The TICCIH organization was founded in Sweden and is widely acknowledged by the international community for its primary responsibility in matters related to the preservation of industrial heritage and sites in the global community. It was the first global organization of industrial heritage conservation associations. In the Netherlands, information on industrial heritage began to be gathered and compiled in 1986. Additionally, France has created a long-term strategy for documenting industrial heritage. The world Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was founded, the United Nations passed pertinent legislation, and the world community has been united in its support for the protection of industrial heritage since 2001. The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage notes that, according to the classification of cultural heritage, industrial heritage includes tangible and intangible heritage. Tangible heritage consists of movable industrial relics, immovable industrial buildings, and industrial sites, while intangible industrial heritage includes craft processes, traditional craftsmanship skills, and so on. Industrial heritage is considered a living heritage form with substantial historical significance (Pozo and Gonzalez ^[1][13]). Engaging in industrial heritage tourism can evoke memories from one’s past (Bryce, Curran, O’Gorman, and Taheri ^[2][14]; Cohen ^[3][15]; Lee, Riley, and Hampton ^[4][16]). There has been a growing emphasis on industrial heritage tourism (Adongo, Choe, and Han ^[5][17]; Taylor ^[6][18]; Yeoman, Brass, and McMahonBeattie ^[7][19]). Authenticity plays a crucial role in industrial heritage tourism (Williams and Stewart ^[8][20]; Yi, Fu, Yu, and Jiang ^[9][21]). Many scholars believe that authenticity in industrial heritage tourism contributes to enhancing experience quality and tourist satisfaction (Adongo et al. ^[5][17]; Lau ^[10][22]). Other researchers argue that existential authenticity can significantly impact tourist loyalty (Belhassen et al. ^[11][23], Poria, Butler, and Airey ^[12][24]). However, few scientific studies have examined loyalty, authenticity, and satisfaction, with no known instances of these factors being jointly analyzed in the context of industrial heritage tourism (Kolar and Zabkar ^[13][25]; Lee et al. ^[4][16]).  This research incorporates experience quality and authenticity experience as variables to construct a framework encompassing experience quality, environmentally responsible behavior, and destination loyalty.

S-O-R was initially applied to research consumer behavior, focusing on the dynamic interactions between internal consumer behaviors and responses to stimuli from the outside world. S-O-R theory includes three basic elements: stimulus, organism, and response. Bitner ^[14][26] elaborated on alterations in consumers’ mental activity using the service environment as an entrance point, contending that consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and physical responses are easily influenced by outside variables. Vieira ^[15][27] claimed that external influences might easily excite consumers’ brain processes throughout the purchase period. Keller ^[16][28]; Schmitt and Zarantonello ^[17][29]; and Pantano and Timmermans ^[18][30] employed S-O-R as a foundation for their examination of consumer purchasing patterns, contending that the majority of customers’ willingness to buy is influenced by outside forces. Pantano and Viassone ^[19][31] used retailers’ integration of numerous channels as the starting point for their argument and claim that consumers are more likely to buy desired goods through many channels as a result of multi-channel integration methods. Ai ^[20][32] examined the primary determinants of consumers’ willingness to buy in the context of online shopping, using S-O-R as the foundation and cognition and emotion as the point of entry to examine and study the determinants of consumers’ purchase intention.

Since it was first used in the document The Venice Charter in 1964, the term “authenticity”, which in English implies true, original, and sacred, has increasingly been applied to the field of cultural heritage tourism. Authenticity is primarily about making sure that cultural legacy is preserved and transmitted in its original, true form. At that time, the conservation of Western stone architecture was the main focus of the study of authenticity. Due to cultural differences between the East and the West, there are significant discrepancies in the understanding of the authenticity of cultural heritage, especially in regard to the preservation of East Asian wooden architecture. A Japanese scholar published The Nara Document on Authenticity in 1994 ^[21][33], which made the case that the application of the concept of authenticity should take into account the specific cultural environment in order to ensure the diversity and richness of cultural heritage. All forms of cultural heritage should be appreciated and preserved. The concept of authenticity has been continuously utilized in the field of cultural heritage protection as awareness of the need to safeguard it has arisen, and it has been updated and refined as technology has advanced. Authenticity is essential for a significant tourist experience (Hargrove ^[22][34]). The concept of authenticity has been explored in numerous disciplines and understood from various perspectives. MacCannell ^[23][35] believes that the tourism industry should incorporate authenticity. Ruijgrok ^[24][36] considered authenticity as a crucial factor in determining the value of preserving and maintaining a site. Xie ^[25][37] posited that cultural heritage sites, such as shipyards, present genuine opportunities for conservation and learning. Xie ^[25][37] also recommended that destination management organizations (DMOs) should maintain the shipyard’s original state to prevent the loss of authenticity due to excessive exploitation of the natural environment.

Experience quality refers to a customer’s emotional response to positive aspects of their travel experience (Chan and Baum ^[26][38]). In heritage tourism, experience quality encompasses tourists’ psychological and social reactions (Chen and Chen ^[27][7]). Consequently, experience quality is regarded as the psychological impact on individuals participating in tourism activities (Crompton and Love, 1995 ^[28][39]; Cole and Scott ^[29][9]; Chen and Chen ^[27][7]). As per the literature, experience quality possesses various dimensions, including entertainment, aesthetics, education, and escapism (Pine ^[30][40]); tranquility, hedonics, recognition, and involvement (Otto ^[31][41]); and surprise, immersion, enjoyment, and participation (Kao et al., 2008 ^[32][42]).

Satisfaction represents a psychological state (Pizam, Shapoval, and Ellis ^[33][43]). Customer satisfaction refers to the evaluation a visitor makes following a tourism experience (Deng et al. ^[34][44]). Overall satisfaction encompasses the aggregation of all prior customers’ satisfaction levels (Jones and Suh ^[35][45]). Visitor satisfaction, encompassing the visitor experience at various stages, is a critical factor for DMO to understand (M. Kim and B. Thapa ^[36][46]).

Environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) reflects consumers’ commitment, concern, and environmental awareness (Aragon-Correa, Martin Tapia, and de la Torre-Ruiz ^[37][47]; Cottrell and Graefe ^[38][48]). Furthermore, ERB is the outcome of environmental attitudes and behavioral norms of visitors to natural sites (Kang and Moscardo ^[39][49]). Moreover, ERB also demonstrates tourists’ understanding of the impact of attitudes on natural tourism sites (M Kim and B Thapa ^[36][46]). It encompasses a broad array of environmentally and ecologically friendly behaviors (Kiatkawsin and Han ^[40][50]; Miller, Merrilees, and Coghlan ^[41][51]; Tsarenko, Ferraro, Sands, and McCleod ^[42][52]). ERB acts as an environmental protection mechanism, enabling tourists to reduce or avoid harming environmental resources (Chiu, Lee, and Chen ^[43][53]; Su, Swanson, and Chen ^[44][54]). Based on previous research, ERB represents individual actions undertaken to protect the environment (Schultz ^[45][55]; Stern ^[46][56]). It refers to visitors’ commitment to environmental protection (Lee ^[47][57]), including environmental concerns, waste recycling activities, and ecological knowledge (Cottrell and Graefe ^[38][48]). Additionally, ERB is manifested in individual recycling behavior and educational activities (Thapa ^[48][58]).

Destination loyalty represents a firmly established behavior (Kandampully, Zhang, and Bilgihan ^[49][59]; Oliver ^[50][60]). Tourists exhibiting destination loyalty tend to revisit the same attractions and are more likely to provide positive word-of-mouth communication (Chi and Qu ^[51][61]). In contrast, tourists lacking destination loyalty are more prone to being influenced by negative information (Chen and Phou ^[52][62]). Therefore, visitor loyalty benefit management organizations should be strengthened and enhanced by providing them with a competitive advantage (M Kim and B Thapa ^[36][46]).