Cultural tourism: Case study Portugal : Case study Portugal [1 ed.] 9783842829480, 9783842879485

Cultural tourism is nowadays considered the fastest growing market in tourism. The research was obtained to gain further

159 110 499KB

English Pages 106 Year 2012

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Cultural tourism: Case study Portugal : Case study Portugal [1 ed.]
 9783842829480, 9783842879485

Citation preview

Laura Duhme

Cultural tourism

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Case study Portugal

Diplomica Verlag

Laura Duhme Cultural tourism: Case study Portugal ISBN: 978-3-8428-2948-0 Herstellung: Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, 2012

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des Urheberrechtes. Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften. Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und der Verlag, die Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. © Diplomica Verlag GmbH http://www.diplomica-verlag.de, Hamburg 2012

Abstract Cultural tourism is nowadays considered the fastest growing market in tourism (OECD, 2009). The research was obtained to gain further insight about cultural tourists. The study explored cultural tourists in Portugal through investigating the profile, motivation and level of interest of cultural tourists, in the specific case of Silves. Silves is a small town in the Algarve region, and as the former Capital of the Algarve in the period when the Arabs were ruling, the town is left with Arabic Heritage.

The literature of cultural tourism revealed that further research is needed about the relation between the dependent variable of socio-demographics/trip characteristics and motivation and preferences for behavioural items of the cultural tourists.

The scientific paper provides a combination of primary and secondary research in order to examine the topic, achieve the objectives and test the hypotheses. A quantitative approach was applied. For the primary research, a survey was carried out at the site of Silves in Portugal, whereby altogether 196 valid surveys were obtained.

The primary data gave evidence that tourists who come to the Silves are not only interested in Sun & Beach, but also in cultural attractions. Most cultural tourists are 41-50 years old, and can be considered highly educated. Slightly more than 50% of the sample can be considered as a highly interested cultural tourist. The highly interest and the low interest groups seem to differ in gender, nationality, if they have an occupation related to culture, and the distance travelled to Silves. In terms of motivation only the nationality seems to have an influence. Furthermore, cultural tourists who stay longer in Silves are also more likely to visit more

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

cultural attractions.

(Word count: 19984)

Acknowledgements First of all I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my supervisor: Ana Ferreira, who has been supportive throughout the process of the writing. I would like to thank Professor Jose who not only encouraged me, but also gave me good advice at any time I needed it. Further I would like to thank Paulo Augus, who was particularly helpful when it came to analysing the data with SPSS.

This book is dedicated to my parents for their love, endless support and encouragement. My parents not only gave me the opportunity to receive an excellent education, but also gave me the strengths to study away from home for several years. Without them, none of this would have been possible. It is almost difficult to imagen, to which lengths especially my mum supported me; I would like to show my deepest gratitude to her and my dad. I would also like to thank my little brother, for his continuous encouragement and belief in my ability.

Last, but not least, I would like to express many thanks to my friends, for their unconditional support and love. I am very thankful for having them, even though we do not see each other often, but I always know you are there for me. Special thanks go to Eva, Alex, Ana, and Bergthora who have continuously been there for me during the last year. Also a great thanks

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

to all of those who have helped me with the writing of the book and collecting the surveys.

ii

Table of Contents Table of Contents

iii

List of Tables

v

List of Figures

vi

List of Abbreviations

vii

Chapter 1 Introduction

1 1 1 2 3 3

1.1 Background of the study 1.2 The rationale of the research 1.3 Aim and Objectives 1.4 Methodology 1.5 Research framework

5 5 5    18   23  !  26

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Cultural tourism                    2.3 Tourist Motivation                  2.4 Case study Silves !    "   !     !#  2.5 Summary

27 27 27 29 30 31   & '  40 41 42

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Chapter 3 Methodology 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Research Aim and Objectives 3.3 Type of Research 3.4 Primary versus Secondary Data 3.5 Primary research $  $  %  #  #   !$

    "   (")"     3.6 Data Analysis 3.7 Research Limitations 3.8 Summary

43

Chapter 4 Main findings 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Profile of tourists visiting Silves 4.3 Motivation of tourists visiting Silves 4       4       

     4.4 Classifying the tourist’s degree of interest in cultural tourism iii

43 43 48 !*  58

72

Chapter 5 Discussion and Recommendations 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Discussion of the main findings 5.3 Recommendations for further research

References

79

Appendices

86 86 91

Appendix 1: Survey Appendix 2: ATLAS Survey

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

72 72 78

iv

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

List of Tables Table 1: Brief comparison of the post-modern tourist and cultural tourists profile. Table 2: Typology of cultural tourist. Table 3: Comparison between motivation, preferred activities and undertaken activities per type of cultural tourist. Table 4: Four categories of motivators. Table 5: Questions respective the travel career system. Table 6: Testing sample size requirement Table 7: Profile characteristics gained through Q11-14 Table 8: Occupation (or former occupation) connected with culture? (n=192) Table 9: Had the respondents visited Silves before (n=196) Table 10: Distance Travelled to Silves (n=181) Table 11: Type of cultural attractions visited Table 12: Primary Purpose when respondent indicated two purposes (n=118) Table 13: Primary Purpose when respondent indicated one purpose (n=74) Table 14: The importance of motivational items Table 15: Result of testing different grouping solutions Table 16: ANOVA test result, testing the relation between respondent’s characteristics and his/her motivation. Table 17: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference in answering ‘Relaxing in a nice safe setting’. Table 18: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference in answering ‘Enjoying the adventure of discovering Silves’. Table 19: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference in answering ‘Seeing and doing things with friends’. Table 20: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference when indicating the preference for ‘enjoying a day out with family’. Table 21: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference when indicating the importance for ‘visiting well known and talked about attractions’. Table 22: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference when indicating the importance for ‘Improving my knowledge and understanding of people etc.’ Table 23: Preference of travelling for educational/cultural reasons or recreation/fun (n=195) Table 24: Preference of travelling for growing personally or to relax (n=195) Table 25: Preference of visiting well known attractions first or obscure attractions first (n=195) Table 26: Preference of local markets or brand name shops (n=191) Table 27: Number of attraction visited (N=193) Table 28: Lengths of stay in Silves (n=193) Table 29: Scheffe post hoc testing, length of stay and number of attractions visited (n=190) Table 30: Chi-square test to show if there is a significant difference between number of attractions visited and the answer to Q6-10 Table 31: Preference of travelling for educational/cultural reason or recreation/fun (n=192) Table 32: Preference of seeing travel as a chance to grow personally or to relax (n=192) Table 33: Chi-square test results of tourist characteristics and the response to Q6-10 Table 34: Gender versus preference in growing personally or relaxing (n=194) Table 35: Result of testing different grouping solutions Table 36: ANOVA test, for the three variables which give indication for the level of interest Table 37: Final Cluster Centres Table 38: Chi-square test, relation between socio-demographics/trip characteristics and interest level Table 39: Socio-demographic/trip characteristics according to the two group segmentation in interest Table 40: Objectives and related Hypotheses

v

12 14 16 20 22 35 44 46 47 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 67 69 70 73

List of Figures

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Figure 1: Towards a typology of cultural tourism attractions. Figure 2: Map of Portugal & the Algarve. Figure 3: Map of the Algarve. Source: Barbarareadvillas.com, 2011. Figure 4: Occupational group

vi

9 24 25 45

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

List of Abbreviations ANOVA

Analysis of variance

ATLAS

Association for Tourism and Leisure Education

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

IR

Importance Rating

SP

Self-Perception

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TCL

Travel Career System

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNWTO

United Nations World Tourism Organization

WTO

World Tourism Organization

WTTC

World Travel and Tourism Council

vii

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background of the study Over the past few years the Algarve is struggling with a decreasing number of tourist arrivals, while at the same time the region is highly dependent on tourism, as it accounts for 66 percentage of the Algarve’s GDP (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2003). This puts the Algarve into an economically unstable position and calls for solution, which has to be found soon.

Nationally Portugal is now active with diversifying its tourism product, to boost the industry again (Turismo de Portugal, 2007). The national strategic plan for tourism, developed by the Ministry for Economy and Innovation in 2007 is aiming to improve the urban planning, environmental, entertainment and cultural content. Especially in the Algarve region, the strategic plan is aiming to improve the Sun and Beach product and focus on the development of a complementary offer that can increase the value of the current product to the tourist. Cultural tourism is one component of this complementary offer.

During an interview with the Cultural Department of Silves Municipality, who is responsible for all aspects of tourism meaning growth, resource allocation and long term-strategy, it was pointed out that the number of tourists arrivals were steadily decreasing. They therefore consider it to be essential to conduct research in order to get a better understanding of the visitors and their motivation. Their aim is to increase the competitiveness of the town as a tourist attraction/destination according to P. Garcia (personal communication, March 2, 2011). The latter can contribute to improve the overall image of Portugal and the Algarve. Therefore the purpose of the study is to examine the profile and motivation and further to investigate the Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

level of interest of the cultural tourists visiting Silves.

1.2 The rationale of the research The researcher’s personal reason for carrying out the research is that she likes to travel for cultural reasons, more specifically to get to know other cultures and learn from that experience. The researcher is interested to learn about cultural tourism, which might be a 1

future aspect of her work, as she would like to work in the cultural tourism industry. Another reason for choosing this topic is that it gave the researcher the opportunity to learn more about Portugal’s Tourism Industry, as she did her second semester in Portugal and she found it particularly important to choose a topic which in a way might benefit the region she was currently living in.

For professional reasons, it seems important for the Silves Municipality to get a better understanding of their visitors, as they suffer from a declining number of tourists according to P. Garcia (personal communication, 2 March, 2011). Further the researcher noticed that investment has been made e.g. new parking, cafe and entrance, but there is a lack of knowledge on how to implement these new features. A greater knowledge about the profile, motivation and the level of interest of the cultural tourists can assist better understanding about the demand and help to amend the product to the demand. To date there is little research to no research carried out about Silves as a tourist attraction, it is therefore considered very important.

1.3 Aim and Objectives The aim of the research is to investigate the profile, motivation and level of interest of cultural tourists in Portugal: A case study of Silves.

In order to achieve the aim of the research, the following objectives have been set:

o Examine the profile and trip characteristics of tourists visiting Silves o Investigate the motivation of tourists visiting Silves o Explore the level of interest of the cultural tourists o Investigate if there is any difference in the socio-demographic and their Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

preferences for certain behavioural items

The above objectives lead to six research hypotheses:

H1 There is no link between length of stay and the total number of attractions visited H2 There is no link between cultural tourists characteristics and his/her motivation 2

H3 Visitors of Silves can be grouped according to McKercher and Du Cros’ cultural tourists typology

H4 There is no link between preference for education/culture or recreation/fun and the number of attractions visited

H5 There is no link between preference for growing personally or relaxation and the number of attractions visited

H6 There is a link between socio-demographics/trip characteristics and the level of interest of the cultural tourists

1.4 Methodology In order to achieve the aim and objective of the research a quantitative research approach has been applied. 196 surveys have been collected directly at the site of Silves, whereby a mobile interviewing approach was utilised. This primary data were then analysed with the help of SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).

1.5 Research framework •

Chapter One provides an introduction to the research, the aim and objectives of the research, the rationale which is the reason why it is important to study the topic, an outline of the methodology and lastly it presents the structure.



Chapter Two presents the literature review that has been conducted. It provides a discussion about cultural tourism, cultural tourist attractions, cultural tourists, tourist

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

motivation and an introduction to Silves Municipality. •

Chapter Three describes the methodology of the research. It justifies and explains which type of research has been conducted and how the questionnaire was designed, collected and tested. It shows which statistical methods are used to analyse the data and finally the limitation of the research. 3



Chapter Four presents the empirical findings of the research, which are gathered through a questionnaire in order to achieve the aim, objectives and in order to test the hypotheses. The findings were analysed with the help of SPSS.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.



Chapter Five discusses the findings, gives recommendations for further research.

4

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Introduction This chapter illustrates the literature review; it therefore considers the literature relevant to the topic (Hart, 2005). The aim is to determine what is already known in the research area, the concepts, definitions and theories which are relevant, research methods and research methods applied to a similar topic. Further it determines the controversial opinions, the findings and inconsistencies in the findings and if the existing research has left any questions open (Bryman, 2008).

People are seemingly more and more motivated to travel to improve their knowledge of other cultures. The chapter is divided into four sections. It starts with a discussion of cultural tourism, thus a general definition of the term, the typology of cultural attractions and cultural tourists. Many theories have been proposed to explain human motivation to travel. Although the literature covers a wide range of such theories, this review focuses on the definition of tourist motivation and the most commonly used theories to study motivation. The research is carried out for the specific case of Silves: therefore an understanding about Portugal’s tourism industry and an introduction to Silves as a tourist destination is given.

2.2 Cultural tourism Cultural tourism will be discussed in this part of the literature review, in terms of definitions as well as the typology of cultural attractions and the cultural tourists, his/her characteristics, how he/she can be typified and some indicators to measure the level of interest of the cultural

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

tourists.

2.2.1 Definition of cultural tourism

According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), tourists have a growing interest to learn about cultural and historical heritage. As a result cultural tourism has become the fastest growing market in tourism (OECD, 2009). But what is actually cultural tourism? 5

In fact all forms of travel involve a certain element of culture, since travelling always means to displace one from its own culture to another. Cultural tourism consequently has to be more than just displacement from someone’s own culture (McKercher et al., 2002).

Cultural tourism is difficult to define, because it is composed of two terms culture and tourism. The definition of ‘culture’ alone is already difficult, combined with the definition of ‘tourism’ it is even more complex (Jamieson, 1994). According to Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1985 citited by Reisinger and Turner, 2003) culture has been defined in over 160 ways, which indicates the complexity of the term. Similarly, the definition of tourism has been pointed out to be a difficult task, as it is a multidimensional phenomenon (Cruz, 2006) (Holden, 2005). According to Walle (1998), cultural tourism refers to tourism activities which are involved around culture. This definition is quite weak, as it might not clearly highlight the difference in the above-described element of traveling by McKercher, et al. (2002). Therefore, ICOMOS, (1994, p.1) defined cultural tourism as “[…] that form of tourism whose object is, among other aims, the discovery of monuments and sites”. In the latter definition, it is essential to note that in cultural tourism, culture does not have to be the only aim or the primary purpose, thus it can be just part of it, but it is essential to be one aim. Foo (1998) proposed the same treatment, thus everybody who visits one or more cultural attractions can be considered a cultural tourist. Richards and Munsters (2010, p.15) gave two definitions of cultural tourism. The conceptional way of defining cultural tourism is: "The movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural needs". The technical definition is "All movements of persons to specific cultural attractions, such as heritage sites, artistic and Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

cultural manifestations, arts and drama outside their normal place of residence" (Richards and Munsters, 2010 p.15). The first definition focuses on why the cultural tourist is travelling and what he/she is seeking, this is helping to understand the motivation of cultural tourists. On the other hand the latter definition points out the behaviour or the activities the cultural tourists is seeking.

6

As there are many definitions of cultural tourism McKercher and Du Cros (2002) suggest it is necessary to divide the many definitions made for cultural tourism into four broad categories: tourism-derived definition, motivational definition, experiential or aspirational definition and operational definition. They argue it is necessary, because people shape the definition to suit their own needs. The more comprehensive ones usually come from politicians or marketers who want to point out the importance and size of cultural tourism, to justify investment. In comparison, some try to make it narrower and only include a few activities to be considered cultural tourism. During the conference “Heritage and Cultural Tourism: The Present and Future of the Past” held in 2008, several Key Note Speakers for example Alison McIntosh, pointed out the importance of cultural tourism and that it is still very important to carry out more research on it, since there is not sufficient understanding (Gelbman and Ron, 2009). Ritzer and Liska (1997) suggest that a shift in the purpose of travel has taken place, as originally people were travelling to explore new places and now travel destinations and products have become more standardised and so they call it the McDonaldisation of tourism. Nevertheless Ritzer and Liska (1997) believe that there will be always demand for DeMcDonaldisation, and therefore for cultural tourism products. Butcher (2001) describes the new role of culture in tourism, giving the example of Guggenheim Museum. Guggenheim opened a branch in Bilbao, the city paid over $25 Million to stock the branch with art of other Guggenheim subsidiaries. It is important to highlight at this point that Guggenheim is an alien culture in the surroundings of Spain. The goal of Bilbao, by adding some international culture/art to their city is to raise the city’s international profile and attract tourists to spend more money. On the other hand, Guggenheim itself is also linking up with another global ‘brand’, the Hermitage, to develop a joint venture museum in Las Vegas. This seems to be a sign of a radical development of the

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

cultural tourism industry into a more business oriented way (Butcher, 2001). Although there is no generally accepted definition of cultural tourism, this form of tourism is concerned with the country or regions culture for example the history, architecture, religion or customs (OECD, 2009). It is also important to point out that, independently of the primary purpose for visiting an other place, someone who visits one or more cultural attractions or events can be considered a cultural tourist, because he/she is taking part in cultural tourism (Richards, 1996b). 7

2.2.2 Typology of Cultural Attraction

In order to understand the different characteristics of cultural attractions and activities a closer look is taken. The typology of cultural attractions should contribute to a better understanding of cultural tourism. In the first part, it was mentioned that someone who visits cultural tourist attraction is taking part in cultural tourism, but what are those so-called cultural attractions?

ECTARC cultural attraction typology (cited Richards, 2001 and Richards, 2005) has defined eight categories of cultural attractions:

1. Archeological sites and museums 2. Architecture 3. Art, sculpture, crafts, galleries, festivals, events 4. Music and dance 5. Drama 6. Language and literature study 7. Religious festivals, pilgrimages 8. Complete culture and sub-cultures The above typology is more descriptive; it shows the range of attractions/activities in cultural tourism, which is useful to identify cultural tourism attractions. However, it is rather narrow and risks some attractions being left out (Isaac, 2008), such as historical heritage centres. It can be thought of as a list instead of a comprehensive typology of cultural attractions. It does not describe the characteristics of cultural attractions, which would help to identify cultural tourist attractions. It further does not implicate the similarities or differences between attractions which would provide a base to differentiate between cultural attractions and attractions.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Figure 1 displays Richards (2001) matrix, which can be useful to position different types of cultural attractions. Richards (2001) divided cultural activities into the time scope it is based on, thus if the attraction/activity is based on the past or one might say history, for example museums, monuments, art galleries etc. or if its more focused on the present like language courses, art exhibitions etc. Secondly he determined the function of the attraction/activity by whether it is educational or if it has a more entertaining purpose. This can be also referred to as the expected benefit for the visitor, or the need, which can be satisfied by the attraction. 8

Each type of tourist has different needs, as established in several theories of tourist typology (Gray, 1970; Cohen, 1979; Plog, 1972 cited Cooper, et al., 2008), logically according to the attributes of the cultural attraction; each would attract another segment of tourists. The matrix facilitates a better understanding of the purpose and allows certain attributes to be associated with attractions.

Towards a typology of cultural tourism attractions

Figure 1: Towards a typology of cultural tourism attractions. Source: adapted by Richards, 2001.

In a study which showed that the socio-economic status (education and income) could be an effective predictor for participation in diverse cultural attractions, proposed cultural attractions to be grouped in four main types: festival and musical attractions, commercial recreation parks, local festivals and fairs, and knowledge/aesthetic seeking attractions (Kim,

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

et al., 2006). In comparison to the other two typologies of cultural attractions, this one focuses on the profile of the tourist visiting the attraction. Kim, et al. (2006) argues that people with a certain socio-economic status will prefer different cultural attractions.

In conclusion the three typologies give three different ways of looking at cultural attractions. The first purely lists the cultural attractions according to its activity the second looks at the experience it provides, thus which need it can satisfy and the last typology typifies them by 9

who is actually interested in the cultural attraction. The typology of cultural attraction from Greg Richards seems particularly helpful, as it also gives understanding of what the cultural tourist’s needs might be Richards (2001).

2.2.3 Cultural Tourist

2.2.3.1 Cultural Tourist Characteristic

In this part the general characteristics of the cultural tourist, based on socio-economic profile, attitude, motivation and behaviour are reviewed. It is not only important to know who the cultural tourist is, but also what differentiates the cultural tourist from other tourists, if indeed they can be distinguished. What are believed to be the typical personality traits and socioeconomic status of the cultural tourist, which makes him/her different from the ‘regular’ tourists? This might at the same time give some clues towards his/her motivation. However, ‘cultural tourists’ vary from those who have only a passing interest in local culture, to those who are driven by their specific interests to seek out something specifically ‘cultural’ in a particular destination (Richards, 1996a). Nevertheless, in this part, only the general profile and characteristics of the cultural tourist are considered, while in the next part we look at the differences in the segment of cultural tourists.

The ATLAS Cultural Tourism Project, established in 1991 with funding from the European Commission with the goal to establish a transnational database on cultural tourism (Richards, 1996a), collected data from 20 different cultural sites all over the world. According to this data, the cultural tourists have the following profile; men and women are equally likely to be cultural tourist, most are in the age group of 20-29 years, 70% have at least a degree or a higher degree and almost 30% of them have an occupation related to culture. 60% of the cultural tourists answer that their primary purpose to visit the destination is holiday. Over

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

30% go specifically on cultural holidays and most visit museums during those holidays. Their main source of information about the destination or attraction is family and friends (Richards, 2007). In spite of a very thoroughly collected survey, the profile seems fairly general, A reason might be that the survey is conducted at so many diverse sites worldwide and it is therefore more of an average than the real profile. This study collects similar data, so they can be compared and proof the validity of the general profile.

10

Moscardo and Pearce (1999 cited Lubbe, 2003) describe the cultural tourists as sophisticated, well educated, morally responsible and ‘politically correct’ whereby the latter two actually describe the values of the cultural tourist. Furthermore they point out that cultural tourists are interested in experiencing ‘culture’. However the method of doing so is diverse, some of them are seeking direct contact with the ‘other’ culture and some prefer to experience it at a distance. Cultural tourists want to learn about other cultures, therefore the more knowledge and experience the cultural tourist has, the more likely it is he/she is better at interacting with foreign cultures. Another characteristic is that they like to move at their own pace and have many choices of activities (Moscardo and Pearce 1999 cited Lubbe, 2003). The last statement seems more of a generalisation and does not seem to be a very specific trait, which could contribute to distinguish the cultural tourists from others. Nevertheless, this description already gives evidence that there are different preferences for certain behavioural items within the group of cultural tourist, thus it seems that it is not a homogenous group.

Smith (2003) believes that the cultural tourists are looking for the adventure to experience a new and different place. She suggests that cultural tourists do not only travel to arrive at the destination, they also find a considerable amount of joy in the process of travelling. The use of the local public transport system is frequent and the cultural tourist finds pleasure in sometimes being squashed between locals and their bags of rice or chicken. She describes cultural tourists as seemingly interested in engaging with what is distinctive about a place and seeking interaction with local people. Most of the cultural tourists are on a quest for ‘authenticity’, in terms of sites, communities and activities, they are also often on a quest of self-improvement (Smith, 2003). The description seems very much based on the belief that cultural tourists are a homogeneous group of travellers and all seek some kind of ‘deep’ experience.

The list adapted from Smith (2003) displays the difference in profile and motivation between Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

the post-modern tourist and the cultural tourist.

11

Table 1: Brief comparison of the post-modern tourist and cultural tourists profile. Source: Smith, 2003.

The post-modern tourist ƒ Enjoys simulated experience, often also at home ƒ Little differentiation between tourism, leisure and lifestyle ƒ Acceptance that there is no true authentic experience ƒ Treats the commodification of the tourist experience as playfully ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Adapted from

The cultural tourist ƒ Keen on personal displacement and the notion of ‘travelling’ ƒ Actively seeking difference ƒ ƒ ƒ

Ironic detachment from experiences and situations Little interest in differentiating between reality and fantasy Interested in ‘hyper-real’ experiences Acceptance of representations and simulations

ƒ ƒ ƒ

Seeking objective authenticity in cultural experience Concerned with existential authenticity and enhancement of self Earnest interaction with destinations and inhabitants May have idealised expectations of places and people Interested in ‘real’ experience Disdain for representations and simulations

Silberberg (1994) says even though there are differences in different cultural products it is actually possible to see a common pattern among the group of cultural tourists. A cultural tourist is usually a person who earns more money and also spends more money during vacation, prefers to stay at hotels than in other types of accommodation and is more likely to go shopping. He/she is highly educated, tends to be older and more women are cultural tourists then men.

It might actually make more sense, instead of generalising the cultural tourists to one homogenous group to look at the different types of cultural tourist, since it seems almost unfeasible to generalise the cultural tourists. According to McKercher and Du Cros (2002) not all cultural tourists are highly motivated to travel for cultural reasons and seek for a deep Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

experience. The study will contribute to the question about the homogeneity of the cultural tourists.

2.2.3.2 Cultural tourist typology

Isaac (2008) pointed out that even within the group of cultural tourists there are different motives and profiles. Literature has been examined on how cultural tourists can be typified, according to different levels of commitment, purpose, behaviour, profile, level of interest etc. 12

It is based on the assumption that the cultural tourism market is not homogeneous and that different types of attractions will appeal to different types of cultural tourists (McKercher, et al., 2002). For many who participate in cultural tourism activities, culture is a secondary reason or might not play a role at all (Silberberg, 1995; Richards, 1996b). It is therefore necessary to develop a cultural tourists typology which can be widely applied.

One attempt to divide the group of cultural tourist was made by Bywater in 1993. Bywater (1993 citied in Pearce and Butler, 2002) segmented the cultural tourist market into three categories; intentional cultural tourist, opportunist cultural tourist, non-intentional cultural tourist. The segmentation is based on several previous surveys and typologies, however it is

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

not specified on which ones (Pearce and Butler, 2002).

13

Table 2: Typology of cultural tourist. Adapted Bywater (1993 citied in Pearce and Butler, 2002).

Type of cultural tourist

Description

Intentional cultural tourist/culturally This

tourist

selects

the

destination

because of a specific interest and the

motivated tourist

cultural product on offer they are highly motivated to learn and gain from the experience. They spend more time in one destination and do research before going there; they are also likely to be guided by a professional tour guide.

cultural

tourist/The This tourist is attracted by special cultural

cultural inspired tourist

themes they prefer to go to well-known

Opportunist

places

of

culture

and

the

major

exhibitions and festivals. They do not stay long in one place; they try to collect experiences from many places.

Non-Intentional

cultural She/he is usually on sun and sea beach

tourist/Cultural attracted tourist

holidays and just during this vacation might just occasionally visit a city or historic site, museum, church, monument in order to diversify his/her holiday programme. They do not research the destination, but they appreciate the offer

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

given to them.

The typology describes three categories of cultural tourists, Bywater (1993 citied in Pearce and Butler, 2002) and similar to the typology of McKercher and Du Cros (2003), he distinguishes between a tourist who does or does not researcher the destination before going there, the activities he/she is taking part in, the lengths of stay and the primary purpose of going. 14

Two years later, Silberberg (1995) has identified four types of cultural tourists; the study was based on a sample in Ontario Canada. He divided cultural tourists according to their degree of motivation. The four types are (1) greatly motivated by culture, (2) motivated in part, (3) for whom culture plays an adjunct role in their trip decision and (4) the accidental cultural tourists the latter tourists does not intend to go to cultural attractions or events but sometime during the trip visits cultural tourist attractions. McKercher and Du Cros (2002) have developed one of the latest cultural tourists typologies. According to McKercher and Cros (2002) cultural tourists can be segmented into five types, those where culture plays a significant role when deciding to travel and who have a deep experience and those where culture is no motivational factor when deciding to travel and they have a shallow experience. McKercher and Cros (2002) therefore categorised according to their cultural motivation and experience: 1. Purposeful cultural tourist: The main motive is to visit a destination is to experience the culture; the tourist is fairly experienced with other cultures. 2. Sightseeing cultural tourist: The key motive to visit the destination is experiencing the culture, but the tourist is not very experienced with other cultures. 3. Serendipitous cultural tourist:

The tourist is not visiting a destination for the

cultural experience, but is open to participate and in the end will have a deep cultural experience. 4. Casual cultural tourist: Has a weak motive to visit a destination for cultural purpose, his experience is shallow. 5. Incidental cultural tourist: Does not travel for cultural purposes but participates in some activities, resulting in some shallow cultural experience (McKercher and Du

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Cros, 2003)

Table 1 shows the identified differences between motivation, preferred activities and activities undertaken. It is criticised that McKercher and Du Cros (2003) did not provide information about all types of cultural tourists: they differentiate little between purposeful and sightseeing cultural tourists. Further they only mention that the latter would be generally less motivated by the factors mentioned and prefer less the activities mentioned. They also did not the describe the difference between casual and incidental cultural tourists very thoroughly. 15

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 3: Comparison between motivation, preferred activities and undertaken activities per type of cultural tourist. Source: Adapted from McKercher and Du Cros, 2003.

Motivation - To travel for educational or cultural reasons - travel as a chance to learn about another's culture - chance to grow personally

Preferred activities - preferred museums over shopping - liked to visit out of the way or obscure attractions - preferred to shop in local markets rather than in stores selling brand names - tended to do more research about the destination prior to visiting

Activities undertaken visited both Chinese and British colonial sites and were also the greatest consumers of commercial day-tour

cultural

- To travel for educational or cultural reasons - travel as a chance to learn about another's culture - chance to grow personally

- preferred museums over shopping - liked to visit out of the way or obscure attractions - preferred to shop in local markets rather than in stores selling brand names - tended to do more research about the destination prior to visiting

visited both Chinese and British colonial sites and were also the greatest consumers of commercial day-tour

cultural

- recreation and fun - relaxation - getting closer to family and friends

- preferred to shop at named brand stores - rather see the main sites of a destination - do little research before visiting

Casual cultural tourist

- recreation and fun - relaxation - getting closer to family and friends

Incidental tourist

- recreation and fun - relaxation - getting closer to family and friends

- preferred to shop at named brand stores - rather see the main sites of a destination do little research before visiting - preferred to shop at named brand stores - rather see the main sites of a destination do little research before visiting

Purposeful tourist

cultural

Sightseeing tourist

Serendipitous tourist

cultural

16

preferred visiting easy to consume, low involvement, well known, entertainment orientated, mass tourism cultural attractions. - Theme parks and IMAX-type cinemas

Even so McKercher and Du Cros (2003) could find evidence between the above difference within the group of cultural tourists, they could not find evidence for differences in the sociodemographics and trip variables, for example length of stay. The only evident difference is the age of the cultural tourists per group.

This is contradicting towards the finding of Kim, et al., (2006), who found significant differences in socio-economic status per cultural activity participated. Kim, et al., (2006) found evidence that visitors of festival and musical attractions and knowledge/aesthetic seeking attractions often have a higher education and income, while in comparison visitors of commercial recreation parks are usually less educated and have a lower income. They explain the findings through a different cultural capital. The one group has more knowledge, which is needed to enjoy festival and musical attractions and knowledge/aesthetic seeking attractions (Kim, et al., 2006).

The disparity in the findings of Kim, et al. (2006) and McKercher and Du Cros (2002), might be due to the place of where the data was collected. People travelling a long distance for their vacation, can in general be assumed to have a similar socio-economic background. This study will investigate if there is any difference in the socio-demographic background and trip variable.

According to the literature, the cultural tourists cannot be seen as a homogenous group, it is important to differentiate them into groups. However everybody who visits one ore more cultural attractions can be treated as a cultural tourist. That is why for this research all visitors of Silves are considered cultural tourists.

Further the literature gives evidence that the level of interest of cultural tourists could be measured through the amount of research an individual does before arriving at a destination, Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

and their motivation, for example the main intention or purpose for travelling. Another indicator is the number of attractions someone is visiting or is planning to visit. Hereby, the most simplest approach is to work out what the 'average' cultural tourists does (probably visiting one or two attractions), and it can then be identified who is more active, thus more interested, in comparison to the other. However, he also suggested it is important to take length of stay in consideration G. Richards (personal communication, June 16, 2011. 17

2.3 Tourist Motivation Motivation of tourists seems to be one of the most complex topics. According to Dann (1981) and Jafari (2000) it is actually difficult to believe that all researchers or academics study the same topic. This indicates how difficult the research for tourist motivation actually is. In this part, an understanding of tourist motivation is outlined and literature about different tourist motivation is discussed.

2.3.1 Definition of Tourist Motivation

Motivation is derived from the word ‘motive’, which comes from the Latin word ‘movere’ and means to move (Oxford dictionaries, 2011). The dictionary classifies motivation as the reason to act or behave in a certain way (Oxford dictionary, 2011). According to the above definition, motivation is the reason ‘why’ an individual or group have behaved or are about to perform an action (Crampton, et al, 1997). Schiffman, et al., (2008) explains motivation as the individual driving force that impels them to an action. However, motivation of tourists is very complex, but at the same time very important, since there would be no demand for tourism if there was no motivation (Sharpley, 2006). McCabe (2009) explains that it is important for an organisation to understand the customers’ motivation to buy a certain service or visit a location and why they did not choose another. Motivation to travel or consume a certain service is also generating expectations within the individual and the way expectations are met will therefore influence the satisfaction of the individual (Gnoth, 1997). The organisation that is best able to understand the motivation of the customers is most likely to be most successful in the nowadays hypercompetitive tourism market.

Sharpley (2006) considers motivation as the link between a ‘felt need’ and the action chosen to satisfy the need, this is a need-based approach to look at motivation. To understand the motivation of the travellers, it is according to this definition necessary to find out the needs of Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

the tourists (Lubbe, 2005; Sharpley, 2006). Tourists have certain needs and people expect their needs to be fulfilled by their tourism experience (Fodness, 1994). (Lee and Kim, 2002). Needs give rise to motivation; these energise forces intent to meet the needs (Lubbe, 2005).

A tourism motivation study carried out by Marcussen and Zhang (2007) gives evidence that motives for visiting a destination vary by nationality. This supports the findings of Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) who believe that tourists vary in their motivation, thus they 18

have different driving forces. Individual tourist’s motivations are not only determined by the nationality (Marcussen and Zhang, 2007), but also by personality, lifestyle, past experience, past life, perceptions, and image (Swarbrooke and Horner, 1999). Further, it is important to keep in mind that motivation is a dynamic concept, thus motivation changes over time and a person may change their motivation when they move through the family life cycle from a single more career oriented person to a more family oriented person (Pearce, 1993).

Even though motivation is a critical variable in understanding and explaining tourist behaviour, there are other variable such as perceptions, cultural conditioning, and learning, which are important to be explored before getting a very complex picture of the tourist behaviour and a tool to predict their behaviour (Fodness, 1994). Beside the complexity and that one looks only at one variable out of many, even in motivation research many motives remain hidden. One reason for that is that motives are in the subconscious of a person and cannot be easily brought to light by using questionnaires (Krippendorf, 1999). Therefore, it is rather difficult to get a comprehensive understanding of the tourist.

McIntosh, Goeldner and Ritchie (1995 cited Cooper, et al., 2008) assume that the different and endless list of motivations can be grouped into four categories, displayed in Table 2.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

These can be seen as the basic travel motivators (Jayapalan, 2001).

19

Table 4: Four categories of motivators. Adapted McIntosh, Goeldner and Ritchie (1995 cited Cooper, et al., 2008).

Type of motivator

Description

(1) Physical motivators

Involving the refreshment of body and mind, health purpose, sport, and pleasure, linked to activities able to help reduce tension

(2) Cultural motivators

This group refers to the desire to see and know more about other cultures, to find out about the natives of a destination, their lifestyle, local gastronomy, folklore, dance, etc…

(3) Interpersonal motivators

Those related to a desire to meet new people, visit friends or relatives, and to seek new and different experiences. Travel is hence considered as a mean to escape from routine relationships with friends or neighbours, colleagues or the home environment or it is used for spiritual reasons

(4) Status and prestige motivators

They are seen to be originated from the desire of recognition and attention from others to boost the personal ego. Apart from this desire, this category additionally includes personal development on relation to the pursuit of hobbies and education (McIntosh, Goeldner and Ritchie (1995 cited Cooper, et al., 2008).

2.3.2 Tourist Motivation Theories

Motivation has always been one main focus in tourism research, but until now there is no commonly accepted framework in researching tourist motivations (Huang, 2010). Pearce (1993) explains that the reason for not finding a common framework is that tourist motivation is such a complex psychological construct. In this part, we will discuss the main approaches to study motivation, which are attempting to get a comprehensive understanding of the tourist. In tourism research, one classical approach to understand motivation is to differentiate Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

between ‘push and pull’ factors; people travel because they are pushed and pulled to do so by ‘‘some forces’’ or factors (e.g. Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981; Pearce, 1993). The concept is based on the understanding that people travel because they are pushed into making this decision by internal forces and pulled by external forces of the destination attributes (Uysal and Jurowski, 1994).

20

Dann (1982) argues that the push factor deals with tourist motivation directly; it is what encourages individuals to move away from their usual environments by means of travelling. In comparison pull factors are those which attract the individual towards the destination (Dann, 1981; Crampton, 1979).

Push factors are defined as an internal motive that causes tourists to seek activities in order to reduce their needs; it is also defined as the initiating factor of making the decision to travel. These motives include escape from personal/social pressures, social recognition/prestige, socialisation/bonding,

self-esteem,

learning/discovery,

regression,

novelty/thrill,

and

distancing from crowds according to Botha, Crompton and Kim (1999 cited Kim and Lee, 2002). In contrast, the pull factor is a destination-generated force, which is influenced by the knowledge of the tourists about the destination for example beaches, recreation, facilities and cultural attractions (Gnoth, 1997). Commonly, push factors are used to explain the desire to go on vacation, while in comparison pull motives seem to be useful to explain the choice of destination (Crompton, 1979).

Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) developed the travel motivation theory, which is known as the Travel Career Ladder (TCL) and the aim of the theory is to help study the motivation of the tourists. The theory is based on two thoughts; the Maslow hierarchy of needs (1970) and the concept of a career in tourism (Pearce and Lee, 2005). The TCL model describes how tourist motivations can be ranked into five different levels. According to the theory, the tourists progress upwards in their tourist ladder, starting with fulfilling relaxation needs and then going on to safety/security needs, relationship needs, self-esteem and development needs, and self-actualisation/fulfillment needs. Thus people have a travel career; a pattern of travel motives that changes according to their life span and accumulated travel experience, with more experience they increasingly seek satisfaction of higher needs. Inexperienced travellers prefer the security of a package tour, but with accumulated experience he/she will seek for a Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

more independent way of travelling. Laing (1987 cited Ryan, 1998) argued that holidaymakers try to optimise their travel experience and once they understand what kind of holiday best suit their needs, they will become repeaters. Instead of developing further as suggested in the TLC model, they will stay on the same level.

