The relevance of motivation, authenticity and destination imageto explain future behavioural intention in a UNESCO WorldHeritage Site

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Current Issues in Tourism on 2022,available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1905617 .” 1 The relevance of motivation, authenticity and destination image to explain future behavioural intention in a UNESCO World Heritage Site* Carreira, Vivina, [email protected], Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra (Portugal) / Faculty of Tourism and Finance, University of Seville (Spain) González-Rodríguez, M. Rosario, [email protected], Faculty of Tourism and Finance, University of Seville (Spain) Díaz-Fernández, M. Carmen, [email protected], Faculty of Tourism and Finance, University of Seville (Spain) Abstract This paper falls within the scope of heritage tourism studies, focusing particularly on one UNESCO World Heritage Site. It seeks to contribute to tourism literature by achieving a better understanding of which cognitive and affective factors are behind tourists’ decisions to travel to these sites, their experiences during their visit and behavioural intention after the visit. A self-administered questionnaire focusing on the variables included in the proposed research model was given to tourists. A composite-based structural equation modelling approach was employed for the analysis. The findings revealed a significant and high correlation between travel attitude and perceived authenticity, travel motivations and destination image, and authenticity and destination image, but it goes beyond those relations by analysing them in an integrated manner and at different stages of the visit to comprehend tourist behavioural intention after the visit. Besides the theoretical advancements with this study, the practical and managerial implications must be emphasized particularly for entities responsible for destination marketing that may be able to use the outcome of our research to work on proper promotion strategies. Keywords: Prior Knowledge, Authenticity, Tourist Destination Image, World Heritage Sites, Tourists’ Visit Intention, UNESCO Status, Coimbra 1. Introduction Tourism focused on visits to historic and cultural locations is often referred to as heritage tourism. It relates to travelling with the intention of experiencing the places, activities, and artefacts that reflect the cultural history and stories of each location, in an authentic way (Chaudhary & Aggarwal, 2012). Thus, one of the main objectives of heritage tourism is to provide tourists with reliable knowledge of the site, so they can appreciate local art, architecture and traditions. Heritage tourism destinations are considered key drivers that contribute significantly to national tourism revenues, with substantial influence on both regional and national development (Basaran, 2016). Therefore, an appropriate branding strategy for these 2 heritage sites that further boosts their image and competitiveness, will, in turn, extend throughout the region or country where it is located (Ghazi & Ammar, 2018). This competitiveness has been viewed as both a positive and negative influence on the tourism sector, its stakeholders and society in general. While a positive image is becoming widely accepted and encouraged, the competitiveness factor is increasingly rejected by both practitioners and theorists. The unwelcome effects of competitiveness are often related to increasing business investment in cities, with unsustainable practices such as the remodelling of historic neighbourhoods, the modification of original architecture and even the eviction of local residents, as well as the over-commercialisation of local culture (Lu, Chi, & Liu, 2015; Molinillo, Liébana-Cabanillas, Anaya-Sánchez & Buhalis, 2018; Park, Choi & Lee, 2019). These negative impacts on the heritage of many cities have been attributed to a lack of reliable information on issues such as the tourists’ quality experience, authenticity, the tourist destination image and, finally, the behaviour of tourists when visiting historical districts, which has been described in many cases as displaying an “inappropriate” attitude to cultural heritage (García-Hernández, la Calle-Vaquero, & Yubero, 2017; Du Cros, & McKercher, 2020). All these elements have led to unsuitable and unsustainable management of tourist destinations by politicians and tourism managers, who are widely criticised, particularly in cultural heritage locations (Yap & Saha, 2013; Bennet & Dearden, 2014; Bąkiewicz, Leask, Barron & Rakić, 2017). Consequently, a better understanding of the abovementioned topics is desirable. Arguments such as the following explain and support this: 1) They are all strongly linked to tourists’ satisfaction with their visits to historical districts and the subsequent impact on the cultural heritage destination (Chen & Rahman, 2018); 2) It is commonly agreed that this merits further research to provide meaningful suggestions for the development of realistic, sustainable, and accessible tourism policies and strategies more in line with the current state-of-the-art heritage tourism, according to the latest research in this field (Henderson, 2009; Nicholas & Thapa, 2013; Jamal, Al-Haddad, Safdar & Wan, 2020), and 3) Topics such as prior knowledge of the location, authenticity, destination image, or eventual tourist behaviour are interesting for both theorists and practitioners, as they are considered key factors for the sustainable and successful management of heritage tourism (Lu et al, 2015; Xu & Huang, 2018). In addition, while it is commonly accepted that prior knowledge is a fundamental factor influencing individuals’ knowledge and search behaviour before travelling, this topic is still under debate with regard to which elements should fall within the concept (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004; Choi, Hickerson & Kerstetter, 2018). As noted by these researchers, although there is 3 agreement that familiarity with a location has an impact on the destination image in advance of a visit, more research is needed. Heritage authenticity is a significant driver, highly valued by both scholars and Destination Marketing Organisations (DMOs), due to its positive influence on behavioural intentions towards a destination (Domínguez-Quintero, González-Rodríguez & Paddison, 2020). Hence, a good understanding of how authenticity is perceived in heritage sites is very valuable for tourism managers, to enable them to develop adequate strategies and tactics for proper destination management. However, despite the above arguments, authenticity is considered a complex issue, and even though most researchers have discussed authenticity in relation to other topics, such as tourist motivation, tourism image and sense of place, only a few have stressed the need to empirically test and discuss the relationships between authenticity and these other relevant variables before and during visits to heritage sites (Zhou, Zhang & Edelheim, 2013). The significance and value placed on research into the tourist destination image has grown among theorists and practitioners, due mainly to the need to understand how tourists’ positive perceptions influence their behaviour (Lu et al., 2015). Many researchers recognise that tourists’ destination image perception is a multidimensional construct (Oktadiana, Pearce & Chon, 2016; Martin et al., 2017). However, many studies focus solely on the cognitive dimension of the destination image (Prayag & Hosany, 2014; Basaran, 2016). Only a few have approached the destination image considering both its affective and cognitive dimensions (Fischer & Zeugner-Roth, 2017; Caber et al, 2020). In this way, the present paper has answered the call to recognise the cognitive and affective dimensions of destination image in a World Heritage Site (WHS). UNESCO WHS status implies a high quality standard and unique in situ experiences. It gives tourists the confidence to take the final decision to visit, decreasing their perceived risk of choosing this WHS against another natural or cultural destination (Halpenny, Kono & Moghimehfar, 2018). These tourists’ decisions and actions also have significant implications for the local communities and businesses that will, directly or indirectly, experience the benefits and costs associated with satisfying World Heritage-inspired travel expectations (Jimura, 2011). Thus, mixed support for the influence of WHS status on tourists’visit intentions has been observed (Poria, Reichel & Cohen, 2013; Wang et al., 2015). Furthermore, there is a need to address some deficiencies in current tourism studies regarding these issues (Halpenny et al., 2018), especially regarding how destination image perception is influenced during a visit, not just in advance. 4 The paper falls within the scope of heritage tourism studies, focusing particularly on a UNESCO WHS. It attempts to understand which cognitive and affective factors are behind tourists’ decisions to travel to such places, their experience during their visit and behavioural intention after the visit. This research provides a deeper analysis of the complex relationships between topics such as motivation, authenticity, destination image, UNESCO status and behavioural intention, from a cognitive and affective approach at different stages of a visit (Bagri & Kala, 2016; Piramanayagam, Rathore & Seal, 2020). Building on previous research, this study tests the moderating effect of UNESCO status on the destination image, as well as the mediating effect had by the twofold concept of authenticity on the relationship between travel motivations and destination image. A research model has been presented and a set of hypotheses have been developed to reflect these direct and indirect relationships. The aforementioned gaps in the literature gaps and calls from earlier researchers (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; Stylos, Bellou, Andronikidis & Vassiliadis, 2017; Zhang, Wu & Buhalis, 2018) fully justify this study. The following research questions are also addressed: (1) Does affective and cognitive motivation towards a destination influence object-based and existential authenticity? (2) Does the double dimension of authenticity influence destination image as perceived from its affective and cognitive dimensions? (3) Does UNESCO World heritage status moderate the relationship between destination image and behavioural intention? The paper is organised as follows: after the introduction section, a literature review section supporting the research model and hypotheses proposed is included. Next, the research design and methodology applied are described in detail, followed by an empirical data analysis and study results. Finally, a general conclusion is drawn, some managerial implications and limitations derived from the study are discussed, and future research avenues to cover the paper’s limitations are proposed. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Motivation, Authenticity and Destination Image Motivation Tourist motivation has been a topic of interest both for scholars and tourism practitioners, to the point of being considered significant for improving tourist behaviour and in tourism analysis (Bashar, & Abdelnaser, 2011; Chikuta, du Plessis & Saayman, 2017; Omran & Kamran, 2018). Moreover, “for several decades, clarification of tourists’ motivations has been at the centre of 5 tourism research”, there being several frameworks provided in this academic context (Caber et al., 2020). Although several motivational theories have been proposed, the Push-Pull Theory (Dann, 1977; Crompton, 1979) has been the most widely accepted and adopted by researchers in tourist motivation studies (Beltramo, Rostagno & Bonadonna, 2018; Giachino et al., 2019; Tseng, Lin, Lin, Wu & Sriphon, 2019). According to this theory, motivation can be described as the needs or desires that push an individual to act in order to obtain satisfaction (Bashar, & Abdelnaser, 2011; Komalasari & Ganiarto, 2019). Therefore, this theory states that people travel based on push factors from internal forces and pull factors from external forces, made up of a destination’s attributes (Mohammad & Som, 2010; Kesterson, 2013). With this in mind, Crompton (1979) classified tourist motivations into push and pull tourism factors in order to determine the significance of the destination in attracting tourists (Nikjoo & Ketabi, 2015; Yousefi & Marzuki, 2015). Push motivational factors originate from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and are considered intrinsic motivations (Guha, 2009). They relate to the needs of the tourist and include examples such as the desire for escape, rest and relaxation, adventure, prestige, health and fitness, and social interaction (Klenosky, 2002). Prior knowledge is widely recognised in tourism literature as a key factor influencing individuals’ information search behaviour before travelling (Sharifpour, Walters, Ritchie & Winter, 2014). Since prior knowledge represents tourists’ cognitive motivation, the issue becomes a vital driver, capable of influencing tourists’ decision-making and final behaviour (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004a). This information search process is defined by Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard (1995) as ‘the motivated activation of knowledge stored in memory or acquisition of information from the environment’, and can be classified as internal and external (Yamashita & Takata, 2020). Accordingly, prior knowledge is initially comprised of two dimensions: familiarity and expertise, as argued by researchers such as Alba & Hutchinson (1987). They define the first dimension as ‘the number of product-related experiences that have been accumulated by the consumer’, and the second as ‘the ability to perform product-related tasks successfully’. In particular, it highlights the role familiarity plays, due to the specific knowledge it provides of the target attractions (object-based authenticity) that determine tourist preferences for certain destinations (Ho, Lin, & Chen, 2012). Based on previous findings, many other researchers have widely defended, in parallel, the multidimensional character of prior knowledge, including three main aspects: tourists’ familiarity with the attraction via acquired information (Park & Lessig, 1981; Diallo, Chandon, Cliquet, & Philippe, 2013; Sharifpour, Walters, Ritchie, & Winter, 2014); tourists’ expertise 6 related to their level of knowledge and skills (Mitchell & Dacin, 1996; Zehrer, 2011; Peña, Jamilena & Molina, 2013) and tourists’ past experience gained during previous visits (Moore & Lehmann, 1980; San Martin, Collado & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2013; Karimi, Papamichail & Holland, 2015). Furthermore, most of these earlier studies, far from studying prior knowledge in the context of all the above dimensions, have studied them in isolation (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004; Sharifpour, Walters, Ritchie, & Winter, 2014). However, to date, there is no consensus regarding one research activity over another. Prior knowledge is the main focus of interest for researchers, but it has not been analysed taking in consideration its various dimensions, nor has it been regarded as such an important factor or in connection with other variables related to tourist behaviour (Marchiori & Cantoni, 2015; Huang, Afsharifar, & Veen, 2016; Prayag, Gannon, Muskat, & Taheri, 2020). Srull (1983) conceptualised the familiarity dimension of prior knowledge, defined as an individual’s perception of a product/service that is not necessarily derived from a personal experience. Later, Milman and Pizam (1995) described familiarity as the number of times individuals have visited a destination. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) added that this familiarity was composed of an individual’s indirect experience gained through acquired information of the tourist location and direct tourism experience obtained in the location. The authors advance this line of thought by referring indirectly to the role played by authenticity, both object-based and existential, in the relationship between familiarity as a dimension of prior knowledge and tourist destination image. Other scholars have provided results that show how familiarity generates an adequate image of a tourist destination, and even more so, how it has a positive influence on the destination image and enhances interest in travelling to these sites to reveal objective information on a tourism destination’s product attributes (object-based authenticity) (Ahmed 1991; Wright & Lynch 1995; Huang, Lurie & Mitra, 2009; Del Chiappa, Napolitano & Atzeni, 2019). Thus, as far as tourism agents, such as museums, are concerned, it is extensively recognised that prior knowledge exerts a positive influence on visitors’ choice and perceptions of the potential rewards they intend to gain during their visits, ultimately favouring the tourist destination image (Falk & Storksdieck, 2010; Sheng & Chen, 2012; Camarero, Garrido & Vicente, 2015). Moreover, these visitors can gain a more enjoyable, enriching and suitable experience, enhancing their prior knowledge of the museum they intend to visit, by gathering data in advance from various sources capable of giving them an adequate level of familiarity, and thus determining their final choice. Similarly, Black (2012) demonstrated that visitors with higher 7 levels of museum experience, acquired through suitable prior knowledge, based on greater familiarity with the museum content and its exhibitions, are more likely to experiment a higher level of engagement and, thereby, enjoyment, during the visit. This improves, definitively, the tourist destination image through elements later identified by some scholars as object-based authenticity and existential authenticity. There are similar assumptions and findings related to historic district context, Lu, Chi, & Liu (2015), heritage tourism destination, Alvarez & Korzay (2011) or WHS, Frost (2006) and Laing, Wheeler, Reeves & Frost (2014). There is a high level of agreement between researchers, who mostly hypothesise that it is likely that the knowledge tourists acquire through available information on a heritage location, might have a relevant impact on tourists’ perception of authenticity, and thereby reinforce the formation of a positive image. Authenticity Authenticity was introduced by MacCannell (1973) from a sociological perspective to understand tourists’ travel experiences at historic sites. Later, more specifically, under a heritage tourism context, authenticity has been considered by Boyd (2002) as a key issue and valuable principle capable of contributing to sustainable tourism. Accordingly, some scholars have attributed pivotal significance to authenticity in heritage tourism, since this topic connects tourists to destination attractions related both to object-based authenticity and existential authenticity (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; Girish & Chen, 2017). While object-based authenticity derives from the properties of the object itself, existential authenticity is lived by the individual as a participant in experiences that activate their existential state (Wang, 1999; Zhou et al, 2013). Hargrove (2002) already argued that, in the heritage context, authenticity is essential for a meaningful experience, highlighting the existential character of this issue. Overall, in the context of heritage tourism, both types of authenticity are considered value issues that significantly improve the tourists’ quality experience and, in turn, satisfaction (Curran et al., 2018; Domínguez et al., 2020), as well as a favourable perception of a tourism destination image (Chhabra et al., 2003; Chen & Chen, 2010; Tavitiyaman & Qu, 2013). In fact, authenticity motivates tourists to engage in heritage tourism, which allows them to meet their expectations, thereby enhancing the destination image. Accordingly, in the heritage tourism context, some scholars have conducted their research to test the positive influence that authenticity exerts on the tourist destination image (Connell, 2012; Bryce et al., 2016). However, despite these previous studies, the results provided regarding the relationship between authenticity and the image of the tourist destination are considered insufficient today 8 in the tourist context. Consequently, these findings can neither be conclusive nor have universal acceptance, and many researchers (Domínguez et al, 2020) have made a case for the need for greater in-depth research into this relationship. Therefore, for example, Curran et al (2018), corroborate this need for further research between different types of authenticity and destination image, while also considering other tourism issues such as tourists’ motivation or loyalty, which are in turn influenced by aspects of the tourism culture and context. In line with the above arguments and findings, this paper intends to further understand this association between object-based and existential authenticity and their influence on destination image, a relationship that has not been sufficiently studied so far, as mentioned above. Following the consumer-based approach by Kolar and Zabkar (2010), authenticity is analysed in this paper as an evaluative judgment that pertains to tourist experiences taking place in a real site, culture, object or destination, in this case, the city of Coimbra, as a tourism destination with UNESCO´s World Heritage Status. Here, authenticity refers to the tourists’ enjoyment and their perceptions of genuine cultural experiences. These tourists’ perceptions encompass both types of authenticity (object-based and existential) since, in line with Kolar and Zabkar (2010), this research considers that they must be tested as two separate issues in the model proposed. Thus, also based on Waitt’s (2000) and Reisinger & Steiner’s (2006) arguments, as "tourists’ existential experiences are not ‘object- and context-free’" (p. 655), object-based authenticity positively influences existential authenticity. Based on their results, other works have also approached this relationship by using other models and statistical techniques, applied in different tourism contexts (Yi, Lin, Jin & Luo, 2017; Domínguez- Quintero, González-Rodríguez & Roldán, 2019). Destination Image The real value of tourism destination image relies on its large, direct impact on other significant tourism issues, as revealed by previous research. Thus, significant relationships have been established between tourism destination image, tourists’ quality experience, motivation, satisfaction, and visit intention (Albayrak, Caber, González-Rodríguez & Aksu, 2018). So, it is increasingly assumed that positive perceptions concerning a tourist destination help to create a favourable tourism destination image, which leads to greater motivation and satisfaction (Sun, Chi & Xu, 2013; Gursoy, Chen & Chi, 2014). Consequently, the likelihood of visiting or revisiting the locations also seems to improve through a favourable destination image (Stylos et al, 2017; González-Rodríguez, Díaz-Fernández & Pino-Mejías, 2020). 