Tan Poh Ling

REVISITING THE MINDFULNESS FRAMEWORK IN HERITAGE TOURISM

TAN POH LING

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

2017

REVISITING THE MINDFULNESS FRAMEWORK IN HERITAGE TOURISM

TAN POH LING

Thesis submitted in the fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

August 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To write a good dissertation is a long and difficult journey, a pilgrimage not for the swift. If it were not for the many wonderful people I met along the way my journey would have been more difficult. I would like to express my sincere and heartfelt gratitude to those who have helped me throughout this doctoral programme. Without their guidance, encouragement and understanding I would never be able to reach my final academic destination.

This thesis would not have been possible without the help, support and patience of my supervisors Dr. Shuhaida Md. Noor and Associate Professor Dr. Hasrina Mustafa.

Throughout the research process, both of my supervisor has been very supportive and remained encouraging till the completion of this thesis. Their wisdom, careful guidance and encouraging supervision have lit my way to get my thesis completed.

I would also like to convey my deepest appreciation to the management of the heritage site especially Pinang Peranakan Mansion, Khoo Kongsi and Cheong Fatt Tze

Mansion management. Their valuable support in providing me permission and to ensure the process of data collection is smooth are much appreciated. Also, their involvement in this data collection is the most important input for this study.

Special thanks go to my loved ones. To both my parents who supported me with unconditional love, understanding, encouragement and unfailing support through this

PhD, which is all about persistence, hard work and determination. My extended appreciation also goes to my family members especially my siblings for their good advice and strong support for me to go through this journey. To the love of my life,

ii thank you for supporting me throughout this journey with much love and understanding.

I would also like to thank all my friends who are also in the same journey of PhD with me and also friends that are around me for their assistance, kind friendship, support and valuable insight. Without them, the pursuit of this doctorate journey would be more difficult and lonely. To my other significant half, Jojo Ngo who encouraged and supported me spiritually throughout this journey.

THANK YOU

Tan Poh Ling

iii

TABLES OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement ii

Tables of Contents iv

List of Table x

List of Figure xiv

List of Abbreviations xv

Abstrak xvii

Abstract xix

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCATION

1.1 Background of Research 1

1.2 Problem Statement 8

1.3 Research Objectives and Research Questions 10

1.4 Research Significance 11

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview 14

2.2 Heritage Tourism 15

2.3 Cultural Heritage Tourism in Penang 20

2.4 Preservation of Heritage Site 23

2.5 Overview of Mindfulness 29

2.6 Mindfulness 31

2.6.1 History and Origin of Mindfulness 31

2.6.2 The Concept of Mindfulness 38

2.6.3 Conceptualisation of Mindfulness 41

2.7 Mindfulness in Tourism 44

2.7.1 The Mindfulness Framework 46

2.7.1(a) Communication Factor 47

2.7.1(b) Visitor Factors 51

2.7.1(c) Organisation of Content 52

2.7.1(d) Consequences 53

2.8 Overview of Interpretation 53

2.8.1 Conceptualisation of Interpretation 54

2.8.2 Visitor’s Interpretation 58

2.9 The Importance of Interpretation 61

2.10 Interpretive Outcome 64

2.11 Research Gap 65

2.11.1 Gap in the Communication Factors 67

2.11.2 Gap in the Visitor Factors 69

2.11.3 Gap in Mindfulness Measure 74

2.11.4 Gap in Mindfulness Outcome 77

2.12 Conceptual Framework 79

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview 84

3.2 Research Paradigm and Research Strategy 84

3.3 Quantitative Research Method 86

3.4 Research Design 88

3.5 Exploratory Study 91

3.5.1 Exploratory Study 1: In-Depth Interview 91

3.5.1(a) Results and Discussion: In-Depth Interview 92

3.5.2 Exploratory Study 2: Survey Questionnaire 99

3.5.2(a) Results of Survey Questionnaire 100

3.5.2(b) Reliability Test 112

3.6 The Research Survey 114

3.6.1 Target Population 115

3.6.2 Sampling Design 116

3.6.3 Sampling Size 117

3.7 Research Instrument 119

3.8 Operationalisation 125

3.8.1 Item Identification 126

3.8.1(a) Communication Factors 126

3.8.1(b) Visitor Factors 138

3.8.1(c) Mindfulness 140

3.8.1(d) Interpretive Outcome 146

3.9 Data Analysis 148

3.9.1 Structural Equation Modelling: Partial Least Square 150

CHAPTER 4 – PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Overview 152

4.2 Data Editing 152

4.3 Response Rate 153

4.4 Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis 153

4.4.1 Missing Value Analysis 153

4.4.2 Common Method Bias (CMB) 154

4.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 156

4.6 Final Framework 159

4.6.1 Statement of Hypotheses 162

4.7 Partial Least Squares Model: Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) 164

CHAPTER 5 - STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING: MINDFULNESS AND INTERPRETIVE OUTCOME

5.1 Overview 165

5.2 Demographic Profile 165

5.3 Descriptive Statistic 168

5.4 Structural Equation Modelling 173

5.5 Two Stage Approach: Analysis and Results of Partial Least Square 174

5.5.1 Stage One: Measurement Model 175

5.5.2 Internal Consistency Reliability 176

5.5.3 Construct Validity 178

5.5.4 Convergent Validity 181

5.5.5 Discriminant Validity 182

5.5.6 Measurement Specification: Mindfulness 184

5.6 Stage Two: Structural Model 185

5.6.1 Path Coefficient 186

5.6.1(a) Path Coefficient: Communication Factors and

Visitor Factors to Mindfulness 190

5.6.1(b) Path Coefficient: Communication Factors and

Visitor Factors to Interpretive Outcome 194

5.6.1(c) Path Coefficient: Mindfulness to Interpretive Outcome 199

5.6.2 Coefficient of Determination: R2 Values 200

vii

5.6.3 Predictive Relevance (Q2) 203

5.6.4 Goodness of Fit (GoF) 206

5.7 Hypotheses Testing 207

5.8 Mediating Variable Effect 211

CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Overview 214

6.2 Summary of Research Findings 214

6.3 Discussion of Research Findings 216

6.3.1 The Measure of Mindfulness in the Context of Heritage Tourism 216

6.3.2 Factors that Influence Mindfulness among Tourists at

Heritage Sites 218

6.3.3 The Relationship between Communication and Visitor Factors

towards Interpretive Outcome 223

6.3.4 The Relationship between Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome 226

6.3.5 Mindfulness as mediator of the relationship between

Communication Factors, Visitor Factors and

Interpretive Outcome 227

6.3.6 Model of Mindfulness in the Context of Heritage Tourism 234

6.4 Contributions and Theoretical Implications 237

6.5 Managerial Implication 239

6.6 Thesis Limitation 240

6.7 Directions for Further Research 241

6.8 Conclusion 242

REFERENCES 248

viii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Pilot Test: In-depth Interview Questions

APPENDIX B Pilot Test: Questionnaire

APPENDIX C Self-administered Questionnaire

APPENDIX D Common Method Bias

LIST OF PUBLICATION

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 Conceptualisation of Heritage Tourism 16

Table 2.2 Review of Mindfulness in Different Perspectives 37

Table 2.3 Definition of Mindfulness from Various Perspectives 42

Table 2.4 Definition of Interpretation from Various Perspectives 55

Table 2.5 Measure of Mindfulness 76

Table 2.6 Conceptual Framework 83

Table 3.1 Factor Loading for Ambience 103

Table 3.2 Factor Loading for Uses of Questions 103

Table 3.3 Factor Loading for Variety 103

Table 3.4 Factor Loading for Physical Orientation 103

Table 3.5 Factor Loading for Multisensory Media 103

Table 3.6 Factor Loading for Level of Interest 105

Table 3.7 Factor Loading for Familiarity 106

Table 3.8 Factor Loading for Visualisation 106

Table 3.9 Factor Loading for Emotional Connectedness 106

Table 3.10 Factor Loading for Sense of Belonging 106

Table 3.11 Factor Loading for Connection to Visitor 106

Table 3.12 Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Curiosity and Attention 108

Table 3.13 Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Alertness 109

Table 3.14 Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Emotional Engagement 109

Table 3.15 Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Openness and Flexibility 109

Table 3.16 Factor Loading for Behavioural 111

Table 3.17 Factor Loading for Cognitive 111

Table 3.18 Factor Loading for Affective 112

Table 3.19 Factor Loading for Value 112

Table 3.20 Reliability of the Constructs 113

Table 3.21 Item Questions for Questionnaire Part C 121

Table 3.22 Item Questions for Questionnaire Part D 122

Table 3.23 Item Questions for Questionnaire Part E 123

Table 3.24 Item Questions for Questionnaire Part F 124

Table 3.25 Variety or Change Item Questions 127

Table 3.26 Multisensory Media Item Questions 128

Table 3.27 Novelty/Conflicts/ Surprise Item Questions 129

Table 3.28 Uses of Questions Item Questions 130

Table 3.29 Visitor Control Item Questions 131

Table 3.30 Connection to Visitor Item Questions 132

Table 3.31 Physical Orientation Item Questions 133

Table 3.32 Ambience Item Questions 134

Table 3.33 Level of Interest Item Questions 135

Table 3.34 Familiarity Item Questions 136

Table 3.35 Visiting Companion Item Questions 137

Table 3.36 Experience Item Questions 137

Table 3.37 Goal of Visit Item Questions 138

Table 3.38 Cultural Background Item Questions 139

Table 3.39 Calmness Item Questions 140

Table 3.40 Items for Mindfulness adapted from PMQ 141

Table 3.41 Items for Mindfulness adapted from FFMQ 141

Table 3.42 Items for Mindfulness adapted from MMS 144

Table 3.43 Items for Mindfulness adapted from Moscardo 145

Table 3.44 Items for Mindfulness adapted from TMS 145

Table 3.45 Item Questions for Interpretive Outcome – Cognitive 147

Table 3.46 Item Questions for Interpretive Outcome – Affective 147

Table 3.47 Item Questions for Interpretive Outcome – Behavioural 148

Table 4.1 Measurement model of PLS 156

Table 4.2 Item questions deleted with loading below 0.5 158

Table 4.3 Item questions deleted with AVE value lower than 0.5 159

Table 4.4 Research Hypotheses 162

Table 5.1 Profile of the Respondents 166

Table 5.2 Mean Scores and Standard deviations of Communication Factors 169

Table 5.3 Mean Scores and Standard deviations of Visitor Factors 170

Table 5.4 Mean Scores and Standard deviations of Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome 172

Table 5.5 Results of Reliability Test 176

Table 5.6 Loading and Cross Loading 179

Table 5.7 Discriminant Validity of Constructs 184

Table 5.8 Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results: Direct effects (Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Mindfulness) 189

Table 5.9 Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results: Direct effects (Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Interpretive Outcome) 194

Table 5.10 Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results: Direct effects (Mindfulness to Interpretive Outcome) 199

Table 5.11 Results of Blindfolding Estimations 204

Table 5.12 Results of the hypotheses testing of Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Mindfulness 208

Table 5.13 Results of the hypotheses testing of Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Interpretive Outcome 209

xii

Table 5.1 Results of the hypotheses testing of Mindfulness to Interpretive Outcome 210

Table 5.15 Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results (Indirect effects) 212

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Number of International and Local Tourist Arrival, 2005-2012 21

Figure 2.2 George Town Heritage Zone 24

Figure 2.3 Mindfulness Model of Communicating with Visitors 47

Figure 2.4 Conceptual Framework 82

Figure 3.1 Overview of Methodology 89

Figure 4.1 Final Framework 161

Figure 5.1 Measurement Specification of Mindfulness Dimension 184

Figure 5.2 Results of Partial Least Squares Analysis 188

Figure 5.3 The Coefficient of Determination (R2 Values) 202

Figure 5.4 Partial Least Square Blindfolding Results 205

Figure 6.1 Relationship between Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome 226

Figure 6.2 Revised Framework 235

Figure 6.3 The Genealogy of the Khoo Clan 245

Figure 6.4 The Guardian Lions 245

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

WHS World Heritage Site

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

WMF World Monument Fund

CAMS-R Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale

FMI Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

SMQ Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire

MAAS Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

PMQ Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale

FFMQ Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

TMS Toronto Mindfulness Scale

MMS Mindfulness/Mindless Scale

KIMS Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills

PDA Personal Digital Assistants

GDP Gross Domestic Product

SEM Structural Equation Modelling

PLS Partial Least Square

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

PCA Principal Component Analysis

KMO Kaiser – Meyer Oklin

LI Level of Interest

F Familiarity V Visualisation

EC Emotional Connectedness

SB Sense of Belonging

CV Connection to Visitor

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences Programme

CMB Common Method Bias

CB-SEM Covariance-based SEM

xvi

KAJIAN SEMULA KERANGKA KONSEP MINDA KETARASEDAR

DALAM PELANCONGAN WARISAN

ABSTRAK

Pelancong yang mempunyai minda ketarasedar mampu menghargai dan bertindak dengan lebih bertanggungjawab berbanding dengan pelancong yang tidak ketarasedar. Kerangka konsep minda ketrasedar yang dicadangkan oleh Moscardo

(1996) telah diperakui penting, namun begitu, terdapat beberapa isu dalam mengaplikasikan kerangka konsep ini: kekurangan penerangan dalam Faktor Pelawat dalam mempengaruhi minda ketarasedar dan masih belum ada pengukuran yang khusus untuk minda ketarasedar dan interpretasi dalam konteks pelancongan. Secara keseluruhannya, objektif kajian ini adalah untuk penambah baikan kerangka konsep minda ketarasedar dalam kajian pelancongan untuk menjelaskan hasil tafsiran pelancong. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidik pengaruh Faktor Pelawat dan Faktor

Persekitaran terhadap minda ketarasedar. Kajian ini telah dijalankan di Pulau Pinang, satu destinasi yang telah diiktirafkan oleh UNESCO sebagai bandaraya warisan kebudayaan dunia. Kajian ini menggunakan kaedah soal selidik yang diurus sendiri dengan kaedah persampelan kuota dari 390 responden daripada pelancong dalam dan luar negara telah dikumpul. Partial Least Square (PLS) telah digunakan untuk menganalisis data untuk mendapatkan model struktural dan model pengukuran penilaian. Daripada analisis, semua konstruk mempunyai kebolehpercayaan komposit yang melebihi 0.7 dan menunjukkan kesahihan konvergen dan diskriminan yang mencukupi dengan perbezaan nilai purata diekstrak besar daripada 0.50. Cadangan model kajian mempunyai tahap Goodness of Fit (GoF) dengan nilai sebanyak 0.606.

Secara keseluruhannya, kerangka konsep ini menunjukkan nilai penjelasan yang tinggi

xvii dengan R2 sebanyak 0.628 (62.8%). Ini menunjukkan bahawa minda ketarasedar membantu sebagai pengantaraan terhadap hasil tafsiran. Keputusan yang diperolehi daripada ujian Q2 menunjukkan hasil tafsiran dapat diramalkan oleh model kajian.

Hasil kajian menunjukkan minda ketarasedar membantu sebagai perantaraan antara

Uses of Questions (Faktor Komunikasi), Level of Interest dan Visualisation (Faktor

Pelawat) dan hasil tafsiran. Ini telah menunjukkan bahawa dalam konteks pelancongan warisan, hanya tiga pembolehubah yang penting dalam mempengaruhi minda ketarasedar bagi menyokong hasil interpretasi. Minda pelawat banyak dipengaruhi apabila rasa ingin tahu mereka direspond dan mereka dapat mengambil bahagian secara interlektual terhadap hasil penemuan mereka. Ini telah melengkapkan kerangka konsep dalam memahami hubungan antara Faktor Komunikasi dan Pelawat serta hasil tafsiran melalui peranan minda ketarasedar.

xviii

REVISITING THE MINDFULNESS FRAMEWORK

IN HERITAGE TOURISM

ABSTRACT

It has been propounded that mindful tourists are able to appreciate and act responsibly at heritage sites, as compared to tourists who are mindless. The mindfulness framework suggested by Moscardo (1996, 1999) has been acknowledged as important, however, there are few gaps in the application: lack of explanation on

Visitor Factor in influencing mindfulness and lack of specific measure of mindfulness and interpretive outcome in tourism context. The overall research objective of this study is to enhance the mindfulness framework in explaining tourist interpretative outcome. This research examine the influence of Visitor Factors and Communication

Factors on mindfulness. This research is conducted in Penang, a destination listed under the UNESCO World Heritage. A self-administered questionnaire using quota sampling method with 390 usable responses from local and international tourists were gathered. Partial Least Square (PLS) was employed for data analyses: measurement and structural model assessment. From the analysis, all the constructs have composite reliability value of more than 0.7 and have demonstrated adequate convergent and discriminant validity with an average variance extracted value greater than 0.5. The proposed model of mindfulness has a high level of Goodness of Fit (GoF), with a value of 0.606. The overall framework shows a strong explanatory power with R2 of 0.628

(62.8%). The results from Q2 tests suggest that interpretive outcome is well predicted by the model. The findings reveal that mindfulness mediates the relationship between

Uses of Questions (Communication Factors), Level of Interest and Visualisation

(Visitor Factors) and interpretive outcome. This has demonstrated that, in the context

xix of heritage tourism, only these three variables are significant in influencing mindfulness in supporting desirable interpretive outcome. Visitors are highly influenced if we respond to their curious mind and make them engage intellectually in their encounter. This has provided a comprehensive framework in the understanding of the relationship between Communication and Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome through the mediating role of mindfulness.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

According to the past literature, the mindfulness framework are able to explain and understand on the factor that contribute to mindfulness. However, it is not competent in explaining the relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome. Thus, this research would like to extend the understanding of mindfulness in influencing interpretive outcome. In reviewing this framework, both the Communication Factors and Visitor Factors will be revisited to explore on the effect of the variable to mindfulness and interpretive outcome. In addition, this research will also look at the role of mindfulness in the framework in influencing interpretive outcome.

This study aims to strengthen the mindfulness framework used to explain the tourist interpretation in tourism research. The concept of mindfulness will first be re-visited to provide greater understanding on the underlying mechanism that underpins the concept. Next, the Communication and Visitor Factors in the mindfulness framework will be investigated to provide greater understanding on how they influence mindfulness and how it affects interpretive outcome. Finally, the study will explore on the effects of mindfulness on interpretive outcome. This research focuses on mindfulness at hertitage sites.

In recent years, the number of tourists who visited heritage sites has increased and this has contributed to the growth of Malaysia’s economy. Heritage tourism is capable of

generating large economic impact as it has higher public interest (Strauss & Lord, 2001 and Bowitz & Ibenholt, 2009). Heritage has become one of the Malaysia’s key attraction to outsiders, especially after the twin declaration of Malacca and Penang as

World Heritage Sites (WHS) by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation (UNESCO) in 2008 (The Star, 8 July 2008). The number of tourist arrival in Malaysia has increased from 22.05 million in 2008 to 25.03 million in 2012

(Ministry of Tourism Malaysia, 2012). In 2008, for Penang alone, the number of tourist’s arrival hit 6.31 million after George Town was officially recognised as a

UNESCO WHS. The arrival of tourists then subsequently slowed down but held steady at between 5.96 and 6.09 million tourists up till 2012 (Penang Monthly, January 2016).

The other UNESCO listed WHS in Malaysia are Gunung Mulu National Park in

Sarawak, Kinabalu Park in Sabah and the latest being the Lenggong Valley, Perak

(New Straits Time, 2 July 2012). The WHS status has elevated both Malacca and

Penang to international status in terms of cultural heritage tourism and is expected to draw more tourists to both sites. Heritage tourism is viewed as travels that are related to experiencing cultural environments, including landscapes, the visual and performing arts, and special lifestyles, values, traditions, and events (Tighe 1986,

Endresen 1999; Garrod and Fyall, 2001; Howard, 2003; Caton & Santos, 2007).

Heritage is regarded as one of the most significant and rapidly growing components of tourism in many developed economies (Li, Wu, and Cai, 2008). In line with this, Chen

& Chen (2010) asserted that heritage tourism is consistent with more general global trends in cultural tourism and has emerged as one popular form of tourism. Various researchers (Endresen, 1999; Strauss & Lord, 2001 and Al-hagla, 2010) highlighted that the WHS are important tourist attractions and they form the backbone of the

tourism industry. Indeed, the places which are listed on the World Heritage List can quickly draw attention from many people around the world to the site, ultimately becoming a major tourist attraction which potentially creates high linkages with the local economy. Heritage tourists are observed to spend more than other segments of tourists (Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001 and Nicolau, 2011).

Heritage tourism offers opportunities to depict the past in the present. It provides an infinite time and space in which the past can be experienced through the perspective of the endless possibilities of interpretations (Nuryanti, 1996 ; Global Heritage Fund,

2012). Heritage tourism reflects a desire to experience something unique and beautiful that represents the self or others’ most valued inheritance. One of the reasons that people would want to travel to cultural heritage sites is to experience something that they do not have in their own country Heritage also represents the foundations of human society and provides the best examples of the historical and cultural development of humanity (Global Heritage Fund, 2012).

Nevertheless, tourism has been identified as one of the major threats to heritage sites

(Global Heritage Fund, 2012). The growth of the tourism industry has detrimental effects on heritage sites to a certain extent. A study by the World Monument Fund

(WMF) showed that tourist activities are as damaging to heritage as war or rising sea levels. Approximately one-third of the heritage sites were diagnosed as being ‘in danger’ mainly from tourist activities (World Monuments Fund, 2010). Thus, in overcoming this issue, the host country would include sustainability efforts in their tourism plan to ensure on-going economical income and the protection of the heritage sites.

In ensuring sustainability of the heritage sites, the most common method is to enforce law and policies to protect these heritage sites. For example, Malaysia has formulated the National Heritage Act 2005 and created the post of “Heritage Commissioner” to supervise, preserve and maintain the value of heritage sites (Netto, 2012), and the

United Kingdom government has implemented a policy that meets the obligations to protect, manage, present and transmit to future generations for the heritage sites

(Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008). Agencies such as the

United Nation often inspect and examine closely heritage sites to ensure their integrity and "outstanding universal value”. Hence, if the host of the heritage sites fails to maintain the sustainability of the sites, the United Nations’ cultural agency would propose to label the heritage sites on its list of world heritage sites in danger (Carrell,

2008).

At the macro level, law and policies are engaged to facilitate the management of heritage sites such as carrying capacity, tour operator’s conducts and tourist conducts.

Laws and policies, however, do not address issues at the micro level, such as the attitude and behaviour of individual tourists. The ability in managing tourists at the micro level will assist the management of heritage sites at the macro level.

At the micro level, one of the ways to help ensure the sustainability of the heritage sites is by producing mindful tourists. Mindful tourists are tourists who are actively engaged with the interpretation of the heritage sites that will lead to greater learning and higher satisfaction (Moscardo 1996 and 1999). Interpretation and tourism are closely related. Interpretation in the context of tourism is mainly related with providing information to tourists at tourist attractions. To connect the terms of interpretation and

tourism together, Moscardo (1998) used the terms such as “providing visitors with information” and “giving visitors knowledge”, implying that interpretation is closely linked to communication and education. Current research on the other hand, adapts definition that is aligned to visitor’s perspective, stating that interpretation creates an opportunity for the visitors to construct meaning personally through their intellectual and emotional connections through their encounter (Larsen, Mayo, Wolter, Bliss, &

Barrie, 2009). This would enable the visitors to make connection between their own experience and the encounter at the attraction.

The concept of “Mindfulness” provides useful insight in terms of learning from interpretive material (Moscardo, 1996). A mindful individual is an individual who is actively engaged in re-constructing the surrounding through creating new categories, thus drawing their attention to new contextual cues that may be consciously controlled.

A mindful tourist would be able to distinguish the differences. A mindful tourist would be able to distinguish the differences. In contrast, a mindless individual is an individual who behaves through the routine, pay limited attention to what they are doing and trapped in a rigid mind-set. Mindfulness is a concept that helps tourist to build interpretation that will enrich the value of the experience and generate a sustainable connection between the tourists and the heritage sites (Moscardo, 1999).

According to Moscardo (1999) and Frauman and Norman (2004) visitors who are mindful may value and understand the information of the place that they have visited differently despite being at a natural, cultural or historical based setting compared to those who are not so mindful. A mindful individual is more attentive to his or her surrounding while a mindless visitor will not pay much attention to his or her

surroundings. Being able to produce attentive tourists will benefit the heritage sites as the tourists will behave in ways which will generate greater learning and eventually lead to greater protection towards the heritage sites. They are also aware of the consequences of their actions on the heritage sites.

An outcome of a mindful tourist with effective interpretation is to learn something new such as the culture, lifestyle and history, which will add a new perspective into their lives and so on. Learning is therefore a vital part of the interpretation process. In the process of interpreting, the individual is digesting the information and trying to connect to their previous experience or existing information or perhaps creating new cues in themselves. Learning while travelling often brings benefits to both the visitors and the places visited. It can drive to the advancement of knowledge, understanding and satisfaction with the visit. Kuh (1995) argued that travel is one of the most influential variables in developing basic skills for some learners. Werry (2008) supported the idea and claimed that travel offers one of the most contemporary opportunities outside of the education industry where people learn about other times, places and cultures.

Davis, Sumara, and Luce-Kapler, (2000) suggested learning as a creative process of change in a person as an individual, social and community level. Learning is often facilitated by a wide range of tools which are dynamic between a person and

“something”. Learning is an essential part of human, both consciously and unconsciously, and is linked to identity and sense of self. In the dimension of communication, Mezirow (2003) stated that communicative learning refers to understanding what someone means when they communicate with you. This

understanding includes becoming aware of the assumptions, intentions and qualifications of the person communicating.

It has been proposed that in the process of interpretation of the information, visitors tend to gain new insights (Moscardo, Woods and Saltzer, 2004 and Larsen et al., 2009).

Effective interpretation plays an important role in learning and understanding the information provided at the heritage sites. Effective interpretation would help tourists in gaining more knowledge and at the same time enjoying their visit. In the present study, effective interpretation is measured based on several dimensions of interpretive outcomes, namely cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions. Therefore, it is important to investigate the aspects of mindfulness which contribute to desirable interpretive outcome.

In addition, this research aims to improve the current framework of mindfulness in tourism proposed by Moscardo (1996, 1999) and revised by Woods and Moscardo

(2003). The existing framework is unclear in terms of explaining the factors influencing mindfulness and how mindfulness produces better interpretive outcome among visitors. The framework also does not have a clear explanation on how mindfulness would support interpretation in producing individuals with desirable interpretive outcome. Hence, this research will enhance the current conceptual framework of mindfulness. The research will also address and evaluate both the

Communication and Visitor Factors which influence the level of mindfulness and how mindfulness will help in producing desirable interpretive outcome.

1.2 Problem Statement

In the mindfulness literature, there are lack of understanding on the heritage environment and context that relate to both the Communication and Visitors Factors.

To ensure that the factors influencing mindfulness are comprehensive, the researcher aims to review and re-visit the variables in the existing framework at heritage sites because the variables might be different compared to past research and application of mindfulness by Moscardo in different contextual environment such as the nature environment (Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008; Woods, Moscardo, and Greenwood,

1998) and wildlife-based tourism (Woods and Moscardo, 2003). There might be other variables which may influence mindfulness that have not been considered.

Furthermore, the measurement of mindfulness in tourism research has been vague. The measurement offered by Moscardo (1996) emphasised on the influence of the

Communication Factor on visitor’s interpretation. Uriely (2005) argued that, the present notion of tourist experiences has shifted from the display objects placed by the industry to the subjective negotiation meaning of the tourists. This implies that the interpretation of the heritage sites also depends on the experience of the particular individual. As such, to address this problem, this study aims to examine the state of mindfulness in relation to the internal state of the visitor (Visitor Factors) and also the external stimuli (Communication Factors) contributing to interpretive outcome.

Additionally, the framework for mindfulness in tourism proposed by Moscardo does not seem to be able to accommodate well to complex situations such as what and which factor influence mindfulness at heritage sites. According to the framework,

mindfulness is related to Visitor Factors. However, there is a dearth of strong evidence in terms of data supporting the relationship. To Moscardo, Visitor Factors is a conditional factor contributing to the state of mindfulness. However, Brown & Ryan

(2003) argued that an individual, at any one point in time, can be in a particularly mindful or mindless state. The state of mind of an individual plays a role in influencing mindfulness. This means, the visitor aspect is a significant condition contributing to the state of mindfulness. However, unlike the Communication Factors, Visitor Factors has not been thoroughly investigated to explain its dimensions and how it influences mindfulness. To address this problem, this research will explore the Visitor Factors more in-depth on how it influences mindfulness.

Moreover, past research has not clearly established the relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome. In this research, the relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome will be examined. Understanding this relationship is important because making heritage places understandable and meaningful to visitors, and heritage interpretation has now been firmly established as a central component of modern heritage tourism (Prentice, Guerin, & McGugan, 1998 and UNESCO, 2007). Also, Moscardo, (1996; 1999) claims that, mindful tourists would enhance their learning experience and tend to share a positive attitude, appreciation and empathy towards the sites they visit, in developing a sense of attachment and stewardship towards its conservation after the visit. Mindful tourists are ones who are able to appreciate heritage attractions so that they will be dynamically processed the information and questioning what is going on in their surroundings.

However, there is no substantial evidence in showing the outcome of the interpretation.

Hence, the current research will address this gap by examine mindfulness as the

mediational influence to interpretive outcome.

In summary, the current framework of mindfulness in tourism has not been adequate to address the multidimensionality and complexity of heritage tourism. Therefore, this framework has to be revisited to understand more fully on the relationship between

Communication and Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

1.3 Research Objectives and Research Questions

The overall objective of this research is to develop a model of mindfulness that will help the understanding of how mindfulness supports interpretive outcome among visitors at heritage site.

Specifically, the objectives of the research are as follows:

RO1: To explore, identify and validate the measure of Mindfulness in the context of

heritage tourism.

RO2: To examine the factors that influence mindfulness among tourists at heritage

sites.

RO3: To test the effects of Communication Factors and Visitor Factors on

interpretive outcome.

RO4: To examine the relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

RO5: To examine mediating effects of mindfulness on the relationship between

Communication Factors and interpretive outcome, and Visitor Factors and

interpretive outcome.

RO6: To propose a comprehensive framework of Mindfulness in the context of

heritage tourism.

Based on these directions, the research questions can be formulated as follows:

RQ 1: What are the dimensions that made up mindfulness?

RQ 2: How does the Communication Factors influence mindfulness among tourists

at heritage sites?

RQ 3: How does the Visitor Factors influence mindfulness among tourists at heritage

sites?

RQ 4: What are the key factors likely to contribute towards mindfulness at heritage

sites?

RQ 5: What are the key factors likely to contribute towards interpretive outcome at

heritage sites?

RQ 6: To what extend mindfulness mediates on the relationship between

Communication Factors and interpretive outcome?

RQ 7: To what extend mindfulness mediates on the relationship between Visitor

Factors and interpretive outcome?

RQ 8: Does mindfulness contribute towards interpretive outcome?

1.4 Research Significance

This study would be able to generate new insights on the mindfulness framework.

Through this study, the researcher will be able to identify the contribution to the formation of mindful tourists in promoting better experience and learning to tourists

through interpretation. The current tourism promotion and marketing are highly focused on the number of arrival of visitors and use these numbers as a measure of their success. Numbers alone, however, do not contribute to quality. Instead, it can contribute towards negative impacts: overcrowding, congestion, littering, vandalism and destruction of heritage artefacts. According to Moscardo (1996), tourist is often referred as the roots of the negative impacts and there are not much discussions on the ways in improving the nature and behaviour of the tourists.

With the identification of variables from both the Communication and Visitor Factors, more accurate understanding on factors contributing towards mindfulness can be established. The measurement of the conceptual framework proposed by Moscardo

(1996) currently only explains the influence of Communication Factor on mindfulness.

Thus, this research will help to provide better understanding on how the

Communication and Visitor Factors contribute towards mindfulness.

Additionally, this research is also able to enhance the conceptual framework of mindfulness. This research provides a better understanding on mindfulness and its contribution towards desirable interpretive outcome among tourists at heritage sites.

This study will help to further establish the conceptual framework of mindfulness in a new research context. This is because, most of the previous studies were in Western countries. Applying the conceptual framework of mindfulness in the heritage setting of Malaysia is a new context of research.

Heritage sites are important in representing the foundations of the culture and society of our country to other people as well as our future generations. This research will aid

as an alternative method in facilitating the heritage sites towards encouraging sustainable visitor’s behaviour. With the rising numbers of tourists and tourism activities, the sustainability of the heritage site become major concerns from both perspectives of practitioners and academics. Hence, a well-managed heritage tourism seeks to achieve a balance between the preservation of heritage resources and providing economic development opportunities for local community and country.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

In this chapter, the researcher first discusses the literature on heritage tourism to provide the context to the research and then proceed to the focus area of investigation that is the heritage tourism in Penang. The heritage setting is selected because of the escalating numbers of the tourist arrivals and also the declaration by UNESCO as the

WHS in 2008. Additionally, heritage sites are something inherited and serve as a socio- cultural assets in order to attract visitors to the host country. It is important for us to keep conserving our heritage assets for our future generations and also as a sustainable economical assets. Specifically, this research will examine the factors that influence the level of mindfulness, and how mindfulness relates to interpretive outcome at the heritage site in Penang, Malaysia. Review on the origin and definition of mindfulness and its application in tourism are then provided. The framework of mindfulness is also reviewed to understand more on the existing framework and the gap of the framework.

The literature also review interpretation from various points of view and also the objective and outcome of interpretation. The researcher then discusses the necessity in conserving the heritage sites in Malaysia, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages in heritage tourism and its impacts towards heritage sites. There are several methods in encouraging the understanding of the preservation of the heritage sites and one of the methods is through interpretation. In interpretation, the conceptual framework of mindfulness is applied. The history and definitions and the background

of the concept of mindfulness is discussed to explain its importance and connection to visitor’s interpretation.

2.2 Heritage Tourism

Heritage tourism has shown exponential growth in tourism. According to Global

Heritage Fund (2012) the worldwide tourism activities at global heritage sites is growing from eight to twelve percent per year on average and in most of the developing countries, heritage sites generate more foreign exchange profits compared to the other sectors. Heritage sites in many countries and historic places such as museums and

National Park can be considered as a sustainable resource, generating long-term revenue and investment far into the future (Ryan & Dewar, 1995; Global Heritage

Fund, 2012).

Heritage site especially with the status listed by UNESCO as World Heritage Site is increasingly becoming the central focus in many tourist destinations. Heritage tourism is presently one of the most outstanding and widespread types of tourism in terms of visitors and attractions, attracting hundreds of millions of people every year (Timothy,

2011). This is because, many tourists are in search to experience something different that entails intellectual engagement such as new ideas, space and activities (Rahimah,

2009 and Bodger, 1998). Hence, travel provides one of the few contemporary opportunities outside of the education industry for people to experience non-vocational learning about times, places, and peoples of different background (Werry, 2008).

Heritage sites represent the past and traditions values to many of us. Heritage is a set of ideas, symbols and events that has been established and serve as the reinforcement of the social cohesion and identity (Knudsen & Greer, 2008). Destinations that offer heritage tourism, highlights the destination’s historic, natural, and cultural value

(Boyd, 2002) and goes beyond a simple interest in prehistoric and historic roots

(Global Heritage Fund, 2012). Heritage Tourism is related in terms of experiencing cultural environments, including landscapes, the visual and performing arts, and special lifestyles, values, traditions, events (Tighe 1986, Endresen 1999; Garrod and

Fyall, 2001;Boyd, 2002; Howard, 2003).

Given the wide range of conceptualisation of heritage tourism available, the table below provides the conceptualisation from various scholars:

Table 2.1: Conceptualisation of heritage tourism

Source Conceptualisation Dimension Taking on the identity of an interest in the past, an interest in cultures, Boyd (2002)  Identity of the past buildings, artefacts and landscapes of both the past and present Fyall & Garrod An economic activity that makes use of  The use of socio- (1998) socio-cultural assets to attract visitors culture assets It includes tourism related to what we have inherited. This may mean interest in our connections to anything from McCain & Ray history, art, science, lifestyles,  Identity of the past (2003) architecture, to scenery found in a community, region, population, or institution that we regard as part of our collective lineage.

Table 2.1 Continued

Source Conceptualisation Dimension Tourism constructed, proffered  Appreciation as and consumed explicitly or Prentice experience of schematic implicitly as cultural appreciation, (2001) knowledge either as experiences or schematic knowledge gaining. Visits by persons from outside the  Interest in historical, host community motivated wholly artistic, scientific, or in part by interest in historical, Silberberg lifestyle or cultural artistic, scientific, lifestyle/cultural (1995) heritage heritage offerings of a host community, region, group or institution. The experience, understanding and  Understanding and UNESCO enjoyment of the values of cultural enjoyment of the values (2007) heritage by the visitors at heritage of cultural heritage sites.

In this study, heritage tourism is specifically defined according to the definition by

UNESCO as the experience, understanding and enjoyment of the values of cultural heritage by visitors at heritage sites. This definition is adapted in this current research because the definition by UNESCO has the associations of key concept with the understanding and enjoyment of the heritage site which the current framework for this study is also to look at the interpretation of the visitors. Heritage interpretation is a vital part of heritage tourism whereby it is about communicating the meaning of a heritage site, understanding and appreciation of sites by the public as well as creating awareness on the importance and protection of the heritage sites (UNESCO, 2007).

This is similar to the framework of the current research that would look at effective interpretation.

Heritage sites are being classified based on the “geographical identity” focusing on the link between concepts such as heritage, place, and space and the fact that a single location holds, or may hold various meanings (Howard (2003) and Poria et al., (2003).

According to Poria et al., (2003) these meanings, will further affect the visitors on-site who have an interest in its interpretation. This is because, according to Faulkner,

Moscardo, & Laws (2001) and Poria et al., (2009) interpretation is based on the interest of the visitors and the interpretation of the heritage sites varied from one to another.

Cultural heritage is valuable because it represents the cultural identity of communities, groups and individuals or social cohesion (Silverman & Ruggles, 2007; Gillman,

2010). That is, cultural heritage is regarded as more than just simply tourism that stresses on the past, it is an interest that is determined by the sets of values and criteria that are integrated into it and the values which differ over time, space and across society. This is because, usually cultural heritage setting must be able to tell a story, makes it assets comes lively, make it relevant to the visitors that comes and provide the sense of authenticity (McKercher, Ho, & du Cros, 2004).

Cultural heritage tourism is a specific types of tourism that is enjoyed by a special group of people and several research has segmented and profile the tourists. Research by Kerstetter, Confer, & Bricker (1998) and Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe (2001) revealed that cultural tourists are more interested to have education-oriented experiences and spend longer time at the destinations and are willing to spend more money. Kim & Jamal (2007) also found that cultural tourists are usually mature, wealthy, highly educated and encompass a higher percentage of females. Tourists are also looking forward for better and greater depth of experiences than in the past, because the conventional vacation is no longer acceptable and they are more sophisticated and therefore expects more than the ordinary experiences (Kaufman &

Weaver, 2006). The increase in the demand for heritage tourism has been attributed to higher level of education and experience orientation.

In recent years, many heritage attractions have transformed. The past decade has seen an important paradigm shift for many of these types of attractions, being transformed into educational centres and a space to learn, as opposed to a place that merely display the artefacts (Cook, 2001). A research by Poria, Butler, & Airey, (2004) has discovered that the educational element is one of the main motivations for visitors to visit heritage sites, and this information has caused a paradigm shift for many heritage attractions worldwide. Many of these sites have adopted a more scientific and technological focus, evolving into interactive multi-sensory exhibit in which multimedia displays are the norm where the visitors are able to come and participate and interact, rather than simply look at exhibits and read the information displayed to them. As explained by

Falk, Ballantyne, Packer, & Benckendorff (2012) learning is effectively shaped by the inside world of our past experiences, but equally by the outside world.

To summarise, heritage tourism not only offers the past to the present (Raivo, 2002) but also offers the learning opportunities (Cook, 2001). The learning component in tourism is often related to the interpretation about the sites and setting. Learning take place when travellers enthusiastically engage with interpretation and also from the outcome of the interpretation that they engaged earlier (Falk et al., 2012).

2.3 Cultural Heritage Tourism in Penang

The tourism industry is one of the largest contributors to Malaysia’s economics in terms of foreign exchange. According to the then Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng

Yen Yen, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation revealed that Malaysia is the ninth most travelled destination in the world with 23.65 million tourists a year (The

Star, 18 September 2010). In a separate article by the local newspaper, The Star,

Penang is listed as one of the top 10 islands in the world “You must see before you die.” by Yahoo! travel writer (Manjit Kaur, February 18, 2011). George Town, Penang is listed as the “Holiday Hotspots: Where To Go In 2014” published on 3 January by a newspaper in London, (The Guardian, 2014).

The number of tourist’s arrival to the Penang has increased with the accreditation by

UNESCO. After the declaration of Malacca and Penang as World Heritage Sites

(WHS) by UNESCO in 2008 (The Star, 8 July 2008), the arrival of tourist’s in 2008, for Penang alone, is 6.31 million then subsequently decreased down but held steady at between 5.96 and 6.09 million tourists up till 2012 (Penang Monthly, 2014). The figure below illustrates the number of tourist’s arrival in Penang.

Figure 2.1: Number of International and Local Tourist Arrival, 2005-2012 (Penang Monthly, January 2016)

One of the most prominent contributors to the tourism revenue in Malaysia is the heritage tourism in Malaysia. In 2012, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contribution of the Malaysian tourism sector has achieved up to 7% and there were 811,500 jobs opportunities generated by the same sector (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2013).

This positive economic growth has provided a much needed boost for many local communities and creates many job opportunities. According to some rough estimation, between 50 and 80 per cent of all domestic and international travel encompasses some components of culture such as visiting museums and historic sites, enjoying music and arts, or being immersed in the living culture of a destination (Timothy, 2011).

Both Melaka and George Town, the Historic Port Cities of the Straits of Malacca that qualified were bestowed the UNESCO World Heritage Site for their historic townships, religious pluralism and multicultural living heritage forged by mercantile and cultural exchanges at the crossroads of civilisations (Nasution, 2008). These unique elements can be seen around the towns in the houses of worship and the peaceful co-existence of various religions, combination of Asian and colonial architectures and multicultural heritage exhibited in the rituals, trades and cuisine of the city community.

The history of Penang begins in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during the age of the trans-oceanic steamship. At that time, Penang played a role as a trading hub for the Malay States, Sumatra, Southern Thailand and the Mergui archipelago up to

Rangoon, the town grew into one of the region’s premier cities, setting the pace for education, business, technology and the aesthetics of modernity. The capital, George

Town, was a cosmopolitan city where diverse peoples lived and worked, traded and transacted and worshipped. Each day there were many travellers, pilgrims and migrants that would arrive and leave (Nasution, 2008). Penang heritage tourism emphasis on the cultural diversity, a cultural treasure combining Malay, Chinese,

Indian and other heritages (Worden, 2001).

Over many years, the merging of these cultural influences has brought in the dominance of British colonial architecture within the island. Upon the independence of Malaysia, Penang has become a state of its own and Georgetown has become the capital of the state. Currently, the different ethnic groups of Georgetown still exist and can be traced through their heritage buildings, diverse cultures and languages

(Nasution, 2008; Farahani, Abooali, & Mohamed, 2012). With the recognition from

UNESCO, Penang has transformed many people’s perceptions. Various groups of people showed a surge of interest which include tourists, tourism players, investors and even the Penang Diasporas who were previously more interested in hawker food than heritage. The listing gave a tremendous boost to Malaysian pride and local confidence (Nasution, 2008).

The heritage building and culture has a very significant value to Penang as a World

Heritage City. Having too many tourists per year without proper management, this cultural diversity can be lost in many forms. According to Nasution (2008) in recent years, the historic interiors of Straits Chinese homes have been stripped bare, calligraphic plaques which used to grace house entrances have disappeared and many rare Jawi Peranakan bungalows have been demolished. Meanwhile, the survival of historic minorities, such as the mosque community at Acheen Street, or the Catholic community behind the Eurasian church, is also cause for concern.

2.4 Preservation of Heritage Site

Tourism will lead to mixed impacts. On the bright side of tourism, this sector offers jobs opportunity, brings foreign exchanges and generates income to support local development. On the other hand, this sector will also causes degradation to the environment. The damage that tourism made to people, economy and environment of the host area, especially in the long run remains hidden from the tourist (Moscardo,

Woods, & Saltzer, 2004 and Chawla, 2005).

In 1972, World Heritage Convention of UNESCO launched an initiative in to preserve heritage sites considered to be of great value to humanity by listing many cultural and natural heritage sites in different countries in order to protect them. In the process of industrialisation of economic development many of the heritage sites were increasingly threatened. For the protection of these heritage sites the Convention enacted an international treaty called “The Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage”. The safeguard of these heritage sites however often remains incomplete at the national level, especially in developing and least developed countries

(Huang, Tsaur, & Yang, 2012). To ensure the protection of these heritage sites,

UNESCO has declared many heritage sites in different countries as WHS in order to consistently monitor the condition of the heritage sites. The figure below illustrates the core zone and the buffer zone gazetted in Penang that has been nominated by

UNESCO:

Figure 2.2: George Town Heritage Zone

With various types of attractions offered in Penang, Tourism Malaysia (2014) listed fourteen “Top Tourists Attractions Is Penang” namely Batu Ferringhi Beach, Kek Lok

Si, Cheng Fatt Sze Mansion, Fort Cornwallis, Gurney Drive, Penang National Park,

Penang War Museum, Penang Peranakan Mansion, Tropical Spice Garden, Khoo

Kongsi, Kuan Yin Temple (Goddess of Mercy Temple), Penang Botanical Garden,

Penang Museum, Art and Gallery and Kapitan Keling Mosque. However, only seven of these attractions named are situated in the Heritage Zone that are accredited by

UNESCO. The attractions that are located in the Heritage Zone are Cheong Fatt Sze

Mansion, Fort Cornwallis, Penang Peranakan Mansion, Khoo Kongsi, Kuan Yin

Temple (Goddess of Mercy Temple), Penang Museum, Art and Gallery and the

Kapitan Keling Mosque (PANCA, 2010). Hence, this study will only emphasise the heritage attractions that are located in the Heritage Zone that are being recommended by Tourism Malaysia. This is because, the study aimed to enhance the interpretation among tourists at heritage sites and consequently the study area that are selected are those located in the Heritage Zone that is accredited by UNESCO and also being recommended by Tourism Malaysia.

Together with site development for heritage tourism comes the obligation for long- term protection and preservation, which requires an appropriate management. It is important to have a proper management in helping to preserve and conserve the heritage building. Well planned and manage heritage tourism can contribute to the positive impact (Pinter, 2005) and a poorly managed heritage industry means the creating wide-scale of irreversible destruction to our heritage (Nasution, 2008).

With the current growth in heritage tourism, there is rising concern about the sustainability of at the heritage sites (Pinter, 2005). Thus, there is a need for us to be concerned about the preservation and conservation of the heritage sites. Sustainable tourism are able to help in creating balance between the economic, environmental and social benefits of tourism development and the costs of such development on tourism destinations (Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013). To narrow this down, sustainable heritage tourism is generally responsible tourism with infrastructures that promote the physical conservation of the heritage sites and at the same time ensures the sustainable economic development of the surrounding communities (Rahimah, 2009). Tourism- related parties such as tour operators, hotels, government agencies as well as tourists must develop a sense of ethical and moral responsibility towards tourism. The responsibility is not just about promoting heritage tourism as part of a destination marketing strategy but preserving cultural heritage (Chui, Rahim, Khan, Cheng, &

Hassan, 2011).

The tourism sector if is not properly planned and developed, it can negatively impact a community. Essentially, tourism planning and development that guides a community’s growth, protects its valuable resources, and leads the community to economic and societal success (Inskeep, 1991; Mill & Morrison, 1992). Maintaining the heritage sites in our country is important not only to serve as a source of economy to attract tourists but also to preserve our own heritage and culture from the past. The lack of management in tourism sector will create severe consequences to the heritages for the future generations and further create social and cultural impacts. It is suggest that preservation of the heritage sites is essentially a better option compared to its

restoration and mere economic consideration (Pechlaner, 2000 and Jewell and Crotts,

2001)

It is important for both the management and also the tourist to create and participate in responsible tourism. In specific, initiating responsible tourism according to Chawla

(2005) is ensuring a tourism that cares for the environment, provides opportunities for local people to generate their own income providing customers with correct information about the culture and setting of the destination to help them get more from their holiday and implementing a policy of corporate social responsibility. Responsible tourism is in a nutshell it means making sure that tourism organisation that take care of the destinations, so that their attractions and resources- whether natural or cultural are not spoiled either for local people or future visitors.

The sustainability of a heritage attraction depends much on the level of cultural knowledge and awareness of the host community and visitors. The volume in tourist arrivals should not be counted as a criterion for success (Chui et al., 2011) because most of the human causes threats to heritage sites are rooted in to the insufficient knowledge of cultural heritage and its significance. An increased knowledge of the host community and visitors can lead to better awareness and more support for heritage protection and less damage to the sites (Utah. Division of State History, 1995;

Moscardo, 1996).

