Testing a Cultural Tourism Typology

Home , Cultural tourism

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 45±58 (2003) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.417 Testing a Cultural Tourism Typology

Bob McKercher* and Hilary du Cros School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT experience to those people who were highly motivated to travel for cultural reasons and This paper tests further a cultural tourism who subsequently had deep experiences. The typology based on the interface between model was tested empirically in a limited centrality of cultural tourism as a trip motive manner and it was discovered that each of the and the depth of experience. Five types of ®ve segments exhibited substantially different cultural tourist are identi®ed that represent behaviour. This paper develops the tourism ®ve bene®t-based segments. The segments typology model further by testing the validity are tested against a variety of trip, of the segments identi®ed against a wider demographic, motivational, preferred range of trip, demographic, experiential, mo- activity, awareness, cultural distance and tivational, attitudinal and learning variables. activity variables. Signi®cant differences are noted between the groups, suggesting that CLASSIFYING CULTURAL TOURISTS BY the model presented may be effective in CENTRALITY OF PURPOSE AND DEPTH OF segmenting the cultural tourism market. EXPERIENCE Moreover, although the segmentation process is predicated on two variables, these Marketing theory argues that every market variables are re¯ective of underlying trip consists of groups or segments of customers motivation, activity preference and cultural with different needs and wants (Kotler, 1999). distance factors noted between the different Customers who react in a homogeneous way, types of cultural tourist. Copyright # 2003 be it in their motivations, behaviour, reactions John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. to marketing activities, or the bene®ts they seek from consuming products and services can be grouped (Sollner and Rese, 2001), Keywords: cultural tourism, segmentation, enabling products to be developed that can Hong Kong. more effectively satisfy the differing needs of each segment. Segments are only meaningful if they help an organisation better match its INTRODUCTION products with it target markets (Mitchell and Wilson, 1998). The operationalisation chal- cultural tourism typology model using lenge is to ®nd a means of identifying discrete A centrality of purpose and depth of market segments while working within the experience as the core dimensions ®nancial and skills limits of the organisation. was proposed in this journal (see McKercher, If all markets can be segmented, then, it 2002). Five types of cultural tourist were stands to reason that the cultural tourism identi®ed in that study, ranging from those market should be no different. In the absence people for whom culture played no role in of more discriminating variables, researchers their decision to travel and who had a shallow sought to identify differences between cultural tourists and other tourists using demographic *Correspondence to: B. McKercher, School of Hotel and variables (Richards, 1996; Blackwell, 1997; Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer- sity, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Miller, 1997; Kemmerling Clack, 1999). But a E-mail: [email protected] number of authors (Prentice et al., 1998;

Figure 1. A cultural tourist typology

Frochot and Morrison, 2000) argue that be- ary reason to visit a destination and may, in cause tourism is experiential and that experi- fact, play no role in the destination of choice ence is sought by groups of tourists across (Silberberg, 1995; Richards, 1996; DKS, 1999; socio-demographic strata, bene®t segmenta- McKercher, 2002). Studies examining central- tion may be more applicable than strict socio- ity of cultural tourism as a trip motive show demographic segmentation. that it in¯uences the number and type of To a large extent, though, much research activities pursued (McKercher, 2002), aware- into cultural tourism is still focused on using ness levels of primary and secondary cultural socio-demographic variables (Bowen, 1998; attractions, the amount of pre-trip research Prentice et al., 1998). These studies treat the undertaken (DKS, 1999) and other trip factors. cultural tourism market as an undifferentiated Likewise, it is recognised at both a conceptual market, with the implicit assumption being (Stebbins, 1996; Timothy, 1996) and empirical that all cultural tourists represent the proto- level (Kerstetter et al., 1998; Prentice et al., 1998) typical `deep' cultural tourist: someone who is that different people will engage cultural highly motivated to travel for cultural reasons tourism attractions at different levels, depend- and who seeks a deep experience. Both ing on their own interests, level of knowledge, assumptions are ¯awed. The importance or time availability, number and type of travel centrality of cultural motives in driving desti- partners, and other factors. nation choice varies signi®cantly among tour- Further, although it may be assumed that ists. For some, it represents the central reason centrality and depth of experience are linked, to travel. But, for many who participate in this relationship does not apply in all cases. cultural tourism activities, culture is a second- Because of the factors mentioned above, two

