Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The emergence of glamping as a form of vacation has become a prominent new trend in the leisure industry, therefore, understanding the behavioral intentions of glampers is crucial in an increasingly competitive landscape. Existing research has yet to fully explore the emotional and psychological mechanisms that drive glamping-related behavioral intentions. Grounded in the Cognitive-Affective-Conative (CAC) framework, this study investigates the relationships among glamping experience, place attachment, nature connectedness, tourist satisfaction, tourist involvement, and behavioral intention. Utilizing a combination of online and offline questionnaire survey, data from 427 glampers were empirically analyzed. The results indicate that glamping experiences, place attachment, and satisfaction significantly and positively influence vacationers’ behavioral intentions. Further analysis reveals that place attachment plays a significant mediating role between glamping experiences and behavioral intentions. Additionally, two chain mediation effects were identified, uncovering the dynamic mechanisms among multiple variables. Notably, the moderating effect of tourist involvement is supported only in the relationship between glamping experiences and nature connectedness. These findings contribute valuable insights into the formation process of glampers’ behavioral intentions from emotional and psychological perspectives, extending the application of the CAC framework to the glamping context and providing a new perspective for vacation marketing research.

Keywords

Glamping experience place attachment nature connectedness tourist involvement behavioral intentions

Introduction

In recent years, the global rise in popularity of nature-based tourism and ecotourism has aligned with an increasing demand for more sustainable tourism experiences (Haukeland et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023). Particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, factors including isolation, risk, and health have further intensified the desire for healing through connection with nature (Jeong and Lee, 2023). Camping is a type of nature-based tourism that offers an escape from the urban routines and an opportunity to connect with nature (O'Neill et al., 2010; Shahane, 2023). To alleviate the discomfort associated with traditional camping (e.g., tent leakage, unclean sleeping conditions, limited bathing facilities, basic food provisions, and safety concerns) and offer individuals an outdoor hotel experience, camping has undergone a transformation. This transformation is through the adoption of an innovative accommodation concept known as “glamping.”

The core appeal of glamping lies in the unique balance between “luxury” and “nature” (Andrey et al., 2014). Unlike traditional camping, which often seeks wilderness survival style, glamping presents an inherent paradox: it offers authentic natural experiences while simultaneously creating a “comfort bubble” through modern amenities such as air conditioning, private bathrooms, and high-speed internet. This configuration forms a “controlled contact,” which constitutes one of its primary attractions. To enhance the immersive experience, glamping typically organize a series activities that integrate both natural and cultural elements. These may include eco-hiking, stargazing, guided interpretations of local flora and fauna, as well as cultural workshops such as local handicraft making or indigenous culinary classes. These modes directly address a paradoxical need among contemporary tourists, particularly family vacationers and experience-seeking younger generations (Frederick, 2022). As one of the fastest-growing sectors in the tourism industry (O'Neill et al., 2010), glamping has secured a prominent position in the current market. According to Allied Market Research (2022), the global glamping market size was 2.78 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 12.5% to reach 6.89 billion by 2030.

In China, the core glamping market size reached USD 29.7 billion in 2024, representing a year-on-year increase of 60.4%. It is projected that by 2030, this core market will grow to approximately USD 67.7 billion, driving the overall market size to approximately USD 332.8 billion (Ii Media Report, 2025). Unlike the remote, self-sufficient models prevalent in the Western or Japan's minimalist aesthetic (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2020), China's glamping sector is primarily driven by three forces: tourism conglomerates (e.g., Fosun Tourism's “Atlantis Glamping” in Sanya), brand extensions of upscale hotels (e.g., Kaiyuan Senbo's “Moganshan Glamping Resort”), and entrepreneurial ventures (e.g., Dare Wild's campsites, HiKing Wild Luxury Camp). This ecosystem has fostered a business model characterized by accessibility, diversified amenities, social media-driven motivations, and strong social appeal. The rapid evolution of this distinctive model makes the study of glamping experiences in the Chinese context particularly valuable.

As a service-oriented industry, tourism relies on the visitor experience as its core element. In the era of experience economy, tourist experience serves as a crucial value evaluation indicator for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) (Girotto et al., 2025). Studies have examined tourist experiences in settings like museums (Lee et al., 2020a), theme parks (Lee et al., 2020b), virtual tourism (Cham et al., 2024; Merkx and Nawijn, 2021), and ecotourism (Li et al., 2021), focusing on tourists’ perceptions, emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. However, despite extensive research on experience-driven behavior in services, limited focus has been placed on glampers’ behavioral intentions from an experiential perspective (Hanafiah et al., 2025). Besides, current glamping researches rely on exploratory designs framed by objectives or questions, with insufficient engagement in hypothesis testing (Craig, 2025). Addressing this, our study employs an empirical, demand-side approach to provide fresh insights into the consumption patterns of glamping participants in China.

Emotional factors act as crucial bridges linking tourist experiences to behavioral intentions (Agapito and Sigala, 2024; Han et al., 2015). For instance, nature connection enhances tourists’ emotional bonds with environmental experience, subsequently fostering revisit intentions (Li et al., 2021). Yet it is unclear whether luxury-filtered glamping experiences can foster a connection as deep as that earned through direct, hands-on engagement with nature. While the significance of experiences is acknowledged, the “black box” of how glamping experiences ultimately influence behavioral intentions through a series of underlying micro-psychological and emotional mechanisms (e.g., place attachment and nature connectedness) remains underexplored in rigorous empirical investigation. Moreover, potential moderators (e.g., tourist involvement) that may influence this relationship remain also remains unexplored.

Researchers commonly employ the “Cognitive-affective-Conative” framework to elucidate the mechanisms behind tourist behavior (e.g., Huang et al., 2024; Kim and Chen, 2021). Drawing on the experience management theories (Agapito and Sigala, 2024), glamping represents a cognitive reaction emerging from interaction, participation, and co-creation with environment. These cognitive processes trigger emotional and intellectual responses that shape visitors’ site evaluations and subsequent behaviors. This study establishes a comprehensive model positioning glamping experience as a cognitive variable, place attachment, nature connectedness, satisfaction as an affective variable, and behavioral intention as a conative variable. Through empirical testing, we examine the psychological mechanisms underlying Chinese glamping experiences, addressing two key questions: (1) What's the impact of glamping experience on tourist behavioral intention? (2) What's the linking mechanism between glamping experience and tourist behavioral intention? Given China's status as the world's largest developing economy, understanding its glamping sector not only enriches the global discourse on sustainable tourism but also offers valuable insights for developing similar industries in other emerging markets.

Literature review

Glamping and glamping experience

Glamping is commonly referred to as “glamorous camping” or “luxurious camping” (Brochado and Pereira, 2017; Lee et al., 2019). It typically involves particularly luxurious or innovative rental accommodations at campsites, often combined with upscale services and set within an attractive ambiance (Craig, 2021). Recently, Craig (2025) proposed a global definition of glamping: “Glamping is a form of camping that incorporates glamorous or luxurious features not typically or expectedly found in traditional camping.”

The “glamping experience” in this study encompasses tourists’ holistic perceptions of the physical environment, facility services, and participation in organized activities at the campsite. Among these, the various immersive activities orchestrated by the campsite constitute a critical component of the overall experience. These activities are not entirely in their raw, natural state but are professionally designed to strike a balance between “authenticity” and “accessibility.” The core objective of such activities is to lower the barriers for tourists to engage with nature and local culture through guided participation, thereby stimulating positive emotional responses, such as place attachment and satisfaction.

Glamping managers place significant emphasis on understanding and improving tourist experiences. Recent studies have illuminated the multifaceted nature of glamping experiences (Brochado and Pereira, 2017; Xiang et al., 2023). Brochado and Brochado (2019) systematically explored glamping experiences and identified 11 themes, covering service provider functional elements and customer perception elements: experience, hotel, learning, protagonist, camping, nature, food, ingredients, differentiation, ecology, and yoga. Together, these themes constitute the distinctive nature of glamping, setting it apart from other accommodation forms such as traditional camping and luxury eco-tourism.

Traditional camping usually emphasizes closeness to nature and a simple lifestyle, while glamping focuses more on the comfort experience in the natural environment. Glamping provides convenient amenities such as luxury beds, modern bathrooms, kitchens, televisions, air conditioning, Wi-Fi service, and housekeeping (Brooker and Joppe, 2014; Lu et al., 2021). Its model satisfies consumption upgrading trends and visual communication experience of social media. This “ready-to-live” service saves preparation time and suits the popularity of Micro-cations in China.

While eco-luxury lodgings similarly provide comfortable accommodation conditions, glamping emphasizes more direct contact and interaction with nature. Unlike eco-luxury lodgings that achieve sustainability through permanent architecture, the distinctive accommodations of glamping including dome houses, yurts, cabins, caravans, carriages, tree houses, and “bubble hotels” (Petruša and Vlahov, 2019). Eco-luxury lodgings, on the other hand, focus more on sustainable development and environmental protection, and may place more emphasis on the ecological friendliness of buildings and operations.

Despite these advancements, the nascent glamping literature remains largely reliant on exploratory designs (Craig, 2025), with limited empirical examination of glamping experiences outcomes. Among the studies that develop and test theory-driven hypotheses, existing studies have confirmed that the original ecology, accommodation environment, and customers’ intrinsic affective values significantly influence word-of-mouth (WOM) regarding glamping (Lu et al., 2021), while the quality of the glamping experience plays a significant role in shaping consumer satisfaction, trust, engagement and loyalty (Hapsari et al., 2024). Regarding behavioral intentions, much of the existing evidence stems from pre-pandemic studies, which confirm the pandemic's impact on tourists’ behavioral intentions (Craig, 2021; Craig and Karabas, 2021). Consequently, a notable gap exists in post-pandemic empirical investigations into the relationship between glamping experiences and behavioral intentions, particularly from micro-level perspectives such as emotional and psychological mechanisms, as well as within non-Western contexts.

Cognitive-affective-conative model

The Cognitive-affective-conative (CAC) framework categorizes human psychological processes into three components: cognition, affective, and conative, also known as the “mind trilogy” (Hilgard, 1980). Cognition involves understanding and evaluating products or services, affection reflects emotional responses, and conation refers to actual behaviors, such as purchasing or recommending. The CAC framework has been widely applied in consumer behavior research to explore decision-making processes (e.g., Huang et al., 2024; Woosnam et al., 2020). Studies indicate that travel behavior aligns with the CAC sequence of the standard learning hierarchy. Tourists develop cognitive perceptions of destinations through information search and onsite experiences, form affective responses during interactions, and ultimately integrate cognition and affect to guide their behavior. For example, Huang and Zhang (2024) used this framework to investigate tourists’ cognitive and emotional reactions to historical sites and their likelihood of revisiting or recommending them. Similarly, drawing on the CAC framework, Huang et al. (2024) developed a model of service robot acceptance in the hospitality industry by incorporating both cognitive evaluations and affective responses.

In the field of glamping tourism research, the CAC theory offers a suitable theoretical framework for this study, systematically explaining the complete psychological process of tourists from experience evaluation to the formation of behavioral intentions. Specifically: In the cognitive stage, tourists form initial perceptions and evaluations of glamping activities through direct experiences with glamping facilities, service quality, and the natural environment. These cognitive assessments reflect tourists’ rational judgments of objective factors like accommodation comfort, hygiene conditions, and safety measures. In the affective stage, tourists develop corresponding emotional responses based on the aforementioned cognitive evaluations. These emotional reactions are primarily manifested in three aspects: first, a sense of place attachment to the glamping site, demonstrated by a preference for and sense of belonging to a specific location; second, an emotional connection with the natural environment, expressed through appreciation of natural landscapes and concern for ecological preservation; and third, overall satisfaction with the experience, which serves as a critical link between cognition and intention. In the conative stage, tourists ultimately form behavioral intentions such as repeat participation or willing to recommend.

Therefore, this study adopts the CAC theory because it comprehensively explains the interactions between cognition, affection, and conation among glamping tourists. The theoretical model constructed here treats the glamping experience as the cognitive variable, place attachment, nature connectedness, and tourist satisfaction as affective variables, and behavioral intention as the conative variable. Grounded in CAC theory, the model effectively elucidates the relationships among travel experience, emotion, and behavioral intention specific to glamping tourists.

Hypothesis development

The main effects of glamping experience and behavioral intention

Behavioral intention is a critical construct in tourism research, reflecting an individual's likelihood to revisit, recommend, or engage in positive word-of-mouth communication (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Gao et al., 2023). Studies across diverse tourism settings consistently demonstrate that tourism experiences exert a direct influence on behavioral intentions. Sthapit et al. (2019) revealed that overall tourism experiences directly influence behavioral intentions, while Ratnasari et al. (2021) emphasized the role of emotional experiences in shaping future behaviors. Additionally, Fang and Ariffin (2021) showed that leisure experience and service experience in cultural heritage tourism have positive relationships with behavioral intention. O'Neill et al. (2010) also confirmed that people, service, tangible, and WC experience factors are critical of predicting behavioral intention in nature-based tourism. Given that glamping offers high-quality services and comfortable environments, visitors are more likely to develop positive attitudes and subsequent behavioral intentions. Based on this literature, it is hypothesized that:

H1: Glamping experience will have a positive direct effect on behavioral intention.

The mediating effect of place attachment, natural connectedness, and tourist satisfaction

The tourist's experience is closely related to their satisfaction. Although direct evidence regarding the impact of glamping experiences on tourist satisfaction remains limited, studies in other tourism domains across heritage tourism (Chen and Chen, 2010), memorable tourism (Gohary et al., 2020), and ecotourism (Li et al., 2021) have shown a notable, positive correlation between experiences and satisfaction. Satisfaction is widely employed in empirical studies of post-trip behavior intention and has been recognized as a critical mediator connecting various dimensions of tourist experiences to behavioral intentions. Rasoolimanesh et al. (2022) emphasized that satisfaction bridges memorable tourism experiences and tourists’ behavioral responses, particularly in distinctive and heritage tourism contexts.

The unique attributes of glamping experiences, such as high-end outdoor amenities, personalized services, and social interaction opportunities, are likely to evoke positive emotional responses. Building upon the CAC framework and prior studies, this study proposes that such enriched glamping experiences significantly contribute to tourist satisfaction, which in turn mediates the formation of behavioral intentions. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2: Glamping experience will have a positive direct effect on tourist satisfaction.

H3: Tourist satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on behavioral intention.

H4: Tourist satisfaction plays a mediating role in the effect of glamping experience on behavioral intention.

Place attachment arises from both functional and tangible factors as well as social relationships (Lewicka, 2011). Research highlights that memorable nature-based tourism experiences (Sthapit and Coudounaris, 2023), food experiences (Hsu and Scott, 2020), and peer-to-peer accommodation experiences (Souza et al., 2020) positively shape tourists’ emotional connections with a place. Attachment theory further underscores the role of emotional support in strengthening these bonds (Kastenholz et al., 2020; Lee and Jeong, 2021). In the context of glamping, the integration of functional and tangible elements with social interaction creates unique emotional stimuli, fostering a strong sense of place attachment among visitors.

Place attachment theory holds that an individual's emotional connection to a particular place affects their attitude and behavior toward it. If a person feels a strong emotional connection with a destination, they are inclined to travel there and exhibit more positive behavioral intentions during their stay (Isa et al., 2019). In glamping settings, place attachment cultivates profound emotional ties between visitors and the destination, driven by memories, personal experiences, and emotional links. These ties enhance the likelihood of revisiting and recommending the site. Existing literature supports the mediating role of place attachment between tourism experiences and behavioral intentions. Tsai et al. (2020) found that experiential quality and nostalgia in hospitality environments strengthen place attachment, which in turn drives loyalty and recommendations. Loureiro (2014) demonstrated that rural tourism experiences enhance place attachment, thereby fostering revisit intentions and loyalty.

In glamping contexts, common culture-oriented activities—such as bamboo weaving, tie-dyeing, culinary experiences using local ingredients, and open-air film screenings—simplify and repackage real local practices, making them more accessible to guests. These activities help establish meaningful connections with the local culture and environment. The fusion of luxurious comfort with immersive natural and cultural experiences generates cognitive and emotional bonds, which mediate the impact of glamping experiences on behavioral intentions. Based on this analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H5: Glamping experience will have a positive direct effect on place attachment.

H6: Place attachment will have a positive direct effect on behavioral intention.

H7: Place attachment plays a mediating role in the effect of glamping experience on behavioral intention.

The biological hypothesis posits that humans evolved from nature and have a natural affinity for it. Studies indicate that engaging in different nature activities leads to stronger nature connectedness (Mateer, 2022; Schwass et al., 2021). Glamping experiences usually situated in natural environments, where nature constitutes their fundamental character. Furthermore, a range of nature-based activities—such as guided sunrise viewing, stargazing sessions, forest hiking, and herbal plant identification—provide opportunities to appreciate the beauty, serenity, and power of nature. These immersive encounters inspire feelings of awe and curiosity while fostering a deeper sense of interconnection with the natural world.

Nature connectedness represents the intimacy and quality of the relationship between humans and nature (Mayer and Frantz, 2004). By drawing strength from nature, individuals can achieve positive effects, including enhanced physical and mental well-being, improved cognitive functioning, better behavioral self-regulation, and alleviation of psychological symptoms (Pritchard et al., 2020). Glamping offers distinctive nature-based experiences that frequently evoke emotional resonance and a sense of closeness, leaving a lasting impression on visitors. Based on cognitive consistency theory, individuals strive for consistency in behavior and cognition. When individuals develop positive attitude and evaluation toward a place, they are inclined to revisit it to preserve cognitive consistency. Recent studies have also demonstrated the mediating role of nature connectedness across various tourism contexts (Wang and Lu, 2025; Zhang et al., 2023). These findings suggest that nature connectedness serves as a key mechanism through which tourism experiences translate into behavioral intentions, particularly in nature-based tourism contexts. Based on this analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H8: Glamping experience will have a positive direct effect on nature connectedness.

H9: Nature connectedness will have a positive direct effect on behavioral intention.

H10: Nature connectedness plays a mediating role in the effect of glamping experience on behavioral intention.

Attachment emerges as a significant indicator of tourist satisfaction and loyalty (Yuksel et al., 2010). Based on the perspective of tourists’ local cognition, attitude, and identification, Stedman (2002) proposed that when a place fulfills individuals’ material and physiological needs such as geography, facilities, services, and social interaction, tourists tend to be satisfied. Although there are contradictions and ambiguations about whether place attachment is a prerequisite for satisfaction or vice versa (Stedman, 2003), many scholars agree that place attachment positively influences tourist satisfaction (Hwang and Chen, 2005; Prayag and Ryan, 2012). Specifically, when the facilities or environment of a destination caster to tourists’ specific activities or needs, it stimulates their attachment to a place, subsequently enhancing their satisfaction.

H11: Place attachment will have a positive direct effect on tourist satisfaction.

The allure of natural landscapes is a key draw for tourists, offering a serene experience that fosters relaxation and happiness, ultimately boosting satisfaction with the destination. Jiang et al. (2022) discovered nature has healing powers and can reduce anxiety. They explained the underlying mechanism connecting nature connectedness with satisfied feeling within a natural heritage context. Further research confirms a positive correlation between nature connectedness and life satisfaction (Chang et al., 2020). Glamping provides the opportunity to interact with nature, visitors can usually participate in a variety of outdoor activities, such as hiking, fishing, bird watching, fostering a deeper understanding, and appreciation of nature, thereby amplifying the enjoyment and satisfaction of their travel. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H12: Nature connectedness will have a positive direct effect on tourist satisfaction.

Tourists’ psychological factors usually contain rich variable types and may have complex mutual influences. Some scholars argue that focusing solely on one variable's influence is insufficient, and considering multiple mediating variables as independent mediators may not completely consistent with reality. Instead, the multiple mediating effects of multiple mediating variables and the chain effects between the mediating variables should be considered (Wen and Ye, 2014). For example, Chen et al. (2023) investigated hot spring hotels in wellness tourism and empirically confirmed that authenticity, memorability, and organizational identification play positive chain-mediating role. Similarly, Li et al. (2022) constructed a model illustrating how transformative travel experiences affect college students’ prosocial behavior through a multichain mediating effect involving awe and social connection. Drawing on the CAC theory and empirical evidence, glamping experiences are likely to enhance tourists’ place attachment and nature connectedness, which in turn increase their satisfaction and ultimately influence their behavioral intentions. Based on this theoretical and empirical analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H13: There is a chain mediation effect of place attachment and tourist satisfaction in the relationship between glamping experience and behavioral intention.

H14: There is a chain mediation effect of nature connectedness and tourist satisfaction in the relationship between glamping experience and behavioral intention.

The moderating effect of tourist involvement

Tourist involvement, defined as the intensity of emotional investment and psychological engagement individuals experience during tourism activities (Havitz and Dimanche, 1990), plays a crucial role in shaping tourists’ emotional connections to destinations. It encompasses both behavioral involvement—reflecting the time, energy, and actions invested in activities—and psychological involvement, which captures tourists’ attitudes and emotional states. According to involvement theory, higher levels of tourist involvement led to deeper engagement, greater attention, and more meaningful experiences, fostering stronger emotional bonds with destinations.

In the context of glamping, tourist involvement reflects the personal meaning and emotional connection generated through participation in glamping activities, activating tourists’ motivation, and interest. Tourists with high involvement are more likely to develop a strong sense of belonging and dependence on the glamping site, as well as a profound emotional resonance with the natural environment. Conversely, low-involvement tourists may have shallower experiences and weaker emotional ties. Based on this theoretical foundation, it is proposed that tourist involvement positively moderates the relationship between glamping experience and place attachment, as well as between glamping experience and nature connectedness. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H15: The influence of glamping experience on place attachment is modulated by tourist involvement positively, meaning that the higher the level of tourist involvement, the stronger the impact of glamping experience on place attachment.

H16: The influence of glamping experience on nature connectedness is modulated by tourist involvement positively, meaning that the higher the level of tourist involvement, the stronger the impact of glamping experience on nature connectedness.

Based on the hypotheses developed, the conceptual model proposed as depicted by Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model and hypotheses.

Figure 2.

Glamping sites of offline survey.

Research methodology

Data collection and sample method

This survey adopts a combination of online and offline questionnaire distribution to collect data. We conducted a pilot test with 30 glamping tourists prior to the formal survey to assess the clarity, comprehensibility, and contextual appropriateness of the questionnaire. Based on the feedback received, minor refinements were made to the wording of certain items, resulting in the final version of the survey instrument.

The online survey was commissioned to the Sojump platform to distribute 300 questionnaires. Sojump is China's largest online survey platform, with a wide range of sample sources across China. We targeted the questionnaires specifically at tourists who had engaged in glamping within the past 6 months. This targeting can effectively support in-depth discussions on individual feelings of glamping experiences. A screening question, “Have you experienced glamping in the past six months?” and two attention test items were designed in the survey, as the standard basis for identifying invalid questionnaires. The online research period spanned from 5 January to 10 February 2025. After excluding ineligible responses, 250 (83.3%) valid questionnaires were retained for analysis.

To avoid online samples skewing toward tech-savvy and younger demographics and address self-selection bias, researcher conducted the offline survey using either an iPad or a paper questionnaire after obtaining the respondents’ consent. Two established glamping destinations in Guangdong Province, China, were selected as case studies: Zhuhai Sumlodol Camping Town and Huizhou Forest Lake International Campground. Both venues (Figure 2) explicitly self-identify as glamping sites on their official websites and social media channels. Zhuhai Sumlodol Glamping Town is notable for its nearly 150 distinctive accommodation units, which showcase diverse architectural styles and an immersive rustic ambiance. It is recognized as a pioneering demonstration base for RV and glamping tourism in China. Meanwhile, Huizhou Forest Lake offers a wide range of curated nature-immersive and cultural activities, including hiking, fishing, kayaking, agricultural experiences, handicraft workshops, lakeside cinema, and campfire gatherings. Both glamping sites exhibit a high degree of designed authenticity, characterized by a built environment that harmoniously integrates with the natural surroundings and programmatic activities deeply rooted in local cultural elements. This synthesis fosters a cohesive and perceptible sense of authenticity for visitors.

