The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm

JHTI
6,5 Comparing older and younger
adults’ valuation of friendly
destination attributes: a mixed-
2030 method empirical study
Received 21 April 2022 Chang-Hua Yen
Revised 25 June 2022
12 August 2022 Department of Leisure and Recreation Management,
28 September 2022 National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Taichung, Taiwan
Accepted 29 September 2022
Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur
Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University,
Chiayi, Taiwan, and
Chin-Ying Ho
Department of Finance, National Taichung University of Science and Technology,
Taichung, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – The friendliness of a destination is a key factor influencing tourists’ destination selection. However,
few studies have explored the construct of friendly tourism destinations. The purpose of this study was to
establish a typological framework of friendly tourism destinations and compare older and younger adults’
valuations of friendly destination attributes.
Design/methodology/approach – A mixed-method approach was used; in-depth interviews were
conducted with 18 tourism stakeholders. Content analysis of the collected data was performed to construct
a friendly tourism destination framework.
Findings – The framework consisted of 37 categories, which were classified into six themes: transportation
and infrastructure, friendly tourism environments, government policies and tourism promotion measures,
tourism products and activities, tourism information services and friendly residents. Furthermore, survey data
from 1,153 respondents in Taiwan revealed that older adults valued friendly tourism environments and
friendly residents more highly than younger adults did.
Research limitations/implications – The participants were all from Taiwan; therefore, the results might
not be applicable to tourists in other countries or regions. Furthermore, this study only compared the valuations
of older and younger adults for the attributes of friendly tourism destinations.
Practical implications – Friendly tourism destination categories can provide a reference for tourists when
making travel decisions. The framework provides destination marketers with a new tool for managing friendly
tourism destinations. The findings can act as a reference for travel suppliers seeking to improve tourism-
friendly services.
Originality/value – This study introduced a multifaceted framework for developing friendly tourism
destinations from a holistic perspective. The results contribute to the tourism literature, revealing that younger
and older adults have different valuations for the attributes of friendly tourism destinations.
Keywords Destination, Friendliness, Qualitative interview, Content analysis, Mixed method
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The friendliness of a destination is typically a factor considered by tourists when making
decisions (Azali et al., 2021; Han et al., 2019). Anuar et al. (2012) defined a friendly tourism
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights destination as one that meets the needs and expectations of tourists without difficulty by
Vol. 6 No. 5, 2023
pp. 2030-2051
integrating and optimizing the use of space, activities and products. Numerous destinations
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
rely on friendly services to appeal to tourists; for example, countries such as Australia,
DOI 10.1108/JHTI-04-2022-0149 Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong (Crotti and Misrahi, 2017) have introduced friendly
services and successfully attracted tourists to their destinations. Destinations that provide Valuation of
tourist-friendly environments and services can increase the value perception (Al-Ansi and friendly
Han, 2019), satisfaction (Abd Jalil et al., 2013; Cruz-Mil
an, 2021) and behavioral intentions
(Azali et al., 2021; Ho et al., 2022) of tourists. Therefore, developing a framework for friendly
destination
tourism destinations is critical for management and marketing. attributes
The construct of a visitor-friendly environment was first introduced by Kotler et al. (1993).
Scholars have since applied this concept to different disciplines to explore eco-friendly
(Ahmad et al., 2020), Muslim-friendly (Azali et al., 2021; Han et al., 2019), senior-friendly (Lee 2031
and King, 2019) and dementia-friendly destinations (Connell and Page, 2019). For example,
Han et al. (2019) determined five major attributes of Muslim-friendly destinations: Muslim-
friendly social environments, facilities, food and beverages, services and locals and staff. Lee
and King (2019) developed a hierarchical framework characterizing the attractiveness of
senior-friendly destinations; the framework had four dimensions: tourism resources,
accessibility, amenities and complimentary services. However, these studies explored the
friendly attributes of destinations with specific targeted segments (e.g. Muslim and senior
tourists). These measures and attributes are context specific, and the frameworks developed
in these studies are thus not applicable to general tourists. A research gap is evident in the
academic understanding of the notion of friendly tourism destinations.
Anuar et al. (2015) employed three tourism system elements, namely, activity, product and
space, to explore the attributes of friendly tourism destinations in city tourism. Tourism
systems comprise two main components, namely, tourism objects (e.g. private and public
businesses, organizations and resources) and tourism subjects (e.g. tourists and locals;
Bausch et al., 2021), both of which involve key tourism stakeholders (Goeldner and Ritchie,
2009). In terms of tourism destinations, the three elements used in Anuar et al. (2015; i.e.
activity, product and space) cannot comprehensively encompass the entire tourism system.
Furthermore, owing to the numerous types of destinations (e.g. cultural, historical and
natural destinations), the attributes of each friendly tourism destination may differ.
Moreover, the constructs and dimensions proposed in Anuar et al. (2015) were produced
through a literature review and were not rigorously conceptualized; thus, their tourist-
friendly destination framework has limited applicability. The identification of attributes and
components must be conducted through a rigorous qualitative research process (e.g. in-depth
interview and content analysis).
Different age cohorts have unique characteristics, consumer values, attitudes and
behavior models (Shulga et al., 2018). Cohen et al. (2014) proposed that tourists of different age
cohorts demonstrate different tourism consumption behaviors. The senior tourism segment
will be one of the greatest markets for international travel companies in the future (Otoo et al.,
2020). Lee and King (2019) reported that the essential components of attractive senior-friendly
destinations are barrier-free public transportation and accommodation facilities, a variety of
public transport and accommodation options and customized travel routes. These
components are mainly related to accommodation, public transportation systems and
travel routes. Moreover, younger adults (e.g. Generation Y) have become the key consumer
group in the tourism market and account for the main source of tourists (Pendergast, 2010).
Therefore, understanding the tourism demands and behaviors of younger adults is the
cornerstone of successful tourism marketing (Cohen et al., 2014). Research on older and
younger adults for tourism is crucial to attract this market and will promote the development
of destinations that meet their needs and desires. However, whether older and younger adults
have different concerns about friendly destination attributes remains uncertain and has yet
to be investigated in the literature.
Accordingly, the following research questions were proposed: What is the concept or
content of a friendly tourism destination, and which aspects are included in that content? Do
tourists of different age cohorts have varying concerns about friendly destination attributes?
JHTI The purpose of this study was to adopt a social constructionist perspective to develop a
6,5 typological framework of friendly tourism destinations that is applicable to general tourists
and general destinations. Furthermore, this research compares older and younger adults’
concerns about friendly destination attributes. This study makes the following contributions.
First, the framework of tourist-friendly destinations developed by Anuar et al. (2015) may not
be sufficiently comprehensive to encompass all aspects of a friendly tourism destination. By
contrast, this study adopted social constructionism and explored different tourism
2032 stakeholders from a holistic perspective to develop a multifaceted and generalizable
typological framework of friendly tourism destinations.
Second, the results constitute a key theoretical foundation for empirical studies on friendly
tourism destinations. The friendly tourism destination framework in this study can be used
by future researchers to develop scales for subsequent empirical research. Third, this study
expanded on the results of Lee and King (2019) and revealed that tourists of different age
cohorts have varying concerns about friendly destination attributions. Therefore, the
proposed friendly tourism destination attributes and framework are applicable to general
tourists and general destinations. The findings can also be used for practical applications in
tourism management by understanding tourist perceptions of destination friendliness and
further serve as a basis for managers to improve destination friendliness.
To achieve these purposes, the study is structured as follows. First, the friendliness and
friendly tourism destination literature are reviewed. Second, qualitative research was
conducted to construct a typological framework of friendly tourism destinations. Third,
quantitative research was employed to compare older and younger adults’ concerns about
friendly destination attributes. Finally, this study presents the conclusions, theoretical and
managerial implications.

Literature review
This section discusses the relevant literature on friendly tourism destinations and friendly
destination attributes. In terms of friendly tourism destinations, the concept of friendliness
and the literature related to friendly destinations are first reviewed, which provides a
theoretical basis for the conceptualization of the construct of a friendly tourism destination.
The literature related to the friendly attributes of tourism destinations is then reviewed to
determine the components involved in friendly tourism destinations.

