Next Article in Journal
Research on Green Supply Chain Decision-Making Considering Government Subsidies and Service Levels Under Different Dominant-Force Structures
Previous Article in Journal
Simultaneous Arsenic and Fluoride Removal from Contaminated Water Using Powder Reagents of CaO, Ca(OH)2, and CaCO3 as Calcium-Based Adsorbents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/su17177720
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Exhibition Interactivity on Tourist Experiences at World Heritage Sites

by
Yan Hu
1,
Meng Fei Yu
1,
Aye Thuzar Aung
1,
Julie Anne Pineda
1,
Xiaoting Chi
2 and
Young-joo Ahn
1,3,*
1
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
2
Business School, Qingdao University, 62 Kedazhi Road, Qingdao 266071, China
3
Tourism Industry Data Analytics Lab (TIDAL), Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7720; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177720
Submission received: 13 July 2025 / Revised: 15 August 2025 / Accepted: 24 August 2025 / Published: 27 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Directions for Cultural and Heritage Sustainability in Hospitality and Tourism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Heritage tourism has attracted increasing attention. Unique symbols of cultural identity, World Heritage Sites (WHSs) have steadily become one of the key global tourism resources, attracting large numbers of tourists. This study investigated how exhibition interactivity features shape satisfaction and loyalty among tourists in the context of WHSs. Moreover, it examined the enhancement of tourists’ satisfaction through interactive exhibitions, increasing loyalty to cultural heritage tourism destinations. The research methodology involved the application of a structural equation model (SEM) and importance–performance analysis (IPA). In addition, the differential effects of exhibition experiences across various tourist subgroups remain underexplored. In light of this research gap, 227 surveys of visitors to WHSs were utilized. The results showed that active control and synchronicity had positive effects on tourist satisfaction and loyalty, but two-way communication had a negative effect on satisfaction. The results demonstrated that exhibition interactivity influenced loyalty indirectly through satisfaction. Furthermore, this study identified cognitive gaps in different tourist groups in the exhibition interactivity dimension using IPA. By employing a multifaceted methodological approach, this study explored how interactive technology influences tourist experiences at WHSs. Finally, it offers empirical evidence, theoretical contributions, and practical suggestions.

1. Introduction

As information technology advances, an increasing number of museums and World Heritage Sites (WHSs) are becoming invaluable cultural and natural assets, offering enduring inspiration and contributing to the shared legacy of humanity [1]. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) expanded from 12 sites in 1978 to 1223 in 2024, reflecting the continuous efforts of the World Heritage Convention’s mission to ensure the recognition and conservation of globally outstanding cultural and natural heritage [2]. WHSs are integral to our collective history, embodying cultural and natural treasures that merit preservation and appreciation [3]. Cultural tourism is travel motivated by the desire to experience and engage with a destination’s tangible and intangible cultural resources [4]. Heritage tourism refers to travel centered on experiencing and appreciating places, artifacts, and activities that represent the past and cultural heritage [5]. Heritage tourism offers tourists diverse opportunities for identity formation, thereby enhancing the role of cultural identity at various destinations [6]. The increase in heritage sites has been accompanied by a rise in tourist numbers, emphasizing the importance of fostering visitor loyalty [7]. In this context, enhancing tourist satisfaction and loyalty continues to be a central focus in heritage tourism research [8]. In this regard, the interactivity of exhibitions has become an important subject of academic attention [9,10,11].
As information technology advances, an increasing number of museums and heritage sites are integrating interactive exhibitions to enrich the visitor experience [12]. These exhibitions move beyond the traditional static displays through the application of technologies such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and interactive touch interfaces [12,13]. By offering immersive and interactive elements, these exhibitions foster a deeper connection to cultural heritage. Moreover, they enhance visitors’ sense of participation and understanding, which promotes their loyalty toward the site as a result [14]. South Korea boasts a total of sixteen UNESCO WHSs, attracting millions of visitors eager to explore its cultural traditions and breathtaking landscapes [15]. Over time, these heritage sites have gradually integrated interactive technologies into their exhibitions, offering visitors a more immersive understanding of cultural heritage while also contributing to the preservation of these sites and promoting sustainable progress within the tourism industry [16,17].
Despite the growing integration of interactive features in WHS exhibitions, there remains a limited understanding of how these elements impact tourist responses, especially in terms of satisfaction and loyalty. While many exhibitions incorporate interactivity, research has yet to adequately address which specific interactive components effectively foster visitors’ understanding of historical and cultural heritage legacy and produce long-term behavioral outcomes. This gap in knowledge could lead to misallocation of resources and suboptimal exhibition designs. Empirical studies examining interactivity across multiple dimensions [18] within the context of WHS exhibitions are scarce. Furthermore, there is insufficient understanding of how these interactive experiences contribute to affective outcomes, such as satisfaction and loyalty, within the stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) model [19]. As a result, this study delved into the relationships between exhibition interactivity, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors to WHSs in South Korea. Furthermore, the study explored the mediating role of satisfaction in the relationship between interactivity and loyalty. It examined the moderating effects of demographic and behavioral factors. The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of the multiple dimensions of exhibition interactivity on visitor satisfaction and loyalty at WHSs. Second, we aimed to investigate the mediating role of tourist satisfaction in the relationship between exhibition interactivity and loyalty. Third, we aimed to explore whether the relationships among interactivity, satisfaction, and loyalty are moderated by demographic and behavioral factors such as age, income level, and the SNS usage. Finally, we employed IPA to derive strategic implications for improving exhibition experiences at WHSs. The research methodology involved the application of an SEM and IPA.
In addition, the differential effects of exhibition experiences across various tourist subgroups remain underexplored. This study can contribute to extending current knowledge on interactive exhibition experiences within WHS settings. We conceptualized exhibition interactivity as a multidimensional stimulus and investigated its emotional and behavioral consequences. This theoretical grounding provides a structured lens through which to explore how mediated interactions shape visitors’ psychological responses and post-visit intentions. Integrating a multifaceted methodological approach, the study not only tested causal pathways but also identified key interactivity factors that are perceived across different demographic and behavioral segments. These methods enable a deeper understanding of tourist experiences.

2. Literature Review

2.1. WHSs

WHSs are cultural and natural properties of exceptional and irreplaceable value to humanity, recognized by UNESCO and its World Heritage Convention [1]. These sites are categorized into three types—cultural heritage and cultural landscapes, natural heritage, and mixed heritage—that integrate both cultural and natural elements [20]. UNESCO highlights the global importance of certain physical environments such as historical structures, architectural complexes, and culturally meaningful locations that have historical, artistic, or scientific value [21]. In an era characterized by a growing appreciation for cultural experiences, heritage tourism is a highly competitive sector due to its historical, educational, artistic, and social value [22]. It attracts global tourists by offering authentic cultural experiences that reflect the unique identity of a country. Moreover, WHSs are favored by tourists because of their distinctive and irreplaceable attributes [23]. The existing literature indicates that heritage tourism is gaining significance [24] and that satisfaction levels grow with increased perceptions of authenticity [25,26,27].
Previous research focused on understanding the characteristics and experiences of WHS tourists [28,29,30,31]. These results provide a deeper comprehension of heritage tourism by highlighting the complex interactions between tourists and cultural assets [31]. Research on WHSs has emphasized tourism marketing and promotional strategies aimed at increasing visitors. However, these efforts also serve the fundamental goals of site preservation, enhancing cultural heritage awareness and fostering deeper emotional and cognitive connections between tourists and the heritage sites [5,31]. Previous research emphasized the importance of balancing tourism development with conservation to protect WHSs [28,30]. With the increasing use of advanced educational technologies, particularly in exhibition settings at WHSs, there is a critical need for research to evaluate their effects on visitor experience and heritage conservation.

