JFTH, Vol. 16, Issue 1 (2019) ISSN: 2314-7024 E-ISSN: 2682-2180

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites: The Case of the Oasis of Bahla and Land of in the Sultanate of

Heba Aziz1,2

1Department of Tourism Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt. 2Department of Logistics, Tourism, & Service Management, German University of Technology (GUtech), Halban, Oman

Philipp Herzig Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

Abstract

This study aims at contributing to the body of Heritage Sites, behavioral intentions, Sultanate research on visitor satisfaction at UNESCO of Oman. World Heritage Sites with a case study of the Oasis of Bahla and , two 1. Introduction Cultural World Heritage Sitesin the Sultanate of Oman. To analyse the level of satisfaction Being one of the fastest growing segments of of visitors to the Oasis of Bahla and the Land the industry, heritage tourism has become an of Frankincense, a questionnaire was important aspect of many countrys‟ tourism developed which consisted of five main strategy (Huh, Uysal, & McCleary, 2006; sections in accordance with the research model Altunel & Erkut, 2015). It has been recognized and in total, 250 visitors took part in the as a credible source of economic growth and a survey. The results showed that the tourists‟ tool to erode boundaries between culture, overall satisfaction for both sites was above tourism and everyday life (Richards, 1996). average and that visitors would recommend The United Nations Educational, Scientific them to other people. The research and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has recommended that UNESCO needs to made it their core goal to protect and preserve acknowledge the importance of on-site heritage sites of outstanding universal value all interpretation and tourism infrastructure for around the world. These World Heritage Sites heritage tourists. Also, Omani government (WHSs) take a special place in heritage needs to develop thought-out management tourism since a designation usually is plans and an efficient implementation considered as branding (Timothy, 2011) which mechanism in order to enhance the quality of makes it more visible to potential visitors. the World Heritage Sites which are attractive Tourists often associate the World Heritage for many visitors. status with certain attributes which include a good level of management as well as a fair Keywords: Visitor Satisfaction, World amount of on-site interpretation that

17 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 16, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig communicates the universal value of the place whether the outstanding universal value which (Poria, Reichel & Cohen, 2013). is the crucial factor of a WHS designation is communicated to and understood by the Although previous research conducted by visitors as well as how important the factor is various authors (e.g. Williams 2005; Yan & that the site has a UNESCO label. This Morrison 2005; Poria et al., 2013) has dealt research composition can support management with visitation to WHSs in connection to decisions with the goal of increasing visitor experience and satisfaction, only very few satisfaction and comply with the spirit a utilized the approach of comparing the actual UNESCO World Heritage designation testifies experience of the visitor with the overall for. In order to contribute to the rather small satisfaction and resulting behavioural body of research that has been done on this intention. Especially when specific attributes issue and generally on visitors at UNESCO of the destination are taken into consideration WHSs (Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998; Zeithaml, which is in parts coined to WHS, research is 2000; Adie & Hall, 2016), this study aims at lacking behind. As stated by Chen and Chen investigating the relationship between the (2010), also in tourism context, satisfaction is visitation experience, overall satisfaction and primarily measured as a function of pre-travel behavioural intention as well as general and expectations and post-travel experiences. This more specific factors of satisfaction of visitors method has been introduced by Oliver (1980) at two WHSs in the Sultanate of Oman. and reached broad adoption. However, in many cases WHSs in countries that are not 2. Literature Review considered well-established tourism destinations; visitors do not have certain 2.1 Supply Side: Heritage Tourism expectations and therefore, cannot compare The terms cultural and heritage tourism are them to their post-evaluation of the visit. equipped with a broad variety of definitions. In Churchill and Surprentant (1982), Tse and its convention concerning the protection of the Wilton (1988) and Dabholkar, Shepherd and World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Thorpe (2000) take a similar approach and UNESCO defines cultural heritage in a broad pledge for neglecting expecations and only sense including monuments, groups of contrast experience and satisfaction. As buildings and sites which in detail can be mentioned above, this study will not only “works of man or the combined works of analyze the relationship between overall nature and man, and areas including experience and satisfaction but also whether archaeological sites which are of outstanding certain dimensions and attributes are universal value from the historical, aesthetic, especially influencing the satisfaction of the ethnological or anthropological point of view” visitor. Facilities and employees, physical (UNESCO, 1972). This broad definition is appearance, accessibility and interpretation useful in order to “encompass not only major consisting of several attributes are hereby historic sites and institutions but the entire taken into consideration. Besides landscape of the region with its geographic acknowledgement of demographics and travel base (Bowes 1989, p. 36). 13 years later the patterns of visitors to the chosen WHS which UNWTO describes cultural heritage in backs the research on differences between connection to tourism as the movement of general heritage tourists and visitors to WHSs persons due to cultural motivations such as (Adie & Hall, 2016), the assessment of study tours, performing arts, travel to festivals

