Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Although mobile heritage tourism research has extensively examined technology adoption and visitor satisfaction as discrete phenomena, the integrated behavioral pathway through which mobile app adoption motivations sequentially translate into cultural heritage preservation intentions among Generation Z tourists remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. This study examines how digital engagement with mobile heritage applications shapes cultural heritage preservation intentions among Generation Z visitors, positioning conservation behavioral commitment — rather than touristic experience per se — as the primary outcome of interest. A model was developed with perceived usefulness (PU), social influence (SI), and hedonic motivation (HM) as antecedents; user engagement (UE) and experiential satisfaction (TS) as sequential mediators; and mobile application quality (MAQ) as a boundary condition. Hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling on survey data from 412 Generation Z visitors to cultural heritage sites in Vietnam. All nine hypotheses were supported. Hedonic motivation emerged as the strongest predictor of visitor engagement, followed by PU, and SI. UE strongly predicted TS, which in turn exerted the most proximal effect on preservation intentions. Satisfaction fully mediated the engagement–preservation pathway, and MAQ significantly amplified this conservation behavioral chain, with the satisfaction–preservation relationship nearly doubling in strength at high versus low app quality. High-quality, experientially rich mobile heritage applications constitute effective instruments for cultivating conservation behavioral commitment in Generation Z visitors, operating through a sequential engagement–satisfaction–preservation mechanism. These findings position digital application quality as a direct policy lever for heritage site managers and conservation authorities seeking to activate stewardship intentions among younger generations at cultural heritage sites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hải et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: