
and environmentally friendly tour trail designs. Different from the
hypothesized model, only three constructs of tourist experience were
extracted from the exploratory factor analysis, explaining 76.3% of
the total variance. The Cronbach’s alphas were .877, .836, and .765.
These factors were labeled ‘‘action experience,’’ ‘‘aesthetic experi-
ence,’’ and ‘‘emotional experience’’. The factor analysis yielded one
factor for post-trip behavioral intention, which explained 87.5% of
the total variance. The Cronbach’s alpha was .740.
Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to illustrate results of test-
ing the fit of measurement models. The modification indices (x2/
df = 2.311, RMSEA = .056, CFI = .922, NFI = .880, IFI = .910) revealed
an acceptable model fit for tourist experience scale. The fit indices
for the service quality scale (x2/df = 2.843, RMSEA = .088, CFI = .943,
NFI = .911, IFI = .952) suggested a satisfactory model fit. The modifica-
tion indices suggested no need for further model specification. The
structural model based on the confirmatory factor analysis hypothe-
sized that the three dimensions of tourist experience positively predict
post-travel behavioral intention. The model also hypothesized that
tourist experience is positively influenced by the wetland parks’ re-
source conditions, recreational activities, tourism facilities, integrated
management, and related personnel.
A full structural model with all parameter estimates was computed
using Schmitt’s (1999) strategic experiential modules (See Figure 3).
The overall fit of the full structural model was satisfactory based on
the fit indices: v2/d.f. = 1.979, NFI = 0.873, CFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.942,
and RMSEA = 0.052. The modification indices were examined to

Resource
Conditions
.33
.66
.62
.52 Recreational .23 Aesthetic res1
Activities Experience
.54 .35 .31
.69 .52
.34
.48 Tourism Emotional Post-trip
.54 Facilities Experience Behavioral
.86 Intention
.28
.46 res2 .30
.62 .26
Integrated Action .87
.64 Management Experience res4
.28 res3
.51 .44 .70
.14
Related
Personnel

Figure 3. Modified Model: Determinants of Post-trip Behavior Intention

 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1773

identify model mis-specification and no further model modification

was considered to be required. The parameter estimates were exam-
ined to identify non-significant structural coefficients. Ten hypothe-
sized paths were trimmed from the model on the basis of non-
significant t-values. The overall fit of the final model was satisfactory
based on the fit indices: v2/d.f. = 1.230, NFI = 0.911, CFI = 0.932,
IFI = 0.932, and RMSEA = 0.029.
In conclusion, the resultant model entailed 25 indicators, eliminat-
ing five indicators (e.g., good soil environment, low levels of environ-
mental damage, safety of activities, informational and complete tour
maps and other materials, and environmentally friendly tour trail de-
sign) from the proposed model. The first possible reason for this result
is that soil environmental quality and the degree of environmental
damage cannot be perceived directly by tourists. Second, the indicator
for the safety of activities was deleted because tourists may attach
importance to their interests but overlook the safety of the tourism des-
tination. Another possibility is that the current activities in wetland
parks are so traditional that tourists are not concerned about safety.
In addition, the indicator for the environmentally friendly design of
tour trails was deleted because respondents were vague about the def-
inition of a tour trail.
This study investigated the dimensions of the tourist experience of
wetland parks based on the consumption experience measurement
scale designed by Schmitt (1999). It found that three components—
aesthetic, action, and emotional experience—were different from Sch-
mitt’s findings. The main differences are as follows. First, associated
experience and action experience are amalgamated into a single cate-
gory because the measurement items are related. For example, ‘‘Play-
ing in the Wetland Park reminds tourists of certain social norms,’’
the item for associated experience, is related to ‘‘Playing in the Wet-
land Park changes tourists’ behavior,’’ the item for action experience.
Second, the two items that measure thinking experience, ‘‘The Wet-
land Park inspires creative thoughts’’ and ‘‘The Wetland Park triggers
my curiosity,’’ are amalgamated with the item for sensory experience
because most of the ideas that the respondents got from their tours
were based on the resource conditions and layout of the wetland parks.
Although differences exist between this study and that of Schmitt
(1999), they are reasonably similar.
Thirteen of the twenty-three hypotheses were retained in the ac-
cepted modified model. All the paths in the modified model were in
a positive direction and were statistically significant at the .05 probabil-
ity level. As shown in the modified model, resource conditions, tourism
facility, integrated management, and related personnel can positively
influence the aesthetic dimension of tourist experience. Resource con-
ditions, recreation activities, and related personnel were positive pre-
dictors of the emotional experience. The action experience was
positively predicted by recreation activities, tourism facility, and inte-
grated management. Further, related personnel, aesthetic experience,
and action experience can positively influence post-trip behavioral
intention.
1774 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

The hypothesis the recreational activities factor can positively influence a

tourists’ aesthetic experience was rejected. The lack of association between
these two constructs indicated that interesting and rich recreational
activities do not enhance tourists’ aesthetic experience. In addition,
the results did not support the hypothesis tourism facilities and integrated
management can positively influence tourists’ emotional experience. Two
hypotheses related to action experience (There is a significant positive cor-
relation between resource conditions factors and action experience; and There is
a significant positive correlation between related personnel factors and action
experience) were rejected, suggesting that these two constructs are unli-
kely to influence tourists’ action experience.
In addition, five paths were eliminated because they do not have any
significant relationship with post-trip behavioral intention: resource
conditions, recreational activities, tourism facilities, integrated manage-
ment, and emotional experience. This means that apart from related
personnel, the service quality factors are only able to influence post-trip
behavioral intention through aesthetic experience and action experi-
ence. In addition, the path from related personnel to post-trip behavior
intention indicated that related personnel not only affects post-trip
behavior intention indirectly through aesthetic and emotional experi-
ence, but also has a direct effect on post-trip behavioral intention.

Comparisons of Group Difference

Although the selected wetland parks are located in the same
province, they might be culturally, aesthetically, and recreationally
different. For instance, one of the study site (Xixi) is a constructed
(artificial) wetland and the other two sites (Xiazhu and Jin) are natural
wetlands. Also, Xixi national wetland park, as the first national wetland
park in China, receives more visitation than the other two parks. Thus,
a pertinent question to explore is whether service quality, tourist expe-
rience, and post-trip behavior intention actually differ across parks. As
shown in Table 2, a MANOVA demonstrated significant differences in
perceived service quality (Wilks’ lambda = 0.02, F = 753.35, p < 0.000)
and tourist experience (Wilks’ lambda = 0.21, F = 763.05, p < 0.000).
The post hoc analysis indicated clear differences between the three
parks in terms of resource condition, tourism facility, integrated
management, and aesthetic experience. In addition, there existed

Table 2. Invariance Tests for Group Comparison

Model v2 df Dv2 Ddf P RMSEA IFI CFI

Unconstrained 2442.014 1420 .044 .921 .922

Measurement weights 2459.959 1452 17.945 32 >.05 .045 .921 .920
Structural weights 2481.074 1468 22.115 16 >.05 .047 .920 .918
Structural covariances 2503.534 1483 22.46 15 >.05 .50 .914 .911
Measurement residuals 2553.021 1530 50.487 47 >.05 .50 .891 .890
 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1775

more differences between Xixi and the other two parks. Specifically,
Xixi had more negative ratings on the crowding and park charges
and more positive ratings on catering facilities, transportation, and
interpretation system compared to the other two parks. Xixi was also
rated higher on its aquatic resource and overall park design than Jin.
Tourists at Xixi demonstrated a higher level of arousal on creative
thoughts compared to the other two parks.
Following MANOVA results and taking into consideration of the
sample size limitation for Xiazhu and Jin, the invariance tests were
used for model comparison between Xixi and the other two parks com-
bined (Bollen, 1989). Five nested models were compared using a series
of increasingly restrictive parameter constraints: (1) unconstrained; (2)
measurement weights; (3) structural weights; (4) structural covari-
ances; and (5) measurement residuals. After each test, goodness of
fit indices was inspected to observe the effect of the imposed con-
straint. If, after the hierarchy of tests, no significant differences (as
determined by the v2 difference test) have been observed, this study
concludes that the park type had no effect on the relationships tested
in the hypothesized model. As shown in Table 3, each of the v2 differ-
ence test for four models was non-significant (p > 0.05), indicating that
each constraint did not significantly impair model fit. Thus, there was
no evidence that the pattern of measurement weights, structural
weights, structural covariances, and measurement residuals differ
across groups.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study is to develop and test a model examining
the tourist experience, its antecedents, and its consequences in wet-
land park setting. The model is tested using data generated by a survey
of tourists at three national wetland parks in adjacent cities of Zhejiang
province, China. Structural equation modeling is employed to further
refine the model.
The major theoretical contribution of this study is the use of quanti-
tative analysis to identify factors affecting tourist experience in wetland
parks and to examine how these factors are likely to influence tourist
experience and post-trip behavioral intention. The study demonstrates
how recreational activities, tourism facilities, integrated management,
and related personnel affect each of the three types of tourist experi-
ence in wetland parks. It also shows the interplay among these con-
structs, and how these constructs influence tourists’ post-trip
behavioral intention. Another important theoretical contribution is
the division of tourist experience into three dimensions to explore
how they interact in affecting the specific tourist experience of wetland
parks and thus post-trip behavioral intention.
Those seeking to develop wetland parks as tourism destinations need
to realize the complexity of the issues affecting post-trip behavioral
intention. The findings of this and other studies suggest that the man-
agers and developers of wetland parks need to consider the opinions
1776 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

and feelings of tourists before they begin new development projects.

Hence, the results of this study may be of value to planners, policymak-
ers, and business operators who are considering the type, layout, and
complexity of developments.
The findings also indicate that action experience and aesthetic
experience are the two factors that are most likely to influence tourist
experience in wetland parks. To improve action experience, opera-
tors may develop diversified recreational activities that offer tourists
a totally different life experience. The management of wetland parks
should also be conducted in a more personalized, user-friendly man-
ner. For example, park operators could enhance the relationships be-
tween stakeholders by managing queues and catering and personnel
services in ways that strengthen tourists’ awareness of environmental
protection and resource conservation. It is not surprising to learn
that the tourists are in particular longing for an aesthetic experience
when visiting wetland parks. Nevertheless, the appearance of man-
made facilities, such as restaurants and visitor center, could have an
impact of the aesthetic experience. Thus, from a managerial perspec-
tive, it is important to consider minimizing the impact on aesthetic
beauty when constructing the infrastructures in wetland parks cater-
ing to urban inhabitants.
The findings reveal five factors that are likely to influence tourist
experience: resource conditions, recreational activities, tourism facili-
ties, integrated management, and related personnel. These factors
suggest that before attempting to develop wetland park tourism facil-
ities, planners should investigate the tourism resources, design rich
and unique recreational activities, and set up convenient and
informative tourism facilities. Equally importantly, developers should
take notice of management standards and fully assess the environ-
mental impact and economic benefits of any development to limit
the scope and scale of tourism activities to the capacity of the natural
environment.
Despite these significant findings, this study is not free from limita-
tions. The findings of the study are limited to three wetland parks; if
other wetland parks had been included in the study, the magnitude
and direction of the relationships may have been different. Future
studies should thus investigate other wetland parks. In addition, the
formal investigation was conducted between July 20 and August 15
2009, during the Chinese summer. Due to the hot weather, some
respondents did not have the patience to fill out the questionnaire
carefully, which resulted in a number of poorly completed question-
naires. Data collection methods that utilize more in-depth approaches,
such as focus groups, should also be considered in the future. Some of
the results from this paper are close to the cut-off points, and therefore
should be treated with caution. Furthermore, the measurement items
were based on items relating to tourists’ experiences of natural scenic
spots. The integrity and independence of these items may thus be
inadequate. As a result, the new scales need to be further validated
in future studies.
 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778 1777

