TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 31(2), 2006: 23-32

Researching the Management of Visitor Attractions: International Comparative Study Issues ANNA LEASK and ALAN FYALL The paucity of literature in the field of visitor attractions, combined with the virtual vacuum of literature on international comparative research methodologies in tourism generally, and more specifically within the visitor attractions sector, together serve as the catalytic focus for this paper. Where studies have been completed on visitor attractions in the international arena, they have often been practitioner-led and lack the depth of analysis and rigour required for academic scrutiny. This paper will begin to fill this gap, by evaluating the methodological options available to academics when researching visitor attractions in different countries. Reference will be made throughout the paper to an international comparative study undertaken by the authors at visitor attractions in Scotland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The paper concludes with a synthesis of those methodological issues deemed to be of benefit to future researchers wishing to advance their understanding of the management of visitor attractions in different countries around the world. Keywords: visitor attractions, management, Scotland, international comparability, research practice.

Introduction Visitor attraction records show that the supply of attractions in the UK has increased significantly over the past 20 years (MIGL 2002) with almost half of all attractions having opened since 1980. The advent of the National Lottery in the mid-1990s heralded a new era for attractions in the UK, where publicly-funded attractions distorted the marketplace, often simply displacing visitors within established visitor destinations. Demand for visitor attractions has fluctuated, with some categories performing well in years with good weather, for example country parks, while others fairing less well, such as the year-on-year decline of visits to museums and galleries over the past 10 years (Mori News 2001). Visitor activity is subject to changes in fashions and trends as seen with the increase in visits to gardens in recent years (staruk.org 2004) and in response to external factors such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in UK, where visits to farms and wildlife attractions fell dramatically, only to have now recovered quite well. In the mid-to-late 1990s the visitor attractions market in Scotland was such that with just under 1,000 attractions in total, of which 510 charge for admission, it became home to the largest number of attractions per head of population in the UK. This fact alone is not necessarily significant. However, with attendance at attractions down by just under 6per cent between 1999 and 2000, with a decrease of 1per cent recorded in 1998 the signs are that supply is beginning to outperform

demand. With competition from within and outside the sector anticipated to grow rather than diminish, visitor attractions in Scotland faced a challenging future at the turn of the new millennium (Leask et al. 2000). With this viewpoint shared by observers in England, the public agencies embarked on a series of projects aimed at investigating and improving the visitor attractions sector (Swarbrooke 2001). The publication of the English Tourist Board’s Action for Attractions in 2000 was significant in that it recognized that ‘many of the problems facing the attractions sector were a consequence of a management deficit’ (ETC 2000: 21). This view was shared by Scottish Enterprise(SE), Scotland’s economic development agency, which suggested that the principal objective for the future of attractions in Scotland should be to achieve a more market-driven and coordinated approach to improving the quality of the visitor attractions product (SE 1997). One of the key findings put forward by Scottish Enterprise in their study Scottish Visitor Attractions Review was the need for operators of visitor attractions in Scotland to adopt management ‘best practice’ from ‘leading edge’ destinations around the world. Whereas the 1997 study focused primarily upon specific innovations in product development and marketing among a wide range of attractions in ten countries, a more recent study conducted by Scottish Enterprise set out to ‘identify the management processes, systems and philosophy that leads to high quality, innovative and, ultimately, successful visitor attractions’ (SE

ANNA LEASK is Senior Lecturer in Tourism at School of Marketing and Tourism, Napier University, Craiglockhart Campus, Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ, UK. e-mail: [email protected] ALAN FYALL is Reader in Tourism Management at International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research and Head of Research, School of Services Management, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK. e-mail: [email protected] ©2006 Tourism Recreation Research

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

2004: 4). Similar in remit to this study, the work conducted by Scottish Enterprise set out to provide insight and guidance to attractions operators in Scotland (SE 2004: 6). Related research in the field covers a broad range of themes which collectively set the research agenda for the future. Relevant to this study is the work by Jones et al. (2004) which explores the management of SMEs in the hospitality and tourism industry – many of which are attractions – with regard to their size, location and owner style. Likewise work by Johnson (2000) which explores the size-age-growth relationship in not-for-profit attractions with evidence from UK museums adds to the body of literature on the scale and structure of attractions, as does the study by Wilson (2004) which examines the relationship between visitor number performance and ownership type for attractions in Northern Ireland for the period 1990–2002. A similar study by Benckendorff and Pearce (2003) investigates the links between the characteristics of Australian attractions and the levels of planning undertaken by attraction managers while work by Lennon (2004) on the management of revenue among attractions is highly pertinent to this study. The human resource aspect of managing visitor attractions has recently been identified for research scrutiny with studies by Watson et al. (2004) and Graham and Lennon (2002) contributing to the wider debate on the future management of attractions. In response to the above, and following on from a number of previous studies conducted by the authors on visitor attractions (Fyall et al. 2001; Fyall and Garrod 1999; Garrod and Fyall 2000; Leask et al. 2000; Leask and Goulding 1996; Leask and Yeoman 1999) the time was deemed suitably appropriate to conduct a study to compare, contrast, and benchmark the management of visitor attractions in Scotland, to the management of attractions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Rather than provide a summary of the research findings, which are available elsewhere (Leask et al. 2001), this paper sets out to discuss the challenges encountered when conducting an international comparative research study on the subject of visitor attractions. The paper is in four parts. Part one is contextual in that it introduces the importance of comparative research in tourism generally before introducing the role of comparative research in the context of attractions. Part two explores issues of definition, comparability and equivalence in an attempt to establish a common understanding of the problem domain upon which to base research of this nature in the attractions sector. Part three outlines the study objectives and critically reviews the methodological options open to the authors, and considers the benefits, drawbacks and suitability of the techniques available, with specific reference to sample construction and elimination of bias. Finally, part four 24

provides a reference point for those wishing to conduct future research into visitor attractions in Scotland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Throughout each section, the problems encountered in the three New World studies will be reviewed, compared and contrasted with those encountered in Scotland. The paper will conclude with a series of recommendations for researchers who wish to undertake similar international comparative studies in tourism. Comparative Tourism Research: The Wider Context As highlighted by Baum (1999: 627) ‘much tourism research is directly or implicitly comparative in nature’ while the literature ‘abounds with such studies which use comparative benchmarking directly or in passing as a contribution to their discussion’. However, despite their prevalence in the domain of tourism – many of the studies lack a depth of methodological or analytical rigour commonplace among alternative methodologies (Pearce 1993). In part this can be explained by the relative immaturity of much tourism research compared to work conducted in other areas of the social sciences and public policy over the years. In the context of tourism, comparison can be used and be deemed to be beneficial in a variety of situations. In a practical sense, comparison can help gauge performance against a wide variety of criteria on a longitudinal basis, help assess relative performance against that of similar destinations or attractions, identify alternative or new marketing and/or development strategies, benchmarking, and experiential learning (Baum 1999: 628). Recent work by Kozak (2003), Simpson and Wall (1999), Huse et al. (1998) and Lee (2000) is testimony to the use of comparative methodologies in the domain of destinations, impact assessment and events respectively, while work by Henderson (2002) is evidence of its use in the domain of attractions. In addition to the above academic studies, the aforementioned studies conducted by Scottish Enterprise (SE 1997, 2004) are two highly pertinent examples of comparative research in the domain of attractions in that both involve considerable ‘comparative’ benchmarking activity; a tried and tested methodology in the Scottish tourism industry. Concerned with the ‘exchange of information and experience to improve performance’ benchmarking should ‘act as a catalyst for change resulting in improved performance across a range of criteria’ (SE 2004: 9). A number of benchmarking initiatives have been implemented across the UK including an innovative programme in Dorset and Hampshire where 33 attractions developed a pilot benchmarking initiative. This particular scheme involved an internal benchmarking survey as well as visitor profiling and satisfaction surveys (Fyall Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

and Leask 2002). Despite the considerable benefits of comparative research, numerous problems exist that can serve as impediments to the eventual use of research findings. Problems common to many studies include the issue of definitional ambiguity, the variable and varied quality of tourist and tourism data, the diversity of disciplinary background relevant to the study of tourism, and diversity between sub-sectors of tourism. Many of the above issues feature in the remainder of the paper, commencing with the definitional challenges which beset the attractions sector in general. Visitor Attractions: A Question of Definition The problem of definitional ambiguity in comparative research is an issue of particular significance in the context of attractions. Visitor attractions sectors around the world are often typified by a very large number of small, geographically fragmented, resource poor members, trying to meet a multitude of objectives for a range of diverse owners. Although agreement of definitions can sometimes cause unnecessary delay in a research study, a universal definition of attractions is required to ‘record, map and monitor attractions for information and statistical purposes’ (ETC 2000: 17). However, with changing leisure patterns, the definition currently espoused by Visit Britain has begun to be questioned. ‘A permanently established excursion destination, a primary purpose of which is to allow public access for entertainment, interest or education; rather than being principally a retail outlet or venue for sporting, theatrical or film performances. It must be open to the public without prior booking, for published periods each year, and should be capable of attracting tourists or day visitors as well as local residents. In addition, the attraction must be a single business, under a single management … and must be receiving revenue directly from visitors’ (ETC 2000: 39)

A necessary ingredient for improving the quality and standard of attractions, the above definition does though fail to include some of the most recent developments in the sector. Although ostensibly inclusive, there are a number of weaknesses, both domestically and internationally, of using the above definition for research purposes. For example, a new generation of ‘destination’ attractions is emerging whereby consumers are offered a comprehensive range of services and facilities for entertainment, shopping, eating and drinking, and other aspects of leisure (Stevens 2000: 62). Although not a permanent attraction, the ill-fated Millennium Dome in London was typical of such developments, in turn, making a succinct definition both elusive and increasingly irrelevant. This issue of definition Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

is highly pertinent as numerous retail and sporting attractions included by definition in studies conducted in Canada would be excluded elsewhere if one were to adopt the ETC definition. Likewise, the feeling that to be considered an attraction for sightseeing purposes, it should be possible (but not compulsory) to charge an admission fee for access would exclude many monuments and historic battlefields in Scotland. The logical conclusion from the above discussion is that the definitional characteristics for attractions need to be reviewed and reconstituted depending on the research or management problem under scrutiny. In some instances, many of the characteristics might be excluded from the definition in that each project probably needs to frame its own definition of visitor attractions for its own purpose. This will undoubtedly limit cross-project generalizations but the issues are suitably complex that each project needs to determine its own research parameters. Although this may help the researcher on individual projects, it does, however, serve as a major impediment to studies of a comparative nature. The only viable alternative is to adopt a wide-open definition along the lines of the aforementioned ETC definition but subject it to a number of caveats or subcategorizations. For example, while Leask (2003: 7) advocates the sub-categories of market reach (international, national, regional and/or local), ownership (public or private), admission charge (free or paid) and whether the attraction is of a built (man-made) or natural genre, Cooper et al. (2005: 347) include the sub-categories of capacity and permanency. A more innovative approach perhaps is that espoused by Wanhill with his use of the term ‘imagescape’ (2003). This concept is based on the fact that all attractions, to varying degrees, measure their performance by visitor numbers, the quality of the visitor experience, and the memories they take away with them and the consequent impact on repeat visitation and the spreading of positive word-of-mouth. It is obvious from the above discussion that acceptance of a common definition is far from conclusive, or perhaps even desirable for the adoption of a wide-open definition, although on the surface all-encompassing, serves little benefit vis-à-vis research. For the foreseeable future, it is a requirement for those – either domestically or internationally – undertaking attractions-related research to identify their own research agenda and set their own project specific ‘definitional’ parameters. Related to this discussion, are the issues of comparability and equivalence. In particular, this relates to the means by which visitor attractions are categorized. As with any changes to the definition of an attraction, category data must be manageable, meaningful and usable. 25

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

Duplication of any categories should be avoided (ETC 2000: 17). The incorporation of all attractions across four countries into standard visitor attraction categories proved highly complex. For example, the National Historic Site category used in Canada failed to correspond with any category used in the other three studies as did all five of the categories used in New Zealand. From a marketing standpoint the Wilderness, Thrill Zone, Heartland, Kiwi Spirit and Chill Out categorization of attractions used in New Zealand are highly pertinent and facilitate consumer choice. However, they serve as obstacles to the researcher trying to achieve comparability and equivalence in international comparative studies. Although the broad classification of attractions as either natural or built, whether for tourism-specific reasons such as a museum, or for other reasons such as a castle, does alleviate the problem, it does so somewhat artificially. Perhaps even more challenging is the means by which the researcher classifies visitor attractions by ownership and whether or not a charge is levied on entry. In each of the four countries surveyed in this study, ownership categories varied considerably. In previous studies conducted on Scottish visitor attractions (Leask and Fyall 2001; Garrod et al. 2002), ownership category proved to be a key dependent variable with regard to determining the entire approach to attractions management. This is particularly so for managing revenue and overall yield, visitor management strategies and the management of environmental impacts. Although there are similarities across many of the ownership categories used, misrepresentation of the terms, ‘public’, ‘charity’, ‘trust’, and ‘society’ on occasion make for precarious accuracy of comparison. Equally challenging is the means by which the researcher defines an attraction which charges, or does not charge, for visitor entry. Although there are a large number who clearly charge for admission, there are a significant proportion of visitor attractions which rely on voluntary donations and alternative ‘pricing’ mechanisms. For example, many churches, historic properties and gardens in Scotland rely heavily on visitor donations while in New Zealand the enormous number of wineries, although not charging for visitor admission, set token prices for wine tasting. In this instance, the New Zealand winery is similar to the Scottish whisky distillery in that it serves both tourism and non-tourism objectives such as brand building. For the purposes of this study, Scottish distilleries are included in the survey sample, while New Zealand wineries are excluded on the basis of their failure to charge for admission at the point of entry. The challenges noted above reflect the fact that although the globalization of markets has contributed to marketing research assuming a truly international character (Malhotra et al. 1994), problem definition and research 26

methodologies are clearly in need of more attention to make international marketing research more rigorous (Aulakh and Kotabe 1993: 24). The authors contend that this is particularly so in tourism generally, and with visitor attractions in particular. Malhotra et al. (1996: 37) add that the ‘failure to address these issues adequately in cross-cultural research can lead to confounding, alternative explanations, and severely limit the usefulness of the marketing research project’. Malhotra et al. (1996: 8) suggest that researcher unfamiliarity with the cultures and environmental factors of the countries where the research is being conducted can greatly increase the difficulty of attaining comparability. With regard to visitor attractions, issues of equivalence relate to the specific roles served by attractions. For example, why does the attraction exist: is it for entertainment, education or enterprise? Is the market predominantly local, domestic, or international? Is there governmental or political influence in its operations and/or management? Is the attraction of local, regional, national and/or international significance? Is there comparability of objectives? There is evidence to suggest that many of these issues cannot be addressed in a domestic study on visitor attractions with a significant degree of accuracy, let alone with the additional rigours and complexities of international comparative studies. The above is also true of early benchmarking initiatives. Although a highly useful means of identifying the processes that deliver best practice, enabling operators and managers of visitor attractions to assess performance against that of competitors, to date the use of benchmarking in attractions has been limited (ETC 2000: 24). Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the focus of existing schemes often reflect the organizers’ particular interests or backgrounds, or meet institutional administrative requirements. As with all issues pertaining to the definition of visitor attractions, there is also the need for a cross-sectoral benchmarking scheme that concentrates on visitor, marketing, commercial and quality aspects, and perhaps most importantly, is in a format suitable to both large and small attractions (ETC 2000: 24). This is equally true whether it be for domestic or international comparative studies. The most recent study conducted by Scottish Enterprise (SE 2004) offers a useful compendium of ‘good practice’ from fourteen attractions around the world. The study concluded that each of the fourteen attractions were successful due to their application of eight ‘principles of good management’ – albeit to varying degrees of sophistication and intensity (SE 2004: 51). Those principles identified by the study as determinants of good management are as follows: a results orientation; strong customer focus; clear leadership and constancy of purpose; management by process and facts; people development and involvement; continuous learning, innovation and Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

