Heritage/Cultural Attraction Atmospherics: Creating the Right Environment for the Heritage/Cultural Visitor MARK A. BONN, SACHA M. JOSEPH-MATHEWS, MO DAI, STEVE HAYES, AND JENNY CAVE

The popular press is replete with articles discussing the various remodeling efforts afoot in many of the prominent heritage attractions worldwide. Undoubtedly, museum curators have acknowledged the tremendous role external surroundings can play in the overall experience of the heritage visitor. This study investigates the effect of some basic environmental elements on visitors to heritage sites, illustrating that the heritage attraction’s physical environment plays an important role in determining both visitors’ attitude toward the heritage attraction and future repatronage intentions, as well as their willingness to recommend the experience to friends and relatives. The study findings indicate that environmental cues can be used as a differential tool to perpetuate brand meaning and uniqueness in the minds of the consumer, thereby creating a competitive advantage for the heritage attraction. Keywords: heritage/cultural tourism; museums; museum design; atmospherics; service environment; physical environment; heritage attractions

INTRODUCTION 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 context, 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 experience. 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, natural, 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.

Mark A. Bonn is the Robert H. Dedman Professor in Services Management at the Dedman School of Hospitality, College of Business, Florida State University, in Tallahassee. Sacha M. JosephMathews is an assistant professor at the Eberhardt School of Business, University of the Pacific, in Stockton, California. Mo Dai is a research manager for Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc., in Tallahassee, Florida. Steve Hayes is the executive vice president of the Tampa Bay Convention & Visitors Bureau in Tampa, Florida. Jenny Cave is a lecturer and doctoral candidate in the Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management at Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, in Hamilton, New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, February 2007, 345-354 DOI: 10.1177/0047287506295947 © 2007 Sage Publications

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

346

FEBRUARY 2007

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 (hereafter 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 indicates 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 (e.g., 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 area has focused on the environmental cues that specifically affect destination image. This research primarily explored the link between very general environmental cues such as scenery,

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/recommend 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 safeguard 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 rockand-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

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 347

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 largescale 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 interactive 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 consumer 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 attraction’s 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 repatronage 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 background 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 each 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 manifest itself in positive purchase behavior (Dietsch 1997). As an example to the challenged faced by today’s managers, 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

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

348

FEBRUARY 2007

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.

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:

SOR Paradigm

Layout and Design

Traditionally, atmospheric elements have been categorized along two main schools of thought, Baker (1986) and Bitner (1992). Baker (1986) first introduced the categorization of instore 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 (nonvisual 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 to 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.

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:

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, typesetting, 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

Hypothesis 1a: Ambient environmental factors positively affect attitude toward a heritage attraction. Hypothesis 1b: Ambient environmental factors positively affect a visitor’s intention to revisit. Hypothesis 1c: Ambient environmental factors positively affect word-of-mouth intentions.

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

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 349 FIGURE 1 MODEL OF HERITAGE/CULTURAL TOURISM ATMOSPHERICS

SOR Paradigm Attitude towards the Heritage /Cultural Attraction

H1a-S Ambiance Service Environment H1b-S

H3a-S

H2a-S

Intention to Revisit the Heritage/Cultural Attraction

H2b-S

Design and Layout Service Environment H2c-S

H1c-S

H3b-S Social Service Environment

H3c-NS

Word of Mouth Intentions

Note: NS = not significant; S = significant.

time examining how much other visitors affect the experience. 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. Figure 1 outlines the proposed relationship between atmospheric elements and specific visitor behaviors, as well as the proposed hypothesized paths.

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 interviewed 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 random 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

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

350

FEBRUARY 2007

to economic expenditures, party size, length of stay, demographics, 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 interview 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.

