Tourism Review Measuring the components of visitor experience on a mountain attraction: the case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria Ady Milman, Anita Zehrer, Asli Tasci, Article information: To cite this document: Ady Milman, Anita Zehrer, Asli Tasci, "Measuring the components of visitor experience on a mountain attraction: the case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria", Tourism Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0060 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0060 Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Downloaded on: 26 October 2017, At: 01:34 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: email@example.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2017* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:318572  For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Measuring the Components of Visitor Experience with a Mountain Attraction: The Case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria Ady Milman, Anita Zehrer, Asli Tasci Dr. Ady Milman Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd., Orlando, Florida 32819, United States, Ady.Milman@ucf.edu Ady Milman is a professor of tourism and hospitality management in the Department of Tourism, Events & Attractions in the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida. His area of research includes tourism planning and development, theme park and attraction management, consumer behavior and consumer experience. Dr. Anita Zehrer Family Business Center, MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria, firstname.lastname@example.org Anita Zehrer is professor, head of the Family Business Center and Deputy Head of the Academic Council at the Management Center Innsbruck (MCI), as well as Adjunct Professor at the University of Notre Dame in Sydney, Australia. She serves as Vice-President of the German Association for Tourism Research, is member of the Tourism Advisory Board of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Energy, Germany, and tourism expert at the Committee of Regions at the European Union. Dr. Asli Tasci Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd., Orlando, Florida 32819, United States, Asli.Tasci@ucf.edu Asli Tasci is an associate professor of tourism and hospitality marketing in the Department of Tourism, Events & Attractions at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include tourism and hospitality marketing, particularly consumer behavior. She completed a number of studies measuring destination image and branding with a cross-cultural perspective. Measuring the components of visitor experience on a mountain attraction: the case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria Abstract Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Purpose: Previous mountain tourism research addressed economic, environmental, social, and political impacts. Since limited studies evaluated visitors’ perception of their experience, this study examines the tangible and intangible visitor experience in a Tyrolean Alpine tourist attraction. Design/Methodology Approach The study adopted Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) customer experience model, suggesting that customers base their experience perception on the quality of product experience, outcome focus, moments of truth, and peace-of-mind. Their model was used to validate the impact on overall customer experience quality at the mountain attraction through conducting a structured survey with 207 face-to-face on-site interviews. Findings The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis did not confirm the four-dimensional structure, probably due to the differences between mountain tourism experience and the original mortgage lending experience. Instead, Principal Component Analysis suggested a different dimensional structure of components that were arbitrarily named as functional, social, comparative, and normative aspects of the visitors’ experience. Research limitations/implications The results are based on a sample in a given period of time, using convenience sampling. While the sample size satisfied the data analysis requirements, confirmatory factor analysis would benefit from a larger sample size. Practical implications Consumer experience dimensions while visiting a mountain attraction may not be concrete or objective, and consequently, may yield different types of attributes that influence behavior and behavioral intentions. Social Implications Social exchange theory could explain relationships between visitors and service providers and its consequences. Attraction managers should increase benefits for visitors and service providers to enhance their relationships and thus experience. Originality/value: The study explored the applicability of an existing experiential consumption model in a mountain attraction context. The findings introduce a revised model that may be applicable in other tourist attractions. 1. Introduction Consumer experience quality is an outcome of rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, and spiritual signals (Gentile et al, 2007), and is generated through a time extended process of organization-customer interaction. Although a number of studies addressed the concept of service quality, most of the contributions were conceptual and primarily addressed the supplier’s side Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) (Fuchs & Weiermair, 2001; Grissemann et al., 2013; Zehrer et al., 2014). While recent studies suggested expanding the body of knowledge on consumer management (Leibold et al., 2002; Zehrer et al., 2014), very few studies addressed the factors that impact experience (Brida et al., 2014; Grissemann et al., 2013). The development of mountains as tourist and leisure destinations has been discussed in the academic literature. The majority of the studies addressed the environmental, social and political impacts of mountain developments for tourism and leisure purposes (Schamel and Job, 2017; Brida et al., 2014; Bätzing et al., 1996; Debarbieux et al., 2015; Mayer et al., 2011; Grissemann et al., 2013; Rothwell, 1999). Several studies were contributed from a geographical perspective (Smethurst, 2000; Zimmerer et al., 2017; Weston, 2014). Recent studies addressed consumer perceptions in the context of mountain tourism. Silva et al. (2013), for example, adopted a holistic approach to analyzing the relationships between tourism impacts, tourists’ destination image, and their place attachment in mountain destinations. Other studies addressed risk perceptions while visiting alpine tourism destinations (Eitzinger & Wiedemann, 2007; Schusterschitz et al., 2010; De Urioste-Stone et al., 2016; Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2016; van Riper et al., 2016), participating in specific visitor activities like events (Pettersson & Getz, 2009), mountain biking (Walker & Shafer, 2011; Hagen et al., 2016; Newsome et al., 2016; Pickering et al., 2016), voluntary environmental programs (Needham & Little, 2013), hut accommodation experience (Duglio & Beltramo, 2014), or vacation styles of winter tourists (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2003). In spite of these contributions, very few studies examined in detail the factors that impact customer experience quality while visiting mountain attractions. This study examines the Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) tangible and intangible visitor experience in an Alpine tourist and leisure destination. The purpose of this paper is to test an experiential consumption framework derived from the literature (Klaus & Maklan, 2011, 2012, 2013), capturing the various stages of customer experience while visiting a mountain attraction. The theoretical framework was adopted as an assessment tool to scholars and practitioners and who can use it to create and evaluate customer’s experience. More specifically, the study addresses the research question: which factors drive customer experience while visiting a mountain attraction? For the purpose of this study, a mountain attraction is defined as a place of interest which excursionists and tourists visit, typically for its inherent or featured natural characteristics, cultural value, or historical significance that offer leisure and recreational experiences. Mountain attractions are especially important for Alpine tourism, in particular to the destinations in the vicinity of the mountains. Following this outline, the paper first undertakes a review of the relevant literature regarding the concept of customer experience and its measurement and second presents the theoretical framework of our research. The research methodology and the analysis of the visitor experience in a mountain attraction setting follows. Practical implications for attraction management are highlighted in the results and the paper finally discusses the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research. 