what makes a destination beautiful_dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf

8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf

1/12

What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aestheticjudgment

Ksenia Kirillova, Xiaoxiao Fu, Xinran Lehto*, Liping Cai

Purdue University, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

The beauty of tourist destinations is uniquely judged and admired.

Experiential rather than classic dimensions of aesthetic judgment are salient in tourism aesthetics.

Dimensions are equally prominent in judgment of nature-based and urban destination.

Destination planners should employ existing aesthetic inventory in strategic planning.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 10 May 2013

Accepted 18 December 2013

Keywords:

Aesthetic judgment

Tourism experience

Destination management

Experience-based productsDestination planning

Tourism aesthetics

a b s t r a c t

Drawing on the literature in environmental psychology, the current study attempted to reveal di-

mensions of tourist aesthetic judgment in the context of both nature-based and urban tourist destina-

tions. Two-stage analysis of semi-structured interview data from a theoretical sample of 57 individuals

yielded 21 aesthetic dimensions that were categorized into nine themes: Scale, Time, Condition, Sound,

Balance, Diversity, Novelty, Shape, and Uniqueness. The identied themes were further conceptualized

into a two-dimensional plane along Concrete-Abstract and Subjective-Objective continuums. This

research posits that tourism allows a unique appreciator-object dyad where individuals are fully

immersed in a destination in pursuit of a non-routine and oftentimes novel experience. The beauty of

tourism destination is uniquely judged, admired, and appreciated, and the assessment of the beauty goes

beyond the visual aspects and engages all senses. The ndings make a theoretical contribution to the

existing aesthetics literature and bear practical implications for destination planning, branding, and

management.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Tourism experience is a critical concept in tourism marketing

and management literature; therefore, researchers have paid

increasing attention to this area, exerting efforts in both conceptual

deliberations and empirical validations (e.g. Cohen, 1979a; Li, 2000;

Mannell & Iso-Ahola, 1987; Mkono, Markwell, & Wilson, 2013;Otto& Ritchie,1996; Quan & Wang, 2004; Sternberg,1997; Uriely,2005).

Tourism scholars, however, haveyet to fully investigate the touriste

environment exchange (Lehto, 2013). The environmental qualities

of a destination can impact a tourist experience profoundly ( Todd,

2009). Tourists interaction with a destinations overall environ-

ment and their internalization of what they see and sense could

play a key role in their overall trip satisfaction. When people plan to

travel for pleasure, they seek destinations that, in their opinion,

maximize the possibility to receive a pleasurable experience ( Lue,

Crompton, & Fesenmaier, 1993). One source of such pleasure is

the aesthetic qualities of the destination. In tourism management

literature, it has been acknowledged that aesthetic characteristics

affect tourists experience and satisfaction, contributing to their

loyalty towards a destination (Lee, Jeon, & Kim, 2011) and thusintention to return (Baloglu, Pekcan, Chen, & Santos, 2004). Desti-

nationsaesthetic qualities, such as scenery, have been an integral

element of many satisfaction and perceived image scales used in

tourism research (e.g. Alegre & Garau, 2010; OLeary & Deegan,

2003).

Despite the fact that numerous studies have recognized the

importance of aesthetic qualities of a destination, these qualities

have so far been largely reduced to a single dimensional variable

such as the place is beautifulin destination attribute satisfaction

assessment. Although the notion of product aesthetics has been

explored in consumer behavior literature in conjunction with

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 765 494 2085.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Kirillova), [email protected] (X. Fu),

[email protected](X. Lehto),[email protected](L. Cai).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m/ l o c a t e / t o u r m a n

0261-5177/$e see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006

Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourmanhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourmanhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006&domain=pdfmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/12

product choice (e.g. Creusen & Schoormans, 2005), design (e.g.

Bloch, 1995; Riemann, Zaichkowsky, Neuhaus, Bender, & Weber,

2010), and overall product evaluation (Yamamoto & Lambert,

1994), the aesthetic component as judged by consumers has yet

to be a focus in tourism research. Tourism aesthetics implies multi-

sensory lived experience which may entail inter-relations not

only between a tourist and the surroundings but also among po-

tential dimensions of the interactive experience (Ittelson, 1978). As

such, this lived experienceoffers opportunities for phenomeno-

logical exploration. Additionally, tourists may use home environ-

ment as a reference point in assessing whether the destination is

beautiful. For example, interpretation of a destinations aesthetics

may be derived from the similarity or contrast between ones home

environment and the vacation environment. Due to the potentially

diverse aesthetic judgments among tourists, it will be of theoretical

signicance to zoom in on the area of tourism aesthetics for its

multi-faceted dimensionality.

The search for the answer to what do we nd beautiful? is

one of the most long-hauled quests in philosophy. Dening beauty

as which gives pleasure when seen, Plato, Aristotle, and St.

Thomas Aquinas asserted that the beauty resides within an object

and is not subjected to observers biased evaluations (Beardsley,

1975). Hume (1757/2013) and Kant (1790/1987), on the otherhand, posited that beauty is in nature subjective. No response to

an object is superior because one judges beauty based on personal

values such as religious beliefs, cultural background, political

views, and other normative values. Thus, aesthetic pleasure is a

natural human response, and as such, its extent could be distinct

across different individuals (Ginsborg, 2013). Modern philosophers

conceptualized aesthetic judgment as the object-related cognitive

part of aesthetic processing and thus it can be assessed in social

science while aesthetic emotion can only be measured by neuro-

psychological means (Leder, Belke, Oebrest, & Augustin, 2004, p.

503). Moreover, empirical research in art appreciation found that

people tend to perceive symmetric and round objects as beautiful

(Jacobsen, Schubotz, Hfel, & Cramon, 2006; Silvia & Barona,

2009).Unlike the art experience where the appreciator is an outside

observer, an individual is immersed in the object of appreciation

in environmental aesthetics (Berleant, 2005). Aesthetic qualities of

places have been previously explored conceptually in environ-

mental aesthetics (e.g.Berleant, 2005; Carlson & Lintott, 2008) and

empirically in environmental psychology (e.g. Kaplan, Kaplan, &

Brown, 1989) and urban design (e.g. Daniel, 2001), where both

urban and natural landscapes were employed as contexts. Tourism

aesthetics, however, could possess its own traits and characteris-

tics in that tourism experience involves the full immersion of an

individual into an environment that may be distinct from his/her

everyday living surroundings (Volo, 2009). The experience may

trigger human senses to become more responsive to outside

stimuli and allows more complex humane

environment in-teractions and exchanges. Thus, how and why tourists perceive a

destination beautiful could potentially be related or unrelated to,

similar to or distinct from the criteria researchers utilize to assess

routine (home) environments (Maitland & Smith, 2009). Never-

theless, until now, these areas have been sorely neglected in

tourism marketing and management literature. As a pioneering

attempt, the current study initiates an inquiry into tourist

aesthetic judgment. Specically, the study aims to examine how

aesthetic gratication is provided in both urban and nature-based

tourist destinations. Given the scarcity of existing empirical

studies in this area and a need for in-depth understanding of

tourist aesthetic judgment, the present study employed a quali-

tative assessment through personal interviews to uncover both

theoretical and practical insights.