Behavioral Intentions

Measurement Scales

The above-mentioned nine hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analyses. Word of mouth, intention to revisit, and attitude to the facility were each regressed on the three service environment factors (ambiance, layout, and social factors) in a block regression analysis in which each DV was regressed on the three environment factors simultaneously. The findings offered support for all of the abovementioned hypotheses, with the exception of hypothesis 3c. The social environment in the heritage/cultural environment does not significantly affect a consumer’s word-of-mouth intentions (p =.441). Variance of inflation factor (VIF) statistics illustrate that multicollinearity is not an issue in any of the analyses conducted because all of the VIF statistics in the various regression models are considerably below the literature cutoff of 10 (Hair et al. 2006) and the rule-of-thumb cutoff of 4. Table 3 outlines the results for the regression analyses, and figure 1 illustrates the significant paths and hypotheses. In the first set of analyses, intention to revisit was regressed on ambiance, design and layout, and social environmental factors. Based on the adjusted R2 for this dependent variable (DV), we know that 76% of the variance in intention to revisit can be explained by these three environmental factors. Ambiance factors (color scheme, lighting, and signage) appears to have the strongest impact with a β = .632 and a t value of 14.177, over design and layout factors (general layout, use of space, functionality, and ease of finding your way around) and social factors (superior service staff, and courteous and knowledgeable tour guides). Social factors appear to be negatively correlated with intention to revisit, suggesting that perhaps the social elements in these attractions have room for improvement. In the second set of analyses, word-of-mouth intentions was regressed on ambiance, design and layout, and social environmental factors. The adjusted R2 for this dependent variable indicates that 29% of the variance in word-of-mouth intentions can be explained by these three environmental factors. Once again, ambiance appears to have the strongest impact with a β =.692 and a t value of 4.793. In this set of analyses, however, social factors do not significantly affect a visitor’s intention to recommend an attraction to others. In the third and final set of analyses, attitude to the attraction was regressed on ambiance, design and layout, and social

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 disagree 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 environment 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 maximum of 4 items. Specifically, the ambient dimension was measured using 3 items that assessed the attraction’s performance 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 each 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 endpoints 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.

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, correlations, and reliabilities.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 351 TABLE 1 INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR EACH MEASURE Variable

Scale Item

Ambiance service environment

1. This facility has good lighting. 2. This facility has a good color scheme. 3. This facility has good signage and availability of information. 1. This facility has a good functional layout. 2. This facility has a good use of open space. 3. This facility has a good flow of customer traffic. 4. It is easy to find the way around this location. 1. The tour guides at this facility are very knowledgeable. 2. This facility offers good service. 3. The staff at this facility is courteous. 4. This facility has a good staff. 1. My overall attitude toward this facility was positive. 2. My overall attitude to this facility is favorable. 3. My overall attitude to this facility is good. 1. I would revisit this facility in the future. 2. If given the opportunity, I would return to this facility. 3. I am loyal to this facility. 1. I would recommend this facility to my friends. 2. I would say positive things about this facility. 3. I would encourage friends and relatives to visit this facility.

Design and layout service environment

Social service environment

Attitude to the facility Intention to revisit the facility Word-of-mouth intentions

Reliability Score .88 .83

.96

.88 .80 .98

TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, CORRELATIONS, AND RELIABILITIES FOR VARIABLES Variable

Mean

SD

R

Attitude to the Facility

Word of Mouth

Intention to Revisit

Ambiance

Layout and Design

Social

Attitude to the facility Word of mouth Intention to revisit Ambiance Layout and design Social

4.71 4.70 4.55 4.48 5.04 5.73

1.29 1.58 1.32 0.844 0.704 0.774

.88 .98 .80 .88 .83 .96

— 0.648 0.938 0.779 0.764 0.035

— 0.617 0.523 0.471 0.010

— 0.852 0.764 0.042

— 0.817 0.092

— 0.118

—

environmental factors. The adjusted R2 for this dependent variable indicates that 68% of the variance in attitude to the attraction can be explained by these three environmental factors. In this analysis, layout and design has the strongest impact on attitude to the attraction with a β =.439 and a t value of 8.519. Once again, social factors appear to be negatively correlated to attitude to the attraction. These findings illustrate that the physical environment does indeed affect how consumers perceive an attraction as well as their intention to revisit and recommend that attraction.

