Sense of place relationship with tourist satisfaction and intentional revisit: Evidence from Egypt

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Sense of place relationship with tourist satisfaction and
intentional revisit: Evidence from Egypt
Mohamed A. Abou‐Shouk
1
|Nagoua Zoair
2
|Mohamed N. El‐Barbary
2
|
Mahmoud M. Hewedi
3
1
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of
Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University,
Fayoum, Egypt
2
Tourist Guidance Department, Faculty of
Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University,
Fayoum, Egypt
3
Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of
Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University,
Fayoum, Egypt
Correspondence
Mohamed A. Abou‐Shouk, Tourism Studies
Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels,
Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Email: maa15@fayoum.edu.eg
Abstract
Sense of place is a multidimensional concept. It implies an emotional relationship between an
individual and a setting. The current study aims to explore the predictors of place attachment,
and measure the effect of place attachment and its predictors on tourist satisfaction, and how this
satisfaction could affect tourist future revisits. Using structural equation modelling, this study
provides evidence from two distinct places in Egypt: Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert and
Fayoum. A questionnaire was used to collect data from repeat tourists to both places. The find-
ings revealed that repeat tourists are place attached. This attachment is positively influencing
tourist satisfaction and their intentional repeat visit. The findings of the study could be used to
develop marketing strategies of destinations with sense of place dimensions. Tour operators
and travel agents are requested to include sense of place dimensions in their tour packages.
National authorities are invited to focus on sense of place dimensions in their destinations.
KEYWORDS
Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert, Egypt, Fayoum, place attachment, sense of place, structural
equation modelling, tourist satisfaction
1|INTRODUCTION
“Place”has become a major topic of research in social science since
1970. Sense of place implies the relationship between individuals and
a spatial setting. Sense of place has been studied in different settings
including behaviour studies especially in geography and environmental
studies (Barker, 1968). In geography, “topophilia”refers to an
individual's emotional and effective bond towards a special setting that
varies from light to deeply rooted attachment (Tuan, 1974). In environ-
mental studies, sense of place is the individual perception of the envi-
ronment and the conscious feelings about this environment (Hummon,
1992). Stedman (2003) considered that sense of place is a human atti-
tude towards a particular place. Generally, sense of place refers to an
emotional tie between people and a place (Mahon, 2007), through its
distinctive physical attributes (landscape, architectural building, and
so forth) and personal attachment (emotions and feelings) (Williams
& Allen, 2015). Thus, this term involves a set of meanings such as
knowledge, attachment, commitment, and satisfaction that an individ-
ual associates with a particular place (Wang & Chen, 2015).
Various studies have emphasized the tie between people and
place in tourist and recreational contexts with the term “sense of
place”or its synonym “place attachment.”These studies could be
divided into three axes. The first dealt with sense of place as an out-
come revealed from tourist operations (i.e., place features, activities,
facilities, and involvement; i.e., Chen, King, & Fank, 2013; Fan & Qiu,
2014; Gross & Brown, 2008; Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2003;
Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2004; Ramkissoon & Mavondo,
2015). The second investigated sense of place as a predictor to loyalty
and intentional revisit (i.e., Gross & Brown, 2006; Hwang, Lee, & Chen,
2005; Ram, Björk, & Weidenfeld, 2016; Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010).
The third states that sense of place is a mediator that affects some
aspects of tourism (i.e., Cheng & Wu, 2015; Kil, Holland, Stein, & Ko,
2012; Lee, Kyle, & Scott, 2012; Lee & Shen, 2013; Loureiro, 2014;
Prayag & Ryan, 2012; Tsai, 2012).
Considering these three axes, it is found that predictors of place
attachment are not well studied. Instead of considering expressive
attachments a part of place attachment, the current study has tested
it as a predictor to place attachment. In addition, this study has found
that “recreational activities,”which are an important aspect of place
attachment, are not well explained as a predictor to place attachment.
Furthermore, the relationships between the predictors of place attach-
ment (expressive attachment and recreational activities) and tourist
Received: 8 April 2017 Revised: 9 September 2017 Accepted: 26 October 2017
DOI: 10.1002/jtr.2170
172 Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Tourism Res. 2018;20:172–181.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jtr

satisfaction were not introduced in previous studies. Therefore, the
current study aims to explore the predictors of place attachment, and
measure the effect of place attachment and its predictors on tourist
satisfaction, and how this satisfaction could affect its future revisits
to the same place (Figure 1). In addition, it compares two structural
models on the basis of data collected from two different and distinct
places in Egypt in terms of natural landscape, culture, and activities:
Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert and Fayoum.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 |The role of sense of place in selecting
destinations
The attention to sense of place in tourism has started in 1980s when
empirical research tried to investigate the nature of relationship
between tourist places and recreational activities. Williams, Patterson,
and Roggenbuck (1992) examined the tourist attachment to four wild
settings, and Lee (2003) tested the relationship between service qual-
ity, satisfaction, and place attachment in forest settings. Furthermore,
Kyle, Graefe, and Manning (2004) evaluated how the hikers are place
attached on the basis of their motivations, evaluations of setting con-
ditions, experience, and involvement. In addition, Hwang et al. (2005)
investigated the relationship between place attachment, tourist's
involvement, and satisfaction in Taiwan's National Park.
Sense of place in tourism refers to the commitment of tourists
towards a destination that offers them pleasing and unique experiences
(McKercher, Wang, & Park, 2015). Therefore, there is a significant rela-
tionship between place attachment and tourist selection of destina-
tions. This was stated by Williams (2000) who found that tourists
choose their destinations to convey the sense of who they are. In addi-
tion, Lee et al. (2012) found that there is a significant effect of place
attachment on destination selection and revisit intentions. Recently,
Mussalam and Tajeddini (2016) found that the attributes of place such
as food, culture, natural resources, and the activities have a significant
effect on the tourist destination selection and the length of stay.