2. Literature Review Since the early 1800s, services in western economies were viewed as a secondary sector compared to goods. Yet, contemporary thought suggests that customers do not distinguish between the service and the manufacturing sectors, and goods and services appear together (Gummesson, 2007, 1991). Since the 1970s, service marketing entered business schools Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) (Grönroos, 2000, 1994; Gummesson, 1994) and marketing strategies have shifted from a goodsdominant view with a tangible output to a service-dominant view (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a, 2004b). The role of the customer as an experience co-producer is an important element of the servicedominant logic (S-D logic) (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo &Lusch, 2004a), and consequently has become an established paradigm in marketing (Cabiddu et al., 2013). The S-D logic claims that service is the basis of economic activity (Lusch, 2011), and customers do not only buy products but also benefit from the provider’s services associated with the products (Lusch et al., 2007). Furthermore, S-D logic focuses on collaboration with customers to cocreate value (Frow & Payne, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004a), and therefore, the involvement of customers is, in fact, a crucial element for successful service development (Carbonell et al., 2009). An organization can only provide value propositions, consisting of physical or technical enablers like signs, symbols, products and the infrastructure that serve as an input (Bitner, 1992), yet the value realization depends on the customer’s participation in the service process. Therefore, customers decide whether the value is generated and this evaluation process becomes beneficiary-specific (Cabiddu et al., 2013; Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996). Following the adaptation of customer service management thought, the concept of consumer experience emerged and implied customer involvement at different stages of the consumption (Pine and Gilmore, 2011; Gentile et al., 2007). Experiential marketing has recently evolved to become a marketing discipline, emphasizing the need for businesses to go beyond the provision of services by offering unique experiences to customers (Nasution et al., 2014; Pine & Gilmore, Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) 2011). Recent research addressed the interrelationships between service marketing and customer experience. For example, Nasution et al. (2014) proposed a customer experience framework that focused further on the customer experiencing the service. Their proposed sequential framework consisted of five interacting layers: (1) customer values, needs and wants, (2) experiential marketing strategy, (3) customer experience stages, (4) accumulated customer experience, and (5) customer behavior change. Tsiotsou (2016) applied a serviceecosystems perspective and identified five factors that influence sports experiences: historical meaning, tribal logics, rituals and socialization processes, value-in-subcultural-context, and the co-construction/co-destruction of context. In the hospitality industry, Verbauskiene and Griesiene (2014) concluded that hospitality service companies should use the experience marketing tools to create a steady customer since future purchasing decisions depend on his/her positive experiences. Generally, customer experience can be associated with rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, or even spiritual involvement (Pine & Gilmore, 2011; Schmitt, 2003). A customer experience, therefore, is ‘an interaction between an organization and a customer: It is a blend of an organization’s physical performance, the senses stimulated, and emotions evoked, each intuitively measured against customer expectations across all moments of contact’ (Shaw & Ivens, 2005, p. 51). There are two customer-oriented measurement approaches of experience quality. The first methodological approach is the measurement of experience quality by quantitatively assessing objective criteria such as the nature of the products, the service delivery location, or the customer’s waiting period (Groonroos, 1994). These objective criteria consider general quality indicators and overlook the subjective factors such as interactions between the customer and the Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) service provider. The second methodological approach embraces the measurement of experience quality by assessing subjective criteria with qualitative methods such as interviewing or observing the customer (Edvardsson, 1992). Consequently, marketing research, in the framework of consumer behavior theory, has developed a range of measurement tools that were empirically tested in the last two decades (value measurement instruments, observational and physiological methods, service design methods, self-service technologies, mystery guest data, direct customer feedback methods). Central to this approach is the quality perception of the single consumer (Trischler & Zehrer, 2012). While the literature on consumer or customer experience is extensive, recent contributions by Klaus & Maklan (2011, 2012, 2013) suggested that customers base their experience perception on four dimensions: product experience, outcome focus, moments of truth, and peace-of-mind. Thus, Klaus & Maklan (2012) conceptualized, constructed, and empirically validated a multipleitem scale for measuring customers' experience quality. Lindberg et al. (2014) also discussed the conceptual understanding of the consumer experience process and suggested four core dimensions where consumers are situated ontologically in and across (1) time, (2) context, (3) body, and (4) interaction. In the context of mountain visit experiential consumption, the experience is produced by the timing of the visit like season, time of the week, and length of stay. The mountain visit is also impacted by the activities undertaken by the visitors, the location, landscape, and panoramic aspect of a mountain experience, and the interaction with staff members and other guests. 3. Theoretical Framework To measure customer experience quality, Klaus and Maklan (2011, 2012, 2013) introduced a measurement scale (EXQ) that incorporated the dimensions of product experience, outcome Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) focus, moments-of-truth, and peace-of-mind. Product experience denotes to the importance of customer’s perception of having choices and the ability to compare them is critical in modeling consumer behavior (McAlister & Srivastava, 1991). Outcome focus is associated with reducing customers’ transaction cost like seeking out and qualifying new providers, reflecting the importance of goal-orientated experiences in consumer behavior (Huffman & Houston, 1993). Moments-of-truth emphasizes the importance of service recovery (Tax et al., 1998) and flexibility (Liljander & Strandvik, 1993) in dealing with customers once complications arise. Peace-of-mind (Klaus & Maklan, 2012) describes the customer’s assessment of all the interactions with the service provider before, during and after the service purchase. This dimension includes consumers’ perceptions that are strongly associated with the emotional aspects of service (Edvardsson, 2005; Klaus & Maklan, 2011, 2012, 2013) (Figure 1). Although several noticeable projects were published recently (Klaus & Maklan, 2011; Verhoef et al., 2009), their works focused on specific aspects of the customer experience process. ------------------------------Figure 1 near here ------------------------------Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) development of the service experience concept was based on a twostage approach: initial item generation through qualitative research, purification of their findings through exploratory factor analysis, and validation through the use of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. They proposed that the antecedents of service experience are specific concrete attributes, which trigger perceptual attributes. Concrete attributes are “referred in the literature as the technical aspects of the service experience that influence the process” (Klaus & Maklan, 2011, p. 10). The perception of service experience attributes is Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) believed to “generate a higher-order abstraction which influences behavioral intentions and actual behavior” (Klaus & Maklan, 2012, P. 11). Their sample consisted of customers who had purchased one or more mortgages in the previous six months with a major UK bank. The findings indicated that customers evaluate the service experience at ‘an overall level, a dimensional level and at attribute level and that each level drives perception on the level above’ (Klaus & Maklan, 2012, p. 21). Klaus and Maklan’s model (2012) was adopted as a theoretical framework for this study to test the service experience quality in the tourism and quality context. Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) Customer Experience Quality (EXQ) constructs were used to validate the impact on the overall customer experience quality at the Nordkette mountain attraction in Austria. Two items were omitted in the final questionnaire, due to the tourism and leisure context setting of the study (see Appendix). 4. Methodology 4.1 Instrument Development The research instrument was developed in two phases. The first phase was qualitative and aimed to develop a list of items pertinent to Klaus and Maklan’s (2012). To understand the visitors’ experience quality on the mountain attraction, the authors spent four months observing to measure the visitor experience in the winter and the beginning of the summer, photographing and mingling with visitors at the various stopovers of the mountain attraction. Apart from the observation and informal conversations, photography served as a supplementary data collection instrument and transcribing the consumers’ experiences observed (Glowski, 2008). The participant observation process focused on the following elements: Setting (e.g. time of the day, Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) weather conditions, spatial aspects of the attraction); Participants (e.g. observation of visitors in detail like age, clothing, gender); Ends (the apparent purposes and goals of the people observed), Act Sequence (detailed visitors’ behavior and speech that would allow understanding of relationships or lack of relationships between visitors and the attraction’s operators as well as among visitors); and Norms of Interaction between visitors (Daas & McBride, 2014). Since observation may be perceived as intrusive and threatening to participants, permission was granted by the mountain attraction’s management that continually received periodic reports to establish credentials and professional trust (Walshe et al., 2011). Furthermore, although the study was conducted outside the U.S., the researchers obtained an Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission from one of the researchers’ home University. In the second phase, 25 statements were developed based on the qualitative data reflecting the model’s four constructs (Klaus & Maklan, 2012). The statements’ applicability and comprehension were tested with 25 subjects in a pilot study conducted at the mountain attraction. As a result of the pilot study, the number of statements was reduced to 17 statements, and the research instrument asked the respondents to evaluate the experience quality statements using a 5-point Likert scale, where ‘1’ indicated ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘5’ indicated ‘strongly agree.’ The research instrument also included variables pertaining to place of residence, travel party size, decision timing to visit the attraction, specific activities experienced while visiting the mountain attraction, the length of stay at the mountain attraction, sources of influence to visit the attraction, booking methods, and demographic characteristics. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) 4.2 The Research Setting The Nordkette mountain range is part of Austria’s largest nature park, the Karwendel. The mountain attraction is overlooking the city of Innsbruck, where visitors can experience panoramic views of Innsbruck, the Inn River Valley and the surrounding mountain ranges (Province of the Tirol, 2017). The journey from the city center’s Congress Station (elevation 560 meters), to the final cable car station of the mountain, takes about 25 minutes. The first stop of the journey takes 8 minutes by funicular to the Hungerburg station (elevation 857 meters), also accessible by car and public transportation. From there, the journey to the subsequent two mountain vistas is conducted by modern cable cars. The first stop is Seegrube at an elevation of 1,905 meters; the second stop is Hafelekar at an elevation of 2,256 meters (Nordkette, 2017), offering excellent panoramic views and a magnitude of hiking and climbing possibilities. The attraction is open year-round and provides panoramic terraces, food services, a gift shop, as well as opportunities for summer and winter outdoor activities, including small-scale expertsonly skiing and snowboarding during the winter season, as well as biking and hiking during the summer months. The Nordkette attraction offers continuous seasonal events like summer solstice celebration, the Sunday of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, New Year’s Eve, and more (Nordkette, 2017). In 2015, the Nordkette hosted 600,000 guests of whom 250,000 were Tyroleans and 350,000 international guests. Skiers made only up to 10% of all visitors (Nordkette, 2017). Overall, 4,300 guests per day visit the Nordkette on peak days. The city of Innsbruck ranges on place two (winter place 4, summer place 1) compared to all tourism destinations of the Tyrol. The direct value added of tourism amounts to € 4.5 Billion in the Tyrol (Province of the Tirol, 2017). Innsbruck, which ranges among the biggest alpine cities (e.g. Grenoble, Trento, Bolzano, and Klagenfurt), represents a dynamic and prosperous economic area and contributes 25% to the Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Tyrolean overall value added (Province of the Tirol, 2017). 4.3 Data Collection and Analysis The research tool was a structured face-to-face interview questionnaire. Although most of the participants communicated well in English, the research instrument was also made available in German. Personal interviews were conducted by experienced graduate research assistants who were trained to interview visitors in the Innsbruck area. Interviews took place in the vicinity of the four Nordkette’s stations (Figure 2). While the first two stations could have been passed over by some visitors due to the option of arrival by public buses or private cars, the mountain attraction’s third and fourth stations were experienced by all visitors. The survey was conducted daily, at different weather conditions, and at different times of the day during the March-June 2014 period. A total of 300 subjects were approached, 82 refused to participate and 11 subjects did not complete the interview, to yield 207 surveys or a 69% response rate. Data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS version 24. To test if Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) customer experience factors also apply in a mountain experience context, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) procedures of AMOS were applied on the 17 experience items. Cases with missing values were eliminated from the data before proceeding to conduct the CFA, to yield a total of 145 cases with complete information on the scale items. The structure of the data on the remaining cases was analyzed with reliability tests, inter-item correlations, the Kaiser-MeyerOlkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. While applying CFA to test the fit of Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) model in the mountain Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) experience context, model modifications were used to improve the fit according to Bentler’s (2006) suggestions. The validity of the model was assessed by using the most commonly accepted model fit indices. These included the Chi-square test, relative chi-square (χ2/df < 5), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .08), PCLOSE test or probability (p-value > .05) of close fit, the goodness-of-fit statistic (GFI > .9), the adjusted goodness-of-fit statistic (AGFI > .8), the normed fit index (NFI > .9) the non-normed fit index (NNFI > .9), also known as the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI > .9), and the comparative fit index (CFI > .9) (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Byrne, 1998; Hooper et al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005; McDonald & Ho, 2002; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Wheaton et al., 1977). In addition, Hoelter's critical N (>200) was also used for the adequacy of the sample size to yield an adequate model fit for a χ2 test (Hoelter, 1983). After exhausting all model re-specifications on the CFA, the potential differences in the factor structure of the data were explored using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) procedures of SPSS. ------------------------------Figure 2 near here ------------------------------- 5. Findings 5.1 General Profile of the Respondents The sample consisted of 207 visitors, 56.5% of which were out-of-the-area domestic and international tourists who spent at least one night in Innsbruck, and 43.5% were local and Austrian regional residents, primarily residing in the province of Tyrol. Of the 56% of those Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) overnight visitors, about 63% was a mix of nationalities from 24 different countries. Tourists spent an average of 11.6 nights and a median of 7 nights on their current trip, of which, they spent an average of 5.08 nights and a median of 3 nights in the Innsbruck area, defined within 50 kilometers of the city center. Tourists were primarily from Germany (22.9%), non-regional Austria, defined as all areas except the Province of Tyrol (15.7%), U.S. (10%), Great Britain (8.6%), and Canada (4.3%). In the past year, local and regional residents visited the attraction a mean of 13.02 times and a median of 5 times. About two third of them (65.6%) had annual holiday cards that allowed unlimited funicular and cable car ride to the mountain attraction. The sample’s gender distribution was 49.5% males and 50.5% females. The primary visitors’ age groups were 21-30 years (26.6%) and 41-50 years (24.2%). The typical Nordkette’s visitor was part of a visiting group with a mean of 2.78 companions and a median of two companions. The majority of the visitors were adults, while 10.9% of the visitors were accompanied by children under the age of 18. The typical visitor spent an average of 3.41 hours and a median of 3 hours on the mountain attraction. 