491599

research-article2013
JHTXXX10.1177/1096348013491599Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchCroes, Semrad / Cultural Tourism and Small Island Destinations

THE RELEVANCE OF CULTURAL

TOURISM AS THE NEXT FRONTIER FOR
SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS

Robertico Croes
University of Central Florida
Kelly J. Semrad
University of Florida

The purpose of this study is to apply the cultural tourism typology of McKercher
and to estimate the economic relevance of cultural tourism to the context of a small
island destination tourist market. Small island destinations may be confronted
with environmental constraints that restrain the traditional small island tourism
development model, which is based on sun, sand, and sea. The cultural tourism
typology is used in order to determine whether the typology may be used to segment
tourists thereby allowing researchers to determine the economic impact of different
cultural tourist segments. This study draws attention to some of the foundational issues
that researchers face when attempting to quantify the economic impact of cultural
tourists. The results of the study indicate that McKercher’s typology may provide more
refined results when incorporating the purpose of a trip; and, that cultural tourists
may be a lucrative market for destinations to pursue given the results of an economic
input–output model.

Keywords: cultural tourism; economic impact; small island destination; Aruba

The purpose of this study is to empirically assess whether cultural tourism is

relevant in the reorientation efforts of small island destinations regarding the
dynamics of the tourism market and, consequently, the externalities of tourism
development. Tourism has become critical for the economy and quality of life of
small island destinations (Brau, Lanza, & Pigliaru, 2003; Hernandez-Martin,
2008). By enlarging their domestic markets, tourism development has shown its
potential in overcoming the economies of scale challenges facing these destina-
tions. Small island destinations are searching for ways to reinvent themselves in
their quest to enhance their competitiveness through tourism specialization,
thereby ensuring increasing returns (Croes, 2011).

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, November 2015, 469­–491
DOI: 10.1177/1096348013491599
© 2013 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015
469
470   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Small island destinations were compelled to take up the effects of globaliza-

tion by embracing tourism. One of the most pervasive effects of globalization in
the tourism system is the rapidly ongoing process of standardization in the
search for more efficient production processes (Smith & Robinson, 2006). This
search for economies of scale collides with the small island destinations’ search
for distinctiveness resulting from demand predicaments and the rediscovering of
cultural identities (Cameron & Gatewood, 2008; Cole & Razak, 2009). The out-
come of this paradox appears to be the prominence of cultural tourism on the
agenda of scholarly work and policy makers.
Until recently, small island destinations have propagated their tourism efforts
via a beach paradise image. The sun, sea, and sand model was the result. The
pitfalls of this model together with the discovery of culture as a resource for
tourism are propelling a broadening of the production base and the appeal of
these destinations to yet untapped markets by way of increasing the product
offerings (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009). For example, the beach-dependent
Turks and Caicos has been considering broadening its appeal through local cul-
ture and local history (Cameron & Gatewood, 2008). Similarly, the island of
Aruba has considered culture a significant resource to broaden its appeal, aiming
to increase the range of cultural attractions, tourism spending, to spread the tour-
ist presence on the island, and to make explicit the traditional culture of Aruba
(Cole & Razak, 2009).
Cultural tourism has surged as an important policy consideration in broaden-
ing the appeal and tourist offerings of tourist destinations. This thought is pre-
mised on the notion that cultural tourism is a significant and growing market
segment and that cultural tourists are high spenders. This implies that cultural
tourists are a discrete segment that may be identified and distinguished from
other tourist segments. For example, Richards (2007), Girard and Nijkamp
(2009), and Timothy and Nyaupane (2009), to mention a few studies, claim that
cultural tourism has become an important impetus of tourism demand. Similarly,
organizations, such as the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 2005), the Travel
Industry Association (2003), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD, 2009) echo these claims. However, empirical valida-
tion for these claims is lacking.
Given the intense competition across tourist destinations, it seems an advan-
tage if small island destinations could have unique attributes that could enable a
distinct experience. A pertinent consideration is whether embracing cultural
tourism might enhance the overall value of the tourism product in a small island
destination. From this perspective, promoting cultural tourism appears to be a
very important key in current economic policy supporting tourism development.
However, portraying local distinctiveness as a reorientation strategy requires
resources, which, in a resource-poor environment typical of small island desti-
nations, could be challenging (Armstrong, De Kervenoael, Li, & Read, 1998;
Briguglio, Archer, Jafari, & Wall, 1996; Croes, 2006; Srinivasan, 1986; Streeten,
1993). Therefore, it is an important economic concern to determine whether a

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 471

distinct experience imbued with local culture will affect tourism demand and
consequently the economy.
This study calls for critical attention regarding the major challenges that
researchers may encounter when attempting to empirically assess the overall
economic value of cultural tourists to a destination. The foundational challenge
in analyzing cultural tourism consumption exists in the vast scope of meanings
that the concept of culture implies. This foundational challenge gives way then
to an issue regarding efficacy of accurate measurement and, consequently, units
of analysis that may be considered in the empirical assessment of the value of
cultural tourism (Snowball, 2008).
This study claims that cultural tourism could encourage reinvention strate-
gies aimed at the enhancement of the competitiveness of a small island destina-
tion. The research investigates the empirical relationship between tourism and
culture and measures the economic impact of that relationship in the case of
Aruba. Tourism is a major economic pillar for Aruba’s economy. The WTO
reports that tourist arrivals to Aruba have increased steadily over the years from
181,200 arrivals in 1986 to 825,500 arrivals in 2010. Similarly, tourism receipts
increased from US$161.7 million in 1986 to US$1,264 million in 2010. The
average growth rate was 9% annually, which was 2.4% higher than the average
growth rate of arrivals over the time span reviewed. Aruba’s share of tourist
arrivals and receipts in the Caribbean has increased over the same time span,
from 4.2% to 5.3% of the total arrivals and receipts, respectively, accruing to the
Caribbean region (WTO, 2011). Aruba as a tourist destination has been consis-
tently ranked as one of the most competitive destinations in the Caribbean
(Craigwell, 2007; Croes, 2011; Jayawardena & Ramajeesingh, 2003).
Aruba is an island that is highly specialized in tourism, thereby offering a
tourism product portfolio that has employing events, activities, and locations
that are used as promotional icons for the island (Cole & Razak, 2009; Croes,
2010). The adverse effect of this specialization for a small island is the transfor-
mation that may occur in the social makeup of the destination, which potentially
may then disintegrate its local appeal absorbing its cultural authenticity in the
process (Cole & Razak, 2009). Hence, the very specialized tourism products that
made Aruba a tourist destination could erode the value of those products—even-
tually leading to diminishing returns. In order to avoid this, Aruba is reposition-
ing itself in its search for ways to continue the path of increasing returns.
The intense competition in the Caribbean region is compelling Aruba to seek
market development by increasing the range of cultural attractions that are avail-
able to tourists increasing tourists’ spending and the stimulation of local entre-
preneurial activity (Croes, 2011). As this market development shift occurs, the
island will be looking at new and unique product offerings in an attempt to
enhance the tourist experience. Thus, the role of cultural entities, events, and
new experiences could play a stronger role in attracting visitors to the island.
Moreover, the island has embarked on a quest for steering its product toward
more authentic experiences with the hopes of attracting culturally sensitive
tourists.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015
472   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

The study addresses two related research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the different segments that comprise the cultural mar-
ket in Aruba?
Research Question 2: What is the economic contribution of cultural tourism in the
case of Aruba?

This study applies the cultural tourism typology that was forwarded by
McKercher (2002) and estimates the economic relevance of cultural tourism to
the context of a small island destination tourism market. The application of this
cultural tourism typology is used in order to determine if the cultural tourism
typologies may be used to segment tourists, thereby allowing researchers to
determine the economic impact of different cultural tourist segments to tourism
destinations’ economies. McKercher’s (2002) cultural tourism typology was
based on the interface between centrality of cultural tourism as a trip motive and
the depths of cultural tourists’ experiences.
To assess the research questions, the study entertains two central arguments.
First, it argues that cultural tourism should be empirically assessed and its eco-
nomic value estimated in order to determine its relevance in tourism develop-
ment. Second, cultural tourism could play a significant role in ensuring
incremental returns through tourism specialization. Understanding the process of
cultural tourism could unleash new opportunities for product development, new
markets, and new wealth, thereby underscoring the main premise of endogenous
growth theories (Romer, 1994). This study is one of the first investigations to
assess cultural tourism empirically as it applies to a small island destination.

Literature Review
Cultural tourism encompasses cultural activities and experiences that are
highly appealing and enriching to tourists. The literature seems to indicate that
cultural tourism is a new growth area of tourism demand and that it may aid in
the seasonal and geographic spread of tourism, thereby increasing revenues
(Cole & Razak, 2003; Richards, 1996; Richards & Wilson, 2007). Vallega
(2007) contends that island culture could play an important role in promoting
tourism development in small island developing states. Ramkissoon and Uysal
(2010) found that the distinct character of culture makes the island of Mauritius
a unique tourist product, positively influencing behavioral intentions of cultural
tourists. Cultural tourism was viewed as an alternative type of tourism counter-
ing the ongoing mass tourism strategy prevalent in small island destinations. For
example, Weaver (1995) proposed a Heritage Trail network for the island of
Montserrat as the centerpiece of this ecotourism product. Tunbridge (2002) also
advocated for the inclusion of cultural tourism as an important component of
tourism development in the island of Bermuda. Other studies regarding cultural
tourism and small island destinations were more cautious, fearing the erosion of

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 473

authenticity of the local cultures as a consequence of tourism development

(Ayres, 2002; Linneken, 1997; Soper, 2007).
Thus, destinations have increased the promotion of cultural and heritage
assets for tourism consumption. And yet, according to the literature, defining
cultural tourism has not been easy (McKercher, 2002). Definition of this con-
struct has proven difficult because there are almost as many definitions or varia-
tions of definitions as there are cultural tourists. The lack of a definition has
hampered an understanding of this construct and how policy makers working to
improve and expand tourism as an experience may use it. Literature places cul-
tural tourism within a broader framework of tourism and recognizes it as a type
of special interest tourism, whereupon culture forms the basis of either attracting
or motivating people to travel (Hughes, 2002; McKercher, 2002; Richards,
2007; Silberberg, 1995).
The WTO (2005) provided two definitions of cultural tourism. The narrower
definition includes “movements of persons essentially for cultural motivations
such as study tours, performing arts and cultural tours, travel to festivals and
other events, visits to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art,
and pilgrimages.” The wider definition includes “all movements of persons . . .
because they satisfy the human need for diversity, tending to raise the cultural
level of the individual and giving rise to new knowledge, experience and encoun-
ters.” These definitions depart from other definitions of cultural tourism, such as
Girard and Nijkamp (2009) and Stylianou-Lambert (2011), which are more sup-
ply focused. This strand in the literature argues that the WTO’s broad definition
hampers product development and product management because the definition
encompasses all recreational travel.
The departure of both WTO definitions from other definitions lies in its
demand focus. The definitions capture two essential components of cultural
tourism: that is, motivation and activities. Yet both definitions lack a sense of
purpose. If you are motivated and engaged in cultural activities, that still does
not respond to another important element of traveling, which is purpose. The
level of engagement and purpose for travel constitute the most serious missing
elements of these definitions, thereby failing to establish precise boundaries to
the construct. This presents a major challenge in identifying and isolating eco-
nomic impacts associated with cultural tourism. The implication is that the range
of activities and products may be as broad as the investigator desires (McKercher,
2002).
Contributing to problematic definitional issues is also a measurement prob-
lem. The measurement problem has two dimensions. The first dimension is
related to the tourist behavior. In many cases, tourists choose a mixture of cul-
ture and recreation during the same vacation. But most statistics do not track
leisure and culturally motivated tourists separately. For example, the tourism
statistics only specify as to the purpose of the visit (e.g., vacation, honeymoon,
wedding, incentive/award travel, friends and family visits, golf, business and
leisure, business only/conference/convention). Consequently, one has to rely on

