Journal of Heritage Tourism

ISSN: 1743-873X (Print) 1747-6631 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjht20

Exploring memorable cultural tourism experiences

Siamak Seyfi, C. Michael Hall & S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh

To cite this article: Siamak Seyfi, C. Michael Hall & S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh (2019):
Exploring memorable cultural tourism experiences, Journal of Heritage Tourism, DOI:
10.1080/1743873X.2019.1639717

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2019.1639717

Published online: 10 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjht20
JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2019.1639717

Exploring memorable cultural tourism experiences

a b c
Siamak Seyfi , C. Michael Hall and S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh
a
Department of Geography, University of Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris, France; bDepartment of Management,
Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; cSchool of Hospitality,
Tourism, and Events, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cultural tourism is a significant element of tourism for many destinations; Received 1 April 2019
nevertheless, relatively little is known about the contributing factors that Accepted 26 June 2019
form the overall cultural travel experience. This study sought to
KEYWORDS
contribute to this extant knowledge gap by enhancing our Memorable experiences;
understanding of the nature of cultural tourism experiences and the tourism experience; cultural
process by which they are formed. Through in-depth face-to-face tourism; destination
interviews with 29 tourists in the cultural sites of Paris, a theoretical management; grounded
model of memorable cultural tourism experiences (MCTEs) was theory
developed and six key factors affecting cultural tourist experiences in a
destination have emerged using a grounded theory approach: prior
perceived significance of the experience, authenticity, engagement,
cultural exchange, culinary attraction and quality of service. The findings
of this study contribute to ongoing efforts in tourism scholarship to
understand the essence of memorable tourism experiences (MTE) in
general and more particularly within the context of cultural tourists’
experiences. The theoretical and practical contributions of the study
results are discussed and several avenues for future research are also
proposed.

Introduction
Customer experience has always been at the focal point of the entertainment business and more
widely in the services sector (Otto & Ritchie, 1996). Pine and Gilmore (1999) believed that experi-
ence is not merely a delivery of a service; but it is about creating a memorable and unique event. This
notion gained much attention in the service sector, including the tourism industry (Prebensen, Chen,
& Uysal, 2018; Ritchie & Hudson, 2009; Uriely, 2005). Numerous authors have argued that tourist
experience has a determining effect in shaping and enhancing tourist value and future behavioral
outcomes, such as word-of-mouth (WOM) publicity, revisit intention and increased loyalty (Chen
& Chen, 2010; Otto & Ritchie, 1996; Zhang, Wu, & Buhalis, 2017). With perceived intensification
in destination competition, there is a growing recognition that delivering memorable experiences
to tourists can be used not only as a tool for differentiation (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009) or attracting
more visitors and providing competitive advantages (Neuhofer, Buhalis, & Ladkin, 2012), but also as
a means to create engagement and loyalty between destinations and travelers (Chen & Chen, 2010).
‘Memorable,’ rather than ‘standard’ experiences have become perceived as being more important
for the tourism industry in recent times (Kim, Ritchie, & McCormick, 2012). A memorable tourism
experience (MTE) is defined as a meaningful experience that is remembered and recalled and selec-
tively reconstructed by the tourist when describing a travel experience (Tung & Ritchie, 2011a). Given
the fact that not all experiences are memorable and the complexities of tourist experience (Kim &

CONTACT S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh mostafa.rasoolimanesh@taylors.edu.my; rasooli1352@yahoo.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. SEYFI ET AL.

Ritchie, 2014), a plethora of studies have sought to conceptualize and measure MTEs (e.g. Chandralal
& Valenzuela, 2013, 2015; Kim et al., 2012; Kim & Ritchie, 2014; Sthapit & Coudounaris, 2018; Tung
& Ritchie, 2011a, 2011b; Zhang et al., 2017). Nevertheless, despite this overarching attention to MTEs,
the results are incongruent and the constructs proposed are often very subjective in nature and lack a
structured direction (Chen & Rahman, 2018) and they do not sufficiently address the experiences of
cultural tourists as a separate and a growing market segment (Smith, 2015).
Cultural and heritage tourism are rapidly growing areas of the tourism industry (Timothy, 2011)
and are regarded by the UNWTO as a major element of international tourism consumption,
accounting for an estimated 40% of global tourism (Richards, 2018). For example, in Europe
more than 50% of tourist activity is believed to be driven by cultural heritage (Europa Nostra,
2005). Much of this growth has been centered on the consumption of cultural sites and attractions,
such as heritage sites, art galleries and museums, particularly in major cities around the world
(Richards, 2007). According to Richards (2018), there has been recently a shift from the purely quan-
titative growth of cultural tourism demand towards qualitative changes in the nature of that demand
with a special focus having been given to the increasing search for cultural ‘experiences’ (Cetin &
Bilgihan, 2016; Smith, 2015; Su, Bramwell, & Whalley, 2018). Cultural and heritage tourism experi-
ences would therefore appear to be a potentially important element of memorable tourist experiences
at the destination level (Lee, 2015). However, the extant MTEs literature mainly discusses the nature
and general structure of MTEs, and the development of measurement scales (Chandralal & Valen-
zuela, 2013; Kim et al., 2012; Kim & Ritchie, 2014; Tung & Ritchie, 2011a, 2011b). Therefore, there
are few studies that use a sample of cultural tourists to investigate the factors influencing tourists’
experiences. As such, previous MTE literature does not readily address the experiences of cultural
and heritage tourists and the implications of the structure of cultural tourist destination experiences.
The literature on the cultural tourist’s experience is still largely in its infancy; only a limited
number of studies on this topic exist and they have mostly tested existing constructs in the litera-
ture through quantitative analysis and focused on behavioral outcomes of MTEs in specific desti-
nations, for example, Istanbul (e.g. Altunel & Erkut, 2015; Chen & Rahman, 2018) and Taiwan (e.g.
Chen & Chen, 2010; Lee, 2015). Such studies highlight the need for further inquiry to provide a
broader understanding of cultural visitors’ experiences and to advance understanding of MTEs
in a cultural tourism context. By focusing on the Parisian context, this study therefore aims to
offer insights into factors that affect memorable cultural tourist experiences and seeks to explore
the underlying meanings behind these attributes. Paris is well-known for its cultural heritage
attractions and is recognized by UNESCO for providing unique cultural experiences through the
city’s inclusion on its World Heritage List (Ministry of Culture, 2016). The Paris City Council,
through its Tourism Strategy 2022 Plan30 and Paris Region Master Plan (SDRIF), has also focused
on providing memorable experiences for its tourists in an effort to modify and reinforce the inter-
national image and importance of the destination and promote word of mouth and revisitation
(Paris City Council, 2018).
Following a discussion on cultural tourism and MTEs, this paper conceptualizes the structure of
memorable cultural tourism experiences (MCTEs). The framework of cultural tourist experiences
found after a qualitative study is discussed before the final conclusion and implications are
drawn. From theoretical perspectives, the findings of this study contribute to ongoing efforts in tour-
ism scholarship to understand the essence of MTE in general and, more particularly, within cultural
tourists’ experiences by providing a framework for understanding MCTE. From practical perspec-
tives, this study aims to encourage interest in MTE in cultural and heritage tourism and assist des-
tination managers to cultivate and facilitate MTEs as part of destination marketing and management
strategies. The latter is important for France in general, and Paris in particular (Paris City Council,
2018), as more than half of the international tourists refer to visiting cultural sites, mainly located in
Paris, among their main activities when staying in France (Ministry of Culture, 2016). Thus, creating
a memorable tourism experience for these tourists will potentially affect their behavioral intentions
and, as noted above, meet the objectives of the City of Paris.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 3