3|DIMENSIONS OF SENSE OF PLACE
The main dimensions that are frequently related to the sense of place,
either in empirical or theoretical research, are place attachment, place
dependence, and place identity. These three terms are generic, and
each one could involve the others. For Lalli (1992), place identity is
the main concept of which place attachment is a subset, whereas other
research in environmental psychology considers the place attachment
as the main concept with two sub‐concepts: place identity and place
dependence (Williams et al., 1992). This study deals with place attach-
ment as a synonym to sense of place that subsumes place identity and
place dependence as interrelated terms (Ram et al., 2016). Place iden-
tity reflects the distinctive values and meanings that a place provides
to tourists, and place dependence explains how this place meets the
needs of tourists.
3.1 |Place attachment
Place attachment is widely accepted as a synonym to sense of place.
Place attachment is “the main characteristic of which is the tendency
of the individual to maintain closeness to such a place”(Hidalgo &
Hernández, 2001, p. 274). It encompasses the symbolic relationship
formed by emotional/affective meanings of individuals to a particular
setting and enables them to establish a relationship with others in
the setting. Place attachment is also the beliefs and practices that link
people to a place (Low, 1992); it contains many items with emotions in
its centre.
Williams et al. (1992), Jorgensen and Stedman (2001), Stedman
(2003), and Tsai (2012) see place attachment as the emotional and
affective bond of an individual to a particular place or to a spatial set-
ting as introduced in recreation and leisure studies (Fan & Qiu, 2014;
Williams et al., 1992).
Place dependence is a sub‐concept of place attachment that refers
to the functional attachment of a person to a place. Place dependence
emphasizes the role of a place in providing features that achieve spe-
cific goals or desired activities of individuals (Shreyer, Jacob, & White,
1981; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). In the attitude theory, place
dependence is regarded as the perceived behavioural advantage of a
specific place compared to others (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Place
dependence is embodied in the physical characteristics of an area and
is necessary to support specific activities or experiences (Lee, 2003;
Williams & Vaske, 2003). Kyle, Graefe, and Manning (2004) referred
to place dependence as the goal‐based attachment that focuses on a
setting's ability to facilitate desired leisure experiences.
Place identity is another sub‐concept of place attachment, and in
some studies, it is a synonym for it. Proshansky (1978, p. 155) indi-
cated that place identity is formed by “conscious and unconscious
ideas, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals and behavioural ten-
dencies relevant to this environment.”Lalli (1992) considered place
identity as a term that encompasses various forms of identity related
to the place. This includes continuity with past and perception of the
familiarity and commitment.
FIGURE 1 The proposed research model of place attachment and revisit intention relationships
ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.173

Place identity reflects the importance of a place as a depository for
emotions that give meanings to life (Campón‐Cerro, Alves, &
Hernández‐Mogollón, 2015; Lee, 2003). Place identity could be simply
expressed as “homeness,”which reflects the feelings and emotions
towards a place (Tsai, 2012). As a sub‐concept of sense of place and
in the cadre of attitude theory, Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) consid-
ered it as the cognitive attitude, feelings, and thoughts that individuals
have to a particular place. In the recreational context, considered place
identity as a substructure of sense of place that represents the emo-
tional and affective bonds with the place.
Visiting a place that provides symbolic meanings to individuals and
meets their needs is considered a source of pleasure and satisfaction
for its visitors according to Kwenye and Freimund (2016). Although
Ramkissoon and Mavondo (2015) have proven that satisfaction with
a place could lead to a sense of place, Yuksel et al. (2010) pointed
out that place attachment affects customer satisfaction level which
in turn influences the loyalty intentions towards a destination. Further-
more, Prayag and Ryan (2012) argued that satisfaction could be
affected by the type and level of place attachment. They believe that
the overall perceived values tourists acquire from a destination influ-
ence their satisfaction level, and this level of satisfaction is positively
affecting their future visits to the destination. Therefore, the first
hypothesis of the current study is developed as follows:
H1. Place attachment is a predictor of tourist
satisfaction.
3.2 |Expressive attachment
Sense of place is a broad term that encompasses many aspects of rec-
reation and tourism. To comprehensively assess sense of place, exam-
ination of all dimensions of place experience such as location, facilities,
landscape, and personal involvement should be studied (Relph, 1976).
Hay (1998, p. 7) affirmed that sense of place studies can be broader
by assessing “subjective qualities (creating personal meaning), as well
as community and ancestral connections to place.”Williams and Stew-
art (1998) indicated that sense of place is a complex notion that
embodied unquantifiable values, meanings, and symbols constructed
within the individual's mind and experiences. In addition, Williams
and Patterson (1999) and Cheng, Wu, and Huang (2013) discussed
the scenic/aesthetic meanings related to the recreational settings
including the landscape and heritage sites. Furthermore, Williams
(2000), Loureiro (2014), and Mussalam and Tajeddini (2016) added that
recreation resources are strongly attached to the places with unique
historical, symbolic aspects and meanings.
Expressive attachment is the element of creating unique experi-
ences and good memories for tourists, making them attached to the
place. The sources of unique experience could be distinctive food
(Gross & Brown, 2006), wonderful memories (Loureiro, 2014), culture,
natural resources and activities (Mussalam & Tajeddini, 2016), and
authenticity of attractions, heritage, and place history (Ram et al.,
2016) that are affecting tourist selection of this specific destination.
Brown, Smith, and Assaker (2016) included emotional reactions
and feelings associated with a place as a dimension of place attach-
ment. However, Tsai (2012) found that the emotional benefits that
tourists get from a place affect their attachment to this place, and
therefore, emotional benefits are a predictor to place attachment.
Furthermore, Suntikul and Jachna (2016) indicated that the extent to
which tourists are emotionally engaged with a place is a reliable
predictor of their attachment to that place. In addition, Prayag and
Ryan (2012) discussed that the unique experience tourists acquire
from a place predicts their level of satisfaction. Therefore, the second
hypothesis is developed as follows:
H2.1 Expressive attachment is an antecedent of place
attachment.
H2.2 Expressive attachment to a place has a positive
effect on tourist satisfaction.