2.2. Exhibition Interactivity

Interactivity refers to the degree of user influence over the media environments’ material and content [32]. Liu and Shrum [33] pointed out that interactivity is the extent to which multiple communicators can mutually affect one another, the medium, and the content, with these interactions occurring simultaneously. Liu [18] characterized interactivity as a communication process and proposed a multidimensional concept consisting of several distinct perspectives. Liu [18] highlighted three core components of interactivity. These components have become widely used metrics for measuring interactivity in various research contexts [18,34,35,36].
Visitors to WHSs are motivated by a variety of factors, from a desire to engage with history to seeking entertainment. While these attractions provide opportunities for learning, it is vital to understand how to deepen the visitor experience beyond the service quality of WHS attributes [37]. Previous research has demonstrated that satisfaction with a site’s cultural attributes plays a significant role in fostering tourist loyalty, indicating that that individuals are more inclined to revisit the site when they perceive cultural offerings as engaging [38,39]. Therefore, the quality and engagement of the cultural attractions themselves are key drivers of visitor loyalty.
Exhibition interactivity has a vital impact on fostering visitor engagement, and the integration of modern multimedia technologies is increasingly used to foster deeper interactions [40]. Previous studies have shown that interactive technologies, when effectively employed, have the potential to enrich the visitor experience by promoting both active participation and long-term satisfaction [41]. The emergence of VR and AR has brought a fundamental shift in how cultural heritage sites are experienced by visitors. Moreover, AR and VR technologies offer a unique advantage by allowing for the recreation of cultural narratives without causing disruption to the site or its preservation [42,43]. Furthermore, these technologies enable visitors to not only learn about the site but also actively engage with it, enhancing their sense of immersion and personal connection to the heritage [44]. Digital restoration of historical events integrated with AR/VR enables visitors to experience history in an interactive and meaningful way while ensuring that the cultural and heritage artifacts remain protected. This technological integration contributes to a more immersive and engaging visitor experience [42]. As a result, the use of interactive technologies not only strengthens visitor satisfaction but also cultivates greater loyalty, contributing to sustainability [41,42].
Recently, museums and heritage sites have increasingly integrated advanced technologies to enhance visitors’ deeper engagement, improving both the interaction with exhibits and the provision of tailored experiences [45]. These technological advancements not only allow visitors to connect more deeply with cultural heritage but also serve the increasing need for personalized and participatory experiences [40,46,47,48]. The shift in visitor expectations reflects a broader trend where visitors seek more hedonic, immersive, and destination-specific experiences. Previous research indicates that exhibition interactivity is positively correlated with increased visitor satisfaction, as it enhances their sense of participation and fosters deeper engagement [8,49,50]. Furthermore, Mero [51] suggested that reciprocal communication contributes significantly to individuals’ perception of interactivity, which enhances their satisfaction and loyalty. Synchronicity has also been shown to enhance communication effectiveness and visitor satisfaction. It has been found that synchronous interactions can contribute significantly to tourists’ satisfaction levels [52]. While there is a steadily expanding body of research exploring the link between exhibition interactivity and visitor satisfaction [53], relatively few studies have specifically examined these relationships across the three key dimensions of interactivity. Our proposed hypotheses were:
H1. 
Active control interactivity positively influences tourist satisfaction.
H2. 
Two-way communication interactivity positively influences tourist satisfaction.
H3. 
Synchronicity interactivity positively influences tourist satisfaction.

2.3. Satisfaction and Loyalty

Oliver [54] defined satisfaction as a cognitive evaluation resulting from comparing expectations with actual performance (experience). In contrast, some scholars view satisfaction as an emotional response to consumption experiences arising from the fulfillment of needs and expectations and the positive evaluation of these experiences [55,56,57]. In tourism studies, satisfaction is understood as a psychological commitment to repeatedly visit or support a preferred destination, despite external factors or marketing efforts that may lead to switching behavior [58].
Loyalty is defined as a lasting commitment to consistently buy and utilize products or services, as well as the willingness to advocate for them through positive feedback and recommendations [58,59]. Previous research explored destination loyalty toward WHSs, reflecting tourists’ intentions to revisit, recommend, and demonstrate commitment to destinations [60,61]. In WHSs, satisfaction plays a crucial role in fostering tourist loyalty [62,63]. The unique historical, cultural, and educational significance of WHSs provides an exceptional experience for visitors, which may directly influence their satisfaction levels [64,65]. Li et al. [66] showed that satisfaction with cultural attributes, such as the authenticity and the cultural value of a site, significantly influences tourists’ intention to visit repeatedly.
Previous studies have established that visitors’ experiences with cultural heritage sites strongly influence their perceptions of the site. These perceptions in turn affect their satisfaction and loyalty [67]. For example, the quality of one’s experience at a WHS often leads to a stronger emotional attachment, which fosters the likelihood of future visits and recommendations. The relationship is especially important in the case of WHSs, as the unique cultural and historical aspects offer deeper engagement that goes beyond typical service quality [68,69]. Based on earlier research, this study focused on assessing the link between visitors’ experiences at WHSs and their satisfaction and loyalty. We sought to understand how satisfaction influences loyalty. Our next hypothesis was:
H4. 
Tourists’ satisfaction positively influences their loyalty toward WHSs.

2.4. Moderating Effects

Previous research has highlighted how demographic factors (i.e., gender and age) and behavioral factors such as social networking service (SNS) usage shape tourist experiences at WHSs [70,71,72,73,74]. The findings of previous research revealed that the moderating effects may vary depending on these factors, which shape the ways in which different tourist groups perceive and respond to interactive experiences within heritage sites. Heritage tourists are a heterogeneous group, ranging from tourists who merely visit heritage sites to others who are motivated by a personal sense of identity connected to the heritage sites [5].
Specifically, previous research [75] explored how gender influences the way visitors engage with and remember vivid experiences during their visit to heritage tourism destinations. They found that the effects of destination image were stronger for male tourists. Previous studies have suggested that gender may influence travel preferences and decision-making; however, many of these studies did not confirm notable differences [70,71]. Research on heritage tourism has identified both differences and similarities based on gender, and further investigation is required [72,76]. Differences in age groups at WHSs were reflected in varying travel styles and decision-making patterns, which in turn affected satisfaction, engagement, and loyalty [30,72,77].
Digital platforms such as SNSs and travel blogs are important sources where visitors reflect on their encounters with cultural heritage sites and articulate moments of awe and authenticity that lead to subsequent information searching and sharing behavior [78]. Previous research [79] found that younger generations visiting WHSs showed higher satisfaction when using interactive apps, with a notable focus on the education, entertainment, and novelty dimensions. Mulvey, Lever, and Elliot [73] found that younger travelers tended to actively engage with social media during and after travel to share travel experiences, post comments, and provide recommendations. Highly active digital users showed greater travel loyalty and a stronger tendency to share travel-related content. Previous experience with technologies and additional information can serve as a moderating factor, affecting the post-visit evaluations [71]. The proposed model is provided in Figure 1.
H5a-d. 
The relationships between exhibition experience factors, satisfaction, and loyalty are moderated by gender.
H6a-d. 
The relationships between exhibition experience factors, satisfaction, and loyalty are moderated by age group.
H7a-d. 
The relationships between exhibition experience factors, satisfaction, and loyalty are moderated by SNS usage level.

2.5. IPA and Segmentation

The exploration of areas for improvement has been widely adopted within hospitality and tourism research to optimize travel experiences [50,80,81,82,83]. IPA provides a diagnostic approach for evaluating attributes by visualizing importance and performance levels [84]. IPA enables practitioners to prioritize improvements based on empirical insights [84]. IPA places attributes on a two-axis chart, reflecting how important and how well each attribute performs. This IPA model is separated into four distinct sections using the means of importance and performance, allowing attributes to be grouped into four categories [83,84]. These are arranged in counterclockwise order from quadrants one to four, and the representative meanings of them are as follows: keep up good work, possible overkill, low priority, and concentrate here.
While traditional IPA relies on direct measures of importance and performance, previous research using IPA has introduced methodological refinements [80]. Martilla and James [84]’s IPA was challenged by two critical issues: the presumed independence between importance and satisfaction, and the non-symmetrical relationship that exists between them. This study addressed these shortcomings by applying partial correlation analysis as an alternative methodological approach [85,86]. IPA has evolved by incorporating derived importance measures and expanding its applicability in various contexts in hospitality and tourism [80,81,86].
In tourism and cultural heritage research, IPA provides a valuable methodological tool for effectively identifying gaps between tourists’ preferences and experiences [50,82,87]. IPA has recently been applied to explore the influence of digital interactive technology experiences on tourist attitudes [50]. Specifically, Marasinghe et al. [82] used IPA to identify gaps in tourists’ expectations for an eco-guide system in their study of mangrove heritage sites in Sri Lanka and highlighted the need to enhance the real-time feedback function to improve visitor engagement. Similarly, Trunfio et al. [50] used IPA to analyze the interactive effects of AR and VR in Italian museums. They found that while “technical ease of use” performed well, “personalized content adaptation” was positioned in the high importance–low performance quadrant, indicating a need for improvement as a priority. Despite its widespread use in hospitality and tourism, IPA has rarely been used to analyze exhibition interactivity. The ability of IPA to differentiate between various levels of importance and performance makes it a useful tool for evaluating exhibition interactivity. Therefore, this study utilized IPA and segmentation of exhibition interactivity in WHSs.

3. Methods

The questionnaire was organized with the initial section focusing on travel experiences of WHSs. The second section comprised the concepts. This study employed a survey to measure key constructs based on established scales from previous research. Specifically, exhibition interactivity includes three factors and nine measurement items [18]. Satisfaction includes four items [58,59]. Loyalty includes three items [88]. Finally, SNS usage is modified and includes five items [89]. The final section collected demographic information to present sample profiling and segmented group analysis. The survey adopted a 5-point Likert scale from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” The specific measurement items investigated in the questionnaire survey are shown in the Appendix A.
A pretest was performed to examine the comprehensibility, structure, and overall suitability of the questionnaire items. The developed measurement underwent expert review involving graduate students and experts who evaluated the content for conceptual alignment and clarity. After receiving comments, revisions were made due to ambiguities or mistakes identified during the pilot test. The research team aimed to strengthen the survey content and face validity while contributing to its overall reliability by enhancing measurement item consistency. The questionnaire was created in English and Korean to collect data from domestic and international tourists in South Korea, ensuring that language barriers did not affect the quality or clarity of the data collected. The bilingual researchers verified the accuracy of the language in the measurement items. Eligibility for participation required that respondents satisfy the following participant criteria: being at least 18 years old, had visited a South Korean WHS within one year prior to the survey, and had experienced an exhibition facility within the WHS.
This study used purposive sampling and may not represent the population in terms of demographic characteristics and various South Korean WHSs. Participants were recruited by identifying and contacting personal bloggers who had posted about their visits on social media platforms. Participants who were invited and completed the survey received a coupon equivalent to approximately KRW 2000 as an incentive for their participation. The survey was distributed among target participants through a link and a version of a QR code. The data were collected between September and October 2023, and a total of 297 respondents participated.
The survey included screening questions to ensure that participants met specific criteria, such as having visited WHSs in South Korea, and additional items to assess the respondents’ consent and willingness to participate in the research for ethical considerations. A total of 70 respondents were removed because they were not eligible respondents, and those who failed to complete all survey items or made insufficient effort responding were removed. Data were used from 227 valid respondents. Under the assumption of a sufficient population to disregard finite population correction and with a 95% confidence level and an estimated proportion of 0.5, the calculated maximum margin of error for the sample was approximately 6.5%.
Data analysis was conducted using Stata 18.0. The first stage included descriptive analysis to examine the distribution of key variables and demographic profile. To investigate the associations between constructs, structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized. Furthermore, an importance–performance analysis (IPA) was conducted to evaluate key variables. Differences in evaluation across identified segments were analyzed, providing insights into how various subgroups perceived and prioritized the performance of different constructs.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Demographics

Table 1 outlines key demographic profiles derived from the descriptive analysis. Among the 227 individuals, the majority were female, approximately 74.0% (n = 168), with male participants accounting for 26.0% (n = 59). The age groups varied. The mean age was 34 years. Respondents in their twenties made up the highest percentage (36.1%), and those in their thirties constituted 34.5% of the sample. Regarding marital status, 56.4% of the total respondents were single (n = 128), while 40.5% were married (n = 92) and only 3.1% identified as “other” (n = 7). Over 50% of respondents reported that their highest education was a bachelor’s degree (n = 128, 56.4%), and 30.0% of the respondents had postgraduate degrees (n = 30). Occupation status showed that 50.2% of the respondents had full-time positions (n = 114), with 16.0% students, 11.5% self-employed, 11.0% in other occupations, 8.8% part-time workers, and 3.5% unemployed. Annual household income reported in varied across respondents, with the largest group earning between KRW 20,000,000 and less than KRW 40,000,000 (n = 68, 30.0%), followed by KRW 40,000,000–60,000,000 (19.4%). Lastly, the majority of the participants were of South Korean nationality (n = 172, 75.8%), while non-South Koreans comprised 24.2% (n = 55) of the sample.

4.2. CFA

We study conducted sequential factor analyses and used an SEM approach. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are shown in Table 2. The fit indices fell within the acceptable ranges, showing the recommended model fit. The factor loadings ranged from 0.672 to 0.875, and the composite reliability (CR) values varied between 0.780 and 0.905. The results showed strong internal consistency. The average variance extracted (AVE) values presented in Table 2 fall within the range of 0.542 to 0.705, meeting the accepted criteria. To verify discriminant validity, the square roots of the AVEs for each latent construct were calculated and compared with the inter-construct correlation coefficients in Table 3 [90]. Discriminant validity was established, as the square roots of the AVEs surpassed the covariances for all constructs. The results demonstrate that the latent variables were distinct from one another within the model.
The model fit indices presented satisfactory values (χ2 = 188.870, df =97, χ2/df = 1.947, GFI = 0.918, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.948, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.054) (Table 4 and Figure 2). R-squared for satisfaction was 0.380 and for loyalty 0.755. The results indicated that active control had a positive effect on satisfaction (β = 0.362, p < 0.01). Two-way communication showed a negative effect on satisfaction (β = −0.225, p < 0.05). Synchronicity had a positive effect on satisfaction (β = 0.438, p < 0.001). The results revealed that satisfaction positively and strongly influences loyalty (β = 0.869, p < 0.001). The indirect effects indicated that three exhibition experiences showed significant indirect effects on loyalty, as shown in Table 5. Specifically, three exhibition experiences had significant indirect effects on loyalty: active control (β = 0.297, p < 0.01), two-way communication (β = −0.185, p < 0.05), and synchronicity (β = 0.376, p < 0.01).

4.3. Moderating Effects of Gender, Age and SNS Usage

This study had two groups: low level of SNS usage and high level of SNS usage. SNS usage was measured using five items (see Appendix A) on a 5-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 0 to 25. Respondents scoring between 0 and 14 were categorized as the low-SNS group (n = 82), while these scoring between 15 and 25 were categorized as the high-SNS group (n = 145). As shown in Table 6, the SNS usage variable showed a marginally significant moderating effect on two relationships in moderating the relationships between active control and satisfaction (chi2 = 3.482, p = 0.062) and satisfaction and loyalty (chi2 = 3.229, p = 0.072). Statistical testing did not reveal significant differences in two of the examined relationships: the relationships between two-way communication and satisfaction (chi2 = 0.039, p = 0.844) and synchronicity and satisfaction (chi2 = 2.432, p = 0.119). Regarding gender and age group, the moderating roles of age groups were tested; however, neither variable showed statistically significant effects on the relationships in the model. Although there was a slight difference by gender in the satisfaction–loyalty relationship (chi2 = 3.512, p = 0.006), the results indicated no significant differences in other paths. The marginal moderating effect of SNS usage (p = 0.062–0.072) highlights an important contrast. The high-SNS group reported greater satisfaction from active control features, yet their overall loyalty scores were lower than those of the low-SNS group.
Sustainability 17 07720 g002
Figure 2. Results of the proposed model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Results of the proposed model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 17 07720 g002

4.4. Segmentation and IPA

IPA was performed based on gender, age group, and SNS usage level to examine how different segments perceived experience performance and overall satisfaction. This approach allowed for the identification of priorities and importance tailored to each segmented group based on demographic and behavioral groups. Implicit derived importance was calculated using performance scores and overall satisfaction [86]. IPA graphs visually depict each interactive dimension’s perception, showing the differences and similarities among various tourist groups (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 and Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12).
First, as shown in Table 7 and Figure 3, the IPA for gender revealed no differences between male and female groups. Results from a gender perspective showed similarities in Quadrant I: “Keep up good work” and Quadrant III: “Low priority.” Both female and male tourists showed similarity in being highly satisfied with “Active control” and “Synchronicity” in Quadrant I: “Keep up good work.” This suggests that these features are valued and well received across genders and should therefore be maintained or further enhanced through ongoing investment. Similarities also existed in Quadrant III, “Low priority,” and included “Two-way communication.” The results show that respondents had low satisfaction and assigned low importance to “two-way communication.” From a managerial perspective, this suggests that additional investment in this dimension may not be necessary at present.
Second, the results of IPA by SNS usage level showed differences between the low- and high-usage groups, as presented in Table 9 and Table 10 and Figure 4. For the tourists who have low usage of SNSs, “Active control” and “Two-way communication” all fell into Quadrant III (“Low priority”), indicating low perceived importance and low satisfaction. From a managerial perspective, these findings suggest that additional investment in these features is unlikely to yield substantial benefits for this group. In contrast, the WHSs’ exhibitions’ stronger performance resulted in “Synchronicity” being placed in Quadrant I: “Keep up good work,” reflecting high importance and high satisfaction. For this feature, continued maintenance and investment are recommended. For high-SNS visitors, “Active control” and “Synchronicity” were both located in Quadrant I, suggesting that they are valued and should be maintained. However, “Two-way communication” fell into Quadrant II, “Possible overkill,” meaning that it was rated as highly satisfactory, but of relatively low importance. This pattern implies that while the feature performs well, further investment may not be necessary for this segment.
Third, the IPA by age group revealed differences (Table 11 and Table 12 and Figure 5). Participants in their 30s and 40s showed similarities in “Active control” and “Synchronicity,” which were in Quadrant I (“Keep up good work”), indicating that these visitors considered the ability to browse freely and receive information in real time to be highly important and were highly satisfied with these features, while “Two-way communication” was placed in Quadrant III (“Low priority”), which suggests that respondents in these age groups regarded “Two-way communication” as unimportant and derived little satisfaction from it.
Among participants in their 20s, “Synchronicity” was placed in Quadrant I, showing that real-time access to browsing information was considered essential and yielded high satisfaction. “Active control” was positioned in Quadrant II (“Possible overkill”), indicating that while these visitors valued flexible, self-directed browsing, their overall experience of it was relatively weak compared to its perceived importance. “Two-way communication” was placed in Quadrant IV (“Concentrate here”), suggesting that this function was considered unimportant and rated poorly in performance.
In contrast, older participants (aged 50 and above) displayed different tendencies. “Active control” was placed in Quadrant I, reflecting its high importance in enabling autonomous browsing and high satisfaction with such. “Synchronicity” appeared in Quadrant II, indicating that although the value of real-time information delivery was acknowledged, the performance of this feature did not fully meet expectations. “Two-way communication” was again located in Quadrant III, signifying that older visitors regarded it as unimportant and were not satisfied with its performance.

5. Discussion

5.1. Implications

This study focused on exhibition interactivity and travel experiences among domestic and international tourists who visited WHSs in South Korea. It also explored the links between three exhibition interactivity dimensions, satisfaction, and loyalty as well as the mediating and moderating effects. Finally, IPA was used to identify the differences based on segmented groups such as different demographic and behavioral groups. The SOR framework [19] explains how different types of exhibition experience act as stimuli that shape tourists’ internal evaluations and loyalty. Moreover, this study expands prior research by incorporating IPA results. The integration of revised IPA results [86] enables us to understand how exhibition experiences are perceived by segmented demographic and behavioral groups.
First, this study demonstrated that the experience factor for three exhibition interactivity is consistent with Liu [18]. According to the results, three exhibition synchronicity exhibited the highest effect on satisfaction. Two-way communication showed a negative effect on satisfaction.
Second, this study demonstrated the exhibition experience factors and loyalty through the mediating effect of satisfaction. The results showed that the indirect effects between exhibition experiences and loyalty were mediated through emotional reactions. Consistent with previous research [68,69], the results indicated that satisfaction enhanced by the effectiveness of exhibition experiences facilitates stronger emotional fulfillment and establishes tourists’ intention to revisit and recommend.
Third, moderation analyses were conducted using gender, age group, and SNS usage level. SNS usage level was found to moderate the key relationship outlined in the proposed model. The results indicated that SNS usage significantly and marginally moderated the relationships between active control and satisfaction and between satisfaction and loyalty. For the high-SNS group, active control was perceived as particularly important and performing well. The results indicated that users who actively engaged with SNSs placed greater value on the ability to navigate and control digital exhibition experiences. However, the low-SNS group reported higher levels of satisfaction and loyalty. This suggests that although highly connected users demand more interactive features, they may also be more critical in their evaluations.
Finally, regarding gender differences, as noted in previous research [70,71], there was no difference based on gender. The revised IPA [86] results indicated that active control and synchronicity were perceived as both important and performing well among both male and female tourists. This suggests that WHS exhibitions should maintain the current quality of these attributes. In terms of SNS usage groups, synchronicity appeared in the first quadrant. The results indicated its continued relevance and necessity. Among tourists with high levels of SNS usage, active control was placed in this quadrant, demonstrating both high importance and performance. The results showed that highly connected users derived greater satisfaction from experiences that allowed for autonomy and interactive engagement. Regarding age group, a consistent pattern emerged in which most tourists identified active control and synchronicity as key factors, as reflected in their placement in the high-importance and high-performance quadrant. Two-way communication was generally perceived as less important and performing less well, with its location in the low-priority quadrant across age groups. Overall, the revised IPA findings suggest that two-way communication, while part of the digital experience, is not a critical factor for enhancing satisfaction in this context. It requires only minor improvements, rather than immediate strategic attention. The limited presence of two-way communication programs or facilities in current WHS exhibitions may have contributed to the results. Future studies are necessary to examine this dimension.
The results provide valuable insights for practitioners such as heritage site managers, exhibition designers, tourism marketers, and policymakers in the tourism and cultural heritage sectors. The three exhibition interactivity dimensions positively impact tourist satisfaction, which in turn fosters loyalty. First, visitors should be allowed to have more autonomy and control over their interaction in navigating exhibitions. Heritage site managers should consider incorporating technologies that allow visitors to choose which aspects of the site’s history or culture to explore. For instance, self-guided tours with mobile apps or interactive displays could empower visitors to navigate the exhibitions at their own pace, further fostering a stronger feeling of perceived control and connection to the experience. Synchronicity showed the strongest influence on visitor satisfaction, highlighting the importance of smooth real-time interactions during exhibitions. This could be improved through live demonstrations and AR and VR experiences as storytelling tools in exhibitions, which let visitors engage with the sites and learn synchronously [41,91]. For example, AR/VR can show visitors the real-world version of historical scenes, as well as how historical artifacts and buildings looked in their original context, thus deepening their understanding and providing a more engaging experience [44].
Second, the negative influence of two-way communication on satisfaction indicates that not all forms of interactivity are equally effective, and poor communication can lead to decreased satisfaction among visitors [14]. Heritage site managers should carefully manage two-way communication aspects in terms of human resources or digital tools. Staff should be trained to be more informative and willing to help visitors as needed. Besides implementing digital tools such as touchscreen displays to support two-way communication, it is important to ensure clarity in instruction content, multilingual support, and responsive interfaces that allow users to control the pace of interaction. Otherwise, there is a potential lack of knowledge and/or understanding of visitors about the availability of two-way communication facilities and/or initiatives in heritage sites. This could also be an implication of limited usage and application of AR/VR development among cultural heritage sites in South Korea. Activities or facilities that generate two-way communication should be investigated for possible further development and may need a wider range of promotion among visitors for deeper engagement leading to a satisfying experience [14].
Lastly, heritage tourism marketers should consider gathering real-time insights into tourists’ experiences with two-way communication by establishing effective feedback mechanisms, such as satisfaction surveys or feedback sections allowing visitors to ask questions and share their thoughts on exhibits through digital platforms. The application of sophisticated digital solutions has the potential to improve the interactive quality of cultural exhibitions and to stimulate deeper visitor involvement with historical and cultural narratives.