Friendly tourism destinations

In social psychology, friendliness is a dispositional tendency or attitude expressed through
interpersonal behaviors (Reisman, 1983). Friendliness is generally conveyed by behavior
such as smiling, greeting, rewarding, sharing and cooperation (Reisman, 1984). Friendliness
refers to the degree of likability, trust and goodwill that an individual exhibits (Percival and
Pulford, 2020). In the service sector, friendliness refers to warmth and the personal
approachability of service staff, including cheerful attitudes and the ability to make
customers feel welcome (Liu et al., 2016). Reisman (1983) considered friendliness to consist of
four components, namely, self-concept, accessibility, rewardingness and alienation and
constructed the 40-item SACRAL scale to measure the concept of friendliness. Self-concept is
a person’s beliefs about the self in relation to peers; accessibility refers to behaviors of
attention and respect; rewardingness refers to providing tangible rewards (e.g. money or
compliments); and alienation refers to personal beliefs about acceptance by people or places.
Friendliness is an attribute of tourism destinations (Fallon and Schofield, 2006). Scholars
have also indicated that friendliness is a key indicator of destination competitiveness and
attractiveness (Chau and Yan, 2021; Reisinger et al., 2019), such as the friendliness of
residents and locals and community attitudes toward tourists. Chau and Yan (2021) Valuation of
developed destination hospitality indicators by incorporating a number of indicators related friendly
to hospitable behavior, such as the friendliness of immigration officers, public transportation
staff, tour guides and residents. According to these studies, friendliness is an indicator or
destination
dimension of a construct related to destinations. However, the friendliness of a destination is attributes
rarely regarded as a multi-dimensional construct (Lee and King, 2019).
Anuar et al. (2012) conceptualized the friendliness of a destination using the tourism
system approach. Anuar et al. (2015) asserted that a friendly tourism destination is a 2033
framework formed by space, activities and products. Activities include culture and history,
entertainment and special events (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003); products refers to the physical
characteristics of products created in a destination as well as services, hospitality and
freedom of choice (Smith, 1994; Badu-Baiden et al., 2022); space refers to the facilities and
buildings, accessibility, location, security, cost and value (Anuar et al., 2012). However, the
framework of tourist-friendly destinations developed by Anuar et al. (2015) has a
methodological weakness, namely, that it is based on a literature review instead of a more
rigorous process of qualitative research (e.g. in-depth interviews, content analysis and
triangulation). Furthermore, the attributes of friendly tourism destinations include locals and
government policies (Chau and Yan, 2021). Therefore, the tourist-friendly destination
framework developed by Anuar et al. (2015) is flawed.
Chau and Yan (2021) introduced three dimensions of hospitality: hospitable behaviors,
infrastructure and hardware and atmosphere and ambience. Hospitality is hosts showing
concern for the well-being of their guests. Hospitable hosts make guests feel welcome by
displaying generosity and a desire to please and respect them (Lashley, 2008). The
destination hospitality indicators established by Chau and Yan (2021) are based on both
commercial and social hospitality; however, government policies and measures were not
considered (Ghani, 2016). In other words, the destination hospitality indicators developed by
Chau and Yan (2021) may be insufficient to effectively assess the friendliness of a destination.
Contrasting with the classification framework of Anuar et al. (2015) and with the
destination hospitality constructs of Chau and Yan (2021), friendly tourism destinations were
conceptualized in this study by referring to the fundamental concept of friendliness in social
psychology. Reisman’s (1983) definition of friendliness and its four components (i.e. self-
concept, accessibility, rewardingness and alienation) were adopted and applied to the context
of destinations. Friendly tourism destinations were defined as “tourist perceptions of a
destination as being easily accessible and rewarding and enabling them to feel respected and
welcome.”

Friendly destination attributes

For general destinations, components used to create friendly attributes include
infrastructure, tourism environments, tourism policies and measures, tourism products,
tourism information services and local residents. In terms of infrastructure, the
comprehensiveness of public facilities and infrastructure is fundamental to the
development of destinations (Fern
andez et al., 2020). Lee and King (2019) noted that these
two factors are the foundation of a friendly destination. Regarding the tourism environment,
the development of an accessible and barrier-free environment is vital for contemporary
tourism (Lee and King, 2019). Tourism certification is implemented by governments to create
a friendly environment for tourism services amenable to specific groups (Katuk et al., 2020).
The scope of this certification comprises shopping, accommodation, catering, tourism and
recreation. Regarding tourism policies and measures, numerous countries have introduced
tourism incentives for foreign tourists, such as tax-free shopping, accommodation rewards
and travel subsidies. Visa waivers and visas on arrival can help tourists avoid complex visa
JHTI application procedures and thereby save time at customs clearance. These visa-related
6,5 policies increase the accessibility of a destination (Song et al., 2017).
Regarding tourism products, Anuar et al. (2012) stated that a destination can provide
tourists with unique experiences if it provides a diverse range of local, in-depth and signature
tourism products. Numerous companies tailor travel booking platforms, apps and real-time
information services to provide themed products and travel packages for tourists to
customize their itineraries. In terms of tourism information services, travel information is
2034 readily available through mobile apps, websites and cloud technologies (Chuang, 2020).
Furthermore, tourism consulting services are critical in tourism systems (Ruhanen et al.,
2021). Well-trained service personnel are necessary for a destination to be viewed as friendly
(Han et al., 2019). The friendliness of local residents is a key factor influencing tourists’
experience and perception (Uner et al., 2022). Friendly interactions with local residents can
help tourists experience the local culture and gain memorable experiences. Moreover,
inclusiveness and cultural acceptance from local residents toward foreign tourists can make
tourists feel respected and welcomed (Popova et al., 2020).

Methodology
This study adopted a mixed-method approach, which comprised a two-stage research
process. In the first stage, a qualitative approach was employed to perform a literature review,
in-depth interviews and content analysis to identify the attributes of friendly tourism
destinations and to establish a typological framework for such destinations. In the second
stage, the identified attributes and typological framework were used for quantitative analysis
to identify the differences in concerns regarding friendly destinations between older and
young adults.

Qualitative research
Sample and data collection
This study adopted a constructivist paradigm to explore the construct of friendly tourism
destinations. Social construction theory advocates a subject’s construction of reality through
interactivity and emphasizes the interactive process of social practice (Gergen, 2009). Key
destination components include tourists, residents, governments and tourism-related
operators and suppliers (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2009). The successful development of a
destination involves tourism stakeholders’ interactions with and perceptions of the
destination (Mathew and Nimmi, 2021; Saraniemi and Komppula, 2019). Therefore, a multi-
stakeholder perspective is crucial for obtaining comprehensive information on the local
attributes of friendly tourism destinations. In-depth interviews were conducted with different
tourism stakeholders. To ensure that the participants provide a sufficient amount of
information through the interviews, the inclusion criteria were that they were required to be
(1) destination managers, travel agency managers, or travel suppliers with ten or more years
of work experience in the tourism field; (2) tourists who had traveled abroad twice or more
within the five years before the COVID-19 pandemic; or (3) local residents who had lived in a
friendly tourism destination for more than five years and had experience with foreigners.
Since this study adopted a qualitative approach, the sample size for in-depth interviews
was decided on the basis of data saturation (Patton, 2002). When interviewing the 16th, 17th
and 18th participants, little to no new opinions or information on friendly tourism
destinations were noted, demonstrating that the research data had reached saturation.
Therefore, the interview with the 18th participant was the final interview conducted. The 18
stakeholders were three destination managers, three travel agency managers, four travel
suppliers (managers of restaurants, hotels, tourist attractions and transportation companies),
four tourists and four residents. Table 1 displays the demographic information of the 18 Valuation of
interviewees (10 female, 8 male), aged between 25 and 62 years (average age 5 47 years) and friendly
with 18–39 years of work experience (average 5 27.9 years).
To ensure the smoothness of the interview process, an interview protocol containing a
destination
collection of questions was produced to facilitate a flexible interview. The protocol began attributes
with an explanation of friendly tourism destinations, followed by a list of questions to be
asked during the interview. For example, tourists were asked the following questions: Have
you ever visited a destination that made you feel accepted or welcome? Have you ever visited 2035
a specific tourism destination that made you feel respected or felt courteous to you? Have you
ever used tourism subsidies or received physical rewards provided by the local government
of a tourism destination? If yes, participants were asked to specify the details. The in-depth
interviews occurred face-to-face from November 2020 to January 2021. On average, each
interviewee was interviewed for 50 min. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed;
approximately 78 pages of textual records were obtained.