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 45±58 (2003) Cultural Tourism Typology 47 highly motivated cultural tourists may have any one activity in depth. The casual cultural substantially different experiences. Likewise, it tourist tended to seek convenience based is possible that someone who is not motivated attractions but also had some interest in to travel for cultural tourism reasons but who visiting temples. The incidental cultural tourist does participate in some cultural tourism visited convenience based attractions that activities could have an unexpectedly deep were located in tourism nodes, were easy to experience. consume and were not particularly emotion- McKercher (2002), identi®ed ®ve types of ally or intellectually challenging. Theme parks cultural tourists based on centrality and depth were especially popular with this group. The of experience (Figure 1). smallest group, the serendipitous cultural tourist, demonstrated no clear pattern, which (1) The purposeful cultural tourist (high central- is understandable given the highly personal ity/deep experience). Learning about the nature of their deep experiences. other's culture or heritage is a major reason for visiting a destination and this type of THE STUDY cultural tourist has a deep cultural experience. This study builds on the earlier work, by (2) The sightseeing cultural tourist (high central- testing the cultural tourism typology against a ity/shallow experience). Learning about much wider array of trip, demographic, the other's culture or heritage is a major awareness, motivational and experiential vari- reason for visiting a destination, but this ables. A similar method to the earlier study type of tourist has a more shallow, en- was used to ensure continuity in data collec- tertainment-orientated experience. tion. (For a detailed discussion of the method (3) The casual cultural tourist (modest central- used in this study, see McKercher and Hui ity/shallow experience). Cultural tourism 2001.) Primary data were collected through reasons play a limited role in the decision to face to face interviews conducted in the visit a destination and this type of cultural Departure Lounge area of the Hong Kong tourist engages the destination in a shallow International Airport during October and manner. November 2000. A team of eight researchers (4) The incidental cultural tourist (low central- interviewed respondents. Prospective respon- ity/shallow experience). Cultural tourism dents were identi®ed using a multistage plays no meaningful role in the destination cluster sampling design with strati®cation. decision-making process. However, while The sampling method involved a non-random at the destination, the person will partici- selection of ¯ights to major source markets. A pate in cultural tourism activities, having a systematic method was then utilised to select shallow experience. potential respondents based on their proximity (5) The serendipitous cultural tourist (low cen- to a previously selected seat near the departure trality/deep experience). Cultural tourism gate for the speci®c ¯ight. In this manner, the plays little or no role in the decision to visit respondents essentially self-selected them- a destination, but while there this tourist selves by where they chose to sit in the lounge visits cultural attractions and ends up area, ensuring that a sampling technique having a deep experience. approaching randomness could be achieved. This model was tested empirically on a Data were collected through a structured sample of cultural tourists visiting Hong Kong. questionnaire. To begin, potential respondents Signi®cant differences were noted in the types had to satisfy three qualifying questions to of cultural tourism experiences sought. The ensure that they were tourists (not transit purposeful cultural tourist was the greatest passengers or outbound Hong Kong residents) consumer of intellectually challenging experi- and that they had participated in some form of ences, preferring to visit museums and lesser cultural tourism activity during their stay. This known heritage sites. The sightseeing cultural question read `during this visit to Hong Kong, tourist collected a wide array of experiences, did you visit museums, historical buildings, preferring to tour widely rather than pursuing historical sites, art galleries, go on any cultural