5.2. Limitations

This study has important implications; however, it has limitations. First, generalizability and external validity is constrained due to the specific context and sample characteristics, although the study demonstrated the effects of three exhibition experiences and interactivity on emotional evaluation and behavioral intention. The proposed model can be tested across different settings and incorporate other factors. Second, while this study focused on three dimensions of exhibition experiences, the evolving nature of exhibition technologies suggests that this may not fully capture the exhibition experiences at WHSs. Emerging technologies applied in heritage exhibitions and its environments are being integrated into digital exhibitions, offering new forms of interaction. Future research should expand these dimensions and develop measurement items of new features. Finally, one of the limitations lies in the demographic distribution of the sample used for segmentation and IPA. The representation across demographic categories was uneven. A more balanced distribution across age groups and gender could have allowed for more robust and generalized comparisons among subgroups. Further research would benefit from employing other sampling methods such as allocation sampling to ensure a balance of demographic characteristics.

6. Conclusions

This study investigated how different dimensions of exhibition interactivity affect satisfaction and loyalty at WHS exhibitions. The results confirmed that synchronicity and active control play significant roles in enhancing tourist satisfaction, which subsequently contributes to loyalty. In contrast, two-way communication showed a negative or marginal effect, suggesting that not all interactive features contribute equally to a meaningful experience. This study demonstrated the indirect relationship of satisfaction between exhibition interactivity and loyalty, indicating that emotional fulfillment is a crucial link in fostering continued visitor engagement. In addition, moderating effects were partially confirmed based on demographic and behavioral segmentation. High-SNS tourists valued interactive features such as active control more strongly, while the low-SNS group reported higher satisfaction and loyalty, indicating that digital engagement levels shape exhibition experiences. Through IPA, this study further identified actionable insights for practice. Active control and synchronicity were consistently perceived as high-importance and high-performance attributes across gender and age segments, while two-way communication appeared to be less impactful. These findings emphasize the need for a strategic focus on enhanced autonomy and synchronously engaging features in heritage exhibitions. From a practical perspective, the results provide guidance for exhibition designers, site managers, and heritage tourism marketers. Technological interventions such as AR/VR applications, real-time guidance tools, and self-directed exploration interfaces can enhance visitors’ sense of control and synchronicity. However, the limitations observed in the two-way communication dimension suggest a need for thoughtful application, staff training, and visitor awareness campaigns. This study highlighted exhibition interactivity in the context of heritage tourism through empirically linking interactive exhibition experiences with tourist satisfaction and loyalty.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.H., Y.-j.A., M.F.Y., A.T.A., J.A.P. and X.C.; methodology, Y.H. and Y.-j.A.; software, Y.H. and Y.-j.A.; validation, Y.H., Y.-j.A., M.F.Y., A.T.A., J.A.P. and X.C.; formal analysis, Y.H. and Y.-j.A.; investigation, Y.H., Y.-j.A., M.F.Y., A.T.A., J.A.P. and X.C.; data curation, Y.H., Y.-j.A., M.F.Y., A.T.A. and J.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H., Y.-j.A., M.F.Y., A.T.A., J.A.P. and X.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.-j.A.; visualization, Y.H., Y.-j.A., M.F.Y., A.T.A., J.A.P. and X.C.; supervision, Y.-j.A.; project administration, Y.-j.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics review and approval were waived for this study because this survey presented no risk and involved anonymous survey responses.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data can be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Measurement items.
Table A1. Measurement items.
ItemSource
(1) AC
Active Control		AC1: I felt that I had a lot of control over my experience at the exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites.[18]
AC2: While I was at the exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites, I could choose freely what I wanted to see.
AC3: While visiting the exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites, my actions decided the kind of experiences I had.
(2) Com
Two-way communication		Com1: The exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites facilitate two-way communication between the destination and visitors.[18]
Com2: The exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites give visitors the opportunity to talk to him/her.
Com3: The exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites make me feel it wants to listen to its visitors.
(3) Syn
Synchronicity		Syn1: The exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites provide information I ask very quickly.[18]
Syn2: I was able to get information from the exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites very rapidly.
Syn3: When I visited the exhibitions at the World Heritage Sites, I felt I was getting the instantaneous information I expected.
(4) Sat
Satisfaction		Sat1: I am satisfied with my decision to visit the World Heritage Site.[58,59]
Sat2: The World Heritage Site’s experiences meet my expectation.
Sat3: My feelings are good about the World Heritage Site.
Sat4: I am satisfied with visiting the World Heritage Site overall.
(5) LoyaltyLoyalty1: I will tell other people positive things about the World Heritage Site.[88]
Loyalty2: I will recommend the World Heritage Site to people who seek my advice.
Loyalty3: I will visit the World Heritage Site again if I could.
(6) SNS usagesnsusage1: I often visit online information on websites and SNSs about World Heritage Sites.
snsusage2: I often read posts of World Heritage Sites on websites and SNSs.[89]
snsusage3: I often use the “like” option on posts about World Heritage Sites.
snsusage4: I often comment on posts about World Heritage Sites.
snsusage5: I follow posts about World Heritage Sites to get information.

References

  1. Francioni, F. The 1972 World Heritage Convention: An Introduction. In The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary; Francioni, F., Lenzerini, F., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. UNWTO. World Heritage Committee 2024 | UNESCO. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/world-heritage/committee-2024 (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  3. Gu, X.; Xiong, K.; Zhang, J.; Chen, H. A Comprehensive Analysis on Integrity Conservation of World Natural Heritage Site and Buffer Zone Tourism Development with an Implication for Karst Heritage Sites. Geoheritage 2022, 15, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Richards, G. Cultural Tourism: A Review of Recent Research and Trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 36, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Poria, Y.; Reichel, A.; Biran, A. Heritage Site Management: Motivations and Expectations. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 162–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tian, D.; Wang, Q.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Influence of Cultural Identity on Tourists’ Authenticity Perception, Tourist Satisfaction, and Traveler Loyalty. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Castillo-Manzano, J.I.; Castro-Nuño, M.; Lopez-Valpuesta, L.; Zarzoso, Á. Assessing the Tourism Attractiveness of World Heritage Sites: The Case of Spain. J. Cult. Herit. 2021, 48, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Piper, L.; Prete, M.I.; Palmi, P.; Guido, G. Loyal or Not? Determinants of Heritage Destination Satisfaction and Loyalty. A Study of Lecce, Italy. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 593–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, Y.; Sun, W.; Liu, X.; Gan, Q.; Shi, J. Tourism Demonstration System for Large-Scale Museums Based on 3D Virtual Simulation Technology. Electron. Libr. 2020, 38, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Komarac, T.; Ozretić Došen, Đ. Discovering the Determinants of Museum Visitors’ Immersion into Experience: The Impact of Interactivity, Expectations, and Skepticism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 3675–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ponsignon, F.; Derbaix, M. The Impact of Interactive Technologies on the Social Experience: An Empirical Study in a Cultural Tourism Context. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wu, S.-T.; Chiu, C.-H.; Chen, Y.-S. The Influences of Innovative Technological Introduction on Interpretive Experiences of Exhibition:A Discussion on the Intention to Use Augmented Reality. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 662–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hashim, A.F.; Taib, M.Z.M.; Alias, A. The Integration of Interactive Display Method and Heritage Exhibition at Museum. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chung, N.; Lee, H.; Kim, J.Y.; Koo, C. The Role of Augmented Reality for Experience-Influenced Environments: The Case of Cultural Heritage Tourism in Korea. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. UNESCO. Republic of Korea—UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/kr/ (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  16. Boboc, R.G.; Băutu, E.; Gîrbacia, F.; Popovici, N.; Popovici, D.-M. Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Last Decade of Applications. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jung, K.; Nguyen, V.T.; Piscarac, D.; Yoo, S.-C. Meet the Virtual Jeju Dol Harubang—The Mixed VR/AR Application for Cultural Immersion in Korea’s Main Heritage. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, Y. Developing a Scale to Measure the Interactivity of Websites. J. Advert. Res. 2003, 43, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. The Basic Emotional Impact of Environments. Percept. Mot. Skills 1974, 38, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Smith, L. Uses of Heritage. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 10969–10974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Seyfi, S.; Rather, R.A.; Hall, C.M. Investigating the Mediating Role of Visitor Satisfaction in the Relationship between Memorable Tourism Experiences and Behavioral Intentions in Heritage Tourism Context. Tour. Rev. 2021, 77, 687–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jelinčić, D.A. Indicators for Cultural and Creative Industries’ Impact Assessment on Cultural Heritage and Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Piramanayagam, S.; Rathore, S.; Seal, P.P. Destination Image, Visitor Experience, and Behavioural Intention at Heritage Centre. Anatolia 2020, 31, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cai, Z.; Fang, C.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, F. Joint Development of Cultural Heritage Protection and Tourism: The Case of Mount Lushan Cultural Landscape Heritage Site. Herit. Sci. 2021, 9, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Domínguez-Quintero, A.M.; González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Paddison, B. The Mediating Role of Experience Quality on Authenticity and Satisfaction in the Context of Cultural-Heritage Tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Genc, V.; Genc, S.G. The Effect of Perceived Authenticity in Cultural Heritage Sites on Tourist Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Aesthetic Experience. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2022, 6, 530–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, T.; Yin, P.; Peng, Y. Effect of Commercialization on Tourists’ Perceived Authenticity and Satisfaction in the Cultural Heritage Tourism Context: Case Study of Langzhong Ancient City. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Breakey, N.M. Studying World Heritage Visitors: The Case of the Remote Riversleigh Fossil Site. Visit. Stud. 2012, 15, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. The Core of Heritage Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003, 30, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. González Santa-Cruz, F.; López-Guzmán, T. Culture, Tourism and World Heritage Sites. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 24, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yan, C. (Grace); Morrison, A.M. The Influence of Visitors’ Awareness of World Heritage Listings: A Case Study of Huangshan, Xidi and Hongcun in Southern Anhui, China. J. Herit. Tour. 2008, 2, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chi, H.-K.; Huang, K.-C.; Nguyen, H.M. Elements of Destination Brand Equity and Destination Familiarity Regarding Travel Intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Y.; Shrum, L.J. What Is Interactivity and Is It Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness. J. Advert. 2002, 31, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fan, L.; Liu, X.; Wang, B.; Wang, L. Interactivity, Engagement, and Technology Dependence: Understanding Users’ Technology Utilisation Behaviour. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shao, Z. Examining the Impact Mechanism of Social Psychological Motivations on Individuals’ Continuance Intention of MOOCs: The Moderating Effect of Gender. Internet Res. 2018, 28, 232–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shao, S.; Chen, K. Understanding Individuals’ Engagement and Continuance Intention of MOOCs: The Effect of Interactivity and the Role of Gender. Internet Res. 2021, 31, 1262–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Al Zu’Mot, R. Satisfaction, Destination Quality and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of UNESCO Heritage Sites in Jordan, University of Bedfordshire. 2023. Available online: https://uobrep.openrepository.com/handle/10547/625870 (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  38. Atsız, O.; Akova, O. Cultural Destination Attributes, Overall Tourist Satisfaction and Tourist Loyalty: First Timers versus Repeaters. Adv. Hosp. Tour. Res. AHTR 2021, 9, 268–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kang, J.H.; Jang, J.C.; Jeong, C. Understanding Museum Visitor Satisfaction and Revisit Intentions through Mobile Guide System: Moderating Role of Age in Museum Mobile Guide Adoption. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bae, S.; Jung, T.H.; Moorhouse, N.; Suh, M.; Kwon, O. The Influence of Mixed Reality on Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty in Cultural Heritage Attractions: A Brand Equity Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pervolarakis, Z.; Zidianakis, E.; Katzourakis, A.; Evdaimon, T.; Partarakis, N.; Zabulis, X.; Stephanidis, C. Visiting Heritage Sites in AR and VR. Heritage 2023, 6, 2489–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Youn, H.-C.; Ryoo, S.-L. VR and AR Restoration of Urban Heritage: A Virtual Platform Mediating Disagreement from Spatial Conflicts in Korea. Buildings 2021, 11, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhu, C.; Io, M.