Data analysis
The transcribed data were analyzed and organized using content analysis (Stepchenkova,
2012). First, two authors of this study highly experienced in content analysis independently
conducted item selection. Specifically, the authors analyzed the interviewees’ descriptions of
the attributes of a “friendly tourism destination” and, accordingly, determined the basic units
of analysis. After selection was completed, both authors discussed the selected items. Finally,
100 percent consensus was achieved for 337 items. Second, one of the three authors classified
all items into meaningful and explainable categories. All items could only be associated with a
single friendly tourism destination category. The author thus classified 337 items into 37

Code Job Types of tourism

name Gender Age tenure Title stakeholders

P1 Male 60 years 35 years Director of tri-mountain national Destination manager

scenic area
P2 Female 56 years 28 years Section chief of tourism bureau, Destination manager
Taiwan
P3 Male 51 years 25 years Division chief of tourism and travel Destination manager
bureau, Taichung city
P4 Female 62 years 39 years General manager Travel agency
manager
P5 Male 59 years 35 years General manager Travel agency
manager
P6 Male 42 years 22 years Sales manager Travel agency
manager
P7 Female 43 years 24 years Restaurant manager Travel supplier
P8 Female 41 years 20 years Hotel manager Travel supplier
P9 Male 52 years 33 years Transportation manager Travel supplier
P10 Female 45 years 18 years Theme park manager Travel supplier
P11 Female 58 years – – Tourist
P12 Male 57 years – – Tourist
P13 Male 25 years – – Tourist
P14 Female 32 years – – Tourist
P15 Female 35 years – – Resident
P16 Male 48 years – – Resident Table 1.
P17 Female 28 years – – Resident Demographics of the
P18 Female 53 years – – Resident interviewees
JHTI categories. Next, 37 categories with similar characteristics or properties were further
6,5 classified into six higher-order themes. The interrater reliability of the two classification
processes by two authors was greater than the standard of 0.8 (Krippendorff, 2018),
indicating that the classification results exhibited favorable reliability.
Two authors extensively discussed the results and naming of themes. These themes were
transportation and infrastructure, friendly tourism environment, government policies and
tourism promotion measures, tourism products and activities, tourism information services
2036 and friendly residents. Transportation and infrastructure refer to the convenience of public
transport at a tourism destination and the comprehensiveness of its infrastructure. Friendly
tourism environment refers to the development of an environment that is friendly throughout
the destination, the promotion of accessible tourism and a certification of friendly tourism.
Government policies and tourism promotion measures refer to tourism deals, rewards and
visa waivers introduced by governments, as well as the active promotion of easy customs
clearance and safe tourism certifications. Tourism products and activities refer to the diverse
range of convenient booking platforms and payment methods available at a destination and
the provision of diverse tourism products, travel packages, or itineraries. Tourism
information services refer to the comprehensive range of tourism information and
consulting services available in multiple languages at a destination, the competency of
trained service personnel and the absence of communication barriers. Friendly residents refer
to locals at a tourism destination who are friendly and hospitable and exhibit a high level of
cultural acceptance and inclusiveness toward tourists.
Finally, triangulation was adopted to test the validity of the results. Three destination
managers jointly reviewed the data and subsequently performed triangulation on the 37
categories and the sic themes (Krippendorff, 2018). The triangulation results verified that the 37
friendly tourism destination categories were adequately classified in their respective themes.
Table 2 summarizes examples of thematic analysis units of friendly tourism destinations.

Friendly tourism destination framework

Figure 1 presents the social construction of friendly tourism destinations. The study
maintains that the social construction of friendly tourism destinations includes three key
elements. The first element emphasizes the social interactions of the destination between
tourists and other subjects. The subjects refer to destination managers, travel agency
managers, travel suppliers, tourists and residents. The second element involves the themes of
friendly tourism destinations. The third element involves the categories of friendly tourism
destinations. The frequency of the items in the six themes and the 37 categories of friendly
tourism destinations are expressed in parentheses. Higher frequencies indicate that an
attribute of friendly tourism destinations relating to a specific theme and category was more
frequently mentioned by interviewees.

Quantitative research
Sample and data collection
To determine the differences in the valued attributes of friendly tourism destinations between
tourists of different age cohorts, a questionnaire based on the 37 friendly tourism destination
categories was devised. The 37 friendly tourism destination attributes were converted into
questionnaire items. The respondents were required to respond to each item on the basis of
their tourism experience and to assess the importance of each attribute. Respondents scored
the importance of the proposed attributes on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not very important)
to 5 (very important). Subsequently, eight experts were invited to assess the expert validity of
the questionnaire content. The expert panel comprised six tourism stakeholders (i.e.
Category Thematic analysis units
Valuation of
friendly
1. Transportation and infrastructure destination
1.1. Availability of well-equipped public I think public facilities and infrastructure in Switzerland are
facilities and infrastructure quite tourist-friendly. For example, the platform gaps in attributes
train stations are very small, and ramps leading to
platforms are designed to help travelers move their luggage.
(P13) 2037
1.2. Provision of a convenient public transport The JR Shinkansen in Japan is quite well planned for
system travelers, and provides access to any place in Japan. For me,
[a convenient public transport system makes the
destination] more friendly. (P12)
1.3. Provision of safe amenities and services The safety of amenities at a destination is extremely
important. Potentially dangerous facilities must have safety
warning signs for tourists. (P10)
1.4. Provision of real-time travel information I think Japan is a visitor-friendly place. To use local
transportation, you can download transportation apps that
provide different transportation information in real-time,
which makes traveling in Japan particularly easy. (P4)
1.5. Provision of different public transportation When I visited Europe, I chose to travel on trains. I
ticket packages purchased a 7-day and 10-day pass that lets you travel as
many times as you want in the designated number of days.
It was very convenient. (P5)
1.6. Provision of well-designed shuttle services I think the shuttle services in Singapore are very
comprehensive. In addition to the Mass Rapid Transit, hotel
shuttle busses are also available. (P8)
1.7. Provision of convenient car rental services Traveling in Taiwan is very convenient. Bike-sharing
services (e.g. YouBike or iBike) are available in the various
self-service bike stations of major cities. Renting a bike is
easy and the service content is comprehensive. (P15)
1.8. Provision of convenient parking services When I was traveling by car in Japan, I used a very useful
parking lot navigation system. I was able to get parking
information whenever I needed it. (P13)
2. Friendly tourism environment
2.1. Clearly visible and easy-to-understand I think a friendly destination must have clear and easy-to-
travel signs understand travel signs. For example, graphical road signs
are used in Japan and Australia for routes and directions.
(P2)
2.2. Low travel safety and security risks I think some countries have serious safety problems. You
have to keep an eye on your wallet and personal belongings
all the time and worry about pickpockets or thieves. I think
[safety problems] make a destination unfriendly. (P12)
2.3. Provision of barrier-free facilities and I think hotels in Japan have excellent barrier-free facilities in
services elevators, rooms, and bathrooms. Barrier-free features are
the most important part of a friendly facility. (P8)
2.4. Provision of a clean and hygienic tourism The hygiene and environment in many Southeast Asian
environment countries requires improvement. I once visited a very
famous floating market, but there were flies everywhere. I’ll
never visit that place again. (P14)
2.5. Promotion of special tourism certifications Many countries are creating a Muslim-friendly environment
for this huge tourism market, particularly in the areas of Table 2.
food and accommodations. [Halal certification] is the most Examples of thematic
important measure of a Muslim-friendly destination. (P1) analysis units of
friendly tourism
(continued ) destination
JHTI Category Thematic analysis units
6,5
2.6. Provision of free, convenient Wi-Fi services When I traveled in Vienna, Austria where free, convenient
Wi-Fi services were provided almost everywhere. I thought
it was a welcoming gesture for foreign tourists. (P18)
3. Government policies and tourism promotion measures
2038 3.1. Local governments offer tourism deals or When I went on vacation in Aomori, Japan, the local
rewards government launched a tourism reward campaign
providing a subsidy of U10,000 for a two-night stay in
Aomori. I think tangible rewards offered by local
governments are an effective and friendly way of attracting
tourists. (P5)
3.2. Local governments strive to improve I think government agencies play a critical role in tourism
tourism quality development. For example, the government of Singapore
aggressively promotes tourism by improving the service
quality of tourism companies. (P2)
3.3. Local laws stipulating that signs must be I think a destination manager should post clearly visible
clearly visible and easy to understand signs informing visitors of local laws and regulations. For
example, the Singaporean government posts graphic signs
in Mass Rapid Transit stations and public toilets informing
tourists of illegal behaviors. (P1)
3.4. Local governments provide visa waivers Many countries offer visa exemption programs [for
Taiwan], like Japan and Thailand. If I wanted to leave
tomorrow, I could start packing today without needing to
wait for my visa to get approval; it’s very convenient. (P1)
3.5. Fast customs clearance at the airport Airports in many countries are using fast-track customs
clearance systems. [Passengers] can use electronic customs
clearance gates or facial recognition systems to clear
customs quickly and conveniently. I think this measure is
very friendly. (P2)
3.6. Provision of safe tourism certifications I think Japan is a safe place to travel. Over the past few
years, when I visited Japan, I have always preferred and felt
more comfortable dining at restaurants and staying in
hotels that are certified by Japan Quality. I think that’s very
friendly for foreign tourists. (P3)
3.7. Lower exchange rates at the tourism Japan has been my favorite place to visit in the past few
destination years because of the depreciated Japanese currency. I can
now buy more souvenirs from Japan at such low prices. (P9)
4. Tourism products and activities
4.1. Provision of different tourism product I think services rendered by business owners at a
options destination are considered friendly if those businesses can
provide tourists with different product options that match
the attributes and needs of the tourists. (P14)
4.2. Provision of reliable tourism products I’m at ease when I travel in Japan [because] the Japanese
government imposes very strict requirement on businesses.
I think the products sold in Japan are all very reliable and of
good quality. (P14)
4.3. Provision of convenient travel booking When I was traveling in Austria, Germany, and the Czech
platforms Republic, I booked my train tickets, bus tickets, and one-day
passes on an online booking platform. [The platform] was
very convenient. (P11)

Table 2. (continued )
Category Thematic analysis units
Valuation of
friendly
4.4. Provision of all-inclusive travel packages During a trip in Austria where we stayed in Salzburg for destination
and itineraries 2 days, we bought the 48-h Salzburg Card. This is a friendly
measure for foreign tourists. (P11) attributes
4.5. Provision of local festivals and cultural I wanted to personally experience the Thailand Water
experience activities Festival so I went to Thailand. [I was] able to personally
celebrate the festival with the locals. [Participation] was an 2039
unforgettable experience. (P13)
4.6. Provision of comprehensive reception Hawaii is a place of passion. Everyone was very hospitable,
services greeting me with “Aloha” and fresh flower lei, and they
chatted with me. I felt very welcomed. (P6)
4.7. Provision of different convenient payment I think traveling in mainland China is convenient. I never
methods had to bring my wallet; I could just pay with my phone. I
could even donate money to Chinese temples by scanning a
QR code. (P12)
5. Tourism information services
5.1. Easy access to tourism information I think tourism information is easy to access when traveling
in Japan. Information can all be found on Japanese tourism
websites and apps. [Information access] is really
convenient. (P4)
5.2. Provision of comprehensive tourism The Japan National Tourism Organization has over 1,000
consulting services tourist information centers throughout Japan from
Hokkaido to Okinawa. The centers provide the most
comprehensive tourism information and consulting
services in Japan. (P1)
5.3. Provision of tourism information and The Singapore Tourism Board built the Yoursingapore
services in multiple languages website in 12 different languages. There’s a very complete
range of information. (P3)
5.4. Absence of communication barriers I like to travel independently. When choosing destinations, I
will first consider whether there are any communication
barriers. If I can communicate in my native language, I feel
more at ease during the trip, and [I] also feel [that the
destination] is friendlier. (P7)
5.5. Availability of well-trained service I’ve been taking group tours to South Korea for the past few
personnel years. As soon as we boarded the tour bus at the airport,
there was a local tour guide with a professional travel guide.
[The travel guide] helped take photos, serve food in
restaurants, and take roll call. I think the service was perfect
and it made me feel welcome. (P3)
6. Friendly residents
6.1. Inclusiveness Japanese people are cultured and educated. I feel like there
are 120 million people serving us wherever we go and
helping us with our problems. I think Japanese people are
really inclusive of foreign tourists. (P16)
6.2. Cultural acceptance Taiwanese people are very accepting of foreign cultures—
particularly European, American, and Japanese cultures. In
general, Taiwanese people can accept foreign cultures and
foreign tourists as well. (P17)

(continued ) Table 2.
JHTI Category Thematic analysis units
6,5
6.3. Hospitality During a trip in Italy, were not familiar with the area so we
asked a local for directions to the Uffizi Gallery. [The local]
first checked Google maps and then gave us directions, then
kindly took us there in person while telling us about local
attractions and food. It made me feel that Italians are very
2040 hospitable. (P18)
6.4. Friendliness During a trip to Hokkaido, the owner of a souvenir store
immediately greeted us in Chinese as soon as he realized we
were tourists from Taiwan. He welcomed us warmly and
even said that Taiwanese tourists can get a “buy two get
one free” deal. I think Japanese people are very friendly to
Table 2. Taiwanese tourists. (P17)

managers of tourism destinations, travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, transportation and

tourism attractions) and two researchers specializing in the tourism field. The experts did not
participate in the in-depth interview and data analysis process. Through expert validity
evaluation, the fitness of the questionnaire content and item wording were determined.
With the change in the global population structure, older adults are expected to become
the largest consumer group in the global tourism market (Otoo et al., 2020). Additionally,
young adults are expected to become another key consumer group in the tourism market.
Young adults have unique motivations, values and attitudes that differ from those of older
adults (Rita et al., 2019). To effectively attract both consumer groups, tourism operators must
understand the tourism demands and behaviors of each group. Purposive sampling is
valuable when researchers “select a sample on the basis of knowledge of a population, its
elements and the purpose.” (Babbie, 2008, p. 204) In this study, the questionnaire was
administered to older adults (58–75 years old) and younger adults (24–35 years old) (Gursoy
et al., 2013; Volk et al., 2021). The participants were allocated to the older or younger adult
groups on the basis of specific requirements. Therefore, this study used purposive sampling
to screen participants on the basis of age. The technique was used to recruit participants from
Taipei City, Kaohsiung City and Taichung City at train stations, neighborhood parks and
community centers. On-site questionnaire surveys were conducted at locations with high
population density, and 200 questionnaires were distributed to each age cohort in each city.
From October to December, 2021, 1,200 questionnaires were distributed and 1,185 were
retrieved. After excluding 32 invalid questionnaires, 1,153 questionnaires remained; the
questionnaires received from older and younger adults numbered 583 and 570, respectively.
As presented in Table 3, 299 (51.3 percent) of the 583 older adults were women. Most had
an educational level of high school or lower (43.5 percent), 515 were married (88.3 percent) and
141 were military personnel, government employees, or teachers (24.2 percent). Of the older
adults, most received a monthly income of between US$721 and US$1,080 (24.2 percent). Of
the 570 younger adults, 287 were women (50.4 percent). Most had an education level of college
or higher (57.8 percent), 369 were married (64.7 percent) and 207 worked in the service
industry (36.3 percent). Most younger adults received a monthly income of between US$1,081
and US$1,440 (34.5 percent).

Different concerns between older and younger adults

Table 4 presents the mean score and standard deviation for each friendly tourism destination
indicator. The mean scores for the provision of a convenient public transport system, the
provision of safe amenities and services, clearly visible and easy-to-understand travel signs,
 The subject of the The themes of friendly The categories of friendly
Valuation of
social construction tourism destination tourism destination
friendly
destination
attributes
˙ Availability of well-equipped public facilities and
Tourism infrastructure (20)
2041
Transportation ˙ Provision of a convenient public transport system
stakeholders and infrastructure (24)
˙ Provision of safe amenities and services (7)
(85, 25.22 ˙ Provision of real-time travel information (6)
˙ Destination percent) ˙ Provision of different public transport ticket packages (5)
˙ Provision of well-designed shuttle services (11)
managers ˙ Provision of convenient car rental services (6)

˙ Travel agency ˙ Clearly visible and easy-to-understand travel signs (7)

Friendly tourism ˙ Low travel safety and security risks (7)
managers ˙ Provision of barrier-free facilities and services (5)
environment ˙ Provision of a clean and hygienic tourism environment
(33, 9.79 percent) (5)
˙ Travel ˙ Promotion of special tourism certifications (4)
suppliers ii ff i i i i ( )

Government ˙ Local governments offer tourism deals or rewards

˙ Tourists (10)
policies and ˙ Local governments strive to enhance tourism quality
tourism (9)
promotion ˙ Local laws stipulate that signs must be clearly visible
˙ Local measures (48, and easy to understand (5)
. ˙ Local governments provides visa waivers (6)
residents 14.24 percent) ˙ Fast customs clearance at the airport (8)

˙ Provision of different tourism product options (6)

˙ Provision of reliable tourism products (8)
Tourism ˙ Provision of convenient travel booking platforms (5)
products and ˙ Provision of all-inclusive travel packages and
activities (66, itineraries (10)
˙ Provision of local festival and cultural experience
19.58 percent) activities (14)
˙ Provision of comprehensive reception services (16)
ii f diff i h d

˙ Easy access to tourism information (17)

Tourism ˙ Provision of comprehensive tourism consulting services (14)
information ˙ Provision of tourism information and services in
services (54, multiple languages (10)
˙ Absence of communication barriers (8)
16.05 percent) ˙ Availability of well-trained service personnel (5)

Friendly ˙ Inclusiveness (7)

˙ Cultural acceptance (6)
residents (51, ˙ Hospitality (18)
15.13 percent) Figure 1.
˙ Friendliness (20)
The social construction
of friendly tourism
destination
Note(s): The frequencies and percentages of the items are expressed in parentheses

low travel safety and security risks and the provision of a clean and hygienic tourism
environment exceeded 4.5, indicating that both older and younger adults perceived these five
indicators to have greater importance. These indicators are related to transportation facilities,
infrastructure and friendly tourism environments; all are categorized as space characteristics
(Anuar et al., 2012). Lee and King (2019) maintained that constructing comprehensive
transportation facilities, infrastructure, the provision of safe amenities and services and a
clean and hygienic tourism environment are essential components of a friendly tourism
JHTI Older adults Younger adults
6,5 Variable N Percent N Percent

Gender
Male 284 48.7 283 49.6
Female 299 51.3 287 50.4

2042 Education level

Senior/business high school and below 256 43.9 48 8.4
College 147 25.2 77 13.5
University 115 19.8 329 57.8
Graduate school and above 65 11.1 116 20.3
Marital status
Single 68 11.7 369 64.7
Married 515 88.3 201 35.3
Occupation
Faculty/teacher 141 24.2 85 14.9
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and animal husbandry 99 17.0 10 1.8
Industry/Commerce 130 22.3 194 34.0
Service worker 92 15.8 207 36.3
Retiree 49 8.4 - -
Housekeeper 51 8.7 38 6.7
Others 21 3.6 36 6.3
Personal monthly income
US$ 720 and below 100 17.2 42 7.4
US$ 721–1,080 141 24.2 77 13.5
US$ 1,081–1,440 129 22.1 197 34.5
US$ 1,441–1,800 91 15.6 114 20.0
Table 3. US$ 1,801–2,160 49 8.4 86 15.1
Demographic US$ 2,161–2,520 22 3.8 25 4.4
characteristic profile of US$ 2,521–2,880 21 3.6 16 2.8
respondents US$ 2,881 and above 30 5.1 13 2.3

destination. Han et al. (2019) reported that a safe and clean social environment is an essential
component of Muslim-friendly destinations. In summary, both younger and older adults
perceived the aforementioned basic and essential indicators as key attributes of friendly
tourism destinations.
Subsequently, multivariate analyses of variance were employed to detect differences in
the highly-valued friendly destination attributes for older and younger adults. The analyses
results revealed that the main effects for older and younger adults were significantly different
(Wilks’ λ 5 0.977, F(6, 1,146) 5 2.395, p < 0.05). Additionally, the between-subjects effects
among older and younger adults for friendly tourism environments (F(1, 1,151) 5 4.127,
p < 0.05) and friendly residents (F(1, 1,151) 5 3.873, p < 0.05) were significantly different,
indicating that older adults value these two attributes more than younger adults. However, no
significant differences were observed between the friendly destination concerns of older and
younger adults for transportation and infrastructure (F(1, 1,151) 5 0.018, p > 0.05),
government policies and tourism promotion measures (F(1, 1,151) 5 2.865, p > 0.05), tourism
products and activities (F(1, 1,151) 5 1.654, p > 0.05) and tourism information services (F(1,
1,151) 5 0.089, >0.05).
Subsequently, t-test analysis was used to determine differences in the valuation of the
attributes of friendly tourism destinations for older and younger adults. Table 4 indicates
that the provision of real-time travel information (t 5 1.983, p < 0.05), provision of
 Younger
Valuation of
Older adults adults friendly
Indicators Mean SD Mean SD t-value p-value destination
Transportation and infrastructure 4.38 0.53 4.37 0.54 0.134 0.894 attributes
Availability of well-equipped public facilities and 4.48 0.66 4.41 0.81 1.228 0.220
infrastructure
Provision of a convenient public transport system 4.53 0.61 4.51 0.72 0.300 0.764 2043
Provision of safe amenities and services 4.64 0.57 4.64 0.62 0.043 0.965
Provision of real-time travel information 4.32 0.68 4.44 0.69 1.983 0.046
Provision of different public transport ticket packages 4.15 0.78 4.12 0.82 0.499 0.618
Provision of well-designed shuttle services 4.39 0.66 4.35 0.73 0.863 0.388
Provision of convenient car rental services 4.04 0.78 4.17 0.78 2.027 0.039
Provision of convenient parking services 4.34 0.76 4.33 0.81 0.160 0.873
Friendly tourism environment 4.38 0.54 4.30 0.58 2.032 0.047
Clearly visible and easy-to-understand travel signs 4.52 0.63 4.53 0.69 0.239 0.811
Low travel safety and security risks 4.57 0.62 4.57 0.71 0.055 0.956
Provision of barrier-free facilities and services 4.30 0.73 4.15 0.84 2.302 0.022
Provision of a clean and hygienic tourism environment 4.59 0.55 4.58 0.62 0.294 0.769
Promotion of special tourism certifications 4.03 0.88 3.90 0.99 1.745 0.081
Provision of free, convenient Wi-Fi services 4.26 0.76 4.02 0.93 3.530 0.000
Government policies and tourism promotion measures 4.27 0.60 4.19 0.64 1.693 0.091
Local governments offer tourism deals or rewards 4.08 0.85 3.94 0.90 1.985 0.047
Local governments strive to enhance tourism quality 4.42 0.69 4.33 0.75 1.516 0.130
Local laws stipulate that signs must be clearly visible 4.35 0.70 4.31 0.81 0.696 0.486
and easy to understand
Local governments provides visa waivers 4.33 0.71 4.32 0.72 0.216 0.829
Fast customs clearance at the airport 4.45 0.72 4.39 0.73 1.163 0.245
Provision of safe tourism certifications 4.35 0.76 4.30 0.81 0.864 0.388
Low exchange rates at the tourism destination 3.92 0.86 3.74 0.96 2.427 0.016
Tourism products and activities 4.06 0.68 3.99 0.66 1.286 0.199
Provision of different tourism product options 4.10 0.78 4.05 0.82 0.900 0.369
Provision of reliable tourism products 4.31 0.72 4.27 0.73 0.681 0.496
Provision of convenient travel booking platforms 4.11 0.82 4.12 0.82 0.181 0.857
Provision of all-inclusive travel packages and itineraries 3.96 0.86 3.72 0.96 3.385 0.001
Provision of local festival and cultural experience 3.92 0.91 3.93 0.90 0.205 0.837
activities
Provision of comprehensive reception services 3.80 0.98 3.58 1.08 2.700 0.007
Provision of different convenient payment methods 4.14 0.78 4.27 0.72 2.011 0.041
Tourism information services 4.36 0.61 4.35 0.63 0.298 0.765
Easy access to tourism information 4.25 0.69 4.39 0.71 2.293 0.023
Provision of comprehensive tourism consulting services 4.36 0.69 4.34 0.73 0.478 0.633
Provision of tourism information and services in 4.36 0.75 4.39 0.73 0.669 0.520
multiple languages
Absence of communication barriers 4.41 0.73 4.35 0.79 0.959 0.338
Availability of well-trained service personnel 4.43 0.67 4.28 0.75 1.766 0.078
Friendly residents 4.28 0.69 4.17 0.76 1.968 0.049
Inclusiveness 4.33 0.73 4.23 0.82 1.552 0.078 Table 4.
Cultural acceptance 4.22 0.79 4.17 0.89 0.670 0.503 Differences between
Hospitality 4.23 0.77 4.03 0.89 2.905 0.004 older adults and
Friendliness 4.37 0.75 4.24 0.80 1.966 0.049 younger adults