Spreading information and knowledge about heritage and its protection through different medium about the cultural heritage and its importance will increase the awareness of both host communities and visitors to further promote the sustainable

conservation of heritage sites (Utah. Division of State History, 1995). Agreeing on that, Nasution (2008) suggests that it would be good to start with the spreading of technical guidelines and important information to both tourists and the host communities.

The information that tourists encounter at heritage sites not only provide the chances for them to discover about their history and culture but also to enhance the quality of their experience (Moscardo, 2003). At the tourism destination, there are several method used and collectively these methods constitute the interpretive experience.

Methods used comprise of interpretive signs, models, brochures, guides, demonstrations and shows, video, audio commentary, computers and books

(Moscardo et al., 2004). With a little more interpretation and cultural infrastructure,

George Town could serve as an “open museum” of culture and architecture, catering especially to Malaysian and ASEAN students (Nasution, 2008).

Interpretation and education are the two fundamental foundations that would help in promoting sustainability of the heritage sites (Moscardo et al., 2004 and Moscardo,

2003). Interpretation can be used to encourage environmental awareness and stewardship as well as cultural awareness and sensitivity as well as to establish a framework for understanding multicultural perspectives (Pinter, 2005) and tourism audiences to spread conservation messages around the globe (Moscardo, 2003).

Effective interpretive programs would enhance long term public support for protection by increased knowledge and more positive conservation attitudes (Pinter, 2005;

Moscardo, 2003).

Interpretation can be enhanced through cultivating mindfulness among visitors. The concept of mindfulness has been suggested to enhance learning from interpretive material (Moscardo, 1996). According to Moscardo (1999) and Frauman & Norman

(2004) mindful visitors may view and interpret the natural, cultural, or historical based setting information differently compared to those who is not very mindful. Mindful processing information should then encourage visitors to behave in a minimal impact with an increased awareness of conservation (Moscardo et al., 2004).

2.5 Overview of Mindfulness

In general, mindfulness is conceptualised as “the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown & Ryan, 2003). The concept of mindfulness is used to explain individual’s cognitive, affective and behavioural response in social situations (Langer, 1989).

The concept of mindfulness has been applied in a number of areas (i.e: education, psychology, organisational management and others) and the evidence consistently shows that mindfulness is associated with a range of positive outcomes which include better decision making, more effective learning, improved mental and physical health, better memory for details of a situation, enhanced feelings of self-worth, more effective responses to crises, greater creativity, positive evaluations of experiences and positive affective or emotional responses to a situation (Carson and Langer, 2006).

The mindfulness approaches have also been applied in psychological treatment. Kabat-

Zinn, Lipworth, & Burney (1985) found that mindfulness can be highly successful in

reducing self-reports of both pain and pain-related behaviours in the majority of the patients referred to it for chronic pain. Additionally, Anderson et al. (2007) suggest that mindfulness is often associated with the changes in the quality of awareness of present moment experience rather than basic ability to pay attention. These approaches involve a rigorous programme of training in meditation to cultivate the capacity to evoke and apply mindfulness to enhance emotional well-being and mental health (Bishop et al., 2004).

Langer & Moldoveanu (2000) stated that the concept of mindfulness has emerged in various fields such as organisational management, psychological treatment and pedagogy. In the perspective of organisation communication, this concept suggests at least two potential solutions. One is to vary the perspective from which workplace tasks are viewed by the persons performing them. The other is to design interventions that allow people to become more engaged with the tasks they are already performing.

The more mindful one is in engaging a subject one is working on, the more likely the task will be performed in a responsible way. On the other hand, in education, the literature indicates that the more informative the content of the material to be learned, the more it encourages learning. Rather than freezing the material in one rigid perspective, students can easily make the material relevant to their own individual concerns and they tend to be more mindful.

Clearly from the above description, the concept of mindfulness is highly useful and has been applied in various fields. Its application has also been expanded throughout the years to the tourism and hospitality industries. The literature also indicates that the practice of this concept can enable an individual lead a better quality of life. The

number of researchers interested in mindfulness practice has steadily increased as studies of the concept of mindfulness is an interesting concept applicable in various fields as it allows an individual to have a positive lifestyle. In general, it encourages positive outcomes.

2.6 Mindfulness

2.6.1 History and Origin of Mindfulness

The understanding of mindfulness philosophy can be tracked back to the practice of self-discovering in religion. Mindfulness is an effort to be continuously present at a situation. The practice of mindfulness is being taught by bringing one's attention in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation.

Mindfulness was initially conceptualised based on the practice of Buddhism, which focuses and emphasises on awareness and remembering i.e., being aware of the surroundings and also pay attention to them. Buddhism highlights the importance of intention in mindfulness so that the individual is able to fully control their activities and will not cause any problem to others. This intention can be practised by paying attention to every moment an individual encounters (Phra Ajahn Pilen Panyapatipo, n.d). This means an individual needs to be conscious beforehand of whatever they do.

Shapiro (2009, p. 556) defines mindfulness from the contemporary Buddhist perspective as “to remember to pay attention to what is occurring in one’s immediate experience with care and discernment”. In line with this, Brown and Ryan (2003) reinforce that the concept of mindfulness has its roots in Buddhism and other contemplative traditions where conscious attention and awareness are actively

cultivated. Mindfulness from the perspective of Buddhism is most generally defined as the ability to concentrate and be alert of what is taking place in the present.

Mindfulness is also applied in the practice of Zen and Yoga. Zen practitioners are required to develop consciousness in order to sustain their attention and breath control

(Kubota et al., 2001). On the other hand, Yoga is a practice that integrates exercise, breathing and meditation to encourage the union of mind and body (McCall, 2013).

Both of these practitioners are either silently or quietly repeating the technique required in the mediation and their attentional focus such as maintaining a posture or repeatedly counting their breaths. If other thoughts intrude into their consciousness during the meditation, they gently and firmly bring their attention back to the object of meditation (Murata et al., 2004 and Feldman, 2010). Parallel to the practice mindfulness in Buddism, both Zen and Yoga require an individual to stay conscious on a singular aspect, such as the breath, a word, a tone, a posture or an image. In line with this, as stated by Kabat-Zinn (2003) the level of mindfulness can be increased with more regular practice, for example through formal meditation practice. Thus, meditation can be regarded as a state of consciousness (Badawi, Wallace, Orme-

Johnson, & Rouzere, 1984; Feldman, 2010) which is the focus of awareness towards a single point or object (Murata et al., 2004 and Feldman, 2010).

Apart from the perspective of Buddhism, the term used in the Islamic teaching

“khusyuk” which means engross internally towards whatever activity an individual is performing. This term is more likely to be associated with the act of praying whereby one is deeply engrossed in prayer. An individual who is at the state of “khusyuk” will appreciate the meaning of each moment in the prayers and thus be able to bring their

attention to their present actions (Surau Ah-Hidayah, 2008 and Dr. Zulkifli Mohamad

Al-Bakri, 2013). This means, in appreciating the movement in their prayers, they need to pay attention to their actions. Another term applied in Islamic teaching on meditation is “tafakur” which is described as thinking deeply or in a state whereby an individual thinks in-depth about a situation in order to understand it in the Islamic manner (Juhana Salim, Sharhida Zawani Saad, & Mohd. Shahizan Othman, 2011). The

Islamic meditation method, “tafakur” encompasses the cognitive state which includes the emotional and spiritual state of an individual (Badri, 2001). Both these methods in

Islamic teaching require the mind and physical involvement to get the individual to pay attention on what they are doing.

These terms, “khusyuk” and “tafakur” can be seen as the state of an individual in deep thought about what they are doing and thus it can be related to mindfulness in

Buddhism. The practice of “tafakur” also seems to the interrelated to Zen and Yoga practices which require individuals to stay conscious of a singular aspect such as a posture or a word which encourages the union of the mind. In order to be deep in thought, individuals are required to be calm and pay attention to their actions.

Although, these terms originate from different religions, they concern the same subject matter i.e., one must pay attention to one’s current actions that involves both physical and psychological states.

From the perspective of psychology, many associate mindfulness meditation practices to certain groups of individuals, bound to religious beliefs and the abilities that are attainable only by certain people (Black, 2011 and Watson, Batchelor, & Claxton,

2000). With the gradual attention accorded, the result of several decades of research

methodology and scientific discovery, these myths are debunked. Mindfulness is now broadly considered to be an attribute to the quality of human consciousness. The capacity of attention and awareness oriented to the present moment varies in degree between individuals that can be assessed empirically and independent of religious, spiritual, or cultural beliefs (Kabat-Zinn, 1994 and Brown & Ryan, 2002; 2003).

In psychology, mindfulness was described in varying styles such as a technique that individuals perform toward some consequences, a personality feature that varies among individuals or a mental ability.

According to Kabat-Zinn, (1994) mindfulness is defined as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgementally”. According to Kabat-Zinn, (1982) and Bishop et al., (2004) mindfulness practice involves sets of skills that can be taught independently of their spiritual origins particularly in the quality of concentration to the present moment. Thus, mindfulness is viewed as a technique in this perspective (Kabat-Zinn, 1982). He further explained that, the ability of mindfulness can be cultivated and mindfulness is an intrinsic human capacity, that

“we are all mindful to one degree or another, moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003).

In summary, from the description of Kabat-Zinn, mindfulness is seen as a process. He describes mindfulness as a disciplined awareness, whereby each individual takes their responsibility in experiencing each moment, whether those moments involve comfort, pain, stress or joy, depend on the individual. This is because Kabat-Zinn claimed that mindfulness is a psychological state that can be cultivated. This implies that each individual may take ownership of his or her experience by paying attention to that moment and cultivating a different attitude towards whatever the individual is

experiencing. This perspective is in line with the Buddhist teaching whereby the individual is advised to focus on a singular aspect in practicing meditation to increase the state of consciousness.

Furthermore, according to Schure, Christopher, & Christopher (2008) with the practice of meditation an individual is encouraged to be more mindful in paying attention and cultivate sensitivity towards their own self and increase the clarity of their mind as they are able to slow down their thoughts. In line with that, Feldman (2010) asserted that after meditation, it is reported that an individual feels thoroughly relaxed while having gained insights into themselves and problems that they are facing. However, it is vital to also note that, an individual at that time faced with a similar subject may respond differently due to their pre-existing interest or their personal character.

Meaning that, given the same situation, an individual who meditates may respond similarly like others who do not meditate because of the pre-existing interest or other factors. Also, an individual may be exposed to a similar situation, but their reactions are influenced by the external environment. This is because, mindfulness is a state that occurs within an individual and thus the internal influence is vital in achieving this state.

According to Brown & Ryan (2003), mindfulness is “the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present”. In a simpler form, according to them mindfulness is a condition of “consciousness” because consciousness includes both awareness and attention. It suggests that (a) the inherent capability, discipline or inclination of individuals may differ in the frequency with which they deploy attention and awareness and also (b) the intra-individual variations in mindfulness (Brown &

Ryan, 2003). This implies that, mindfulness is described as a correlation where attention and awareness are interrelated. In addition to that, mindfulness is also related to the cognitive process of both internal and external stimuli. The obvious difference of this description as compared to Kabat-Zinn, (1982) and Bishop et al., (2004) is mindfulness is the condition of an individual who is capable of without any meditation, exercise or intervention.

Mindfulness is also conceptualised as a cognitive state that is flexible and is emerged from drawing novel distinctions about situations (Carson & Langer, 2006). Langer’s understanding of mindfulness as a construct and her definitions focus on the cognitive operations on perceptual involvements from the surrounding environment (Brown &

Ryan, 2003 and Bishop et al., 2004). Both the state and trait show that a person’s relative openness to experience, willingness to challenge strict cognition and categories, and the ongoing reconstruction of the environment and their reactions to it (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). This implies that, mindfulness is viewed as a product is described as a condition of having qualities of being situated specifically and temporarily over a period of time. The description and measurement of mindfulness by Langer are seen as an outcome or a product without any relation to the interventions, exercises or training in meditation. The description of Langer in mindfulness differ from Brown & Ryan (2003) in terms of traits, because to Langer, mindfulness can be evoked by an external situation. For Brown & Ryan (2003) mindfulness is within in an individual’s capabilities.

The various reviews of mindfulness are presented in the table below:

Table 2.2: Review of Mindfulness in Different Perspectives

Perspective Major review

Paying attention to every moment an Buddhism individual comes across High concentration which holds the inner Zen mind calm, pure and peaceful to sustain attention and breath control Yoga Encourage the union of mind and body

Having a clear mind and paying attention Islamic to the present movement Paying attention and being sensitive Psychology towards surroundings

Through the examination of different view of Buddhism, Islam and Psychology, the common key idea of achieving mindfulness i.e., awareness and attention, one must be calm in mind, engrossed in their action in order to be able to think deeply. This is because when an individual mind is calm, it is open to information and is able to observe the surroundings. This also shows that the study on mindfulness was previous emphasis on the empirical investigation of the concept and applications of mindfulness itself (Chiesa, 2013). Although the concept of mindfulness has gained, in more recent times, increasing attention in both scientific and other fields as a means to deal with a large variety of physical and psychological disorders (Chiesa & Serretti, 2010 and

Keng et al. 2011) it was only being developed as framework by Moscardo in 1996 in the tourism research (Moscardo, 1996).

2.6.2 The Concept of Mindfulness

Mindfulness was initially introduced by Ellen Langer in the field of psychology.

Langer (1989) used mindfulness to explain a range of social situations in individuals’ cognitive, affective and behavioural responses. Langer (1989) explained mindfulness as a dual concept in which there are two distinctive ways in which people are able to respond to external stimuli and societal situations. The first is a relatively automatic response with limited information processing and dependence on the behavioural routines that is available to influence behaviour (Evans & Curtis-Holmes, 2005; Smith

& DeCoster, 2000). For example, an individual who uses the same route to work every day will use the same route despite an announcement stating that there is a road closure due to construction. This is because the individual uses the same route to work every day and it is being set in the mind. The route taken is an example of automatic response to daily activities. The second explains responses as attention to the information and features of the situation, processing this information in-depth and producing novel routines for behaviour. This is referred to as deep or central processing (Evans &

Curtis-Holmes, 2005 and Smith & DeCoster, 2000).

With support from findings in studies of curiosity, attention and arousal, Langer developed a theory that describes and predicts human reaction in a range of everyday social situations (Langer, 1989). Langer refers the deep processing mode as

‘mindfulness’ and relatively automatic mode as ‘mindlessness’. More specifically mindfulness is defined as “a general style or mode of functioning through which the individual actively engages in reconstructing the environment through creating new categories or distinctions, thus directing attention to new contextual cures that may be

consciously controlled or manipulated as appropriate” (Langer, 1989, pg.4). This implies that an individual who is mindful always pays attention to the information given as well as the situation around. The individual also further engages and processes both the information and situation in order to react to it. Similar to the Buddhist perspective, in the psychological perspective, it is also believed that when an individual is able to redirect their attention, an individual can regulate how they feel and further able to know how to react to it. The concept of mindfulness differ from

Buddhism’s concept of mindfulness in that it goes notably beyond attention and awareness by incorporating other elements such as active engagement and reconstruction of the environment.

The alternate state, mindlessness refers to the state of an individual who responses using a single perspective and responses quickly. According to Woods and Moscardo

(2003) mindlessness is “behaviour that is routine, does not involve mental active processing and where people are paying limited attention to what they are doing”. The individual in this state is surrounded in a rigid mindset and is unaware of the context or viewpoint they are situated in (Carson and Langer, 2006). The common theme for automatic mode of processing or mindlessness include the reference to previous experiences and learned routines to guide behaviour, an inability to take an alternative perspective and limited capability to reconsider or reinterpret information (Langer,

Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978; Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000; Langer & Moldoveanu,

2000; Woods & Moscardo 2003; Boyatzis & McKee, 2005; Carson & Langer, 2006 and Djikic & Langer, 2007). A mindless individual is a person who fails to respond towards the new information and relies on the existing behaviour (Moscardo, 1996;

1999).

According to Langer, (1989) mindlessness is influenced by three factors: (a) over- reliance on existing categories, (b) premature cognitive commitment, and (c) over- learned behaviour. Over-reliance on existing categories occurs when individuals respond based on their previous experiences. They depend on their previous responses to again deal with similar situations. A premature cognitive commitment happens when one thinks that there is a single, suitable interpretation or action without considering other options. When a task is over-learned, the steps in a series of behaviour are no longer dealt with cognitively. Instead, the individual would react to a task cue, responds or behaves with little or no attention to other present, task-relevant information (Langer, 1989; Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000; Van Winkle and Backman,

2009). For instance, an individual is trapped without any consciousness and the acquired information would stay in place in the future. Over time or on early contact to information, the individual unwittingly locked himself or herself into a sole understanding of that information.

When an individual is mindless, they will tend to make mistakes in the same situation all the time. A mindless individual tends to pay less attention to their surroundings

(Van Winkle and Backman, 2009) and this will cause errors in complex situations leading to misunderstandings and confusions between communicators who are individually in the notion that they are involved with one another in meaningful discussion (Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000). This is because a mindless individual relies on existing categories and information to attend to situations that they consider familiar to them (Van Winkle & Backman, 2009; Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000;

Sellnow et al., 2009). For example, during the interaction between doctor and patient,

the doctor assumes that all patients would be able to understand and read the instructions. This exchange might be taken as evidence of the doctor’s mindlessness, because they are unable to foresee the various ways patients use medications and thus neglect to educate the patient in their correct use, or it could be viewed as the patient’s mindlessness, because she failed to consider the range of alternative ways in which medications might be consumed, or both. In general, following routine scripts for prescribing and taking medicines can easily lead to inadequate detailed instructions and mindless responding. This situation occurs because medicine is commonly consumed orally and thus, the patient did not anticipate other ways in which the prescribed medicine is applied.

The concept of mindfulness proposed by Langer generally concentrated on the two approaches that people take to respond to a social situation. Mindfulness is commonly connected with a range of positive consequences in any situation. In addition, Langer’s approach also concentrates on responses influenced by the setting or the social situation (Moscardo, 1999). This implies that, in any given condition the characteristic that an individual brings with them to interact with the characteristics and the roles of individuals in that situation result in either a mindful or mindless state of response.

2.6.3 Conceptualisation of Mindfulness

The key ideas of mindfulness have been presented earlier and now it is also vital to recognise the conceptualisation of mindfulness. This is because the conceptualisation of mindfulness is necessary to assess mindfulness. The conceptualisation of mindfulness is established by various reviews of dimensions from different

perspectives. Given the wide range of dimensions and perspectives, the definitions available are listed in the table below:

Table 2.3: Definition of Mindfulness from Various Perspectives

Perspective Authors Definitions Dimensions The clear and single-minded  Consciousness Nyanaponik awareness of what really  Sensitivity a Thera happens to us and in us at the  Calmness (1972) successive moments of Buddhism perception To remember to pay attention to  Consciousness Shapiro what is occurring in one’s  Attention (2009) immediate experience with care and discernment. Paying attention in a particular  Attention way: on purpose, in the present  non- Kabat-Zinn, moment, and non- judgementally (1994) judgementally.  Consciousness

The state of being attentive to  Attention Brown & and aware of what is taking Ryan (2003)  Consciousness place in the present. A process of regulating  Attention attention in order to bring a  Openness Psychology quality of non-elaborative Bishop et  Acceptance awareness to current experience al., (2004)  Consciousness within an orientation of curiosity, experiential openness and acceptance. A flexible cognitive state from  Active drawing novel distinction about engagement Carson & the situation and environment.  Sensitive Langer When one is mindful, one is  Consciousness (2006) actively engaged in the present and sensitive to both the context and perspective.

Table 2.3 Continued

Moscardo To active processing of  Active and Pearce information and questioning engagement (1986) what is going on.  Consciousness

A mode of functioning through  Active which the individual actively engagement engages in reconstructing the  Creating new Moscardo environment through creating categorises Tourism (1999) new categories or distinction,  Attention thus directing attention to new  Consciousness contextual cues that may be consciously controlled. Pay attention to the world, react  Consciousness Woods and to new information and create  Attention Moscardo new routines, behavior and  Creating new (2003) views of the world. categorises

The capacity to be fully aware  Attention Boyatzis Organisational of all the experiences and to  Active and McKee communication pay full attention to what is engagement (2005) happening around us.

Based on conceptualisations from various perspectives, it can be seen that, mindfulness is the focus of attention at the present moment towards stimuli such as the external environment (e.g.: sounds or object) and also the internal sensation of an individual (e.g.: personal feeling such as sad, happy or excited). Although the collection of definitions is from different perspectives, it illustrates that mindfulness is a construct that emphasises focus on the present moment experience. There are also other important terms used to capture the qualities of mindfulness, such as active engagement, creating new categories, sensitivity, acceptance, openness, calmness and non-judgemental.

In this research, mindfulness is conceptualised as paying attention towards the present moment with qualities such as active engagement, creating new categories, sensitivity, acceptance, openness, calmness and non-judgemental. All these qualities will be used

to operationalise the concept of mindfulness since these qualities are interrelated. This is because according to Kabat-Zinn (2003, p145) “mindfulness includes an affectionate, compassionate, quality within the attending, a sense of openhearted friendly presence and interest”. Sensitivity, acceptance, openness and non-judgmental are important features in describing mindfulness because with these qualities, an individual is able to pay attention towards their environment besides being engrossed with their encounter which lead them to actively engage with the environment and create a new routine through a novel situation. Novel situation is strongly associated to mindfulness because people are less possible to have predictable behavioural scripts to depend on in such condition (Woods & Moscardo, 2003).

2.7 Mindfulness in Tourism

In 1996, Moscardo applied the concept of mindfulness in the tourism industry so as to produce mindful tourists which in turn enhance quality in the tourism industry.

According to Moscardo (1996) the concept of mindfulness is applied in tourism research in order to understand the link between mindfulness and interpretation in cultural and heritage setting. The main argument is that, a successful interpretation leads to conservation and sustainable tourism at a larger scale. The outcome of being mindful as suggested by Moscardo (1996, 1999) is that visitors would derive learning, higher satisfaction and greater understanding of the place.

The concept of mindfulness applied to tourism is for the purpose of understanding a typical tourist’s interpretation of a destination. This is because, the action and behaviour of a tourist is usually influenced by the interpretation of information gained

at the attractions. In examining responses of tourists, one has to consider the essential features of a tourist attraction which include the physical setting, social interaction, expectations and information provision. Moscardo (2008) points out that the application of mindfulness in the context of tourism is to examine and understand how visitors respond to the interpretation or informal education offered in cultural and heritage settings. The concept of mindfulness has been explored, tested and supported in different settings (Moscardo, 1999, 2003). Numerous scholars adapted the concept in their research included heritage and natural environments (Moscardo and

Ballantyne, 2008; Woods, Moscardo, and Greenwood, 1998), wildlife-based tourism

(Woods and Moscardo, 2003). The support for the mindfulness concept has also been reported in other research (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; McIntosh, 1999; Prentice,

Witt, & Hamer, 1998 and Tubb, 2003).

According to Moscardo (2008) tourists use information available to them in a setting to make selections about activity participation and construct meaningful memories that are often portrayed as stories. Hence, it is important to ensure and recognise the experience and interpretation that the tourists would gain from positive characteristics at those attractions. Different people may want different types of holiday experiences.

According to Cohen (1979) tourists do not exist as a singular type. Instead they are different kinds of people because each of them may have different modes of tourism experience.

Tourists who are able to appreciate the attractions tend to behave in a responsible manner that will preserve the sites that they visit. Hence, in order to appreciate the place better, tourist’s first need to be mindful of the surroundings at the attractions and

this is significant especially at heritage sites. This line of thought is reflected in

Tilden’s (1977) statement: “Through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation protection” (in Poria, Biran, and

Reichel, 2009). Effective interpretation by tourists at heritage sites is crucial in creating a tourist experience. The key roles that interpretation can play in attractions are building rewarding experiences and supporting sustainability. Thus, tourists that are mindful will tend to interpret effectively.

2.7.1 The Mindfulness Framework

In the application of the concept of mindfulness in tourism, Moscardo (1996) proposed a framework of visitor behaviour and cognition at built heritage sites. The framework proposed two factors that influence visitors which are the Communication and Visitor

Factors. According to Moscardo (1996) the combination of both sets of factors will determine whether visitors will be mindful or mindless. That is, the factors that are combined will lead to effective interpretation and further produce mindful visitors, which benefit heritage tourism. This implies that effective interpretation by visitors at heritage sites are influenced by both Communication and Visitor Factors. Below is the framework proposed:

Figure 2.3: Mindfulness Model of Communicating with Visitors Source: Woods and Moscardo, (2003), p.99

2.7.1(a) Communication Factor

In the framework, Woods & Moscardo (2003) suggested that the Communication

Factor include (1) Variety/Change, (2) Uses of Multisensory Media, (3)

Novelty/Conflict/Surprise, (4) Uses of Questions, (5) Visitor Control/Interactive

Exhibits, (6) Connection to Visitors and (7) Good Physical Orientation.

Variety can be achieved in a number of ways. Pearce (2004) suggested that variety can be provided by using a wide range of media such as text, graphics, static models or by using a wide range of colours and lighting effects to create different moods in different areas. Moscardo and Ballantyne (2008) further added that including a wide range of different media in the development of activities that vary in terms of the level of physical and mental input would also facilitate in creating variation at the destination.

Associating new or multiple perspectives of the content to tourists would further cultivate mindfulness among tourists. Interpretation challenges tourists to assess their

perception of the topic or content in another dimension by offering new and different perspectives on the content and topic. At this level, new and/or multiple perspectives can be generated by offering different viewpoints from different people (Moscardo and

Ballantyne, 2008). To further strengthen this challenge, special effects and technology can be used to provide different physical perspectives.

Incorporating multi-sensory experience at heritage sites would also draw the attention of the tourists and this helps towards interpretation. The traditional interpretation usually involves reading and looking at displays. It is best if traditional interpretation is incorporated with the sense of touch and kinaesthetic as additional sensory experience since these offer tourists variety in handling and feeling of objects. Besides, reinforcing the interpretive experience, new technologies can be integrated with sound, smell and climate effects (Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008). In line with this, Lehn and

Heath (2005) pointed out that content provided by new technology such as information kiosk or Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) often involve information about details of the exhibits or the process of their production which are able to draw the attention of visitors. The new technologies that are being employed are able to encourage discussion and sharing of information.

Creating a novel situation or having something rare as a display would also encourage mindfulness. According to Woods & Moscardo (2003) and Moscardo (2009) novel experiences and situations are most likely linked to mindfulness because people are less likely to lapse into their behavioural routine in such situations. According to

Woods & Moscardo (2003) the use of novelty in themes, titles and introduction to less well-known exhibits will generate more mindful thoughts and understanding.

Having people around the attractions to answer questions posted by visitors would also encourage mindfulness. According to Moscardo (1996, 1999) visitors appreciate the opportunity to ask questions. Having the opportunities and people around that would answer their questions would cultivate mindfulness from learning among tourists.

Researchers concluded that while there was substantiation of visitor learning in both settings, the newer form of exhibit presentation allowed for more interaction among visitors and interpreters resulting in more learning opportunities (Broad & Weiler,

1998).

Besides, tourists who considered that they have personal control or choice towards the information or exhibits that they engaged with tend to be more mindful. According to

Moscardo, (1996), Woods & Moscardo, (2003) and Moscardo and Ballantyne, (2008) giving a variety of options to tourists will allow them to build their own unique and personal experience. These kinds of selections can be created by having various themes that tourists could grasp on a self-guided tour or walk in the destination, the embedding of different levels or layers of detail in interpretative signs so that tourists would be able to choose to further examine some topics in more detail and opportunities to pursue more information from other sources. In line with this, Langer and Moldoveanu (2000) stated that if the visits are able to prompt visitors to develop a perception of control over their own behaviour, it would benefit during the management of the impact of such visitations. Hence, if the operators of heritage sites wish visitors to change their behaviour in order to maximise benefits of their visitation, the visitors must be given greater control and choice in navigating their visitation at the sites.

Another method to cultivate mindfulness is by creating connection to visitors. Personal experience often influences and directs visitor attention (Moscardo, 1999). Several researchers (Woods & Moscardo, 2003; Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008;Van Winkle

& Backman, 2009) postulated that building a connection between the interpretation topic and something of personal relevance or significance to tourists would enhance mindfulness in visitors. There are numerous ways to connect the imperative material with tourists’ interests and knowledge. At a basic level, humour, analogies and metaphors can be used to relate new information to things that tourists are likely to already aware or familiar with. Additionally, Moscardo, (1999) suggested that interpreters can make personal connections to visitors via examples which are linked to the daily life of visitors. This enables the visitors to interact, participate and decide on interpreting information that they encounter. Frauman and Norman, (2004) also claimed that respondents who are very mindful are also more likely to prefer services that are involving, unique and different, interactive, and personally relevant, that provide a sense of control, versus respondents who were not very mindful.

Finally, good orientation and attention to the comfort level of tourists are important conditions in contributing to the mindfulness of tourists (Moscardo, 1996 and

Moscardo & Ballantyne, 2008). Heritage sites require accurate maps with detailed information at the entrance such as the facilities offered, schedule for the day and suggestions on the visitation plan. Moscardo and Ballantyne, (2008) pointed out that tourists want to be able to discover their way easily across the sites and understand how to arrange and organise their visit around the sites so that it leaves them free to focus on the place that they are visiting in order to derive a greater interpretive experience.

2.7.1(b) Visitor Factors

The second part of the framework focuses on the Visitor Factors which Woods &

Moscardo (2003) suggested that it include (1) High Level of Interest, (2) Low Level of Fatigue and (3) Lack of Distraction. Moscardo (1999) referred to Visitor Factors as things such as feelings and emotions that visitors bring with them to the tourist or recreational setting.

According to the literature, visitors with high levels of interest are more likely to be mindful. Congruent with this, according to Moscardo, (1996; 1999) visitors are more likely to be mindful of they have a high level of interest in the content. This is because when they are interested they are more eager to discover and be more mindful. A study by Van Winkle & Backman, (2009) revealed that interest in content has a significant effect on mindfulness.

Moscardo, (1996; 1999) also noted that, if visitors are not fatigued, they would be more mindful at the attraction. According to Moscardo (1999) a visitor who is fatigued would not be interested in their visitation and this would lead to mindlessness. Hence, it is suggested that the manager at the attraction consider and influence visitors who are fatigued through the provision of seating and programming of tours.

Lack of distraction will also help in cultivating mindfulness in tourists (Moscardo,

1996 and 1999). The outline of the framework suggested that, the ability to increase attraction power and holding time of the visitor would enable the visitor to be more

mindful (Moscardo, 1996). This is because the ability to generate attention is necessary for a mindful state and this results in mindfulness (Woods & Moscardo, 2003).

In the framework, Visitor Factors is induced by the Communication Factor in order for the visitor to be mindful. This is because, according to Moscardo (1996 and 1999)

Communication Factor are those that are within the control of the management of the attraction and thus Communication Factors is considered as an overlapping factor with

Visitor Factors particularly in the case of visitor interest and visitor fatigue. Thus, the framework focuses on Communication Factor rather than Visitor Factors to induce mindfulness.

2.7.1(c) Organisation of Content

Next, according to the figure (Woods & Moscardo, 2003), information intended to be conveyed to visitors need to be organised clearly. This would help visitors understand and follow the flow of information easily. According to Moscardo, Woods, & Saltzer

(2004) mindful processing of clearly organised, easy to follow information should then encourage visitors to behave in a more responsible manner and provide them with the skills and motivation to make the most of their visitation opportunity. Moscardo (2009) further noted that organisation of content is a necessary condition for a desired outcome of the visitation.

2.7.1(d) Consequences

The outcome of mindful visitors is that they will be more likely to enjoy their visit, express satisfaction with their visit, learn more from their visit and be interested in discovering more on the destination (Moscardo, 1996 and 1999 and Woods &

Moscardo, 2003). It is proposed that the desired outcome of this framework would also support sustainable tourism because visitors would behave more responsibly at places that they visit (Moscardo, 1996 and 1999; Woods & Moscardo, 2003; Moscardo &

Ballantyne, 2008). The outcome of the interaction between visitors and the attraction should have minimal impact on the place that they visit and simultaneously spark an increased awareness about the importance of conserving the place.

2.8 Overview of Interpretation

Communication is an essential component in tourism. Communication of destinations to visitors occur through marketing and promotion, communication between tourism personnel and guests in various aspects of service and communication between hosts and guests as an integral part of the tourist experience. There are two perspectives of interpretation. One from the management whereby they provide interpretation to the tourists and the other is from the tourist perspective whereby they interpret information based on their own understanding.

In tourism, interpretation generally refers to the educational activities or the process of communicating information to educate visitors (Poria, Biran, & Reichel, 2009;

Moscardo, Woods, & Saltzer, 2004; Moscardo, 2003; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).

Interpretation in tourism take place through face-to-face and non-personal encounters through an assortment of different media and activities such as printed materials, signs, exhibits, self-guided walks, pre-recorded tour commentaries, virtual tours and digital media. The interpretation of tourism attractions, products, stories and history is an important part of providing a positive encounter for visitors besides serving as an education tool. That ensures that both the attraction’s management and visitors share an understanding in the terms used and also the information provided at the attractions.

This implies that the interpretation is about communicating with visitors about the attractions. Interpretation takes place through the media and activities aimed to convey message(s) intended to the visitors. However, other researchers (Solomon, 2007; Peter

& Olson, 2008; Wood, 2011; Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2013) argued that interpretation were influenced by the internal stimuli which implies that individuals

(in this case tourists) themselves make their own interpretation based on their observation and experience meaning.

Given the wide range of the application of interpretation, it is important to understand and review various definitions of interpretation. The next section discusses the conceptualisation of interpretation from various areas of research.

2.8.1 Conceptualisation of Interpretation

The review of interpretation has been discussed in various perspectives. The prevalence of interpretation depends greatly on the origins of its perspectives. The table below provides clearer definitions of interpretation from various perspectives and the dimension of interpretation:

Table 2.4: Definition of Interpretation from Various Perspectives

Perspective Authors Definitions Dimensions To produce mindful  Active visitors; visitors who are questioning Moscardo, active, questioning and  Capable in (1996) capable of reassessing the reassessing way they view the world. Moscardo, Informing or educating  To educate (2003) visitors Communication with  To communicate Ham & Weiler, visitors in entertaining  To add value to (2006) and creative ways that add the product value to the product. A set of information-  To focused on communicate communication activities,  Influenced by designed to facilitate a Moscardo & stimuli (internal rewarding visitors Ballantyne, and external) experience that Tourism (2008)  Encourage encourage visitors to be conservation receptive to a management or sustainability message. Transmission of  Transmission of information from the information Poria, Biran, & presenter to the viewer in Reichel (2009)  To educate an attempt to educate the latter. A catalyst in creating an  Meaning opportunity for the making Larsen, Mayo, audience to form their  Emotional Wolter, Bliss, own intellectual and connection & Barrie, emotional connections (2009) with the meanings and significance inherent in the resource.

Table 2.4 Continued Perspective Authors Definitions Dimensions The art of explaining the  Transmission of significant of a place to information Uzzell (1992) the people who visit it

with the object of pointing  To encourage a conservation message. conservation As an informational and inspirational process designed to enhance  Enhance Beck & Cable, understanding understanding (2002) appreciation and  To encourage protection of cultural and conservation natural legacy. Heritage Tourism Covers the various means Howard  To communicate of communicating (2003) heritage to people. It is about communicating  To a site’s heritage value to communicate (UNESCO, others. It is to facilitate  Enhance 2007a) understanding and understanding appreciation of sites by the general public. Kalay, Kvan, The viewer gives an  Meaning & Affleck insight into the meaning making (2008) of heritage. The attempt in  Enhance Barker & Gaut understanding the understanding (1996) meaning of the message. Derive meaning from a  Meaning Mowen & stimulus in order to making Minor (2000) determine how to react. The assignment of  Meaning meaning to sensations making Neal, Quester, which involves both a

Communication & Hawkins, cognitive, or factual,  Emotional connection (2004) component and an

affective or emotional

respond. Meaning that we assigned  Meaning to sensory stimuli. The making assignment of meaning to Solomon, these stimuli varies as  Influenced by (2007) stimuli (internal people differ in terms of and external) the stimuli that they

received.

Table 2.4 Continued Perspective Authors Definitions Dimensions The processes by which an individual determine  Meaning the meaning of important making Peter & Olson aspects of the physical  Influenced by (2008) and social environment as stimuli (internal well as their own and external) behaviours and internal affective states.

 Meaning The subjective process of making Wood (2011) creating explanations for

what we observe and  Influenced by stimuli (internal Communication experience. and external)

The assignment of meaning to sensations. It  Meaning is related to how making Hawkins & individual comprehend Mothersbaugh, and make sense of  Influenced by stimuli (internal (2013) incoming information based on the and external) characteristics of the stimulus, the individual and the situation.

Based on the review of the literature, there are two perspectives on interpretation. The first is on how interpretation provided to the audience. For example, how the people who manage heritage sites interpret the heritage and communicate it to the audience.

The second is how the audience themselves interpret. For example, the destination manager may interpret a particular heritage one way but the audience may interpret it differently. In this research, the focus is on the audience perspective that is the visitors.

The following sections explains interpretation from the visitor’s perspective.

2.8.2 Visitor’s Interpretation

According to the definition from the perspective of visitors, Larsen, Mayo, Wolter,

Bliss, & Barrie (2009) defined interpretation as creating an opportunity for the audience to make their own meaning through their intellectual and emotional links towards the resource that they encounter. They are able to connect with the resources intellectually and emotionally. The assumption of this definition further explains that interpretation also assists visitors to connect the resources of a place which, in turn, makes their experiences personally relevant and meaningful. As such, visitors are not merely receiving information. They are also making their own meaning based on information received. Visitors are able to make the connection between the information offered to them with their previous experience to better understand the place. This definition highlights both the source and receiver in understanding the display and exhibits at the attractions. In this context, receiver is assumed to be active in constructing meaning through their own efforts.

With reference to heritage settings, Prentice, Guerin, & McGugan, (1998) stated that heritage interpretation is to make heritage places understandable and meaningful to visitors. UNESCO (2007) stated that heritage interpretation is “about communicating the meaning (significance) of a heritage site to visitors” (Unit 4-p.4). Therefore, the information on the heritage is conveyed and in turn visitors are able to construct meaning about the place in order to relate the information with their own background.

Different sites carry different meanings to visitors. They may also have no significance to visitors as well (Lowenthal 1985; Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006 and UNESCO,

2007). Each attraction has its own importance that might bring some value to one

visitor and at the same time it has no value to another individual. The definition of interpretation here implies that interpretation is a process that begins with the transmission of information to visitors followed by visitors making meaning out of the site through their understanding and experience of the places. This process is related to the cognitive and affective outcome. The meaning of the attractions can be shaped, manipulated, circulated and exchanged through various forms because according to

Young (1999) attractions that offer the experience of both past and present are continually shaped and reshaped by cultural forces and by the management of those attractions.

According to Moscardo, (1996, pg 982) ‘interpretation is trying to produce mindful visitors; visitors who are active, questioning and capable of reassessing the way they view the world’. In this context, Moscardo implied that interpretation is to stimulate visitors for them to become active participants at heritage sites. Moscardo, et al.,

(2004) highlighted that the effectiveness of interpretation enabled visitors to make connections based on information given to them and link them with their previous knowledge and experience. Moscardo further argued that she was not advocating that tourists make connection between their encounters and their recent knowledge, but rather between someone else’s interpretations and their present knowledge. Ham &

Weiler (2006) added that other perspective of interpretation into their lives by experiencing the setting that they have never seen before.

Prentice & Andersen (2007) asserted that interpretation will further contribute to the cognitive outcome of visitors because cognitive outcome of visitors are influenced by the way visitors think, know or believe as a result of interpretation which include

having their interest captured, being encouraged to question, having their curiosity aroused and being encouraged into the discovery of new things. To Moscardo despite the fact that heritage sites offer various interpretive tools to visitors, it also depends on the visitors’ effort in understanding the information given to them. Interpretation is viewed as a mutual outcome of the interaction process that is the interaction between visitors and interpretive tools of the heritage sites. This assumption is in line with

Reisinger & Steiner, (2006) who recognised that visitors play both active and passive roles during the interpretive experience. This means that visitors may experience different types of engagements during the visitation such as the active participation

(e.g.: participating in local tours) and passive participation (e.g.: sightseeing).

Therefore, the process of interpretation of heritage sites depend on the effort put in by visitors themselves. Faulkner, Moscardo, & Laws (2001) and Poria et al., (2009) supported that assumption by suggesting that interpretation is based on the interest of visitors and the interpretation of heritage sites varied from one to another. This is because some visitors are not so much interested in the heritage displayed, but consider the visit as a “must-see” attraction in their personal list. Also, Hirsch (1976) further added that the substance of interpretive information are usually not the same from one person to another because they look at the same information from different points of views. In line with this, Young (1999) stated that the meaning of attractions is reliant on the orientation of particular groups of people or individuals.

For the purpose of this research, interpretation is defined from the perspective of visitors with emphasis on the cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome.

Interpretation is therefore operationalised as the assignment of meaning at the heritage

site’s heritage value based on the stimulus, the individual and the situation at heritage sites.

2.9 The Importance of Interpretation

According to Moscardo (1998) interpretation is able to facilitate the quality of visitors’ experience in the tourism sector. They are able to facilitate by (1) providing information on available options so that tourists can decide on the best choices on what they do and where they go; (2) providing information to encourage safety and comfort so tourists know how to cope with and better manage difficult encounters and understand messages given by warning signs and (3) creating the actual experience so that tourists can participate in activities and learn matters with educational value. For example, according to Reisinger & Steiner (2006) cultural interpretation explains to visitors the diversity of cultures in foreign countries and the diversity of cultures among visitors to the locals who interact with them. All these contributions will also further enhance greater knowledge and better understanding about the location.

Additionally, it also leads to visitor satisfaction and that contributes to the commercial viability of tourism operations (Moscardo, 1998; Moscardo, et al., 2004)

Furthermore, Uzzell (1998) postulated that the origin of interpretation arises from within the conservation movement. In agreement with this, Reisinger and Steiner,

(2006); Moscardo, et al., (2004) and Moscardo & Ballantyne, (2008) asserted that the ulterior motive for offering interpretation is to influence tourists’ attitudes towards conservation. It is suggested that interpretation can contribute to ecological and cultural sustainability in tourism by minimising and managing impacts of visitor

behaviour (Weiler and Ham, 2001; Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008). Interpretation acts as an educational tool in providing visitors with sufficient information in environmental or nature based tourism (Moscardo, et al., 2004) because interpretation provides quality information on the natural environment for tourists by developing informative trails, information packs, brochures, signage and all sorts of materials about the local environment and nature. The information is used to help the management of visitors and their impact on the environment and its resources by providing visitors with information on where to go, how to behave with emphasis on the consequences of behaviour that creates a negative effect on the environment

(Reisinger & Steiner, 2006 and Uzzell, 1998). Each exhibit represents a different meaning to visitors and therefore construct the meaning differently, which will be reflected on their attitude, values and beliefs. Tilden (1977, pg. 8) stated that the intention of interpretation is to reveal meanings and relationships to people about the places they visit and the things they see ‘through the use of original objects, by first- hand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information’ (in Poria, Biran, and Reichel, 2009). The variety of methods presenting information to visitors at heritage sites focus on capturing the attention of visitors in order that they spend their time interpreting the information rather than simply providing the factual message and expecting passive reception from visitors.

Interpretation is frequently used in places like zoos, museums, heritage sites and national parks to inform visitors about the significance or meanings of what they are experiencing. It contributes to sustainable wildlife tourism and encourages greater knowledge of the environment and awareness of conservation issues and ethics

(Woods & Moscardo, 2003; Moscardo, et al., 2004; Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008).

Similarly, Stewart et al., (1998) agreed that the goal of interpretation is to increase visitor awareness, promote learning, appreciation and understanding of places so that tourists develop empathy towards heritage, conservation, culture and landscape.

Additionally, Reisinger & Steiner, (2006) illustrated that interpretation would be able to provide quality experiences for visitors by improving the quality of life and protecting the quality of the environment, by offering the opportunity to learn about people’s bonds to the environment or to their history and culture, and by encouraging continued visitor interest in the activity.

In tourism, interpretation often acts as a key to visitor management in managing the balance between tourism development and environmental protection (Moscardo &

Ballantyne, 2008). The process of interpretation involved in understanding and making meaning on offer at attractions based on information provided from signage, brochures, pamphlets, guided tours, displays as well as exhibits. It is also believed that interpretation is a planned effort to create for the benefit of visitors, an understanding of the history and significance of events, people, and objects with which the site is associated (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Tourism activities is a fundamental element that enable visitors to create interpretation at heritage sites.

In essence, interpretation of information will lead to attitude change which in turn will lead to behavioural change. The interpretation also would be able to facilitate the rewarding visitation experience besides further encouraging participation and positive behaviour at attractions.

2.10 Interpretive Outcome

Through the review of the definition of interpretation earlier, effective interpretation is evaluated through the interpretive outcome of visitors. From a theoretical perspective, the desired outcome of an individual at destinations is a form of measurement of effective interpretation (Ham & Weiler, 2006). Collectively, the desired effective interpretation focus mainly on the cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome of an individual (Ham & Weiler, 2006; Munro, Morrison

Saunders, & Hughes, 2008 and Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). Measuring the outcome of interpretation based on cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome have been adapted in other research (Weiler & Smith, 2009 and Weiler & Ham, 2010).

According to Ham & Weiler (2006), Prentice & Andersen (2007) and Weiler & Ham,

(2010) cognitive outcome are related to the way the visitors think, know or believe as a result of interpretation (e.g. understanding something, gaining a new perspective or being provoked to think). Additionally, affective outcome is associated with the emotions of visitors resulting from interpretation (e.g. appreciation of something, satisfaction with something, an attitude about something). Behavioural outcome are related to the actions of the visitors through the interpretation (e.g. engaged to conservation, appreciation of the location, buy something, positive word-of-mouth).

Hence, effective interpretation is measured by interpretive outcome reflected through responses from individuals with better cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome.

This is in line with the mindfulness framework proposed by Langer (1989) which explained mindfulness in a range of social situations within an individual’s cognitive,

affective and behavioural responses. Thus, the concept of mindfulness and effective interpretation seems to have similarities that are inter-related in terms of cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome. Therefore the effective interpretation of an individual is measured by the interpretive outcome of the individual at the heritage site. For the purpose of this research, the interpretive outcome of an individual is measured based on the cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome.

2.11 Research Gap

Mindfulness has been identified as a concept that enables more responsible conduct among tourists at destinations. Mindful tourists are beneficial to tourist destination at various levels (Moscardo, 1996 and 1999). In general, mindful tourists are more attentive to and understand the management and safety requests while on-site.

Mindfulness is used to manage the behaviours of tourists that could potentially be harmful to themselves, others and the setting. More importantly, being mindful helps tourists to learn, increase their awareness and influence their attitudes and behaviours on-site. Hence, at tourism attractions, creating mindful tourists helps in building

‘insightful’ experiences. Insights refer to the personal meaning, sense of place and appreciation that tourists derive from their experience in heritage environments

(McIntosh, 1999). Furthermore, mindful tourists would also be more satisfied, have better recall of the settings, features of their experiences and be more capable of sharing their experience with others (Moscardo, 1996 and 1999).

However, in the application of this framework by Moscardo (1996,1999), conceptualisation was mainly based on Langer, who focused on external stimuli in

information processing. This has caused the lack of explanation on Visitor Factors in influencing mindfulness. The framework by Moscardo and past research utilising the framework focuses on Communication Factors as a primary factor influencing mindfulness. Also, in the framework, the outcome of mindfulness has not been explained thoroughly. The outcome suggested by the framework presented by

Moscardo (1996 and 1999) was intended to have visitors derive higher satisfaction, learned and better understand the place that they visited. However, there is not much research evidence and data in supporting the suggested outcome of the framework.

The framework by Moscardo (1996) was vague in explaining how mindfulness facilitated interpretation at tourism settings especially at heritage sites. Furthermore, the framework proposed did not fit well to complex situations, where tourists are required to use their imagination to envision the past without much physical evidence to help them. Such situation exists at heritage sites where the ‘richness’ of the historic heritage is inherent in the existing few artefacts. Tourists have to rely on their own imagination to interpret. Thus, it is a challenge for tourists in terms of making the past relevant or relatable to the present, especially those who come from different cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, the outcome of mindfulness suggested by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) did not furnish substantial evidence on proving the outcome of mindfulness in tourism studies. Additionally, there is a lack of research in addressing the Visitor

Factors in influencing mindfulness and measure of mindfulness.

Thus, this research aims to fill those said gaps with the aim of enhancing the existing framework. This study will identify and evaluate the extent on how Communication and Visitor Factors influence the level of mindfulness and investigate how mindfulness

bring about responsible tourists with greater interpretive outcomes in the context of heritage sites in Penang, Malaysia.

2.11.1 Gap in the Communication Factors

With the level of knowledge and increasing demands from tourists, factors suggested by Moscardo (1996,1999) and revised by Woods & Moscardo (2003) might be different. This is because the type of tourists may differ compared to tourists of the past. Based on the availability of information from various sources, tourists are able to obtain information before their arrival. Thus their knowledge, demands and expectations are different. There might also be other variables that influence mindfulness. To ensure that the factors established are comprehensive, the researcher aims to revise the factors in the current situation at the heritage setting where the research will take place. According to Uriely (2005) with the advancement of the tourist experience, it is suggested that tourists subjectively construct their personal experience by constructing meaning from fragments of different modes or displays provided at those attractions and reorganise them as they choose. This attribute is highlighted through the constructive perspective which emphasised on the role of tourists in the interpretation of meaning associated with display objects. In line with that, Cohen (1979) also pointed out that different people may have come across different types of experience and this multi-type of individuals may desire different modes of tourism experience. This implies that each individual may have a different experience, cultural background, level of education and motive in visiting the heritage setting. Thus, the Communication Factors should be revised to ensure that it comprehensively captures the current situation.

While various Communication Factors have been the subject of studies, recent studies suggested that creating the right ambience or ideal atmosphere ultimately attracts visitors and influence their visitation. According to Neal et al., (2004) and Hawkins &

Mothersbaugh, (2013) temporary characteristic such as mood, the amount of time available or physical characteristics such as temperature and surroundings affect how the message is interpreted. Therefore, the exterior and interior design of an attraction’s space become fundamental in influencing the attraction’s identity as well as its patronage. Similarly, Bonn, Joseph-Mathews, Dai, Hayes, and Cave (2007) suggested that ambience, design and layout, together with the social factors all play a significant role in influencing visitation numbers, overall image perceptions, as well as the endorsements by the visitors. More specifically, the findings reveal that for the visitor, ambience and design features play a more important role than social environment as these relate to word of mouth recommendations. In line with this, Pearce (2004) asserted that by using a variety of colours and lighting effects to create diversified moods in different areas would help create an appropriate ambience for visitation.

In this research, based on previous literature, ambience plays an important role in evoking mindfulness. This variable will be tested in the current research to determine its influence in mindfulness.

2.11.2 Gap in the Visitor Factors

Another challenge in this concept is the gap in linking the Communication Factor and

Visitor Factors. According to Frauman & Norman (2004) the mindfulness concept is a mixture of situational and interpersonal aspects. Although the framework proposed by

Moscardo (1996, 1999) included Visitor Factors as something that would enhance mindfulness, it was considered as a conditional factor for lack of clear or concrete research evidence that links Visitor Factors to mindfulness. Conditional variables do not directly influence either mindfulness or mindlessness. They however interact with variables in other elements in order to influence on the cognitive state (Moscardo,

2009). Thus, a gap exists when considering whether Visitor Factors is a significant factor in influencing mindfulness.

Furthermore, the framework proposed was primarily based on the orientation of external stimuli by Langer. Moscardo (1996,1999) argued because most of the time visitors will have specifically different interests and experiences with them when they visit certain places and these do not remain consistent throughout the whole visitation.

Although Communication Factors are within the control of site managers, the interpretation and meaning associated with the display or experience that visitors encounter are dependent on the visitors themselves. Thus, this research examines this gap by proposing Visitor Factors as the core factor in influencing mindfulness instead of it as a conditional factor. This research will address Communication Factor and

Visitor Factors as equally important factors in influencing mindfulness.

Based on the literature, it is proposed that, apart from Level of Interest, other variables that influence mindfulness are (1) Visitor with Specific Goals, (2) Familiarity, (3)

Visiting Companion, (4) Cultural Background and (5) Experience.

One of the Visitor Factors that influences mindfulness is specific goals of the visit.

Visitors who have experienced the setting may have different goals and motives compared to first-time visitors (Moscardo, 1999; 2008). Different research noted several possible motives that attract visitors to heritage settings. They include learning, experiencing authentic components, historic characters, interest in heritage, culture and/or ethnicity, visiting other sites in the same area (Kerstetter, Confer, and Graefe,

2001) educational, entertainment, social motives (Moscardo, 1996) pleasure of viewing, education, information, relaxation, entertainment and exercise (Poria et al.,

2004). Based on those previous findings the main motive of visiting heritage settings is educational gain. This is because heritage sites provide visitors with a sense of belonging to the ‘past’. This motivates tourists to learn about different backgrounds

(McIntosh and Prentice, 1999; Poria et al., 2004; Prentice and Andersen, 2007; Poria et al., 2009). Motivation drives individuals (Feldman, 2010), and as such being able to categorise the motive or goal of visiting a heritage site will further contribute to the understanding of visitors’ behaviour at such settings.

According to previous literature, familiarity is one of the Visitor Factors that contribute towards the creation of mindful visitors. Being familiar with a particular place or type of setting may support mindfulness, especially when the management offers a variety of experiences and options that allow variation in the nature of the experience

(Moscardo, 2008). It is suggested that familiarity with a particular site would also

encourage mindfulness because it should escalate visitors’ knowledge of both physical layout of a site and the cognitive structure of the interpretation on offer (Moscardo,

1996 and 1999). Specifically, for heritage settings, familiarity serve as a reminder for long-forgotten event and ways of life and transform it according to the current circumstances (Uzzell, 1998). Familiarity is the knowledge construct at the place or setting (Toyama & Yamada, 2012) and the number of experiences that are related to the product or the place (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Specifically, in terms of tourism familiarity is operationalised as a combination of the amount of information and previous experience (Baloglu, 2001). In line with that, Balling and Falk (1980) assert that visitors who are familiar with the setting based on previous experience were more likely to learn compared to those who are unfamiliar. Visitors who are more familiar are able to focus on the communication. However, it is argued that being too familiar with a place or a setting with slight change or diversity that is relatively homogeneous across various places may lead to mindlessness because it would offer a readily existing script or behavioural routines for use (Moscardo, 1999; 2008).

According to Moscardo (2008) other factors that are able to induce mindfulness include visiting companions. Different group sizes and groups with diversified compositions and relationships will involve different levels of attention paid to the social interaction and group management and thus could induce mindfulness in relation to the tourist experience (Moscardo, 1999). In line with this, Uzzell (1998) states that, visitors often gain more information when socialising at the heritage setting and not merely from the information panel because they only spend a portion of their time reading. For example, the panel may consist of messages that are too long or involve complicated language. This will turn off their interest in reading the

information completely. He further explains that, when individuals are socialising, they tend to learn more because visitors are encouraged to exchange meaning and able to relate it to their lives. Thus, the exchange of interpretation leads to learning. On the other hand, research by Diamond (1986) observed that most of the time, adults from family groups often kept children at the exhibits and engaged them in instructive behaviours such as reading and interpreting the information for the children. The adults also help the children to draw the conclusion and obstruct the social interaction among the children as well as controlling the length of the visitation. This implies that, this factor affects the individual through social interaction between those visitors and others at the same setting. The social interaction might help them to interpret information differently and also during the exchange of opinion and information.

Other factors that are likely to be important in inducing mindfulness is the visitor’s cultural background (Moscardo, 1999). Cultural background has usually been ignored in most of the visitor studies, but is it an important factor to determine the effectiveness of the interpretation at the setting. Lee & Sparks (2007) argued that the emergence of ethnic identities has recently been recognised as an essential factor that has effects upon the attitudes, behaviours of specific cultural groupings and customer segments within countries. The accessibility of travel opportunities for everyone to travel around the world have made this a significant factor to address in the tourism sector. Thus, cultural diversity is an important point to add into consideration in determining the effectiveness of interpretation. According to Moscardo (1999) and Uriely (2005) communication with visitors from different cultural backgrounds is likely to face difficulties because of language barriers, different patterns of social interaction, different values and attitudes, different knowledge and different learning styles. Due

to differences, the information or message that is intended might be distorted and thus inhibit the effectiveness of the interpretation. Research by Lee & Sparks (2007) on the travel behaviour of Koreans revealed that language is a barrier that may influence the preference and behaviour of group travel.

The personal experience of visitors is also a crucial factor that may influence the level of mindfulness in an individual. This is because the negotiation of meanings at the setting are subject to visitors. According to Uriely (2005) many travel related experiences are currently accessible without the need to travel. In the current era of mass media, attractions can be enjoyed through videos or documentaries within the comfort of one’s home. Thus, the individual may have experienced the setting earlier even before they have travelled to the destinations. They may have associated different meanings to a certain place or display earlier. There has been a debate that tourists are often given representations through tourism marketing that consist of very clear icons and images that can create expectations about what they will see and do during a tour

(Jenkins, 2003). It could be argued that strong, detailed representations that include behavioural routines and specific expectations could foster mindlessness. Nevertheless this is only likely if the real experience meets or matches these expectations. Where there is a mismatch, a mindful response is more likely for the tourists. Alternatively, an existing representation may not offer detailed expectations or behavioural routines and so could encourage mindfulness (Moscardo, 2008). This is because in constructing our interpretation and memories we are often guided by our perception (Myers, 2002).

Perception is what an individual sorts out of the interpretation and analyses through certain events that they encountered (Feldman, 2010). Once an individual has a perception, it influences how an individual perceives all other relevant information

(Myers, 2002). Hence, the previous experience of an individual is important in influencing their interpretation.

It is important to note that, most of the time visitors select a destination setting with differing predispositions. Being able to be mindful in cognitive processing, the visitors would have differences in preferences, choices, behaviours and evaluations of the actual experience (Frauman & Norman, 2004). Consequently, the researcher would like to further enhance research by Moscardo (1996, 1999) that merely emphasised on perceptual inputs from the Communication Factor and take in Visitor Factors as a core factor. In addition to that, the researcher would also like to uncover other variables that are not being addressed by the mindfulness framework proposed by Moscardo which are also important in influencing the state of mindfulness among visitors.

2.11.3 Gap in Mindfulness Measure

The application of the concept of mindfulness by Moscardo (1996) in tourism was mainly adapted from the conceptualisation based on Langer in 1989, which emphasised on the orientation towards a cognitive state of an individual and the external stimuli in information processing (Bishop et al., 2004 and Haigh et al., 2011).

In applying this concept in heritage tourism, there are a few gaps in the framework.

The mindfulness of an individual is proposed to be influenced by Communication

Factor, which implies that, an individual is mindful when they are being influenced by certain variables proposed in the framework. Compared to the approach of mindfulness in various fields and research areas, the adaptation and application of the framework proposed by Moscardo (1996,1999) are measured based on the outcome of

mindfulness. There is no clear measurement of mindfulness in terms of tourism research. Thus, in this research, it is proposed that mindfulness should be measured by external and internal factor. However, mindfulness have been measured in others ways.

Scholars of mindfulness in other area measure mindfulness as a state of mind for example they measure mindfulness based on the consciousness, awareness and curiousity.

The existing conceptual framework was adapted for the tourism industry by Moscardo

(1996) because this framework features what is essential in examining responses from tourists at the attractions similar to Langer (1989) who explained mindfulness as a concept which examines how people respond to external stimuli and social situation.

However, according to Brown & Ryan (2003) mindfulness is a state where the individuals are able to be attentive and aware of their present environment. In a simpler form, according to them mindfulness is a state of “consciousness” because consciousness includes both awareness and attention. This implies that, mindfulness is a correlation to attention and awareness and to them mindfulness is also related to the cognitive process of both internal and external stimuli that can be achieved instantaneously without having to be evoked by any external stimuli. Whereas Langer propound that external stimuli is a necessary condition for mindfulness.

In recent years, several measures of mindfulness have been developed for assessing mindfulness in psychology literature. The effort to measure mindfulness originated through the field of psychology. In the field of psychology, the focus is on the area of cognition. There are a wide range of measurement available from the field of

psychology, each looking at various dimension of cognition. The table below provide description measure from field of psychology.

Table 2.5: Measure of Mindfulness

Reference Scales Dimension Buchheld et al., Freiburg Mindfulness  Non-judgemental (2001) Inventory(FMI)  Openness Freiburg Mindfulness  Consciousness Walach et al. (2006) Inventory(FMI)  Awareness  Consciousness

Mindful Attention  Awareness Brown & Ryan, Awareness Scale (MAAS) (2003)  Attention  Measure mindlessness  General tendency to be mindful daily Kentucky Inventory of  Observing Mindfulness Scale Baer et al., (2004)  Describing (KIMS)  Awareness  Non-judgemental  Mindfulness as two factor construct Toronto Mindfulness  Curiosity in inner Lau et al. (2006) Scale (TMS) experience  Decentring in inner experience  Combination of 5 other mindfulness measures which includes FMI, MAAS, KIMS, CAMS-R

and SMQ. Five Facet Mindfulness Baer, et al., (2008)  Observing Questionnaire (FFMQ)  Describing  Awareness  Non-judgement  Non-reactivity  Mindfulness as single Feldman et al., Cognitive and Affective factor (2007) Mindfulness Scale  Awareness (CAMS-R)  Consciousness  Non- judgemental  Measure mindfulness as Southampton Chadwick et al., single structure Mindfulness (2008)  Observing Questionnaire (SMQ)  Non-judgemental

Table 2.5 Continued Reference Scales Dimension Cardaciotto et al., Philadelphia Mindfulness  Internal Awareness (2008) Scale (PMQ)  Non-judgemental  Novelty Bodner and Langer Mindfulness/Mindless  Engagement (2001) Scale (MMS)  Flexibility  Curiosity

A review of the measure revealed that there are overlaps among the dimension. In order to be parsimonious in building the dimension in this research, dimensions that overlap will be addressed. In general, the measures of mindfulness in psychology revolved around flexibility, engagement, curiosity, consciousness and awareness.

Based on the argument earlier, the measure of mindfulness and its qualities will be adapted from measures developed earlier by different scholars. Items questions that are redundant are merged to reduce the number of questions. The existing methods of measure will be merged in order to develop a new measure suitable for the field of tourism and also to fill in the existing gap in the conceptual framework of mindfulness developed by Moscardo (1996 and 1999).

2.11.4 Gap in Mindfulness Outcome

The concept of mindfulness had been introduced to the tourism industry to develop a better understanding on tourist interpretation which in turn will help enhance quality in the tourism industry. Effective interpretation will help in enhancing greater knowledge and better understanding about the destination. Additionally, it also leads to visitor satisfaction and contribute to the commercial viability of tourism destinations(Moscardo, 1998; Moscardo, et al., 2004). The fundamental component in

tourism is the tourist interpretation subject to the tourist’s mental state when they construct and build meaning. Tourist’s interpretation is closely connected to the physical setting, social interaction, expectation and information provided at the tourist destinations. These features are the key considerations in the mindfulness studies in tourism (Moscardo, 1996, 1999 and 2008).

Scholars assume that the outcome of mindfulness is effective interpretation without providing empirical evidence. Past research by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) and Woods

& Moscardo (2003) suggested that the outcome of mindfulness are that visitors enjoy their visit, express satisfaction with their visit, learn more from their visit and be interested in discovering more about the destination. However, most discussion revolved around factors that contribute towards effective interpretation and how they affect visitors (Van Winkle & Backman, 2009) and management of visitors (Frauman

& Norman, 2004) at the setting. In other words, past research findings have not been able to conclusively show how mindfulness contributed towards interpretation.

However, research by other scholars (Weiler & Smith, 2009 and Weiler & Ham, 2010) showed that, interpretation by an individual at a tourist destination can be measured based on cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes. These outcomes are desired outcomes of an individual at the destinations (Ham & Weiler, 2006).

This research will address this gap by looking at how mindfulness correlate with interpretive outcome of tourists reflected by cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome. The extension of the framework is based on the evaluation of interpretation influenced by mindfulness. The framework is revised to ensure that it can better explain heritage interpretation.

2.12 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework proposed to address the research questions in this research consist of Communication and Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

According to the conceptual framework (Figure 2.4) there are two factors influencing mindfulness, the Communication and Visitor Factors and the variables that fall under those factors. In this research, the original framework of mindfulness has been revisited to uncover additional variables that might better represent the antecedents of mindfulness. The framework that are suggested by Moscardo (1996, 1999) states that the variable fall under the Communication Factors are Variety, Multisensory Media,

Novelty, Uses of Questions, Visitor Control, Connection to Visitor, Physical

Orientation. Through the review of the literature, the current research adds in

Ambience as a variable under Communication Factors. Additionally, the Visitor

Factors will be considered as a core factor as compared to Moscardo (1996, 1999), who only consider Visitor Factors as a conditional factor. The variables under Visitor

Factors that are proposed to influence mindfulness are Level of Interest, Visitor with

Specific Goal, Familiarity, Visiting Companion, Cultural Background and Experience.

These variables were derived from the past literature on mindfulness in various areas

(i.e: psychology, education and many others). All the variables that fall under both

Communication and Visitor Factors are analysed using the Exploratory Factor

Analysis (EFA). All the antecedents that are derived from the EFA under both

Communication and Visitor Factors are tested to look at the relationship towards mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

In this research, the item questions to measure mindfulness were developed. Much of the previous research are based on the conceptualisation on Langer (1989), which emphasised on the orientation towards a cognitive state of an individual and the external stimuli in information processing (Bishop et al., 2004 and Haigh et al., 2011).

In this research, it is proposed that mindfulness should be measured by the both the external and internal aspect as well. The measure of mindfulness in this study were developed based on existing measures from various fields (i.e: CAMS-R, FMI, SMQ,

MAAS, PMQ, FFMQ and MMS). The item questions were adapted and revised to suits the current research context. This set of item questions measure mindfulness from both the internal and external aspects. All the item questions will be tested using the

EFA.

Next, the framework shows mindfulness act as a mediator in the current research. It is proposed that mindfulness mediates the relationship between Communication and

Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome. Through the past literature, it is suggested that, mindfulness contributes to better understanding of tourism destinations and attitude to support conservation (Moscardo, 1996; 1999; Moscardo et al., 2004 and

Moscardo & Ballantyne, 2008). However, much of the available research (Woods &

Moscardo, 2003; Frauman & Norman, 2004 and Van Winkle & Backman, 2009) into mindfulness has focused on either visitors satisfaction and/or changes in behaviour as the outcome measures and the actual change based on interpretive outcome have been rarely examined. Hence, in the current research, mindfulness is tested to ensure that it influences interpretive outcome and further, act as a mediator that mediates the relationship between Communication and Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome.

Additionally, item questions on interpretive outcome were also developed. Since actual change of interpretive outcome have been hardly examined, item questions were developed based on the conceptualisation and operationalisation of interpretive outcome in past literature. For the purpose of this research, interpretation is defined from the perspective of the visitors which include cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions. Thus, interpretive outcome is also measured based on the cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes.

Independent Variables VaIriables

Variety

Multisensory Media

Factor

Novelty

Uses of Question Mediating Variable Dependent Variable

Visitor Control

Communication Connection to Visitor

Physical Orientation

Interpretive Ambience Mindfulness Outcome

High Level of Interest

Visitor with Specific Goal

Familiarity

Factors Visitor Visiting Companion

Cultural Background

Experience

Figure 2.4: Conceptual Framework

Based on the conceptual framework, the following general hypotheses were formulated for this study:

H1 Communication Factors influence mindfulness

H2 Visitor Factors influence mindfulness

H3 Communication Factors influence Interpretive Outcome

H4 Visitor Factors influence Interpretive Outcome

H5 Mindfulness influence Interpretive Outcome

H6 Mindfulness mediates the relationship between Communication Factor and

Interpretive Outcome

H7 Mindfulness mediates the relationship between Visitor Factors and Interpretive

Outcome

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

This chapter explains the methodology employed in the present study. The methods used to conduct the research to achieve the objectives of this study are discussed in this chapter. Methodology is a general approach to study research topics (Silverman,

2005). Specifically, this research employs the positivist paradigm to address the research objective. A survey questionnaire is utilised to collect the data.

This chapter will also provide operationalisation on the concepts analysed, sampling and the data collection as well as measurement aspects of this research. Following that, the data analysis of technique including factor analysis and Structural Equation

Modelling (SEM) are also outlined.

3.2 Research Paradigm and Research Strategy

According to (Neuman, 2011a) paradigm is a “general organising framework for theory and research that includes basic assumptions, key issues, models of quality research and methods for seeking answers”. Aligned with that, Babbie (2010) and

Rubin & Babbie (2011) stated that paradigm is a fundamental model that helps to organise the observations into something that make sense.

This research will adapt the positivist paradigm which the research technique used are based on the scientific principal. This is because, positivist approach is the approach of natural sciences which apply precise quantitative data research technique such as surveys, experiments and statistic. Additionally, this approach also seek for detailed and exact measures in the research and carefully analyse the numbers from the measures (Creswell, 2013; (Neuman, 2011a), Jonker & Pennink, 2010 and Rubin &

Babbie, 2011). In this research, the positive paradigm is used to guide the understanding on mindfulness framework in tourism research. The data of the research will enrich the data on mindfulness especially in tourism research.

This research utilises the quantitative research method since it is parallel with the positivist research viewpoint. In line with this, Creswell (2013) asserted that positivist viewpoint hold true more for quantitative research compared to qualitative research.

Besides, in distinguishing the Communication and Visitor Factors that contributes towards mindfulness (variables that fall under both Communication and Visitor

Factors), they are assumed to exist objectively and can be measured by certain properties. In addition to that, the state of mindfulness and also interpretive outcome can be measured by certain criteria which has been conceptualised by the researcher.

Using quantitative method enable the researcher to make accurate predictions on the social behaviour that happen within a large group of member (Neuman, 2011a) and this reinforce the selection of positivist viewpoint in this research.

Furthermore, in this research, the positivist research method that uses deductive research strategies has been adopted. Blaikie (2010) asserted that, research strategies is used to answer research questions and each of the research strategies are inter-related

with particular philosophical and theoretical traditions. With a deductive strategy, the hypothesis or hypotheses on the basis of what is recognise to identify the regularity that needs to be explained (Babbie, 2010). In line with that, Blaikie (2010) asserted that deductive research strategy is the most appropriate strategy being used to answer research hypotheses. In this research, the deductive research strategy is used to test the variables and construct in the framework in order to eliminate or to maintain the variables and constructs in the framework.

3.3 Quantitative Research Method

Research design is the identification of the process of observing and analysing the why and how of the research (Babbie, 2010). Quantitative research method utilising self- administered questionnaire is employed in this research to gather data from the targeted samples which are both the local and international tourists who visited the heritage site in Penang, Malaysia. Quantitative research method stress on the production of precise and generalisable statistical findings and are generally more appropriate to nomothetic aims (Rubin & Babbie, 2011). Besides, quantitative research method employs logical and systematic linear research path. Quantitative method requires to measure the variables under consideration and it allows greater precision in reporting results. The application of the mindfulness framework has established a conceptual research framework to examine the research hypotheses for the current study. Subsequently, quantitative methodology is applied to examine the hypotheses in this research by analysing the data using statistics in pursuance of the research questions.

This research focuses on the hypothesis testing that enables more understanding of the interactions between constructs. Sekaran & Bougie (2013) and Cooper & Schindler

(2013) asserted that hypothesis testing is used to determine on the interest of the population’s nature of certain relationship or determine the difference among groups or the independence of two or more factors in a situation undertaken to describe the variance in the dependent variable or to predict the outcome of the research. This research focuses on the variables in contributing towards mindfulness. Besides, it also tests the hypotheses on mindfulness as a mediator.

Quantitative research are able to assist in setting up statistical proof on the strengths of relationships connecting the exogenous and endogenous constructs together.

Additionally, the outcome would also be able to recommend the directions of the relationship when shared with theory and literature (Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar, &

Newton, 2002). This research aims to determine the best predictor variables of mindfulness. Additionally, this research will also analyse whether mindfulness is a significant mediator between both the factors (i.e: Communication Factor and Visitor

Factors) and interpretive outcome. Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, (2001) suggested that the measurement of the variables is a fundamental aspect in a framework and a crucial part of quantitative research design. Parallel with the idea, Amaratunga et al.

(2002) stated that quantitative research method would enable the researcher to validate the hypotheses and also to ensure that results are valid in measuring what they are supposed to measure and they are reliable. In essence, adapting the quantitative approach in this research is suitable in looking for underlying concepts and their connections.

Furthermore, this method is adopted in numerous research in the topic of mindfulness and interpretation (Tubb, 2003; Frauman & Norman, 2004; Van Winkle & Backman,

2009). Hence, this research would contribute in providing data in supporting the framework of mindfulness.

To collect the data, questionnaire will be utilise. According to Jonker & Pennink

(2010) survey questionnaire is the most common technique employed to generate data in quantitative research method. The research investigates the concept of mindfulness and it’s impact on interpretive outcome at heritage sites. Thus, the self-administered survey has been chosen due to its ability to gain information on issues through self- reporting.

3.4 Research Design

This section describes and encapsulate the steps of this research, which will be illustrated in the coming section of this chapter. The research design of this study consists of three phases (1) exploratory study: literature review and conceptual framework, (2) pilot study and (3) structural modelling (see Figure 3.1). These phases represent the research steps in indentifying the key variables in both Communication and Visitor Factors contributing towards mindfulness in supporting interpretive outcome. Also, these phases are used to strengthen the mindfulness framework used to explain the tourist interpretation in tourism research. The concept of mindfulness will first be re-visited and also to look at mindfulness and how that affects interpretive outcome.

Literature Review

Conceptual Framework

Exploratory Study 1: In-Depth Interview

Study

Exploratory Study 2:

Exploratory Survey Questionaire

Statement of Hypotheses

Survey Questionaire

Test of Structural Model

Structural Modelling Structural

Revised Model

Figure 3.1: Overview of Methodology

In Phase One, the literature that are related to mindfulness were explored in detailed.

Through the review of the past literature, the conceptual framework of this research are developed. The variables under both the Communication and Visitor Factors were derived from the original mindfulness framework by Moscardo (1996,1999).

Additionally, to ensure that the framework are more comprehensive a few more variables have been included based on a review of the wider mindfulness literature.

Specifically, variable that are added into Communication Factors is Ambience and on the other hand, variables that are added into Visitor Factors are Visitor with Specific

Goals, Familiarity, Visiting Companion, Cultural Background and Experience. Also, in this phase, the various measure of mindfulness are examined to establish a measure of mindfulness especially in heritage studies. Additionally, the measure of interpretive outcome are also conceptualised and explored to build the measurement as an outcome of mindfulness. The conceptual framework (see Figure 2.4 in Chapter 2) provides an overview of the complete research proposition in the current research. The conceptual framework also reflects the theoretical foundation of the mindfulness framework by

Moscardo (1996,1999).

Phase Two of the research is the exploratory study whereby the key variables are identified and confirmed through in-depth interviews and survey questionnaire. The first part of the exploratory study, which is the in-depth interview is used to explore and enhance the key variables that were proposed by Moscardo (1996,1999). The results of the in-depth interview will further help in exploring the key variables through the survey questionnaire. Through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), using data from the survey questionnaire, key variables are identified.

Next, Phase Three entails the data analysis and results of the structural modelling. In this phase, following by the results of EFA, the statement of hypotheses are derived and the final data collection was carried out using the survey questionnaire. Using the

Sturctural Equation Modelling (SEM), data from the survey questionnaire were analysed and reported. Finally, in this phase, the framework is revised.

3.5 Exploratory Study

In this section, the key construct of the research are being explored. The four main construct in the current research namely Communication Factors, Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome are examined to ensure that the variables under the construct are comprehensive. The variables under Communication and Visitor

Factors were initially explored and reinforced via in-depth interview and survey questionnaire. Exploratory study is often used to generate new ideas or hypotheses

(Neuman, 2011) and in this study it is used to explore new variables under

Communication and Visitor Factors and also to reinforced the variables that was proposed by the framework presented by Moscardo in 1996. Additionally, these exploratory study would also aid the researcher towards better understanding on most of the relevant construct in the context of heritage tourism in Malaysia.

3.5.1 Exploratory Study 1: In-Depth Interview

The in-depth interviews in this research aims to revisit both the Communication and

Visitor Factors in determining how they contribute towards mindfulness. Data were collected among both local and international tourists to specifically explore the

factors. Questions were derived to further explore the Communication and Visitor

Factors to ensure that the variables that will be included in the questionnaire are comprehensive.

The in-depth interview, under qualitative method was used to explore the key variables in contributing towards mindfulness. The list of probes questions that were used are provided as an attachment (refer Appendix A). In this interview, six respondents were approached. Respondents of both local and international tourists were targeted at the heritage sites in Penang. that Starks & Trinidad (2007) stated that, large sample size is not necessarily required to generate rich data sets because data from a few individuals who have experienced the space or time are sufficient to uncover its core elements of the needed data. This research is considered phenomenological in nature because it focuses on the individual’s encounter, belief and perception (Higginbottom, 2004 and

Sokolowski, 2000) and it also contributes to a deeper understanding of experience

(Starks & Trinidad, 2007). More respondents are being approached to participate in the interview, however, they refuse to participate due to time constraints and also to join in other members in the tour. Besides, the data through the analysis has also been saturated because most of the variables mentions are almost the same and it is repeated.

3.5.1(a) Results and Discussion: In-Depth Interview

The aim of the in-depth interview is to explore the main variables in contributing towards mindfulness. Respondents were selected to reflect and relate the information to themselves about the heritage sites that they have visited. They were interviewed on their visit at the heritage sites in Penang. Through their thoughts, the researcher would

be able to undercover the factors in contributing towards mindfulness. The main questions to the respondents are, “Can you please describe the best experience in the heritage area that you have visited?” and “Can you relate the information and also the display to yourself?” The researcher would also probe with further question to gain more insights from the respondent. With the examination of the personal experience, to uncover the meaning and common features or essences of an experience or event

(Starks & Trinidad, 2007). According to Flanagan (1954) by asking the respondent to describe their best experience, this method is termed as the “critical incident” methodology and is most suitably used where the researcher is aiming to identify complex or less well-defined factors. It is appropriate to use this method in this study because the incidents described are “critical”, the subjects usually have good recall, and are able to recount the factors and events that were significant to the incident.

Additionally, using this technique across a number of respondents enables the researcher to look for evidence of commonalities in themes. It is argued that, the best experience that are remembered are more likely to be associated with the state of mindfulness. Thus, this question will allow the researcher to examine the relative frequency with which different themes are associated with a mindful or memorable experience (Woods & Moscardo, 2003).

The first part of data analysis seek for major themes that appeared in the tourist’s descriptions on their visit at the heritage site. These themes were then examined to see if they are in line with the factors that are proposed in the framework or as new precursors or factors that contribute to mindfulness. Most respondents have described at least one of the factors that has been previously associated with mindfulness in their visit. The following results and quotations are extracted from the respondents that

show some of the results that are matched with the variables proposed in the existing framework of mindfulness.

Overall, the data generated are in line with the mindfulness framework as suggested by Moscardo (1996, 1999). All respondents mentioned at least one of the main factors contributing to mindfulness in their visit at the heritage site. The results of this in-depth interview supported the framework of mindfulness that was developed by Moscardo in 1996. The original framework appears to be useful and relevant in connecting together various components of heritage tourism.

The most commonly cited factor in describing their visitation is the novelty variable referring to unique, new information and also novel situation that they have come across. This variable is strongly associated to mindfulness because people are less likely to have routine behavioural scripts, depending on in such situations (Moscardo,

2003). The following quotations are extracted from the respondents that show the emerging of this variable:

New information or novelty:

 Respondent 2: “things with many colours, brightness and high building...they are unique”  Respondent 3: “Some of them are quite new, and some of them maybe give me more perspective and give me more information about the races, culture and religious…” and “I think they are quite unique…and is quite interesting for me…”  Respondent 4: “I can observe the culture… Chinese culture from the Khoo family, so, that is very informative… Yes, this is a new thing for me...”

The second most mentioned varibles that contribute to mindfulness are variety and perceived visitor control. By having several encounters, the curiosity of the tourists

would be aroused and this will encourage them to seek for more information about certain display or culture. This is because according to Moscardo and Ballantyne,

(2008) creating change or variation in an experience to the tourists will also contribute to fostering the mindfulness among tourists. This includes a wide range of different media and developing different activities in terms of the level physical and mental input required by the tourists. Activities with a balance between more active and more contemplative opportunities, on seasonal event programmes and the development of different facets of the interpretation topics will subsequently facilitate in creating variation or change in experience. Also, according to Moscardo, (1996); Woods &

Moscardo, (2003) and Moscardo & Ballantyne, (2008) giving a variety of options to tourists will allow them to develop their own personal and unique experience. The following excerpts are extracted from the respondents that show the emerging of this variable:

Variety:  Respondent 1: “Variety because you have the people who are really interesting, the food is also interesting because different way to cook and the lifestyle is also different and the architecture that makes the the the things I means the things to see here...”

Visitor control:  Respondent 2: “the easy things to understand so that I could go first... so if I want to know more then I will read very long things that are in the museum”

The second part of the data analysis seek for major themes in Visitor Factors. The

Visitor Factors that were proposed as a conditional factors in the original framework were analysed in the second phase with the aim of revising the Visitor Factors in the framework.

The results also show that mindfulness is also being affected by Visitor Factors. Visitor

Factors are factors which affect the attention and also the attention span of an individual in terms of their interest in the setting. Moscardo (1996) argued that the majority of the visitors will have particular interest and experience with them as they visit different places and it does not remain the same throughout the whole journey of the visitation. The identification of the Visitor Factors would help in increasing the attention span of the visitors and further contribute towards improving the framework of mindfulness.

The most common variable that are mentioned by the visitors is cultural background.

The results from this research identifies self-connection as key in the Visitor Factors and is generally reflected through ‘cultural background’, ‘social background’ and

‘socialisation background’.

The findings indicate that to a certain extent, the reflecting on cultural background influence visitor’s perception and also understanding of the displays at the heritage sites. This could be because of the visitor are reflecting on how their culture are replicated or reflected in a different setting and thus, it helps them in understanding the setting. For visitors the sense of belonging to the setting seems to be stronger. This creates a stronger connection between the visitors and the place. This is clearly illustrated through the experience of Respondent 3 from China, who stated the displays were similar to what he has seen back in his own country. Thus, he feels like as though he is back in his own country. Respondent 1 however is from France and could not imagine and connect herself to the place that she has visited because she comes from a different background and culture. As such, a clear introduction towards certain

culture or setting of the heritage is necessary to enable the tourists to create a connection to the display at the setting for themselves. According to Lee & Sparks,

(2007) the emerging ethnic identities has been identified recently as an important factor that has impact on the attitudes, behaviours of specific cultural groupings and customer segments within countries. The abilities for everyone to travel around the world have made this factor as one of the significant factors to address in the area of tourism. The following are some examples of the excerpts that illustrate the variable:

Cultural background:  Respondent 3: “from one point, it's similar culture like my background, Chinese culture, so I can it is different from our original culture, but still remains the same things. I always try to link on my own culture, and on my own belief.”

The variable of “social factors” in the visitors are the second common factor. People often learn from the interactions with the people around them to develop an understanding and also perceptions towards the situation around them. In the socialisation process, they exchange information and share their experience with each other. Thus, by creating a better place that would provide more opportunity for tourists to communication and socialise among themselves will help them to understand better and also interpret the information differently because of the sharing of information among themselves. Research by Diamond (1986) observes that most of the time, adults in the family groups often kept children at the exhibits occupied and engaged in instructive behaviours such as reading and interpreting the information for the children. The adults also help the children to draw conclusion and construct the social interaction among the children as well as controlling the length of the visitation. The social interaction might help them to interpret the information differently through the

exchange of opinion and information. Examples of the quotations are extracted from the respondents that show the emerging of this variable are:

Social background:

 Respondent 4: “I can… of course boleh relate, tapi not… bukan dengan my culture… I can relate sebab I ada banyak Chinese friends….” ( I can relate but not with my culture... I can relate about it because of my Chinese friends)

Socialisation at setting

 Respondent 5: “dapat kawan baru…even dapat kawan baru semasa kat dalam…semasa kat dalam…dapat berkenalan dengan tourist-tourist dari negara lain… so dapatlah bertukar-tukar maklumat heritage ini...” (I would be able to get new friends from other countries at the setting and be able to exchange knowledge)

As a summary, item data shows that the variable under Visitor Factors of ‘cultural background’, ‘social background’ and ‘socialisation background’ are as equally important as the variables found under Communication Factors.

The key finding from the study is that self-connectedness or emotional connectedness for the Visitor Factors. This new emerging variable will be thus included into the questionnaire. According to Wallace (2013) heritage is something that are passed on and it have an emotional quality to people and are able to relate things that strike a chord with us at a fundamental level. Heritage may often never be formally acknowledged in our our society or attachment to an aspect of our culture but it contains emotional qualities that we might not realised. This is in line with Lee &

Sparks, (2007) who state that the emerging ethnic identities is an important factor that has impact on the attitudes, behaviours of specific cultural groupings and customer segments within countries. Hence, abilities to connect the heritage to oneself is important in contributing towards the understanding.

3.5.2 Exploratory Study 2: Survey Questionnaire

The overall findings from the in-depth interview indicate that the data generated are in line with the mindfulness model as suggested by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) and

Woods and Moscardo (2003). The findings also revealed that Visitor Factors is an important factor in influencing mindfulness. In this phase of study, a questionnaire is developed to confirm and further explore the key variables for the constructs in the research, namely Communication Factors, Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

Along with the exploratory test, pilot test was carried out simultaneously. The pilot test sampling size for the survey questionnaire is 150 questionnaires distributed to both local and international tourist who visited the heritage site in Penang, Malaysia. This sample size is targeted also in the aim for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) later in the analysis whereby MacCallum, Widaman, Preacher, & Hong, (2001) and Fabrigar,

Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan (1999) suggested solutions can be reached with samples as low as 100 for approach to factor analytic procedures. Thus, the target sample of 150 is selected to ensure on the sufficient and safe number in EFA as well.

The selection of items developed to measure the constructs in this research is described in this part of the chapter. The four main constructs are Communication Factor, Visitor

Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome. In this research, to signify each of the construct scale items have been adapted accordingly. The items for each constructs were derived from the original mindfulness framework by Moscardo (1996 and 1999).

Additionally, to ensure a more complete framework are developed, a few more items

have been included based on winder literature review on mindfulness and also from data generated via in-depth interview. Specifically, variable that are added into

Communication Factor is Ambience and on the other hand, variables that are added into Visitor Factors are Visitor with Specific Goals, Familiarity, Visiting Companion,

Cultural Background and Experience.

3.5.2(a) Results of Survey Questionnaire

Factor Analysis was utilised to generate and validate the construct in Communication

Factor, Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome. Factor analysis was carried out prior to the final survey to test whether the number of variables suggested in this study can be retained or need to be reduced accordingly. Factor analysis is a data reduction technique used to decrease a large number of variables to a smaller set of underlying factors which are more manageable and summarised the information contained in the variable (Coakes, 2012 and Pallant, 2013).

According to Green & Salkind (2013) and Pallant (2013) factor analysis involved two stages which are factor extraction and factor rotation. It is further explained that the first stage of the factor analysis is used to determine the early decision about the number of factors underlying a set of measured variables. The second step of factor analysis is used for two reasons: (1) to statistically manipulate the results to make it more interpretable and (2) to make final decisions about the number of underlying factors. In this research, the factor analysis that is utilised is the exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is often employed in the early stages of

100

research to garner more information about the interrelationship among a set of variables (Pallant, 2013).

Principle Component factor analysis using Varimax Rotation was first conducted to generate the number of the factors in the construct. The criteria for a factor was at least an eigenvalue of 1, primary loadings of at least 0.40, with secondary loading above

0.20 difference (Pallant, 2013). Additionally, screen plot was used to determine the number of factors to be considered in the study as Green & Salkind (2013) stated that screen plot test could be used to determine the number of factors in factor analysis.

The results of factor analysis on each of the construct are:

i. Communication Factors

Principle Component factor analysis using Varimax Rotation was first carried out to generate the number of factor that fall under Communication Factors. The criteria for a factor was at least an eigenvalue of 1, primary loadings of at least 0.40, with secondary loading above 0.20 difference (Pallant, 2013). In addition, screen plot was utilised to determine the number of factors to be considered in the study. The analysis generated 8 factors which were reduced to 6 factors after eliminating questions that did not fulfil the criteria set earlier. Some items were removed because of the poor fit to the other items in the same factor. For example, item “I can make connection between the present situation and the past” and also “I do not have enough time to tour the whole place” were removed because they were conceptually inconsistent with the other items in the same factors. Most items were removed due to high cross loading values between the main factor and the secondary factor. After elimination of items,

101

the final analysis produced only 6 Communication Factors that would lead to

Mindfulness.

The item questions developed in the variables were subjected to Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) to assess the suitability of data for factor analysis. Inspection of the

Kaiser – Meyer Oklin (KMO) shows that the value is 0.755, which exceeds the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1970 and 1974) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity

Sig value is 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05 (Bartlett, 1954). Thus, factor analysis is appropriate to be run for this study.

The first factor, consisted of five items and was labelled as Ambience. The factor explained 17.33% of variance. The second factor that emerged from the analysis compried of four items and explained 12.79% of variance. The factor was labelled as the Uses of Questions. The third factor which comprised of three items, was labelled as the Variety. This factor explained 12.23% of variance. Another factor that emerged from the analysis consisted of three items and was labelled as the Physical Orientation.

This factor explained 11.5% of variance. Novelty was another factor derived from the analysis and the factor explained 10.12% of variance and consisted of three items.

Finally the last factor that emerged in the study is Multisensory Media, which explained 9.62% of factor and comprised of four items.

This study confirms and reinforced the importance of incorporating specific

Communication Factors in contributing to mindfulness as reported in the literature. In this analysis, a new factor Ambience was emerged. There are five factor that are revealed show significant contributions towards Communication Factors scale, which

102

are Ambience, Uses of Questions, Variety, Physical Orientation, Novelty and

Multisensory Media. The final item questions for Communication Factors are as below:

Table 3.1: Factor Loading for Ambience

Scale Item : Ambience (A) Factor Loading Has good lighting. .839 Has good colour scheme. .816 Has functional layout. .782 It is easy to find my way around this location. .776

Table 3.2: Factor Loading for Uses of Questions

Scale Item : Uses of Questions (UQ) Factor Loading I learn something new. .557 The exhibits lead me to inquire more information. .769 The exhibits make me think of more questions. .830 The exhibits make me search for answers to my .894 questions.

Table 3.3: Factor Loading for Variety

Scale Item : Variety (VAR) Factor Loading There are many different attractions that are interesting. .553 There are different types of display. .743 There are different types of activities that I can .893 participate.

Table 3.4: Factor Loading for Physical Orientation

Scale Item : Physical Orientation (PO) Factor Loading Signage .845 Maps .945 Instructions and directions .861

Table 3.5: Factor Loading for Multisensory Media

Scale Item : Multisensory Media (MS) Factor Loading Video presentation. .521 Films. .698 Interactive Computer Display. .829 Audio Commentary. .729

103

ii. Visitor Factors

To determine the number of factor that can be used to best represent the interrelations among the set of constructs for the Visitor Factors, the principal component analysis was utilised. Principle Component factor analysis using Varimax Rotation was first performed to generate the number of Visitor Factors. The criteria set for a factor was at least an eigenvalue of 1, primary loadings of at least 0.40, with secondary loading above 0.20 difference (Pallant, 2013). Screen plot was utilised to determine the number of factors to be considered in the study. The analysis generated 14 factors which were reduced to 6 factors after removing questions that did not fulfil the criteria set earlier.

Some items were removed because of the poor fit to the other items in the same factor.

Item such as “I am here because I need a day out” and also “I can understand the language used here” were deleted because they were conceptually inconsistent with the other items in the same factors. Most items were removed due to high cross loading values between the main factor and the secondary factor. After elimination of items, the final analysis produced only 6 factor that fall under Visitor Factors that would lead to Mindfulness.

In order to access the suitability of the item questions, Principal Component Analysis

(PCA) was used. The Kaiser – Meyer Oklin (KMO) inspection was used and it shows that the value is 0.796, which exceeds the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1970 and 1974) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Sig value is 0.000 which is smaller than

0.05 (Bartlett, 1954). Hence, factor analysis is appropriate to be run for this construct.

104

The first factor that are emerged, consisted of five items and was labelled as Level of

Interest. The factor explained 14.97% of variance. The second factor that emerged from the analysis consisted of five items and explained 27.22% of the variance. The factor was labelled as the Familiarity. The third factor which comprised of three items, was labelled as the Visualisation. This factor explained 36.63% of variance. Followed by another factor that emerged from the analysis consisted of three items and was labelled as the Emotional Connectedness. This factor explained 45.63% of the variance. Next factor that are emerged is the Sense of Belonging which are emerged by three questions with the total variance of 54.60%. The following factor that are emerged comprised of four questions and was labelled as Connection to Visitor. The factor explained 71.01% of the variance. The initial pool of questions comprised of 51 items were reduced for further analysis because they either failed to load on either factor or loaded equally on both factors.

There are seven factor that are revealed show significant contributions towards Visitor

Factors scale, namely Level of Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional

Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitor. The final item questions for the constructs are as below:

Table 3.6: Factor Loading for Level of Interest

Scale Item : Level of Interest (LI) Factor Loading I am interested to know more on heritage .855 I am eager to learn about new heritage or culture .851 I am eager to gain new knowledge .798 I am eager to find out about other’s culture .753 I always want to learn about the history of this place .752

105

Table 3.7: Factor Loading for Familiarity

Scale Item : Familiarity (F) Factor Loading I am not familiar with this place (R). .885 I am not familiar with the culture here (R). .852 I have no idea at all about the place (R). .848 The culture is alien to me (R). .677 I have no idea at all about the culture (R). .545 * (R) reverse-scored item

Table 3.8: Factor Loading for Visualisation

Scale Item : Visualisation (V) Factor Loading I can imagine the place. .859 I have seen pictures and information about this place. .783 I know what to expect about this place. .768

Table 3.9: Factor Loading for Emotional Connectedness

Scale Item : Emotional Connectedness (EC) Factor Loading I feel uneasy at the heritage sites (R). .824 I would like to leave this place as soon as possible (R). .804 I feel that I have wasted my time here (R). .779 * (R) reverse-scored item

Table 3.10: Factor Loading for Sense of Belonging

Scale Item : Sense of Belonging (SB) Factor Loading I can understand the language used here. .852 I feel a stronger sense of identity here. .873 My roots are here. .718

Table 3.11: Factor Loading for Connection to Visitor

Scale Item : Connection to Visitor (CV) Factor Loading I coame to be connected to the past. .823 I come to understand my family history. .709 I come to understand the traditional culture. .644 This place gives me sense of belonging. .517

106

iii. Mindfulness

As for Mindfulness, the Principle Component factor analysis using Varimax Rotation was performed to obtain the number of factors contributing to the construct. In order for the variables fit in as a factor, the benchmark is at least an eigenvalue of 1, primary loadings of at least 0.40, with secondary loading above 0.20 differences (Pallant,

2013). Besides, to decide the number of factors to be included in the scale, screen plot was used. From the factor analysis, there were 16 factors generated and it was then reduced to 4 factors after eliminating questions that did not fulfil the criteria set earlier.

There are some item that were removed due to the poor fit together with other items in the same factor. For instant, item “I find difficult to stay focused on what's happening at the place” and also “I am aware of what I think about the place” were removed because they were conceptually inconsistent with the other items in the same factors.

Due to high cross loading values between the main factor and the secondary factor most items were removed. After elimination of items, the final analysis produced only four factors that would lead to mindfulness.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were used to to evaluate the suitability of the item questions and data for factor analysis. Inspection of the Kaiser – Meyer Oklin

(KMO) shows that the value is 0.852, which exceeds the recommended value of 0.6

(Kaiser, 1970 and 1974) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Sig value is 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05 (Bartlett, 1954). Thus, factor analysis is appropriate to be run for this study.

107

The first factor, consisted of eight items and was labelled as Curiosity and Attention.

The factor explained 22.26% of variance. The second factor that emerged from the analysis comprised of six items and explained 14.75% of the variance. The factor was labelled as the Alertness factor. According to the table, the third factor which comprised of five items, was labelled as the Emotional Engagement factor. This factor explained 12.23% of variance. Followed by another factor that emerged from the analysis consisted of four items and was labelled as the Openness and Flexibility. This factor explained 7.58% of the variance. The remaining item questions from the original pool of 54 items were dropped from further analysis because they either failed to load on either factor or loaded equally on both factors.

Statistically, there are four factors that are revealed show significant contributions towards Mindfulness, namely Curiosity and Attention, Alertness, Emotional

Engagement and Openness and Flexibility. The construct of Mindfulness will be labelled as MF and to be measured as a single construct later in the analysis. The final item questions for the constructs are as below:

Table 3.12: Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Curiosity and Attention

Scale Item : Curiosity and Attention Factor Loading I like to investigate new things .627 I like to figure out how and why certain thing happen .683 I try to think new ways of doing things .635 I am always open to new ways of doing things .816 I like to search for an answer to questions I may have .860 I like to search for an answer to questions I may have .785 I like to have my curiosity aroused .799 I like to inquire further things at the sites. .816

108

Table 3.13: Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Alertness

Scale Item : Alertness Factor Loading My mind wanders off and I am easily distracted .412

I don't pay attention to what's happening to the place .668

It seems that I am "running on auto" without much .840 awareness of what I'm doing I find myself doing things without paying attention .794

I do not actively seek to learn new things .658

I am rarely alert to new development that I discover at .737 heritage site

Table 3.14: Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Emotional Engagement

Scale Item : Emotional Engagement Factor Loading I don't pay attention to what's happening to the place .668

It seems that I am "running on auto" without much .840 awareness of what I'm doing

I find myself doing things without paying attention .794

I do not actively seek to learn new things .658

I am rarely alert to new development that I discover at .737 heritage site

Table 3.15: Factor Loading for Mindfulness – Openness and Flexibility

Scale Item : Openness and Flexibility Factor Loading I was receptive to unpleasant thoughts and feelings .642

I approached each experience by trying to accept it, no .632 matter whether it was pleasant or unpleasant I was open to taking notice of anything that might come .680 up

I like to be challenged intellectually .415

109

iv. Interpretive Outcome

Initially the Principle Component factor analysis using Varimax Rotation was performed to obtain the number of factors contributing to Interpretive Outcome. A minimal benchmark was set in order for the factor to fits in the scale. The benchmark set are at least an eigenvalue of 1, primary loadings of at least 0.40, with secondary loading above 0.20 differences (Pallant, 2013). Also, the screen plot is used in deciding the number of factors to be included in the scale. From the factor analysis, there were seven factors generated and it was then reduced to four factors after removing and deleting the questions that did not fulfil the benchmark set earlier. There are some item that were removed due to the poor fit together with other items in the same factor. For instant, item “I developed new perspective of life” and also “I gain new insight of the heritage” were removed because they were conceptually inconsistent with the other items in the same factors. Due to high cross loading values between the main factor and the secondary factor most items were removed remaining 19 questions. After elimination of items, the final analysis produced only 4 factors.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were used to evaluate the suitability of the item questions and data for factor analysis. Inspection of the Kaiser – Meyer Oklin (KMO) shows that the value is 0.892, which exceeds the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser,

1970 and 1974) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Sig value is 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05 (Bartlett, 1954). Thus, factor analysis is appropriate to be run for this study.

The first factor that are emerged, consisted of six items and was labelled as

Behavioural. The factor explained 21.8% of variance. The second factor that emerged

110

from the analysis comprised of five items and explained 43.2% of the variance. The factor was labelled as the Cognitive factor. The third factor which comprised of four items, was labelled as the Affective factor. This factor explained 60.6% of variance.

The next factor that emerged from the analysis consisted of four items and was labelled as the Value. This factor explained 74.72% of the variance.

According to statistical analysis, there are four factors that are revealed show significant contributions towards Interpretation scale, namely Behavioural, Cognitive,

Affective and Value. The construct will be labelled as IO and being measured as a single construct for analysis. The final item questions for the constructs are as below:

Table 3.16: Factor Loading for Behavioural

Scale Item : Behavioural Factor Loading I would help to contribute to the preservation of the .673 heritage sites. I am willing to donate in order to help the conservation .712 of the sites. I would revisit this place in future. .669

I would recommend this place to my friends or family. .553 I believe if I keep touching the exhibits, I might cause .856 threat to them. It is necessary for me to take extra care when I tour the .803 place.

Table 3.17: Factor Loading for Cognitive

Scale Item : Cognitive Factor Loading I learn about the need to protect the heritage. .714 I develop respect for the culture and landscape of this .818 place. I have gained an insight into the past. .833 I understand more about the importance of heritage here. .750 I not understand the importance of preserving heritage .642 site.

111

Table 3.18: Factor Loading for Affective

Scale Item : Affective Factor Loading I think heritage site are special and important. .563 When I think about the threats to the environment, I .742 experience the feeling of anxiety. I am concerned about the heritage. .879 I believe preserving heritage site is important. .788

Table 3.19: Factor Loading for Value

Scale Item : Value Factor Loading Heritage will only be protected when there is a positive .680 economic reason for doing so Heritage brought me to know how people live in the past .747

This place changes my perceptions towards heritage .756

This place have given me a new meaning in my life .508

3.5.2(b) Reliability Test

Measurement in reliability is the dependability or consistency of the measure of a variable (Neuman, 2011). According to Pallant (2005 and 2013) there are several aspects of reliability. One of the most important issues affecting the scale of internal consistency is the reference to the degree to which the items that make up the scale joining together. The reliability of a scale can be different depending on the sample that it is used.

In terms of reliability, the alpha value range from ‘0’ to ‘1’, with lesser values approaching ‘0’ indicating how low reliability. The majority of the researcher would agree that the minimum acceptable alpha value in any reliable test or analysis should

112

be greater than ‘0.7’(George & Mallery, 2001). In this research, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were run to ensure scale reliability of the instruments.

A general rule of thumb to interpret Cronbach’s Alpha is as listed below:

• α > 0.9 : Excellent

• α > 0.8 : Good

• α > 0.7 : Acceptable

• α > 0.6 : Questionable

• α > 0.5 : Poor

• α < 0.4: Unacceptable

Responses collected via the survey questionnaires for the pilot test were tested to check for reliability to ensure that the scale of each construct have the similar internal consistency. The report of each scale are as below:

Table 3.20: Reliability of the Constructs

Construct Variable Reliability (α) Ambience .875 Uses of Questions .850 Variety .882 Communication Factor Physical Orientation .887 Novelty .811 Multisensory Media .721

113

Table 3.20 Continued

Level of Interest .899 Familiarity .852 Visualisation .864 Visitor Factors Emotional Connectedness .798 Sense of Belonging .750 Connection to Visitor .742 Curiosity and Attention Alertness Mindfulness .867 Emotional Engagement Openness and Flexibility Behavioural Cognitive Interpretive Outcome .922 Affective Value

After conducting the factor analysis, the reliability of the construct in this research is tested. It is significant to test the reliability of the scales before applying any statistical tools. The Cronbach’s alpha computing is used to test the internal reliability of the items and it is suggested that (Cronbach, 1951) a minimum alpha of 0.6 sufficed for early stage of research. For this study, all items in the scale had acceptable reliabilities of greater than 0.7 indicating the strong variables for all the constructs and it also indicates that all the item questions fit in. All score are based on the sample of data

(N=150).

3.6 The Research Survey

Findings from the exploratory study has been used to design the next phase of the study. Following the EFA, the findings were used to derive the statement of hypotheses

114

and the final data collection was carried out using an instrument of the survey questionnaire. The data were then analysed using the Structural Equation Model

(SEM).

3.6.1 Target Population

The target population is the concretely identified large group of many cases from which results from the sample are generalised ((Neuman, 2011). In this research, tourists who travel to Penang Heritage Sites have been chosen as the target population.

The Penang Heritage Site has been chosen because the current study of mindfulness will focus on heritage tourism to better understand the application of mindfulness in tourism research especially in heritage site. Penang is being nominated as one of the

World Heritage Sites (WHS) on the cultural heritage and buildings by UNESCO. Due to the nomination as a WHS, Penang has attracted many tourists from many places around the world and to certain extend the tourism activities has contribute towards the damage of the heritage site (Global Heritage Fund, 2012). Thus, the findings of this research would also aid as an alternative method in facilitating the heritage tourism in encouraging positive behaviour among tourists. Additionally, Penang is one of the top destinations in Malaysia in terms of tourist arrival, together with Kuala Lumpur, the capital city.

Out of the seven location that are suggested by Tourism Malaysia (2014) as the “Top

Tourists Attractions Is Penang”, only Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion, Pinang Peranakan

Mansion and Khoo Kongsi were selected, due to the similarities as a heritage house turned to be a museum currently. Both the Pinang Peranakan Mansion and also the

115

Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion had once served as the residence during the the colonial

British era and has been restored to its former glory to serve as a museum.

Additionally, the Khoo Kongsi is a Clan Association which, was also built in the similar era was a local bungalow and then converted into a clan house, which the basement was converted into a museum. These places were once a residential area or assiociation there are tured into a museum as an attractions with much heritage values.

As a results, target population are selected from these places. This is to ensure on the reliability of the data because the respondents encounter similar experience.

3.6.2 Sampling Design

The sampling design used in this research was the non-probability sampling method in which there is a possibility some tourists in the population that may have slight or no possibility to be represented in the sample (Neuman, 2011a) and Babbie, 2010).

Sekaran & Bougie (2013) suggested that non-probability sampling is a potential technique to be applied when time or other aspects of the research may turn more vital than the generalisation of the findings. In the current research, the main priority is to obtain some preliminary and useful information towards theory development in a fast and economical way. In this research convenience sampling technique was used.

Convenience sampling, according to (Neuman, 2011a)) and Babbie (2010) is a type of non-probability sampling in which the researcher selects anyone within the target population that they happen to come across. This sampling method is relevant in this research to identify both the Communication and Visitor Factors that influence mindfulness based on the experience of the tourists who has visited the heritage site.

116

The sample must be aged 18 and above in order to ensure their understanding in the questionnaire.

Additionally, the quota sampling approach is used to ensure that the sample signified the pre-specified characteristic, so that the total sample will have the equal distribution of the specified characteristic (Salkind, 2008;(Neuman, 2011a) and Babbie, 2010).

This technique enable certain groups is sufficient by represented in the sample. Quota sampling also guarantees that the sample group that is needed in this research, tourists who visited heritage sites are adequately represented in the sample. As the targeted sample population for this research are 400 visitors who visited Penang heritage sites specifically Pinang Peranakan Mansion, Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion and Khoo Kongsi, the research needed to ensure that the distribution of the tourists group is similar to the desired sample size. In this research, quota sampling is used by targeting at least 100 respondents from Pinang Peranakan Mansion, Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion and Khoo

Kongsi respectively to ensure that the respondent distribution is even and similar.

3.6.3 Sampling Size

According to Neuman, (2011) the sample size is based on characteristics of population, the type of data analysis to be used and the degree of confidence in sample accuracy required for research purposes. Peers (1996) further explained that sample size is one of the four inter-related features of a research design that can influence the detection of significant differences, relationships or interactions.

117

The decision of the sample size in this research was focused on the calculation provided by Krejie & Morgan (1970) who had formulated out the appropriate sample size in relation to the size of population. In this study, the population refers to both local and international tourists who visited Penang heritage site. According to Penang

Monthly, (2015) the statistic in the number of tourists arrivals at Penang International

Airport (PIA) in 2014 is 1.2 million. The calculation is based on p = 0.05 where the probability of committing a type I error is less than 5%. If the population is 1,000,000 the number of respondents should be 384. Similarly, Cohen, Manion, & Morrison

(2007) also suggested that sample size should be determined by considering the level of significant and sampling error whereby the guidelines determined the sample size by considering the level of significant at p < 0.05 (level of confident 95%) and p < 0.1

(level of confident 99%). Cohen et al. (2007) further specified that if the population for the research is 10,000 and the level of significant required is p < 0.05, the suggested number of respondents needed is 370. Also, it is important to note that, when the size of the population increases, the sample size would also increase at a diminishing rate and remain relatively constant at slightly more than 380 cases (Krejie & Morgan,

1970). Thus, the target sample population for this research are 400 visitors who visited

Penang heritage sites after considering the sampling error and also the sample size population as suggested by Krejie & Morgan (1970) and Cohen, Manion, & Morrison

(2007). The target sample population are slightly higher than the suggested number of

380 to ensure to reduce the possibility of insufficient data due to missing value and incomplete questionnaire.

118

3.7 Research Instrument

The variables under Communication Factors, Visitor Factors, Mindfulness and

Interpretive Outcome are measured in this study. These variables were operationalised by multi-item questioning using 5-point likert scales. Some item that are adopted from other research were modified to ensure that each item fits into the context of this research.

In this research, the instrument that was employed to collect data was separated into five sections; in which comprising the Communication Factors, Visitor Factors,

Mindfulness, Interpretive Outcome and demographic matters. Questionnaire was distributed at the heritage sites in Penang, WHS specifically Pinang Peranakan

Mansion, Khoo Kongsi and Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion.

Survey questionnaire according to (Neuman, 2011a) and Babbie (2010) is the most widely use instrument in social science data-gathering technique. Survey may be utilised for the purpose of descriptive, explanatory and exploratory. According to

Babbie (2010) this method is probably the best method available to the social science researcher who is interested in collecting original data for describing a too large population. A set of questionnaire that has been validated for direct observation is not only useful to the current study but is also valuable as it can be shared with other researchers and used for additional analysis when required in future. According to

Sekaran & Bougie (pg. 197, 2013) questionnaire is “a pre-formulated written set of questions to which respondents record their answers, usually within rather closely defined alternatives”. Babbie (2010) and (Neuman, 2011a) suggests that questionnaire

119

should be designed according to the following characteristics which are (1) make item clear and avoid jargon, slang or ambiguity, (2) avoid double barrelled questions, (3) respondent are willing to answer, (4) avoid negative items and (5) avoid bias items. In additional to these characteristics, further preparations that are made in preparing the set of questionnaires for collecting data in this research is the content of the instrument are being checked to ensure that the objectives of the research are being included and also the instructions in the questionnaire are clearly and properly constructed.

In this research, the questionnaire was split into five parts. The first part covered the demographic information about the respondents and the other four parts covered the variables under the Communication Factor, Visitor Factors, Mindfulness and

Interpretive Outcome. The format of the questionnaire are being presented as follow:

Part A: The first section of the survey contained seven questions regarding the

demographic information of the respondents such as age, gender, educational

level, nationality and occupation (refer Appendix C).

Part B: The next section of the survey contained seven questions regarding the

travelling patterns of the respondents such as travelling group information,

visiting arrangement, stay plan and expenditure (refer Appendix C).

Part C: Third section of the survey include questions on the travel experience of the

respondents in regards of their purpose of the visitation (refer Appendix C)

and also to access the construct of Mindfulness. Below are the questions in

the questionnaire:

120

Table 3.21: Item Questions for Questionnaire Part C

Construct Variables Item Questions I like to investigate new things I am very curious at the heritage place I like to figure out how and why certain things happen Curiosity I try to think new ways of doing things and I am always open to new ways of doing things attention I like to search for an answer to questions I may have I like to have my curiosity aroused I like to inquire further things at the sites My mind wanders off and I am easily distracted I don’t pay attention to what’s happening at the place It seems that I am “running on auto” without much Alertness awareness of what I’m doing I find myself doing things without paying attention Mindfulness I do not actively seek to learn new things I am rarely alert to new development that I discover at heritage site I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings I think some of my emotions towards the heritage sites are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel Emotional them Engagement I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail I disapprove myself when I have irrational ideas I notice subtle changes in my mood I was receptive to unpleasant thoughts and feelings I approached each experience by trying to accept Openness it, no matter whether it was pleasant or unpleasant I was open to taking notice of anything that might come up I like to be challenged intellectually

Part D: This section includes questions on the opinion on the heritage site and also to

measure the variables under the construct of Communication Factors which are

Variety, Uses of Questions, Ambience, Physical Orientation, Novelty and

Multisensory Media. Below are the questions in the questionnaire:

121

Table 3.22: Item Questions for Questionnaire Part D

Construct Variables Item Questions I learn something new The exhibits lead me to inquire more Uses of information Questions The exhibits make me think of more questions The exhibits make me search for answers to my questions There are many different attractions that are interesting Variety There are different types of display There are different activities that I can participate There is nothing new that I can see at the heritage site There is nothing new to discover at the Novelty heritage site I have nothing to enquire about the exhibits at the heritage sites Video presentation Communication Factors Films Multisensory Interactive computer display media Audio commentary Others Signage

Physical Maps orentation Instructions and directions Others Has good lighting Has good colour scheme Ambience Has functional layout It is easy to find my way around this location

Part E: The fifth part of the survey access the respondent’s experience at the heritage

site and also on the variables under the Visitor Factors which include Level of

Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of

122

Belonging and Connection to Visitor. Below are the questions in the

questionnaire:

Table 3.23: Item Questions for Questionnaire Part E

Construct Variables Item Questions I am interested to know more on heritage I am eager to learn about new heritage or culture Level of I am eager to gain new knowledge interest I am eager to find out about other’s culture I always want to learn about the history of this place I am not familiar with this place I am not familiar with the culture here Familiarity I have no idea at all about the place The culture is alien to me I have no idea at all about the culture I can imagine the place I have seen pictures and information about this Visitor Visualisation place Factors I know what to expect about this place I feel uneasy at the heritage sites Emotional I would like to leave this place as soon as connectedness possible I feel that I have wasted my time here I can understand the language used here Sense of I feel a stronger sense of identity with the belonging heritage My roots are here I come to be connected to the past Connection to I come to understand my family history visitor I come to understand the traditional culture This place gives me sense of belonging

Part F: The last part of the survey contain questions that measure the tourist’s

experience outcome which measure on the Interpretive Outcome of the

respondents in terms of cognitive, affective, behavioural and value responses.

Below are the questions in the questionnaire: 123

Table 3.24: Item Questions for Questionnaire Part F

Construct Variables Item Questions I would help to contribute to the preservation of the heritage sites I am willing to donate in order to help the conservation of the sites I would revisit this place in future Behavioural I would recommend this place to my friends or family I believe if I keep touching the exhibits, I might cause threat to them It is necessary for me to take extra care when I tour the place I learn about the need to protect the heritage I develop respect for the cultural and landscape of this place Cognitive I have gained an insight into the past Interpretive I understand more about the importance of Outcome heritage here I now understand the importance of preserving heritage site I think heritage site is special and important When I think about the threats to the Affective environment, I experience the feeling of anxiety I am concerned about the heritage I believe preserving heritage sites is important Heritage will only be protected when there is a positive economic reason for doing so Heritage brought me to know how people live in Value the past This place changes my perception towards heritage sites This place has given me a new meaning in my

life

124

3.8 Operationalisation

The construct in this research are operationalised by 5-point Likert scale employing verbal response descriptors format. Likert scale is utilised in this study because it is easy to manage and can be swiftly constructed (Cooper & Schindler, 2013). According to a research by Dawes (2012) types of scale, be it 5-, 7- or 10-point scales can be used by analytical tools such as confirmatory factor analysis or structural equation models.

He further claimed that the data gathered from a 5-point format could be transferred to

7-point equivalency using a simple rescaling method. Thus, this current study, employed the 5-point Likert scale, scale that require respondents to respond towards a scale range of verbal statements, varying from 1 = Strongly disagree… through to 5 =

Strongly agree.

The key constructs in the mindfulness framework are operationalised as follows:

 Communication Factor: The surrounding which includes the orientation of the

tourist site.

 Visitor Factors: The internal factors that influence the tourist while they are at the

heritage site.

 Mindfulness: Paying attention towards the present moment with qualities such as

active engagement, creating new categories, sensitivity, acceptance, openness,

calmness and non-judgemental.

 Interpretive Outcome: The interpretation that invokes cognitive, affective and

behavioural responses.

125

3.8.1 Item Identification

The original and modified questionnaire items of each construct are discussed in the following section. The scale items in this current research have been adapted to signify the contribution of both Communication and Visitor Factors towards mindfulness in supporting interpretive outcome.

Some of the items were reverse-scored whereby the answer to a statement should be in the reverse order. The reverse - order item is used to prevent the participants from being on auto-pilot mode and agree to all statements. In this research, some of the items in the questionnaire are reverse-scored and they have been labelled as (R) in the following section. However, the label is deleted during the distribution of the questionnaire to the participants to prevent them from knowing the purpose of the survey.

3.8.1(a) Communication Factor

Communication Factor refer to the type of surrounding the audience and also the orientation of the tourist. Communication Factor in heritage sites is important to foster mindfulness among visitors. With the good setting, the visitor’s attention span would be longer and are also able to gain higher quality of interpretation (Moscardo, 1999 and Moscardo & Ballantyne, 2008). This is because, the effectiveness of interpretation varies upon the quality of its design of information and implementation at the setting.

Under the Communication Factor, the variables that will be measured are Variety or

126

Change, Multisensory media, Novelty/conflicts/ surprise, Use of Questions, Visitor

Control/ Interactive Exhibits, Connection to Visitors and Physical Orientation.

i. Variety or Change

The literature indicate that, Variety or Change refers to the range of different media and activities that are used to provide a high level of engagement. Mental input required with the variation of the media and activities by the tourists with a balance between more active and more contemplative opportunities on the seasonal event programmes and the development of different facets of the interpretation topics will facilitate in creating variation or change in the experience (Moscardo and Ballantyne,

2008).

Based on the literature, the following items were developed:

Table 3.25:Variety or Change Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions There are many different kinds of exhibits. There are many different attractions that are interesting. Adapted from There are different types of display. Moscardo Variety - and variety of There are different activities that I can Ballantyne, engagement participate. (2008) level There is nothing much at the heritage sites that I can see (R). There are so many things to see at the heritage sites. The exhibits are presented in many different ways. * (R) reverse-scored item

127

ii. Multisensory Media

To conceptualise Multisensory Media, Moscardo and Ballantyne (2008), Prentice,

Guerin, and Mc Gugan, (1998) and Lehn and Heath (2005) state that it is the display that combine and include the sense of touch and kinaesthetic which would offer the tourists variety and different experience in handling and feeling objects.

Media that are included are the actual item that are offered at the heritage site. The new technologies that are being incorporated with the exhibits are able to encourage information discussion and sharing tourists. In this question, respondents are required to answer the based on their encounter on the media from the scale of 1 = none through to 5 = plenty.

Table 3.26: Multisensory Media Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions Adapted from Video presentation Moscardo and Ballantyne Films (2008), Media – Prentice, Exhibits that will Interactive computer display Guerin, and encourage Mc Gugan, engagement Audio commentary (1998) and Lehn and Other: Please specify: Heath (2005)

iii. Novelty/Conflicts/ Surprise

The incorporation of the elements of novelty, conflict or surprise into the content or the topic at the heritage site would arouse the inquisitiveness of the tourists to further aquire for more information. The new and/or multi-dimensional perspective can be

128

generated by offering viewpoints from another dimension from various people (Carson and Langer, 2006 and Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008).

The following items were included in the questionnaire:

Table 3.27: Novelty/Conflicts/ Surprise Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I learn something new. Adapted from Carson and I come across something I have never seen Langer, 2006 Novelty – before. and Moscardo Different I gain new experience. and perspective and Ballantyne, viewpoint There is nothing new that I can see at the (2008) heritage site (R). There is nothing new to discover at the heritage site (R). * (R) reverse-scored item

iv. Use of Questions

Uses of Questions refers to the displays or exhibits that would trigger or stimulate the tourists to be inquisitive about it, and raise curiosity. According to Moscardo (1986) there are certain settings which can induce mindful tourists and one of the settings is to include questions (in Prentice et al., 1998). This is because, the use of questions according to (Moscardo, 1996 and Moscardo, Woods, & Saltzer, 2004) was effective in escalating the attention and learning of the tourist and has been supported by the findings in a study on the effectiveness of questions (Bitgood, 1989).

129

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

Table 3.28: Uses of Questions Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions The exhibits at the heritage site make me keen to find further information. The exhibits lead me to inquire more information. Adapted from Use of Moscardo questions –use The exhibits make me think of more questions. (1996) and questions to The exhibits make me search for answers to my Bitgood (1989) increase questions. learning I have nothing to enquire about the exhibits at the heritage sites (R). I think deeply on the information that I see at the heritage sites. * (R) reverse-scored item

v. Visitor Control

Visitor control refers to the array of options for tourists to create their own unique and personal experience (Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000; Frauman and Norman, 2004;

Woods and Moscardo, 2003; Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008; Van Winkle and

Backman, 2009).

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

130

Table 3.29: Visitor Control Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions Adapted from I felt in control of what is going on around Langer and me. Moldoveanu, (2000); Frauman I felt in control of my own time. and Norman, Visitor’s (2004); Woods control – visitor and Moscardo, I was able to touch and feel the exhibits. control on their (2003); unique and Moscardo and personal There are many display that are interactive. Ballantyne, experience (2008) and Van Winkle and The exhibits are just for viewing only Backman, (2009) I am not allowed to touch the exhibit

vi. Connection to Visitors

Connection to Visitors refers to links between the exhibits or display and something of personal relevance or significance to the tourists (Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008).

There are many ways to connect the imperative exhibits to the tourists’ interests and knowledge. Humour, analogies and metaphors are the few ways to link or connect to new information to tourists. This would enable them to interact, participate and make choices on interpreting the information at the heritage site.

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

131

Table 3.30: Connection to Visitor Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I can relate the information at the heritage sites to myself. The exhibits makes me feel connected to the Connection - past. Adapted from Building links I can make connection between the present Moscardo and between the situation and past. Ballantyne exhibits or I feel like a part of this heritage. (2008 display to the tourists I feel like I am related to this heritage.

I do not feel connected to this heritage (R). * (R) reverse-scored item

vii. Physical Orientation

Good physical orientation is also another important condition in contributing towards mindfulness to the tourists. Good physical orientation refers to a place or site that is able to provide good map or information to enable the tourists to find their way easily around and understand how to plan their visit around the place so that they can focus on the place (Frauman and Norman, 2004; Woods and Moscardo, 2003; Moscardo and

Ballantyne, 2008 and Van Winkle and Backman, 2009).

Based on the literature, the following items were developed:

132

Table 3.31: Physical Orientation Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions Adapted from Signage. Frauman and Norman, 2004; Woods and Maps. Moscardo, Physical 2003; Orientation - Instructions and directions. Moscardo and Plan of the place Ballantyne, Safety messages 2008 and Van Winkle and Other: Please specify: Backman, 2009

viii. Ambience

Ambience in this current study refers to creating the right atmosphere or physical environment for the tourists. As suggested by Bonn, Joseph-Mathews, Dai, Hayes, and

Cave (2007) ambiance, design and layout and social factors play an important role in determining visitation numbers, overall image perceptions, as well as word of- mouth recommendations. This is because, according to Neal, Quester, & Hawkins, (2004) and Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, (2013) temporary characteristic such as mood, the amount of time available or physical characteristic such as temperature and surrounding affect how the message is interpreted.

The item questions were adapted from Bonn, Joseph-Mathews, Dai, Hayes, and Cave

(2007). This item is chosen because it reflects the definition of ambience and are able to reflect the key theme of the variable. The composite reliability of the items by Bonn,

Joseph-Mathews, Dai, Hayes, and Cave (2007) is reported to be above 0.8 which exceeded the benchmark of 0.7 as recommended by Cronbach, (1951). Additionally, based on the literature other item questions were developed:

133

Table 3.32: Ambience Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions Has good lighting. Has good scheme colour. Has functional layout. Adapted from Bonn, Joseph- Has good use of open space. Mathews, Dai, Ambience - It is easy to find my way around this location. Hayes, and Cave The right (2007); Neal et atmosphere or Has tour guides that are very knowledgeable. al., (2004) and physical Offers good services. Hawkins & environment Mothersbaugh, Has staff that are courteous. (2013) I have ample time at the heritage sites.** I am rushing for the next destination (R).** I do not have enough time to tour the whole place (R).** * (R) reverse-scored item Note: ** are item added into the existing item questions by Bonn, Joseph-Mathews, Dai, Hayes, and Cave (2007).

3.8.1(b) Visitor Factors

Visitor Factors represent the internal factor that influence the tourists while they are at the heritage site. Being able to stimulate the internal factor among tourists, will uphold interpretation within the visitation experience among the tourists. Based on the theoretical framework designed earlier, under the Visitor Factors, the construct that are measured are Level of Interest, Familiarity, Visiting Companions, Experience,

Specific Goal for the Visit, Cultural Background and Calmness.

134

i. Level of Interest

Level of Interest refers to the ability to capture the attention of the visitors. According to Moscardo, (1996; 1999) and Van Winkle & Backman, (2009) visitors would be more mindful if their interest are being captured and have an interest in the place that they visit.

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

Table 3.33: Level of Interest Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I am interested to know more on the heritage. I am keen to find out more about the heritage sites. Adapted from My attention are captured at the heritage Moscardo, Interest - To sites. (1996; 1999) retain their and Van Winkle I do not mind spending my time here. interest at the & Backman, heritage site (2009) I feel that I have wasted my time here (R).

I feel so engrossed with the exhibits. I am engrossed with what I have seen at the heritage sites. * (R) reverse-scored item

ii. Familiarity

Familiarity refers to being familiar or having knowledge with a particular place or type of setting (Baloglu, 2001; Moscardo, 2008 and Toyama & Yamada, 2012). Familiarity could be from having previous knowledge or information of the particular place.

135

Based on the literature, item questions were developed:

Table 3.34: Familiarity Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I have been to places similar to this place. I have been exposed to similar culture. Adapted from Familiarity - I am not familiar with the culture here (R). Baloglu, 2001; having Moscardo, knowledge with I am not familiar with this place (R). 2008 and a particular Toyama & I have no idea at all about the place(R). place or type of Yamada, 2012 setting This place gives me a sense of belonging.

The culture is alien to me(R). I have no idea at all about the culture (R). * (R) reverse-scored item

iii. Visiting Companions

Visiting Companion refers to the social group or the different compositions and relationships among the visitors (Moscardo, 1999 & 2008; Uzzell, 1998). This is because, the group size and group diversity will require different levels of attention to the social interaction and group management and they can impact mindfulness in the tourist experience (Moscardo, 1999).

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

136

Table 3.35: Visiting Companion Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions Alone

Adapted from Companion - Spouse / Partner Moscardo, Social group or Family including children 1999 & 2008; the different Uzzell, 1998 composition and Friends relationship Clubs / Groups Others:

iv. Experience

Experience refers to the existing representation of the experience (Moscardo, 2008;

Uriely, 2005 and Jenkins, 2003). The experience can exist in the form of personal experience or experience without travelling to the destination. This is because, tourists are able to experience the setting via social media, documentary or even pictures and thus this would enable them to experience the place without travelling to the destination.

Based on the literature, item questions were developed:

Table 3.36: Experience Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I have read about this place. I can imagine the place Adapted from I have seen pictures and information about Experience – Moscardo, this place. Prior 2008; Uriely, I know what to expect about this place. representation of 2005 and the setting I have heard about this place from my Jenkins, 2003 friends / family. I could not imagine this place before coming here (R). * (R) reverse-scored item

137

v. Goal of Visit

Goal of visit refers to the motives or goals of the tourist’s that lead them to the heritage site (Moscardo, 1999; 2008). This is because, different people would have different goals for visiting the heritage site, which include learning, experiencing authentic elements, historic characters, interest in heritage, culture and/or ethnicity, visiting other sites in the same area (Kerstetter, Confer, and Graefe, 2001) educational, entertainment, social motives (Moscardo, 1996) pleasure of viewing, education, information, relaxation, entertainment and exercise (Poria et al., 2004).

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

Table 3.37: Goal of Visit Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I am eager to learn about the new heritage or culture. I am eager to gain new knowledge. I am eager to find out about other’s culture. I always want to learn about the history of this place. I am here because I need a day out. I am here because it is a famous tourist’s Goal – Adapted from attraction. Motive in Moscardo, I am here because I want to have some visiting heritage 1999; 2008 entertainment. site I came here to be entertained. I came to experience new and different lifestyle. I am here because of the UNESCO heritage status. I love heritage. I come to relax. I come to be connected to the past.

138

Table 3.37 Continued

Reference Key theme Item Questions I come to understand my family history. Goal – Adapted from Motive in I come to understand the traditional culture. Moscardo, visiting heritage 1999; 2008 I come to increase my knowledge. site I come to see a foreign place.

vi. Cultural Background

Cultural background refers to the cultural identification of visitors in the heritage site.

The attitudes, behaviours of specific cultural groupings and customer segments have been shown to influence interpretation at a setting (Lee & Sparks, 2007).

The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

Table 3.38: Cultural Background Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I can understand the language used here. Adapted from Cultural Lee & I feel a stronger sense of identity with the Background - Sparks, heritage. Various ethnic (2007). I feel like a stranger at the heritage site (R). identities.

My roots are here. * (R) reverse-scored item

vii. Calmness

Clamness refer to the visitors ability to control their attention and emotional well-being and have a clear mind (Schure, Christopher, & Christopher, 2008) and consciousness

(Brown & Ryan, 2003).

139

Based on the literature, item questions were developed:

Table 3.39: Calmness Item Questions

Reference Key theme Item Questions I feel relaxed at the heritage site.

Adapted from I feel peaceful at the heritage site. Calmness - Schure et al., Having clear (2008) and I feel uneasy at the heritage site (R). mind and Brown & consciousness. Ryan, (2003) The environment here make me feel calm. I would like to leave this place as soon as possible (R). * (R) reverse-scored item

3.8.1(c) Mindfulness

Mindfulness means to paying attention towards the present moment with qualities such as active engagement, creating new categories, sensitivity, acceptance, openness, calmness and non-judgemental. The operationalisation in this research is derived from the conceptualisation of Mindfulness in tourism research (Moscardo, 1996 and 1999) as well as the conceptualisation in the psychology literature. The inclusion of the psychological perspective is to ensure that the conceptualisation of Minfulness in this research captures the various dimensions that are not currenltly integrated in tourism research. Specifically, the items were derived from Cognitive and Affective

Mindfulness Scale (CAMS-R), Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), Southampton

Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ), Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS),

Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PMQ), Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

(FFMQ), Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS), Mindfulness/Mindless Scale (MMS) and

140

item questions from tourism research that are developed by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) measurement of mindfulness.

At the initial stage, 100 items were generated based on Mindfulness measurement by

Moscard’s, TMS, PMQ, FFMQ and MMS. The items were reduced to 47 by removing overlapping questions in the context of tourism research.

The following tables 3.40 to 3.44 presents the items that have been modified from the original source.

Table 3.40: Items for Mindfulness adapted from PMQ

Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item I am aware of what I am aware of what I thought are passing think about the Cardaciotto, through my mind. place. PMS Herbert, Forman, When I walk outside, I I am aware of the

& Moitra (2008) am aware of smells or smells around me. how the air feels against my face.

Table 3.41: Items for Mindfulness adapted from FFMQ

Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item When I do things, my My mind wanders mind wonders off and off and I am easily I’m easily distracted. distracted (R). I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I don’t pay attention I’m daydreaming, to what’s happening FFMQ Baer et al., (2008) worring or otherwise at the place (R). distracted. I find it difficult to stay I find it difficult to focused on what’s stay focused on happening in the what’s happening at present. the place (R).

141

Table 3.41 Continued Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item It seems that I am It seems that I am “running on auto” “running on auto” without much without much awareness of what I am awareness of what I doing. am doing (R). I rush through I rush through activities, without activities, without being being really attentive really attentive to them. to them (R). I find myself doing I find myself doing things without paying things without attention. paying attention (R). I can easily put my I can explain about beliefs, opinions and the place that I have expectation into words. visited. I believe some of my I believe some of the thoughts are abnormal / thoughts that I have bad and I shouldn’t about the place are thing that way. negative. I tell myself that I I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking shouldn’t be thinking FFMQ Baer et al., (2008) negatively about the the way I’m thinking. place. I’m good at finding I’m good at finding words to describe my words to describe feelings. my feelings. It’s hard for me to It’s hard for me to find find the words to the words to describe describe my feelings what I’m thinking. (R). I have trouble I have trouble thinking thinking of the right of the right words to words to express express how I feel how I feel about the about things. place. I criticise myself for I criticise myself for having irrational or having irrational or inappropriate inappropriate emotions emotions I tell myself I I tell myself I shouldn’t shouldn’t be feeling be feeling the way I’m the way towards the feeling. heritage sites

142

Table 3.41 Continued Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item When I have distressing When I have thoughts / images, I distressing thought ‘step back’ and am or images about the aware of the thought / sites, I try not to image without getting make any taken over by it. judgement. I think some of my I think some of my emotions towards the emotions are bad or heritage sites are bad inappropriate and I or inappropriate and shouldn’t feel them. I shouldn’t feel them. I can usually describe I can usually how I feel at the describe how I feel moment in considerable at the moment in detail. considerable detail. I disapprove myself I disapprove myself when I have irrational when I have FFMQ Baer et al., (2008) ideas. irrational ideas. I pay attention to I pay attention to sensations, such as the sensations, such as wind in my hair and sun the wind in my hair on my face. and sun on my face. I pay attention to I pay attention to sounds such as clock sounds such as clock ticking, bells ringing ticking, birds chirping from the temples or or car passing. the calls to prayers. I notice the smells I notice the smells and and aromas at aromas of things. heritage sites. I notice visual elements I notice visual in things around me elements in things such as colours, shapes, around me such as texture or patterns of colours, shapes, lights and shadow. texture or patterns of lights and shadow. * (R) reverse-scored item

143

Table 3.42: Items for Mindfulness adapted from MMS

Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item I like to investigate new I like to investigate things. new things I do not actively seek I do not actively seek to to learn new things learn new things. (R). I am very curious to I am very curious. learn at the place. I am rarely alert to I am rarely alert to new new development development. that I discover at heritage site (R). I like to figure out how I like to figure out and why certain things how and why certain happen. things happen. I generate few novel I generate few new ideas. knowledge. I find it easy to I find it easy to create Haigh, Moore, generate new new and effective ideas. MMS Kashdan, & information. Fresco (2011) I try to think of new I tried not to be ways of doing things. narrow-minded. I try to think new ways I try to think new of doing things. ways of doing things. I am always open to I am always open to new ways of doing new ways of doing things. things. I stay with the old tried I stay with the old and true ways of doing ways of doing things. things. I have an open mind I have an open mind about everything, even about everything, things that challenge even things that my core beliefs. challenge my core beliefs. I like to be challenged I like to be intellectually. challenged intellectually. * (R) reverse-scored item

144

Table 3.43: Items for Mindfulness adapted from Moscardo

Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item I like to have my I like to have my interest captured. interest captured. I like to search for an I like to search for an answer to questions I answer to questions I may have. may have. I like to have my I like to have my curiosity aroused. curiosity aroused. Van Winkle & Moscardo I like to inquire further I like to inquire Backman (2008) things at the heritage further things at the sites. heritage sites. I like to explore and I like to explore and discover new things discover new things I like to feel in control I like to feel in of what is going on control of what is around me. going on around me.

Table 3.44: Items for Mindfulness adapted from TMS

Scale Item Measure Original Scale Item Modified Item I was more concerned with being open to my I was more open to experience than new experience. controlling or changing them. I was receptive to observing unpleasant I was receptive to thought and feeling unpleasant thoughts without interfering with and feelings. TMS Lau et al., (2006) them. I approached each I approached each experience by trying to experience by trying accept it, no matter to accept it, no whether it was pleasant matter whether it or unpleasant. was pleasant or unpleasant. I was open to taking I was open to taking notice of anything that notice of anything might come up. that might come up.

145

3.8.1(d) Interpretive Outcome

In this study, interpretation is conceptualised based on the visitor’s perspective, emphasising on the cognitive, affective and behavioural responses. Interpretation is seen as an outcome of being mindful. It is the assignment of meaning at the heritage site’s based on the setting and the individual. According to Moscardo (2003) interpretation would be able to enhance the quality of the experience of the visitor in tourism sector.

Interpretive Outcome is conceptualised as interpretation that invokes cognitive, affective and behavioural responses. The dimension of Interpretive Outcome in conceptualised in line with the definition from the perspective of the visitors, interpretation as discussed in the earlier chapter is defined as the assignment of meaning at the heritage site’s heritage based on the stimulus, individual and situation at the heritage sites.

Cognitive responses is defined as what visitors might think, know or believe as a result of interpretation. Affective responses is what visitor might feel as a results of interpretation and finally, behavioural responses is what visitors might do or be motivated to do as a results of interpretation (Ham & Weiler, 2006).

Item questions that are developed to measure interpretive outcome are based on the key theme within cognitive, affective and behavioural context. The following item questions were included in the questionnaire:

146

Table 3.45: Item Questions for Interpretive Outcome – Cognitive

Variable Key theme Item Questions I developed new perspective of life. I gain new insight on the heritage. I learn about the need to protect the heritage. I develop respect for the cultural and landscape Cognition - of this place. Understanding I have gained an insight into the past. something, Cognitive I understand more about the importance of having a new heritage here. perspective or I now understand the importance of preserving being provoked heritage site. to think Heritage will only be protected when there is a positive economic reason for doing so (R). Heritage brought me to know how people live in the past. This place has given a new meaning in life.

Table 3.46: Item Questions for Interpretive Outcome – Affective

Variable Key theme Item Questions I am more keen to learn more about heritage.

The information is clearly themed. I believe if I keep touching the exhibits, I might cause threat to the item. It is necessary for me to take extra care when I tour the place. I will ensure that I do not cause any negative Affection - impact on the environment. Appreciate of I think heritage sites is an area of special and something, important. Affective satisfaction When I think about the threats to the

and an environment, I experienced the feeling of attitude about anxiety. something I am concern about the heritage. I believe preserving heritage sites are important. I derive a lot of pleasure from the tour at the heritage sites. I am satisfied with the information that are provided at the heritage sites. Overall, I am happy with the heritage sites that I have visited. 147

Table 3.47: Item Questions for Interpretive Outcome – Behavioural

Variable Key theme Item Questions I would help to contribute to the preservation of the heritage sites. I am willing to donate in order to help the conservation of the sites. I would never come to this place again. I would revisit this place in future. If given opportunity, I would return to this place. I am loyal to the place. Behaviour – Tend to stay I would recommend this place to my friends or longer at the family. Behavioural site, willing to I would say positive things about this facility.

spend and positive word of I would encourage my friends and relatives to mouth visit this place. I would like to extend my stay here if given an opportunity. I will tell people about the importance of the heritage. I understand more about the importance of heritage here after visiting the heritage sites. I understand more about the consequences of my action towards heritage here after visiting the heritage sites. It is important for me to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.

3.9 Data Analysis

Following the exploratory study and the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), the final survey was conducted. A total of 400 sets of questionnaire were distributed at the selected heritage area (Khoo Kongsi, Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion and Pinang Peranakan

Mansion). The final survey was carried out at the selected location. Similarly to the

148

pilot test, the final survey is being carried out at the heritage area that are set earlier.

Tourist who visited the heritage site are asked to fill in the questionnaire. From the ollection of 400 questionnaires sets, only 390 were included in the data analysis. This is because, there are 10 sets of questionnaire are incomplete or has large missing value.

At the initial stage, data cleaning is carry out to ensure that the data is consistent in classification to avoid data entry error. Next, in this section the missing data in the questionnaire collected, is also checked to avoid problems in the data analysis process later.

Also, in this section the common method bias of the data is also being examine to ensure on the data reliability and validity. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &

Podsakoff (2012) the Common Method Bias (CMB) is used to detect bias on the validity and reliability of instrument.

At this stage, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the unidimensionality, validity and reliability of the measurement model before modelling in SEM. Item questions that are not fit were removed and remaining items are carried forward to the analysis. Finally, the final Mindfulness framework are being illustrated after the CFA before modelling in SEM (refer Table 4.2 in next chapter). The statement of hypotheses will also be clearly indicated.

149

3.9.1 Structural Equation Modelling: Partial Least Square

In this research, the Structural Equation Model (SEM) a second generation statistical tools are being utilised to analyse the data. SEM is a statistical tools that are used to applied in research that have emerged in the social sciences field. SEM is a multivariate analysis that simultaneously analyse multiple variables. It allows analysis that combine facets of multiple regression and factor analysis to access a sequence of interconnected dependence relationship concurrently (Hair et al., 2014). Compared to regression-based analyses such as multiple regression, logistic regression and analysis of variance which analyse only one layer of linkages between independent and dependent variable concurrently, SEM as a second generation technique of multivariate statistical analysis, allowing the examination of direct and indirect relationship between one or more independent latent variable and one or more dependent latent variable (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). Also, SEM-PLS is being chosen to adopt in this study based on the suitability to the exploratory nature where the hypothesised associations between the variables have not been formerly tested

(Ainuddin, Beamish, Hulland, & Rouse, 2007). This is because PLS has the ability to measure the associations among the residual and their influences on the model results in the suitability in this method.

Furthermore, SEM is also used to run a general test of model fit and single parameter estimate tests immediately, whereby offering the best model fit to data. This implies that, the usage of SEM would enable the accessibility of the overall fit of the model as well as test the structural model altogether (Gefen et al., 2000). The model fit will then be used to revise the final framework of the current research.

150

SEM-PLS also demand lower sample size and measurement scale in the research (Hair et al., 2014). It is also further strengthened by Krejie & Morgan (1970) and Cohen,

Manion, & Morrison (2007) that if the population is 1,000,000 with the level of significant required is p < 0.05 the number of respondents should be at least 384.

Next, the current study also uses a large number of latent variables, additionally to multifaceted modelling of a research model. In this study, there are a total of twelve variables that fall under both the Communication and Visitor Factors that need to be tested, to examine the contribution towards mindfulness in supporting interpretive outcome. As suggested by Hair et al., (2014) PLS is relevant and suitable for huge multifaceted models with a number of latent variables whereby large complex model referring to a research model that contains many constructs and indicators.

SEM-PLS also allows the facets of multiple regression and factor analysis to be tested simultaneously to reduce the measurement error (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). This is because, comparing to the regression based analysis it only allows one layer of linkages between the independent variables and the dependent variables at one time

(Gefen et al., 2000). In this study, the CFA is run simultaneously together with testing

Mindfulness as a mediator in supporting Interpretive Outcome.

Based on the factors above, this research utilise SEM-PLS as it is considered as the most appropriate method for examining the direct and indirect relationship between the variables.

151

CHAPTER 4

PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Overview

This chapter presents the results of the preliminary data analysis. The first part of the chapter spells out the data preparation before the data analysis were performed. The data collected were checked for response rate, missing value and Common Method

Bias (CMB). Next, the results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is also reported. The final framework of the study and also the hypotheses is presented in the last section of this chapter.

4.2 Data Editing

One of the components of processing and analysis data phase following the data collection is the data editing or modification in support of data completeness and uniformity. According to Zikmund, Babin, Carr, & Griffin (2010) generally data processing starts with editing and coding the data collected. Editing includes checking the data collection forms for omissions, legibility, and consistency in classification.

The editing process ensures that problems such as data errors are corrected.

As suggested by Sekaran & Bougie (2013) the data for this research are considered, when all the respondents in the survey answered not less than 75% of the total number of questions.

152

4.3 Response Rate

The data were collected at heritage attractions, located in the Heritage Zone in Penang namely Khoo Kongsi, Pinang Peranakan Mansion and Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion.

Response rate according to Zikmund et al., (2010) is the total number of returned questionnaire by the number of eligible respondents who were approached to participate the survey. The data collection took place from July 2014 to December

2014 and the number of sample collected are 400. From this total, 10 sets of questionnaires were invalid and rejected because significant portions of the questions were left unanswered. Hence, from the 400 sets of questionnaires collected, only 390 responses were considered useable.

4.4 Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis

The first step in the analysis is data screening whereby the data were examined to determine if there are any missing value and to check for normality. Descriptive and common method variance analysis was also conducted to ensure the appropriateness of using PLS path modelling in this research. According to Green & Salkind (2013) data screening is helpful in order to ensure that the data key in earlier have been correctly entered.

4.4.1 Missing Value Analysis

Missing data is the information that is missing or incomplete and this issue should be rectified during the preliminary data analysis stage (Cooper & Schindler, 2013). When

153

doing research especially when engaging with human, it is almost impossible to obtain complete date set from every set of the questions and thus it is significant that the researcher inspect the data file for missing value (Pallant, 2013).

In the data screening, missing values were not more than 1% across all measures.

Hence, there is no dataset has missing values of more than 5%. As explained by

Tabachnick & Fidell (2012) missing values of 5% or fewer can be ignored since it does not lead to serious problems.

4.4.2 Common Method Bias (CMB)

Since data in the existing analysis was gathered from a singular basis which is the self- administrated questionnaire and thus considered as self-reported data, there is a possibility of common method bias (CMB). According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &

Podsakoff (2012) the Common Method Bias (CMB) is utilised to detect bias on the validity and reliability of instrument. Essentially, CMB arises as similar mean were utilised to calculate the relationship among variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003). It is assumed to exist whenever a particular factor appeared from the factor analysis or one common factor will explain a common co-variance among the measures.

In order to reduce or control the extent to which the CMB can occur in this research, two type of statistical procedures were implemented, which are (1) Harman’s single factor test and (2) inter-construct correlations. Harman’s single factor test is the widely accepted measure to discover evidence of common method bias (Podsakoff et al.,

154

2003). This assessment examines the result of the unrotated factor solution to decide the amount of factors responsible for the variance in the variables.

CMB approach uses EFA to estimate the total of variance observed variables that can be explained by one particular factor, which is determined by the way of principal axis factoring with factors eigenvalues larger than 1 that was concluded on all item measuring all latent constructs. The routine is to include all details into a single factor and run principal component analysis with un-rotated factor solution. If the test results shown that none of the construct constituted more than 50% of the total variance in the model, then common method bias is not obvious. From the un-rotated factor loadings using principal component analysis, the response bias was analysed.

There is no response bias as the first principal component explains 9.367% which is well below 50%. Out of the 86 possible linear combinations, only 19 were extracted from the principal component analysis as they satisfy the condition on 19 values should be more than one. Since eigenvalue is the ratio of explainable to unexplainable variation, it has to be more than one in order to have lesser residual variation. In this process, the results yield for the overall variation explained by the 19 factors is

69.307% and is well above 50% (refer Appendix D) and therefore satisfies the threshold (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

155

4.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

As a part of the data analysis process, CFA is used because the researcher needs to confirm the unidimensionality, validity and reliability of the measurement model before modelling in SEM.

Below is the results of the CFA based on the main loading, the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR).

Table 4.1: Measurement model of PLS (IVs and MV on DV) (n=390)

Question Main Composite Dimension Latent variable AVE Items Loading Reliability

UQ1 0.851 UQ2 0.924 Uses of Questions 0.765 0.929 UQ3 0.900 UQ4 0.819 VAR1 0.910 Variety VAR2 0.903 0.672 0.859 VAR3 0.639 NOV1 0.916 Novelty NOV2 0.900 0.820 0.932 Communication NOV3 0.900 Factors MS1 0.860 Multimedia MS2 0.757 0.640 0.876 Sensory MS3 0.749 MS4 0.829 PO1 0.786 Physical PO2 0.895 0.776 0.912 Orientation PO3 0.953 A1 0.901 A2 0.912 Ambience 0.791 0.938 A3 0.907 A4 0.835 HLI1 0.895 HLI2 0.891 Level of interest HLI3 0.908 0.777 0.946 HLI4 0.871 HLI5 0.840 Visitor Factors F1 0.570 F2 0.660 Familiarity F3 0.887 0.626 0.890 F4 0.891 F5 0.888

156

Table 4.1 Continued

Question Main Composite Dimension Latent Variable AVE Items Loading Reliability V1 0.734 Visualisation V2 0.884 0.672 0.859 V3 0.833 EC1 0.806 Emotional EC2 0.858 0.715 0.883 connectedness Visitor Factors EC3 0.872 SB1 0.880 Sense of belonging 0.751 0.858 SB2 0.854 CV1 0.693 Connection to Visitor CV3 0.889 0.524 0.761 CV4 0.549 CA2 0.745 CA 3 0.754 Curiousity and CA 4 0.775 Attention CA 5 0.799 CA 6 0.735 Mindfulness CA 8 0.707 0.512 0.903 AL3 0.636 Alertness AL6 0.782 OF2 0.579 Openess and OF3 0.652 Flexibility OF4 0.666 B1 0.581 B3 0.614 Behavioural B4 0.748 B5 0.624 C1 0.684 C3 0.774 Cognitive Interpretive C4 0.822 0.507 0.934 Outcome C5 0.804 AF1 0.795 AF2 0.656 Affective AF3 0.756 AF4 0.792 VL17 0.715 Value VL18 0.518

There are item questions that are deleted which has a loading below 0.5. The item questions are:

157

Table 4.2: Item questions deleted with loading below 0.5

Dimension Latent variable Question Items Questions Physical PO4 Others Orientation Communication Factors Multisensory MS5 Other Media Connection to I came to understand my CV2 Visitor Factors Visitor family history. Sense of Belonging SB3 My roots are here CA1 I like to investigate new Curiousity and things Attention CA7 I like my curiosity aroused My mind wonders off AL9 and I am easily distracted I don’t pay attention to AL10 what’s happening at the place Alertness I find myself doing AL12 things without paying attention Mindfulness I don’t actively seek to AL13 learn new things I think some of my emotions towards the EE16 heritage sites are bad or Emotional inappropriate and I engagement shouldn’t feel them I disapprove myself EE18 when I have irrational ideas I notice subtle changes EE19 in my mood I was receptive to Openess and OF20 unpleasant thoughts Flexibility and feelings It is necessary for me to Behavioural B6 take extra care when I tour the place I develop respect for Cognitive C2 the culture and landscape of this place Interpretive Outcome Heritage will only be protected when there is VL16 a positive economic Value reason for doing so This place have given VL19 me a new meaning in my life

158

Additionally, items questions that are deleted which has below 0.5 AVE on latent variable are as below:

Table 4.3: Item questions deleted with AVE value lower than 0.5

Dimension Latent variable Question Items Questions I’m good at finding EE15 words to describe my Emotional feelings Mindfulness Engagement I can usually describe EE17 how I feel at the moment in considerable detail I am willing to donate in Interpretive Outcome Behavioural B2 order to help the conservation of the sites

Twenty item questions with loading below 0.5 were deleted and there were three item deleted because the AVE value were below 0.5. Zainudin Awang (2014) and Hair,

Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt (2014) suggested that for every construct, the AVE value should be 0.5 or higher to achieve the convergent validity and a value for CR ≥ 0.6 is required to achieve CR in a construct. All the remaining items carried forward to the analysis are having satisfactory factor loading analysis value of greater than 0.5 and

CR values of ≥ 0.6.

4.6 Final Framework

The final framework for this research is illustrated below after the CFA before modelling in SEM.

In this framework, mindfulness is examined as a mediator in enhancing interpretation among visitors at heritage sites specifically Penang, Malaysia. The framework also introduces new factors that contribute to mindfulness at the heritage sites namely 159

Ambience in Communication Factors and Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional

Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitor in Visitor Factors. This framework reflects more comprehensive understanding of Mindfulness framework which were developed based on extensive past literature review in tourism and related fields. Also, the current research developed the measure of mindfulness in terms of heritage tourism research. The research also examine mindfulness in supporting the interpretive outcome.

In ensuring both the internal and external factors that put forward are comprehensive and current especially for heritage sites, the factors are then tested in the SEM. This framework will also enable the modelling of SEM in looking at the relationship of the framework and finally establishes the final framework after modelling using PLS-

SEM.

160

Independent Variables

Uses of Questions

Variety s

Factor Novelty Mediating Variable Dependent Variable

H3 Multimedia Sensory

Physical Orientation

Communication Communication

H1 Ambience

H5 Interpretive Mindfulness Outcome

Level of Interest H6 and H7 H2

Familiarity

Visualisation

H4 Emotional Connectedness

Visitor Factors Visitor

Sense of Belonging

Connection to Visitor

Figure 4.1: Final Framework

161

4.6.1 Statement of Hypotheses

Based on the framework above, the hypotheses for this research are:

Table 4.4: Research Hypotheses

Research Hypotheses

H1a The Uses of Questions in the exhibits influence mindfulness

H1b Variety of the exhibits influence mindfulness

H1c Novelty of the exhibits influence mindfulness

H1d The use of Multimedia Sensory influence mindfulness

H1e The availability Physical Orientation influence mindfulness

H1f Ambience influence mindfulness

H2a Level of Interest influence mindfulness

H2b Familiarity influence mindfulness

H2c Visualisation influence mindfulness

H2d Emotional Connectedness influence mindfulness

H2e Sense of Belonging influence mindfulness

H2f Connection to Visitor influence mindfulness

H3a Uses of Questions in the exhibits influence interpretive outcome

H3b Variety of the exhibits influence interpretive outcome

H3c Novelty of the exhibits influence interpretive outcome

H3d The use of Multimedia Sensory influence interpretive outcome

H3e The availability Physical Orientation influence interpretive outcome

H3f Ambience influence interpretive outcome

162

Table 4.4 Continued Research Hypotheses

H4a Level of Interest influence interpretive outcome

H4b Familiarity influence interpretive outcome

H4c Visualisation influence interpretive outcome

H4d Emotional Connectedness influence interpretive outcome

H4e Sense of Belonging influence interpretive outcome

H4f Connection to Visitor influence interpretive outcome

H5 Mindfulness influence interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Uses of H6a Questions in the exhibits and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Variety of H6b display and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Novelty H6c of display and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the use of H6d Multimedia Sensory and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the H6e availability of Physical Orientation and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Ambience H6f and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Level of H7a Interest and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the H7b Familiarity and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the H7c Visualisation and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Emotional H7d Connectedness and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Sense of H7e Belonging and interpretive outcome The level of Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the H7f Connection to Visitor and interpretive outcome

163

4.7 Partial Least Squares Model: Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM)

The framework will be tested using PLS. PLS is a variance based analysis that uses least squares algorithms, whereby PLS path modelling is chosen in this research as it facilitates the investigation of complex and large path models, mainly in the most exploratory model (Hair et al., 2014). As explained by Hair et al., (2014) there are two types of SEM which are (1) Covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and (2) PLS-SEM.

The CB-SEM is mainly employed to confirm or reject theories and it does this by determining how well a suggested theoretical model can estimate the covariance matrix for a sample data set. On the other hand, PLS-SEM is usually used to develop theories in exploratory research and it does this by focusing on explaining the variance in the dependent variables when examining the model. The current study will revisit the mindfulness framework to further understand mindfulness in supporting the interpretive outcome. Thus, this study utilised the PLS-SEM as it is suitable because the objectives of this research is to explore the factors that influence mindfulness, to explore the measure of mindfulness in heritage tourism and also to find out the relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

164

CHAPTER 5 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING: MINDFULNESS AND INTERPRETIVE OUTCOME

5.1 Overview

This chapter explore the results of the analysis of the research. In this chapter, the demographic profile of the respondents are provided. Additionally, the results of the

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) are also being reported. The validation of the structural model was achieved using SmartPLS 2.0.M3. The research model is analysed and interpreted into two stages sequentially. First is the assessment and refinement of the adequacy of the measurement model and followed by the assessment and evaluation of the structural model. The research model are explained in depth on both the measurement model and structural model of the SEM.

5.2 Demographic Profile

A few variables have been applied to define the demographic profile of the respondents. Table 5.1 provides the demographic information of the respondents which include the gender, educational level, country of origin, respondent's job, touring mode, first or repeating visit and their visiting companion.

165

Table 5.1: Profile of the Respondents

Number of Variable Description Percentage (%) Respondents Male 196 50.3 Gender Female 194 49.7 No Formal 4 1.0 Primary School 2 0.5 Education Level Secondary 78 20.0 College / University 222 56.9 Postgraduate 84 21.5 Local 166 42.6 Country of Origin International 224 57.4 Professional 139 35.6 Businessman 51 13.1 Retiree 18 4.6 Clerical 31 7.9 Unemployed 2 0.5 Respondent's Job Managerial 31 7.9 Student 77 19.7 Housewife 13 3.3 Expatriate 7 1.8 Others 21 5.4 Tour Package 49 12.6 Tour or Own Own Arrangement 341 87.4 First Time 282 72.3 First or Repeating Visit Repeat 108 27.7 Alone 32 8.2 Groups 18 4.6 Friends 121 31.0 Relatives 47 12.1 Visiting Companion Spouse 64 16.4 Family Including 98 25.1 Children Business Associate 8 2.1 Others 2 0.5 Average spending per Total spending RM 1737.61 individual

166

According to the table, the analysis of the sample profile showed that the respondents comprised of almost equal gender of both Male (196) and Female (194), representing a ratio of 50.3% and 49.7% respectively.

The highest percentage for educational level is at College or University level with

56.9%. This followed by Postgraduate which comprised of 21.5% of the total. Next is the Secondary School level with 20%. On the other hand, there are the Non-formal educational level which encompassed of 1%. While the lowest percentage was Primary

School (0.5%).

Majority of the respondents are International tourists (57.4%) and there are only 42.6% of local respondents. Most of the respondents has arranged their own trip (87.4%) while there are only 49% of them engaged with tour package. Within all the respondents, only 27.7% of them came to Penang repeatedly compared to 72.3% of first timer to Penang.

As for Respondent’s Occupation, the respondents were mainly Professionals (35.6%) and followed by Students with 19.7%. A total of 13.1% are Businessman and next is

Clerical level with 7.9%. Next is the Retiree with 4.6% and 3.3% of Housewife. There are a total of 1.8% of Expatriate. The lowest percentage is the Unemployed with 5% of the total. Additionally, there are a total of 5.4% with Other’s job description such as Store Owner, Freelancer and Self-Employed.

The majority of the respondents visit the heritage site with their Friends (31%) as their companion. This is followed by Family with Children (25.1%) and Spouse (16.4%).

167

Next is the Relatives with 12.2% and there are 8.2% of the respondents who are Alone.

4.6% of the respondents come in a Group and 2.1% of them visit the place with their

Business Associate. The lowest percentage is the Other’s with 0.5% which are those who suddenly come across this place or visiting without a plan earlier.

The average spending of an individual for their trip to at Georgetown, Penang is RM

1737.61 which include accommodation, local tour, domestic transportation, food and beverages, entertainment and domestic airfare.

5.3 Descriptive Statistic

In the descriptive analysis, data are explored to understand the characteristic nature of the data. There are two main rationales for the descriptive statistics in the current research. Firstly, it was used to identify the characteristic of the sample of the tourists and their visitation at the heritage site. The second reason is, the descriptive statistics was used to explain the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Besides, frequency analysis of the 66 items show that all items have scores across the complete range on their corresponding scales. For the clear illustration of the constructs in the research model, Table 5.2, Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 provides the items and descriptive statistics of the measured items from the survey. The results shows in Table 5.2, Table

5.3 and Table 5.4 demonstrate that the mean score of the constructs tested are at least above the scores of 2.0 on a scale of five.

The highest variable score of mean for the construct Communication Factors is the

Novelty with the mean score of 3.932 (SD = 1.055). Next, the variable Uses of

168

Questions has the second highest mean score of 3.839 (SD = 0.857). The variable,

Ambience has the mean score of 3.811 (SD = 0.937). The following variable is the

Variety with the mean score of 3.714 (SD = 0.823). Next is the variable Physical

Orientation with the mean score of 2.706 (SD = 1.101). Finally the variable,

Multimedia Sensory has the lowest mean score which is 2.057 (SD = 1.080). Results show that all six indicators of Communication Factors with the mean values of 3.839 to 2.057 indicate the quality of the factor if valued and are able to contribute towards mindfulness.

Table 5.2: Mean Scores and Standard deviations of Communication Factors

No of Overall Std. Variables Items Mean items Mean Deviation 3.839 0.857 UQ1 I learn something new 4.06 .997 The exhibits lead me to inquire UQ2 3.87 .961 Uses of more info The exhibits make me thing of Questions UQ3 more questions 3.78 1.001 The make me search for answer UQ4 to my questions 3.65 .966 3.714 0.823 There are many different VAR1 attractions that are interesting 3.92 .916 There are different types of Variety VAR2 display 3.77 .989 There are different activities that I VAR3 can participate 3.45 1.100 3.932 1.055 NOV1 There is nothing new that I can 3.96 1.125 see at the heritage site Novelty NOV2 There nothing new to discover at 3.94 1.187 the heritage site I have nothing to enquire about NOV3 3.89 1.182 the exhibits at the heritage site 2.057 1.080 MS1 Video presentation 2.16 1.311 MS2 Films 2.15 1.291 Multimedia MS3 Interactive computer display sensory 1.89 1.172 MS4 Audio commentary 2.03 1.245 MS5 Others 4.17 .753

169

Table 5.2 Continued

No of Overall Variables Items Mean Variables items Mean 2.706 1.101 PO1 Signage 2.74 1.219 Physical PO2 Maps 2.70 1.252 orientation PO3 Instructions and directions 2.68 1.226 PO4 Others 3.25 1.165 3.811 0.937 A1 Has good lighting 3.72 1.084 A2 Has good colour scheme 3.89 1.035 Ambience A3 Has functional layout 3.82 1.068 A4 Is easy to find the way around this location 3.82 1.029

The next analysis is on Visitor Factors. Level of Interest recorded the highest mean score of 4.031 (SD = 0.843). This is followed by Emotional Connectedness with the mean score of 4.180 (SD = 1.002). The next variable is Visualisation with the mean score of 3.421 (SD = 0.890). Next is the variable, Sense of Belonging with the mean score of 3.386 (SD = 1.094). The variable Familiarity has 3.357 mean score with the

SD = 0.977. Finally, the variable Connection to Visitor has 3.126 mean score (SD =

0.935). This variable has the lowest mean score, however, it is also above the mid point of 2.5 on the five point scale. Results show that all six indicators of Visitor Factors revealed the mean values of 3.126 to 4.031.

Table 5.3: Mean Scores and Standard deviations of Visitor Factors

No of Overall Std. Variables Items Mean items Mean Deviation 4.031 0.843 I am interested to know more on LI1 3.97 1.011 heritage I am eager to learn about new LI2 4.01 .936 Level of heritage or culture interest LI3 I am eager to gain new knowledge 4.06 .923 I am eager to find out about LI4 4.09 .946 other’s culture I always want to learn about the LI5 4.02 .967 history of this place

170

Table 5.3 Continued

Overall Variables No of items Items Mean Mean 3.357 0.977 F1 I am not familiar with this place 2.92 1.242 I am not familiar with the culture F2 3.10 1.170 here I have no idea at all about the Familiarity F3 3.42 1.265 culture F4 The culture is alien to me 3.66 1.179 I have no idea at all about the F5 3.68 1.178 culture 3.421 0.890 V1 I can imagine the place 3.40 1.034 I have seen pictures and V2 3.52 1.128 Visualisation information about this place I know what to expect about this V3 3.34 1.094 place 4.180 1.002 EC1 I feel uneasy a t the heritage sites 4.04 1.204 I would like to leave this place as Emotional EC2 4.20 1.221 soon as possible connectedness I feel that I have wasted my time EC3 4.31 1.110 here 3.386 1.094 I can understand the language SB1 3.50 1.364 Sense of used here belonging I feel stronger sense of identity SB2 3.27 1.158 with the heritage 3.126 0.935 CV1 I came to be connected to the past 2.52 1.403 I came to understand the Connection to CV3 2.44 1.370 traditional culture visitor This place gives me sense of CV4 3.60 1.136 belonging

The mindfulness construct recorded the grand mean score of 3.828 (SD = 0.721) with the item MF2 displayed the highest mean value of 4.01 compared to other items.

Interpretive outcome recorded a total mean score of 3.890 (SD = 0.715) with the item

IO 15 “I believe preserving the heritage sites is important” displayed the highest mean value compared to the other items.

171

Table 5.4: Mean Scores and Standard deviations of Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome

No of Overall Std. Variables Items Mean items Mean Deviation 3.828 0.721 I am very curious at the heritage CA2 4.01 1.040 place I like to figure out how and why CA3 3.94 .979 certain things happen Curiosity I try to think new ways of doing CA4 3.74 1.066 and things Attention I am always open to new ways CA5 3.88 .993 of doing things I like to search for an answer to CA6 3.80 1.014 questions I may have I like to inquire further things at CA8 3.76 1.047 the sites It seems that I am ‘running on AL3 auto’ without much awareness 3.77 1.048 of what I’m doing Alertness I am rarely alert to new AL6 development that I discover at 3.67 .995 heritage sites I approached each experience by trying to accept it, no matter OF2 3.58 .972 whether it was pleasant or Openness unpleasant and I was open to taking notice of Flexibility OF4 3.74 .948 anything that might come up I like to be challenged OF4 4.00 1.023 intellectually 3.890 0.715 I would help to contribute to the B1 3.52 1.122 preservation of the heritage sites I would revisit this place in the B3 3.59 1.080 future Behavioural I would recommend this place B4 3.98 .974 to my friends or family I believe if I keep touching the B5 exhibits, I might cause threat to 3.90 1.128 them I learn about the need to protect C1 3.89 1.035 the heritage I have gained an insight into the C3 3.97 .993 past Cognitive I understand more about the C4 3.98 .903 importance of heritage here I now understand the C5 importance of preserving 3.98 .983 heritage site

172

Table 5.4 Continued

No of Overall Std. Variables Items Mean items Mean Deviation I think heritage site is special AF1 4.12 .926 and important When I think about the threats AF2 to the environment, I experience 3.74 1.084 Affective the feeling of anxiety I am concerned about the AF3 3.88 .970 heritage I believe preserving the heritage AF4 4.17 .941 sites is important Heritage brought me to know VL2 4.06 .990 how people live in the past Value This place changes my VL3 perception towards heritage 3.66 1.137 sites

5.4 Structural Equation Modelling

A model is usually analysed and interpreted into two stages sequentially. First is the assessment and refinement of adequacy of the measurement model and followed by the assessment and evaluation of the structural model. This is to ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement prior to the attempt in making and drawing the conclusion of the structural model. The initial model to be tested in the PLS is based on the final framework. There are two main factors contributing toward mindfulness which are (1) Communication Factors and (2) Visitor Factors. The Communication

Factors has six variables: Uses of Questions, Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory,

Physical Orientation and Ambience and the Visitor Factors has six variables: Level of

Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and

Connection to Visitors. Additionally, mindfulness is expected to contribute towards interpretive outcome. Each of the construct, mindfulness and interpretive outcome has multiple indicators or item questions to measure the constructs. Uses of Questions has

4 indicators, Variety has 3, Novelty has 3, Multismedia Sensory has 4, Physical

Orientation has 3, Ambience has 4, Level of Interest has 5, Familiarity has 5,

173

Visualisation has 3, Emotional Connectedness has 3, Sense of Belonging has 2,

Connection to Visitors has 4, Mindfulness has 9 and Interpretive Outcome has 14 (refer to Table 5.2, Table 5.3 and Table 5.4).

5.5 Two Stage Approach: Analysis and Results of Partial Least Square

In the analysis chapter earlier, it is stated that Partial Least Square (PLS) is used to examine the hypotheses derived from the research framework. In order to utilise the

PLS analysis, the research model was analysed and expresed into two phases encompassing of the assessment of the measurement model and structural model

(Schumacker & Lomax, 2010 and Zainudin Awang, 2014). The measurement model was performed to define the relationships between the latent variables and observed variables and thus the measurement model in SEM is a confirmatory factor model

(Schumacker & Lomax, 2010 and Zainudin Awang, 2014). Consequently, the paths or casual relationships between the core exogenous and endogenous construct were identified in the structural model. This is because, according to Schumacker & Lomax

(2010) structural model is used to show how these latent variables are related and it allows for the identification of certain relationship among the latent variables illustrated by the direction of the arrows. Exogenous constructs included Uses of

Questions, Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation, Ambience,

Level of Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of

Belonging and Connection to Visitors. On the other hand, endogenous measurement are mindfulness and interpretive outcome. The analysis and findings associated with both of these phases will be discussed next.

174

5.5.1 Stage One: Measurement Model

According to Urbach & Ahlemann (2010) in the PLS analysis the first step is to carry out the process in assessment of the measurement model. Schumacker & Lomax

(2010) further explain that, in the measurement model the relationship among the observed variables and latent variables are indicated by factor loadings. This means, the measurement model is used to identify which items correspond to each latent variable. Thus, the measurement model in this research denotes the pattern wherein each indicator is assigned to the theoretically labelled constructs (Byrne, 2009).

All the constructs in consideration together with Uses of Questions, Variety, Novelty,

Multismedia Sensory, Physical Orientation, Ambience, High Level of Interest,

Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and

Connection to Visitors together with mindfulness and interpretive outcome were examined in a distinct measurement model. If the outcome are not parallel with an a priori specified measurement model, then the measurement model should be re- specified and re-analysed (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014 and Schumacker &

Lomax, 2010). SmartPLS according to Zainudin Awang (2014) is used to examine the measurement models for the constructs and test the hypotheses concurrently. The significant of each variable with one another is also decided together with the bootstrap procedure.

175

5.5.2 Internal Consistency Reliability

The reliability of the measures in this research was examined using composite reliability and as suggested by Gefen, Rigdon, & Straub (2011) and Hair et al., (2014) the measure of composite reliability of a value is required to achieve the reliability of a construct is of 0.6 to 0.7. The composite reliability of the research are illustrated in the table below:

Table 5.5: Results of Reliability Test

Latent Question Main Number of Composite Dimension variable Items Loading items Reliability UQ1 0.851 Uses of UQ2 0.924 4 0.929 Questions UQ3 0.900 UQ4 0.819 VAR1 0.910 Variety VAR2 0.903 3 0.859

VAR3 0.639 NOV1 0.916 Novelty NOV2 0.900 3 0.932 NOV3 0.900 Communication MS1 0.860 Factors Multimedia MS2 0.757 4 0.876 Sensory MS3 0.749 MS4 0.829 PO1 0.786 Physical PO2 0.895 3 0.912 Orientation PO3 0.953 A1 0.901 A2 0.912 Ambience 4 0.938 A3 0.907 A4 0.835 HLI1 0.895 HLI2 0.891 Level of Visitor Factors HLI3 0.908 5 0.946 interest HLI4 0.871 HLI5 0.840

176

Table 5.5 Continued

Latent Question Main Number of Composite Dimension variable Items Loading items Reliability F1 0.570 F2 0.660 Familiarity F3 0.887 5 0.890 F4 0.891 F5 0.888 V1 0.734 Visualisation V2 0.884 3 0.859 V3 0.833 Visitor Factors EC1 0.806 Emotional EC2 0.858 3 0.883 connectedness EC3 0.872 Sense of SB1 0.880 2 0.858 belonging SB2 0.854 CV1 0.693 Connection to CV3 0.889 4 0.761 visitor CV4 0.549 CV1 0.693 CA2 0.745 CA3 0.754 Curiousity and CA4 0.775 9 0.903 Attention CA5 0.799 CA6 0.735 Mindfulness CA8 0.707 AL3 0.636 Alertness AL6 0.782 OF2 0.579 Openness and OF3 0.652 Flexibility OF4 0.666 B1 0.581 B3 0.614 Behavioural B4 0.748 B5 0.624 C7 0.684 C9 0.774 Cognitive Interpretive C4 0.822 14 0.934 outcome C5 0.804 AF1 0.795 AF2 0.656 Affective AF3 0.756 AF4 0.792 VL1 0.715 Value VL2 0.518

177

According to Table 5.5 the composite reliability values also ranged from 0.761 to

0.946, indicating that all measures show good reliability after removing questions though the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Thus, the internal consistency of the composite reliability are of 0.70 or greater is considered as accepted to indicate adequate internal consistency (Hair et al., 2014). All loading of 66 standardised indicators were above the accepted cut-off level of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2014 and Zainudin

Awang, 2014), hence the reliability of the measures items are acceptable. For the assessment of the measure employed in this research are all within the accepted range of reliability. Consequently the measurement are deemed reliable.

5.5.3 Construct Validity

Construct validity indicates how good the outcome is achieved from the application of the measure fit and the concepts that the test is created (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). This indicate that, construct validity is the degree to which a series of measured items reflect the theoretical latent construct they are deliberate to measure and evaluate. The issue is the determination as to ‘whether the instrument makes use of the concept as theorised’. This can be measured by both the convergent and discriminant validity.

Firstly, the respectively loadings and cross loadings (Table 5.3) are evaluated to examine on complications arising from any specific items. Cross loadings between constructs and indicators are the loadings on all other latent variables. A cut-off value for loadings at 0.50 as significant is used (Hair et al., 2014). Essentially, if any item, which has loading of over 0.50 on two or more factors, will be considered to have significant cross loadings. It is observed that all the measurement items loaded higher, next to their own intended latent variables that weighed against other variables and

178

loaded lower on the other constructs. Thus, the cross loading output shown that the measurement model’s construct validity has comply to be accepted. This research deduced that the measurement model has set up its construct validity. Construct validity consists of two vital components which is the convergent validity that is made up of three approaches and the discriminant validity. Together, both convergent and discriminant validity offer some verification concerning the goodness of fit of the measurement model.

Table 5.6: Loading and Cross Loading

CV EC IO F HLI MF MS NOV PO A SB UQ V VAR - - CV1 0.693 0.275 0.095 0.192 0.147 0.081 0.133 0.094 0.486 0.181 0.371 0.161 0.049 0.157 - CV3 0.889 0.222 0.582 0.041 0.458 0.329 0.020 0.124 0.352 0.303 0.430 0.150 0.396 0.009 - - CV4 0.549 0.194 0.093 0.087 0.059 0.172 0.102 0.022 0.422 0.156 0.258 0.124 0.160 0.175 - - - EC1 0.037 0.806 0.290 0.410 0.291 0.164 0.495 0.186 0.013 0.178 0.130 0.164 0.278 0.054 - - - EC2 0.073 0.858 0.282 0.457 0.321 0.169 0.458 0.216 0.190 0.026 0.163 0.220 0.175 0.001 - - EC3 0.145 0.872 0.422 0.366 0.462 0.265 0.436 0.345 0.120 0.327 0.100 0.304 0.070 0.076 - IO1 0.389 0.206 0.581 0.095 0.459 0.340 0.094 0.219 0.206 0.186 0.368 0.305 0.259 0.096 - IO10 0.414 0.342 0.822 0.122 0.528 0.392 0.071 0.248 0.404 0.194 0.428 0.262 0.394 0.036 - IO11 0.449 0.331 0.804 0.130 0.519 0.396 0.126 0.209 0.444 0.260 0.420 0.308 0.406 0.039 - IO12 0.422 0.396 0.795 0.156 0.509 0.433 0.042 0.248 0.384 0.196 0.448 0.240 0.347 0.088 - IO13 0.352 0.211 0.656 0.021 0.352 0.273 0.127 0.145 0.313 0.197 0.305 0.200 0.275 0.065 - IO14 0.431 0.297 0.756 0.067 0.491 0.406 0.085 0.232 0.382 0.194 0.390 0.206 0.384 0.013 - IO15 0.388 0.425 0.792 0.162 0.541 0.401 0.072 0.194 0.419 0.233 0.426 0.266 0.328 0.081 - IO17 0.407 0.292 0.715 0.108 0.529 0.393 0.091 0.106 0.444 0.183 0.445 0.253 0.313 0.029 - - IO18 0.301 0.098 0.518 0.319 0.261 0.120 0.012 0.218 0.155 0.309 0.222 0.303 0.017 0.002 IO3 0.437 0.208 0.614 0.037 0.383 0.328 0.145 0.192 0.006 0.260 0.188 0.305 0.267 0.354 - IO4 0.411 0.362 0.748 0.118 0.544 0.470 0.025 0.224 0.456 0.233 0.492 0.270 0.388 0.086 - IO5 0.364 0.193 0.624 0.126 0.443 0.397 0.135 0.175 0.245 0.202 0.330 0.243 0.288 0.095 - IO7 0.415 0.236 0.684 0.091 0.381 0.322 0.093 0.199 0.335 0.167 0.373 0.171 0.389 0.075 - IO9 0.377 0.323 0.774 0.140 0.563 0.429 0.110 0.267 0.375 0.253 0.483 0.294 0.379 0.084 ------F1 0.023 0.188 0.029 0.570 0.004 0.231 0.158 0.099 0.096 0.052 0.112 0.013 0.078 0.041 ------F2 0.100 0.187 0.079 0.660 0.194 0.202 0.118 0.027 0.033 0.001 0.115 0.022 0.071 0.071 - - F3 0.101 0.421 0.150 0.887 0.113 0.085 0.293 0.148 0.176 0.058 0.199 0.064 0.038 0.091 - - F4 0.065 0.429 0.131 0.891 0.151 0.132 0.239 0.089 0.231 0.082 0.125 0.028 0.005 0.046 - - F5 0.041 0.468 0.110 0.888 0.121 0.107 0.296 0.109 0.218 0.066 0.111 0.012 0.082 0.202 HLI1 0.428 0.339 0.606 0.073 0.895 0.543 0.058 0.232 0.000 0.414 0.288 0.628 0.327 0.468 - HLI2 0.306 0.373 0.551 0.113 0.891 0.544 0.014 0.276 0.341 0.234 0.629 0.284 0.397 0.061

179

Table 5.6 Continued

CV EC IO F HLI MF MS NOV PO A SB UQ V VAR

HLI3 0.406 0.369 0.603 0.120 0.908 0.545 0.062 0.227 0.018 0.403 0.264 0.625 0.324 0.457 - HLI4 0.299 0.488 0.591 0.177 0.871 0.571 0.019 0.290 0.431 0.194 0.559 0.271 0.450 0.047 - HLI5 0.397 0.365 0.586 0.070 0.840 0.551 0.017 0.184 0.390 0.236 0.563 0.300 0.439 0.014 MF2 0.194 0.218 0.377 0.119 0.482 0.745 0.111 0.151 0.005 0.269 0.112 0.443 0.212 0.322 MF2 - 0.322 0.169 0.418 0.076 0.394 0.579 0.062 0.181 0.274 0.195 0.400 0.238 0.332 1 0.087 MF2 - 0.292 0.215 0.432 0.080 0.438 0.652 0.067 0.215 0.283 0.168 0.450 0.200 0.384 2 0.082 MF2 - 0.206 0.232 0.426 0.022 0.529 0.666 0.093 0.217 0.335 0.178 0.435 0.216 0.357 3 0.035 MF3 0.205 0.133 0.316 0.073 0.409 0.754 0.059 0.051 0.051 0.178 0.146 0.405 0.181 0.292

MF4 0.202 0.094 0.357 0.017 0.427 0.775 0.101 0.066 0.003 0.169 0.102 0.388 0.201 0.264

MF5 0.200 0.143 0.392 0.067 0.497 0.799 0.066 0.101 0.030 0.283 0.091 0.419 0.268 0.331 - MF6 0.094 0.194 0.341 0.140 0.385 0.735 0.098 0.171 0.200 0.101 0.313 0.244 0.258 0.075 MF8 0.195 0.160 0.313 0.118 0.407 0.707 0.048 0.171 0.013 0.208 0.146 0.362 0.224 0.254 - - - MS1 0.126 0.133 0.073 0.093 0.860 0.055 0.166 0.137 0.103 0.126 0.147 0.135 0.014 0.068 - - - - - MS2 0.098 0.014 0.087 0.757 0.014 0.070 0.047 0.085 0.059 0.003 0.070 0.062 0.014 0.021 ------MS3 0.067 0.023 0.018 0.749 0.192 0.047 0.078 0.037 0.243 0.075 0.063 0.200 0.004 0.037 - - - - MS4 0.055 0.097 0.021 0.105 0.829 0.159 0.098 0.023 0.020 0.113 0.169 0.026 0.078 0.012 NOV - - - 0.018 0.502 0.255 0.292 0.271 0.215 0.916 0.144 0.008 0.243 0.218 1 0.080 0.206 0.010 NOV - - - - 0.521 0.217 0.285 0.206 0.158 0.900 0.158 0.017 0.229 0.208 2 0.039 0.093 0.225 0.025 NOV - - - 0.011 0.452 0.268 0.267 0.260 0.191 0.900 0.122 0.006 0.212 0.199 3 0.045 0.250 0.033 ------PO1 0.076 0.006 0.171 0.786 0.008 0.061 0.089 0.002 0.135 0.029 0.087 0.012 0.163 0.024 ------PO2 0.076 0.109 0.895 0.030 0.069 0.146 0.052 0.129 0.017 0.033 0.195 0.016 0.053 0.016 ------PO3 0.037 0.066 0.953 0.036 0.065 0.017 0.200 0.096 0.114 0.026 0.031 0.265 0.044 0.060 - A1 0.273 0.301 0.478 0.115 0.417 0.299 0.084 0.140 0.901 0.138 0.401 0.249 0.417 0.084 A2 0.278 0.251 0.440 0.083 0.403 0.297 0.106 0.123 0.020 0.912 0.141 0.428 0.206 0.440

A3 0.244 0.251 0.426 0.078 0.406 0.360 0.155 0.128 0.002 0.907 0.150 0.444 0.202 0.453 - A4 0.244 0.299 0.434 0.134 0.372 0.285 0.126 0.160 0.835 0.200 0.395 0.229 0.439 0.046 SB1 0.316 0.117 0.255 0.198 0.245 0.183 0.078 0.061 0.028 0.174 0.880 0.211 0.274 0.163 - - SB2 0.520 0.242 0.219 0.233 0.154 0.030 0.044 0.130 0.854 0.223 0.328 0.209 0.010 0.047 - UQ1 0.337 0.275 0.497 0.067 0.647 0.499 0.065 0.256 0.457 0.250 0.851 0.262 0.551 0.050 - UQ2 0.375 0.257 0.506 0.045 0.619 0.506 0.030 0.217 0.451 0.189 0.924 0.240 0.602 0.056 - UQ3 0.385 0.241 0.531 0.065 0.597 0.519 0.081 0.193 0.386 0.245 0.900 0.249 0.545 0.029 - UQ4 0.326 0.237 0.418 0.033 0.515 0.464 0.050 0.215 0.343 0.185 0.819 0.232 0.593 0.071 - - V1 0.188 0.234 0.055 0.230 0.277 0.069 0.116 0.158 0.238 0.171 0.734 0.150 0.031 0.051 V2 0.259 0.119 0.364 0.187 0.351 0.270 0.026 0.036 0.027 0.242 0.292 0.289 0.884 0.291 - - V3 0.267 0.248 0.152 0.240 0.210 0.132 0.054 0.207 0.325 0.215 0.833 0.188 0.014 0.066 VAR 0.309 0.277 0.467 0.053 0.550 0.464 0.118 0.264 0.035 0.501 0.203 0.646 0.275 0.910 1 VAR - 0.347 0.264 0.446 0.042 0.405 0.353 0.056 0.211 0.453 0.184 0.579 0.215 0.903 2 0.037 VAR - 0.265 0.009 0.245 0.222 0.239 0.179 0.036 0.013 0.195 0.134 0.334 0.139 0.639 3 0.064 *Bold values are loading for items which are above the recommended value of 0.50

180

5.5.4 Convergent Validity

Convergent validity as explained by Hair et al., (2014) is the extent to which a measure correlates positively with alternative measures of the same construct. This implies that convergent validity signifies the level at which theoretically similar constructs are distinctly correlated with one another. According to Fornell & Larcker, (1981) convergent validity can be assessed by two method which are estimating the loadings of the individual measures to their own constructs and computing the composite reliability.

The SmartPLS bootstrapping re-sampling procedure (i.e 500 re-samples) was utilised to measure convergent validity, which had generated loading, composite reliability, average variance extracted in Table 5.5 and t-values (see Table 5.6) for each measurement item in relation to its theorised construct. The loadings intended for every single measurement item indicated on Table 5.5 were analysed. All of the 66 items had loadings greater than the recommended value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014). This means that an additional 50% of the variance is distributed among the measurement item along with its theorised construct.

As for the construct reliability values (refer Table 5.5) which demonstrate the extent to which the construct indicators indicate the latent construct, ranged from 0.761 to

0.946 , beyond the cut-off value of 0.7 indicate adequate convergent consistency

(Gefen et al., 2000) with a majority of them that is greater than 0.90.

181

The average variance extracted scores measures the variance captured by the indicators relative to measurement error. It should be greater than 0.50 to indicate strong convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981 and Hair et al., 2014). This indicate that there are more than 50% variation in a particular construct is explained by the stipulated indicators (Hair et al., 2014). The outcome of the average variance extracted were in the range of 0.507 to 0.820, which each of the average variance extracted value was well above the recommended value of 0.50. This illustrate adequate convergent validity of items in each construct. Overall, the result shows that this research’s measurement model has provided adequate internal consistency and convergent validity.

Table 5.6 summaries the findings of the measurement model. The conclusion affirms that all four constructs: Communication Factors, Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome are relevant measures of their distinct constructs based on their parameter estimates and statistical significant (Moscardo & Ballantyne, 2008 and

Frauman & Norman, 2004).

5.5.5 Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity look at the level of the difference between the potential overlapping constructs. Urbach & Ahlemann, (2010) explained that discriminant validity concerns the degree to which the measure of different constructs differ from one to another. It can be tested through the Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion. A measurement model has discriminant validity when the square root of the average variance extracted surpass the correlations relating to the measure and all other

182

measure and the indicator’s loadings are greater in contrast to their own construct compared to other construct.

According to Fornell & Larcker (1981) the items should load more strongly on their respective construct in the model, while the average variance shared between each construct and its measures should be larger than the squared correlations among the latent variable and other variable. Hair et al., (2014) further explain that discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from other constructs, in terms of how much it correlates with other constructs, as well as how much indicators represent only a single construct. According to the results shown in Table 5.7 all square roots of average variance extracted exceeded the off-diagonal values in their corresponding row and column. The bolded values represent the square roots of the average variance extracted. Non-bolded values represent the inter-correlation value between constructs in the model. Based on the Table 5.7, all off-diagonal elements are lower than square roots of average variance extracted (bolded on the diagonal), which indicates satisfactory discriminant validity. Hence, the results confirmed that the

Fornell and Larker’s criterion are met. Overall, the measurement model demonstrated adequate convergent validity and discriminant validity.

In sum, the finding shows that there is strong support for reliability, convergent and discriminant validity conducted on the measurement model. This also illustrate that all validity and reliability tests are confirmed. It indicates that the measurement model for this research is valid and fit to be used to estimate parameters in the structural model.

183

Table 5.7: Discriminant Validity of Constructs

CV EC EI F LI MF MS NOV PO S SB UQ V VAR

CV 0.724

EC 0.110 0.846

EI 0.558 0.406 0.712

F 0.082 0.476 0.143 0.791

LI 0.417 0.440 0.667 0.126 0.881

MF 0.302 0.246 0.532 0.109 0.625 0.715

MS 0.079 -0.164 0.129 -0.043 0.039 0.111 0.800

NOV -0.001 0.541 0.275 0.310 0.274 0.210 -0.079 0.905

PO 0.060 -0.191 -0.080 -0.126 -0.023 -0.029 0.103 -0.251 0.881

S 0.292 0.310 0.500 0.115 0.450 0.350 0.132 0.155 -0.031 0.889

SB 0.476 0.065 0.287 0.240 0.276 0.195 0.063 0.011 0.041 0.176 0.867

UQ 0.408 0.289 0.560 0.061 0.682 0.569 0.065 0.252 -0.058 0.469 0.250 0.875

V 0.291 0.041 0.353 0.165 0.342 0.310 0.085 -0.025 0.076 0.250 0.346 0.281 0.819

VAR 0.369 0.252 0.484 0.028 0.502 0.442 0.128 0.230 0.005 0.492 0.213 0.653 0.264 0.827 *Diagonals (in bold) represent square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) while off-diagonal represent the correlations.

5.5.6 Measurement Specification: Mindfulness

Curiosity and Attention 0.778

0.681 Alertness Mindfulness

Openess 0.811 and Felxibility

Figure 5.1: Measurement Specification of Mindfulness Dimension

At the Exploratory Factor Analysis stage, there are four significant dimensions for

Mindfulness, namely Curiosity and Attention, Alertness, Emotional Engagement and

184

Openness and Flexibility. However, at the Confirmatory Factor Analysis phase, only three dimensions fits into the measurement model.

To indicate good fit in SEM-PLS, the item questions needs to have loading or AVE value at least 0.5. After dropping the items with poor loading, one by one, the fit indices improved. The initial measurement with Emotional Engagement showed poor loading and thus has been removed as it does not fit in. At the final stage of deleting the item questions, results show that mindfulness is composed of three dimensions (a)

Curiosity and Attention, (b) Alertness and (c) Openness and Flexibility.

Results demonstrate that Curiosity and Attention has a path coefficient (β) value of

0.778, Alertness with β = 0.936 and Openness and Flexibility with path coefficient value of 0.811. This shows that mindfulness is comprised of three dimensions namely

(a) Curiosity and Attention, (b) Alertness and (c) Openness and Flexibility. The findings indicate that the most influential dimension is Alertness followed by

Openness and Flexibility; and Curiosity and Attention.

5.6 Stage Two: Structural Model

A structural model can be generated as soon as all the constructs in the measurement model were validated and the satisfactory fit has been achieved (Hair et al., 2014 and

Ramayah, 2014). Structural model illustrate the casual relationship among the latent constructs in the research model. Esposito Vinzi, Chin, Henseler, & Wang (2010) define structural model as the “set of linear relations between the constructs” (pg. 142).

This implies that, structural model reflect the relations between the latent and non-

185

observable variables. Thus, the aim of the structural model in this research is to test the underlying hypotheses in order to answer the research questions outlined in

Chapter One. As presented in Table 4.4 (refer Table 4.4 in Chapter 4), these hypotheses were represented in twenty five casual paths to validate the relationship between the constructs under consideration. In the proposed final research model in Chapter Four, the underlying constructs were classified into two classes. They include exogenous constructs (i.e. Uses of Questions, Variety, Novelty, Multismedia Sensory, Physical

Orientation, Ambience, Level of Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional

Connectedness, Sense of Belonging, Connection to Visitors) and endogenous constructs (i.e, mindfulness and interpretive outcome).

There are four main elements that should be analysed in measuring the structural model: (1) path coefficient (훽), (2) coefficient of determination (R2), (3) predictive relevance (Q2) and (4) global measure of goodness of fit (GoF). It is important to observe that the significant of the path coefficient and loadings were analysed with the application of a non-paramatic bootstrapping procedure as suggested by Chin (1998) and Hair et al., (2014). The explanation is that PLS-SEM does not assume that data are normally distributed (Ringle, Hair, & Sarstedt, 2011). The evaluation of the structural model of this research is reported in the following sub-sections.

5.6.1 Path Coefficient

Within the structural model, each path linking two latent variables represented a hypothesis. Based on the analysis performed on the structural model, it permits the researcher to verify or invalidate each of the hypothesis, besides it also enable the

186

researcher to comprehend the strength of the association between dependent and independent variables. Utilising the SmartPLS algorithm output, the relationship between both the dependent and independent variables were examined. Nonetheless, in SmartPLS in order to examine the significant level, t-statistic for all paths are generated using the SmartPLS’s bootstrap re-sampling procedure and a one-tailed t- test were applied to determine the significance of each path since all the hypotheses in this research were all unidirectional in nature. The path coefficient, t-statistics output and the significant level of each relationship were tested. By utilising the findings from the path assessment, the acceptance or rejection of the proposed hypotheses is decided.

The path analysis is used to test the twenty five hypotheses of direct effects. The twenty five direct effects that are observed in the structural model are Uses of Questions,

Variety, Novelty, Multismedia Sensory, Physical Orientation, Ambience, Level of

Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging,

Connection to Visitors on both Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome and

Mindfulness on Interpretive Outcome.

Details of the direct effects between two latent constructs are presented as below:

187

MF: 0.267 MF: 0.984 MF: 1.028 MF: 3.171** MF: 0.135 IO: 1.358 IO: 1.453 IO: 0.236 IO: 0.233 IO: 2.829**

MF: 1.531 Novelty Variety Uses of Questions Ambience Physical Orientation IO: 2.344**

0.628 Multisensory media

Interpretive Outcome MF: 7.011*** IO: 4.441*** 2.060

0.449 0.778 Level of Interest CA 0.681

MF: 0.907 Mindfulness AL IO: 1.261 0.811 OF

Familiarity MF: 2.013* MF: 1.080 MF: 0.735 MF: 0.014 IO: 2.678** IO: 2.779** IO: 0.744 IO: 7.477***

Visualisation Emotional connectedness Sense of Belonging Connection to Visitor Figure 5.2: Results of Partial Least Squares Analysis Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

188

The results of the findings of the PLS path analysis are presented and summarised in

Table 5.8 to Table 5.10. According to the findings, the supported hypotheses are significant at 0.05, have expected sign direction of positive and consist of a path coefficient value (β) varying from 0.001 to 0.431 and its associated t-value that ranges between 1.618 to 7.477. The following discussion analyses each hypothesis of this research and determine whether each of the hypothesis is supported through the findings of the data analysis using SmartPLS. Nevertheless, some of the path analysis was not in line with the proposed hypothesis of the study.

Table 5.8: Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results: Direct effects (Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Mindfulness)

Path Hypothesis Relationship Coefficient SE t-value Results (휷) Uses of Questions → H1a 0.214 0.068 3.171** Supported mindfulness Variety → Not H 0.063 0.061 1.028 1b mindfulness Supported Novelty → Not H 0.047 0.048 0.984 1c mindfulness Supported Multimedia Sensory Not H 0.062 0.041 1.531 1d → mindfulness Supported Physical Orientation Not H -0.013 0.048 0.267 1e → mindfulness Supported Ambience → Not H 0.008 0.057 0.135 1f mindfulness Supported Level of Interest → H2a 0.431 0.062 7.011*** Supported mindfulness Familiarity → Not H 0.051 0.057 0.907 2b mindfulness Supported Visualisation → H2c 0.087 0.043 2.013* Supported mindfulness Emotional Not H Connectedness → -0.067 0.062 1.080 2d Supported mindfulness Sense of Belonging Not H -0.034 0.047 0.735 2e → mindfulness Supported Connection to Visitor Not H -0.001 0.051 0.014 2f → mindfulness Supported Beta = regression weight, SE = standard error, t-values are computed through bootstrapping procedure with 390 cases and 500 samples Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

189

5.6.1(a) Path Coefficient: Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Mindfulness

H1a Uses of Questions in the exhibits influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H1a is supported. It is found that in this research Uses of Questions have path coefficient of β = 0.214 at p < 0.01 level and t-value = 3.171, which concludes that if visitors have their questions asked and they are able to find the answer at the heritage site, their level of mindfulness would increase. This indicated that uses of questions had a strong significant impact on mindfulness. This indicates that emphasis need to be placed in encouraging visitors to ask more questions at the place that the visit.