Literature review
Cultural tourism
The linkages between ‘culture’ and ‘tourism’ (Cohen, 1988) and the complex nature of culture
(O’Leary, Morrison, & Alzua, 1998) has led to substantial ambiguities in the extant literature with
respect to a clear and generally accepted definition of cultural tourism (Richards, 2007). Cultural
attractions in the form of sightseeing (e.g. museums, architecture, heritage) or events (e.g. festivals,
folklore) are considered to be significant pull factors and motivations for travel (Richards, 1996).
Cultural tourism, arguably, is regarded as a long-standing touristic practice with its roots in the
Grand Tour that originated in the sixteenth century in Britain (Feifer, 1985). However, the difficulty
in definition lies into the complexities of elements of cultural tourism and the positionality of the
definition’s proponent. Several early authors (Hall & Zeppel, 1990; Reisinger, 1994; Zeppel &
Hall, 1992) regarded cultural tourism as a form of special interest travel in which tourists participate
in new experiences and seek novelty and authenticity as well as a variety of cultural experiences such
as aesthetic, intellectual, emotional, or psychological. Adams (1995) gives a broad definition to the
concept and argued that cultural tourism is a type of travel for personal enrichment. The UNWTO
approaches cultural tourism with a motivational definition, defining it as ‘movements of persons
essentially for cultural motivations such as study tours, performing arts and cultural tours, travel
to festivals and other events, visit to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art,
and pilgrimages’ (WTO, 1985, p. 6). Other researchers prefer a narrower definition and focus on
the cultural services consumed by the tourist and ignore the motivation of travel (Hughes, 2002).
Somewhat provocatively, McKercher’s (2002) approach to the definition of cultural tourists relates
to two key issues which encompass the main reason for the trip as well as the level of experiences at
the destination. For this study, a tourist who consumes a cultural product is assumed to be a cultural
tourist by definition and the emphasis is on the overall experience the tourist receives from the visit.
Given the growing market of cultural tourism, it is often placed on the central stage of the urban
and rural development strategies and branding programs of different countries and cities (Richards,
2007; Smith, 2015). Munsters and Freund de Klumbis (2005) suggested that demographic, social
and cultural changes have inspired a growing interest in art, culture and history that have ben-
efitted cultural tourism. In particular they identify the importance of the number of wealthy, edu-
cated senior citizens in Western countries along with more educated young singles and couples
without children who have interest in culture and history and are willing to visit cultural desti-
nations. Sigala and Leslie (2005) also argue that rapidly growing flows of international tourists
over the last decades have resulted in increasing need for new tourism attractions and forms of
tourism to meet the needs of tourists which, in turn, leads to a rise in demand for cultural tourism
attractions and destinations.

Memorable tourism experiences

Given its multifaceted nature the concept of tourism experience is complex and difficult to define.
The difficulty in its definition lies in its subjective and personal nature which means that it is there-
fore difficult to observe, even if there are objective variables (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009; Uriely, 2005).
Apart from the complexities in the definition of tourism experience, its components and dimensions
also vary widely in research (Chen & Rahman, 2018). Each individual has various tourism experi-
ences due to different backgrounds, values, attitudes and beliefs brought to the environment in
which they are traveling and experiencing over time. The tourist experience is defined as the subjec-
tive mental state felt by participants during a service encounter (Otto & Ritchie, 1996).
Memorable tourism experiences (MTEs) and tourist experiences are two concepts interrelated
with each other, yet different in connotation and extension (Zhang et al., 2017). However, not all
tourism experiences can be necessarily translated into MTEs as MTEs are those experiences that
4 S. SEYFI ET AL.

are remembered and selectively reconstructed by the tourist when describing a particular travel
experience (Kim et al., 2012). The significance of the concept of memorable tourism experiences
stems from the influencing power of memory on consumer decision-making (Tung & Ritchie,
2011a). This has been highlighted by numerous authors (Kozak, 2001; Lehto, O’Leary, & Morrison,
2004) and it is argued that memory and recollection are of crucial importance during the decision-
making process for revisiting a particular destination. Hoch and Deighton (1989) provided several
reasons for such importance of the previous experiences that are stored in the memory. Firstly, the
information taken from prior experiences highly affect the motivation to purchase the product; sec-
ondly, past experiences have largely been perceived as credible sources of information by consumers;
and, thirdly, experiences greatly affect behavioral intentions. It is also argued that, only remembered
and previous experiences and memories would greatly influence future behavior in terms of destina-
tion selection and decision-making (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). For example, based on the results of 25
in-depth interviews with tourists, Knobloch, Robertson, and Aitken (2017) found that tourists
mostly perceived a memorable or special experience as something that was enjoyable and that
they would talk about in the future.
Tourists tend to revisit a destination that had provided positive memories to them (Marschall,
2012). This highlights the significance of memorable experiences and their effect on tourist retention.
Using Hong Kong as a case study, McKercher (2002) argues that the depth of experience and visitor
engagement is integral to the cultural tourist. In this regard, many authors argued that better visitor
engagement optimizes the overall visitor experience (Chen & Rahman, 2018; Taheri, Jafari, & O’Gor-
man, 2014), enhances value proposition (Bryce, Curran, O’Gorman, & Taheri, 2015), can inform the
predictability of a visitor’s behavior (Black, 2012; Sheng & Chen, 2012), and eventually create a
higher level of MTE (Chen & Rahman, 2018; Taheri et al., 2014). The latter is of crucial significance
in the context of cultural tourists as they are mostly looking to immerse themselves in the cultural
experience (Moscardo, 1996; Richards, 2007) and hence more engagement would likely to create
more memorable experiences (Chen & Rahman, 2018).
A number of studies, including in the realm of museum studies, have linked visitor interests with
a series of cognitive (e.g. learning), affective (e.g. nostalgia), reflective (e.g. identity projects) and rec-
reational (e.g. hedonism) motivations (Falk & Storksdieck, 2010; Serrrell, 1998), nevertheless they fail
to fully explain how these motivations potentially affect the individual’s engagement during their
experience (Taheri et al., 2014). They also do not fully capture visitors’ level of engagement as
they have used observation techniques and experiments to understand visitors’ engagement (Falk
& Storksdieck, 2010) rather than direct engagement. Such studies therefore highlight the need for
further inquiry about the visitor engagement concept. Using tourists visiting a museum in Glasgow,
UK, Taheri et al. (2014) developed and validated a scale for visitor engagement which includes
aspects of attachment, emotional connection, commitment and devotion. It is also argued that the
level of engagement can be affected by prior knowledge, cultural capital, recreational motivation
(Taheri et al., 2014), consumption frequency (Mollen & Wilson, 2010), and between new and repeat
consumers (Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, & Ilić, 2011).
One factor that is related to the level of engagement is the search for ‘the real’ or ‘the authentic,’
because everyday life is full of the artificial and unnatural (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). The link between
authenticity and experience has been widely discussed by tourism scholars (e.g. Chen & Chen, 2010;
Hall, 2007; Park, Choi, & Lee, 2019; Wang, 1999; Yi, Fu, Yu, & Jiang, 2018) and is a pivotal element of
meaningful experiences (Hargrove, 2002), with the desire for authentic experiences among the cru-
cial motivators for travel and site visitation (Daugstad & Kirchengast, 2013; Frisvoll, 2013). The
notion of authenticity has long been associated with visitor experiences and understanding of heri-
tage (MacCannell, 1973; Hall & McArthur, 1993; Carnegie & McCabe, 2008; Ram, Björk, & Weiden-
feld, 2016). Waitt (2000, p. 838) defined ‘authenticity as being historic’ and cultural, or connected to
the past, and asked tourists to answer to items that signified history. Authenticity has often been
related to the understanding of specific places, because of tourist motivation to experience somebody
else’s culture (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006), and the tangible quality that can be found in an object
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 5

