2010
DOI: 10.3727/108354210x12724863327641
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Linking Urban Forests and Urban Tourism: A Case of Savannah, Georgia

Abstract: The importance of linking forests and tourism has long been recognized and studied in forest management, community development, and tourism. However, little has been written specifically about urban forests' role in urban tourism development. Based on data collected from Savannah, GA, this article develops a structural equation model to explore the linkages among urban forest appeals, city beauty, tourism experience, tourism satisfaction, and destination loyalty. The results indicate that urban forests can po… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
16
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
16
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be noted that architectural buildings and green space attributes are still under the "keep up the good work" quadrant, even when judged by the iso-rating line. This finding not only endorses previous studies on urban forests in cities (i.e., historical attractions/architectural buildings and green space were ranked the top two most important attributes for the city in a previous study [75]; pubic squares were ranked the highest in scenic beauty [76]) but reflects the real appeal of tourism attractions in the city. For instance, unique architecture, ornate ironwork, fountains and green squares were among the top motives for people to visit the city [60].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It should be noted that architectural buildings and green space attributes are still under the "keep up the good work" quadrant, even when judged by the iso-rating line. This finding not only endorses previous studies on urban forests in cities (i.e., historical attractions/architectural buildings and green space were ranked the top two most important attributes for the city in a previous study [75]; pubic squares were ranked the highest in scenic beauty [76]) but reflects the real appeal of tourism attractions in the city. For instance, unique architecture, ornate ironwork, fountains and green squares were among the top motives for people to visit the city [60].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Tourists "have to choose which of the attractions they wish to visit and which to skip" [79] (p. 742) due to time/budget constraints and varying preferences for attributes. Therefore, an urban tourism experience rarely depends on the totality of a city's attributes, but on one or several major attributes [75]. To remain competitive in the tourism market, each tourism destination must have one or several attributes as the core resources and attractors [80] that are distinct and unique from others.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown, the p value for the model is less than .05, as reported in many other studies (e.g., Chen & Tsai, 2007;Chi & Qu, 2008;Deng et al, 2010;Hsu et al, 2010;Huang & Hsu, 2009). However, other indices perform well with the ratios between χ 2 value over the degree of freedom being 2.1 < 5.0, RMSEA .08 < .10.…”
Section: Structural Equation Modelsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Correspondingly, the standardized estimates computed for the path coefficients between two variables can be interpreted as the amount of change in the standard deviation of one variable (dependent) given one unit of change in the standard deviation of another variable (independent). For example, according to Table 4.7, the coefficient between the dependent variable leisure value and the independent variable knowledge on parks and gardens uses is 0.70, which means that one standard deviation change in this variable corresponds to a 0.70 change in the standard deviation of leisure value (Deng et al, 2010). RMSEA -Root mean square error of approximation.…”
Section: Structural Equation Model (Sem)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, most studies on visitor attractions were geared towards a specific set of similar attractions, many focused on cultural/heritage attractions (Boyd, 2003;Frost, 2003;Kantaven & Tikkanen, 2006;Kim, Cheng, & O'Leary, 2007;Tian, Crompton, & Witt, 1996), others focused on nature-based attractions (Ballentyne, Packer, & Hughes, 2008;Connell, 2005;Deng, Araño, Pierskalla, & McNeel, 2010), events (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2003;McHone & Rungeling, 2000;Prentice & Andersen, 2003;Quinn, 2005), while others were very specific on religious sites (Nolan & Nolan, 1992), and disaster and death (Cohen, 2011;Lennon & Foley, 1999;Strange & Kempa, 2003). Studies that have combined groups of attractions for comparison and assessment were primarily aimed at developing a tourism product or identifying a tourism market niche for the city (Bramwell, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%