-
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] -
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
3/12
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293 285
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293 287
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293288
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293 289
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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.
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293290
-
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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.
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293 291
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 -
8/10/2019 What makes a destination beautiful_Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment.pdf
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.
K. Kirillova et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 282e293292
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