(MacCannell, 1973). Authenticity has been found to connect tourists to destination attractions (Rei-
singer & Steiner, 2006), to significantly increase tourists’ perceived value and satisfaction (Chen &
Chen, 2010), and contribute to the formation of a positive destination image (Kim et al., 2012). How-
ever, in cultural and heritage tourism loyalty has rarely been investigated in relation to authenticity
(Kolar & Zabkar, 2010).
Cohen (1988, p. 374) proposed that authenticity was best understood as a ‘socially constructed
concept.’ Reflecting this approach, some researchers have suggested that authenticity is not a tangible
asset but, instead, is a judgment or value placed on the setting or product by observers (Moscardo &
Pearce, 1999), and that it can therefore be understood as an individually constructed, contextual and
changing concept (Mura, 2015). Several types of authenticity have been examined to understand the
tourism experience. Extant studies suggest that authenticity in tourism can be conceptualized as
either an object-based (authenticity of original objects) (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999), per-
ceived (cognition of objective authenticity, attained from interaction with attraction settings) (McIn-
tosh & Prentice, 1999), existential (potential existential state of being that is to be activated by tourist
activities) (Belhassen, Caton, & Stewart, 2008), and postmodern (Yi et al., 2018).
Kim et al. (2012) were the first researchers who tried to develop a scale to measure MTEs and
summarized 19 experiential components that various researchers had identified to help understand
tourism experiences. These consist of seven domains: hedonism, refreshment, local culture, mean-
ingfulness, knowledge, involvement, and novelty. These seven experience dimensions are considered
to be the MTEs that individual recalls most frequently. The scale was later validated cross-culturally
using Taiwanese tourists by Kim and Ritchie (2014) and the authors suggested that the seven-dimen-
sion MTEs scale needs to be verified in more contexts and new samples. Tsai (2016) also confirmed
the seven-dimension structure of MTEs in a context of local food experiences of Taiwan domestic
tourists. Through 208 in-depth interviews, Tung and Ritchie (2011a, 2011b) identified four key
dimensions of MTEs (i.e. affect, expectations, consequentiality, and recollection) and five character-
istics of MTEs (i.e. identity formation, family milestones, relationship development, nostalgia
reenactment, and freedom pursuits) respectively in two qualitative studies. Chandralal and Valen-
zuela (2013) also revealed the antecedents and behavioral outcomes of MTEs in an Australian
sample. Findings from 35 in-depth interviews showed that there are eight antecedents – meaningful-
ness, authentic local experience, perceived significance, novelty, social interactions, serendipity and
surprises, local hospitality, local guides’ professionalism – that are effective in forming MTEs. Chan-
dralal and Valenzuela (2015) further sought to develop and validate a reliable measurement instru-
ment for MTEs from the perspectives of more regular and typical leisure-oriented travelers.
Nevertheless, despite the growing number of studies and generating different models, there is no
general agreement with what constitutes MTEs. More particularly, there is also a paucity of knowl-
edge on what constitutes the overall cultural tourists’ experience. This study therefore aims to obtain
an understanding of different factors which influence and shape the cultural tourists’ evaluation of
experiences in a cultural destination, and explore the underlying meanings behind these attributes.

Methods
To achieve our study objectives, in-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with an aim to cap-
ture the dimensions that shape the cultural tourists’ evaluation of experiences in a destination. Paris
was selected as the study’s location. According to France’s Ministry of Culture (2016), 50% of inter-
national tourists refer to visiting cultural sites among their main activities when staying in France
and 60% of the French population goes to an event or a cultural facility during their holidays.
Apart from the considerable economic contribution, tourism represents a formidable vector of
appeal and influence for both France and Paris (Ministry of Culture, 2016). Paris is home to
some of the most famous and most visited museums in the world (e.g. 7.3 million visits in 2017
for the Louvre Museum) and features an outstanding heritage, which is recognized by the city’s
6 S. SEYFI ET AL.

inclusion on its World Heritage List. Thus, given these cultural assets, cultural tourism is extremely
important for the city which may create memorable experience for the tourists who visit.

Sampling and data collection

Given the exploratory nature of the study and the limited amount of existing academic literature
regarding cultural tourists’ experiences, a qualitative case study approach was used (Creswell,
2007). This allows for the elicitation of study participants’ feelings and thoughts to identify the
key elements for analysis (Baxter & Jack, 2008). In order to obtain purposive target samples for
this study, several criteria were set. First, only those cultural tourists who had at least an overnight
stay in Paris and had visited at least one cultural site in the city were selected. The former criterion
was set to remove tourists who did not spend enough time to explain their cultural experiences in the
destination. The latter criterion was to ensure they had experienced visiting a cultural site in the city
(Cetin & Bilgihan, 2016). Only those who met these criteria were approached for interview.
Patton (2002) stated that no rules are essentially required for sample size in qualitative inquiry.
The sample size in a qualitative research mainly depends on data saturation, reachability of target
sample and the resources and time available (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013). Inter-
views were conducted until we reached theoretical saturation. After interviewing 29 tourists, we
agreed on the theoretical data saturation level as the last few interviews did not provide new insights,
making the sample size appropriate for this study (Marshall et al., 2013). Questions were open-ended
in order to encourage free expressions of interviewees’ thoughts and feelings and avoid the potential
bias from restricting responses to the researcher’s own fixed categories (Ryan, 1995). The open-
ended questions were initially derived from the literature (e.g. Kim et al., 2012; Tung & Ritchie,
2011a) and aimed at investigating cultural tourists’ perceptions and feelings about the destination
and more particularly, capturing the dimensions of MTEs. The interview guide was pre-planned
to address the major research questions and pre-tested with three tourists to ensure that all the ques-
tions were clear and unambiguous. The final version of the guide was obtained after taking into con-
sideration the feedback from the pre-test sample.
The questions included personal (demographics) and tripographic information (motivation for
travel) and travel experience queries. In line with the previous literature (e.g. Altunel & Erkut,
2015; Chen & Rahman, 2018; Kim et al., 2012; Tung & Ritchie, 2011a) and pre-test analysis, partici-
pants were first asked to provide in detail an account of their experiences during their visit to Paris.
Next, they were asked to identify those elements that they may recall when they back home and may
share with friends and family. Finally, they were asked to explain why their travel experiences in
Paris are different comparing with their previous travels to other destinations. The questions
aimed at investigating cultural tourists’ perceptions and feelings about the destination and more par-
ticularly, capturing the dimensions of MTEs (Chen & Chen, 2010; Chen & Rahman, 2018; Lee,
2015). In addition to the open-ended questions, respondents were also asked to provide general
demographic information (e.g. age, gender, nationality, marital status). Table 1 provides an overview
of the study’s participants.
The total sample consisted of 29 respondents of which 16 were males and 13 were females and the
ages ranged from 18 to over 70 years old, with the majority over 55 years old. Seventeen of them held
a university degree. Over half of them had between 15.000 and 29.999 € annual income. A majority
of them (over 86%) had not yet visited Paris before and were first-time visitors. All had at least 2–3
international trips in the previous 12 months. Participants were from European countries and Asia,
although the Americas, Africa and Australasia were also represented. A majority of them had tra-
veled to Paris with family or friends and five were with an organized tour.
Interviews were conducted in November and December 2018 and were recorded with the per-
mission of the interviewees and subsequently transcribed verbatim right after each interview in an
effort to add depth to the data as recommended by Yin (1994). This procedure enhanced the trust-
worthiness of the data set (Creswell, 2007). The interviewer applied probing and paraphrasing
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 7

