Next Article in Journal
Assessing Sustainable Growth: Evolution and Convergence of Green Total Factor Productivity in Tibetan Plateau Agriculture
Previous Article in Journal
Review of the Use of Waste Materials in Rigid Airport Pavements: Opportunities, Benefits and Implementation
Previous Article in Special Issue
From Perceived to Measurable: A Fuzzy Logic Index of Authenticity in Rural Tourism
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Emotional Foundations of Value Co-Creation in Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism: Insights into the Motivation–Experience–Behavior Framework

1
School of Design, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
2
Department of Product Design, Changshu Institute of Technology, Changshu 215500, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6961; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156961
Submission received: 13 July 2025 / Revised: 29 July 2025 / Accepted: 30 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Heritage Tourism)

Abstract

As sustainable cultural heritage tourism increasingly demonstrates its unique value and appeal, effectively stimulating tourists’ emotional experiences and value co-creation behaviors has become a focal issue. This study investigates how multiple tourist motivations (self-enhancement, escapism, and social interaction) shape value co-creation through emotional mediators—namely aesthetic, nostalgic, and flow experiences. Data were collected from 470 valid responses from visitors to the UNESCO-listed Suzhou Classical Gardens in China and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The results show that these emotional experiences significantly drive value co-creation behavior: self-enhancement motivation enhances all three experiences, escapism mainly promotes nostalgic and flow experiences, and social interaction primarily affects aesthetic experience. These findings clarify the psychological mechanisms through which tourists’ motivations and emotional experiences influence value co-creation behavior in cultural heritage tourism. This research advances our understanding of the motivation–experience–behavior framework and emphasizes that enhancing emotional engagement is key to fostering sustainable cultural heritage tourism practices. The study provides practical implications for designing experiences and strategies that balance visitor satisfaction with the long-term vitality of cultural heritage sites and local communities, thereby contributing to broader sustainable development goals.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage, as defined by UNESCO [1], refers to the physical artifacts and intangible attributes inherited from past generations, preserved for the benefit of future ones. It holds great significance for both individuals and communities, fostering identity and contributing to national cohesion [2,3]. Harrison [4] notes that cultural heritage is continually re-created, providing enduring identity and promoting respect for cultural diversity. Preserving cultural heritage is crucial, with heritage revitalization combining protection with development to maintain authenticity while encouraging innovative uses [5]. Moreover, cultural heritage conservation and tourism have become critical components of sustainable development, as they integrate environmental stewardship, cultural continuity, and socio-economic benefits for local communities. These dimensions are increasingly emphasized by global frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Cultural heritage tourism embodies this revitalization, offering an avenue for public access to heritage and enabling active participation in its transmission and value creation [5]. Through tourism, cultural heritage can be creatively transformed, sustaining its relevance in contemporary society [6,7]. The tourism experience is deeply rooted in three dimensions: authentic preservation, active development, and value experience, where the latter plays a key role in connecting tourists with history [8].
Value co-creation in cultural heritage tourism involves all stakeholders integrating resources to create value, where tourists are not merely experiencers but co-creators, influencing both the heritage and its future development [9,10]. Through personal interactions and narratives, tourists actively contribute to the heritage experience, integrating cultural heritage into their personal identity [11]. This process revitalizes cultural heritage, ensuring its ongoing sustainable development, as seen in many attractions that have been restored to meet tourist demands [12].
Although value co-creation is a central research focus, most studies have examined how it adds value to tourism, often overlooking the emotional experiences of tourists. Culture and emotions are closely linked, with emotions significantly influencing decision-making and behavior [13]. In cultural heritage tourism, emotional experiences—such as immersion, identification, and nostalgia—play a critical role in driving value co-creation behavior, including sharing experiences and supporting conservation efforts [14].
While some research has explored the role of emotional experiences, it is often treated as secondary to other factors. For instance, studies on value co-creation focus primarily on cognitive and behavioral dimensions, sidelining emotions as peripheral or final outcomes [15,16]. This gap in research highlights the need to better understand how emotional experiences influence value co-creation in tourism.
The recent literature has increasingly highlighted the convergence of cultural heritage tourism, value co-creation, and sustainability in the post–COVID-19 era. For example, a study at agricultural heritage sites demonstrates how host–guest co-creation fosters tourists’ environmental responsibility via psychological ownership and emotional inertia mediation [17]. Another investigation shows that rural homestay operators, tourists, and government agencies can collaboratively co-create value to sustain community development post-pandemic [18]. A comprehensive review further categorizes heritage, cultural, and creative tourism activities into sustainability-related clusters—co-creation, innovation technologies, and recovery strategies [19]. Other research explores how heritage tourism can reinforce community resilience following crises through sustainable practice integration [20]. Moreover, studies from resident perspectives illustrate how community identity and emotional solidarity influence residents’ willingness to co-create tourism value in intangible heritage contexts [21], and how living-lab frameworks facilitate multi-stakeholder experiential co-creation for sustainable destination development [22]. Although these works deepen our understanding of co-creation mechanisms and sustainability linkages, gaps remain in how multiple tourist motivations jointly shape emotional experiences and ultimately drive value co-creation behavior in cultural heritage tourism settings.
Building on the above gaps, this study aims to clarify how tourists’ motivations influence their emotional experiences and, in turn, value co-creation behaviors in the context of sustainable cultural heritage tourism. Specifically, we develop and empirically test a motivation–experience–behavior framework that integrates three motivations (self-enhancement, escapism, and social interaction), three emotional experiences (aesthetic, nostalgic, and flow), and value co-creation behavior as the outcome variable. This framework not only advances prior research that has often examined these relationships in isolation but also incorporates a sustainability perspective by linking value co-creation to the long-term vitality of cultural heritage tourism. Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question: How do multiple tourist motivations shape emotional experiences and ultimately drive value co-creation behaviors in sustainable cultural heritage tourism?

2. Research Hypotheses and Model Construction

2.1. Emotional Experience and Value Co-Creation Behavior

Emotion is a complex psychological state with multiple meanings [23]. Therefore, when categorizing emotional dimensions, it is essential to conduct a systematic analysis tailored to the characteristics of the research field, context, and subjects. In cultural heritage tourism, tourists emotionally engage with the heritage through its aesthetic value, historical narratives, symbolic significance, and interactive participation. This emotional engagement resonates with their perceptions, cognitions, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences, triggering emotional responses such as aesthetic appreciation, immersion, and nostalgia [24,25,26].
Among these emotional experiences, aesthetic experience refers to the aesthetic sensations that tourists gain during cultural heritage tourism, reflecting their appreciation of art, architecture, and natural landscapes. This experience is a crucial factor in shaping psychological responses, and therefore, psychological experiences based on aesthetics are referred to as aesthetic experiences [24]. Nostalgia, on the other hand, is a psychological response rooted in the historical attributes and symbolic meanings of cultural heritage. Tourists can recall cherished memories of the past or find emotional connections between history and their own lives through cultural heritage [25]. As such, nostalgia is considered a common emotional expression and experience [27,28].
Finally, when tourists delve into the historical background of cultural heritage or participate in interactive experiences, their strong connection with the heritage allows them to become fully focused and immersed, thereby achieving a deep sense of enjoyment [26]. This state of flow is a highly concentrated psychological experience, accompanied by a distortion of time perception and is strongly positively correlated with positive emotions [29]. Therefore, it is also considered a part of emotional experience.
In summary, this study further categorizes tourists’ emotional experiences in cultural heritage tourism into three representative key dimensions: aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience. Each dimension focuses on different emotional responses and psychological states, yet all profoundly influence tourists’ overall experience and behavior.
The positive relationship between emotional experiences and value co-creation behavior has been confirmed by numerous studies [30,31,32,33]. Specifically, regarding aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience, firstly, tourists generate relevant aesthetic experiences during the process of appreciating cultural heritage. Humans have a strong desire to share their aesthetic, cultural, and artistic experiences; people often wish to convey their aesthetic and artistic experiences to others and seek admiration and recognition in return [34]. This psychological drive motivates tourists to actively spread and share their experiences, and engage in communication, discussion, and reflection with others, thus promoting the occurrence of value co-creation behavior.
Secondly, the strong sense of history and cultural symbols of cultural heritage often evoke tourists’ nostalgic memories and emotional connections with the past, which strengthens their emotional attachment to the heritage. This sense of emotional belonging motivates tourists to take a more active role in the dissemination, preservation, and innovation of cultural heritage. For example, they may share their stories and experiences on offline or online social platforms, or express their nostalgic sentiments through artistic creation [35]. This, in turn, encourages collective discussion, forms a shared cultural memory, creates an atmosphere of co-creation, and drives value co-creation.
Finally, when tourists enter a state of flow, it essentially indicates an increase in their level of engagement and integration, as well as a deeper understanding of the cultural heritage. This makes them more willing to invest time and effort in exploring and interacting with the heritage, while also enhancing their sense of self-efficacy. In this interactive process, tourists are able to offer unique insights and are willing to engage in discussions with others, thus promoting cultural exchange, fusion, and co-creation.
Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1. 
Positive aesthetic experiences have a positive impact on tourists’ value co-creation behavior.
H2. 
Positive nostalgic experiences have a positive impact on tourists’ value co-creation behavior.
H3. 
Positive flow experiences have a positive impact on tourists’ value co-creation behavior.