DISCUSSION Customer orientation is a popular buzzword in the service industry. Ultimately, each and every effort performed in the service industry is aimed at a higher level of service and greater level of satisfaction for the consumer. Researchers have argued that positive perceptions of customer orientation are positively associated with perceived service quality, the firm’s service environment, as well as the performance of a firm’s employees (Brady and Cronin 2001). As such, our understanding and examination of the physical service environment become paramount if we aim to provide superior customer service and be perceived in

the minds of the consumer as being customer oriented in our day-to-day functions. Findings from this study highlight the role of the physical environment in contributing to a more customer-oriented heritage and cultural tourism sector. Previous research in travel and tourism has pointed to the relationship between destination atmospheric cues and consumer perceptions of that destination as a whole (Echtner and Richie 1991; Gartner 1989, 1993; Mazanec 1994). Most of these atmospheric cues have, however, been related to hotel accommodations, scenery, and landscaping (e.g., Mansfeld 1992). This study examines the role of atmospherics in a completely different setting. Specifically, we examine the role of environmental cues for hedonic services within a heritage/ cultural tourism setting that includes museums, aquariums, natural heritage sites, and performing arts centers. The findings suggest that in the same way that room size, view, and hotel facilities can influence lodging facility image, there are specific environmental cues that affect the consumer takeaway or perception with which visitors leave after visiting specific heritage attractions. This study offers some empirical direction for managers of heritage/cultural attractions. Echoing propositions from Sirgy and Su (2000), the results demonstrate that managers can manipulate environmental cues to influence consumer

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

352

FEBRUARY 2007 TABLE 3 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR WORD OF MOUTH, INTENTIONS TO REVISIT, AND ATTITUDE PERTAINING TO THE FACILITY Dependent Variable: Intention to Revisit

Independent Variable Ambiance Layout and design Social Overall F = 374.465 df = 347/3 R = .874 Sum of squares = 448.184 Mean square = 149.395 Adjusted R 2 = .762

β

SE

T

Sig (p)

VIF

.632 .286 –.093

.070 .082 .044

14.177 6.393 –3.552

.000 .000 .000

2.919 2.937 1.016

Dependent Variable: Word of Mouth Independent Variable Ambiance Layout and design Social Overall F = 47.976 df = 346/4 R = .542 Sum of squares = 248.302 Mean square = 82.767 Adjusted R 2 = .288

β

SE

T

Sig (p)

VIF

.692 .435 –.070

.144 .171 .091

4.793 2.537 –.771

.000 .012 .441

2.948 2.958 1.011

Dependent Variable: Attitude to Facility Independent Variable Ambiance Layout and design Social Overall F = 252.352 df = 347/3 R = .828 Sum of squares = 383.156 Mean square = 127.719 Adjusted R 2 = .683

β

SE

T

Sig (p)

VIF

.437 .439 –.079

.078 .092 .049

8.490 8.519 –2.617

.000 .000 .009

2.919 2.937 1.016

perceptions of a heritage attraction, as well as increase the possibility of recommending and revisiting a specific attraction. The results suggest that ambiance, design and layout, as well as social factors all play a critical role in determining visitation numbers, overall image perceptions, as well as wordof-mouth recommendations. More specifically, the findings demonstrate that for the visitor, ambiance and design elements play a more significant role than does the social environment as these relate to word-of-mouth recommendations. This is an indication that although employees may have a role to play in repeat visits and the final impression or takeaway perception of the facility, overall the physical environment plays a significant role in determining what the patron shares with others after leaving the attraction. To determine which of these physical attributes were most significant to visitors, we tested several physical attributes. From floor design to furniture, we explored visitor responses to traffic and crowding, parking and restrooms, display technology, layout and interactivity, as well as music, aisle space, and even the labeling found on exhibits. Altogether, 40 different elements were examined. Ultimately, however, only a few of the various elements explored proved to be relevant

for visitors to heritage attractions. According to the visitors we interviewed, ease of finding what you want, traffic flow of the interior design, available open spaces, general layout, signage, lighting, and color scheme are all essential in determining how they evaluate an attraction and by extension how likely they are to return to said attraction. Similarly, the presence of friendly, knowledgeable, and superior-service-oriented staff members as well as the availability of proper signage and general information all assist in ensuring the return of current visitors and positive word-of-mouth evaluations to others about their experience. The study findings confirm the validity of investing resources in the creation of high-quality interior design and layout and appropriate signage. It also points to the continuing importance of hiring and training knowledgeable and courteous staff members. The results also indicated, however, that perhaps it is unnecessary to expend extravagant amounts on all aspects of an interior upgrade. Instead, management should focus on the more relevant elements. It is very useful from the management perspective to know which of the internal aspects of a facility have the potential to affect most highly the intention of visitors to revisit in the future, word-of-mouth referrals,