Table 1. Respondent characteristics.

Gender Income (€)
Male (16) 0–14,999 (5)
Female (13) 15,000–29,999 (15)
30,000+ (9)
Age group Previous visits to Paris
18–34 (6) First time (25)
35–54 (11) Repeat (4)
+55 (12)
Employment Status Travel party
Employee (11) Solo traveler (4)
Self-employed (4) Couple (12)
Retired (8) Family (5)
Student (3) Friends (3)
Unemployed (2) With an organized tour (5)
Other (1)
Education level Primary purpose of visit
High School (2) Leisure (22)
Vocational education (10) Business (3)
University or college (17) VFR (3)
Other (1)
Travel Experience (in the previous 12 months) Nationality
Once (0) Europe (8)
2–3 times (18) North America (5)
4–7 times (8) Asia (7)
8+ times (3) Africa (4)
South America (2)
Australasia (3)

techniques to facilitate the interview process and to encourage the expression of interviewees’
thoughts and feelings (Hsu, Cai, & Wong, 2007). The interviews were approximately 30 min in
length, although they did not adhere to any strict timing. Interviews were conducted randomly at
multiple well-known cultural sights in the city (The Musée d’Orsay; The Louvre Museum; Notre-
Dame Cathedral) Montmartre district, and two UNESCO World Heritage Sites (Palace of Fontaine-
bleau and Palace of Versailles).

Data analysis
Taking into account the exploratory nature of the study and the limited amount of existing academic
literature regarding cultural tourist’s experiences, grounded theory was deemed an appropriate
methodology to adopt for this study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Matteucci & Gnoth, 2017). Grounded
theory is an inductive, qualitative research method that focuses on data depth and quality (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). The goal of this approach is on data depth and quality, rather than on results gener-
alization to a broader population (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The data analysis procedure followed the
standard format as outlined in prior grounded theory work (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Beginning with
open coding, this involves ‘breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing
data’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61), in terms of properties and dimensions. Then the data were
assembled using axial coding which refers to the analytic activity for ‘making connections between
a category and its sub-categories’ developed during open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 97).
Third, the categories were integrated to present propositions using selective coding. In the selective
coding, the core category was identified and all categories were integrated and refined to form a
theoretical scheme. The scheme was reviewed with prior literature for internal consistency and sig-
nificant, relevant explanations were integrated in order to validate the findings and construct the
general framework (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Although the authors were vigilant to remain
open to the data in order to allow for theoretical concepts to emerge rather than through precon-
ceived hypotheses from the literature (Hsu et al., 2007). Member checks were not possible, since
8 S. SEYFI ET AL.

contact information was not sought for study participants (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Coding was
conducted by the first author and confirmed by second co-author and along with the transcripts were
sent to another researcher who was familiar with the research for confirmation and corrected accord-
ingly. A total of 59 frequently mentioned factors were extracted from interviews under six themes
that they will be discussed in the next section.

Findings
The following section details the different elements found to contribute to memorable cultural tour-
ism experiences, along with representative comments and insights from the literature. A figure is also
provided to help detail the nature of memorable cultural tourism experiences.

Prior perceived significance of the experience

For most of the participants, the perceived significance of visiting some attractions in France particu-
larly Paris’s sights and landmarks (e.g. Eiffel Tower, Louvre Museum) emerged as a pivotal experi-
ence attribute influencing their experience. This was reflected in responses that highlighted the
importance of their experiences in terms of their iconic component, exclusiveness, or reputation.
Many participants talked about the visitation at the Eiffel Tower as one of the world-famous iconic
tourists’ attractions (i.e. the most famous landmark in the world, the tallest structure in France) and
the Louvre Museum and the Musée d’Orsay as two of the world famous museums and art galleries.
They described them as some of their most highly significant travel experiences (i.e. delightful
museums; the top of any must-see list in Paris, huge collection of impressionist art and Old Masters,
home to Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, sculptures and art masteries from the Middle Ages, anti-
quities from Greece, Rome, Egypt, a very large museum). Some participants also referred their mem-
orable experiences to dream trips to Paris (i.e. ‘it’s been a long time trip to Paris’; ‘was on my top to-
see’; ‘visiting Paris was a dream for me’). One of the participants commented:
I have always wanted to go to Paris some day and visit the city of lights and romance … you can’t get lost and
there’s always something beautiful around the next … Now today I’m here and realized my dream and
definitely that makes my trip memorable. (Interview 9)

It is argued that such pre-experience perceptions potentially shape people’s initial decision to visit a
destination and the contexts in which they are likely to see the landmarks of a destination during
the visit (del Bosque & San Martín, 2008). Ritchie and Ritchie (1998) argued that during the pre-
experience process, some factors such as creating awareness (identification), image/knowledge
(differentiation), anticipation (preference/choice) and finally expectation (desire) are likely to
affect the decision of a destination choice. The need to examine the psychological process which
an individual goes through during the pre-experience stage is acknowledged in the psychology
and tourism framework (Swarbrooke & Horner, 2001). Previous studies indicate that tourists
assigned significance and meaning to attractions in the country that they aim to visit and they
have prior knowledge of what they aim to visit in the host country. For example, Chandralal
and Valenzuela (2013) in conducting in-depth interviews with a sample of frequent Australian
travelers also found that the perceived significance of the experience is an antecedent of the mem-
orable tourism experience. Prior perceived significance of an experience is widely proved to be an
important factor to exert an influence on overall tourist experiences, tourists’ decision-making,
destination choice, post-trip evaluation and future behaviors (Zhang, Yang, Zheng, & Zhang,
2016). As indicated in Figure 1, prior perceived significance of the experience exists before traveling
to a destination, and this prior perception contribute to shape the memorable cultural tourism
experience in the destination. Thus, in Figure 1 we allocated this influencing factor on the
MCETs in T1, indicating the time before travel.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 9

Figure 1. Elements of memorable cultural tourism experiences.

Authenticity
Authenticity of a cultural destination emerged as a contributing factor exerting influence on tourism
experience and many expressed items related to their novel and authentic perceptions that distinc-
tively symbolize the locality (e.g. living history, inspiration by the overall architecture and impression
of the buildings, peculiarities about the interior design/architecture, living heritage). For example,
one of the interviewees commented:
Visiting remarkable palace of Versailles as the royal residence of France, especially the ceremonial Hall of Mir-
rors with authentic decoration, is steeped in history and heritage with breathtaking views and stunning archi-
tecture … .. I felt the related history, legends, and historical personalities. … . (Interview 3)

Another interviewee also mentioned:

D’Orsay Museum is truly a quintessential perfect museum to visit! Realism, impressionism, post impressionism
are all very well represented with most of the greats of those eras, and has all the European big names … … . I
felt connected with human history and civilization. (Interview 15)

In tourism, authenticity is often related to tourism objects, tourism sites, tourist attractions and tour-
ist experiences (Chhabra, 2005; Moscardo & Pearce, 1999). The meaning and interpretation of what
is authentic and what authenticity means can be approached in at least three different ways: its
characteristics, levels of verification (or experience), and a state of being (Ram et al., 2016). Authen-
ticity can be seen as the quality of being ‘authentic’ and ‘real’ or ‘real and genuine’ (Chhabra, 2005;
Frisvoll, 2013). Given the focal significance of authenticity, the literature suggests that satisfaction
with heritage tourism relies not on the actual sense of authenticity but rather on tourists’ perceived
authenticity (Chhabra, 2005; Yi et al., 2018). Ramkissoon and Uysal (2010) argued that tourists’
search for the authentic cultural experience has generated a popular demand for cultural tourism
market and have fueled the growth of the cultural tourism industry in such economies. In their
study of cultural and natural heritage sites in the island of Mauritius, they found that the issue of
authenticity is central in destinations hosting unique natural and cultural resources increasingly
sought by the modern traveler. It is also argued that cultural visitors mainly seek authenticity in
their travel experience and searching for an in-depth understanding of their destinations in terms
of authentic local lifestyles, customs and cultural sights and heritage attractions (Richards, 2007).
The authenticity is a key attribute in cultural and heritage tourism which can enhance the quality
of heritage (Chen & Chen, 2010; Cohen, 1988; Park et al., 2019; Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2018) and
is integral to the evaluation of tourist experience (Wang, 1999) and behavioral intentions to consume
10 S. SEYFI ET AL.

cultural attractions (Ramkissoon & Uysal, 2010). Hargrove (2002) argues that authenticity is a pivo-
tal element of meaningful experiences, and the desire for authentic experience is among the crucial
motivators for visitation (Daugstad & Kirchengast, 2013; Frisvoll, 2013).
In Figure 1 authenticity along with four other contributing factors; engagement, culinary attrac-
tions, cultural exchange, and quality of service, which we will discuss at the following sections, hap-
pen at the time of travel and visit and influence on the tourists’ experiences. Therefore, we presented
these five factors at T2 in our framework.

Engagement
The findings imply that engagement with cultural attractions and sites during the visit is another
contributing factor to the forming of memorable experiences. Respondents mentioned items such
as absorption, enthusiasm and passion of visiting different cultural attractions in Paris (e.g. ‘while
visiting Notre Dame cathedral and its beauty captured all my interest,’ ‘visiting Palace of Versailles
as the principal royal residence of France was very inspiring for me,’ ‘we really did not realize how
fast time passing while we were visiting Louvre museum’). One of the participants described his vis-
iting Musée d’Orsay:
Magnificent architecture with a lot of fine paintings and sculptures really deserves a meticulous attention …
sometimes you’re heavily into the fabulous masterpieces. (Interview 10)

Visitor engagement commonly refers to visitors’ involvement with and commitment to a tourism
experience (Brodie et al., 2011) and is defined as ‘a state of being involved with and committed to
a specific market offering’ (Taheri et al., 2014, p. 322). From a marketing perspective, the concept
is interactive, and context variable (Hollebeek, 2011). There is a positive relationship between
increasing engagement and satisfying consumption experiences amongst consumers which is
affected through significant variance in the level of engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011).
Unlike the literature of other disciplines (e.g. marketing, organizational behavior, psychology and
sociology) in which engagement and its antecedents have extensively been researched, in the realm of
tourism, this concept has not given a great deal of attention (Brodie et al., 2011; Falk & Storksdieck,
2010). Using a sample of 625 visitors at a Museum in Glasgow, UK, Taheri et al. (2014) developed
and validated an eight-item measure of visitor engagement with tourist attractions which include
aspects of attachment, emotional connection, commitment and devotion. They also argued that
the level of engagement can be affected by prior knowledge, cultural capital, recreational motivation
(Taheri et al., 2014). Prior research also shows positive outcomes of tourist’s engagement including
satisfaction, loyalty, commitment, WOM publicity, behavioral intentions (e.g. Bryce et al., 2015;
Taheri et al., 2014). It is argued that better engagement with an attraction’s context and contents
optimize the overall visitor experience and are key in determining happiness and satisfaction
(Bryce et al., 2015). Greater understanding of engagement can inform the predictability of the visi-
tor’s behavior (Black, 2012). Understanding visitors’ level of engagement with tourist attractions is a
crucial element for a successful heritage management and marketing (Bryce et al., 2015).

Culinary attraction
The findings imply that culinary attraction or heritage also contributes to the shaping of tourists
experiences. Under the culinary attraction category, respondents mentioned items such as French
cuisine, wine, and cheese, and mentioned (e.g. France’s own indigenous style, haute cuisine, unique
recipe, rich bourgeoisie, champagne, delicious pastries, baguette de tradition, charcuterie). One of the
interviewees described his experience of dining in a traditional French restaurant in the city center:
Like many who search for an authentic French food experience, I was curious about the country’s traditions and
food specialties and tried to taste much-appreciated meal in the country, Fois gras … . (Interview 5)
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 11

Within the cultural travel context, becoming familiar and getting to know the historical background
locality are also accompanied by the specificities of a destination such as food, entertainment, archi-
tecture, drink, hand crafted and manufactured products or every element representing character-
istics of way of life in a particular destination (Henderson, 2009). It is also argued that culinary-
gastronomic is an essential element for experiencing local culture (Wijaya, King, Nguyen, & Morri-
son, 2013) and is connected with memory (Holtzman, 2006) and it enhances or is central to the visi-
tor experience (Henderson, 2009).
French gastronomy plays a significant role in the destination image of France and many visitors
seek to taste during their trip to France. French gastronomy with its wider range of diversity and
style was added by the UNESCO in 2010 to its lists of the world’s ‘intangible cultural heritage’ (Sun-
tikul, 2019). Thus, it may enhance the experiences of tourists to the country. This is also reflected in
the results of some studies which found that culinary attraction (food and beverage) and memorable
experiences are positively related (Lee, 2015; Stone, Soulard, Migacz, & Wolf, 2018) which can make
an experience memorable and can be recalled after a trip (Sthapit, 2017). In their study, Adongo,
Anuga, and Dayour (2015) identified local food as a significant factor that contributes to tourists’
memorable experiences. Similarly, Shen, Lin, Ye, and Lin (2011) found that tourists had strong experi-
ences at a local seafood restaurant which enhanced their experiential memory towards a fishery village
in Chiayi, Taiwan. Chandralal and Valenzuela’s (2013) study also showed that participants’ memories
of their trip were strongly related with local food and culinary experiences at foreign destinations.