2.2. Multiple Motivations

Motivation is the intrinsic force that drives individual behavior and perception. Psychological research suggests that motivation is a multidimensional variable, which can be divided into extrinsic motivation (such as instrumentality, utilitarianism, functionality, etc.) and intrinsic motivation (such as curiosity, the pursuit of adventure, a sense of independence, a sense of achievement, escapism, spiritual needs, and social needs) [36,37]. Mokhtarian et al. [38] argue that travel is often driven by intrinsic motivations because it fulfills higher-level human needs, such as respect and self-actualization.
In the context of cultural heritage tourism, tourists’ motivations guide their focus and psychological state, thereby shaping different emotional experiences. The appeal of cultural heritage tourism lies in its ability to encourage tourists to step outside of their usual environments and visit cultural landmarks to experience cultural diversity, satisfying their desires for cultural sensations or knowledge. By collecting new information and experiences, tourists seek to enrich and elevate their sense of self [39,40]. Alternatively, they may seek to escape from everyday stressors, experience new cultural atmospheres, and find temporary peace and emotional relaxation [41]. Additionally, during their travels, tourists may interact with acquaintances or local residents, enhancing social connections or establishing new social bonds through cultural identification with others, thus satisfying fundamental human social needs [42,43].
Therefore, this study summarizes the above motivations into self-enhancement motivation, escapism motivation, and social interaction motivation. These motivations can be both independent and complementary, helping to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of individual emotional experiences and their impact on behavior.
Self-enhancement motivation refers to the intrinsic drive of tourists to seek personal growth and self-improvement through cultural heritage tourism, encompassing comprehensive needs such as curiosity, knowledge acquisition, and spiritual pursuits. This type of motivation reflects tourists’ desire to gain new knowledge, improve their skills, and enhance their self-confidence through travel. Numerous studies have confirmed that there is a close relationship between self-enhancement and emotional experiences [44,45]. When behaviors driven by self-enhancement motivation yield satisfactory results, individuals often experience a stronger sense of fulfillment, achievement, and pride; conversely, failure to achieve desired outcomes may lead to negative emotions [45].
In the context of cultural heritage tourism, self-enhancement motivation can encourage tourists to more actively explore the art, architecture, and natural landscapes of cultural heritage sites. This enhances tourists’ focus on and engagement with cultural heritage tourism, making them more likely to enter a state of deep concentration and lose track of time, ultimately reaching a flow state. The focus and immersion brought about by self-enhancement motivation also prompt tourists to more seriously and deeply observe and appreciate the aesthetic value and artistic significance of cultural heritage, as well as to engage more actively in learning about the historical stories, cultural backgrounds, and symbolic meanings behind the heritage. As a result, both aesthetic and nostalgic experiences become more profound. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4. 
Tourists’ self-enhancement motivation has a positive impact on tourists’ aesthetic experience.
H5. 
Tourists’ self-enhancement motivation has a positive impact on tourists’ nostalgic experience.
H6. 
Tourists’ self-enhancement motivation has a positive impact on tourists’ flow experience.
Escapism motivation focuses on tourists’ need to relieve stress, pursue pleasure, and regulate emotions through cultural heritage tourism. It reflects the desire of tourists to temporarily escape from the responsibilities, pressures, work burdens, or emotional troubles of everyday life, entering an environment far removed from reality to achieve relaxation and pleasure for both the body and mind. Research has pointed out that escapism is motivated not only by the need to avoid unpleasant situations and the avoidance of negative emotions but also by the pursuit of enjoyable experiences and the creation of positive emotions [46]. Therefore, the essence of escapism motivation is the release of emotions and the process of recreating positive emotional experiences [47,48].
In the context of cultural heritage tourism, escapism motivation helps tourists temporarily escape from the pressures and troubles of daily life, creating a relaxed and peaceful psychological state. This state makes it easier for tourists to immerse themselves in the new cultural atmosphere and become engaged in cultural exploration, which in turn facilitates quicker entry into a flow experience. Additionally, by stepping away from their daily environment and engaging with new destinations and different cultural backgrounds, tourists can broaden their horizons, enhance their appreciation of cultural arts, and improve their aesthetic experience. Escapism is also often associated with dissatisfaction with present life, which brings about nostalgia for better times in the past. When tourists encounter the historical stories and symbolic meanings embedded in cultural heritage, this motivation triggers memories and reflections, leading to the activation of nostalgic emotions. These emotions, in turn, encourage tourists to share their experiences and engage in cultural conversations, further promoting value co-creation behavior. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H7. 
Tourists’ escapism motivation positively influences their aesthetic experience.
H8. 
Tourists’ escapism motivation positively influences their nostalgic experience.
H9. 
Tourists’ escapism motivation positively influences their flow experience.
Social interaction motivation refers to the driving force that encourages tourists to enhance their interactions and connections with others through cultural heritage tourism. It manifests in tourists’ desire to build or strengthen emotional bonds with family, friends, or other tourists by participating in cultural heritage activities or to foster a sense of social integration through collective activities and shared experiences. Cultural heritage tourism provides tourists with a rich social environment, enabling them to establish deep emotional connections with others while exploring history and culture [49]. In the process of social interaction, sharing both positive and negative emotions, such as venting, expressing empathy/concern, offering help/support, comforting, or discussing suggestions and solutions, these interpersonal interactions can positively regulate tourists’ emotions [50], leading to a more positive emotional experience.
Therefore, theoretically, by promoting interaction and social connections in cultural heritage tourism, it can have a positive impact on emotional experiences such as aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience. Specifically, positive interpersonal interactions foster the sharing and discussion of cultural heritage perceptions and aesthetic values among tourists and with others. In these discussions, tourists can express their own aesthetic viewpoints while also listening to others’ aesthetic impressions of cultural heritage. This bidirectional artistic interaction enhances their aesthetic experience. Furthermore, in social communication, interacting with different people and sharing individual stories and experiences can evoke collective memories and emotional connections, leading tourists to reflect more deeply on and nostalgically recall the past, thus triggering nostalgic experiences. Finally, social interaction motivation often encourages people to engage in deeper interactions, which increases their focus and involvement in the study and exploration of cultural heritage, facilitating the occurrence of flow experiences. Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H10. 
Tourists’ social interaction motivation has a positive impact on their aesthetic experience.
H11. 
Tourists’ social interaction motivation has a positive impact on their nostalgic experience.
H12. 
Tourists’ social interaction motivation has a positive impact on their flow experience.
Based on the 12 research hypotheses mentioned above, this study constructs a structural equation model of tourists’ value co-creation behavior in cultural heritage tourism, with emotional experience as a mediating variable, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1. Method Selection