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 45±58 (2003) 48 B. McKercher and H. du Cros tours or attend any festivals/events?' Else- they visited, or identi®ed activities or attrac- where in the questionnaire, they were asked to tions that could not be considered as cultural identify places they had visited from a list of tourism attractions using the ICOMOS para- more than 40 historical sites, museums, cul- meters. When queried further about their tural or religious places, markets and other activities, these people nominated such activi- cultural attractions. They could also nominate ties as taking a harbour cruise, going to tourist other places not on the list they felt were markets or visiting the territory's best known cultural in nature. lookouts as being `cultural' attractions. Inter- A cultural tourism attraction, for the pur- estingly, statistically signi®cant differences pose of this study, was de®ned according to were noted between this group and those the de®nition used by the International Com- cultural tourists who nominated cultural at- mission on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS to tractions on most trip, demographic, experi- de®ne cultural heritage (ICOMOS, 1999). Cul- ential and motivational variables. tural heritage is a broad concept that includes The exclusion of so many people and the tangible assets, such as natural and cultural apparent differences between of®cial de®ni- environments, encompassing of landscapes, tions of cultural tourists and individuals' own historic places, sites and built environments as self categorisation as cultural tourists raises a well as intangible assets such as collections, number of issues relating to the de®nitional past and continuing cultural practices, knowl- challenges involved in examining this phe- edge and living experiences. Examples of nomenon. De®ning cultural tourism is com- tangible heritage includes museums, historical plex, because it can mean different things to buildings, religious sites and arguably theme different people. For many tourists, travelling parks if they have a heritage focus, whereas to experience different cultures equates to intangible heritage includes collections, per- cultural tourism. For them, encountering dif- formance and festivals. They do not include, ferent cultures is synonymous with a cultural however, tourist attractions without a clear, tourism experience, for, presumably, they are recognisable cultural or heritage focus. consuming the different sights, sounds, tastes The questionnaire included a series of and smells of an unfamiliar culture. On the questions relating to the importance of the other hand, academics and tourism marketers opportunity to learn something about Hong de®ne cultural tourism as a discrete product Kong's culture or heritage in their decision to category that is differentiated from other visit, the depth of experience they had, tourism activities by the consumption of a perceptions of the appeal of Hong Kong as a destinations' tangible and intangible cultural cultural destination, the activities they partici- heritage (Richards, 1996; Hall and MacArthur, pated in and general travel motivations. 1998; Shackley, 1998; Leask and Yeoman, 1999; Semantic differential statements were used to McKercher and du Cros, 2002). If the consumer gather information on why respondents travel believes cultural tourism means travel to internationally for pleasure. In addition, stan- experience cultural differences, then, perhaps dard trip and demographic data were ac- a rethink of cultural tourism is needed? Much quired. more research on this issue is required, A valid sample of 760 cases was identi®ed perhaps using symbolic interactionism (see from the initial set of 1153 respondents. A e.g. Colton 1987) as a guiding method. questionnaire was deemed valid if the respondent came from one of the identi®ed target RESULTS source markets (Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, UK, Europe, mainland China, Taiwan Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample Province, Singapore and Malaysia) and also if among the ®ve types of cultural tourist the respondent nominated speci®c cultural or identi®ed. As in the previous study, almost heritage places visited. The large number of half of all cultural tourists in Hong Kong could cases excluded arose because more than 330 be classi®ed as incidental or casual cultural respondents who satis®ed the initial screening tourists, indicating that cultural motives questions either did not specify which places played little role in their decision to visit. In

Table 1. Classi®cation of Cultural Tourists in Hong cultural tourism activities were business tra- Kong (n = 760) vellers. They tended to be clustered in the Cultural tourist type Percentage of sample incidental and casual cultural tourist segments, which is expected given their trip Incidental 20.9 purpose. Casual 26.7 Business tourists represent an often ignored Sightseeing 32.0 potential market segment for many pleasure Purposeful 13.4 tourism activities. Yet, many business travel- Serendipitous 7.0 lers either have or make the opportunity to incorporate some pleasure activities on international trips. They are an attractive segment, for they tend to be well educated and af¯uent addition, they described their experiences as tourists who wish to pursue some recreational being sightseeing orientated or as a providing a activities outside business hours. Conveni- chance to learn a little about Hong Kong's ence-based and well-known attractions are cultural heritage. Sightseeing cultural tourists particularly popular with this group. represent about one-third of the sample. These people indicated that cultural reasons were an Cultural distance/destination perceptions important or the main reason they came to Hong Kong, yet, they still described their Cultural distance refers to the extent to which experiences as being sightseeing orientated or the culture of the originating region differs as providing only limited learning opportu- from that of the host region (McIntosh et al., nities. Only about one in eight cultural tourists 1994). The previous study suggested that surveyed could be classi®ed as purposeful cultural distance may in¯uence participation cultural tourists, highly motivated to travel to in international cultural tourism. People from Hong Kong to learn something about its culture more culturally distant places were more and heritage and having a deep cultural highly motivated to travel for cultural reasons experience. Lastly, a very small group of and sought deeper experience, whereas tour- serendipitous cultural tourists were identi®ed. ists from culturally proximate regions were less interested in cultural tourism and sought super®cial, entertainment orientated experi- Socio-demographics and trip variables ences. Tourists from culturally distant source This study corroborates previous research that markets were interested in museums and suggests demographic variables are not accu- heritage buildings, whereas those from cultu- rate indicators of bene®t-based segments. No rally proximate markets preferred to visit signi®cant differences were found on any of cultural theme parks and mainstream, mass the demographic variables tested, except for cultural attractions (for more details see age of the respondent (w2 = 39.165, Df = 20, McKercher and Chow, 2001). p = 0.006). Sightseeing and purposeful cultural This study tested the concept explicitly. A tourists tended to be older than other groups, positive correlation was noted between dis- whereas the casual and serendipitous cultural tance from Hong Kong and the perception of tourists tended to be younger. Likewise, no cultural difference (r = 0.283, p = 0.000). The differences were noted among the trip charac- further the tourist's home country is from teristics (such as length of stay, total trip Hong Kong, the more likely he or she is to feel duration, repeat visitation, identi®cation of that Hong Kong's culture is different from Hong Kong as the main destination, expendi- their own. This ®nding explains further the ture), except in the variable, purpose of travel relationship between cultural tourist types, (w2 = 54.459, Df = 12, p = 0.000). It is generally perception of cultural distance and perception assumed that cultural tourists are pleasure or of the uniqueness of Hong Kong's culture as a VFR (Visiting Friends and Relatives) travellers, tourist attraction (Table 2). Generally, the but this study also indicated that almost one- greater the cultural distance, the more likely quarter (22.1%) of all people who participate in the tourist is to feel that Hong Kong is rich in