Cultural exchange
Cultural exchange during the visit was another factor influencing the experiences of tourists and was
mainly described as the characteristics of locals such as being helpful, polite, friendly, social, inter-
esting, peaceful and sharing. Respondents also highlighted the language, French culture and lifestyle.
One of the interviews commented:
I have a little bit French knowledge, even with that the local are friendly and they like the manner I speak
French … .. when we ask for directions, they are eager to help in spite of our language barriers. (Interview 2)

Unlike other general antecedents to MTEs which have largely been studied before (e.g. Kim et al.,
2012; Kim & Ritchie, 2014), cultural contact as a potential influencer of MEs in the context of cul-
tural tourism has not been extensively studied (Chen & Rahman, 2018). In tourism studies, cultural
contact is seen as a newly emerging concept that measures the purpose and depth of experience tour-
ists seek when traveling for experiencing a different culture (Gnoth & Zins, 2013; McKercher, 2002).
There are several attempts to develop cultural contact scales in cultural tourism and MTE literature.
Gnoth and Zins (2013) has developed the cultural contact measurement scale using 250 tourists from
20 nationalities and focused on visitors’ interest in engaging with Maori culture in New Zealand.
Informed by Gnoth and Zins (2013), Chen and Rahman (2018) also tried to develop a scale.
Using 320 American who have visited cultural tourist destinations within the past five years, they
found that cultural contact fully mediate the relationship between visitor engagement and MTE
in the context of cultural tourism and positively MTEs. Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013) also
argued that cultural contact and experiencing new culture influence the novelty dimension of the
MTEs and will create positive MTEs. Chen and Rahman (2018) noted that higher level of cultural
contact is associated with higher knowledge acquired, which is another dimension of MTE.
Additionally, cultural contact influences cultural tourists’ search for meaningful experiences during
their trip, such as seeking a sense of emotional or spiritual fulfillment (Callanan & Thomas, 2005).
Chen and Rahman (2018) explained that as tourists seek more deep understanding of the new cul-
ture, they will be more thrilled and excited about having the new experience. In the process, they will
exhibit an active interest in the activities the destination/site has to offer, partake in more activities,
and enjoy their time. They concluded that cultural contact positively affects the hedonism, refresh-
ment, and involvement dimension of the memorable tourism experience.
12 S. SEYFI ET AL.

Furthermore, according to Kim and Ritchie (2014) local culture is a dimension that affects the
behavior of the tourist. In their study of using travel narratives of Brazilian tourists, De Freitas
Coelho, de Sevilha Gosling, and de Almeida (2018) also found cultural exchange as an element of
a memorable tourism experience. They argued that the perceived difference between the tourist’s cul-
ture and the destinations’ culture is of great importance in generating a meaningful experience for
the tourist. Armenski, Dragičević, Pejović, Lukić, and Djurdjev (2011) also argued that the quality of
cultural interaction between tourists and residents contributes to both tourists experience and per-
ception of the visited destination and acceptance and tolerance of tourists by residents.

The quality of service

Factors such as public transport, taxi drivers, tour guides, lodging, shopping, traffic, safety and security
and crowded were also mentioned by the participants that can be put under the quality of service dimen-
sion. Some participants also referred their memorable experiences to peripheral service quality raised
from the infrastructure (i.e. ‘the food and beverage services were great,’ ‘the staff in the museums
and palaces were good,’ ‘the employee of the hotel treated me hospitably’), accessibility (i.e. ‘there
were enough parking spaces in Versailles palace’; ‘it was easy to get access to the main touristic attrac-
tions by public transportation’). There were also some items, clearly negative, were perceived by tourists
as a part of their experience (e.g. ‘traffic,’ ‘crowded,’ ‘pickpocket’). One of the participants mentioned:
When you are on public transportation in Paris, especially in the early morning or late afternoon, it’s quite
crowded and there is always a risk for pickpocket. (Interview 21)

In line with previous research, in their study of cultural tourists in Turkey, Cetin and Bilgihan (2015)
found service positively and challenges negatively affect how travelers experience a destination.
According to Osman, Johns, and Lugosi (2014) hospitality is viewed as a supporting service to
broader experiences in destinations and the tourism industry-related services (e.g. lodging, transpor-
tation and food) are also considered as supporting experiences (Quan & Wang, 2004) which are
influential in forming an overall experience in a destination. Thus, providing service quality to tour-
ists enhances their memorable experiences, while challenges that they experience during their trip
are likely to negatively affect their memorable experiences.
As we discussed earlier, the prior perceived significance of the experiences of a destination influ-
ences on the memorable tourist experiences. Moreover, the MTE in first visit shapes new perceptions
about destination image and the quality of experience for future visits. If tourists have memorable
experiences from their first visit, their perceptions toward visiting that destination would be more posi-
tive, and if they had bad experiences, their perceptions would be negative and discourage them to re-
visit that destination. Therefore, in Figure 1, at T3, T4, … after visit, we highlighted the ‘Recollection of
the significance of the experience’ which is occurred based on the tourists’ evaluation of their experi-
ence in a destination. After visit, this recollection of the significance of experience shapes the prior per-
ceived significance of experience for future visit of a destination. However, even at the time of interview
it was apparent that temporal distance from specific experiences as well as the influence of other
experiences was leading to reevaluations of what constituted memorable experiences. Indeed, the
importance of the social context of the experience as well as the means by which the experience is
remembered and re-evaluated as memorable or not, appear to be significant for the notion of MTE
as it means that different experiences are recollected differently over time. Given a suitable reminder,
e.g. a smell, taste, or street scene, or social context even a previously so-called standard experience may
become memorable or a negative one become seen in a positive light (Andressen & Hall, 1988/89).