H1b Variety of the display influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H1b is not supported. Variety has no significant relationship on mindfulness with path coefficient of β = 0.063 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 1.028. Results indicated that variety does not have a statistically significant relationship with mindfulness. This shows that, having variety if display or activities for the visitors does not help in cultivating mindfulness.

H1c Novelty of the exhibits influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H1c is not supported. Novelty has no significant relationship on mindfulness with path coefficient of β = 0.047 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value

190

= 0.984. This mean that, having exhibits or information that are new to the tourist does not necessary in influencing mindfulness.

H1d The use of Multimedia Sensory influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H1d is not supported. Multimedia Sensory has no significant relationship on mindfulness with the path coefficient of β = 0.062 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value = 1.531. This implies that having multimedia sensory presentation, such as video, films, audio commentary or interactive computer display does not help in achieving mindfulness.

H1e The availability of Physical Orientation influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H1e is not supported. The path coefficient between the two construct was

β = 0.013 at p < 0.05 significant level with t-value of 0.267. Results showed that physical orientation has no significant relationship with mindfulness. It is therefore concluded that, having clear maps, signage, instruction and directions does not necessary lead to mindfulness.

H1f Ambience influence the level of Mindfulness

Ambience is a new variable that emerged in this research, however, hypothesis H1f is not supported. Ambience shows insignificant relationship on mindfulness with the path coefficient, β = 0.008 at p < 0.05 significant level and the t-value of 0.135. Thus, the research results, indicate that the ambience has no connection with mindfulness.

191

The results imply that having good lighting, functional layout or good colour scheme are not necessary in influencing the level of mindfulness.

H2a Level of Interest influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H2a is supported. The results indicate a the path coefficient of β = 0.431 at p < 0.001 and t-value of 7.011. The results indicate that if visitors are interested in the area they would be more mindful.

H2b Familiarity influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H2b is not supported. This indicate that the relationship is insignificant between familiarity and mindfulness. The path coefficient value of this relationship is

β = 0.051 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 0.907. This shows that although visitor may be familiar with the culture or heritage that they visit, it is not necessary that it would influence their level of mindfulness.

H2c Visualisation influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H2c is supported. Visualisation, with the path coefficient of β = 0.087 at p

< 0.05 has a significant influence on mindfulness with the t-value 2.013. In the current era of mass media, attractions can be enjoyed through the video or documentary within the comforts of one’s home. Thus, this enables the visitors to visualise the place that they are going to visit even before they reach the destination throught various media such as documentary, magazines, brochures and other media. Thus, hypothesis H2c is

192

supported in the research results which hypothesises a positive relationship between visualisation and mindfulness.

H2d Emotional Connectedness influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H2d is not supported. Emotional connectedness does not have a significant relationship on mindfulness, with the path coefficient of β = 0.067 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 1.080. Thus, the research results, indicate that emotional connectedness has no connection with mindfulness implying that being able to connect the visitors emotionally does not help in cultivating mindfulness.

H2e Sense of Belonging influence the level of Mindfulness

Sense of belonging is a new variable emerged, however, hypothesis H2e is not supported. Sense of Belonging have no significant relationship on mindfulness with the path coefficient, β = 0.034 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 0.735. This results implies that, having visitor to have sense of belonging at the place that they visit would not influence their level of mindfulness.

H2f Connection to Visitor influence the level of Mindfulness

Hypothesis H2f is not supported. Connection to Visitor shows no significant relationship on mindfulness with the path coefficient of β = 0.001 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 0.014. The results indicate that connection to visitor has no correlation with mindfulness. Thus implying that being able to connect the

193

visitor’s culture or history of the heritage site does not help in contributing towards mindfulness.

5.6.1(b) Path Coefficient: Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Interpretive Outcome

Table 5.9: Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results: Direct effects (Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Interpretive Outcome)

Path Hypothesis Relationship Coefficient SE t-value Results (휷) Uses of Questions → Not H 0.013 0.054 0.233 3a interpretive outcome Supported Variety → Not H 0.011 0.046 0.236 3b interpretive outcome Supported Novelty → Not H 0.077 0.053 1.453 3c interpretive outcome Supported Multimedia Sensory H3d → interpretive 0.088 0.037 2.344** Supported outcome Physical Orientation Not H → interpretive -0.058 0.043 1.358 3e Supported outcome Ambience → H3f 0.145 0.051 2.829** Supported interpretive outcome Level of Interest → H4a 0.258 0.058 4.441*** Supported interpretive outcome Familiarity → Not H -0.062 0.049 1.261 4b interpretive outcome Supported Visualisation → H4c 0.101 0.038 2.678** Supported interpretive outcome Emotional H4d Connectedness → 0.164 0.059 2.779** Supported interpretive outcome Sense of Belonging Not H → interpretive -0.032 0.043 0.744 4e Supported outcome Connection to Visitor H4f → interpretive 0.332 0.045 7.477*** Supported outcome Beta = regression weight, SE = standard error, t-values are computed through bootstrapping procedure with 390 cases and 500 samples Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

194

H3a Uses of Questions in the exhibits influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H3a is not supported. Uses of Questions has no significant influence on interpretive outcome, with the path coefficient of β = 0.013 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 0.233. Thus, the research results, indicate that the uses of questions has no connection with interpretive outcome. This shows that, the results imply that exhibits or information that would lead to having questions or make visitor think of more questions would not be able to influence interpretive outcome.

H3b Variety of the exhibits influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H3b is not supported. Variety have no significant relationship on interpretive outcome, with the path coefficient, β = 0.011 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 0.236. Thus, the research results, indicate that the variety has no connection with interpretive outcome. Results show that having many and different exhibits or information would not be able to help in influencing interpretive outcome.

H3c Novelty of the exhibits influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H3c is not supported. Novelty recorded path coefficient value of β = 0.077 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 1.453 which show that there is no significant relationship towards interpretive outcome. This implies that, having the new encounter at the heritage site does not support in influencing interpretive outcome. Heritage site that has new discovery on the exhibits or information would not be able to influence interpretive outcome.

195

H3d The use of Multimedia Sensory influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H3d is supported. Multimedia Sensory has a significant influence on interpretive outcome, with the path coefficient of β = 0.088 at p < 0.01 significant level with t-value 2.344. The result imply that, having multimedia sensory presentation such as video presentation, films, interactive computer display and audio commentary is important in aiding interpretive outcome.

H3e The availability of Physical Orientation influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H3e is not supported. Physical orientation has no significant relationship on interpretive outcome, with the path coefficient of β = 0.058 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 1.358. Thus, the research results, indicate that physical orientation has no connection with interpretive outcome. This implies that physical orientation such as clear maps, signage, instructions and directions does not help in influencing interpretive outcome.

H3f Ambience influence interpretive outcome

Ambience is a new variable emerged in this research and hypothesis H3f is supported.

Ambience has significant relationship on interpretive outcome with path coefficient of

β = 0.145 at p < 0.01 significant level and t-value of 2.829. Results imply that visitor, ambiance and design elements play an important role in influencing interpretive outcome. This indicates that emphasis needs to be placed on creating the right ambience around the heritage site.

196

H4a Level of Interest influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H4a is supported. Level of interest has a significant relationship with path coefficient of β = 0.258 and t-value of 4.441 at p < 0.001 significant level. Level of interest influence interpretive outcome strongly when the visitor are eager to find out about the culture and are interested to learn more on the heritage that they are visiting.

Visitors who are eager to learn about the new heritage or culture would influence the interpretive outcome.

H4b Familiarity influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H4b is not supported. Familiarity has no significant relationship on interpretive outcome with the path coefficient of β = 0.062 at p < 0.05 significant level and t-value of 1.261. Visitors who are familiar with the place or culture that they are visiting would not help in contributing towards interpretive outcome. This implies that, even the exhibits or information that they encounter are familiar to them it would not help in influencing interpretive outcome.

H4c Visualisation influence interpretive outcome

This is a new variable emerged in this research and hypothesis H4c is supported.

Visualisation has significant influence on interpretive outcome with the path coefficient of β = 0.101 and t-statistics of 2.678 at p < 0.01 significant level. Tourists who are able to imagine the place and have information on the place that they are going

197

to visit and know what to expect about the place that they are visiting would help in enhancing the interpretive outcome.

H4d Emotional Connectedness influence interpretive outcome

This variable is a new variable emerged in the current research. Hypothesis H4d is supported. Emotional connectedness has a significant relationship on interpretive outcome with path coefficient β = 0.164 with t-value = 2.779 at p < 0.01 significant level. The strong emotional connection between the heritage site and the visitors will positively increase the level of interpretive outcome. The ability to create emotional connectedness between the setting and among the visitors is significant in cultivating interpretive outcome.

H4e Sense of Belonging influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H4e is not supported. This variable is a new variable emerged in the current research. Sense of Belonging has no significant relationship on interpretive outcome with path coefficient β = 0.032 and t-value = 0.744 at p < 0.05 significant level. Thus, results show indicate that Sense of Belonging has no connection with interpretive outcome.

198

H4f Connection to Visitor influence interpretive outcome

Hypothesis H4f is supported and Connection to visitor is a new variable emerged in this research. Connection to visitor has a significant relationship on interpretive outcome with the path coefficient of β = 0.332 at p < 0.001 significant level and t- value = 7.477. Being able to let the visitor to feel connected with the exhibits or information at the heritage site will increase the interpretive outcome. This is because, the tourists came to be connected to the past and also to understand the traditional culture at the heritage site. Thus, the ability for the tourists to connect themselves at the heritage site will increase their interpretive outcome.

Overall, it was found that Connection to Visitor, Level of Interest, Multimedia

Sensory, Ambience, Emotional Connectedness and Visualisation were significant predictors of interpretive outcome.

5.6.1(c) Path Coefficient: Mindfulness to Interpretive Outcome

Table 5.10: Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results: Direct effects (Mindfulness to Interpretive Outcome)

Path Hypothesis Relationship Coefficient SE t-value Results (휷) Mindfulness → H5 0.122 0.047 2.606** Supported Interpretive Outcome Beta = regression weight, SE = standard error, t-values are computed through bootstrapping procedure with 390 cases and 500 samples Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

199

H5 The level of Mindfulness influence Interpretive Outcome

Hypothesis H5 is supported. Mindfulness has a significant relationship on interpretive outcome with the path coefficient of β = 0.122 at p < 0.01 significant level and t-value

= 2.606. The strong mindfulness influence between the heritage site and the visitors will increase the level of interpretive outcome. Thus, the research results, indicate that mindfulness influence interpretive outcome implying that mindfulness are able to help in effective interpretation which evoked the interpretive outcome among visitors.

5.6.2 Coefficient of Determination: R2 Values

The R2 value reflects the amount of variance in dependent variables that are explained by the independent variables. Hence, a larger R2 value increases the predictive ability of the structural model. In this research, SmartPLS algorithm function is used to achieve the R2 values while the SmartPLS bootstrapping function is used to obtain the t-statistic values. The bootstrapping in this research generated 500 samples from 390 cases. Approximately 44.9% of the variance in the level of mindfulness can be explained by Uses of Questions, Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical

Orientation, Ambience, Level of Interest, Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional

Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitors.

Overall, the model shows mindfulness and both Communication and Visitor Factors and mindfulness, explains approximately 62.8% of the variance for the independent variable. This variance obtained the desired level of at least 0.10 (10% variance) as suggested by Hair et al., (2014) which stated that the R2 value ranges from 0 to 1 with

200

higher levels indicating higher levels of predictive accuracy. This implies that the value of R2 should be more than 0.10 to be considered meaningful. Figure 5.1 shows the detailed structural model specification as generated using SmartPLS. The model consists of the estimation of path coefficients, which illustrates the strengths of the relationships between constructs, their t-statistics and the significant based on one- tailed t-test and also the variance explained value (R2) that denotes the total of variance explained by the relationship.

201

Figure 5.3: The Coefficient of Determination (R2 Values)

202

5.6.3 Predictive Relevance (Q2)

Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value also known as the predictive relevance (Stone, 1974; Geisser,

1975 and Fornell & Cha, 1994) is also being examine in addition to evaluate the magnitude of the R2 values as a criterion of predictive accuracy since a model must be able to adequately predict the manifest variables of each latent variable. According to

Hair et al. (2014) and Urbach & Ahlemann (2010) this measure is an indicator of the model’s predictive relevance. With the predictive sample reuse method, the predictive relevance for the model constructs is examined by analysing Q2. Hence, Q2 indicate how well data, collected through empirical methods can be reconstructed with the help of the model and PLS parameters (Fornell & Cha, 1994).

The Q2 value can be obtained through the blindfolding procedure. This sample reuse method excludes each dth data point part in a block uses the estimated parameters to predict the omitted data (Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005). According Hair,

Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, (2012) the assignment of the omission distance D is between

5 and 10 should be used in most application.

Hair et al. (2014) note that there are two approach in calculating the Q2 value, which are cross-validated redundancy Q2 (H2) and cross-validated communality Q2 (F2). The cross-validated redundancy, H2 is established by predicting the manifest variable omitted data point using the underlying latent variable score. Clearly, H2 is only valid on the measurement model. On the other hand, F2 is obtained by predicting the manifest variables omitted in the data points using the latent variables that are predictors of the blindfolding latent variable in the PLS model. Hence, F2 is more

203

fitting to determine the quality of the model. Urbach & Ahlemann (2010) suggest that the threshold value is Q2 is greater than 0 (Q2 > 0) implies that the model has predictive relevance and Q2 that is less than 0 (Q2 < 0) means that the model lacks predictive relevance.

The results of cross validated redundancy Q2 (F2) and cross validated communality Q2

(H2) were obtained from running the function of the blindfolding procedure in

SmartPLS. As illustrated in the Table 5.11, using the omission distance of 5 and 10 produced similar results, whereby it point out that the estimation are stable. The value of cross validated redundancy Q2(F2) and cross validated communality Q2(H2) for the construct of Mindfulness is 0.222 and 0.512 which are greater than 0. The cross validated redundancy Q2 (F2) and cross validated communality Q2(H2) for Interpretive

Outcome is 0.314 and 0.503 which are larger than 0. This implies that both the research model exhibits acceptable predictive ability and the constructs are highly measured

(Urbach & Ahlemann, 2010).

In sum, the estimated model has satisfactory communality and redundancy Q2, the results of the Q2 analysis further confirms that the model measure are adequate and that the structural model has satisfactory predictive relevance for the outcome construct of both mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

Table 5.11: Results of Blindfolding Estimations

Construct R2 CV Red (F2) CV Com (H2) Mindfulness 0.449 0.222 0.512 Interpretive 0.628 0.314 0.503 Outcome

204

CV Red: 0.699 CV Red: 0.684 CV Red: 0.765 CV Red: 0.791 CV Red: 0.775 CV Com: 0.699 CV Com: 0.684 CV Com: 0.765 CV Com: 0.791 CV Com: 0.775

CV Red: 0.699 Novelty Variety Uses of Questions CV Com: 0.699 Ambience Physical Orientation CV Red: 0.314 CV Com: 0.503 Multisensory media

Interpretive Outcome CV Red: 0.777 CV Com: 0.777

CV Red: 0.222 Level of Interest CV Com: 0.512

CV Red: 0.625 Mindfulness CV Com: 0.625

Familiarity CV Red: 0.671 CV Red: 0.716 CV Red: 0.751 CV Red: 0.524 CV Com: 0.671 CV Com: 0.716 CV Com: 0.751 CV Com: 0.524

Visualisation Emotional connectedness Sense of Belonging Connection to Visitor Figure 5.4: Partial Least Square Blindfolding Results Blindfolding (DV) (CV Com=0.503, CV Red=0.314 >0) (n=390)

205

5.6.4 Goodness of Fit (GoF)

Goodness-of-fit (GoF) indices for partial least squares path modelling which take account of both the measurement and structural models performance. According to

Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro (2005, p.173) GoF is “an operational solution to this problem as it may be meant as an index for validating the PLS model globally”.

The principal indication of GoF would be that the model with a higher fit is the better or more valid model (Henseler & Sarstedt, 2012). Based on this, it is concluded that the overall model has excellent explanatory power in comparison with the baseline values (GoFsmall = 0.10, GoFmedium = 0.25, GoFlarge = 0.36). The GoF value further provides adequate support to validate the PLS research model globally

(Wetzels, Odekerken-Schroder, & Oppen, 2009).

In this research, GoF was conducted to evaluate the structural model by which GoF (0

≤ GoF ≤ 1) index is obtained as a geometric mean of the average communality index and average communality index and average R2 value. The communality indexes and calculation of R2 values (Henseler & Sarstedt, 2012), the average communality index and average of R2 value were calculated as 0.683 and 0.538 respectively. Therefore,

GoF = √0.683 푋 0.538 = 0.606

For the current model in this research, the value of GoF is 0.606 exceeding the cut-off value of 0.36 for large effect sizes of R2 is considered as good. According to Wetzels,

Odekerken-Schroder, & Oppen (2009) this number shows a high level of goodness in fit. The GoF (0 ≤ GoF ≤ 1) index is examined to evaluate if the hypothesised structural

206

model fits the data. If it is not fit, the requirement was to re-built the model or probably re-specify the model until one was attained that demonstrate both acceptable statistical fit and indicated a theoretically meaningful representation of the observesd data

(Henseler & Sarstedt, 2012).

5.7 Hypotheses Testing

To establish the proposed hypotheses and the structural model, the path coefficient between two latent variables is evaluated. The magnitude of a path coefficient indicates the power of the association between two latent variables.

Table 5.8 to Table 5.10 shows the findings of the hypotheses examined in this research based on the sample of 390 respondents. The results confirmed the data for twelve direct effects on interpretive outcome, twelve direct effects on mindfulness and also the direct effect of mindfulness towards interpretive outcome. The total hypotheses examined are twenty five.

Results provide evidence for 3 of the 25 hypotheses which is H2a, H4a and H4f at the significance level of p < 0.001; 6 of the 25 hypotheses which is H1a, H3d, H3f, H4c, H4d and H5 is confirmed at the significance level of p < 0.01; while only 1 of the 25 hypotheses which is H2c at the significance level of p < 0.05. This research found that

15 hypotheses (i.e H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e, H1f, H2a, H2b, H2d, H2f, H2e, H3a, H3b, H3c, H3e, H4b and H4e) were not supported.

207

The finding concerning variable under the construct of Communication Factors and mindfulness had shown that only Uses of Questions (H1a) has a positive and significant relationship on mindfulness. Other variable, Variety (H1b), Novelty (H1c), Multimedia

Sensory (H1d), Physical Orientation (H1e) and Ambience (H1f) has no significant relationship with Mindfulness.

Based on the results of the Visitor Factors to mindfulness, both the variable, Level of

Interest (H2a) and Visualisation (H2c) was supported. The path between Familiarity

(H2b), Emotional Connectedness (H2d), Sense of Belonging (H2e) and Connection to

Visitors (H2f) were not supported.

Table 5.12: Results of the hypotheses testing of Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Mindfulness

Research Hypotheses Results

H1a Uses of Questions in the exhibits influence mindfulness Supported

H1b Variety of the exhibits influence mindfulness Not supported

H1c Novelty of the exhibits influence mindfulness Not supported

H1d The use of Multimedia Sensory influence mindfulness Not supported

H1e The availability Physical Orientation influence mindfulness Not supported

H1f Ambience influence mindfulness Not supported

H2a Level of Interest influence mindfulness Supported

H2b Familiarity influence mindfulness Not supported

H2c Visualisation influence mindfulness Supported

H2d Emotional Connectedness influence mindfulness Not supported

H2e Sense of Belonging influence mindfulness Not supported

H2f Connection to Visitor influence mindfulness Not supported

208

The results of the analysis on the Communication Factors construct shows that there are two significant path between the variables under Communication Factors and interpretive outcome. According to the results, the path between Multimedia Sensory

(H3d) and interpretive outcome as well as Ambience(H3f) and interpretive outcome has a positive and significant relationship while the other variable which has no significant relationship with interpretive outcome are Uses of Questions, Variety, Novelty,

Physical Orientation. This suggest that H3d and H3f was supported and H3a, H3b, H1c,

H1e were not.

With respect to the analysis of Visitor Factors to interpretive outcome, there are four significant variable path. The variable Level of Interest (H4a), Visualisation (H4c),

Emotional Connectedness (H4d) and Connection to Visitor (H4f) shown a positive and significant relationship with interpretive outcome, whereas both Familiarity (H4b) and

Sense of Belonging (H4e) were not supported.

Table 5.13: Results of the hypotheses testing of Communication Factors and Visitor Factors to Interpretive Outcome

Research Hypotheses Results The Uses of Questions in the exhibits influence H3a Not supported interpretive outcome

H3b Variety of the exhibits influence interpretive outcome Not supported

H3c Novelty of the exhibits influence interpretive outcome Not supported

The use of Multimedia Sensory influence interpretive H3d Supported outcome

The availability Physical Orientation influence H3e Not supported interpretive outcome

H3f Ambience influence interpretive outcome Supported

209

Table 5.13 Continued

Research Hypotheses Results

H4a Level of Interest influence interpretive outcome Supported

H4b Familiarity influence interpretive outcome Not supported

H4c Visualisation influence interpretive outcome Supported

H4d Emotional Connectedness influence interpretive outcome Supported

H4e Sense of Belonging influence interpretive outcome Not supported

H4f Connection to Visitor influence interpretive outcome Supported

Finally, hypothesis 5 proposed that mindfulness would be significantly and positively associated to interpretive outcome.

Table 5.14: Results of the hypotheses testing of Mindfulness to Interpretive Outcome

Research Hypotheses Results

H5 Mindfulness influence interpretive outcome Supported

In conclusion, the structural model in this research confirms that there are six significant effects on interpretive outcome which are Multimedia Sensory, Ambience,

Level of Interest, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness and Connection to Visitor.

It was also found that, there are only three significant relationships on mindfulness, which include Uses of Questions, High Level of Interest and Visualisation. Thus, hypotheses H1a, H2a, H2c, H3d, H3f, H4a, H4c, H4d, and H4f are supported. From the analysis, it was also found that interpretive outcome is influenced by mindfulness. As a result, hypothesis 5 is supported. On the contrary, Variety, Novelty, Physical

Orientation, Familiarity and Sense of Belonging are not found to be significant

210

antecedents of mindfulness or interpretive outcome. As a result, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e, H1f,

H2a, H2b, H2d, H2f, H2e, H3a, H3b, H3c, H3e, H4b and H4e are not supported.

5.8 Mediating Effect

According to Hair et al., (2014) mediating effect occurs when a third variable or construct intervenes between two other related constructs. Thereby, mediator reveal the “true” relationship between an exogenous and an endogenous construct. In testing the mediating effects this research is parallel with the research by Preacher & Hayes,

(2008) and the bootstrap sampling distribution. Bootstrapping makes no assumptions about the shape of the variables distribution or sampling distribution of the statistics.

The approach is thus suitable for PLS method in this study. Furthermore, the approach exhibits higher level of statistical power compared to the Baron and Kenny method and Sobel test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

In order to test the mediating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between both

Communication and Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome, the bootstrapping method of 500 re-samples was conducted to achieve the standard error in bootstrapping, which equals to the bootstrapping standard deviation of path coefficient between a and b. In this research, the mediating effect is considered significant if the t-value exceeds 1.645, p < 0.05.

There are twelve indirect hypotheses to be observed in measuring the structural model which are mindfulness mediate the relationship between Uses of Questions, Variety,

Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation, Ambience, Level of Interest,

211

Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and

Connection to Visitors and interpretive outcome.

Table 5.15: Partial Least Squares Structural Model Results (Indirect effects)

Path Hypothesis Relationship Coefficient SE t-value Results (휷) Uses Of Questions → H6a Mindfulness → Interpretive 0.026 0.014 1.819* Supported Outcome Variety → Mindfulness → H 0.008 0.009 0.892 Not Supported 6b Interpretive Outcome Novelty → Mindfulness → H 0.006 0.007 0.838 Not Supported 6c Interpretive Outcome Multimedia Sensory→ H6d Mindfulness →Interpretive 0.008 0.006 1.200 Not Supported Outcome Physical Orientation → H6e Mindfulness → Interpretive -0.002 0.006 -0.250 Not Supported Outcome Ambience → Mindfulness → H 0.001 0.008 0.121 Not Supported 6f Interpretive Outcome Level of Interest → H7a Mindfulness → Interpretive 0.052 0.021 2.460** Supported Outcome Familiarity → Mindfulness → H 0.006 0.008 0.808 Not Supported 7b Interpretive Outcome Visualisation → Mindfulness H7c 0.011 0.007 1.618* Supported → Interpretive Outcome Emotional Connectedness → H7d Mindfulness → Interpretive -0.008 0.008 -1.053 Not Supported Outcome Sense of Belonging → H7e Mindfulness → Interpretive -0.004 0.006 -0.660 Not Supported Outcome Connection o Visitor → H7f Mindfulness → Interpretive 0.000 0.007 -0.013 Not Supported Outcome Beta = regression weight, SE = standard error, t-values are computed through bootstrapping procedure with 390 cases and 500 samples Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

The results findings are illustrated in Table 5.15. As shown, the mediating effects is confirmed by the t-value and also the path coefficient (β) value. The results demonstrate that Uses of Questions with path coefficient value of 0.026 (t-value =

1.819, p < 0.05), Level of Interest (t-value = 2.460, p < 0.01 and β = 0.052) and

212

Visualisation (t-value = 1.618, p < 0.05 and β = 0.011) have indirect effect on interpretive outcome via mindfulness. On the other hand, however, Variety, Novelty,

Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation, Ambience, Familiarity, Emotional

Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitors were insignificant. The result concludes that mindfulness mediates the relationship between H6a - the level of mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Uses of Questions in the exhibits and interpretive outcome, H7a - the level of mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Level of Interest and interpretive outcome and H7c - the level of

Mindfulness mediates the relationship between the Visualisation and interpretive outcome.

In summary, results shows that Uses of Questions, Level of Interest and Visualisation are mediated by mindfulness towards interpretive outcome. This is supported with the

R2 value of 0.628, which suggests 62.8% of the variance found attributed to framework. However, Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation,

Ambience, Familiarity, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and

Connection to Visitors were insignificant.

In conclusion, the structural model in this research found that, there are only three significant relationships on interpretive outcome that mediated by mindfulness, which include Uses of Questions, Level of Interest and Visualisation.

213

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Overview

In this final chapter, the results of the analysis are discussed in relation to the research objectives and research questions. The current chapter focuses on the key findings of the research and the influence of mindfulness on the interpretive outcome among visitors at heritage sites.

The findings from the testing of the hypotheses of the research are discussed in relation to the conceptual framework of mindfulness in heritage tourism. The theoretical and managerial contribution of this study are discussed at length. Furthermore, the limitation of the current research are presented. The chapter concludes with the overall contribution of the research to the body of knowledge of mindfulness in heritage tourism.

6.2 Summary of Research Findings

The overall objective of this research is to develop a framework that will explain how mindfulness contribute towards the interpretive outcome among visitors at heritage sites. Previous framework focuses mainly on the Communication Factors in influencing mindfulness and also suggest that the outcome of mindfulness would lead to higher satisfaction, learned and better understand the place that they visited.

However, there is not much explanation on how Visitor Factors contribute to

214

mindfulness and there is not much evidence in supporting the suggested outcome of the framework. Hence, this research aimed to revisit the framework. Firstly, the

Communication and Visitor Factors in the framework were investigated to provide greater understanding on how they influence mindfulness. Next, the measure of mindfulness was explored. Also, mindfulness were tested as a mediator of the relationship between Communication Factors, Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome. The relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome was tested and finally the existing model of mindfulness was revised.

The framework developed in the current research has a high level of global Goodness of Fit (GoF) which is 0.606. Additionally, the R2 of 0.628 indicates that the framework explains 62.8% of variance of interpretive outcome which reflects strong explanatory power of the framework. The results achieved from Q2 tests suggest that the research model is adequate and that the structural model has satisfactory predictive relevance for the outcome construct of both mindfulness and interpretive outcome. As for the path coefficient assessment, nine associations that were suggested have p value greater than 0.05 and thus deemed significant.

Results indicate three significant relationships and direct effects of Uses of Questions

(Communication Factors), Level of Interest and Visualisation (Visitor Factors) on mindfulness.

Additionally, the study shows six significant relationship and direct effects of

Communication Factors namely Multimedia Sensory, Ambience and four Visitor

215

Factors namely Level of Interest, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness and

Connection to Visitor on interpretive outcome.

Furthermore, mindfulness was found to mediate the relationship between (a) the Uses of Questions (Communication Factors) and interpretive outcome (b) the relationship between the Level of Interest (Visitor Factors) and interpretive outcome and (c) the relationship between the Visualisation (Visitor Factors) and interpretive outcome.

6.3 Discussion of Research Findings

In addressing the research questions, each variable in Communication and Visitor

Factors was analysed to investigate their effects towards mindfulness and interpretive outcome. Furthermore, the mediating effect of mindfulness towards the relationship between the Communication Factors, Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome was also studied in this research. The constructs included in the framework were derived from the past literature of mindfulness. The integration of these constructs were also established based on the review of previous literature and tested through factor analysis to further explore the measures. The research findings based on the objectives of the research are discussed in the following section.

6.3.1 The Measure of Mindfulness in the Context of Heritage Tourism

In essence, past research of mindfulness in tourism research has not fully developed the measure of mindfulness. While the approach of measuring mindfulness in various fields and research areas such as education, psychology and management focused on

216

dimensions of mindfulness, the approach in tourism focuses instead on the outcome of mindfulness. As such, the measurement that has been used in tourism research does not specifically measure the mindfulness. Thus, in this research, a specific measure of mindfulness in tourism was developed by considering the measures developed by

Moscardo (1996), Toronto Mindfulness Scale (2006), Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale

(2008), Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (2008) and Mindfulness/Mindlessness

Scale (2001).

In developing the measure, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was firstly conducted to identify the dimensions of mindfulness. The analysis indicates that mindfulness is composed by four dimensions namely, (a) Curiosity and Attention, (b) Alertness, (c)

Emotional Engagement and (d) Openness and Flexibility. Next, Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA) was carried out using the PLS-SEM and some question items were eliminated. The final dimensions that emerge to measure mindfulness are (a) Curiosity and Attention, (b) Alertness and (c) Openness and Flexibility.

The findings of the study towards the measure seem in parallel and supportive with the definition of mindfulness by various scholars (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Brown & Ryan,

2003; Bishop et al., 2004) who proposed awareness, attention, consciousness, being open and non-judgmental towards the surrounding as the essential elements of mindfulness. These qualities are interrelated and similar to the definition given by

Kabat-Zinn (2003, p.145), “mindfulness includes an affectionate, compassionate quality within the attending, a sense of openhearted friendly presence and interest”.

Being alert, open and non-judgmental are among the important features to describe mindfulness because with these qualities, individuals are able to pay attention towards

217

the environment and be engrossed with their encounter which in turn lead them to actively engage with the environment.

6.3.2 Factors that Influence Mindfulness among Tourists at Heritage Sites

A review of the literature indicates various variables that influence mindfulness

(Moscardo, 1996 and 1999; Frauman and Norman, 2004; Van Winkle & Backman,

2009). Earlier studies by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) focus on Communication Factors as the core factor in contributing towards mindfulness whereas Visitor Factors are regarded as a conditional construct. In contrast, this research includes both Visitor

Factors and Communication Factors as the core factors. From the exploratory study in this research, the emerging variables for Communication Factors are Uses of

Questions, Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation and

Ambience. Variables that emerge under the Visitor Factors are Level of Interest,

Familiarity, Visualisation, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and

Connection to Visitor.

Result from the analysis shows that variable under Communication Factors that has significant relationship to mindfulness is only Uses of Questions. Other variables such as Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation and Ambience have no significant relationship with mindfulness. On the other hand, the analysis on the relationship between Visitor Factors to mindfulness indicate that both the variables,

Level of Interest and Visualisation significantly contribute towards mindfulness. Other variables, Familiarity, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitors were not significant.

218

Uses of Questions was found to have significant relationship with mindfulness.

Consistent with the previous framework proposed by Moscardo (1996 and 1999), Uses of Questions is one of the Communication Factors that contributes towards mindfulness. Visitor likes and tends to be more mindful at a place with the exhibits that would be able to arouse their curiosity in asking questions (Moscardo, Woods, &

Saltzer, 2004 and Moscardo, 1999). When visitors ask questions and found the answer, they would tend to be more mindful in interpreting the information. Exhibits that have the ability to encourage visitors to ask questions signify that the visitors are aware and attentive towards their surrounding and thus encourage them to come up with questions about the displays or exhibits to further discover the answers.

Next, the variable Variety does not significantly influence mindfulness. It could be possibly due to the visitors were not being familiar with the place, and that the variety of the display has created a feeling of clutter. To overcome this, the management of heritage sites could use a more thematic approach by grouping the exhibits into bigger themes (Ham, 1992 and Pearce, 2004). This could slowly lead the visitors to get to know the place instead of having too many displays that could result in information overload.

Also, it was found that Novelty does not significantly influence mindfulness. It could be possibly due to that the tourists who visit the heritage sites are with the ‘must-see’ mindset. Thus, having a new or novel display would not lead them to be more mindful.

In line with this, Badaruddin, AGhafar, & Izzamir (2002) asserted that some tourists visit a place merely for the sake of having a leisure time without having interest to

219

understand or get to know the story or the meaning behind the displays. Hence, having displays that are novel would not influence mindfulness.

Unlike the previous framework proposed by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) who affirmed that Multimedia Sensory is an influential variable, this research verifies that

Multimedia Sensory does not significantly influence mindfulness. This could be due to that the context of the current research is at heritage sites. The use of Multimedia

Sensory at the heritage sites was not capable to convey the complexity and intangibility of heritage to the visitors.

Physical Orientation does not significantly influence mindfulness. According to

Moscardo (2008), good physical orientation able to facilitate visitors to be more mindful because visitors could pay attention towards their visitation with good physical orientation systems. However, at the heritage sites, this variable is not significant, probably due to the size of the place. Unlike museums or parks that comprise many sections and areas, heritage sites are usually smaller in size. Thus, it implicitly enables visitors to access their way conveniently without much assistance of signage or maps.

Meanwhile, ambience also does not significantly influence mindfulness. In parallel with the findings, a handful of commentators such as Pearce (2004), Timothy & Boyd

(2006) and Bonn et al., (2007) emphasised that ambience does not capture the attention of visitors although it is capable in creating satisfaction and enhancing experience.

220

For Visitor Factors, Level of Interest was found to significantly influence mindfulness.

This finding is consistent with the previous framework proposed by Moscardo (1996 and 1999). Despite the setting of the environment, visitors with high level of interest on certain topics will likely be mindful (Moscardo, 2008). This implies that, as long as the visitors are interested, they would be mindful at the place that they visit.

Visualisation was also found to significantly influence mindfulness. Visualisation is a new emerging variable in the current study. With the current technology of mass media, holiday attractions can be viewed and enjoyed through the video or documentary within the personal space of an individual without the necessity for travelling to the destination (Uriely, 2005). This would enable the visitor to

‘experience’ the destination before their actual physical experience of the destination.

Hence, they are able to visualise their upcoming encounter by paying attention to further understand the place more accurately.

Next, the variable Familiarity does not significantly influence mindfulness. Being too familiar to the place or display would further lead to mindlessness of an individual.

This is highlighted by Moscardo (2008) who believes that strong, detailed representations of the place which include the activities and also the specific expectation at the place could lead to mindlessness. This is because, there are no more further expectation on new experience at the destination and hence they tend to be mindless due to the usual routine. It is suggested that the management of the heritage sites provides new display or integrate new activities to provide novel experiences for the visitors.

221

Emotional Connectedness, as an emergent variable, was found not to significantly influence mindfulness. This could be probably due to the complexity in creating connectedness between the display and visitors. As explained by Smith (2014), emotional dimensions are complex. Hence, creating emotional connectedness at heritage sites is indeed a daunting task.

Sense of Belonging does not significantly influence mindfulness. This could be due to the expectation of visitors. Generally, visitors would expect and be prepared to experience something beyond their personal culture and by having this circumstance,

Sense of Belonging at the heritage sites will not influence mindfulness. Heritage sites are usually used to create the representation of the nation and the building of national collective identities (Labadi, 2007) since heritage tourism is touted as an experience that consists of learning and experiencing people with different background (Werry,

2008).

Connection to Visitors does not significantly influence mindfulness. Although a study by Lee & Sparks (2007) stated that the emerging ethnic identities is an important factor that has impact on several elements such as attitudes, behaviours of specific cultural groupings and customer segments within the countries, the findings of this research shows that this variable is not significant in contributing towards mindfulness. This could be possibly due to the availability of media or applications nowadays which enables the visitors to view a place or holiday destinations that subsequently allows the visitors to understand the place before experiencing it in reality. Thus, visitors does not need to be connected to the place to understand it.

222

Overall, this current study found that Uses of Questions, Level of Interest and

Visualisation are capable to influence mindfulness. It is interesting to note that

Visualisation as a new emerging variable compared to the previous framework proposed by Moscardo (1996 and 1999). There are differences between the previous variables that are able to influence mindfulness as compared to the current study. This could likely be due to the nature setting of the research and also the background of the visitors. Different setting would derive dissimilar values as well as its reflections towards the visitors and further influences their level of mindfulness.

6.3.3 The Relationship between Communication and Visitor Factors towards

Interpretive Outcome

Past literature illustrates mindfulness as a framework that contributes in creating better interpretation among visitors at holiday destinations. The results indicate that

Connection to Visitor, Level of Interest, Multimedia Sensory, Ambience, Emotional

Connectedness and Visualisation were influential predictors of interpretive outcome.

The findings from this research indicate a different theoretical framework of visitor experience than the one proposed by Moscardo (1996) that interpretation can directly be influenced by both Communication and Visitor Factors without being mediated by mindfulness.

The result also shows that Multimedia Sensory has significantly influenced the interpretive outcome. According to Stogner (2009), multimedia presentations from language stories or drama/movie scripts and animation aid in interpreting the information for the individuals to comprehend the situation. This result is consistent

223

with the Pearce's study (2004) which implies that additional sensory experience would offer tourists a variety of choices in handling and feeling the objects. To further strengthen the interpretive experience, new technologies can be incorporated with sound, smell and climatic effects. A wide range of media that are interactive would avoid the heavy dependency on text and further help the visitors in producing the interpretive outcome.

The results are similar to other previous studies (e.g. Bonn, Joseph-Mathews, Dai,

Hayes, & Cave, 2007; Pearce, 2004) that found Ambience to significantly influence the interpretive outcome. As advocated by Pearce (2004), the use of various colours and lighting effects to create different moods in different areas would help in creating interpretive display and facilitate in interpretive outcome at heritage sites. This is because an atmosphere of a place are able to influence the overall feeling of an individual while visiting the place. Thus, creating and having the right atmosphere is fit to affect the interpretation of the visitors.

Level of Interest was found to significantly influence the interpretive outcome.

According to Moscardo and Ballantyne (2008), visitors with high levels of interest, in a particular topic, may still be interested despite poor design of the setting. Visitor’s interpretation is based on the interest of visitors (Faulkner, Moscardo, & Laws, 2001;

Poria et al., 2009). This is because, the interpretation of heritage sites varies from one to another. Hence, visitors who have high interest would most likely be able to interpret and appreciate the information differently at the heritage sites.

224

Visualisation has a significant influence on interpretive outcome. In the present research, Visualisation is a new emerging factor. The variable is important presumably because the visitors would be eager to experience the place after they have visualised the site. With the emergence of new media, visitors nowadays are able to build their experience without necessarily travel to the destination (Uriely, 2005). It implies that, in the current era of mass media, visitors can view the attractions through the video or documentary within the comforts of one’s home. With this, visitors would be able to visualise the place vividly. This is because technology penetration are capable to extend far beyond the physical location. Thus, the individuals may have a prior sensory experience of the setting before arriving at the destination and consequently assist them in their on-site experience.

Then, Emotional Connectedness also was found to significantly influence the interpretive outcome. The capacity for everyone to travel around the world have made this factor as one of the significant factors to be addressed in the area of tourism. For example, visitors from the Western cultural background are unable to relate themselves with the Asian culture. Hence, the ability to create emotional connectedness between the setting and among the visitors is of paramount imporatnce, specifically in influencing the interpretive outcome. To further enhance this variable, Pearce (2004) posits that there are a number of ways in which interpreters can make connections to visitors. It is possible to use examples which are connected to the daily life of the visitors.

Connection to Visitor was found to be significant in affecting the interpretive outcome.

This is because, according to Pearce (2004) and Moscardo (1999), personal experience

225

often shapes and directs the visitor attention. This enables visitors to make connections between the given information and their prior knowledge and experience. It is achieved by using clear and simple explanations to bridge the gap between new information and visitor’s current knowledge. The capacity to connect themselves with the information would enable them to easily interpret the information.

6.3.4 The Relationship between Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome

Past research findings were incapable to conclusively show how mindfulness had contributed towards interpretation. Thus, this research examine the interpretive outcome of mindfulness.

0.122 Interpretive Mindfulness Outcome

Figure 6.1: Relationship between Mindfulness and Interpretive Outcome

The findings indicate a significant relationship between mindfulness and interpretive outcome with path coefficient of β = 0.122 at p < 0.01 significant level and t-value =

2.606. The findings specify that mindfulness is able to facilitate the effective interpretation as it evokes the interpretive outcome among the visitors.

A mindful individual is more attentive towards his/her surroundings, resulting better interpretation compared to those who are mindless. The results of this research provide strong empirical evidence towards the proposed link between mindfulness and interpretation in the past (Moscardo & Pearce, 1986; Moscardo, 1996 and 1999; 226

Moscardo, Woods, & Saltzer, 2004) which were measured as interpretative outcome in this research.

The findings suggest mindfulness as an essential tool in affecting interpretive experience (Van Winkle & Backman, 2009) and management of the experience among visitors (Frauman & Norman, 2004) at the setting. This study reinforced the arguments of mindfulness in supporting interpretive outcome.

6.3.5 Mindfulness as Mediator of the Relationship between Communication

Factors, Visitor Factors and Interpretive Outcome

The current research examines mindfulness as a mediator of the relationship between

Communication Factors, Visitor Factors and Interpretive Outcome. The results of the mediating analysis show that mindfulness mediates the relationship between Uses of

Questions (Communication Factors), Level of Interest and Visualisation (Visitor

Factors).

The results also demonstrate that mindfulness is significant mediator to the relationship between Uses of Question and interpretive outcome. According to

Moscardo, Woods, & Saltzer (2004) and Moscardo (1999), exhibits that arouse visitors to ask questions would lead them to more mindful. This verdict shows that the visitors are aware and attentive towards their surroundings, subsequently spurring them to come up with questions about the displays or exhibits. They would ask questions on the items or things that draw their attention, leading them to be mindful in interpreting the information once they found the answer of the questions that have beleaguered

227

their mind. Interestingly, this finding resonates with Frauman and Norman (2004) as they indicate that mindfulness is related to searching for answers of related questions.

This scenario is somewhat associated with the ability of the tourists to relate the encounters with the past circumstances to the present times. They may not be able to understand and interpret the exhibits or information due to different cultural background and newness factor of the heritage site. Sometimes, because of numerous questions are embedded in their minds, they tend to forget in clarifying further although they may be aware and pay attention during the tour. According to Larsen,

Mayo, Wolter, Bliss, & Barrie (2009), the knowledge of the tourists could be increased by providing them with huge opportunities of participation in order to relate with the exact meaning and significance of the site. Visitors are encouraged to ask questions for them to express their thoughts and feelings about the heritage site to ensure full understanding of the visit. Understanding as much as possible about visitor’s characteristics, interest, expectations and points of view (including psychological, social, cultural, economic, political, religious, historical and philosophical influences and perspectives) is an added value to help developing interpretation that is relevant to various types of audiences.

From the findings, it show that mindfulness is significant mediator to relationship between Level of Interest and interpretive outcome. According to Moscardo (1996 and

1999) and Woods and Moscardo (2003), the current findings further consolidate this variable as an antecedent to mindfulness and that mindfulness mediates its relationship with interpretive outcome. Moscardo (1996; 1999) also believes that visitors would be more mindful if they have a high level of interest in the content area as long as they are not fatigued. This is plausible because when the visitors are interested, they tend

228

to be keener in seeking more information or in touring the area that further made them to be more mindful. Concurrently, the interest of needs should be instilled upon visitors. For example, visitors must be encouraged to write a short note on what they will do once they finish the tour to support the conservation of the heritage site. These notes can then be attached to the notice board so that other visitors could read and learn from their suggestions while contributing to the contents of the displays in the future.

This step provides the visitors with an opportunity to make a direct personal contribution to the interpretation on what they would want to do and see in the future as invoked by the interpretive outcome and also to link their everyday lives and the conservation to the heritage site. Furthermore, they would also be more interested to learn or know what other visitors would have suggested in conserving the place and this will somewhat induce them to be more mindful and further contribute to interpretive outcome.

The results also demonstrate that mindfulness is significant mediator to the relationship between between Visualisation and interpretive outcome. As verified by

Uriely (2005), many tourists have recounted experience as accessible without the necessity for travelling to the destination. This implies that tourists would be able to visualise the place without being there in the first place. This is because, with the current mass media, attractions can be enjoyed through the video or documentary within the comforts of one’s home. It enables the visitors to visualise the place that they are going to visit even before they reach the destination. Visualisation furnishes them with a valuable idea on what they would encounter and are going to experience, which would facilitate them to be more aware when they come across the display.

Visualisation also helps in building interest towards things that are novel. This would

229

encourage them to visit the place in order to further understand the place. However,

Moscardo (2008) argued that an existing representation may not provide detailed expectations or behavioural routines to encourage mindfulness. This is because, detailed representations of the place which include the activities and also the specific expectation at the place could lead to mindlessness as it is only likely if the actual experience meets or matches the expectations. Where there is a mismatch, a mindful response is more likely to occur for the tourists. In line with that, Myers (2002) stated that self-perception often guides the construction of interpretation and memories.

Thus, tourists would find it different from what they expect to encounter and tend to look for what they want which leads them to be more mindful. Perception is what an individual retrieves from the interpretation and analysis through certain event that they encounter (Feldman, 2010) and once an individual has a perception, it influences how an individual perceives all the other relevant information (Myers, 2002). At the heritage site, according to Kruse (2005), visitors experience a combination of existent and surreal elements that augur well with the momentous visit. Heritage sites are highly symbolic destinations for tourists to connect to their personal and collective memories that comprise their previous encounter in various forms. Hence, the visualisation of an individual is touted as vital in influencing the interpretive outcome.

Analysis also shows that mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between Variety, Novelty, Multimedia Sensory, Physical Orientation, Ambience

(Communication Factors), Familiarity, Emotional Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitors (Visitor Factors).

230

From the results also, mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between variety and interpretive outcome. It could be argued that a visitor who is not familiar with the heritage would be overwhelmed by the variety of the displays. To overcome this, the management of the heritage site can provide a variety in many other aspects such as the media used, the staff in charge, the pace of the tour and the senses used by the visitors. Moreover, instead of simple description of the display, the information can be presented through a slew of communication techniques such as analogies, comparisons, examples, metaphors, anecdotes and graphic illustrations

(Ham, 1992) along with the use of a single theme as the linking concept of a large idea which connecting a set of facts or topics (Pearce, 2004) in order to offer new ideas to the visitors of what they are going to encounter.

Next, mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between variable

Novelty and interpretive outcome. This finding is in line with Badaruddin, AGhafar,

& Izzamir (2002) who stated that most of the tourists in Penang, Malaysia only come to the heritage sites for leisure purposes without yearning to know much on the physical and social reality behind those ‘interesting’ facades. They are indeed attracted to the ambience of the place rather than by the actual history of the place. Thus, having a new or novel display would not draw their attention or lead them towards mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

Mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between Multimedia

Sensory and interpretive outcome. Perhaps, the Multimedia Sensory could not capture the true essence of heritage which is inextricably subjective in nature.

However, it is suggested that the engagement of the sensory can be achieved through

231

physical means such as through holding and manipulating heritage objects. By integrating exhibits with umpteen multimedia aspects, it may cause excessive surplus to sensory, especially among the visitors. This may be one of the possible explanations on why this variable is not mediated. According to Ocasio (2011), human brain can only respond to a small amount of stimuli that were received from the senses while the rest of the information processes are based on selective attention. Thus, having plenty integrated multimedia aspects may only lead the visitors to interpret the information with selective attention. It is suggested for the visitors to be firstly exposed to the information on the heritage background before their visit on the heritage site in order to avoid information and sensory overload. For example, visitors must be given a series of short talks by different crew members based on numerous aspects of the heritage that they are going to see or visit later. It is then followed by other physical means such as touching, holding and using the relevant heritage objects.