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 45±58 (2003) 50 Copyright # 03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2003

Table 2. Cultural distance by type of cultural tourist (%) Serendipitous Incidental Casual Sightseeing Purposeful Statistical tests Origin (n = 760) Asia = 47.3 Asia = 46.5 Asia = 36.9 Asia = 13.2 Asia = 15.7 w2 = 76.499 West = 52.7 West = 53.5 West = 63.1 West = 86.8 West = 84.3 Df = 4, p = 0.000 Similarity of Basically the Basically the Basically the Basically the Basically the w2 = 29.934 home region to same = 23.1 same = 26.4 same = 16.7 same = 11.1 same = 9.8 Df = 8, p = 0.000 Hong Kong Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat (n = 759) different = 36.5 different = 40.3 different = 40.9 different = 34.6 different = 41.2 Very Very Very Very Very different = 40.4 different = 33.3 different = 42.4 different = 54.3 different = 49.0 Perception of Little unique Little unique Little unique Little unique Little unique w2 = 40.704 Hong Kong as a culture, history culture, history culture, history culture, history culture, history Df = 8, p = 0.000 destination or heritage = 9.6 or heritage = 14.0 or heritage = 16.4 or heritage = 12.0 or heritage = 6.9 (n = 753) Some features that Some features that Some features that Some features that Some features that are unique = 44.2 are unique = 52.2 are unique = 48.3 are unique = 34.7 are unique = 27.7 Rich in culture, Rich in culture, Rich in culture, Rich in culture, Rich in culture, history and history and history and history and history and heritage = 46.2 heritage = 33.5 heritage = 35.2 heritage = 53.3 heritage = 65.3 .MKrhradH uCros du H. and McKercher B. n.J ors Res. Tourism J. Int. 5 55 (2003) 45±58 , utrlTuimTypology Tourism Cultural Copyright # 03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2003

Table 3. Motivational semantic differential statements (%) Statement Serendipitous Incidental Casual Sightseeing Purposeful Statistical tests In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 46.073 travel for education and cultural reasons ¼ travel for Df = 16 recreation and fun (n = 753): p = 0.000 mostly/more often education and culture 32.1 22.6 27.3 27.9 38.0 equally education and culture/ recreation and fun 22.6 25.2 32.3 41.7 41.0 mostly recreation and fun 45.3 52.2 40.4 30.4 21.0 In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 32.035 see travel as a chance to grow personally ¼ see travel Df = 16 as an opportunity to relax (n = 751): p = 0.010 mostly/more often grow personally 44.2 32.7 40.4 48.5 61.0 equally grow/ relax 28.8 39.0 37.3 36.0 27.0 mostly relax 26.9 28.3 21.9 15.5 12.0 In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 43.802 have a chance to learn about another's culture ¼ Df = 16 have a chance to get closer to my family and friends p = 0.000 (n = 751): mostly/more often learn about other cultures 59.7 56.0 70.2 74.9 84.0 n.J ors Res. Tourism J. Int. equally learn/be with family and friends 25.0 27.6 23.9 19.7 13.0 mostly /more often get closer to family and friends 15.4 16.4 6.0 5.4 3.0 5 55 (2003) 45±58 , 51 52 Copyright # 03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2003 Table 4. Experiential semantic differential statements (%) Statement Serendipitous Incidental Casual Sightseeing Purposeful Statistical tests In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 28.975 shop ¼ visit museums (n = 751): Df = 16 mostly/more often shop 28.8 35.2 38.5 24.2 21.0 p = 0.024 equally shop/visit museums 42.3 41.5 44.5 51.3 43.0 more often/mostly visit museums 28.9 23.2 17.0 24.6 36.0 In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 28.143 visit a destination's well known attractions/sites ®rst Df = 16 ¼ visit out of the way and obscure attractions/sites p = 0.030 ®rst (n = 748): mostly/more often visit well known sites ®rst 61.5 48.2 58.5 48.1 41.0 equally well known/obscure 23.1 27.8 33.0 32.2 42.0 more often/mostly visit obscure sites ®rst 15.4 13.9 8.5 14.7 17.0 In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 27.725 wander through local markets ¼ shop at shops Df = 16 selling brand name goods (n = 750): p = 0.034 mostly/more often visit local markets 69.2 64.1 71.0 76.7 78.7 equally local markets/name brand stores 26.9 25.2 25.5 19.6 17.2 more often/mostly shop at name brand stores 3.9 10.7 3.5 3.7 4.1 In general, when I travel internationally, I prefer to: w2 = 30.987