15 Table 1. Social demographic information. Coimbra’s Visitors (%) Gender Female 51.20% Male 48.80% Age 18-34 52.92% 35-49 24.23% 50-64 14.95% Over 65 7.90% Level of Education Primary 1.7% Secondary/Vocational Education 34.6% College Education 62% Level of Income Up to 1500 € 28.5% 1501-3000€ 33.4% 3001-5000€ 28.8% Over 50001 7.5% Origin Portugal 46.48% European Union 36.95% Rest of the world 16.57% Type of trip Individual or family trip 90.8% Travel on tours 5.8% Main purpose of the visit Leisure and Vacation 31.2% Rest and health reasons 1.7% Visit UNESCO World Heritage Site 33.1% Cultural and recreational events 14.2% Visit friends or relatives 7.3% Others 10.8% 4.2. Measurement Model The analysis starts by conducting a confirmatory analysis of the saturated model (Henseler et al., 2016; Henseler, 2018) based on the standardised room mean square residual (SRMR) index (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The saturated model displays a SRMR value of 0.072, which is below the threshold value of 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). This result supports the composite model, since the composites do not appear to act as individual indicators, but rather within a nomological net. 16 To assess the measurement models, composites estimated in mode A and Mode B are distinguished depending on the theoretical nature of the constructs. While composites in mode A are expected to be used for those constructs with high correlated indicators, composite measurements estimated in mode B are preferred when the correlation of their indicators is not presupposed (Henseler, 2017a). The constructs cognitive and affective motivations, objective authenticity, existential authenticity and UNESCO status, have been defined as composite mode A. Destination image has been defined as second-order composite in mode B, and its dimensions have been defined as composites mode A. The individual items: reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity (Table 2) and discriminant validity, (Table 3) were obtained in order to assess the measurement model for composites mode A. Table 2 shows that all indicators have a factor loading greater than 0.70, the correlation weights are significant, and the composite reliability for these composites is higher than 0.80. Therefore, the measurement models have internal consistency and reliability. Secondly, average variance extracted (AVE) values greater than 0.50 also confirm the existence of convergent validity. Table 3 shows that all mode A composites achieve discriminant validity following the Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations criterion of 0.85, HTMT85 (Henseler et al., 2015) and the Fornell and Lacker discriminant validity criterion (Fornell & Larcker,1981). To assess the measurement model for mode B composites, the constructs’ discriminant validity, the indicators’ collinearity and the statistical significance of the indicators’ weights are evaluated. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values are lower than the threshold of 3.3 (Table 2), which means no multicollinearity issues between the indicators of each composite. Table 2 also shows the magnitude and statistical significance of the composites’ indicators, revealing the relative importance of each indicator on its composite (Henseler et al., 2009). Discriminant validity is confirmed since the correlation between composite B and the rest of the constructs (Table 3) is less than 0.7 (Urbach & Ahlemann, 2010). 17 Table 2. Measurement model. Construct/Dimension/Indicator Weight Load CR AVE Affective Motivation: Push Motivation (MOV_AF) (Composite, Mode A) 0.807 0.603 Leisure/Vacation 0.214* 0.785 Relaxation/Escape 0.113* 0.723 Excitement/Adventure 0.133* 0.822 Affection and Sympathy of locals 0.341* 0.783 Social 0.262* 0.771 Prestige 0.141* 0.742 Cognitive Motivation: Prior Knowledge(MOV_CO) (Composite, Mode A) History of the City 0.245* 0.824 0.901 0.705 History of the University 0.326* 0.801 Students’ traditions 0.289* 0.789 Coimbra Fado 0.128* 0.822 Museums and Parks 0.121* 0.815 Objective Authenticity (OA) (Composite, Mode A) Restoration of historic buildings respects the same style (Architecture, furniture, utensils, etc). 0.231* 0.831 0.922 0.677 I liked the peculiarities about the interior design and furnishing 0.251* 0.843 I liked the way the site blend with the attractive landscape, Scenery, historical ensemble, the town. 0.237* 0.253* 0.851 0.832 I liked the information about the site and I found it interesting. 0.231* 0.783 Existential Authenticity (EA) (Composite, Mode A) I liked special arrangements, events, concerts, celebrations Connected to the site 0.201* 0.783 0.885 0.658 The visit provided a thorough insight into different historical Periods of the city. 0.236* 0.768 During the visit I sensed the related history, legends and Historical personalities 0.231* 0.827 I enjoyed a unique experience that allowed me to be in contact with Local people, their traditions and custom 0.212* 0.831 Destination Image(second-order Composite, Mode B) (DI) n.a. n.a. Qualitative of experience (Composite, Mode A) 0.342* 0.843 0.872 0.671 Attractions (Composite, Mode A) 0.205* 0.835 0.892 0.722 Value/Environment (Composite, Mode A) 0.293* 0.821 0.869 0.705 Affective Image (Composite, Mode B) 0.367* 0.845 0.801 0.718 Behaviour Intention (Composite, Mode B) (BI) Likelihood to visit Coimbra in the next 12 months 0.342* 0.856 0.832 0.725 Intend to visit Coimbra in the next 12 month 0.316* 0.889 Want to visit Coimbra 0.372* 0.903 UNESCO STATUS (Composite, Mode B) (US) 0.886 0.795 It improves the image of the city 0.334* 0.832 It alerts for the need of conservation and monuments protection 0.372* 0.806 It promotes the development of tourism 0.321* 0.817 It contributes to the pride of residents 0.352* 0.857 It encourages the networking of the various entities and operators CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted; *p<0.001; n.a: not applicable for Composite Mode B 18 19 4.3. Structural Model First, the SRMR is obtained to assess the structural model. The SRMR value is below the cutoff value of 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), which means the goodness-of-fit of the overall performance of the PLS models is adequate. Then, the path coefficients, the f2 values, the R2 and Q2 of endogenous latent variables, are assessed. Additionally, the bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples (Hair et al., 2011) was used to generate t-statistics, together with the percentile bootstrap 95% confidence interval (Chin, 2010) to evaluate the statistical significance of the path coefficients. Table 4. Structural Model Estimates. Direct Effect Coeff. Direct effect t-value p-val Conf. Interval f2 Supported Objective Authenticity R2=0.358 Q2=0.213 H1a(+): Cognitive motivationObject-base Authenticity 0.269 2.95 0.002 0.170-0.355 0.153 Yes H1b (+): Affective motivationObject-base Authenticity 0.221 2.89 0.002 0.143-0.348 0.124 Yes Existential Authenticity R2=0.520 Q2=0.247 H1c(+):Cognitive motivationExistential Authenticity 0.195 2.65 0.002 0.009-0.289 0.174 Yes H1d(+): Affective motivation Existential Authenticity 0.247 3.79 0.000 0.094-0.288 0.173 Yes Destination Image R2=0.569 Q2=0.336 H2a(+): Object-base AuthenticityDestination Image H 2b (+): OAEADestination Image 0.587 0.301 6.12 4.23 0.000 0.000 0.321-0.693 0.241-0.453 0.254 0.187 Yes Yes H2c(+): Existential AuthenticityDestination Image 0.526 7.65 0.000 0.383-0.651 0.237 Yes Behaviour Intention R2=0.565 Q2=0.313 H3a(+): Destination ImageBehaviour Intention 0.423 5.83 0.000 0.218-0.541 0.263 Yes H3b(+): Destination Image* Unesco StatusBehaviour Intention 0.156 2.64 0.004 0.072-0.304 0.276 Yes Indirect Effect Indirect relations Coeff. Indirect effect t value pvalue Confidence Interval Destination Image H1e (+):Cognitive motivationOA Destination Image 0.1579 3.324 0.000 [0.062;0.195] H2d(+)Affective attitudeOADestination Image 0.1297 3.091 0.000 [0.057;0.256] H1f(+)Cognitive motivationEADestination Image 0.1026 2.88 0.000 [0.048; 0.161] H1g(+):Affective motivationEADestination Image 0.1299 3.54 0.000 [0.673¸0.1821] *p<0.001. Bootstrapping based on n=5000 subsamples. A one-tailed test for a t-Student distribution is applied for direct and mediation effects. . CI- bias corrected 95% confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap subsamples. 