Randomized trial evaluates nature-based interventions in wellness tourism, suggesting new service innovations.
Experience has become a central source of competitiveness in wellness tourism, yet natural features in resorts often remain passive scenery rather than deliberately designed service content. This prospective, four-group randomised controlled service-evaluation study examined whether brief nature-based wellness micro-interventions developed from natural elements already present in a coastal health and wellness resort were associated with more favourable immediate evaluations of experience quality, satisfaction, perceived innovativeness, added value, and recommendation intention. Of 120 adult hotel guests randomly allocated in equal proportions to cloud noticing, forest therapy elements, active control, or standard stay, 114 completed the final evaluation. A contextually adapted 22-item instrument based on service-performance logic and tourism-experience research was used. The forest-therapy-elements and cloud-noticing conditions showed the most favourable overall evaluation profiles, followed by active control and standard stay. The clearest differentiation concerned perceived innovativeness, while recommendation intention was most strongly associated with perceived added value and satisfaction. These findings are relevant to wellness-tourism development because they indicate that natural elements already present in a resort may acquire additional perceived service value when translated into structured, facilitated, and place-sensitive guest activities. Because outcomes were immediate self-reports obtained in a single resort and participants and facilitators could not be blinded, the findings should not be interpreted as proof of lasting behavioural effects. They suggest a promising low-infrastructure service-development pathway whose effects on actual recommendation, repeat visitation, willingness to pay, loyalty, and destination outcomes require confirmation in multi-site and longitudinal research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Racz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: