Author
Listed:
- Fan Liu
(Department of Business, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110136, China)
- Jiaming Liu
(Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)
Abstract
Online reviews are widely used to evaluate tourism performance, but it remains unclear whether platform ratings adequately reflect the underlying tourist experience. This study uses 67,744 cleaned Ctrip reviews from 112 A-level scenic spots in Liaoning Province, China, to examine what online reviews reveal beyond conventional satisfaction metrics. The final analytical sample comprises 106 threshold-qualified attractions with at least 100 reviews, supplemented by six highly reviewed sub-attractions that were listed separately on the platform but belonged to officially recognized A-level scenic systems. We combine topic modelling, sentiment analysis, and a rating–sentiment analytical framework to identify experiential dimensions, emotional patterns, and attraction-level sentiment risk. The results reveal a five-dimensional structure of tourist experience, including accessibility and ticketing, natural landscape imagery, cultural heritage interpretation, service-process quality, and overall affective appraisal. Positive sentiment is concentrated in landscape, heritage, and holistic appraisal themes, whereas negative sentiment is more prominent in accessibility and service-process dimensions. Quadrant-based analysis further shows that favourable ratings may coexist with relatively negative textual sentiment, suggesting that platform ratings and review-text sentiment do not fully converge. To extend review-level evidence to the attraction level, the study develops an attraction-level sentiment-risk indicator that captures the concentration of sentiment-negative reviews within each scenic spot. The findings suggest that online reviews function as a dual-channel evaluative system and can support sustainable destination management through more sensitive monitoring of operational friction and experiential risk.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:7:p:3543-:d:1913832. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.