A total of 249 offline questionnaires were collected, and after excluding 72 invalid questionnaires (failed in attention tests, had excessively short completion times, showed identical ratings for all items, or exhibited obvious patterned responses), 177 valid questionnaires remained (71.1%). Combining the online and offline data, the study yielded 427 valid questionnaires. To ensure the representativeness of the combined sample, demographic comparability was checked (e.g., age, education) between online/offline samples, slight disparities were noted but deemed acceptable for exploratory analysis (Blom et al., 2017).

Measurement of instrument

In the process of questionnaire design, the researcher compared and screened different versions of each scale, opting for one with wide applicability, high reliability, and validity. The scale's prior use in the context of Chinese tourism research was also considered to ensure its suitability for this study. These scales were translated into Chinese by a professional translation team and subsequently reviewed by two native Chinese speakers to ensure translation accuracy. The survey instrument comprises two parts. The first part focuses on measuring core variables. Since previous studies focused only on parts of glamping experiences, this study integrated various experience scales, making situational adjustments and modifications. By integrating insights and perspectives from various research literature, this scale provides a comprehensive assessment tool to evaluate the overall quality of the glamping tourism experience. Specifically, the scale (Table 6) cover: service-based experience (Brochado and Pereira, 2017; Seyfi et al. 2024), learning experience and emotional experience adapted from Li et al. (2021), food experience was constructed following Yasami et al. (2021) and Brochado and Pereira (2017), and activity experience and facility experience were drawn from Li et al. (2021) and Guo et al. (2024) (see Appendix).

The place attachment scale by Williams and Vaske (2003) was selected as the foundation due to its brevity, reliability, and contextual relevance to natural settings, which align well with the glamping tourism environment. However, to better fit the unique context of glamping, the scale was adapted by modifying the language of certain items. Example items include “This place is very special to me” and “I feel very comfortable here.” The Connectedness to Nature Scale developed by Mayer and Frantz (2004) and Cheung et al. (2020) was selected due to its strong theoretical foundation, proven reliability, and relevance to the Chinese research context. The CNS aligns well with the goals of this study, as it captures the emotional and experiential aspects of nature connectedness, which are particularly relevant in the context of glamping tourism. We adopted the Tourist Satisfaction Scale of Li et al. (2021) due to it was specifically designed to assess tourist satisfaction in ecotourism contexts, making it highly relevant for studying glamping tourism, which shares similar characteristics such as a focus on natural environments, sustainability, and immersive experiences. The tourist involvement adapts mature scale from Prayag and Ryan (2012) and modifies measurement items and language expressions to align with the research context. Finally, an adapted version of Moon and Han (2018) and Seyfi et al. (2024) was selected to capture tourists’ likelihood of revisiting a glamping site and recommending it to others. The second section of the questionnaire captures tourists’ demographic and travel characteristics. All variables were evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Results

Characteristics of respondents

Table 1 shows the demographic information of 427 respondents for this study. Most of the respondents are found to be between 18 and 25 years old, female, and have education qualifications. Additionally, Table 2 presents the travel characteristics of glamping tourists. Among those participating in glamping, 189 individuals, or 44.2%, traveled with friends, followed by 120 individuals, or 28.1%, who traveled with children or family. The duration of trips was mostly 1–2 days, representing 47.1%, indicating that glamping is a popular form of short-distance leisure travel. The average expenditure for glamping per person was relatively high in the ranges of below 500 yuan and 500–1000 yuan, with 46.4% and 35.4%, respectively. The majority of participants engaged in glamping 1 time per year and 2–3 times per year, accounting for 48.2% and 37.7%, respectively. In terms of the duration of participation, those with less than 1 year and 1–2 years of experience had higher proportions, with 46.4% and 30.0%, respectively.

Table 1.

Demographic summary of survey respondents.

Measure	Items	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Gender	Male	135	31.6
Gender	Female	292	68.4
Age	18 years old below	12	2.8
	18–25 years old	237	55.5
	26–35 years old	99	23.2
	36–45 years old	68	15.9
	46–55 years old	10	2.3
	above 55 years old	1	0.2
Education	High school or below	16	3.7
	Junior college	162	37.9
	Undergraduate	185	43.3
	Graduate or above	64	15
Occupation	Civil servants	16	3.7
	Employees	118	27.6
	Self-employed individuals	24	5.6
	Students	197	46.1
	Freelancers	34	8.0
	Retirees	6	1.4
	Others	32	7.5

Table 2.

Travel characteristics of glamping tourists.

Travel characteristics	Items	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Travel companion	Family	120	28.1
	Friends	189	44.2
	Colleagues or classmates	61	14.2
	Romantic partner	39	9.4
	Solo	18	4.1
The number of days	1–2 days	201	47.1
	3–4 days	148	34.7
	4–5 days	65	15.2
	More than 5 days	23	3.0
Per-person expenditure (RMB）	500 yuan and below	198	46.4
	501–1000 yuan	151	35.4
	1001–2000 yuan	54	12.6
	Above 2000 yuan	24	5.6
	once	206	48.2
Frequency of	2–3 times	161	37.7
glamping per	3–5 times	43	10.1
year	More than 5 times per year	17	4.0
	Less than 1 year	198	46.4
Duration	1-2 years	128	30.0
experience of	2–3 years	62	14.5
glamping	3 years or more	39	9.1

Statistical analysis

SPSS version 27.0 and SmartPLS 4 (Version 4.1.0.8) were utilized to conduct the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis. PLS-SEM is adept at prediction and theory development, aiming to maximize the explained variance (Hair et al., 2014). PLS-SEM is particularly effective in handling complex research models that encompass multifaceted constructs (Ang et al., 2015). This study extends the CAC theoretical model by incorporating involvement theory, involving mediating and moderating constructs, thus making PLS-SEM an appropriate choice for this research. The analysis was conducted in two primary stages: the assessment of the measurement model and the evaluation of the structural model.

Common method bias

Since the data were collected using a single instrument for both endogenous and exogenous variables, common method bias (CMB) may arise. The mitigation of CMB can be categorized into procedural controls and statistical controls (Cham et al., 2023; Low et al., 2022; Podsakoff et al., 2003). For procedural control, this study carried out rigorous checking to avoiding any misunderstandings or ambiguities in the measurement items. Besides, an intermittent data collection method was adopted at different times and locations in stages. For statistical control, the single-factor Harman test was employed. The results found that the variance explained by the first factor was 30.269% (below the 50% threshold), and the cumulative variance explained was 66.298%. The variance explained by the first factor did not exceed half of the cumulative variance, indicating that there is no significant common method bias in this study (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Additionally, following Kock (2015), a full collinearity test was conducted on the inner model. The results revealed that all VIF values in this study ranged from 1.000 to 2.389, which is well below the threshold of 3.3. This further confirms that there is no significant common method bias in the study's model.

Assessing the outer measurement model

As recommended by Hair et al. (2019), the outer measurement model should be assessed based on both reliability and validity. In this study, the reliability of the constructs was evaluated using Cronbach's α and Composite Reliability (CR), both of which are widely accepted metrics for assessing internal consistency. Convergent validity was determined by calculating the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), which indicates the extent to which a construct explains the variance of its indicators. Hetero-Trait-Mono-Trait (HTMT) ratio of correlations was employed to assess discriminant validity.

In this study, the reliability analysis results demonstrate that all constructs exhibit Cronbach's α values ranging from 0.823 to 0.915, and CR values ranging from 0.883 to 0.930 (see Table 2). Both indices significantly exceed the recommended threshold of 0.7, confirming a high level of reliability and internal consistency for the measurement model. The AVE values for each latent variable fall between 0.607 and 0.666, all surpassing the minimum acceptable level of 0.50. These findings demonstrate that the measurement model in this study exhibits a high level of convergent validity. The HTMT assessment demonstrates no discriminant validity issues since all values in Table 3 are lower than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015).

Table 3.

Assessment of reliability and convergent validity.

Construct	Item	Loadings	Cronbach's α	AVE	CR	Mean	SD
PA			0.896	0.615	0.918
	PA1	0.792				5.501	1.226
	PA2	0.805				5.344	1.165
	PA3	0.772				4.995	1.287
	PA4	0.779				5.131	1.245
	PA5	0.788				5.119	1.209
	PA6	0.786				4.749	1.463
	PA7	0.766				4.936	1.339
NC			0.915	0.626	0.930
	NC1	0.812				5.208	1.181
	NC2	0.795				5.330	1.205
	NC3	0.784				5.304	1.215
	NC4	0.796				5.323	1.170
	NC5	0.786				5.229	1.192
	NC6	0.792				5.252	1.183
	NC7	0.769				5.522	1.116
	NC8	0.792				5.496	1.189
TS			0.823	0.653	0.883
	TS1	0.791				5.409	1.160
	TS2	0.818				5.517	1.086
	TS3	0.810				5.367	1.190
	TS4	0.814				5.548	1.107
TI			0.892	0.666	0.909
	TI1	0.900				5.679	1.047
	TI2	0.766				5.278	1.216
	TI3	0.749				5.435	1.108
	TI4	0.802				5.377	1.189
	TI5	0.856				5.529	1.066
BI			0.912	0.653	0.929
	BI1	0.816				5.203	1.225
	BI2	0.814				5.302	1.179
	BI3	0.794				5.248	1.229
	BI4	0.808				5.426	1.171
	BI5	0.811				5.428	1.201
	BI6	0.822				5.351	1.150
	BI7	0.792				5.096	1.286
The second-order constructs
GE			0.908	0.607	0.925
	SE	0.807				5.526	1.059
	NE	0.772				5.829	1.001
	LE	0.769				5.466	1.055
	FE	0.810				5.337	1.007
	AE	0.784				5.476	0.928
	ACE	0.751				5.442	0.941
	FAE	0.785				5.289	1.014
	EE	0.752				5.646	0.942

Note: GE: glamping experience; BI: behavioral intention; PA: place attachment, TS: tourist satisfaction; NC: nature connectedness; TI: tourist involvement; SE: service experience; NE: nature experience; LE: learning experience; FE: food experience; AE: activity experience; ACE: accommodation experience; FE: facility experience; EE: emotional experience.

Inspecting the inner structural model

This study employed 5000 bootstrapping subsamples with no sign change option and bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap at 95% confidence intervals to assess the significance of path coefficients (Hair et al., 2017). The strength and direction of the path coefficients were determined by their proximity to +1 or −1, with coefficients considered significant if their confidence intervals did not include zero (Hair et al., 2017). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Assessment of discriminant validity using HTMT.

	BI	GE	NC	PA	TI	TS
BI
GE	0.553
NC	0.314	0.604
PA	0.458	0.588	0.268
TI	0.075	0.048	0.079	0.052
TS	0.426	0.517	0.467	0.468	0.047
TI x GE	0.045	0.093	0.041	0.052	0.028	0.048

Table 5.

Results of the direct effect.

Hypothesis	Relationship	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (\|O/STDEV\|)	p values	Bias corrected confidence intervals	Remarks
H1	GE → BI	0.354	0.355	0.052	6.872***	0.000	[0.252, 0.455]	Yes
H2	GE → TS	0.180	0.180	0.059	3.071***	0.002	[0.067, 0.294]	Yes
H3	TS → BI	0.149	0.150	0.049	3.052***	0.002	[0.052, 0.243]	Yes
H5	GE → PA	0.530	0.532	0.034	15.507***	0.000	[0.455, 0.592]	Yes
H6	PA → BI	0.169	0.171	0.045	3.745***	0.000	[0.079, 0.255]	Yes
H8	GE → NC	0.562	0.562	0.034	16.298***	0.000	[0.489,0.624]	Yes
H9	NC → BI^NS	−0.007	−0.008	0.052	0.135	0.893	[−0.110,0.095]	No
H11	PA → TS	0.249	0.250	0.046	5.391***	0.000	[0.157, 0.336]	Yes
H12	NC → TS	0.247	0.248	0.049	5.038***	0.000	[0.148, 0.339]	Yes

Note: GE: glamping experience; BI: behavioral intention; PA: place attachment; TS: tourist satisfaction; TI: tourist involvement; NC: nature connectedness; NS: not supported.

t-values > 1.65* (p < 0.1); t-values > 1.96** (p < 0.05); t-values > 2.57*** (p < 0.01).

Level of significance: * p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Table 6.

Mediation analysis.

Hypothesis	Relationship	Effect	t statistics	p values	Confidence intervals
H4	GE → TS → BI	0.027	2.090	0.037	[0.007, 0.059]
H7	GE → PA → BI	0.091	3.559	0.000	[0.042, 0.140]
H10	GE → NC → BI	−0.005^NS	0.134	0.893	[−0.063, 0.052]
H13	GE → PA → TS → BI	0.020	2.594	0.010	[0.007, 0.036]
H14	GE → NC → TS → BI	0.021	2.566	0.010	[0.008, 0.039]

The findings (Table 5) reveal that GE, TS, and PA (H1: β = 0.354, p < 0.01; H3: β = 0.149, p < 0.01; H6: β = 0.169, p < 0.01) have a significant positive relationship with BI, as hypothesized. In contrast, NC (H9: β = −0.007, p > 0.1) was not supported, as the bootstrap analysis with bias-corrected confidence intervals (5000 subsamples) included zero ([−0.110, 0.095]). Additionally, GE demonstrates a significant positive relationship with TS, PA and NC (H2: β = 0.180, p < 0.01; H5: β = 0.530, p < 0.01; H8: β = 0.562, p < 0.01). Furthermore, the direct effects between PA and TS (H11: β = 0.249, p < 0.01), NC and TS (H12: β = 0.247, p < 0.01) are both statistically significant and thus supported in this study.

Examining the mediating effects

The subsequent analysis focuses on examining the mediating roles of place attachment, nature connectedness, and tourist satisfaction. For the mediating effects (Table 6), the following paths were significant: “GE → TS → BI” (H4: β = 0.027, p < 0.05); “GE → PA → BI” (H7: β = 0.091, p < 0.01); the chain mediation effect for the path “GE → PA → TS → BI” (H13: β = 0.020, p < 0.05); and “GE → NC → TS → BI” (H14: β = 0.021, p < 0.05). The results indicate that none of the specific indirect effects’ confidence intervals include zero, confirming the presence of mediating effects. However, the path “GE → NC → BI” (H10: β = −0.005, p > 0.05) was not significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.063, 0.052]. This suggests that nature connectedness does not play a significant mediating role in the relationship between glamping experience and behavioral intention.

Examining the moderating effects

To examine the moderating effects of the variable TI, we employed cross-multiplying all indicators of the independent variables and the moderator to create interaction terms (Chin et al., 2003). The statistical significance of the moderating effects was assessed using the bootstrap procedure. The results indicate that the interaction term “TI × GE → PA” yielded a non-significant moderating effect (H15: β = −0.002, p > 0.10), with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.085, 0.079]. This suggests that TI does not significantly amplify or attenuate the impact of GE on PA. In contrast, the interaction term “TI × GE → NC” demonstrated a significant positive moderating effect (H16: β = 0.082, p < 0.05), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.000, 0.153]. This finding implies that TI strengthens the positive relationship between GE and NC. Specifically, as TI increases, the effect of GE on NC becomes more pronounced.

The predictive relevance and effect size

To assess the model's explanatory power, the coefficient of determination (R²) for endogenous latent variables was examined. R² represents the proportion of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables, indicating how much variation in the endogenous latent variables is accounted for by the exogenous latent variables. Following Cohen's (1988) guidelines, R² values of 0.26, 0.13, and 0.02 indicate substantial, moderate, and weak explanatory power, respectively. The results reveal R² values of 0.304 for BI, 0.324 for NC, and 0.282 for both PA and TS, suggesting moderate explanatory power for these constructs, accounting for 28.2% to 32.4% of their variances.

Additionally, predictive relevance was evaluated using Stone-Geisser's Q² value to assess the model's predictive power beyond the current sample (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). In this study, all Q² values for endogenous constructs were well above zero, ranging from 0.170 to 0.199, demonstrating moderate to strong predictive relevance.

Discussion and implications

This study validates a comprehensive model that links glamping experiences to behavioral intentions. The findings offer several key insights. First, glamping experiences exhibit a positive and significant direct relationship with behavioral intentions (H1). This result aligns with prior research emphasizing the critical role of experiential quality in shaping tourists’ future actions (Brochado and Pereira, 2017; Sharma and Aggarwal, 2020), and confirms its applicability within China's glamping market.

Second, this study deepens the understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying glamping experiences to behavioral intentions by highlighting the mediating roles of place attachment and nature connectedness. Consistent with the CAC framework, the findings reveal that glamping experiences significantly enhance tourists’ emotional bonds with destinations, with place attachment emerging as a critical mediator. This result resonates with the work of Ramkissoon et al. (2013), who identified place attachment as a key factor influencing satisfaction and pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, a chain mediation effect was observed, highlighting how emotional and satisfaction-based pathways jointly shape behavioral outcomes (Yuksel et al., 2010; Williams and Vaske, 2003).

However, the study reveals nuanced findings regarding nature connectedness. While glamping experiences significantly enhance tourists’ connection to nature, this bond does not directly translate into behavioral intentions. This suggests that in commercialized glamping context, nature connectedness may function more as an immediate emotional outcome rather than a proximal antecedent of long-term behavioral decisions. This divergence may be attributed to the hybrid nature of glamping, where satisfaction with man-made facilities and services intertwines with the natural experience. Consequently, Chinese tourists’ behavioral intentions appear to be predominantly shaped by holistic satisfaction evaluations and socio-culturally influenced place attachment rather than direct nature connectedness effects, a pattern observed in other commercialized tourism settings (e.g., Mohammad and Zahari, 2022; Sthapit and Rasoolimanesh, 2024).

Additionally, while tourist involvement moderates the relationship between glamping experiences and nature connectedness, it does not significantly moderate the link between experiences and place attachment. This may be due to the inherently immersive and standardized service design of glamping, which could reduce the variability of individual involvement levels in shaping place-based emotional bonds. This insight into the boundary conditions of involvement aligns with calls for contextualizing psychological constructs in tourism, highlighting the need for further research to explore its role in diverse tourism contexts.

Theoretical implications

Firstly, this study refines the understanding of nature connectedness within tourist behavior models. In the glamping context, characterized by a blend of nature immersion and man-made comfort, nature connectedness functions primarily as an immediate affective outcome rather than a direct driver of long-term intentions. It must be filtered through the evaluative lens of satisfaction to influence behavior. This indirect pathway suggests that for certain tourist segments, particularly in comfort-oriented nature experiences, the emotional resonance with nature (nature connectedness) and the pragmatic evaluation of the experience (satisfaction) are psychologically distinct. Thus, we advance the theoretical discourse on how different nature tourism formats and degree of experiential commercialization shape the psychological journey of the visitor.

Secondly, this study enriches glamping and tourism experience research. While current studies on glamping experiences emphasize nature, service quality, and emotional satisfaction (Brochado and Brochado, 2019; Brochado and Pereira, 2017; Lu et al., 2021), they are largely limited by their reliance on exploratory designs and a lack of theory-based hypothesis testing (Craig, 2025). This study addresses these gaps by encompassing broader and more nuanced dimensions of glamping experiences and empirically testing the outcomes. This study adopted a more comprehensive range of dimensions, including service experience, nature experience, learning experience, accommodation experience, food experience, activity experience, facility experience, and emotional experience. This enriched framework offers a more context-specific and detailed understanding of glamping experiences, serving as a theoretical foundation for future research and measurement models. Furthermore, by demonstrating how these dimensions collectively influence tourists’ behavioral intentions, this study advances tourism experience theory, particularly in the emerging field of glamping.

Thirdly, by integrating the CAC theory into the context of glamping experiences, this study constructs and tests a comprehensive model. By moving beyond the single-path approach of the traditional CAC model, introducing dual mediating pathways and boundary conditions to reveal their intrinsic connections, thereby providing a novel perspective on how tourists emotionally connect with destinations at an affective level, offering deeper insights into the psychological mechanisms that drive behavioral outcomes in tourism. The study validates the pivotal role of place attachment as a key affective variable that bridges glamping experiences and behavioral intentions, demonstrating that in high-emotional-engagement contexts like glamping, the transformation from cognition to behavior primarily occurs through affective pathways rather than traditional cognitive routes. This finding aligns with and extends the CAC theory, demonstrating how affective factors like place attachment can dominate the pathway from experience to behavior (e.g., Loureiro, 2014; Tsai et al., 2020), particularly in immersive and emotionally engaging contexts like glamping.

Practical implications

This study provides several concrete implications for glamping operators. First, since place attachment serves as a key mediator, strategies should aim to transform short stays into meaningful personal stories that foster deep emotional bonds. Operators should move beyond standard services by facilitating experience co-creation (Lee et al., 2023). For example, at checkout, a digitally curated package can be used to prolong the positive emotional resonance and reinforce place attachment after departure—such as a short video montage of activities or a photo album set against the scenic backdrop at the glampsite. Instead of merely displaying handicrafts, operators might design an immersive “Local Culture Corner.” This could involve a structured sensory journey: a 10-min augmented reality (AR) tour explaining the historical significance of local plants, followed by a hands-on session where guests create a traditional souvenir, such as fabric dyed with local flowers. Such activities help form unique personal memories associated with the place.

Second, to strengthen nature connectedness as an authentic and immediate emotional outcome, glamping operators should move beyond passive observation by designing activities that foster deep, embodied interaction with the natural environment. For instance, a “Sensory Earth Imprints" activity could guide participants through mindfulness and sensory awakening, before creating unique clay impressions using natural found objects. Alternatively, operators could offer a “Forest Bathing and Mindfulness” workshop, or a scheduled guided mindfulness walk at dawn. Additionally, an “Authentic Local Taste” experience can be introduced, inviting visitors to personally pick ingredients and learn to cook a traditional local seasonal dish under the guidance of an instructor, transforming nature's bounty into a tangible and memorable sensory experience.

Third, the finding that involvement moderates the experience and nature connectedness calls for a segmented approach. For highly involved tourist, offer advanced, skill-based activities like a “Wilderness Survival Skills Workshop"(teaching fire-making, shelter-building). This provides the deep challenge they seek. For less involved tourists, ensure a wide array of low-commitment, leisure-oriented activities are available, such as guided scenic walks or open-air cinema nights, focusing on comfort and enjoyment.

Finally, to move beyond conventional social media tactics, operators can leverage the CAC framework to foster a sense of co-created narrative ownership and ongoing community membership, thereby transforming one-time visitors into long-term advocates (Bange et al., 2020). In the cognition stage, instead of just showcasing the product, involve the audience in its evolution. Use Instagram, Xiaohongshu or WeChat polls to let followers vote on new activity ideas (e.g., “Which workshop should we offer next: foraging or nature pottery?”). This fosters a sense of ownership before a booking is even made. In the affective stage, implement a system to geo-tag and gently encourage sharing during key experiential moments (e.g., “Tag us in your sunrise photo!”). The conation stage then focuses on nurturing this community. Create an exclusive online group for past guests, offering them first access to new dates, special events, or the opportunity to beta-test new experiences. This approach shifts the paradigm from motivating transactions to building a self-sustaining community, where social media is the platform for ongoing collaboration and shared value.

Limitations and future research

The study has several limitations that could be addressed in future research. This study draws upon the well-established CAC framework to explain ecotourists’ behavioral responses in glamping contexts. These foundations have proven robust and appropriate for modeling value co-creation and experience-driven behavior. However, future research may further enrich the theoretical landscape by incorporating emerging constructs and perspectives, such as identity projection, embodiment theory, or the luxury–nature paradox, to capture deeper psychological and symbolic dimensions of glamping experiences. Such directions can complement and extend the current model rather than replace it, offering nuanced insights into evolving consumer meanings and motivations. Furthermore, our study focused on place attachment and nature connectedness, potentially overlooking other significant emotional or psychological variables. Future research could explore additional affective and cognitive constructs to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying glamping experiences.

The current study focused on uncovering the relationships between experiential quality, perceived value, and behavioral outcomes in the context of glamping tourism. While demographic and profile characteristics of respondents were captured and reported descriptively, the primary aim was not to segment glampers based on motivations such as luxury-seeking, eco-consciousness, or adventure orientation. Future studies could build on this work by applying segmentation analysis or cluster profiling to examine how different psychographic or cultural subgroups may differentially perceive and engage with glamping experiences. This would offer more targeted insights for marketers and destination planners aiming to cater to specific traveler types across diverse regions. The data for this study primarily came from the hybrid approach of online and offline. Future research could consider employing stratified online sampling, collecting data either fully online or fully offline, collecting data at multiple glampsites with varied attributes for replication to ensure representativeness and avoid potential biases. The use of a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality or capture dynamic changes. Future studies could employ longitudinal or experimental designs to track long-term changes in tourists’ emotional responses and behavioral intentions, as well as test the effectiveness of specific interventions.

Declaration

We hereby acknowledge that this manuscript is an original work and neither has been published/accepted for publication nor under consideration at another journal.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Limin Zheng

Omkar Dastane

Tat-Huei Cham

Ethics

The human ethics approval were obtained.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

Data can be made available upon request.

Appendix 1: The scales used in the study

References

Agapito

Sigala

(2024) Experience management in hospitality and tourism: reflections and implications for future research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 36(13): 57–76.

Allied Market Research (2022) Glamping Market Size, Share, Competitive Landscape and Trend Analysis Report, 2021-2031. Available at: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/glamping-market-A16856 (accessed 26 February 2025).

Andrey

Galera

Cabido

, et al. (2014) New trends in the outdoor hospitality industry. Valais: HES-SO Haute École spécialisée de Suisse occidentale Valais 10(9).

Ang

Ramayah

Amin

(2015) A theory of planned behavior perspective on hiring Malaysians with disabilities. Equality, Diversity AndInclusion: An International Journal 34(3): 186–200.

Bange

Moisander

Järventie-Thesleff

(2020) Brand co-creation in multichannel media environments: a narrative approach. Journal of Media Business Studies 17(1): 69–86.

Blom

Herzing

Cornesse

, et al. (2017) Does the recruitment of offline households increase the sample representativeness of probability-based online panels? Evidence from the German Internet Panel. Social Science Computer Review 35(4): 498–520.

Brochado

(2019) What makes a glamping experience great? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 10(1): 15–27.

Brochado

Pereira

(2017) Comfortable experiences in nature accommodation: perceived service quality in glamping. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 17: 77–83.

Brooker

Joppe

(2014) A critical review of camping research and direction for future studies. Journal of Vacation Marketing 20(4): 335–351.

10.

Cham

Cheng

Lee

, et al. (2023) Should I buy or not? Revisiting the concept and measurement of panic buying. Current Psychology 42: 19116–19136.

11.

Cham

Tan

GWH

ECX

, et al. (2024) Virtual reality in tourism: adoption scepticism and resistance. Tourism Review 79(2): 337–354.

12.

Chang

Cheng

GJY

Nghiem

TPL

, et al. (2020) Social media, nature, and life satisfaction: global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis. Scientific Reports 10(1): 4125.

13.

Chen

(2010) Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management 31(1): 29–35.

14.

Chen

Tsai

(2007) How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management 28(4): 1115–1122.

15.

Chen

Huang

(2023) Research on the relationship between wellness tourism experiencescape and revisit intention: a chain mediation model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 35(3): 893–918.

16.

Chin

Marcolin

Newsted

(2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research 14(2): 189–217.

17.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 20–26.

18.

Craig

(2021) Camping, glamping, and coronavirus in the United States. Annals of Tourism Research 89: 103071.

19.

Craig

(2025) Glamping: a review. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 49: 100858.

20.

Craig

Karabas

(2021) Glamping after the coronavirus pandemic. Tourism and Hospitality Research 21(2): 251–256.

21.

Fang

Ariffin

AAM

(2021) Cultural heritage tourism: determinants of behavioral intention to visit a historical city from experiential perspectives. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Environment Management 6(22): 1–10.

22.

Frederick

(2022) Millennials’ views on glamping in the Helsinki metropolitan area.

23.

Gao

Cheah

Lim

, et al. (2023) Can travel apps improve tourists’ intentions? Investigating the drivers of Chinese gen Y users’ experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing 30(3): 505–534.

24.

Geisser

(1974) A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61(1): 101–107.

25.

Girotto

Nicolas

Campo

(2025) Pre-travel experiential tourism communication: A study of Catalonia and Veneto. Journal of Vacation Marketing: 1–20.

26.

Gohary

Pourazizi

Madani

, et al. (2020) Examining Iranian tourists’ memorable experiences on destination satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Current Issues in Tourism 23(2): 131–136.

27.

Guo

Yang

Xie

(2024) The impacts of mountain campsite attributes on tourists’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions: the mediating role of experience quality. Journal of Destination Marketing aa Management 32: 100873.

28.

Hair

Hult

Ringle

, et al. (2014) A Primer on Partial LeastSquare Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

29.

Hair

Risher

Sarstedt

, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31(1): 2–24.

30.

Hair

JJF

Matthews

, et al. (2017) PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis 1(2): 107–123.

31.

Han

Hyun

(2015) Customer retention in the medical tourism industry: impact of quality, satisfaction, trust, and price reasonableness. Tourism Management 46: 20–29.

32.

Hanafiah

Amirah

Asyraff

, et al. (2025) Glamping tourism: unpacking ecotourists’ experiential quality, perceived value and behavioural intention. Journal of Ecotourism 24(4): 1–23.

33.

Hapsari

Hussein

Ghofar

, et al. (2024) From first visit to forever fans: crafting customer loyalty in glamping through experience quality and engagement. Cogent Business & Management 11(1): 2416938.

34.

Haukeland

Fredman

Tyrväinen

, et al. (2023). Prospects for nature-based tourism: identifying trends with commercialpotential. Journal of Ecotourism: 1–18. doi:10.1080/14724049.2023.2178444

35.

Havitz

Dimanche

(1990) Propositions for testing the involvement construct in recreational and tourism contexts. Leisure Sciences 12(2): 179–195.

36.

Heanseler

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–135.

37.

Hilgard

(1980) The trilogy of mind: cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16(2): 107–117.

38.

Hsu

Scott

(2020) Food experience, place attachment, destination image and the role of food-related personality traits. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 44: 79–87.

39.

Huang

Chen

Huang

, et al. (2024) Consumer intention to use service robots: a cognitive–affective–conative framework. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 36(6): 1893–1913.

40.

Huang

Zhang

(2024) “Roots’ tourists” personal heritage experience: an extended cognitive-affective-conative model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 61: 212–223.

41.

Hwang

Lee

Chen

(2005) The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan's national parks. Tourism Management 26(2): 143–156.

42.

Ii Media Research (2025). Development Prospects and Commercial Layout of China's Camping Economy, 2025-2030. Available at: https://www.iimedia.cn/c1020/107267.html (accessed 18 October 2025).

43.

Isa

Ariyanto

Kiumarsi

(2019) The effect of place attachment on visitors’ revisit intentions: evidence from Batam. Tourism Geographies 22: 51–82.

44.

Jeong

Lee

(2023) A rebound in nature-based tourism intentions during the COVID-19 era. Journal of Vacation Marketing 29(4): 636–653.

45.

Jiang

Xia

Tang

, et al. (2022) How does nature heal tourists in the context of COVID-19? The perspective of the emotional mechanism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52: 368–381.

46.

Kastenholz

Marques

Carneiro

(2020) Place attachment through sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17: 100455.

47.

Kim

Chen

(2021) The effects of spirituality on visitor behavior: a cognitive-affective-conative model: the effects of spirituality on visitor behavior. International Journal of Tourism Research 23(6): 1151–1162.

48.

Kock

(2015) Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (Ijec) 11(4): 1–10.

49.

Lee

Jung

tom Dieck

, et al. (2020a) Experiencing immersive virtual reality in museums. Information & Management 57(5): 103229.

50.

Lee

Grinevich

Chipulu

(2023) How can value co-creation be integrated into a customer experience evaluation? European Management Journal 41(4): 521–533.

51.

Lee

Jeong

(2020b) Exploring theme park visitors’ experience on satisfaction and revisit intention: a utilization of experience economy model. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 21(4): 474–497.

52.

Lee

Jeong

(2021) Distinctive roles of tourist eudaimonic and hedonic experiences on satisfaction and place attachment: combined use of SEM and necessary condition analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 47: 58–71.

53.

Lee

J-K

Moon

(2019) Influential attributes for the selection of luxury camping: a mixed-logit method. Journal of Hospitality and TourismManagement 40: 88–93.

54.

Lewicka

(2011) Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(3): 207–230.

55.

Liu

Soutar

(2021) Experiences, post-trip destination image, satisfaction and loyalty: a study in an ecotourism context. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 19: 100547.

56.

Chu

, et al. (2022) The impact of transformative tourism experiences on prosocial behaviors of college students: multiple chain mediating effects of dispositional awe and social connectedness. Sustainability 14(20): 13626.

57.

Loureiro

SMC

(2014) The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions. International journal of hospitality management 40: –9.

58.

Low

Seah

Cham

, et al. (2022) Digitalization adoption for digital economy: an examination of Malaysian small medium-sized enterprises through the technology–organization–environment framework. Business Process Management Journal 28(7): 1473–1494.

59.

Wang

Dai

, et al. (2021) Antecedents of customer WOM in glamping: the critical role of original ecology. International Journal of Hospitality Management 95: 102919.

60.

Mateer

(2022) Developing connectedness to nature in urban outdoor settings: a potential pathway through awe, solitude, and leisure. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 940939.

61.

Mayer

Frantz

(2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4): 503–515.

62.

Merkx

Nawijn

(2021) Virtual reality tourism experiences: addiction and isolation. Tourism Management 87: 104394.

63.

Mohammad

Hanafiah

Zahari

MSM

(2022) The influence of heritage food consumption and experiential value on Terengganu's destination image and tourists’ behavioural intention. Journal of Heritage Tourism 17(6): 685–701.

64.

Moon

Han

(2018) Destination attributes influencing Chinese travelers' perceptions of experience quality and intentions for island tourism: a case of Jeju Island. Tourism Management Perspectives 28: 71–82.

65.

O'Neill

Riscinto-Kozub

Van Hyfte

(2010) Defining visitor satisfaction in the context of camping oriented nature-based tourism-the driving force of quality. Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(2): 141–156.

66.

Petruša

Vlahov

(2019) The role of glamping in development of camping tourism offer-possibilities and future prospects in the republic of Croatia. In Proceedings of FEB Zagreb International Odyssey Conference on Economics and Business 1(1): 834–843.

67.

Podsakoff

Mackenzie

Lee

, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol 88(5): 879–903.

68.

Podsakoff

Organ

(1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4): 531–544.

69.

Prayag

Ryan

(2012) Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: the role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research 51(3): 342–356.

70.

Pritchard

Richardson

Sheffield

, et al. (2020) The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: a meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies 21: 1145–1167.

71.

Ramkissoon

Smith

LDG

Weiler

(2013) Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(3): 434–457.

72.

Rasoolimanesh

Seyfi

Rather

, et al. (2022) Investigating the mediating role of visitor satisfaction in the relationship between memorable tourism experiences and behavioral intentions in heritage tourism context. Tourism Review 77(2): 687–709.

73.

Ratnasari

Gunawan

Mawardi

, et al. (2021) Emotional experience on behavioral intention for halal tourism. Journal of Islamic Marketing 12(4): 864–881.

74.

Rogerson

(2020) Camping tourism: a review of recent international scholarship. Geo Journal of Tourism and Geosites 28(1): 349–359.

75.

Schwass

Potter

O'Connell

, et al. (2021) Outdoor journeys as a catalyst for enhanced place connectedness and environmental stewardship. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education 24: 215–231.

76.

Seyfi

Rasoolimanesh

Vafaei-Zadeh

, et al. (2024) Can tourist engagement enhance tourist behavioural intentions? A combination of PLS-SEM and fsQCA approaches. Tourism Recreation Research 49(1): 63–74.

77.

Shahane

(2023) Glamping—an emerging accommodation trend, where nature meets luxury. ATITHYA: A Journal of Hospitality 9(2): 39–44.

78.

Sharma

Aggarwal

(2020) What factors determine reviewer credibility? An econometric approach validated through predictive modeling. Kybernetes 49(10): 2547–2567.

79.

Souza

Kastenholz

Barbosa

MDLA

Carvalho

MSESC

(2020) Tourist experience, perceived authenticity, place attachment and loyalty when staying in a peer-to-peer accommodation. International Journal of Tourism Cities 6(1): 27–52.

80.

Stedman

(2002) Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior 34(5): 561–581.

81.

Stedman

(2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society &Natural Resources 16(8): 671–685.

82.

Sthapit

Björk

Coudounaris

(2023) Memorable nature-based tourism experience, place attachment and tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviour. Journal of Ecotourism 22(4): 542–565.

83.

Sthapit

Björk

Rasoolimanesh

(2024) Toward a better understanding of memorable souvenir shopping experiences. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 25(1): 59–91.

84.

Sthapit

Del Chiappa

Coudounaris

, et al. (2019) Tourism experiences, memorability and behavioural intentions: a study of tourists in Sardinia, Italy. Tourism Review 75(3): 533–558.

85.

Stone

(1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 36: 111–147.

86.

Tsai

Hsu

Chen

(2020) An examination of experiential quality, nostalgia, place attachment and behavioral intentions of hospitality customers. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 29(7): 869–885.

87.

Wang

(2025) The effect of awe in wildlife tourists on animal-friendly behavioural intentions: a serial mediation model of connectedness to nature and empathy. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 30(2): 161–175.

88.

Wen

(2014) Analyses of mediating effects: the development of methods and models. Advances in Psychological Science 22(5): 731.

89.

Williams

Vaske

(2003) The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49(6): 830–840.

90.

Woosnam

Stylidis

Ivkov

(2020) Explaining conative destination image through cognitive and affective destination image and emotional solidarity with residents. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(6): 917–935.

91.

Xiang

Cao

Qiao

, et al. (2023) Glamping: an exploration of emotional energy and flow experiences in interaction rituals. Tourism ManagementPerspectives 48: 101149.

92.

Liu

, et al. (2023) Ecotourism and sustainable development: a scientometric review of global research trends. Environment, Development and Sustainability 25(4): 2977–3003.

93.

Yasami

Promsivapallop

Kannaovakun

(2021) Food image and loyalty intentions: Chinese tourists’ destination food satisfaction. Journal of China Tourism Research 17(4): 592–612.

94.

Yuksel

Bilim

(2010) Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and cognitive loyalty. Tourismmanagement 31(2): 274–284.

95.

Zhang

Cai

Bai

, et al. (2023) National forest park visitors’ connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior: the effects of cultural ecosystem service, place and event attachment. Journal of OutdoorRecreation and Tourism 42: 100621.

A glamping we will go! Unpacking the emotional and experiential triggers of vacation intentions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Glamping and glamping experience

Cognitive-affective-conative model

Hypothesis development

The main effects of glamping experience and behavioral intention

The mediating effect of place attachment, natural connectedness, and tourist satisfaction

The moderating effect of tourist involvement

Research methodology

Data collection and sample method

Measurement of instrument

Results

Characteristics of respondents

Statistical analysis

Common method bias

Assessing the outer measurement model

Inspecting the inner structural model

Examining the mediating effects

Examining the moderating effects

The predictive relevance and effect size

Discussion and implications

Theoretical implications

Practical implications

Limitations and future research

Declaration

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethics

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability

Appendix 1: The scales used in the study

References