2. Literature review

2.1. Aesthetics in management literature

Aesthetics has received increasing yet still limited attention in

the business management literature with scholarly interest

centered on aesthetic products and experiential consumption

(Charters, 2006). Generally, aesthetic products are believed to have

four essential qualities: 1) the products aesthetic considerations

must be the primary purpose; 2) the product is constructed to

stimulate aesthetic consumption; 3) it is capable of providing

intrinsic value; and 4) it strives in highly segmented markets

(Charters, 2006). However, as most consumer goods possess the

above-mentioned qualities to various degrees, aesthetic products

could be conceptualized as a continuum consisting of products

ranging from those of minimal aesthetic dimension to those

entirely aesthetic (Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003). Assessment of

aesthetic qualities is an important aspect of consumptive experi-

ences (e.g.Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994), and the concept of

aesthetic product is distinct in the discussion of experiential con-

sumption (Charters, 2006). For instance, Estheticswas proposed as

one fundamental dimension in experience by Pine & Gilmore

(1999) in their notion of experience economy, along with Enter-tainment, Education, and Escapism. Aesthetics has been also dis-

cussed in hedonic consumption as having the capacity to generate

strong emotional involvement (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). In

his review of the existing literature on the topic, Charters (2006)

asserts that there is a link between the experiential consump-

tion of a product displaying beauty and the judgments,comprised of appreciation, quality evaluation, and taste (pp. 243e

244). Such observations implythat aestheticpropertiesof a product

are instrumental not only in stimulating consumption but also in

evaluation of the entire consumptive experience.

Aesthetic consumption and consumers ability to judge

aesthetic qualities of a product are related to the idea of product

design. In saturated markets, an aesthetically appealing product is a

way of gaining buyersattention, communicating information, andproviding aesthetic pleasure to both sellers and users (Bloch, 1995).

Moreover, aesthetic responses elicited by exposure to sensorial

properties of a product rather than its functional characteristics

tend to have a long-lasting effect on consumers as the product

becomes part of users sensory environments (Jones, 1991).

Holbrook and Zirlin (1985) argued, however, that the aesthetic

component of a product is best realized during the functional use of

the product, suggesting that only purely aesthetic products such as

classical music or a painting could stand on their own during the

consumptive experience.

Such propositions have been well embraced in service man-

agement where the signicance of aesthetic judgment has been

reected in the theorizations and applications of servicescape or

atmospherics (Bitner, 1992; Lovelock & Wirtz, 2004). It has beenempirically noted across a variety of service settings that cus-

tomers experience is inevitably inuenced by the surrounding

aesthetic cues. It was found, for instance, that facility aesthetics

affects perceived servicescape quality and thus satisfaction, re-

patronage intentions, and desire to stay at basketball and football

stadiums and casinos (Wakeeld & Blodgett, 1996). Aesthetically

pleasing dining environment attenuates perceived food and service

quality and directly inuence behavioral intentions (Ha & Jang,

2012). Finally, aesthetic judgment, which may or may not lead to

the occurrence of aesthetic pleasure, seems to play an important

role in the assessment of overall experience (e.g.Liu & Jang, 2009).

Despite the recognition of aesthetics in business research in

general, there has been a paucity of attention on tourism aesthetics

in particular. One such effort is noted in the bed and breakfast

K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293 283


3/12


4/12

approach is expected to result in unique phenomenological expe-

riences for the observers and such experiences would largely attest

to their aesthetic judgment and preference. Despite the call for

phenomenological exploration of aesthetic experience in the city

settings, this line of research has not received continued attention.

2.3. Summary

Table 1presents a summary of the reviewed research streams,

highlighting insights that informed the current study. Philosophy,

particularly the branch of aesthetics, established the subjectivity of

aesthetic judgment while emphasizing the unique nature of envi-

ronment appreciation. Environmental psychology and urban

design research attest to the cognitive processes behind the nature

and urban landscape appreciation. Additionally, literature in gen-

eral management indicates that, in the era of experience economy,

product aesthetics possesses critical implications for strategic

marketing and management. In the case of service encounters,

aesthetic judgment inuences perceived quality and satisfaction,

which in turn affects behavioral intentions. Although destination

management research has yet to zoom into the aesthetic compo-

nent of tourism experience, for long it has considered beautiful

scenery to be an attribute of a destination. As such, aesthetics couldbe inuential in destination choice, image formation, and overall

satisfaction. Taken as a whole, the insights derived from these

research streams contribute to conceptual understanding of the

role of aesthetics in experiencing as well as managing a tourism

destination.

3. Objectives

As the literature review demonstrated, aesthetic judgment in a

destination setting deserves closer scrutiny in its own rights

because a destination is different from transaction-based business

settings. A destination experience necessitates touristsbodily and

mental immersion, engagement and appreciation of non-routine

environments and thus entails a much more holistic and globaljudgment. Such judgment may not be in conformity with the

aesthetic appreciation in visual arts or generic product/service

design. On the other hand, aesthetic attributes of vacation desti-

nations are an integral part of destination image formation and

overall satisfaction with tourism experience, leading to destination

choice and revisit intentions. Understanding this aspect of tourism

experience could provide invaluable insights into the process of

aesthetic appraisal and allow practitioners to manage destinations

more strategically. Despite the theoretical and practical importance

of aesthetics in tourism, tourist aesthetic judgment has rarely been

conceptually elaborated nor has it been empirically investigated;

the questions of how and why tourists may judge a destination as

beautiful remain under-explored.

Tourism experience can be a unique aesthetic experience

because an individual is physically relocated and immersed into a

setting that could be drastically different from his or her everyday

environment. The current study aimed at understanding how and

why tourists nd certain aspects of vacation destinations to be

beautiful. Specically, it attempted to reveal the dimensions of

tourist aesthetic judgment of both nature-based and urban desti-

nations. It should be noted that the goal was to uncover the general

dimensions of aesthetic judgment of destinations rather than to

compare and contrast the dimensions between the nature-based

and urban settings.

4. Method

In-depth personal interview was used for data collection. This

research adopted a qualitative approach with the goal of obtaining

a rich and in-depth understanding of tourist aesthetic judgment.

Previous research has been inconclusive about whether individual

socio-demographic characteristics predict aesthetic preference. For

example,Van den Berg et al. (1998)reported no signicant effect of

personal factors on general aesthetic judgment, while other re-

searchers found that age, social class (Howley, 2011), and gender

(Strumse, 1996; Yabiku, Casagrande, & Farley-Metzger, 2008) may

inuence landscape preferences. Since aesthetic judgment entails

the joint outcome of a multitude of factors(Liu, 2003, p. 1277), atheoretical sampling technique was employed in order to include

Table 1

A summary of research streams.

Research stream Representative works Contributing ideas

Philosophy Hume (1757/2013)

Kant (1790/1987)

Leder, Belke, Oebrest, &

Augustin (2004)

Berleant (2005)

Silvia and Barona (2009)

C Subjective nature of aesthetic judgment

C Idea of disinterestedness

C Unlike aesthetic emotion, aesthetic judgment can be assessed in social science

C Round and symmetric objects are judged as more beautiful

C Environmental aesthetics implies complete immersion into an object of appreciation

Environmental

psychology

Appleton (1975)

Kaplan (1987)

Van den Berg et al. (1998)

C Aesthetic judgment is a cognitive process

C Four domain of predictors of preferences for natural environments: Complexity,

Mystery, Coherence, Legibility

C Prospect-refuge theory

C Environmental preferences vary according to user groups

Urban design Williams (1954)

Ittelson (1978)

Weber et al. (2008)

C City as a multisensory experience

C Urban experience implies a psychological processing of information

C Vegetation, Stylistic uniformity, Scale and Symmetry as predictors of preferences

for urban landscapes

General management Holbrook and Zirlin (1985)

Baker et al. (1994)

Pine and Gilmore (1998)

Charters (2006)

C Aesthetic products range from those of minimal aesthetic qualities to entirely aesthetic

C Aesthetic quality is an important aspect of consumptive experiences

C Aesthetics is one of the dimensions ofexperience economy

C Product design as manifestation of aesthetics

Service management Bitner (1992)

Lovelock and Wirtz (2004)

Liu and Jang (2009)

C Aesthetics affects perceived service quality, satisfaction, and thus behavioral intentions

C Aesthetics inuences perception of overall service experience

Tourism destination

management

Um and Crompton (1990)

Echtner and Ritchie (1991)

Oh et al. (2007)

C Aesthetics as a destination attribute

C Beautiful scenery as a factor in the destination choice process

C Aesthetics contributes to overall satisfaction with tourism experience

C Aesthetics could lend to image formation



5/12

perspectives of individuals from a variety of socio-demographic

background (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection whereby

the researcher simultaneously collects, codes and analyzes data in

order to decide what data to collect next (Coyne, 1997, p. 625). This

sampling technique is not concerned with population representa-

tion; rather, it is intended to contribute to developing codes and

emergent theory (Becker, 1993). As the data collection and analysis

progressed, individuals from under-sampled groups were further

recruited to yield a nal sample reecting perspectives of various

socio-demographic clusters. This process continued until theoret-

ical saturation was reached (Sandelowski, 1995). As a result, the

nal sample consisted of 57 individuals, of which 24 (42.1%) were

males and 33 (57.9%) were females. The average age of respondents

was 32 years old. The respondents educational background was

distributed as follows: 37 have high school diplomas, two have an

Associate degree, nine have a Bachelors degree, three have a

Masters degree, and six have a Ph.D. degree. It should be noted that

cultural background could inuence aesthetic judgment. For

instance, Asian people tend to perceive objects and landscapes

holistically while Americans are more analytical in information

processing (Nisbett, 2003). To obtain consistent data for aesthetic

judgment, this study focused on respondents of the U.S. descent.Semi-structured interviews were conducted by the rst and

second authors from November 2012 to March 2013 in a Mid-

western city of the U.S. Each interview lasted 20 min on average.

First, interviewees general background information such as age

and education was solicited. Second, as indicated in the literature

review, although beauty of a destination cannot be considered a

single proxy for satisfaction, it does contribute to overall satisfac-

tion with tourism experience. Thus, interviewees were asked to

recall one most beautiful nature-based destination and one most

beautiful urban destination they had visited and rate their satis-

faction with their experiences on a scale from 0 to 100%. Such a

scale is associated with the standard grading system in the U.S.

educational institutions and thus is deemed as closely related to

respondents cognitive evaluation style. Third, the intervieweeswere probed to further explain in depth why they found the des-

tinations beautiful. Finally, they were requested to recall and

explain the ugliest (or least beautiful) aspects of the destination in

order to cross-validate the information provided in the previous

responses. Since membership checking was not logistically

possible, the information received during the interviews was

repeated back to the respondents to ensure its accuracy and elim-

inate possibilities for multiple interpretations. All interviews were

audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis consisted of a two-stage process. At the rst stage,

the data were subjected to thematic analysis in which the themes

were identied within the explicit meanings of the data (Braun &

Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis resembles content analysis but

pays greater attention to the qualitative aspects of the materialanalysed (Joffe & Yardley, 2004, p. 56). The six-step process for

thematic data analysis advocated by Braun and Clarke (2006)was

utilized in this research. First, the authors familiarized themselves

with the data, jotted down initial ideas for coding, and discussed

the possible patterns. In accordance with the nature of an inductive

approach, no predened categories were imposed on the data.

Second, the rst author analyzed half of the data while the second

author scrutinized the rest of the data for initial coding. The third

author acted as an auditor to verify both the process and the initial

results of data coding (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The authors collec-

tively discussed and reached consensus on the proposed codes. It

should be noted that in this particular study, the term code is

replaced by dimension as the latter better serves as a unit of

aesthetic judgment which seems to involve a spectrum anchored

by opposite points, as demonstrated in the nature of aesthetic

judgment (beautiful-ugly). Third, when all data were coded into

dimensions, the researchers discussed the viability of certain di-

mensions, re-coded when necessary, and examined potential

themes. Fourth, the researchers collectively reviewed the initial

themes and underlying dimensions for internal homogeneity and

external heterogeneity both at the level of coded data extracts and

the entire data set. Fifth, all authors nalized the themes. Sixth, the

authors discussed the strategies for writing up the scholarly report,

with attention paid to selection of quotes to illustrate the uncov-

ered dimensions and themes. When disagreements among the

researchers arose during the thematic analysis process, the re-

searchers gathered and discussed the evidences pro and contra a

certain dimension or theme until consensus was reached. For

example, the dimension Colorful-Dull was originally allocated to the

theme Diversity by one of the researchers. When the raw data for

this dimension were further reviewed, it was agreed that this

dimension was better suited to the theme Scale.

The second stage of data analysis involved calculation of fre-

quencies in order to assess the relative importance of the di-

mensions and themes established during the rst stage (Creswell,

2008). For example, if a respondent mentioned that a destination

was beautiful because of its modern architectural style, a frequencyof one was recorded on the Modern-Historicdimension.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Dimensions of aesthetic judgment

Interviewees reported their travel experiences with 30 different

nature-based destinations that ranged from such international

destinations as Tibet and Maldives to such domestic vacation sites

as Florida Keys and Upper Michigan counties. The majority of the

interviewees (81.82%) visited nature-based destinations for the rst

time and enjoyed them to a great extent (97.11%). Twenty-ve ur-

ban destinations were discussed by the interviewees, varying from

such international destinations as Beijing and Prague to domesticcities such as Chicago and New Orleans. In the case of urban des-

tinations, for most respondents (72.73%), it was their rst visit, and

they enjoyed those destinations to a substantial degree (72.7%).

Data analysis revealed 21 dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment

which were further organized into nine themes: Scale, Time, Con-

dition, Sound, Balance, Diversity, Novelty, Shape, and Uniqueness.

Scale, Time, and Condition are the three most frequently discussed

themes.