research the destination in depth before I visit ¼ do Df = 16 Cros du H. and McKercher B. n.J ors Res. Tourism J. Int. no research (n = 751): p = 0.014 mostly/more often do research 55.0 51.0 57.7 64.5 70.0 equally do research/do no research 17.6 18.8 20.4 13.8 17.0 more often/mostly do no research 37.4 30.2 21.9 23.7 13.0 5 55 (2003) 45±58 , Cultural Tourism Typology 53 culture, history and heritage. McKercher and tural tourists. By contrast, incidental and Chow (2001) demonstrated a correlation be- serendipitous cultural tourists suggested re- tween cultural distance and cultural tourist creation and fun, relaxation and getting closer typology. This relationship is evident in this to family and friends were the main reasons study as well, as the ratio of Asian to Western they travelled. tourists changes across the cultural tourism A similar pattern was noted in the four continuum. The share of Asian tourists de- statements seeking insights into preferred clines from about one-half of incidental and activities (Table 4). Again, the purposeful and serendipitous cultural tourists to less than one- sightseeing cultural tourists preferred mu- sixth of purposeful cultural tourists. Signi®- seums over shopping, liked to visit out of the cant differences emerge between segments in way or obscure attractions and preferred to relation to Hong Kong's image as a cultural shop in local markets rather than in stores destination. selling brand names. They also tended to do more research about the destination prior to visiting. Casual and incidental cultural tour- Travel motives Ð centrality and preferred ists, on the other hand, preferred to shop at experiences name brand stores, would rather see the main Two of the goals of this study were to gain a sites of a destination and do little research better understanding of why cultural tourists before visiting. travel for pleasure and what type of experiences they prefer. These issues were tested Activities undertaken through the use of semantic differential questions. Semantic differential questions present Different behaviours were noted by each the respondent with two opposing statements cohort. Incidental cultural tourists preferred and ask the person to select which one best visiting easy to consume, low involvement, re¯ects his or her point of view. For example, well known, entertainment orientated, mass one statement read `in general, when I travel tourism cultural attractions. Theme parks and internationally, and I prefer to: travel for IMAX-type cinemas were particularly appeal- education and cultural reasons ¼ travel for ing to this segment. This behaviour is a recreation and fun.' The choice of answers re¯ection of both the low importance of included `mostly travel for education and cultural tourism in the decision to visit and cultural reasons', `more often education and of the underlying motivation of travelling cultural reasons', `equally travel for education primarily for pleasure. Sightseeing cultural and cultural reasons and for recreation and tourists showed a preference for visiting fun', `more often for recreation and fun' and British colonial sites and also the cultural `mostly for recreation and fun'. Three of the precinct in Kowloon. Purposeful cultural statements sought underlying reasons for tourists visited both Chinese and British travel, whereas the remaining 10 assessed colonial sites and were also the greatest preferred activities or experiences at a destina- consumers of commercial day-tour products. tion. Signi®cant differences were noted in Sightseeing and incidental cultural tourists seven statements, including all three under- were also fairly active consumers of commer- lying motivational statements and four of the cial products (approximately 12% each). Cul- 10 activity statements. tural or heritage tours hold little appeal for The responses to the motivational state- incidental and casual cultural tourists. ments are summarised in Table 3. Purposeful and sightseeing cultural tourists tended to Amount of learning state that they were motivated to travel for educational or cultural reasons, saw travel as a One of the recognised goals of cultural tourism chance to learn about another's culture and is to increase awareness of the destination's saw travel as a chance to grow personally. The cultural or heritage values (ICOMOS, 1999, purposeful cultural tourist expressed these 2000; NTHP, 1999). This study suggests most opinions more strongly than sightseeing cul- cultural tourists do report learning something