20 Figure 2. Estimated Model From Table 4 and Figure 2, t-statistic, p-values, and confidence intervals show the statistical significance of the main (or direct) effects and the mediating (or indirect) effects in the research model. Focusing on the main (direct) effects, the following results have been achieved: cognitive motivations based on prior-knowledge influence positively the objective authenticity (β=0.269, p<0.01). Affective motivations toward visiting Coimbra as a WHS exert a positive and significant influence on the perception of the objective authenticity (β=0.221, p<0.01). Similarly, cognitive positively influences the perception of the existential authenticity (β=0.195, p<0.01), and affective motivation positively influences the perception of the existential authenticity (β=0.247, p<0.01). Hence, hypotheses H1a and H1b are confirmed. A positive and significant effect of objective authenticity on destination image (β=0.587, p<0.01) and existential authenticity on destination image are also observed (β=0.526, p<0.01). Thus, hypotheses H2a and H2b are supported. A favourable destination image when visiting Coimbra positively influences the tourists’ future behavioural intention as expected (β=0.423, p<0.01). In addition, Coimbra’s UNESCO status exerts a positive and moderating effect in the relation established between destination image and future behavioural intention (β=0.156, p<0.01). Therefore, hypotheses H3a and H3b are confirmed. Table 4 also reports the mediating (indirect) relationships in the model as the product of the coefficients of each of the causal relationships in the mediating chain (Hayes, Preacher, & 21 Myers, 2011). Based on the one-tailed t-test, the indirect effect of objective authenticity (OA) through existential authenticity (EA) on destination image (DesImage) is significant: OAEADestImage (β=0.301, p<0.01). Hypothesis H2c is supported. Cognitive motivation (CM) towards visiting Coimbra positively influences destination image through objective authenticity: CMOADesImage (β=0.1579, p<0.01). Affective motivations (AM) towards visiting Coimbra positively influence destination image through objective authenticity: AMOADestImage (β=0.1579, p<0.01). Hypotheses H2d and H2e are confirmed. Likewise, cognitive motivations towards visiting Coimbra positively influence destination image through existential authenticity: CMEADesImage (β=0.1026, p<0.01). Furthermore, affective motivations towards visiting Coimbra positively influence destination image through existential authenticity: AMEADesImage (β =0.1299, p<0.01). Hypotheses H2f and H2g are supported. In addition, the main effects have f2 values above the medium effect of 0.15, as suggested by Cohen (1992). The research model also displays an appropriate predictive power (in-sample prediction) for the endogenous variables, since the Q2 values are larger than zero (Hair et al., 2016). Additionally, the predictive performance of the model checked the robustness of the results achieved. The predictive performance of a model is based on the accuracy of predictions from new observations, that are not the hold-in sample, used to estimate the model path coefficients. The study employed the PLS predict algorithm in SmartPLS software to evaluate the model predictive relevance, both at the endogenous construct and constructs’ indicator levels (Shmueli et al., 2016). Table 5 displays the root mean squared error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE) and Q2 values at the endogenous constructs level. Those values at the indicator values are assessed but not displayed due to the number of indicators. Findings show positive Q2 values and low prediction errors, based on RMSE and MAE for both at the construct level, as presented in Table 5 and at the indicator levels. Thus, the model presents a satisfactory predictive performance, supporting the robustness of the results achieved. 22 Table 5. Model Predictive Relevance Endogenous construct RMSE MAE Q2_predict Objective authenticity 0.675 0.485 0.560 Existential authenticity 0.626 0.481 0.601 Destination Image 0.758 0.564 0.388 Behaviour Intention 0.535 0.458 0.327 5. Discussion and Implications The paper responds to a call in tourism literature to investigate the relationships between motivation, authenticity, destination image, UNESCO status and behavioural intention, from a cognitive and affective approach at different stages of a visit (Bagri & Kala, 2016; Piramanayagam, Rathore & Seal, 2020). The present research observes that certain aspects related to a heritage destination, such as prior knowledge of the place, tourists’ affective motivation toward the place, its authenticity, its favourable image and its UNESCO status, appear to be essential for the development and sustainability of a World Heritage Site (Bagri & Kala, 2016; Pavlić, Portolan & Puh, 2017). The findings show that cognitive and affective travel motivation factors have a direct and significant influence on how the authenticity of a WHS is perceived from an objective (objectbased) and a subjective (existential) approach, and on perceived destination image. This finding supports previous studies, which revealed a significant and high correlation between travel attitude (motivation) and perceived authenticity (Lin & Liu, 2018; Submitter, Chang & Kuo, 2019), between travel motivations and destination image (Pan et al., 2014; Khan et al., 2017; Arya, Sharma, Sethi, Verma & Shiva, 2018), and between authenticity and destination image (Shams, 2016; Jiang, Ramkissoon, Mavondo & Feng, 2017). Moreover, this paper goes beyond previous studies by analysing these relationships jointly at different stages of a visit, to understand tourist behavioural intention after the visit. Although the influence of UNESCO WHS status has been analysed through a direct or main effect on the destination image before the visit and, therefore, on the choice of destination (Hamid, Abdulla & Lee, 2018), the present research has focused on the moderating effect of UNESCO status on the destination image, as formed during the visit and future behavioural intention. Furthermore, the mediating effect of the two dimensions of authenticity on the 23 relation between travel motivations and destination image has not been explored in tourism literature so far. The results showed positive and significant mediating effects of both cognitive (object-based) and affective authenticity (existential authenticity), on the relationships between cognitive motivation (prior-knowledge), and between affective motivation and destination image. 