convenient car rental services (t 5 2.027, p < 0.05), provision of different convenient
payment methods (t 5 2.011, p < 0.05) and easy access to tourism information (t 5 2.293,
p < 0.05) were perceived to be significantly higher in younger adults than in older adults. This
result may be because younger adults are comfortable with new technology and have a more
JHTI open attitude toward the new products and services offered by corporations (Lissitsa and Kol,
6,5 2016). Additionally, because younger adults are more accustomed to using the internet and
technology to search for information, making mobile payments and using car rental services
to conduct self-guided tours, they are more focused on these indicators.
Moreover, older adults’ perception of the importance of the provision of barrier-free
facilities and services (t 5 2.302, p < 0.05), provision of free and convenient Wi-Fi (t 5 3.530,
p < 0.01), tourism deals or rewards from local governments (t 5 1.985, p < 0.05), low exchange
2044 rates at the tourism destination (t 5 2.427, p < 0.05), provision of all-inclusive travel packages
and itineraries (t 5 3.385, p < 0.01), provision of comprehensive reception services (t 5 2.700,
p < 0.01), hospitality (t 5 2.905, p < 0.01) and friendliness (t 5 1.966, p < 0.05) were
significantly higher than those of younger adults. This may be because older adults have
more difficulty with mobility (Lee, 2016) and a low rate of Internet use. Most older adults did
not have an unlimited phone data plan; therefore, they value barrier-free facilities and free Wi-
Fi hotspots more highly. Given that most older adults are of retirement age, they have more
flexible tourism demands (Bernini and Cracolici, 2015) and higher visiting intentions for
destinations where the local government offers tourism deals or rewards or where the
exchange rate is lower. Most older adults selected all-inclusive travel packages (Lee and King,
2019) and preferred to engage in interpersonal interactions (Sima, 2016). Therefore, older
adults had higher valuations for the provision of all-inclusive travel packages, itineraries and
comprehensive reception services and for hospitable and friendly local residents.

Discussion and conclusions

Conclusions
This study constructed a typological framework of friendly tourism destinations. Novel
categories of friendliness such as government policies and tourism promotion measures,
tourism information services and friendly residents were identified from the in-depth
interviews. These items were mentioned by the destination managers, travel suppliers and
residents and are key themes influencing the friendliness of a destination. Therefore, the
typological framework developed in this study is novel and includes themes and categories
that are distinct from those proposed in previous studies (Anuar et al., 2015; Chau and
Yan, 2021).
The themes of friendly tourism destinations including transportation and infrastructure,
tourism products and activities and a friendly tourism environment were similar to those of
the frameworks developed by Anuar et al. (2015) and Chau and Yan (2021). However, unlike
previous studies, this study introduced three additional themes: government policies and
tourism promotion measures, tourism information services and friendly residents. The
framework in Anuar et al. (2015) included dimensions of activity, product and space. By
contrast, the framework proposed in the present study includes government policies and
tourism promotion measures, tourism information services, tourism products and activities
and friendly residents. These themes encompass a broader scope of friendly tourism
destinations. The dimensions of destination hospitality proposed by Chau and Yan (2021)
were hospitable behavior, infrastructure and hardware and atmosphere and ambience.
Hospitable behavior is similar to the friendly residents theme in this study. The scope of the
friendly residents theme in this study included not only the friendliness and hospitality of
residents but also their cultural acceptance and inclusiveness. Therefore, the scope of the
proposed six friendly tourism destination themes was more comprehensive.
Consistent with the findings of Lee and King (2019), the results of this study indicate that
both younger and older adults highly value the provision of safe amenities and services,
provision of a clean and hygienic tourism environment and easy-to-understand travel signs.
Younger adults were born in the internet generation, and as Kim and Park (2020) reported,
millennials are familiar with smart technology and are accustomed to searching for tourism Valuation of
information on the internet. Therefore, younger adults consider real-time and easy access to friendly
tourism information as well as diverse payment methods as key attributes of friendly tourism
destinations. However, this result differs from that of Lee and King (2019) who reported that
destination
in addition to sharing concerns about accommodation, public transportation and travel attributes
routes with younger adults, older adults were concerned about friendly tourism
environments, government policies and tourism promotion measures, tourism products
and activities and friendly residents. 2045

Theoretical implications
This study made the following contributions to existing knowledge. First, this study contributes
to the tourism literature by presenting an improved conceptualization of a friendly tourism
destination. This study introduced a framework that captures the themes and categories of a
friendly tourism destination and filled a gap in tourism research. The results supplement the
framework of Anuar et al. (2015) from a more comprehensive and holistic perspective. In this
study, the framework was developed based on the perspectives of social construction and
different tourism stakeholders. A novel friendly tourism destination framework was developed
comprising six themes and 37 categories. The establishment of a friendly tourism destination
framework that reflects the opinions of different tourism stakeholders constitutes more
meaningful research than other studies. Furthermore, this study deepened and extended the
understanding of friendly tourism destinations through an empirical mixed-method approach.
The study framed the friendly tourism destination as a multidimensional rather than
unidimensional construct, as has been the case in other studies (e.g. Chau and Yan, 2021;
Reisinger et al., 2019). Furthermore, the results expand on findings from other scholars (e.g.
Anuar et al., 2015; Chau and Yan, 2021) by providing a multifaceted framework of friendly
tourism destinations for general tourists and general destinations. The results provide insights
into the body of knowledge of friendly tourism destinations in the tourism literature.
Second, the themes and attributes of the friendly destinations valued by tourists can be
used as pull-external motivators (Villamediana-Pedrosa et al., 2020) and are crucial to the
development of destinations. Analyzing the multidimensionality of tourists’ perceptions of
friendly tourism destinations contributes to the tourism literature by offering a basis for
empirical research. The study findings offer useful information, which future scholars can
use to develop evaluation models to assess the friendliness of destinations. Tourism scholars
can apply the proposed typological framework and attributes for friendly tourism
destinations to analyze tourists’ perceptions of destinations. Additionally, different types
of destinations may differ in terms of the importance of friendly destination attributes (Azali
et al., 2021; Han et al., 2019). On the basis of the friendly destination framework established in
this study, in the future, scholars can evaluate and compare the differences in the key
differentiating attributes of different types of destinations. Furthermore, the framework
serves as a starting point for further theoretical exploration in future research. The study
results provide a theoretical reference for other tourism scholars seeking to establish a
measurement tool for friendly tourism destinations. The typological framework of friendly
tourism destinations can be used as a theoretical foundation for researchers to further explore
the effects of each component on friendly destinations and to investigate the casual
relationships therein.
Third, Cohen (2014) encouraged scholars to explore the perceptions and behaviors of
younger adults regarding tourism, and this study responded to that call. This study revealed
that although the valuations of friendly tourism destination attributes between younger and
older adults had some similarities, differences were also observed. Among the 37 indicators,
the mean scores of younger adults were significantly greater than those of older adults for
four indicators, whereas the mean scores of older adults were significantly greater than those
JHTI of younger adults for eight indicators. The results indicate that the proposed typological
6,5 framework and attributes can be used to identify the tourism demands of older and younger
adults and their expectations for tourism friendly destinations. This result expands on the
findings of Cohen (2014) and reveals that younger and older adults have different valuations
for the attributes of friendly tourism destinations. The results also expand on the findings of
Lee and King (2019) who revealed that older adults place greater importance than younger
adults on friendly tourism environments, government policies and tourism promotion
2046 measures, tourism products and activities and friendly residents.