3.3 |Recreational activities
The primary research that differentiated between space and
place pointed that the space turns into place by the human activity
(Altman & Low, 1992; Tuan, 1977). Barker (1968) used the concept
of behaviour setting as equivalent to sense of place and defined it as
bounded standing patterns of human and non‐human activities (Can-
ter, 1977). Stokols and Shumaker (1981) cited that human interaction
with a geographical space is the process that gives a meaning and turn-
ing it to a place.
Furthermore, Kil et al. (2012) revealed that recreational activities
that correspond to natural areas (such as viewing scenery and explor-
ing nature) have a significant effect on tourist attachment to a place.
Recently, the empirical research by Beery and Jönsson (2017) has
revealed a significant influence of participation in recreational activi-
ties on place attachment. Therefore, tourists could visit specific places
to participate in recreational activities. For the current study, tourists
may enjoy several activities including camping, relaxing, watching
sunrise and sunsets, taking short walks, safari, sightseeing, sand
boarding, camel riding, watching shooting stars, boating, swimming,
fishing, surfing, and sailing.
In addition, Chi and Qu (2008) found that recreational activities
are significantly affecting tourist satisfaction and loyalty to a destina-
tion. In their study, Tsaur, Liang, and Weng (2014) discussed the tourist
continual visiting to a specific place, the pleasant memories, and iden-
tity to this place happens to them naturally. Therefore, the third
hypothesis is suggested as follows:
H3.1 Recreational activities act as antecedent to place
attachment.
H3.2 Recreational activities are positively affecting tour-
ist satisfaction.
3.4 |Place attachment, satisfaction, and visiting
intentions
Stedman (2003) stated that satisfactions and behaviours are areas of
interest that should be involved in studying sense of place in tourism
context. Satisfaction is related to the emotional perception of individ-
uals toward a service (Olivier, 2010). Feeling satisfied with a place
174 ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.

leads to revisit it in the future (Brown et al., 2016; Dayour & Adongo,
2015; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007; Jang & Feng, 2007; Kozak, 2001).
According to Ramkissoon, Weiler, and Smith (2012), they found
that place attachment has a positive and significant effect on tourist
satisfaction and future visits. In another study by Brown et al. (2016),
they found that highly satisfied tourists have a positive attitude
towards the place and have a higher intentions to revisit the destina-
tion in the future. The fourth hypothesis in the proposed research
model (Figure 1) is developed as follows:
H4. Tourist satisfaction significantly influences their
revisit intention.
4|RESEARCH METHODS
4.1 |The study's settings
This study has investigated the sense of place in two distinct oases in
Egypt: Bahariya/the White Desert and Fayoum. It is noticed by the
authors that these two places have repeat tourist even in times of
political instability in Egypt. Bahariya Oasis is surrounded by black hills
made of quartz. It is home to amazing ruins, such as the Temple of
Alexander the Great, beautifully painted Ptolemaic tombs, and very
old churches. The recent discovery of the golden mummies and the
pride of Bawiti Museum turned the oasis' main town into a tourist
magnet. The Black Desert is closer to Bahariya Oasis. The mountains
have eroded to coat the desert with a layer of black powder and rocks
giving it its name. The Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert is justifiably
the most well‐known desert destination in Egypt, and for a good rea-
son, the quantity of unearthly and beautiful wind‐carved rock forma-
tions shaped in the form of giant mushrooms or pebbles is
unequalled in any desert in the world (Egypt Tourism Authority,
2016a). Figure 2 shows a map of Egypt showing Bahariya Oasis/the
White Desert and Fayoum.
As for Fayoum, it is an oasis with a wonderful bird watching des-
tination, well known for its delicious fruits and vegetables. The area
has been declared as a protected area in 1989 (Egypt Tourism
Authority, 2016b). It is known as the Switzerland of the East.
Fayoum has a charming natural landscape. For example, it houses
Wadi Al‐Hitan (the Valley of Whales), which is the first natural
reserve in Egypt declared by the United Nations Educational, Scien-
tific and Cultural Organization. There you can visit the only museum
of fossils in Egypt.
4.2 |Measurement scale
The measurement scale adopted in this study is a structured question-
naire‐based, designed, reviewed, and piloted on 50 random tourists
visiting the study's regions to validate its constructs. Comments of
respondents on design, question order, and wording were considered
in the final version. Corrected‐item‐total correlations were conducted
for questionnaire constructs, and loadings below 0.35 were removed
for validity concerns. The questionnaire was designed in English, and
two versions of it were addressed to tourists of Bahariya Oasis/the
White Desert and Fayoum for 10 months (January–October 2015). It
is distributed randomly to visitors in both printed and online versions
on the basis of visitor preference.
The questionnaire has three parts. The first part asked about the
distinct activities undertaken in each place, the number of visits, and
attractions visited in the place. The second part included five con-
structs on which respondents select an appropriate answer reflecting
their opinions using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and
5=strongly agree). Twenty‐one items are used to measure five con-
structs (see Table 3). Constructs include place attachment, expressive
attachment, recreational activities, tourist satisfaction, and inten-
tional revisiting. Each of these constructs was operationally defined
(Table 1). The third part included respondent's gender, age, educa-
tional level, and nationality.
4.3 |Sample of the study
The sample of the study was randomly selected of repeat tourists
visiting the two places. Repeat tourists included in the analysis
should have visited the place at least once to be considered place
attached. Two hundred fifty out of 300 questionnaires were returned
from Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert visitors (with a response rate
of 83%) and 260 out of 300 questionnaires from Fayoum visitors
(with a response rate of 87%). Tour guides were asked to distribute
questionnaires (printed or online versions based on tourists'
preference).
4.4 |Analysis technique
The study employs structural equation modelling (SEM), the advanced
multivariate technique, to test the hypothesized model. A comparison
between the two models is conducted. SEM is used in the current
study because of its capabilities to test the complicated hypothesized
models. WarpPLS version 5 was used to conduct SEM. Construct
validity and reliability of the measurement models are conducted. Var-
iance inflation factor (VIF) is presented for each model to ensure the
linearity of the study's constructs.
FIGURE 2 A map of Egypt showing the Bahariya Oasis/the White
Desert and Fayoum [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.175

5|RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.1 |Descriptive statistics
For Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert, most respondents are female,
most of them are aged 26 to 45 years, and the majority is university
graduates and comes from Germany, Italy, and other countries
(Table 2). 78.4% of respondents had visited Bahariya Oasis/the White
Desert once before, whereas 21.6% of respondents had visited it
more than once. Tourists of Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert had
also visited the Crystal Mountain (91.7%), the Black Desert (89%),
and Elheiz (72.5%). Tourist activities included camping, relaxing,
watching sunsets, taking short walks, safari, sightseeing, watching
sunrise, sand boarding, camel riding, watching shooting stars, and spa.
For Fayoum, most tourists are males, university graduates, and
between 18 to 35 years old. 50.5% of respondents had visited Fayoum
once before, whereas 49.5% of respondents had visited Fayoum more
than once. The most visited sites were Wadi Al‐Rayan (Rayan Valley,
87.9%), Tunis Village (70.1%), Valley of Whales (38.3%), and Kom
Oushim (16.8%). Tourist activities included sightseeing, taking short
walks, relaxing, spending time with family, camping, boating, swim-
ming, fishing, picnicking, surfing, and sailing.
Exploring the level of agreement of respondents on research con-
structs in the two areas, mean values of opinions inTable 3 depict that
respondents had different levels of agreement with the constructs.
5.2 |The measurement models
Two measurement models were conducted to measure the relation-
ships in the two areas of the study. The model fit indices showed good
fit. The model fit indices for Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert model
included average path coefficient = 0.373, p< .001; average R‐
squared = 0.498, p< .001; average adjusted R‐squared = 0.494,
p< .001; average block VIF = 1.815; average full collinearity
VIF = 2.332; Tenenhaus goodness of fit = 0.596; Sympson's paradox
ratio = 1.000; R‐squared contribution ratio = 1.000; statistical suppres-
sion ratio = 1.000; and non‐linear bivariate causality direction
ratio = 1.000. For Fayoum, the model fit indices: average path coeffi-
cient = 0.333, p< .001; average R‐squared = 0.356, p< .001; average
adjusted R‐squared = 0.343, p< .001; average block VIF = 1.387; aver-
age full collinearity VIF = 1.699; Tenenhaus goodness of fit = 0.491;
Sympson's paradox ratio = 1.000; R‐squared contribution ratio = 1.000;
statistical suppression ratio = 1.000; and non‐linear bivariate causality
direction ratio = 1.000 (Kock, 2015).
Looking at Table 3, the average variance extracted in both mea-
surement models is greater than 0.50 leading to the convergent valid-
ity existence (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The square root of average
variances extracted in both models exceeds the correlations among
TABLE 1 The measurement scales of the study
Constructs Operational definition Sources
Place attachment The emotions, beliefs, and practices that link tourists
to a specific tourist location/destination
Bricker and Kerstetter (2000); Campón‐Cerro et al. (2015);
Cheng et al. (2013); Kyle, Graefe, and Manning (2004);
Lee (2003); Lin (2012); Smith and Moore (2010); Tsai (2012);
Williams (2000); Williams and Roggenbuck (1989); Williams
and Vaske (2003)
Recreational activities The distinct adequate recreational activities link
tourists with a destination
(Kyle, Mowen, and Tarrant (2004); Lee (2003); Lin (2012)
Expressive attachment Emotional and expressive bonds with a tourist place,
including the scenic/aesthetic meanings, landscape,
and heritage sites
Cheng et al. (2013); Kaltenborn (1998); Lalli (1992); Prayag
and Ryan (2012); Wynveen, Kyle, and Sutton (2012)
Tourist satisfaction The extent to which tourists are satisfied about
selecting a particular destination
Cheng et al. (2013); Prayag and Ryan (2012)
Intentional revisit The intentions that tourists intend to do in the future
such as revisiting the place, recommending it to
others, and so forth
Campón‐Cerro et al. (2015); Dayour & Adongo (2015);
Lee (2003); Yuksel et al. (2010)
TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics of study respondents
Bahariya Oasis/White
Desert (n= 250)
Fayoum
(n= 260)
Gender Male 46.8% 54.2%
Female 53.2% 45.8%
Age (years) 18–25 3.7% 36.9%
26–35 34.6% 32.3%
36–45 35.5% 26.7%
46–55 26.2% 4.1%
Education High school 24.8% —
University graduates 56% 37.6%
Postgraduates 19.2% 62.4%
Nationality German 26.5% —
Italian 15.7% 26%
Egyptian 13.7% 10%
French 9.8% —
British 7.8% 5%
Other nationalities 53% 59%
TABLE 3 Mean values of constructs in the two regions
Constructs
Bahariya Oasis/the White
Desert Fayoum
MSD MSD
Place attachment 3.85 0.261 3.60 0.108
Expressive attachments 4.25 0.144 4.04 0.119
Recreational activities 4.15 0.160 3.78 0.112
Tourist satisfaction 4.01 0.025 3.87 0.026
Intentional revisit 4.14 0.277 3.72 0.214
Note. The Likert scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
176 ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.

