Anatolia

An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

ISSN: 1303-2917 (Print) 2156-6909 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20

Destination image, visitor experience, and

behavioural intention at heritage centre

Senthilkumaran Piramanayagam, Siddhant Rathore & Partho Pratim Seal

To cite this article: Senthilkumaran Piramanayagam, Siddhant Rathore & Partho Pratim Seal
(2020): Destination image, visitor experience, and behavioural intention at heritage centre, Anatolia,
DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2020.1747234

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1747234

Published online: 17 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rana20
ANATOLIA
https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1747234

Destination image, visitor experience, and behavioural intention

at heritage centre
Senthilkumaran Piramanayagam , Siddhant Rathore and Partho Pratim Seal
Welcomgroup Graduate School of Hotel Administration, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, MAHE, Manipal,
India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Heritage tourism is the largest, pervasive and rapidly growing tourism Received 31 October 2018
segment in the developing world. Developing countries consider heritage Accepted 18 March 2020
tourism as a significant tool for the community’s economic development KEYWORDS
and poverty alleviation. Heritage tourism is an essential component in Destination image; visitor
India’s tourism, which reflects the country’s legacy of the past. Visitors’ experience; behavioural
perceived image on the destination and their experience is critical for the intention; UNESCO World
success and sustainability of the destination. The study aims to develop Heritage Centres; India
a model on the link between destination image, visitor experience and
behavioural intention at UNESCO world heritage centre located in
Karnataka, India. The findings of the research work indicate that visitor
experience and perceived destination image on UNESCO sites have
a strong influence on visitor’s behavioural intention.

Introduction
Tourism is a significant component of the world’s service economy. Diverse topography, tradition,
culture and history make India as a most promising tourism destination of the world (Kaur et al.,
2016). In India, tourism is a rapidly growing industry contributing to the economic, socio-cultural,
and environmental wellbeing of the citizens. For developing economies like India, tourism acts as
a catalyst for economic growth, poverty reduction, employment generation, foreign exchange
earnings and is an excellent source of entrepreneurial development (Chiutsi & Mudzengi, 2012;
Lordkipanidezi et al., 2005). Heritage tourism is the largest, pervasive and rapidly growing tourism
industry predominantly in the developing world. Developing countries consider heritage tourism as
a significant tool for the economic development of their citizen and poverty alleviation. A tag of
“heritage” is a great motivator which invokes more tourist to a variety of destination (Palmer, 1999).
Heritage tourism resources are non-renewable and irreplaceable. Conserving and passing on
these heritage resources to future generation entirely relies on the stakeholders, consist of both
private, public bodies and the local community (Muñoz-Fernández et al., 2018). Considering the
need, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) embodied an
international treaty to protect and conserve heritage resources worldwide. UNESCO has introduced
a holistic governance system by recognizing these tourism resources as world heritage centres. The
ownership of world heritage sites does not belong to a specific country, but it is for everyone.
Heritage tourism is a significantly important component in India’s tourism, which reflects the
country’s legacy of the past. For both domestic and foreign tourist, heritage and cultural tourism are
predominant choices in India (Kumar, 2009). India currently has 29 cultural, seven natural and one

CONTACT Partho Pratim Seal partho.seal@manipal.edu Welcomgroup Graduate School of Hotel Administration,
Manipal Academy of Higher Education, MAHE, Manipal, India
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

mixed type of UNESCO world heritage centre. Preservation is essential to pass this inheritance to
the future generation and to ensure a pleasant visitor experience (Peterson, 2002).
It has been criticized that heritage management focused more on physical attributes than on
visitor’s experience, a core element of heritage tourism. In the tourism industry, the visitor’s
experience is an interaction between the visitor and the travel system is dynamic (Ek et al., 2008).
(Sharma & Sharma, 2017) Emphasized the importance of measuring the experience obtained and
felt by the tourist at heritage sites, as these sites possess not only historical value but also offers
emotional, symbolic, personal and aesthetic values to the visitors. Tourism is the central area of the
experience economy (Oh et al., 2007). The visitor experience is the most neglected area in studies
related to heritage attractions (Ung & Vong, 2010). Despite various studies being conducted on
tourism in the country, few studies have been found on UNESCO world heritage centres (Kumar,
2009).
Managing the destination image is vital for the destination managers, as destinations primarily
compete with each other on a perceived image (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001). Destination image
contributes significantly on travel-related behaviours which include choosing a destination and
intention to travel (Aksu et al., 2009; Alcaniz et al., 2009; Beerli & Martin, 2004; Lie et al., 2017).
Destinations heavily invest in building and promoting a favourable destination image through its
marketing communication as the perceived image is the primary source of competitive advantage
(Jiang et al., 2015; Michaelidou et al., 2013).
Visitors’ perceived image on the destination and their experience is critical for the success and
sustainability of the destination (Beerli & Martin, 2004; Byon & Zhang, 2010). Few scholars
demonstrated the underlying relationship between visitor experience and their perceived destina-
tion image (Lie et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015). Experience and image are more important for
visitors to the heritage destination than mass destinations. With studies predicting a continuous
growth of international and national heritage tourism (Ismagilova & Safiullin, 2015; Rogerson &
van der Merwe, 2016; Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009), it is significant for destination managers to
measure visitors’ perceived image, experience and its implication of visitors behavioural intention
to develop successful marketing strategies (Remoaldo et al., 2014). However, there is a dearth of
study on the image and experience dimensions at world heritage sites in India (Kaur et al., 2016;
Kumar, 2009).
This research work aims to analyse the perceived image, experience and the behavioural
intention of visitors at UNESCO world heritage centres located in South India. The paper is
being organized in a manner in which we have first reviewed the concepts along with the theoretical
background of the study. We have presented the conceptual model, discussed the relationship
amongst the constructs in the model, along with the research methodology followed by research
instrument and data analysis. Finally, we present the findings, discussion and suggestion for the
future research direction.