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 45±58 (2003) 54 Copyright # 03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2003

Table 5. Amount of learning as a result of the visit Serendipitous Incidental Casual Sightseeing Purposeful Statistical tests Knowledge on 2.82 2.79 2.73 2.87 2.98 ANOVA arrival (mean) f = 1.421 p = 0.225 Knowledge on 3.48 3.22 3.32 3.54 3.76 ANOVA departure (mean) f = 10.407 p = 0.000 Change in Know the Know the Know the Know the Know the w2 = 41.278 knowledge (%) same = 36.0 same = 39.5 same = 31.3 same = 19.1 same = 8.9 Df = 4 Know more = 64.0 Know more = 60.5 Know more = 98.5 Know more = 80.9 Know more = 91.1 p = 0.000 .MKrhradH uCros du H. and McKercher B. n.J ors Res. Tourism J. Int. 5 55 (2003) 45±58 , Cultural Tourism Typology 55 after their visit, but that the amount learned is to participate in some cultural tourism activity variable and depends on the type of cultural to augment their trip experience to those tourist. Respondents were asked three ques- people who travel exclusively or primarily to tions to assess their knowledge of Hong pursue cultural tourism activities. Kong's cultural heritage. The ®rst asked them The study tested, in part, the validity of the to assess their level of knowledge before ®ve types of cultural tourists identi®ed as a arriving in Hong Kong; the second, their means of segmenting the cultural tourism knowledge on departure. Both questions used marketplace. The results appear to corroborate a ®ve point Likert scale. The third question the validity of using bene®ts based segmenta- asked them to indicate if their knowledge had tion. Substantial differences were noted be- increased, stayed the same or decreased as a tween the ®ve segments on most of the result of the visit. The results are summarised variables tested. Importantly, the ®ve seg- in Table 5. ments provide useful predictors of both the All cultural tourists, regardless of how they type of experience people will seek and also of are classi®ed, generally feel they arrive with the amount of learning they hope to gain. about the same level of knowledge of Hong (Note, the authors also reanalysed the data Kong's culture and heritage in spite of the fact from a supply perspective by conducting an that some are more likely to do pre-trip activities-based segmentation study. Activities research than others. However, the study based segmentation assumes that different noted substantial differences in perceived themed sets of attractions will appeal to knowledge gained on departure. Incidental different cohorts of tourists. See McKercher et and casual cultural tourists still felt they had al. (2002) for full details.) average knowledge, whereas sightseeing and Collectively, these ®ndings suggest that the purposeful cultural tourists were more likely simple two-dimensional model proposed, in to say that they now knew more than the fact, re¯ects more profound underlying mo- average tourist. A majority of serendipitous tives that shape the tourists' desired travel cultural tourists also felt that they now knew experience as well as their cultural tourism more than the average tourist. Overall, nearly behaviour. Indeed, the typology re¯ects the three-quarters of respondents said that their operationalisation of the factors that motivate knowledge of Hong Kong's culture and heri- tourists to travel in the ®rst place and the tage had changed as a result of this visit. But, preferred type of experiences they seek at a again, signi®cant differences were noted be- destination. The purposeful cultural tourist is tween segments (w2 = 41.278, Df = 4, p = 0.000). not just motivated to travel for deep cultural Only about 60% of incidental cultural tourists experiences. This person, in general, sees said they knew more. This ®gure grew travel as a chance for self development and steadily, peaking at more than 91% of purpo- seeks experiences that will facilitate the seful cultural tourists. achievement of that goal. Likewise, incidental or casual cultural tourists are not super®cial DISCUSSION consumers of culture. These people see travel as recreation, refreshment and replenishment This study tested further a cultural tourism and seek experiences that help them achieve typology developed by the authors. Five types these goals. of cultural tourist were identi®ed using cen- The cultural tourism typology is similar in trality of cultural tourism in destination choice many ways to both Plog's (1976) and Cohen's and depth of experience as discriminators. The (1979) more generic typologies of tourists. typology was tested against a variety of Although there has been some debate over demographic, destination perception, cultural the use of typologies, they do serve useful distance, trip motivation, preferred experience purposes in trying to understand the beha- and activity variables. The study con®rms that viour of different groups of travellers. Purpo- many shades of cultural tourist exist. The seful cultural tourists are similar in motives to spectrum of cultural tourists ranges from Plog's near-allocentric or allocentric tourists or recreational or pleasure tourists who happen to Cohen's experimental or existential tourists.

