3.8 Article

Why Do Chinese Glampers Recommend It? The Role of Original Ecology Environment in a Glamping Experience

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19388160.2023.2294456

关键词

Chinese; glamping; original ecology environment; accommodation environment; word of mouth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the factors influencing the behavioral intentions of glampers and their effects on word-of-mouth (WOM) about glamping by introducing a stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework. By analyzing data collected from questionnaires, the study provides empirical evidence and theoretical support for the development of the glamping industry in China and understanding Chinese glampers' needs.
Glamping, which combines natural surroundings with quality accommodation, has been developing quickly in recent years in China. This study aims to fill the gap in empirical research on glamping by introducing a stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework to investigate the factors influencing the behavioral intentions of glampers and to identify the specific dimensions of the original ecology environment, accommodation environment, and customers' intrinsic affective values to determine their effects on WOM about glamping. A paper-based questionnaire was distributed offline, and 314 questionnaires were collected. The data were then analyzed using SPSS and PLS-SEM respectively. This study extends the application of the SOR framework in the WOM field and provides theoretical support for further research and exploration. Moreover, this study argues that the interplay between the original ecology environment, the traditional Chinese notion of '(sic) (sic)(sic)(sic)' (Tian Ren He Yi), and aesthetics underpins the willingness of Chinese glamping participants to share their WOM. This study contributes to the development of the glamping industry in China and provides practical implications for the industry by understanding the needs of Chinese glampers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据