Literature review
The following review of literature provides a rationale on the hypothesized relationship among
destination image, visitor experience and behavioural intention.
Tourism is about exploring the unexplored. Across the country, there has been a rapid growth of
tourism contributed by both domestic and foreign travellers (Shankar, 2015). Tourism at
a destination is the leading force for development and economic growth in the region. Being
competitive in the market place is very critical for sustaining the benefits of tourism (Kim et al.,
2019). Attracting visitors to a destination is a continuous and tedious job for destination marketers.
Managing visitor experience and the destination image are significant drivers of destination success
as it influences the visitors’ satisfaction and behavioural intention (Suhartanto et al., 2018).
There is no commonly agreed definition on heritage tourism as the approach towards heritage
differs. A set of scholars referred as descriptive group connects the heritage with both tangible and
 ANATOLIA 3

intangible component of the past. Whereas, another set of scholars defined heritage tourism from
the perspective of visitor experience (Ung & Vong, 2010). In this research work, we define heritage
tourism as a form of the travel experience of an individual, obtained by visiting places and
participating in activities which represent authentic stories about people, artefacts, traditions,
historical buildings or anything of the past that can be visited (Chhabra, 2010; Linda, 1989).The
tangible and intangible past in the form of living and build elements of culture consist of folkways,
dance, music, religion, language, cuisine, festivals, artistic traditions, historic building, monument,
castles, farms, museums, cathedrals, homes, relics and ruins of architectural importance are main
heritage tourism attractions (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009).
Destination image has been received extensive attention among tourism scholars (Beerli &
Martin, 2004; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Crompton, 1978; Marine-Roig, 2015). Poria et al. (2001) stressed
that image for a heritage destination is vital as “image of heritage” at a specific site is created by the
perception of the visitor. The concept of the destination image is subjective and quite complex
leading to multiple definitions without any agreement on formation and measurement (Kim &
Richardson, 2003). In travel and tourism, a destination image is the aggregate result of people’s
impression, belief, ideas and expectations tourists have about the area (Crompton, 1978). Baloglu
and McCleary (1999) believe that destination image is an attitudinal construct which is
a summation of ideas, beliefs and impressions the people have of a particular place. Kotler and
Gertner (2004) narrate that the images signify the association and information which are related to
a site. From the various definitions described above, one may conclude that destination image is an
attitudinal construct by which a tourist visualize, forms an idea and belief about the destination.
Destination image incorporates two facets, namely cognitive and affective. Traveller’s belief and
knowledge about the travel area is referred to as cognitive image and the emotion or feeling attached
towards a travel destination is known as the affective image (Michaelidou et al., 2013). Physical and
structural characteristics of the destination are the primary determinant of the cognitive image, and
affective component reflects the individual’s emotion and feeling towards the travel destination.
Three aspects that contribute to the cognitive image are visitor attractions, visitor support service
and people in the destination (Vengesayi et al., 2009).
The visitor attraction is a significant determinant for destination competitiveness. Cultural and
natural attractions, recreation facilities, and events are significant elements of visitor attraction. The
interaction between the residents, service personnel and visitors is the chief element of people
related aspects. Choice of accommodation, food, transportation and other visitor-related services
are the elements of support services (Byon & Zhang, 2010). Other commonly appearing features of
destination attractions are climate (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999), nightlife (Hui & Wan, 2003;
Obenour et al., 2005), safety, convenience, resident friendliness, information services, hygiene
and cleanliness, shopping opportunities (Beerli & Martin, 2004), value for money (Byon &
Zhang, 2010) and novelty (Chalip et al., 2003).
Byon and Zhang (2010) proposed a destination image model with four dimensions specific to the
context of heritage tourism, namely, attractions, infrastructure, enjoyment and value for money
with the items representing the different elements of destination attraction that contributes to the
destination image. Destination image contributes significantly on travel-related behaviours, which
includes choosing a destination and intention to travel in future. The influence of destination image
and behavioural intention has been observed by many tourism scholars (Chen & Tsai, 2007;
Tavitiyaman & Qu, 2013). Hence, we propose a hypothesis that:

H1: Destination image positively influences the behavioural intention of a visitor to the UNESCO
World Heritage Centres.

Specifically, proposing sub-hypotheses that:

H1.1 Destination attraction has a positive impact on the perceived destination image.
4 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

H1.2 The infrastructure at a destination has a positive impact on the perceived destination image.

H1.3 The enjoyment components of a destination has a positive impact on the perceived destination
image.

H1.4 Perceived value for money in a destination has a positive effect on perceived destination image

Research on customer experience got much attention in the 21st century, where many scholars on
marketing engaged in customer experiences specific to services marketing context (Brakus et al.,
2009; McKinsey, 2017; Oh et al., 2007; Tsai, 2016; Tung & Ritchie, 2011). The visitor experience is
said to be (Pizam, 2009; Tung & Ritchie, 2011) the essence of the tourism industry, which gives an
opportunity for tourist to gain experience by moving out of their homes and travel to other
destination. There is no fixed definition or agreement of tourism experience and the factors
which determine the same. Those who had broadly endeavoured it have focused on an amalgama-
tion of elements. It includes experiences (Quan & Wang, 2004), visitors’ experience away from
home (Jurowski, 2009), past experiences which become memories (Jefferies & Lepp, 2012) and
activities or events which engages people (Jurowski, 2009).
Considering the issues in defining the term “experience”, Packer and Ballantyne (2016) proposed
a comprehensive definition as “an individual’s immediate or ongoing, subjective and personal
response to an activity, setting or event outside of their usual environment.” As narrated in the
definition of experience, the visitor experience is inherently subjective, distinct from the physical
environment, responsive to staged activities, constructed through a personal understanding of
peripheral events, bounded by time and it can be shaped and enhanced (Packer & Ballantyne,
2016). The experience of the tourist cannot be bought but can only be shaped in the mind of the
tourist. The experience obtained by the tourist is under their control and not with anybody else. So
the tourist at a destination with their resources, time and skills will have their own consumption set
of experience (Rustichini & Siconolfi, 2004).
Defining visitor experience at a destination is very difficult to be defined as it includes several
complex factors (Selstad, 2007). (Li, 2000) Had stated that the tourism experience is simulated along
with a generated movement of the user in search of genuineness, which includes versatile entertain-
ment. (Stamboulis & Skayannis, 2003) Have defined tourist experience to be as in a theatre in which
the experience happens as if the tourists are actor and actress playing their roles as per their degree
of rein. (Selstad, 2007) Indicated tourist experience to be a blend of both novelty and familiarity,
which are linked by each look towards identity, pursuit towards self- realization, which further leads
towards actions with the flow of perception.
Each visitor at a destination experiences the destination differently. The perception of the
tourists is formed by the opportunities for interaction offered in the destination, facilities available
and the experience and knowledge gained at a destination (Shiang et al., 2011). Pine and Gilmore
(1999) suggested four dimensions of experiences. The four primary experiential dimensions as
indicated by (Pine & Gilmore, 1999) are called as 4 E’s, namely, entertainment, education, aesthetic
and experience. Entertainment happens when the participant absorbs the things which are on,
education is an experience which is absorbed along with active participation, aesthetic involves
passive participation but includes greater depth and, escapism is where participants are engaged as
well are ready to participate actively. Entertainment is an essential dimension of experience where
the consumption is hedonic. The hedonic experience of an individual is derived from aesthetic
enjoyment or through involving in leisure activities which are very critical in travel-related context
(Holbrook, 2006).
Escapism or escapist experience is another experience dimension which denotes the visitor’s
engagement in various unusual activities in the destination or out of routine activities (Oh et al.,
2007). Possibility for learning a new culture, history, geography, food habits and handicrafts is
contributing to the educational experience of visitors to a new destination (Jurowski, 2009; Lee &
 ANATOLIA 5

Smith, 2015). Visitor’s social interaction in the destination, sharing, chance to foster an interperso-
nal relationship, and friendliness leads to relational experiences which need to be perceived as an
economic entity provided by the destination to a visitor (Lee & Smith, 2015; Little & Schmidt, 2006).
Tourist visit the historical site historical site to explore the cultural roots, as the historic sites are
considered an important place that connects the past with the present ((Lee & Smith, 2015; Palmer,
2005).
The behavioural intentions and outcome of visitor experiences have been studied by many
tourism scholars. The consequences vary from intention to revisit, positive word of mouth,
recommending friend and relatives for travel to the destination and encourage others to visit the
destination (Ali, 2015; Dixit, 2017; Kim, 2018; Lin & Kuo, 2016; Scarpia et al., 2019). Oliver (1997)
defined behavioural intention as a “likelihood which engages in a behaviour”. The term behavioural
intention represents individual’s propensity towards a specific action at a given condition. The
behavioural intention, defined by (Atunel & Kocak, 2017) as a tendency of the consumer to act in
a particular manner towards a product or service. It also suggested as intention loyalty, which
signals an individual’s predictable behaviour towards consumption of either product or service. The
positive behavioural intention is essential as it adds to satisfaction and repeats visit intention. The
researchers (Martin et al., 2013) found that experience in the past has a considerable influence on
the destination loyalty which includes the intention to return as well as recommending others about
the destination. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses based on the preceding scholarly
reviews as:

H2: Visitor’s experience influences the behavioural intention of a visitor to the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre.

Specifically, proposing sub-hypotheses that:

H2.1 Entertainment experience provided by the destination has a positive impact on visitors
experience

H2.2 Cultural identity seeking experience provided by the destination has a positive effect on the
visitor’s experience

H2.3 Educational experience provided by the destination has a positive effect on visitor’s experience

H2.4 Escape experience provided by the destination has a positive effect on visitors experience

H2.5 Relation development experience provided by the destination has a positive impact on visitors
experience

Few scholars of tourism research observed the attributes that visitor experience contributes towards
shaping the visitor’s destination image. The opportunity to learn the local culture, cuisine, lifestyle
and history found to affect visitors experience. (Smith et al., 2015) Examined the changing nature of
destination image during pre-trip, on-trip and post-trip experience of tourist and found that
tourism image is the dynamic and actual experience of visitors, which will shape the tourist’s
destination image. Friendliness, hospitality and empathy by the local community have a long-
lasting effect on the experience of visitors (Chandralal & Valenzuela, 2013; Kim, 2018). Assuming
the role of visitor experience as a determinant of the destination image, the researchers propose
a hypothesis that:

H3: Visitor experience influences the visitor’s destination image at UNESCO World Heritage
Centres
6 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Based on the theoretical link among the destination image, visitor experience and visitors
behavioural intention, the following conceptual work has been proposed (Figure 1):
The target population of the study are visitors to the two UNESCO world heritage centres
located in Karnataka, South India. Hampi, a district of Karnataka, has a group of UNESCO world
heritage monuments. Hampi is a last capital of Vijayanagar, the last Hindu empire of medieval
India during 14th century CE. It is known for its austerity and grandiose. The 1600 ruins of Hampi
that includes forts, temples, pillared halls, water structures, shrines and memorial structures
scattered about twenty-six square kilometres, protected by the rocky granite ridges and the river
Tungabhadra. The Vithala temple is an excellent specimen of Vijayanagar architecture which
houses monolithic statues of Hindu deities. Hampi was listed as UNESCO world heritage in
1986. The next group of the monument is located at Pattadakal, which houses a series of nine
Hindu religious temples and a Jain sanctuary build during 7th and 8th century under Chalukya
dynasty. The monuments at Pattadakal displays the harmonious blend of north and south Indian
architectural marvels. Sangameswara, the oldest and massive temple exhibits the architectural
acumen of Dravida of south India and Rekha Nagara Prasada of north India. The temple of
Virupaksha is a masterpiece that stands out of the complex was built by Queen Lokamahadevi on
the commemoration of the victory of her husbands over the kings of southern India. The group of
Pattadakal monuments were listed as UNESCO world heritage in 1987 (UNESCO, 2018).

Methodology
The methodology adopted for the study is quantitative in nature. The survey research design was
employed to investigate the relationship between visitor’s perceived destination image, experience
and behavioural intention. The postgraduate students of tourism were trained and recruited to
 ANATOLIA 7

execute the data collection at UNESCO world heritage sites. The students were trained on basic
skills on research design and research procedure erstwhile to data collection.
The collection of data was conducted during May 2018, a peak season that is accompanied by
summer vacation to maximize the response rate. The population size was considered as the average
of number visitors visited at each destination for the last 5 years. The minimum sample size arrived
at 384 based on the formula for calculating the sample size suggested by (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).
The visitors were approached after their visit to the different heritage sites and asked about their
willingness to participate in the survey. A total of 400 questionnaires were circulated, of which 339
were completely filled and provided usable data.
The constructs in the model were measured by adopting multiple-item scales. The items in the
scale to measure destination image are adapted from (Byon & Zhang, 2010). The scale on destina-
tion image, which has four dimensions with 19 items was operationalized on a 5-point scale varying
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Two items in the destination image scale were dropped for
its poor loadings (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
A scale developed (Lee & Smith, 2015) to measure the tourist experience in the UNESCO sites is
adapted with necessary changes relevant to the context. The behavioural intention of the visitor is
measured adopted from the previous literature (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Lie et al., 2015). A pilot study
was conducted before the actual data collection to ensure the comprehensiveness, readability, clarity
and reliability. The scale on visitor experience has five dimensions with 17 items was operationa-
lized on a scale of one to five, where one denotes strongly disagree, and five denotes strongly agree.
Descriptive statistics, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) were used to analyse the data and to build the model. The software employed to analyse
the data was SPSS AMOS 25.
Majority of the respondents were male, constitute about 65.5% of the total response. The average
age of the respondent is 28.69, ranging from 18 to 65, with a standard deviation of 9.8 years. A 97.3
% of respondents were Indian nationalities, and only 2.7% of the respondent are foreigners. A 51.9
of the respondents are completed their intermediate education, 52% of respondents are first-time
visitors to the destination, and about 22% of the respondents visited the destination more than
twice. A 85.9% of visitor’s primary purpose of the visit is leisure, and 60.8% of the respondents
visited the tourist attraction with their friends.

Results
The descriptive statistics (M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation), and Cronbach Alpha (α) reliability
estimates of destination image scale adapted in the study developed by (Byon & Zhang, 2010) and
the visitor experiences scale developed by (Lee & Smith, 2015) is presented in Table 1.
The result of Cronbach Alpha (α) indicates that all the constructs in the study have an acceptable
level of reliability. The α value of more than 0.7 gap of all constructs indicates the satisfactory
construct reliability as the values are greater than the minimum values (.7) suggested by (Hair et al.,
2010). Other than infrastructure (.79) dimension of destination and cultural identity dimension of
visitor experience (0.72), all rest of the constructs have the Cronbach values higher than .8.

Testing of model
A two-step approach was adopted to analyse the theoretical models to measure destination image,
memorable tourism experience, and behavioural intention. The measurement model employed to
describe the relationship between exogenous and endogenous measures used in the study. The
measurement model facilitates the researcher to examine how well the measured variables represent
or combines with the construct. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is adapted to test the measure-
ment model (Weston & Gore, 2006). The posited relationship between observed variables and the
constructs of destination image scale (Byon & Zhang, 2010) which have four factors and 18 items
8 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

Table 1. Demographic characteristic of participants.

Demographic Characteristics Frequency (n = 339) Percent
Gender
Male 222 65.5
Female 117 34.5
Nationality
Indian 330 97.3
Foreigner 9 2.7
Education
Intermediate 176 51.9
Graduates 119 35.1
Post Graduate 44 13.0
Number of Visit
First Time 176 52.0
Second Time 88 26.0
More than twice 75 22.0
Purpose of Visit
Leisure 289 85.3
Personal 50 14.7
Person Accompanied
Travelling With Family 94 27.7
Travelling With Friends 206 60.8
Solo Travellers 39 11.5
Age
Minimum 18
Maximum 65
Mean Age (Standard Deviation) 28.69 (9.78)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of constructs.

Constructs Mean Standard Deviation Cronbach Alpha (α)
Destination Image Scale (Byon & Zhang, 2010)
1. Attraction 4.01 .64 .93
2. Infrastructure 2.41 .97 .79
3. Enjoyment 2.79 .79 .82
4. Value for Money 3.83 .68 .88
Visitor Experience Scale (Lee & Smith, 2015)
1. Escapism 4.09 .82 .84
2. Entertainment 3.93 .60 .76
3. Education 3.65 1.27 .91
4. Cultural Identity 2.00 .78 .72
5. Relationship Development 3.71 .90 .81
6. Behavioural Intention 2.70 .90 .84
N = 339.

and visitor experience scale which was developed by (Lee & Smith, 2015) which have five factors
and 17 items are tested using CFA. The cut off value of CFA is recommended by (Hu & Bentler,
1999). The result of CFA, along with the recommended fit indices, is presented in Table 3.
The outcome of CFA indicated that both the destination image (DI) and visitor experience (VE)
measurement model fit the data adequately. Measure of goodness of fitness indicators, such as the
ratio of chi-square to the degree of freedom ((i.e. x2/df, DI = 1.36; DV = 1.35), Goodness and
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (GFI, DI = .953; DV = 0.957; and AGFI, DI = .933; DV = 0.938;),
Comparative fit index (CFI, DI = .990; DV = 0.992;), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA; DI = .33; DV = 0.34;), and Probability of Close Fit (P Close, DI = .968; DV = 0.992;) of the
CFA model of destination image and visitor experience measure denotes the best fit of the model
and are in line with the cut off values suggested (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
 ANATOLIA 9

Table 3. Evaluation of CFA model.

Destination Image Visitor Experience (VE)
Indicators Cut off Value (DI)Scale Scale
Chi-square value/Degrees of freedom < 3 – Good 130.82/96 = 1.367 126.37/93 = 1.353
(CMIN/DF)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >.95 – Great .990 .992
>.90 – Good
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) >.95 – Excellent .953 .957
>.90 – Traditional
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual <.08 – Acceptable .039 .037
(SRMR)
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) >.80 – Acceptable .933 .938
Root Mean Square Error of <.05 – Good.05 to.10 – Moderate .033 .034
Approximation (RMSEA)
Probability of Close Fit (P Close) > 0.05 – Significant .968 .992

Table 4. Composite reliability and discriminant validity of the CFA model.

Constructs CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attraction .934 .781 0.884
Value for Money .886 .724 .542** .851
Enjoyment .817 .528 .289** .165* .727
Cultural Identity .881 .649 .059 .025 −.064 .805
Education .911 .722 −.037 −.059 −.012 .185** .850
Infrastructure .917 .690 −.041 −.08 −.083 −.069 −.023 .830
Relationship .819 .694 .065 .006 −.002 −.01 −.029 116 .833
Development
Escape .837 .720 −0.013 −.005 −.158* .08 −.055 .127 .531** .848
Entertainment .877 .591 −.052 .082 −.002 .081 .120* −.102 −.017 −.001 .769
Behavioural Intention .850 .589 .220** .197** .283** .346** .182** −.075 .117 .060 .161** .767
Significance of Correlations: **p < 0.050; **p < 0.001. The square root of AVE appears diagonally in bolded letters.

Convergent and discriminant validity

The convergent and discriminant validity was evaluated using Composite Reliability (CR) and
Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The square root of AVE of the construct must be higher than
the standardized correlation of the study construct with any other constructs in the model. The
square root of the AVE value of more than 0.7 indicates that the discriminant validity was achieved.
Furthermore, the value of Composite Reliability (CR) was calculated to evaluate the convergent
validity of items in the construct. The CR, AVE and Square Root of AVE are shown in Table 4.
The initial models of CFA are indicated that the value of two items in the destination image scale
has been less than the cut of the value of 0.7 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Two items in the destination
image scale (Byon & Zhang, 2010) “Destination has beautiful scenery” and “Destination has good
shopping facilities” has been removed from the model as this item had lower loading than the cut of
the value of 0.7 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Common method bias (CMB)

When the data were collected through self-report questionnaire, it is essential to check
common method bias, which may influence the empirical result. Podsakoff et al. (2003)
demonstrated the statistical and procedural techniques to manage CMB. A well-developed
and psychometrically strong measurement instrument will resist to CMB. The confidentiality
and anonymity ensured by the researcher in collecting the data from each respondent help to
diminish the bias of social desirability. The researcher of the study separated the destination
measure, memorable experience and behavioural intention by printing in a different page of
10 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

the instrument that helps in psychological separation of respondents (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Herman’s single factor test was used to identify the CMB. A principal factor component
analysis adapting varimax rotation for all the items of the destination image, memorable
experience, and tourist behavioural intention yielded multiple factor structure where the first
factor is accounted for only 10.68%. The one-factor model where all the items are loaded into
a single factor revealed relatively poor fit (χ2 = 7214.22, df = 665, χ2/df = 10.84,
RMSEA = 0.17). The result indicates that CMB was not a major concern in data (Podsakoff
et al., 2003).

Structural model
The structural relationship among the constructs in the study was evaluated using a measurement
model after the reliability, and the validity of the model is proved. The inner or structural model will
depict the underlying relationship between constructs, which were derived from the existing theory
(Habibi & Ariffin, 2018). The structural model will be interpreted using the resultant path
coefficients. Path coefficients, in addition to revealing the underlying relationship, also indicate
the sign of the paths. (Hair et al., 2010). The strength of the path coefficient will indicate the strength
of the relationship between observed and unobserved variables. The standardized path coefficient
above .2 and the t-value of 1.96 will prove that the strength of the relationship between observed and
unobserved variables is statistically significant. The model fit of the structural model is evaluated
using the statistical tests suggested by (Hair et al., 2010). The relationship between the constructs
under the study is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 1 establishes the structural relationship between the constructs of the destination image,
visitor experience and visitor’s behavioural intention in the context of UNESCO World Heritage
Centres located in Karnataka, South India. The standardized path coefficients and associated t-
values between constructs in the model is shown in Table 5.
The purpose of the study is to develop a model on the link between visitors perceived destination
image and experience on their behavioural intention at UNESCO World heritage centres located in
Karnataka. The model will benefit the destination managers, service providers and the policymakers
to develop right decisions on marketing, branding and development of the destination. The result of
the study supports the hypotheses that education, entertainment, cultural identity seeking and
entertainment experience significantly contributes to the overall experience of a visitor to the
UNESCO heritage centres. The escape dimension of experience is not significantly contributing
to the overall tourism experience. The visitor’s experience has a strong positive impact on visitors’
behavioural intention. Tourist perceived image on destination infrastructure negatively influence
the destination’s overall image. The dimensions of destination image such as attraction, enjoyment,
value for money have a strong positive impact on tourist perceived destination image of heritage
sites in the study area. Both destination image and visitor’s experience have a statistically significant
effect on visitor’s behavioural intention. However, visitor experience in the destination has a strong
positive influence on tourist behavioural intention.

Conclusion and implications

The positioning of product and services is vital for crafting an appropriate image of the services and
products in the minds of target customers. Destination managers have to stress more on structural
and physical characteristics of a destination which has an essential role in forming tourist’s
cognitive and affective image (Chon, 1989). The destination image is a significant predictor of
tourist’s destination choice (Beerli & Martin, 2004; Byon & Zhang, 2010; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Dixit,
2017). The harmony between image perceived by the tourist before and after travel will create an
image congruency, a great predictor of future behavioural intention of the tourist (Florek & Insch,
2011). Tourism destinations, whether a state, region or a country, are not an exception. The
 ANATOLIA 11

Figure 2. Structural model.

Table 5. Summary of hypothesis test results.

Hypotheses Independent Variables Dependent Variables Standardized estimates t-value Result
H1 Destination Image <– Behavioural Intention .235 2.407 Accepted
H1.1 Attraction <– Destination Image .802 4.135 Accepted
H1.2 Infrastructure <– Destination Image −.106 −1.493 Rejected
H1.3 Enjoyment <– Destination Image .358 4.403 Accepted
H1.4 Value for Money <– Destination Image .661 5.086 Accepted
H2 Visitor Experience <– Behavioural Intention .693 2.917 Accepted
H2.1 Entertainment <– Visitor Experience .263 2.641 Accepted
H2.2 Cultural Identity Seeking <– Visitor Experience .270 2.484 Accepted
H2.3 Education <– Visitor Experience .480 2.641 Accepted
H2.4 Escape <– Visitor Experience .101 .716 Rejected
H2. 5 Relation Development <– Visitor Experience .148 2.365 Accepted
H3 Visitor Experience <– Destination Image .108 .833 Rejected

dynamic and intangible environment of tourism market raises several challenges to the marketers
12 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

and destination managers. Destination’s sustained success in the market depends on how it projects
and places itself in the mind of tourist and its ability to serve a memorable experience.
The result of the study reveals that natural and heritage attractions, pleasure and arousal
dimensions in terms of entertainment (Lee & Smith, 2015) and the perceived value for money
significantly contribute to the affective and cognitive image of heritage centres in the study context.
However, attractions (β = .802, t value = 4.135) in the destination and tourist perceived value of
money (β = .661, t value = 5.086) are largest contributors in shaping the destination image. The
finding of the study was consistent with the studies of (Byon & Zhang, 2010; Vengesayi et al., 2009).
The perceived image on value for money in heritage destinations at Karnataka indicates that
destination has a significant cost advantage. It is observed that the infrastructure dimension at the
study destination negatively impacts the destination image; however, it is statistically insignificant.
In the long run, the lacuna in infrastructure at the destination will be a limiting factor as it has to
compete with other destination or to attract more tourist to the destination (Alaeddinoglu & Can,
2010).
Today’s consumer’s ultimate aim is to get a memorable experience (McKinsey, 2017). In a sense,
each process the tourist goes through is an experience (Oh et al., 2007). Staged experiences create
a memorable tourism experience which is essential than an elaborated physical feature of the
destination. The interrelationship between destination image, visitor experience and behavioural
intention is rarely explored in UNESCO world heritage centres, especially in an Indian context. This
study tries to offer an empirical evidence on the role of destination image and visitor experience on
tourist behavioural intention who visit UNESCO World Heritage Centres in Karnataka.
Furthermore, the experience dimensions such as education, entertainment, and cultural identity
seeking are significantly contributed to the experience of visitors visiting heritage sites. The
education dimension of experience (β = .480, t value = 2.641) is able to explain the visitor’s
experience to the extent of 48%.
The finding on education and entertainment dimensions on the influence of visitor experience
intention at heritage sites are in line with the previous studies (Lee & Smith, 2015; Oh et al., 2007).
This study’s finding on the role of cultural identity seeking (β = .270, t value = 2.484) in heritage
tourism experience is a novel one which needs further examination as this dimension of experience
is not found and examined in other tourism experience-related literature (Ek et al., 2008; Lee &
Smith, 2015; McKinsey, 2017; Remoaldo et al., 2014). While destination image was able to explain
24% of the variation, the visitor experience alone can explain 69% of the variation in visitor’s
behavioural intention. The proposed model reveals that destination infrastructure at the group of
UNESCO heritage sites is the cause of concern for destination managers, service providers and the
policymakers. Hence, it is vital to improve and develop the destination infrastructure in terms of
creating a choice of accommodations, basic visitor amenities, cleanliness and hygiene at the tourist
attractions, shopping and leisure facilities and developing a network of tourist information services
which are perceived low in the study areas.
This research work could contribute in two ways to the existing body of knowledge in tourism by
providing theoretical and practical implications. The significance of research in a field can be
evaluated on the basis of its theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions (Summers,
2001). The theoretical contribution of this study is that it provides empirical evidence on the linkage
between destination images, onsite visitor experience on the behavioural intention of a visitor to
a world heritage site in the context of developing economies. The information on destination image is
vital for destination managers for positioning and in developing the marketing strategy. Furthermore,
the study provides empirical evidence on the theoretical relationship between the destination image
and the visitor’s destination experience. The study also extends the evidence on the dominance of
customer experiences on behavioural intentions of customers (Atunel & Kocak, 2017).
However, the research has some limitations in spite of its contribution to filling the knowledge
gap in managing destination image and visitor experience in UNESCO world heritage centres. The
finding of the study confines to the group of UNESCO world heritage monuments at Pattadakal and
 ANATOLIA 13

Hampi in Karnataka, a state in the Republic of India. The destination is managed by the state
government but funded and technically supported by the central government (Ministry of Culture,
Government of India, 2018). The relationship and mutual understanding between the state and
central government, which was inconsistent and momentary in nature do have a significant impact
on destination image. The result of this cross-sectional study may be influenced by the variation as
the preservation, and maintenance of the destination may affect the visitor’s perceived destination
image and experience. Despite the limitations, this research work delivers valuable practical and
theoretical insights in managing destination image and visitor experience for service providers,
destination marketers and practising destination managers.
The moderating role of gender, the purpose of the visit, the time and season of the visit on the
relationship between destination image, visitor experience and behavioural intention was not
examined in the study. Hence, further studies are required to identify and analyse the moderating
and mediating variables, which may influence the relationship between the constructs used in the
study to have valuable insights. Scholars researching in the domain of heritage tourism could utilize
this model in other heritage destinations to test the proposed model. Longitudinal studies on
destination image, visitor experience and its impact on tourist behavioural intention may provide
significant insight to the destination marketers, which will assist in managing the right image and in
delivering a memorable experience.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Senthilkumaran Piramanayagam is a Professor of Tourism in the Welcomgroup Graduate School of Hotel
Administration, Manipal Academy of Higher Education at Manipal, Karnataka, India. His research interest includes
statistical analysis and research methods, tourism marketing and tourist behaviour.
Siddhant Rathore is a post-graduate of Welcomgroup Graduate School of Hotel Administration Manipal Academy of
Higher Education, MAHE, Manipal, India. His area of research interest are in heritage and religious tourism
Partho Pratim Seal is an Assistant Professor at Welcomgroup Graduate School of Hotel Administration Manipal
Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India. His area of interest includes Food Sociology &; Anthropology,
Human Resource in Hospitality. Has published three books in hospitality and also published articles and book
chapters.

ORCID
Senthilkumaran Piramanayagam http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6746-0421
Partho Pratim Seal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6867-8713

References
Aksu, A., Caber, M., & Albayrak, T. (2009). Measurement of the destination evaluation supporting factors and their
effects on behavioral intention of visitors: Antalya region of Turkey. Tourism Analysis, 14(1), 115–125. https://doi.
org/10.3727/108354209788970199
Alaeddinoglu, F., & Can, A. (2010). Destination image from the perspective of travel intermediaries. Anatolia: An
International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 21(2), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2010.
9687107
Alcaniz, E., Sanchez, I., & Blas, S. (2009). The functional -psychological continuum in the cognitive image of
a destination: A confirmatory analysis. Tourism Management, 30(5), 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tour
man.2008.10.020
Ali, F. (2015). Heritage tourist experience, nostalgia, and behavioural intentions. Anatolia: An International Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, 26(3), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2015.1013477
14 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

Atunel, M., & Kocak, O. (2017). The roles of subjective vitality, involvement, experience quality, and satisfaction in
tourists behavioural intentions. European Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 233–251. http://ejtr.vumk.eu
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. K. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511617799.009
Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by
US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management, 22(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-
5177(00)00030-3
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4),
868–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00030-4
Beerli, A., & Martin, J. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.010
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052
Byon, K., & Zhang, J. (2010). Development of a scale measuring destination image. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
28(4), 508–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501011053595
Chalip, L., Green, B., & Hill, B. (2003). Effects of sports event on destination image and intention to visit. Journal of
Sport Management, 17(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.17.3.214
Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F. (2013). Exploring memorable tourism experiences: Antecedents and behavioural
outcomes. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 1(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.7763/joebm.2013.v1.38
Chen, C., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions? Tourism
Management, 28(4), 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007
Chhabra, D. (2010). Student motivation: A heritage tourism perspective. Anatolia: An International Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2010.9687102
Chiutsi, S., & Mudzengi, B. (2012). Community tourism entrepreneurship for sustainable tourism management in
Southern Africa: Lesson form Zimbabwe. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 2(8), 127–133. www.hrmars.com/journals
Chon, K. (1989). Understanding recreational travellers’ motivation, attitude and satisfaction. The Tourist Review, 44
(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb058009
Crompton, J. (1978). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of
geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research, 18(4), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/
004728757901700404
Dixit, S. K. (2017). Introduction. In S. K. Dixit (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of consumer behaviour in hospitality
and tourism (pp. 1–3). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659657
Ek, R., Larsen, J., Hornskov, S., & Mansfeldt, O. (2008). A dynamic framework of tourist experiences: Space- time and
performances in the experience economy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2), 122–140. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15022250802110091
Florek, M., & Insch, A. (2011). When fit matters: Leveraging destination and event image congruence. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(3–4), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.562413
Habibi, A., & Ariffin, A. (2018). Value as a medical tourism driver interacted by experience quality. Anatolia. 30(1),
35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2018.1496122
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice
Hall.
Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: An
illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2006.01.008
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705519909540118
Hui, T., & Wan, T. (2003). Singapore’s image as a tourist destination. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(4),
305–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.437
Ismagilova, G., & Safiullin, T. I. (2015). Using historical heritage as a factor in tourism development. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.355
Jefferies, K., & Lepp, A. (2012). An investigation of extraordinary experiences. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 30(3), 37–51. https://js.sagamorepub.com/jpra/article/view/2807
Jiang, Y., Ramkissoon, H., & Mavondo, F. (2015). Destination marketing and visitor experiences: The development of
a conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(6), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19368623.2016.1087358
Jurowski, C. (2009). An examination of the four realms of tourism experience theory. CHRIE Conference (pp. 1–8).
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/Sessions/Wednesday/23
 ANATOLIA 15

Kaur, A., Chauhan, A., & Medury, Y. (2016). Destination image of Indian tourism destinations: An evaluation using
correspondence analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(3), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/
apjml-05-2015-0074
Kim, H., & Richardson, S. (2003). Motion picture impacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),
216–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(02)00062-2
Kim, J. H. (2018). The Impact of memorable tourism experiences on loyalty behaviors: The mediating effects of
destination image and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 87(7), 856–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287517721369
Kim, S., Whitford, M., & Arcodia, C. (2019). Development of intangible cultural heritage as sustainable tourism
resource: The intangible cultural heritage practitioner’s perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(5-6), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1561703
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2004). Country as brand, product and beyond: A place marketing and brand management
perspective. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination
proposition (pp. 42). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540076
Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Kumar, R. (2009). Indian heritage tourism: Challenges of identification and preservation. International Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Systems, 2(1) 120–135. http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhts/article/view/38393.
Lee, H., & Smith, S. (2015). A visitor experience scale: Historic sites and museums. Journal of China Tourism
Research, 11(3), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2015.1083499
Li, Y. (2000). Geographical consciousness and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 863–883.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00112-7
Lin, C., & Kuo, B. (2016). The behavioral consequences of tourist experience. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18,
84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.12.017
Linda, R. (1989). The politics of tourism in Asia. University of Hawaii Press.
Little, D. E., & Schmidt, C. (2006). Self, wonder and God! The spiritual dimensions of travel experiences. Tourism, 54
(2), 107–116. https://hrcak.srce.hr/161460
Liu, X., & Li, J. (Justin), & Kim, W. G. (2017). The role of travel experience in the structural relationships among
tourists’ perceived image, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(2),135–
146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415610371
Lordkipanidezi, M., Brezet, H., & Backman, M. (2005). The entrepreneurship factor in sustainable tourism
development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(8), 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.043
Marine-Roig, E. (2015). Identity and authenticity in destination image construction. Anatolia: An International
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 26(4), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2015.1040814
Martin, H., Collado, J., & Bosque, I. (2013). An exploration of the effects of past experience and tourist involvement
on destination loyalty formation. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(4), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.
2012.695773
McKinsey. (2017) . Customer experience: New capabilities, new audiences, new opportunities.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N.-T., Moraes, C., & Micevski, M. (2013). Do marketers use visual representations of
destinations that tourists value? Comparing visitors’ image of a destination with marketer-controlled images
online. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513481272
Ministry of Culture, Government of India. (2018, December 4). Heritage status to Indian sites by UNESCO. Press
Information Bureau, Government of India. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=142310
Muñoz-Fernández, G., López-Guzmán, T., López-Molina, D., & Pérez Gálvez, J. (2018). Heritage tourism in the
Andes: The case of Cuenca, Ecuador. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 29
(3), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2017.1408026
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Obenour, W., Lengfelder, J., & Groves, D. (2005). The development of a destination through the image assessment of
six geographic markets. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1356766705052569
Oh, H., Fiore, A., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of
Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507304039
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction and behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw- Hill.
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2016). Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A Review of literature and development of
a multifaceted model. Visitor Studies, 19(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2016.1144023
Palmer, C. (1999). Tourism and the symbols of identity. Tourism Management, 20(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2004.04.006
Palmer, C. (2005). An ethnography of Englishness: Experiencing identity through tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.006
Peterson, A. (2002). Managing tourism at world heritage experience: A practical manual for world heritage site
managers. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
16 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Harvard Business School Press.
Pizam, A. (2009). Creating memorable experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3), 343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.04.003
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2001). Clarifying heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1047–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(00)00069-4
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An illustration from food
experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(03)00130-4
Remoaldo, C., Ribeiro, J., Vareiro, L., & Santos, J. (2014). Tourists’ perceptions of world heritage destinations: The
case of Guimarães (Portugal). Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(4), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1467358414541457
Rogerson, C., & van der Merwe, C. (2016). Heritage tourism in the global South: Development impacts of the cradle
of humankind world heritage site, South Africa. Local Economy, 31(1–2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0269094215614270
Rustichini, A., & Siconolfi, P. (2004). Growth in economies with non convexities: Sunspots and lottery equilibria.
Economic Theory, 24(3), 701–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-004-0509-1
Scarpia, D., Mason, M., & Raggiotto, F. (2019). To Rome with love: A moderated mediation model in Roman heritage
consumption. Tourism Management, 71, 389–401. April, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.10.030
Selstad, L. (2007). The Social Anthropology of the tourist experience. Exploring the’ Middle Role”. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250701256771
Shankar, S. (2015). Impact of heritage tourism in India –A case study. International Journal of Innovative Research in
Information Security, 6(2), 59–61. http://www.ijiris.com/volumes/vol2/iss5/10.MYIS10091.pdf
Sharma, S., & Sharma, S. (2017). Heritage Tourism in India: A stakeholders perspective. Tourism and Travelling, 1(1),
20–33. https://doi.org/10.21511/tt.1(1).2017.03
Shiang, M., Gin, S., & Shih, H. (2011). The relationship between cruise image,perceived value, satisfaction and
post-purchase behavioral intention of Taiwanese tourists. African Journal of Business Management, 5(1),
19–29. DOI:10.5897/AJBM10.260
Smith, W. W., Li, X. R., Pan, B., Witte., M., & Doherty, S. (2015). Tracking destination image across the trip
experience with smartphone technology. Tourism Management, 48, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2014.04.010
Stamboulis, Y., & Skayannis, P. (2003). Innovation strategies and technology for experience- based tourism. Tourism
Management, 24(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(02)00047-x
Suhartanto, D., Clems, M., & Wibisono, N. (2018). How experiences with cultural attractions affect: Destination
image and destination loyalty. Tourism, Culture & Communication, 18(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.3727/
109830418x15319363084463
Summers, J. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization
through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.
1177/03079450094243
Tavitiyaman, P., & Qu, H. (2013). Destination mage and behaviour intention of travellers to Thailand: The
moderating effect of perceived risk. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(3), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10548408.2013.774911
Timothy, D., & Nyaupane, G. (2009). Introduction: Heritage tourism and the less- developed world. In D. Timothy &
G. Nyaupane (Eds.), Cultural heritage and tourism in the developing world: A regional perspective (pp. 3–19).
Routledge.
Tsai, C. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 536–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2070
Tung, V., & Ritchie, J. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research,
38(4), 1367–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009
UNESCO. (2018, December). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris. https://whc.
unesco.org/en/convention/. https://whc.unesco.org:https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/
Ung, A., & Vong, T. (2010). Tourist experience of heritage tourism in Macau SAR, China. Journal of Heritage
Tourism, 5(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17438731003668502
Vengesayi, S., Mavondo, F. T., & Reisinger, Y. (2009). Tourism destination attractiveness: Attractions, facilities, and
people as predictors. Tourism Analysis, 14(5), 621–636. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354209X12597959359211
Weston, R., & Gore, J. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modelling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5),
719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345
 ANATOLIA 17

Items in the measurement scale

Destination Image Scale (Adopted from Lee & Smith, 2015)
This UNESCO heritage centre

Infrastructure
Inf1 Has Quality infrastructure (Road & Utilities)
Inf2 Has Suitable Accommodation
Inf3 Has Good Network of tourist information
Inf4 Has Good standard of Hygiene & Cleanliness
Inf5 Is safe

Attraction
Att1 Has interesting historical attractions
Att2 Has a good climate
Att3 Offers interesting cultural events
Att4 Has good shopping facilities

Enjoyment
Enj1 Is a pleasing travel destination
Enj2 Is an enjoyable travel destination
Enj3 Is an exciting travel destination
Enj3 Is a novel travel destination

Value
Val1 Accommodations are reasonably priced
Val2 Is an inexpensive place to visit
Val3 It offers excellent value for my money.

Visitor Experience Scale (Adopted from Lee & Smith, 2015)

Entertainment
Ent1 I was entertained
Ent2 I enjoyed the folk music, dance, and the cultural events
Ent3 It was a relaxing experience
Ent4 I chat with the residents to know their culture
Ent5 I had a fun experience

Culture Identity- seeking

Culident1 The experience here let me connect with the past
Culident2 The experience helped me to understand the history
Culident3 The experience allowed me to celebrate my own history
Culident4 The experience here let me connect with my heritage

Education
Edu1 I learned more about the history of the destination
Edu2 I learned more about the geography of this destination
Edu3 The experience allowed me to learn ancient Indian culture & heritage
Edu4 I learned about local/traditional crafts
18 S. PIRAMANAYAGAM ET AL.

Relationship development
Rel1 I had met new people
Rel2 I build a friendship

Escapism
Esc1 I enjoyed a change from routine
Esc2 The experience allowed me to get away from pressures of everyday life.

Behavioural Intention (Adopted from (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Lie, Li, & Lin, 2015)
BI1 I would like to revisit the destination
BI2 I will recommend others to visit this destination
BI3 I am planning to visit soon
BI4 I would say positive things about this destination.