-U.; Hall, C.M.; Ngan, H.F.B.; Peralta, R.L. How to Use Augmented Reality to Promote a Destination? The Mediating Role of Augmented Reality Attachment. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2024, 26, e2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Han, S.; Yoon, J.-H.; Kwon, J. Impact of Experiential Value of Augmented Reality: The Context of Heritage Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guo, K.; Fan, A.; Lehto, X.; Day, J. Immersive Digital Tourism: The Role of Multisensory Cues in Digital Museum Experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2023, 47, 1017–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bideci, M.; Albayrak, T. An Investigation of the Domestic and Foreign Tourists’ Museum Visit Experiences. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2018, 12, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Puig, A.; Rodríguez, I.; Arcos, J.L.; Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A.; Cebrián, S.; Bogdanovych, A.; Morera, N.; Palomo, A.; Piqué, R. Lessons Learned from Supplementing Archaeological Museum Exhibitions with Virtual Reality. Virtual Real. 2020, 24, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Liang, H.; Ni, S. What Drives Users to Adopt a Digital Museum? A Case of Virtual Exhibition Hall of National Costume Museum. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221082105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dağ, K.; Çavuşoğlu, S.; Durmaz, Y. The Effect of Immersive Experience, User Engagement and Perceived Authenticity on Place Satisfaction in the Context of Augmented Reality. Libr. Hi Tech 2023, 42, 1331–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Trunfio, M.; Lucia, M.D.; Campana, S.; Magnelli, A. Innovating the Cultural Heritage Museum Service Model through Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality: The Effects on the Overall Visitor Experience and Satisfaction. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mero (Järvinen), J. The Effects of Two-Way Communication and Chat Service Usage on Consumer Attitudes in the e-Commerce Retailing Sector. Electron. Mark. 2018, 28, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Blaschitz, E.; Mayr, E.; Oppl, S. Too Low Motivation, Too High Authority? Digital Media Support for Co-Curation in Local Cultural Heritage Communities. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hao, S.; Peng, L.; Wijaya, W.A.; Liu, B. Not That into You? Lovers’ Traveling Desynchronicity and Its Effects on the Traveling Satisfaction. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oliver, R.L. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pearce, P.L. The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings; Recent Research in Psychology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Richins, M.L. Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience. J. Consum. Res. 1997, 24, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Spreng, R.A.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Olshavsky, R.W. A Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Oliver, R.L. Whence Consumer Loyalty? J. Mark. 1999, 63, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer; McGraw Hill: Columbus, OH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  60. Juraturgunov, H.; Raimkulov, M.; Ahn, Y.; Kang, E.M. World Heritage Site Tourism and Destination Loyalty along the Silk Road: A Study of U.S. Travelers in Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Raimkulov, M.; Juraturgunov, H.; Ahn, Y. Destination Attractiveness and Memorable Travel Experiences in Silk Road Tourism in Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Azis, N.; Amin, M.; Chan, S.; Aprilia, C. How Smart Tourism Technologies Affect Tourist Destination Loyalty. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2020, 11, 603–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hung, V.V.; Dey, S.K.; Vaculcikova, Z.; Anh, L.T.H. The Influence of Tourists’ Experience on Destination Loyalty: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alzoubi, H.; Alshurideh, M.; Kurdi, B.A.; Akour, I.; Aziz, R. Does BLE Technology Contribute towards Improving Marketing Strategies, Customers’ Satisfaction and Loyalty? The Role of Open Innovation. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2022, 6, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Borishade, T.T.; Ogunnaike, O.O.; Salau, O.; Motilewa, B.D.; Dirisu, J.I. Assessing the Relationship among Service Quality, Student Satisfaction and Loyalty: The NIGERIAN Higher Education Experience. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Li, T. (Tina); Liu, F.; Soutar, G.N. Experiences, Post-Trip Destination Image, Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Study in an Ecotourism Context. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, J.; Wang, G.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X. Interpreting Disaster: How Interpretation Types Predict Tourist Satisfaction and Loyalty to Dark Tourism Sites. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 22, 100656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Al-Msallam, S. The Impact of Tourists’ Emotions on Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty—An Integrative Moderated Mediation Model: Tourists’ Experience in Switzerland. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2020, 3, 509–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, S.W.; Xue, K. A Model of Destination Loyalty: Integrating Destination Image and Sustainable Tourism. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Adie, B.A.; Hall, C.M. Who Visits World Heritage?: A Comparative Analysis of Three Cultural Sites. J. Herit. Tour. 2017, 12, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Garro, V.; Sundstedt, V.; Sandahl, C. Impact of Location, Gender and Previous Experience on User Evaluation of Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: The Mjällby Crucifix Case Study. Heritage 2022, 5, 1988–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mandal, S.; Paul, J.; Kotni, V.V.D.P.; Chintaluri, M.G. The Orientation of Gen Zs towards Metaverse Tourism. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2024, 32, 100871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mulvey, M.S.; Lever, M.W.; Elliot, S. A Cross-National Comparison of Intragenerational Variability in Social Media Sharing. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 1204–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pokhrel, L.; Chaulagain, S.; Baniya, R. Factors Determining the Usage of Virtual Reality at UNESCO World Heritage Sites among Generations Y and Z. J. Herit. Tour. 2025, 20, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Seyfi, S.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Sthapit, E.; Hall, C.M. Antecedents of Domestic Visitor’s Memorable Experiences and Gender Difference: A Heritage Tourism Context. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2024, 50, 770–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Leong, A.M.W.; Yeh, S.-S.; Chen, H.-B.; Lee, C.-L.; Huan, T.-C. Does Gender Make a Difference in Heritage Tourism Experience? Searching for Answers through Multi-Group Analysis. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2024, 52, 101250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hausmann, A.; Schuhbauer, S. The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Cultural Tourists’ Journeys: The Case of a World Heritage Site. J. Herit. Tour. 2021, 16, 669–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gursoy, D.; Akova, O.; Atsız, O. Understanding the Heritage Experience: A Content Analysis of Online Reviews of World Heritage Sites in Istanbul. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2022, 20, 311–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, S.-R.; Youn, S.H.; Um, S.-H.; Lee, T.J. The Mediation of Information Technology on Visitors’ Experience at a Cultural Heritage Site. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, 1126–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hu, Y.; Lin, F.; Dong, Q.; Ahn, Y. Exploring Cultural and Heritage Attributes at Mount Yunqiu, China, Using Importance–Performance Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kim, K.; Sutherland, I. Comparing Importance and Satisfaction of Selection Attributes of YouTube Tourism Content. Curr. Issues Tour. 2024, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Marasinghe, S.; Perera, P.; Simpson, G.D.; Newsome, D. Nature-Based Tourism Development in Coastal Wetlands of Sri Lanka: An Importance–Performance Analysis at Maduganga Mangrove Estuary. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 33, 100345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Oh, H. Revisiting Importance–Performance Analysis. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Martilla, J.A.; James, J.C. Importance-Performance Analysis. J. Mark. 1977, 41, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Deng, W.-J.; Kuo, Y.-F.; Chen, W.-C. Revised Importance–Performance Analysis: Three-Factor Theory and Benchmarking. Serv. Ind. J. 2008, 28, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Deng, W. Using a Revised Importance–Performance Analysis Approach: The Case of Taiwanese Hot Springs Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1274–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Simpson, G.D.; Sumanapala, D.P.; Galahitiyawe, N.W.K.; Newsome, D.; Perera, P. Exploring Motivation, Satisfaction and Revisit Intention of Ecolodge Visitors. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 26, 359–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ou, C.X.; Pavlou, P.A.; Davison, R.M. Swift Guanxi in Online Marketplaces: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication Technologies. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 209–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tsai, W.-H.S.; Men, L.R. Motivations and Antecedents of Consumer Engagement With Brand Pages on Social Networking Sites. J. Interact. Advert. 2013, 13, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Deuschel, T.; Heuss, T.; Humm, B. The Digital Online Museum: A New Approach to Experience Virtual Heritage. 2014. Available online: https://consensus.app/papers/the-digital-online-museum-a-new-approach-to-experience-heuss-deuschel/01449f2983495ce9a88828a9e401a1a3/ (accessed on 13 July 2025).
