A Study of Visitor’s Satisfaction Towards Heritage Tourism

CHAPTER — 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 CHAPTER-2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1INTRODUCTION:

The first alid most important step for a researcher is to explore and
review the related available studies on the topic and obtain some
guidelines for own research work. The past experience/ work is always
helpful for new researchers. They learn from the past and make the
plan for the future. A survey is made of the existing relevant literature
available on the topic. An investigator, too, make an effort to collect
available information and past studies to go ahead with the new study.

The purpose here is to have a glance into the various researches ln the
field, to analyze and critically examine them and to connect the present
knowledge with earlier studies in order to decide about the general
framework of the study.

A large number of llterature / paper / research work is available on

Tourism Industries and research has been referred available llterature
on the Heritage tourism services and visitors satisfactlOn for Heritage
Tourism.

2.2 HERITAGE/CULTURAL TOURISM:

Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the

English language (Williams, 1976). Culture is not genetically
inherited (Hall, 1976), but is always shared by members of a society
(Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980; and Mulholland, 1991). It distinguishes
the members of one group from another and 1s passed from one
generation to the other. It

92
is dynamic because each generation adds something of its own before
passlng it on. (Hofstede, 1980).

Light et al (1994) described Heritage TourlslTl as belonging to the

middle class, well educated, middle —aged, no children, on holiday
away from home and who have a prior knowledge of history. This
view is largely supported by Balcar and Pearce (1996) and Prentice
(1993).

Heritage is part of the cultural and tourism industries which represent

the fastest growing sectors of the world's economy, second only to
developments in Multimedia (Boylan, 1995).

“History is what a historian regards as worth recording and heritage is

what contemporary society chooses to inherit and to pass on.”
(Turnbridge and Asworth 1996:6)

A review' of existing definitions of herltage and cultural tourism shows

that the terms “Cultural Heritage Tourism” have been used to describe
not only the consumption of art, monuments, folklore, built heritage
and cultural manifestations, but also to describe experiences pursued
and motivations of travelers at destinations. The omnipresent nature of
the cultural heritage tourism phenomenon makes it difficult to assess
exhaustively. As a solution, the Cultural Tourism Research Project by
the European Associatlon for Tourism and Leisure Education,
ATLAS, (Richards, 1996a) has designed a dual definition of cultural
tourism. The first, a conceptual definition, is the movement of persolis
to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence, with
the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their
cultural needs. This incorporates the attitudinal, experiential and
interpretive dimensions of cultural tourism. The second, a tech.nical
definition, regards cultural tourlsin as all movements of persons to
specific cultural attractions, such
as heritage sites, artistic and cultural manifestations, arts arid drama
outside their normal place of residence (1996a, p. 24).An increasing
body of literature indicates that some people are more highly
motivated to participate in cultural tourism than others.

Heritage in its simplest form may he defined as 'things inherited; a

nation's historic buildings etc.' (Oxford English Dictionary, 1997),
embracing the preservation of buildings, sites and artifacts for handing
on to future generations. Increasingly though, the consumption of
heritage is viewed as an experiential process, whereby history is
selectively packaged to suit the tastes and expectations of a
discerning and sophisticated public.

Aluza et al (1998) viewed, the cultural heritage tourism market consists

of five distinct segments with each having different trip
characteristics, suggesting that not all cultural and heritage tourists
are alike and should be targeted in different ways.

D.K. Shifflet and associates (1999) identified three types of

heritage tourists: “core”, “moderate” and “lc›w”, with each of the
segments demonstrating different behavior and spending patterns.
Stebbins (1996) suggests that the cultural tourist comes in two types:
“general and specialized.”

McKercher (2002a) also suggests that cultural tourism can be

segmented into five markets based on the depth at which the tourists
engage in a culture or a cultural attraction, and how central the
culture or attractlon was to their choice of destination. To some
segments, culture or the attraction played a major role in their decision
while, for other segments, culture played either a minor role or no role
in their decision making. (McKercher and Du Cros 2003).
Cultural tourists are not recognized a homogenous mass but a
heterogeneous market with different characteristics and needs (Hughes,
2002 and McKercher, 2002) and different types of cultural tourists
may seek qualitatively different experiences (McKercher, 2002 and
Dolnicar,2002). On the basis of degree of motivation for visiting
cultural sites/ destinations, Silberberg (1993) identified four different
types of cultural tourists-greatly motivated, .n part motivated, adjunct
and accidental cultural tourists.

