Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com

A Choice Modeling Application for Greek Heritage Attractions

Alexandros Apostolakis and Shabbar Jaffry
Journal of Travel Research 2005; 43; 309
DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272035

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/3/309

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/309

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008

FEBRUARY
10.1177/0047287504272035
JOURNAL OF2005
TRAVEL RESEARCH
A Choice Modeling Application
for Greek Heritage Attractions
ALEXANDROS APOSTOLAKIS AND SHABBAR JAFFRY
The article adopts a discrete choice modeling methodol-
ogy with a focus on capturing systematic heterogeneity to
evaluate tourists’ preferences for two Greek heritage attrac-
tions. This methodology provides useful insights on the pref-
erences of tourists belonging in different demand segments
while also providing direction for future policy making in
this area. The article presents empirical justification for the
frequently cited argument for adopting a more customer-
oriented rationale for the optimal use of heritage resources.
Overall, the article supports the claim that tourists value
positively the introduction of services and amenities that im-
prove the quality of customer service. Thus, policy makers
and heritage managers should pay more attention to visi-
tors’ needs and their particular requirements.
Keywords: systematic heterogeneity; Crete; heritage
tourism; choice modeling
This article examines tourists’ preferences and their sub-
sequent choices for heritage attractions in the Greek island of
Crete, namely, the Knossos Palace and the Heraklion
Archaeological Museum. The study adopts the discrete
choice modeling methodology with a focus on capturing sys-
tematic heterogeneity. This empirical approach offers an
interesting insight on differences in preference patterns of
different segments of the population, differentiated in terms
of either their sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age) or
situational variables (e.g., place of residence). Hence, sys-
tematic heterogeneity is a useful characteristic of discrete
choice modeling for dealing with differences in behavior
patterns within the population.
The article has two research objectives. The first objec-
tive concerns the valuation of consumers’ preferences and
their willingness to pay for hypothetical managerial develop-
ments of the heritage “product.” The second objective con-
cerns the translation of consumers’ preferences for such
developments into policy initiatives. For the first objective,
the discrete choice modeling approach was used. The results
from the discrete choice model can inform the debate regard-
ing the product-led development of heritage attractions,
which emphasizes the exhibits and education, compared to
visitor-oriented developments, which emphasize consumer
preferences and the quality of personal experience. Regard-
ing the second objective, the application of choice modeling
involves the examination of tourists’ stated preferences for
specific products and their attributes. The translation of these
preferences into monetary units through estimates of
marginal willingness to pay has useful policy implications.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
The discussion by practitioners in the tourism field has
nowadays progressed toward the direction suggested by
Prentice (2001) and Richards (1996). They argued that more
effort should be devoted to studying visitation patterns for
particular attractions instead of overall tourism demand for
the broader tourism area. Richards (1996) has argued that a
situation of market saturation has now been reached in which
the supply of heritage attractions far outstrips the current
demand. This suggests that an increasing number of existing
heritage resources is competing for diminishing slices of a
relatively static pie. As a result, each destination will have to
capitalize on the resource in abundance or, alternatively,
“promote more vigorously the superior quality of the exist-
ing key attractions upon which the destination has tradition-
ally been reliant” (Huybers and Bennett 2000, p. 21) to sur-
vive. Implicitly in the case of Crete, the above argument
suggests that heritage tourism managers have to find ways to
blend the significance of the island’s heritage attractions into
the construction of a competitive tourism strategy. This strat-
egy will capitalize on the quality and significance of heritage
attractions in generating a fulfilling tourist experience.
The Heraklion Archaeological Museum and the Knossos
Palace, both located in the Heraklion prefecture, contributed
significantly to the emergence of tourism demand in Crete in
the early days of the island as a tourist destination (Andriotis
2001). Due to the fall in popularity of Spanish resorts and the
consequent emergence of Greece as a major Mediterranean
destination, the mid-1970s saw the beginning of mass tour-
ism in Crete. This factor, coupled with the appearance of new
popular destinations that increased competitive practices,
marked a turning point in the island’s priorities as far as pol-
icy making is concerned. Thus, the latest regional plan for
tourism policy in Crete focuses on the strengthening of the
island’s identity via initiatives for the promotion and conser-
vation of existing cultural and heritage attractions (Region of
Crete 1995). Toward this end, the current study aims to pro-
vide a direction for future policy making for heritage
resources. Relating tourists’ preferences with their willingness
Alexandros Apostolakis is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department
of Economics, University of Portsmouth, in the United Kingdom.
Shabbar Jaffry is a principal lecturer and director of postgraduate
programmes in economics at the Department of Economics, Uni-
versity of Portsmouth, in the United Kingdom. The authors would
like to express their gratitude to Martin Snell, David Sampson, and
Asghar Zaidi for useful comments on earlier drafts of the manu-
script.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, February 2005, 309-318
DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272035
© 2005 Sage Publications
310 FEBRUARY 2005
to pay for hypothetical changes in particular attributes of the
heritage product will give policy makers an indication of
which areas they should concentrate their efforts on.
DISCRETE CHOICE
MODELING METHODOLOGY
Literature Review
Quantitative studies of cultural and heritage tourism have
primarily used the contingent valuation methodology
(Navrud and Ready 2002; Bishop and Romano 1998). Due,
however, to the multiattribute nature of heritage resources,
the validity of contingent valuation in heritage tourism appli-
cations is questionable. According to Dellaert and Lindberg
(2003), contingent valuation studies ask respondents
whether they are willing to trade one product attribute for
another (when, usually, one of the product attributes is
price). In contrast, the discrete choice framework requires
respondents to choose among multiple alternatives, each of
which is characterized by multiple attributes with varying
levels. This allows the researcher to estimate marginal
willingness to pay for each of the multiple product attributes.
In their study of a cultural exposition in Australia,
Louviere and Hensher (1983) were among the first to use dis-
crete choice modeling in the context of cultural tourism. Cor-
respondingly, in a study of Venice, Italy, Costa and Manente
(1995) were the first to extend the discrete choice technique
to the demand for purely heritage attractions. Other studies
that used the same methodology to evaluate heritage attrac-
tions include Morey et al.’s (2002) study on Washington’s
marble monuments and Mazzanti’s (2001) study on Italian
cultural heritage. Also, a recent study by Boxall, Englin, and
Adamowicz (2003) combining stated and revealed prefer-
ence elicitation methods examined aboriginal artifacts in
Canada, and Maddison and Foster (2003) examined conges-
tion at the British Museum through a pairwise comparison
framework.
This article extends the discrete choice homogeneous
logit model, which has been applied so far in a heritage tour-
ism framework, into a systematic heterogeneous specifica-
tion of the discrete choice model that introduces the effect of
individual/situational characteristics in the choice probabil-
ity. The model is better described as the systematic heteroge-
neous multinomial logit model. According to Dellaert and
Lindberg (2003), this model explains respondents’ prefer-
ences for a particular heritage attraction as a function of pol-
icy alternatives (product attributes), spatial characteristics,
and the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, or a
combination of them all.
Consideration of personal and situational characteristics
in the utility function captures some of the variation in indi-
vidual preferences regarding the evaluated resource. In a
study that considered residents’ tradeoffs regarding tourism
activity, Lindberg, Dellaert, and Rassing (1997) used a sys-
tematic heterogeneous specification of discrete choice mod-
eling that included the effect of individual/situational charac-
teristics in the choice probability. Other applications of
systematic heterogeneous choice models include travel
mode choice (Bhat 1998), water supply options (Blamey,
Gordon, and Chapman 1999), recreation demand (Breffle
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
and Morey 2000), and holiday destination choices (Huybers
and Bennett 2000).
The use of personal characteristics in a random utility
maximization context has also contributed to discussions of
cross-cultural issues in tourism research. Culture and cultural
differences may explain variations in consumers’ prefer-
ences and reported perceptions of a service. Based on
Steenkamp (2001), individuals sharing the same cultural
pedigree in the form of common symbols (consumption
activities, preferences) and experiences (travel and tourism
patterns) may be able to provide explanations of tourists’
preferences and choices for different holiday activities.
Due to the multifaceted nature of tourism demand pat-
terns, variations in tourists’ preferences approximate reality
more closely than assuming homogeneity across the popula-
tion. In addition, researchers are also interested in under-
standing the source of preference heterogeneity. Choice
modeling through the systematic heterogeneous characteris-
tic of discrete choice models examines the impact of specific
product attributes and individual characteristics on the utility
function. Because the purpose of the article is to provide evi-
dence for a more consumer-oriented perspective for Greek
heritage tourism resources, the systematic heterogeneous
discrete choice modeling specification is advanced as the
more appropriate preference elicitation method.
Theoretical Considerations
Choice modeling draws from Lancaster’s characteristics
approach (Lancaster 1966) and random utility maximization
(RUM) theory (McFadden 1974). Given that the theoretical
ground behind Lancaster’s characteristics approach has been
adequately covered elsewhere (Papatheodorou 2001; Morley
1992), this analysis will concentrate on RUM. RUM theory
starts from the assumption that individual consumers “have
market behavior generated by maximization of preferences”
(McFadden 1986, p. 278). Randomness in the proposed the-
ory stems from the fact that the respondent has preferences
for a particular product/service that are not necessarily
observable by the researcher. This unexplained variation
between what the individual chooses and what the researcher
records can be explained by a random element (ε) as a com-
ponent part of the individual’s (n) utility function (Uin) for
alternative (i). This can be summarized under a behavioral
process function of the form
Uin = Vin + ε in . (1)
= (βX in ) + ε in .
The above equation states that an individual’s utility
function can be decomposed into a deterministic (observ-
able) part Vin (in which β represents tastes and X stands for
explanatory variables, i.e., product attributes) and a random
(unobservable, or stochastic) component εin, which also var-
ies among individuals. Equation 1 allows consumers’ tastes
to vary in a homogeneous way across the population.
According to McFadden (1974), the existence of the random
error term ε in the above equation allows for probabilistic
inferences to be made. Thus, equation 1 gives rise to the
multinomial logit model (MNL). The multinomial logit spec-
ification assumes that the error term ε follows independently
and identically distributed (IID) Gumbell distributions
across the population. The systematic heterogeneous
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 311

TABLE 1
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES AND LEVELSa

Expected
Product Attributes Levels of Product Attributes Impact
Advertisement attribute Leaflets promoting the two heritage attractions on tourists’ hotel receptions
In country of origin Advertisement campaign of the two attractions in main tourism-generating countries (+)
Replica items in tourists’
hotel receptions Exhibition of replica items from the two attractions on tourists’ hotel receptions (+) / (–)
Congestion attribute 100 people on-site at any time
Improve by 50% 50 people on-site at any time (+)
Deteriorate by 50% 150 people on-site at any time (–)
Promotion incentives Half-price entry fee for students and children younger than 18 years old
On time of the day Half-price entry fee after 4.00 p.m. (+)
On day of the week Half-price entry fee on Sunday (+)
Wine and dine facilities Provision of an outdoors café on-site
Provision of a restaurant Provision of a restaurant on-site (+)
Provision of a bar Provision of a fully equipped bar on-site (+) / (–)
Other facilities attribute Exhibit information presented through simple cards/signs
Provision of A/V material Use of A/V material for the interpretation of the exhibits (+)
Provision of kindergarten
facilities Provision of kindergarten facilities (+)
Entry fee (ticket price) €6
Increase by 33.5% €8 (–)
Increase by 67% € 10 (–)
a. Shaded cells indicate the base level.

specification of discrete choice modeling captures differ-
ences in utility through the interaction of socioeconomic and/
or situational characteristics with product attributes
(Blamey, Gordon, and Chapman 1999; Rolfe, Bennett, and
Louviere 2000). As a result, the utility function in equation
(1) transforms into the following:
Uin = ASCi + [β ( X i + Sn + X i * Z + Z )] + ε in ,
Beta (β) is a vector of coefficients representing individual
tastes, X is a vector of product attributes, S is a vector of
socioeconomic characteristics, Z is a vector of situational
attributes, and ASC indicates the alternative specific con-
stant, a term included to capture the utility of the choice alter-
native in relation to the current situation. Interactions can
enter the utility function (equation 2) either additively, when
taste parameters (betas) interact with one variable at a time,
or multiplicatively (Blamey, Gordon, and Chapman 1999).
In this case, situational attributes (i.e., proximity to the
attraction) enter the utility function through a multiplicative
interaction with product attributes (i.e., βXi*Z; Dellaert,
Borgers, and Timmermans 1995).
Product Attributes Selection
This section presents the rationale for the selection of the
six product attributes used in this study and their alternative
configurations. The product attributes as well as their subse-
quent levels were identified from a literature review on heri-
tage tourism and a semistructured survey of visitor guides in
the two heritage attractions (as recommended by Bennett
1999 and Hanley, Mourato, and Wright 1999). Heritage
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
scholars active in the area were then asked to comment on the
applicability of the selected product attributes and their lev-
els on tourists’ decision-making processes. Table 1 summa-
rizes the product attributes and their levels, and denotes the
expected impact of each product attribute and its levels on
probability of visitation at the two sites. A positive sign indi-
cates that we expect a positive effect on the probability of
(2) visitation. Level 1 of each product attribute represents the
current situation and takes the role of the base category in the
choice experiment.
The argument behind the selection of the advertisement
product attribute is that higher levels of advertisement for
heritage tourism attractions will increase visitation. On one
hand, advertisement of the attractions in tourists’ country of
origin represents an effort to inform potential tourists to
Crete about the existence of such attractions prior to their trip
to the island. On the other hand, the exhibition of replica
items from each attraction on tourists’ hotel reception repre-
sents an effort to inform current tourists to Crete about the
nature of exhibits in that attraction during their period of stay
on the island. Thus, advertising the two attractions in over-
seas newspapers and television focuses on the planning
phase of a tourist’s decision to visit a particular attraction.
According to McWilliams and Crompton (1997), usually
tourists in this phase are still deciding whether to make the
trip in the first place. On the other hand, the exhibition of rep-
lica items at tourists’ hotel reception refers to the modifica-
tion phase of the tourist’s decision-making process (Taplin
and McGinley 2000).
The congestion levels attribute refers to the number of
visitors at the attraction at any given time. The underlying
assumption is that less crowded attractions are more preferable
312 FEBRUARY 2005
than crowded ones. In general, this study expects that an
improvement in congestion levels would appeal more posi-
tively to highly motivated tourists, whereas deterioration in
congestion levels at the two attractions would reduce the
probability of making a visit. Hanley et al. (2001) used this
particular product attribute in a recreational choice modeling
study to examine the influence of overcrowding on climbers’
satisfaction levels. In addition, Maddison and Foster (2003)
used the congestion attribute to value tourists’ satisfaction
with the British Museum in London.
The promotional incentives attribute refers to the incen-
tives given by different heritage tourism attractions to stimu-
late visitation. The rationale behind the selection of the par-
ticular attribute was to examine which one of the three
different pricing policies was the most preferred. Following
Laarman and Gregersen (1996), the idea was to test cases of
using differential pricing to affect use patterns such as
entrance fees varying by time of day or by day of the week.
Sickle and Eagles (1998) suggested that the proposed
promotional incentives represent powerful management
practices directed toward this goal. Dellaert, Borgers, and
Timmermans (1995) explored the effect of different day of
the week (particularly weekends) and time of the day (a com-
parison of daytime over nighttime) heritage tourism provi-
sions on urban tourists’ choice patterns. According to the
results of that discrete choice experiment, respondents gen-
erally perceived museum visitation during daytime or during
the weekend negatively. Silberberg (1995), on the other
hand, indicated that the time of day and day of the week pro-
motion incentives would cater more to “adjunct” and “acci-
dental” tourists, who do not originally intend to visit heritage
attractions but would do so if the right kind of incentives
were offered.
The wine and dine facilities product attribute was
selected as a supplementary attribute to the core heritage
product. The research assumption was that each particular
configuration of this attribute would appeal to different
groups of tourists (i.e., young tourists would be more likely
to prefer the bar option, whereas mature tourists would prefer
the restaurant option). The presence of a restaurant or a bar
on-site as different managerial practices and their impact on
probability of visitation can be justified in terms of different
tourism motivation. Food, and the provision of a restaurant
as a medium to offer food, can be part of a highly memorable
experience that will motivate the tourist to visit the site. On
the other hand, drinking during holidays is part of the “basic”
consumer needs. Thus, the provision of a bar on-site refers to
the more basic tourism motivation factors
Other heritage institutions, such as the British Museum,
have successfully used similar managerial practices to attract
a greater number of less culturally motivated tourists to visit
the museum. In this respect, Burnett and Reeve (2001) sug-
gested that in light of the increasing financial hardships and
the fall in public subsidies, the British Museum has priori-
tized the creation of a pleasanter environment with more
space for visitors to sit, eat, and drink. The objective of this
action was to entice people “to visit the British Museum and
spend more time and money in the shops and the restaurant”
(Burnett and Reeve 2001, p. 117). The provision of a bar on-
site can appeal to more basic tourism motivation factors.
Although this may not increase the satisfaction levels of all
visitors, less culturally motivated visitors would certainly
perceive its absence negatively. Hence, the provision of a bar
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
on-site is designed to cater to the “less serious” visitor, for
whom cultural tourism is simply hedonism (Urry 1995).
The other facilities attribute focuses on the stimulation of
the experiences gained. The hypothesis behind this attribute
was that different types of tourists would require different
types of facilities. Young families would require a different
type of facility than those preferred by a mature couple. This
study considers the provision of audiovisual (A/V) material
and kindergarten facilities as managerial solutions to the dif-
ferent manifestations of pressures from different type of lei-
sure activities on the two heritage attractions under
consideration.
Prentice (2001) suggested that cultural institutions have
to please the senses (feel, touch, and taste) of the majority of
tourists who do not generally consider heritage visitation
among their priorities. For that reason Prentice, Davies, and
Beeho (1997) suggested that the provision of kindergarten
facilities and A/V material on-site aims mainly to capture
culturally inspired or culturally motivated tourists who might
be constrained by the existence of young children. Tourists
with young children would favor the provision of kindergar-
ten facilities. As Tufts and Millne (1999, p. 621) suggested,
the tightening of funding from the public sector has forced
heritage attractions to introduce new information technolo-
gies and interpretation material to make the attraction (and
the exhibits) more appealing to the general public. Accord-
ing to Tufts and Millne (1999), heritage attractions can com-
pete with each other to alleviate these internal pressures by
providing more focused interpretation (e.g., provision of A/
V material) of the attractions. Chang et al. (1996) have
described this debate as the “Local-Global nexus.”
Choice Experiment Survey
Two choice experiment surveys were carried out sepa-
rately for the Knossos Palace and the Heraklion Archaeolog-
ical Museum. Respondents to each of the two questionnaires
were asked about their general tourism preferences and their
preferences while they were on holiday in Crete (e.g., In
which one of the four prefectures of the island did they stay?).
In addition, the questionnaires inquired about their personal
characteristics. Questionnaires concerning one site were dis-
tributed independently from questionnaires concerning the
other site. Three hundred self-administered questionnaires
were distributed for each attraction. These questionnaires
were distributed randomly in hotels across the four prefec-
tures of the island. The number of questionnaires was pro-
portional to the contribution of each prefecture to the volume
of tourism demand in Crete (National Statistical Service of
Greece 2003). The survey targeted visitors as well as
nonvisitors to the two heritage attractions. The total number
of responses was 281, 28 of which were not correctly com-
pleted. This resulted in 253 usable responses in total. In par-
ticular, the response rate for the questionnaires referring to
the Heraklion Archaeological Museum was 42.7%, whereas
the corresponding figure for the Knossos Palace was 41.7%.
In comparison, Huybers and Bennett (2000) reported a simi-
lar response rate (46%) for their study. The surveys for both
the Knossos Palace and the Heraklion Archaeological Museum
used the same product attributes for the two attractions. Both
attractions, although different in nature, are governed by the
same managerial and administrative philosophy.

FIGURE 1
AN EXAMPLE OF A CHOICE SET IN A CHOICE EXPERIMENT
The survey described each heritage attraction in terms of
six product attributes. Combining all six product attributes
with their levels would have generated 63 = 216 possible
alternatives. Understandably, this would render the whole
choice modeling exercise almost impossible to control for
both parties (researcher and participant) involved in the
experiment. Instead, a fractional factorial design has been
used (Adamowicz et al. 1998; Blamey, Gordon, and Chap-
man 1999; Ryan and Wordsworth 2000).
The fractional factorial experimental design using SPSS
produced 18 choice alternatives. These 18 choice alterna-
tives were grouped into three pairwise combinations (choice
sets). The block design routine in Statistical Analysis System
(SAS) was used to produce these combinations so that each
combination of choice alternatives is to be presented only
once to each respondent. This procedure introduced random-
ness into the design. Three pairs of choice alternatives and a
“no visit” option were presented to each respondent. The ran-
domness in the design enabled the interaction between prod-
uct attributes and personal characteristics to take place at the
estimation stage. An example of a pairwise choice set used in
the survey is presented in Figure 1.
EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Homogeneous Specification
In addition to the responses to the choice experiment,
other data were collected using the questionnaire, including
respondents’ attitudinal and sociodemographic characteris-
tics. Some of these sample characteristics are examined here
(Table 2). The interactions between product attributes and
respondents’ sociodemographic information in the model
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 313
were based on the particularities of the Cretan tourism prod-
uct. The German market is the most predominant tourism
market on the island. Their behavior regarding prospective
managerial practices in the area is of great interest to policy
makers. The same applies for culturally motivated and repeat
visitors to the island. The provision of interpretative material
in the form of A/V facilities is now becoming a standard
addition to museums and heritage attractions elsewhere. This
facilitates the core heritage tourism experience catered by the
attractions on display. The interaction of this attribute may
also be of interest to policy makers.
All discrete choice modeling specifications were esti-
mated using the STATA 7 statistical package. Table 3
reports the parameters for the two attractions under a homo-
geneous specification model. The examination of the homo-
geneous preference specification for the two heritage attrac-
tions in Table 3 indicates that the provision of kindergarten
facilities, the deterioration in congestion levels, and the entry
price in both attractions exhibit a statistically significant
effect on probability of visitation. In addition, the day of the
week and the use of A/V interpretative materials also exhibit
a significant effect, but only for the Knossos Palace. Finally,
the alternative specific constant for both attractions is highly
significant and positive, suggesting that tourists prefer alter-
native managerial and policy initiatives compared to the
current situation in both heritage manifestations.
A 50% deterioration in congestion levels in both heritage
attractions would suggest that higher congestion levels
would result in a reduction of tourists’ satisfaction levels and
therefore reduce the probability of visitation at the two
attractions. Increases in entry fees are also shown to discour-
age tourists from visiting these attractions. Whereas the
effect on visiting of higher congestion levels and an increase
in entry fees was as anticipated, the negative effect of the
314 FEBRUARY 2005

TABLE 2 TABLE 3
RESPONDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS MNL (HOMOGENEOUS) PREFERENCE
SPECIATION PATTERNS
Descriptive Statistics (%)
Heraklion
Place of holiday residence Knossos Archaeological
Chania 19.0 Palace Museum
Rethymno 24.9 Product Coefficient Coefficient
Heraklion 32.0 Attributes (t-stat) (t-stat)
Lasithi 24.1
Duration of stay Advertisement of attraction
Less than a week 3.6 in tourists’ country of origin 0.15 (0.83) 0.24 (1.32)
A week 29.2 Exhibition of replica items
More than a week 65.2 in hotel reception 0.18 (0.99) –0.06 (–0.36)
Not yet decided 2.0
50 people on-site at any time 0.20 (1.12) 0.08 (0.49)
Number of first-time visitors to Crete 71.9
150 people on-site at
Number of repeat visitors to Crete 28.1
any time –0.33 (–1.79)** –0.70 (–3.76)*
Once 15.8
Twice 8.7 Half-price ticket after
More than twice 3.6 4.00 p.m. –0.22 (–1.23) –0.17 (–0.95)
Frequent heritage visitors 53.0 Half-price ticket on Sunday –0.33 (–1.81)** –0.26 (–1.44)
Sex Provision of a fully equipped
Male 54.9 restaurant on-site 0.03 (0.18) 0.12 (0.66)
Female 45.1 Provision of a fully equipped
Age category bar on-site –0.13 (–0.72) 0.07 (0.42)
18-30 30.8
31-50 51.8 Use of A/V material for
51+ 17.4 presentation of exhibits 0.31 (1.74)** 0.20 (0.18)
Level of educational attainment Provision of kindergarten
Primary and compulsory 9.9 facilities –0.34 (–1.85)** –0.40 (–2.15)*
Secondary and vocational 69.6 Price –0.17 (–3.76)* –0.13 (–2.86)*
Higher 20.2
Alternative specific
Occupational status
constant (ASC) 1.40 (3.18)* 1.05 (2.33)*
Professional and managerial 47.9
Log likelihood (LL) –497.921 –500.475
Skilled (manual and nonmanual) 37.4
Akaike information
Retired and not in employment 14.4
criterion (AIC) value –973.8423 –978.9502
Income levels
Pseudo R 2 0.0383 0.0462
€ 0-10,000 8.3
€ 10,001-30,000 29.2 *p < .05. **p < .1.
€ 30,001-50,000 42.0
€ 50,001 + 20.5

The Systematic Heterogeneous

provision of kindergarten facilities was not expected. The
evidence in the literature (Prentice 2001; Burnett and Reeve
2001; Tufts and Millne 1999) overwhelmingly supports the
argument that catering for families with children improves
visitation levels. This assumption should have been
enhanced by the fact that the island in general is considered a
family-friendly destination.
The provision of A/V interpretative material had a signif-
icant and expected positive effect on participation levels for
the Knossos Palace but not for the Heraklion Archaeological
Museum. We can partly ascribe this to the “elitist” nature that
the museum exerts in relation to the more “relaxed” character
of the Knossos Palace as an open-air attraction. Maggi
(2000) described museums as ugly and dusty, and generally
unwelcoming to the general public. Similarly, Kaloger-
opoulou (1996) indicated that open-air heritage sites in
Greece (such as the Knossos Palace) attracted twice as many
visitors as Greek museums. This pattern, which was based on
visitation patterns at heritage attractions during the early
1990s, continues today (National Statistical Service of
Greece 2003).
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
Characteristic of Discrete Choice Modeling
The upper part of Table 4 reports the results from the dis-
crete choice systematic heterogeneous specification for the
two heritage attractions. The lower part of Table 4 describes
the interactions of product attributes with tourists’
sociodemographic information in both multiplicative (i.e.,
Provision of Kindergarten Facilities × Existence of Kids
Younger than 10 Years of Age) as well as additive (Frequent
Heritage Visitor) forms of the utility function. For tourists
with young children in both attractions, the provision of kin-
dergarten facilities exerts a positive and significant effect on
probability of visitation. Middle-aged tourists also exhibit
statistically significant positive preferences for the provision
of A/V interpretative material but only as far as the Heraklion
Archaeological Museum is concerned. On the other hand,
tourists’ preferences concerning the Knossos Palace suggest
that the exhibition of replica items from the palace placed at
the hotel receptions would have a significantly negative
effect on visitation patterns of German tourists. Finally, the
results in Table 4 suggest that respondents who identified
themselves as frequent heritage visitors tend to hold
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 315

TABLE 4 Contrary to the evidence derived from the homogeneous

SYSTEMATIC HETEROGENEOUS PREFERENCE
preference specification in which tourists in general exhib-
SPECIFICATION PATTERNS ited significantly negative preferences for kindergarten facil-
ities in both heritage attractions, the two systematic heteroge-
Heraklion neous specifications indicate that the provision of this kind of
Knossos Archaeological facilities would provide a particularly effective stimulus for
Palace Museum families with children younger than 10 years of age. This
Product Coefficient Coefficient observation is true for both heritage manifestations indicat-
Attributes (t-stat) (t-stat) ing that policy makers and officials could increase the num-
Advertisement of attraction ber of visitors by making use of the family-oriented
in tourists’ country of origin 0.11 (0.62) 0.25 (1.36) characteristic of the island.
Exhibition of replica items The results from Table 4 also indicate that middle-aged
in hotel reception 1.25 (2.03)* 0.01 (0.06) respondents feel quite strongly about the introduction of A/V
50 people on-site at any time 0.24 (1.28) 0.10 (0.55) interpretative material regarding the presentation of exhibits
150 people on-site at any in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum. This is particu-
time –0.27 (–0.44) –0.64 (–2.87)* larly interesting given that more than half of tourists in Crete
Half-price ticket after (52%) fall in the 31-50 age category (Table 2). This result
4.00 p.m. –0.19 (–1.05) –0.21 (–1.13) suggests that the majority of tourists belonging in this age
Half-price ticket on Sunday –0.34 (–1.81)* –0.25 (–1.36) group who responded to the museum survey prefer the intro-
duction of A/V material in the form of video and 3-dimen-
Provision of a fully equipped
restaurant on-site 0.01 (0.08) 0.13 (0.70) sional representations of the museum and its exhibits. This
Provision of a fully equipped will help them put their whole visit into context. Overall, ser-
bar on-site –0.15 (–0.83) 0.06 (0.35) vices such as the provision of kindergarten facilities and A/V
interpretative material in the two attractions are valued more
Use of A/V material for
presentation of exhibits 0.31 (1.71)** 0.06 (0.34) highly by specific segments of the tourist population com-
Provision of kindergarten pared to the general tourism demand on the island as a whole.
facilities –0.71 (–3.41)* –0.70 (–3.42)* Another interesting finding of this study is the negative
effect of the exhibition of replica items from the Knossos
Price –0.35 (–3.74)* –0.30 (–3.23)* Palace on German tourists’ preference patterns. Such dis-
plays at the Heraklion Archaeological Museum show no
Interactions effect at all. Policy makers and heritage officials should con-
Provision of Kindergarten sider this carefully given the significance of the German mar-
Facilities × Existence of ket on tourism demand on the island. The possible explana-
Young Kids (younger than tion is that German nationals do not consider favorably any
10 years of age) 1.43 (4.40)* 1.42 (4.03)* policy development that does not contribute toward a real
Provision of A/V material experience and does not respect the authenticity of the attrac-
middle-aged tourists 0.80 (2.21)* tion. In practical terms, this finding is in line with
Exhibition of replica items Apostolakis’s (2003) arguments regarding the focal nature
in hotel’s reception of authenticity in heritage tourism operations.
German nationals –0.59 (–1.78)* –0.14 (–0.46) The evidence regarding the exhibition of replica items
Deterioration of congestion
levels by 50% German
from the Knossos Palace also suggests that German tourists
nationals –0.03 (–0.12) –0.19 (–0.63) traveling to Crete do not tend to deviate from the plan they
Holiday residence had drawn up during the planning stages of their trip. Hence,
(Heraklion prefecture) 0.03 (0.49) 0.06 (0.90) it would be potentially difficult for planners to try and con-
Duration of stay (more than vince German tourists to change their initial plans and deci-
a week) 0.21 (1.19) –0.19 (–1.18) sions about which attractions to visit. This observation seems
Repeat visitor to Crete –0.10 (–0.57) –0.05 (–0.30) to agree with Steenkamp’s (2001) remark regarding the
Culturally motivated tourist 0.06 (0.56) 0.09 (1.43) effect of culture and national stereotypes on tourism con-
Importance of attraction in sumption activities and preferences while on holiday. The
holiday destination choice 0.06 (0.65) survey concerning the Heraklion Archaeological Museum
Frequent heritage visitor 0.31 (1.85)**
Alternative specific
also indicates that frequent heritage visitors are more
constant (ASC) 0.12 (0.25) 0.34 (0.79) inclined to visit the museum compared to other tourists in
Log likelihood (LL) –482.59 –483.07 Crete.
Akaike information
criterion (AIC) value 1001.9 988.14 Welfare Effects
Pseudo R 2 0.07 0.08
Welfare effects are of primary importance to policy mak-
*p < .05. **p < .1. ers because they provide a monetary value to changes in sat-
isfaction/utility that a particular consumer experiences as a
result of a change in one of the characteristics of the com-
modity under investigation. One can then equate the increase
significantly positive opinions for the Heraklion Archaeo- in utility that the individual consumer would derive resulting
logical Museum and are therefore more likely to visit this from this change (e.g., a reduction in congestion levels in a
resource. museum) with what he or she would have gained in terms of
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
316 FEBRUARY 2005

an “equivalent” variation in his or her income. Following TABLE 5

Boxall and Adamowicz (1999), marginal willingness to pay MARGINAL WILLINGNESS TO PAY (MWTP)
(compensating variation) is the amount of money that indi-
vidual tourists are prepared to pay to retain their original util- Heraklion
ity levels prior to a change in one of the product attributes. A Knossos Archaeological
marginal willingness to pay for the representative consumer Product Attributes Palace Museum
is calculated by the formula provided by Hanemman (1984): Advertisement of attraction
in tourists’ country of origin 0.31 0.83
1   Exhibition of replica items
∑ expV ∑ expV
o 1
MWTP = − ln − ln  (3)
βM  i i  in hotel reception 3.60 0.46
50 people on-site at any time 0.68 0.35
150 people on-site at any time -0.77 -2.13
where V0 and V1 denote utility levels before and after the Half-price ticket after 4.00 p.m. -0.54 -0.70
change (Earnhart 2001), and βM is the marginal utility of in- Half-price ticket on Sunday -1.06 -0.83
come (the coefficient of the price attribute is used here as a Provision of a fully equipped
proxy). The decision to consider marginal willingness to pay restaurant on-site 0.40 0.43
estimates is based on the fact that they are easy to capture be- Provision of a fully equipped
cause they depend on income effects. bar on-site -0.43 0.20
According to Blamey, Gordon, and Chapman (1999), Use of A/V material for
equation (3) is applicable in the case when researchers want presentation of exhibits 0.90 0.20
to estimate the consumer surplus associated with changes in Provision of kindergarten
the nature of multiple sites. Because, however, this study facilities -2.03 -2.33
focuses on one site at a time, the formula in equation (3)
reduces to the following (Blamey, Gordon, and Chapman Interactions
1999): Provision of Kindergarten
Facilities × Existence of
1 (4)
MWTP = − (V 0 − V 1 ). Young Kids (younger than
βM 10 years of age) 4.05 4.73
Provision of A/V material
Equation (4) can be simplified even more when the value middle-aged tourists 2.67
of a specific attribute is being estimated. This can be esti- Exhibition of replica items
mated by the ratio of coefficients represented by the level of in hotel’s reception German
nationals -1.68 -0.47
the product attribute over the price coefficient: Deterioration of congestion
β
MWTP = − attribute (Rolfe, Bennett, and Louviere 2000). levels by 50% German
βM nationals -0.08 -0.63
Table 5 reports marginal willingness to pay estimates for the Holiday residence (Heraklion
prefecture) 0.08 0.2
two attractions. The negative sign in some of the attributes
Duration of stay (more than
indicates a reduction in the respondent’s utility. a week) 0.6 -0.65
There are four particular points to comment on. Indica- Repeat visitor to Crete -0.3 -0.17
tive perhaps of tourists’ lack of knowledge of the Knossos Culturally motivated tourist 0.17 0.3
Palace is the fact that they would be prepared to pay an extra Importance of attraction in
€ 3.6 for the presentation of replica items from the palace in holiday destination choice 0.17
their hotel reception. Another interesting observation con- Frequent heritage visitor 1.03
cerns the significance that tourists ascribe to a potential dete-
rioration in congestion levels at the two attractions. This is
translated into a loss of compensatory variation (consumer
surplus) equal to almost € 0.8 for the Knossos Palace and € Knossos Palace, tourists value quite highly future hypotheti-
2.13 per visitor for the Heraklion Archaeological Museum. cal improvements in the provision of the heritage product
Interpreted in a more conventional fashion, this suggests that and are prepared to pay accordingly.
a deterioration in congestion levels would reduce tourists’
derived utility from the two attractions by € 0.8 and € 2.13
Policy Recommendations
respectively.
Regarding the provision of kindergarten facilities in the So far, the analysis has almost exclusively addressed the
two attractions, tourist families with children younger than first research objective, namely, the examination of tourists’
10 years of age reported that they would be willing to pay € 4 preferences over heritage attractions in the island of Crete.
for the introduction of such facilities in the Knossos Palace This part of the analysis will address the second research
and an extra € 4.7 in the case of the Heraklion Archaeologi- objective by offering directions for future policy making in
cal Museum. Similarly, middle-aged tourists would be pre- the area based on the evidence provided so far. In general, the
pared to pay an extra € 2.7 for the introduction of audiovi- evidence from this choice modeling survey seems to indicate
sual material in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum. that visitors in Crete prefer to visit heritage attractions that
These two pieces of evidence suggest that primarily for the offer facilities to add to the visitor’s understanding in a fash-
Heraklion Archaeological Museum and secondarily for the ion that does not jeopardize its integrity and the authentic
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008

nature of the attraction. In particular, four points for discus-
sion emerge.
On a general note, tourists perceive the Knossos Palace
and the Heraklion Archaeological Museum as attractions of a
similar nature. This interesting point is in contrast to how
curators perceive these attractions in terms of their unique-
ness. In addition, policy makers should direct their attention
to developing a differentiated product by increasing and
improving the flow and quality of information to tourists
regarding these attractions. The results from the examination
of tourists’ welfare effects make clear that tourists are pre-
pared to pay extra to find out more about heritage attractions
in Crete. Such policy actions can be placed in a general con-
text, designed to enhance tourists’ awareness about the
island as a whole while putting the tourist/visitor at the focal
point of any future development.
The introduction of A/V material and kindergarten facili-
ties for those tourists who have young children in their fam-
ily exemplifies the above argument. Policy makers have to
redirect attention away from the exhibit or the product
toward the particular requirements of the tourist. This argu-
ment provides grounds for a more consumer-oriented
approach as far as heritage attractions are concerned. This
increased focus on the requirements of demand should not,
however, be done at the expense of preservation and conser-
vation, but rather through acknowledging the particular
demand requirements for better product quality and
enhanced information and awareness.
Demand management policies such as the improvements
in congestion levels at the two heritage attractions could con-
tribute toward visitors’ satisfaction. Tourists explicitly stated
that increases in congestion levels at the two attractions
would have an adverse effect on their satisfaction. A policy
designed to cope with demand management at the two sites
would have a positive effect on the preservation and conser-
vation of the exhibits while improving tourists’ understand-
ing of the two attractions. On a similar note, the use of tech-
nology for purely presentational issues would not harm the
exhibits; rather, it would enhance their significance and
importance in the eyes of the uninformed tourist.
Finally, because German tourists represent the majority
of visitors to the island, their preferences regarding the com-
ponent parts of the tourism product that Crete has to offer
(among which are heritage resources) should be valued quite
importantly by policy officials. Indeed, the fact that they
report negative satisfaction levels over particular product
developments provides an extra incentive for policy makers
to revise their plans accordingly.
CONCLUSION
The study has used a discrete choice modeling methodol-
ogy to examine consumers’ preferences regarding heritage
attractions in the island of Crete. Using a systematic hetero-
geneous characteristic of discrete choice modeling, the arti-
cle evaluated tourists’ preferences for hypothetical product
developments in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum and
the Knossos Palace.
The second research objective considered the direction of
future policy making regarding heritage attractions. The
study translated tourists’ preferences into monetary units
through marginal willingness to pay estimates. In light of this
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 317
evidence, the study offers suggestions for the future direction
of policy making in the area. This development is particu-
larly useful to decision makers because it provides evidence
for the implementation of a research-led policy framework.
The evidence presented in this article provides an inter-
esting platform for heritage managers and curators. First, the
results from the choice modeling experiment indicate that
future policy making in the area of heritage resources in
Crete should be directed toward achieving two particular tar-
gets. The first goal is the reduction in congestion levels at the
two attractions, with particular emphasis on the Heraklion
Archaeological Museum. The second goal should be
directed toward achieving a more consumer-oriented
approach. As such, more importance should be given to
advertising campaigns, publicity, and promotional activities.
In addition, curators should seriously consider the incorpora-
tion of other facilities emphasizing the “democratization” of
the attractions and the interpretation of the proffered infor-
mation. The willingness to pay that individuals reported for
improvements in congestion levels provides a starting base
for the direction of future policy making, focusing on the
efficient management of tourism demand flow. Develop-
ments in this direction may involve a reconsideration of
admissions policy, a change in entry prices, or alternatively
the implementation of maximum visitor numbers at each
attraction at any time.
Second, the results advocate the recent consensus emerg-
ing in the literature in the field supporting the drive toward
increasing focus on market operations and managerial
administration. The results confirm other research regarding
the changing nature of tourism demand in the tourism indus-
try in general (Poon 1994) and the need for a deeper under-
standing of tourist preferences regarding heritage resources
(Mazzanti 2002) in particular. In addition, the study also pro-
vides solutions to the alleviation of some of the negative
impacts generated in heritage attractions as a result of
increasing visitation levels (Garrod, Fyall, and Leask 2002).
Overall, the article presents an application of systematic
heterogeneous discrete choice modeling methodology in the
area of heritage resource evaluation. The systematic hetero-
geneous preference discrete choice modeling approach mod-
els consumers’ preferences for two different heritage attrac-
tions. In that way, it offers useful insights into preferences of
tourism demand segments. Compared to the homogeneous
multinomial specification, this approach permits the identifi-
cation of specific groups that policy makers should cater to.
REFERENCES
Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere (1998). “Stated
Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Ex-
periments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics, 80: 64-75.
Andriotis, K. (2001). “Tourism Planning and Development in Crete: Recent
Tourism Policies and Their Efficacy.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
9 (4): 298-316.
Apostolakis, A. (2003). “The Convergence Process in Heritage Tourism.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (4): 795-812.
Bennett, J. W. (1999). “Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Mod-
eling.” Choice Modeling Reports, Research Report no. 11, School of
Economics and Management, University College, University of New
South Wales, Canberra, Australia
Bhat, C. (1998). “Accommodating Variations in Travel in Responsiveness to
Level of Service Measures in Travel Choice Modeling.” Transporta-
tion Research A, 32 (7): 495-507.
318 FEBRUARY 2005
Bishop, R. C., and D. Romano, eds. (1998). Environmental Resource Valua-
tion: Applications of the Contingent Valuation Method in Italy.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Blamey, R., J. Gordon, and R. Chapman (1999). “Choice Modeling: Assess-
ing the Environmental Values of Water Supply Options.” Australian
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 43: 337-57.
Boxall, P., and W. Adamowicz (1999). “Understanding Heterogeneous Pref-
erences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis.”
Staff paper, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada.
Boxall, P., J. Englin, and W. L. Adamowicz (2003). “Valuing Aboriginal
Artefacts: A Combined Revealed-Stated Preference Approach.” Jour-
nal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45: 213-30.
Breffle, W., and E. Morey (2000). “Investigating Preference Heterogeneity
in a Repeated Discrete-Choice Recreation Demand Model of Atlantic
Salmon Fishing.” Marine Resource Economics, 15: 1-20.
Burnett, A., and J. Reeve (2001). “Behind the Scenes at the British Mu-
seum.” London: British Museum Press.
Chang, T., S. Millne, D. Fallon, and C. Pohlmann (1996). “Urban Heritage
Tourism: The Global-Local Nexus.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23
(2): 284-305.
Costa, P., and M. Manente (1995). “Venice and Its Visitors: A Survey and a
Model of Qualitative Choice.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-
ing, 4: 45-69.
Dellaert, B., A. Borgers, and H. Timmermans (1995). “A Day in the City:
Using Conjoint Choice Experiments to Model Urban Tourists’ Choice
of Activity Packages.” Tourism Management, 16 (3): 347-53.
Dellaert, B., and K. Lindberg (2003). “Variations in Tourist Price Sensitiv-
ity: A Stated Preference Model to Capture the Joint Impact of Differ-
ences in Systematic Utility and Response Consistency.” Leisure
Sciences, 25: 81-96.
Earnhart, D. (2001). “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods
to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations.” Land
Economics, 77: 12-29.
Garrod, B., A. Fyall, and A. Leask (2002). “Scottish Visitor Attractions:
Managing Visitor Impacts.” Tourism Management, 23: 265-79.
Hanley, N., G. Koop, R. Wright, and B. Alvarez-Farizo (2001). “Go Climb a
Mountain: An Application of Recreational Demand Models to Rock
Climbing.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52 (1): 36-51.
Hanley, N., S. Mourato, and R. E. Wright (1999). “Choice Modeling Ap-
proaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?” Ple-
nary paper, European Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists’ Conference, Oslo, Norway, June.
Huybers, T., and J. Bennett (2000). “Impact of the Environment on Holiday
Destination Choices of Prospective UK Tourists: Implications for
Tropical North Queensland.” Tourism Economics, 6: 21-46.
Kalogeropoulou, H. (1996). “Cultural Tourism in Greece.” In Cultural
Tourism in Europe, edited by G. Richards. Wallingford, CT: CAB In-
ternational, pp. 183-95.
Laarman, J., and H. Gregersen (1996). “Pricing Policy in Nature-Based
Tourism.” Tourism Management, 17 (4): 247-54.
Lancaster, K. (1966). “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of
Political Economy, 74: 132-57.
Lindberg, K., B. G. Dellaert, and C. R. Rassing (1997). “Resident Tradeoffs:
A Choice Modeling Approach.” Annals of Tourism Research 26: 554-
69.
Louviere, J., and D. Hensher (1983). “Using Discrete Choice Models with
Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a
Unique Cultural Event.” Journal of Consumer Research, 10: 348-61.
Maddison, D., and T. Foster (2003). “Valuing Congestion Costs in the Brit-
ish Museum.” Oxford Economic Papers, 55: 173-90.
Maggi, M. (2000). “Innovation in Italy: The a.muse Project.” Museum Inter-
national, 52 (2): 50-53.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Francisco Fernandez on October 21, 2008
Mazzanti, M. (2001). “Valuing Cultural Heritage in a Multi-Attribute
Framework: Microeconomic Perspectives and Policy Implications.”
Paper presented at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Pub-
lic Economics (SIEP) on Discrete Choice Models and Valuation Ex-
periments: An Application to Cultural Heritage, Pavia, Italy, October
5-6.
——— (2002). “Cultural Heritage as Multi-Dimensional, Multi-Value and
Multi-Attribute Economic Good: Towards a New Framework for Eco-
nomic Analysis and Valuation.” Journal of Socio-Economics, 31: 529-
58.
McFadden, D. (1974). “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice
Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka. New
York: Academic Press, pp. 105-42.
——— (1986). “The Choice Theory Approach.” Marketing Science, 5: 275-
97.
McWilliams, E., and J. Crompton (1997). “An Expanded Framework for
Measuring the Effectiveness of Destination Advertising.” Tourism
Management, 18 (3): 127-37.
Morey, E., K. G. Rossmann, L. G. Chestnut, and S. Ragland (2002). “Valu-
ing Reduced Acid Deposition Injuries to Cultural Resources: Marble
Monuments in Washington DC.” In Applying Environmental Valua-
tion Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts, ed-
ited by S. Navrud and R. Ready. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp.
159-83.
Morley, C. (1992). “A Microeconomic Theory of International Tourism De-
mand.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 250-67.
National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG) (2003). Tourism Statistics
2002-2003. Athens: National Statistical Service of Greece.
Navrud, S., and R. Ready, eds. (2002). Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying
Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monu-
ments and Artifacts. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Papatheodorou, A. (2001). “Why People Travel to Different Places.” Annals
of Tourism Research, 28: 164-79.
Poon, A. (1994). Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Oxford:
CAB International
Prentice, R. (2001). “Experiential Cultural Tourism: Museums and the Mar-
keting of the New Romanticism of Evoked Authenticity.” Museum
Management and Curatorship 19 (1): 5-26.
Prentice, R., A. Davies, and A. Beeho (1997). “Seeking Generic Motivations
for Visiting and Not Visiting Museums and Like Cultural Attractions.”
Museum Management and Curatorship, 16 (1): 45-70.
Region of Crete (1995). “Regional Entrepreneurial Programme (PEP) 1994-
1999” (in Greek). Unpublished report. Heraklion, Greece: Region of
Crete.
Richards, G. (1996). Cultural Tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CAB Inter-
national.
Rolfe, J., J. Bennett, and J. Louviere (2000). “Choice Modeling and Its Po-
tential Application to Tropical Rainforest Preservation.” Ecological
Economics, 35: 289-302.
Ryan, M., and S. Wordsworth (2000). “Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Es-
timates to the Levels of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments.”
Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47 (5): 504-24.
Sickle, K., and P. Eagles (1998). “Budgets, Pricing Policies and User Fees in
Canadian Parks’ Tourism.” Tourism Management 19 (3): 225-35.
Silberberg, T. (1995). “Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for
Museums and Heritage Sites.” Tourism Management, 16: 361-65.
Steenkamp, J. (2001). “The Role of National Culture in International Mar-
keting Research.” International Marketing Review, 18 (1): 30-44.
Taplin, J., and C. McGinley (2000). “A Linear Program to Model Daily Car
Tourism Choices.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (2): 451-67.
Tufts, S., and S. Millne (1999). “Museums: A Supply Side Perspective.” An-
nals of Tourism Research, 26: 613-31.
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming Places. London: Routledge.