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

474   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

supplementary data in order to estimate the percentage of the tourism-related

impact that might be culturally driven (Vander Stoep, 2004).
The second dimension is related to the nature of the tourism product itself.
Unlike other economic sectors, tourism is a bundle of goods responding to the
want of a customer in satisfying his/her needs through the purchase of a variety
of services. This leads to a turnover in several economic sectors. Each of these
sectors is traced separately and is not aggregated in a number representing total
demand or supply of the tourism sector and is therefore not representative of the
complete monetary flow (Hara, 2008).
These issues related to how cultural tourists are defined and accounted for
make quantitative estimation cumbersome. It is therefore imperative to clearly
establish the parameters of the methodology pursuant to answering the two
questions of this study. This study embraces the demand notion of cultural tour-
ism, thereby allowing the tourist to determine whether he or she is a cultural
tourist. This approach is aided by the several cultural tourist typologies dis-
cussed in the literature, such as Silberberg (1995), Hughes (2002), Dolnicar
(2002), and McKercher (2002). The current research attempts to segment cul-
tural tourists by considering two dimensions of centrality, that is, trip purpose
and depth of experience, through adoption of McKercher’s (2002) cultural tour-
ist typologies.
A growing body of literature claims that some people are more highly moti-
vated to participate in cultural tourism than others. Different tourists have differ-
ent abilities to engage in cultural and heritage attractions based on an array of
factors, which include level of education, income, prior visit, and a host of other
factors. McKercher (2002), for example, suggests that considering two issues
may develop a definition of cultural tourists: the main reason for the trip and the
level of experiences at the destination. A number of empirical studies have
attempted to implement this conceptualization process and to explore the typol-
ogy of cultural tourists (Kantanen & Tikkanen, 2005).
McKercher (2002) suggests that cultural tourism may be grouped into five
segments based on how important culture was in the decision to travel and on the
depth of the experience at the destination. He described cultural tourists as ser-
endipitous, purposeful, incidental, causal, or sightseeing. Purposeful cultural
tourists were identified as those people who indicated that the main reason to
visit a destination was to learn and experience its culture. Sightseeing cultural
tourists indicated less interest in experiencing and more concern with the visit-
ing cultural landmarks. The casual cultural tourists indicated that culture is less
important in the decision to visit, and they do not get deeply involved while at a
destination. Incidental cultural tourists did not consider culture as the main rea-
son to visit and, while at a destination, were only superficially involved. Finally,
the serendipitous cultural tourists stated that cultural tourism played little or no
role in their decision to visit but once at a destination had a deep experience.
Yet international bodies, such as the WTO, have not provided, thus far, a disag-
gregation of tourism motivations that would include culture as defined beyond the

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 475

traditional characterizations. Typologies continue to be based on conventional

approaches, such as vacation, business, visiting friends and relatives, and others.
Clearly, culture lacks a distinct mention or credible place in the list of tourist moti-
vators. It is therefore difficult to say how much of previous international arrivals are
genuinely culturally motivated. It is even more difficult to say which of these cul-
turally motivated tourists are defined beyond the conventional definition of cultural
tourism. Though cultural tourists are characteristically discrete from leisure tour-
ists, Aruba does not honor that distinction in its statistical analysis of tourists’ moti-
vations to visit. This study is pioneer in addressing the explicit distinction that
exists between these types of tourists. To honor the distinction, this study applied
the cultural tourist typology of McKercher (2002) to determine the cultural tourists
patronizing Aruba and the economic impact of that patronization.

Method

The analysis of this study is based on three procedural steps. First, the typol-
ogy of cultural tourists and the economic value of each of those types of cultural
tourists were tested by the distribution of a survey conducted by the Central
Bureau of Statistics of Aruba (CBS). A total of 386 departing international tour-
ists were interviewed at the Reina Beatrix International Airport from Brazil,
Canada, Colombia, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, United States, and
Venezuela. The sample was collected via the CBS’ systematic sampling method
of every fifth departing international tourist. The CBS combined its standard
monthly tourist survey with a special section on cultural tourism. The survey
asked questions related to the purpose of the visit, to participation in cultural
activities, tourists’ perception regarding the quality of Aruban cultural features,
and spending behavior. The questions were asked in both the English and
Spanish languages.
It was important to separate cultural tourists from the rest of the tourist popu-
lation. The respondents were asked how important the opportunity to learn
something about Aruba’s culture was in their decision to visit. The next question
referred to the depth of experience on the island, followed by a question about
their perception of Aruba as a cultural destination. Another question applied the
standard definition of “participation” in various activities in which the tourists
participated at any time during their stay.
The survey questions were the result of the comments from two focus groups
that were held in December 2008, in Aruba. The participants in the focus groups
represented all walks of cultural life in Aruba, ranging from various government
agencies, cultural foundations, cultural associations, private entrepreneurs, and
artists. The focus groups yielded a specific survey design consisting of 15 ques-
tions. The draft survey was discussed with CBS and went through a series of
iterations before the final draft. The final survey section for cultural tourism con-
sisted of six questions. The CBS administered the survey during the month of
July, 2009.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

476   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

The CBS collected the data and codified the results during the month of
August. The segments were defined based on break points associated with a
scale from “unimportant” to the “main reason to visit.” For example, the ques-
tion was phrased in the manner of, “How important was the opportunity to learn
something about Aruba’s culture or heritage in your decision to visit Aruba?”
Cultural tourists were therefore identified and defined by the respondents’
answer selection on the survey regarding “their main reason to visit Aruba.”
Second, the same survey was used to determine the magnitude of the direct
spending and the variety of spending by the different tourists’ profiles (e.g.,
sociodemographic makeup). Third, the economic impact of cultural tourism was
assessed through a partial equilibrium setting. The relevance of this economic
impact study rests on the notion that it is not adequate to only track direct tour-
ism spending. Typically, an input–output model (I-O model) captures the eco-
nomic effects of tourists’ spending. An I-O model is a mathematical model that
tracks the money flow between sectors within a destination’s economy. Flows
are predicted based on what each industry sector buys from each other and is
determined in a dollar’s worth of output (Hara, 2008; Herrero, Sanz, Devesa,
Bedate, & del Barrio, 2006). Using each industry’s production function, which
in the case of Aruba is captured by its national accounts, I-O models also deter-
mine the proportion of sales that go to wage and salary income, proprietors’
income, and taxes. The I-O matrix is derived from the study conducted by van
de Steeg (2009). van de Steeg (2009) developed a system of national accounts
for Aruba. The I-O framework of this study has been extrapolated from van de
Steeg’s (2009) work and covers 15 industry sectors, excluding the household
component (see Table 4). The Aruban I-O structure consists of a 15 by 15 indus-
trial sectors matrix and the final demand vector includes households’
consumption.
The basic concept of partial equilibrium analysis is that of a multiplier.
Multipliers are used to capture the secondary effects of visitor spending in a
region. There are two basic kinds of secondary effects: indirect and induced.
Indirect effects are the changes in sales, jobs, and income within backward-
linked industries in the region, that is, businesses that supply goods and services
to tourism-related firms. For example, hotels purchase a variety of goods and
services in the local area in order to produce a night of lodging. Each business
that provides goods or services to hotels benefits indirectly from visitor spend-
ing in hotels (i.e., the utility and produce from wholesalers). Induced effects are
the changes in sales, jobs, and income in the region resulting from household
spending of income earned either directly or indirectly from visitor spending.
Employees in tourism firms and backward linked industries spend their income
in the local region, thus creating additional sales and economic activity.
Therefore, the I-O model used in this study is closed with respect to
households.
The I-O analysis starts with the development of a direct requirement or trans-
action table. This table shows the sales in dollars of the total output of an