the measurement constructs, which is evidence of discriminant validity
(Kock, 2015; Table 4). Looking at Cronbach's alpha values and compos-
ite reliability in both models, they exceed .7 referring to reliable con-
structs (Field, 2009; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
5.3 |The structural models and hypotheses testing
The structural models measure the explanatory relationships between
the constructs of the study. For Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert,
Figure 3 illustrates the path loadings of the structural model. It is
revealed that tourist satisfaction is significantly and positively
affected by place attachment (β= 0.44, p< .01, and H1 supported),
expressive attachments (β= 0.30, p< .01, and H2.2 supported),
and recreational activities of the destination (β= 0.11, p< .05, and
H3.2 supported). The three constructs (expressive attachments, rec-
reational activities, and place attachment) explain 53% of variance
in tourist satisfaction (R
2
= 0.53). Place attachment is influenced by
expressive attachments (β= 0.64, p< .01, and H2.1 supported) and
recreational activities (β= 0.15, p< .05, and H3.1 supported). Expres-
sive attachment and recreational activities explain 47% of change in
place attachment. Tourist satisfaction about the destination
attributes is significantly affecting the intentional revisit of tourists
to revisit this destination (β= 0.71, p< .01, and H4 supported). Tour-
ist satisfaction explains 50% of variance in tourist intentional revisit
(R
2
= 0.50).
For indirect effects, place attachment is significantly affecting
intentional revisit (β= 0.31 and p< .01). Expressive attachment is sig-
nificantly affecting intentional revisit (β= 0.21 and p< .01), and recre-
ational activities are significantly affecting intentional revisit (β= 0.13
and p< .05). Therefore, tourist satisfaction is partially mediating the
causal relationship between sense of place dimensions (place
attachment, expressive attachment, and recreational activities) and
revisit intention.
For Fayoum, Figure 4 displays regressive loadings of the structural
model. It is found that tourist satisfaction is significantly and positively
affected by place attachment (β= 0.37, p< .01, and H1 supported),
expressive attachment (β= 0.28, p< .01, and H2.2 supported), and rec-
reational activities (β= 0.26, p< .01, and H3.2 supported). These three
constructs (expressive attachments, recreational activities, and place
attachment) explain 51% of variance in tourist satisfaction
(R
2
= 0.51). Place attachment is influenced by its antecedents; expres-
sive attachments (β= 0.29, p< .01, and H2.1 supported) and
TABLE 4 The measurement models
Construct Indicators (reflective)
Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert Fayoum
Value AVE CA CR SQAVE Value AVE CA CR SQAVE
Place attachment I am very attached to this place. 0.827 0.688 .909 0.930 0.829 0.866 0.645 .889 0.916 0.803
I enjoy visiting this place more than other places. 0.866 0.815
I feel a strong sense of belonging to this place. 0.856 0.819
No other place compares to this area providing what I
like to do.
0.781 0.768
I feel like this place is a part of me. 0.838 0.791
This place is very special to me. 0.804 0.753
Expressive
attachment
I have good memories of this place. 0.840 0.577 .852 0.891 0.760 0.787 0.533 .824 0.872 0.730
The place provided me an unusually meaningful
experience.
0.821 0.762
The place has unusual landscape features. 0.678 0.677
The place has unique heritage sites. 0.739 0.708
The place has a variety of natural attractions. 0.737 0.763
The place has unique cultural meaning for me. 0.731 0.675
Recreational
activities
The place has various recreational activities. 0.852 0.733 .818 0.892 0.856 0.831 0.748 .831 0.899 0.865
This place has some activities like no other place has. 0.857 0.851
I enjoyed the activities of the place. 0.860 0.911
Tourist
satisfaction
Coming here is one of the most enjoyable things I do. 0.887 0.765 .845 0.907 0.875 0.862 0.755 .836 0.902 0.869
Coming here is one of the most satisfying things I do. 0.922 0.915
I get greater satisfaction out of visiting this place than I
do out of work.
0.810 0.827
Intentional
revisit
I think a lot about coming here again in the future. 0.893 0.798 .872 0.922 0.893 0.808 0.702 .786 0.876 0.838
If I stop visiting this place, I will lose a lot of enjoyment. 0.848 0.804
I will continue to visit this place in the future. 0.937 0.898
Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CA = Cronbach's alpha; CR = composite reliability; SQAVE = square root AVE.
FIGURE 3 The structural model for place attachment in Bahariya Oasis/the White Desert region
ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.177

recreational activities (β= 0.20, p< .05, and H3.1 supported). Expres-
sive attachments and recreational activities explain 25% of change in
place attachment. Tourist satisfaction about selected destination is sig-
nificantly affecting the intentional revisit of tourists to revisit this des-
tination (β= 0.61, p< .01, and H4 supported). Tourist satisfaction
explains 45% of variance in tourist intentional revisit (R
2
= 0.45).
For indirect effects, place attachment is significantly affecting
intentional revisit (β= 0.23 and p< .01). Expressive attachments are
significantly affecting intentional revisit (β= 0.17 and p< .01), and rec-
reational activities are significantly affecting intentional revisit
(β= 0.16 and p< .05). Therefore, tourist satisfaction is partially medi-
ating the causal relationship between sense of place dimensions (place
attachment, expressive attachment, and recreational activities) and
behavioural intention.
6|DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The study has explored the antecedents of place attachment (expres-
sive attachments and recreational activities) and introduced a valid
structural model for measuring the predictors of place attachment,
tourist satisfaction, and revisit intentions in tourism context.
Places may involve meanings, attractions, and symbols that make
it distinguishable. These meanings have emotional effect on individuals
to be place attached. This study investigated the factors that make
some places distinguished and kept it memorable for tourists. These
factors could easily be accumulated in the term “sense of place.”The
results showed that the dimensions of sense of place differ in its effect
on tourists' experience on the basis of the nature of the place and tour-
ist preferences. Tourists in the current study feel attracted to the
study's settings because of its scenic features, the charming landscape
and virgin environment, cultural aspects including the traditions of the
place, the heritage handicrafts, and local festivals and folklore. They
feel attached to beautiful places with natural landscape and unusual
features such as appealing water and green bodies in the two places
of the study. This result interprets the expressive attachment by tour-
ists in both regions. This finding is in line with Wynveen et al. (2012),
Prayag and Ryan (2012), Cheng et al. (2013), Ram et al. (2016), and
Mussalam and Tajeddini (2016) who stated that a place with an appeal-
ing landscape and beautiful scenery has a significant effect on
individual's satisfaction and leads to an attachment to the setting.