5.1.1. Scale

First, tourists seem to form their aesthetic judgment of a

destination based on the Scaleof the place. Specically, such di-

mensions as ColorfuleDull, GrandeQuaint, Presence of peoplee

Absence of people, Abundancee

Scarcity, and Opennesse

Narrownesspertain to characteristics related to the physical magnitude of a

vacation destination.ColorfuleDullrefers to intensity of colors in a

destination whileGrandeQuaintattests to physical proportions of a

place.Presence of peopleeAbsence of peopleindicates the degree of

crowdedness, Abundance-Scarcity connotes the amount of visual

cues in the environment, andOpennesseNarrowness demonstrates

the importance of spatial characteristics of a destination. Only one

dimension (OpennesseNarrowness) has been previously explored in

environmental psychology (Coeterier, 1996; Strumse,1994). Among

the dimensions identied within the theme,ColorfuleDullseems to

be the most commonly addressed. Tourists generally judge colorful

and vibrant sceneries and features as beautiful, as illustrated by the

account of a 20-year old male: When I say beautiful, I mean really

vibrant color in the water and you can see it very clear, vibrant,

K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293286


6/12

vibrantly colored. At the same time, some travelers tend to

consider dark-colored features as beautiful, as exemplied by The

water was dark and calm, almost like glass but you couldn t see

through (male, 62). Such diversity in judgments exists across

nature-based and urban destinations.

5.1.2. Time

The second theme Timeconsists of such dimensions as Mod-

erneHistoricand YoungeOld. While the former dimension refers to

the physical attributes of a place, the latter relates to the age of

other individuals observed at the destination. ModerneHistoric

appears to be a more prominent dimension. Although the degree of

being modern or historic seems to be shared as an important cri-

terion for aesthetic judgment, whether or not one is preferred over

the other appears to vary among interviewees. Some tourists

appreciate the beauty of the destination because of its historic

aspect, as testied by a 21-year old female who visited Chicago:

Its kinda old architecture, old stone, and the area around it, too.

There is just like.old historic feeling to it. So, and thats really

pretty that the city could keep it like that for so long, too, and not

like modernize everything.

Other interviewees, however, perceive a destination as beautiful

if it appears to be ultra-modern. For example, a 19-year old female

noted, I like all the modern design in the city, especially those

facilitated by technology. I dont like backwardness. Not surpris-

ingly, this dimension was generally discussed as a criterion for the

beauty of urban destinations.

5.1.3. Condition

Dimensions under the third theme Conditionmainly pertain

to the state of physical features of vacation destinations. Cleane

Dirtyattests to the perceived hygienic conditions at a destination

while Well-maintained-Run-down emphasizes the importance of

upkeep of its physical attributes. Such dimensions have been noted

previously in the literature of urban aesthetics (Galindo & Hidalgo,2005; Nasar, 1994). CleaneDirty seems to be the most salient

dimension in interviewees aesthetic judgments. It attests to a

destinations ability to not only maintain a litter-free environment

but also manage features that do not appear as clean such as

homeless people, stray animals, and poor air quality. Negative

comments regarding visible trash on the ground as being the least

beautiful aspect of a tourist destination seem to be more prominent

in cases of nature-based destinations. This is not surprising since

people do not expect to see traces of human activity in natural

settings and thus litter is perceived dirtierthan in cases of urban

destinations. This dimension echoes the notion of Naturalness

(Scott, 2002) in that tourists traveling to nature-based destinations

expect to see a landscape untouched by human activity. It also re-

lates to the dimension of Human touche

No human touch in thetheme Balance as travelers tend to judge nature-based attractions

as more beautiful if no evident human element is present.

5.1.4. Sound

In addition to visual stimuli, tourists also judge the aesthetics of

destinations based on auditory perceptions. The fourth theme

Sound contains such dimensions as LivelyePeaceful, Nature-

madeeHuman-made, and LoudeQuiet.The LivelyePeaceful dimen-

sion showsthat tourists form aestheticjudgments basedon thepace

of sounds heard at a destination while Nature-madeeHuman-made

andLoudeQuietilluminate the importance of source and volume of

these auditory cues. These dimensions are unique to tourism aes-

thetics, implying full immersion into the surrounding environment

on the part of the tourists (Berleant, 2005). It is noteworthy that

LivelyePeacefuland LoudeQuietattest to different modes of sound

perception and are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a 55-year

old female describes her experience at Niagara Falls as:

The sheer force of the water is pretty awe inspiring. If you go out in

one of theboats at the bottom youcan get a prettygood perspective

of how powerful they are. The noise is unbelievable but not scary or

anything, just impressive and kinda peaceful.

5.1.5. Balance

Tourists also judge the beauty of a destination along the di-

mensionsHuman-toucheNo human touch, AuthenticeArticial, and

CohesiveeOut of place, collectively forming the fth theme Bal-

ance. Overall, this theme demonstrates the appropriateness of

experiential cues to an environment. Specically, Human toucheNo

human touch relatesto the suitability of visual cuesto thesetting.The

presenceof human-inuenced elementscontributesto the beauty of

urban destinations while viewed as ugly in the nature setting. As a

40-year oldmale noted about his travel experience to the U.S. beach

destination:youhave onebeautifulnatural scenery in onedirection

and a parking lot in the other.The AuthenticeArticialdimension

relates to the extent of perceived integrity of a destination to itsintrinsic properties while CohesiveeOut of place refers to overall

cohesiveness, oruidow, of visualcuesat a destination.Thistheme

has been previously explored in environmental psychology, as

testied by equivalent terms such as Harmony (Galindo & Hidalgo,

2005) and Compatibility (Kaplan et al., 1989).

5.1.6. Diversity

The dimensionDiverseeAlike, comprising the sixth theme Di-

versity,indicates the variety of visual and other experiential cues

during the tourism experience. Regardless of the destination type,

DiverseeAlike is a dimension commonly discussed and most trav-

elers consider diverse settings more beautiful. For example, the

interview with a 51-year-old male discloses that:

The reason I chose Hawaii over some other areas that I found

particularly beautiful, mountains with snow, lakes, and.

isbecause Hawaii has just about everything. Although I didnt

experience snow in Hawaii, it does snow and youcan ski in Hawaii.

It has mountains, it has lush tropical gardens and owers, it has

beautiful ocean. Ocean has varying colors. For instance, if you go in

summer, it looks green, almost brown water.

This theme is related toKaplan et al.s (1989)Complexity; how-

ever, in Kaplans matrix, Complexityalso accounts for ne and so-

phisticated aspects of an environment in addition to the diverse

aspect. It is worth mentioning that although the preference for di-

versity was addressed for both urban and natural landscapes, trav-

elers did emphasize the appreciation of a harmonious combination

of the diverse features. The notion of balance closely resembles

Kaplan et al.s (1989) Cohesivenessand, along with Complexity, are

two of the dimensions in his matrix that appear to be prominent in

tourist aesthetic judgment. A 20-year old male explained:

Seattle is beautiful because of the combination of different things. I

get to see everything I want to see at the same time. There is

combination of motion and stillness but they blend really well. The

borders between things were harmonious. They dont seemto try to

disrupt the environment.