This study employed partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the proposed motivation–experience–behavior framework. Compared with covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) or traditional regression approaches that have been widely used in prior tourism and heritage studies, PLS-SEM is particularly suitable for this research for three reasons. First, PLS-SEM performs well with complex models that include multiple mediating variables and latent constructs, as in the present study. Second, it is robust when the sample size is moderate and the data distribution deviates from normality, which is common in field surveys of cultural heritage tourists. Third, PLS-SEM is prediction-oriented and emphasizes explained variance (R2) and predictive relevance (Q2), making it ideal for identifying the key psychological mechanisms that drive value co-creation behaviors.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

In designing the questionnaire, this study followed a rigorous process to ensure the scientific validity and rationality of the survey instrument. All measurement indicators for the constructs were derived and refined from established scales and previous research in the relevant fields. A seven-point Likert scale was used to quantify respondents’ agreement with statements related to multiple motivations, emotional experiences, and value co-creation behaviors. In addition, the questionnaire included demographic information, such as gender, age, educational background, frequency of tourism, and the timing of the most recent cultural heritage tourism experience. The questionnaire content is shown in Table 1 below.

3.3. Sample and Data Collection

This study employed a convenience sampling method to gather a representative sample in a short timeframe. The primary sample was collected from tourists visiting classical Suzhou gardens, a collection of historic gardens located in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China. These gardens, known for their aesthetic and historical significance, include notable sites such as the Humble Administrator’s Garden, Lingering Garden, and Master of Nets Garden, all of which are part of the World Heritage-listed Suzhou Classical Gardens. The choice of Suzhou classical gardens as the study sites is particularly fitting, as these gardens are iconic examples of cultural heritage tourism in China, offering a rich context for examining the emotional foundations of value co-creation. The survey was conducted both on-site at these gardens and through online platforms targeting tourists who had visited these locations within the past three months. To encourage higher participation, small incentives were offered to respondents who completed the survey, helping to diversify the sample. Specifically, each respondent received a cash reward of 20 RMB (approximately USD 3).
Data collection occurred from February to October 2024, covering multiple seasons. Although seasonal variation was not specifically examined, this extended timeframe was intended to enhance sample diversity and provide a broader representation of cultural heritage tourists’ experiences.
After data collection, thorough cleaning and screening were performed to eliminate invalid responses, such as those with overly short completion times or uniform answers across all items. This process ensured that the final dataset was reliable and valid for analysis. A total of 470 valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective response rate of 82.02%. This sample size is deemed sufficient for the analysis and hypothesis testing. To minimize social desirability bias, participants were informed about the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses and gave their informed consent before completing the survey. Demographic information for the respondents is presented in Table 2.

4. Data Analysis

This study used SmartPLS 4 software to perform PLS-SEM analysis. During the model estimation process, we employed the weighted path weighting scheme with a maximum of 3000 iterations and used the default initial weight settings. To test the statistical significance of path coefficients and related parameters, we executed a non-parametric bootstrapping procedure, running 5000 samples to ensure the robustness of the analysis results. Through this process, we were able to accurately evaluate the hypothesized paths and the relationships between constructs.

4.1. Assessment of Measurement Model

In evaluating the measurement model, we first ensured the reliability and validity of each construct. As shown in Table 3, the Cronbach’s α values for the core constructs in this study ranged from 0.808 to 0.868, all exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.80 [57]. Similarly, the Composite Reliability (CR) values for the constructs were above the threshold of 0.7 [58], further supporting the reliability of the scales.
For convergent validity, we referred to the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct. The results in Table 3 show that all constructs had AVE values exceeding 0.63, with a range from 0.635 to 0.716, significantly higher than the benchmark value of 0.50 [59]. This indicates that the constructs possess good convergent validity. Additionally, by examining the factor loadings of the items, all measurement items had factor loadings above 0.7, indicating a strong association between each item and the construct it measures, as shown in Table 4.
In summary, the measurement model in this study meets the reliability and validity standards commonly accepted in the literature, providing a solid foundation for subsequent structural model analysis.

4.2. Assessment of Structural Model

Cross-loadings are commonly used as a preliminary step in assessing the discriminant validity of indicators [60]. In the present study, we observed that the outer loadings of the indicators on their associated constructs were significantly higher than any of their cross-loadings on other constructs. Therefore, it can be concluded that the cross-loading criterion was met, and the results are presented in Table 4.
According to the Fornell–Larcker criterion, if the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than the correlation coefficients with other constructs, it indicates the good discriminant validity of the scale. As shown in Table 5, the bolded numbers along the diagonal represent the square roots of the AVE values for each construct, all of which are greater than the correlation coefficients between other variables, proving that the discriminant validity between the constructs is good.
We also used the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio to assess discriminant validity. If the HTMT value is below 0.85, discriminant validity is confirmed, and the model is considered reliable for further processing. As shown in Table 6, all HTMT values passed the test, further confirming the good discriminant validity between the constructs.

4.3. Model Evaluation

Table 7 presents the R2 and Q2 values used to assess the explanatory power and predictive relevance of the structural model.
R2 represents the proportion of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables in the model, and it is a key indicator for assessing the model’s goodness of fit. Typically, an R2 value greater than 0.26 is considered to indicate a significant explanatory power of the model [61]. For the value co-creation behavior (VCB), the R2 value is 0.301, meaning the model explains approximately 30.1% of its variation.
Q2 is used to assess the predictive relevance of the model, measuring whether the model is capable of accurately predicting future data. When the Q2 value is greater than zero, it indicates that the model has strong predictive power both within the sample and outside of the sample [62].
This study uses PLS-SEM to explore how tourists’ multiple motivations in cultural heritage tourism influence value co-creation behaviors through emotional experiences. As shown in Table 8 and Figure 2, the results of the path tests clearly demonstrate the relationships between multiple motivations (self-improvement motivation, escape motivation, social interaction motivation), emotional experiences (aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, flow experience), and value co-creation behaviors. The table lists the VIF values, path coefficients (β), standard errors (STDEV), T-statistics, p-values, and test results for each hypothesized path. With these data, we can intuitively assess the statistical significance and directionality of each path in the model.
From the results, the aesthetic experience (AE), nostalgic experience (NE), and flow experience (FE) all have a positive and significant impact on value co-creation behavior (VCB), indicating that positive emotional experiences effectively drive tourists’ participation in value co-creation (H1, H2, and H3 are supported). Self-improvement motivation (SEM) has a positive and significant effect on aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience (H4, H5, and H6 are supported), suggesting that tourists’ psychological expectations for personal growth and self-improvement can effectively promote the formation of positive emotional experiences.
Escape motivation (EM) has a significant positive impact on nostalgic experience and flow experience (H8 and H9 are supported), but it does not significantly enhance aesthetic experience (H7 is not supported). This suggests that for tourists seeking to escape from daily pressures, they are more likely to derive satisfaction from recalling the past and immersing themselves in experiences, rather than deriving pleasure from aesthetic appreciation.
Social interaction motivation (SIM) has a significant positive effect on aesthetic experience (H10 is supported), but does not have a significant positive effect on nostalgic experience or flow experience (H11 and H12 are not supported). This indicates that social interaction motivation primarily influences tourists’ perceptions at the aesthetic level, rather than satisfying their emotional needs through recollecting the past or deep immersion.
Figure 2 visually presents the results of the structural model, showing the standardized path coefficients and their significance levels between the constructs (dashed lines indicate non-significant paths).

