The world tourism market has evolved to one in which there are several coexisting niche markets for the potential visitor. Holiday destinations have gone way beyond the traditional three S’s of sun, sea, and sand to a wider, much more diverse market offering (Boyd 2002). Within this con-text, it is no surprise that the modern-day visitor faced with all of these choices and options has also evolved into a much more sophisticated creature, interested in specific niches and specialties within the travel and tourism sector.
Within such a competitive tourism marketplace, it is inevitable that every destination/attraction will search for various ways to differentiate its product and services from those of its key competitors. A critical component in this differentiation is the creation of a unique brand identity and image. This need for uniqueness has been heightened due to the growing interest by travelers to visit environments that can be considered exotic and different. It is this desire that has fueled the recent growth of the ecotourism market of the mid-1980s and beyond (Ayala 1996).
The ecotourism niche market is not, however, the only sector that has benefited from a change in traveling tastes, because the late 1990s has witnessed a renewed interest in travelers to rediscover the past (Boyd 2002). This fascination with historical attractions has led to the generation of a niche market defined as cultural and heritage tourism in which reliving the past has become a critical tourist experi-ence. Moreover, a body of literature has developed that suggests that heritage tourism is one of the fastest growing tourism sectors, (e.g., Capstick 1985; Mooney-Melvin 1991; Poria, Butler, and Airey 2004).
Heritage tourism focuses on a destination’s historic, nat-ural, and cultural value (Boyd 2002), and goes beyond a simple interest in the past. According to Boyd (2002), heritage and cultural tourism encompasses a wide variety of landscapes and settings; it explores the cultural and natural heritages of peoples, highlighting natural physical beauty, urban and industrial developments, as well as historical landmarks. In some instances, destination promoters focus on the architecture and built heritage, such as churches, castles, government buildings, and so on. This type of heritage tourism is commonplace in many European nations. In other locations, the heritage tourism focus is on archeological significance and the history of ethnic groups, as is the case in Canada. For some countries such as Australia and New Zealand, heritage and cultural tourism focuses more on the natural environment and surrounding beauty, although in other heritage tourism destinations, cultural attractions such as museums and performing arts centers define their cultural and heritage tourism product.
With such a wide range of attractions, it is no surprise that the World Tourism Organization estimates that 37% of all trips today include a visit to a cultural/heritage attraction, including museums, conservatories, zoos, aquariums, galleries, performing arts centers, reservation sites, historical monuments, buildings, and cemeteries, to name a few (Boyd 2002). But what makes one museum different from another? What sets apart one monument or historical building from its counterpart? And what defines a specific archeological site or natural park as being unique? Undoubtedly, the significance of one cultural or historical attraction/site (here-after referred to as attraction) over another is very personal and idiosyncratic. Each visitor is looking for a specific set of attributes and characteristics in an attraction. As a result, each attraction must find the emotional uniqueness that makes it appealing to specific visitors. This emotional uniqueness can serve as a form of competitive differentiation for that specific attraction.
Fundamental to this differentiation are the image and perception customers have of individual attractions. Ultimately, the image creation process becomes critical to visitors’ final impressions. In many instances, this image creation is achieved through the direct manipulation of environmental stimuli both inside and outside the heritage attraction itself. For example, a museum’s architecture and interior design represent its public image, and establish the framework for the visitor’s experience. At the same time, however, the architecture fulfills a multiplicity of functions including security and storage, fire detection and prevention, crowd control, traffic flow, lighting, and microclimates (Sirefman 1999). In essence, an attraction’s physical characteristics can facilitate a physical encapsulation of its emotional persona. It is therefore understandable that many of today’s attractions have allocated a significant amount of resources to developing spaces that create a multipurpose interior with an impressive exterior to present an eclectic mix of past legacies and future potential.
This new direction has not gone unnoticed, because empirical research has found that improved physical surroundings can affect the bottom line. Tourism research indi-cates a direct correlation between physical renovations and higher patronage figures (Barbieri 2004; Sirefman 1999). The increased revenues generated from these aesthetically pleasing additions render support to attractions and also generate tourist expenditures by attracting nonresident visitors (Dietsch 1997). For example, the Cézanne exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art generated an estimated $86.5 million from out-of-town visitors alone, which comprised
more than 80% of the museum’s clientele for the exhibition.
In many instances, the advantages of exterior and interior surroundings have gone largely uninvestigated in the cultural and heritage tourism academic literature. Most of the existing work on the commercial impact of physical improvement exists in the marketing and environmental psychology literature ture (eg., Baker 1986; Bitner 1992; Davis 1984; Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Despite the obvious implications for tourism as a whole and heritage tourism in particular, the role of the physical environment on repeat patronage and increased visitation numbers has been limited in the tourism and hospitality arena. Most of the current literature in this arca has focused on the environmental cues that specifically affect destination image. This research primarily explored the link between very general environmental cues such as scenегу, amenities, and hygiene factors and how these cues can affect visitor perceptions (Bonn, Joseph, and Dai 2005; Echtner and Richie 1991; Gartner 1989, 1993; Mazanec 1994).
This study seeks to add to the tourism and hospitality literature on three major levels. First, it examines the role of physical environment/atmospherics within a predominantly heritage tourism context. The goal here is to explore how consumers feel about specific heritage-related atmospheric elements. Second, the study examines the relationship between specific atmospheric elements commonplace at various attractions and the visitor’s overall attitude toward the attraction as well as his or her image perception of the attraction. Finally, the third contribution to the literature seeks to assess the relationship between an attraction’s use of atmospherics and a visitor’s intention to return/recom-mend that attraction to others.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Heritage Tourism
Heritage and cultural tourism encompasses visiting a number of cultural- or heritage-oriented facilities, including museums, aquariums, performing arts centers, archeological digs, theaters, historical sites, monuments, castles. architectural relics, religious centers, and even zoos. Various researchers have acknowledged the wide dichotomy of attractions considered to be heritage/cultural tourism sites or attractions (e.g., Boyd 2002; Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003). From natural parks to archeological sites, each type of attraction has its own unique combination of benefits and advantages; some focus more on the historical aspect, some on the cultural, and others mix geographic and heritage elements. Traditionally, many attractions that engage in cultural/heritage tourism were either houses for specimens in jars or repositories for rare and remarkable objects/paintings, with a clear mission to safe-guard the nation’s “antiquities” (Cook 2001). In the performing arts, the orientation was still centered on patrons looking on at the performers as opposed to interacting with them.
Recently, many cultural/heritage attractions and sites have undergone a type of reformation. The past decade has seen an important paradigm shift for many of these types of attractions, transforming them into places of instruction and educational centers, as opposed to display houses (Cook 2001). Researchers have discovered that the educational component is a significant motivation for visitors to heritage sites, and this information has caused a paradigm shift for many heritage attractions worldwide (Poria, Butler, and Airey 2004). These visionary changes have led to many attractions adopting a more scientific and technological focus, evolving into interactive multisensory exhibits in which multimedia displays are the norm and visitors come to participate and interact, rather than simply look at exhibits and read the associated notation.
For example, at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, visitors can listen to numerous rock-and-roll classics by the mere touch of a screen. At the Bath Museum in Bath, England, visitors can take an audio tour of the facility by using a headset that carries the tour in multiple languages for visitors (Zeppel 1996). In Florida, IMAX theaters have focused their efforts on becoming technological centers, using technology and cinematography to educate younger audiences on nature, industrial heritage, and culture. Similarly, aquariums throughout central and south Florida have invested considerable resources to educate audiences on aquatic life throughout the state.
Increased competition for visitor dollars has prompted many twenty-first-century heritage attractions to assume a more aggressive marketing campaign. Curators and managers are continuously seeking new ways to satisfy and delight visitors. This new impetus has generated a host of large-scale renovations involving millions of dollars and drastic interior and exterior changes. Currently, heritage attractions are undergoing renovations ranging from new lighting and sound methods, to larger spaces and the inclusion of inter-active displays (Cash 2004). For example, the Brooklyn Museum completed a $63 million improvement plan in 2004, and Cincinnati’s Taft Museum of Art recently reopened after spending $22.8 million in renovations (Art Business News 2004). These sizeable investments are undertaken in an effort to create the “ideal” emotional atmosphere for the visitor and by extension the “ideal” emotional image for the heritage attraction.
A major part of creating this “ideal” experience lies in creating the right atmosphere or physical environment in which to view the display, exhibit, or attraction. Ultimately, the exterior and interior designs of an attraction’s space become fundamental in shaping the attraction’s identity as well as its patronage. The above discussion highlights the benefits of having a more enticing space. The following discussion explores the specifics of a pleasing physical environment within a heritage/cultural attraction context.