From the findings, mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between Physical Orientation and interpretive outcome. This could possibly due to the heritage site that is conspicuously not big in size compared to museums or parks. The heritage site mainly comprises a mansion or a kongsi (clan ancestor’s home) and has a smaller size to be compared with a museum or park. Hence, this enables the visitors to locate their way easily without the map or signage. In order to avoid excessive information for the visitors to digest, it is suggested that only essential signage or a map is provided at the entrance. This would also reduce their stress and enable them to focus on information which are more important to be enjoyed.

232

Next, it is also found that, mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between Ambience and interpretive outcome. Ambience was not found to influence the attention of the visitors and thus does not affect the interpretive outcome of the visitors. A number of research works (e.g. Pearce, 2004; Timothy & Boyd, 2006; Bonn et al., 2007) highlighted that ambience is capable to create satisfaction and better experience but lack in capturing the attention of the visitors. Consequently, creating the right ambience would not help in inducing mindfulness but it would complement in creating a pleasant experience for the visitors. The management of the heritage site should be aware that having the right ambience would not induce mindfulness that will help in effective interpretation, but it would provide a comfortable and pleasant experience to the visitors, most probably would later contribute to mindfulness.

On top of that, mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between

Familiarity and interpretive outcome. Being too familiar with the displays or exhibits is one possible explanation for the non-significant relationship that will create a repetitive experience which occurs most likely at a heritage site. This is because, when it relates to heritage things, it could not be changed and it would remain the same unlike museum which they can change the display from time to time. Thus, this would create repetition and dull experience to the visitors who have visited the place more than once or undergo the same heritage experience at different places. In the context of this research, the location chosen for the data collection is very much akin, particularly in terms of specific families or clans which ultimately create many similarities and repetitive experience to the visitors.

233

Mindfulness is not a significant mediator to the relationship between Emotional

Connectedness, Sense of Belonging and Connection to Visitors with the interpretive outcome. These variables seem to be interrelated to each other, profoundly interwoven with the emotional of an individual. This is because visitor interactions with heritage is crucial as Smith (2014) further reveals that some of this emotional dimensions are complex. Visitors at the heritage site come from different countries and cultural background. Therefore, the heritage site that the visitors had encountered might be peculiar to them and very much different from their culture. In fact, there is no emotional connection with other heritage sites that they have visited since it has become a stranger to them. Hence, they are unable to connect themselves with the heritages that they have visited. On the other hand, visitors who are belonged to the same culture or have exposure towards the heritage site might feel that they are encountering the same experience that probably lead them to be mindless. This is because, paradoxically, the three mansions deal very much with specific families or clans, creating repetitive experience and boredom to the visitors. As a solution, Smith

(2014) recommends that it is crucial to understand the paths in which the visitor use and engage with the heritage sites which would allow full understanding on how they have understood of what they had encountered.

6.3.6 Model of Mindfulness in the Context of Heritage Tourism

The model of mindfulness is finally revised based on the findings in this research. This new model is proposed especially for heritage tourism by espousing mindfulness as a mediator between Communication Factors, Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome.

234

Communication Factors

Uses of Questions

Interpretive Mindfulness Outcome

Visitor Factors

Level of Interest

Visualisation

Figure 6.2: Revised Framework

In general, the revised framework provides some supports for the mindfulness framework presented by Moscardo (1996, 1999). The revised framework (refer Figure

6.2) has shown that mindfulness is influenced by two core factors encompassing

Communication and Visitor Factors. Furthermore, mindfulness also acts as an influential mediator to support interpretive outcome in a heritage interpretation setting.

Basically, the outcomes of the current study provide mixed results as compared to the mindfulness framework that was proposed earlier by Moscardo (1996 and 1999). The difference could possibly be due to context dissimilarity as past studies were carried out in different setting such as wildlife park (Woods & Moscardo, 2003), cultural event

(Van Winkle & Backman, 2009) and coastal state parks (Frauman & Norman, 2004).

The aforementioned findings are essential to provide a more parsimonious approach with a relatively simple explanation by incorporating mindfulness and interpretive

235

outcome at heritage site. The findings also indicate that the mindfulness framework suggested by Moscardo (1996 and 1999) is not a comprehensive framework to be applied in every condition. For instance, the variables under the Communication and

Visitor Factors vary from one situation to another. More importantly, for heritage sites, mindfulness and its resultant interpretive outcome are highly influenced by responding to the curious mind of visitors. This would enable them to engage intellectually with the heritage by encouraging them to think through the Uses of Questions.

The dependent variable of this research, interpretive outcome, is the expansion of the framework that was previously postulated by Moscardo (1996 and 1999). This current study extends the mindfulness framework by examining mindfulness as an influential mediator in supporting interpretive outcome.

The final framework illustrates that Communication Factors and Visitor Factors are the two main factors that contribute towards mindfulness. Overall, mindfulness was found to mediate the relationship between Uses of Questions, Level of Interest,

Visualisation and interpretive outcome. Other variables that are not mediated are probably because the current research is carried out at the different setting, distinguished from the previous research. Heritage at different nations fare dissimilarly with unlike differences towards same variable. This could possibly due to the differences in terms of value, reflections and interpretation of the place.

236

6.4 Contributions and Theoretical Implications

In general, this thesis has made contribution to the mindfulness framework study as presented by Moscardo (1996, 1999) by further explaining and examining each of the variable in Setting and Visitor Factors with regard to supporting mindfulness in contributing towards interpretive outcome.

This research has attempted to provide a framework for understanding the relationship between Communication Factors, Visitor Factors, mindfulness and interpretive outcome. The research has identified variables and also reinforce the earlier variables that are proposed by the existing framework by investigating their influence on mindfulness. The results emphasises the necessity to investigate the variables in both the Setting and Visitor Factors in order to enhance interpretive outcome within the heritage context, which has not been done in previous research. This framework also can be regarded as an influential theoretical implication for research in the related fields because it suggests the variable that influence the level of mindfulness especially in heritage context.

A key contribution of this research is in identifying the measurement component for mindfulness. In exploring the measurement of mindfulness, there are two components that are being scrutinised. Firstly, mindfulness in the current research is measured as a single construct that are anteceded by two dimensions (external and internal factors) as compared to the previous research (Moscardo, 1996 and 1999 and Van Winkle &

Backman, 2009) which view mindfulness as a construct anteceded by single dimension

(external factor). At the initial stage, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were done in

237

identifying the contributing component and it is found that mindfulness is composed of four dimensions namely Curiosity and Attention, Alertness, Emotional Engagement and Openness and Flexibility. After that, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out using the PLS-SEM and questions were eliminated. The findings indicate that mindfulness is comprised of three dimensions: (a) Curiosity and Attention, (b)

Alertness and (c) Openness and Flexibility. Thus, the research contributes towards the development of mindfulness measure in heritage tourism. The findings provide empirical evidence to the measurement of mindfulness and will aid in future research in mindfulness.

Another key contribution is in identifying the measurement component for interpretive outcome. It is found that the interpretive outcome is composed of four distinct dimensions, namely affective, cognitive, behavioural and value. Value is a new variable that emerged in the current research. Past research on effective interpretation by Ham & Weiler (2006) and Weiler & Ham (2010) has indicate that effective interpretation is evoked by cognitive, affective and behavioural outcome. Value was no identified in previous research but has emerged in the factorial analysis. Thus, the construct of interpretive outcome in this research is measured by affective, cognitive, behavioural and value. Having identified these specified measurement components, the study of these findings will be of value in providing empirical evidence, assisting future research in related areas, to re-test these component and identify new ones.

Additionally, the research also contributes by unveiling the contextual nature of mindfulness. The study of mindfulness and interpretive outcome are substantially different from one context to another and is subject to cultures governed by

238

geographical locations. Prior scholars proposed (Frauman & Norman, 2004 and Van

Winkle & Backman, 2009) that all of the variables in the Communication and Visitor

Factors have positive relationship with mindfulness, however this as opposed provide empirical evidence that there are some variables that do not lead to mindfulness.

Also, mindfulness is not examined and highlighted in prior research as a mediator between Communication and Visitor Factors and interpretive outcome. Current research clarifies that relationship by providing evidence that mindfulness plays a mediating role in heritage interpretation for three variables namely Uses of Questions,

Visualisation and Level of Interest. Thus, the research contributes in extending the mindfulness framework proposed earlier by demonstrating the mediating effect of mindfulness.

Furthermore, Visitor Factors is taken into account as an important construct in contributing towards mindfulness. Visitor Factors is considered as a conditional construct in prior research. Current research clarified and identified that Visitor Factors as an important construct in contributing towards mindfulness. Hence, the research provide evidence in considering Visitor Factors in the mindfulness framework making the framework more comprehensive.

6.5 Managerial Implication

From a managerial standpoint this research contributes towards managing

Communication Factors. This research focuses on the significant of the

Communication Factors which includes Uses of Questions, Variety, Multimedia

239

Sensory and Ambience in facilitating mindfulness with regard to supporting desirable interpretive outcome within heritage site in Malaysia.

The current research that is carried out at the heritage sites would also contribute in understanding the uses of the variables (i.e: Communication Factors) in many different ways by visitors. Understanding the ways in which people use and engage with sites of heritage allows a greater understanding not only of the ways in which history and the past are understood, but more importantly how the past is actively used in the present by individuals. This would further contribute in understanding the visitors at the heritage site.

The results of the current research verify that Uses of Questions, Visualisation and

Level of Interest are related to mindfulness. Thus, the management of the heritage should take into account these variables to create the destination of the visitation in a manner that attract the visitors to the area to further induce mindfulness to enhance their interpretive outcome and the type of experiences provided in terms of minimal impacts on the place. The management of the heritage sites, can focus in using the three significant variables to induce mindfulness in supporting interpretive outcome.

6.6 Thesis Limitation

While this research plays an essential part in the mindfulness literature, it has a number of restrictions. More importantly, these limitations have to be addressed and taken into consideration before any generalisation can be made.

240

The first limitation is that the study is conducted at the context of multi-cultural heritage in Penang, Malaysia. Therefore, the data obtained are not as diversified because there are other context of heritage site such as natural heritage (Gunung Mulu

National Park and Kinabalu Park) and archaeological heritage (Lenggong Valley and

Bujang Valley) that are also being accredited by UNESCO.

Secondly, the current study is carried out only at the heritage site. The context may provide different results if the same method and instrument are being applied in other tourism setting. Data and results from other setting are able to provide better understanding and evidence in strengthening the mindfulness framework in tourism context. Besides, it will also provide evidence in generalising findings in tourism context.

6.7 Directions for Further Research

This research has developed the Mindfulness Framework, which suggests an understanding on both the Setting and Visitor Factors that influence mindfulness with regard to supporting interpretive outcome. However, the model was tested within the heritage site context. Thus, some directions for future research are proposed.

More research needs to be conducted addressing the validity and reliability of both of the component of mindfulness and interpretive outcome measures utilised in this study.

The measurement should be applied in other research context to test and verify either support or refute their ability to measure both mindfulness and interpretive outcome.

241

Tourism destinations could possibly utilised these measures, given context modifications, as a tool to assess mindfulness and also interpretive outcome.

The study focuses on the tourists who visited the multi-cultural heritage in Penang as respondents. Thus, future research should include other multi-cultural heritage in

Malaysia such as Melaka, natural heritage at Gunung Mulu National Park and

Kinabalu Park and archaeological heritage at Lenggong Valley and Bujang Valley that are also being accredited by UNESCO when examining the variable in

Communciation and Visitor Factors so as to strengthen the generalisation.

It was predicted that there are more variables in Communication Factors and Visitor

Factors that would induce mindfulness among the visitors. However, the results in the current research showed a mixed findings compared to past literature. As a result, future research may further explore the variables that are being studied in different sector of tourism in order to further strengthen the model.

6.8 Conclusion

This research identifies and examines both the Setting and Visitor Factors that influence mindfulness with regard to supporting interpretive outcome within the heritage site in Penang, Malaysia. To achieve the objective, the use of the self- administrated questionnaires were utilised to gather field information from both local and international tourists who have visited the heritage sites specifically Khoo Kongsi,

Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion and Pinang Peranakan Mansion.

242

The mindfulness framework was tested and was found significant with 44.9% of variance, explained by Communciation and Visitor Factors. Furthermore, 62.8% of variance in interpretive outcome is explained by the model. Also, ten from the twenty five paths in the proposed framework seem to be significant, thus, supporting ten hypothesised relationships in this current research. However, overall, based on the number of variables in both Communciation and Visitor Factors, only three out of twelve variables are mediated by mindfulness. The number seems to be low but the three variables are important in explaining interpretive outcome as indicated by the R2 value of 0.628 (62.8%). The low number of variables being mediated could possibly because the variable are tested in the different setting from the previous research and therefore yielded different set of results. Additionally, the previous research only focused on Communication Factors and Visitor Factors as a conditional factor, but in this current research, it serves as a factor that would be able to induce mindfulness.

This basis, to a certain extent also influence the results of the research.

Although there could be more variables other than those incorporated in the mindfulness framework, this research has included instrumental variables, found from various studies that are further delineated in order to develop theoretical justification.

In particular, this research has successfully filled the gap that exists in the

Communication and Visitor Factors literature by including Visitor Factors as a main factor, not as a conditional factor as in previous studies. Apart from that, new variables have also emerged under the Communication Factors (i.e ambience) and Visitor

Factors (i.e visualisation, emotional connectedness, sense of belonging and connection to visitor), based on the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

243

Essentially, this research has enriched and strengthened the measurement component of mindfulness and interpretive outcome within the context of heritage site.

Mindfulness construct is measured by (a) Curiosity and Attention, (b) Alertness and

(c) Openness and Flexibility. Also, the current research has addressed mindfulness construct from both internal and external aspects while past studies (e.g. Moscardo,

1996 and 1999; Van Winkle & Backman, 2009) only investigate mindfulness based on the external factor. Additionally, interpretive outcome construct is measured by four variables, namely affective, cognitive, behavioural and value components. In addition, it has also examined the influence of mindfulness in relation to interpretive outcome. The current research examines mindfulness as an influential mediator to support the relationship between both Communication and Visitor Factors with interpretive outcome in heritage site as a comprehensive framework.

Interestingly, in this research, mindfulness mediates the relationship between Uses of

Questions (i.e: Communication Factors), Visualisation and Level of Interest (i.e:

Visitor Factors) and interpretive outcome. The result demonstrate that in the context of heritage tourism, these are the most significant variables that contribute towards mindfulness in supporting desirable interpretive outcome. In the context of heritage tourism, according to Kerstetter et al. (2001) and (Kerstetter, Confer, & Bricker, 1998), tourists who are interested in cultural heritage love to experience educational-oriented experience and are willing to spend their money and time at the destinations.

Demographically, they are wealthy, educated and are mostly female (Kim & Jamal,

2007). It is therefore, these variables are more likely to lead them to mindfulness as by having exhibits at the heritage sites, mindfulness will able to arouse their curiousity to

244

ask questions (i.e: Uses of questions) and having their mind to engage (i.e: Level of

Interest) onto the heritage which requires imagination of the past for the present scenario (i.e: Visualisation). Basically, in heritage tourism, visitors are highly influenced by responding to the curious mind and making them to engage interlectually with their encounter.

Below is a few examples of the exhibits at Khoo Kongsi,

Figure 6.3: The Genealogy of the Khoo Clan

Figure 6.4: The Guardian Lions

245

Such exhibits that are displayed at the heritage sites would encourage them to ask more questions on what does the exhibits means or why is that exhibits are regarded significant. This would further engage them to the place that they have visited. For example, the display of the genealogy of the Khoo Clan might looks simple with

Chinese wordings whereby visitors that are not exposed to Chinese culture might not know that most Chinese clans have a system of naming their descendants that follows a generational lineage, in order for them to know their origin and continue to practise what their ancestors did. From the middle or the end portion of the name, it is possible to narrate the individuals' family and generational ancestry. Visitors who are curious would ask and seek for more information on the display to understand why do they need to distinguish the generation of the descendants. The other display which is the guardian lion signifies power and is believed to offer protection to the family or the residences. Generally, the understanding towards the display would act as a protection towards the residence. If it is observed closely, the statues are actually a lion and a lioness which can be distinguished by looking at what they own. The lion would have coins with it which indicates male as a breadwinner of the family while the lioness would have a cub with it which connotes female as the one who take care of the children and family. These types of display would encourage the tourists to probe more questions leading to greater learning and appreciation of the sites.

From a practical point of view, the examination of this framework on mindfulness in supporting interpretive outcome in this current research has provided both researchers and practitioners with useful understanding of established works in the heritage site.

The outcome of the research can help heritage site management and also other scholars

246

to understand on: (1) how to promote mindfulness among tourists at the heritage site,

(2) how to measure tourist’s mindfulness at heritage site, and (3) how to induce interpretive outcome among tourists. Having a clear understanding of what and how the Setting and Visitor Factors has influenced mindfulness is relatively imperative. It will provide support to the overall visitor management strategy, by providing adequate interpretive facilities, which in turn at Penang heritage site would educate tourists and increase their awareness of the site. This will ultimately contribute to the development a more responsible tourists at Penang heritage site.

247

REFERENCES

Ainuddin, R. A., Beamish, P. W., Hulland, J. S., & Rouse, M. J. (2007). Resource Attributes and Firm Performance in International Joint Ventures. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 47–60.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.

Al-hagla, K. S. (2010). Sustainable Urban Development in Historical Areas Using the Tourist Trail Approach: A Case Study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (chud) Project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities, 27(4), 234–248.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the Built Environment: Application of “mixed” Research Approach. Work Study, 51(1), 17–31.

Anderson, N. D., Lau, M. A., Segal, Z. V., & Bishop, S. R. (2007). Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction And Attentional Control. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14, 449–463.

Babbie, E. R. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (13th edition). Belmont, Calif: Cengage Learning.

Badaruddin Mohamed, AGhafar Ahmad, & Izzamir Ismail. (2002). Heritage Route Along Ethnic Lines: The Case of Penang. Historic Environment, 16(2), 18.

Badawi, K., Wallace, R. K., Orme-Johnson, D., & Rouzere, A. M. (1984). Electrophysiologic Characteristics of Respiratory Suspension Periods Occurring During the Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program. Psychosomatic Medicine, 46(3), 267–276.

Badri, M. (2001). Fiqih Tafakur: Dari Perenungan Menuju Kesadaran: Sebuah Pendekatan Psikologi Islam. Surakarta: Era Intermedia.

248

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of Mindfulness by Self- Report : The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342.

Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1980). A Perspective on Field Trips: Environmental Effects on Learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 23(4), 229–240.

Baloglu, S. (2001). Image Variations of Turkey by Familiarity Index: Informational and Experiential Dimensions. Tourism Management, 22(2), 127–133.

Barker, L. L., & Gaut, D. A. (1996). Communication. United States of America: Allyn and Bacon.

Bartlett, M. . (1954). A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various Chi Square Approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296– 298.

Beck, L., & Cable, T. T. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture. Sagamore Publishing.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.

Bitgood, S. (1989). Deadly Sins Revisited: A Review Of The Exhibit Label Literature. Visitor Behaviour, 4(3), 4–11.

Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing Social Research (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Polity Press.

249

Black, D.S. (2011). A Brief Definition of Mindfulness. Mindfulness Research Guide. Retrieved from: http://www.mindfulexperience.org

Bodger, D. (1998). Leisure, Learning and Travel. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 64(4), 28–31.

Bodner, T. E., & Langer, E. J. (2001, June). Individual Differences in Mindfulness: The Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale. Poster presented at the 13th annual American Psychological Society Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Bonn, M. A., Joseph-Mathews, S. M., Dai, M., Hayes, S., & Cave, J. (2007). Heritage/Cultural Attraction Atmospherics: Creating the Right Environment for the Heritage/Cultural Visitor. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 345 –354.

Bowitz, E., & Ibenholt, K. (2009). Economic Impacts of Cultural Heritage – Research and Perspectives. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(1), 1–8.

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant Leadership. Boston: Harvard Businees School Press.

Boyd, S. (2002). Cultural And Heritage Tourism In Canada: Opportunities, Principles And Challenges. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(3), 211–233.

Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (1998). Captive Animals and Interpretation - a Tale of Two Tiger Exhibits. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(1), 14–27.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003a). The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84(No 4), 822–848.

Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring Mindfulness in Insight Meditation (vipassana) and Meditation-Based Psychotherapy: The Development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11–34.

250

Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., & Moitra, E. (2008). The Assessment of Present-Moment Awareness and Acceptance The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–23.

Carrell, S. (2008, September 8). UN Threatens to Act Against Britain for Failure to Protect Heritage Sites. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/08/heritage.conservation

Carson, S. H., & Langer, E. (2006). Mindfulness and Self-Acceptance. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 24(1), 29–43.

Caton, K., & Santos, C. A. (2007). Heritage Tourism on Route 66: Deconstructing Nostalgia. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 371–386.

Cavana, R., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. S. (2001). Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Milton: Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Symes, J., Peters, E., Kuipers, E., & Dagnan, D. (2008). Responding Mindfully to Unpleasant Thoughts and Images: Reliability and Validity of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (smq). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 451–455.

Chawla, R. (2005). Responsible Tourism. New Delhi, India: Sonali Publication.

Chen, C.-F., & Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions for Heritage Tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Business Research Methods (Ed). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.

251

Chui, C. T. B., Rahim, F. H. A., Khan, N. R. M., Cheng, C. S., & Hassan, F. H. (2011). Assessing Tourists’ Attitude Towards Responsible Cultural Heritage Tourism In Melaka: Development And Validation Of Responsible Heritage Tourism Scale. In 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering (CHUSER) (pp. 497–502).

Coakes, S. J. (2012). Wiley: SPSS Version 20.0 for Windows: Analysis without Anguish. Australia: Wiley.

Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179– 201.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed). London: Routledge.

Cook, T. (2001). Archival Science and Postmodernism: New Formulations for Old Concepts. Archives & Museum Informatics, 1(1), 3–24.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2013). Business Research Methods (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th Edition (4th edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. (2007).Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Chosing Among Five Approaches. (2nd Edition).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging Minds: Learning and Teaching in a Complex World. United State of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.

252

Dawes, J. G. (2012). Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used ? An Experiment Using 5 Point, 7 Point and 10 Point Scales. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1), 61–77.

Department for Communities and Local Government. (2008). The Protection & Management of World Heritage Sites in England (pp. 1–49). London: Communities and Local Government Publications.

Diamond, J. (1986a). The Behavior of Family Groups in Science Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 29(2), 139–154.

Djikic, M., & Langer, E. (2007). Toward Mindful Social Comparison: When Subjective and Objective Selves are Mutually Exclusive. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(3), 221–232.

Dr. Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri. (2013, September 27). Solat Mencegah Kejahatan. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Bicara_Agama/20130927/ba_04/Solat- mencegah-kejahatan

Endresen, K. (1999). Sustainable Tourism and Cultural Heritage: A Review of Development Assistance and Its Potential to Promote Sustainability (pp. 1– 89). NWHO.

Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W. ., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of Partial Least Squares - Concepts, Methods and Applications. Germany: Springer.

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid Responding Increases Belief Bias: Evidence For The Dual-Process Theory Of Reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.

253

Falk, J. H., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Benckendorff, P. (2012). Travel and Learning: A Neglected Tourism Research Area. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 908– 927.

Farahani, B. M., Abooali, G., & Mohamed, B. (2012). George Town World Heritage Site: What We Have and What We Sell? Asian Culture and History, 4(2), 81– 90.

Faulkner, B., Moscardo, G., & Laws, E. (2001). Tourism In the 21st Century: Lessons From Experience. Great Britain: CONTINUUM.

Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2007). Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation: The Development and Initial Validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 75, 177–190.

Feldman, R. S. (2010). Psychology and Your Life. New York: McGraw Hill.

Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial Least Square. In Advanced Methods of Marketing Research (Ed, pp. 52–78). Cambridge, England: Blackwell.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

Frauman, E., & Norman, W. C. (2004). Mindfulness as a Tool for Managing Visitors to Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 381–389.

Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (1998). Heritage Tourism: At What Price? Managing Leisure, 3(4), 213–228.

Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2001). Heritage Tourism: A Question of Definition. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1049–1052.

254

Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of AIS, 4(7), 1–70.

Geisser, S. (1975). The Predictive Sample Reuse Method with Applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320–328.

George, D. M., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 10.0 Update (3rd ed.). Canada: Allyn and Bacon.

Gillman, D. (2010). The Idea of Cultural Heritage (Revised). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Global Heritage Fund. (2012). Saving Our Vanishing Heritage (pp. 1–68). Califonia, United State of America: Global Heritage Fund.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2013). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh (7 edition). Boston: Pearson.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59– 82.

Haigh, E. A. P., Moore, M. T., Kashdan, T. B., & Fresco, D. M. (2011). Examination of the factor structure and concurrent validity of the Langer Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale. Assessment, 18(1), 11–26.

Hair, J. ., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.

255

Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Colorado: North America Press.

Ham, S. H., & Weiler, B. (2006). Development of a Research-Based Tool for Evaluating Interpretation (Technical Report). Australia: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

Hawkins, D., & Mothersbaugh, D. (2013). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Henseler, J., and Sarstedt, M. 2013. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Computational Statistics, 28: 565-580.

Higginbottom, G. M. A. (2004). Sampling Issues in Qualitative Research. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), 7–19.

Hirsch, E.D. (1967). Validity in Intetpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Howard, P. (2003). Heritage, Management, Interpretation, Identity. London: CONTINUUM.

Huang, C.-H., Tsaur, J.-R., & Yang, C.-H. (2012). Does World Heritage List Really Induce More Tourists? Evidence From Macau. Tourism Management, 33, 1450–1457.

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach (1st ed.). Wiley.

Jenkins, O. (2003). Photography and Travel Brochures: The Circle of Representation. Tourism Geographies, 5(3), 5–28.

Jewell, B., & Crotts, J. C. (2001). Adding Psychological Value to Heritage Tourism Experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 11(4),13-28.

256

Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. W. (2010). The Essence of Research Methodology: A Concise Guide for Master and PhD Students in Management Science. New York: Springer.

Juhana Salim, Sharhida Zawani Saad, & Mohd. Shahizan Othman. (2011). Using Bioinformatic Strategically for Islamic Da’wah. Jurnal Hadhari, 3(1), 1–20.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An Outpatient Program in Behavioral Medicine for Chronic Pain Patients Based on the Practice of Mindfulness Meditation: Theoretical Considerations and Preliminary Results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47.

Kabat-Zinn, J., Lipworth, L., & Burney, R. (1985). The Clinical Use of Mindfulness Meditation for the Self-Regulation of Chronic Pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8(2), 163–190.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation In Everyday Life. New York: Hyperion.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A Second Generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401– 415.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.

Kalay, Y., Kvan, T., & Affleck, J. (2008). New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. United States of America: Routledge.

Kaufman, T. J., & Weaver, P. A. (2006). Heritage Tourism: A Question of Age. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 135–146.

Kerstetter, D., Confer, J., & Bricker, K. (1998a). Industrial Heritage Attractions: Types and Tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(2), 91–104.

257

Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An Exploration of the Specialization Concept within the Context of Heritage Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 267–274.

Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic Quest For Existential Authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 181–201.

Knudsen, D. C., & Greer, C. E. (2008). Heritage Tourism, Heritage Landscapes and Wilderness Preservation: The Case of National Park Thy. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(1), 18–35.

Krejie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.

Kruse II, R. J. (2005). The Beatles as Place Makers: Narrated Landscapes in Liverpool, England. Journal of Cultural Geography, 22(2), 87–114.

Kubota, Y., Sato, W., Toichi, M., Murai, T., Okada, T., Hayashi, A., & Sengoku, A. (2001). Frontal midline theta rhythm is correlated with cardiac autonomic activities during the performance of an attention demanding meditation procedure. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 281–287.

Kuh, G. D. (1995). Out-of-Class Experiences Associated with Student Learning and Personal Development. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123–155.

Labadi, S. (2007). Representations of the Nation and Cultural Diversity in Discourses on World Heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(2), 147–170.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness (Vol. xiv). Reading, MA, US: Addison- Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.

258

Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635–642.

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The Construct of Mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 1–9.

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). Mindfulness research and the future. Journal of Social Science Issues, 56(1), 129–139.

Larsen, D., Mayo, C., Wolter, S. A., Bliss, K., & Barrie, B. (2009a). Foundations of Interpretation Competency Narrative. United States of America: Indiana University.

Larsen, D., Mayo, C., Wolter, S. A., Bliss, K., & Barrie, B. (2009b). Foundations of Interpretation Competency Narrative. United State of America: Indiana University.

Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., … Devins, G. (2006a). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and Validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445–1467.

Leask, A., & Yeoman, I. (1999). Heritage Visitor Attractions: An Operations Management Perspective. Great Britain: CASSELL.

Lee, S.-H., & Sparks, B. (2007). Cultural Influences on Travel Lifestyle: A Comparison of Korean Australians and Koreans in Korea. Tourism Management, 28(2), 505–518.

Lehn, D. vom, & Heath, C. (2005). Accounting for New Technology in Museum Exhibitions. International Journal of Arts Management, 7(3), 11–21.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Liao, T. F. (2004). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

259

Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism Development of World Heritage Sites in China: A Geographic Perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308–319.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample Size in Factor Analysis: The Role of Model Error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611–637.

Manjit Kaur. (2011, February 18). Yahoo! lists Penang among world’s top 10. The Star.

McCain, G., & Ray, N. M. (2003). Legacy Tourism: The Search for Personal Meaning in Heritage Travel. Tourism Management, 24(6), 713–717.

McCall, M. C. (2013). How Might Yoga Work? An Overview of Potential Underlying Mechanisms. J Yoga Phys Ther, 3(1), 130.

McIntosh, A. J. (1999). Into the Tourist’s Mind: Understanding the Value of the Heritage Experience. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 8(1), 41–64.

McIntosh, A. J., & C. Prentice, R. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589–612.

McKercher, B., Ho, P. S. Y., & du Cros, H. (2004). Attributes of Popular Cultural Attractions in Hong Kong. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 393–407.

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative Learning as Discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63.

Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (1992). The Tourism System: An Introductory Text (2 Sub). Prentice Hall College Div.

Ministry out to increase tourism revenue. (2010, September 18). The Star Online. Retrieved from http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2010/9/18/central/7044741&sec= central

260

Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors : Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 376–397.

Moscardo, G. (1998). Interpretation And Sustainable Tourism: Functions, Examples And Principles. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(1).

Moscardo, G. (1999). Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Sustainable Visitor Experiences through Effective Communication. United States of America: SAGAMORE Publishing.

Moscardo, G. (2003). Interpretation And Sustainable Tourism: Functions, Examples And Principles. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 112–123.

Moscardo, G. (2008). Understanding Tourist Experience through Mindfulness Theory. In M. Kozak & A. Decrop (Eds.), Handbook of Tourist Behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 99–115). Routledge.

Moscardo, G., & Ballantyne, R. (2008). Interpretation and Attractions. In Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions (pp. 237–252). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.

Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. L. (1986). Visitor Centres and Environmental Interpretation: An Exploration of The Relationships Among Visitor Enjoyment, Understanding And Mindfulness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6(2), 89–108.

Moscardo, G., Woods, B., & Saltzer, R. (2004). The Role of Interpretation in Wildlife Tourism. In K. Higginbottom (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management And Planning (pp. 231–251). Altona, VIC, Australia: Common Ground Publishing.

Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. (2000). Consumer Behavior: A Framework. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Munro, J., Morrison Saunders, A., & Hughes, M. (2008). Environmental Interpretation Evaluation in Natural Areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 7(1), 1–14.

261

Murata, T., Takahashi, T., Hamada, T., Omori, M., Kosaka, H., Yoshida, H., & Wada, Y. (2004). Individual Trait Anxiety Levels Characterizing the Properties of Zen Meditation. Neuropsychobiology, 50, 189–194.

Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Nasution, K. S. (2008). George Town The Challenge Of World Heritage Listing (Heritage Asia) (pp. 26–33). Penang: Penang Heritage Trust.

Neal, C. M., Quester, P. G., & Hawkins, D. I. (2004). Consumer Behaviour: Implications for Marketing Strategy (4th ed.). Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Netto, A. A. (2012, June 8). Our Heritage in Danger of Being Extinct. The Star, p. 36. Views.

Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Reseach Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th ed.). United State of America: Pearson Education.

New Straits Time. (2012, July 2). Malaysia Now Has Four World Heritage Sites. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from http://www.nst.com.my/latest/malaysia-now- has-four-world-heritage-sites-1.101377

Nicolau, J. L. (2011). Differentiated Price Loss Aversion in Destination Choice: The Effect of Tourists’ Cultural Interest. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1186–1195.

Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and Postmodern Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 249–260.

Nyanaponika Thera. (1972). The Power of Mindfulness. San Francisco: Unity Press.

Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to Attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286–1296.

Ong Han Sean. (2010, September 18). Ministry out to increase tourism revenue. The Star, Community.

262

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program (4th ed.). Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Pallant, J. (2013). Pallant J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. (5th ed.). Australia: Allen& Unwin.

PANCA. (2010). George Town World Heritage Site Map. George Town, Penang: ARECA Books.

Pearce, P. L. (2004). The Functions and Planning of Visitor Centres in Regional Tourism. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 15(1), 8–17.

Pechlaner, H. (2000). Cultural heritage and destination management in the Mediterranean. Thunderbird International Business Review, 42(4), 409–426.

Peers, I. (1996). Statistical Analysis for Education and Psychology Researchers. London: Routledge.

Penang Monthly. (2014, August). An analysis of Penang. Penang Monthly, (8), 60– 63.

Penang Monthly. (2015, October). Welcome to Penang. Penang Monthly, (10), 60-63.

Penang Monthly. (2016, January). An Analysis of Penang. Penang Monthly, (1), 60– 63.

Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (2008). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy (8th International Edition edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Phra Ajahn Plien Panyapatipo. (n.d). A Practising Guide to Peace. Wat Aranyavivek: ChangMai

Pinter, T. L. (2005). Heritage Tourism and Archaeology: Critical Issues. The SAA Archaeological Record, 5(3), 9–11.

263

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methods biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitors’ Preferences for Interpretation at Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 92–105.

Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons for Visiting Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28.

Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. W. (2003). The Core of Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 30(No. 1), 238–254.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage Site Perceptions and Motivations to Visit. Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), 318–326.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

Prentice, R. (2001). Experiential Cultural Tourism: Museums & the Marketing of the New Romanticism of Evoked Authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship, 19(1), 5–26.

Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2007). Interpreting Heritage Essentialisms: Familiarity and Felt History. Tourism Management, 28(3), 661–676.

Prentice, R. C., Witt, S. F., & Hamer, C. (1998). Tourism As Experience : The Case of Heritage Parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 1–24.

264

Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learning at a heritage attraction: a case study of Discovery as a media product. Tourism Management, 19(1), 5–23.

Rahimah, A. A. (2009). Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Heritage Tourism: Showcasing Langkawi Geopark Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium on Tourism and Leisure (ICTL) 2009 (pp. 1–7). Bangkok, Thailand.

Raivo, P. J. (2002). The Peculiar Touch of the East: Reading the Post-War Landscapes of the Finnish Orthodox Church. Social & Cultural Geography, 3(1), 11–24.

Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualising Interpretation: The Role of Tour Guides in Authentic Tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6), 481–498.

Ringle, C. M., Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2011). Research Methods for Social Work (7th ed.). United States of America: Cengage Learning.

Ryan, C., & Dewar, K. (1995). Evaluating the communication process between interpreter and visitor. Tourism Management, 16(4), 295–303.

Salkind, N. J. (2008). Exploring Research (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Schure, M. B., Christopher, J., & Christopher, S. (2008). Mind–Body Medicine and the Art of Self-Care: Teaching Mindfulness to Counseling Students Through Yoga, Meditation, and Qigong. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(1), 47–56. https

265

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach (6th ed.). London: John Wiley & Sons.

Sellnow, T. L., Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Littlefield, R. S. (2009). Toward a Practice of Mindfulness. In Effective Risk Communication (pp. 133–146). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Shapiro, S. L. (2009). The integration of mindfulness and psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 555–560.

Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361–365.

Silveman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. (2nd Ed.). London: SAGE Publication.

Silverman, H., & Ruggles, D. F. (2007). Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. United State of America: Springer.

Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131.

Smith, L. (2014). Visitor Emotion, Affect and Registers of Engagement at Museums and Heritage Sites. Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 14(2), 125– 132.

Sokolowski, R. (2000). An Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Solomon, M. R. (2007). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

266

Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1372-1380

Stewart, E. J., Hayward, B. M., Devlin, P. J., & Kirby, V. (1998). The “Place” of Interpretation: A New Approach to The Evaluation Of Interpretation. Tourism Management, 19(3), 257–266.

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36(2), 111–147.

Stogner, M. B. (2009). The Media-Enhanced Museum Experience: Debating the Use of Media Technology in Cultural Exhibitions. Curator: The Museum Journal, 52(4), 385–397.

Strauss, C. H., & Lord, B. E. (2001). Economic Impacts of a Heritage Tourism System. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4), 199–204.

Surau Ah-Hidayah. (2008). Kepentingan Khusyuk Dalam Solat. Biro Penerangan & Penerbitan Surau Al-Hidayah Saujana Utama, 5, 1–2.

T. Ramayah. (2014). SmartPLS 2.0. Malaysia: Institute of Postgraduate Studies Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS Path Modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.

The Guardian. (2014, January 3). Holiday Hotspots: Where to Go in 2014. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/jan/03/holiday-hotspots-where-to- go-in-2014.

267

The Star. (2008, July 8). George Town and Malacca receive World Heritage Site Award, The Star, Nation.

Tighe, A. J. (1986). The Arts/Tourism Partnership. Journal of Travel Research, 24(3), 2–5.

Timothy, D. (2011). Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction. Channel View Publications.

Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage Tourism in the 21st Century: Valued Traditions and New Perspectives, 1(1), 1–16.

Tourism Malaysia. (2014). States of Malaysia | Top Tourist Attractions in Penang. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://www.tourism.gov.my/en/my/web- page/places/states-of-malaysia/penang

Toyama, M., & Yamada, Y. (2012). The Relationships among Tourist Novelty, Familiarity, Satisfaction, and Destination Loyalty: Beyond the Novelty- familiarity Continuum. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(6), 10– 18.

Tubb, K. N. (2003). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Interpretation within Dartmoor National Park in Reaching the Goals of Sustainable Tourism Development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 476–498.

UNESCO. (2007). A Training Manual for Heritage Guides (4th ed.). UNESCO Asia: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2007). Tourism at Cultural Heritage Sites in Asia Cultural Heritage Specialist Guide Training and Certification Programme for UNESCO World Heritage Sites (4th ed.). Hong Kong: UNESCO.

Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.

268

Uriely, N. (2005a). The Tourist Experience: Conceptual Developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 199–216.

Utah. Division of State History. (1995). Preserving Our Past Through Heritage Tourism : Developing A Heritage Industry (pp. 1–18). Utah, United State.

Uzzell, D. L. (1992). Heritage Interpretation: The Nature and Built Environment (Vol. 1). Great Britain: Belhaven Press.

Uzzell, D. L. (1992). Heritage Interpretation: Volume 2 The Visitor Experience (Vol. 2). Great Britain: Belhaven Press.

Uzzell, D. L. (1998). Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation: Problems and Prospects. London: The Stationery Office.

Van Winkle, C. M., & Backman, K. (2009a). Examining Visitor Mindfulness at a Cultural Event. Journal of Event Management, Vol 12, 163–169.

Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing Sustainable Tourism: A Multi-Stakeholder Involvement Management Framework. Tourism Management, 36, 342–353.

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmuller, V., Kleinknecht, N., Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring Mindfulness--The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543-1555.

Watson, G., Batchelor, S., & Claxton, G. (2000). The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science, and Our Day-to-Day Lives. York Beach, Me.: S. Weiser.

Weiler, B., & Ham, S. (2001a). Perspectives and thoughts on tour guiding. In A. Lockwood, & S. Medlik (Eds.). Tourism and Hospitality in The 21st Century (pp. 255-264). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.

Weiler, B., & Ham, S. H. (2010). Development of a Research Instrument for Evaluating the Visitor Outcomes of Face-to-Face Interpretation. Visitor Studies, 13(2), 187–205.

269

Weiler, B., & Smith, L. (2009). Does More Interpretation Lead to Greater Outcomes? An Assessment of the Impacts of Multiple Layers of Interpretation in a Zoo Context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 91–105.

Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., and van Oppen, C. (2009). "Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration," MIS Quarterly, (33: 1) pp.177-195.

Werry, M. (2008). Pedagogy of/as/and Tourism: Or, Shameful Lessons. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 30(1), 14–42.

Wood, J. T. (2011). Communication Mosaics: An Introduction to the Field of Communication (International). Canada: Wadsworth.

Woods, B., & Moscardo, G. (2003). Enhancing Wildlife Education Through Mindfulness. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 19, 97–108.

Woods, B., Moscardo, G., & Greenwood, T. (1998). A Critical Review of Readability and Comprehensibility Tests. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(2), 49–61.

Worden, N. (2001). “Where It All Began”: The Representation Of Malaysian Heritage In Melaka. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(3), 199–218.

World Monuments Fund. (2010). World Monuments Fund 2010 Annual Report. New York: World Monuments Fund.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2013). Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2013 Malaysia. United Kingdom:WTTC

Young, M. (1999). The Relationship Between Tourist Motivations and The Interpretation of Place Meanings. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 1(4), 387–405.

270

Zainudin Awang. (2014). A Handbook on SEM: For Academicians and Practitioners. Malaysia: MPWS Rich Reources.

Zeppel, H., & Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation Benefits of Interpretation on Marine Wildlife Tours. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(4), 280–294.

Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods (8th ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.

271

APPENDIX A

No Objective and Questions Sub-Questions

1 Demographic profile  What is your name and origin?

 Where have you visited? (name a few places) • What make you go there?

 What do you think about the place that you have visited?

 If you have the luxury of time and money, what kind of destinations you’d like to visit?

 Can you describe the best holiday that you’ve had? What are the things that makes it most memorable?

 It is the first time you visited heritage place? 2 Introduction

 When you think of heritage destinations, which destinations first come to mind?

 How long have you spend your time there? Would you have the intension to revisit this place?

 How do heritage destinations compare to other holiday destinations?

 What does it take to convince you to visit a heritage destination?

 Who did you visit the place with?

In Depth Interview

APPENDIX A

 Why do you choose to come to this place? (expected key words: logistic, personal interest, companion’s interest, tour package) - Nearby hotel: there are several other places nearby, why do you choose this place instead of the other one?

 What can you observe from the place that you have visited?

 What are the things that this destination offers to you? Are these things new to you?

 How this destination did come to be your choice to spend your holidays?

Uncover new factors that contribute to mindfulness towards  Can you describe what you had imagined before coming achieving effective interpretation. here? • Could you describe how you feel when you first got here? 3 Can you please describe the best experience in the heritage • After the visit, what do you think? If you have a chance to area that you have visited? develop the place, what will you add in the place to make it more exciting for you? Can you describe more?  Could you describe the things that you have done and places that you have visited once you are here?

 What are the dull moments here?

 What are the things that are most memorable for you here? (then you can probe – what makes it memorable) • What makes the heritage/visit here most memorable? • How would you describe your feelings now?

 How would you compare this destination to other destinations?

 What do you get from visiting this place?

In Depth Interview

APPENDIX A

 Could you describe the things that stand out at this destination?

 What helps to make your holiday here memorable?

 What are the things that you look forward to when you visit specific places of attractions?

 What are things that you try to avoid when visiting these places?

 Do you feel a connection to this destination? What are the things that make you feel that way?

 What are things that you try to get involved in when you are here? To understand the underlying dimension of mindfulness 4  If you are to come here again, what are things that you would do Can you relate the information and also the display to yourself? differently?

 If you are given the opportunity to participate in developing a promotion tourism package, what are the things that you would suggest?

 Who would you recommend this destination to?

 Who are the people that you think would most enjoy this destination?

 Who are the people that you thing would not be interested in this destination

 What would you do to preserve the heritage sites that you have visited?

In Depth Interview

Appendix B

Research On The Understanding Mindfulness and Its Contribution Towards Interpretive Outcome at Georgetown, Penang, Unesco World Heritage City

This research is conducted by the PhD student from School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) on the topic mentioned above. This research seek to understand tourist’s experience during the visit to the heritage sites. All the information given in these questionnaires are CONFIDENTIAL and the collected information will be ONLY utilised for the research purposes.

Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire are highly appreciated. Your response are the utmost importance in achieving the objective of this study.

Thank you.

Penyelidikan ini dijalankan oleh calon PhD dari Pusat Pengajian Komunikasi, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) dalam topik seperti yang disebutkan diatas. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk memahami pengalaman para pelancong di tapak warisan. Semua maklumat yang diberikan di dalam kajian ini adalah SULIT dan HANYA akan digunakan untuk tujuan penyelidikan.

Kerjasama anda dalam menjawab soalan kajiselidik ini amat dihargai. Respond anda adalah sangat penting dalam mencapai objektif kajian ini.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Dear Sir / Madam, Tuan / Puan,

INFORMED CONSENT FORM / BORANG KEBENARAN

Please be informed that responses to this questionnaire will remain anonymous in the report and the participation in this study is voluntary.

Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa, respons kertas soal selidik ini adalah sulit dan penglibatan dalam kajian ini adalah bersifat sukarela.

Appendix B

Section A: Demographic Information / Bahagian A: Maklumat Demografi

Please answer the following questions with a tick ( √ ) in the relevant space provided. Sila tandakan ( √ ) jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

1. Gender / Jantina: Male/ Lelaki Female/ Perempuan

2. Age groups/ Umur: ______

3. Educational Level / Tahap Pendidikan:

No formal education/ Tiada pendidikan

Primary and Elementary School / Sekolah Rendah

Secondary and High School / Sekolah Menengah

College and University/ Kolej dan Universiti

Postgraduate / Pascasiswazah

4. Nationality/ Warganegara:

Malaysian / Malaysia

International / Antarabangsa (Please state / Sila nyatakan ______)

5. Occupational group / Kumpulan pekerjaan:

Professional / Profesional Managerial / Pengurusan

Businessman / Usahawan Student / Pelajar

Retiree / Pesara Housewife / Suri Rumah

Clerical / Kerani Expatriate / Ekspatrait

Unemployed / Penganggur Others / Lain-lain Please state / Sila nyatakan: ______

Appendix B

6. State the level of your proficiency in the following language

Poor….. Very Good No Lemah…..Sangat baik Malay 1 Bahasa Malaysia 1 2 3 4 5 English 2 Bahasa Inggeris 1 2 3 4 5 Mandarin 3 Bahasa Cina 1 2 3 4 5 Tamil 4 Bahasa Tamil 1 2 3 4 5 Others, Please specify: ______5 Lain-lain, Sila nyatakan:______1 2 3 4 5

Section B: Travelling Patterns / Bahagian B: Corak Perjalanan

For the questions below, please answer the following questions with a tick ( √ ) in the relevant space provided. Bagi soalan dibawah, sila tandakan ( √ ) jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

1. How do you arrange for the visit? Bagaimanakah anda merancang untuk lawatan ini?

Tour package / Pakej pelancongan

Own arrangement / Perancangan Persendirian

2. How many times have you visited Penang World Heritage Sites? Pengalaman melancong di Tapak Warisan Dunia Pulau Pinang?

First time/ Kali Pertama Repeat / Berulang State the number of visit: ______Nyatakan bilangan melawat: ______

3. How many nights do you plan to stay in Penang? Berapa malam yang anda akan bercuti di Pulau Pinang? ______nights / malam

4. Name three (3) places that you think are famous in Penang World Heritage Sites?

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

5. What do you think Penang is famous for?

______

Appendix B

6. Who are you with today? Siapakah bersama anda pada hari ini?

Alone / Bersendirian Spouse / Pasangan

Clubs or Groups / Family including children / Kelab atau Kumpulan Keluarga termasuk anak-anak

Friends / Kawan-kawan Business Associate / Rakan Perniagaan

Relatives / Saudara Others / Lain-lain (Please state / Sila nyatakan: ______) 7. How many people are there in your travelling group? Berapa ramaikah orang dalam kumpulan perjalanan anda?

______

8. For this trip in Penang, how much do you spend? (In Ringgit Malaysia – RM) Untuk perjalanan ini di Pulau Pinang, berapakah perbelanjaan anda?( dalam Ringgit Malaysia- RM)

______Total (Per individual) / Jumlah (Per individual)

______Accommodation / Penginapan

______Local Organised Tour Package / Pakej lawatan tempatan

______Domestic Airfare / Tambang Penerbangan Domestik

______Food and Beverage / Makanan dan Minuman

______Entertainment and Attractions / Hiburan dan Tempat Menarik (including heritage sites / termasuk tapak warisan)

______Local Transportation / Pengangkutan Tempatan

______Miscellaneous / Lain-lain

Appendix B

9. Which of the following heritage places have you visited? Antara tapak warisan berikutnya, yang manakah tapak warisan yang telah anda lawati?

Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion Sun Yat Seng Penang Base Rumah Agam Cheong Fatt Tze Pusat Asas Sun Yat Seng di Pulau Pinang

Pinang Peranakan Mansion Penang Islamic Museum Rumah Agam Peranakan Muzium Islam Pulau Pinang

House of Yeap Chor Ee Penang State Museum Rumah Yeap Chor Ee Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang

Fort Cornwallis Yap Kongsi Kota Cornwallis Yap Kongsi

Church of the Assumption Khoo Kongsi Gereja Assumption Khoo Kongsi

St. George Church Cheah Kongsi Gereja St. George Cheah Kongsi

Goddess of Mercy Temple Clan jetties Tokong Guan Yin Jeti Suku Kaum

Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Hock Teik Cheng Sin Temple Kuil Sri Maha Mariamman Tokong Hock Teik Cheng Sin

Han Jiang Ancestral Temple Malay Mosque, Lebuh Acheh Tokong Keturunan Han Jiang Masjid Melayu, Lebuh Acheh

Kapitan Keling Mosque Others Masjid Kapitan Keling Lain-lain

Appendix B

Section C: Travel Experience / Bahagian C: Pengalaman Perjalanan

Please answer the questions based on your recent visit to the heritage sites. Sila jawab soalan berikut berdasarkan lawatan anda ke tapak warisan baru-baru ini

Please circle the answer for the following questions. Sila bulatkan jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

1. At the heritage site: / Di tapak warisan:

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I am aware of what I think about the place 1 Saya sedar tentang apa yang saya fikirkan tentang 1 2 3 4 5 tempat tersebut My mind wanders off and I am easily distracted 2 Minda saya mereweng dan saya mudah berasa 1 2 3 4 5 terganggu I don’t pay attention to what’s happening at the place 3 Saya tidak menumpukan perhatian kepada apa yang 1 2 3 4 5 sedang berlaku di tempat tersebut I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening at the place 4 1 2 3 4 5 Saya berasa susah untuk menumpukan perhatian kepada apa yang berlaku di tempat tersebut It seems that I am “running on auto” without much awareness of what I’m doing 5 Saya seolah-olah sedang berada di dalam mode 1 2 3 4 5 “automatic” tanpa menyedari tentang apa yang saya lakukan I rush through activities, without being really attentive to them 6 1 2 3 4 5 Saya tergesa-gesa dalam aktiviti yang dilakukan tanpa memberikan perhatian yang penuh kepadanya I find myself doing things without paying attention 7 Saya dapati diri saya melakukan aktiviti tanpa 1 2 3 4 5 menberikan perhatian kepadanya I can explain about the place that I have visited 8 Saya boleh menjelaskan tentang tempat yang telah 1 2 3 4 5 saya lawati I believe some of the thoughts that I have about the place are negative 9 1 2 3 4 5 Saya percaya bahawa saya mempunyai fikiran negatif mengenai tempat tersebut I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking about the place negatively 10 1 2 3 4 5 Saya memberitahu diri saya bahawa saya tidak patut berfikir secara negative tentang tempat tersebut I was curious about the new information that I get 11 Saya berasa ingin tahu tentang maklumat baru yang 1 2 3 4 5 telah saya perolehi I like to investigate new things 12 1 2 3 4 5 Saya suka menyiasat benda-benda baru

Appendix B

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I do not actively seek to learn new things 13 Saya tidak aktif dalam mencari perkara baru untuk 1 2 3 4 5 dipelajari I am very curious at the heritage place 14 Saya mempunyai perasaan ingin tahu yang tinggi 1 2 3 4 5 terhadap tapak warisan I am rarely alert to new development that I discover at heritage site 15 1 2 3 4 5 Saya kurang peka tentang perkembangan baru yang saya temui I like to figure out how and why certain things happen 16 1 2 3 4 5 Saya suka memikirkan bagaimana dan kenapa perkara tertentu berlaku I was more open to new experience 17 Saya lebih terbuka kepada pengalaman baru 1 2 3 4 5 I was receptive to unpleasant thoughts and feelings 18 Saya terbuka kepada pemikiran dan perasaan yang 1 2 3 4 5 kurang menyenangkan I approached each experience by trying to accept it, whether pleasant or unpleasant 19 Saya mendekati setiap pengalaman dengan cuba 1 2 3 4 5 menerimanya, tidak kira sama ada ianya adalah baik atau tidak I was open to taking notice of anything that might come up 20 1 2 3 4 5 Saya terbuka dalam memberi perhatian kepada apa sahaja yang mungkin berlaku I generate few new knowledge 21 Saya menghasilkan beberapa pengetahuan baru 1 2 3 4 5 I find it easy to generate new information 22 Saya berasa senang untuk menghasilkan maklumat 1 2 3 4 5 yang baru I tried not to be narrow minded 23 Saya cuba untuk tidak berfikiran sempit 1 2 3 4 5 I try to think of new ways of doing things 24 Saya cuba memikirkan cara baru untuk melakukan 1 2 3 4 5 sesuatu I am always open to new ways of doing things 25 Saya sentiasa terbuka untuk melakukan sesuatu 1 2 3 4 5 dengan cara yang baru I stay with the old ways of doing things 26 Saya tetap dengan cara lama dalam melakukan 1 2 3 4 5 sesuatu I have an open mind about everything, even things that challenge my core beliefs 27 Saya mempunyai minda yang terbuka untuk semua 1 2 3 4 5 benda, walaupun ianya tidak sama dengan apa yang saya biasa percayai I like to be challenged intellectually 28 Saya suka dicabar secara intelektual 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix B

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I like to have my interest captured 29 Saya suka minda saya ditawan 1 2 3 4 5 I like to search for answer to questions I may have 30 Saya suka mencari jawapan untuk soalan yang saya 1 2 3 4 5 ada I like to have my curiosity aroused 31 Saya suka perasaan ingin tahu saya dibangkitkan 1 2 3 4 5 I like to enquire further things at the sites 32 Saya suka bertanya lebih lanjut tentang perkara- 1 2 3 4 5 perkara di tempat warisan I like to explore and discover new things 33 Saya suka meneroka dan bertemu dengan perkara 1 2 3 4 5 baru I like to feel in control of what is going on around me 34 Saya suka berperasaan mampu mengawal apa yang 1 2 3 4 5 berada disekeliling saya I understand the information that is presented to me 35 Saya faham tentang maklumat yang telah diberikan 1 2 3 4 5 kepada saya I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings 36 Saya berkebolehan dalam mencari kata-kata yang 1 2 3 4 5 sesuai untuk mengambarkan perasaan saya It’s hard for me to find the words to describe my feelings 37 1 2 3 4 5 Saya sukar untuk mencari kata-kata untuk mengambarkan emosi saya I have trouble thinking of the right words to express how I feel about the place 38 Saya mempunyai masalah dalam mencari kata-kata 1 2 3 4 5 yang sesuai untuk mengambarkan perasaan saya mengenai termpat tersebut I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions 39 1 2 3 4 5 Saya mengkritik diri saya kerana mempunyai emosi yang tidak rational atau tidak sepatutnya I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling way I feel towards the heritage sites 40 1 2 3 4 5 Saya memberitahu diri saya bahawa saya tidak patut mempunyai perasaan yang saya ada When I have distressing thoughts or images about the sites, I try not to make any judgement Apabila saya mempunyai pemikiran atau imej 41 mengenai warisan, saya cuba untuk tidak membuat 1 2 3 4 5 sebarang penilaian

Appendix B

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I think some of my emotions towards the heritage sites are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them 42 1 2 3 4 5 Saya fikir ada diantara emosi terhadap tapak warisan adalah tidak baik atau tidak sepatutnya dan saya tidak patut berasa sedemikian I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail 43 Selalunya saya dapat menggambarkan bagaimana 1 2 3 4 5 perasaan saya pada sesuatu waktu dengan agak terperinci I disapprove myself when I have irrational ideas 44 Saya tidak membenarkan diri saya mempunyai 1 2 3 4 5 pemikiran yang tidak rasional I notice subtle changes in my mood 45 Saya perasan perubahan tidak ketara dalam mood 1 2 3 4 5 saya I ‘get involved’ in almost all activities 46 Saya mengambil bahagian dalam hampir kesemua 1 2 3 4 5 akitiviti yang diadakan I seldom notice what other people are up to 47 Saya jarang mengambil tahu tentang apa yang 1 2 3 4 5 orang lain lakukan I avoid provoking conversations about the place 48 Saya mengelakkan perbualan yang membangkitkan 1 2 3 4 5 kemarahan tentang tempat tersebut I am aware of the smells around me 49 1 2 3 4 5 Saya sedar tentang bau-bauan sekitar saya I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair and the sun on my face 50 Saya menumpukan perhatian kepada sensasi 1 2 3 4 5 seperti angin di rambut saya dan matahari di muka saya I pay attention to sounds such as clock ticking, bells ringing from the temples or the calls of prayers 51 Saya menumpukan perhatian kepada bunyi seperti 1 2 3 4 5 jam bergerak, loceng berbunyi di tokong atau bunyi azan I pay attention to the details of the things that are exhibited 52 1 2 3 4 5 Saya menumpukan perhatian kepada barang-barang yang dipamerkan I like to touch the display 53 1 2 3 4 5 Saya suka menyentuh barang-barang pameran I notice the aromas at heritage sites Saya perasan tentang bau dan aroma di tapak 54 1 2 3 4 5 warisan

Appendix B

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I notice visual elements in things around me such as colours, shapes, texture or patterns of lights and shadow 55 1 2 3 4 5 Saya perasan tentang elemen visual pada perkara- perkara di sekitar saya seperti warna, bentuk, tekstur atau corak dan bayang-bayangnya.

Section D: Opinion on the heritage site / Bahagian D: Pendapat mengenai tapak warisan

Please circle the answer for the following questions. Sila bulatkan jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

Having the recent heritage site that you have visited in your mind, please rate the following. Berpandukan tapak warisan yang telah anda lawat, sila kelaskan jawapan anda.

1. At the heritage sites that I have visited: / Di tapak warisan yang telah saya lawat:

Strongly agree….. strongly disagree No Sangat setuju ….. sangat tidak setuju There are many different kinds of exhibits 1 Terdapat banyak bahan pameran yang berlainan 1 2 3 4 5 There are many different attractions that are 2 interesting 1 2 3 4 5 Terdapat banyak tempat yang menarik There are different types of display 3 Terdapat banyak jenis bahan pameran 1 2 3 4 5 There are different activities that I can participate 4 Terdapat banyak aktiviti yang boleh saya sertai 1 2 3 4 5 There is nothing much at the heritage sites that I can 5 see 1 2 3 4 5 Tidak banyak yang boleh saya lihat di tapak warisan There are so many things to see at the heritage sites 6 Terdapat banyak perkara yang boleh saya lihat di 1 2 3 4 5 tapak warisan The exhibits are presented in many different ways 7 Bahan pameran yang ada di pamerkan dengan 1 2 3 4 5 pelbagai cara I learn something new 8 1 2 3 4 5 Saya belajar sesuatu yang baru I come across something that I have never seen 9 before 1 2 3 4 5 Saya temui sesuatu yang tidak pernah saya lihat I gain new experience 10 1 2 3 4 5 Saya mendapat pengalaman baru

Appendix B

Strongly agree….. strongly disagree Sangat setuju ….. sangat tidak setuju There is nothing new that I can see at the heritage site 11 1 2 3 4 5 Saya tidak dapat melihat sesuatu yang baru di tapak warisan There is nothing new to discover at the heritage site 12 Tiada benda baru yang boleh ditemui di tapak 1 2 3 4 5 warisan The exhibits at the heritage sites make me keen to find further information 13 1 2 3 4 5 Bahan pameran di tapak warisan menyebabkan saya ingin mencari maklumat yang lebih lanjut The exhibits lead me to inquire more information 14 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya bertanya 1 2 3 4 5 tentang lebih banyak maklumat The exhibits make me think of more questions 15 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya lebih banyak 1 2 3 4 5 berfikir tentang lebih banyak persoalan The exhibits make me search for answers to my questions 16 1 2 3 4 5 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya mencari jawapan kepada soalan saya I have nothing to enquire about the exhibits at the heritage sites 17 1 2 3 4 5 Saya tidak mempunyai persoalan mengenai bahan pameran di tapak warisan I think deeply about the information that I see at the heritage sites 18 1 2 3 4 5 Saya memikirkan secara mendalam tentang maklumat yang saya dapati di tapak warisan I felt in control of what is going on around me 19 Saya berasa bahawa saya mampu mengawal apa 1 2 3 4 5 yang berlaku disekeliling saya I felt in control of my own time at the heritage site 20 Saya berasa bahawa saya mampu mengawal masa 1 2 3 4 5 saya sendiri semasa berada di tapak warisan I was able to touch and feel the exhibits 21 Saya boleh meyentuh dan merasai bahan pameran 1 2 3 4 5 yang ada There are many displays that are interactive 22 Terdapat banyak bahan pameran yang interaktif 1 2 3 4 5 The exhibits there are just for viewing only 23 Bahan pameran yang ada hanya untuk dilihat sahaja 1 2 3 4 5 I am not allowed to touch the exhibits 24 Saya tidak dibenarkan untuk menyentuh bahan 1 2 3 4 5 pameran I can relate the information at the heritage sites to myself 25 1 2 3 4 5 Saya boleh mengkaitkan informasi di tapak warisan dengan diri saya

Appendix B

Strongly agree….. strongly disagree

Sangat setuju ….. sangat tidak setuju The exhibits makes me feel connected to the past 26 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya berasa diri saya 1 2 3 4 5 berkaitan dengan masa lalu I can make connection between the present situation and past 27 1 2 3 4 5 Saya boleh mengaitkan situasi sekarang dengan masa lalu I feel like a part of this heritage Saya berasa bahawa saya adalah sebahagian 28 1 2 3 4 5 daripada warisan ini

I feel like I am related to this heritage 29 Saya berasa bahawa diri saya berkaitan dengan 1 2 3 4 5 warisan ini I do not feel connected to this heritage 30 Saya tidak berasa diri saya berkaitan dengan tapak 1 2 3 4 5 warisan I feel relaxed at the heritage site 31 Saya berasa santai di tapak warisan 1 2 3 4 5 I feel peaceful at the heritage site 32 Saya berasa aman di tapak warisan 1 2 3 4 5 I feel uneasy at the heritage site 33 Saya berasa gusar di tapak warisan 1 2 3 4 5 The environment here makes me feel calm 34 Keadaan sekeliling disini menyebabkan saya berasa 1 2 3 4 5 tenang I would like to leave this place as soon as possible 35 Saya ingin meninggalkan tempat ini secepat mungkin 1 2 3 4 5

2. Based on the recent visit at the heritage site, did you come across the following interactive exhibits? / Berdasarkan lawatan anda ke tapak warisan baru-baru ini, adakah anda berjumpa dengan bahan pameran interaktif berikutnya di kawasan tapak warisan?

None………Plenty No Tiada……Sangat banyak Video presentation 1 Persembahan video 1 2 3 4 5 Films 2 Filem 1 2 3 4 5 Interactive computer display 3 Pameran komputer secara interaktif 1 2 3 4 5 Audio commentary 4 Komentar audio 1 2 3 4 5 Others: Please specify:______5 Lain-lain: Sila nyatakan: ______1 2 3 4 5

Appendix B

3. Based on the physical orientation of the recent heritage site that you have visited, please rate the following / Berdasarkan kawasan fizikal di tapak warisan yang anda lawati baru- baru ini, sila kelaskan jawapan anda.

Helpful………Unhelpful No Membantu……Tidak membantu Signage 1 Papan Tanda 1 2 3 4 5 Maps 2 Peta 1 2 3 4 5 Instructions and directions 3 Arahan 1 2 3 4 5 Safety messages 4 Mesej keselamatan 1 2 3 4 5 Others, Please specify: ______5 Lain-lain, Sila nyatakan:______1 2 3 4 5

Section E: Tourist’s experience / Bahagian E: Pengalaman pelancong

Through the recent experience at the heritage site that you have visited, please rate the following. Berdasarkan pengalaman ada baru-baru ini di tapak warisan yang telah anda lawat, sila kelaskan jawapan anda.

1. At the heritage site, / Di tapak warisan,

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I am interested to know more about heritage 1 Saya berminat untuk lebih mengetahui mengenai 1 2 3 4 5 warisan I am keen to find out more about the heritage site 2 Saya berminat untuk mengetahui lebih lanjut 1 2 3 4 5 mengenai warisan My attention is captured at the heritage site 3 Perhatian saya telah ditawan di tapak warisan 1 2 3 4 5 I do not mind spending my time here 4 Saya tidak kisah menghabiskan waktu saya di sini 1 2 3 4 5 I feel that I have wasted my time here 5 Saya berasa bahawa masa saya telah membazirkan 1 2 3 4 5 masa di sini I feel so engrossed with the exhibits 6 Saya berasa leka dengan bahan pameran 1 2 3 4 5 I am engrossed in what I have seen at the heritage sites 7 1 2 3 4 5 Saya berasa leka dengan apa yang saya lihat di tapak warisan

Appendix B

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree

Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I have been to places similar to this place 8 Saya pernah melawat ke tempat yang sama seperti 1 2 3 4 5 ini I have been exposed to similar culture 9 Saya pernah didedahkan kepada kebudayaan yang 1 2 3 4 5 sama I am not familiar with the culture here 10 Saya tidak biasa dengan kebudayaan yang saya 1 2 3 4 5 lihat disini I am not familiar with this place 11 Saya tidak biasa dengan tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I have no idea at all about the place 12 Saya langsung tidak pernah tahu tentang tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 This place gives me a sense of belonging 13 Tempat ini menberikan saya perasaan bahawa saya 1 2 3 4 5 berasal dari sini The culture is alien to me 14 Kebudayaan ini asing pada saya 1 2 3 4 5 I have no idea at all about the culture 15 Saya langsung tidak pernah tahu tentang 1 2 3 4 5 kebudayaan ini I have read about this place 16 Saya telah membaca mengenai tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I can imagine the place 17 Saya boleh membayangkan tentang tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I have seen pictures and information about this place 18 1 2 3 4 5 Saya telah melihat gambar dan maklumat mengenai tempat ini I know what to expect from this place 19 Saya tahu apa yang saya harapkan daripada tempat 1 2 3 4 5 ini I have heard about this place from my friends / family 20 1 2 3 4 5 Saya telah mendengar mengenai tempat ini dari kawan / saudara saya I could not imagine this place before coming here 21 Saya tidak boleh membayangkan tentang tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 sebelum datang ke sini I can understand the language used here 22 Saya mampu memahami bahasa yang digunakan 1 2 3 4 5 disini I feel a stronger sense of identity with the heritage 23 Saya dapat merasakan identiti yang lebih kukuh 1 2 3 4 5 dengan tapak warisan ini

Appendix B

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree

Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I feel like a stranger at the heritage sites 24 Saya berasa seperti orang asing di tapak warisan ini 1 2 3 4 5 My roots are here 25 1 2 3 4 5 Akar umbi saya berasal dari sini

2. What makes you visit the heritage site? Apakah yang menyebabkan anda melawati tapak warisan

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I am eager to learn about new heritage or culture 1 Saya ingin belajar kebudayaan yang baru atau 1 2 3 4 5 kebudayaan orang lain I am eager to gain new knowledge 2 Saya ingin mendapat pengetahuan baru 1 2 3 4 5 I am eager to find out about other’s culture 3 Saya ingin memahami tentang kebudayaan orang 1 2 3 4 5 lain I always want to learn about the history of this place 4 Saya sentiasa ingin belajar tentang sejarah tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I am here because I need a day out 5 Saya hanya memerlukan masa untuk keluar 1 2 3 4 5 I am here because it is a famous tourist attraction 6 Ianya adalah satu tempat pelancongan yang terkenal 1 2 3 4 5 I am here because I want to have some 7 entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 Saya ingin mencari sedikit hiburan I came here to be entertained 8 Saya datang untuk berhibur 1 2 3 4 5 I came to experience new and different lifestyle 9 Saya datang untuk mengalami corak kehidupan yang 1 2 3 4 5 baru dan berlainan I am here because of the UNESCO heritage status 10 Saya datang kerana status yang diberikan oleh 1 2 3 4 5 UNESCO I love heritage 11 Saya suka warisan 1 2 3 4 5 I come to relax 12 Saya datang untuk berehat 1 2 3 4 5 I come to be connected to the past 13 Saya datang untuk rasa satu perkaitan dengan masa 1 2 3 4 5 lepas

Appendix B

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I come to understand my family history 14 Saya datang untuk memahami sejarah keluarga saya 1 2 3 4 5 I come to understand the traditional culture 15 Saya datang untuk memahami kebudayaan 1 2 3 4 5 tradisional I come to increase my knowledge 16 Saya datang untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan 1 2 3 4 5 I come to see a foreign place 17 Saya datang untuk melihat tempat baharu 1 2 3 4 5

3. The heritage site that I have visited, / Tapak warisan yang telah saya lawati,

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju Has good lighting 1 Mempunyai pencahayaan yang baik 1 2 3 4 5 Has good colour scheme 2 Mempunyai skim warna yang baik 1 2 3 4 5 Has functional layout 3 Reka bentuk yang berfungsi 1 2 3 4 5 Has good use of open space 4 Mengunakan tempat terbuka dengan baik 1 2 3 4 5 It is easy to find my way around this location 5 Senang untuk mencari tempat di lokasi ini 1 2 3 4 5 Has tour guides that are very knowledgeable 6 Mempunyai pemandu pelancong yang 1 2 3 4 5 berpengetahuan Offers good services 7 Menawarkan perkhidmatan yang baik 1 2 3 4 5 Has staff that are courteous 8 Mempunyai pekerja yang sopan 1 2 3 4 5 I have ample time at the heritage sites 9 Saya mempunyai masa yang banyak di tapak 1 2 3 4 5 warisan I am rushing for the next destination 10 Saya tergesa-gesan ke destinasi seterusnya 1 2 3 4 5 I do not have enough time to tour the whole place 11 Saya tidak mempunyai masa yang secukupnya untuk 1 2 3 4 5 melawat tempat ini

Appendix B

4. How frequent do you practise any of this meditation technique? / Kekerapan anda melakukan teknik meditasi?

Never………Everyday No Tidak pernah……Setiap hari Yoga 1 1 2 3 4 5 Zen 2 1 2 3 4 5 Silent mediation 3 Meditasi secara senyap 1 2 3 4 5 Others, Please specify: ______4 Lain-lain, Sila nyatakan: ______1 2 3 4 5

Section F: Tourist’s experience outcome / Bahagian F: Hasil pengalaman pelancong

Thinking of your recent visit to the heritage site, please rate the following statement / Berdasarkan hasil lawantan anda baru-baru ini ke tapak warisan, sila kelaskan soalan berikut

1. After visiting the heritage site, / Selepas melawat tapak warisan,

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I developed new perspective of life 1 Saya mempunyai perspektif yang baharu dalam 1 2 3 4 5 hidup I gain new insight on the heritage 2 Saya mendapati pemahaman yang baharu tentang 1 2 3 4 5 warisan tersebut I learn about the need to protect the heritage 3 Saya belajar tentang keperluan memelihara warisan 1 2 3 4 5 I develop respect for the cultural and landscape of this place 4 1 2 3 4 5 Saya belajar untuk menghormati kebudayaan dan landskap tempat ini I have gained an insight into the past 5 Saya mendapat pemahaman tentang masa yang 1 2 3 4 5 lalu I understand more about the importance of heritage here 6 1 2 3 4 5 Saya lebih memahami tentang kepentingan warisan selepas melawatan tapak warisan I now understand the importance of preserving heritage sites 7 1 2 3 4 5 Sekarang saya memahami kepentingan memelihara tapak warisan

Appendix B

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree

Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju Heritage will only be protected when there is a positive economic reason for doing so 8 1 2 3 4 5 Warisan hanya dipelihara apabila ia mempunyai kepentingan ekonomi Heritage brought me to know how people live in the past 9 1 2 3 4 5 Warisan membantu saya untuk mengetahui tentang cara kehidupan manusia pada masa lalu This place changes my perception towards heritage sites 10 1 2 3 4 5 Tempat ini mengubah persepsi saya terhadap tapak warisan This place has given me a new meaning in life 11 Tempat ini memberikan saya maksud yang baru 1 2 3 4 5 dalam hidup saya I would help to contribute to the preservation of the heritage sites 12 1 2 3 4 5 Saya ingin membantu dalam menyumbang kepada pemelihara tapak warisan I am willing to donate in order to help the conservation of the sites 13 1 2 3 4 5 Saya rela menderma bagi membantu dalam konservasi tapak warisan I would never come to this place again 14 1 2 3 4 5 Saya tidak akan melawat ke tempat ini semula I would revisit this place in future 15 1 2 3 4 5 Saya ingin melawat tempat ini pada masa hadapan If given opportunity, I would return to this place 16 Jika diberi peluang, saya mahu melawat tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 semula I would recommend this place to my friends or family 17 1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan mencadangkan tempat ini kepada kawan dan keluarga saya I would say positive things about this place 18 Saya akan mengatakan benda yang positif tentang 1 2 3 4 5 tempat ini I would encourage my friends and relatives to visit this place 19 1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan menggalakkan kawan dan saudara saya untuk melawat tempat ini I would like to extend my stay here if given an opportunity 20 1 2 3 4 5 Jika diberi peluang, saya ingin melanjutkan tempoh percutiaan saya disini

Appendix B

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree

Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I will tell people about the importance of the heritage site 21 1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan memberitahu orang tentang kepentingan warisan It is important for me to behave in an environmentally responsible manner 22 1 2 3 4 5 Ianya adalah penting bagi saya untuk berkelakuan secara bertangggungjawab terhadap alam sekitar I understand more about the consequences of my action towards heritage site here after visiting the 23 heritage sites 1 2 3 4 5 Saya lebih memahai tentang akibat perlakuan saya terhadap warisan selepas melawat tapak warisan I am more keen to learn more about heritage 24 Saya berasa lebih berminat untuk belajar tentang 1 2 3 4 5 warisan The information at the heritage site is clearly 25 themed 1 2 3 4 5 Tema maklumat di tapak warisan adalah jelas I believe if I keep touching the exhibits, I might cause threat to them 26 1 2 3 4 5 Saya percaya bahawa jika saya menyentuh bahan pameran, saya mungkin menyebabkan kerosakan It is necessary for me to take extra care when I tour the place 27 1 2 3 4 5 Saya perlu lebih berhati-hati apabila melawat tapak warisan I will ensure that I do not cause any negative impact on the environment at the heritage site 28 1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan memastikan yang saya tidak menyebabkan impak negatif kepada tapak warisan I think heritage sites are special and important 29 Saya fikir bahawa tapak warisan adalah istimewa 1 2 3 4 5 dan penting When I think about the threats to the environment, I experience the feeling of anxiety 30 1 2 3 4 5 Apabila memikirkan ancaman terhadap alam sekitar, saya berasa gusar I am concerned about the heritage site 31 Saya mengambil berat terhadap warisan ini 1 2 3 4 5 I believe preserving heritage sites is important Saya percaya pemeliharaan tapak warisan adalah 32 1 2 3 4 5 penting

Appendix B

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree

Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I derive a lot of pleasure from the tour at the heritage sites 33 1 2 3 4 5 Saya berasa gembira dengan lawatan ke tapak warisan I am satisfied with the information that is provided at the heritage sites 34 1 2 3 4 5 Saya berasa puas hati dengan informasi yang diberikan di tapak warisan Overall, I am happy with the heritage sites that I have visited 35 1 2 3 4 5 Secara keseluruhan, saya berasa gembira dengan tapak warisan yang telah saya lawati

Thank you for your co-operation in completing this questionnaire.

APPENDIX C

Research On The Understanding Mindfulness and Its Contribution Towards Interpretive Outcome at Georgetown, Penang, Unesco World Heritage City

This research is conducted by a PhD student from the School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) on Creating Mindful Tourists at Penang World Heritage Sites. This research seeks to understand tourists’ experience during a visit to heritage sites. All the information given in these questionnaires are CONFIDENTIAL and the collected information will be ONLY utilised for research purposes.

Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire is highly appreciated. Your response is of utmost importance in achieving the objectives of this study.

Thank you.

Kajian ini dijalankan oleh calon PhD, Tan Poh Ling (P-KOD0026/11) daripada Pusat Pengajian Komunikasi, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) berkaitan tajuk yang dinyatakan diatas. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk memahami pengalaman para pelancong di tapak warisan. Semua maklumat yang diberikan di dalam kajian ini adalah DIRAHSIAKAN dan HANYA akan digunakan untuk tujuan kajian sahaja.

Kerjasama anda dalam menjawab soalan kajiselidik ini amat dihargai. Maklumbalas anda adalah sangat penting dalam mencapai objektif kajian ini.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Dear Sir / Madam, Tuan / Puan,

INFORMED CONSENT FORM / BORANG KEBENARAN

Please be informed that responses to this questionnaire will remain anonymous in the report and the participation in this study is voluntary.

Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa, maklumbalas dalam kertas soal selidik ini adalah rahsia dan penglibatan dalam kajian ini adalah bersifat sukarela.

APPENDIX C

Section A: Demographic Information / Bahagian A: Maklumat Demografi

Please answer the following questions with a tick ( √ ) in the relevant space provided. Sila tandakan ( √ ) jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

1. Gender / Jantina: Male/ Lelaki Female/ Perempuan

2. Age / Umur: ______

3. Educational Level / Tahap Pendidikan:

No formal education/ Tiada pendidikan

Primary and Elementary School / Sekolah Rendah

Secondary and High School / Sekolah Menengah

College and University/ Kolej dan Universiti

Postgraduate / Pascasiswazah

4. Nationality/ Warganegara:

Malaysian / Malaysia

International / Antarabangsa (Please state / Sila nyatakan ______)

5. Occupational group / Kumpulan pekerjaan:

Professional / Profesional Managerial / Pengurusan

Businessman / Usahawan Student / Pelajar

Retiree / Pesara Housewife / Suri Rumah

Clerical / Kerani Expatriate / Ekspatrait

Unemployed / Penganggur Others / Lain-lain Please state / Sila nyatakan: ______

Section B: Travelling Patterns / Bahagian B: Corak Perjalanan

1. How do you arrange for the visit? Bagaimanakah anda merancang untuk lawatan ini?

Tour package / Pakej pelancongan

Own arrangement / Perancangan Persendirian

APPENDIX C

2. How many times have you visited Penang World Heritage Site? Pengalaman melancong di Tapak Warisan Dunia Pulau Pinang?

First time/ Kali Pertama Repeat / Berulang State the number of visit: ______Nyatakan bilangan melawat: ______

3. How many nights do you plan to stay in Penang? Berapa malamkah anda merancang untuk tinggal di Pulau Pinang? ______nights / malam

4. Who are you with today? Siapakah bersama anda pada hari ini?

Alone / Bersendirian Spouse / Pasangan

Clubs or Groups / Family including children / Kelab atau Kumpulan Keluarga termasuk anak-anak

Friends / Kawan-kawan Business Associate / Rakan Perniagaan

Relatives / Saudara Others / Lain-lain (Please state / Sila nyatakan: ______) 5. How many people are there in your travelling group? Berapa ramaikah orang dalam kumpulan perjalanan anda?

______

6. For this trip in Penang, in estimation how much do you spend? (In Ringgit Malaysia – RM) Untuk perjalanan ini di Pulau Pinang, dalam anggaran berapakah perbelanjaan anda? (dalam Ringgit Malaysia- RM)

______Total (Per individual) / Jumlah (Per individual)

______Accommodation / Penginapan

______Local Organised Tour Package / Pakej lawatan tempatan

______Domestic Airfare / Tambang Penerbangan Domestik

______Food and Beverage / Makanan dan Minuman

______Entertainment and Attractions / Hiburan dan Tempat Menarik (including heritage sites / termasuk tapak warisan)

______Local Transportation / Pengangkutan Tempatan

______Miscellaneous / Lain-lain

APPENDIX C

Section C: Travel Experience / Bahagian C: Pengalaman Perjalanan

Please answer the questions based on your visit to the heritage site. Sila jawab soalan berikut berdasarkan lawatan anda ke tapak warisan baru-baru ini

Please circle the answer for the following questions. Sila bulatkan jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

1. What was your main purpose of this visit? / Apakah tujuan utama lawatan ini?

Strongly disagree.…..Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju.…..Sangat bersetuju Heritage Site Visit 1 Melawat tapak warisan 1 2 3 4 5 Holiday 2 1 2 3 4 5 Bercuti Shopping 3 1 2 3 4 5 Membeli belah Others (Please specify: ______) 4 1 2 3 4 5 Lain-lain (sila nyatakan : ______)

2. At the heritage site: / Di tapak warisan:

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I like to investigate new things 1 1 2 3 4 5 Saya suka menyiasat perkara-perkara baru I am very curious at the heritage place 2 Saya mempunyai perasaan ingin tahu yang tinggi 1 2 3 4 5 terhadap tapak warisan I like to figure out how and why certain things happen 3 1 2 3 4 5 Saya suka memikirkan bagaimana dan kenapa perkara tertentu berlaku I try to think of new ways of doing things 4 Saya cuba memikirkan cara baru untuk melakukan 1 2 3 4 5 sesuatu I am always open to new ways of doing things 5 Saya sentiasa terbuka untuk melakukan sesuatu 1 2 3 4 5 dengan cara yang baru I like to search for an answer to questions I may have 6 Saya suka mencari jawapan untuk soalan yang saya 1 2 3 4 5 ada I like to have my curiosity aroused 7 Saya suka perasaan ingin tahu saya dibangkitkan 1 2 3 4 5 I like to enquire further things at the sites 8 Saya suka bertanya lebih lanjut tentang perkara- 1 2 3 4 5 perkara yang terdapat di tapak warisan My mind wanders off and I am easily distracted 9 Minda saya mereweng dan saya mudah berasa 1 2 3 4 5 terganggu

APPENDIX C

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I don’t pay attention to what’s happening at the place 10 Saya tidak menumpukan perhatian kepada apa yang 1 2 3 4 5 berlaku di tempat tersebut It seems that I am “running on auto” without much awareness of what I’m doing 11 Saya seolah-olah sedang berada di dalam mode 1 2 3 4 5 “automatic” tanpa menyedari tentang apa yang saya lakukan I find myself doing things without paying attention 12 Saya dapati diri saya melakukan aktiviti tanpa 1 2 3 4 5 menberikan perhatian kepadanya I do not actively seek to learn new things 13 Saya tidak aktif dalam mencari perkara baru untuk 1 2 3 4 5 dipelajari I am rarely alert to new development that I discover at heritage site 14 Saya kurang peka tentang perkembangan baru yang 1 2 3 4 5 saya temui di tapak warisan I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings 15 Saya berkebolehan dalam mencari kata-kata yang 1 2 3 4 5 sesuai untuk menggambarkan perasaan saya I think some of my emotions towards the heritage sites are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them 16 1 2 3 4 5 Saya fikir ada diantara emosi terhadap tapak warisan adalah tidak baik atau tidak sepatutnya dan saya tidak patut berasa sedemikian I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail 17 Selalunya saya dapat menggambarkan bagaimana 1 2 3 4 5 perasaan saya pada sesuatu waktu dengan agak terperinci I disapprove myself when I have irrational ideas 18 Saya tidak membenarkan diri saya mempunyai 1 2 3 4 5 pemikiran yang tidak rasional I notice subtle changes in my mood 19 Saya perasan perubahan tidak ketara dalam mood 1 2 3 4 5 saya I was receptive to unpleasant thoughts and feelings 20 Saya terbuka kepada pemikiran dan perasaan yang 1 2 3 4 5 kurang menyenangkan I approached each experience by trying to accept it, whether pleasant or unpleasant 21 Saya cuba menerima dengan terbuka setiap 1 2 3 4 5 pengalaman yang dilalui tidak kira sama ada ia menyenangkan atau tidak I was open to taking notice of anything that might come up 22 1 2 3 4 5 Saya terbuka dalam memberi perhatian kepada sebarang kemungkinan yang bakal berlaku

APPENDIX C

Never………Very often No Tidak pernah……Selalu I like to be challenged intellectually 23 Saya suka dicabar secara intelektual 1 2 3 4 5

Section D: Opinion on the heritage site / Bahagian D: Pendapat mengenai tapak warisan

Please circle the answer for the following questions. Sila bulatkan jawapan anda dalam tempat yang disediakan.

Having the recent heritage site that you have visited in mind, please rate the following. Berpandukan tapak warisan yang telah anda lawat, sila kelaskan jawapan anda.

1. At the heritage site that I have visited: / Di tapak warisan yang telah saya lawat:

Strongly disagree.…..Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju.…..Sangat bersetuju I learn something new 1 Saya belajar sesuatu yang baru 1 2 3 4 5 The exhibits lead me to inquire more information 2 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya bertanya 1 2 3 4 5 tentang lebih banyak maklumat The exhibits make me think of more questions 3 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya lebih banyak 1 2 3 4 5 berfikir tentang lebih banyak persoalan The exhibits make me search for answers to my questions 4 1 2 3 4 5 Bahan pameran menyebabkan saya mencari jawapan kepada soalan saya There are many different attractions that are 5 interesting 1 2 3 4 5 Terdapat banyak tempat yang menarik There are different types of display 6 Terdapat banyak jenis bahan pameran 1 2 3 4 5 There are different activities that I can participate 7 Terdapat banyak aktiviti yang boleh saya sertai 1 2 3 4 5 There is nothing new that I can see at the heritage site 8 1 2 3 4 5 Saya tidak dapat melihat sesuatu yang baru di tapak warisan There is nothing new to discover at the heritage site 9 1 2 3 4 5 Tiada benda baru yang boleh ditemui di tapak warisan I have nothing to enquire about the exhibits at the heritage sites 10 1 2 3 4 5 Saya tidak mempunyai persoalan mengenai bahan pameran di tapak warisan

APPENDIX C

None………Plenty No Tiada……Sangat banyak Video presentation 1 Persembahan video N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Films 2 Filem N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Interactive computer display 3 Pameran komputer secara interaktif N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Audio commentary 4 Komentar audio N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Others (Please specify: ______) 5 Lain-lain (sila nyatakan : ______) N/A 1 2 3 4 5

3. Based on the physical orientation of the recent heritage sites that you have visited, please rate the following / Berdasarkan kawasan fizikal di tapak warisan yang anda lawati baru- baru ini, sila kelaskan jawapan anda.

Helpful………Unhelpful No Membantu……Tidak membantu Signage 1 Papan Tanda 1 2 3 4 5 Maps 2 1 2 3 4 5 Peta Instructions and directions 3 1 2 3 4 5 Arahan dan arah tuju Others (Please specify: ______) 4 1 2 3 4 5 Lain-lain (sila nyatakan : ______)

4. The heritage site that I have visited, / Tapak warisan yang telah saya lawati,

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju Has good lighting 1 1 2 3 4 5 Mempunyai pencahayaan yang baik Has good colour scheme 2 1 2 3 4 5 Mempunyai skema warna yang baik Has functional layout 3 1 2 3 4 5 Reka bentuk yang berfungsi It is easy to find my way around this location 4 1 2 3 4 5 Mudah untuk mencari jalan di lokasi ini

APPENDIX C

Section E: Tourist’s experience / Bahagian E: Pengalaman pelancong Through the recent experience at the heritage site that you have visited, please rate the following. Berdasarkan pengalaman anda baru-baru ini di tapak warisan yang telah anda lawat, sila kelaskan jawapan anda.

1. At the heritage site, / Di tapak warisan,

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I am interested to know more on heritage 1 Saya berminat untuk lebih mengetahui mengenai 1 2 3 4 5 warisan I am eager to learn about new heritage or culture 2 Saya ingin belajar kebudayaan atau warisan yang 1 2 3 4 5 baharu I am eager to gain new knowledge 3 Saya ingin mendapat pengetahuan baru 1 2 3 4 5 I am eager to find out about other’s culture 4 Saya ingin memahami tentang kebudayaan orang lain 1 2 3 4 5 I always want to learn about the history of this place 5 Saya sentiasa ingin belajar tentang sejarah tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I am not familiar with this place 6 Saya tidak biasa dengan tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I am not familiar with the culture here 7 Saya tidak biasa dengan kebudayaan yang saya lihat 1 2 3 4 5 disini I have no idea at all about the place 8 Saya langsung tidak pernah tahu tentang tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 The culture is alien to me 9 Kebudayaan ini asing pada saya 1 2 3 4 5 I have no idea at all about the culture 10 Saya langsung tidak pernah tahu tentang kebudayaan 1 2 3 4 5 ini I can imagine the place 11 Saya boleh membayangkan tentang tempat ini 1 2 3 4 5 I have seen pictures and information about this place 12 Saya telah melihat gambar dan maklumat mengenai 1 2 3 4 5 tempat ini I know what to expect about this place 13 Saya tahu apa yang saya boleh harapkan daripada 1 2 3 4 5 tempat ini I feel uneasy at the heritage sites 14 1 2 3 4 5 Saya berasa gusar di tapak warisan I would like to leave this place as soon as possible 15 1 2 3 4 5 Saya ingin meninggalkan tempat ini secepat mungkin

APPENDIX C

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I feel that I have wasted my time here 16 Saya merasakan bahawa masa saya telah 1 2 3 4 5 membazirkan masa saya disini I can understand the language used here 17 Saya mampu memahami bahasa yang digunakan 1 2 3 4 5 disini I feel a stronger sense of identity with the heritage 18 Saya dapat merasakan identiti yang lebih kukuh 1 2 3 4 5 dengan tapak warisan ini My roots are here 19 Akar umbi saya berasal dari sini 1 2 3 4 5 I come to be connected to the past 20 Saya datang untuk merasai perkaitan dengan masa 1 2 3 4 5 lalu I come to understand my family history 21 Saya datang untuk memahami sejarah keluarga saya 1 2 3 4 5 I come to understand the traditional culture 22 Saya datang untuk memahami kebudayaan tradisional 1 2 3 4 5 This place gives me a sense of belonging 23 Tempat ini menberikan saya perasaan bahawa saya 1 2 3 4 5 berasal dari sini

Section F: Tourist’s experience outcome / Bahagian F: Hasil pengalaman pelancong

Thinking of your recent visit to the heritage site, please rate the following statement / Berdasarkan hasil lawatan anda baru-baru ini ke tapak warisan, sila kelaskan soalan berikut

1. After visiting the heritage site, / Selepas melawat tapak warisan,

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju I would help to contribute to the preservation of the heritage sites 1 1 2 3 4 5 Saya ingin membantu dalam menyumbang kepada pemeliharaan tapak warisan I am willing to donate in order to help the conservation of the sites 2 1 2 3 4 5 Saya rela menderma bagi membantu konservasi tapak warisan I would revisit this place in future 3 Saya ingin melawat tempat ini pada masa hadapan 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX C

Strongly disagree.…..Strongly No agree Sangat tidak bersetuju.…..Sangat bersetuju I would recommend this place to my friends or family 4 Saya akan mencadangkan tempat ini kepada kawan 1 2 3 4 5 dan keluarga saya I believe if I keep touching the exhibits, I might cause threat to them 5 1 2 3 4 5 Saya percaya bahawa jika saya menyentuh bahan pameran, saya mungkin menyebabkan kerosakan It is necessary for me to take extra care when I tour the place 6 1 2 3 4 5 Saya perlu lebih berhati-hati apabila melawat tapak warisan I learn about the need to protect the heritage 7 Saya belajar tentang keperluan memelihara warisan 1 2 3 4 5 I develop respect for the cultural and landscape of this place 8 1 2 3 4 5 Saya belajar untuk menghormati kebudayaan dan landskap tempat ini I have gained an insight into the past 9 Saya mendapat pemahaman tentang masa yang lalu 1 2 3 4 5 I understand more about the importance of heritage here 10 1 2 3 4 5 Saya lebih memahami tentang kepentingan warisan selepas melawatan tapak warisan I now understand the importance of preserving heritage site 11 1 2 3 4 5 Sekarang saya memahami kepentingan memelihara tapak warisan I think heritage site is special and important 12 Saya fikir bahawa tapak warisan adalah istimewa dan 1 2 3 4 5 penting When I think about the threats to the environment, I experience the feeling of anxiety 13 1 2 3 4 5 Apabila saya memikirkan tentang ancaman terhadap alam sekitar, saya berasa gusar I am concerned about the heritage 14 Saya mengambil berat terhadap warisan ini 1 2 3 4 5 I believe preserving heritage sites is important 15 Saya percaya pemeliharaan tapak warisan adalah 1 2 3 4 5 penting Heritage will only be protected when there is a positive economic reason for doing so 16 1 2 3 4 5 Warisan hanya dipelihara apabila ia mempunyai kepentingan ekonomi Heritage brought me to know how people live in the past 17 1 2 3 4 5 Warisan membantu saya untuk mengetahui tentang cara kehidupan manusia pada masa lalu

APPENDIX C

Strongly disagree………Strongly agree No Sangat tidak bersetuju……Sangat bersetuju This place changes my perception towards heritage sites 18 1 2 3 4 5 Tempat ini mengubah persepsi saya terhadap tapak warisan This place have given me a new meaning in my life 19 Tempat ini memberikan saya maksud yang baru 1 2 3 4 5 dalam hidup saya

Thank you for your co-operation in completing this questionnaire. Terima kasih atas kerjasama anda bagi menyempurnakan soal selidik ini.

Appendix D

Common Method Bias

Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Variance % Variance % Variance % 1 18.126 21.077 21.077 18.126 21.077 21.077 8.056 9.367 9.367 2 6.979 8.115 29.192 6.979 8.115 29.192 5.108 5.940 15.307 3 4.307 5.008 34.199 4.307 5.008 34.199 5.085 5.913 21.220 4 3.676 4.275 38.474 3.676 4.275 38.474 3.972 4.618 25.838 5 3.142 3.654 42.128 3.142 3.654 42.128 3.963 4.608 30.446 6 2.645 3.076 45.203 2.645 3.076 45.203 3.840 4.465 34.912 7 2.641 3.071 48.275 2.641 3.071 48.275 3.552 4.130 39.042 8 2.423 2.817 51.092 2.423 2.817 51.092 3.285 3.819 42.861 9 2.074 2.412 53.504 2.074 2.412 53.504 3.157 3.672 46.532 10 1.830 2.127 55.631 1.830 2.127 55.631 2.878 3.346 49.878 11 1.635 1.901 57.532 1.635 1.901 57.532 2.763 3.213 53.092 12 1.549 1.802 59.334 1.549 1.802 59.334 2.641 3.071 56.162 13 1.538 1.789 61.122 1.538 1.789 61.122 2.173 2.527 58.689 14 1.354 1.575 62.697 1.354 1.575 62.697 2.107 2.450 61.140 15 1.285 1.495 64.192 1.285 1.495 64.192 2.003 2.329 63.468 16 1.181 1.373 65.564 1.181 1.373 65.564 1.441 1.675 65.143 17 1.133 1.317 66.882 1.133 1.317 66.882 1.257 1.461 66.605 18 1.077 1.252 68.134 1.077 1.252 68.134 1.251 1.455 68.060 19 1.009 1.173 69.307 1.009 1.173 69.307 1.073 1.247 69.307 20 .979 1.139 70.445 21 .954 1.109 71.555 22 .903 1.050 72.605 23 .884 1.027 73.632 24 .846 .984 74.616 25 .829 .964 75.580 26 .762 .887 76.466 27 .762 .886 77.352 28 .748 .870 78.222 29 .719 .836 79.059 30 .671 .781 79.840 31 .668 .777 80.616 32 .645 .750 81.366 33 .620 .721 82.087 34 .601 .699 82.786 35 .579 .673 83.459 36 .553 .643 84.103 37 .549 .639 84.741 38 .533 .619 85.361 39 .504 .586 85.947 40 .477 .555 86.501 41 .474 .551 87.053 42 .464 .540 87.593 43 .441 .513 88.105 44 .430 .501 88.606 45 .422 .490 89.096 46 .421 .489 89.585 47 .402 .467 90.052 48 .384 .446 90.499 49 .364 .423 90.922 50 .354 .412 91.333 51 .339 .394 91.728 52 .335 .389 92.117 53 .326 .379 92.496 54 .307 .356 92.852 55 .297 .345 93.197 56 .295 .343 93.540 57 .288 .335 93.875 58 .283 .329 94.204 59 .268 .311 94.515 60 .263 .306 94.821 61 .261 .303 95.125 62 .250 .290 95.415 63 .245 .285 95.700 64 .241 .280 95.980 65 .223 .260 96.240 66 .214 .249 96.489 67 .211 .246 96.735 68 .202 .235 96.970 Appendix D

69 .201 .233 97.203 70 .193 .224 97.427 71 .189 .219 97.647 72 .187 .217 97.864 73 .177 .206 98.070 74 .163 .189 98.259 75 .156 .181 98.440 76 .154 .179 98.619 77 .145 .169 98.788 78 .141 .164 98.952 79 .141 .164 99.116 80 .137 .159 99.275 81 .129 .150 99.425 82 .116 .135 99.560 83 .106 .124 99.684 84 .099 .116 99.800 85 .092 .107 99.907 86 .080 .093 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.