5. Discussion

The analysis results indicate that the emotional experience dimensions—namely, aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience—have a significant impact on behavioral intentions (H1, H2, and H3 are supported). This finding is consistent with previous studies and further confirms the positive influence of emotions on user behavior [63,64,65,66]. It also highlights the positive effect of emotional experiences on value co-creation behavior [14,30].
First, aesthetic appreciation often serves as a core attraction in cultural and heritage tourism [67], where tourists engage with architecture, art, and symbolic meanings embedded in the environment. Aesthetic experiences arise from the accumulation of information during the interaction between the subject and the object [68]. This information is primarily acquired and understood through people’s senses, and sensory stimulation evokes aesthetic emotions in individuals [69]. Compared to natural landscape tourism, cultural heritage tourism provides richer sensory stimuli, including appreciating architecture, watching dance performances, listening to artistic music, smelling incense bags, tasting local cuisines, and touching handmade crafts. These stimuli generate more profound aesthetic experiences. Such rich sensory stimulation provokes deeper aesthetic responses, leading to more positive emotions, which in turn drive stronger behavioral intentions, including choices, purchases, payments, and also actions like evaluations, discussions, sharing, and offering suggestions, which are core components of value co-creation behaviors [70,71,72].
Secondly, nostalgia refers to a longing or yearning for the past [73], and the historical nature of cultural heritage makes it more likely to trigger tourists’ nostalgic feelings. Nostalgia is not a negative emotion; on the contrary, it is a positive coping strategy [74]. It can invoke positive psychological cues, enhance self-esteem, strengthen social connections, and provide a sense of meaning and existence [75,76,77,78,79]. Tourists often place greater value on the source of this experience, which leads them to engage in actions that contribute to the preservation and development of cultural heritage, thereby fostering value co-creation behavior.
Finally, flow experience is considered a key concept in understanding behavior in various fields [80]. According to Csikszentmihalyi, flow is an important factor for generating creative ideas and behaviors [81]. Flow is closely related to innovative thinking, value creation, and collaboration [82,83,84]. When tourists enter a flow state during cultural heritage tourism, they are more willing to invest time and energy in exploring cultural heritage. At the same time, their creativity and ideas are often enhanced, enabling them to come up with new ideas and perspectives, thereby enriching the content of co-creation.
In terms of the antecedents of emotional experiences, self-enhancement motivation has a positive and significant effect on aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience (H4, H5, and H6 are supported). “Self-motivation” is a tendency that focuses on establishing or maintaining a specific state of self-awareness, self-representation, or self-evaluation. People seek experiences that improve or enhance their concept of “self” [85]. Cultural heritage tourism provides such an experience, where individuals believe that through cultural heritage tourism, they not only enjoy the pleasure of travel but also enhance their knowledge and broaden their horizons by engaging with different cultures. Research shows that individuals are highly motivated to adopt various self-enhancement strategies to strengthen the self [86]. Therefore, driven by self-enhancement motivation, tourists are more motivated to explore, perceive, and engage with various aspects of cultural heritage. This positive motivation often leads tourists to become more immersed in the experience, making it easier for them to enter a flow state. This deep exploration also enhances their understanding and cognition of cultural heritage, fostering a more profound aesthetic attitude and reflection. At the same time, through active and in-depth exploration, tourists encounter more cultural history, symbols, and meanings. In the process of continuous reflection, the connection between themselves and cultural heritage is strengthened, making it easier to evoke nostalgic emotions. As a result, self-enhancement motivation can positively influence aesthetic experience, nostalgic experience, and flow experience.
In terms of escapism motivation, escapism motivation has a positive effect on nostalgic experience and flow experience (H8 and H9 are supported). Based on the interpretation of escapism in three dimensions—nature, culture, and people—it can be observed that seeking stimulating experiences, visiting unfamiliar environments, encountering different social groups, and engaging in culturally heterogeneous experiences during travel can be seen as forms of escaping from one’s current life situation [87]. Therefore, engaging in cultural heritage tourism is a highly suitable way to escape from reality. The motivation for escape arises from various latent factors in everyday life, including explicit physical environments, implicit social relationships, self-status, and the drive and needs generated by these factors [87]. Freud and Psychoanalysis [88] pointed out that the mechanism of escapism involves the self-suppression of personality through alternative defense mechanisms, compensating for certain frustrations by redirecting them into other domains to achieve a sense of autonomy and fulfillment. In cultural heritage tourism, this compensation comes from two aspects: on the one hand, new cultural experiences help tourists temporarily forget current stress; on the other hand, certain cultural elements trigger past associations, evoking pleasant memories and releasing inner pressure. Therefore, escapism motivation positively influences nostalgic experience.
Moreover, the reasons for escapism may include work pressure, a tense lifestyle, complex interpersonal relationships, or an uncomfortable environment. When tourists travel to new destinations, they not only enjoy the pleasure of escaping current pressures but also feel curiosity and excitement toward new cultures, experiencing a sense of relief and relaxation. This can be seen as a liberation of the self and a conscious choice regarding their state of being. As a result, tourists are likely to have high expectations for cultural heritage tourism and actively engage in it. This heartfelt engagement, combined with the alignment of self-awareness and behavior, is a key factor in entering a flow state [89]. Therefore, escapism motivation has a positive impact on nostalgic experience.
However, escapism motivation did not have a significant impact on aesthetic experience (H7 not supported). This may be due to several factors. On one hand, the core purpose of escapism motivation is to help tourists escape from a tiring, stressful, and demanding lifestyle, seeking relaxation and enjoyment. In contrast, achieving a deep aesthetic experience requires certain conditions. Although sensory stimuli can evoke basic aesthetic feelings, a deeper level of aesthetic experience requires tourists to engage in more profound exploration and reflection, which can sometimes conflict with the goals of escapism, such as relaxation, detachment, and enjoyment. On the other hand, escapism motivation might lead tourists to focus more on short-term pleasure rather than delving into the cultural connotations and artistic values of heritage. This mindset may cause tourists to remain at the surface level of sensory experiences when appreciating cultural heritage, without seeking a deeper aesthetic experience. Therefore, escapism motivation may not lead to an enhancement of aesthetic experience.
In terms of social interaction motivation, it has a positive effect on aesthetic experience (H10 supported), as sharing experiences with others can enhance the perception of beauty. As social animals, humans are inherently driven by social instincts, and social interaction motivation is a natural alignment with this instinct. Communication and interaction between individuals are often driven by external utilitarian factors (such as economic benefits, rewards, etc.) and internal emotional needs (such as recognition, comfort, respect, etc.) [90,91]. Cultural heritage tourism provides an ideal environment for social interaction. On one hand, it offers a broad social scope, where tourists can interact not only with other tourists but also with local residents, engaging in discussions centered around cultural heritage. On the other hand, cultural heritage tourism offers common discussion topics, where tourists visiting the same heritage site are likely to share a common interest in its history, art, or culture. This commonality encourages spontaneous communication. By sharing experiences and viewpoints, tourists gain diverse perspectives, deepening their cultural identity. In these interactions, tourists not only express their own aesthetic opinions but also listen to others (such as other tourists or local residents). Aesthetic perceptions continuously clash, align, critique, and integrate through communication and interaction, eventually reaching a higher level of reflection and experience. Therefore, social interaction motivation positively impacts aesthetic experience.
However, social interaction motivation did not have a significant effect on nostalgic experience (H11 not supported). While some previous studies have suggested that nostalgia can provide a sense of connection with others, further reinforcing this nostalgic emotion within social connections [92], other studies have indicated that social interaction may increase social bonds but does not necessarily evoke nostalgic emotions [93]. Zhao et al. [94] argue that nostalgic experiences are often more introspective emotions, and sometimes lack broad applicability. Of course, whether social interaction can generate nostalgic emotions is not universally applicable. Research has shown that the occurrence of nostalgic feelings may be related to the intimacy of the social interaction [95,96]. For individuals with higher levels of intimacy, the shared experiences and stories between them increase the likelihood of their social interactions evoking nostalgic emotions. In contrast, among strangers, it is not easy for individuals to open up and discuss their past experiences, and not everyone is willing or able to do so. As a result, it is more difficult for strangers or people with less intimate relationships to engage in discussions about past experiences, making it less likely for nostalgic emotions to arise. In the context of cultural heritage tourism, the relationships between tourists, or between tourists and local residents, are typically not very intimate. Therefore, during their communication and interaction, it is unlikely that they will talk extensively about their past experiences, which makes it more difficult to share a collective nostalgic experience. Hence, it is reasonable that social interaction motivation does not significantly influence nostalgic experience in the context of cultural heritage tourism.
Similarly, social interaction motivation did not have a significant impact on flow experience (H12 not supported). This contradicts some findings from other research areas [97,98,99]. However, in the context of cultural heritage tourism, considering its uniqueness, this result is also somewhat explainable. On the one hand, cultural heritage tourism centers on the experience and feeling of culture, which typically requires tourists to maintain a certain level of focus. Frequent social interactions can disrupt this concentration, and when tourists’ attention is consumed by socializing, they may find it difficult to fully immerse themselves in the experience of cultural heritage, thus affecting their flow experience. On the other hand, social interaction is a two-way process, not a one-way desire. While tourists may approach cultural heritage tourism with the intention of social interaction, other tourists or local residents may not share the same goals and motivations. This misalignment of intentions could lead to frustration in social interactions, which may then affect the overall flow experience during cultural heritage tourism.
Beyond individual experiences, these emotionally driven value co-creation behaviors—such as sharing stories, supporting local artisans, and participating in preservation initiatives—contribute directly to the cultural, social, and economic pillars of sustainability. Cultural heritage tourism serves not only as a medium for experiencing the past but also as a platform for revitalizing local traditions, strengthening community identity, and fostering intergenerational cultural transmission. These processes enhance community cohesion and economic vitality through increased cultural consumption, creative industry participation, and local entrepreneurship.
Moreover, by empowering tourists as active participants in heritage preservation and narrative building, such practices align with the cultural dimension of sustainability, which emphasizes participation, identity, and long-term community well-being. These findings resonate with growing scholarly interest in the role of cultural sustainability in promoting equitable development and resilience in heritage-rich communities [100,101,102,103]. Integrating such emotion-driven, participatory models into heritage tourism not only enhances visitor engagement but also supports UN Sustainable Development Goal 11.4—strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.

