This slide presentation summarizes a research study on how smart tourism technology attributes and the perceived value of a destination impact tourist happiness. The study examines a research model and hypotheses about how informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, and personalization of smart tourism technologies can positively impact travel service satisfaction and travel experience satisfaction. It is also hypothesized that the perceived functional, social, and emotional value of a destination can positively impact satisfaction levels. Higher levels of travel service satisfaction and travel experience satisfaction are then expected to positively impact tourist happiness. The study describes its instrument development and operational definitions, data collection from 191 international tourists in Seoul, data analysis using partial least squares analysis, and results supporting the hypotheses regarding convergent and discriminant validity.

1. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 1
An Integrative Model of the Pursuit
of Happiness and the Role of Smart
Tourism Technology:
A Case of International Tourists in Seoul
Jimin Lee, Hanna Lee, Namho Chung, and Chulmo Kooa
College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea
ahelmetgu@khu.ac.kr

2. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 2
Smart Tourism Issues
• Electronic Markets (2015)
• Computers in Human Behavior (2015)
• International Journal of Tourism Cities (2016)
• International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality and Management
(2017)
• International Journal of Information Management (2016)
• Information Systems Frontiers (2017)
• Technology Forecast and Social Change (2017)
• Information and Management (2017)
• Sustainability (2018)
• Tourism Review (2017)

3. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 3
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
3. Research model and Hypotheses
4. Research methodology
5. Analysis and Results
6. Discussions
Contents

4. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 4
Introduction1.

5. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 5
As Aristotle indicated, the highest goal and
aim of human being’s is to pursue their
happiness. (Aristotle, 384BC-322BC)

6. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 6
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
“Happiness requires three things, a
good bank account, a good cook,
and good digestion.”

7. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 7
• Tourism
• Technology
=Happiness

8. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 8
• Academics and industry specialists have examined quality
of life(QOL) or happiness as achieved through leisure or
tourism activity (Liu, 2013; McCabe & Johnson, 2013; Neal et al., 2007).
Vacationers Happier,
but Most not Happier
after a Holiday
(Nawjin et al., 2010)

9. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 9
Happiness Measurement
 Previous happiness research extensively adopted two types of psychological concept:
Subjective well-being(SWB) and Psychological well-being(PWB) (Ryff, 1989).
Happiness
Subjective well-being (SWB)
Psychological well-being (PWB)
→ Associated with human emotional responses,
life satisfaction, and a positive judgment of overall life satisfaction
→ Based on Aristotle’s theory of happiness, which is oriented toward
self-development and personal potential

10. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 10
Smart Tourism Technologies
 ICTs during travel, the
tourists’ behavior,
experiences and the
emotional feelings
(Wang et al., 2012).

11. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 11
Technology and Happiness
 Connected
 Information Searching
 Self-Presentation
 Interacting (posting & ‘Like’)
 Accessing
 Booking
 Payment
 Mobility working

12. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 12
Purpose of this study
 By integrating smart technologies attributes and perceived value of a
destination.
 To examine a research model to discover the level of significance of tourist
happiness generated by service satisfaction and travel experience
satisfaction.

13. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 13
Theoretical Background2.

14. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 14
Smart Tourism Technology Attributes
 The Smart Tourism Technologies(STTs) can be identified by four key attributes;
informativeness, accessibility, interactivity, and personalization (Huang et al., 2016).
• Informativeness means to provide useful and insightful travel information for tourists.
• Accessibility means an ability of ubiquitous to everywhere of tourism destination at anytime.
• Interactivity makes tourist have mutual communications by immediate and real-time feedback.
• Personalization makes tourists get travel information satisfying their personal specific needs.

15. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 15
Perceived Value of Destination
 Perceived value is the associated benefits one receives relative to price, versus
psychological sacrifice. Woodruff (1997)
 Perceived customer value can be evaluated in a three-value perspective in tourism
context: Utilitarian, Hedonic, and Social. (Rintamäki et al. (2006)
Perceived value
Utilitarian value
Social value
Hedonic value
 Monetary benefits are a key factor
The overall evaluation of what is provided and what is
received in terms of service and quality
 Concerns affective matters
The emotional response of the tourist to how pleasant
a travel experience is important (Lee et al., 2007)
 The customer desires to express personal values that
enhance their social status and/or self-esteem

16. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 16
Travel Service and Experience
 Tourism services by smart tourism technologies include pre-trip services (e.g., reserving
a hotel, a ticket reservation), on-site services (e.g., paying and searching restaurant or
public transportation), and after-trip services (e.g., recall and word of mouth).
 STTs at the destination has a significant impact on tourist satisfaction when
experiencing destination (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2015).

17. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 17
Research model and Hypotheses3.

18. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 18
• The effect of the attributes of smart tourism technology
• The tourist’s perceived value of the destination
• Satisfaction & Happiness
Research Model
Functional value
Perceived Value
of Destination
Social
value
Emotional
value
Informativeness
Smart Tourism
Technology
Attributes
Accessibility
Interactivity
Personalization Tourists’
Happiness
Travel
Experience
Satisfaction
Travel Service
Satisfaction
First order
Second order

19. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 19
H1a: The attributes of smart tourism technologies have a positive impact on travel service
satisfaction.
H1b: The attributes of smart tourism technologies have a positive impact on travel experience
satisfaction.
Attributes of STT and Satisfaction
 STT attributes contribute to tourists’ adoption of STTs in travel planning in innovative ways which
lead to tourists satisfaction (Huang et al., 2017).
- Informativeness: The meaningful, accurate information can reduce tourist effort in decision
making and improve the travel experience.
- Accessibility: If tourists can use STT without difficulty, they can more easily navigate and search
useful travel information.
- Interactivity: STT helps tourists explore their travel destination and enhances their travel
experience through immediate feedback.
- Personalization: STT makes tourist decision making more efficient (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2014) and
provides tailored information that accommodates tourist needs.
 The use of STT is expected to improve the tourist service experience that strongly guides the
tourist’s trip evaluation toward positive feelings or satisfaction.

20. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 20
H2a: The perceived value of a destination has a positive impact on travel service satisfaction.
H2b: The perceived value of a destination has a positive impact on travel experience satisfaction.
Perceived Value of Destination and Satisfaction
 Incorporating cognitive and affective judgments during consumption, prior researchers identified
the relationships between perceived value and satisfaction (McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Parasuraman
& Grewal, 2000; Petrick & Backman, 2002).
 Prior marketing researchers suggested that perceived value is an important predictor of
satisfaction, loyalty, and behavioral intention.
 As the tourists perceive products, services, and experience simultaneously at a
destination(Prebensen et al., 2012), the tourist’s perception is likely to affect not only the service
satisfaction but also experience at a destination.

21. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 21
H3: Travel service satisfaction has a positive impact on tourist happiness.
H4: Travel experience satisfaction has a positive impact on tourist happiness.
Tourists’ Satisfaction and Happiness
 Neal et al. (1999) and Sirgy et al. (2011) indicated that travel satisfaction can be attained through
travel experience and that travel satisfaction affects quality of life or tourists’ happiness.
 Neal et al. (2007) emphasized that satisfaction with specific life domain (e.g., leisure, tourism)
spills over to the most upper stage of happiness.
 As tourism service is an interactive factor of travel and tourists are affected by travel services at a
destination, tourism service could create tourist happiness (Filep, 2014).
 Dagger and Sweeny (2006) found that service-experience satisfaction in the health industry
affects quality of life, individual well-being and happiness.

22. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 22
Research methodology4.

23. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 23
Instrument Development
All 40 measurement items are established based on previous studies.
Constructs References
Smart
Tourism
Technologies’
Attributes
Informativeness No & Kim (2015), Pavalou et al. (2006).
Accessibility No & Kim (2015), Pavalou et al. (2006).
Interactivity No & Kim (2015).
Personlaization No & Kim (2015), Pavalou et al. (2006).
Perceived
Value of
Destination
Functional Value Lee et al. (2007), Rintamäki et al. (2006), Prebensen et al. (2012).
Social Value Rintamäki et al. (2006).
Emotional Value Rintamäki et al. (2006), Prebensen et al. (2012).
Travel Service Satisfaction Neal et al. (1999), Neal et al. (2007).
Travel Experience Satisfaction Neal et al. (1999), Neal et al. (2007).
Tourists’ Happiness Neal et al. (1999), Su et al. (2015), Su et al. (2016).

24. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 24
Operational Definition
All of the constructs were operationally defined in previous studies and measured using
multi-measurement items.
Constructs Operational definitions References
Informativeness The degree to which tourists perceive STT attributes as useful,
trustworthy or valuable during travel. Pavalou et al. (2006)
Accessibility The degree to which tourists perceive STT attributes as easy or
uncomplicated during travel. No & Kim (2015)
Interactivity The degree to which tourists perceive that STT attributes made
interaction between users immediate or active during travel. No & Kim (2015)
Personlaization The degree to which tourists perceive that STT attributes provided
specific tourism information that meets their needs during travel. No & Kim (2015)
Functional Value The tourist’s perceived rational and economic valuations based
on experiences at the destination. Lee et al. (2007)
Social Value The tourist’s perceived value regarding the social impact of the
experiences at the destination. Sanchez et al. (2006)
Emotional Value The tourist’s perceived feelings or emotions based on experiences
at the destination. Sanchez et al. (2006)
Travel Service Satisfaction Tourist satisfaction with the quality of travel professionals,
efficiency, and the cost of services during travel. Neal et al. (1999)
Travel Experience Satisfaction The tourist’s general satisfactory feelings regarding the travel
experience. Neal et al. (1999)
Tourists’ Happiness The tourist’s overall judgment of the extent to which they are
happy or unhappy during travel.
Lyubomirsky& Lepper
(1999)

25. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 25
Data Collection & Data Analysis
Data collection
Data analysis
 These questionnaires were distributed to foreign tourists who visited famous tourist
attractions in Seoul (e.g., Myeong-dong, Gyeongbokgung Palace, Gwanghwamun, Sinchon).
 An on-site survey were conducted from 27th June to 15th July 2016 (for 3weeks).
 19 incomplete questionnaires were excluded and 191 responses were used for the analysis.
 To test the research model, Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis and bootstrapping technique
with 500-sample size were used.
 PLS is widely used to examine theories or measurement scales during the early stage of
research development.
 PLS facilitates the analysis of the formative constructs of a structural model.

26. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 26
Demographic Characteristics
Characteristics Frequency(%) Characteristics Frequency(%)
Gender
Male 96 (50.3)
Age
10-19 17 (8.9)
Female 95 (49.7) 20-29 122 (63.9)
Occupation
Student 96 (50.3) 30-39 42 (22.0)
Professional 25 (13.1) 40-49 6 (3.1)
Self-employed 8 (4.2) 50-59 4 (2.1)
Sales/Services 10 (5.2)
Education
Level
High school level 13 (6.8)
Technical official 12 (6.3) College level 29 (15.2)
Office job 6 (3.1) University level 101 (52.9)
Others 34 (17.8) Graduate level 48 (25.1)
Nationality
Asia 74 (38.7)
Annual Income
Under $15,000 79 (14.4)
Africa 15 (7.9) $15,00~$24,999 44 (23.0)
Europe 39 (20.4) $25,000~$34,999 18 (9.4)
North America 47 (24.6) $35,000~$44,999 13 (6.8)
South America 11 (5.8) Over $45,000 37 (19.4)
Oceania 5 (2.6) Total 191 (100)

27. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 27
Analysis and Results5.

28. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 28
Convergent validity (1)
All factor loadings were higher than the recommended value of 0.7 (Chin, 1998).
The composite reliability and AVE value for each construct were greater than the
recommended values of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Hair et al., 2011).
Variables Items Factor loading
Cronbach’s
alpha
Composite
Reliability
AVE
Attributes of
smart tourism
technologies
Informativeness
Infor 1 0.794
0.842 0.894 0.678
Infor 2 0.836
Infor 3 0.842
Infor 4 0.821
Accessibility
Access 1 0.865
0.846 0.897 0.687
Access 2 0.866
Access 3 0.847
Access 4 0.731
Interactivity
Inter 1 0.800
0.834 0.889 0.668
Inter 2 0.854
Inter 3 0.792
Inter 4 0.821
Personalization
Personal 1 0.846
0.874 0.914 0.726
Personal 2 0.865
Personal 3 0.849
Personal 4 0.848

29. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 29
Convergent validity (2)
Variables Items Factor loading
Cronbach’s
alpha
Composite
Reliability
AVE
Perceived value
of destination
Functional
value
FV 1 0.781
0.854 0.902 0.696
FV 2 0.837
FV 3 0.881
FV 4 0.836
Social
value
SV 1 0.790
0.862 0.906 0.708
SV 2 0.883
SV 3 0.852
SV 4 0.839
Emotional
value
EV 1 0.887
0.893 0.926 0.757
EV 2 0.877
EV 3 0.890
EV 4 0.825
Travel service satisfaction
SS 1 0.835
0.846 0.897 0.684
SS 2 0.837
SS 3 0.819
SS 4 0.817
Travel experience satisfaction
TS 1 0.840
0.868 0.910 0.717
TS 2 0.813
TS 3 0.855
TS 4 0.878
Tourist happiness
TH 1 0.825
0.859 0.904 0.703
TH 2 0.848
TH 3 0.845
TH 4 0.834

30. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 30
Discriminant validity
Constructs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
(1) INF 0.823
(2) ACC 0.582** 0.829
(3) INT 0.719** 0.678** 0.817
(4) PER 0.536** 0.705** 0.646** 0.852
(5) FV 0.542** 0.445** 0.529** 0.484** 0.834
(6) SV 0.460** 0.426** 0.466** 0.473** 0.735** 0.841
(7) EV 0.520** 0.360** 0.460** 0.378** 0.718** 0.773** 0.870
(8) TSS 0.581** 0.467** 0.584** 0.572** 0.614** 0.653** 0.640** 0.827
(9) TES 0.542** 0.352** 0.430** 0.359** 0.697** 0.682** 0.764** 0.637** 0.847
(10) TH 0.516** 0.426** 0.482** 0.423** 0.699** 0.640** 0.706** 0.580** 0.719** 0.838
INF(Informativeness), AC (Accessibility), INT(Interactivity), PER(Personalization), FV(Functional value), SV(Social value),
EV(EmotionalvValue), TSS(Travel service satisfaction), TES(Travel experience satisfaction), TH (Tourists’ Happiness).
* Note: The diagonal values in bold are square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE)
* * p<0.01
The square root of AVE was higher than each correlation coefficient for adequate
discriminant validity.

31. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 31
Hypotheses testing
H1a, H2a, H2b, H3, and H4 were supported, while H1b is rejected.
The attributes of smart tourism technologies were significantly related to travel service
satisfaction but had no significant effect on travel experience satisfaction.
Functional
value
Perceived
value of
destination
Social
value
Emotional
value
Informativen
ess
Smart
Tourism
technology
Accessibility
Interactivity
Personalizati
on
Tourists’
Happiness
R2=54.1
Travel
experience
satisfaction
R2=63.2
Travel
Service
Satisfaction
R2=57.5
0.297(20.111)*
**
0.708(11.952)***
0.281(17.286)
***
0.367(5.334)***
0.394(26.747)*
**
0.348(30.283)*
**
0.285(17.752)*
**
0.635(11.242)***
0.300(20.904)*
**
-0.020(0.318)
0.481(6.875)***
0.356(29.981)*
**
0.153(2.519)*
First order
Second
order

32. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 32
Discussions6.

33. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 33
Conclusions
 The complement effects of smart tourism technology attributes and perceptions of
destination toward tourists’ happiness.
 The three dimensions of perceptions of destination arise from functional, social
emotional experience of destination activities or services.
 The four dimensions of smart tourism technologies attributes (e.g., informativeness,
accessibility, interactivity, personalization) are identified and proved promising
predictors that enhance travel service and experience satisfaction.
 The study found that travel service satisfaction and travel experience satisfaction
have a significant effect on tourists’ happiness.

34. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 34
Theoretical Implications
Implications
 Provide the context for understanding the smart tourism technology attributes as an important
foundation for sustainable services in travel and tourism.
 Extend the understanding of happiness literature by establishing two distinguishable aspects
(travel service satisfaction & travel experience satisfaction) that enable the tourists’ happiness.
 The integration of the smart tourism technology attributes and the destination value experience
contributes to tourists happiness.
Practical Implications
 Destination marketers have to take into account of technical supporting systems when developing
tourism products and services.
 Destination cities should design a dynamic platform that mediates the use of STT for promptly
responding to tourist demands which would be one of important marketing strategies (ex.,
providing easy access to information, establishing integrated information systems, creating a technology-
friendly environment).

35. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 35
Future studies
 Overarching theories (e.g., Complement theory needed.. ) in explaining
between technology and tourism for happiness.
 The future research could investigate additional relevant variables to
determine factors that influence tourism happiness in general.

36. ENTER 2017 Research Track Slide Number 36
Thank you!!