18 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig and other cultural events, visit to sites and possible relationships in connection to monuments, travel to study nature, folklore, or different stages of the heritage tourism art or pilgrimages (UNWTO 1985). Following lifecycle have been identified and include this definition but defining cultural tourism as denial, unrealistic expectation, parallel the umbrella term, Richards (1997) states that existence, conflict, imposed co-management, cultural tourism includes all movements of partnership, and cross purpose (Zhang & persons to specific cultural attractions such as Zheng, 2014). Denial describes an early stage heritage sites, artistically and cultural and can result in not-used cultural heritage manifestations, and arts and drama outside asset, parallel existence of heritage and their normal place of residence. However, tourism or conflict between the two. Prentice (1993) describes heritage as not only Unrealistic expectation can be caused by landscapes, natural history, buildings, artifacts, people in charge of the supply side, for and cultural traditions which are passed on example the site manager. A parallel existence from generation to generation but every aspect is possible when roles don‟t overlap, and that can be promoted as tourism products. He conflicts arise when uncontrolled tourism also differentiates between types of heritage, threatens the „survival‟ of the heritage product. namely built, natural and cultural heritage. Imposed co-management can occur after a conflict situation and means imposing artificial The tourism industry is growing at a vast solutions to end the dispute between speed and has been titled the world‟s largest stakeholders which might jeopardize the industry since the mid-1980s (Timothy & cultural integrity (McKercher et al., 2005). Boyd, 2003). Cultural and heritage tourism has Sincere partnerships are rare but can be become the most prosperous segment within established when the common goal of the industry (Huh et al., 2006; Altunel & providing a satisfying experience to the visitor Erkut, 2015) and the United Nations World is agreed upon. When using tourism to justify Tourism Organization (UNWTO) the use of for example ancient buildings, acknowledged that heritage tourism has gained intangible heritage attributes might be lost. high importance for many travelers. Almost This type of relationship is referred to as cross 40% of international trips include culture and purposes relationship and emphasizes the need heritage as part of the experience (Timothy & of finding a balance between conservation and Boyd, 2003) which hardly makes heritage a the use of heritage sites for tourism (Garrod & niche of tourism. Fyall, 2000). Several authors have analyzed the relationship between heritage and tourism in their 2.2 Demand Side: Heritage Tourists publications (Ashworth, 2000; Timothy & Timothy and Boyd (2003) describe that Boyd, 2003; Ho & du Cros, 2005). Ashworth scholars define heritage in either a supply-led (2000) proposes three main schools of thought or demand-led manner whereas a significant labelling them automatically harmonious, part of heritage tourism literature has focused inevitably in conflict, and potentially on the supply side (e.g. Smith, 1988; Wigle, sustainable. Furthermore, a framework has 1994). However, it is important to emblaze the been introduced by McKercher, Ho & du Cros continuously growing demand for vacation (2005) due to the assumption that the with more cultural elements and authentic relationship between heritage and tourism is experiences as opposed to exclusively intricate owed to its dynamic nature. Seven

19 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig regenerative holidays (Ritchie and Inkari, Although heritage tourism represents a certain 2006; Yankholmes and Akyeampong, 2010). aspect of the global phenomenon of tourism, Especially a transitional phase from the distinct sub-segments are important to product-led to a more visitor-orientated acknowledge and target directly. Kerstetter, development that focuses on preferences and Cofer and Graefe (2001) see segmentation as experience quality of the tourist (Apostolakis necessary to create programs and promotional & Jaffry, 2005) must be acknowledged. campaigns. Finding out about benefits that Several studies segmenting and analyzing the visitors seek when visiting heritage profile of cultural tourists exist but only few destinations was the aim of a study conducted that explicitly focus on visitors to heritage through mailing list by Weaver, Kaufman and destinations, especially to UNESCO WHSs Yoon (2002) that resulted in the identification (Ramires, Brandão & Sousa, 2016). In general, of three dimensions (“Escape”, “Social” and demand can be differentiated in current, latent “Education”) and two clusters: “Active Benefit or unmet and option demand as introduced by Seekers” and “Loners”. A similar Weisbrod in 1965. Current demand is the part segmentation has been introduced by Timothy of a population that is able or willing to and Boyd (2003) who identified passive and actually participate in tourism. The second serious heritage tourists. Passive heritage category describes the difference between the tourists who do not visit heritage sites as a current demand and the entire potential of predominantly goal but include it in their trip participation while option demand is defined when passing by or when estimating the as the amount a person is willing to pay for the historic value as sufficient. They show option of consuming the product in the future. characteristics of mass tourism and do not Also, demand for heritage tourism is less have the same motivations as serious heritage elastic and shows less seasonal variation. The tourists. This group is passionate about listed categories apply for tourism as a whole heritage and visiting heritage sites most but also for heritage tourism with the probably is the purpose of their travel. Align difference that it is directed to heritage tourists with the approach of segmenting heritage (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). When aiming to tourists by their level of seriousness, segment heritage tourists it is necessary to McKercher (2002) identified five segments of distinguish heritage tourists from tourists at heritage tourists in Hong Kong. Dependent on heritage places (Poria, Butler & Airey, 2003). the importance of cultural motives titled as According to the authors, heritage tourists are “centrality” and the depth of the experience, he interested in the heritage attributes of the site suggests categorizing heritage tourists into whereas tourists at heritage places may not be “the purposeful” who is characterized by high aware of the cultural value of the site but centrality and depth, “the sightseeing” (high potentially are attracted by other attributes on- centrality but shallow experience), “the site. casual” (modest centrality and shallow experience), “the incidental” (low centrality Understanding heritage tourism as one of the and shallow experience) and lastly “the fastest growing segments within tourism itself serendipitous” with low centrality but deep (Chen, 1998) leads to the need of segmenting experience. it into subcategories in order to gain knowledge on the dimensions that are of interest for the tourist (Huh et al., 2006).

20 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

2.3 Tourism at UNESCO WHSs. In terms of demographics, literature with the topic of World Heritage tourism demonstrates A special case is World Heritage tourism and similar results in comparison with studies of refers to heritage sites that are inscribed in the general heritage tourism. The Australian case WHL initiated by UNESCO. It can be study from King and Prideaux (2010) showed understood as a brand segment of general that the number of women visiting WHS was heritage tourism (Hall & Piggin 2003). marginally higher than the one of men. The According to Timothy and Nyaupane (2009), same observation was made by Wang et al. many countries try to improve the visibility of (2015) for Kanas in China and also Remoaldo, their heritage sites with aspiring to have them Ribeiro, Vareiro and Santos (2014) noted more designated the World Heritage status. A female than male visitors to the World designation usually is perceived as branding Heritage City of Guimaraes, Portugal. Adie (Timothy 2011) or labelling (Yang, Lin & Han and Hall (2016) determined only marginal 2010) and according to Yang (2014, p. 74), differences between the number of women and UNESCO is a powerful but debatable factor men visiting the considered WHSs. In terms of and some destinations do not promote it as education the findings were equal for all three aggressively as others. However, also for studies showing consistently high education of WHSs it is essential to segment their tourists World Heritage tourists what verifies and goes in order to find the right strategy in terms of align with the findings for the general visitor experience, revenue generation and phenomenon of heritage tourism from the preservation (Hall & McArthur 1993). The literature mentioned before. However, one Organisation for Economic Co-operation and significant difference was found in terms of Development or OECD (2009) identifies the scale. Huh et al. (2006) noted that heritage too general marketing of heritage sites as a tourists most commonly are from the core problem for tourism destinations since surrounding area and therefore domestic, cultural tourists seek specific experiences and World Heritage visitors however appear to be not a large variety of products. This factor in many cases of international nature. In their comes particularly into play for a World exploratory study, Poria, Reichel and Cohen Heritage Site due to its classification under the (2013, p. 273) bring up the point of purview of a unified brand (Hall & Piggin, associations heritage tourists have when 2003) although the attributes and experiences confronted with World Heritage. Participants of WHS vary from destination to destination. linked the label to being a culturally famous Adie and Hall (2016) observed that only very site of major significance to humankind few authors have intended to analyze the meaning that a designated site has to be of segment of World Cultural Heritage tourists value for the entire human race and not only although 77.4% of the properties inscribed in for a specific group of people. Also, the the WHL are cultural. Palau-Saumell et al. findings let conclude that WHSs are declared (2013) agree with this view only listing two as national tourist highlights that must be other studies examining consumer behaviour visited. Interestingly enough however, none of at WHS (Poria, Reichel & Cohen 2011) and the participants recognized the World Heritage the influence of the WHS brand on tourists‟ Site logo. Also, low awareness was discovered motivation for visiting WHS (Marcotte & in terms of what the designation of a site as Bordeau, 2006). World Heritage represents (Williams, 2005)