5.2 Behavior Related to Nordkette Mountain Attraction About a third of the Nordkette’s visitors decided to visit the mountain attraction on the day of their visit (33.5%) or the day prior to the visit (33.0%). The remainder of the visitors decided to visit the attraction within a week prior to their visit (14.1%), a month prior (3.4%) or several months prior to their visit (16%). An analysis of the data indicated the visitors had multiple sources of influence to visit the Nordkette attraction. The most dominant sources of influence were: advice by a travel agent (75.2%), Innsbruck tourist office (16%), Austrian or Tirol tourist board (67.0%), Innsbruck website (66.1%), social media (64.2%), and magazines or newspapers Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) (63.3%). Respondents were asked to report on their completed activities or intended activities while visiting the attraction. The multiple response analysis indicated that the most popular activities were viewing the scenery, eating or drinking at the restaurants, and hiking the mountain trails (Table 1). While research about visitor motivation is not available from the Nordkette’s management, these activities reported by the respondents in Table 1 may light some shade over the motivation. Respondents’ ratings of their satisfaction (4.35) and likelihood to visit again in the future (3.85) were both above the mid-point of the 5-point scale. Respondents were also asked to agree or disagree with a variety of the modified statements associated with Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) conceptual model of customer experience quality, including product experience, outcome focus, moments-of-truth, and peace-of-mind. The respondents’ strongest agreement was with the statement ‘if things went wrong, Nordkette’s employees dealt with their concerns appropriately’ (moments-of-truth; mean=4.80). Other strong agreement was associated with the fact that the attraction was convenient to visit because of past experience (peace-of-mind, mean=4.49), and the fact that the Nordkette’s visit made it easy to have a mountain experience (outcome focus, mean=4.65) (Table 2). ------------------------------Table 1 near here ------------------------------------------------------------Table 2 near here Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) ------------------------------- 5.3 Mountain Experience Components The computation for internal stability revealed a high value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scales (α =.841). Bivariate correlation analysis revealed mostly significant correlations at .01 and .05 levels (see Table 3). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .769. KMO scores close to or above .7 are considered a good indication that correlation patterns are relatively compact. Bartlett’s test of sphericity revealed that the approximate of Chi-square is 857.579 with 136 degrees of freedom, which is significant at <.01 level. Based on these indicators, it was concluded that there was sufficient structure in the data to conduct CFA for identifying meaningful structures. ------------------------------Table 3 near here ------------------------------- Despite the sufficient structure, CFA for the initial model test revealed an unacceptable fit to the data according to the suggested thresholds listed in the methodology section (χ2=293.813, df=113, p=.000, χ2/df=2.600, GFI=.812, AGFI=.746, CFI=.763, NFI=.673, NNFI (TLI)=.714, RMSEA=.105, PCLOSE=.000, HOELTER=74 (.01)). Therefore, a posteriori theory trimming was applied to see if the model fit will improve. Gradual model re-specifications improved the model fit to an acceptable level; however, the Product Experience factor still showed problematic convergent validity issues with factor loadings less than .6 (Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gaskin, 2017; Hair et al., 2010). Further trimming of this factor resulted in its Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) disintegration altogether, which worsened the model’s fit indices again. Besides, the remaining three factors had only three items left, one in each having factor loadings less than .6. When these items were deleted from the model, the model fit did not improve either. In other words, all items and the pertinent factors were eliminated from the model one by one. Since the model was not stabilized, further reliability and validity measures were not assessed. This gradual disintegration of the model, despite the sufficient structure observed through correlations and KMO measure, led the authors to suspect that maybe Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) items measured in a mountain attraction experience have a different relationship with their corresponding factors. Therefore, the assumptions on the factor structure and their pertinent items were abandoned and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was utilized to explore the free loading of items to the four factors. The data were not normally distributed; both Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality revealed significant statistics. This is not unique to the current study; skewed data distribution is a common finding for survey scales (Kim & Kim, 2012). This poses a potential issue for analysis of data using PCA. The multivariate normality of data is an assumption for PCA to reveal factors “guaranteed to be independent and uncorrelated… If the normality assumption does not hold, components are guaranteed to be uncorrelated, but not independent. If the independence assumption is violated, each component cannot be uniquely interpreted because of contamination by other components.” (Kim & Kim, 2012, p. 1239). However, it is also commonly known that the normality assumption is not very strict since PCA is a purely geometrical technique, without any statistical hypothesis testing driven by a p-value (Hair et al. 1998). Therefore, violation of this assumption does not prohibit from interpreting the findings Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) especially if the findings are not used for subsequent gradient analyses or regression. The normality assumption is critical when findings are used for subsequent gradient analyses or regression. Due to this relaxed nature of PCA, many studies addressing tourism experience applied PCA in their analysis (e.g. Lee and Lee, 2015; Mikulić, et al., 2015). Factors with eigenvalues exceeding one and items with substantial loadings, equal to or greater than .50 were kept (Hair et al., 2010; Kim & Mueller, 1978). The internal reliability of each factor was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Factors with an alpha higher than .69 were considered to have a high internal reliability (Churchill, 1979). The results of the analysis with substantial loadings and no substantial cross-loadings are Presented in Table 4. Interestingly, all items loaded with substantial loadings and no cross-loadings onto four factors and consequently, no item was deleted. The extracted factors explain 58% of the variance of the original variables. The computation for internal stability revealed high values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient: α=.78 for Factor I, α=.75 for Factor II, α=.70 for Factor III, and α=.65 for Factor IV. Only Factor IV’s internal stability was slightly lower than the accepted threshold. All other factors’ high coefficients indicate that factors are stable with substantially high internal consistencies. ------------------------------Table 4 near here ------------------------------- Individual items showed good correlation with the extracted factors and were all interpretable. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Since the items grouped in a manner different from the original factors of Klaus and Maklan (2012), the factors are renamed arbitrarily. Factor I is named Functional Aspects since it includes items related to functional dimensions of a mountain attraction experience. Factor II is named Social Aspects since it includes items that require host-guest relations and interactions among visitors. Factor III is named Comparative Aspects since it includes comparison and choice items and Factor IV is named Normative Aspects since it includes items related to benchmarks from past experience. The grand means are 4.26 for Factor I, 4.43 for Factor II, 3.59 for Factor III, and 3.97 for Factor IV, indicating their level of importance. An inspection of individual items in each factor shows a violation of item structure suggested by Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) original model. Except for Factor 4- Comparative Aspects, all factors are a mix of different items from the original four factors envisioned by Klaus and Maklan (2012). Even though these results may seem counter intuitive at the first look, a deeper analysis by keeping in mind the complex dynamics of tourism product consumption may reveal otherwise. For example, one may question “is service recovery more appropriately located in factor 2 or it would better suit within factor 4?” Considering that service recovery in tourism product consumption means various social interactions, it makes perfect sense that this item is located in social aspects factor. 6. Implications and Recommendations The Confirmatory Factor Analysis did not fit the EXQ model, and therefore, we assume that the theoretical framework may be more valid in certain experiential consumption situations than others. Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) model was developed in mortgage purchasing experience which is different tourism and leisure experience. Their model proposed that dimensions of Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) service experience are specific concrete attributes which generate perceptual attributes. Tourist and leisure activities generate subjective experience perceptions that may vary from one consumer to another (Edvardsson, 1992). In the case of the Nordkette mountain attraction, consumer experience dimensions may not be as concrete or objective due to subjective evaluations and interpretations of every individual’s subjective experiences. Consequently, the experience dimensions may yield different types of attributes that result in different types of dimensions that influence behavioral intentions and actual behavior. For example, items associated with ‘comparison necessity’ or ‘cross-product comparison’ may not be applicable to some visitors who spend a limited time in the mountain area. Likewise, items like ‘past experience’ or ‘service recovery’ may not be applicable to the consumption situation of the mountain attraction’s visitors. Therefore, some items may have loaded onto different factors in the Principal Component Analysis. The Nordkette’s mountain experience requires multiple functional aspects or tasks that have to be performed by the visitors. For example, visitors have the option of reaching the attraction’s second station (Hungerburg) by a funicular, a bus or a private car, and then take two different cable car rides to reach the top of the mountain. In addition, visitors have no information prior to purchasing their tickets about the mountain like bad weather, lack of snow, or poor visibility. Management should develop operational strategies to ease these perceived risks and provide information about the funicular and bus timetable to the Hungerburg station, as well as a clear timetable of the cable car’s operations. As weather conditions and visibility are unknown for visitors, management should also provide continually updated information about weather Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) conditions and visibility to reduce visitors’ risks. Social aspects also seem appropriate in creating a mountain attraction visiting experience. These include interaction with the Nordkette’s ticket sales agents, funicular, and cable car operators, as well as other visitors and accompanying group members. Some visitors may have a better experience by developing relationships with these stakeholders rather than just transactions. Consequently, the attraction’s management should enhance employee training and add a touch of hospitality to the overall visitor experience. An effective management strategy would be to reduce the costs and increase the benefits for not only visitors but also service providers. Social media could be used to strengthen the social ties between service providers and their visitors. Further research is needed to elaborate further on the usefulness of social exchange theory in a mountain tourism experience context. Social exchange theory (SET) argues that individuals enter into social relationships with others to experience valued benefits (e.g., information, advice, friendship) yet incur few costs (e.g., time, effort, financial) (Homans, 1958; Thibault & Kelley, 1959). This theory is often used to provide a theoretical underpinning for studies on experiences such as residents’ experiences with tourism (e.g. Ap, 1992; Hernandez et al., 1996), work experiences (e.g. Rhoades et al., 2001), and volunteering experiences in leisure settings (e.g. Bang et al., 2009; Doherty, 2009). Mountain tourism experience, with its social aspects dimension, may be more positive when there are positive exchange relationships between service providers and visitors, and comparable benefits for not only visitors but more importantly for service providers (Clark and Mills, 1993; Crosno and Brown, 2015). These benefits, as well as its consequences, need attention in future research. Regarding comparative aspects, the Province of Tyrol and the Alps altogether have multiple Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) mountain attractions that some visitors may have visited or plan to visit. Therefore, the necessity for comparison, cross-product evaluation, and freedom of choice between the various mountain attractions are necessary for marketing and promotional campaigns. By understanding the underlying factors and causes of mountain experiences, attraction managers might be able to better cater experiences to their various market segments and thus maximize future reengagement behaviors of their visitors, which might reveal competitive advantages with regard to their competitors. To differentiate the Nordkette attraction from other mountain attractions in the greater Innsbruck’s area, a downloadable app from the attraction’s website could be developed. This social media-compatible app would register visitor activities on the mountain and could be based on a bonus system, where visitors might earn bonus points every time they visit the mountain attraction. Encouraging visitors to upload selfies taken on the mountain could also be a trigger for loyalty and could also be used to earn additional bonus points. Such an app would help share their mountain experiences with others and be a great marketing and promotion tool for the attraction. Various status levels like bronze, silver or gold could be awarded when a certain amount of bonus points is reached. An award like a free ride or similar could be used for customer relationship management and distinguish the Nordkette from other mountain attractions. Normative aspects like reducing transaction costs, past experience influences, time flexibility in visitation, and stakeholders’ common grounding they share with other visitors and the attraction’s operators are also important to produce the mountain attraction experience. This is congruent with the findings of Snepenger et al. (2004), who found by means of a quasi-experimental design in the spectrum of tourism places, that normative meanings can be utilized to identify core Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) benefits or values associated with tourism experiences. Thus, a set of normative criteria might help to arrange data and information on mountain tourism activities that scholars can enable building a theoretical framework for mountain tourism, which might facilitate the analysis and design of future marketing initiatives (Williams, 2002). The app mentioned above could be a great tool especially for the normative assessment of attraction experiences. Finally, the overall mountain experience indirectly influences the image of the Nordkette mountain attraction and the city Innsbruck due to the given relatedness between visitor experience and subsequent behavior. Therefore, the role of experience management remains a critical development strategy for mountain attractions, as it impacts on behavioral intentions. Thus, knowledge on the perceived experience value of visitors is an important information for attraction managers in terms of branding and marketing the attraction. Managers should be aware that some aspects that do not fit the positioning of the attraction might result in a negative image, which then might prevent regular guests and visitors from revisiting. 