JCHMSD 07 2015 0025

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development
Understanding museum visitors’ experience: a comparative study
Juan Gabriel Brida Marta Meleddu Manuela Pulina
Article information:
Downloaded by LIBERA UNIVERSITA DI BOLZANO, JUAN GABRIEL BRIDA At 09:30 23 May 2016 (PT)
To cite this document:

Juan Gabriel Brida Marta Meleddu Manuela Pulina , (2016),"Understanding museum visitors’
experience: a comparative study", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 47 - 71
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2015-0025
Downloaded on: 23 May 2016, At: 09:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 28 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2000),"The museum environment and the visitor experience", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34
Iss 3/4 pp. 261-278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560010311849
(2014),"Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum", International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 420-431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2014-0024
(2014),"Perceived authenticity of the visitor experience in museums: Conceptualization and
initial empirical findings", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 7/8 pp. 1395-1412 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2011-0771
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Token:JournalAuthor:C6B77E6E-C789-4327-93E3-37160E63295D:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-1266.htm
Understanding museum visitors’ Understanding

museum
experience: a comparative study visitors’
experience
Juan Gabriel Brida
Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos, 47
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración,
Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay, and Received 4 July 2015

Marta Meleddu and Manuela Pulina Revised 5 December 2015
3 April 2016
POLCOMING & CRENoS, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy Accepted 4 April 2016
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine museum visitors’ experience. The objective of the
research is to explore preferences, behaviour, overall. This study experience and the determinants on
repeated visits to two heritage sites. In particular, a more comprehensive regression approach is
introduced and employed to compare results at two regional museums.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a factor analysis identifies a set of orthogonal factors
related to visitors’ perceptions on their positive and negative experiences at two different museums.
Second, a two-step cluster analysis is implemented to identify specific demand segments. Third,
a regression analysis reveals the key determinants that influence visitors’ perceptions on the quality of
services provided at the cultural sites. The empirical data were collected at two archaeological
museums located in Sardinia and Trentino Alto Adige (Italy).
Findings – On the whole, some homogeneous findings have been obtained for the two cultural sites,
regardless of the different levels of attractiveness exerted by these two museums. Moreover, the
outcomes highlight that the two museums need to be reinterpreted and reorganised with the provision
of supplementary services, able to satisfy a broader audience, and enriching their traditional mission
that is to collect, preserve and exhibit the archaeological heritage.
Practical implications – The methodological approach presented in this paper is for practitioners
and curators to deepen their understanding of their consumers and to improve the overall quantity and
quality of services offered.
Originality/value – This paper presents a novel and integrated approach to investigate customers’
experience and their needs with the aim of improving the overall quality of the services provided at the
museum. The proposed methodology is used to analyse multidimensional aspects of the visit to a
cultural site. Within the literature on museum marketing and management, this methodological
framework can be regarded as an alternative approach to analyse visitors’ experience, characteristics,
behaviour, preferences and to elicit specific characteristics of different segments of demand.
Keywords Cultural tourism, Factor analysis, Two-step cluster analysis, Heritage economics,
Management and museum, Visitors’ experience, Museum service, Understanding visitors’ experience,
Integrated approach
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
An increasing number of studies highlight the contribution of cultural services and
involvement from a well-being perspective (Bandarin et al., 2011). Such a contribution is
justified by the convergence between culture and everyday life, driven by the on-going
process of culture democratisation, enhanced by a generalised higher level of education Journal of Cultural Heritage
Management and Sustainable
(Silberberg, 1995; Lord, 1999; Mulcahy, 2006). This cultural upwards trend leads to an Development
increase in the number of people visiting cultural attractions such as museums, Vol. 6 No. 1, 2016
pp. 47-71
galleries, festivals, heritage sites, artistic performances as well as attractions related to © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2044-1266
food, fashion, language and religion. Understanding the role of positive externalities DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2015-0025
JCHMSD exerted by the cultural activity has become the aim of the field of services research.
6,1 In this respect, scholars are devoting more attention to examine the determinants that
influence the participation in cultural goods and services.
However, managers and curators are questioning the role of museums in a digitally
and interconnected society and how they can engage with visitors drawing out
contemporary messages from their museum exhibitions. The mission of a museum is
48 not only the traditional role to collect, preserve, exhibit and encourage appreciation and
knowledge of the past. Nowadays, museums are becoming a place able to offer a wide
range of services that inspire visitors in a more friendly and welcoming environment.
Museum services consist of exhibitions as well as other tangible or intangible services
and experiences (Chan, 2009) that include organisation of courses and seminars,
bookshops, restaurants, brochures and other facilities that offer a better access and
interpretation of information, as well as the attitude and values transmitted to the
visitor (De Rojas and Camarero, 2008).
New generations of visitors require to interact with and be part of the exhibition.
The museum becomes an educational service centre that offers a wide range of
activities for both younger people and adults. However, museums are in competition
with many other types of leisure and entertainment activities, such as cinema, sporting
events, theatres and increasingly, visitors look for a global experience that includes
leisure, culture, education and social interaction ( Jansen-Verbeke and van Rekom, 1996;
Colbert, 2003; Aalst Van and Boogaarts, 2004; Geissler et al., 2006; Heidenreich and
Plaza, 2015). Thus, the role of policy makers is increasingly important, especially for
business-oriented museums and heritage organisations (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002).
Visitors’ experience becomes an opportunity to further expand the visitors’ understanding
and learning (Colbert, 2003). In fact, as observed by Victorino et al. (2005), before
introducing a new service innovation, managers need to assess the value that it will bring
to their customers through empirical research methods, such as customer surveys. This
point is also valid for the supply of museum services. Considering the definitions of
service quality proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), museum service quality can be
disentangled into ten main dimensions: tangible items (e.g. adequate building, artefacts,
equipment, staff uniforms); reliability to deliver the expected service; responsiveness of
staff to help in an effective way; competence of staff in executing the service; courtesy
exhibited by staff; credibility on the overall museum service; security; access to the
museum (e.g. road information; transport facilities); communication of the services
provided (e.g. use of different languages; customers’ information centre); understanding
customers in the effort to know and understand their preferences, characteristics and
needs (see Agbor, 2011 for a detailed account on service quality and customer
satisfaction). As far as the last dimension is concerned, that is understanding the
customer, it is important to analyse visitors’ experience, behaviour and their commitment
to the cultural site also in the future, bearing in mind that each segment of demand carries
different expectations from the services offered at site (Chan, 2009; Youngs et al., 2014).
Focusing on museum visitors, part of the literature is devoted to investigate visitors’
willingness to pay, preferences, motivation, satisfaction and the probability to return
and to recommend the site to others (Hume et al., 2007). Contributing to the literature on
museum services, the present paper analyses visitors’ experience using an integrated
approach built on a stepwise analysis. This methodological approach integrates several
aspects related to the dimension on understanding museum visitors (Agbor, 2011).
To this aim, empirical data were collected through two identical questionnaires
administered during the period June-December 2011 at the Archaeological Museum in
Bolzano (known as the Ötzi Museum), located in the homonymous Autonomous Understanding
Province (Northeast of Italy) and at the National Museum “Giovanni Antonio Sanna” museum
(from now on the Sanna Museum) in Sassari (Sardinia, Italy). The former hosts a
well-preserved ice mummy, so-called Ötzi, and all his artefacts from over 5,000 years ago;
visitors’
this is a unique discovery that continues to attract not only visitors but also academics experience
from all over the world. The Sanna Museum hosts findings from the lower Palaeolithic
to late Neolithic produced by the ancient Nuragic civilisation, one of the most advanced 49
in the Mediterranean area in prehistoric times. These museums hold their interest
as they are located in regions that are highly specialized in tourism.

The Bolzano Province is a mountain destination, with a bimodal seasonality, while
Sardinia is a typical sea and sun destination with uni-modal seasonality.
These two museums have a common mission and are both non-profit institutions.
The present study explores possible common regularities by running the same
questionnaire to visitors at the sites. The baseline framework consists of three main
research steps: first, a factor analysis defines a set of orthogonal factors, related to
visitors’ positive and negative experiences perceived during their visit. Second,
a two-step cluster (TSC) analysis is employed to identify specific segments of demand.
Third, a regression specification includes a set of socio-demographic and economic
determinants as well as the uncorrelated variables as identified in the previous steps.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the basic background and
introduces the conceptual framework. Section 3 describes the baseline of the
methodological approach employed in each of the three steps. Section 4 introduces
the data and reports the main descriptive statistics. In Section 5 the empirical results
are discussed. Concluding remarks are included in the last section.
2. Background and conceptual framework

2.1 Literature review
To maintain museums long-term growth, it is important to provide quality experience
and ensure high levels of customer satisfaction. The provision of high-quality services
to consumers also promotes customers’ loyalty, which, in turn, enhances the
profitability of service providers (Laroche et al., 2004; Dagger and Sweeney, 2007).
As argued by Villeneuve (2012), the improvement of a visitors’ centric perspective
supports a sustainable managerial approach of museums. Goulding (2000) examines
the behaviour of museum visitors in order to evaluate the impact of exhibitions and
experience on their satisfaction. As Chan (2009) remarks, museums can be perceived as
experience goods and hence visitors’ perception is needed in order to accomplish
mutual benefits. In order to reach the museum managements aim of aligning their offer
with the visitors’ perspective a management and marketing strategy that incorporates
a customer feedback systems is required that collects information about visitors’
attitudes, behaviour and satisfaction.
The determinants of cultural goods and services participation is well documented in
the literature (Provins et al., 2008; Jaffry and Apostolakis, 2011; Ateca-Amestoy and
Prieto-Rodríguez, 2013; Palma et al., 2013). As far as museums are concerned, the literature
investigates visitors’ preferences, motivation, satisfaction, and their probability to return
and to recommend the site, as well as the overall degree of competiveness with respect to
other similar cultural sites. A museum is a combination of tangible and intangible
experiences that are related to exogenous factors (e.g. quantity and quality of services
provided) as well as endogenous factors (e.g. visitors’ motivations, feelings). The overall
experience is considered as the final “outcome” or the “product” of museums (Chan, 2009).
JCHMSD In order to evaluate the museum experience, respondents commonly provide
6,1 answers to a set of statements ranked with a standard five-point Likert scale.
To analyse this kind of data, structural equation models (SEM), factor and path
analysis are frequently applied (e.g. Harrison and Shaw, 2004; Jeong and Lee, 2006;
Gil and Ritchie, 2009). For example, Harrison and Shaw (2004) run a SEM to study
satisfaction about the visit and attitudes towards the exhibition and the experience at a
50 small metropolitan museum in Australia. By using data on 184 face-to-face interviews,
the authors find an inverse relationship between satisfaction and intention to return.
Jeong and Lee (2006) and Gil and Ritchie (2009) employ a factor and path analysis,
respectively, to study if the museum environment and building affect visitors’
satisfaction and to test, amongst other hypotheses, if perceptions of the museum are
affected by previous visits. While Jeong and Lee (2006) find that curiosity has a positive
effect on visitors’ satisfaction, Gil and Ritchie (2009) find that museum perception is not
affected by the number of previous visits. From a methodological point of view, visitors’
experience can be analysed more in depth by employing further quantitative approaches
such as count models (Brida et al., 2012a, b, 2013c, 2014).
2.2 The conceptual framework

A better managerial and marketing strategy can be achieved by exploring the
characteristics of different segments of demand as well as visitors’ needs and wants
(Villeneuve, 2012). This objective is not so straightforward. On the one hand, a set of
latent factors can be obtained through a factor analysis. On the other hand, a cluster
analysis allows one to group visitors with common characteristics.
Within a behavioural and experiential approach, in the present study, data are
collected at two museums, by using identical questionnaires. Specifically, the integrated
approach includes three main steps as presented in Figure 1.
First, the categorical variables, expressed as positive and negative items as
perceived by the respondents during their visit at the museum, are analysed through a
factor analysis, that is a principal component analysis (PCA). This analysis is carried
out to investigate the correlation patterns among the set of items and create principal
components characterised by the orthogonality assumption (e.g. Akar, 2013).
Methodology
First step Second step

Factor analysis Cluster analysis
Factors:
Individual Market
Positive-negative Expenditure
Characteristics segments
experience
Third step
Regression
Figure 1.
The integrated
Repeat behaviour
approach
As a second step of the investigation, a cluster analysis is carried out to aggregate Understanding
respondents into distinct groups, each of them characterised by the most similar units museum
and dissimilar from the reminder groups (Brida et al., 2013a). For example, in
D’Urso et al. (2013), the clusters are employed as dependent variables within a
visitors’
multinomial framework to understand the factors that influence each market segment. experience
In Brida et al. (2012d, 2013b), the clusters are employed as regressors in the Tobit
regression to investigate the factors that influence cruisers’ expenditure. Likewise, 51
in the present paper, the demand segments obtained via a TSC analysis are included as
regressors into the parametric specification.

As a final step of the investigation, the regression is run integrating the set of
socio-demographic and economic determinants, as well as the PCA factors and clusters.
As observed by Ateca-Amestoy and Prieto-Rodríguez (2013), when estimating the
demand for cultural activities, the economic variables, such as own price, cross-prices and
income are not the only determinants to affect consumer demand, unlike in the standard
demand for goods and services. Indeed, categorical variables that express motivations
and the overall experience are likely to play a relevant role in explaining individual
choice. In this paper, the number of times a respondent reported to have visited the
museum in the past is employed as the dependent variable to elicit visitors’ attendance,
and hence, estimate visitors’ likelihood to repeat the visit. This variable is a count by
nature and, since the interviews were run at the end of the visit, cannot take the value of
zero. Therefore, as a basic model, a zero-truncated Poisson needs to be estimated
assuming the equi-dispersion hypothesis (i.e. mean statistically equal to variance) that
implies that only one parameter, for each coefficient, describes the mean and the variance
of the distribution. This approach has the advantage that it can be applied without any a
priori theoretical structure as required in SEM (Kline, 1998). Moreover, the precision of
the estimates is less affected by sample size while SEM requires a large sample size –
generally several hundred observations – and a trade-off exists between the complexity
of the model and the goodness-of-fit (Schumacker and Lomax, 1996).
3. Methodology
The methodological strategy consists of three main steps: a factor analysis is used to define
a set of orthogonal factors; a cluster analysis is employed to identify specific segments of
demand, and a regression specification is run by using a set of socio-demographic and
economic determinants variables, together with the factors and the clusters obtained in the
previous steps. The proposed methodology is used as a tool to analyse multidimensional
aspects of the visit to the cultural site. Within the literature on museum’s marketing and
management, this methodological framework can be regarded as an alternative approach
to analyse visitors’ experience, characteristics, behaviour and preferences and able to elicit
specific characteristics of different segments of demand. This type of methodological
approach has been recently adopted in the museum sector by various studies, including
Robb et al. (2014), Dillon et al. (2014) and Brida et al. (2012a, b, c, 2013a, 2014).
3.1 First step: factor analysis

Through a factor analysis run with categorical variables, an initial set of items is
reduced to a more manageable group. A set of categorical variables, expressing
respondents’ opposite negative and positive experiences about their visit at the
museum, are defined by a five-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much),
according to their level of agreement on each item. The objective is to run a PCA that,
without a priori specific hypotheses on the conceptual domain of the items, allows one
JCHMSD to eliminate the redundancy in the original data and reduce the items to a set of factors,
6,1 as a combination of the original items. An orthogonal Equamax rotation is employed
which parsimoniously simplifies the number of items and factors. The Anderson-Rubin
method is used to estimate factor score coefficients. The resulting scores are
uncorrelated, have a mean equal to zero and a standard deviation equal to one. As the
Kaiser criterion suggests, only factors with eigenvalues greater than one are retained.
52 Following Hatcher (1994), the items with a loading score (i.e. variable contribution) less
than a critical value (in this case 0.40) are excluded from the analysis. Cronbach’s α is
also applied as a commonly used measure to test the reliability of the extracted factors.
Values higher than 0.7 suggests for the reliability of the factors. The relative weight of
each factor in the total variance is calculated, that takes into account how much each
factor explains of the total variance. Cumulative inertia shows the amount of variance
explained by n+(n+1) factors (Escofier and Pages, 1988).
To establish the adequacy of the factor analysis, two tests are conducted: the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy test that with a value
between 0.50 and 1.00 implies that the analysis is satisfactory (Kaiser, 1974) and the
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity where the null hypothesis is that the correlation matrix is an
identity matrix.
3.2 Second step: cluster analysis

As a further step of the statistical investigation, a TSC analysis, that allows one to include
both continuous and categorical variables, is run to find homogeneous groups. A TSC
analysis consists of grouping similar individuals according to their degree of similarity.
Individuals within each cluster are more closely related to one another than individuals
assigned to different clusters and each cluster can be distinguished from the others.
In this specific case, the log-likelihood is used as a distance measure where continuous
variables are assumed to be characterised by a normal distribution, while categorical
variables are assumed to be characterised by a multinomial distribution and the variables
are independent of each other. Furthermore, the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) is
employed to determine the best number of clusters (Fraley and Raftery, 1998).
3.3 Third-integrated step: regression model

The behavioural and experiential model is estimated using a count data regression
technique. This specification allows one to account for the non-negative, integer nature
of data on the number of times respondents visited the museums and is suitable when
the counts are small (Englin et al., 2003). In the literature, there are several examples of
empirical applications that analyse recreational demand behaviour applying Poisson
type models. Grogger and Carson (1991) employ standard truncated Poisson and
negative binomial models to estimate fishing demand in Alaska. Likewise, Bhat uses a
combined model of travel cost and contingent behaviour to estimate the recreational
value of reef quality improvements in the Florida Keys marine reserve. Martínez-
Espiñeira and Amoako-Tuffour (2008) estimate and compare several truncated count
data models of recreation demand employing on-site survey data from Gros Morne
National Park in Newfoundland. Chae et al. employ Poisson models to estimate a travel
cost model in order to obtain the non-market recreational benefits arising from the
Lundy Island Marine Nature Reserve. This class of models presents several advantages
with respect to other approaches such as PLS and SEM that are commonly used in the
managing and marketing literature. Specifically, the SEM is based on a hypothetical
construct rather than on actual data, and therefore, the cause-effect relationships
suggested by the model may not represent the true causal nature of the relations Understanding
among the constructs. While, amongst others, count models help establishing the museum
interrelationship among the variables under investigation based on the empirical data.
Differently from the PLS specifications, count models have the advantage to easily
visitors’
interpret the independent “latent” variables that can be constructed a priori through experience
PCA and cluster analysis, as in the framework proposed in the present study. Also,
count models, and in general probabilistic modelling, provides test statistics and the 53
distributional properties of estimates that in PLS are unknown (Fornell and Bookstein,
1982; Pirouz, 2006).

On this basis, the standard procedure for count data are followed. A standard Poisson
model is constructed, where the distribution is given by the following expression:
el lyi 0
ProbðY i ¼ yi jwi Þ ¼ yi ¼ 0; 1; 2; ::: E ð yi jxi Þ ¼ Varð yi jxi Þ ¼ l ¼ exi b (1)
yi !
The parameter λ represents the average and the variance, as assumed by the Poisson
distribution, and is greater than zero. The Poisson model is non-linear, however, it can
be easily estimated by the maximum likelihood technique. In the literature, there
are many extensions of the Poisson model according to the characteristics of the
empirical data as well as the dispersion feature, that is the inequality of the mean and
the variance.
In the present study, as the survey is run at the site, the count data are truncated,
as the data are observed only over part of the range of the response variable. Examples
of truncated count applications include the number of bus trips made per week in
surveys taken on buses, the number of shopping trips made by individuals sampled
at a national park. As zero counts are not observed, the data are zero truncated,
or more generally left truncated. A zero-truncated Poisson model is specified by the
following equation:
el lyi 1
ProbðY i ¼ yi jwi 4 0Þ ¼ U yi ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . . (2)
yi ! ð1el Þ
where wi denotes the other controls as socio-economic characteristics of individual i (ki),

perception on the bundle of characteristics of the destination and the heritage site (zi) and
costs (xi). As stated, the dependent variable assumes values that range from 1 (i.e. first
time visit to the museum) to n. Thus visit is zero truncated, and a zero-truncated Poisson
(or negative binomial) regression allows one to model visits with this specific restriction.
In line with previous studies (Brida et al., 2012a, b, 2014), the demand for museum
can be expressed as follows:
Y i ¼ f ðTC i ; X i ; F i ; Cl i ; aÞþ ei (3)
where Yi is the entry required by the ith individual to visit the museums. TCi is the
travel cost associated with visiting the jth recreation site, Xi is the vector of explanatory
variables. As stated in the methodological framework, based on the first and
second step of the analysis (Figure 1), Fi are the latent factors associated with the
experience at the site, as obtained via the factor analysis, Cli is a vector representing
the clusters, as obtained by the TSC analysis, αi is a vector of unknown parameter and
εi the error term.
JCHMSD 4. Sample and measure
6,1 4.1 The demand at the Sanna Museum and the Ötzi Museum: seasonal distribution
and trend
Empirical data are collected at two cultural sites: the Ötzi Museum in Bolzano and the
Sanna Museum in Sassari (Italy). These cultural sites, given their scientific importance,
constitute key tourism attractions, for both serious and casual tourists (Stebbins, 1996;
54 Brida et al., 2012c) in geographical areas out of the typical cultural Italian tourism
itineraries (e.g. Florence, Rome and Venice).
As depicted in Figure 2, these two museums are also characterised by a different

distribution in the number of visitors. On average, considering the time span between
January 2007 and December 2010, the demand for the Sanna Museum is characterised by
a binomial distribution with a peak in May and a smaller peak in September. These
months in Sardinia have to be regarded as the shoulder tourism season. Hence, there
appears a mismatch between cultural visitors and standard sea and sun tourists who
prefer spending their vacation in July and August. Notably, visitors at the Ötzi Museum
are characterised by a uni-modal distribution with the peak occurring in the summer
months of July and August, rather than in the ski season (between December and April).
A further analysis, obtained by employing the Hodrick-Prescott filter, relates to the
trend in the number of visitors (Figure 3). Although, a relatively short time span is
considered, it is clear that the Sanna Museum is characterised by a downwards trend,
while the Ötzi Museum presents an upwards trend.
4.2 The survey
In order to run a comparative analysis on the determinants that influence the demand
at the museums, an identical survey was administered at the sites, from June to
December 2011, via face-to-face interviews on weekdays (except for the closing day on
Mondays) and on Saturdays and Sundays, at different opening hours (between 10.00 a.m.
to 6 p.m.). Running the survey within such a wider span of time provides a better
insight on the heterogeneous characteristics of visitors in the typical tourism season as
well as in the low tourism season.
40,000 3,000
35,000
2,500
30,000
2,000
25,000
Visitors
20,000 1,500
15,000
1,000
10,000
Figure 2. 500
Visitors at the 5,000
Sanna and the Mean Otzi Mean Sanna
Ötzi Museum 0 0
(Means – Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007:1-2010:12)
Months
Hodrick-Prescott Filter ( = 100) Understanding
20,000
museum
18,000
visitors’
16,000
experience
14,000
800
12,000
400 55
0
–400
–800
–1,200
2007 2008 2009 2010
Visitors Sanna Trend
Hodrick-Prescott Filter ( = 100)

226,000
225,000
224,000
223,000
222,000
1,000 221,000
500 220,000
0
–500
–1,000 Figure 3.
–1,500 Yearly visitors at
–2,000 the Sanna and
2007 2008 2009 2010 the Ötzi Museum
(Trend; 2007-2010)
Visitors Otzi Trend
A questionnaire was structured on previous literature. Specifically, a set of positive

and negative statements about visitors’ experience at a museum were identified
through an in-depth literature review (Burton et al., 2009; Brida et al., 2012a, b, c;
D’Urso et al., 2013). On the whole, the questionnaire contained a total of 37 questions
organised in three blocks: the first section asked information on the visit to the
museum; the second section asked information about the visitors’ trip to the city
(Sassari or Bolzano) if they were not resident; the third section contained a set of
questions on the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the visitor.
A standard five-point Likert scale was used to establish visitors’ degree of agreement
about their motivation and experience at the museum. In addition, the questionnaire
contained a set of questions that help to identify targeted and structured priority
areas for improvement.
To overcome the potential bias derived from a random sample procedure, the
respondents were selected with a quota random sampling procedure based on age and
gender trying to capture heterogeneous demographics features. Based on the visitors
data of the previous year, provided by the administrative office of the museums, the
sample size was determined according to a 95 per cent confidence level with a 5 per cent
error. Overall, 434 complete interviews were obtained at the Sanna museum and 1,052
complete interviews were obtained at the Ötzi Museum.
JCHMSD 4.3 Descriptive statistics
6,1 Most of the respondents (65 per cent) visiting the Sanna Museum are from Italy.
They are mostly female (53 per cent) and married/de facto (52 per cent). Visitors
between 28 and 57 years old tend to visit the museum more than either young people
(14.7 per cent) or older than 72 years old (3.5 per cent). Respondents aged between
58 and 72 are also well represented (22.9 per cent). Overall, respondents hold a high
56 school level of education and 41.8 per cent of the sample has an annual net income that
ranges between 26,000 and 50,000 euros, while 29.6 per cent has an annual income of
25,000 euros or less. As far as the employment status is concerned, the majority is
occupied either as an autonomous worker or as a full-time/part-time worker (overall,
these categories represent 55.3 per cent).
As far as the Ötzi Museum is concerned, the percentage of the visitors who are from
European countries (48 per cent) and Italy (47 per cent) are approximately the same.
Females account for 51 per cent and the majority are married/de facto (72 per cent).
A large proportion of the sample (44 per cent) is between 41 and 55 years old. Regarding
the education level, 56 per cent hold a college degree or a higher degree. Moreover,
57 per cent of the respondents declared to have a middle-high income, while 10 per cent
an annual income less than 25,000 euros. Full results can be provided upon request.
5. Empirical evidence
5.1 First step: factor analysis
In the case of the Sanna Museum, the PCA leads to the identification of three factors
that explain 50 per cent of the total data variance (Table II). These factors are further
reduced to two factors, given the poor level of reliability and meaning of the last factor
as suggested by the Cronbach’s α (equals to 0.32). The KMO equals 0.75, indicating that
the analysis is satisfactory. Also, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity test ( ¼ 873.06;
significance ¼ 0.000) indicates that the null hypothesis of an identity matrix is rejected.
Factor 1 (positive experience) includes items related to a positive perception of the
experience at the museum (i.e. feeling of happiness, feeling having fun, felt guided,
felt astonished, feeling having learnt something new and feeling safe). The total
variance explained by this factor (20.1 per cent) indicates that this is the most
important; the Cronbach’s α equals to 0.68, and although its reliability is questionable,
it can be still regarded as congruent. Factor 2 (negative experience) relates to a negative
perception of the experience at the museum (i.e. feeling tense, feeling wasting time,
feeling bored and feeling tired). In this case, it explains 18 per cent of the total variance
and presents a Cronbach’s α equals to 0.68. Although the reliability of these two factors
is questionable yet are retained since they are meaningful (see also Kibicho, 2008). It is
worthwhile noting, that further experiments have been run by excluding certain items
that presented a relatively low loading factor. Yet, these specifications were less robust
in terms of the overall relevant statistics.
As far as the Ötzi Museum is concerned, the factor analysis also leads to the
identification of three factors that explain almost 50 per cent of the total data variance
(Table I). These factors were further reduced to two factors, given the poor level of
reliability and meaning of the last factor (Cronbach’s α equals to 0.28). In this case,
the KMO equals 0.71, indicating that the analysis is satisfactory. Also, the Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity test ( ¼ 1,916.43; significance ¼ 0.000) indicates that the null
hypothesis of an identity matrix is rejected. Factor 1 (positive experience) includes
items related to a positive perception of the experience at the museum (i.e. feeling
having fun, feeling astonished, feeling having learnt something and feeling happiness).
% % % %
Variable variance cumulative Cronbach’s Variable variance cumulative Cronbach’s
Sanna Museum contribution explained variance α Ötzi Museum contribution explained variance α
Factor 1: positive 20.1 20.1 0.68 Factor 1: positive 18.4 18.4 0.66
experience experience
Feeling happiness 0.71 Feeling fun 0.70
Feeling fun 0.65 Feeling astonished 0.65
Feeling guided 0.64 Feeling having learnt 0.64
Feeling having 0.60 Feeling happiness 0.64
learnt
Feeling astonished 0.55
Feeling safe 0.51
Factor 2: negative 18.0 38.1 0.68 Factor 2: negative 17.1 35.6 0.63
experience experience
Feeling tense 0.72 Feeling tired 0.72
Feeling wasting time 0.70 Feeling lost 0.67
Feeling bored 0.69 Feeling wasting time 0.66
Feeling tired 0.64 Feeling bored 0.64
Note: These results are obtained by using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 19)
highest contribution
Factors and
to each factor
items with the
experience
Table I.
57
visitors’
museum
Understanding
JCHMSD The total data variance explained by this factor (18.4 per cent) indicates that this is the
6,1 predominant one; the Cronbach’s α equals to 0.66, and although its reliability is
questionable, it can be regarded as congruent. Factor 2 (negative experience) relates to
a negative perception of the experience at the museum (i.e. feeling tired, feeling lost,
feeling wasting time and feeling bored). In this case, it explains 17.1 per cent of the total
variance and presents a Cronbach’s α equals to 0.63.
58
5.2 Second step: cluster analysis
The cluster analysis and specifically the TSC, run in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 19),
identifies three main clusters based on 434 respondents, reflecting their length of stay
at the Sanna Museum.
Full statistics on the results obtained for this museum are reported in Figure 4.
Cluster 2 (short staying) comprises 41.2 per cent (174) of the total respondents
and is characterised by relatively short staying and middle-aged visitors. Cluster 1
(middle staying) includes 144 respondents (34.2 per cent of the sample) and is
characterised by middle staying and relatively young visitors. Finally, Cluster 3
(long staying) comprises 24.6 per cent of the sample (for a total of 104 respondents)
characterised by relatively long staying and older visitors.
The silhouette measure of cohesion and separation is rather fair. The ratio of cluster
sizes presents a value under two (1.67) that implies that no cluster is more than two times
larger than any other clusters. Respondents within Cluster 2 are on average middle aged
(44 years old against a global median of 45), tend to spend a relatively short time visiting
the museum with an average of 54 minutes (against a global median of 90 minutes), paid
an entrance ticket and visited six other museums in the last year (against a global median
equal to four). The second cluster (Cluster 1) comprises respondents who are fairly young
(36 years old) and on average spend 106 minutes during their visit at the museum, paid an
entrance ticket and visited five other museums in the last 12 months. Finally, the third
cluster (Cluster 3) includes the relatively oldest respondents (average age 63 years old),
who tend to spend 114 minutes visiting the museum, did not pay an entrance ticket and
visited six other museums in the last year. Hence, this latter cluster is characterised by
individuals who are serious cultural tourists and have more time to spend on leisure.
The same analysis is performed for the Ötzi Museum. Three clusters are also
identified as follows (Figure 4): Cluster 1 (short staying) comprises 45.1 per cent of the
total respondents and is characterised by relatively short staying and young visitors.
Cluster 2 (long staying) includes 31.0 per cent of the sample (for a total of 316
respondents) and is characterised by relatively long staying and middle-aged visitors.
Finally, Cluster 3 (middle staying) comprises 23.8 per cent of the sample (for a total of 243
respondents) characterised by relatively middle staying and older visitors.
The silhouette measure of cohesion and separation is sufficient. The ratio of cluster
sizes presents a value under two (1.69) that implies that no cluster is more than two times
larger than any other cluster. Respondents within Cluster 1 are fairly young with an
average age of 36 (against a global median of 44), tend to spend a relatively short time
visiting the museum with an average of 76 minutes (against a global median of
91 minutes), on average spend 19.34 euro that is higher the global median (that equals
17.98 euro) and visited four other museums in the last year (against a global median
equal to 3). The second cluster comprises respondents who on average are aged 44, hence
cutting almost perfectly the global distribution, on average they spend a relatively long
time visiting the museum (136 minutes), their average expenditure at the museum is
24.25 euro and visited four other museums in the last 12 months. Finally, the third cluster
Cluster 1 2 3 Cluster 1 2 3
Label Middle staying at the Short staying at the Long staying at the Label Short staying at the Long staying at the Middle staying at the
Sanna Museum Sanna Museum Sanna Museum Ötzi Museum Ötzi Museum Ötzi Museum
Size Size
34.1% 41.2% 24.6% 45.1% 31.0% 23.8%
(144) (174) (104) (460) (316) (243)
Inputs Inputs
tspent tspent age age age age
106.37 53.67 62.69 35.68 44.44 59.28
age age tspent tspent tspent tspent

35.65 43.66 114.28 76.17 136.03 84.65
Evaluation Fields Evaluation Fields

vism12m vism12m vism12m vism12m vism12m vism12m
3.00 (20.1%) 4.00 (13.8%) 10.00 (17.3%) 4.24 4.38 5.38
fee fee fee expatmuseum expatmuseum expatmuseum

1.00 (63.9%) 1.00 (58.0%) 0.00 (49.0%) 19.34 24.25 21.17
Input (Predictor) Importance
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
cluster output
experience
Two-step
Figure 4.
59
visitors’
museum
Understanding
JCHMSD includes the relatively oldest respondents (average age 59 years old), who tend to spend
6,1 85 minutes visiting the museum, on average tend to spend 21.17 euro and visited five
other museums in the last year. Hence, this latter cluster is characterised by individuals
who are serious cultural tourists, have more time for leisure and are also likely to spend a
fair amount of money in the museum.
60 5.3 Third-integrated step: regression model

The final step of the analysis incorporates the results obtained from the factor analysis
and the cluster analysis into the regression analysis (the STATA 13 package is employed).
This integrated approach is feasible since the orthogonality of the estimated factors is
ensured, as explained in the methodological section. Hence, the factors can be used as
regressors in the relevant specification (e.g. Huang and Lee, 2011). Besides, the clusters
previously obtained, defined as dummy variables, are included as further regressors in
order to assess in what measure certain market segments can influence attendance.
Accordingly, the first model estimates visitors’ behaviour at the Sanna Museum, while the
second model investigates visitors’ behaviour at the Ötzi Museum. Results are reported on
coefficients, that is the incidence rate ratios (IRR) (Tables II and III). The Poisson
Variables Coefficients IRR
Income (ref. group income 3: from €40,000 to €70,000)

Income 1 (up to 20,000) 0.68 (0.60) 1.98 (1.19)
Income 2 (more than 20,000-40,000) 1.02 (0.60)* 2.77 (1.65)*
Income 4 (more than 70,000-100,000) −14.24 (0.97)*** 0.00 (0.00)***
Income 5 (more than 100,000) −14.64 (1.33)*** 0.00 (0.00)***
Civil status (ref. group status 2: married or de facto)
Status 1 (Single/never married) 0.85 (0.57) 2.33 (1.32)
Status 3 (Separate/divorced) −0.80 (1.14) 0.45 (0.51)
Status 4 (Widow) −15.52 (0.79)*** 0.00 (0.00)***
Gender (male ref. group) 0.19 (0.44) 1.21 (0.54)
Education 0.11 (0.16) 1.11 (0.18)
Nationality (foreigners ref. group) 0.93 (0.42)** 2.54 (1.07)**
Musattr (museum as a tourism attraction) −0.35 (0.61) 0.70 (0.43)
Company: children 2.20 (0.80)*** 9.00 (7.24)***
Company: organised group −14.89 (1.31)*** 0.00 (0.00)***
Round trip expenditure 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
Texpenditure −0.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
Plearn (probability to learn) −1.26 (0.53)** 0.28 (0.15)**
Time of staying: clusters (ref. group middle staying)
Long_staying (ref. group short staying) 1.30 (0.67)* 3.68 (2.47)*
Middle_staying 1.36 (0.67)** 3.88 (2.59)**
Factors
Positive experience 0.07 (0.25) 1.07 (0.26)
Negative experience 0.30 (0.26) 1.34 (0.35)
_cons −3.29 (1.28)*** 0.04 (0.05)***
n 172.00 172.00
AIC 220.68 220.68
Table II. BIC 286.78 286.78
Sanna Museum – Deviance goodness-of-fit 47.06 Prob Wχ2(151) ¼ 1.000
integrated Pearson goodness-of-fit 60.53 Prob Wχ2(151) ¼ 1.000
approach results Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *p o0.10; **p o 0.05; ***p o0.01
Model A Model B
Variables Coefficients IRR Variables Coefficients IRR
Income (ref. group income 2: from €20,000 to €40,000)

Income 1 (up to 20,000) 0.08 (0.35) 1.08 (0.38) Income 1 0.13 (0.38) 1.14 (0.43)
Income 2 (more than 20,000-40,000) −0.52 (0.40) 0.60 (0.24) Income 3 −0.56 (0.42) 0.57 (0.24)
Income 4 (more than 70,000-100,000) 0.61 (0.43) 1.84 (0.80) Income 4 0.60 (0.41) 1.83 (0.75)
Income 5 (more than 100,000) 0.27 (0.62) 1.31 (0.81) Income 5 0.05 (0.77) 1.05 (0.81)
Civil status (ref. group status 2: married or de facto)
Status 1 (Single/never married) 0.00 (0.38) 1.00 (0.38) Status 1 0.02 (0.41) 1.02 (0.42)
Status 3 (Separate/divorced) 0.29 (0.41) 1.33 (0.55) Status 3 0.23 (0.41) 1.26 (0.52)
Status 4 (Widow) −12.46 (0.70)*** 0.00 (0.00)*** Status 4 −14.40 (0.64)*** 0.00 (0.00)***
Gender (ref. group male) −0.00 (0.28) 1.00 (0.28) Gender 0.02 (0.27) 1.02 (0.28)
Education −0.05 (0.15) 0.95 (0.14) Education −0.04 (0.15) 0.96 (0.14)
Nationality (ref. group foreigners) 0.56 (0.30)* 1.75 (0.52)* Nationality 0.47 (0.33) 1.61 (0.54)
Company: children −0.10 (0.38) 0.91 (0.34) Company: children −0.04 (0.35) 0.96 (0.34)
Company: organised group −12.32 (0.62)*** 0.00 (0.00)*** Company: organised group −14.56 (0.69)*** 0.00 (0.00)***
Musattr (museum as a tourism attraction) 0.54 (0.30)* 1.71 (0.51)* (museum a tourism attraction) 0.56 (0.31)* 1.74 (0.54)*
Round trip expenditure 0.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) Round trip expenditure −0.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
Total accommodation costs 0.00 (0.00)** 1.00 (0.00)**
Transports Expenditure −0.01 (0.02) 0.99 (0.02)
Food and beverages expenditure 0.01 (0.01) 1.01 (0.01)
Souvenirs expenditure −0.03 (0.02) 0.97 (0.02)
Texpenditure 0.00 (0.00)** 1.00 (0.00)** Other expenses −0.04 (0.03) 0.96 (0.03)
Plearn (Probability to learn) −0.75 (0.28)*** 0.47 (0.13)*** Plearn −0.73 (0.29)** 0.48 (0.14)**
Time of staying: clusters (ref. group middle staying)
Short staying 0.57 (0.45) 1.76 (0.79) Short staying 0.54 (0.45) 1.72 (0.78)
Long staying 0.65 (0.38)* 1.92 (0.72)* Long staying 0.69 (0.37)* 1.99 (0.73)*
Factors
Positive experience −0.05 (0.12) 0.95 (0.11) Positive feelings −0.07 (0.11) 0.93 (0.10)
Negative experience 0.08 (0.09) 1.08 (0.10) Negative feelings 0.07 (0.09) 1.08 (0.10)
_cons −1.32 (0.61)** 0.27 (0.16)** _cons −1.33 (0.60)** 0.26 (0.16)**
n 403.00 403.00 n 406.00 406.00
AIC 573.17 573.17 AIC 575.07 575.07
BIC 661.15 661.15 BIC 679.23 679.23
Deviance goodness-of-fit 114.87 Prob W χ2(381) ¼ 1.000 Deviance goodness-of-fit 113.80 Prob W χ2(380) ¼ 1.000
Pearson goodness-of-fit 172.35 Prob W χ2(381) ¼ 1.000 Pearson goodness-of-fit 169.46 Prob W χ2(380) ¼ 1.000
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *p o 0.10; **p o 0.05; ***p o 0.01
integrated
Table III.
approach results
Ötzi Museum –
61
experience
visitors’
museum
Understanding
JCHMSD regression coefficient ( β) is the difference between the logs of expected counts:
6,1
b ¼ log mx þ 1 log mx
where μ is the expected count evaluated at x+1 and x. This expression can be also written
in the following manner:
62
b ¼ log mx þ 1 =mx
that is the log of the ratio of expected counts. In addition, the incidence rate is the number
of events per time.
A zero-truncated Poisson is empirically the best specification since the dependent
variable, number of visits at the museum allows for the specific restriction, ranging
from 1 to n (i.e. the count variable cannot be zero). Moreover, in the both cases the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected, that is the empirical model fits the data implying the
goodness-of-fit; for the Ötzi Museum: deviance goodness-of-fit ¼ 114.8755,
Prob W χ2(381) ¼ 1.0000; Pearson goodness-of-fit ¼ 172.3535, Prob W χ2(381) ¼ 1.0000.
For the Sanna Museum: deviance goodness-of-fit ¼ 47.06849, Prob W χ2(151) ¼ 1.0000;
Pearson goodness-of-fit ¼ 60.53659, Prob W χ2(151) ¼ 1.0000. Furthermore, the Akaike
Information Criterion and the BIC are employed to empirically assess the standard
Poisson models in comparison with the zero-truncated Poisson specifications. In both
the cases, the two criteria are minimised when the truncated specification is applied.
Besides, the Wald test indicates that the overall models are well specified at the
statistical level of 1 per cent. As a result, there is statistical ground to retain the
zero-truncated Poisson as a better empirical specifications. The models have been also
estimated correcting for robust standard errors to account for the relatively low
number of observations that may lead to heteroskedasticity problems in the residuals,
a rather common diagnostic problem when using survey data.
5.3.1 The Sanna Museum. By taking into account only statistically significant
variables, it emerges that, amongst the economic variables, ceteris paribus, income
under the lower bound of the reference category (€40,000-€70,000) is expected to have a
rate 2.77 times greater for museum attendance. While, on the upper bound of the
reference category, the rate ratio for the dependent variable is expected to decrease by a
rather marginal factor. In terms of the set of control variables, being a widower
decreases the rate ratio of attendance by a very marginal factor. However, being Italian
positively influences the dependent variable and is expected to have a rate of 2.54 times
greater than for the reference group.
A significant expectation to repeat the visit is found for respondents who are
visiting the museum with their children, if compared to those who are not; as the IRR
indicates 9.00 times more. On the opposite extreme, those who visited the museum
within an organised group are less likely to be repeaters, although the IRR is marginal
(IRR ¼ 0.00). Interestingly, the probability to learn something (plearn) appears to
negatively influence attendance at this cultural site (IRR ¼ 0.28).
Considering the cluster dummies, and keeping the short staying visitors as the
reference category, it emerges that long staying visitors have an expected repetition of
the visit 3.68 times higher than the short staying visitors. Likewise, middle staying
visitors reveal an expected repetition of the experience 3.88 times higher than the
reference category.
5.3.2 The Ötzi Museum. In this section, the experience and behaviour of visitors at the Understanding
Ötzi Museum is investigated by employing the same construct used for the Sanna museum
Museum. Apart from the income controls, that are not statistically significant in the Ötzi
model, the statistically significant coefficients reveal that widows are less likely to revisit
visitors’
the museum when compared to married people treated as the reference category experience
(IRR ¼ 0.00). The probability to revisit is also lower for organised group visitors
(IRR ¼ 0.00). As for the Sanna Museum, the probability to learn something (plearn) during 63
the visit reduces the likelihood to revisit Ötzi (IRR ¼ 0.48). Turning to the coefficients of
the cluster variables, long staying visitors denote a rate ratio approximately twice higher
than the middle staying group (IRR ¼ 1.99). Also, the belief that the museum is a tourism
attraction positively influences the likelihood to revisit the museum by 1.71 times.
The total expenditure (i.e. Texpenditure as the sum of travel costs, accommodation
costs, food and beverage expense and spending in shopping in Bolzano) has a
significant effect on the dependent variable (IRR ¼ 1.00). As a further investigation,
costs are also disaggregated in order to assess the influence of the single components of
expenditure on the dependent variable. Notably, accommodation costs, that only
present a statistically significant coefficient, are possibly driving the significance of the
coefficient of the aggregated expenditure variable (IRR ¼ 1.00).
6. Discussion on the empirical findings

Results have suggested that some determinants, which influence museum visitors’
behaviour expressed in terms of a revisit to the cultural site, have led to homogenous
findings, regardless the different attractive power exerted by these two museums.
In particular, being Italian positively influences a revisit both at the Sanna and the
Ötzi Museum. This outcome may provide useful directions to museum marketers
and managers.
On the one hand, the Sanna Museum is located on an island and is most likely to be
visited by Italians and especially people from Sardinia, as shown by the descriptive
statistics that indicate 65 per cent of the total interviewed sample is from Italy and
41 per cent of the total sample is from Sardinia. As reported by Iorio (2004), and confirmed
by Meleddu and Pulina (2012), in Sardinian there is still a low level of connectivity
between museums. Therefore, an adequate network amongst Sardinian museums, as well
as with the public and private operators in tourist destinations on the island, may activate
a greater flow of visitors to the museum throughout the year. From the present
investigation, in fact it appears that the Sanna Museum would significantly benefit of such
a network that will lead to an increase in attendance, especially, of Italians. On the other
hand, the Ötzi Museum is located at the boundary with Austria, and from the descriptive
statistics, it emerges that foreigners are the majority (56 per cent of the sample), in addition
34 per cent of the total interviewed visitors are German. A wider interconnection amongst
Bolzano – as a bilingual Province of Italy with strong German roots – and Austrian-
German museums would also encourage attendance and revisit. These arguments are also
in line with the well-established relationship between culture and tourism as assessed by
Jansen-Verbeke and Van Rekom (1996) and Stebbins (1996) (see also, OECD, 2009). Several
empirical investigations show the relevant economic impact in terms of revenues and
employment ( Jolliffe and Smith, 2001; Plaza, 2000; Aalst Van and Boogaarts, 2004; Plaza
et al., 2011). Carey et al. (2013), for example, provide evidence that the Te Papa Museum in
Wellington (New Zealand) has a positive impact on tourism flows, giving further evidence
of the important role exerted by cultural sites in attracting tourists in urban areas.
JCHMSD From the present regression analysis, it emerges that determinants such as a visit
6,1 with an organised group exerts a negative impact on revisit. Furthermore, although
visiting the museum with children does not influence attendance at Ötzi Museum, it has
a relevant and highly statistically significant effect on the Sanna Museum. On this
basis, the Sanna Museum needs to implement a wider range of services, especially,
directed to families with children. At this point, Meleddu and Pulina (2012), via a
64 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analysis, highlighted the lack of
attraction and multimedia activities for children and teenagers at the site. This
circumstance is regarded as a weakness as well as a potential threat for preventing

young people from a higher level of education, that is one of the main missions of a
cultural institution. Hence, the empirical outcome, here presented, has suggested that
higher level of investment directed especially to young people is likely to drive higher
flows of visitors, that also implies a higher return for the museum as a business. In this
respect, museums face a high level of competition and in times of public expenditure
cost cutting, a museum’s management should take into account visitor numbers as an
important source of funds by adapting over time to attract new segments of demand.
A thread of research provides further evidence that families are likely to learn from
exhibits and that the level of learning is related to specific observed behaviours (Borun
et al., 1996; for a detailed literature review see Ellenbogen et al., 2005). Also, economic
theory suggests that past consumption of cultural goods tends to increase visitors’
consumption in the future. This special pattern of demand relates to the so-called
learning-by-consuming approach. Accordingly, the consumption experience leads one
to attribute a higher value to additional units of cultural goods (Brito and Barros, 2005).
As Ateca-Amestoy (2007) assesses, those who consume more cultural goods in childhood
tend to consume more in their adulthood.
An interesting homogeneous outcome emerges when considering the different
clusters of visitors expressed in terms of length of stay at the museums. Interestingly,
being a “long staying” visitor positively influences attendance both at the Sanna and the
Ötzi Museum. This finding may be thought of as counter intuitive as the time spent
visiting the museum may be regarded as a proxy for the opportunity cost of leisure time
and one would expect that those who spent longer visiting the museum are less likely to
repeat the visit (Brida et al., 2012c). Yet, at this point, Youngs et al. (2014) find that three
types of visitors can be distinguished: those who appear to cherry pick from a range of
material offered at the museum, especially young people who stay for the shortest time
span; those who visit the whole exhibition in depth; and those who concentrate only on
very specific material on offer. It is likely that the last two types of visitors who appear to
be very interested in the exposition, or specific rooms, may revisit in the future because
they can be defined as serious cultural visitors (Stebbins, 1996; Brida et al., 2012c). Given
that a longer length of stay significantly encourages repeat visitation, especially for the
Sanna case, it would be worthwhile investing in a more relaxing environment with
additional services that, at the moment, are still lacking.
Trip costs have no impact on visits to the Sanna Museum, while Ötzi visitors are
especially affected by accommodation costs in South Tyrol. This outcome, may be
attributed to the distinctive features of the cities hosting the two museums and their
different living costs. Results are also in line with other empirical studies concerning
probability to revisit cultural attractions (Brida et al., 2012b) and other tourism
attractions (Scarpa et al., 2007). The belief that the Ötzi Museum is a tourism attraction
strongly and positively influences attendance at the museum. This is also in line with
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998), who points out that “tourism needs destinations, and
museums are premier attractions […] and museums need visitors, and the tourism Understanding
industry, more than the other sectors of economy, can deliver the hordes to museum museum
doors” (p. 36).
From a practitioner perspective, this paper has highlighted in what manner museum
visitors’
managers and marketers need to activate more proactive campaigns and networking to experience
encourage attendance and loyalty for different market segments. The empirical
findings have highlighted that the two museums analysed, and especially the Sanna 65
Museum, have the potential to become a reference point for different segments of
demand and especially for young people, based on the implementation of a wide range
of services. Given that, in a digital era, media panels and touch screen interactive
projections are already rather diffuse in museums, the next challenge is to set spaces
that can host classes, reading rooms, interactive spaces, online activities that can also
involve audience outside. In times of digital change, young generations expect to
interact with the museum: before the visit, to gather information on why they may visit it.
During the visit, when they actively participate in the exhibition, through a wide range
of activities, also capturing their involvement with photos and tweets. After their visit,
not only sharing their experience via social networks, but also leading to new ways of
participation by the implementation of ideas that can enhance over time the identity of
the visited site, as a cultural asset that enriches the wider digital community (Anderson,
2004; Falk and Dierking, 2012; Rozan, 2014; Works, 2014).
7. Conclusions
Nowadays, museums have to compete with other forms of leisure and entertainment
activities, and to understand the visitors’ experience at a site becomes an opportunity
for managers and curators to develop new services that cover all the spheres of custom
satisfaction (Colbert, 2003; Zeithaml et al., 2006). This is strategic to help museums
which have to innovate and adopt new marketing methods to improve their appeal
(Geissler et al., 2006).
The present paper has investigated a particular aspect of service quality related to
understanding customers’ experience in order to provide quality services according to
their needs and wants (Parasuraman et al., 1988). An integrated approach has been
employed as a tool to analyse multidimensional aspects of the visit to a cultural site.
Within the literature on service marketing and management, this methodological
framework can be regarded as an alternative approach to analyse visitors’ experience,
characteristics, behaviour and preferences and able to elicit specific characteristics of
different segments of demand.
The integrated approach has consisted of three main research steps: first, a factor
analysis has been run to define a set of orthogonal (i.e. non correlated) factors about
positive and negative experience by the sample of respondents during the visit. Second,
a TSC analysis has been run that has led to identify specific demand segments:
i.e., short staying, middle staying and long staying visitors. As a final step, a regression
analysis has been run with the inclusion of a set of socio-demographic and
economic determinants as well as the outcome variables obtained in the previous steps
(i.e. the factors and cluster variables). This approach has the advantage to be applied
without any a priori hypothetical construct, as required, for example in SEM.
From a methodological point of view, the strength of this study has been the use of
an integrated approach to identical questionnaires, and the investigation of the impact
of the same combination of categorical and other quantitative variables on museum
attendance. Data were gathered on a representative sample of respondents interviewed
JCHMSD at two important archaeological museums in Italy, that present a rather similar
6,1 mission. The Sanna Museum located in the Island of Sardinia, that hosts a unique
archaeological collection of the so-called Megalithic Nuragic civilisation; the Ötzi
Museum that hosts a well-preserved prehistoric ice mummy and his artefacts that,
thanks to the use of new generation technologies, are still shedding light on human life
in prehistoric times.
66 On balance, rather homogeneous results have been found proving the reliability of
the approach. The findings have shown that these two museums here analysed need to
be reinterpreted and reorganised in a wider context able to satisfy a broader audience

that is looking for a global experience that includes leisure, culture, education and
social interaction. However, new policies need to be implemented based on visitors’
characteristics and attitudes, and able to attract new segments of demand and
especially the young generation. Future research would be aimed at investigating the
role of potentially hidden variables. As an example, respondents’ language skills may
influence their future loyalty to a cultural site in a foreign destination or their
recommendation to others through word-of-mouth as well as social networks as a key
marketing channel. Besides, the negative impact on repeat visitation by organised
groups may be due to the overall distance people have to travel to reach their
destination. Hence, a deeper investigation may also be carried out to analyse the
behaviour of organised groups to a museum in other regional contexts in order to be
able to further generalise the present findings.
On the whole, the methodological approach presented in this paper may be used
as a tool for practitioners and curators to uncover features of their consumers
as well as further dimensions of service quality and, on this basis, improve the overall
services offered.
References
Aalst Van, I. and Boogaarts, I. (2004), “From museum to mass entertainment. The evolution of the
role of museums in cities repeat visitation in mature sun and sand holiday destinations”,
European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 195-209.
Agbor, J.M. (2011), “The relationship between customer satisfaction and service quality: study of
three service sectors in Umeå”, masters thesis, Umeå School of Business, Umeå.
Akar, G. (2013), “Ground access to airports, case study: port Columbus international airport”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 25-31.
Anderson, K. (2004), “Generation Y-not: the millennial generation at a glance and its connection”,
Masters of Science Department of Museum and Field Studies, University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities, MN.
Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2007), “Cultural capital and demand”, Economics Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Ateca-Amestoy, V. and Prieto-Rodríguez, J. (2013), “Forecasting accuracy of behavioural models
for participation in the arts”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 229 No. 1,
pp. 124-131, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.005
Bandarin, F., Hosagrahar, J. and Albernaz, F.S. (2011), “Why development needs culture”, Journal
of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Borun, M., Chambers, M. and Cleghorn, A. (1996), “Families are learning in science museums”,
Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Brida, J.G., Disegna, M. and Scuderi, R. (2013a), “Visitors of two types of museums:
a segmentation study”, Experts Systems with Applications, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 2224-2232.
Brida, J.G., Disegna, M. and Scuderi, R. (2014), “The behaviour of repeat visitors to museums: Understanding
review and empirical findings”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 2817-2840.
doi: 10.1007/s11135-13-9927-0.
museum
visitors’
Brida, J.G., Meleddu, M. and Pulina, M. (2012a), “Understanding urban tourism attractiveness: the
case of the archaeological Ötzi Museum in Bolzano”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 51 experience
No. 6, pp. 730-741.
Brida, J.G., Meleddu, M. and Pulina, M. (2012b), “Factors influencing the intention to revisit a 67
cultural attraction: the case of MART of Rovereto”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 167-174.
Brida, J.G., Osti, L. and Disegna, M. (2013b), “Visitors’ expenditure behavior at cultural events”,
Tourism Economics, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 1173-1196.
Brida, J.G., Pulina, M. and Meleddu, M. (2013c), “Factors influencing length of stay of cultural
tourists”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1273-1292.
Brida, J.G., Pulina, M. and Riaño, E. (2012c), “Measuring visitor experiences at a modern art
museum and linkages to the destination community”, Journal of Tourism Heritage, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 285-299.
Brida, J.G., Pulina, M., Riaño, E. and Zapata-Aguirre, S. (2012d), “Cruise passengers’ experience
embarking in a Caribbean home port. The case study of Cartagena de Indias”, Ocean and
Coastal Management, Vol. 55, pp. 135-145.
Brito, P. and Barros, C. (2005), “Learning-by-consuming and the dynamics of the demand and
prices of cultural goods”, Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 83-106.
Burton, C., Louviere, J.J. and Young, L. (2009), “Retaining the visitor, enhancing the experience:
identifying attributes of choice in repeat museum visitation”, International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Carey, S., Davidson, L. and Sahli, M. (2013), “Capital city museums and tourism flows:
an empirical study of the museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 554-569.
Chan, J.K. (2009), “The consumption of museum service experiences: benefits and value
of museum experiences”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18 Nos 2-3,
pp. 173-196.
Colbert, F. (2003), “Entrepreneurship and leadership in marketing the arts”, International Journal
of Arts Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
Dagger, T.S. and Sweeney, J.C. (2007), “Service quality attribute weights: how do novice and
longer-term customers construct service quality performance?”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 22-42.
De Rojas, C. and Camarero, C. (2008), “Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a
heritage context: evidence from an interpretation center”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 525-537.
Dillon, C., Bell, N., Fouseki, K., Laurenson, P., Thompson, A. and Strlič, M. (2014), “Mind the gap:
rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research”, Heritage Science, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
D’Urso, P., De Giovanni, L., Disegna, M. and Massari, R. (2013), “Bagged clustering and its
application to tourism market segmentation”, Experts Systems with Applications, Vol. 40
No. 12, pp. 4944-4956.
Ellenbogen, K.M., Luke, J.J. and Dierking, L.D. (2005), “Family learning in museums: perspectives
on a decade of research”, in Falk, J.H. and Foutz, S. (Eds), In Principle, In Practice: Museums
as Learning Institutions, Altamira Press, Plymouth, pp. 17-30.
JCHMSD Englin, J.E., Holmes, T.P. and Sills, E.O. (2003), “Estimating forest recreation demand using count
data models”, in Sills, E.O. (Ed.), Forests in a Market Economy, Vol. 72, Chapter 19, Kluwer
6,1 Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 341-359.
Escofier, B. and Pages, J. (1988), Analyses factorielles simples et multiples, Dunod, Paris.
Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (2012), Museum Experience Revisited, Left Coast Press, Walnut
Creek, CA.
68 Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), “Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied
to consumer exit-voice theory”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 440-452.
Fraley, C. and Raftery, A.E. (1998), “How many clusters? Which clustering method? Answers via
model-based cluster analysis”, The Computer Journal, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 578-588.
Geissler, G.L., Rucks, C.T. and Edison, S.W. (2006), “Understanding the role of service
convenience in art museum marketing: an exploratory study”, Journal of Hospitality &
Leisure Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 69-87.
Gil, S.M. and Ritchie, J.R. (2009), “Understanding the museum image formation process a
comparison of residents and tourists”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 480-493.
Gilmore, A. and Rentschler, R. (2002), “Changes in museum management: a custodial or
marketing emphasis?”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 745-760.
Goulding, C. (2000), “The museum environment and the visitor experience”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 261-278.
Grogger, J.T. and Carson, R.T. (1991), “Models for truncated counts”, Journal of Applied
Econometrics, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 225-238.
Harrison, P. and Shaw, R. (2004), “Consumer satisfaction and post-purchase intentions:
an exploratory study of museum visitors”, International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 6, pp. 23-32.
Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step-By-Step Approach: To Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Heidenreich, M. and Plaza, B. (2015), “Renewal through culture? The role of museums in the
renewal of industrial regions in Europe”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 1441-1455.
Huang, C.-H. and Lee, C.-H. (2011), “Evaluating recreational benefits of environmental quality
improvement”, International Conference on Humanities, Geography and Economics
(ICHGE), Pattaya, December, pp. 308-312, available at: http://psrcentre.org/images/
extraimages/1211300.pdf (accessed 16 June 2015).
Hume, M., Mort, G. and Winzar, H. (2007), “Exploring repurchase intention in a performing arts
context: who comes? And why do they come back?”, International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 135-148.
Iorio, M. (2004), “Musei, siti archeologici e turismo in Sardegna: alla ricerca di un’integrazione”,
Quaderni di Lavoro, CRENoS, 2004/04.
Jaffry, S. and Apostolakis, A. (2011), “Evaluating individual preferences for the British museum”,
Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 49-75.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. and Van Rekom, J. (1996), “Scanning museum visitors: urban tourism
marketing”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 364-375.
Jeong, J. and Lee, K. (2006), “The physical environment in museums and its effects on visitors’
satisfaction”, Building and Environment, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 963-969.
Jolliffe, L. and Smith, R. (2001), “Heritage, tourism and museums: the case of the North Atlantic
islands of Skye, Scotland and Prince Edward Island, Canada”, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 149-172.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36. Understanding
Kibicho, W. (2008), “Community-based tourism: a factor-cluster segmentation approach”, museum
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 211-221. visitors’
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998), Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage, experience
University of California Press, London.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press,
New York, NY. 69
Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L.C., Abe, S., Cleveland, M. and Yannopoulos, P.P. (2004), “Service quality
perceptions and customer satisfaction: evaluating the role of culture”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 58-85.
Lord, G.D. (1999), “The power of cultural tourism”, paper presented at the Wisconsin Heritage
Tourism Conference, Lac du Flambeau, WI, 17 September, pp. 1-14.
Martínez-Espiñeira, R. and Amoako-Tuffour, J. (2008), “Recreation demand analysis under
truncation, overdispersion, and endogenous stratification: an application to Gros Morne
National Park”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 1320-1332.
Meleddu, M. and Pulina, M. (2012), “L’offerta di cultura in Sardegna. Il caso del museo ‘G.A.
Sanna’ ”, Quaderni di Lavoro, CRENoS, 2012/03.
Mulcahy, K.V. (2006), “Cultural policy: definitions and theoretical approaches”, The Journal of
Arts Management, Law, and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 319-330.
OECD (2009), The Impact of Culture on Tourism, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Palma, M.L., Palma, L. and Aguado, L.F. (2013), “Determinants of cultural and popular
celebration attendance: the case study of Seville Spring Fiestas”, Journal of Cultural
Economics, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 87-107.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Pirouz, D.M. (2006), “An overview of partial least squares”, PhD thesis, University of California,
Irvine, CA.
Plaza, B. (2000), “Guggenheim Museum’s effectiveness to attract tourism”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1055-1058.
Plaza, B., Galvez-Galvez, C. and Gonzales-Flores, A. (2011), “Testing the employment impact of
the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao via TSA”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 223-229.
Provins, A., Pearce, D., Ozdemiroglu, E., Mourato, S. and Morse-Jones, S. (2008), “Valuation of the
historic environment: the scope for using economic valuation evidence in the appraisal of
heritage-related projects”, Progress in Planning, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 131-75.
Robb, J., Dillon, C., Rumsey, M. and Strlič, M. (2014), “Quantitative assessment of perceived value
of geological collections by ‘experts’ for improved collections management”, The Geological
Curator, Vol. 9 No. 10, pp. 529-538.
Rozan, A.R. (2014), “The business of being social: what museums need to understand for the future”,
available at: www.museum-id.com/idea-detail.asp?id¼205 (accessed 18 June 2015).
Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. and Tempesta, T. (2007), “Latent class count models of total visitation
demand: days out hiking in the eastern Alps”, Environmental and Resource Economics,
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 447-460.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Silberberg, T. (1995), “Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage
sites”, Tourism Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 361-365.
JCHMSD Stebbins, R. (1996), “Cultural tourism as serious leisure”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 948-950.
6,1
Victorino, L., Verma, R., Plaschka, G. and Dev, C. (2005), “Service innovation and customer
choices in the hospitality industry”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 555-576.
Villeneuve, P. (2012), “Building museum sustainability through visitor-centered exhibition
70 practices”, The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 37-50.
Works, W.A. (2014), “Inviting the big kids to play how science museums are engaging
millennials”, thesis, Master of Science in Arts Administration, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, PA.
Youngs, M., Burrow, S. and Diment, P. (2014), “Evaluating origins: how an exhibition is
experienced by visitors”, available at: www.museum-id.com/idea-detail.asp?id¼18
(accessed 18 June 2015).
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill/
Irwin, Boston, MA.
Further reading
CRENoS (2013), “20° Rapporto sull’economia in Sardegna”, CRENoS (Università di Cagliari e Sassari)
CUEC, Cagliari.
Appendix Understanding
museum
Name Definition
visitors’
Dependent variable experience
Number of visits Number of times respondents visited the museum
Independent variables
Civil status (reference group Status 1: single/never married; Status 3: separate/divorced; Status 4: widow
71
status 2: married or de facto)