6. Research Contributions and Limitations

Cultural heritage tourism has gained significant popularity, underlining the growing importance of value co-creation in this field. This study delves into the antecedent mechanisms of tourists’ emotional experiences and their subsequent influence on value co-creation behavior. The findings not only contribute to enriching the theoretical framework of cultural heritage tourism but also provide practical insights for enhancing the tourist experience and guiding industry practices.
From a theoretical standpoint, this study sheds light on the intricate relationship between emotional experience and value co-creation behavior. By identifying key emotional experiences such as aesthetic appreciation, nostalgia, and flow, it offers a deeper understanding of how these feelings drive tourists’ behaviors. The study also establishes a comprehensive “motivation–experience–behavior” framework, demonstrating how motivations like self-enhancement, escapism, and social interaction shape emotional experiences, which in turn influence value co-creation actions. This framework contributes to advancing theoretical research in the field of cultural heritage tourism by clarifying the pathways through which tourists engage with cultural heritage and create value.
In terms of practical implications, the results suggest that enhancing tourists’ emotional experiences—especially through aesthetic experiences, nostalgia, and flow—can significantly influence their involvement in value co-creation. Based on these findings, cultural heritage tourism providers can develop strategies that align with tourists’ motivations to foster more meaningful experiences. For example, integrating self-enhancement and social interaction motivations into the design of cultural heritage experiences can enhance tourists’ aesthetic engagement and promote active participation. Similarly, tapping into self-enhancement and escapism motivations can stimulate nostalgic experiences by creating immersive environments that evoke emotional connections to the past. Additionally, designing experiences that cater to these motivations can increase the likelihood of tourists entering a flow state, further deepening their engagement and involvement in cultural preservation and co-creation. Such strategies can also guide heritage managers and policymakers in strengthening community-based initiatives (e.g., local artisan workshops, participatory interpretation activities) that balance visitor satisfaction with the long-term vitality of heritage resources and the well-being of local communities.
While the study provides valuable insights, it also has several limitations. The use of convenience sampling limits the generalizability of the findings, and future research could benefit from employing random sampling methods to improve external validity. Additionally, the cross-sectional design used in this study restricts the ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Longitudinal or experimental research could help explore the dynamic processes and causal mechanisms involved in the emotional experience and value co-creation cycle. Furthermore, relying on self-reported data may introduce biases, such as social desirability or recall bias, and future studies could combine behavioral observations, physiological measurements, or big data analysis to enhance objectivity and validity.
Another limitation lies in the treatment of seasonal variation. Although our data collection spanned multiple seasons (February to October), the study did not explicitly examine whether tourists’ motivations or emotional experiences varied across different times of the year. It is plausible that motivations such as escapism or flow may be influenced by seasonal factors such as weather, holidays, or cultural events. Future research could explore these temporal dynamics to deepen our understanding of psychological and behavioral fluctuations in cultural tourism contexts.
Beyond enriching the theoretical framework and offering practical guidance for experience design and management, these findings also underscore how emotionally driven value co-creation behaviors contribute to the sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism. By leveraging tourists’ motivations and fostering deep emotional engagement, heritage managers and policymakers can stimulate practices that balance immediate visitor satisfaction with the long-term preservation of heritage and the well-being of local communities. This approach directly aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11.4, which emphasizes strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. Strengthening visitor–heritage–community linkages through emotionally engaging and participatory experiences can therefore serve as a pathway for enhancing cultural sustainability, community resilience, and economic vitality. This integration supports broader sustainable development goals and ensures that cultural heritage continues to thrive as a living component of community identity for future generations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.Z. and X.L.; Methodology, L.Z. and X.L.; Formal analysis, L.Z., X.L. and W.W.; Investigation, X.L.; Resources, W.W.; Writing—original draft, L.Z. and X.L.; Writing—review & editing, L.Z.; Supervision, L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the 2023 Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Fund Project “A Study on the Design Value of Chinese Gardens Overseas in the Context of Intelligent Media” (Project No. 23YJA760123) and the 2024 National Social Science Fund Art Studies Project “Research on the Design of Chinese Gardens Overseas” (Project No. 24BG134).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Ministry of Social Science at Changshu Institute of Technology (Approval No. CIT MSS-E-2023-016, dated 5 July 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  2. Harvey, D.C. Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2001, 7, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Smith, L. Uses of Heritage. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology; Smith, C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 10969–10974. [Google Scholar]
  4. Harrison, R. Heritage: Critical Approaches; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lin, D.; Guo, X. Bringing Heritage Back to Life: The Way to Revitalize Cultural Heritage Tourism in the New Era. Tour. Trib. 2018, 33, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Dupre, K.; McIlwaine, C. The impacts of world cultural heritage site designation and heritage tourism on community livelihoods: A Chinese case study. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 43, 100994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Al Shawabkeh, R.; AlHaddad, M.; Al_fugara, A.; Arar, M.; Alhammad, R.; Alshraah, M.; Alhamouri, M. Toward sustainable urban growth: Spatial modeling for the impact of cultural and natural heritage on city growth and their role in developing sustainable tourism. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 69, 639–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Santa, E.D.; Tiatco, S.A. Tourism, heritage and cultural performance: Developing a modality of heritage tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 31, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. You, Y. Research on the Mechanism of HeritageTourism Activation on Residents’ Value Cocreation—Take the Yangtze River NationalCultural Park (Chongqing) as an example. Master’s Thesis, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bohland, J.D.; Hague, E. Heritage and Identity. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Kitchin, R., Thrift, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 109–114. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gravari-Barbas, M. Tourism as a heritage producing machine. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 25, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Scheff, T.J. Goffman Unbound!: A New Paradigm for Social Science; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mijnheer, C.L.; Gamble, J.R. Value co-creation at heritage visitor attractions: A case study of Gladstone’s Land. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 32, 100567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. John, S.P.; Supramaniam, S. Value co-creation research in tourism and hospitality management: A systematic literature review. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2024, 58, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Leong, A.M.W.; Yeh, S.-S.; Zhou, Y.; Hung, C.-W.; Huan, T.-C. Exploring the influence of historical storytelling on cultural heritage tourists’ value co-creation using tour guide interaction and authentic place as mediators. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2024, 50, 101198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, W.; Ma, Y.; Lin, Y.; Lin, W.; Liu, C.; Mao, L.; Fan, S. Exploring the mechanism of host–guest value co-creation on tourists’ environmental responsibility behavior in agricultural heritage. NPJ Herit. Sci. 2025, 13, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Y.; Xia, L.; Wang, L.; Qiu, M.; Utomo, S. How are rural homestays achieving sustainable development in the post-COVID-19 period: Value co-creation by operators, tourists, and government. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kasemsarn, K. The attributes of heritage, cultural, and creative tourism in the context of sustainability before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive review. J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev. 2024, 8, 3979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ginzarly, M.; Teller, J. Leveraging social media for resilient cultural heritage: A people-centred conceptual framework for community engagement and crisis response. Built Herit. 2025, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, Y.; Lin, Y.; Su, X.; Chen, P.; Song, H. Multiple Effects of Agricultural Heritage Identity on Residents’ Value Co-Creation—A Host–Guest Interaction Perspective on Tea Culture Tourism in China. Agriculture 2024, 15, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dickinger, A.; Kolomoyets, Y. Value co-creation in tourism living labs. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 183, 114820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Volo, S. The experience of emotion: Directions for tourism design. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 86, 103097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yang, W.; Chen, Q.; Huang, X.; Xie, M.; Guo, Q. How do aesthetics and tourist involvement influence cultural identity in heritage tourism? The mediating role of mental experience. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 990030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Verma, A.; Rajendran, G. The effect of historical nostalgia on tourists’ destination loyalty intention: An empirical study of the world cultural heritage site—Mahabalipuram, India. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 22, 977–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kanagasapapathy, G. Understanding the Flow Experiences of Heritage Tourists. Ph.D. Thesis, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nawas, M.M.; Platt, J.J. A future-oriented theory of nostalgia. J. Individ. Psychol. 1965, 21, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  28. Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Sense of Past. In Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behavior Odyssey; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 1991; pp. 114–130. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rufi, S.; Wlodarczyk, A.; Páez, D.; Javaloy, F. Flow and Emotional Experience in Spirituality: Differences in Interactive and Coactive Collective Rituals. J. Humanist. Psychol. 2015, 56, 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wu, S.-H.; Gao, Y. Understanding emotional customer experience and co-creation behaviours in luxury hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 4247–4275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, F.; Tan, J.; Lu, L.; Li, S.; Qin, L. How Does Value Co-Creation Behavior Affect Destination Loyalty? A Role Switching Perspective. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1805–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lan, T.; Zheng, Z.; Tian, D.; Zhang, R.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Resident-Tourist Value Co-Creation in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Context: The Role of Residents’ Perception of Tourism Development and Emotional Solidarity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zang, X. Research on the Ineluence Ofhuman-Land Emotion on Subject-Objectvalue Co-Creation Behavior from the Perspective of Tourism Gaze. Master’s Thesis, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gökbulut Özdemir, Ö.; Fillis, I.; Baş Collins, A. Developing insights into the link between art and tourism through the value co-creation lens. Arts Mark. 2020, 10, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zunjarwad, R. Nostalgia and co-creation. J. Des. Res. 2023, 21, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Salomon, I.; Mokhtarian, P.L. What happens when mobility-inclined market segments face accessibility-enhancing policies? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1998, 3, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ory, D.T.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Redmond, L.S.; Salomon, I.; Collantes, G.O.; Choo, S. When is Commuting Desirable to the Individual? Growth Change 2004, 35, 334–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I.; Singer, M.E. What Moves Us? An Interdisciplinary Exploration of Reasons for Traveling. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 250–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ramires, A.; Brandão, F.; Sousa, A.C. Motivation-based cluster analysis of international tourists visiting a World Heritage City: The case of Porto, Portugal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, B.Y.; Cho, E. Effects of Self-congruence, Self-enhancement, and Delight on Tourists’ Patronage Intentions, and Moderating Roles of Personality Propensities. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2023, 24, 590–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ponsignon, F.; Lunardo, R.; Michrafy, M. Why Are International Visitors More Satisfied with the Tourism Experience? The Role of Hedonic Value, Escapism, and Psychic Distance. J. Travel Res. 2020, 60, 1771–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Negrușa, A.; Yolal, M. Cultural Tourism Motivation-The Case of Romanian Youths. Ann. Univ. Oradea Econ. Sci. Ser. 2012, 21, 548–553. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shi, X.; Day, J.; Gordon, S.; Cai, L.; Adler, H. An exploratory study of visitors’ motivations at a heritage destination: The case of the South Luogu Alley in China. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2019, 2, 186–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ong, D.C.; Goodman, N.D.; Zaki, J. Happier than thou? A self-enhancement bias in emotion attribution. Emotion 2018, 18, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Dufner, M.; Gebauer, J.E.; Sedikides, C.; Denissen, J.J.A. Self-Enhancement and Psychological Adjustment: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 23, 48–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ponsignon, F.; Bauman, M.; Lunardo, R. Seeking relief or reward? A utilitarian-hedonic journey perspective on escapism. Eur. J. Mark. 2024, 58, 1543–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aldwin, C.M.; Revenson, T.A. Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation between coping and mental health. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Martin, J.K.; Tuch, S.A.; Roman, P.M. Problem drinking patterns among African Americans: The impacts of reports of discrimination, perceptions of prejudice, and” risky” coping strategies. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2003, 44, 408–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rachão, S.A.S.; de Jesus Breda, Z.; de Oliveira Fernandes, C.; Joukes, V.N.P.M. Drivers of experience co-creation in food-and-wine tourism: An exploratory quantitative analysis. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duprez, C.; Christophe, V.; Rimé, B.; Congard, A.; Antoine, P. Motives for the social sharing of an emotional experience. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2014, 32, 757–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pereira, V.; Gupta, J.J.; Hussain, S. Impact of travel motivation on tourist’s attitude toward destination: Evidence of mediating effect of destination image. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022, 46, 946–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, W.; Chen, J.S.; Fan, L.; Lu, J. Tourist experience and wetland parks: A case of Zhejiang, China. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 1763–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Patwardhan, V.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Payini, V.; Mallya, J. Visitors’ loyalty to religious tourism destinations: Considering place attachment, emotional experience and religious affiliation. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 36, 100737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Song, H.; Xu, J.B.; Kim, J.-H. Nostalgic experiences in time-honored restaurants: Antecedents and outcomes. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 99, 103080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, C.-S.; Lu, H.-P.; Luor, T. A new flow of Location Based Service mobile games: Non-stickiness on Pokémon Go. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 89, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jiang, Q.; Deng, L.; Yang, C. The Impact Mechanism of Consumer’s Initial Visit to an Automobile 4S Store on Test Drive Intention: Product Aesthetics, Space Image, Service Quality, and Brand Image. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Kennesaw State University: Kennesaw, GA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  60. Leguina, A. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, J.; Zhuo, Z.; Lin, J. Does ChatGPT Play a Double-Edged Sword Role in the Field of Higher Education? An In-Depth Exploration of the Factors Affecting Student Performance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2009; pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  63. Unger, D.G.; Wandersman, A. The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1985, 13, 139–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ekman, P. Emotions Revealed: Understanding Faces and Feelings; Phoenix: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  65. Keltner, D.; Oatley, K.; Jenkins, J.M. Understanding Emotions; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  66. Keltner, D.; Lerner, J.S. Emotion. In The Handbook of Social Psychology; Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 317–352. [Google Scholar]
  67. Quadri-Felitti, D.L.; Fiore, A.M. Destination loyalty: Effects of wine tourists’ experiences, memories, and satisfaction on intentions. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2013, 13, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Locher, P.; Overbeeke, K.; Wensveen, S. Aesthetic Interaction: A Framework. Des. Issues 2010, 26, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Leder, H.; Nadal, M. Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode—Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. Br. J. Psychol. 2014, 105, 443–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dedeoglu, B.B.; Bilgihan, A.; Ye, B.H.; Buonincontri, P.; Okumus, F. The impact of servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: The importance of previous experience. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 72, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ouyang, Y.; Behnke, C.; Almanza, B.; Ghiselli, R. The Influence of Food Aromas on Restaurant Consumer Emotions, Perceptions, and Purchases. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2018, 27, 405–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lin, I.Y. Effects of visual servicescape aesthetics comprehension and appreciation on consumer experience. J. Serv. Mark. 2016, 30, 692–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Routledge, C.; Arndt, J.; Wildschut, T.; Sedikides, C.; Hart, C.M.; Juhl, J.; Vingerhoets, A.J.; Schlotz, W. The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential resource. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bi, S.; Pang, J.; Chen, H.; Perkins, A. When feeling powerless, we crave nostalgia: The impact of powerlessness on the preference for nostalgic products. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2024, 52, 998–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wildschut, T.; Sedikides, C.; Arndt, J.; Routledge, C. Nostalgia: Content, triggers, functions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 91, 975–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vess, M.; Arndt, J.; Routledge, C.; Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T. Nostalgia as a Resource for the Self. Self Identity 2012, 11, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhou, X.; Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T.; Gao, D.-G. Counteracting Loneliness: On the Restorative Function of Nostalgia. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 1023–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Routledge, C.; Arndt, J.; Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T. A blast from the past: The terror management function of nostalgia. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 44, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T.; Arndt, J.; Routledge, C. Nostalgia: Past, Present, and Future. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 17, 304–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bilgihan, A.; Okumus, F.; Nusair, K.; Bujisic, M. Online experiences: Flow theory, measuring online customer experience in e-commerce and managerial implications for the lodging industry. Inf. Technol. Tour. 2014, 14, 49–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Csikszentmihalyi, M.; Abuhamdeh, S.; Nakamura, J. Flow. In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; Csikszentmihalyi, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 227–238. [Google Scholar]
  82. Xu, J.; Gong, J.; Ji, D. Exploring the determinants of users’ co-creation behavior on music streaming platforms in China. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0291313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Schutte, N.S.; Malouff, J.M. Connections between curiosity, flow and creativity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 152, 109555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Carlson, J.; de Vries, N.J.; Rahman, M.M.; Taylor, A. Go with the flow: Engineering flow experiences for customer engagement value creation in branded social media environments. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 334–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lin, F. Self-interested Co-creation or Altruism Co-creation? Study on Influence of Customer Co-creation on Consumer Response. Enterp. Econ. 2021, 40, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Alicke, M.D.; Sedikides, C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 20, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Xu, Y.; Tao, Z.; Zhou, N.; Hou, M.; Rong, H. Characteristics, Mechanism and Pattern of Rural Tourism Behavior in Perspective of Escape: A Case Study of Gaochun International Slow City. Areal Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
  88. Freud, A.; Psychoanalysis, T.I.o. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  89. Csikszentmihalhi, M. Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life; Hachette: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  90. Walter, H.; Abler, B.; Ciaramidaro, A.; Erk, S. Motivating forces of human actions: Neuroimaging reward and social interaction. Brain Res. Bull. 2005, 67, 368–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lee, G.R.; Ishii-Kuntz, M. Social Interaction, Loneliness, and Emotional Well-Being among the Elderly. Res. Aging 1987, 9, 459–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Juhl, J.; Biskas, M. Nostalgia: An impactful social emotion. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2023, 49, 101545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Zhou, X.; Wildschut, T.; Sedikides, C.; Shi, K.; Feng, C. Nostalgia: The gift that keeps on giving. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhao, G.; Li, W.; Teng, L.; Lu, T. Moderating Role of Consumer Self-Concept on the Effectiveness of Two Nostalgia Appeals. J. Promot. Manag. 2014, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T. The sociality of personal and collective nostalgia. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 30, 123–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wildschut, T.; Sedikides, C.; Routledge, C.; Arndt, J.; Cordaro, F. Nostalgia as a repository of social connectedness: The role of attachment-related avoidance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 98, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Liu, H.; Chu, H.; Huang, Q.; Chen, X. Enhancing the flow experience of consumers in China through interpersonal interaction in social commerce. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 58, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gao, L.; Bai, X. Online consumer behaviour and its relationship to website atmospheric induced flow: Insights into online travel agencies in China. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2014, 21, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hsu, C.-L.; Chang, K.-C.; Chen, M.-C. Flow Experience and Internet Shopping Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Consumer Characteristics. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2012, 29, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Auclair, E.; Fairclough, G. Living between past and future: An introduction to heritage and cultural sustainability. In Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  101. Sonuç, N. Culture, Tourism, and Sustainability (Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Tourism, Social Sustainability of Tourism, Socio-cultural Sustainability of Tourism). In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 1083–1089. [Google Scholar]
  102. Roslan, Z.B.; Ramli, Z.; Razman, M.R.; Asyraf, M.; Ishak, M.; Ilyas, R.; Nurazzi, N. Reflections on local community identity by evaluating heritage sustainability protection in Jugra, Selangor, Malaysia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nursanty, E.; Rusmiatmoko, D.; Husni, M.F.D. From heritage to identity: The role of city authenticity in shaping local community identity and cultural preservation. J. Archit. Hum. Exp. 2023, 1, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Hypothetical model.
Figure 1. Hypothetical model.
Sustainability 17 06961 g001
Figure 2. Path analysis results (PLS-SEM).
Figure 2. Path analysis results (PLS-SEM).
Sustainability 17 06961 g002
Table 1. Questionnaire items.
Table 1. Questionnaire items.
ConstructCodeItemSource
Self-enhancement motivationSEM1I hope to enhance my self-worth through cultural heritage tourism.[51]
SEM2I feel that tourism can help me better understand myself.
SEM3Participating in tourism makes me feel personal growth.
SEM4I hope to gain new knowledge and skills through tourism.
Escapism motivationEM1I want to escape from daily life and enjoy the experience of cultural heritage tourism.[51]
EM2I hope to temporarily forget the troubles of life when traveling.
EM3Cultural heritage tourism allows me to escape from the pressures of reality.
EM4I think tourism is a way to relax and escape.
Social interaction motivationSIM1I enjoy interacting with others and building connections during travel.[51]
SIM2Participating in tourism activities gives me the opportunity to meet new friends.
SIM3I enjoy participating in cultural heritage tourism with friends or family.
SIM4I believe social activities are an important part of cultural heritage tourism.
Aesthetic experienceAE1I feel aesthetic enjoyment during cultural heritage tourism.[52,53]
AE2I am attracted by the beautiful scenery during the trip.
AE3I appreciate the art and design in cultural heritage sites.
AE4The aesthetic appeal of cultural heritage makes me feel pleasure.
Nostalgic experienceNE1I often recall good memories of the past during cultural heritage tourism.[53,54]
NE2I feel that some elements in tourism evoke nostalgic emotions.
NE3I form emotional connections with past cultural traditions during cultural heritage tourism.
NE4I think cultural heritage tourism is a way to express nostalgia and emotions.
Flow experienceFE1I feel completely immersed and lose track of time during cultural heritage tourism.[53,55]
FE2I feel highly focused and engaged when participating in cultural heritage tourism.
FE3Cultural heritage tourism brings me deep psychological satisfaction.
FE4I think cultural heritage tourism is an immersive experience that brings physical and mental pleasure.
Value co-creation behaviorVCB1I feel that my participation can enhance the overall experiential value of cultural heritage tourism.[31,56]
VCB2I actively participate in activities and put forward my suggestions and ideas during cultural heritage tourism.
VCB3I enjoy working together with others to create unique experiences in cultural heritage tourism.
VCB4I am willing to share my experiences and opinions during cultural heritage tourism.
Table 2. Demographic information of respondents.
Table 2. Demographic information of respondents.
ItemCategoryFrequencyPercentage
GenderMale23650.21%
Female23449.79%
Age18–2525955.11%
26–359319.79%
36–45428.94%
46 and above7616.17%
EducationHigh School or Below367.66%
Bachelor’s Degree28761.06%
Graduate Degree or Higher14731.28%
Travel Frequency1–2 times per year16434.89%
3–4 times per year17236.60%
More than 4 times per year13428.51%
Last Cultural Heritage Tourism ExperienceWithin 1 month12025.53%
1–3 months ago16635.32%
3–6 months ago8117.23%
More than 6 months ago10321.91%
Table 3. Descriptive and measurement assessment results.
Table 3. Descriptive and measurement assessment results.
ConstructCronbach’s αCRAVE
Aesthetic Experience0.8650.8660.711
Escapism Motivation0.8390.8450.674
Flow Experience0.8340.8390.668
Nostalgic Experience0.8480.8530.687
Social Interaction Motivation0.8370.8660.667
Self-enhancement Motivation0.8680.8680.716
Value Co-creation Behavior0.8080.8090.635
Table 4. Discriminant validity: cross loading.
Table 4. Discriminant validity: cross loading.
ConstructCodingCross-Loadings
AEEMFENESIMSMVCB
Aesthetic ExperienceAE10.8310.201 0.433 0.230 0.192 0.345 0.351
AE20.8490.212 0.409 0.233 0.202 0.334 0.362
AE30.8390.193 0.382 0.259 0.142 0.301 0.351
AE40.8540.184 0.408 0.289 0.172 0.340 0.336
Escapism MotivationEM10.1480.8080.228 0.192 0.325 0.296 0.229
EM20.232 0.8260.244 0.147 0.283 0.291 0.308
EM30.224 0.8400.247 0.223 0.274 0.304 0.309
EM40.156 0.8090.226 0.171 0.248 0.297 0.312
Flow ExperienceFE10.390 0.261 0.8390.289 0.114 0.224 0.411
FE20.444 0.254 0.8460.257 0.089 0.257 0.419
FE30.344 0.238 0.7870.261 0.078 0.162 0.366
FE40.400 0.186 0.7950.291 0.078 0.217 0.384
Nostalgic ExperienceNE10.240 0.147 0.256 0.8140.130 0.202 0.263
NE20.248 0.181 0.293 0.8200.071 0.198 0.308
NE30.218 0.214 0.255 0.8240.115 0.237 0.251
NE40.282 0.199 0.305 0.8570.096 0.225 0.332
Social Interaction MotivationSIM10.173 0.277 0.096 0.073 0.8190.080 0.196
SIM20.143 0.262 0.039 0.081 0.7960.051 0.124
SIM30.196 0.286 0.118 0.163 0.8480.100 0.271
SIM40.163 0.298 0.089 0.060 0.8040.114 0.162
Self-enhancement MotivationSEM10.335 0.313 0.234 0.232 0.083 0.8500.046
SEM20.317 0.320 0.230 0.225 0.063 0.8310.135
SEM30.337 0.270 0.208 0.212 0.130 0.8600.072
SEM40.337 0.320 0.225 0.210 0.090 0.8430.102
Value Co-creation BehaviorVCB10.372 0.295 0.403 0.262 0.167 0.105 0.800
VCB20.297 0.244 0.386 0.352 0.173 0.060 0.812
VCB30.342 0.328 0.358 0.277 0.248 0.102 0.783
VCB40.310 0.263 0.396 0.220 0.187 0.065 0.791
Table 5. Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 5. Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion.
ConstructAEEMFENESIMSEMVCB
Aesthetic Experience0.843
Escapism Motivation0.2350.821
Flow Experience0.4840.2890.817
Nostalgic Experience0.2990.2250.3350.829
Social Interaction Motivation0.2110.3430.1100.1230.817
Self-enhancement Motivation0.3920.3620.2650.2600.1080.846
Value Co-creation Behavior0.4150.3540.4850.3500.2420.1040.797
Table 6. Discriminant validity: Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Table 6. Discriminant validity: Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
ConstructAEEMFENESIMSEMVCB
Aesthetic Experience
Escapism Motivation0.271
Flow Experience0.5680.343
Nostalgic Experience0.3480.2630.398
Social Interaction Motivation0.2410.4090.1240.138
Self-enhancement Motivation0.4520.4240.3090.3030.124
Value Co-creation Behavior0.4960.4290.5890.4190.280.125
Table 7. Structural model evaluation.
Table 7. Structural model evaluation.
ConstructR2Q2
Aesthetic Experience0.1790.171
Flow Experience0.1080.098
Nostalgic Experience0.0840.077
Value Co-creation Behavior0.3010.067
Table 8. Structural assessment result.
Table 8. Structural assessment result.
HypothesisPathβSTDEVT Statisticsp ValuesResult
H1AE → VCB0.2030.0464.4510.000Valid
H2NE → VCB0.1800.0424.2450.000Valid
H3FE → VCB0.3260.0457.3190.000Valid
H4SEM → AE0.3560.0448.1540.000Valid
H5SEM → NE0.2070.0484.2980.000Valid
H6SEM → FE0.1850.0464.0440.000Valid
H7EM → AE0.0530.0501.0670.286Invalid
H8EM → NE0.1310.0512.5440.011Valid
H9EM → FE0.2160.0504.2830.000Valid
H10SIM → AE0.1540.0413.7060.000Valid
H11SIM → NE0.0560.0471.1980.231Invalid
H12SIM → FE0.0160.0450.3620.717Invalid
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, L.; Liu, X.; Wei, W. The Emotional Foundations of Value Co-Creation in Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism: Insights into the Motivation–Experience–Behavior Framework. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156961

AMA Style

Zhou L, Liu X, Wei W. The Emotional Foundations of Value Co-Creation in Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism: Insights into the Motivation–Experience–Behavior Framework. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156961

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Lin, Xue Liu, and Wei Wei. 2025. "The Emotional Foundations of Value Co-Creation in Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism: Insights into the Motivation–Experience–Behavior Framework" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156961

APA Style

Zhou, L., Liu, X., & Wei, W. (2025). The Emotional Foundations of Value Co-Creation in Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism: Insights into the Motivation–Experience–Behavior Framework. Sustainability, 17(15), 6961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156961

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop