Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable

Development
Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: a survey on Italian cultural visitors
Laura Di Pietro Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion Giovanni Mattia Maria Francesca Renzi
Article information:
To cite this document:
Laura Di Pietro Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion Giovanni Mattia Maria Francesca Renzi ,
(2015),"Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: a survey on Italian cultural visitors", Journal of
Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 61 - 81
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2013-0009
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 08 March 2016, At: 07:58 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 76 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 194 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Silvio Mendes Zancheti, Rosane Piccolo Loretto, (2015),"Dynamic integrity: a concept to historic
urban landscape", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 Iss
1 pp. 82-94 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2014-0009
Eva Svensson, (2015),"Heritage and development outside the metropolis: Discussing issues of
attractiveness, growth, participation and sustainable development", Journal of Cultural Heritage
Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 4-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JCHMSD-07-2013-0029
Waleed Tarek Ali Shehata, Yasser Moustafa, Lobna Sherif, Ashraf Botros, (2015),"Towards the
comprehensive and systematic assessment of the adaptive reuse of Islamic architectural heritage
in Cairo: A conceptual framework", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 14-29 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-02-2014-0003

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-1266.htm

Cultural heritage and consumer Cultural

heritage and
behaviour: a survey on Italian consumer
behaviour
cultural visitors
Laura Di Pietro, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion, 61
Giovanni Mattia and Maria Francesca Renzi Received 6 March 2013
Department of Business Studies, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy Revised 16 December 2013
Accepted 21 February 2014

Abstract
Purpose – The urgency to cope with the international economic crisis has led to efforts to identify
innovative tools and frameworks that are capable of regenerating local and national economic
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

development. The enhancement of the cultural heritage sector can be a strategic factor in improving
the competitiveness of country systems. In Italy, the nation’s rich cultural heritage is not managed in
an efficient and effective manner, even though it embodies a tremendous opportunity to enhance local
economic growth, especially in light of the role of new Cultural Technology Districts (CTDs). In this
context, the purpose of this paper is to present the results of a survey conducted to investigate the
behaviour of tourists who consume Italian cultural resources.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is an empirical investigation that attempts to identify
the needs and expectations of cultural consumers through descriptive statistics, as well as factor and
cluster analysis. This study is the beginning of an effort to develop innovative products and services
that will facilitate the revitalisation of the growth of the cultural heritage sector of Italy’s economy.
Findings – This paper identifies new profiles of the cultural consumer that will be useful for planning
customised development strategies. New social trends and technological tools have influenced the
behaviour and expectations of cultural visitors and present an opportunity to redefine the cultural
tourist experience.
Originality/value – The lack of systematic surveys in Italy to gather data on the behaviour and
expectations of cultural consumers has resulted in a gap of information between demand and supply.
This paper proposes some significant strategies to learn about the business strategies of cultural
heritage organisations.
Keywords Cultural heritage management, Technology, Cluster analysis, Consumer behaviour,
Economic growth, Local development, Cultural innovation, Visitor profile, Cultural technology district
Paper type Case study

Introduction
Cultural heritage can be a strategic factor in enhancing the competitiveness of a
nation’s domestic economy during the current worldwide economic recession.
As demonstrated by the Faro Convention (Art.1:Council of Europe, 2005), “the value
and potential of the cultural, if adequately managed as a resource, is the key element for
the lasting development and for the quality of life in a society in continuous evolution”.
To invest in culture means to improve the quality of life in a specific territory by
attracting new economic, financial and human resources that influence the growth of
the society (Sacco and Ferilli, 2006). Moreover, the tourist traffic that is attracted by the
presence of cultural heritage resources contributes to an increase in satellite activities
that also produce a related economic impact (Di Pietro et al., 2013). Furthermore, culture Journal of Cultural Heritage
Management and Sustainable
plays the role of a catalyst for new production and modes of the consumption of goods Development
Vol. 5 No. 1, 2015
and services (Sacco and Pedrini, 2003), and it fosters the development of other sectors in pp. 61-81
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2044-1266
The authors acknowledge Dr Emanuele Lisi for his contribution to and support in data collection. DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2013-0009
 JCHMSD an economic environment, playing an essential role in the creation of national wealth
5,1 with social, economic and political implications.
In recent years, in Italy Cultural Technology Districts (CTDs) were established to
redevelop the Latium Region territory and its related economic activities by taking
advantage of the wide presence of cultural sites. The Latium CTD is the result of a
partnership agreement signed by the Latium Region; the Ministry of Education,
62 Universities and Research (MIUR); the Ministry of Economic Development (MiSE);
and the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (MiBAC). It aims at stimulating
innovative businesses based on cultural heritage and at broadening offerings
of cultural tourism. CTDs play a leading role because they are fundamental engines of
innovation, as well as contributing to the competitiveness and sustainable development
of industry and services in Europe beyond the promotion of the economic development
of European Union regions (Conference on Innovation and Districts, European
Presidency, January 2008).
In the cultural heritage context there is a dearth of information, particularly in Italy,
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

given that there no recurring efforts are made to collect data on cultural consumers’
behaviour; only occasional experiences are reported (Solima, 2008). Cultural sites
management, for a long time, omitted the study of visitors behaviour during the cultural
visits, the analysis of their experiences and the examination of post-consumption attitudes
(Gil and Ritchie, 2009; Kawashima, 1999). Where data collection is realizes, the used
methodologies are often questionable and lacking in rigour, in other situations there is not
the presence of agreement among the different involved institution for an useful data
management, while in many circumstances cultural attractions are open air and the data
collection become a complex process (Galì-Espelt, 2012).
Such a lack of information serves as the motivation to investigate and implement
new managerial practices and to regard the perspective of consumers as a starting
point to orient investments, thereby boosting innovation and efforts to continuously
improve service quality.
Accordingly, it was acknowledged that the effective implementation of projects
focused on consumers’ needs requires a deeper comprehension of individuals’
behaviours and expectations when they embark on a cultural journey. Research on the
subject was therefore encouraged.
Many authors have suggested that to offer exhibitions, tours and services suitable
for modern visitors, cultural heritage managers have to conduct consumer’ studies to
acquire systematic knowledge applicable to the decision-making process (Sheng and
Chen, 2012; Liu, 2008).
A further element has to be taken into account, which somehow assesses the originality
of the paper and contributes to strengthen its positioning: former studies took into
account visitors behaviours and expectations, whilst neglecting the role of technology
(i.e. augmented reality) in enhancing cultural experience. Appropriate devices, as well as
specifically conceived software, for instance might play a remarkable role in attracting
those visitors, such as young people, very familiar with technology, but reluctant to
approach cultural tourism, as well as people accustomed to visit museums or other
cultural sites, but lacking some support to strengthen their involvement. To achieve these
goals, the importance of exploiting different forms of virtual and multimedia technologies
were recognised, as was the importance of experiential marketing tools supporting all
phases of a visitor’s experience.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate factors affecting consumers’
behaviour when they visit cultural heritage sites, including the impact of technology,
 by means of a survey conducted by the authors. The importance of a systematic Cultural
monitoring system of cultural heritage performace is also studied. First, relevant heritage and
literature on cultural tourism and cultural consumer satisfaction and behaviour are
discussed. Then, after introducing the adopted methodology and the analysis of the
consumer
Italian cultural heritage sector, findings and conclusions are reported. behaviour

Theoretical review 63
As highlighted by Boyd (2002) and Bonn et al. (2007), the last decade has witnessed a
growing interest of tourists in the rediscovery of the past, generating the cultural
heritage tourism in which art and history has become tourist experience. Consequently,
the definition of cultural tourism has undergone an evolution, starting from a vision
connected only with the past history (Poria et al., 2003), passing to a concept that
included cultural, historical and natural resources (Russo and Jansen-Verbeke, 2008)
and intangible heritage, iconic place, attraction and event (Richards and Wilson,
2006), finishing to embodied six specific meanings identified by Donaire and Galì
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

(2008): cultured, monumental, heritage and technological tourism, turistified culture

and the extraordinary trip (Galì-Espelt, 2012).
Consumers’ intentions frequently originate from a structured decision-making
process (White and Yu, 2005; Chen et al., 2011; Holbrook and Schindler, 2003). Many
studies have explored the relationships among variables affecting consumer intentions.
De Rojas and Camarero (2008) detected a significant relationship between perceived
quality and emotions, positing their explicit role in affecting satisfaction.
As noticed by several authors, the motivations connected to the heritage visits are
one of the most recurrent research topic (Gil and Ritchie, 2009; Poria et al., 2006a, 2009;
Richards, 2002; Kawashima, 1999; Prentice et al., 1998; Davies and Prentice, 1995).
The theoretical review carried out by Poria et al. (2006b) identified two categories at the
base of the visit: the individual characteristics, such as learning, involvement,
recreation, etc.; the site attributes, like location, features, etc. At the end of their study,
the authors arrived to detect five main motives for a visit: learning, connecting with my
heritage, leisure pursuit, bequeathing for children and emotional involvement.
In modern times, cultural heritage serves the function of collection, research,
exhibition, education and recreation according to the six criteria of a desirable leisure
experience provided by Sheng and Chen (2012) and derived from a previous study
(Hood, 1983). These criteria are: engaging in social interaction; doing something
worthwhile; feeling comfortable and at ease in one’s surroundings; being challenged by
new experiences; having the opportunity to learn; and participating actively.
Sheng and Chen (2012) analysed the expectations of museum visitors and identified
five different categories of needs: easiness and fun, cultural entertainment, personal
identification, historical reminiscences and escapism. A theoretical model to analyse the
factors concerning the attractiveness of a museum, based on push and pull motivations
(Yoon and Uysal, 2005), was applied to analyse how the Museum of Modern and
Contemporary Art in Trento and Rovereto (MART) museum can impact visitors’
motivation, satisfaction and loyalty, as well as how such drivers might leverage the
economic growth of a particular destination. Tourists visiting MARTs were mainly
guided by push factors (e.g. relaxation) and looked for new experiences, as well as the
possibility of learning new things (Brida et al., 2010). More generally, museums
attracted visitors who were motivated to learn and who perceive the museum as a place
where important information is presented in an interesting manner. Consequently, they
were more willing to participate in learning activities (Packer and Ballantyne, 2002).
 JCHMSD Conversely, Nowacki (2010) stated that visitors do not attach much importance to
5,1 knowledge enrichment. As a result, museums and archaeological sites become places of
recreation, entertainment and social interaction.
Chen et al. (2011) adopted an investigative approach to gain empirical
understanding of the impact that service quality has on tourist satisfaction and
identified a valid relationship between these two factors. In another study (Chen and
64 Chen, 2010), cultural heritage tourism was examined with the intention of identifying
the connection among the quality of tourists’ experiences, tourists’ satisfaction,
perceived value and behavioural intentions. As a result, it was pointed out that the
quality of tourists’ experiences directly affects consumers’ satisfaction and the value
they perceived.
Within the cultural consumption domain, research has been conducted on ideal
destination choices (Shen et al., 2009). The results indicated that, in order to increase
the desirability of a cultural heritage site, cultural heritage managers should
prioritise providing a high-quality, satisfying experience perceived to be of good value
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

(Chen and Chen, 2010; Lee et al., 2007). Poria et al. (2009) noted the importance of
customised information, emotional involvement and strong connection with the cultural
location, focusing the attention on the experientially based approach introduced by
Apostolakis (2003).
With regard to the issue of repeated visits, Shen et al. (2009) identified perceived
control, past experience and cultural tour involvement as valid predictors of visitors’
willingness to visit a cultural heritage site again within the next 12 months after their first
experience. Harrison and Show (2004), on the other hand, discovered that consumer
satisfaction play a remarkable role on subsequent intentions to visit a museum in the
future, as well as the moderating influence of demographic characteristics, such as gender,
age and education, on that relationship.
The twentieth century produced strong technological changes that have had
direct influences on the ways cultural heritages are experienced and interpreted,
and many continually changing technological models have been proposed
(Arcese et al., 2012; Kalay et al., 2008). The users of cultural heritage are seeking
new modalities to satisfy their senses and this it is translating into a progressive
introduction of more and more sophisticated, creative and interactive instruments.
(Arcese et al., 2011). Narrowing the analysis to technology, an interesting evidence
was brought by Marty (2007), who presented the results from an exploratory
survey that addressed questions concerning the complementary role of museum
web sites in enhancing visitors’ involvement. The use of telecommunication
technologies offers interesting perspectives for museums and the opportunity
to add a new, digital dimension to the physical one, thereby creating a
“virtual museum” (Schweibenz, 1998). Recent studies on consumers’ interaction
with “self-service technologies” highlighted that amusement and pleasure
contribute to define individual attitudes towards technological applications
(Addis, 2005; Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Davis et al., 1989). Witcomb (1997)
and Addis (2005) identified that consumer interactions with technological
applications increased the control perception they felt towards their
entertainment experiences. Although Stewart and Pavlou (2002) maintained that
the immediacy of an interaction increases the sense of control by a consumer,
more conservative positions on the matter are prevalent; for example, Hoch (2002)
argued that an individual can freely choose what and how to explore only through a
direct experience.
 Research objectives and methodology Cultural
The primary goal of this paper is to respond to one of the most important current heritage and
problems in the cultural heritage sector, namely, how to acquire knowledge on
behaviour and intentions of cultural visitors.
consumer
More precisely, the aims are the following: behaviour
• to identify visitors’ profiles according to habits, preferences, needs and quality drivers;
•
65
to determine the main factors that influence visitors in choosing a museum
to visit;
• to detect the perceived effectiveness of different means of communication; and
• to identify whether technology has modified consumers’ attitudes.
The survey implemented in this study examines a sample of museum visitors,
characterised by different degrees of consumption intensity. The intention of the study
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

is to deepen the their understanding as they are so often poorly understood and
analysed in Italy. Such opacity prevents museum operators and the management of
other cultural heritage institutions from understanding the characteristics,
expectations and behaviours of their consumers.
Furthermore, the study intends to offer useful insights to raise the satisfaction of
target audiences, to improve the image of museums and to attract fresh resources that
will ensure their development. Should this opportunity be missed, museums risk
becoming neglected institutions unable to construct flexible development strategies
that are appealing to the increasingly complex preferences of consumers, for whom the
memorability of an experience assumes an essential role.
To achieve all of the above mentioned goals, the study of Italian cultural heritage
context was carried out and qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted.

The Italian cultural heritage: brief overview of Italy and Latium data
The cultural heritage sector represents one of the country’s most marketable assets,
yet it is strongly fragmented and often poorly promoted. The data concerning the most
visited museums show that Italy’s Uffizi Gallery in Florence holds the 27th place in the
worldwide rank and that only three Italian museums have more than one million
visitors per year. In contrast, cities such as London or Paris register a continuous
increase in museum visitations, yearly exceeding 18 million (Velani and Banti, 2009).
Germany attracts approximately 125 million visitors with 400 museums, while Italy
only 93 million, despite possessing 4,738 destinations, such as museums, monuments
and archaeological sites (MiBAC, 2011).
The data concerning Italian cultural visitations is daunting, but Italy’s vast cultural
heritage resources constitute a possible starting point for the revitalisation of the
Italian economy. Due to European Union policies, the promotion of cultural heritage
through technological innovation and territorial development is of paramount
importance. Starting in the 1990s, a modernisation process took place that introduced
additional services to museums and state-owned archaeological sites (Ronchey, 1993;
Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, 2004).
To better understand the actual state of the art of the cultural heritage sector in
Italy, the data reported below illustrate the connection between visits to cultural sites
and the resulting income (our elaboration on MiBAC sources). Despite the global
economic crisis, a slow but constant growth occurred over time (Figures 1 and 2).
 JCHMSD Visitors of State Museums, Museum Circuits, Archeological Areas and Monuments
1996 - 2011
5,1 45
40
35
Visitors in million

30
25
66 20

Figure 1. 15
Visitors of 10
state museums, 5
monuments and 0
archaeological areas, 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
and museum circuits
Years
in the years
1996-2011 Total Museum Circuits
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Museums Archeological Areas and Monuments

Incomes of State Museums, Museum Circuits, Archeological Areas and Monuments

1996 - 2011
120

100
Incomes in million

80

60

Figure 2. 40
Incomes of state
20
museums,
monuments and 0
archaeological areas, 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
and museum
Years
circuits in the
Total Museum Circuits
years 1996-2011
Museums Archeological Areas and Monuments

In particular, Latium is the region with the highest number of visitors, followed
by Tuscany and Campania. In 2011, cultural tourism in Latium accounted for
36 per cent of the visits to the nation. These data, which referred to museums,
monuments and archaeological areas, correspond to a gross income of 44 million
Euros, approximately 44 per cent of the total national income (104 million euros).
In addition, eight out of the top ten most visited tourist routes belonged to the territory
of Latium.
According to these data, it is not by chance that, in recent years, the number of
Latium companies operating in the cultural heritage sector has shown remarkable
growth. Nowadays, around 1,800 of such companies are counted , many of which
supply ICT services or feature innovative experiences.

Qualitative survey
The qualitative survey includes one focus group and five in-depth interviews.
 The focus group, of a phenomenological nature, involved eight people who were Cultural
recruited through a snowballing approach (Guido, 1999). The in-depth interviews were heritage and
conducted with an expert’s micro-panel (consultants in cultural heritage marketing,
managers of the Italian MiBAC and museum managers).
consumer
According to the latter, the following aspects were probed : visitors’ behaviours, behaviour
habits, needs, as well as the drivers of satisfaction; the drivers of choice; the efficiency
of the means of communication that were utilised in the museum sector; and visitors’ 67
perceptions concerning the application of technology in the cultural field.
The focus group phase concentrated on four different topics: factors that influenced
visitors’ decisions to participate in cultural activities; motives that convinced visitors to
undertake a cultural visit in their own territory or during travel; significant aspects
related to the choice of a cultural heritage site to visit; and emotional aspects and
experiences sought related to the visit.
The dialogues were analysed according to two different methods, namely,
hermeneutic and content analysis. To categorise, combine and interpret the acquired
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

knowledge, a software for text analysis was used (MAXQDA 10).

The text segments were submitted to a reduction and homogenisation process to
eliminate semantic repetitions and generic concepts. This set of generated items was
subsequently adopted as specific questions in the descriptive phase of the project as follows.
Factors that influence the choice of cultural activities:
(1) site prestige;
(2) personal interests;
(3) knowledge attainment;
(4) word of mouth;
(5) advertising; and
(6) past experience.
Motivation to make a cultural visit in one’s own territory:
(1) use of spare time;
(2) cultural enrichment;
(3) interest in a specific topic;
(4) sense of identity;
(5) promotions; and
(6) events and exhibitions.
Motivation to make a cultural visit during a travel period:
(1) maximise the number of visits during a restrained length of stay;
(2) cultural enrichment;
(3) interest in a specific topic;
(4) discovery of a new culture;
(5) promotions; and
(6) event and exhibitions.
 JCHMSD Significant aspects associated with choosing a museum:
5,1 (1) accessibility for the disables;
(2) audio guide;
(3) tourist guide;
(4) comfortable environment;
68
(5) technological support;
(6) informative panels;
(7) ticket price;
(8) opening time of sites/museums;
(9) path organisation; and
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

(10) quality of arrangement.

Emotional aspects and sensations related to the visit:
(1) learning;
(2) amazement and surprise;
(3) involvement;
(4) identification with the historical period;
(5) identification with the artist; and
(6) entertainment.
Considering the exploratory nature of the project, the proposed structure was derived
from the authors’ original investigation; other research and studies on similar topics
(Sheng and Chen, 2012; Nowacki, 2010; Brida et al., 2010; Yoon and Uysal, 2005) were
also used as additional conceptual support.

Quantitative survey
Given the lack of former literature contributions whose field data could be assumed as
congruent with the scope of the present research, the qualitative phase represented the
platform to get a sum of insights suitable to the design of a specific questionnaire. This
kind of tool represents the most frequently used method for collecting data in cultural
heritage sector (Galì-Espelt, 2012; Poria et al., 2003; Kerstetter et al., 2001; Richards,
1996, 2002; Ryan and Glendon, 1998; Wickens, 2002).
The designed questionnaire was composed of four sections: visitors’ profiles; factors
influencing visitors’ purchases and expectations; visitors’ perceptions of the
technological applications that were applied to cultural resources; and suggestions
and general considerations.
It included 18 questions (multiple-choice, scale and open-ended). All of the questions
related to the constructs reported in the previous table were measured using a five-
point Likert scale (Malhotra, 1996) (1 ¼ not at all important; 5 ¼ very much important).
The questionnaire was tested through a pilot poll on a small sample of ten
respondents, after which the formulations of some questions were adapted to guarantee
clearness and consistency. Moreover, some questions in the questionnaire were moved
to amend some logical gaps in the order.
 Bearing in mind the exploratory nature of the research, it was decided to fall back on Cultural
a non-probabilistic sampling design (Grewal et al., 2000; O’Cass, 2000). More specifically, heritage and
a convenience sample was adopted, thus balancing knowledge purposes – even if on a
non-inferential basis – with operative constraints.
consumer
The questionnaire was administered on-line; namely, cultural pages and spaces on behaviour
social networks and forums (e.g. museums, official web pages, cultural groups, tourist
forums and cultural entertainment blogs) were adopted. Data collection started on 69
1 November 2011 and ended on 31 January 2012, with 555 questionnaires returned
completely filled out. The sample group was 74 per cent female and 26 per cent male.
With regard to age, 42 per cent of the respondents had a median age younger than
25 years, and 37 per cent were between 25 and 34 years. Moreover, 47 per cent of
the interviewees were undergraduates, 43 per cent graduates and 10 per cent
postgraduates. With regard to residence, 70 per cent of the respondents lived in central
Italy (59 per cent in Rome), 23 per cent in the northern part, 6 per cent lived in the south
and the remaining 1 per cent were from abroad. According to the frequency of the
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

cultural visits, 25 per cent of the respondents frequently visited museums (8.8 per cent
more than once a month and 16.2 per cent once a month), whilst the majority of the
interviewees (56.4 per cent) embarked on “ten visits per year”. The majority of frequent
visitors belonged to the 45- to 60-year-old age group.
The convenience sample used (non-probabilistic) exhibited a demographic structure
consistent with that of previous studies from Italian National Institute for Statistics
(ISTAT) and MiBAC. The sample was formed according to a “peripheral sampling”
approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994), which took into consideration users of museums
who exhibited a differentiated cultural site visitation frequency.
With regard to the descriptive phase of the study, univariate and multivariate
analyses (exploratory factor analysis and cluster analysis) were carried out.
Data analysis was performed using SPSS software (release 19.0).

Results
Qualitative survey
The goal of the exploratory phase was to detect the significant variables that could
influence the behaviour and perceptions of cultural consumers. The primary variables
highlighted by the interviewees during the focus group session, as well as those
highlighted by the experts during the in-depth interviews, are described in this section.
In the post-modern era, visitors became more demanding and self-governing and were
able to select and assess cultural activities according to the level of available information.
The qualitative phase allowed to highlight useful clues of knowledge, even on a
non-conclusive basis. It emerged that the main factors influencing people’s choices to
pursue a tourist visit were curiosity, the wish to discover and increase their level of
cultural knowledge, the need for diversion and the love of different cultures. The most
tools used to choose a destination were the internet, guides, suggestions from friends
and word of mouth; while the factors involved in the decision of people to participate in
a cultural visit in their own territory/region/city were the wish to capture the cultural
heritage of the site, the awareness of the historical significance of the site and a sense of
belonging to the historical inheritance. On the other hand, it was perceived to be more
desirable to make cultural visits to museums and archaeological sites in cities other
than the visitors’ own cities as they were perceived to provide more time away from
home and be more relaxing for the visitor.
 JCHMSD Moreover, through the qualitative analysis was found that the expectations towards the
5,1 quality of the visit were influenced by different elements (e.g. the opinions of others,
the reputation of a particular site, images on the internet, predilection and personal
interests and past experiences) and affected the final feeling of satisfaction in a strong way.
The user-generated contents of on-line users, such as reviews and travel diaries on
specialised web sites, blogs and forums, seem to be deemed reliable and useful, even
70 though the interviewees claimed to maintain their independence and selectivity in
forming their personal opinions.
During a museum site visit, the qualitative survey participants declared to prefer
autonomy. Guides were considered an additional resource to be used under particular
circumstances, for example to fully appreciate the historical richness of artworks and to
understand sites that required explanation by experts, but the additional cost was
considered a deterrent to their use.
An element that positively influenced consumer satisfaction during visits to
archaeological sites and museums was the quality of the internal arrangement and
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

effective organisation of the visit path. Conversely, waiting at an entrance and a lack of
information were aspects that had a negative impact.
An interesting aspect emerged from the analysis is that women seem to have a more
emotional approach than men. Additionally, while there were different levels of
involvement, it was agreed that attitudes of visitors improved after a satisfactory visit.
Men were more pragmatic than women. Their attitudes were affected by: personal
identification with the subject matter in museums and sites related to historical events;
historical charm and beauty; and the surprise experienced when seeing something that
was very old.
The experience of an interactive and technological visit to museums and
archaeological sites aroused interest and curiosity among the qualitative survey
participants. In particular, technology was considered as a platform to customise visits
and to enhance overall experiences, especially regarding the virtual reconstruction of
archaeological sites.

Quantitative survey
The internet was the main tool used to choose a cultural site to visit (62 per cent),
and word-of-mouth was the second most frequently used tool (even though it placed very
far behind the internet at 16 per cent). Before setting out on a tour, the majority of
respondents (57 per cent) prepared themselves through research on an institution’s web site,
forums and blogs. In contrast, 14 per cent did not plan or organise their visit.
Among the factors that influenced visitors’ intentions, “personal interests” was
predominant, followed by “site prestige” and “knowledge acquisition”, “Word-of-mouth”
and “past experience”, while “advertising” was the least important factor.
The primary motivational drivers that affected the decision to participate in a
cultural visit in a consumer’s “own territory” and “out of own territory” were “interest
in a specific topic” (and “cultural enrichment”. Events and promotions were perceived
as more important in a consumer’s own territory, whereas the goal to “maximise the
number of visits during a restrained length of stay” was predominant for consumers
visiting from outside their territory.
The most significant factors during a museum visit were “path organisation”, “ticket
price” and “quality of arrangement”. Conversely, the “technological” variable had one
of the lowest mean values (Table I).
 1. Mean value of “Factors that influence the choice of cultural activities” Cultural
Personal Interests 4.4 heritage and
Site prestige 3.7
Knowledge acquisition 3.7 consumer
Worth of mouth 3.5 behaviour
Past experience 3.5
Advertising 3.1
2. Mean value of “Motivation to make a cultural visit in one’s own territory”
71
Interest in a specific topic 4.1
Cultural enrichment 3.8
Events and exhibitions 3.6
Promotions 3.4
Sense of identity 3.1
Use of spare time 2.7
3. Mean value of “Motivation to make a cultural visit during a travel period”
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Cultural enrichment 4.5

Discovery of a new culture 4.4
Interest in a specific topic 4.1
Maximise the number of visits during a restrained length of stay 3.8
4. Mean value of “Significance aspects associated with choosing a museum”
Path organisation 3.8
Ticket price 3.8
Quality of arrangement 3.7
informative panels 3.5
Comfortable environment 3.5
Opening time of sites/museums 3.4
Technological support 3.2
Accessibility for the disabled 3.2
Audio guide 2.8 Table I.
Tourist guide 2.8 Mean value of items

Finally, subjective factors, such as emotion and sensation seeking, were separately
analysed by gender. Despite focus group evidence, both women and men assigned the
highest relevance to “cultural enrichment”, followed by “involvement” and “amazement
and surprise. According to the analysis, the relevance assigned to technology in
enhancing visit preparation and participation was noteworthy. Technology is becoming
an important tool for visitors during the planning phase of a tour, as it allows them to use
new tools to easily obtain information and communicate with peers. The majority of the
interviewees (55 per cent) affirmed that they used web sites, blogs and forums to orient
their cultural and tourist choices. The respondents considered cultural web sites useful
(3.7), updated (3.3) and reliable (3.1).
The positive attitude of the respondents towards technology-based cultural
consumption was quite high, as demonstrated by the cumulative percentage of people
“totally attracted” and “very attracted” by technological supports (56 per cent), with
only 16 per cent not interested in this possibility.
Despite the above-mentioned results, interactive experiences still remain difficult to
find. Merely 18 per cent of the sample group was given the option to use technological
applications to augment their visit experience, despite the fact that 79 per cent of them
asserted to be very satisfied by such applications. To deepen the understanding of this
phenomenon, the item “technological support”, related to the “significant aspects in
 JCHMSD choosing a museum” variable, was analysed through the “possession of a smartphone or
5,1 tablet device” (yes/no). As can be seen in the box plot in Figure 3, a strong difference
between the two categories emerged. Visitors owning a smartphone or tablet were
significantly more prone towards cultural tours supported by technological applications
than the visitors who did not own this technology. The same test applied to the age group
classification revealed a homogeneous trend among the first four groups, while the “over
72 60” respondents yielded a very different box-plot structure. No differences were detected
on the basis of gender, while a major propensity towards a technological cultural visit was
showed among the respondents with postgraduate qualification.
The items that seemed to be more appealing when carrying out a technology-based
visit were: the possibility of a customised path, broader access to information, major
involvement (all rated 3.8) and the accessibility of major content (3.7).
To extend the comprehension of the motivation of a museum choice, an explorative
factor analysis (EFA) was carried out on those items identified during the exploratory
phase. The purpose s was to detect the relations underneath the starting variables and
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

to verify the presence of latent dimensions able to simplify the initial structure and to
improve their legibility. Factor analysis is part of a broader family of multivariate
techniques aimed at detecting possible interdependence relationship among variables.
An extraction method based on the correlation matrix and eigenvalues W 1 was
used for factors’ generation, with. “varimax rotation” (Kaiser, 1958) being the technique
to ease their comprehension. Factor loadings W 0.4 were considered (Hair et al., 1998;
Sheng and Chen, 2012).
Four factors were detected. The χ2 test yielded a value equal to 13.989 with 11
degrees of freedom and a significant p-value ( p W 0.05). The RMSEA was equal to 0.022
(0.000-0.052), whereas the CFI and SRMR were 0.0998 and 0.011, respectively. As an
indicator of reliability, the Cronbach’s α coefficient (Cronbach, 1951), which took into
consideration both the entire set of items and thoserelated to the extracted factors, was
calculated. The values resulted are shown in Table II.
The sampling adequacy obtained by the KMO test was 0.764, and t the Barlett test
of roundness was significant. The factors accounted for 67.75 per cent of the total
variance (the first factor explained 18.79 per cent, the second 17.56 per cent, the third
16.69 per cent and the fourth 14.71 per cent). The following table reports the saturation
coefficients for each factor.
Cronbach’s coefficients were always satisfactory, with the exception of Factor 4
(0.521), with a value slightly above the lower threshold of acceptability for surveys with
an exploratory purpose (Nunnally, 1978) (Table III).
Through the analysis of factor loadings, the identified factors result as follows:
guiding elements, strengthening cultural enrichment by enhancing visitors’ need to be
guided; experiential elements, including all of the ancillary elements of a visit that
facilitate a more pleasant experience, such as technology applications, a comfortable
environment and the presence of explanatory panels; substantial (or logical) elements
and consistency of the core characteristics of an exhibition, such as path arrangement
and exhibition organisation; and practical aspects, which encompass the organisational
elements influencing a visit (e.g. visiting hours and ticket prices). The item
“accessibility for the disabled”, however, corresponds to none of the extracted factors.
A cluster analysis that used factor loading was performed to identify homogeneous
groups of respondents regarding the criteria used when choosing to visit a museum.
During the first stage, Ward’s algorithm (Ward, 1963) was used with a Euclidean
measure of the distance. Ward’s method utilises an analysis of variance approach to
 Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Propensity towards a technological cultural visit

5 5

4 4

3 3

Propensity

Propensity
2 2

1 1

Under 25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 60 Over 60 M F
Age Gender

5 5

4 4

3 3

Propensity

Propensity
2 2

1 1

Middle school High school Graduate Postgraduate No Yes

Qualification Smartphone/tablet owner

smartphone/tablet
consumer
behaviour

possession
technological cultural

qualification and
age, gender,
visit segmented by
Box plot on the
heritage and
Cultural

Figure 3.
73

propensity toward a
 JCHMSD evaluate the distances between clusters and is frequently applied to identify the
5,1 possible clusters. The method merges them by means of a dendrogram (Burns and
Burns, 2009), which indicates the level of similarity at which the clusters are joined.
From these data, it emerged that the optimal cluster number was four.
Subsequently, the cluster analysis was re-run by applying the K-means method
(non-hierarchic approach), in which only four clusters were extracted for classification
74 (Burns and Burns, 2009).
Cluster 1 contained 157 cases and was formed by respondents who were mainly
interested in cultural content. Their opinions were all expressed by Factor 3. This first
cluster was called “The connoisseurs” (or experts). Cluster 2, named “The demanding”, was
composed of 166 people who were particularly receptive to the presence of experiential
elements (Factor 2). Cluster 3, comprising 135 cases, encompassed interviewees who took
into account mostly practical aspects and logical elements (Factor 4); this group was named
“The practical”. Cluster 4 consisted of 73 people who were not interested in any particular
aspect of those analysed. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to dub it “the inattentive”.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Each cluster was profiled by taking into consideration their socio-demographic

characteristics. The detailed results are reported in Table IV.

Discussion and managerial implications

The survey presented in this paper was based on the idea that the Italian cultural
consumer is relatively unknown and unstudied, a notion confirmed by the in-depth
interviews that involved both the Ministry and museum managers. Based on the
survey, it was evident that consumers, when they have a connection to the cultural
product, are more open-minded and expectant than they have been in the past.
As noted by Bonn et al. (2007), visitors choices and options has evolved into more

Factors Cronbach’s α

All of the items 0.769

Factor 1 – Guiding elements 0.679
Table II. Factor 2 – Experiential elements 0.681
Results of Factor 3 – Substantial (or logical) elements 0.714
Cronbach’s α Factor 4 – Practical aspects 0.521

Factors
1 2 3 4

Internal arrangement 0.006 0.168 0.864 −0.016

Path organisation 0.181 0.119 0.823 0.152
Opening time 0.093 0.031 0.291 0.766
Ticket price 0.101 0.128 −0.130 0.818
Informative panels 0.202 0.556 0.231 0.385
Technology support 0.216 0.814 0.084 0.036
Comfortable environment 0.130 0.795 0.125 0.044
Table III. Tourist guide 0.844 0.183 0.046 0.034
Results of factor Audio guide 0.874 0.131 0.012 0.103
analysis Accessibility for the disabled 0.197 0.207 0.257 0.171
 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Cultural
the connoisseurs the demanding the practicals the inatteintives heritage and
Respondents 157 166 135 73 consumer
Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute
Items frequency % frequency % frequency % frequency % behaviour
Age
Under 25 65 41.40 68 40.96 56 41.48 39 53.42 75
25-34 69 43.95 60 36.14 42 31.11 27 36.99
35-44 12 7.64 19 11.45 19 14.07 3 4.11
45-60 9 5.73 16 9.64 16 11.85 2 2.74
Over 60 2 1.27 3 1.81 2 1.48 2 2.74
Gender
Male 30 19.10 40 24.10 45 33.33 22 30.14
Female 127 80.90 126 75.90 90 66.67 51 69.86
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Qualification
Undergraduate 74 47.13 71 42.77 66 48.90 39 54.79
Graduate 70 44.59 78 46.99 52 38.51 31 42.47
Post-graduate 13 8.29 17 10.24 17 12.59 2 2.74
Occupation
Student 94 59.88 91 54.82 68 50.37 51 69.86
Employee 30 19.11 38 22.89 30 22.22 9 12.33
Freelance 15 9.55 21 12.65 20 14.81 5 6.85
Unemployed 9 5.73 8 4.82 8 5.93 3 4.11 Table IV.
Other 9 5.73 8 4.82 9 6.67 5 6.85 Clusters composition

sophisticated subjects. The reason for this is that they are able to select and assess
cultural activities based on the level of available information and on their overall ability
to retrieve data. They intend to have the fullest cultural experience and to manage their
visit proactively. This conclusion was enhanced by the cluster structure of the survey,
which identified four profiles of cultural consumers who exhibited specific
characteristics with respect to needs and expectations. According with Poria et al.
(2009, 2006a, b), Gil and Ritchie (2009) and Vaughan (2001), the research confirms that
visitors motivation are very heterogeneous and differentiated, then also the meaning
they assigned to the heritage is dissimilar.
The survey demonstrated that, in the museum sector, the effectiveness of an exhibition
depended not only on the significance of the artwork being displayed, but also on the
overall visit experience, taking into consideration variables such as the organisation of the
visit path, the information presented and the visitor’s level of emotional response.
This study has demonstrated that it is difficult to attract cultural visitors without
identifying and studying their needs and expectations or addressing their priorities. It is
only through the gathering and the systematic analysis of such information that cultural
managers can consistently align the cultural offering with the customer profiles evolution.
Moreover, this research witnesses the importance that statistics tools play in the detection
of the main cultural consumers segments, helping cultural managers in the provision of
diversified offer. Many authors confirmed that, through the cultural visitors segmentation,
the management can plan and provide customised experiences and services, transforming
the traditional monolithic way to provide cultural heritage (Galì-Espelt, 2012; Poria et al.,
2009, 2006a, b; Gil and Ritchie, 2009).
 JCHMSD Compared to the numerous studies cited earlier, the present research takes into
5,1 consideration a very innovative aspect in the study of cultural visitors: the technological
application. This element can contribute in a significant way in the attraction of
new target, in the introduction of fresh motivations and, at the same time, it can affect
expectation before the visit and satisfaction after the experience. The relationship between
technology and a visitor’s experience is a key factor that must be identified and studied at
76 a deeper level, especially considering that it acquires a particular importance in the
management of the cultural offer for the youngest generations. As highlighted by Arcese
et al. (2012) the adoption of new technologies offers innovative and dynamic perspectives
for cultural consumers, many different types of technological applications can be
implemented in the cultural sector. To this end, cultural managers should support the
creation of networks that allow for an exchange of methods and procedures in different
contexts. This aspect is confirmed by Bonn et al. (2007), who shed light on the fact that
many attractions are adopting a more technological focus to transform their traditional
exhibitions and paths into something more interactive, multisensory and participative,
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

requiring the strong management commitment to detect innovative method to attract and
delight their customers. The findings introduce new avenues of research in the cultural
heritage sectors, tying together concepts like: visitor behaviours and satisfaction,
technological influence, data collection and quality management.
Technology is one of the aspects that play a significant role in this context, due to its
prominent role in offering a cultural visit enrichment. Given that technology, whenever
lacking to be adequately user-friendly, has the potential to become an obstacle, rather than
a facilitator, it is necessary to consider the possibility of providing new means of support
for the cultural experience, taking into consideration the fact that technology can assume a
growing role in the cultural sector and become an essential component of the offered
cultural experience. Furthermore, this supports the need to study and understand
consumer expectations to identify and make available all of the components that can
maximise consumers’ satisfaction.
It would be beneficial for future research to take into consideration suitable
methodologies to perform in-depth studies of consumer behaviour and their experiences
during cultural visits, also to better understanding and measuring the relation between
technological application and visitors.
Finally, it is recommended that this type of research be systematically adopted in
the cultural heritage sector, even taking into account that visitors expect continuous
improvements of their experience.

References
Addis, M. (2005), L’esperienza di consumo. Analisi e prospettive di Marketing, Pearson Prectice
Hall, Milano, p. 198.
Apostolakis, A. (2003), “The convergence process in heritage tourism”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 795-812.
Arcese, G., Di Pietro, L. and Guglielmetti, R. (2011), “The augmentend reality in the cultural
heritage sector”, Proceedings of 14th QMOD Conference on Quality and Service Sciences,
29-31 August 2011, San Sebastian, Rome, ISBN 84-8081-211-7.
Arcese, G., Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti, R. and Mattia, G. (2012), “The impact of augmented reality
on cultural consumer behaviours: an empirical study”, Proceedings 18th IGWT Symposium
Technology and Innovation for a Sustainable Future: A Commodity Science Prespective,
24-28 September, Rome, ISBN 978-88-8286-269-5.
 Bonn, A.M., Joseph-Mathews, S.M., Dai, M., Hayes, S. and Cave, J. (2007), “Heritage/cultural Cultural
attraction atmospherics: creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
heritage and
Boyd, S. (2002), “Cultural and heritage tourism in Canada: opportunities, principles and
consumer
challenges”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 211-233. behaviour
Burns, R.P. and Burns, R. (2009), Business Research Methods and Statistics Using SPSS, Chapter
23, SAGE Publications, London. 77
Chen, C.F. and Chen, F.S. (2010), “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Chen, C.M., Lee, H.T., Chen, S.H. and Huang, T.H. (2011), “Tourist behavioral intentions in relation
to service quality and customer satisfaction in Kinmen National Park, Taiwan”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 416-432.
Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (2004), Decreto Legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42, ai
sensi dell'articolo 10 Legge 6 luglio 2002, n. 137.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Council of Europe (2005), “Council of Europe framework convention on the value of cultural
heritage for society”, CETS No. 199, Faro, 27 October.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service:
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors”, Journal of The Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.
Davies, A. and Prentice, R. (1995), “Conceptualizing the latent visitor to heritage attractions”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 16, pp. 491-500.
Davis, T., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 1109-1130.
De Rojas, C. and Camarero, C. (2008), “Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context:
evidence from an interpretation center”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 525-537.
Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti Mugion, R. and Renzi, M.F. (2013), “Cultural technology district:
a model for local and regional development”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 7,
pp. 640-656.
Donaire, J.A. and Galí, N. (2008), “Modeling tourist itineraries in heritage cities. Routes around the
old district of Girona”, Pasos: Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 435-449.
Galí-Espelt, N. (2012), “Identifying cultural tourism: a theoretical methodological proposal”,
Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-58.
Gil, M.S. and Ritchie, B.J.R. (2009), “Understanding the museum image formation process: a
comparison of residents and tourists”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 480-493.
Grewal, R., Metha, R. and Kardes, F. (2000), “The role of the social-identity function of attitudes in
consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 233-252
Guido, G. (1999), Aspetti Metodologici e Operativi della Ricerca di Marketing, CEDAM, Padova.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, D.E., Tathham, R.L. and Balck, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrison, P. and Show, R. (2004), “Consumer Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions: an exploratory
study of museum visitors”, Internationl Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 23-32.
Hoch, S. (2002), “Product experience is seductive”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29,
December, pp. 448-454.
 JCHMSD Holbrook, M.B. and Schindler, R.M. (2003), “Nostalgia for early experience as a determinant of
consumer preference”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 275-295.
5,1
Hood, M.G. (1983), “Staying away: why people choose not to visit museums”, Museum News ,
Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 50-57.
Kaiser, H.F. (1958), “The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
78 Kalay, E.Y., Kvan, T. and Affleck, J. (2008), New Heritage New Media and Cultural Heritage,
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.
Kawashima, N. (1999), “Knowing the public: a review of museum marketing literature and
research”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Kerstetter, D., Confer, J. and Graefe, A. (2001), “An exploration of the specialization concept
within the context of heritage tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 267-274.
Lee, S.Y., Petrick, J.F. and Crompton J. (2007), “The roles of quality and intermediary constructs in
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45

No. 4, pp. 402-412.
Liu, W.C. (2008), “Visitor study and operational development of museums”, Museology Quarterly,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 21-37.
Malhotra, N.K. (1996), Marketing Research – An Applied Orientation, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 3rd ed.
Marty, P.F. (2007), “Museum websites and museum visitors: before and after the museum visit”,
Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 337-360.
MiBAC, (2011), “Nuova progettualità tra cultura e sviluppo economico sostenibile”, FORUM PA,
available at: www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/documents/1304674768156_
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousands
Oaks, CA.
Nowacki, M. (2010), “Education in open-air museums in research studies of visitors to the
wielkopolski ethnographic park in Dziekanowice”, Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-192.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. (2000), “An assessment of consumers’ product, purchase decision, advertising and
consumption involvement in fashion clothing”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 547-576.
Packer, J. and Ballantyne, R. (2002), “Motivational factors and visitors experience: a comparison
of three sites”, Curator, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 183-198.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2003), “The core of heritage tourism”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 238-254.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Biran, A. (2006a), “Heritage site management. motivations and
expectations”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 162-178.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Biran, A. (2006b), “Heritage site perceptions and motivations to visit”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 318-326.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Biran, A. (2009), “Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at heritage
sites”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 92-105.
Prentice, R., Witt, S. and Hamer, C. (1998), “Tourism as experience: the case of heritage parks.
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Richards, G. (1996), “Production and consumption of European cultural tourism”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 261-283.
 Richards, G. (2002), “Tourism attraction systems: exploring cultural behavior”, Annals of Tourism Cultural
Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1048-1064.
heritage and
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2006), “Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a consumer
solution to serial reproduction of culture?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 1209-1223. behaviour
Ronchey, L. (1993), L. 14.1.1993, N. 4. Conversione in legge, con modificazioni del decreto legge 14
novembre 1992, n. 433, recante misure urgenti per il funzionamento dei musei statali. 79
Disposizioni in materia di biblioteche statali e di archivi di stato.
Russo, A.P. and Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2008), “Innovative research on the spatial dynamics of
cultural tourism”, in Jansen-Verbeke, M., Prestley, G. and Russo, A.P. (Eds), Cultural
Resources for Tourism. Patterns, Processes and Policies, Nova Science, New York, NY,
pp. 1-14.
Ryan, C. and Glendon, I. (1998), “Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 169-184.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Sacco, P.L. and Pedrini, S. (2003), “Il distretto culturale: un nuovo modello di sviluppo locale?”,
Ottavo Rapporto sulle Fondazioni Bancarie, ACRI, Roma.
Sacco, P. and Ferilli, G. (2006), “Il distretto culturale evoluto nell’economia post industriale”, Dadi/
WP No. 4/06, Università IUAV, Venice.
Schweibenz, W. (1998), “The ‘virtual museum’: new perspectives for museums to present objects
and information using the internet as a knowledge base and communication system”,
Knowledge Management and Kommunikationssysteme, Proceedings del 6 Internationalen
Symposiums fur Informationswissenschaft (ISI’98), Prag, 3-7 November.
Shen, S., Schuttemeyer, A. and Braun B. (2009), “Visitors’ intention to visit world cultural heritage
sites: an empirical study of Suzhou, China”, Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 722-734.
Sheng, C.W. and Chen, M.C. (2012), “A study of experience expectations of museum visitors”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Solima, L. (2008), “La domanda di beni culturali in Campania e la valutazione di impatto
economico”, in Luraghi, S. (Ed.), Cultura e territorio. Beni e attività culturali. Valorizzazione
e indotto in prospettiva europea, FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 33-49.
Stewart, D.W. and Pavlou, P.A. (2002), “From consumer response to active consumer: measuring
the effectiveness of interactive media”, Jurnal of The Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 376-396.
Vaughan, R. (2001), “Images of a museum”, MuseumManagement and Curatorship, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 253-268.
Ward, J.H. Jr (1963), “Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function”, Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Vol. 58 No. 301, pp. 236-244.
White, C. and Yu, Y.T. (2005), “Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral intentions”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 Nos 6/7, pp. 411-420.
Wickens, E. (2002), “The sacred and the profane. A tourist typology”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 834-851.
Witcomb, A. (1997), “The end of Mausoleum: museums in the age of electronic communication”,
in Bearman, D.J.T. (Ed.), Museums and the Web 97: Selected Papers, Archives & Museums
Informatics, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 143-150.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
 JCHMSD Further reading
5,1 Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personalità
and social psychology”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
20, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. l-63.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organ. Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
80 Brida, J.G., Pulina, M. and Riano, E. (2010), “Visitors’ experience in a modern art museum:
A structural equation model”, working papers, CRENoS, 26 November, Università di
Cagliari, Cagliari.
Bowitz, E. and Ibenholt, K. (2009), “Economic impacts of cultural heritage – research and
perspectives”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 10 No. 1 pp. 641-654.
Harrison, J. (1997), “Museums and tourist expectation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations”,
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-368.

Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W. (1983), “Cluster analysis in marketing research:
review and suggestions for application”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 134-148.
Simons, M.S. (1996), “Protection of heritage sites-Simons actions”, in Prosser, G. (Ed.), Tourism
and Hospitality Research: Australian and International Perspective, Bureau of Tourism
Research, Canberra, pp. 519-534.
Velani, F. and Banti, C. (2009), “Beni culturali, tecnologia e turismo tra diffusione della conoscenza
e sviluppo economico”, Proceedings del V Convegno Nazionale Lu.Be.C. 2009, Lucca,
22-23 September.
European Commission (2007), “Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing World”,
No. 242, COMBruxelles, 10 May.
European Commission (2010), “Commission Report to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the
implementation of the European agenda for culture”, COM(2010) 390, Bruxelles, 19 July.

About the authors

Dr Laura Di Pietro is a Post PhD and a Research Fellow. She is a PhD in Commodity Science and
Quality Management. She is interested in commodity science, TQM, service innovation and CSR
topics applied in a transversal way to different sectors (e.g. cultural heritage and tourism,
education, public administration, healthcare, transport, etc). In particular she is interested in the
study of methods and tools to measure customer satisfaction related to innovative services and
sustainability. She is involved in many research projects in the public and private sectors. She is
part of the NetMuse network and a Member of the Italian Academy of Commodity Science. Dr
Laura Di Pietro is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: laura.dipietro@uniroma3.it
Dr Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion is a Post PhD and a Research Fellow. She is a PhD in
Commodity Science. She is interested in quality management and sustainability applied in the
private and public sector, quality of the food sector, quality and innovation, corporate social
responsibility and cultural heritage management. In particular, she focuses on citizens’
satisfaction. She is part of many research projects related to the TQM diffusion and cultural
heritage management system. She is part of the NetMuse network and a Member of the Italian
Academy of Commodity Science.
Giovanni Mattia is a Professor in the Faculty of Economics at the University of Roma Tre.
Currently, in charge of the Marketing chair, he formerly taught marketing research, consumer
 behaviour and market strategies. His research interests concern consumer purchase motivation Cultural
and attitudes, customer satisfaction, branding, products and services innovation processes. He is
a Member of several research project teams, at present mainly focused on customer satisfaction
heritage and
management models for public services. consumer
Maria Francesca Renzi is a Full Professor in the Faculty of Economics at the Roma Tre behaviour
University. She teaches quality management, corporate social responsibility and quality systems:
the ISO 9000. She is the Director of the teaching staff and a Coordinator of the Quality
management in Public Administration Master’s Programme. Her areas of interest involve quality 81
management in the public and private sectors, food sector quality, quality and environmental
management systems and corporate social responsibility. She serves as the Director and the
Coordinator of many research projects related to TQM diffusion. She is part of the NetMuse
network and a Member of the Italian Academy of Commodity Science.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 07:58 08 March 2016 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com