Table 3 illustrates the questions that were adopted by Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) in order to categorise the tourist into their level of career stage. 21

Table 5: Questions respective the travel career system. Source: Adapted from Pearce and Caltabiano, 1983.

Questions respective to the travel career system Code

Motivation Statements

Career level

Relaxing

= Relaxing in a nice safe {Relaxation

setting Escape

=

Escaping

from

the

everyday world Rides/thrills

{Stimulation

= Enjoying the adventure and excitement of rides

Close friends

= Seeing and doing things with friends

Family day out

{Relationship

= Enjoying a day out with the family

Talked about

=Visiting a well known and

talked

about

attraction/site Improve knowledge

=

Improving

knowledge

my

{Self-esteem and development

and

understanding of people, places, events Part of the place

= Really feeling part of the {Fulfillment

place

Nevertheless, it is also possible that circumstances prevent the tourist from moving upwards e.g. money, health or people. It is also possible that they retire from travelling and not go on holiday at all (Pearce and Butler, 1993). Ryan (1998) criticised the TLC model, as he Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

supposes that it is not predictive for travel behaviour; in fact he questions if the model is actually based on sufficient empirical ground.

It seems that every attempt to theorise motivation has its limitations. Nevertheless there are two frequently used approaches to research motivation; one is to ask the respondents’ agreement to motivational statements using a likert-scale (Huang, 2010). The second one is to ask respondents to indicate the level of importance on a list of motivational items or 22

statements. The first is labeled as the self-perception (SP) approach and the second is named the importance-rating (IR) approach. Huang (2010) regards both of them as highly reliable and appropriate instruments for measuring tourist motivations. However both require the researcher to create a list of motivational statements, which lead to biased results. Further, the list might not be comprehensive and therefore miss items that motivated the respondent, and as he cannot indicate them the results is might be limited. Therefore, again it is rather difficult to research motivation (Huang, 2010).

2.4 Case study Silves

2.4.1 Cultural tourism in Portugal

In order to examine the tourist product environment of Silves, in this section the role of tourism specifically cultural tourism in Portugal was investigated.

In Portugal, tourism consumption contributed to 10.5% of the national GDP in 2008, which is similar to the year 2007 (OECD, 2011). Employment in tourism represented 8% of total employment in 2007, there are no recent statistics available (OECD, 2011). It is assumed that tourism still takes a similar importance to Portuguese GDP. In spite of this, statistics available from the UNWTO show that arrivals of non-resident tourists have dropped 7.51% from 2008 to 2009, especially the second biggest source market, the United Kingdom which accounts for 15.36% of the total market has decreased by 21.61% and the third biggest market Germany has decreased by 4.57%. On the other hand the first biggest market Spain has increased by 3.95 (UNWTO, 2011). Nevertheless, these numbers are a concern for the tourism industry in Portugal.

Portugal is now actively diversifying its tourism product, to boost the tourism industry again Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

(Turismo de Portugal, 2007). The National strategic plan for tourism developed by the Ministry for Economy and Innovation in 2007, is aiming to improve the urban planning, environment, entertainment and cultural content. In the Algarve, the strategic plan is aiming to improve the Sun and Beach product and focus on developing complementary offers that can increase the value of the current products to the tourists. In 2006 cultural and landscape touring was recognised as the second motivation of tourists visiting Portugal with 34% of all tourists. The strategic plan included several actions to strengthen Portugal’s cultural offer, one 23

is to offer guided cultural tours on www.visitportugal.com/mobile (Turismo de Portugal, 2007).

Richards, (2005) points out that it is rather difficult to conduct an analysis about cultural tourism in Portugal, due to a lack of systematic collected data. However, he found out that cultural tourism has received more significance in Portugal during the last 10 years.

2.4.2 Tourism in the Algarve

The Algarve is the most southern region of Portugal, which consists of an area of 4,996 km2 and a resident population of 430084 inhabitants (Algarve Tourism Board, 2011). The Algarve is bordering to the east with Spain and the rest of the area has access to the Atlantic Ocean, the Atlantic coastline measures roughly 150 km in length. Figure 2 displays the geographical location of the Algarve and shows the overall geographical location within Europe. Portugal

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

and the region of the Algarve is at the peripheral area of Europe.

Figure 2: Map of Portugal & the Algarve. Source: Barbarareadvillas.com, 2011.

The Algarve mainly depends on three economic activities: tourism, construction and commercial activities (Francesca and Sylvain, 2011). The tourism industry directly contributes to 45% of GDP and 37% of employment. Indirectly Travel & Tourism generates 24

66% of the Algarves GDP and 60% of total employment (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2003). This indicates a high economic dependence on the tourism industry with the main tourist activities being golf and beach.

2.4.3 Silves

Silves is a municipality with 10800 inhabitants located in Portugal. In the year 700 the Moors turned Silves into one of the richest cities in Europe. The Arabs from Yemen who occupied a crucial part of Portugal and Spain, turned Silves (formerly known as Xelb or Chelb) into the capital; therefore Silves used to be the most important trade city in the region. The city used to be rich with architecture, mosque bazaars, palaces and beautiful houses. In 1249 Silves fell back into the hands of the Portuguese under Alfonso III. Its importance declined over the next few centuries, mainly because Lagos and Faro gained in their economic importance (O'Callaghan, 2008). The history has left Silves with ‘cultural’ heritage; the main attraction of Silves are the Moorish Castle (Castelo dos Mouros), the Cathedral of Silves and the Cruz de Portugal (Porter and Prince, 2010). All places are in walking distance from each other and most visitors come to Silves to stroll around the town. Figure 3 shows a map of the Algarve, to understand the geographical location of Silves. Silves receives around 400-800 tourists day according to

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

P. Garcia (personal communication, May 18, 2011).

Figure 3: Map of the Algarve. Source: Barbarareadvillas.com, 2011.

25

2.5 Summary The aim of the literature review was to gain fuller understanding about cultural tourism and tourist motivation. The literature gives evidence that generally literature considers someone who visits one or more cultural attractions a cultural tourists (Richards, G., 1996a; Foo, 1998). However, it became clear that cultural tourists cannot be seen as a homogenous group, who are all deeply involved. There are many attempts to typify the cultural tourists, but there is no consensus about a general agreed cultural tourist typology which could be applied. (Richards, 1996a; Moscardo and Pearce, 1999 cited Lubbe, 2003; Smith, 2003; McKercher and Du Cros, 2003; Kim, et al., 2006; ).

The analysis of the existing literature shows that cultural tourism research still lacks knowledge regarding the relation between socio-demographics/trip characteristics and the cultural tourists (McKercher and Du Cros, 2002; McKercher and Du Cros, 2003; Kim, et al., 2006).

Motivation is the reason to act or behave in a certain way (Oxford dictionaries, 2011); it is considered to be essential to study tourist’s motivation in order to understand the demand and adjust the product (Sharpley, 2006). The need based approach of researching is regarded as the most useful one, therefore the understanding is that needs give raise to motivation (Fodness, 1994; Lubbe, 2005; Sharpley, 2006). Even though it is rather difficult to study motivation (Huang, 2010), there are two frequently used approaches; one is to asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement to motivational statements using a likert-scale and the second one to ask them to indicate the level of importance on a list of motivational items or statements (Huang, 2010).

Literature about Portugal and the region of the Algarve indicated that there is a declining

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

number of tourists arrivals (UNWTO, 2011). In order to increase the competitiveness and attract more tourists, Portugal is aiming to diversify its tourism product (Turismo de Portugal, 2007). A diversified product offer needs a good understanding of the demand, therefore research about the profile, motivation and level of interest not only of cultural tourism but also for all other kinds of tourist products.

26

Chapter 3 Methodology 3.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to describe the methodology that was applied to achieve the aim and objectives of the research. It is important to document the research method applied, so that people willing to do a similar study can understand how a researcher came to its results and also to further prove the validity of a the research (Bryman, 2008).

Before conducting the research, it is important to clarify the purpose of the research by defining the research aim and objectives and the type of research the person wants to conduct as in descriptive, explanatory or evaluative research. It is critical to determine which type of data is necessary to be collected to achieve the desired outcome. Here commonly the decision between secondary or primary data is done. The next step is to decide if a quantitative or qualitative research approach is more suitable for the research conducted. The researcher needs to define the appropriate sample size and sampling method to ensure the validity of the research. When the researcher has decided to conduct primary data via a quantitative approach, one has to develop a questionnaire design. In order to analyse the collected data the researcher needs to investigate which is the most appropriate tool to analyse the data, researchers frequently use SPSS. Lastly the researcher has to clarify what are the limitations of the conducted research (Veal, 2006).

3.2 Research Aim and Objectives The start of a research project is to clarify and define the aim and objectives of the research. In order to define the aim, it is usually helpful to review relevant literature on the topic and

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

this brings to light unanswered questions or gaps in knowledge (Seale, 2004). The aim of this book was to investigate the profile, motivation and level of interest of cultural tourists, in the specific case of Silves.

27

In order to accomplish this aim, the following objectives have been set out:

o Examine the profile and trip characteristics of tourists visiting Silves o Investigate the motivation of tourists visiting Silves o Explore the tourist’s level of interest in cultural tourism o Investigate if there is any difference in the socio-demographic and their preferences for certain behavioural items

Further five hypotheses were developed utilising existing theory. These hypotheses will be tested and verified, in whole or part, or refuted. According to Bryman (2006), a hypothesis is an informed speculation, which is worded in order to test it, in most cases about the relationship between two or more variables. The main objectives of this research are to identify the socio-demographics and motivation and to classify the level of interest of the cultural tourists visiting Silves.

Five research hypotheses:

H1 There is no link between length of stay and the total number of attractions visited H2 There is no link between cultural tourists characteristics and his/her motivation

H3 Visitors of Silves can be grouped according to McKercher and Du Cros’ cultural tourists typology

H4 There is no link between preference for education/culture or recreation/fun and the

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

number of attractions visited

H5 There is no link between preference for growing personally or relaxation and the number of attractions visited

H6 There is a link between socio-demographics/trip characteristics and the level of interest of the cultural tourists

28

Until today little research has been carried out about Silves and its visitors according to P. Garcia (personal communication, March 18, 2011). Therefore, it is important to identify the tourists, thus their profile, their motivation of coming to Silves and lastly the level of interest of the culture tourists. This is relevant for two reasons; it is vital for further development in understanding the cultural tourists and it can contribute to the understanding of why the numbers of visitors are drastically declining. This can give ground for the tourism officials in Silves to adjust the product towards the demand.

3.3 Type of Research In methodology literature between two types of researches is differentiated, a positivistic scientific research and interpretive descriptive social science research. Scientific research is usually applied in physical or natural science and based on logic, reason and the systematic examination of evidence. In comparison social science research is focused on the social behaviour of people; one difficulty in social science is that behaviour is changing constantly and therefore it is difficult to replicate the same research (Veal, 2006). Tourism research is commonly of social science research nature, since it deals with the behaviour of people, as was also the case in this research project.

According to Veal (2006) there are three types of research descriptive research, explanatory research and evaluative research. The three types of research are also referred to as the purpose of the research (Babbie, 2008). The descriptive research is usually applied in the tourism and leisure area, whereby basic patterns of behaviour are solely monitored, thus the aim is not give further explanation of the behaviour instead it is purely descriptive. The explanatory research seeks to explain social behaviour, trends and pattern often the why or the causality of behaviour (Veal, 2006). The aim of the latter research is to build theories and predict events (Mcnabb, 2008). In order to evaluate the success or effectiveness of policies or Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

programmes commonly an evaluative research is conducted, which can be further broken down into formative and summative research, the former to evaluate how a program or policy can be improved, the latter to evaluate the impact of a policy or programme (Hall, 2008). In this case, the researcher applied a descriptive research, since the aim was to purely find out the profile, motivation and level of interest, it is not the aim to explain the results or develop a theory.

29

Research can be discriminated in two models, deductive also referred to as the ‘top down’ model and inductive as the ‘bottom up’ approach model (Skinner, 2010). A researcher who applies research with deductive nature develops theories or hypotheses and then sets out to test these by using empirical data (Crowther and Lancaster, 2008). A hypothesis is to be understood as a proposed explanation about a phenomenon which is not yet supported by data, and a theory is similar to a hypothesis but usually contains several interrelated hypotheses (Veal, 2006). In comparison to the deductive research, the inductive research starts out with the collection of empirical data and based on that develops a theory. According to Skinner (2010) research frequently consists of both types.

In spite of this, it is difficult to classify the research approach applied in this book as of a deductive or inductive nature. The research approach applied has some deductive and some inductive characteristics; as for example the researcher was testing hypotheses, which is more of deductive nature. However, the hypotheses are based on other theories, which gives an inductive nature to the research.

3.4 Primary versus Secondary Data In order to plan a research project it is necessary to determine whether it is required to collect primary or secondary data. Primary data is data collected by the researcher for a current study, in comparison to secondary data, which is data used from already existing studies (Bryman, 2008).