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 477

industry to all other industries in the economy as well as the final demand that
usually comprise households, businesses, government, and exports. By conven-
tion, the rows of the table indicate the industry sales (listed to the left) for each
industry sector. The final demand sectors are listed at the top of the columns. To
move from the information in an I-O transaction table (denoted as z matrix) to
an I-O model for Aruba, the technical coefficients of production must first be
defined. The z matrix denotes the monetary flows from sector i to sector j. In
order to develop the set of technical coefficients of production, or direct input
coefficients, we take the observed z, which represents the flow from i to j in the
transaction table divided by X, the total gross output of j. These coefficients are
denoted by a, so that a = z/X.
Provided that the matrix [I-A] is nonsingular, the multiplication of X by (I-A)
yields the desired vector of gross outputs as a function of final demand. This is
then expressed as X = (I-A) Y. It becomes possible to now use this model to
determine the total impact that the cultural tourist participants have on the Aruba
economy. For example, the increase in tourism-related consumption of local
cultural goods and services on Aruba’s economy may lead to a demand from
other industries that are used for production of the original event-related
products.
The results of the estimation of the economic impact based on the I-O model
should be prefaced with a caveat. The assumption of a linear relationship
between inputs and outputs has its limitations, because it assumes away exter-
nalities and increasing or decreasing returns to scale. Despite this shortcoming,
the I-O model has value in its descriptive analytical power, because it addresses
potential opportunities in enhancement of income and the multiplication of jobs.
Therefore, this model may be used to determine the total impact that the cultural
tourists survey participants have on the Aruba economy.
For example, the increase in tourism-related consumption of local cultural
goods and services on Aruba’s economy may lead to a demand from other indus-
tries used for production of the original event-related products. However, not all
increase in demand will turn into benefits for the economy; some increases may
also generate leakage. A leakage of 0.382 was estimated based on the total
Keynesian multiplier. The leakage was estimated based on the formula 1 − Total
Keynesian Multiplier. The data were collected from the tourist satellite accounts
of Aruba from the World Travel and Tourism Council.

Results

Demographic Traits of Cultural Tourists

The sample size included 386 departing international tourists at the Reina
Beatrix International Airport. The international tourists were from Brazil,
Canada, Colombia, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, United States, and
Venezuela. The respondents’ profile indicated that 47% of tourists were men and
53% were women. Tourists were drawn from a wide range of age-groups, with

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

478   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

29% being younger than years, whereas 26% were between 40 and 50 years old.
However, the majority of tourists were younger than 50 years, whereas 44%
were older than 50 years. Respondents have relatively high incomes, as almost
half of the sample had incomes above US$50,000.00 (Table 1). With regard to
the travel habits of tourists, the majority of the visitors had visited Aruba multi-
ple times (60%) while the remainder had visited Aruba only for the first time.
The overwhelming majority of tourists (80%) spent between 1 and 9 nights in
Aruba whereas 17% spent between 10 and 19 nights during their stay, and 2%
spent more than 20 nights on the island. This indicates that tourists to Aruba are
not short-stay visitors, which is evidenced by the average length of stay of more
than 1 week; more specifically, 7.8 nights with a standard deviation of 3.8.

Cultural Typologies

The profile of the cultural tourist was clearly narrowed by including the travel
purpose in the measurement criterion. It was revealed that only about one in
seven tourists indicated that the opportunity to learn something about Aruba’s
culture or heritage was the main reason to visit. This “specific cultural tourist”
accounts for a little more than 124,000 tourists who visited the island in 2008
(15%). The results are similar to McKercher and du Cros (2002) in Hong Kong
(13.4%) and to Binkhorst (2007) in the case of Sitges (Spain), where 15% of the
tourists identified culture as their main reason to visit. These results corroborate
McKercher’s (2004) claim that only a small percentage is represented by the
purposeful tourist. The other types of tourists descend in order of magnitude,
respectively: serendipitous cultural tourists, 36%; incidental cultural tourists,
32%; sightseeing tourists, 13%; and casual cultural tourists, 4%. Applying the
McKercher’s typology of cultural tourists to the case of Aruba reveals the fol-
lowing (see Figure 1).
The results further indicate that 68% of all cultural tourists in Aruba could be
classified as serendipitous and incidental, suggesting that cultural motives
played a little role in their purpose for visiting Aruba. However, while at the
destination, these two segments, especially the serendipitous cultural tourists,
would engage in cultural learning experiences. On the other hand, the sightsee-
ing cultural tourists represent 13% and while entertaining cultural motives, their
experiences reflect limited learning opportunities.
The results also indicate that the farther tourists traveled, the higher the pro-
portion of tourists who were seeking cultural experiences. Tourists from the
Netherlands were more likely to travel to Aruba for cultural reasons than visitors
from the United States and Latin America (Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil in
descending order). Tourists from Latin America in general were less likely to
visit Aruba for cultural purposes. Only 6% of the Latin travelers indicated that
the main purpose for visiting Aruba was to learn something about Aruba’s cul-
ture, compared with 11.5% from the United States and 29.1% from the
Netherlands. These findings suggest that cultural distance may influence

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 479

Table 1
Cultural Tourist Demographic Information

Sightseeing Serendipitous Purposeful Incidental Casual

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Origin (N = 380)
Brazil 1 1 0 0 0
Canada 1 1 1 0 1
Colombia 0 0 0 0 1
Netherlands 3 0 2 0 1
Netherlands Antilles 0 1 1 0 1
Other 1 3 2 0 1
United States 26 24 9 3 7
Venezuela 3 2 1 1 2

Previous visit (N = 380)

2-5 times 10 6 4 1 3
6 times and up 9 11 8 3 6
First 17 14 4 1 4

Age in years (N = 380)

20-29 6 4 1 0 1
30-39 6 6 3 0 2
40-49 9 8 4 1 4
50-64 11 8 5 2 4
≥65 years 4 5 2 1 1

Salary in US$ (N = 380)

<20,000 2 1 0 0 2
≥100,001 7 8 1 1 2
20,001-30,000 2 1 0 0 1
30,001-50,000 6 7 4 1 3
50,001-75,000 13 10 5 1 2
≥75,001 6 3 4 0 3

Length of stay in days

(N = 380)
≥20 1 0 1 0 0
10-19 3 4 4 1 4
1-9 32 28 10 3 9

participation in international cultural tourism thereby confirming the claim from

McKercher and Chow (2001) and Goeldner and Ritchie (2012).
In terms of the sociodemographics and trip variables, incidental and casual cul-
tural tourists were less likely to spend more time than the purposeful cultural tour-
ists. In general, the former spent about 6.35 nights on average on the island. About

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

480   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 1
Cultural Tourist Typology for Aruba

58% of the incidental and casual cultural tourists are younger than 50 years whereas
the purposeful cultural tourists were more likely to be older. The purposeful cultural
tourists (48.6% earned more than US$50,000) had a higher income (40.2% earned
more than US$50,000) than the incidental and casual cultural tourists.

Participation in Cultural Activities

Table 2 illustrates that all respondents participated in at least one cultural

activity at some time during their stay in Aruba. The degree and scope of partici-
pation varied widely among the respondents. While in Aruba, the overwhelming
majority of respondents engaged in beach and shopping activities. Gastronomy,
visiting historic sites, and visiting or participating in cultural events appeared in
descending order as the most likely activities that the tourists engaged in during
their stay. Thirty-six percent of the respondents visited a restaurant with a local
cuisine, 36% visited historic sites, and 22% visited museums, art galleries, fes-
tivals, and sites of architectural significance. The purposeful cultural tourists
were more likely to visit a restaurant with a local cuisine (about one in two), a
little more than one in two were more likely to visit a historic site, and more than
8 in 10 were likely to visit or participate in some sort of cultural site, activity, or
event compared with the casual and incidental tourists. However, the findings

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 481

Table 2
Sites Visited by Cultural Tourist Typologies

Sightseeing Serendipitous Purposeful Incidental Casual

Site (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Beaches 36 32 16 4 13
Shopping malls 36 30 15 4 14
Center of Oranjestad 36 29 16 4 14
North Coast 33 18 30 2 18
San Nicolas 29 19 29 4 19
Gastronomy 36 29 20 5 10
Rock formations 33 13 31 4 20
Island tours 45 22 18 1 13
National park (Arikok) 35 13 29 4 19
Historical sites, Franse Pas 39 19 26 3 14
Museums, galleries, festivals 30 4 52 3 10

suggest a high degree of dispersion of tourists among different cultural attrac-

tions, such as gastronomy, historic sites, and the traditional cultural attractions.
For the purposeful segment, the visiting of museums, galleries, and festivals
were the most engaged activities (M = 52%), whereas beaches, shopping, and
sightseeing were less appealing activities to this segment (M = 16%, 15%, and
18%, respectively). The sightseeing tourist, on the other hand, appeared more
interested in island touring (M = 45%), historical sites (M = 39%), gastronomy
(M = 36%), as well as the usual tourist behaviors manifested in beaches (M =
36%), and shopping (M = 36%). The serendipitous tourist was more interested
in beaches (M = 32%), shopping (M =30%), gastronomy (M = 29%) combined
with some interest in island tours (M = 22%), and historic sites (M = 19%). The
incidental tourist appeared somewhat interested in the natural landscape as man-
ifested in the visit to rock formations (M = 20%), the national park (M = 19%),
the rugged north coast (M = 18%), and some modest interest in cultural attrac-
tions, such as visiting San Nicolas (M = 19%). Finally, the incidental tourist
manifested little interest in visiting any cultural attractions while on the island.
The results are consistent with McKercher’s (2002) typology in terms of the
depth of the experience while on the island.
The participation in activities reveals that cultural tourists visiting Aruba
spend considerable less time in formalized cultural environments such as muse-
ums, galleries, and historic buildings. Except for the purposeful cultural tourists,
who seem to spend a great deal of their time at museums and historic sites, other
cultural types spend more time shopping and dining. For example, the incidental
cultural tourists spend more time shopping and dining than visiting museums,
galleries, and historic sites. In addition, the cultural tourists roam all over the
destination from the beach, to the downtown area, to the national natural park,
to the caves, to the far eastern part of the island, and the town of San Nicolas.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

482   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 3
Perception of Aruba as a Cultural Destination

Sightseeing Serendipitous Purposeful Incidental Casual

Perception (%) (%) %) (%) (%)

Little unique culture, 9 17 0 0 1

history, or heritage
Rich in culture, 9 2 13 2 9
history, and heritage
Some features that 18 13 3 2 4
are unique

The cultural experience for these tourists seems to stem more from their
observation and interactional aspects with the host culture in the form of every-
day life, practices, and behaviors. Everyday life experiences appear to generate
tourist excitement for the Aruba product, as witnessed by the high incidence of
repeat visitation of more than 60% according to the results of the study.

Perception of Aruba as a Cultural Destination

More than 7 in 10 visitors perceived Aruba as a destination rich in culture,

heritage, and history, or as unique in culture (Table 3). Unfortunately, the survey
did not provide the opportunity for respondents to specify the attributes that
make Aruba’s culture unique. The reference of “unique” is a surprising finding
for two reasons. First, there was a clear consensus among participants in the
aforementioned focus groups indicating that Aruba lacks a unique culture, which
is in sharp contrast to what tourists perceived about Aruba. Second, as Aruba is
not richly endowed with “traditional” cultural attractions (i.e., museums, galler-
ies, or monuments), one could speculate that the respondents were characteriz-
ing Aruba’s culture as the ordinary and everyday. This speculation is based on
the current global trend to identify the realities of cultural change as an authentic
interaction and engagement with the locals. Not surprisingly, the purposeful cul-
tural tourists indicated the strongest position about Aruba’s unique cultural fea-
tures when compared with the other segments.
The results thus far indicate that the main purpose for traveling to Aruba was
vacationing. Cultural tourism seems to play a marginal role in the decision to
visit the island. However, the cultural resource seems to play a greater role dur-
ing the vacation of the tourist. For example, the serendipitous tourist in Aruba
represents 36% and although they may be familiar with the local culture, they
are surprised at what they experience once they become involved. These tourists
were from more culturally distant regions and tended to seek deeper experi-
ences, were younger, stayed about a week, visited Aruba multiple times, and had
an income that exceeded $50,000. These cultural tourists constitute a little more
than half of the tourists and portrayed a distinct profile in terms of tastes and

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 483

Table 4
Analysis of Variance Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Results of Spending

Spending Mean Difference (I − J)

Serendipitous
Incidental −13.23
Sightseeing −46.92*
Casual −51.15
Purposeful −131.72**
Incidental
Serendipitous 13.23
Sightseeing −33.69
Casual −37.93
Purposeful −118.49*
Sightseeing
Serendipitous 46.92*
Incidental 33.69
Casual −4.24
Purposeful −84.80**
Casual
Serendipitous 51.15
Incidental 37.93
Sightseeing 4.24
Purposeful −80.56*
Purposeful
Serendipitous 131.72**
Incidental 118.90*
Sightseeing 84.80**
Casual 80.56*
F statistic 13.3**

*p < .05. **p < .001.

preferences. Finally, the specific cultural tourists were likely to find Aruba’s
culture unique, and they appeared to define culture more in terms of everyday
life and the ordinary than the “traditional” cultural attractions.

Assessing the Economic Impact of Cultural Tourism: The Results

The findings reveal two interesting patterns about the tourists visiting Aruba.
The first refers to the extent of participation in cultural activities while in Aruba.
Respondents indicated that they have participated in at least one cultural activ-
ity. These activities range from entertainment, to arts, crafts, photography,
books, music, education, and historical sites. The outcome of that participation
equals US$23.14 million in direct spending of cultural goods and services (see
Table 4). This is equivalent to 2% of the total international receipts in 2008.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

484   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 5
Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impact for all Cultural Tourists

Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total

Agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing 0 129,525 62,294 191,819

Mining and quarrying 0 46,156 103 46,259
Manufacturing 0 830,389 737,490 1,567,879
Electricity, gas, refined petroleum 0 971,046 1,472,779 2,443,825
products
Construction 4,625,875 502,531 231,902 5,360,308
Wholesale and retail trade 9,761,957 1,799,350 1,683,451 13,244,759
Hotels 4,358,398 78,120 42,020 4,478,538
Restaurants 0 106,265 667,429 773,694
Transport, storage, and 0 899,818 1,029,663 1,929,482
communications
Financial intermediaries 0 1,625,417 1,090,605 2,716,022
Other business activities 0 1,636,553 3,624,773 5,261,326
Public administration/social security 4,393,574 155,282 214,617 4,763,527
Education 0 31,283 92,936 124,219
Health and social work 0 13,230 125,144 138,374
Other community social service 0 106,855 1,127,039 1,233,894
activities
Households 0 0 15,160,286 15,160,286
Total 23,139,804 8,931,821 27,362,531 59,434,211

Note: All values are in US$. Calculation based on van de Steeg (2009).

The second refers to the spending behavior. Cultural tourists to Aruba spent
on average per person per trip an amount of US$30.81 on different cultural prod-
ucts and services. The visitor revenues were derived from the total amount of
visitors times the average spending per person per trip. The average spending
reflects the spending per person over the whole length of stay in Aruba. The
purposeful cultural tourist was the highest spender with US$66.61, followed by
the casual (US$32.95), sightseeing (US$30.81), serendipitous (US$19.12), and
incidental (US$14.62). An analysis of variance test indicated that the spending
behavior of the purposeful cultural tourist was significantly different than the
other four segments. In addition, the spending behavior of the serendipitous and
sightseeing segments was also statistically different.
Considering activities as the determinant for defining the cultural tourists, as
the WTO seems to suggest, would indicate that basically all tourists visiting
Aruba would correspond to some extent to one of the cultural segments as indi-
cated by McKercher (2002). However, focusing on participation in activities as
the determinant for cultural tourists provides little insight in terms of the real
motivation to visit Aruba.
The contribution of the cultural tourism segment to the economy of the island
includes both the direct effects of economic activities in tourism-related indus-
tries as well as the indirect and induced (multiplier) effects that ripple through
the local economy (Table 5). Therefore, the roughly US$23.1 million spent by

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 485

Table 6
Spending by Cultural and Leisure Tourist

Cultural Tourist Leisure Tourist

Categories US$ % US$ %

Cultural spending 12,418,834 5 29,232,052 3

Transportation 18,846,568 8 63,644,741 6
Shopping 29,334,878 12 134,854,530 12
Food 73,303,282 30 263,511,946 23
Other spending 14,461,000 6 94,379,687 8
Accommodation 56,025,237 23 346,330,044 30
Entertainment 23,876,476 10 122,531,884 11
Casino 17,398,828 7 101,850,012 9
Total 245,665,103 100 1,156,334,896 100

the cultural tourists in the tourism economy generated an additional US$8,931,821

in indirect economic impacts for the island. This is equal to a multiplier of 1.36.
The induced effects, on the other hand, generated an additional US$27,362,531
for a multiplier of 2.19. The induced effects were significantly higher than the
indirect effects, meaning that the impact is greater in the field of salaries and
benefits than in sales for other businesses. The total economic contribution of
the cultural tourism segments through the purchase of cultural goods and ser-
vices amounted to US$59,434,211. The real total impact, which includes the
leakage of 0.382, amounts to US$36.2 million.
The sales patterns also provide an indication of how widely spread cultural
tourism is throughout the economy. Multiplier effects denote the linkages in the
local economy. Linkages to retail, food and beverages, entertainment and recre-
ation, professional and administrative services, finance and insurance, health
and social services, and government have effects throughout the local economy,
according to the findings of this study. Both the multipliers were above one,
rendering a portion of sales into household income.

Consumption of the Purposeful Cultural Tourist

If the definition of cultural tourists is more narrowly measured, for instance,

through the purpose of their visits, and if all the expenditures of this segment of
tourists are taken into account, then the total number becomes significant.
Fifteen percent of all respondents stated that culture was the main purpose for
their visit to Aruba. This is equivalent to an amount of more than 124,000 tour-
ists in 2008 arrivals. The total direct spending including all expenditures, such
as accommodation, transportation, restaurants, shopping, entertainment, cultural
goods and services, etcetera was estimated at US$245.7 million whereas its total
economic contribution was estimated at US$623 million. The multiplier was

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

486   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

2.52 without the leakage; if the leakage is included, the total amount becomes
US$385.1 million.
This study compared this segment of cultural tourists with the leisure tourist
(85%) visiting Aruba. By estimating the expenditure for each segment separately,
we were able to simulate the economic impact for each group. The direct spend-
ing of the leisure segment was estimated at US$1,156 million, and it generated a
total economic contribution of US$2,965, equivalent to a multiplier of 2.5 (see
Table 6). Tourists (both cultural and leisure) spent more than US$41 million on
cultural activities and goods, which equals 3% of the total tourism receipts.
This study also included a t test for all spending categories per person per trip
in order to test for significant differences in spending behavior. The results
revealed a significant difference in cultural spending (t = 5.227), transportation
(t = 4.297), and food (t = 4.135). This seems to indicate that cultural tourists
spend more on cultural activities and goods, seem to enjoy eating out, and they
seem to be more “footloose” around the island—their mobility affording greater
opportunity for a full lifestyle experience than the leisure tourist. In addition, the
cultural tourist tends to spend 16% more while on the island (US$1,981) com-
pared with the leisure tourist (US$1,645). This result provides support regarding
the claim that is made in literature that the cultural tourist is more likely to spend
more money than a leisure tourist.