7. Conclusions and Limitations Prior to summarizing the outcome of the study, the authors will cautiously define its limitations. First, the results are based on a sample of visitors who visited the mountain attraction in a given period of time, and subjects were selected based on a convenience sampling due to limited access to potential subjects. While our sample size satisfies the requirements for a sufficient and thorough data analysis (e.g. Hair et al. 1998), confirmatory factor analysis would benefit from an even larger sample size. Another limitation is the nature of the model and data processing. The model was chosen as the authors wanted to find out if Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) model can be adopted and tested in a tourism and leisure setting. Rewording the items in the research Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) instrument to fit in the mountain attraction context may have changed the nature of the dimensions and their relationships with the construct. To test the initial question - which factors drive customer experience while visiting a mountain attraction - it is possible to conclude that the multi-dimensional customer experience model can be adopted as a new framework to evaluate the overall quality of customer experience. The model may advance the discussion to an empirical level and will provide a foundation for future qualitative and quantitative research. While this research was conducted in a single mountain setting, customer experience management should be adopted as an important strategic objective for similar attractions where the experience is not well-focused. To implement this strategy, management should determine which attributes of the customer experience are the most critical to their marketing efforts as well as customer satisfaction and loyalty. This will also allow decisions makers’ direct investments to enhance and manage certain attributes of the customer experience. Future research should redefine the various experience antecedents that generate the four EXQ dimensions of product experience, outcome focus, moments of truth, and peace of mind. Furthermore, the model should be retested by acquiring a larger dataset from mountain attraction’s visitors. For better reliability, future research should also focus on certain segments of the mountain attraction’s visitors like local residents, domestic or international tourists. It will also be interesting to segment the visitors according to their visiting frequency. Finally, linguistic differences may also hinder the scales’ reliability since respondents with different native languages may understand the concepts differently; thus a comparison between groups of Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) different languages may reveal differences in scale reliability and validity. Despite these limitations, the study provides an important contribution. The study applies the customer experience model from Klaus and Maklan (2012) to a mountain tourist attraction in the Tyrolean Alps, which has not been done before obviously. Even though the model has not been applied in its original structure, a modified version of it has been revealed for the mountain experience context. Given the lack of empirical work about visitor experience in the Alps or in mountain areas in general, this study may initiate further research consideration to the longlasting tourist tradition of these destinations. References Ap, J. (1992), “Residents' perceptions of tourism impacts”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, pp. 665-690. Bagozzi, R., & Kimmel, S. (1995), “A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of goaldirected behaviours”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 34 No. 4, pp. 437-461. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Bang, H., Won, D., & Kim, Y. (2009), “Motivations, commitment, and intentions to continue volunteering for sporting events”, Event Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 69-81. Bätzing, W., Perlik, M. & Dekleva, M. (1996). Urbanization and Depopulation in the Alps. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 335-350. Bentler, P. (2006), EQS 6 structural equations program manual, Multivariate Software, Inc. Encino, CA. Bentler, P.M., & Bonnet, D.C. (1980), “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606. Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71. Brida, J.G., Deidda, M., & Pulina, M. (2014), “Tourism and Transport Systems in Mountain s: analysis of the economic efficiency of cableways in South Tyrol”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 36, pp. 1-11. Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.W., & Piccoli, G. (2013), “Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 42, pp. 86-107. Carbonell, P., Rodríguez-Escudero, A.I., & Pujari, D. (2009), “Customer Involvement in New Service Development: An Examination of Antecedents and Outcomes”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 536-550. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Churchill, Jr. G. A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: what it is and is not. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, (6), 684. Crosno, J., & Brown, J. (2015). “A meta-analytic review of the effects of organizational control in marketing exchange relationships.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 3, 297-314. Daas, K.L., & McBride, M. (2014), “Participant Observation: Teaching Students the Benefits of Using a Framework”, Communication Teacher, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 4-19. De Urioste-Stone, S. M., Le, L., Scaccia, M. D., & Wilkins, E. (2016). Nature-based tourism and climate change risk: Visitors’ perceptions in mount desert island, Maine. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 13, 57-65 Debarbieux, B., Rudaz, G., Todd, J. M., & Price, M. F. (2015). The mountain: a political history from the Enlightenment to the present. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Doherty, A. (2009), “The volunteer legacy of a major sport event”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure, and Events, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-207. Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2003), “Winter Tourist Segments in Austria: Identifying Stable Vacation Styles Using Bagged Clustering Techniques”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 281-292. Duglio, S., & Beltramo, R. (2014), “Quality assessment in the Italian mountain huts”, European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8, pp. 115-142. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Edvardsson, B. (2005), “Service quality: beyond cognitive assessment”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 127-131. Edvardsson, B., & Olsson, J. (1996), “Key Concepts for New Service Development. Service Industries Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 140-164. Eitzinger, C., & Wiedemann, P. (2007), “Risk perceptions in the alpine tourist destination Tyrol An exploratory analysis of residents’ views”, Tourism Management, Vol 28 No. 3, pp. 911-916. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3950. Frow, P., & Payne, A. (2011), “A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept”, European Journal of Marketing”, Vol. 4 Nos. 1/2, pp. 223-240. Fuchs, M., & Weiermair, K. (2001), “Development Opportunities for a Tourism Benchmarking Tool- The Case of Tyrol”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 3, 71-91. Gaskin, J. (2017), Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Gaskination's StatWiki, Available at http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com (accessed 16 February 2017). Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007), “How to Sustain the Customer Experience: An Overview of Experience Components that Co-create Value With the Customer”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 395–410. Glowski, J.M. (2008), A guide to photographic documentation in the field. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Gremler, D., & Brown, S.W. (1996), “Service loyalty: its nature, importance, and implications.” In B. Edvardsson (Ed.), Advancing Service Quality: A Global Perspective, pp. 171-180, New York: International Service Quality Association. Grissemann, U.S., Pikkemaat, B., & Weger, C. (2013), “Antecedents of innovation activities in tourism: An empirical investigation of the Alpine hospitality industry”, Tourism, Vol. 61, No.1, pp 7-27. Grönroos, C. (1994), “From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards A Paradigm Shift in Marketing”, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 4-20. Grönroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Approach, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Gummesson, E. (1991), “Service Quality - A Holistic View,” In S. Brown, E. Gummesson, B. Edvardsson, & B. Gustavsson (Eds.), Service Quality, Multidisciplinary and Multinational Perspectives, pp. 3-22. Massachusetts/Toronto: Lexington. Gummesson, E. (1994), “Making relationship marketing operational”, The International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 5-20. Gummesson, E. (2007), “Access to reality: observations on observational methods”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 130–134. Hagen, S., & Boyes, M. (2016). Affective ride experiences on mountain bike terrain. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 15, pp. 89-98. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate data analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hernandez, S.A., Cohen, J., & Garcia, H.L. (1996),“Residents’ attitudes towards an instant resort Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) enclave”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 755-779. Hoelter, J.W. (1983), “The Analysis of Covariance Structures- Goodness of Fit Indices”, Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 325-344. Homans, G.C. (1958), “Social behavior as exchange”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 597-606. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008), “Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-60. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55. Huffman, C., & Houston, M. (1993), “Goal-oriented experiences and the development of knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 190–207. Kim, J., & Mueller, C. (1978), Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Kim, D. & Kim, S.K. (2012). “Comparing patterns of component loadings: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) versus Independent Component Analysis (ICA) in analyzing multivariate non-normal data”. Behavior Research Methods, 44, pp. 1239-1243. Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2011), “Bridging the gap for destination extreme sports – a model of sports tourism customer experience”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) 13/14, pp. 1341–1365. Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2012), “EXQ: A multiple-item scale for assessing service experience”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5-33. Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2013), “Towards a better measure of customer experience”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 227–246. Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, New York: The Guilford Press. Lee, Y., & Lee, H. (2015). Time Constraints Scale in Overseas Tours: A Case from South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 20 N0. 10), pp. 1111-1131. Leibold, M., Probst, G., & Gibbert, M. (2002), Strategic management in the knowledge economy new approaches and business applications, Erlangen: Publicis. Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1993), “Estimating zones of tolerance in perceived service quality and perceived service value”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 6-28. Lindberg, F., Hansen, A.H., & Eide, D. (2014), “A multirelational approach for understanding consumer experiences within tourism”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 487-512. Lusch, R.F. (2011), “Reframing Supply Chain Management: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 14-18. Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., & O’Brien, M. (2007), “Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic”, Journal of Retailing”, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-18. Mayer; C., Lambrecht; A., Hagg W. & Narozhny, Y. (2011). “Glacial debris cover and melt Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) water production for glaciers in the Altay, Russia.” The Cryosphere Discussions, Vol 5 Issue 1, pp 401-430. McAlister, L., & Srivastava, R. (1991), “Incorporating choice dynamics in models of consumer behaviour”, Marketing Letters, Vol 2 No. 3, pp. 241-252. McDonald, R.P. & Ho, M.-H.R. (2002), “Principles and Practice in Reporting Statistical Equation Analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-82. Mikulić, J., Krešić, D., & Kožić, I. (2015). “Critical Factors of the Maritime Yachting Tourism Experience: An Impact-Asymmetry Analysis of Principal Components.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 32 pp. S30-S41. Nasution, R. A., Sembada, A. Y., Miliani, L., Resti, N. D., & Prawono, D. A. (2014), “The Customer Experience Framework as Baseline for Strategy and Implementation in Services Marketing”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148 (2nd International Conference on Strategic Innovative Marketing), pp. 254-261. Needham, M., & Little, C. (2013), “Voluntary environmental programs at an alpine ski area: Visitor perceptions, attachment, value orientations, and specialization”, Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp. 70-81. Newsome, D., Stender, K., Annear, R., & Smith, A. (2016). Park management response to mountain bike trail demand in South Western Australia. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 15, pp. 26-34. Nordkette (2017), Nordkette. Jewel of the Alps, available at http://www.nordkette.com/en/home.html (accessed 16 February 2017). Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Pettersson, R., & Getz, D. (2009), “Event Experiences in Time and Space: A Study of Visitors to the 2007 World Alpine Ski Championships in Are, Sweden”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 9 Nos 2-3, pp. 308-326. Pickering, C. M., & Rossi, S. (2016). Mountain biking in peri-urban parks: Social factors influencing perceptions of conflicts in three popular National Parks in Australia. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 15, pp. 71-81. Pine II, B.J., & J.H. Gilmore (2011), The Experience Economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14. Pröbstl-Haider, U., Dabrowska, K., & Haider, W. (2016). Risk perception and preferences of mountain tourists in light of glacial retreat and permafrost degradation in the Austrian Alps. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol 13, pp. 66-78. Province of the Tirol (2017), Nordkette Ski Resort. Retrieved at http://www.tyrol.com/anordkette-mountain-range-innsbruck Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 825-836. Rothwell, J.T. (1999), “Reaching for the sky: The growth of mountain tourism in Switzerland”, Social Education, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 274-279. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Schamel, J., & Job, H. (2017). “National Parks and demographic change – Modelling the effects of aging hikers on mountain landscape intra-area accessibility.” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 163, pp. 32-43. Schmitt, B. H. (2003), Customer Experience Management, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Schusterschitz, C., Schutz, H., & Wiedemann, P.M. (2010),“Looking for a safe haven after fancy thrills: a psychometric analysis of risk perception in alpine tourist destinations”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 361-380. Shaw, C., & Ivens, J. (2005), Building Great Customer Experiences, New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Silva, C., Kastenholz, E., & Abrantes, J. (2013), “Place-attachment, destination image and impacts of tourism in mountain destinations”, Anatolia, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 17-29. Smethurst, D. (2000). Mountain Geography. Geographical Review, 1, 35. Snepenger, D., Murphy, L., Snepenger, M., & Anderson, W. (2004), “Normative Meanings of Experiences for a Spectrum of Tourism Places”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 108-117. Srinivasan, S., Anderson, R., & Kishore, P. (1998), “Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 41-50. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, New York: Allyn and Bacon. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Tax, S., Brown, S., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), “Consumer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 60-76. Thibault, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959), The social psychology of groups, New York, NY: Wiley. Trischler, J., & Zehrer, A. (2012), “Service design: suggesting a qualitative multistep approach for analyzing and examining theme park experiences”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-71. Tsiotsou, R. H. (2016), “A service ecosystem experience-based framework for sport marketing”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 36 Nos. 11/12, pp. 478-507. van Riper, C. J., Wallen, K. E., Landon, A. C., Petriello, M. A., Kyle, G. T., & Absher, J. (2016). “Modeling the trust-risk relationship in a wildland recreation setting: A social exchange perspective.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 13, pp. 23-33. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004a), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1 pp. 1-17. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004b), “The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of a Goodsbased, Manufacturing Model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-335. Verbauskiene, L., & Griesiene, I. (2014), “Conceptualization of Experience Marketing in the Sector of Hospitality Services” Transformations in Business and Economics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 818-832. Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L.A. (2009), “Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Strategies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 31-41. Walker, J.R., & Shafer, C.S. (2011), “Mode of Experience on a Recreational Trail: An Examination of How Hikers and Mountain Bikers Focus Their Attention”, Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 21-38. Walsh, I., Holton, J.A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. (2015), “What Grounded Theory Is…A Critically Reflective Conversation among Scholars”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 581-599. Walshe, C., Ewing, G., & Griffiths, J. (2011), “Using observation as a data collection method to help understand patient and professional roles and actions in palliative care settings”, Palliative Medicine, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1048-1054. Weston, W. (2014). “Mountain geography: physical and human dimensions.” CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Vol. 51 Iss. 10, pp. 1838. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F., & Summers, G. (1977), “Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 84-136. Williams, D.R. (2002), “Leisure Identities, Globalization, and the Politics of Place”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 351-68. Zehrer, A., Muskat, B., & Muskat M. (2014), “Services research in tourism – Advocating the integration of the supplier side”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 353363. Zimmerer, K. S., Córdova-Aguilar, H., Mata Olmo, R., Jiménez Olivencia, Y., & Vanek, S. J. (2017). Mountain Ecology, Remoteness, and the Rise of Agrobiodiversity: Tracing the Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Geographic Spaces of Human–Environment Knowledge. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 441-455. Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) The current study measured only this section of the model Figure 1: The four dimensions of Klaus and Maklan’s Conceptual Model of Customer Experience Quality (Source: Klaus & Maklan, 2013, p. 230) Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Figure 2: The Nordkette Mountain Stations (Source: http://www.nordkette.com/uploads/pics/stationen_nordkette.jpg) Table 1. Respondents’ Activities While Visiting the Nordkette Mountain attraction (Multiple Response) Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Which of the following activities, if any, have you done or will do on this visit to the Nordkette? Viewing the scenery Eating or drinking at the restaurants Hiking around the area Spend time with my family or friends Visiting the Alpine Zoo Shopping for souvenirs Riding up or down the hill by bike Other Total N Percent Percent of Cases 156 120 90 85 35 23 20 14 543 28.7% 22.1% 16.6% 15.7% 6.4% 4.2% 3.7% 2.6% 100.0% 75.7% 58.3% 43.7% 41.3% 17.0% 11.2% 9.7% 6.8% 263.6% Table 2. Descriptives and frequencies of variables included in the analyses (N=207) Klaus and Maklan’s (2012) Factors and Items Mountain Experience Scale Items * Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Product experience (PE) PE1 Freedom of choice (1) PE2 Cross-product comparison (2) PE3 Comparison necessity (3) PE4 Account management (4) Outcome focus (OF) OF1 Inertia (5) OF2 Result focus (6) OF3 Past experience influence (7) OF4 Common grounding (8) Moments-of-truth (MoT)** MoT1 Flexibility (9) MoT3 Risk perception (10) MoT4 Interpersonal skills (11) MoT5 Service recovery (12) Peace of mind (PoM)** PoM1 Expertise (13) When visiting NORDKETTE, I want to choose between different activities on the mountain. Prior to visiting NORDKETTE, it was necessary for me to check other possible experiences in the region When visiting NORDKETTE, I looked for the different activity options on the mountain. When visiting NORDKETTE, I had a positive experience at least with one employee. Mean Std. Dev. 3.96 1.288 3.55 1.677 3.28 1.691 4.29 1.317 My visit to NORDKETTE makes it easy for me to 4.46 have a mountain experience. Visiting NORDKETTE gives me what I need and 4.08 want instantly. I prefer NORDKETTE over other similar mountain 3.73 destinations. The NORDKETTE experience can relate to my 3.78 mood and feelings. 0.944 During my visit, NORDKETTE’s employees were flexible and looked after my needs. NORDKETTE is a safe and risk-free mountain attraction. The employees at NORDKETTE demonstrate good people skills. When things went wrong, NORDKETTE´s employees dealt with my concerns appropriately. 4.01 1.292 4.06 1.193 4.21 1.051 4.80 1.273 4.26 1.058 4.35 1.099 4.00 1.498 4.49 1.489 4.36 1.549 I am confident in NORDKETTE’s expertise and professionalism provides me with a valuable experience. PoM2 Process ease (14) The whole process of visiting the NORDKETTE was easy. PoM3 Relationship versus transaction (15) During my visit, NORDKETTE´s employees provided me with a personalized experience. PoM4 Convenience retention (16) It is convenient to visit NORDKETTE because of my past experience there. PoM5 Familiarity (17) Since I am familiar with NORDKETTE, I easily get what I need. *: 5-point scale. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree. **MoT2-Pro-activity and PoM6-Independent Advice were deleted in the current study. 1.120 1.362 1.367 Mountain Experience Scale Items PE1 PE2 PE3 PE4 OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 MoT1 PE1-Freedom of choice (1) 1 PE2-Cross-product comparison (2) .301** 1 PE3-Comparison necessity (3) .421** .580** 1 PE4-Account management (4) .109 .097 .146 1 OF1-Inertia (5) .246** .121 .118 .208* 1 OF2-Result focus (6) .304** .125 .170* .143 .539** 1 OF3-Past experience influence (7) .095 .118 .076 .209* .208* .450** 1 OF4-Common grounding (8) .244** .280** .381** .264** .303** .301** .405** 1 MoT1-Flexibility (9) .150 .022 -.009 .413** .278** .294** .320** .313** 1 MoT3-Risk perception (10) .161 .124 .150 .126 .301** .258** .256** .316** .271** MoT4-Interpersonal skills (11) .156 .081 -.027 .212* .366** .411** .259** .077 .557** MoT5-Service recovery (12) .310** .022 .042 .068 .253** .379** .092 .166* .306** PoM1-Expertise (13) .306** .137 .140 .269** .410** .439** .412** .317** .449** MoM2-Process ease (14) .394** .152 .085 .278** .442** .506** .209* .279** .363** PoM3-Relationship versus transaction .249** .160 .005 .248** .199* .411** .317** .148 .509** (15) PoM4-Convenience retention (16) .301** .150 .018 .199* .173* .322** .212* .152 .379** PoM5-Familiarity (17) .186* .163* .117 .023 .167* .129 .161 .134 .258** *: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Listwise N=145 Table 3. Inter-item correlations of mountain experience scale .328** .402** .383** .216** .439** 1 .190* .310** .225** .083 .315** .484** 1 .138 .069 1 .370** 1 .360** .566** 1 .410** .420** .346** 1 1 .437** .475** .397** .547** 1 .256** .116 .354** .471** .145 MoT3 MoT4 MoT5 PoM1 PoM2 PoM3 PoM4 PoM5 Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Table 4. Results of Principal Component Analysis on mountain experience scale items (N=145) Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) Mountain Experience Items & Factors % of Cumulative % Variance of Variance Explained Explained Factor Loadings F I F II F III Factor I: Functional Aspects PoM2-Process ease (14) .799 .138 .077 OF1- Inertia (5) .696 .081 .095 OF2-Result focus (6) .690 .245 .105 PoM1-Expertise (13) .586 .342 .074 MoT3-Risk perception (10) .567 -.097 .114 Factor II: Social Aspects PoM4-Convenience retention (16) .093 .760 .108 PoM5-Familiarity (17) -.091 .704 .223 PoM3-Relationship versus .254 .667 -.041 transaction (15) MoT5-Service recovery (12) .426 .623 .005 MoT4-Interpersonal skills (11) .480 .505 -.197 Factor III: Comparative Aspects PE3-Comparison necessity (3) .078 -.039 .865 PE2-Cross-product comparison (2) .018 .115 .773 PE1-Freedom of choice (1) .400 .304 .556 Factor IV: Normative Aspects PE4-Account management (4) .089 .089 .063 OF3-Past experience influence (7) .233 .120 .071 MoT1-Flexibility (9) .266 .463 -.136 OF4-Common grounding (8) .268 -.029 .467 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = .769 Bartlett’s test of sphericity = .000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Factor Grand Mean Cronbach’s Alpha Value FIV 31.267 31.267 4.263 .784 11.230 42.497 4.430 .754 8.709 51.206 3.589 .701 7.033 58.239 3.967 .653 .135 .119 .155 .340 .284 .153 .054 .302 -.155 .241 .083 .110 -.163 .668 .643 .599 .539 About the authors Ady Milman is a professor of tourism and hospitality management in the Department of Tourism, Events & Attractions in the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida. His area of research includes tourism planning and development, theme park and attraction management, consumer behavior and consumer experience. Anita Zehrer is professor, head of the Family Business Center and Deputy Head of the Academic Council at the Management Center Innsbruck (MCI), as well as Adjunct Professor at the University of Notre Dame in Sydney, Australia. She serves as Vice-President of the German Association for Tourism Research, is member of the Tourism Advisory Board of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Energy, Germany, and tourism expert at the Committee of Regions at the European Union. Asli Tasci is an associate professor of tourism and hospitality marketing in the Department of Tourism, Events & Attractions at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University Downloaded by Linkoping University Library At 01:34 26 October 2017 (PT) of Central Florida. Her research interests include tourism and hospitality marketing, particularly consumer behavior. She completed a number of studies measuring destination image and branding with a cross-cultural perspective.