Secondary data thus is already existing data and in most cases has been collected for other purposes, which also indicates one of its disadvantages. It might not be exactly the information needed for the current research. However, secondary data is known to have two advantage, it supposes to be less expensive to gather the information and it seems less time Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

consuming. Secondary data collection is a good way to start a research, to get a first understanding of the topic and define research problems and objectives (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Secondary data can be collected from books, journals, newspapers, emails, government documents and reports, census reports etc. (Stewart and Kamins, 1993).

30

In this case it was difficult to find secondary data; Silves keeps a list with the nationality of the visitors, and further there are some previous studies about Silves, however they are rather outdated and secondly they are conducted in Portuguese according to P. Garcia (personal communication, March 2, 2011). Since the researcher does not speak Portuguese and the data is outdated, it does not seem appropriate to work with this data.

In comparison, the disadvantages of collecting primary data is that it is more expensive and more time consuming, but since it is collected for the specific purpose of the research it is more tailored to the researcher’s needs of information. Primary data is most regularly collected through experimentation, interviewing, observation and surveys (Crowther and Lancaster, 2008).

For this research project a mixed method approach was applied, as it seems the most appropriate. The study used secondary data taken from the literature review, in order to evaluate the primary data collected. Primary data was gathered via questionnaire surveys.

3.5 Primary research In the previous section primary data was discussed. In literature two distinct research strategies can be applied to collect primary data, the so-called quantitative and qualitative research strategy (Bryman, 2008).

3.5.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

In social research science, it is discerned between two methodologies or research strategies: quantitative and qualitative research. In short, quantitative research involves numerical evidence, where as qualitative research is not concerned with numerical evidence; this would

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

be the simplest way to differentiate between the two strategies (Veal, 2006). Thus Veal (2006) supposes that the difference between the two is based on the use of different tools and not as others suggest different philosophies. According to Thomas (2003) many authors would not agree with such a simplistic way of differentiating the two methods.

For example, Newman and Benz (1998), argue that the discussion about quantitative and qualitative research, and if either one is better than the other, is based on the assumption whether or not there is one reality and if there is whether or not the reality is measurable or 31

not. Bryman (2008) writes that quantitative researchers assume that there is an objective reality, which can be measured, whereby qualitative researchers would argue social reality is subject to constant change and can therefore not be measured.

Newman and Benz (1998) further believe that the discussion about quantitative and qualitative research is founded on different opinion about how to better understand the reality, through objective or subjective methods. This indicates that Newman and Benz suppose that not both methods are equally objective. Mcnabb (2008) argues that during the process of qualitative research the researcher interacts with the research subject, thereby the researcher not only records what he sees but also uses interpretation of words and action. This would support the argument that qualitative research is more subjective. Quantitative researchers have more distance to their research subject and therefore can avoid judgments or interpretation, which would be more objective (Mcnabb, 2008). Thus the assumption is that a qualitative researcher has more space to be biased in his research, in comparison to the quantitative researcher. None of the less, none of the research strategies have a formula that can guarantee a good research, and as they are equally hard to do well, both must be critically evaluated (Brady and Collier, 2004).

Newman and Benz (1998) claim that a qualitative approach is applicable when the aim is to develop a theory and quantitative research when the purpose of the research is to test a hypothesis or theory. Thus the two research strategies are applied in different situations,; quantitative research is more applicable to deductive research and qualitative research is more relevant to inductive research (Bryman, 2008). One major distinction between the two approaches is that the quantitative research findings, due to the sample size, can usually be generalised to a bigger population, while comparison to the qualitative research is often not possible, due to the small size of the sample (Bamberger, 2000).

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Quantitative and qualitative researchers use several tools to conduct relevant information for their research. Quantitative research involves statistical analysis; tools like questionnaire surveys, observational counts and secondary sources are more useful to gain the information. During qualitative research, informal and in-depth interviews, observation and participation observation are used as a tool to collect information and necessary insight about the research subject (Bryman, 2008). 32

After carefully considering both strategies a quantitative approach was adopted. This in order to collect from a larger sample. A larger sample permits some generalisation of the findings, which the researcher believes will give a more meaningful result.

3.5.2 Sampling

Since it seems impossible out of concern for cost and time, to send a questionnaire survey to an entire population, it seems necessary to do some sampling (Veal, 2006). Sampling can be defined as the process of selecting the unit (e.g. people, organisations) from the population of interest. The concern of sampling is to select a sufficient number of people and the way to select the sample, so the sample is representative for the whole population and the findings can be generalised (Bryman, 2008). In other words, the purpose of sampling techniques is to allow the researchers to make with relatively few observations an accurate picture of a much larger population (Babbie, 2008). The word population tends to be associated with a nation’s entire population (Bryman, 2008). In terms of sampling, ‘population’ has a broader definition; it is the total category of a subject, which is the focus of a particular research, for instance all ‘students from University X’ (Veal, 2006). The term ‘population’ can also refer to nonhumans or units, for example the ‘population of beaches’, whereby beaches are the population (Ibid).

A sample is a selected part for the investigation from the entire population (Ibid). A sample can be selected by several methods, which are commonly divided in to two main categories; probability sampling and non-probability sampling (Bryman, 2008).

It is important to select a representative sample, if the researcher wants to be able to generalise the findings to the entire population of investigation (Ibid). A representative sample needs to be unbiased, thus the sample selected can no be influenced by personal

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

judgments. It further important to ensure that all members of the population have the same chance to be included in the sample.

Probability sampling is usually associated with quantitative research and considered to be fundamental for survey studies; it means that each unit of the entire population has an equal probability to be included in the sample (Bryman, 2008). Veal (2006) argues that in practice it is more problematic to apply random sampling when human beings are involved, and in many 33

cases random sampling rules can only be approximate. Even though it is associated with quantitative research, some qualitative researchers also apply random sampling (Pole and Lampard, 2002). Non-probability sampling thus means that not the entire population has the same probability to be included in the sample.

Bryman (2008) differentiates the methods of sampling by the characteristics of the method instead of giving value to the preferred use of it. In comparison, Veal (2006) discusses the method by the type of survey it is aimed to be for.

Bryman (2008) proposes that there are four methods. Simple random sampling, which is the most basic form of probability sampling, is where the appropriate sample size is defined taking cost and time into consideration, and a computer program can then can generate random numbers that then will refer to the units which constituted the sample. The other three methods are systematic sampling, stratified random sampling and multi stage cluster sampling; all off the three are methods to randomly select the sample, while also ensuring equal chances to be selected from the population.

However, Veal (2006) classifies the sampling methods in sampling for household surveys, sampling for sites/users/visitor surveys, sampling for street surveys and quota sampling and sampling for mail surveys, as he also includes quota sampling, which is a non-probability sampling method, he does not strictly differentiate between non-probability and probability sampling. After carefully studying all the methods of sampling for site/users/visitor surveys, it is the most suitable method for sampling in this case. For this method it is important to ensure randomness by applying strict rules, during the process of survey collection. The interview can be stationary or mobile where by stationary the instruction given by Veal (2008) is that the interview does not avoid certain type of visitor but rules are applied for example interviewing every fifth person after collecting and checking a survey for completeness and Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

legibility. A mobile interviewer should follow a certain route at the site and again also ask for example every fifth person on that route. Two things have to be taken into consideration; visitors who struggle with English might be less willing to take the survey and opinion holders are more willing to take the survey. This can change the outcome and make it less representative. Therefore the interviewer has to carefully try to avoid it (Veal, 2006). In this case the interviewer did not have much experience, however the rules were still successfully applied. 34

In point 3.5.5 the researcher explains the reason for the selection of the mobile approach. In order to test the sample size requirements there are several methods to determine sample size. One method is to use the formula for the sample size for the mean, which is (Israel, 2009):

Table 4 displays the sample size requirements in two situations, either when the level of confidence should be 95% or 90%.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 6: Testing sample size requirement

SD

Confidence Sig. level 95% and Error: 5%

Confidence Sig. level 90% and Error: 5%

Required n

Required n

Variable

Mean

Relaxation at as safe setting

4.56

0.812

49

34

Escaping From everyday world

4.12

1.07

104

73

Enjoying the adventure of discovering Silves

3.53

1.076

143

101

Seeing and doing things with friends

3.29

1.538

336

236

Enjoying a day out with family

4.03

1.379

180

127

Visit a well known and talked about attraction

3.49

1.144

165

116

Improving my knowledge and understanding of people, places, events

4.03

0.992

93

66

Really feeling part of the place

3.31

1.221

209

147

35

According to table 4, a sample size of around 200 meets the sample size requirements. There is however one exception for the variable ‘seeing and doing things with friends’. In that case it can be said that a sample size of 196 would achieve a confidence level of 95% and Error of 6.54%.

3.5.3 Survey Design

Commonly two methods are applied to obtain primary data, interviews and questionnaires. Both of the methods have several advantages and disadvantages, one can say that neither is always bad or always good and for some research problems usually either one is adequate for the collection of data (Oppenheim, 1992). Interviews are frequently used for qualitative research and are considered to be more time and cost consuming. In comparison questionnaires are utilised in quantitative research and are most suitable when a large number of respondents is required, as it is in most cases less time and cost intense (Veal, 2006). Interviews have the opportunity to have a wider and less pre-limited outcome in its research, since questions are more open and more flexible and questions can be adopted or added when the researcher has the feeling it could lead to in-depth answers and therefore more output. On the other hand, questionnaires have prearranged questions and answers, which can limit the information collected. However, the latter gives the researcher more structured answers, which makes comparing of data less difficult and as earlier mentioned allows the result to be generalised to the population. In terms of the respondents, they have more time to carefully fill out the questionnaire and might feel less social pressure when answering the questionnaire. The respondent may feel more anonymous and can feel free to express their own opinion; this can lead to a more truthful result of the questionnaire (Cluett and Bluff, 2006). In this case, questionnaires were the chosen research implement because they have the advantage of structured answers. The time available for the research was limited and the Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

sample size is relatively large, and so structured answers will lead to a more significant results. It is also important to give the respondent a feeling of anonymity, as otherwise the respondent might answer to imply that he is actually more interested then he/she really is.

36

3.5.4 Questionnaire Design

The next step is to design a survey, however there are things to take into consideration, for example whether it is necessary to develop a new questionnaire or if a suitable questionnaire already exists, in which case it could be wholly or partially used. The advantage of using an already existing one is that the questions have already been tested and approved to be successful or not, thus validated (Siniscalco and Auriat, 2005; Bryman, 2008). It also might make it possible to compare the results to another study (Bryman, 2008).

The most significant difference between survey questions is whether they are an open or closed question. Thus open questions allow the respondent to freely answer the question, in comparison with closed question were the respondents is presented with a set of fixed answers from which they have to choose from (Bryman, 2008). Open questions have the advantage that the respondent can really write what he wishes, however it can take more time and effort, and thus lead to incomplete questionnaires. Closed questions are therefore easier and faster to conduct and the risk of incomplete questionnaires is reduced , however the disadvantage is that the respondent cannot freely give his/her opinion (Veal, 2006). The latter advantage, led to a decision to use mainly closed questions, with open questions only used in the case of age and nationality.

In this particular research it seems appropriate to work with some already existing questionnaires and adopt them to this research. In 1991, supported by the European Union the ATLAS Cultural Tourism Research Project was set up, the aim of the project being to collect information about the profile of cultural tourists, their behaviour and motivation (ATLAS, 2011). The ATLAS Project monitors through surveys the cultural tourist and collects the data worldwide. The survey is publicly available and it operates as a modular questionnaire system; it allows participants to adjust it to their own needs by introducing their own

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

questions or shortening the survey. The original questionnaire contains six modules, the first module aims to generate information about motivation, the second about city comparison, the third about stay and activities, the fourth about expenditure, the fifth about the information source and the last about the profile of the cultural tourist (ATLAS, 2011). The questionnaire is designed by Greg Richards, however at no point is there any information available which gives the reasoning behind the question or any theoretical framework to justify the questions applied (ATLAS, 2011). 37

Since not all modules and thus the information output from the questions is relevant for this study only the survey questions from motivation, information source and profile will be applied. The questions are closed and include likert-scale questions. Data information collected can be divided into three types of information or groups, (1) respondent characteristics, thus answering the who question and giving information about the profile of the respondent, (2) activities and behaviour, hence what is the respondent doing and last (3) attitudes/motivation, why is the respondent doing something (Veal, 2006). The aim of the survey (see appendix 1 for survey) is to collect primary data about motivation, level of involvement in cultural tourism and the profile of the visitors of Silves. Questions of all above data types were applied. Foddy (1993) argues that respondents frequently answer questions even though the question is not relevant to them or they are uncertain. He argues that it is better to offer the respondent to answer with ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Not sure’. This can make the answer of the respondents more reliable or honest. Therefore Q2 provided the respondent with the option of ‘Don’t know’ and Q17 with the option of ‘Not sure’, in order to ensure that respondents only answer if they know the answer. This should provide better quality of the people who actually answer the questions.

3.5.5 Pilot survey and Pre-Pilot testing

It is important to test the survey on a small sample before applying it to the whole population sample (Oppenheim, 1992; Veal, 2006). There are many reason to do this, Veal (2006) compiled a list of reasons: o Test questionnaire wording o Test question sequencing

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

o Test questionnaire layout o Familiarity with respondents o Test fieldwork arrangements o Train and test fieldworkers o Estimate response rate o Estimate interview, etc. time o Test analysis procedure 38

Oppenheim (1992) argues that the survey testing is also important to make sure the survey contains all necessary questions for the research and might also show that some of the questions can be taken out, since the answer is not relevant for the research. Pilot testing of a survey is especially necessary when using self-completion questionnaires, to ensure that the questions are understood clearly without the respondent needing help to fell it in. Pilot testing can also bring to light that virtually everyone answers the question in the same way, and that the resulting data is not then expected to be of much interested (Bryman, 2008). Thus pilot testing can assist the researcher to improve the questionnaire and ensure a better outcome of the actual survey.

Before starting the pilot testing, the researcher decided to use pre-pilot testing. In this phase the researcher asked four experts for feedback about the survey, to ensure the quality of the questions. The outcome of this phase has influenced the actual survey design, and the suggestions made by the experts can be found in the chapter about the survey design.

The second step of the pre-pilot testing is to test the survey on people who are limited in their knowledge of English, as the researcher suggests that this can be helpful to ensure an easy understanding of the questionnaire as some respondents are expected to be limited in their knowledge of English. The people with limited knowledge of English, indicated that they did not think it is very difficult to understand the question.

The pilot testing was carried out on the 5th of July 2011; visitors of Silves Site completed ten questionnaires in order to conduct the pilot study. Beside the above-mentioned focus to improve the survey, the researcher is also aiming to understand the best way to conduct the surveys. The researcher does not have much knowledge of Silves Site, however since all visitors are of interest for study it is important to find the most appropriate spot to carry out the survey. The village has several entry points and several bigger parking areas, so there is Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

not a single spot every visitor would pass to enter or leave the town. Silves also has tourist information, however not all visitors would seek information there and it could cut the range of the sample, since it can be assumed that people who especially seek for information would go there and repeaters are less likely to go there. The Castle of Silves is assumed to be the spot of most interest for all visitors of Silves, thus setting up a stationary position to conduct the survey might be appropriate. Still there is one more thing to consider; the castle does have two entry and two exit points, however during the pilot testing the researcher was informed 39

that the second entry point will not be open over the next few weeks. The researcher had three assistants to conduct the survey, some of the assistants were very skilled and experienced in collecting surveys. After considering everything and discussing the best approach with someone from the tourism board of Silves and testing it, the researcher found that the mobile approach is most suitable P. Garcia (personal communication, July 5, 2011). Another reason for using the mobile approach is also that there is a lot of heat and sun; and people can be only approached in places, which provide shade. The researcher and the assistant followed a certain route through several points in the village and approached people and everybody was carefully advised that it is important to not be biased before asking people. It is also important to mention that the surveys were conducted across a Silves as a whole rather than at a specific site.

3.6 Data Analysis It is important to explore which data processing facilities, and thus computer software are available for the researcher (Oppenheim, 1992). Commonly, one of the biggest mistakes researcher makes is to consider how they will analyse the collected data (Oppenheim, 1992; Bryman, 2008).

SPSS (short for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) is considered the most used computer software to analyse quantitative data by social scientists. SPSS was employed to calculate standard deviation, averages, minimum, maximum, range etc. of the data collected and to display it in several charts, tables etc. (Bryman, 2008).

The decision is based on several arguments; it is commonly used software for data analysis in social science research. A further reason to use this software is that the researcher has previous experience with it and therefore knowledge of the use of the program. An additional Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

advantage is that the researcher has access to tutorials from an experienced professor and also access to the software.

In this research frequency and descriptive analysis, mean analysis, chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied among others.

For this research ANOVA and Chi-square testing was applied in the following way. In case 40

the dependent variable was quantitative, the ANOVA test was applied; and when the dependent variable was qualitative, chi-square testing was applied in order to test if there is a significant difference between the variable.

ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the of several groups are equal or if there is a significant difference between the respondents characteristics and the way he/she is rating the importance of a motivational item.

In social science the commonly accepted level of confidence is 0.05, accordingly with 95% probability the result has a significant difference (Mcnabb, 2008). Therefore if the test result shows that the value of significance is >0.05 there is no significant differences, if its 61

17

9.0

Primary/Secondary School

28

14.4

Vocational education

20

10.3

Bachelor Degree

59

30.2

Master Degree

69

35.3

Doctoral Degree

15

7.7

Other

4

2.1

Note: regarding the age ranges, there is a slightly different loading between the ATLAS survey (see appendix 1) and the applied survey.

Table 5 shows that out of 194 valid surveys, 106 respondents are female, which is a total percentage of 54.6%. In comparison male respondents only represent 45.4% of the sample. This indicates that the sample consists of more female respondents. However, the actual percentage of male visitors and female visitors might be different, therefore it merely could be

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

said that female visitors are the majority in this research. In the questionnaire the respondents were asked to indicate their nationality. In total the sample population consist of 26 different nationalities. In order to simplify the process of analysis and to help create tables which are easier to read, several nationalities were combined into one group (Babbie, et al., 2003). The aim was to get similar sized groups, therefore the nationalities were grouped into Europeans which were divided by four regions (1) British and Irish in one group, (2) Germans, (3) Dutch, (4) Remaining Europeans, and finally (5) Non44

Europeans. British and Irish represent the biggest group with 30.5% and the second biggest group are represented by Remaining Europeans with 27.3%. The smallest group with 8.2% of the sample are Non-Europeans, coming from countries such as USA, South Africa and Morocco.

Generally the respondents are fairly scattered into the different age groups; this shows that there is not an exclusive age group interested in Silves and therefore it could be seen as a destination for all groups regardless of their age. Nonoftheless people in the age of 41 to 50 years represent the largest group with 26.1%. This differs from the findings of the ATLAS Project, which identified that most cultural tourists are in the age group of 20-29 years (Richards, 2007). In this case, respondents in the age of 21-30 represent only 20.3%, which is the third largest group. The smallest two age groups are represented by the below 20 years old with 3,7% and the above 61 years old with 9%, thus generally speaking most visitors are in the age of 21- 60 years.

The ATLAS Project identified that 70% have at least a degree or a higher degree (Richards, 2007). This can be confirmed by the current research, however actually more than 70% has a degree or a higher degree, which makes in total 75.3% of the respondents. 35.4% of the respondents hold a Master’s degree and 7,7% hold a Doctoral Degree, whereas according to the European Union the average number of people holding a Doctoral Degree is estimated to only be 0.6% (European Commission, 2007). It can be confirmed that the sample and therefore the cultural tourists are generally highly educated. This additionally confirms the study of several researches, which found that cultural tourists are highly educated (Silberberg,

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

1994; Moscardo and Pearce, 1999 cited Lubbe, 2003; Richards, 2007).

45

Figure 4: Occupational group

According to the European Commission occupational groups can be classified into high skilled, medium skilled and low skilled. Director or Manager (24%), Professional (38%) and technical professions (15%) belong to the group of high skilled occupations, and this accounts for 77% of the respondents. Service and sales personnel and Clerical/Administration belong to the group of medium skilled occupations and therefore account for 17% of the respondents. The manual or craft worker are classified as low skilled jobs and present 2% of the sample (Eurostat, 2011). Therefore the sample is largely represented by people with high skilled occupations.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 8: Occupation (or former occupation) connected with culture? (n=192)

Frequency

%

Yes

47

24.5

No

135

70.3

Not sure

10

5.2

The results of the ATLAS Project showed that almost 30% of the cultural tourists have an occupation or former occupation connect with culture (Richards, 2007). Table 8 displays that merely 24.5% of the sample indicated that they have an occupation related with culture. However the question was asked slightly differently than in the ATLAS Survey, as in this 46

study the respondents were given the option to indicate ‘not sure’. 5.2% put down that they are not sure. Table 9: Had the respondents visited Silves before (n=196)

Frequency

%

Yes

37

18.9

No

159

81.1

Table 9 shows that the majority of the participants (81.1%) had not previously been to Silves and 18.9% had visited Silves before. Almost 20% of the respondents have been to Silves before, which indicates a higher number of repeaters.

Table 10: Distance Travelled to Silves (n=181) Frequency

%

0-20 km

59

32.6

21-50 km

92

50.8

51-87 km

30

16.6

The average distance travelled to Silves from the place the respondents stayed the night before coming to Silves is 34.7 km with a standard deviation of 16. This can be considered as a relatively high standard deviation and shows that the sample varies to a great extent in the amount of time and effort given to travel to Silves. Table 10 shows that most visitors therefore more than 50% travelled 21-50 km to Silves from the place they stayed the night before. 32.6% travelled 20 km or less and 16.6% travelled 51 km or more. It shows that generally

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

speaking people do spend a certain amount of effort to come to Silves.

47

Table 11: Type of cultural attractions visited

Cultural Attractions

Yes in %

No in %

Museum

48.5

51.5

Monument

70.9

29.1

Art Galleries

17.9

82.1

Religious Sites

49.0

51.0

Historic Sites

82.1

17.9

1.0

99.0

31.6

68.4

Cinema

1.5

98.5

Pop Concert

2.6

97.4

World Music Event

2.0

98.0

Classic Music Event

4.1

95.9

Dance Event

2.6

97.4

16.8

83.2

Theatres Heritage/Craft Centres

Traditional Festival

Table 11 illustrates how many people visited or are planning to visit the listed cultural attractions. Slightly more than 80% visit historic sites and 70.9% go to see monuments, so these are the most visited cultural attractions. Many of the respondents visit museums (48.5%), religious sites (49.0%), and heritage/craft centres (31.6%) so these also belong to the more frequently indicated attractions. This shows that people are more interested educational attractions than in entertaining attractions, according to Richard’s typology of cultural tourism attractions (Richard, 2001).

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

4.3 Motivation of tourists visiting Silves In this section the primary data collected through the questionnaire regarding motivation is analysed. The respondents were asked two questions in order to collect information about their motivations. Firstly they were asked about their two primary purposes to come to the Algarve, second they were asked to rate the importance of several motivational items. The analysis starts with investigating the respondents answer about their primary purpose. Then it goes on with the analysis of the respondents rating of motivational items, whereby first the 48

overall sample has been analysed in terms of the average answer given with the aim to give a general image of the cultural tourists and then it was investigated if the sample could be clustered into groups. Lastly the sample has been investigated to see if there are any differences between the independent variables e.g. profile characteristics/trip characteristics and the dependent motivational variables.

4.3.1 Analysis of the primary purpose

Table 12 and 13 show the results of the primary purpose question which was a closed ended question (Q2: What is the primary purpose of your trip to the Algarve? Please indicate your two main purposes). The goal was to find out the motivation of the visitors of Silves to come to the Algarve. However, although they were asked to indicate their two main purposes, only 61.5% of the respondents actually indicated two purposes and 38.5% indicated one primary purpose. There could be at least two explanations why people indicated only one purpose; either they did not read the question correctly or they felt they have only one purpose to come to the Algarve. As the researcher talked to some of the respondents during the collection of the survey, people often said that they would not know any second reason to come to the Algarve.

Table 12: Primary Purpose when respondent indicated two purposes (n=118)

Holiday

Visit cultural attractions

Attend a cultural event

Visiting relatives and friends

Business

Conference

Sport event

Shopping

Yes

96.6%

91.5%

0.8%

5.9%

0%

0%

0.8%

4.2%

No

3.4%

8.5%

99.2%

94.1%

100%

100%

99.2%

95.8%

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 12 shows that 96.6% of the respondents felt that one of their primary purposes to come to the Algarve is holiday, and 91.5% answered that visiting cultural attractions is one of their primary purposes. 4.2% indicated shopping and 5.9% visiting relatives and friends as a one of the primary purposes to visit the Algarve; only a very small number of people indicated other items as their purpose to come to the Algarve. Thus holiday and cultural attractions can be identified as the most common primary purposes to come to the Algarve

49

Table 13: Primary Purpose when respondent indicated one purpose (n=74)

Yes No

Holiday

Visit cultural attractions

Attend a cultural event

Visiting relatives and friends

Business

Conference

Sport event

Shopping

86.5% 13.5%

8.1% 91.9%

0% 100%

2.7% 97.3%

2.7% 97.3%

0% 100%

0% 100%

0% 100%

Table 13 shows the result for the respondent who indicated one primary purpose. The largest part of the respondents indicated that holiday is their primary purpose and 8.1% indicated that visiting cultural attractions is their primary purpose. The smallest amount of people came for visiting relatives and friends and business. And none of the people who only indicated one primary purpose responded with conference, sport events or shopping. Nonoftheless, 8.1% can be considered a relatively large amount which indicated to come for cultural attractions.

4.3.2 Analysis of the importance of motivational items.

Further the results of Q3 are analysed, in which the likert-scale question asked the respondent to indicate the importance of various motivational items. The motivational items are based on the TLC model (Pearce and Caltabiano, 1983) and aims to give evidence about the motivation of the respondents. Therefore how important is ‘relaxation’, ‘escape’, ‘stimulation’, ‘relationship’, ‘self-esteem’ and ‘fulfilment’ to the visitors of Silves, which can be analysed individually and generally.

First, the overall sample is analysed concerning the average rate of each item and the standard

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

deviation.

50

Table 14: The importance of motivational items

Do not know

Not Important

Slightly important

Neutral

Important

Very Important

Mean

Standard Deviation

Relaxing in a nice safe setting (n=195)

1

0.0

2.1

4.1

24.1

68.7

4.56

0.812

Escaping from everyday world (n=194)

1

0.5

7.2

16.5

25.8

49

4.12

1.07

Enjoying a day out with family(n=192)

3.1

7.3

2.6

9.9

24.5

52.6

4.03

1.376

Improving my knowledge and understanding of people etc (n=195)

1

0.5

4.6

20.5

35.5

37.9

4.03

0.992

Enjoying the adventure of discovering Silves(n=195)

2.6

0.5

8.7

37.4

31.3

19.5

3.53

1.076

1

4.1

12.4

30.9

29.9

21.7

3.49

1.144

Really feel part of the place (n=194)

2.6

4.6

15.4

32

26.8

18.6

3.31

1.221

Seeing and doing things with friends (n=194)

5.7

12.4

10.3

16

29.9

25.7

3.29

1.538

Visiting a well known and talked about attraction (n=194)

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Note: For each item the highest number is indicated in bold.

Table 14 displays the rating of the importance, along with the mean and standard deviation of each item. ‘Relaxing in a nice safe setting’ was rated by 68.7% of the sample as very important, which in comparison to all other items most visitors of Silves find most important. The mean score for the item is higher than for other items and it has the smallest standard deviation with 0.812. 51

Almost 50% of the respondents indicate ‘escaping from everyday world’ as ‘very important’, with the standard deviation is slightly higher than of the earlier item with 1.07. Therefore ‘escape’ seems also an important motivation for the visitors of Silves in general, but it is less important than ‘relaxation’. Most respondents (37.4%) rate ‘enjoying the adventure of discovering Silves’ as ‘neutral’ with a fairly low standard deviation of 1.076. It does not play a very important role to the respondents. Only 19.5% indicated that this item is ‘very important’. According to this rating, it can be said that ‘enjoying the adventure of discovering of Silves’ is not important in their motivation to come to Silves. Merely one other item is rated lower than this one in the overall group. Most people indicate that ‘seeing friends and doing things with friends’ is ‘important’ and more than 50% say that ‘enjoying a day out with the family’ is ‘very important’. Both items indicate that respondents are seeking for developing their relationships, thus the third level of the travel career ladder. However both items have a relatively high standard deviation, therefore the answer varies greatly under the respondents. 21.7% of the sample ticked ‘visiting a well known and talked about attraction/site’ to be ‘very important’, nevertheless more people indicated that they find it is ‘neutral’ with 30.9%. The mean score of this item is 3.49 and therefore relatively low in comparison to other items, with the answers differing greatly within the sample. 37.9% of the respondents marked that ‘improving my knowledge and understanding of people, places and events’ as ‘very important’, however it has a relatively high mean with 4.03 and a low standard deviation with 0.992. Therefore this item is rated as relatively important by the sample, thus people are looking for self-esteem and development.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

The average rating of the respondents towards the importance of ‘really feeling part of the place’ is the lowest in comparison to all other items with a mean of 3.31. Only 18.6 indicated it as ‘very important’. It can be concluded that ‘relaxing in a safe setting’ can be regarded as the most important item for the overall sample and the least amount of people are rating ‘feeling part of the place’ as ‘most important’. 52

Next, several tests were applied to investigate if the respondents could be clustered into several groups with distinctive differences in how they rate the importance of the motivational items. The first step involved a factor analysis with the 8 motivational items to discover distinct factors. The initial 8 variables were reduced to 3 components. The degree of common variance of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of Sampling Adequacy among the eight variables is ‘middeling’ 0.752 and the Bartlett's Test Sig=0.000 which allows the factor analysis to be significant. The last step was a hierarchical cluster analysis, using the three components which were utilised to identify if there are any distinct groups, testing if the sample could be divided into 5, 4, 3 or 2 distinctive groups.

Table 15: Result of testing different grouping solutions

Group dimension

5 Groups Solution

4 Groups Solution

3 Groups Solution

2 Groups Solution

1

155

174

184

191

2

1

1

1

1

3

10

10

7

4

19

7

5

7

According to the results of an attempt to cluster the respondents which is shown in table 15 it is not possible to differentiate the respondents into groups. Seeing that most people belong to the same group and only few would belong to other groups. Therefore it can be said that the sample is fairly homogenous according to the rating of the importance of the motivational items.

In the next step, in order to find out if there is a significant difference between the respondent

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

answers and their profile and trip characteristics, the ANOVA One way test was carried out.

53

Table 16: ANOVA test result, testing the relation between respondent’s characteristics and his/her motivation.

Number of attractions visits - Two groups

Length of Stay

Travel Distance

Repeat

Nationality

Gender

Age

Occupational group

Relaxation at as safe setting

0.003

0.071

0.061

0.855

0.920

0.271

0.608

0.429

Escaping From everyday world

0.046*

0.991

0.035*

0.285

0.857

0.186

0.388

0.194

Enjoying the adventure of discovering Silves

0.024

0.389

0.062

0.100

0.009*

0.123

0.652

0.394

Seeing and doing things with friends

0.028

0.455

0.200

0.908

0.284

0.141

0.384

0.945

Enjoying a day out with family

0.017

0.326

0.866

0.572

0.604

0.336

0.426

0.075

Visit a well known and talked about attraction

0.006

0.749

0.252

0.059

0.096

0.945

0.278

0.349

Improving my knowledge and understanding of people, places, events

0.017

0.969

0.973

0.612

0.022*

0.431

0.573

0.700

Really feeling part of the place

0.076

0.382

0.241

0.015*

0.001*

0.376

0.905

0.686

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Note: * Scheffe post hoc test did not identify a significant difference between those pairs

Table 16 displays the results of the ANOVA One way test it shows whether or not the indicated importance of the items vary by any of the profile characteristics described in the earlier part. Based on the ANOVA test, statistically speaking there is a significant difference in the answer according to the nationality on 7 out of 8 items. Further, different age groups regard ‘escaping from everyday world’ significantly different. The number of attractions visited seems to have an influence on the answer to ‘enjoying the adventure of discovering 54

Silves’, ‘improving my knowledge and understanding of people, places, events’ and ‘really feeling part of the place’. Different occupational groups vary in how they rate the importance of ‘really feeling part of the place’.

The gender, length of stay in Silves, travel distance to Silves and if the respondent has been to Silves before or not does not make a difference in the way the respondent rates the importance of the 8 motivational items.

Now in a further step for the results which showed a significant difference, thus lower than 0.05, the post-hoc test was carried out. This test can help with the investigation to where the differences occurred within the groups. However, some of the items, indicated in table 16 showed that when applying the post-hoc test a significant difference could not be further identified.

Nationality has been identified as the independent variable, whereby the rating of importance varies mostly according to the individuals nationality.

Table 17: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference in answering ‘Relaxing in a nice safe setting’.

Nationality

Subset for alpha = 0.05

N

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

1

2

Germans

35

4.11

Remaining Europeans

53

4.55

4.55

Dutch

31

4.68

4.68

British & Irish

58

4.71

4.71

Non-Europeans

16

4.88

The result (Table 17) of the post-hoc test regarding the 5 nationality groups shows that according to the group average Non-Europeans consider ‘relaxing in a safe setting’ as most important and Germans regard the same item as the least important, when comparing it to all 5 groups.

55

Table 18: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference in answering ‘Enjoying the adventure of discovering Silves’.

Nationality

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05 1

2

German

35

3.11

Dutch

31

3.32

3.32

British & Irish

58

3.64

3.64

Remaining European

53

3.68

3.68

Non-European

16

4

Table 18 gives evidence that Germans consider ‘enjoying a day out with family’ as least important, while Non-Europeans regarded it as most important; thus Germans and NonEuropeans differ most from each other. Dutch, British/Irish and Remaining Europeans rate the item similar and are therefore more homogeneous.

Table 19: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference in answering ‘Seeing and doing things with friends’.

Nationality

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05 1

2

German

34

2.97

Remaining European

53

3.08

Dutch

31

3.19

3.19

British & Irish

58

3.5

3.5

Non-European

16

4.31

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 19 displays that Germans and Non-Europeans differ greatly in their opinion of the importance to ‘see and do things with friends’. Germans consider it least important compared to all five nationalities, while Non-Europeans find it most important.

56

Table 20: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference when indicating the preference for ‘enjoying a day out with family’.

Nationality

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05 1

2

German

34

3.59

Remaining European

53

3.83

3.83

Dutch

30

4.07

4.07

British & Irish

57

4.23

4.23

Non-European

16

4.88

Remaining Europeans, Dutch and British/Irish give a similar importance to ‘enjoying a day out with family’ as displayed in table 20. Germans indicate the least importance to this item, while Non-Europeans show that they find it highly important, as the average of the NonEuropean rated the item with 4.88 out of 5.

Table 21: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference when indicating the importance for ‘visiting well known and talked about attractions’.

Nationality

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

1 German

34

3.18

Dutch

31

3.26

British & Irish

58

3.45

Remaining European

53

3.6

Non-European

16

2

3.6 4.38

Germans and Dutch view ‘visiting well known and talked about attraction’ as least important, while again Non-Europeans assess the item has most important. In this case Germans, Dutch, British/Irish and Remaining European rate the importance very similar.

57

Table 22: Scheffe Post Hoc test, testing the difference when indicating the importance for ‘Improving my knowledge and understanding of people etc.’

Nationality

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05 1

2

German

35

3.77

Dutch

31

3.77

British & Irish

58

4

4

Remaining European

53

4.21

4.21

Non-European

16

4.63

Table 22 shows that Germans and Dutch have the same average in rating the importance of ‘improving my knowledge and understanding of people etc.’, and vary mostly from the NonEuropeans. Therefore the findings give evidence that Germans and Non-Europeans differ most in their motivations, while the other three groups of nationalities are more homogenous.

Hypothesis Two can be partially rejected, as there very little difference between tourists characteristics and his/her motivation, however there is evidence for a difference by nationality.

4.4 Classifying the tourist’s degree of interest in cultural tourism In order to classify the level of interest of the cultural tourists in culture/cultural tourism the responses to the following questions were analysed:

(Q4) how many cultural attractions the respondents has visit or is planning to visit; (Q6) preference in travelling for educational/cultural reason or recreation/fun; (Q7) seeing travel as Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

a chance to grow personally or more for relaxation; (Q8) preference in visiting obscure or well known attractions; (Q9) preference in wandering through local market or shop at shops selling brand name goods; (Q10) preference in doing in depth research before visiting a destination or do no research; and lastly (Q18) the length of stay in Silves.

First the overall sample has been analysed to determine the general preference for certain behavioural items of the group and how much do the answers differ within the whole sample. 58

Table 23: Preference of travelling for educational/cultural reasons or recreation/fun (n=195)

Frequency

%

travel for education and cultural reasons

21

10.8

travel for recreation and fun

46

23.6

mostly/more often education and culture

5

2.6

equally education and culture/recreation and fun

99

50.7

mostly recreation and fun

24

12.3

Table 23 shows that most people prefer equally education and culture to recreation and fun. 10.8% travel for educational and cultural reasons, but more people indicate to either travel for recreation and fun or mostly recreation and fun. Therefore around 50% prefer both, but overall it seems more people travel for recreation and fun, as only 10.8% of the sample are more interested in culture and education.

Table 24: Preference of travelling for growing personally or to relax (n=195) Frequency

%

see travel as a chance to grow personally

26

13.3

see travel as an opportunity to relax

57

29.2

mostly/more often grow personally

8

4.1

equally grow/relax

87

44.7

mostly relax

17

8.7

Table 24 shows that most people indicated that they prefer personal growth equally to relaxing. 29.2% of the respondents see travel as an opportunity to relax, while only 13.3% see travel as a chance to grow personally. Therefore more people prefer travelling as chance to Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

relax over personal growth.

59

Table 25: Preference of visiting well known attractions first or obscure attractions first (n=195)

Frequency

%

visit a destination's well known attractions/sites first

45

23.1

visit out of the way and obscure attractions/sites first

30

15.4

mostly/more often visit well known sites first

47

24.1

equally well known/obscure

63

32.3

mostly visit obscure sites first

10

5.1

Table 25 displays the option of whether people do prefer ‘visiting well known attraction’ or ‘obscure sites’. The answers are very scattered, however it can still be said that most people prefer well-known sites equally to obscure sites. Comparing the items which indicate that people prefer obscure sites to items which indicate that people prefer visiting well known sites shows that more people prefer well known sites.