Conclusions

McKercher’s (2002) typology seems limited in its application to a small

island destination, such as Aruba. The typology is imputed in consideration of
the tourists’ behavior exhibited in their chosen cultural activities at the destina-
tion. These activities may assist in the determination of the role that culture may
play in the destination choice process of a tourist. However, the typology does
not allow for one to conclude whether the tourists entertain a perception of
themselves as cultural tourists. In other words, although the tourist may be
involved with all kinds of cultural activities while on vacation, the tourist may
not consider himself as a cultural tourist. As McKercher’s typology did not
require direct queries to the tourists about the purpose of their visit to a destina-
tion, it was revealed that by not asking the purpose of their trip the ability to
quantify the economic significance of this segment for a small island destination
could be clouded.
In addition, the typology seems to consider only activities that are heritage
based. Cultural heritage does not seem to be a strong element in the choice of
tourists visiting Aruba. This finding seems inconsistent with the assumption that
preserving heritage is good policy for tourism development. Cultural tourism as
defined by tourists who explicitly manifest culture as the main purpose of their
visit appears much smaller as a segment compared with other types of tourism,
such as beach tourism. Cuccia and Cellini (2007) found a similar result in their
study of tourists visiting Scicli, a Sicilian town in Italy. What seems more

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 487

relevant in the Aruban context is the promotion of culture as experiencing the

everyday life in Aruba. The findings suggest that tourists perceive the everyday
life experience as unique thereby providing Aruba with an opportunity for dis-
tinctiveness and authenticity. Authenticity has become an important element in
tourism consumption (Ramkissoon & Uysal, 2010).
But defining distinctiveness as everyday life is challenging in the Aruban
context. Everyday life encounters are spontaneous and ad hoc and therefore are
very difficult to manage and coordinate. Managing heritage as real estate and
history seems less complex than managing narratives emanating from everyday
life. The government, for example, may have less control over the making of
these narratives and behavior. And, the coordination efforts of the government or
the destination management organization may be exacerbated by the “footloose”
tourist who roams the island encountering various practices and behaviors that
could affect the image of the island. In addition, culture as everyday life may run
counter to the perception of culture as tradition and historic—as might be the
perception of stakeholders in the focus group meeting. The meaning of culture
as something related to tradition and past is also confirmed by the 2003 Tourist
Framework (Cole & Razak, 2009). Culture in this sense may be viewed as pre-
serving something related to history and not referencing the dynamic pressures
for change and permutations in everyday cultural activities and lifestyles.
In the case of Aruba, the overarching theme in the discussion with local
stakeholders during the focus groups was their keen desire to identify what is
culturally distinguishable from other small island destinations. The local charac-
ter of distinguishable cultural traits identified by the stakeholders seems related
to time and memory, thereby colliding with the notion of culture as entertained
by tourists consuming the Aruban product. Whereas the Aruban stakeholders
seem to emphasize the preservation and enhancement of space (monuments,
historic buildings, natural landscapes), the tourists seem to be more interested in
the human interaction and the context of space itself. The reason seems to be that
culture is a dynamic concept imbued with constant negotiations within a con-
stantly changing context. The role of the past in defining the self as an imposed
interpretation of what is authentic Aruban style in some a priori form seems to
collide with the relevance of the everyday life as the most appealing trait of
authenticity of the local culture. Surely, if the everyday life shapes the notion of
distinctiveness and possibly defines authenticity in the local context, then Aruba
may be restraining itself from creatively making culture an utilizable resource
for future development.
These inconsistent characterizations may have diminished the role that cul-
tural tourism could have played in the reinvention strategy in the context of Aruba
possibly squandering opportunities to increase spending on the island. While
tourists seem to consider everyday life practices and behaviors the cornerstone of
Aruba’s uniqueness, Aruba has spent millions of dollars during the past decade to
preserve and conserve the past. This policy followed the concerns articulated in
the 2003 Tourist Framework, which are based on tangible artifacts, traditions, and

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

488   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

history. Conserving and preserving the past clearly seems to enjoy political cur-
rency. However, these aspects of cultural tourism seem less critical in shaping the
tourist experience according to the findings of this study. It appears that the expe-
rience of shopping, eating, drinking, and so on may be more critical in determin-
ing the distinctiveness of Aruba as a destination and hence plays a more significant
role in the level of satisfaction and spending behaviors of the tourists.
Aruba may have missed an opportunity to enhance the overall value of its
product and its competitiveness. This missed opportunity comes at a moment
when the level of tourist spending is becoming a concern. Tourist spending
appears to be stagnating over the past decade. For example, real spending per
arrival has been relatively stagnant the past 10 years. In 2000, the real spending
per arrival was US$2,003.47, compared with US$1,927.94 in 2010. Examination
of the past decade reveals that Aruba has experienced a slight decrease of 0.3%.
Aruba saw a real increase per arrival until 2006 (US$2,255.36) and after that a
continuous slide of real spending per arrival.
This stagnation may compromise the success of Aruba’s tourism specialization
strategy in the future. Despite the fact that increasing arrivals have induced higher
levels of imports (a 4.5% annual rate increase over the past 25years), tourism spe-
cialization thus far has been growth enhancing (real annual economic growth is
2.6% over the past 25 years) while combining with a very high human develop-
ment index (0.901; Croes, 2011). Tourism specialization in Aruba is also slowly
diversifying its economy. The diversification in the economy is manifested in a
decreasing leakage factor from 41% in 1996 to 38.2% in 2011. Tourism spending
is closely correlated with growth, human development, and economic diversifica-
tion in the case of Aruba. Determining means and methods for Aruba to increase
this spending is strategically critical for the future of this small island destination.
The practical implications of this study are that small island destinations
should include in their immigration cards the option of culture as a main purpose
to visit along with the traditional options, such as vacation, business, and visit-
ing friends and relatives. In addition, this study clearly indicates that there may
be potential for the production of cultural tourism attractions and activities in
offering tourists access to the everyday life. There is where the tourists’ curiosity
seems to peak. If this were to be the case, then it seems that cultural tourists
could indeed be the next frontier for Aruba. Future research should more closely
investigate the meaning and economic value of the everyday life in the context
of a small island destination.