5.1.7. Novelty

Another remarkable dimension of tourist aesthetic judgment is

NoveleTypical that comprises the seventh theme Novelty and

exempli

es the contrast between a familiar and a new



7/12

environment. As noted similarly in previous research, novelty and

typicality are joint predictors for aesthetics judgment (Hekkert,

Snelders, & van Wieringen, 2003). The sense of place identity can

contribute to individuals aesthetic judgment, meaning that

familiar places and landscapes tend to be perceived as more

beautiful (McAndrew, 1998; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Thus,

these researchers have advocated the notions of congruency and

continuity in aesthetic judgment of a place. From the touristsperspective, however, it appears that novelty plays an important

role in aesthetic judgment. Tourists consider novel, never-before-

seen aspects of a destination as more beautiful than familiar

landscape. This can be best illustrated in a 21-year old female s

account of her Caribbean trip:

I guess when I think that something is beautiful, I think of something

thatis notmyeveryday life,and I feel that everydayis something that

is very routine. In Indiana, the same stuff is everywhere,

so.something new and peaceful. Thats, I guess, thatsmydenition

of beauty, justrelaxing,peaceful. I dont likethecold,I dont likesnow,

so anything thats like tropical and warm is like gorgeous, so

yeah.down there it was not like my everyday life, it wasnt like.it

wasnt like traveling to Florida or something.its still pretty,

but.

its stillprettykindof like everydayin a way..butdowntherewe

had a car but wedidnt need itto go out toplaces,we kind of walked

everywhere, and being right on a beach was just gorgeous.just

being able to do stuff you dont get to do everyday-like we got to go

snorkeling, paddle boating and.so, it was just absolutely gorgeous.

5.1.8. Shape

The eighth theme Shape is relatively less prominent as none of

the classic dimensions of aesthetic judgment such as Coherence,

Complexity, Openness, Roundness, and Symmetry seems to play a

major role in tourist aesthetic judgment. This may again attest to

the uniqueness of aesthetic judgment by tourists who are relocated

and immersed in an atypical environment for an unusual experi-

ence. The aesthetic experience at a tourist destination is not about

visual observations only; instead, it engages all ve senses in theprocess of aesthetic judgment. Therefore, tourists are receptive to

other perceptual cues of a destination, and such classic dimensions

as RoundeAngular, SymmetriceAsymmetric, and Sophisticatede

Simplisticbecome less central to the judgment.

5.1.9. Uniqueness

The last theme Uniqueness suggests that tourist aesthetic

judgment appear to depend on whether the destination possesses

uniquely identiable features, along the UniqueeOrdinarydimen-

sion. Destinations with unique features tend to be perceived as

beautiful and therefore possess a pull motivation force, as posited

in the pushepull theory (Dann,1981). This nding is not surprising,

given that novelty-seeking has been acknowledged as a funda-

mental motive that prompts tourists (Krippendorf,1987). While thethemes Uniqueness and Novelty may appear related, they are dis-

cussed quite differently by the interviewees. Uniqueness refers to a

destinations feature that makes the place distinctively identiable.

For example, several respondents indicated that Chicago Gate,

known as the Bean, did not convey much aesthetic value on its

own but it was unique to Chicago and therefore beautiful as a

landmark attraction. Novelty, on the other hand, attests to those

properties of a destination that are original and never experienced

before by a tourist. Therefore, Uniqueness is relatively objective

whereas Novelty, as the opposite of familiarity, is more subjective

and varies among tourists. For instance, if a person grew up in a

tropic island, he or she may perceive snowy mountain slopes as

beautiful, more so than tourists from mountainous areas. This point

is well illustrated by a 51-year old males account:

Trees.the trees that really impressed me.made the biggest

impression on me were the trees we saw around some waterfalls.

They had these, I call them the roots dropping from the branches,

they were very tall trees but they had these.they looked like binds

that would go all the way down to the ground. Just once again,

different unique to me, to my experience, if you grew up next to

them, they are not, but they are unique to me. Yeah, these trees

made the biggest impression on me but there were many different

trees.

fruit trees, there are many, but these are particularly

memorable.

It is worth noting that the interviewee utilizes the word

unique to refer to the more subjective uniqueness which is

better classied as Novelty. As an innatepursuit of tourists, novelty-

seeking has been an important theoretical construct in explaining

travel motivation and destination choice behavior (Cohen, 1979b).

The desire for Novelty bears practical implications for destination

management. Since the perceived level of novelty is relatively

subjective and varies by tourists, destination planners should take

into consideration the effect of geographic or cultural distance

when attempting to identify and segment markets. New tourism

products or services should be developed and marketed, forinstance on a seasonal base, to enhance the appeal of the destina-

tion by attracting novelty seekers.

Table 2 depicts the dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment

along with their frequencies. Additionally, Fig. 1 graphically pre-

sents the above results.

In marketing philosophies and practices, product has been

portrayed as bundles of attributes(e.g.Engel, Blackwell & Kollat,

1978). Also, the possible presence of interactions among the attri-

butes may inuence consumers response to the outside stimulus

(Holbrook & Moore, 1981). Translated into the tourism context

where the productcontains both tangible and intangible aspects,

the judgment and appreciation of a destination tends to be expe-

riential and holistic in nature. This may render the previously

established dimensions of aesthetic judgment imperfectly trans-

ferrable. The current study showed that respondents often linked

the beauty of a tourism destination to other domains of life such as

religion, history, poverty, safety, lifestyle, and other experiential

dimensions of destination experience such as friendliness of local

people. For example, inviting atmosphere, historical past, conve-

niently located hotels, and a variety of activities in which a tourist

can participate were frequently mentioned as contributor to the

beautyof a destination.While these aspects do not directly attest to

aesthetic judgmentper se, they illustrate the multifaceted nature of

tourism experience. Since tourism experience can be understood as

a service experience that involves delicate interplay between the

experience of and satisfaction with leisure and tourism activities(Otto & Ritchie, 1996, p. 167), a successfully managed tourism

experience should engage not only the key aesthetic cues, but also

other experiential aspects at the destination.

5.2. A framework of tourist aesthetic judgment

Although the identied themes appear to be distinct from each

other, a closer examination suggests that they do share underlining

commonalities. Specically, the themes could be organized into a

two-dimensional plane along two continuums: ConcreteeAbstract

and SubjectiveeObjective (see Fig. 2). One could interpret the

themes along the ConcreteeAbstract dimension as from being

easily manipulated on a physical level (Concrete) to requiring

higher order manipulation strategies (Abstract). The Subjectivee

Objective dimension runs from the dimensions that are subject to

interpersonal variance (Subjective) to those relatively more



8/12

universally agreed (Objective). The quadrants are designated todemonstrate the relative nature and directions of the major themes

in tourist aesthetic judgment. An important distinction should be

made. The Objective anchor of the continuum connotes the ease of

arriving to a similar judgment by people of distinct backgrounds. It

still attests to the subjectivity of aesthetic judgment as proposed by

the cognitive approach, rather than an objective nature of the

judgment. It should be noted that the framework and positions of

the themes were proposed as a result of elaborate discussions

among the researchers and therefore are not absolute. Since the

conceptualization entails researcherssubjective assessment of the

data, it requires further empirical validation.

The judgment of the Uniqueness and Scale of the destinations

has been established more from an objective and abstract

perspective (Quadrant I). When respondents discussed their

aesthetic judgments under the two themes, they tended to refer to

the destination qualities that are easy to observe and difcult to be

modied. The dimensions constituting these themesare notas easyto be manipulated at the physical level.UniqueeOrdinaryunder the

theme of Uniqueness and ColorfuleDarkunder the theme of Scale

are examples of such. For example, it would not be appropriate for

New York City to change its aesthetic quality from grand to quaint.