improvement; partnership development; and corporate social responsibility. Methodology In order to compare and contrast the management of visitor attractions in Scotland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, a variety of research methods were considered. With such a paucity of literature in existence on attractions, a primary research study was considered inevitable. The choice then was to determine the most effective means of gathering the data. Recent work by the authors on visitor attractions in Scotland was based on postal self-completion questionnaire surveys. With a response rate of 59 per cent in the 1999 study (Leask and Fyall 2001) and a response rate of 69 per cent in the 1995 study (Leask and Goulding 1996), there is little doubt that in a domestic environment the postal self-completion questionnaire survey can prove highly effective. In the words of Lucas (1999: 78), the postal selfcompletion survey is a practical and efficient way of gathering large amounts of quantitative data relatively inexpensively. However, they do require detailed administration, can demonstrate a propensity for low response, often offer only a partial insight from incomplete samples, may only be indicative in content and by definition involve no interaction with respondents. Despite this, the evaluative criteria suggested by Malhotra (1991) can be used as a basis to justify the choice of postal self-completion surveys on this occasion. With regard to the flexibility of data collection – although low, electronic mail and the development of a project-specific website helped facilitate correspondence for further explanation and discussion, especially with regard to the moderate diversity of questions. One factor that served as a concern was that of sample control in that for Canada, Australia and New Zealand the samples were constructed predominantly via lists on the Internet. Hence, any nonInternet-oriented attraction may have been excluded for the purposes of this study. By personalizing all correspondence and offering all respondents an executive summary of the results to keep them informed, although low, the control of data and collection environment was handled as effectively as possible with Internet updates on the authors’ website serving as a tangible inducement for potential respondents to respond in the first instance. Due to the nature of the method adopted control of the field force was high as were response rates for reasons outlined later in the paper. The perceived anonymity of respondent was deemed to be a necessary vehicle for the study to succeed as was the need for the reduction in potential for interview bias. Finally, without question, the key driver of any research of this genre is cost, the time available to conduct the study, the expertise of those managing the research effort and the participation of, in this Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

case the industry in providing sufficient information to make the entire project worthwhile. In addition to the above, by adhering to the principles posited by Dillman (1978) in his Total Design Method, more recently featured in Paxson (1995), the authors felt confident in achieving a suitably valid level of response. Dillman’s six principles incorporate the need to incorporate a cover letter, draft a clear, concise and easy to complete questionnaire, provide a return envelope (preferably reply-paid) and data request card, provide follow-up communication, and balance the cost considerations with the quality of the anticipated response. Interestingly, due to the additional cost and the fact that no such service exists in Canada, a reply-paid envelope was not included in the mailings. Rather, reply envelopes were included in all mailings with the authors believing that this alone still demonstrated a positive action, which would contribute to reasonably high levels of response. Alternative approaches that could have been adopted by the authors include telephone surveys, personal interviews and focus groups among others. With international comparative research the cost and timing of telephone surveys is prohibitive, as it also limits the quantity of information to be derived from each respondent. Although there are frequently problems of establishing a sampling frame in developing countries, this was not anticipated to be a problem in the four countries featured in the authors’ study. Hence, cost was clearly the reason why telephone surveys were not conducted in this instance. This was also true of personal interviews and focus groups. Although a small number of personal interviews were conducted in Scotland, the cost of arranging similar interviews in Canada, Australia and New Zealand was deemed to be prohibitive. This said, although postal self-completion surveys were deemed to be the most appropriate method on this occasion, there were a number of challenges to overcome to reach the response rates of 37.5 per cent, 34.2 per cent and 41.0 per cent in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, respectively. However, with high levels of literacy, quality postal systems and good rates of Internet access in the countries being targeted, it was anticipated that most challenges would not serve as barriers to progress. Sample Construction and Response Rates Sample construction was the first major challenge for the authors. With no census of visitor attractions available in either one of the four countries, the sample frames for each country were created from a variety of sources. This proved to be very time consuming and tedious. Address lists, from whatever source, were often outdated and inaccurate, 27

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

especially with regard to whether or not the attraction charged for admission. The Internet proved to be an excellent source of information with a number of websites proving invaluable, especially with regard to visitor attractions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The second major challenge was to encourage as high a response rate as possible within the budget and resource constraints available. Although Shaw and Ling (1992) and Lankford et al. (1995) suggest that second-mailings or ‘followup’ strategies are frequently ineffective and not cost-effective, it is noticeable that where a second mailing was used in Scotland, the response rate was significantly higher at 59 per cent than for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the first two instances, only one mailing was used, though a second was needed for New Zealand due to the initial mailing being sent incorrectly by surface rather than air mail. While Foushee and McLellan (1990) stress the high variance in response rates from different countries and stress that even where ‘follow-up’ strategies are adopted, there is no guarantee that response rates will be any higher; it was found that the initial 18.0 per cent response was increased to 41.0 per cent. Overall the response rates from all countries well exceeded the expectations of Paxson (1995). He argues that response rates from international cross-cultural studies can not be expected to exceed 20 per cent and considers a response rate of 30 per cent to be the upper limit. Paxson (1995: 67) suggests that these levels of response are ‘inevitable and tolerable’. One notable problem identified by Paxson (1995: 67) was that because most tourism and hospitality businesses have limited resources and time, respondents might be less likely to respond. Under these circumstances, survey salience and appeal are important. Paxson (1995) also noted that timing is also crucial due to the issue of seasonality. The need to understand each business and its cycles is of paramount important. With Scotland and Canada in the northern hemisphere and Australia and New Zealand in the southern hemisphere, in addition to issues of climate, this was always going to be a significant challenge. Canada For Canada, although no single Internet site contained a comprehensive list of visitor attractions, a number of sites served collectively as an excellent resource. As was the case in all countries surveyed, the websites varied greatly in their quality and level of information. Those relating to national parks and national historic sites in Canada were of an excellent standard. In order to improve the accuracy of the Canadian sampling frame, correspondence by fax, telephone and electronic mail proved highly effective, albeit expensive. Visitor attractions in the more populated provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario proved particularly 28

responsive to e-mail correspondence, as did they contribute higher on average levels of survey response. However, lower levels of response were derived from visitor attractions in the French-speaking province of Quebec. Despite a cover letter in French being sent to all those attractions located in Quebec, response levels were significantly lower than comparable ‘populated’ provinces. It was perhaps no surprise that the peripheral and largely uninhabited provinces of Yukon, Nunavut and North Western Territories both contained very few visitor attractions and failed to respond to the survey. Where attractions did in fact exist, correspondence was limited due to the sparse use of electronic mail and facsimile facilities. As was the case with all four countries, the biggest obstacle proved to be establishing whether or not attractions charged for admission. Australia Visitor attractions in Australia also responded well to the study. With regard to the spread of attractions by state and territory, the authors achieved a reasonably representative sample. However, as was the case with Canada, no single national website existed with websites varying considerably in the quantity and quality of information, their accuracy, and comparability and ‘ease of surf’. For example, whereas the Victoria site concentrated on visitor attractions in urban locations, websites for South Australia and New South Wales contained attractions split by type, location and alphabetically. Perhaps the best resource available was Australian Museums on-line. This may possibly account for the very large number of respondents from that particular category. The accuracy of attraction address, email, fax and telephone details was excellent and undoubtedly contributed to the excellent response from museums in Australia. One particular item of interest was that all websites were in English with no sign of any traditional and/or aboriginal language evident on any signage or electronic mailing lists. There was also the issue that if contact details were not obtainable on the Internet, then acquiring visitor attraction details from alternative sources proved particularly difficult. New Zealand The above was also true for New Zealand although there was evidence of some sites, albeit very few, in both English and Maori. With a large number of museums, farm and animal attractions such as dolphin watching, zoos, whale watching and nature reserves, New Zealand contains a high number of outdoor activities among its visitor Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

attraction population. There are also a number of national parks and thermal valley resorts due to New Zealand’s susceptibility to volcanic activity. The website for ‘purenz’ proved to be a good resource and contained excellent details relating to a large number of outdoor activities and physical pursuits (purenz.co.nz 2002). Although it is difficult to be precise, the New Zealand websites seemed to be more up-todate than their Australian and Canadian counterparts with at least 50 per cent of attractions in New Zealand holding the correct full, and electronic, addresses clearly shown on the respective websites. One complication with the New Zealand study was, as mentioned previously, the relatively low rate of response to the first survey. This was explained eventually by the discovery that the first mailing went by surface rather than by airmail. By the time a second mailing was launched, albeit a little too late for many seasonal attractions, some of the surveys from the first mailing started to reach their destinations so causing an element of respondent confusion and lack of confidence in the survey. On reflection, there was little that could have been done at the time to rectify the situation. However, it further demonstrates the complexities and constraints of the choice of this research method for international comparative research studies. One item of note for all three international studies was that pilot studies were conducted in each instance. Not only were they conducted to verify survey accuracy but, in each country it was necessary to check the respondents’ understanding of English. Although all three countries have English as their main language, Canada is obviously bilingual. In this instance, all cover letters were sent in French to those attractions in the French-speaking province, Quebec. However, this did not contribute to a particularly good rate of response. Furthermore, with indigenous issues of political importance in both Australia and New Zealand, the use of English may have contributed to an ethnocentric bias in the results. However, with very few websites offering any indigenous translation to visitors, this issue is perhaps of minor significance in this study. Conclusion and Issues for Future Research The genesis of this paper arose out of a frustration on the part of the authors, vis-à-vis the limited amount of international comparative studies available to the research community on the management of visitor attractions. Enterprise agencies, tourist boards, and other tourist organizations and consultancies have been quick to advocate to managers of visitor attractions the lessons to be learned by international ‘best practice’. Yet, too often, this ‘advice’ has represented at best ‘anecdotal’ evidence and at worst Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

‘hearsay’. With a longstanding interest in the management of visitor attractions the authors completed a major international primary research investigation in an attempt to shed light on this so-called ‘best practice’ in a selection of key tourist destination markets. Rather than focus on the actual results, however, this paper has evaluated the research methods available to the authors and has identified a number of key methodological issues for those wishing to advance their understanding of the management of visitor attractions in different countries around the world. In an ideal world, the researcher would select a mix of both quantitative and qualitative research methods. However, the sheer volume of attractions around the world, their diversity and distance are such that clear parameters need to be established at the outset of the study. Clearly, the biggest impediments to undertaking international comparative research include consistency of definition, comparability and equivalence. Whereas other sectors of tourism, such as transportation and accommodation, are reaping the benefits of globalization in terms of product standardization, economies of scale and uniform global management systems, the individuality of visitor attractions inhibits the uniform adoption of such benefits as it constrains the attempts made by researchers to better understand the dynamics of visitor attractions management. Interestingly, with regard to lessons learned from this study, the problems encountered by the researchers were common in all four countries. These included the commonality of definitions, comparability and equivalence, the suitability of response rates and representation, the handling of seasonality, survey timing, gaining of access to attractions, tight budget control and the need to satisfy the demands of the study sponsors. For the foreseeable future, it is a requirement for those – either domestically or internationally – undertaking comparative attractions-related research to identify their own research agenda and set their own project specific ‘definitional’ parameters at the outset; evident in the first stage of the authors’ recommended research process for future comparative research studies in the context of visitor attractions. While Stage one emphasizes the need for clear agreement vis-à-vis the research problem and associated research parameters and commonality of definition(s), it is widely accepted that similar studies conducted by different researchers in different country or cultural contexts may identify and agree on quite different criteria. Although totally acceptable this does, however, hinder the extent to which groups of researchers can learn from each other and collectively move forward the research agenda on attractions. The sector’s sheer diversity – its strength perhaps – in this 29

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

Stage 1:  Problem Definition  Determine Research Parameters  Establish Common Definitions  Determine Suitable Definitional Sub-Categories Stage 2:  Determine Sampling Frame and Sample Construction  Evaluation of Alternative Research Methodologies  Determination of Method Evaluative Criteria  Method(s) Choice Stage 3:  Timing of Research  Consideration of Language and Cultural Aspects  Undertaking of Pilot Survey Stage 4:  Commence Research  Monitor Progress and Maintain Communication  Contingency Planning (Follow-up Strategies)  Analysis of Study Findings  Report Study Findings Stage 5:  Lessons to be Learned. Figure 1. The Comparative Research Process instance serving as a particular impediment to collective learning and the adoption of ‘good practice’. Stage two advocates the determination of the sampling frame and sample construction. One notable challenge that remains for researchers in the field of visitor attractions, both domestically and internationally, is the lack of a single database – or even a collection of related databases – in existence anywhere that serves as a suitable sample frame from which to start the research process. Due to the very fragmented nature and variety of ownership of attractions, the problem of researcher access to comprehensive listings of attractions anywhere is likely to remain a challenge. This paper has discussed in depth the difficulties of achieving this in four countries with close historical, political, social and linguistic roots. This aspect of comparative research is likely to be even more difficult when countries with different socio-cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds are chosen for purposes of comparative investigation. It is interesting in fact to note that the recent ‘international’ study conducted by Scottish Enterprise is international to the 30

extent that it includes ‘good practice’ case material from the USA, United Kingdom, South Africa, Ireland – all Englishspeaking nations with strong socio-cultural and historical connections. The evaluation of alternative research methodologies, the determination of method evaluative criteria and choice of method(s) are also key features of stage two. With a clear research agenda, the study referred to throughout this paper suggests that single method can work extremely effectively. This was demonstrated also in the Delphi study conducted by Garrod and Fyall (2000) on the management of heritage attractions, although it must be said that this was a domestic rather than an international study. It did, however, provide some much-valued depth to the issues rather than the somewhat superficial treatment of issues pertinent to international visitor attractions by the private sector. Stages three and four are important in that they involve the actual undertaking of the research study. With an international study, the timing of the research is imperative, especially when incorporating southern and northern hemisphere countries as was evident in this study. This has implications for seasonality and attraction attendance and impacts significantly on attraction managers’ willingness and ability to complete such a request for survey information. In turn, the different timing of the respective studies throws open opportunities for bias in that different external forces may be apparent at different times and impact the respective studies to varying degrees. Study validity may, therefore, be problematic in some instances. In conducting an international postal self-completion comparative study, this paper has confirmed that attention to detail at each stage of the research process, a very well defined sense of direction and research focus, suitably experienced staff and a supportive research budget can provide some valuable insights into the dynamics of visitor attractions management; as can it help generate higher than expected levels of response. The authors believe that the study referred to throughout this paper benefited significantly from the authors establishing the correct contact details, providing high levels of personalization, gaining the involvement of industry partners in the early stages of the study, and the promise and eventual communication to respondents of feedback – assisted to a large degree with the creation of a dedicated website – a key feature of stage four. The involvement and sharing of expertise with industry partners is deemed to be highly valuable in that academia has experience of research methods not always apparent in the private sector, where different goals and targets exist. Although industry is often strong at policy-driven initiatives, quality research at the operational level is often lacking – it Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall

being at this level where answers are most frequently sought by the managers and operators of attractions. The study benefited also from a very robust pilot study, and a rigorous initial investigation of the market context of each selected ‘leading edge’ destination. This was an essential component of the study in order to ensure the appropriateness of the questions asked in each of the countries chosen for purposes of analysis. Flexibility of study timing was also significant in the context of the New Zealand study in that although problems were encountered with the initial mailing, sufficient time was available to re-launch the survey and generate a very healthy rate of response. In concluding this paper, it is fair to acknowledge that much of its content is in fact of value to all sectors of the tourism industry and is not only of benefit to those researching the visitor attractions sector. It is also fair to question, however, the validity and worth of future international comparative research studies in the domain of visitor attractions. Certainly, supply-based studies of this genre may reduce in number. However, the move to more marketing-oriented benchmarking may strengthen the case for greater demand-based studies in the future; the development of the New Zealand attraction classifications of Wilderness, Thrill Zone, Heartland, Kiwi Spirit and Chill Out setting the trend for greater adoption of demand-based branding and brand clusters across an increasing number of destinations, both domestically and internationally. Hence, although supply-based studies will clearly remain an option for the research community, the migration toward

studies that explore what the visitor thinks, wishes, expects, and experiences – on an international scale – may be the way forward for those wishing to advance their understanding of what needs are to be met when managing visitor attractions in different countries around the world. One obvious issue in this area is gaining access to those visitors who do not visit the attraction and who may offer significantly different insights into the visitor psyche. Whatever research is undertaken on the subject of attractions in the future, it is essential that every effort is made to ensure consistency and accuracy of data collection and to deliver truly ‘valuable’ research with ‘valued’ outcomes in the eyes of the attractions sector. Finally, despite the challenges posed by comparative research, especially in the international context, it offers managers an awareness of what practices are taking place elsewhere thereby providing considerable scope for learning. Managers are often accused of working in isolation and of being impervious to developments elsewhere in their own region or country, let alone internationally. Despite the numerous challenges that accompany comparative research, the outcomes are beneficial in that they offer genuine insight into the management and operational practices and processes conducted within the attractions sector. They also highlight those issues and challenges which often face the sector – be it regionally, nationally or internationally – in its widest sense, irrespective of how one wishes to define this undefinable sector within the wider tourism industry.

References AULAKH, P. S. and KOTABE, M. (1993). An Assessment of the Theoretical and Methodological Developments in International Marketing: 19801990. Journal of International Marketing 1: 5-28. BAUM, T. (1999). Themes and Issues in Comparative Destination Research: The Use of Lesson-Drawing in Comparative Tourism Research in the North Atlantic. Tourism Management 20(5): 627-633. BENCKENDORFF, P. J. and PEARCE, P. L. (2003). Australian Tourist Attractions: The Links Between Organizational Characteristics and Planning. Journal of Travel Research 42(August): 24-35. COOPER, C., FLETCHER, J., FYALL, A., GILBERT, D. and WANHILL, S. (2005). Tourism Principles and Practice (3rd Edition). Harlow. Pearson Education. DILLMAN, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York. John Wiley and Sons. ETC (2000). Action for Attractions. London. English Tourism Council. FOUSHEE, K. D. and MCLELLAN, R. W. (1990). The Effect of the Timing of Follow-up on Response Rates to International Surveys. International Journal of Hospitality Management 9: 21-25. FYALL, A. and GARROD, B. (1999). Heritage Tourism: At What Price? Managing Leisure 3: 213-218. FYALL, A. and LEASK, A. (2002). Managing Visitor Attractions: A Collaborative Approach. Insights A93-A97. London. English Tourism Council. FYALL, A., LEASK, A. and GARROD, B. (2001). Scottish Visitor Attractions: A Collaborative Future? International Journal of Tourism Research 3(3): 211-228. GARROD, B. and FYALL, A. (2000). Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 682-708. GARROD, B., FYALL, A. and LEASK, A. (2002). Scottish Visitor Attractions: Managing Visitor Impacts. Tourism Management 23(3): 265-279. GRAHAM, M. and LENNON, J. (2002). The Dilemma of Operating a Strategic Approach to Human Resource Management in the Scottish Visitor Attraction Sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14(5): 213-220. HENDERSON, J. (2002). Heritage Attractions and Tourism Development in Asia: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong and Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research 4(5): 337-344. Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

31

Management of Visitor Attractions: A. Leask and A. Fyall HUSE, M., GUSTAVSEN, T. and ALMEDAL, S. (1998). Tourism Impact Comparisons among Norwegian Towns. Annals of Tourism Research 25(3): 721-738. JOHNSON, P. (2000). The Size-Age-Growth Relationship in Not-For-Profit Tourist Attractions: Evidence from UK Museums. Tourism Economics 6(3): 221-232. JONES, P., LOCKWOOD, A. and BOWEN, A. (2004). UK Hospitality and Tourism SMEs: Differentiation by Size, Location and Owner Style. Tourism and Hospitality: Planning and Development 1(1): 7-11. KOZAK, M. (2003). Measuring Comparative Performance of Vacation Destinations: Using Tourists’ Self-Reported Judgments as an Alternative Approach. Tourism Analysis 8(2): 247-251. LANKFORD, S. V., BUSTON, B. P., HETZLER, R. and LITTLE, J. R. (1995). Response Bias and Wave Analysis of Mailed Questionnaires in Tourism Impact Assessments. Journal of Travel Research 33: 8-13. LEASK, A. (2003). The Nature and Purpose of Visitor Attractions. In Fyall, A., Leask, A. and Garrod, B. (eds) Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions. Oxford. Butterworth Heinemann: 5-15. LEASK, A. and FYALL, A. (2001). Scottish Visitor Attractions: Revenue Management Trends and Issues. ETC Insights . London. English Tourism Council: A105-A112. LEASK, A., FYALL, A. and GOULDING, P. (2000). Revenue Management in Scottish Visitor Attractions. In Ingold, A., McMahon-Beattie, U. and Yeoman, I. (eds) Yield Management: Strategies for the Service Industries (2nd Edition). London. Continuum: 211-232. LEASK, A., HARVEY, K. and FYALL, A. (2001). An International Comparison of Revenue Management Practice among Scottish and Canadian Visitor Attractions. ETC Insights March. London. English Tourism Council: 211-232. LEASK, A. and GOULDING, P. (1996). What Price our Heritage? A Study of the Role and Contribution of Revenue Management in Scotland’s Heritage Based Visitor Attractions. In Robinson, M., Evans, N. and Callaghan, P. (eds) Managing Cultural Resources for the Tourist. Sunderland. Business Education Publishers Limited: 239-270. LEASK, A. and YEOMAN, I. (1999). The Development of Core Concepts of Yield Management. International Journal of Heritage Studies 5: 96-110. LEE, C. K. (2000). A Comparative Study of Caucasian and Asian Visitors to a Cultural Expo in an Asian Setting. Tourism Management 21: 169-176. LENNON, J. (2004). Revenue Management and Customer Forecasts: A Bridge Too Far for the UK Visitor Attractions Sector? Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 2(4): 338-352. LUCAS, R. (1999). Survey Research. In Brotherton, B. (ed) The Handbook of Contemporary Hospitality Management Research. Chichester. John Wiley and Sons. MALHOTRA, N. K. (1991). Administration of Questionnaires for Collecting Quantitative Data in International Marketing Research. Journal of Global Marketing 4: 63-92. MALHOTRA, N. K., ULGADO, F., AGARWAL, J. and BAALBAKI, I. (1994). International Services Marketing: A Comparative Evaluation of the Dimensions of Service Quality between Developed and Developing Countries. International Marketing Review 11: 5-15. MALHOTRA, N. K., AGARWAL, J. and PETERSON, M. (1996). Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Marketing Research. International Marketing Review 13: 7-43. MIGL (2002). Visitor Attractions in the UK. London. Mintel Intelligence Group Limited. MORI NEWS (2001). Leisure Attractions. London. MORI News. PAXSON, M. C. (1995). Increasing Survey Response Rates: Practical Instructions from the Total-Design Method. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36: 66-73. PEARCE, D. G. (1993). Comparative Studies in Tourism Research. In Pearce, D. G. and Butler, R. W. (eds) Tourism Research, Critiques and Challenges. London. Routledge. SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE (1997). Scottish Visitor Attractions Review. Glasgow. Scottish Enterprise. SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE (2004). Visitor Attraction Benchmarking and Good Practice Management Study. Glasgow. Scottish Enterprise. SHAW, R. N. and LING, F. (1992). Follow-up in International Tourism Mail Surveys. Journal of Travel Research 31: 49-51. SIMPSON, P. and WALL, G. (1999). Consequences of Resort Development: A Comparative Study. Tourism Management 20: 283-296. STEVENS, T. (2000). The Future of Visitor Attractions. Travel and Tourism Analyst 1: 61-85. SWARBROOKE, J. (2001). Key Challenges for Visitor Attraction Managers in UK. Journal of Leisure Property 1(4): 318-336. WANHILL, S. (2003). Interpreting the Development of the Visitor Attraction Product. In Fyall, A., Leask, A. and Garrod, B. (eds) Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions. Oxford. Butterworth Heinemann: 16-35. WATSON, S., MCCRACKEN, M. and HUGHES, M. (2004). Scottish Visitor Attractions: Managerial Competence Requirements. Journal of European Industrial Training 28(1): 39-66. WILSON, L. A. (2004). Visitor Attractions in Northern Ireland: The Relationship Between Visitor Number Performance and Ownership Type 19902002. Current Issues in Tourism 7(2): 146-180. Websites Visited http://www.purenz.co.nz. Accessed on 10 September 2002. http://www.staruk.org. Accessed on 15 June 2004.

Submitted: August 30, 2004 Accepted: March 25, 2005 32

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006