Cultural tourists can also be either syecific or general (Foo and

Rossetto, 1998). McKercher (2002) introduced a two-dimensional
model on cultural tourism and classified cul.ural tourist in five
categories- the purposeful, the sightseeing, the casual, the incidental
and the serendipitous cultural tourists.

According to WTO (2000), culture and tourism have a symblotic

connection. Arts, crafts, dances, rituals and legends that are at risk of
being forgotten by the younger generation may be revitalized when
tourists show a keen interest in them. Cultural tourism is the sub-set of
tourlsm (Mac Cannell, 1976; McIntosh and Goeldner, 1990; Zeppel,
1992; l1ughes,1996; Stebbins 1996; and McKercher and Du
Cros,2003). Bonink and Richards (1992) reviewed the existing
definitions of cultural tourism and identified two basic approaches: (1)
Sites and monuments approach which is clearly related to a product-
based definition of culture and concentrates on describing the type of
attractions visited by cultural tourists ECTARC (1989); (2)
Conceptual approach which is clearly related to process-based
definitions of culture and attempt to describe the motive and the
meanings attached to cultural tourism activity. For example, cultural
tourism comprises all aspects of travel (McIntosh and Goeldner,
198d and 1990).The role of culture as
9S
contextual, where it shapes the tourist’s experience of a situation in
general, without a paHicular focus on the uniqueness of a specific
cu1tui‘al identity (Wood, 1984).

“Heritage is not simply the past but the modern-day use of elements of
the past.” (Timothy and Boyd 2003:4)

Tourism has traditionally been defined elther in demand side tennis or

supply side terms, i.e., either in terms of activities of tourists/ visitors or
the activities of business supplying tourists/visitors. The demand side
concept was accepted as an appropriate approach at the World Tourism
Organization’s (WTO) “International conference on travel and tourixm
statistics” Ottawa (Canada) in 1991 and Tourism was defined as: “The
activities of a person travelling to and staying in places outside their
usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure,
business and other purposes.”

In the tourism llterature, the term ‘culture’ can be identified in two ways
— culture as process; and culture as a product. ‘Culture as the processes
is an approach through which people make sense of themselves and their
lives (Clarke, 1990). It assumes that boundaries of culture, are variable,
and can cover a nation, tribe, corporation, etc. pursuing any specific
activities. ‘Culture as product’ is an approach where culture is regarded as
the product of indivldual or group activities to which certain meanings
are attached. Culture a process is the goal of tourists seeking authenticity
and meaning through their touring experiences (MacCannell, 1976; and
Cohen, 1979). Culture as the process is transformed into culture as a
product through tourism (Cohen, 1988).

In the contemporary period solutlon demands that they must be

acceptable by different culture. People belongs to different communities

96
every community recreate in own style. Today every country is
providing better facllities for tourism attraction in the world. “Travel
moti›•ations” is one of the useful approaches in linderstanding travel
needs and tourists behaviors (Crompton, 1979; Yoon and Uysal,
2005).

There are hundreds of definitions of ‘culture’ (Tomlinson, 1991; and

Lonner, 1994) but no single definition has achieved a consensus in
literature. According to Mulholland (1991), culture is a set of shared
and enduring meaning, values and beliefs that characterize national,
ethnic or other groups and orient their behavior.

Heritage attractions in an area differ from other attractions such as

theme parks, shopping precincts /national areas. Richards (2000,p-
9),for e.g. states that Heritage tourism is largely concerned with the
cultural legacy of the past , or the ‘hard’ cultural resources usually
contained in old buildings, museums, monuments, and landscapes or
represented and interpreted in specialized Heritage centers. In a
broadly simllar manner, Ashworth (2000p, 19) defined Heritage
tourism as the ‘co modified artifacts, buildings, memories and
experiences of the past that entails cooperation between heritage
producers, the tourism industry and the local place managers.
Identification of target markets based on preference patterns of tourlst
for specific types of Heritage attractions is essential as not all heritage
tourists can be expected to be interested in all Heritage attractions.
Previous research have revealed that Heritage tourists are likely to
spend more money per trip than other groups of tourists (Kerstetter et.
a1; 2001) although the time spent at heritage sites is disputed, with
Kerstetter et.al (2001) quotlng the avefage length of stay as days
whereas Ashworth (2000) argues for a shorter length of stay.

97
D. K. Shifflet and associates (1999) identified three types of heritage
tourists: “core”, “moderate” and “low”, with each of the segments
demonstrating different behavior and spending patterns. Stebbins
(1996) suggests that the cultural tourist comes in two types: general
and specialized.

Graham et.al. (2000) describe Heritage as cultural and economic

capital, vulnerable to exploitation of various types. Governments
responsible may be following hegemonic aims (Tunbridge 1984; Me
Intosh and Prentice (1999), for e g. describe the search for meaning
and pride in the past as the result of the divorce of western societies
from their rural origins through urbanization and population drift to the
cities. Institutions such as Heritage attractions and museums play a key
role in conferring authority upon their interpretation of the past.

Notably, Chi and Qu (2008) inaintainCd loyalty to be a better

predictor of actual behavior compared to satisfaction. In this respect,
Chen and Tsai (2007) conclude that a key effect of tourist satisfaction
that influences tourism intentions for revisit both in short and long term
is loyalty to the destination. Importantly, there is an agreement among
several scholars that satisfaction provided a ground for revisit and
positive word of mouth recommendations which are the lndicators of
loyalty (e.g. Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Yoon and Uysal 2005;
Chi and Qu, 2008). Kozak (2001) pointed that level of satisfaction as
one of the most dominant variables in explaining revisit intention.
Accordingly, in tourism destination’s researches, it has been widely
underlined that tourist satisfaction, loyalty and revisit intention have
strong relationship (e.g. Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Awadzi and Panda,
2007), while a few studies disapproved the positive relationship
between tourist satisfaction and revisit intention (e.g. Um et a1., 2006).
 Contrib s Year Contributions

Light et.a1. 994 Described Heritage tourism as belonging to

the middle —class, well educated, middle —
aged, no children, on holiday away from
home and who have a prior knowledge of
history.

D.K. Shifflet 1999 Identified three types of heritage tourists:

et.al. “core”, “moderate” and “low”, with each of
the segments demonstrating dlfferent
behavior and spending patterns.

Graham et.al. 2000 Described Heritage as cultural and

economic capital, vulnerable to exploitation
of various types.

Chen and Tsar 2007 Conclude that a key effect of tourist

sattsfaction that influences tourism
intentions for revisit both in short and long
term is loyalty to the destination.

Chi and Qu 2008 Maintained loyalty to be a better predictor

of actual behavior compared to satisfaction.
In this respect,

Table 2.1 Heritage Cultural/ Tourism

2.3 VISITOR’S SATISFACTION:

Researchers (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991; Woodruff, Cadotte and

Jenkins, 1983) have taken a different viewpoint, asserting that
satisfaction is an effective response to a consumptlon experience. The

99
background and personality of the consumer wlll contribute to the
amount of satisfaction experienced in any given situation. In theory,
satisfaction consists of a comparison of the attributes of a consumption
experience with the expectations of the consumer. Persons visiting a
museum store are assumed to have expectations about this activity.

Poon (1993) observed that tourist satisfaction can be achieved with

proper strategic initiatives to build destination image and that
destination competitiveness can be ensured by virtue of organized form
of interactions with tourists. Bitner and £fubbert (1994) describe
customer satisfaction as a feeling or an attitude of a customer towards a
service after it has been used.

Philip and Hezlett (1996) recognize the fact that one of the strategic
routes used by leisure firms in gaining competitive edge has been
through an increase concentration in customer satisfaction. They also
seem to be agreement in the fact that, customer satisfactions influence
the choice of destination, the consumption of products and services and
the decision to return.

In tourist destination researches (e.g. Oliver, 1997; Yoon and Uysal

2005), tourist satisfaction has been measured by different items such as
overall satisfaction, performance. expectation, and positive
recommendation.

Vavra (1997) explained customer/visitors satisfaction as the end state

resulting from the consumption experience. The end state might be a
positive perception of the reward sacrifices ratio, or an emotional
response to the consumption and use experience, or resulting from the
comparison of rewards and sacrifices against anticipated consequences
from consuming and use of the product or service.
According to Kozak and Rimmimgton (2000) satisfaction 1s
important to successful destination marketing; because it influences the
choice of destination, the consumption of products and services, and
the decision to return to visit. Service experience can be defined as the
subjective personal reactions and feelings lhat are felt by consumers
when consuming or using a service. It can be contended that service
experience has an important influence on the cows Amer evaluation of
and satisfaction with a given service (Otto and Ritchie, 2000).

Several researchers have studied customer satisfaction and provided

theories about tourism (Bram well. 1998; Bowen, 2001). For example,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry’s (1985) expectation-perception
gap model, Oliver’s expectancy—disconfirmation theory (Pizam and
Milman, 1993), Sirgy’s congruity model (Sirgy, 1984 ; Chon and
Olsen, 1991), and the performance — only model.(Pizam, Neumann,
and Reichel, 1978) have been used t‹a measure tourist satisfaction with
specific tourism destinations. Furthermore, after tourists have bought
the travel service and products, if the evaluation of their experience of
the travel product is better than their expectations, they will be satisfied
with thelr travel experience.

Heritage tourism, like other leisure an‹5 tourism activities, is viewed to

a great extent as an experiential consumption. Hence, the quality
visitors perceive is much more associated with their experiences during
the process of visitation than services per se provided by the heritage.

To increase visitors’ positive behavioral intentions, heritage managers

should set their priorities to provide high quality, satisfying
experiences that visitors perceive to be a good v al’ae (Lee, Petrick,
and Crompton, 2007)

101
Notably, Chi and Qu (2008) maintained loyalty to be a better predictor
of actual behavior compared to satisfaction. In this respect, Chen and
Tsai (2007) conclude that a key effect of tourist satisfaction that
influences tourism intentions for revisit both in short and long term is
loyalty to the destination. Importantly, there is an agreement mnong
several scholars that satisfaction provided a ground for revisit and
positive word of mouth recoinmendatlons which are the indicators of
loyalty (e.g. Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Yoon and Uysal 2005;
Chi and Qu, 2008). Kozak (2001) pointed that level of satisfaction as
one of the most dominant variables in explaining revisit intention.
Accordingly, in tourism destinatlon s researches, it has been widely
underlined that tourist satisfaction, loyalty and revisit intention have
strong relationshl (e.g. Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Awadzi and Panda,
2007), while a few studies disapproved the positive relationship
between tourist satisfaction and revisit intention (e.g. Um et al., 2006).

Researchers have verified the relationship between the tourist

satisfaction and destination loyalty not in terms of revisit intention but
also through advocacy (Bigne et al., 2009; Murray and Howat, 2002)
Destination loyalty has been highlighted as one of the most important
subjects in tourism researches. In many studies, revisit intention and
positive word of mouth recommendation are noted as indicators of
loyalty (e.g. Yoon and Uysal 2005; Chi and Qu, 2008). Several
studies have attempted to identify major antecedents of revisit intention
including satisfaction (Petrick et a1., 2001; Kozak 2001), novelty
seeking (Jang and Feng, 2007), image (Chi and QU, 2008),
motivation and satisfactlon (Yoon and Usal, 2005), safety (Chen and
Gursoy, 2001), overall satisfaction (Campo-Martinez ct a1., 2010),
cultural difference (Chen and Gursoy, 2001), percelved value (Petrick
et al., 2001), past vacation experience
(Kozak, 2001), and the like. In this regard, notably, Jang and Feng
(2007) asserted that even though the extent of research finding is well
focused on detenninants of repeat visit intention, it can be contested that
understandlng tourists’ revisit intention and their behavior remains
limited. Revisit intention has also been focused as an important issue
from economic perspective in tourism studies (e.g.Darnell and Johnson,
2001).

Hsu et al. (2008) observed preserving loyalty of established customer as

a crucial contributor to the achievement and profitability of business.
Accordingly, the main reason why researchers should consider revisit
intention is the fact that “globalization of markets, competitive pressure,
brand multiplication and, above all, the ever-changing lifestyles and
consumer behavior have forced companies to develop strategies to kcep
thelr clients and create consumer loyalty programs” (Flambard -Ruaud,
2005), particularly in tourism industry.

Vinay Chauhan and Suvidha Khanna (2007) attempted to investigate

the satisfaction of the tourist’s vis-â-vis the tourist infrastructure which
includes accommodation, transportation, communication, drinking water,
and civic amenities available in the Jammu and Kashmir. The study is
based on survey where 100 tourists were considered who visited the
various tourist centers of Jammu and Kashmir. The research suggested
measures to improvise the avallable infrastructure to enhance the tourist
satisfaction.

Contributors Year Contributions

Poon 1991 Observed that tourist satisfaction can be
achieved with proper strategic initiatives to
build destination image and that destination
competitiveness can be ensured by virtue of
organized form of interactions with tourists.
Contributors Year Contributions
Philip and 1996 Explained that customer satisfaction
Hezlett influences the choice of destination, the
consumption of products and services and
the
decision to return.
Vavra 1997 Found that positive perception of the reward
sacrifices ratio, or an emotional response to
the consumption and use experience, or
resulting from the comparison of rewards
and sacrifices against anticipated
consequences from consuming and use of
the product or
service.
Otto and 2000 Concluded that service experience has an
Ritchie important influence on the consumer
evaluation of and satisfaction with a given
service
Lee et.al. 2007 Concluded that to increase visitors’ positive
behavioral intentions, heritage managers
should set their priorities to provide high
quality, satisfying experiences that visitors
perceive to be a good value
Hsu et al. 2008 Stated that researchers should consider
revisit
intention is the fact that “globalization of
markets, competitive pressure. brand
multiplication and, above all, the ever-
changing .ifestyles and consumer behavior
have forced companies to develop strategies
to keep their clients.
Table 2.2 Visitor’s Satisfaction
2.4 HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES:

Glasson (1994) explained the impacts of cultural/heritage tourism and

management responses through an overview .of the characteristics of
tourists to Oxford. Peleggi (1996) examined the relevance of
Thailand’s heritage attractions to both international and domestic
tourism, including an analysis of the state tourism agency’s promotion
of heritage and the ideological implications of heritage sightseeing in
relation to the official historical narrative. This research provided
several attributes, such as traditional villages, monuments, museums,
and temples.

According to Andersen, Prentice and Guerin (1997), the several

attributes are historical buildings, museums, galleries, theatres,
festivals and events, shopping, food, palaces, famous people, castles,
sports, and old towns in a destination. Richards (1996) chose several
attributes related to cultural/heritage destinations in order to analyze
European cultural tourism.

Pawitra and Tan (2003) used SERVQUAL in order to analyze the

destination image of Singapore from the perspective of tourists from
Indonesia and noted that the use of SERVQUAL in measuring a
destination image requires that it be modified in order to ensure that the
data reflect the unique attributes provided by the destination.

Prithweeraj Acharya and J.K.Panda (2011) examined a positive

destination Image and Branding in the minds of the prospective tourists
in the state of Odisha. For this 197 tourists were approached and
suggested that few parameters like security, responsiveness,
communication should be taken care. The marketing of destinations
thrusts on the presentation of a clear and precise image that has the
intensity to invite the attention of potential tourists.
Deepak Jain (2011) investlgated the visitor’s importance —
satisfaction analysis of tourist destination in the Jammu and Kashmir.
The survey is based on survey where 232 tourists were considered from
different tourist destinations of Jammu and Kashmir. In this research
Importance satisfaction matrix identified that though there are factors
on which government and private players are paying lot of emphasis to
satisfy tourist but a lot remains to be achieved on this front and they
should adapt different strategies to ensure that tourist needs are met.

Amitabh Mishra (2013) attempted to examine the factors influencing

the cultural tourist’s perception and its measurement with reference to
Agra. The survey conducted with 234 tourists. The study has
considered seven key aspects by National Tourism Policy of India
(2002) to promote the Heritage Tourism in the country. The
suggestions were obtained few factors should be considered and it
plays significant image in the mind of tourists like-medical help, safety
and security, cleanliness and hygiene at the hotel and hygiene of water
etc.

The important attributes for tourists are People and environmental

experiences’, ‘Basic essentials’ and ‘Infrastructure’. (Dr. Bernadette
D’Silva* and Prof. Dr. Stephen D’Silva, 2008).

Rohit Singh Tomar, Dr. Deepika S. Tomar (2013) ,found two

dimensions tangible (observable attribute) and intangible (felt attribute)
important for the travel agents working in India. These two dimensions
found to have a significant impact on customer satisfaction as well.
Also satisfied customer intended to revisit the service provider and
recommend others to use the same.
 Contributors Year Contributions

Glasson 1994 Explained the impacts of cultural/heritage

tourism and management responses through
an overview of the characteristics of tourists
to Oxford.

Richards 1996 Chose several attributes related to

cultural/heritage destinations in order to
analyze European cultural tourism.

Prithweeraj 2011 Examined a positive destinatlon Image and

Acharya et.al. Branding in the minds of the prospective
tourists in the state of Odisha.

Dr. Bernadette 2008 Explained the important attributes for

D’Silva et.al. tourists are People and environmental
experiences’, ‘Basic essentials’ and
‘Infrastructure’
Rohit Singh 2013 Found two dimensions tangible (observable
Tomar et.al. attribute) and intangible (felt attribute)
important for the travel agents working in
India.

Table 2.3 Heritage Attributes

2.5 SERVICES OFFERED/QUALITY:

As Lewis and Booms (1983) put it, service quality is a measure of

how well the service level delivered matches customer expectations.
Delivering quality service means conforming to customer expectations
on a consistent basis. This means that, in the final analysis, customers
are the exclusive judges of service quality, no matter what the marketer
thinks.
107
Parasuraman et a1. (1985) conceptualized perceived service quality
as a totality evaluation of a service-process, whereas service is a
transaction- specific evaluation. In other words, they posited that
incidents of satisfaction altogether result in perceptions of the service
quality which Taylor (1996) argues that perceived service quality is an
antecedent of customer satisfaction. In this topic, customer satisfaction
is conceived of as a result of service quality in the following order:
Service quality- Osatisfactiono purchase intention.

Zeithaml et al. (1990), and Zeithaml and Parasuraman (2004)

opined that unlike products; the quality of services is evaluated by
customers not only by the service outcome (core service), but also by
the production and delivery process as well as by the ‘peripherals’
related to the service.

Shemwell et al. (1998) explained that service quality and customer

satisfaction are conceptually distinct but closely related constructs. In
many non —Beach holiday destinations’, heritage attractions may
constitute important tourism resources, one e.g. being the tourist-
historic city (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 1990; Timoiithy andWall
1995; Prentice et.al. 1998).

Destination has been apprehended to be pivotal in nurturing

relationship between tourism service providers and tourists as Buhalis
(2000) listed six major components of tourism attractions towards
evaluating tourism destination:

a. Attraction - natural, man-made, artificial, purpose-built, heritage,

special events

b. Accessibility — transportation system, terminals and vehicles

c. Amenities — accommodations, catering facilities, retailing

d. Available packages — prearranged packages by intermediaries and
principals
e. Activities — activities related to tourism products
f. Ancillary services — banks, telecommunications, hospitals etc.
In addition to destination, ‘purpose’ is expected to play a important role in
the relationship between the tourism service providers and tourists.
Atilgan et al. (2003) suggest that cultural characteristics have an effect on
perceptions of service quality in tourism and found that different cultural
groups can have different levels of expectations and perceptions in terms
of service-quality dimensions.
(Tian-Cole and Cromption, 2003) identified service quality factors in
hospitality industry and assumed them to be critical in creating loyal
visitors who will return to the destination and recommend it to others.
Jain and Gupta (2004) determined the magnitude of customer defined
service quality gaps. They studied on two major quality measurement
scales: service quality and service performance. In terms of service quality
parameters, they found that the customers gave utmost importance to
expectations followed by perceptions and importance rating.
Pathak and Modi (2004) studied quality of services provided by the
companies in India with respect to issues and challenges. When service
quality is measured on various parameters in, all the parameters are
equally given weightage by the customers. The study was conducted on
customers of hospitality services, tourism services and insurance services
in a metro city. Tourism being a service industry presents inherent
challenges with service marketing that affect how the tourism product is
communicated to the consumer public. There is, according tc Clow et al.

109
(2006: 404), a difficulty in communicating effectively the attributes of
a service because of the unique characteristics of services, especially
intangibility‘.

Vijayadurai (2008) identified service quality factors in hospitality

industry. The significantly influencing perception of service quality
factors on the customers’ satisfaction and their behavioural intention
are service delivery, reliability, assurance and responsiveness. Most of
the research work indicates that customer demands are increasing in
terms of service quality and other parameters.

Mai Ngoc Khuong (2014), Indicated that the higher levels of Servlce
Quality, Expenditure, Infrastructure and Accessibility, Natural
Environment, Safe and Security and Destination Image were positively
associated with the higher level of tourists’ destination satisfaction.
Whereas, General Negative attributes were negatively associated with
tourists’ destination satisfaction. The factors of Service Quality,
Expenditure, Infrastructure and Accessibility, Natural Environment,
Safe and Security, Destination Image and General Negative Attributes
played crucial roles and significantly affected tourists’ destination
satisfaction.

Contributors Year Contributions

Lewis and 1983 Stated that service quality is a measure of
Booms how well the service level delivered matches
customer expectations. Customers are the
exclusive judges of service quality, no
matter what the marketer thinks.
Taylor 1996 Argued that perceived service quality is an
antecedent of customer satisfaction. In this
topic, customer satisfaction is conceived of

110
as

111
Contributors Year Contributions
a result of service quality in the following
order: Service quality-GsatisfactlORO
purchase intention.
Buhalis 2000 Listed six major components of tourism
attractions towards evaluating tourism
destinaticn: Attraction, Accessibility.
Amenities, Available packages, Activities,
Ancillary services.
Pathak and 2004 Studied quality of services provided by the
Modi companies in India with respect to issues and
challenges.
Vijayadurai 2008 Identifies influencing perception of service
quality factors on the customers’ satisfaction
and their behavioural intention are service
delivery, reliability, assurance and
responsiveness.
Mai Ngoc 2014 Indicated that the higher levels of Service
Khuong Quality, Expenditure, Infrastructure and
Accessibility, Natural Environment, Safe
and Security and Destination Image were
positively associated with the higher level of
tourists’ destination satisfaction.

Table 2.4 Services offered/ Quality

2.6 VISITOR’S EXPERIENCES:
Herbert (1995) states that “Visitors to historic sites are looking for an
experience, a new reality based on tf.e tangible remains of the past for
them this is the very essence of the heritage experience. Heritage is
history processed through mythology, ideology, nationallSlTl, local pride,
romantic ideas or just plain marketing, into a commodity.”

An increasing body of llterature indicates that some people are moi‘e

highly motivated to particlpate in cultural tourism than others.
McKercher (2002b) suggests that a definition of cultural tourists can
be developed by considering two issues: the main reason for a trip and
the level of experlences at the destinations. A number of both
conceptual and empirical studies have attempted to implement this
process and explore the typology of cultural tourists.

Touricsm and travel, as Zhou (2004) states, are about the experiences
and memories that tourists will have for a lifetime, but there is an
inherent difficulty in promoting something largely intangible in this
way.

Perception is a complex process (Kesic, 1999) by which an individual

selects, organizes and interprets stimuli into a meaningful and coherent
picture of the wofld (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). There ai‘e a
number of tangible and intangible aspects of tourism products which
influence the perception of tourists.

According to Beerli and Martyn (2003) there are nine

dimensions/aspects which detemiine the perception of tourist — tourist
leisure and recreation, culture, history and art, general infrastructure,
polltical and economic factors, natural resources, natural environment,
social environment and the atmosphere of the place/ destination.

Accordlng to Medlik and Middleton (1973), tourism product is a

bundle of activities, services, and benefits that constitute the entire
tourism experlence. ‘In their component model of tourlsm prOduct’,
they discussed five components of tourism product namely: 1-
Destination attractions; 2-Destination facilities; 3- Destination
accessibllity; 4-
Destination images; and 5- Destination price. Later, Jafferson and
Lickorish (1988) stated that tourism product is a collection of physical
and service features together with symbolic associations which are
expected to fulfill the wants and needs to the tourists. “Finland 1999
and Finland 2004” the results were somewhat parallel with the
hypothesis. Further the study concludes that the effects have remained
quite stable regardless of the finding that “desire to travel more” has
increased while “perceived tourism behavior has increased. Michalkñ
& Ratz (2011) found that all the recreational travels could be ranged to
the scope of cultural tourism as due to the new experiences the tourist
will realize new observations and knowledge.

Adarsh Batra and Panrawee Na Lamphoon (2008) investigated the

difference in the perception of tourist’s behavior. The overall objective
of the research was to investigate the difference in the perception of
tourists and locals towards the selected dimensions of eco-tourism. A
sample survey method was used, with a structured questionnaire as the
research instrument, at Amphawa Community Samutsongkram
province. Further the research indicated that tourist and locals share no
different perceptions both of them are willing to promote ecotourism of
the community.

Parikshat Singh Manhas and Ramjit (2013) pointed that four

dimensions of customer experience i.e. education, entertainment,
escapism and aesthetic was identified. It was found that there is
positive relationship between customer experience satisfaction and
behavioural intention. The finding of the study leaves the implications
for the hospitality marketers on the “entertainment” and “aesthetic
aspect” as important dimensions of customer experience, and special
assistance needed on the dimensions of landscape, marketing and
advertising
campaigns, overall experience, meals and food offerings, interior
design and architecture.

Poonam Sharma (2013) opined that Destination branding changes

perception. Changes in perception lead to changing a destination’s
social/ cultural and economic sustainability.

Chen Xianger et.a1. (2014), Identified effects of the authenticity-based

exploitation of world heritage resource.s and proposing future strategies
for world herltage resources from tourists' authentic perspectives.

Contributors Year Contributions

Herbert 1995 Found that Heritage is history processed
through mythology, ideology, nationalism,
local pride, romantic ideas or just plain
marketing, into a commodity.
Kesic 1999 Revealed that Perception is a complex
process by which an indlvidual selects,
organizes and interprets stimuli into a
meaningful and
coherent picture of the world.
Beerli and 2003 Found 9 dimensions to determine the
Martyn perception of tourist — tourist leisure and
recreation, culture, history and art, general
infrastructure, political and economic
factors, natural resources, natural
environment, social environment and the
atmosphere of the place/
destination.
Michalkfi & Ratz 2011 Found that all the recreatlonal travels could
be ranged to the scope of cultural tourism as
due to the new experiences the tourist will
realize
new observations and knowledge.
 Contributors Year Contributions
Parikshat S. 2013 Pointed thai four dimensions of customer
Manhas Ramjit experience i.e. education, entertainment,
escapism and aesthetic was identified.
Poonam Sharma 2013 Opined tha. Destination branding changes
perception. Changes in perception lead to
changing a destination’s social/ cultural and
economic sustainability.
Chen Xianger 2014 Identified the effects of the authenticity-
based
et.al.
exploitation of world heritage resources and
proposing future strategies for world
heritage resources from tourists' authentic
perspectives.
Table 2.5 Visitor’s Experience

2.7 TOURISM FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

Since the 1950s, the tourism indu.stry has played an increasingly

prominent role in urban economies. Its expansion has been driven by
an increase in demand and in the efforts of suppliers. The growth of
tourist travel has been attributed to numerous factors. These include
the rise of global, decentralized corporations, as well as “the thickening
of linkages among people around the world through shared
publications, the Internet, immigration, the prevalence of English as a
second language, and a common discourse around interests that
transcend local, and even national, boundaries.”In response to this
surge in demand, cities have vied with each other to capture part of the
growing tourism market.

Both over- and under-use pose threats to the sustainability of cultural

tourism products. Over-use can degrade the physical fabric of the
asset, damage tangible and intangible values and lead to a diminished
visitor
experience (ICOMOS, 2000; Shackley, 1998). Under-use can result
in the insufficient generation of revenue for needed conservation work
or a loss of local support for maintaining the attraction, especially if
public resources are required to subsidies its operations (Getz, 1994;
McKercher, 2001). Shifting demand from over- to under-utilized
attraction.s is a logical solution that should, in theory, resolve both
problems. Excess demand from popular sites can be directed to less
popular ones, and in doing so, a more balanced use of a destination’s
entire suite of cultural assets and a more sustainable form of tourism
can be achieved.

According to Williams (2006), tourism and hospitality have become

key global economic activities as expectations with regard to our use
of leisure time have evolved, attributing greater meaning to our free
time. This results in marketing having potentially greater importance in
tourism than in other industries but sadly potential that is not always
fulfilled (Morgan and Pritchard 2002).

Gilmore, Carson and Ascencao (2007) discussed sustainable tourism

marketing in the context of a world heritage site and contend that a
strategic marketing approach for the development of sustainable
tourism is vital to the management of a world heritage site. This
concept of tourism incorporates social, economic and environmental
perspectives in a given region.

In India, medical tourism began with the rising popularity of Yoga and
Ayurvedic medicine. Tourism is also t.ae largest service industry in
India, with a contribution of 6.23% to the national GDP and 8.78% of
th
the total employment. India ranks 11 in the Asia Pacific region and
nd
62 on the
whole, among the world’s attractive tourist destinations.(Travel and
Tourism Competitiveness Report, 2009"i.

Lakhvinder Singh et.al.( 2014) found that if tourism is to become

sustainable, it should adhere to economic, social and environmental
and ethnic considerations in host regions; lhat a rapidly growing
tourism industry.

Contributors Year Contributions

McKercher 2001 Excess demand from popular sites can be
directed to less popular ones, and in doing
so, a more balanced use of a destination’s
entire suite of cultural assets and a more
sustainable
form of tourism can be achieved.
Williams 2006 Explained that tourism and hospitality have
become key global economic activities as
expectations with regard to our use of
leisure time have evolved, attributing
greater
meaning to our free tlme.
Gilmore, Carson 2007 Contend that a strategic marketing approach
and Ascencao for the development of sustainable tourism
is vital to the management of a world
heritage site.
Lakhvinder Singh 2014 Found that if tourism is to become
et.al. sustainable. it should adhere to economic,
social and environmental and ethnic
considerat.ons in host regions; that a
rapidly growing tc›urism industry

117
Table 2.6 Tourism for Economic Development

117
2.8 CONCLUSION:

The Literature review of heritage/ cultural tourism shows that India’s

travel and tourism industry is one of the most profitable industries in
the country, and also credited with contributing a substantial amount of
foreign exchange. The main purpose behind conducting this review
was to understand and identify heritage t‹aurism attributes. The
researcher has been categorized this study on the basis of these
parameters, which is mentioned below:

1. Heritage/ Cultural Tourism

2. Visitor’s Satisfaction

3. Heritage Attributes

4. Services offered/ Quality

5. Visitor’s Experience

6. Tourism for Economic Development

The researcher has been done tabulation for the same as well. Thus,
the review of literature has identified key attributes for the study. It
also helped in assessing and exploring various dimensions for the
study to frame the research design.

118