Sightseeing cultural tourists are similar to tourist who seeks meaningful travel experi- Plog's mid-centrics or Cohen's experiential ences. tourists, whereas the casual, incidental and This study suggests otherwise. The many serendipitous cultural tourists resemble Plog's shades of cultural tourists fall along a con- near-psychocentric or psychocentric tourist or tinuum, just like any other cohort of tourists. Cohen's recreational and diversionary tourist. The coveted purposeful cultural tourist is the Likewise, an analogy can be made with exception rather than the norm, representing Cohen's (1972) concept of strangeness versus only a small minority of all people who familiarity. Purposeful cultural tourists seek participate in cultural tourism. The majority travel experiences, in general, that lie outside on the other hand, just like the majority of all of their familiar environment, and further, tourists, tend to participate for recreational wish to embrace different environments as and pleasure reasons and not for deep learning much as possible. As such, their cultural experiences. De Kadt's (1978) observations tourism experiences become a metaphor for from over 20 years ago that most tourists their greater quest for strangeness. The ability should not be confused with anthropologists to cope with strangeness, however, diminishes and archeologists still holds true. The majority as the typology shifts from purposeful to of cultural tourists are on vacation, a break incidental cultural tourist, resulting in the from their normal hectic and stressful lives. concomitant desire to seek more familiar They seek enjoyable experiences that entertain experiences. Strangeness reduction is facili- them, but do not tax them mentally or tated in a number of ways, including greater ideologically. commoditisation of the experience, greater It is a mistake to assume that all cultural emphasis on fun and entertainment and the tourists are alike. Likewise it is a mistake to provision of experiences that can be consumed assume that all or most cultural tourists are with little emotional or intellectual commit- seeking a deep and meaningful experience. ment. Plog's (1976) and Cohen's (1979) models These ®ndings have signi®cant implications predict this phenomenon, and the semantic for gaining a greater appreciation of the differential motivational statements explain inherent diversity of the cultural tourism the differences empirically. Tourism is still a market, the potential size of any segment and pleasure activity that is undertaken largely for the types of cultural tourism products that are recreation, relationship building and rejuvena- most suited for different segments. Moreover, tion. People participate in a wide array of they offer insights into which markets most activities, including cultural tourism to have destinations should target. Proponents of these goals met. This study revealed that the cultural tourism like to argue that purposeful majority of cultural tourists stated that they cultural tourists represent the archetypal cul- were motivated to travel, in whole or in part, to tural tourist: someone who is highly motivated relax, enjoy themselves or to be with family to travel for cultural reasons and who seeks a and friends. Their preferred activities of shop- deep experience. In the absence of more ping, seeing well known cultural sites and detailed research, inferences are made that treating the visit to Hong Kong as a holiday, anyone who participates in cultural tourism rather than work; by not doing much research must be a deep cultural tourist. This type of before arrival re¯ects the recreational nature of thinking has led to the promulgation of wild their trips. ®gures about the size of the cultural tourism Further, the emergence of both physical and market based solely on participation, with cultural distance as factors that in¯uence the respected bodies such as the World Tourism cultural tourism typology offer further insights Organisation even suggesting that upwards of into why most cultural tourists can be classi- 40% of all international tourists are `cultural ®ed as incidental, casual or sightseeing, tourists' (Richards, 1996). These ®gures have, whereas there are relatively few purposeful in turn, been used by certain proponents of cultural tourists. The short break, culturally politically correct tourism to argue that cul- proximate market, in particular is interested in tural tourists represents a new type of mass escapist, recreational holidays. Seeing as this