Income (reference group Euro – Income 1: up to 20,000; Income 2: from 20,000 to 40,000; Income 4: from
income 3: from €40,000 to €70,000)
70,000 to 100,000; Income 5: more than 100,000
Gender This is a dichotomous variable that takes the value one if female; zero otherwise
Education This is a discrete variable that takes the value one for the lowest level of education
(i.e. primary school) and up to 7 for the highest level of education (i.e. PhD)
Nationality This dichotomous takes the value one if the visitor is Italian; zero otherwise
Company: children This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent would have visited
the museum with children; zero otherwise
Company: organised group This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent would have visited
the museum with an organised group; zero otherwise
Musattr This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent would have
considered the museum a tourism attraction; zero otherwise
Round trip expenditure This is a continuous variable that accounts for the whole round trip costs as
reported by respondents
Total accommodation costs This is a continuous variable that accounts for total accommodation costs,
expressed in euro, undertaken by the respondent in all official (i.e. hotel,
non-hotel – campsites, agro tourism, serviced apartments) and non-official
tourism infrastructure such as second homes and friends and family
Texpenditure This is a continuous variable that accounts for total costs of the trips and has
been calculated as the summation
Transports expenditure This is a continuous variable that accounts for travel expenses, expressed in
euros, as reported by respondents
Food and beverages expenditure This is a continuous variable that accounts for the costs, expressed in euro,
undertaken by the respondent to purchase food and beverage
Souvenirs expenditure This is a continuous variable that accounts for souvenirs expenses in euros as
Other expenses This is a continuous variable that accounts for other expenses in euros as
Plearn This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent would have visited
the museum to learn something new; zero otherwise
Short stay This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent belonged to the
short stayer cluster; zero otherwise
Middle stayer This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent belonged to the
middle stayer cluster; and zero otherwise
Long stay This is a dichotomous variable that takes 1 if the respondent belonged to the
long stayer cluster; zero otherwise
Positive feeling This is a continuous variable that accounts for the positive feelings experienced
inside the museum
Negative feelings This is a continuous variable that accounts for the negative feelings experienced Table AI.
inside the museum Variables definition
Corresponding author
Juan Gabriel Brida can be contacted at: gbrida@ccee.edu.uy
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

JCHMSD 07 2015 0025

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCHMSD 07 2015 0025

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable

To cite this document:

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

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

Understanding museum visitors’ Understanding

Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay, and Received 4 July 2015

as they are located in regions that are highly specialized in tourism.

2. Background and conceptual framework

2.2 The conceptual framework

First step Second step

regressors into the parametric specification.

3.1 First step: factor analysis

3.2 Second step: cluster analysis

3.3 Third-integrated step: regression model

1982; Pirouz, 2006).

where wi denotes the other controls as socio-economic characteristics of individual i (ki),

Y i ¼ f ðTC i ; X i ; F i ; Cl i ; aÞþ ei (3)

As depicted in Figure 2, these two museums are also characterised by a different

Hodrick-Prescott Filter ( = 100)

A questionnaire was structured on previous literature. Specifically, a set of positive

age age tspent tspent tspent tspent

Evaluation Fields Evaluation Fields

fee fee fee expatmuseum expatmuseum expatmuseum

Input (Predictor) Importance

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

60 5.3 Third-integrated step: regression model

Variables Coefficients IRR

Income (ref. group income 3: from €40,000 to €70,000)

Income (ref. group income 2: from €20,000 to €40,000)

6. Discussion on the empirical findings

circumstance is regarded as a weakness as well as a potential threat for preventing

be reinterpreted and reorganised in a wider context able to satisfy a broader audience

status 2: married or de facto)

You might also like