The Physical Environment
Environmental psychologists suggest that people react to their environment in two basic ways: approach and avoidance (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Approach behaviors include positive behaviors such as a desire to stay, explore, spend money, and browse in a particular environment. Avoidance, on the other end of the spectrum, includes negative behaviors such as a desire not to stay, explore, or affiliate with a particular environment. Throughout the literature, employees and customers alike have been proven to function in, and relate better to, an environment they perceive to be aesthetically pleasing. The relevance to the heritage and cultural tourism arena
is no less significant. The existing academic work in other literature streams on the use of environmental or atmospheric elements to enhance the consumer’s experience will be used to illustrate its direct applicability to heritage and cultural tourism. The following discussion will seek to explore the significant return on investment that heritage attraction managers could receive if expenditures committed to remodeling and refurbishing heritage attractions were used with the specific goal of enhancing visitor experiences. The implications here to heritage/cultural tourism lie in the fact that all of these attractions are very often marketed as a specific brand name. Carnegie Hall, San Diego Zoo, Rockefeller Center for the Performing Arts, and IMAX theaters: each of these has specific brand meaning in the eyes of the consumer, and as such, protection of these meanings is critical to positive evaluations and lasting positive associations for both past and potential visitors. It is in this light that the facility’s atmospherics becomes critical in shaping individual brand attitude evaluations.
Atmospherics
Atmospherics is defined by Kotler (1973) as the effort to design buying environments that enhance consumer purchase probability. Some of these environmental elements have been examined in great detail to understand their impact on con-sumer behavior. For example, clutter has been positively linked to avoidance and negatively linked to satisfaction (Bitner 1990). Color has been linked to approach (consumer liking) and positive perceptions of products or merchandise (Bellizzi, Crowley, and Hasty 1983). Crowding has been shown to change a consumer’s satisfaction, enjoyment of the shopping environment, and use of in-store information (Eroglu and Machleit 1990; Harrell, Hutt, and Anderson 1980). Store music has been shown to influence the amount of time consumers spend in stores, traffic flow, sales, arousal, and the perception of visual stimuli in the retail store (e.g.. Dube, Chebat, and Morin 1995; Milliman 1982; Yalch and Spagenberg 1993). Other physical factors such as layout and design (Smith and Burns 1996) and in-store lighting (Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman 1994) have all been shown to affect consumer behavior in some form or fashion.
The relevance to the heritage/cultural attraction’s physical environment is limitless. In this context, the significant revenues attributed to renovations and expansions seem justifiable. Past research has pointed to the relationship between the service environment and the overall perceived service quality (Baker et al. 2002; Bitner 1992; Brady and Cronin 2001). There is also, however, significant research that links specific atmospheric elements to very specific consumer behavior. When visitors are drawn to the attractions environment, the experience can directly affect positive evaluations of the products/displays and ultimately lead to positive attitudes to the heritage facility and/or greater likelihood of re-patronage intentions (Obermiller and Bitner 1984). Thus, if clutter has been linked to avoidance, will a more open, spacious environment entice visitors to explore an exhibit? If in-house music has been shown to influence the subsequent perceptions of visual stimuli, would the same exhibit shown in different spaces alongside different back-ground sounds result in different perceptions and evaluations? The big question is What environmental elements used by heritage/cultural attractions or facilities have the most significant impact? Which elements are critical, and which add only minor value?
Atmospherics can be manipulated to create lasting brand meaning in the eyes of consumers (Baker 1986; Bitner 1986, 1992; Booms and Bitner 1982; Kotler 1973; Shostack 1977). Consequently, heritage tourism professionals can fashion specific brand images/perceptions through direct manipulation of atmospherics. Spacious product displays, lighting, sounds, power aisles, and bold clear signage can cach be manipulated to create a unique experience for the consumer. These unique experiences can in turn contribute to an overall positive consumer response, which can mani-fest itself in positive purchase behavior (Dietsch 1997).
As an example to the challenged faced by today’s man-agers, a research study conducted by Tian, Crompton, and Witt (1996) documented that more than 40% of all museum visitors were initially reluctant to visit the facility and only participated based on external pressures from friends or family members. With this in mind, managers of heritage and cultural attractions are eager to use any additional tools that could contribute to the overall experience of the visitor and ensure that his or her experience is a favorable one. Positive evaluations by individual consumers can facilitate recommendations to potential visitors. This is the concept of repurchase intentions that is so commonly referred to in the retailing arena yet limited in the tourism literature. Extant literature tells us that atmospherics or the service environment is a significant contributor to repurchase intentions and positive recommendations from consumers.
Our research suggests that interior design and atmospheric elements are providing the perceptions and mental images customers take with them that would affect their intent to recommend or revisit. Managers can therefore use atmospherics as a virtual metaphor to convey image, manipulate attitudes, or assist in the recall of existing positive attitudes. Attraction managers can manipulate exterior and interior design, as well as the overall atmospherics, to act as differentiating tools in their marketing and promotions. Baker (1986) established an academic framework to contextualize the various atmospheric elements at work in a consumption environment using her Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) paradigm. The following discussions transfer this paradigm to a heritage/cultural tourism context.
SOR Paradigm
Traditionally, atmospheric elements have been categorized along two main schools of thought, Baker (1986) and Bitner (1992). Baker (1986) first introduced the categorization of in-store atmospherics through her SOR grouping system. She renamed atmospherics the “service environment” and categorized the “elements” into three groups: design factors (layout, color, and clutter), social factors (persons within the store environment such as employees and shoppers), and ambient factors (non-visual cues such as scent, sound, and lighting). All of these dimensions represent physical elements that connote both explicit and implicit cues that serve as communicators the users (Eroglu, Machleit, and Davis 2001). Bitner (1992) extended the SOR paradigm to three new groups of atmospherics, based on a slightly different categorization, in which the last dimension was changed to encompass signs symbols and artifacts. For the purposes of this study, however, we will be using Baker’s (1986) conceptualization. to
Ambiance
The first dimension deals with atmospherics that affect the five senses and set the tone or “ambiance” of an environment. These include attributes such as lighting, music, noise, temperature, signage, and wall color. Atmospherics that affect sight senses involve designs that use colors, type-setting, and graphics to convey the image a manager would like to project about the attraction. In the case of heritage attractions, managers can manipulate wall color, signage, and mood lighting to ensure that visitors enjoy their cultural experience. These elements can emphasize certain characteristics in a display or bring out the mystique in castles. Sound can also be used to set the mood and create ambiance. Elements that affect sound senses such as music can create romance or nostalgia, or even help recreate historical moments in time. Similarly, temperature that addresses touch/feel senses can be used to recreate environments or create calm and comfort, thereby allowing the visitor to better focus on the display at hand.
In the marketing and environmental psychology fields, researchers have found linkages between atmospherics and consumers’ overall attitude toward a particular brand and intention to repurchase (Obermiller and Bitner 1984). In the context of heritage/cultural tourism, we seek to demonstrate the link between specific atmospheric elements and specific visitor behavior. Each of these elements that affect the ambiance and mood of an environment can help to improve the visitor experience while visiting a specific attraction. These positive experiences can in turn affect whether a patron will recommend this attraction to others or revisit the facility themselves in the future, or even affect his or her overall impression/attitude of the attraction. As a result, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis la: Ambient environmental factors positively affect attitude toward a heritage attraction.
Hypothesis 1b: Ambient environmental factors positively affect a visitor’s intention to revisit.
Hypothesis Ic: Ambient environmental factors positively affect word-of-mouth intentions.
Layout and Design
The second dimension deals with layout and design functionality. In the heritage/cultural attraction context, this would encompass atmospheric elements that aid in ease of movement and location of in-house displays and exhibits. It also deals with the actual design of the exhibits themselves. Tourist attractions of this nature use several elements to improve the visitor’s experience such as interactive displays, technological designs (i.e., big-screen displays, interactive kiosks, and interactive panels at displays), and educational games to enhance the design of the actual exhibit.
All of these elements can affect the extent to which a visitor enjoys the experience or is disappointed by the visit. Everything from traffic flow and display location to design, aisle space, and seating can affect how much a visitor enjoys a specific visit. Poor aisle space can facilitate crowding and a lack of flow. Bad layout can cause confusion and fatigue, and even turn off a visitor from seeing all of the attractions or staying for an entire show. Poor seating arrangements can diminish sales, frustrate visitors, and create bad impressions. Based on the various possible linkages between layout and design atmospheric elements and consumer behavior, we propose the – following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Layout and design environmental factors positively affect attitude toward a heritage attraction.
Hypothesis 2b: Layout and design environmental factors positively affect a visitor’s intention to revisit.
Hypothesis 2c: Layout and design environmental factors positively affect word-of-mouth intentions.
Social
The third dimension encompasses the elements pertaining to both visitors and employees involved in the tourism experience. The social environment looks at how courteous and knowledgeable the employees are while at the same time examining how much other visitors affect the experi-ence. In a cultural/heritage setting, these elements are no different from those in the retailing sector. It encompasses how knowledgeable the service providers are and how informed the other visitors are. It examines how similar each visitor perceives the other visitors to be to them and how courteous they consider the service staff to be.
Hypothesis 3a: Social environmental factors positively affect attitude toward a heritage attraction.
Hypothesis 3b: Social environmental factors positively affect intention to revisit.
Hypothesis 3c: Social environmental factors positively affect word-of-mouth intentions.