5.1 Theoretical implications There are some theoretical implications that arise from this study. In tourism research, prior knowledge appears to be a vital driver, capable of influencing tourists’ decision to travel. However, the relevance of prior knowledge, defined as tourists’ familiarity with the attraction or place, achieved by means of acquired information before the visit (Park, Mothersbaugh & Feick, 1994; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004b), has not been sufficiently explored in literature. This paper highlights, in particular, the role played by familiarity, as a dimension of prior knowledge, due to the specific information it provides tourists about target attractions (object-based authenticity), and determining their preference for a certain tourist destination (Ho, Lin, & Chen, 2012; Chen, Shang & Li, 2014). This paper also highlights the relevance of authenticity in its cognitive and affective dimensions, when analysing its influence on tourist behavioural intention. Unlike other research (Naoi, 2004; Lu et al., 2015), this paper highlights the influence of both cognitive and affective authenticity on the mental construction process of destination image. Although there is not a single and universal way of measuring tourism destination image in tourism literature, this study employs a multidimensional approach that includes both the cognitive/perceptive and affective aspects of destination image (Kim & Park, 2015) to reach a better comprehension of tourists’ behaviour, with the aim of developing the potential pull of a tourism destination. The UNESCO status attributed to World Heritage Sites has been considered in academic literature as a valuable indicator, that gives tourists good expectations of potential memorable experiences (King & Halpenny, 2014; Hamid, Abdullah & Lee, 2018; Lee, Phau & Quintal, 2018). Despite the relevance of understanding WHS status, and specifically, the potential influences that it might exert on tourists’ expectations and, therefore, on their subsequent visit intention to certain tourism destination with the UNESCO designation, scholars have increasingly revealed complex relationships among the above variables, particularly, between these, tourism demand and WHS status (Halpenny et al, 2018). This paper answers this appeal to provide better knowledge of the role of WHS status during the “on site” stage of the visit, 24 through its moderating effect on the destination image and, hence, on its influence on future behavioural intention. Even though the relationships involved in the research model, such as travel motivation and authenticity, travel motivation and destination image, and authenticity and destination image, have been examined in similar contexts (Lu, Chi and Li, 2015; Domínguez-Quintero, González- Rodríguez and Paddison, 2020), the present research analyses all of those relationships in the research model proposed. Thus, the present research model is an attempt to consider simultaneously different stages of the visit: the “pre-visit” and “on site” stages of a visit. Furthermore, those relations have not been analysed using cognitive and affective approach for those variables. As seen from the results, both cognitive and affective dimensions of travel motivation and authenticity are relevant to destination image, as defined as a composite with cognitive and affective elements, which in turn will influence the future behavioral intention at the post-visit stage. The mediating effect of object-based authenticity and existential authenticity on the relationship between travel attitude and perceived destination image has not been studied so far in tourism literature. This paper, therefore, has contributed to a better understanding of the direct and indirect effects of the perceived authenticity in the construction of the destination image, as well as the moderating effect of UNESCO status on destination image, which undoubtedly explains the mechanism to adopt a positive behavioral intention after the visit. 5.2 Managerial Implications There are several managerial implications derived from the research. Despite the aforementioned increase in visitor numbers since the year of the UNESCO classification, the problem of how to retain tourists in the city for a long stay remains. Nevertheless, the average stay continues to be around 1.5 days. This means that DMOs still have a role to play in the strategic and sustainable planning of destination management, through anticipating scenarios and reacting accordingly. These organisations’ main goal is to foster economic growth with an integrated approach, that takes into consideration resident communities and tourist interests, which implies being able to foresee and meet market opportunities. In the case under study, there are four DMOs that have to coordinate and share a vision for all the stakeholders involved and aim towards collective interest: The National Tourism Association, Turismo do Centro (Regional DMO), Turismo de Coimbra (local / municipal DMO), and Turismo da Universidade de Coimbra (site DMO). These organisations facilitate 31 Ghazi, K., & Ammar, S. (2018). International tourists’ attitudes and satisfaction toward airport F&B, and duty-free concessions. Journal of Tourism Research, 20, 41-109 Giachino, C., Truant, E., & Bonadonna, A. (2019). Mountain tourism and motivation: millennial students’ seasonal preferences. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-15 Gilbert, D. C. (1991). An examination of the consumer behaviour process related to tourism. In Cooper, C. P. (Ed.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 3., Belhaven Press, London and New York 78-105. Girish, V. G., & Chen, C. F. (2017). Authenticity, experience, and loyalty in the festival context: Evidence from the San Fermin festival, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(15), 1551- 1556. González-Rodríguez, M. R., Domínguez-Quintero, A. M., & Paddison, B. (2019). The direct and indirect influence of experience quality on satisfaction: the importance of emotions. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1668917. González-Rodríguez, M. R., Díaz-Fernández, M. C., & Font, X. (2020a). Factors influencing willingness of customers of environmentally friendly hotels to pay a price premium. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2019-0147. González-Rodríguez, M. R., Díaz-Fernández, M. C., & Pino-Mejías, M. A. (2020b). The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’ experience: a textual data analysis. Soft Computing, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-048853-y. Goodall, B. (1991). Understanding holiday choice. In Cooper, C. P. (Ed.). Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, vol. 3, Belhaven Press, London and New York, 58-77. Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004b). An integrative model of tourists’ information search behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353-373. Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004a). Travellers’ prior knowledge and its impact on their information search behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(1), 66–94. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017b). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage Publications. 32 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017a). Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616-632. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. Halpenny, E., Kono, S., & Moghimehfar, F. (2018). Predicting World Heritage site visitation intentions of North American park visitors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-10-2017-0109. Hamid, S. A., Abdullah, Q. D. L., & Lee, T. M. (2018). Destination Image of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Malaysia. Global Business & Management Research, 10(2), 22-30. Han DI, tom Dieck MC, Jung T (2018) User experience model for augmented reality applications in urban heritage tourism. Journal Heritage Tourism, 13(1), 46-61. Henderson, J. C. (2009). The meanings, marketing, and management of heritage tourism in Southeast Asia. In Cultural heritage and tourism in the developing world- a regional perspective (pp. 87-106). Routledge, London. Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 1-8. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20. 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(1), 115-135. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277-320. Ho, C.I., Lin, M.H., & Chen, H.-M. (2012). Web users’ behavioral patterns of tourism information search: from online to offline. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1468-1482. Huang, P., Lurie, N. H., & Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for experience on the web: an empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. Journal of marketing, 73(2), 55-69. 33 Huang, S., Afsharifar, A., & Veen, R. V. D. (2016). Examining the moderating role of prior knowledge in the relationship between destination experiences and tourist satisfaction. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 22(4), 320-334. Jamal Mohammad, S., Al-Haddad, L., Safdar Sial, M., & Wan, P. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and tourism industry: Stakeholder approach. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 30, 913-916. Jiang, Y., Ramkissoon, H., Mavondo, F. T., & Feng, S. (2017). Authenticity: The link between destination image and place attachment. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(2), 105-124. Jiménez Barreto, J., Rubio, N., & Campo Martínez, S. (2019). The online destination brand experience: Development of a sensorial–cognitive–conative model. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(2), 245-258. Karimi, S., Papamichail, K. N., & Holland, C. P. (2015). The effect of prior knowledge and decision-making style on the online purchase decision-making process: A typology of consumer shopping behaviour. Decision Support Systems, 77, 137-147. Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M.-H. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information search. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 961-985. Kesterson, K. D. (2013). The Relationships between `Push' and `Pull' Factors of Millennial Generation Tourists to Heritage Tourism Destinations: Antebellum and Civil War Sites in the State of Arkansas. Theses and Dissertations. 983 Kim, S. H., Holland, S., & Han, H. S. (2013). A structural model for examining how destination image, perceived value, and service quality affect destination loyalty: A case study of Orlando. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(4), 313-328. Kim, S., & Park, E. (2015). First-time and repeat tourist destination image: The case of domestic tourists to Weh Island, Indonesia. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 26(3), 421-433. King, L.M., & Halpenny, E.A. (2014). Communicating the world heritage brand: visitor awareness of UNESCO’s world heritage symbol and the implications for sites, stakeholders and sustainable management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22 (5), 768-786. Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652-664. 34 Komalasari, F., & Ganiarto, E. (2019). Determinant factors of Indonesian millennial´s revisit intention: a case of Labuan Bajo. FIRM Journal of Management Studies, 4(2), 177-199. Laing, J., Wheeler, F., Reeves, K., & Frost, W. (2014). Assessing the experiential value of heritage assets: A case study of a Chinese heritage precinct, Bendigo, Australia.Tourism Management, 40, 180-192. Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589-599. Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating effect of place attachment on the relationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting destination. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 754-767. Lee, S., Phau, I., & Quintal, V. (2018). Exploring the effects of a ‘new’ listing of a UNESCO World Heritage Site: The case of Singapore Botanic Gardens. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(4), 339-355. Li, M., Cai, L., Lehto, X., & Huang, J. (2010). A missing link in understanding revisit intention – the role of motivation and image. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(4), 335- 348. Lim, Y., & Weaver, P. A. (2014). Customer-based brand equity for a destination: the effect of destination image on preference for products associated with a destination brand. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(3), 223-231. Lin, Y. C., & Liu, Y. C. (2018). Deconstructing the internal structure of perceived authenticity for heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(12), 2134-2152. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in crosssectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114. 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, 1-9. Lu, A. C. C., Chi, C. G. Q., & Lu, C. Y. R. (2017). Sensation seeking, message sensation value and destinations: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(3), 357-383. Lu, L., Chi, C. G., & Liu, Y. (2015). Authenticity, involvement, and image: Evaluating tourist experiences at historic districts. Tourism Management, 50, 85-96. 35 Marchiori, E., & Cantoni, L. (2015). The role of prior experience in the perception of a tourism destination in user-generated content. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 194-201. Martín-Santana, J.D., Beerli-Palacio, A., & Nazzareno, P.A. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of destination image gap. Annals of Tourism Research, 62, 13-25. Menezes, L. (2017). Interview with the newspaper As Beiras (27-09-2017). Mitchell, A. & Dacin, P. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 219-239. Molinillo, S., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Buhalis, D. (2018). DMO online platforms: Image and intention to visit. Tourism Management, 65, 116-130. Moore, W., & Lehmann, D. (1980). Individual differences in search behavior for a nondurable. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 296-307. Moutinho, L., Albayrak, T., & Caber, M. (2012). How Far does Overall Service Quality of a Destination Affect Customers' Post-Purchase Behaviours? International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(4), 307-322. Nicholas, L., & Thapa, B. (2013). The politics of world heritage: A case study of the Pitons Management Area, St Lucia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(1), 37-48. Nikjoo, A. H., & Ketabi, M. (2015). The role of push and pull factors in the way tourists choose their destination. Anatolia, 26(4), 588-597. Nowacki, M. M. (2009). Quality of visitor attractions, satisfaction, benefits and behavioural intentions of visitors: Verification of a model. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3), 297-309. Oktadiana, H., Pearce, P.L., & Chon, K. (2016). Muslim travellers' needs: What don't we know? Tourism Management Perspectives, 20, 124-130. Omran, A., & Kamran, H. W. (2018). Determining the factors attracting the tourists to visit Kedah State, Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 9(2), 355-364. Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 223-231. Park, C., D. Mothersbaugh, & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer Knowledge Assessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 71–82. 36 Park, E., Choi, B. K., & Lee, T. J. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 74, 99-109. Pavlić, I., Portolan, A., & Puh, B. (2017). (Un) supported current tourism development in UNESCO protected site: the case of Old City of Dubrovnik. Economies, 5(1), 9-13. Peña, A. I. P., Jamilena, D. M. F., & Molina, M. Á. R. (2013). Antecedents of loyalty toward rural hospitality enterprises: The moderating effect of the customer's previous experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 127-137. Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202-227. Piramanayagam, S., Rathore, S., & Seal, P. P. (2020). Destination image, visitor experience, and behavioural intention at heritage centre. Anatolia, 31(2), 211-228. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. 