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 353

and attitudes toward the attraction. For example, rather than investing in elaborate flooring, managers may want to focus instead on larger aisle space and managing traffic flow or on upgrading signage to multiple languages and improving the current lighting capabilities. With even the slightest improvement resulting in significant expenditure amounts, management is always in dire need of guidance as to which improvements would yield the greatest results and which renovations or upgrades could be placed on hold. The findings reinforce the importance of service culture (specific to these attractions) to the visitor experience. They confirm the salience of staff in visitor encounters with the internal environment of the attraction. Perhaps the fact that the staff is important to return intention and attitudes to the attraction, but not to word-of-mouth referrals, may suggest an area for improvement. Work may need to be done to improve both the frequency of encounter and the nature of positive interaction with visitors by staff, especially in payfor attraction environments in which referrals are critically important to bottom-line performance. Most of the physical renovations and millions spent in the travel industry are done based primarily on findings investigated predominantly in the retailing sector. This study offers a unique look at the relationship among traditional SOR factors as outlined in both the marketing and environmental psychology literature, while offering support for that stream of literature within our unique setting. More importantly, it offers empirical evidence tested within a field setting, which adds to the credibility of the findings and the significance to the heritage tourism arena. Finally, U.S. international travel figures have been steadily declining throughout the past decade. More recently, the impacts of terrorism, war, world economic recession, and recent difficulties with the visa issuance process have caused a reduction in the number of tourists visiting both the United States as well as other international destinations (Bonn, Joseph, and Dai 2005). As a result, there is an ongoing need for research that examines ways to make tourism facilities/attractions more competitive and offer greater differentiation in a highly competitive marketplace. This research offers some direction for attractions managers to ensure that their attractions are maximizing the revenues spent to entice the consumer and create a unique and memorable experience for their visitors.

FUTURE RESEARCH Although the findings offer tangible evidence of the role of physical upgrades in promoting improved visitor numbers, there is still a great deal of investigation left to be addressed. Moreover, these results are but a preliminary step for researchers who need to further examine the various elements that affect consumers in the tourism attraction setting. For example, pre- and postrenovation tests need to be conducted on significantly renovated buildings and facilities with an aim of testing the difference in visitor numbers, perceptions, and overall attitudes toward the attraction. Future research should address differences between local resident and nonresident perceptions. In addition, the nature of the experience based on attraction size, scale, and budget capacities needs further examination. It would also be interesting to use the measures established in this research to examine the external role of the

heritage attraction as icons and sources of identity in the urban or natural landscape. Research addressing the internal environment could be conducted to examine the validity of the instrument in mega-events or exhibitions, highly interactive attractions, more passive gallery experiences, children’s museums, science centers, urban landscapes, and so on. A further area for inclusion in this or a new tool, however, is the extended role of education, performance theater, and active interpretation, as well as the ways in which behindthe-scenes curating and collections management affect the visit experience—in a sense, the value chain that produces experience in the front-of-house arena. The relevance of this tool for other tourism attractions such as theme parks, natural landscapes, botanical gardens, small museums, and so on could also be investigated, as could its relevance in different cultural settings.

CONCLUSION The business of renovation is a multimillion-dollar industry. Annually, numerous attractions and tourism facilities invest millions of dollars to undergo facility facelifts. Museums, aquariums, zoological parks, conservatories, historic districts, and the like all make a concerted effort to update and renovate. Yet, there is limited published academic research on the return on investment available to these facilities for their exceptional capital outlay. This study offers a unique inside investigation into whether visitors and patrons even acknowledge all of these physical upgrades within the heritage attraction setting. The findings suggest that heritage/cultural attractions are unlike the retailing sector, in which the social factor plays a significant role on dependent variables such as word-of-mouth intentions. In these hedonic attractions, the social factor is the least important atmospheric dimension as it pertains to personal word-ofmouth recommendations. Instead, ambient factors such as lighting, color, and signage, combined with design factors such as spaciousness and traffic flow, are far more important to visitors than elements such as facility attractiveness, tour guide availability, music, and merchandise quality. Most museums and cultural/heritage tourism attractions raise revenue from a combination of entrance fees, sponsorships, and society memberships (Prideaux and Kininmont 1999). These results indicate that rather than spending millions on creating impressive exteriors to improve visitor numbers, managers should first try less expensive improvements that address minor issues such as signage, lighting, and even wall color. These improvements could achieve rapid, low-cost change to mood and pace within the attraction, retain freshness of appearance, and achieve the wider goals of relevance to changing community needs and tourism flows. Techniques such as flexible lighting and darkness, color shifts, performance (music, actors), sound events, and short-term barriers can quickly transform existing spaces into a different sensory environment of emotion, movement, action, and tranquil rest spaces. Paradoxically, however, an initial investment in infrastructure is often required to insert the hidden machinery needed to develop sound and lighting systems that will result in long-term cost savings. The findings point to some relatively inexpensive ways to prolong the investment in such activities and yet remain fresh