Conclusions
MTE has increasingly receiving more attention as the cutting edge of the tourism experience. Experi-
ences are also becoming a key concept for cultural tourism, heritage and cultural services.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 13

Nevertheless, limited research has explored the influencing factors on shaping the memorable cul-
tural tourism experiences. This study tried to provide new insights into the interpretation and under-
standing of the vast realm of memorable tourism experience by drawing on cultural tourists’
perception in a Parisian context. Qualitative data was gathered and analyzed based on the principles
of grounded theory and six contributing factors namely: prior perceived significance of the experi-
ence, authenticity, engagement, cultural exchange, culinary attraction and quality of service on the
MCTE were explored which these factors enable the tourists’ experiences to be particularly memor-
able. From a theoretical perspective, this research has advanced cultural tourism experience literature
and raise intriguing questions for future research, particularly with respect to the role of time and the
contextual notion of memories in evaluating what constitutes a memorable experience or not. It has
been widely recognized that the cultural travel market will continue to grow in importance and in
number and become a dominant force that redefines the landscape of tourism in the upcoming dec-
ades. Thus, creating a memorable tourism experience for cultural tourists will likely affect their
behavioral intentions, such as WOM publicity, intention to revisit and increased loyalty to a
destination.
These results also have important managerial implications. Established destinations have
rarely focused on tourists’ needs and experiences and they mainly deal with providing pro-
duct-oriented marketing and management practices. Knowing the tourism experience and the
contributing factors on the MCTE are helpful for destination managers as it provides them
with guidelines to serve an increasingly experienced and sophisticated visitor. This is particu-
larly important for those destinations, which depend on repeat markets. It can be argued that
it is important to create memorable experiences every time to encourage tourists to re-visit a
destination. Therefore, DMOs need to manage the experience in order to encourage further vis-
its with particular focus on tying to encourage positive recollections of the visit and its accom-
panying MCTEs as well as seeking to develop long-term relationship marketing approaches.
Offering high-quality/good value hospitality and food and beverage options should not be neg-
lected as they will help to ensure a quality tourist experience with high levels of satisfaction
given their ubiquity within the destination experience. In addition, increasing the tourists’
engagement during and after their visit by organizing various activities and events, which
these events also can facilitate the cultural exchange between tourists, and also with local com-
munity members, can improve the tourists’ experiences and shape the MCTEs. The local auth-
orities and corresponding organizations by considering these contributing factors on the MCTE
in the process of destination planning and management can improve tourists experiences and
help attract tourists for future visits to that destination.

Limitations and future research

This study is limited which means that the results should be seen as a basis for future research.
Given the exploratory nature of this study, the findings cannot be generalized to the entire desti-
nations as personal, social, cultural and geographical settings are influential factors in tourist
experiences. More specifically, since the data were gathered from a sample of cultural tourists
in Paris, the findings cannot be generalized in a cross-cultural context. While this study has devel-
oped a foundation for future research to build upon and developed the theoretical model to inves-
tigate the characteristics of MCTEs, which is helpful to understand this growing market, more
research is needed to further validate and extend these components through quantitative and
qualitative studies. Based on the findings, future research could further develop the relationship
model to explore the other elements.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
14 S. SEYFI ET AL.

Notes on contributors
Siamak Seyfi is a PhD. candidate in the Department of Geography within the EIREST (Interdisciplinary Research
Group for Tourism Studies) at the University of Pantheon-Sorbonne, France. Using primarily qualitative and
mixed methods his research interests are sustainable tourism, cultural tourism, political ecology, power and the
environment. Email address: siamak.seyfi@etu.univ-paris1.fr.
C. Michael Hall is a Professor of Marketing at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Docent, Department of
Geography, University of Oulu, Finland; and a Visiting Professor in the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus
University, Kalmar, Sweden. He has published widely on sustainability, regional development, tourism, food and wine,
and global environmental change. Email address: michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz.
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Events of Taylor’s University.
His research interest areas contain sustainable tourism, heritage tourism, community participation, residents’ percep-
tions toward tourism development, and advanced quantitative analysis approaches. He has published widely in leading
tourism and hospitality journals. Mostafa serves as an editorial board member of several tourism and hospitality jour-
nals. Email address: mostafa.rasoolimanesh@taylors.edu.my; rasooli1352@yahoo.com.

ORCID
Siamak Seyfi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2427-7958
C. Michael Hall http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-4587
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7138-0280

References
Adams, G. D. (1995). Cultural tourism: The arrival of the intelligent traveler. Museum News, 74(6), 32–37.
Adongo, C. A., Anuga, S. W., & Dayour, F. (2015). Will they tell others to taste? International tourists’ experience of
Ghanaian cuisines. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 57–64.
Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experience and satis-
faction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. Journal of Destination Marketing
& Management, 4(4), 213–221.
Andressen, B., & Hall, M. (1988/89). The importance of intense negative outdoor experiences. Recreation Australia,
8(1), 6–8.
Armenski, T., Dragičević, V., Pejović, L., Lukić, T., & Djurdjev, B. (2011). Interaction between tourists and residents:
Influence on tourism development. Polish Sociological Review, 173, 107–118.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice
researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the pilgrim experience. Annals of tour-
ism research, 35(3), 668–689.
Black, G. (2012). Transforming museums in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271.
Bryce, D., Curran, R., O’Gorman, K., & Taheri, B. (2015). Visitors’ engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage
consumption. Tourism Management, 46, 571–581.
Callanan, M., & Thomas, S. (2005). Volunteer tourism–Deconstructing volunteer activities within a dynamic environ-
ment. In M. Novelli (Ed.), Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 183–200), Oxford and
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Carnegie, E., & McCabe, S. (2008). Re-enactment events and tourism: Meaning, authenticity and identity. Current
Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 349–368.
Cetin, G., & Bilgihan, A. (2016). Components of cultural tourists’ experiences in destinations. Current Issues in
Tourism, 19(2), 137–154.
Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F. R. (2013). Exploring memorable tourism experiences: Antecedents and behavioural
outcomes. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 1(2), 177–181.
Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F. R. (2015). Memorable tourism experiences: Scale development. Contemporary
Management Research, 11(3), 291–310.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for
heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35.
Chen, H., & Rahman, I. (2018). Cultural tourism: An analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism
experience and destination loyalty. Tourism Management Perspectives, 26, 153–163.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 15