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 45±58 (2003) Cultural Tourism Typology 57 market is now recognised as the dominant Cohen E. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist market for most destinations, it stands to experiences. Sociology 13: 170±201. reason that their cultural tourism behaviours Colton CW. 1987. Leisure, recreation, tourism: a will be evocative of recreational tourism. Long symbolic interactionism view. Annals of Tourism haul, culturally distant tourists will seek Research 14(3): 345±360. deeper experiences, but in the grander scheme De Kadt E. 1978. Tourism: Passport to Development. of things, represent a smaller market segment. Oxford University Press: New York. The implications on product development of DKS. 1999. Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Study. D. K. Shif¯et and Associates, prepared for Penn- a dominant recreationally orienated cultural sylvania Department of Conservation and Natu- tourist market are equally as signi®cant. ral Resources; 63 pp plus appendices. McLean: Understanding that most cultural tourists Virginia. prefer to travel for fun and recreation and are Frochot I, Morrison AM. 2000. Bene®t segmenta- seeking lighter experiences means that suc- tion: a review of its application to travel and cessful products must cater to these needs. tourism research. Journal of Travel and Tourism Cultural tourism must be presented in a Marketing 9(4): 21±46. manner that is enjoyable, easy to consume Hall CM, McArthur S. 1998. Integrated Heritage and, although it may contain an element of Management. The Stationery Of®ce: London. learning, must ®rst seek to entertain. Products ICOMOS. 1999. Cultural Tourism Charter. ICO- that ignore this maxim will struggle to ®nd a MOS, Paris. http://www.icomos.org (accessed large consumer base. 11 February 2000) This study tested a proposed cultural tour- ICOMOS. 2000. Cultural Tourism. International ism typology. The results veri®ed the validity ICOMOS. http://www.international.icomos. of the typology, but also identi®ed a number of org/icomos/etouris.htm (accessed 6 June 2000) underlying factors that explain why and how Kemmerling Clack J. 1999. Cultural tourism: an cultural tourists can be classi®ed into one of overview of impact, visitors and case studies. In the ®ve types or segments identi®ed. Physical Navigating Global WatersÐ30th Annual Conference Proceedings, Moisey RN, Nickerson NP, Klenosky DB distance, cultural distance, travel motivations (eds). Travel and Tourism Research Association; and activity preferences all in¯uence what 154±159. type of cultural tourist an individual is. In turn, Kerstetter D, Confer J, Bricker K. 1998. Industrial these factors shape the type of preferred heritage attractions: types and tourists. Journal of experience sought and also the amount the Travel and Tourism Marketing 7(2): 91±104. person will learn when participating in cul- Kotler P. 1999. Kotler on Marketing: How to Create, tural activities. Win and Dominate Markets. Simon and Schuster: London. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Leask A, Yeoman I. 1999. Heritage Visitor Attractions. An Operations Management Perspective. Cassel: Funding for this study was provided by a London. grant from the Hong Kong University Grant's McIntosh R, Goeldner C, Ritchie B. 1994. Tourism: Committee. Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 7th edn. Wiley: New York. McKercher B. 2002. Towards a classi®cation of REFERENCES cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research 4: 29±38. Blackwell C. (1997) Tourism and cultural tourism: McKercher B, Chow B. 2001. Cultural distance and some basic facts. Preservation Issues 7(3) http:// cultural tourism participation. Paci®c Tourism www.umsl.edu/services/library/blackstudies/ Review 5 (1/2): 21±30. culttour.htm (accessed 6 June 2000) McKercher B, du Cros H. 2002. Cultural Tourism: Bowen JT. 1998. Market segmentation in hospitality Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage research: no longer a sequential process. Interna- Management. Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY. tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage- McKercher B, Hui LL. 2001. The Omnibus Survey. ment 10(7): 289±296. Paci®c Tourism Review 5(1/2): 5±11. Cohen E. 1972. Toward a sociology of international McKercher B, Ho P, du Cros H, Chow B. 2002. tourism. Social Research 39: 164±182. Activities based segmentation of the cultural

tourism market. Journal of Travel and Tourism Richards G. 1996. (ed.). Cultural Tourism in Europe. Marketing 12 (1): 23±46. CAB International: Wallingford. Miller J. 1997. Cultural tourism worthy of note. Shackley M (ed.). 1998. Visitor Management: a Hotel and Motel Management 212 (15): 7. Strategic Focus. Focal Press: London. Mitchell VW, Wilson DF. 1998. Balancing theory Silberberg T. 1995. Cultural tourism and business and practice: a reappraisal of business-to-busi- opportunities for museums and heritage sites. ness segmentation. Industrial Marketing Manage- Tourism Management 16 (5): 361±365. ment 27: 429±445. Sollner A, Rese M. 2001. Market segmentation and NTHP. 1999. Getting Started: How to Succeed in the structure of competition: applicability of the Heritage Tourism. National Trust for Heritage strategic group concept for an improved market Preservation: Washington; 45 pp. segmentation on industrial markets. Journal of Plog S. 1976. Why destination areas rise and fall in Business Research 51: 25±36. popularity. The Cornell Hotel and Restuarant Stebbins RA. 1996. Cultural tourism as serious Administration Quarterly February: 55±58. leisure. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (4): 948±950. Prentice RC, Witt SF, Hamer C. 1998. Tourism as Timothy DJ. 1997. Tourism and the personal experience: the case of heritage parks. Annals of heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research Tourism Research 25 (1): 1±24. 24 (3): 751±754.