It is possible, however, for destinations to augment their unique-

ness. For instance, local festivals, special events, landmark buildings

and monument could enhance the sense of place and thus its

uniqueness. On the other end, Balance, Novelty, and Diversity are

more of subjective conception of the destination aesthetics and in

the meanwhile abstract. Similar to Quadrant I, the themes in

quadrant II were elaborated by the respondents from an abstract

perspective, as exemplied in NoveleTypical and DiverseeAlike.

However, due to the subjective nature, these themes are not as easy

for manipulation on a physical level and require higher order

manipulation techniques such as careful implementation of mar-

keting segmentation. By utilizing geographical segmentation, for

Fig. 1. Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.

Table 2

Frequency of themes and dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.

Dimensions Frequency Dimensions Frequency

Scaletotal: 411 Diversitytotal: 123

ColorfuleDull(intensity of color) 107 DiverseeAlike(variety of visual and other cues) 123

GrandeQuaint(physical proportion) 104 Noveltytotal: 110

Presence of PeopleeAbsence of People(degree of crowdedness) 91 NoveleTypical(contrast of familiar and new environment) 110

AbundanceeScarcity(amount of visual cues) 61 Shape total: 97

Opennesse

Narrowness(spatial characteristics) 48 Sophisticatede

Simplistic(degree of complexity) 84Timetotal: 218 RoundeAngular(shape of visual cues) 7

ModerneHistoric(perceived age of a destination) 214 SymmetriceAsymmetric(degree of symmetry of visual cues) 6

YoungeOld(perceived age of people observed) 4 Uniquenesstotal: 65

Conditiontotal: 191 UniqueeOrdinary(amount of uniquely identiable features) 65

CleaneDirty(perceived hygienic condition) 129

Well-kepteRun-down(upkeep of physical attributes) 62

Soundtotal: 186

LivelyePeaceful(pace of sound) 62

Human-madeeNature-made(source of sound) 65

LoudeQuiet(volume of sound) 59

Balancetotal: 143

Human toucheNo human touch(suitability of visual cues to setting) 59

AuthenticeArticial (extent of perceived integrity) 50

CohesiveeOut of place(ow of visual cues) 34



9/12

instance,it is possible to targettourists driven by novelty in orderto

maximize the possibility for positive aesthetic judgment. Similarly,

psychographic segmentation could reach individuals with the po-

tential to have positive aesthetic judgment in Balance and Diversity.

Younger tourists, for instance, could favor a greater degree of di-versity than more mature travelers.

Quadrants III and IV, while differ on the SubjectiveeObjective

continuum, are of similar nature when it comes to the level of

abstraction. Quadrant III presents the theme (Time) that could be

manipulated and altered to suite the expectations of potential

tourists, although such manipulations still require knowledge of

the subjective assessment of tourists. At the same time, both

ModerneHistoricand YoungeOldwere spoken of in a concrete way

with examples such as building features and site-specic factors at

the destinations. Thus, if a destination wishes to appear more

modern, cobblestone instead of asphalt could be utilized to nish

the main streets. Sound, Shape and Condition in destinations have

been discussed objectively, too, but from a relatively more concrete

standpoint. Similar to quadrant I, the themes in quadrant IV attestto relatively objectiveness but are associated with richer diversity

of aesthetic judgment among tourists and the abstract nature of

these dimensions. For example, Human-madeeNature-madeunder

the theme of Sound and SymmetriceAsymmetricunder the theme of

Shape testify to the objectivity and concreteness in respondents aesthetic judgment. The themes in this quadrant are the easiest to

manipulate since well-maintained destinations attributes of classic

shapes and pleasant sounds are generally preferred.

6. Conclusion

The current study unearths a new understanding of what

makes a destination beautiful by dissecting the dimensions of

tourist aesthetic judgment. As a pioneering attempt, it makestheoretical contribution to the existing knowledge base of aes-

thetics literature. Based on ndings from 57 in-depth interviews,

this study identied and presented nine themes of aesthetic

judgment of tourist destination. They are Scale, Time, Condition,

Sound, Balance, Diversity, Novelty, Shape, and Uniqueness. A

theoretical framework of tourist aesthetic judgment was proposed,

with the identied themes plotted along two continuums based on

their theoretical relevance: AbstracteConcrete and Subjectivee

Objective. Included in the nine themes are a variety of dimensions

that pertain to both nature-based and urban destinations and do

not replicate the existing, classic aesthetic dimensions previously

discovered in general aesthetics literature. This suggests that

tourism allows a unique appreciator-object dyad where in-

dividuals are immersed in a setting in pursuit of an unusual, non-

routine experience. As such, tourist aesthetic judgment is distinct

from classic aesthetic assessment in art works where the appreci-

ator is a purely outside observer of the objects. The beauty of

tourism destination is uniquely judged, admired, and appreciated.

Tourist assessment of the beauty goes beyond the visual aspects,

and engages all senses. This stance coincides well with Urrys

(2002)argument which posited that tourist experience involves a

variety of sensescapes, including soundscapes, smellscapes, taste-

capes, and touch, in addition to the conventional conception of

tourist gazeand sightseeing.

Although it was not the goal of this study to compare and

contrast aesthetic judgment of nature-based and urban destina-

tions, this research indirectly explored the dimensions of aesthetic

judgment in the context of both nature and urban tourist destina-

tions. All the identied themes appear to be equally salient in both

contexts. Nevertheless, while tourists employ the same dimensions

in their aesthetic judgment, they seem to apply different criteria

across different destination types. In the Presence of peoplee

Absence of people dimension, for instance, interviewees tend to

assign a greater aesthetic value to nature-based places with little

human presence. To the contrary, urban destinations are perceived

as less beautiful if they are not populous. In a nature-based setting,

quiet and peaceful sound originated from a natural source (e.g.owing water, birds, animals, etc.) and pristine scenery without

visible traces of human activity (a me and nature wilderness

experience) is considered as more beautiful. In an urban environ-

ment, lively human-made sounds, sophisticated layouts, and

presence of human activity are perceived as beautiful because they

addto the image of an urbanplace. This distinctionbetween natural

and urban destination is presented here as an emergent nding

since the nature of collected data did not provide a basis for sys-

tematic comparison between the two.

The ndings of this study also bear pragmatic implications for

the planning, branding, and management of destination experi-

ence. Marketing of sensory experiences, which include attractive

visual and other stimuli, can contribute to an organization or a

brands identity (Schmitt & Simonson, 2009). Although to variousdegrees, tourism destinations can be considered to be aesthetic

products, and, as such, they facilitate experiential consumption.

Similar to aesthetics in the service environment, tourism aesthetics

is an important value-added component in tourism experience and

may serve as a major satiser of tourist experiential needs. Tourism

aesthetics may also exert inuence over long-term attitudinal and

behavioral attributes of tourists, such as loyalty. The aesthetic

judgment dimensions uncovered can form the basis of a potentially

valuable toolkit for destination planning, marketing and manage-

ment. For example, an aesthetic-laden strategic approach can

accentuate the identity of the destination and create unique posi-

tioning among competitors. In a market saturated with similar

destination experience offerings, the strategic implications of

tourism aesthetics need to be factored into marketersbranding

and marketing considerations. This study also found that although

tourists utilize classical and previously explored dimensions while

executing aesthetic judgments, the dimensions that are uniquely

pertinent to the tourism experience appear to be more inuential

in their aesthetic gratication. Specically, the dimensions related

to scale and sound, uniqueness, perceived authenticity, and time of

a destination appear to be more important than the dimensions

related to shape, cohesiveness, and complexity. At a more abstract

level, it seems that more experiential themes such as Diversity,

Novelty, Sound, Uniqueness, Scale, and Time are particularly salient

in tourism aesthetics as compared to environmental aesthetics.