Practical implications
This study has the following practical implications. First, friendly tourism destination
categories can provide a reference for tourists when making travel decisions. Attributes of
friendly tourist destinations can become pull motivators for tourists (Villamediana-Pedrosa
et al., 2020). Tourists can use the categories to assess the friendliness of potential travel
destinations and make necessary preparations before a tour. For instance, if a destination
performs poorly in some areas of the tourism information services theme, tourists could
collect as much as information as possible before their trip to avoid inconvenience.
Second, a destination can gain competitive advantages by cultivating a tourism-friendly
image (Reisinger et al., 2019). Acknowledging the components of friendly tourism
destinations is critical to the long-term development and success of such destinations. The
typological framework and categories of friendly tourism destinations developed in this
study could be useful for destination managers. Destination managers must consider these
friendly destination themes and categories when planning the destination environment. The
framework provides destination marketers with a new tool to manage friendly tourism
destinations from the perspective of tourist perceptions. According to the evaluation results,
this framework can support destination managers in their real-time monitoring of the
performance of friendly tourism destinations. Specifically, an evaluation checklist could be
provided to destination managers to self-assess the friendliness of a destination; the results
could be compared against those of other competing destinations to examine and improve the
overall friendliness of the destination.
Destination managers can identify and overcome shortcomings, thereby improving the
level of friendliness of destinations to meet tourist expectations and enhance destination
competitiveness. If a destination has low scores on a theme or item, destination managers
could determine the cause to propose and implement improvement plans. Destination
managers can set priorities, allocate limited resources (e.g. finances and workforce) and
formulate cost-effective improvement plans more effectively to develop friendly tourism
environments on the basis of the relative importance and influence of the proposed categories.
Moreover, tourist perceptions of friendly tourism destinations are the basis for effective
destination marketing and management. The framework can be used to differentiate
destinations and provide an improved friendly tourism experience for tourists by
emphasizing and facilitating friendly tourism attributes at destinations. The value of a
friendly destination relies on marketers’ ability to effectively market the destination as a
desirable place for tourism-related visits. The framework can support destination marketers
in designing marketing communication strategies and branding for friendly destinations to
attract tourists.
Third, the results can act as a reference for travel suppliers seeking to improve tourism-
friendly services. The typological framework and categories can be provided to travel suppliers
such as hotels, restaurants and travel agencies to conduct independent friendliness self-
assessments and increase the friendliness of the tourism environment. Specifically, travel
suppliers can independently assess relevant categories to determine areas requiring further
enhancement and then implement necessary improvements. A low score on the friendly
tourism destination index implies that a certain attribute is insufficiently friendly for tourists Valuation of
and thus must be improved. Both older and younger adults exhibited the highest levels friendly
of concern for the safety of amenities and services, the cleanliness of tourism environments
and travel safety. Therefore, tourism operators must prioritize safety-related infrastructure and
destination
services and create clean and hygienic tourism environments. For example, restaurants and attributes
hotels can display certificates of safety and adopt measures to create safe and hygienic tourism
environments by improving service facilities, equipment, personnel training and procedures.
The relative importance of friendly destination attributes reflects the different 2047
motivations and desires of different tourists. In addition to constructing comprehensive
transportation and infrastructure systems and creating a safe and hygienic tourism
environment, destination managers should consider the differences in the demands of
tourists of different age cohorts in the target market. Tourism destinations with a target
market of younger or older adults should evaluate and improve on the attributes that their
main customers value. This study also revealed that young adults are more concerned with
the accessibility of tourism information, the availability of car rental services and the
convenience of payment methods than older adults. Tourism destinations with a primary
target market of younger adults are recommended to improve their smart tourism services.
For example, tourism destinations may establish an online platform to provide tourism
service information and integrate real-time information on traffic, entertainment, dining,
accommodations and shopping to facilitate information searches by tourists. To satisfy the
demands of younger adults, destination managers should provide convenient car rental
services and encourage tourism operators (e.g. restaurants, hotels, transportation operators
and retailers) to offer diverse payment options.
The results indicate that older adults are more concerned with the provision of barrier-free
facilities and services, convenient and free Wi-Fi, tourism deals or rewards offered by local
governments, all-inclusive travel packages and itineraries and comprehensive reception
services than younger adults. Accordingly, destination managers can implement several
measures. For example, to establish a friendly tourism environment, destination managers
may enhance the provided barrier-free facilities and services and provide free and convenient
wireless Internet services. To improve on tourism products and activities, destination
managers may provide customized group package tours and itineraries for older adults,
provide special reception services or conduct welcoming ceremonies. By adopting these
friendly tourism measures, destination managers can effectively attract older adults. Thus,
these findings can assist destination managers and travel suppliers to enhance the
friendliness of their services and to construct more effective business models to attract
tourists in their market segments.

Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations. First, the participants were all from Taiwan; subsequent
research should incorporate the ideas of tourism stakeholders from other countries or regions
(e.g. the United States, Europe or China). Second, the six themes and 37 categories were
determined using only qualitative methods. Future studies could refer to the framework and
categories in this study to develop reliable and valid friendly tourism destination scales and
subsequently employ quantitative methods to investigate the relationship between friendly
tourism destinations and the related variables. Third, this study only compared the
valuations of older and younger adults for the attributes of friendly tourism destinations. In
recent years, scholars have reported that Generation Z plays a key role in the consumer
market (Priporas et al., 2017; Thangavel et al., 2022). Therefore, future scholars should
compare the concerns about the attributes of friendly tourism destinations among tourists of
a wider range of age cohorts.
JHTI References
6,5 Abd Jalil, A.Q., Azdel, A.A., Basri, F.I. and Mustapha, M.I. (2013), “Langkawi Island as a tourist
friendly destination”, in Sumarjan, N., Zahari, M.S.M., Radzi, S.M., Mohi, Z., Hanafiah, M.H.M.,
Bakhtiar, M.F.S. and Zainal, A. (Eds), Hospitality and Tourism: Synergizing Creativity and
Innovation in Research, CRC Press, pp. 35-40.
Ahmad, W., Kim, W.G., Anwer, Z. and Zhuang, W. (2020), “Schwartz personal values, theory of
planned behavior and environmental consciousness: how tourists’ visiting intentions towards
2048 eco-friendly destinations are shaped?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 110, pp. 228-236.
Al-Ansi, A. and Han, H. (2019), “Role of halal-friendly destination performances, value, satisfaction,
and trust in generating destination image and loyalty”, Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 51-60.
Anuar, A.N.A., Ahmad, H., Jusoh, H. and Hussain, M.Y. (2012), “The roles of tourism system towards
development of tourist friendly destination concept”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 146-155.
Anuar, A.N.A., Ahmad, H., Jusoh, H., Hussain, M.Y. and Nasir, R.A. (2015), “Developing of tourist friendly
destination concept: a quantitative study”, Journal Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Azali, M., Basha, N., Chang, Y.S., Lim, X.J. and Cheah, J.H. (2021), “Why not travel to Malaysia?
Variations in inbound tourists’ perceptions toward Halal-friendly destination attributes”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 1096348020987634.
Babbie, E.R. (2008), The Basics of Social Research, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Badu-Baiden, F., Kim, S.S., Xiao, H. and Kim, J. (2022), “Understanding tourists’ memorable local food
experiences and their consequences: the moderating role of food destination, neophobia and
previous tasting experience”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 1515-1542.
Bausch, T., Gartner, W.C. and Ortanderl, F. (2021), “How to avoid a COVID-19 research paper
tsunami? A tourism system approach”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 467-485.
Bernini, C. and Cracolici, M.F. (2015), “Demographic change, tourism expenditure and life cycle
behavior”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 191-205.
Chau, S. and Yan, L. (2021), “Destination hospitality indicators”, Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, Vol. 19, p. 100537.
Chuang, C.M. (2020), “A current travel model: smart tour on mobile guide application services”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 18, pp. 2333-2352.
Cohen, S.A., Prayag, G. and Moital, M. (2014), “Consumer behaviour in tourism: concepts, influences
and opportunities”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 872-909.
Connell, J. and Page, S.J. (2019), “Case study: destination readiness for dementia-friendly visitor
experiences: a scoping study”, Tourism Management, Vol. 70, pp. 29-41.
Crotti, R. and Misrahi, T. (2017), “The travel and tourism competitiveness report 2017”, Paving the
Way for a More Sustainable and Inclusive Future, World Economic Forum.
Cruz-Mil
an, O. (2021), “Assessing the role of venturesomeness in a destination consumer-based brand
equity model”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. doi: 10.1108/JHTI-09-2021-0264.
Fallon, P. and Schofield, P. (2006), “The dynamics of destination attribute importance”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 709-713.
Fern
andez, J.A.S., Azevedo, P.S., Mart
ın, J.M.M. and Mart
ın, J.A.R. (2020), “Determinants of tourism
destination competitiveness in the countries most visited by international tourists: proposal of a
synthetic index”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 33, p. 100582.
Gergen, K.J. (2009), An Invitation to Social Construction, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Ghani, G.M. (2016), “Tourist arrivals to Malaysia from Muslim countries”, Tourism Management
Perspectives, Vol. 20, pp. 1-9.
Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, B. (2009), Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Valuation of
Gursoy, D., Chi, C.G.Q. and Karadag, E. (2013), “Generational differences in work values and attitudes friendly
among frontline and service contact employees”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 32, pp. 40-48.
destination
Han, H., Al-Ansi, A., Olya, H.G. and Kim, W. (2019), “Exploring halal-friendly destination attributes in
attributes
South Korea: perceptions and behaviors of Muslim travelers toward a non-Muslim destination”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 71, pp. 151-164.
2049
Ho, J.L., Chen, K.Y., Wang, L.H., Yeh, S.S. and Huan, T.C. (2022), “Exploring the impact of social media
platform image on hotel customers’ visit intention”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2021-1469.
Katuk, N., Ku-Mahamud, K.R., Kayat, K., Hamid, M.N.A., Zakaria, N.H. and Purbasari, A. (2020), “Halal
certification for tourism marketing: the attributes and attitudes of food operators in Indonesia”,
Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1043-1062.
Kim, D.Y. and Park, S. (2020), “Rethinking millennials: how are they shaping the tourism industry?”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Kotler, P., Haider, D.H. and Rein, I. (1993), Marketing Places, Attracting Investment, Industry and
Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations, Free Press, New York.
Krippendorff, K. (2018), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 4nd ed., Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lashley, C. (2008), “Studying hospitality: insights from social sciences”, Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Lee, C.F. (2016), “An investigation of factors determining destination satisfaction and travel frequency
of senior travelers”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 471-495.
Lee, C.F. and King, B. (2019), “Determinants of attractiveness for a seniors-friendly destination:
a hierarchical approach”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 71-90.
Lissitsa, S. and Kol, O. (2016), “Generation X vs Generation Y–A decade of online shopping”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 31, pp. 304-312.
Liu, M.T., Yan, L., Phau, I., Ruiz, A.P. and Teah, M. (2016), “Integrating Chinese cultural philosophies
on the effects of employee friendliness, helpfulness and respectfulness on customer
satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 464-487.
Mathew, P.V. and Nimmi, P.M. (2021), “Sustainable tourism development: discerning the impact of
responsible tourism on community well-being”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. doi:
10.1108/JHTI-02-2021-0052.
Otoo, F.E., Kim, S. and Choi, Y. (2020), “Understanding senior tourists’ preferences and characteristics
based on their overseas travel motivation clusters”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 246-257.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pendergast, D. (2010), “Getting to know the Y generation”, in Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G. and
Pendergast, D. (Eds), Tourism and Generation Y, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 1-15.
Percival, N.M. and Pulford, B.D. (2020), “Do say ‘thank you’: verbal expressions of politeness and
gratitude influence interpersonal perceptions”, The Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 147
No. 3, pp. 228-243.
Popova, O.L., Koval, V.V., Mikhno, I.S., Tarasov, I.V., Asaulenko, N.V. and Filipishyna, L.M. (2020),
“Assessments of national tourism development in terms of sustainability and inclusiveness”,
Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 377-386.
JHTI Priporas, C.V., Stylos, N. and Fotiadis, A.K. (2017), “Generation Z consumers’ expectations of
interactions in smart retailing: a future agenda”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 77,
6,5 pp. 374-381.
Reisinger, Y., Michael, N. and Hayes, J.P. (2019), “Destination competitiveness from a tourist
perspective: a case of the United Arab Emirates”, International Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 259-279.
Reisman, J.M. (1983), “SACRAL: toward the meaning and measurement of friendliness”, Journal of
2050 Personality Assessment, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 405-413.
Reisman, J.M. (1984), “Friendliness and its correlates”, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 143-155.
Rita, P., Brochado, A. and Dimova, L. (2019), “Millennials’ travel motivations and desired activities
within destinations: a comparative study of the US and the UK”, Current Issues in Tourism,
Vol. 22 No. 16, pp. 2034-2050.
Ritchie, J.B. and Crouch, G.I. (2003), The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective,
CABI, Wallingford.
Ruhanen, L., Saito, N. and Axelsen, M. (2021), “Knowledge co-creation: the role of tourism
consultants”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 87, p. 103148.
Saraniemi, S. and Komppula, R. (2019), “The development of a destination brand identity: a story of
stakeholder collaboration”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1116-1132.
Shulga, L.V., Busser, J.A. and Kim, H. (2018), “Generational profiles in value co-creation interactions”,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 196-217.
Sima, C. (2016), “Generations BB, X, Y, Z, α – the changing consumer in the hospitality industry”, in
Ivanova, M., Ivanov, S. and Magnini, V. (Eds), Routledge Handbook of Hotel Chain Management,
Routledge, London, pp. 471-479.
Smith, S.L. (1994), “The tourism product”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 582-595.
Song, H., Lee, C.K., Reisinger, Y. and Xu, H.L. (2017), “The role of visa exemption in Chinese tourists’
decision-making: a model of goal-directed behavior”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 666-679.
Stepchenkova, S. (2012), “Content analysis”, in Dwyer, L., Gill, A. and Seetaram, N. (Eds), Handbook of
Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Cheltenham, Edward
Elgar Publishing, pp. 443-458.
Thangavel, P., Pathak, P. and Chandra, B. (2022), “Consumer decision-making style of Gen Z:
a generational cohort analysis”, Global Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 710-728.
Uner, M.M., Karatepe, O.M., Cavusgil, S.T. and Kucukergin, K.G. (2022), “Does a highly standardized
international advertising campaign contribute to the enhancement of destination image?
Evidence from Turkey”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. doi: 10.1108/JHTI-04-
2022-0141.
Villamediana-Pedrosa, J.D., Vila-Lopez, N. and K€ uster-Boluda, I. (2020), “Predictors of tourist
engagement: travel motives and tourism destination profiles”, Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management, Vol. 16, p. 100412.
Volk, A.A., Brazil, K.J., Franklin-Luther, P., Dane, A.V. and Vaillancourt, T. (2021), “The influence of
demographics and personality on COVID-19 coping in young adults”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 168, p. 110398.

About the authors

Chang-Hua Yen is a professor at the Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, National
Taichung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. His areas of research include tourism
management, travel marketing and hospitality management.
Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur is a professor at the Department of Marketing and Tourism Management,
National Chiayi University, Chiayi City, Taiwan. His research interests include construct development
and theory building in the disciplines of tourism, hospitality and leisure. Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur is the Valuation of
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Chin-Ying Ho is a master at the Department of Finance, National Taichung University of Science and friendly
Technology, Taiwan. Her areas of research include destination management. destination
attributes

2051

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]