Chhabra, D. (2005). Defining authenticity and its determinants: Toward an authenticity flow model. Journal of Travel
Research, 44(1), 64–73.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371–386.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative
Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daugstad, K., & Kirchengast, C. (2013). Authenticity and the pseudo-backstage of agri-tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 43, 170–191.
De Freitas Coelho, M., de Sevilha Gosling, M., & de Almeida, A. S. A. (2018). Tourism experiences: Core processes of
memorable trips. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 11–22.
del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research,
35(2), 551–573.
Europa Nostra. (2005). Cultural Heritage counts for Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/pdf/
023.pdf
Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2),
194–212.
Feifer, M. (1985). Going places. The ways of the tourist from Imperial Rome to the present day. London: MacMillan.
Frisvoll, S. (2013). Conceptualising authentication of ruralness. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 272–296.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London:
Routledge.
Gnoth, J., & Zins, A. H. (2013). Developing a tourism cultural contact scale. Journal of Business Research, 66(6),
738–744.
Hall, C. M. (2007). Response to Yeoman et al: The fakery of ‘The authentic tourist’. Tourism Management, 28(4),
1139–1140.
Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (Eds.). (1993). Heritage management in New Zealand and Australia: Visitor management,
interpretation and marketing. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Hall, C. M., & Zeppel, H. (1990). Cultural and heritage tourism: The new grand tour? Historic Environment, 7(3-4),
86–98.
Hargrove, C. (2002). Heritage tourism. Cultural Resource Management, 25(1), 10–11.
Henderson, J. C. (2009). Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal, 111(4), 317–326.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 1–20.
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
19(7), 555–573.
Holtzman, J. D. (2006). Food and memory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 361–378.
Hsu, C. H., Cai, L. A., & Wong, K. K. (2007). A model of senior tourism motivations—anecdotes from Beijing and
Shanghai. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1262–1273.
Hughes, H. L. (2002). Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Managing Leisure, 7(3), 164–175.
Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M. H. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information search. Annals of Tourism research,
31(4), 961–985.
Kim, J. H., & Ritchie, J. B. (2014). Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience scale (MTES). Journal
of Travel Research, 53(3), 323–335.
Kim, J. H., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences.
Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12–25.
Knobloch, U., Robertson, K., & Aitken, R. (2017). Experience, emotion, and eudaimonia: A consideration of tourist
experiences and well-being. Journal of Travel Research, 56(5), 651–662.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural
heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652–664.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 784–807.
Lee, Y. J. (2015). Creating memorable experiences in a reuse heritage site. Annals of Tourism Research, 55, 155–170.
Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (2004). The effect of prior experience on vacation behavior. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(4), 801–818.
Marschall, S. (2012). Tourism and memory. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2216–2219.
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review
of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22.
Matteucci, X., & Gnoth, J. (2017). Elaborating on grounded theory in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research,
65, 49–59.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of
Sociology, 79(3), 589–603.
McIntosh, A. J., & Prentice, R. C. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural heritage. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(3), 589–612.
16 S. SEYFI ET AL.

McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1),
29–38.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ministry of Culture. (2016). Cultural tourism in France: A cultural and economic challenge. Retrieved from https://
saisonculturelle.fr/en/content/view/full/120522
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience:
Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 919–925.
Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 376–397.
Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. L. (1999). Understanding ethnic tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 416–434.
Munsters, W., & Freund de Klumbis, D. (2005). Culture as a component of the hospitality product. In M. Sigala &
D. Leslie (Eds.), International cultural tourism: Management, implication and cases (pp. 26–39). Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mura, P. (2015). Perceptions of authenticity in a Malaysian homestay–A narrative analysis. Tourism Management,
51, 225–233.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 36–46.
O’Leary, J. T., Morrison, A. M., & Alzua, A. (1998). Cultural and heritage tourism: Identifying niches for international
travelers. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(2), 2.
Osman, H., Johns, N., & Lugosi, P. (2014). Commercial hospitality in destination experiences: McDonald’s and tour-
ists’ consumption of space. Tourism Management, 42, 238–247.
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3), 165–174.
Paris City Council. (2018). Tourism strategy 2022 plan30: Scheme for tourism development. Retrieved from https://www.
api-site.paris.fr/paris/public/20182F82FAnnexe_5b-_StratC3A9gie_tourisme_2022.pdf
Park, E., Choi, B. K., & Lee, T. J. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism
Management, 74, 99–109.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Prebensen, N. K., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (Eds.). (2018). Creating experience value in tourism (2nd ed.). Wallingford:
CABI.
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An illustration from food experi-
ences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297–305.
Ram, Y., Björk, P., & Weidenfeld, A. (2016). Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions. Tourism
Management, 52, 110–122.
Ramkissoon, H., & Uysal, M. (2010). Testing the role of authenticity in cultural tourism consumption: A case of
Mauritius. Tourism Analysis, 15(5), 571–583.
Reisinger, Y. (1994). Tourist—host contact as a part of cultural tourism. World Leisure & Recreation, 36(2), 24–28.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualising interpretation: The role of tour guides in authentic tourism.
Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6), 481–498.
Richards, G. (Ed.). (1996). Cultural tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CABI.
Richards, G. (Ed.). (2007). Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives. Binghamton: Haworth Press.
Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 36, 12–21.
Ritchie, J. B., & Hudson, S. (2009). Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist experience research.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 111–126.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Ritchie, J. R. R. (1998). The branding of tourism destination: Past achievements and future trends. In
Destination Marketing: Scope and Limitations, Reports of 48th Congress (pp. 89–116). St-Gall: AIEST.
Ryan, C. (1995). Researching tourist satisfaction: Issues, concepts, problems. London: Routledge.
Serrrell, B. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions. Washington, DC: American Association of
Museums.
Shen, C.-C., Lin, Y.-H., Ye, Y.-S., & Lin, H.-S. (2011). The relationships of leisure fishery customer perceived value,
experience, image, and loyalty: A case of Pudai Harbor. Journal of Island Tourism Research, 4(1), 33–52.
Sheng, C. W., & Chen, M. C. (2012). A study of experience expectations of museum visitors. Tourism Management,
33(1), 53–60.
Sigala, M., & Leslie, D. (2005). International cultural tourism: Management, implication and cases. Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Smith, M. K. (2015). Issues in cultural tourism studies. New York: Routledge.
Sthapit, E. (2017). Exploring tourists’ memorable food experiences: A study of visitors to Santa’s official hometown.
Anatolia, 28(3), 404–421.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 17

Sthapit, E., & Coudounaris, D. N. (2018). Memorable tourism experiences: Antecedents and outcomes. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 18(1), 72–94.
Stone, M. J., Soulard, J., Migacz, S., & Wolf, E. (2018). Elements of memorable food, drink, and culinary tourism
experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8), 1121–1132.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Su, R., Bramwell, B., & Whalley, P. A. (2018). Cultural political economy and urban heritage tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 68, 30–40.
Suntikul, W. (2019). Gastrodiplomacy in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(9), 1076–1094.
Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (2001). Consumer behaviour in tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O’Gorman, K. (2014). Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism
Management, 42, 321–329.
Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Tsai, C. T. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 536–548.
Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2011a). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism
Research, 38(4), 1367–1386.
Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2011b). Investigating the memorable experiences of the senior travel market: An exam-
ination of the reminiscence bump. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(3), 331–343.
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 199–216.
Waitt, G. (2000). Consuming heritage: Perceived historical authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 835–862.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–370.
Wijaya, S., King, B., Nguyen, T. H., & Morrison, A. (2013). International visitor dining experiences: A conceptual fra-
mework. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 34–42.
World Tourism Organisation. (1985). The state’s role in protecting and promoting culture as a factor of tourism devel-
opment. Madrid: WTO.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Yi, X., Fu, X., Yu, L., & Jiang, L. (2018). Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: The moderation effect of postmodern
authenticity. Tourism Management, 67, 411–424.
Zeppel, H., & Hall, C. M. (1992). Review. Arts and heritage tourism. In B. Weiler & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Special interest
tourism (pp. 47–68). London: Belhaven Press.
Zhang, H., Wu, Y., & Buhalis, D. (2017). A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit
intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 326–336.
Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Zheng, C., & Zhang, J. (2016). Too dark to revisit? The role of past experiences and intrapersonal
constraints. Tourism Management, 54, 452–464.