This and other ndings provide direct implication for destination

management practices. Although the statement of all perceptions

start with the eye

holds true in general aesthetic research (Schmitt

Fig. 2. A framework of tourist aesthetic judgment.



10/12

& Simonson, 2009, p. 85), a variety of multifaceted sensory expe-

riences seem to be involved in tourism.

Overall, the proposed nine-theme, two-dimension framework

lays the groundwork for a better understanding of tourist aesthetic

judgment in both nature-based and urban destinations, and

accordingly facilitate the formulation of effective marketing stra-

tegies, including product development, brand communication

messages, and market segmentation. Since tourism experience in

essence involves our aesthetic or sensual existence (Quan & Wang,

2004) and such aesthetic experience is closely linked to tourists overall satisfaction as suggested by our ndings, destination plan-

ners need to understand the specicities of consumer judgment of

what is beautiful when designing and packaging tourism expe-

rience. General marketing practices have focused on isolated at-

tributes and benets, due to the lack of a broad consideration of

brand positioning (Schmitt & Simonson, 2009). Guided by the two-

dimensional framework, destination managers could cater to the

full spectrum of tourists aesthetic enjoyment while crafting and

implementing marketing strategies. While destinations are

increasingly perceived as undifferentiated due to their typical of-

ferings, aesthetics can become a key differentiating element in the

competitive market. By satisfying tourist aesthetic and experiential

needs, destinations can establish a powerful point of differentiationto produce desirable customer impressions.

The framework also offers guidance for tourism destination

planning when deciding how to maximize key visual and other

perceptual cues that are favorable to aesthetic judgments, and

minimize the distracting elements. Since aesthetic judgments are

in essence subjective, tourism planners should carefully evaluate

potential target markets in terms of how background charac-

teristics could inuence judgments of destinations aesthetic

qualities. This information needs to be reconciled with the des-

tinations tourism attraction inventory, and the conclusion of

whether the aesthetic qualities could result in positive aesthetic

judgments should be made. If the match is not likely, destination

planners need to consider if aesthetic qualities are to be changed

or a different target market is to be selected. For instance, if themismatch occurs on the dimensions located in Quadrants III and

IV (Time, Condition, Shape, and Sound), a planner may choose to

modify certain aspects of the destination to cater to the prefer-

ences of the target market. On the other hand, if the mismatch

arises on the dimensions located in Quadrants I and II (Scale,

Uniqueness, Balance, Novelty, and Diversity), it may not be

feasible to change aesthetic qualities of the destination, given

destinations nancial and time constraints. In such situations,

selection of a different target market could be strategic. Hence,

this framework can be useful for a destination to reconcile its

current supply with potential demand so as to improve tourist

experience quality while sustaining a competitive advantage of

this destination.

The value of the ndings extends beyond the tourism domain.The results contribute to the existing literature in environmental

psychology by establishing how aesthetic judgments are made

under new and less familiar environmental conditions. Given that

this study identied several dimensions not previously found in the

literature and noted that the beauty of home environment is closely

associated with residentssatisfaction and quality of life (Widgery,

1982), psychologists maynd it important to determine the roles of

these dimensions in residents aesthetic judgments. Additionally,

the current results could inform research in leisure studies as one

does not have to travel far from home to have an aesthetic expe-

rience. For example, providing diverse and unique recreational

environments within the same geographical locale (urban or na-

ture) could augment restorative properties of recreational activities

and thus improve residentsquality of life.

6.1. Limitations and future research

Like other studies, this research is not free of limitations. First,

the presented results are derived utilizing a theoretical sample.

While every attempt was made to diversify the sample, it is still

possible that certain dimensions did not emerge in this research

but are still of great importance in tourist aesthetic judgment.

Second, as suggested byHume (1757/2013), aesthetic judgment is

notonly in essence subjective but also highly dependenton cultural

background of an appreciator. With the focus on the U.S. re-

spondents, the study did not consider cross-cultural issues of

aesthetic judgment. Additionally, as an exploratory study, it neither

accounted for personal and socio-demographic characteristics of

the respondents nor investigated travel motivation and behavior.

Finally, the conceptual framework is developed based on explor-

atory inquiry and therefore it requires further empirical validation,

particularly, more rigorous examination of relative positioning of

the themes along the continuums. Nonetheless, this framework of

tourist aesthetic judgment represents an initial conceptualization

of what constitutes aesthetic judgment of tourism destinations.

Future research is invited to validate and extend the dimensions

identied in this study, across different cultures and/or in different

market segments. Specically, aesthetic judgment could be linkedto such outcome variables as satisfaction, revisit intentions, and

destination choice. It would be also of interest to investigate how

aesthetic judgment inuences travel motivation and behavior

across various socio-demographic segments. Another avenue for

further research is to establish conceptual and empirical relation-

ships between aesthetic judgment and destination image. Future

studies are encouraged to engage in systematic comparison of

aesthetic judgments of nature-based and urban destinations to

validate and expand the preliminary results emerged in this study.

With availability of funding, researchers could utilize quasi-

experimental design to establish causal relationship between

destination attributes and aesthetic judgment in both types of

destinations. Additionally, empirical validations are needed to see if

certain dimensions are perceived with higher importance in tour-ists decision making and/or more readily applicable in actual

marketing practices. Finally, developing a scale to measure

perceived aesthetic qualities of destinations would be a logical next

step in future research.

References

Albayrak, T., & Caber, M. (2013). The symmetric and asymmetric inuences ofdestination attributes on overall visitor satisfaction. Current Issue in Tourism,16(2), 149e166.

Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2010). Tourism satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Annals ofTourism Research, 37(1), 52e73.

Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscapes. New York: John Wiley.Arriaza,M.,Canas-Ortega,J., Canas-Madueno,J.,& Ruiz-Aviles,P.(2004).Assessingthe

visual quality of rural landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115e125.

Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The inuence of store environmenton quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 22(4), 328e339.

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals ofTourism Research, 24(6), 868e897.

Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., & Santos, J. (2004). The relationship between destinationperformance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct seg-ments.Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3e4), 149e165.http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J162v04n03_10.

Beardsley, M. (1975). Aesthetics from classical Greece to the present (Vol. 13). Uni-versity Alabama Press.

Becker, P. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Quali-tative Health Research, 3(2), 254e260.

Berleant, A. (2005). Aesthetics and environment: variations on a theme . Burlington,VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Bitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customersand employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57e71.

Bloch, P. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer choice.

Journal of Marketing, 59 , 19e

29.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J162v04n03_10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref8http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J162v04n03_10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref1


11/12

Bloch, P., Brunel, F., & Arnold, T. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality ofvisual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 29(4), 551e565.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. QualitativeResearch in Psychology, 3(2), 77e101.

Budd, M. (2002). The aesthetic appreciation of nature: Essays on the aesthetics ofnature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Cackowski, J., & Nasar, J. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation im-plications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment andBehavior, 35(6), 736e751.

Carlson, A. (1979). Appreciation and the natural environment. Journal of Aestheticsand Art Criticism, 37, 267e275.

Carlson, A., & Lintott, S. (2008). Nature, aesthetics, and environmentalism. New York:Columbia University Press.

Carroll, N. (1995). On being moved by nature: between religion and natural history.In S. Kemal, & I. Gaskell (Eds.), Landscape, natural beauty, and the arts(pp. 244e266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Charters, C. (2006). Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: a review. Con-sumption, Markets, and Culture, 9(3), 235e255.

Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image,tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach. TourismManagement, 29(4), 624e636.

Coeterier, J. (1996). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of theDutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34(1), 27e44.

Cohen, E. (1979a). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2),179e201.

Cohen, E. (1979b). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,6(1), 18e35.

Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoreticalsampling: merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3),623e630.

Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodapproaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creusen, M., & Schoormans. (2005). The different roles of product appearance inconsumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 63e81.

Daniel, T. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment inthe 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1e4), 267e281.

Dann, G. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2),187e219.

DeLucio, J., & Mgica, M. (1994). Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors toSpanish national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29(2), 145e160.

Echtner, C., & Ritchie, J. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination im-age. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2e12.

Engel, J., Roger, D., & Kollat, D. (1978). Consumer behavior(3rd ed.). Hinsdale, IL:Dryden Press.

Fyhri, A., Jacobsen, J., & Tmmervik, H. (2009). Touristslandscape perceptions andpreferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning,

91(4), 202e

211.Galindo, M., & Hidalgo, M. (2005). Aesthetic preferences and the attribution ofmeaning: environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urbanscenes.International Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 19e27.

Galindo, M., & Rodriguez, J. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychologicalwellbeing: relatinoships between preference judgments for urban landscapesand other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 4(1), 13e27.

Ginsborg, H. (2013). Kants aesthetics and teleology. Retrieved from Stanford Ency-clopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/.

Godlovitch, S. (2004). Icebreakers: environmentalism and natural aesthetics. InA. Carlson, & A. Berleant (Eds.), The aesthetics of natural environments(pp.108e126). Ontario: Broadview Press.

Ha, J., & Jang, S. (2012). The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentionsthrough quality perception. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(3), 204e215.

Hammitt, W. (1981). The familiarity-preference component of on-site recreationalexperiences.Leisure Sciences, 4(2), 177e193.

Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. (2003). Most advanced, yet accept-able: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in in-dustrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94 , 111e124.

Hepburn, R. (1966). Contemporary aesthetics and the neglect of natural beauty. InBritish analytical philosophy (pp. 285e310). London, UK: Routledge & KeganPaul Ltd.

Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 92e101.

Holbrook, M., & Moore, W. (1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments ofverbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 103e113.

Holbrook, M., & Zirlin, R. (1985). Artistic creation, artworks, and aesthetic appre-ciation: some philosophical contributions to nonprot marketing. Advances inNonprot Marketing, 1, 1e54.

Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures a methodologicalapproach.Environment and Behavior, 10(4), 555e584.

Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publicspreferencestowards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161e169.

Hubbard, H., & Kimball, T. (1917). An introduction to the study of landscape design.New York: Macmillan.

Hume, D. (1757/2013). Of the standard of taste . The Birmingham Free Press.Ittelson, W. (1978). Environmental perception and urban experience. Environment

and Behavior, 10(2), 193e213.

Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R., Hfel, L., & Cramon, D. (2006). Brain correlates of aestheticjudgment of beauty.Neuroimage, 29(1), 276e285.

Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D. Marks, &L. Yardley (Eds.),Research methods for clinical and health psychology(pp. 56e68).London, UK: Sage Publications.

Jones, P. (1991).Taste today. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Kant, I. (1790/1987). Critique of judgment. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Kaplan, S. (1982). Where cognition and affect meet: a theoretical analysis of pref-

erence. In P. Bart, A. Chen, & G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design (pp.183e188). Washington, DC: Evironmental Design Research Association.

Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studyinghow the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161e176.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference froman evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3e32.

Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: a comparisonof four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509e530.

Kozak, M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with multiple destination attri-butes. Tourism Analysis, 7(3/4), 229e240.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holiday makers: Understanding the impact of leisure andtravel. London: William Heinemann.

Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aestheticappreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95,489e508.

Lee, S., Jeon, S., & Kim, D. (2011). The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfactionon tourist loyalty: the case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism Management,

32(5), 1115e1124.Lehto, X. (2013). Assessing the perceived restorative qualities of vacation destina-

tions. Journal of Travel Research, 3, 1e15.Li, Y. (2000). Geographical consciousness and tourism experience.Annals of Tourism

Research, 27(4), 863e

883.Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Liu,Y. (2003).Engineeringaestheticsand aesthetic ergonomics:theoreticalfoundations

and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46(13e14), 1273e1292.Liu,Y., & Jang, S. (2009). The effects of dining atmospherics:an extendedMehrabiane

Russell model.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 494e503.Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2004). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Lue, C., Crompton, J., & Fesenmaier, D. (1993). Conceptualization of multi-

destination pleasure trips. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2), 289e301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90056-9 .

Maitland, R., & Smith, A. (2009). Tourism and the aesthetics of the built environ-ment. In J. Tribe (Ed.),Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 171e190). Bristol, UK:Channel View Publishing.

Mannell, R., & Iso-Ahola, S. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourismexperience.Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314e331.

McAndrew, F. (1998). The measurement of rootedness and the prediction ofattachment to home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psy-

chology, 18(4), 409e

417.Mkono, M., Markwell, K., & Wilson, E. (2013). Applying Quan and Wang s structuralmodel of the tourist experience: a Zimbabwean ethnography of food tourism.Tourism Management Perspectives, 5, 68e74.

Nasar, J. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exte-riors.Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377e401.

Nasar, J. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Nassauer, J. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology,10(4), 229e237.

Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: how Asians and Westerners thinkdifferently and why?New York, NY: Free Press.

Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts:tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119e132.

Otto, J., & Ritchie, J. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management,17(3), 165e174.

OLeary, S., & Deegan, J. (2003). People, pace, place: qualitative and quantitativeimages of Ireland as a tourism destination in France. Journal of Vacation Mar-keting, 9(3), 213e226.

Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard BusinessReview, 76, 97e105.

Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: anillustrationfrom foodexperiences intourism.TourismManagement, 25(3),297e305.

Riemann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010). Aestheticpackage design: a behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation.Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 20(4), 431e441.

Rogge, E., Nevens, F., & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscapes in Flan-ders: looking beyond aesthetics.Landscape and Urban Planning, 82, 159e174.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006 .

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing &Health, 18(2), 179e183.

Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (2009).Marketing aesthetics: The strategic managementof brands, identity and image. New York: Free Press.

Scott, A. (2002). Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experi-ence. Landscape Research, 27(3), 271e295.

Silvia, P., & Barona, C. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, exper-tise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25e42.http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(13)00218-5/sref27http://refh

what makes a destination beautiful_dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf

Documents