REFERENCES
Alegrea, J., & Garaua, J. (2010). Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(1), 52–73.
Beeho, A. J., & Prentice, R. C. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage
tourists: A case study of New Lanark World Heritage Village. Tourism
Management, 18(2), 75–87.
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior. Orlando,
FL: The Dryden Press.
Blamey, R., & Braithwaite, V. (1997). A social values segmentation of the potential
ecotourism market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 29–45.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1991). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Parks, 2,
31–35.
Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., & Jackson, M. (2004). Determining hiking experiences
in nature-based tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 25(1), 31–43.
Churchill, G. A. Jr., (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Crompton, J. L., & Mackay, K. J. (1989). Users’ perceptions of the relative
importance of service quality dimensions in selected public recreation
programs. Leisure Sciences, 11(4), 367–375.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. R. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination
and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
Csikszentmihalyim, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in
consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eagles, P. F. (1992). The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of
Travel Research, 31(2), 3–7.
Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management.
Tourism Management, 22(2), 135–147.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Gao, C. (1999). Visitors’ recreational experience towards the environment of stated leisure
farm: A case study of a farm in Wuling. Unpublished master’s thesis.
Gomez-Jacinto, L., Martin-Garcia, J. S., & Huyze, C. B. (1999). A model of tourism
experience and attitude change. Annuals of Tourism Research, 26(4),
1024–1027.
Graefe, A. R., & Vaske, J. J. (1987). Framework for managing quality in the tourist
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 390–404.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of
consumption, consumer fantasies, feeling and fun. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(2), 132–140.
Ibrahim, F. M., & Ng, C. W. (2002). Determinants of entertaining shopping
experiences and their link to consumer behavior: Case studies of shopping
centers in Singapore. Journal of Leisure Property, 1(2), 338–357.
Jackson, M. S., White, G., & Schmierer, C. L. (1996). Tourist experience within an
attributional framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 798–810.
Kim, S. S., & Prideaux, B. (2003). Tourism, peace, politics and ideology: Impacts of
the Mt. Gumgang tour project in the Korean Peninsula. Tourism Management,
24(6), 675–685.
Krider, R. E., Arguello, A., Campbell, C., & Mora, J. D. (2010). Trait and image
interaction in ecotourism preference. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3),
779–801.
Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., & Chancellor, C. (2005). Segmenting forest recreationists
using their commitment profiles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
23(2), 64–86.
Lee, E., & Overby, J. W. (2004). Creating value for online shoppers: Implications
for satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 17, 54–67.
Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (2004). The effect of prior
experience on vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 801–818.
1778 W. Wang et al./Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1763–1778

Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China’s

nature reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. Tourism
Management, 25(5), 559–564.
Liang, Y. (2005). The design of tourism products based on visitors’ experience.
Jiangsu Business Forum, 5, 71–73.
Lukashina, N. S., & Amirkhanov, M. M. (1996). Tourism and environmental
degradation in Sochi, Russia. Annals of Tourism Research, 12(3), 654–666.
Obenour, W., Patterson, M., Pedersen, P., & Pearson, L. (2006). Conceptualization
of a meaning-based research approach for tourism service experiences.
Tourism Management, 27(1), 34–41.
Palmer, A., & O’Neill, M. (2003). The effects of perceptual processes on the
measurement of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), 254–274.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-
item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing, 64, 12–40.
Petrick, J. F. (2002). An examination of golf vacationers’ novelty. Annals of Tourism
Research, 2(2), 384–400.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard
Business Review, 76(7–8), 97–105.
Ross, G. (1991). Tourist destination images of the wet tropical rainforests of North
Queensland. Australian Psychologist, 26(2), 153–157.
Ryan, C. (Ed.). (1997). The tourist experience: A new introduction. London: Cassell.
Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, thank,
act and relate to your company and brands. New York: The Free Press.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Amereon Ltd..
Tussyadiah, L. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences:
Access to places via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 24–40.
Vandermey, A. (1984). Assessing the importance of urban tourism: Conceptual
and measurement issues. Tourism Management, 46(2), 123–135.
Vittersø, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistad, O. I., & Vaagland, J. (2000). Tourist experiences
and attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 432–450.
Wang, L. L., & Lu, L. (2009). Research progress on wetland ecotourism. Chinese
Journal of Applied Ecology, 20(6), 1517–1524.
Wang, L. L., Lu, L., Tang, Y., & Wang, C. (2010). Running status, distribution
pattern and type classification of the state-level wetland parks in China. Acta
Ecologica Sinica, 30(9), 2406–2415.
Wei, X., & Wei, S. (2004). The planning of tourism scenario and the design of
project experience. Tourism Tribune, 19(4), 45–51.
Xie, Y. (2005). The research of tourist experience: A phenomenological perspective. Tianjin:
Nankai University Press.
Young, M. (1996). Ecotourism-profitable conservation? In J. E. Hay (Ed.),
Ecotourism business in the Pacific: Promoting a sustainable experience (pp. 55–60).
Conference proceedings. Auckland: Environmental Science, University of
Auckland.
Zhuang, H., Lassoie, J. P., & Wolf, S. A. (2011). Ecotourism development in China:
Prospects for expanded roles for non-governmental organizations. Journal of
Ecotourism, 10(1), 46–63.

Submitted 15 March 2011. Resubmitted 25 June 2011. Resubmitted 13 October 2011.

Resubmitted 22 April 2012. Final version 7 May 2012. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating
Editor: Francis Eric Amuquandoh.