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. Poria, Y., Reichel, A. & Cohen, R. (2013), Tourist’s perceptions of World Heritage site and its designation. Tourism Management, 35, 272-274. Prayag, G. (2009). Tourists' evaluations of destination image, satisfaction, and future behavioral intentions – the case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(8), 836– 853. Prayag, G., & Hosany, S. (2014). When Middle East meets West: Understanding the motives and perceptions of young tourists from United Arab Emirates. Tourism Management, 40, 35-45 Prayag, G., Gannon, M.J, Muskat, B., Taheri, B. (2020). A Serious Leisure Perspective of Culinary Tourism Co-Creation: The Influence of Prior Knowledge, Physical Environment and Service Quality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2019-0897/full/html. 37 Ragb, H., Mahrous, A. A., & Ghoneim, A. (2020). A proposed measurement scale for mixedimages destinations and its interrelationships with destination loyalty and travel experience. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 1006-77. Ram, Y., Björk, P., & Weidenfeld, A. (2016). Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions. Tourism Management, 52, 110-122. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Ahmad, A. G., & Barghi, R. (2017). Community participation in World Heritage Site conservation and tourism development. Tourism Management, 58, 142-153. Rigdon, E. E. (2013). Partial least squares path modeling. Structural equation modeling: A second course. 2nd edition, 81-116. Information Age, Charlotte, NC. Rigdon, E. E., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2017). On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: five perspectives and five recommendations. Marketing Zfp, 39(3), 4-16. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. Journal of Service Science and Managment, 10(3). Rodzi, N. I. M., Zaki, S. A., & Subli, S. M. H. S. (2013). Between tourism and intangible cultural heritage. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 411-420. San Martin, H., Collado, J., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2013). An exploration of the effects of past experience and tourist involvement on destination loyalty formation. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(4), 327-342. Shams, S. R. (2016). Branding destination image: A stakeholder causal scope analysis for internationalisation of destinations. Tourism Planning & Development, 13(2), 140-153. Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552- 4564. Sharpley, R. (2018). Tourism, tourists and society. Routledge. Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B. W., & Winter, C. (2014). Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions and information search. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 307-322. Sheng, C.-W., & Chen, M.-C. (2012). A study of experience expectations of museum visitors. Tourism Management, 33, 53-60. 38 Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Park, J. A., Hwang, Y. H., & Reisinger, Y. (2015). The influence of tourist experience on perceived value and satisfaction with temple stays: The experience economy theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(4), 401-415. Stoffelen, A., & Vanneste, D. (2018). The role of history and identity discourses in cross-border tourism destination development: A Vogtland case study. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 204-213. Stylos, N., Vassiliadis, C., Bellou, V., & Andronikidis, A. (2016). Destination images, holistic images, and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination, Tourism Management, 53, 40-60. Stylos, N., Bellou, V., Andronikidis, A., & Vassiliadis, C. A. (2017). Linking the dots among destination images, place attachment, and revisit intentions: A study among British and Russian tourists. Tourism Management, 60, 15-29. Submitter, G. A. T. R., Chang, A. Y. P., & Kuo, C. Y. (2019). Effects of Tourists' Trust on Behaviour Intention in the Thai Tourism Market: Mediating Effects of Perceived Authenticity. Journal Management Marketing Review, 4(3), 202-208. Sun, X., Chi, C. G. Q., & Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: The case of Hainan Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 547-577. Taheri, B, Jafari, A., & O'Gorman, K. D. (2014). Keeping your audience: presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism Management, 42, 321–329. Tavitiyaman, P., & Qu, H. (2013). Destination image and behavior intention of travelers to Thailand: The moderating effect of perceived risk. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(3), 169-185. Trinchera, L., & Russolillo, G. (2010). On the use of Structural Equation Models and PLS Path Modeling to build composite indicators. University of Macerata, Italy. Tsai, C. T. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 536-548. Tseng, M. L., Lin, C., Lin, C. W. R., Wu, K. J., & Sriphon, T. (2019). Ecotourism development in Thailand: Community participation leads to the value of attractions using linguistic preferences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1319-1329. 39 Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5-40. Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). The relationships of destination image, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: An integrated model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 829-843. Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Wall, G., Xu, X., Han, F., Du, X., & Liu, Q. (2015). Is it better for a tourist destination to be a World Heritage site? Visitors’ perspectives on the inscription of kanas on the world heritage list in China. Journal for Nature Conservation, 23, 19-26. Wu, C. W. (2016). Destination loyalty modeling of the global tourism. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2213-2219. Xu, J. B., & Huang, S. S. (2018). Exploring Mainland Chinese students’ motivations of revisiting Hong Kong as a familiar place and their links to student life experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 7, 50-57. Yamashita, R., & Takata, K. (2020). Relationship between prior knowledge, destination reputation, and loyalty among sport tourists. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 24 (2), 1-11. Yang, Y., Xue, L., & Jones, T. E. (2019). Tourism-enhancing effect of World Heritage Sites: Panacea or placebo? A meta-analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 29-41. Yap, G., & Saha, S. (2013). Do political instability, terrorism, and corruption have deterring effects on tourism development even in the presence of UNESCO heritage? A cross-country panel estimate. Tourism Analysis, 18(5), 587-599. Yi, X., Lin, V. S., Jin, W., & Luo, Q. (2017). The authenticity of heritage sites, tourists’ quest for existential authenticity, and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 56(8), 1032-1048. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45-56. Yousefi, M., & Marzuki, A. (2015). An analysis of push and pull motivational factors of international tourists to Penang, Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 16(1), 40-56. 40 Yung, E. H., & Chan, E. H. (2013). Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings: Differences between the laymen, professionals and policy makers. Facilities, 31(11/12), 542-564. Zabkar, V., Brencic, M.M., & Dmitrovic, T. (2010). Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31, 537-546. Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L.A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: a metaanalysis, Tourism Management, 40, 213-223. Zhang, H., Wu, Y., & Buhalis, D. (2018). A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 326- 336. Zehrer, A. (2011). Knowledge management in tourism–the application of Grant's knowledge management model to Austrian tourism organizations. Tourism Review, 66 (3), 50-64. Zhou, Q. B., Zhang, J., & Edelheim, J. R. (2013). Rethinking traditional Chinese culture: A consumer-based model regarding the authenticity of Chinese calligraphic landscape. Tourism Management, 36, 99-112.