Table 26: Preference of local markets or brand name shops (n=191) Frequency

%

104

54.5

shop at shops selling brand name goods

4

2.1

mostly/more often visit local markets

49

25.6

equally local markets/name brand stores

29

15.2

more often/mostly shop at name brand stores

5

2.6

wander through local markets

More than 50% of people prefer wandering through local markets and only 2.6% mostly prefer to shop at brand name stores, as illustrated in table 26. In comparison to the other related questions (Q6-9), in this case the smallest amount of people indicated to like both equally. In general, the results show that people prefer visiting local markets over shopping at

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

brand named stores.

In average people visit or are planning to visit 3.32 attractions. Table 27 shows that around 57% of the sample has visited or are planning to visit up to 3 attraction during their stay in Portugal and 42.5% visit more than 3 attractions.

60

Table 27: Number of attraction visited (N=193)

Number of attractions

Frequency

%

Cumulative Percent

0

8

4.1

4.1

1

21

10.9

15

2

38

19.7

34.7

3

44

22.9

57.5

4

30

15.5

73.1

5

32

16.6

89.6

6

11

5.7

95.3

7

7

3.6

99

8

1

0.5

99.5

9

1

0.5

100

A second variable to measure the level of interest is the time a respondent spends at the cultural attractions according to Herbert, et al. (1989) and G. Richard (personal communication, May 18, 2011). Therefore the lengths of stay is analysed.

Table 28: Lengths of stay in Silves (n=193)

Length of stay

Frequency

%

Few hours

140

72.5

1 Day

44

22.8

More than 1 day

5

2.6

I don’t know yet

4

2.1

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 28 shows that around 70% of the respondents spend only a few hours in Silves and 22.8% spend one day in Silves. Therefore the majority of the cultural tourists only stay for a few hours in Silves.

ANOVA one way testing gave evidence that there is a significant difference, p=00.4 and therefore smaller then 0.05, between the length of stay and the number of attractions visited. Therefore the Scheffe post hoc test was carried out. 61

Table 29: Scheffe post hoc testing, length of stay and number of attractions visited (n=190)

Number of attractions

Subset for alpha = 0.05 Length of stay I don’t know yet Few hours 1 Day More than 1 day Sig.

Frequency

1 4

2.25

139

3.28

42

3.33

5

2

6 0.649

1

Table 29 displays the correlation between length of stay in Silves and the total number of attractions they visited or are planning to visit. None of the respondents who visit 3 or less attractions stay longer than one day in Silves, while people who visit 4 or more attractions stay sometimes more then one day. The post hoc test shows that people staying a few hours, one day or they don’t know yet, are fairly similar in the number of attractions visited. The respondents who stay more than one day can be recognised to visit more attractions. Consequently it can be said that people who visit more attractions are more likely to stay longer in Silves. Therefore Hypothesis One is rejected, as there is evidence for a link between the lengths of stay and the total number of cultural attractions visited.

For further analysis of the data two groups have been distinguished; those ones visiting 3 or less attractions and those ones visiting 4 or more attractions. Thus 111 (57.5%) of the respondents belong to the first group and 82 (42.5%) belong to the second group.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

In order to find out of there is a relation between the number of attractions visited and the preference indicated in Q6-10, Chi square testing has been carried out.

62

Table 30: Chi-square test to show if there is a significant difference between number of attractions visited and the answer to Q6-10 Sig. (Q6) Education or Culture/Recreation and Fun

0.000

(Q7) Grow Personal/Relax

0.022

(Q8) Visit well known attraction/obscure attractions

0.072

(Q9) Local markets or brand name stores

0.695

(Q10) Do research/do no research

0.655

The test results in Table 30 show that there is a significant statistical difference between the group who visits less attractions and the group which visits more attractions, in their preference for two items Q6 and Q7, as the test significant level (p) is smaller than 0.05.

Table 31: Preference of travelling for educational/cultural reason or recreation/fun (n=192)

travel for education and cultural reasons

travel for recreation and fun

mostly/more often education and culture

equally education and culture/recreation and fun

mostly recreation and fun

Total

3 or less attractions

10.00%

34.50%

1.90%

39.10%

14.50%

110

4 or more attractions

11.00%

8.40%

3.70%

67.10%

9.80%

182

In general, when traveling internationally, they prefer …

The results shown in Table 31 have been identified statistically different, Pearson Chi-square is p=0.000. Table 31 illustrates that people who visit fewer attractions, and therefore less than the average, indicated more often to prefer recreational items; while people who visit more attractions imply that they prefer the educational and cultural items. Therefore Hypothesis Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Four is rejected, as there is a link between the preference and the number of cultural attractions visited.

63

Table 32: Preference of seeing travel as a chance to grow personally or to relax (n=192)

In general, when traveling internationally, they prefer …

see travel as a chance to grow personally

see travel as an opportunity to relax

mostly/more often grow personally

Equally Grow and Relax

Mostly Relax

Total

3 or less attractions

13.60%

38.20%

3.60%

37.30%

7.30%

110

4 or more attractions

12.20%

17.10%

4.90%

56.10%

9.70%

82

The results displayed in table 32 also have been identified as statistically different, Pearson Chi-Square is p=0.022 and therefore smaller the 0.005. Table 32 shows that people who indicate to visit 3 or less attractions more often prefer ‘travel as an opportunity to relax’, while people who visit 4 or more attraction more often see it as a chance to grow personally. This gives reason to reject Hypothesis Five, as there is a link between preference for growing personally or relaxation and the number of attractions visited.

Testing if there is a significant difference of the respondents when people prefer visiting ‘well known or obscure attraction’, ‘wander through local markets or shops that sell brand name goods’ and if they prefer ‘doing research or not doing research before visiting a destination’ showed that there is no significant difference among the answer of the two groups, thus p is greater than 0.05.

The next step was to look if there is any difference between the socio-demographics and trip variables of the respondents and the answer to question 6,7,8,9 and 10, thus the motivation, preferred activities and undertaken activities.

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Table 33 displays the chi-square test results, which show that there is a significant difference between various socio-demographic and trip variables and people’s preference when they travel internationally.

64

Table 33: Chi-square test results of tourist characteristics and the response to Q6-10

Education or Culture/Recreati on and Fun

Grow Personal/Rela x

Visit well known attraction/obscu re attractions

Local markets or brand name stores

Local markets or brand named stores

Gender

0.225

0.022

0.09

0.421

0.467

Nationality

0.142

0.006*

0.101

0.625

0.011*

Age group

0.040*

0.025*

0.000

0.370

0.512

Education Level

0.002*

0.945

0.449

0.704

0.590

Occupational Group

0.408

0.002*

0.510

0.288

0.198

Culture related occupation

0.056

0.008*

0.013*

0.431

0.850

Repeat Visitor

0.609

0.342

0.466

0.841

0.014*

Travel Distance

0.513

0.464

0.762

0.273

0.082

Lengths of stay in Silves

0.600

0.04*

0.028*

0.937

0.868

Note: * more than 20% of the expected frequency in the table is less than 5

Table 33 shows that in none of the items do all socio-demographic variables or trip variables vary for all of the tested preferences in behavioural items. In general it can be said that the results are very scattered. The question if people prefer ‘local markets’ or ‘brand named stores’ does not differ at all by socio-demographic background or trip variable. There is also no difference in preference when testing behavioural items according to the distance they travelled to Silves. On the other hand, peoples preference for ‘growing personally’ or to ‘relax’ seems to be most dependent on the profile of the respondent in comparison to other variables. However many of the results are not further analysed, because the chi-square test

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

was invalid, as the obtained frequencies do not differ significantly from those that would be expected if all cell frequencies were equal in the population (Foster, 2001). Therefore Hypothesis Six is partially rejected, as there is only little evidence for a dependency of sociodemographic characters/trip characters and motivation/preferred activities. Only gender has been further confirmed to show a significant difference according to the preference for ‘growing personally or relaxing’. 65

In the following table 34 the difference between female and males is displayed in terms of preference for relaxing versus growing personally.

Table 34: Gender versus preference in growing personally or relaxing (n=194)

see travel as a chance to grow personally

see travel as an opportunity to relax

mostly/more often grow personally

equally grow/relax

mostly relax

Total

Female

12.30%

21.70%

2.80%

50.90%

12.30%

106

Male

14.80%

38.60%

5.70%

36.40%

4.50%

88

Table 34 shows that females and males have different preferences, and the chi-square test shows that there is significant difference with p= 0.022. Males more often indicate that they see travelling internationally as an opportunity to relax than females. Female mostly indicate that they find growing personally and relaxing equally important. The next step is to investigate if it is possible to group people according to their preferences in behavioural items. The aim is to see if the visitors of Silves could be grouped according to McKercher and Du Cros’ cultural tourist typology. In order to find out if it is possible to group people according to the answer to Q6-8, which represent the variables McKercher and Du Cros used to identify to which group of cultural tourists people belong, a clustering analysis has been utilised.

Table 35: Result of testing different grouping solutions

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Group dimension

5 Groups Solution

4 Groups Solution

3 Groups Solution

2 Groups Solution

1

73

86

45

106

2

18

53

73

89

3

16

28

77

4

44

28

5

44

66

The K-mean cluster analysis ranged from 2 to 5 clusters in order to consider the most desirable solution. Table 35 shows the results of different clustering solutions, and so a twocluster solution was finally selected. The main advantage of using a two-group solution is that it allows the obtained results to be more easily compared to previous studies on cultural tourist typologies.

Table 36: ANOVA test, for the three variables which give indication for the level of interest

Variable to measure level of interest

Error

Cluster Mean Square

Mean Square

df

df

F

Sig.

Education or Culture/Recreation and Fun

59.179

1

1.106

193

53.521

0.000

Grow Personally/Relax

188.89

1

0.737

193

256.262

0.000

38.97

1

1.529

193

25.495

0.000

Visit well known attraction/obscure attractions

In order to test if there is a significant difference within the respondents for the three items which have been used to classify cultural tourists into the one with high interest and the one with low interest an ANOVA test has been carried out; the results can be seen in Table 36. It shows that p is lower than 0.05 and therefore proves that there is a significant difference.

Table 37: Final Cluster Centres

Cluster

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Higher interest (n=106)

Lower interest (n=89)

Education or Culture/Recreation and Fun

3

2

Grow Personally/Relax

4

2

Visit well known attraction/obscure attractions

3

2

67

Table 37 displays two groups, one called the higher interest which consist of 54.4% of the .

sample and one called lower interest group which consists of 45.6%. Respondents who could be put into the first group are more likely to have a preference for education/culture, growing personally and visiting obscure attractions. McKercher and Cros (2002) categorised cultural tourists with those preferences of behavioural items either belong to the purposeful cultural tourists, sightseeing cultural tourists or serendipitous cultural tourists, and describes them as more interested in cultural activities.

The respondents who are more interested in recreation/fun, relaxing and visiting well known attractions were put in to the group lower interest group. According to McKercher and Cros (2002) people who have more preferences to those behavioural items belong to the casual cultural tourist or incidental cultural tourist and classifies them as less interested in cultural activities. See for further reference Table 2 which displays the attributes of the different cultural tourists.

The study gives evidence that it is possible to differentiate into two groups. However, it is not possible to differentiate between purposeful cultural tourists, sightseeing cultural tourists or serendipitous cultural tourists and casual cultural tourist or incidental cultural tourist. Hypothesis Three can be therefore refuted.

A further aim is to identify if there is a difference between the socio-demographics/trip characteristics and the two groups. This should give some additional evidence of the findings

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

of McKercher and Du Cros (2003).

68

Table 38: Chi-square test, relation between socio-demographics/trip characteristics and interest level

Chi-square Gender

0.041

Nationality

0.000

Age Group

0.218

Education Level

0.713

Occupational group

0.163

Culture related occupation

0.031

Repeat Visitor

0.986

Travel Distance

0.036

Length of stay

0.084

Number of attraction visited

0.000

Table 38 gives evidence that there is a significant difference between gender, nationality, whether or not the respondents have an occupation connected with culture, travel distance and

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

the number of attractions visited.

69

Table 39: Socio-demographic/trip characteristics according to the two group segmentation in interest High Interest Group (n=106)

Variables

Low Interest Group (n=89)

Gender Female

61.3

46.4

Male

38.7

53.6

British/Irish

25.2

38.6

German

21.5

10.8

8.4

26.5

35.6

16.9

9.3

7.2

Yes

29.5

17.9

No

62.9

79.7

Not sure

7.6

2.4

0-20 km

25

42.4

21-50 km

58

41.3

51-87 km

17

16.3

3 or less

45.7

72.3

4 or more

54.3

27.7

Nationality

Dutch Remaining European Non-European

Occupation connect with culture

Travel Distance to Silves

Copyright © 2012. Diplomica Verlag. All rights reserved.

Amount of attraction visited

Table 39 displays the variables which are identified to have a significant difference, therefore p