METHOD
The Sample
For a 2-month period in the summer of 2004, visitors to four key attractions in Tampa, Florida (Museum of Science and Industry, Florida Aquarium, Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center, and Lowry Park Zoo), were personally inter-viewed as part of a comprehensive destination-marketing research project focusing on Florida visitors. These sites were selected as heritage/cultural tourism facilities based on the wide conceptualization of heritage/cultural tourism put forward by Boyd (2002). Boyd (2002) made the argument that cultural tourism explores the cultural and natural heritages of peoples, highlighting natural physical beauty, urban and industrial developments, as well as historical landmarks. The Museum of Science and Industry focuses on the industrial heritage of Florida, and the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center promotes Florida’s cultural heritage. The Florida Aquarium and Lowry Park Zoo both focus on the natural heritage of Florida.
Throughout a 2-month period, visitors exiting these four attractions were randomly approached by trained interviewers to discuss their recent experience at the attraction they had just visited. All attractions were targeted multiple times at ran-dom with interviews taking place at random times throughout the day at each location. To not create time-of-day responses bias, visitors were interviewed at each facility in both the morning and afternoon periods. Five interviewers were placed at the exit points of each facility, and each interviewer randomly approached a minimum of 50 visitors daily with the goal of acquiring at least 35-40 respondents.
Every third adult (older than 21 years of age) exiting the attraction was approached to participate in the study. Once qualified as nonresidents to the particular county at the site in which they were contacted, visitors were then asked to respond to a survey related to their heritage/cultural attraction visit. Specifically, the interviewer asked respondents about their intention to revisit, their overall impression of the attraction, on-site expenditures, intention to recommend the attraction to others (i.e., word-of-mouth intentions), service quality perceptions, service environment perceptions, and overall image of the attraction.
In addition to questions about the specific attraction recently visited, respondents were also asked information about their general travel behavior. Information pertaining to economic expenditures, party size, length of stay, demo graphics, activities (e.g., What specific activities have you visited during this trip?), and many other dimensions were represented on the survey instrument. Individuals were informed in advance that the survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete and that there was no incentive given for those individuals deciding to respond. More than 90% of all qualified individuals agreed to participate in the inter-view process. All interviewers were trained in multiple languages to ensure all interviewees fully understood the nature of the research.
Ultimately, 500 heritage/cultural attraction visitors provided data suitable for analysis. Specifically, the sample was composed of 49% men and 51% women with an average income of $27,660. In terms of ethnicity, 93.8% of the sample was Caucasian, 2.6% were African American, 2.4% were Asian American, and 1.2% identified themselves as Hispanic.
Measurement Scales
Each of the constructs in the conceptual model was operationalized using established scales either in an adapted form due to concerns for survey length or in their original format. All items were measured on 7-point semantic differential or Likert-type scales with anchors of 1 = strongly dis-agree and 7 strongly agree, or 1 poor and 7 excellent.
Service Environment
Measurement for the dimensions of the service environment was based on Baker’s (1986) conceptualizations of the service environment. Items were adapted from scale items used in Baker et al. (2002). Overall, 40 physical environ ment items were used to examine the impact of atmospherics on specific visitor behavior. These items were grouped into three general areas: ambient factors, design and layout factors, and social factors. Through a reliability analysis in which items were deleted to improve the reliability of the final scale, each of these three scales ended up with a maxi-mum of 4 items. Specifically, the ambient dimension was measured using 3 items that assessed the attraction’s perfor mance with respect to color scheme, lighting, and signage. The design and layout factor was composed of 4 items: ease of finding what you want, traffic flow of customers, layout functionality, and open space utility. The social factor was based on a 4-item scale and evaluated the service employees of the attraction. It consisted of items relevant to their courteous nature and knowledge levels, as well as the quality of service they provided. These scales had reliabilities ranging from 83 to .98. Table 1 outlines the items and reliabilities of cach scale used in the analyses.
Attitude toward the Attraction
The subjects rated their attitude toward the attraction using three 7-point semantic differential items with the end points labeled good/bad, favorable/unfavorable, and positive/negative (Hensel and Bruner 1992; Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957). Scales similar to this one have been recommended and used successfully in the marketing literature (Oliver 1980). The scale reliability was .88.
Behavioral Intentions
Respondents’ behavioral intentions were assessed using two separate scales: one assessed repeat visit intentions, and the second assessed word-of-mouth intentions, or the intent to recommend the facility. Similar scales are reported throughout the services literature (Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1996). Repeat intentions had a reliability of .80, whereas word-of-mouth intentions had a reliability of .98. Each of the constructs under study was operationalized using existing scales that have been previously validated in other research. All items were measured on a 7-point, Likert-type scale. Table 1 outlines the various items used for each measure. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics, correlation, and reliabilities.
– Olaniyan Akinwale Oluwafemi
National Museum of Colonial History Lokoja