The cultural aspect in the two regions of the study is another
cause for tourists to revisit. This includes the unique culture, unique
handicrafts, local foods, and other aspects that help tourists connect
with the past or remind them with good memories and experiences.
This is certainly a reason to the repeat visits to the regions of the
study. This finding is similar to this of Prayag and Ryan (2012) who
stated that cultural attractions enhance the destination image and pro-
mote its brand, and Williams (2000) and Ram et al. (2016) who men-
tioned that unique historical aspects deliver a meaning to the place
and help tourists enjoy their experience.
Additionally, respondents have the feeling of belonging to the
places of the study. This implies the established emotional meanings
with the place. These meanings drive tourists to repeat visits to the
place. It is a type of affective commitment with native feelings towards
the place. This result is in line with Cheng et al. (2013), Kyle, Graefe,
and Manning (2004), and Lalli (1992) in their studies about place
attachment. Carrying good memories and cognitive experience after
visiting the regions of the study is an indicator to tourist's expressive
attachment to these places. The set of meanings actively constructed
within their mind is a significant determinant of their satisfaction level
with these places. This finding is concurrent with Kaltenborn (1998) in
his study about Svalbard and Williams and Stewart (1998) in their
study about ecosystems. The expressive attachment includes the feel-
ing that a place is a part of tourists, which means it is special to them.
This speciality is a significant factor in selecting the same regions again
and expressing their satisfaction. This finding is in line with Smith and
Moore (2010). These findings show that expressive attachments are
the core reason of place attachment concept, and the state of mind
is an important reason for tourists to return to the same place.
Unlike previous studies measuring the effect of tourist satisfaction
on place attachment (i.e., Ramkissoon & Mavondo, 2015), this study
has tested the effect of place attachment on tourist satisfaction and
revealed a positive significant effect. When tourists feel that there is
no place comparable to the regions they selected, this is simply an
interpretation to the term “place attachment.”They believe that there
will be no other places that can satisfy their needs other than the
places they selected. This psychological linkage satisfies and motivates
them to revisit these places in the future. This finding is concurrent
with Tsai (2012) in his study of Singapore, Campón‐Cerro et al.
(2015) in his study of rural tourism destinations, and Smith and Moore
(2010) in his study of Farmington River. This reflects the importance of
psychological link with a place.
The other crucial factor in revisiting the study regions is the
unique recreational activities distinguishing it among others. The two
distinct regions of this study have a number of activities that keep
tourists linked to it including sightseeing, camping, taking short walks,
relaxation, sand boarding, watching shooting stars, watching sunrise/
sunset, and fishing. This finding is in line with Bricker and Kerstetter
(2000), Williams and Vaske (2003), and Kyle, Graefe, and Manning
FIGURE 4 The structural model for place attachment in Fayoum
178 ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.

(2004) who highlighted the importance of recreational activities in
selecting a destination in addition to its effect on tourist satisfaction
as found by Chi and Qu (2008). As a contribution of this study, it has
tested the recreational activities as a predictor to place attachment
and revealed a significant effect in addition to its significant effect on
tourists' satisfaction. Add to this, selecting a destination and feeling
satisfied with it is certainly leading to a positive intentional revisit. This
emotional link with the place is a pull factor of repeat tourists. This
finding is concurrent with Dayour and Adongo (2015), Hui et al.
(2007), Jang and Feng (2007), and Brown et al. (2016) who found that
tourist satisfaction about a place leads to an intentional revisit.
7|CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The current study has investigated the explanatory relationships of
place attachment and tourist satisfaction and intentional revisit in a
structural model tested in two different regions. First, it has explored
the antecedents of place attachment (expressive attachments and
recreational activities). Second, it has tested the relationship between
recreational activities' construct and place attachment and that con-
struct was not significantly considered in previous place attachment
studies. Third, unlike some previous studies, it tested the place attach-
ment construct as a predictor of tourist satisfaction. This study has
introduced a valid structural model for measuring the predictors of
place attachment, tourist satisfaction, and revisit intentions in tourism
context.
7.1 |Theoretical implications
The current study provides an overall understanding of the factors
affecting the tourist loyalty to destinations. It introduces psychological
factors including emotions and motivations that link tourists to specific
destinations. In addition, this study added interactive explanatory rela-
tionships to predict the satisfaction level and tourists' intentional
revisit using rigorous analysis technique, SEM, in two different places
in Egypt particularly with previous studies limited to investigate the
effect of traditional dimensions of sense of place on tourist satisfaction
and loyalty (Hwang et al., 2005; Ramkissoon, Smith, & Weiler, 2013;
Yuksel et al., 2010).
Furthermore, this study presents a valid measurement model to
researchers and academics who are interested in the concept of sense
of place and how it affects the repeat visits to tourist destinations. It
has an explanatory power in predicting tourist satisfaction and tourist
intentional revisit. Including two different places in this study with dif-
ferent attractions and activities reflects the unique dimensions of sense
of place in each region and how these unique features contribute in
attracting tourists to revisit the same place. The expressive attach-
ments seem to be the main factor influencing the place attachment in
the two regions of the study. Although expressive attachments and
recreational activities contribute to tourist satisfaction, it is clear that
place attachment has the major influence on tourist satisfaction. The
models provided in this study could be used to investigate the unique
dimensions of other destinations and its effect on tourist choice of des-
tinations to revisit the destination in the future travels. The results of
the current study confirm the crucial effect of the expressive attach-
ments and the place attachment on their intentions to revisit the same
destinations many times. These dimensions could pull a target niche
market of tourists to visit/revisit the same destinations and become
loyal visitors. This type of tourists supports promoting the concept of
sustainable destinations and increasing satisfaction with it and is a
guarantee of sustainable tourist arrivals particularly in crises times.
7.2 |Managerial implications
The findings of the current study provide implications for tour opera-
tors and destination marketers. Tour operators should design tour
packages to destinations with emphasis on sense of place dimensions.
First of all, tour operators should understand the meanings that make
tourists attached to a specific place and create unique experiences
with that place. According to the results of the current study, the tour-
ists are influenced more by the expressive attachment dimension of
the destination including the scenic/aesthetic meanings, landscape,
and heritage sites in a destination.
Tourism marketers should highlight the link between sense of
place and social and environmental sustainability and how this link
could attract interested eco‐tourists. They need to highlight the rela-
tionship between unusual experiences of the tourists and interaction
with local society members, trying the local foods, attending the local
festivals, and enjoying the historical and heritage aspects of the desti-
nation. Destination marketing organizations should focus on aspects
that tourists seek in destinations. They should offer the local foods,
the local festivals, and heritage sites in their websites and encourage
tourists to revisit these destinations with a promise of unusual experi-
ence they could get.
For governmental authorities, they should direct their promotional
campaigns to this niche market of tourists linked emotionally with their
particular destinations. Tourism planners should be called to determine
the potentialities of developing such destinations. They need to
explore places with emotional meanings, and how these meanings
can be used to attract visitors. Policies should be identified to promote
and manage these places to increase its visitors; particularly, places
have different meanings to different categories of tourists. Local peo-
ple have a significant role in developing these destinations and create
unforgettable experiences for tourists.
Furthermore, each construct of place attachment should be sur-
veyed in order to assess its value for different categories of tourists.
The feedback of surveys should be used in managing the resources of
the place, which could be its landscape, its facilities, its activities, mem-
orable experiences, history, cultural aspects, heritage sites, and so on.
Tour operators and travel agents should make use of such assess-
ment and diversify the components of their holiday packages to cover
the sense of place dimensions.
8|LIMITATIONS AND VENUES FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
This study should have added qualitative research to better under-
stand the linkage between tourists and specific places. Limiting the
ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.179

study to repeat tourists was to understand their repeat visits to the
same place; however, future research should address these limitations
and apply the research model in different destinations to measure the
influence of sense of place dimensions on tourist destination selection
and survey first‐time visitors to predict their satisfaction level and their
intentional revisit to revisit the destination in the future. Simply, future
research could answer the question of how to convert the first‐time
tourist to a repeat tourist.
ORCID
Mohamed A. Abou‐Shouk http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5438-3268
REFERENCES
Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4684‐8753‐4
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Beery, T., & Jönsson, K. (2017). Outdoor recreation and place attachment:
Exploring the potential of outdoor recreation within a UNESCO
biosphere reserve. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,17,
54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.01.002
Bricker, K., & Kerstetter, D. (2000). Level of specialization and place attach-
ment. Leisure Sciences.An Interdisciplinary Journal,22, 233–257.
Brown, G., Smith, A., & Assaker, G. (2016). Revisiting the host city: An
empirical examination of sport involvement, place attachment, event
satisfaction and spectator intentions at the London Olympics. Tourism
Management,55, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2016.02.010
Campón‐Cerro, A., Alves, H., & Hernández‐Mogollón, J. (2015). Attachment
as a factor in generating satisfaction with, and loyalty to, rural tourism
destinations. Tourism & Management Studies,11(1), 70–76.
Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: Architectural Press.
Chen, K., King, C., & Fank, D. (2013). Sport tourists' involvement with a
destination: A stage‐based examination. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research,37(1), 100–124.
Cheng, T., & Wu, H. (2015). How do environmental knowledge, environ-
mental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally
responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,23(4), 557–576. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669582.2014.965177
Cheng, T., Wu, H., & Huang, L. (2013). The influence of place attachment on
the relationship between destination attractiveness and environmen-
tally responsible behavior for island tourism in Penghu, Taiwan.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,21(8), 1166–1187. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09669582.2012.750329
Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationship of destination
image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated
approach. Tourism Management,29(4), 624–636. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007
Dayour, F., & Adongo, C. (2015). Why they go there: International Tourists'
motivations and revisit intention to northern Ghana. American Journal of
Tourism Management,4(1), 7–17.
Egypt Tourism Authority (2016a). Bahariya Oasis, adventure travel & family
fun. Retrieved 17 February, from http://en.egypt.travel/city/index/
bahariya‐oasis
Egypt Tourism Authority (2016b). Fayoum Oasis, bird watching. Retrieved
17 February, from http://en.egypt.travel/attraction/index/fayoum‐
oasis‐bird‐watching
Fan, J., & Qiu, H. (2014). Examining the effects of tourist resort image on
place attachment: A case of Zhejiang, China. Public Personnel Manage-
ment,43(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014535180
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research,18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gross, M., & Brown, G. (2006). Tourism experience in a lifestyle destination
setting: The roles of involvement and place attachment. Journal of
Business Research,59(6), 696–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2005.12.002
Gross, M., & Brown, G. (2008). An empirical structural model of tourists and
places: Progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism.
Tourism Management,29(6), 1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2008.02.009
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in development context. Journal of
Envrironmental Psychology,18(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.1997.0060
Hidalgo, M., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual
and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology,21(3),
273–281. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
Hui, T., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists' satisfaction, recommendation
and revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management,28(4), 965–975.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.08.008
Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of
place. In I. Altman, & S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 253–278). .
New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4684‐
8753‐4_12.
Hwang, S., Lee, C., & Chen, H. (2005). The relationship among tourists'
involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in
Taiwan's national parks. Tourism Management,26(2), 143–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.006
Jang, S., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The
effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management,
28(2), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.024
Jorgensen, B., & Stedman, R. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lake-
shore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,21(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.2001.0226
Kaltenborn, B. (1998). Effects of sense of place on response to environ-
mental impacts: A study among residents in Svalbard in the
Norwegian high Arctic. Applied Geography,18(2), 169–189. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0143‐6228(98)00002‐2
Kil, N., Holland, S., Stein, T., & Ko, Y. (2012). Place attachment as a mediator
of the relationship between nature‐based recreation benefits and
future visit intentions.
Kock, N. (2015). WarpPLS 5.0 user manual. Laredo, Texas: ScriptWarp
Systems.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters' behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals
of Tourism Research,28(3), 784–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160‐
7383(00)00078‐5
Kwenye, J., & Freimund, W. (2016). Domestic tourists' loyalty to a local nat-
ural tourist setting: Examining predictors from relational and
transactional perspectives using a Zambian context. Tourism Manage-
ment Perspectives,20, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tmp.2016.08.006
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2004). Attached recreationists,
who are they? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,22(2),
65–84.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of the
relationship between leisure activity involvement and place attachment
among hikers along the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research,
35(3), 249–273.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effects of place attach-
ment on users' perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a
180 ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.

natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology,24(2), 213–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.006
Kyle, G., Mowen, A., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences
with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place
motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
24(4), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.001
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban‐related identity: Theory, measurement, and empiri-
cal findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology,12(4), 285–303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272‐4944(05)80078‐7
Lee, J. (2003). Examining the antecedents of loyalty in a forest setting:
Relationship among service quality, satisfaction, activity involvement,
place attachment, and destination loyality. (PhD), Pennsylvania State
University, Pennsylvania.
Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating effect of place attach-
ment on the relationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to
the festival hosting destination. Journal of Travel Research,51(6),
754–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512437859
Lee, T., & Shen, Y. (2013). The influence of leisure involvement and place
attachment on destination loyalty: Evidence from recreationists walking
their dogs in urban parks. Journal of Environmental Psychology,33(1),
76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.002
Lin, C.‐C. (2012). Sense of place, protected areas and tourism: Two Tasma-
nian case studies. (PhD), University of Tasmania.
Loureiro, S. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy
in place attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal
of Hospitality Management,40,1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2014.02.010
Low, S. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind: Place attachment in the plaza. In I.
Altman, & S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165–185). New York:
Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4684‐8753‐4_8
Mahon, M. (2007). New populations; shifting expectations: The changing
experience of Irish rural space and place. Journal of Rural Studies,
23(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.01.006
McKercher, B., Wang, D., & Park, E. (2015). Social impacts as a function of
place change. Annals of Tourism Research,50,52–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.002
Mussalam, G., & Tajeddini, K. (2016). Tourism in Switzerland: How percep-
tions of place attributes for short and long holiday can influence
destination choice. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,26,
18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2015.09.003
Olivier, R. (2010). Satisfaction: A behaviroal perspective on the consumer
(2nd ed.). New York, London: M.E. Sharp, Armonk.
Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists' loyalty to Mauri-
tius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment,
personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research,
5(3), 342–356.
Proshansky, H. (1978). The city and self‐identity. Environment & Behaviour,
10(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578102002
Ram, Y., Björk, P., & Weidenfeld, A. (2016). Authenticity and place attach-
ment of major visitor attractions. Tourism Management,52, 110–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.010
Ramkissoon, H., & Mavondo, F. (2015). The satisfaction‐place attachment
relationship: Potential mediators and moderators. Journal of Business
Research,68(12), 2593–2602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2015.05.002
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L., & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the dimensionality
of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and
pro‐environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling
approach. Tourism Management,36, 552–566. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.tourman.2012.09.003
Ramkissoon, H., Weiler, B., & Smith, L. (2012). Place attachment and
pro‐environmental behaviour in national parks: The development
of a conceptual framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,20(2),
257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.602194
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.
Shreyer, R., Jacob, G., & White, R. (1981). Environmental meaning as a
determinant of spatial behaviour interaction. Paper presented at the
Applied Geography Conference 4.
Smith, J., & Moore, R. (2010). Place attachment and recreation demand on
the west branch of the Farmington River. Paper presented at the The
2010 Northeastern recreational Research Symposium.
Stedman, R. (2003). Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of
quantitative research. Forest Science,49(6), 822–829.
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of
settings. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environ-
ment (pp. 441–488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2016). The co‐creation/place attachment nexus.
Tourism Management,52, 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2015.06.026
Tsai, S. (2012). Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating
international tourists in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism
Research,14(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.842
Tsaur, S.‐H., Liang, Y.‐W., & Weng, S.‐C. (2014). Recreationist‐environment
fit and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,40,
421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.003
Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes,
and values. London: Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place, the perspective of experience. Minneapolis
and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Wang, S., & Chen, J. (2015). The influence of place identity on perceived
tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,52,16–28.
Williams, D., & Stewart, S. (1998). Sense of place an elusive concept that is
finding home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry,96(5),
18–23.
Williams, D. (2000). Notes on measuring recreational place attachment.
Retrieved 16th February, 2016, from http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/
docs/pattach_notes.pdf
Williams, D., & Patterson, M. (1999). Environmental landscape meanings
for ecosystem management. In H. Cordell, & J. Bergstorm (Eds.), Inte-
grating social sciences and ecosystem management: Human dimensions
in assessment, policy and management (pp. 141–160). . Champaign, IL:
Sagamore Press.
Williams, D., Patterson, M., & Roggenbuck, J. (1992). Beyond the commod-
ity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place.
Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal,14(1), 29–46. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01490409209513155
Williams, D., & Roggenbuck, J. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some
preliminary results. Paper presented at the NRPA Symposium on Leisure
Research, San Antonio, Texas.
Williams, D., & Vaske, J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment:
Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science,
49, 831–840.
Williams, S., & Allen, A. (2015). Tourism geography. Critical understand-
ing of place, space and experience (3rd ed.). London and New
York: Routledge.
Wynveen, C., Kyle, G., & Sutton, S. (2012). Natural area visitors' place
meaning and place attachment ascribed to a marine setting. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,32(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2012.05.001
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on
customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty.
Tourism Management,31(2), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2009.03.007
How to cite this article: Abou‐Shouk MA, Zoair N, El‐Barbary
MN, Hewedi MM. Sense of place relationship with tourist sat-
isfaction and intentional revisit: Evidence from Egypt. Int J
Tourism Res. 2018;20:172–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2170
ABOU‐SHOUK ET AL.181