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

354

FEBRUARY 2007

in the eyes of visitors. They also may suggest that the design and installation of exhibitions and public way-finding techniques might well continue beyond the typical one-off completion date. Such extensions would lengthen exhibit permanence and changeover horizons, but at the same time retain freshness for the visitor. It would also have the effect of spreading budgets and planning, potentially improving cash flow. In addition, investments in customer service training are usually less revenue intensive than major renovation undertakings, but may have a similar impact in terms of increasing repeat visits and improving facility perceptions. Presently, managers may be spending an unnecessary amount of capital on massive physical upgrades that could be substituted with considerably cheaper undertakings and yet produce the same end result, a better overall perception of the attraction. This study is testimony to the fact that the cultural and heritage tourism sector is unique as it pertains to how atmospherics affects visitors. The elements that are relevant in this sector are different from those useful in the retailing industry, and more importantly, visitors to leisure facilities such as aquariums, museums, and performing arts centers are not responsive to some of the major renovations and physical changes that are commonplace in the industry. This suggests that cultural/heritage managers everywhere are missing an opportunity to increase their visitor numbers via minor changes that ultimately can have major returns on their overall visitor perception and on the attraction’s bottom line.

REFERENCES Art Business News (2004). Museum matters. http://www.artbusinessnews.com (accessed November 5, 2006). Ayala, H. (1996). “Resort Ecotourism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, 37 (October): 46-53. Baker, J. (1986). “The Role of Environment in Marketing Services: The Consumer Perspective.” In The Services Marketing Challenge: Integrated for Competitive Advantage, edited by J. A. Czpeil, C. Congam, and J. Shanaham. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 79-84. Baker, J., D. Grewal, and A. Parasuraman (1994). “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Fall): 328-40. Baker, J., A. Parasuraman, D. Grewal, and G. Voss (2002). “The Influence of Multiple Store Environmental Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions.” Journal of Marketing, 66 (April): 120-41. Barbieri, K. (2004). “$63M Facelift at Brooklyn Museum Set to Welcome Larger Crowds.” Amusement Business, 116 (April 17): 5. Bellizzi, J. A., A. E. Crowley, and R. W. Hasty (1983). “The Effects of Color in Store Design.” Journal of Retailing, 59 (Spring): 21-45. Bitner, M. J. (1986). “Consumer Responses to the Physical Environment in Service Settings.” In Creativity in Services Marketing, edited by M. Venkatesan, D. M. Schmalensee, and C. Marshall. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 89-93. ——— (1990). “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses.” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2): 69-82. ——— (1992). “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees.” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April): 57-71. Bonn, M. A., S. M. Joseph, and M. Dai (2005). “International versus Domestic Visitors: An Examination of Destination Image Perceptions.” Journal of Travel Research, 43: 294-301. Booms, B. H., and M. J. Bitner (1982). “Marketing Services by Managing the Environment.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23 (May): 35-39. Boyd, S. (2002). “Cultural and Heritage Tourism in Canada: Opportunities, Principles and Challenges.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3 (February): 211-33. Brady, M. K., and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2001). “Customer Orientation: Effects on Customer Service Perceptions and Outcome Behaviors.” Journal of Service Research, 3 (3): 241-51. Capstick, B. (1985). “Museums and Tourism.” International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 4: 365-72.

Cash, S. (2004). “New Building for New Museum.” Artworld (January): 136. Cook, T. (2001). “Archival Science and Postmodernism: New Formulations for Old Concepts.” Archives & Museum Informatics, 1 (1): 3-24. Davis, T. R. (1984). “The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices.” Academy of Management Review, 9 (2): 271-84. Dietsch, D. K. (1997). “Museum Boom.” Architecture, 86 (12): 11-12. Dube, L., Chebat, J-C., and S. Morin (1995). “The Effects of Background Music on Consumers’ Desire to Affiliate in Buyer-Seller Interactions.” Psychology and Marketing, 12 (July): 305-19. Echtner, C., and J. R. B. Richie (1991). “The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Studies, 2: 2-12. Eroglu, S. A., K. Machleit, and L. M. Davis (2001). “Atmospheric Qualities of Online Retailing: A Conceptual Model and Implications.” Journal of Business Research, 54: 177-84. Eroglu, S. A., and K. Machleit (1990). “An Empirical Study of Retail Crowding: Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Retailing, 66 (2): 201-2. Gartner, W. C. (1989). “Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques.” Journal of Travel Research, 28 (2): 16-20. ——— (1993). “Image Formation Process.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2: 191-215. Hair, J. F. Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Harrell, G. D., M. D. Hutt, and J. C. Anderson (1980). “Path Analysis of Buyer Behavior under Conditions of Crowding.” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (February): 45-51. Hensel, P. J., and G. C. Bruner (1992). “Scaling and Measurement: Multiitem Scaled Measures in Sales Related Research.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 12 (3): 77-83. Kotler, P. (1973). “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool.” Journal of Retailing, 49 (Winter): 48-64. Mansfeld, Y. (1992). Tourism: Toward A Behavioral Approach. Oxford: Pergamon. Mazanec, J. (1994). “Consumer Behavior.” In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research, edited by J. R. B. Ritchie and C. R. Goeldner. New York: John Wiley, pp. 294-99. Mehrabian, A., and J. A. Russell (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Milliman, R. E. (1982). “Using Background Music to Affect the Behavior of Supermarket Shoppers.” Journal of Marketing, 46 (2): 86-91. Mooney-Melvin, P. (1991). “Historic Sites as Tourist Attraction: Harnessing the Romance of the Past: Preservation, Tourism and History.” Public Historian, 13 (2): 35-48. Obermiller, C., and M. J. Bitner (1984). “Store Atmosphere: A Peripheral Cue for Product Evaluation.” In American Psychological Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Consumer Psychology Division, edited by D. C. Stewart. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 52-53. Oliver, R. L. (1980). “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (4): 460-69. Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Poria, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey (2003). “The Core of Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1): 238-54. ——— (2004). “The Meanings of Heritage Sites for Tourists: The Case of Massada.” Tourism Analysis 9 (1/2): 15-22. Prideaux, B. R., and L-J. Kininmont (1999). “Tourism and Heritage are Not Strangers: A Study of Opportunities for Rural Heritage Museums to Maximize Tourism Visitation.” Journal of Travel Research, 37: 299-303. Shostack, G. L. (1977). “Breaking Free from Product Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 41 (April): 73-80. Sirefman, S. (1999). “Formed and Forming: Contemporary Museum Architecture.” Daedalus, 128 (Summer): 297-321. Sirgy, J. M., and C. Su (2000). “Destination Image, Self-congruity and Travel Behavior: Toward an Integrative Model.” Journal of Travel Research, 38 (May): 340-52. Smith, P., and D. J. Burns (1996). “Atmospherics and Retail Environments: The Case of the Power Aisle.” International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 24 (1): 7-17. Tian, S., J. L. Crompton, and P. A. Witt (1996). “Integrating Constraints and Benefits to Identify Responsive Target Markets for Museum Attractions.” Journal of Travel Research (Fall): 34-45. Yalch, R., and E. Spagenberg (1993). “Using Store Music for Retail Zoning: A Field Experiment.” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by L. McAlister and M. L. Rothschild. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 632-36. Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1996). “The Behavioral Consequences of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April): 31-46. Zeppel, H. (1996). “Indigenous Cultural Tourism: 1997 Fulbright Symposium.” Tourism Management Report, 19 (1): 103-6.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016