Sustainability 17 07720 g001
Figure 1. A proposed conceptual model.
Figure 1. A proposed conceptual model.
Sustainability 17 07720 g001
Sustainability 17 07720 g003
Figure 3. IPA results of Deng [86]—gender.
Figure 3. IPA results of Deng [86]—gender.
Sustainability 17 07720 g003
Sustainability 17 07720 g004
Figure 4. IPA results of Deng [86]—SNS usage.
Figure 4. IPA results of Deng [86]—SNS usage.
Sustainability 17 07720 g004
Sustainability 17 07720 g005
Figure 5. IPA results of Deng [86]—age.
Figure 5. IPA results of Deng [86]—age.
Sustainability 17 07720 g005
Table 1. Sample demographic information.
Table 1. Sample demographic information.
VariableCategoryn%
GenderMale5926.0
Female16874.0
Age
(M = 34)		20–298036.1
30–397934.5
40–494419.3
50–59198.4
60 and over52.2
Marital statusSingle12856.4
Married9240.5
Others73.1
EducationHigh school135.7
Associate187.9
Bachelor’s degree12856.4
Postgraduate6830.0
OccupationFull-time11450.2
Part-time208.8
Self-employed2611.5
Unemployed83.5
Student3816.0
Others2511.0
Annual household income (KRW)Under 20,000,0003314.5
20,000,000—less than 40,000,0006830.0
40,000,000—less than 60,000,0004419.4
60,000,000—less than 80,000,0002611.5
80,000,000—less than 100,000,0002812.3
100,000,000 and over2812.3
Tourist typeSouth Korean tourists (domestic tourists)17275.8
International tourists5524.2
Note: USD 1 = KRW 1320.
Table 2. Results of CFA.
Table 2. Results of CFA.
LoadingAVECR
(1)
Active control		Active control10.6720.5420.780
Active control20.749
Active control30.784
(2)
Two-way communication		Communication10.7130.6250.833
Communication20.815
Communication30.839
(3)
Synchronicity		Synchronicity10.7500.6590.853
Synchronicity20.839
Synchronicity30.844
(4)
Satisfaction		Satisfaction10.7830.7050.905
Satisfaction20.827
Satisfaction30.869
Satisfaction40.875
(5)
Loyalty		Loyalty10.8300.6500.848
Loyalty20.806
Loyalty30.783
Table 3. CFA and validity.
Table 3. CFA and validity.
M
(SD)		(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
(1) Active control3.659
(0.668)		0.736 a
(2) Two-way communication3.337
(0.750)		0.204 b0.791
(3) Synchronicity3.587
(0.682)		0.2510.2290.811
(4) Satisfaction4.124
(0.603)		0.1770.0930.1660.840
(5) Loyalty4.135
(0.620)		0.1520.0670.1560.2580.806
Goodness-of fit values: χ2 (94) = 185.825; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 1.977; GFI = 0.919; CFI = 0.958; TLI = 0.946; RMSEA = 0.066; SRMR = 0.053. a  A V E ; b correlation coefficients.
Table 4. SEM results.
Table 4. SEM results.
Coef.zH
H1Active control→Satisfaction0.362 **2.90Y
H2Two-way communication→Satisfaction−0.225 *−2.22N
H3Synchronicity→Satisfaction0.438 ***3.25Y
H4Satisfaction→Loyalty0.869 ***31.95Y
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Indirect effects.
Table 5. Indirect effects.
Coef.z
H1Active control→Loyalty0.297 **2.85
H2Two-way communication→Loyalty−0.185 *−2.14
H3Synchronicity→Loyalty0.376 **3.12
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Moderating effects of SNS usage.
Table 6. Moderating effects of SNS usage.
Male Female Hypothesis
Coef.zCoef.z
Active control→Satisfaction0.0390.120.395 **2.73H5a: N
Two-way communication→Satisfaction−0.341−1.66−0.188−1.53H5b: N
Synchronicity→Satisfaction0.972 *2.460.307 *2.01H5c: N
Satisfaction→Loyalty0.981 ***27.850.816 ***22.24H5d: Y
Age (20–30s)Age (40s and over)
Coef.zCoef.z
Active control→Satisfaction0.379 **2.620.578 *2.23H6a: N
Two-way communication→Satisfaction−0.193−1.65−0.088−0.48H6b: N
Synchronicity→Satisfaction0.331 *1.990.0740.40H6c: N
Satisfaction→Loyalty0.818 ***21.600.953 ***29.85H6d: N
Low High
Coef.zCoef.z
Active control→Satisfaction0.1290.770.555 **3.18H7a: Y
Two-way communication→Satisfaction−0.253 ·◌−1.83−0.215−1.60H7b: N
Synchronicity→Satisfaction0.634 ***3.690.2561.32H7c: N
Satisfaction→Loyalty0.894 ***23.130.866 **23.89H8d: Y
Note: ·◌ p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Results of satisfaction performance (SP) and implicitly derived importance (IDI) by gender.
Table 7. Results of satisfaction performance (SP) and implicitly derived importance (IDI) by gender.
SPIDISPIDI
GenderMaleMaleFemaleFemale
1. Active control3.7010.0313.6450.06
2. Two-way communication3.373−0.0393.325−0.002
3. Synchronicity3.6500.1873.5650.091
Table 8. Results of IPA matrix (segmentation by gender).
Table 8. Results of IPA matrix (segmentation by gender).
IPA Quadrant1
Keep Up Good Work		2
Possible Overkill		3
Low Priority		4
Concentrate Here
Gender4020
FemaleGF1; GF3 GF2
MaleGM1; GM3 GM2
Note. 1. GF1: gender female—active control; 2. GF2: gender female—two-way communication; 3. GF3: gender female—synchronicity 4. GM1: gender male—active control; 5. GM2: gender male—two-way communication; 6. GM3: gender male—synchronicity.
Table 9. Results of satisfaction performance (SP) and implicitly derived importance (IDI) by SNS usage.
Table 9. Results of satisfaction performance (SP) and implicitly derived importance (IDI) by SNS usage.
SPIDISPIDI
SNS usagelowlowhighhigh
1. Active control3.4800.0263.7610.074
2. Two-way communication3.053−0.0463.4990.008
3. Synchronicity3.4960.1173.6390.100
Table 10. Results of IPA matrix (segmentation by SNS usage).
Table 10. Results of IPA matrix (segmentation by SNS usage).
IPA
Quadrant		1
Keep Up Good Work		2
Possible Overkill		3
Low Priority		4
Concentrate Here
SNS usage3120
SNS-LowSNS-L3 SNS-L1
SNS-L2
SNS-HighSNS-H1; SNS-H3SNS-H2
Note. 1. SNS-L1: SNS low—active control; 2. SNS-L2: SNS low—two-way communication; 3. SNS-L3: SNS low—synchronicity;4. SNS-H1: SNS high—active control; 5. SNS-H2: SNS high—two-way communication; 6. SNS-H3: SNS high—synchronicity.
Table 11. Results of satisfaction performance (SP) and implicitly derived importance (IDI) by age.
Table 11. Results of satisfaction performance (SP) and implicitly derived importance (IDI) by age.
SPIDISPIDISPIDISPIDI
20s20s30s30s40s40s50s50s
Active control3.7040.0443.5990.0803.7200.0483.5970.13
Two-way communication3.5000.0473.228−0.0343.3790.0443.083−0.094
Synchronicity3.6040.0853.5650.0853.6210.0693.5420.044
Table 12. Results of IPA matrix (segmentation by age).
Table 12. Results of IPA matrix (segmentation by age).
IPA Quadrant1
Keep Up Good Work		2
Possible Overkill		3
Low Priority		4
Concentrate Here
Age6231
Age 20sA20s3A20s1 A20s2
Age 30sA30s1; A30s3 A30s2
Age 40sA40s1; A40s3 A40s2
Age 50sA50s1A50s3A50s2
Note. 1. A20s1: A20s—active control; 2. A20s2: A20s—two-way communication; 3. A20s3: A20s—synchronicity; 4. A30s1: A30s—active control; 5. A30s2: A30s—two-way communication; 6. A30s3: A30s—synchronicity; 7. A40s1: A40s—active control; 8. A40s2: A40s—two-way communication; 9. A40s3: A40s—synchronicity; 10. A50s1: A50s—active control; 11. A50s2: A50s—two-way communication; 12. A50s3: A50s—synchronicity.
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

Hu, Y.; Yu, M.F.; Aung, A.T.; Pineda, J.A.; Chi, X.; Ahn, Y.-j. The Influence of Exhibition Interactivity on Tourist Experiences at World Heritage Sites. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177720

AMA Style

Hu Y, Yu MF, Aung AT, Pineda JA, Chi X, Ahn Y-j. The Influence of Exhibition Interactivity on Tourist Experiences at World Heritage Sites. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177720

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hu, Yan, Meng Fei Yu, Aye Thuzar Aung, Julie Anne Pineda, Xiaoting Chi, and Young-joo Ahn. 2025. "The Influence of Exhibition Interactivity on Tourist Experiences at World Heritage Sites" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177720

APA Style

Hu, Y., Yu, M. F., Aung, A. T., Pineda, J. A., Chi, X., & Ahn, Y.-j. (2025). The Influence of Exhibition Interactivity on Tourist Experiences at World Heritage Sites. Sustainability, 17(17), 7720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177720

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