References
Armstrong, H., De Kervenoael, R., Li, X., & Read, R. (1998). A comparison of economic
performance of different micro-states and larger countries. World Development, 26,
639-656.
Ayres, R. (2002). Cultural tourism in small-island states: Contradictions and ambiguities.
In Y. Apostolopoulos & D. Gayle (Eds.), Island tourism and sustainable development:
Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean experiences (pp. 145-160). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 489

Binkhorst, E. (2007). Creativity in tourism experiences, the case of Sitges. In G. Richards

& J. Wilson (Eds.), Tourism, creativity and development (pp. 124-144). London,
England: Routledge.
Brau, R., Lanza, A., & Pigliaru, F. (2003). How fast are the tourist countries growing?
The cross-country evidence (FEEM Working Paper Series, 85[2003]).
Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J., & Wall, G. (1996). Sustainable tourism in islands and
small states: Issues and policies. London, England: Pinter.
Cameron, C., & Gatewood, J. (2008). Beyond sun, sand and sea: The emergent tourism
programme in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3, 55-73.
Cole, S. & Razak, V. (2003). A framework for sustainable tourism in Aruba. Prepared
for the National Tourism Council of Aruba and the Minister of Tourism and
Transportation. Oranjestad, Aruba.
Cole, S., & Razak, V. (2009). How far, and how fast? Population, culture, and carrying
capacity in Aruba. Futures, 41, 414-425.
Craigwell, R. (2007). Tourism competitiveness in small island developing states (World
Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper No. 2007/19).
Croes, R. (2006). A paradigm shift to a new strategy for small island economies:
Embracing demand side economics for value enhancement and long terms economic
stability. Tourism Management, 27, 453-465.
Croes, R. (2010). Anatomy of international demand: The case of Aruba. Saarbrucken,
Germany: Lambert Academic.
Croes, R. (2011). Measuring and explaining competitiveness in the context of small
island destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 431-442.
Cuccia, T., & Cellini, R. (2007). Is cultural heritage really important for tourists? A con-
tingent rating study. Applied Economics, 39, 261-271.
Dolnicar, S. (2002). Activity-based market sub-segmentation of cultural tourists. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 94-105.
Girard, L., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Cultural tourism and sustainable local development.
Surrey, England: Ashgate.
Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, J. (2012). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hara, T. (2008). Quantitative tourism industry analysis. Oxford, England: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Hernandez-Martin, R. (2008). Structural change and economic growth in small island
tourism countries. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 5, 1-12.
Herrero, L., Sanz, J., Devesa, M., Bedate, A., & del Barrio, M. (2006). The economic
impact of cultural events: A case-study of Salamanca 2002, European capital of cul-
ture. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13, 41-57.
Hughes, H. (2002). Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Managing
Leisure, 7, 164-175.
Jayawardena, C., & Ramajeesingh, D. (2003). Performance of tourism analysis:
A Caribbean perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 15, 176-179.
Kantanen, T., & Tikkanen, I. (2005). Advertising in low and high involvement cultural
tourism attractions: Four cases. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6, 99-110.
Linneken, J. (1997). Consuming cultures: Tourism and commoditization of cultural iden-
tity in the islands in the Pacific. In M. Picard & K. Wood (Eds.), Tourism, ethnicity

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

490   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

and the state in Asian and pacific societies (pp. 215-251). Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal
of Tourism Research, 4, 29-38.
McKercher, B. (2004). A comparative study of international cultural tourists. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 11, 95-107.
McKercher, B., & Chow, B. (2001). Cultural distance and cultural tourism participation.
Pacific Tourism Review, 5(1/2), 21-30.
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between
tourism and cultural heritage management. New York, NY: Hayworth Hospitality
Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). The impact of cul-
ture on tourism. Paris, France: Author.
Ramkissoon, H., & Uysal, M. (2010). Testing the role of authenticity in cultural tourism
consumption: A case of Mauritius. Tourism Analysis, 15, 571-583.
Richards, G. (1996). Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 23, 261-283.
Richards, G. (2007). Cultural tourism, global and local perspectives. New York, NY:
Haworth Hospitality Press.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2007). Tourism, creativity and development. London,
England: Routledge.
Romer, P. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
8, 3-22.
Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heri-
tage sites. Tourism Management, 16, 361-365.
Smith, M., & Robinson, M. (2006). Cultural tourism in a changing world, politics, par-
ticipation and presentation. Clevedon, England: Channel View.
Snowball, J. (2008). Measuring the value of culture: Methods and examples in cultural
economics. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Soper, A. (2007). Developing Mauritiunnes: National identity, cultural heritage values
and tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2, 94-109.
Srinivasan, T. (1986). The costs and benefits of being a small, remote, island, Landlocked
or Mini-state economy. World Bank Research Observer, 1, 205-218.
Streeten, P. (1993). The special problems of small countries. World Development, 21,
197-202.
Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2011). Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art museums.
Annals of Tourism, 38, 403-421.
Timothy, D., & Nyaupane, G. (2009). Cultural heritage and tourism in developing world.
London, England: Routledge.
Travel Industry Association. (2003). The historic/cultural traveler. Washington, DC: Author.
Tunbridge, J. (2002). Large heritage waterfronts on small tourist islands: The case of the
Royal naval Dockyard, Bermuda. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8, 41-51.
Vallega, A. (2007). The role of culture in island sustainability development. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 50(5-6), 279-300.
Vander Stoep, G. (2004). Challenges of estimating and using economic impacts for
cultural tourism. In Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research
Symposium, GTR-NE-326 (pp. 109-117). Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/new-
town_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2005/326papers/vanderstoep326.pdf

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015

 Croes, Semrad / CULTURAL TOURISM AND SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS 491

van de Steeg, A. (2009). Accounting for tourism, the tourism satellite account in perspec-
tive. The Hague, Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Weaver, D. (1995). Alternative tourism in Montserrat. Tourism Management, 16, 593-604.
World Tourism Organization. (2005). City tourism and culture: The European experi-
ence. A report of the World Organization and of the research group of the European
Travel Commission. Madrid, Spain: Author.
World Tourism Organization. (2011). Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.
unwto.org/facts/eng/IT&TR.htm

Submitted June 11, 2012

Accepted March 11, 2013
Refereed Anonymously

Robertico Croes, PhD (E-mail: robertico.croes@ucf.edu), serves as the Chair of the

Tourism, Events & Attractions Department and the Associate Director of the Dick Pope
Sr. Institute for Tourism Studies at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Kelly J. Semrad, PhD (E-mail: ksem
rad@hhp.ufl.edu) is the Associate Director of the Eric Friedheim Tourism Institute and
an Assistant Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on December 7, 2015