and Yan and Morrison (2007) did not find a

21 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig strong relationship between awareness of the level of touristic development. These two sites fact that a site is labelled World Heritage and are Oasis of Bahla and Land of Frankincense. the decision to visit it. Aligned with these The Archaeological Sites of Bat, Al-Khutm studies, Hall and Piggin (2001) found out that and Al-Ayn and Aflaj Irrigation Systems of stakeholders often expected a higher increase Oman are also sites of Outstanding Universal in visitor numbers than reached and Value but are not under management for eventually, Poria et al. (2013) come to the touristic purposes yet although it is possible to conclusion that the designation does not have a visit them. remarkable impact on tourism demand. In contrast, Shackley (1998) illustrates the 2.5 Oasis of Bahla enrolment of a World Heritage Site as virtually After 20 years of restoration, which a guarantee of a visitor number increase, due is located in the Al Dakhiliya region opened its to its international visibility. Also, Bianchi gates to the public in 2012. Due to its poor (2002) recognizes a WHS designation as an condition during this period and discussion on indicator of quality for international markets. how the work was done, it was moved to the Significant impact on tourist flows and types List of WHSs in Danger in 1988, only one of visitors has been detected by Ramires et al. year after the Oasis of Bahla of which the fort (2016) in a study conducted in the World is part was awarded the World Heritage status. Heritage City of Port, Portugal. Its After consultation with experts from UNESCO international image as an attractive tourism and a management plan “for the Bahla Fort destination had been strengthened through the and Oasis settlement in Oman to protect the UNESCO label. Adie and Hall (2016) state area from further degradation” (Atkins n.D.) it World Heritage designations seem to be was developed by Atkins consultancy firm, the particularly attractive for European tourists site regained its former status in 2004. with German, English and French visitors on the forefront. Statistics show that 60% of The Oasis of Bahla includes Bahla Fort with European tourists are seeking cultural aspects the adjacent Friday Mosque but also the and 30% of destinations were chosen by the surrounding mud-brick settlement and palm offer of heritage sites (Remoaldo et al., 2014). grove. According to UNESCO (n.D.-a), the Although the official intention of a listing is to oasis owes its prosperity to the Banu Nebhan protect global heritage for future generations, tribe which was the dominant group in the area th th the debate between heritage protection and from 12 to end of the 15 century. The Bahla tourism development is ongoing (Palau- Fort is a significant example for the technique Saumell et al., 2013). of using unbaked bricks and stone foundations and emphasizes the power of the tribe at that 2.4 UNESCO WHSs in Oman time who dominated the central Omani region The Sultanate of Oman accepted the and made Bahla their capital. The fort consists Convention Concerning the Protection of the of an extensive wall with multiple World Cultural and Natural Heritage on watchtowers and gateways which make it a Tuesday 6th of October 1981. As mentioned labyrinth of mud brick dwellings. Parts of the before, four cultural sites are inscribed in the Aflaj Irrigation System which also is inscribed WHL after the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary lost its in the WHL as a separate site was used to status in 2007. For the purpose of this study, manage the watering of the oasis. Furthermore, two of the sites have been chosen due to their the souq (traditional market) which was

22 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig located within easy surveillance from the fort respectively to manage the number of visitors was is included in the UNESCO site. and give historical information. A similar facility is currently planned for the Oasis of 2.6 Land of Frankincense. Shisr which is part of the strategy “to inform The World Heritage Site that was inscribed in regional, interregional and international the WHL as Land of Frankincense in the year visitors about the rich tradition of the Land of 2000 is located in the Dhofar region and Frankincense” (UNESCO n.D.-b). consists of four components. Together they are a testimony of the civilizations of south Arabia 2.7 Visitors Satisfaction with UNESCO and the trade of frankincense which is WHSs considered to be one of the most important  Expectations and satisfaction versus luxury items in antiquity transported and sold experience and satisfaction from the Mediterranean and Red sea regions to Generally, expectations are defined as Mesopotamia, India and China. performance of establishment, ideal performance or desired performance (Teas “The Land of Frankincense sites include all 1994, p. 134). According to Oliver (1980) elements necessary to express its Outstanding expectations are influenced by the product Universal value” (UNESCO n.d.-b). Criterion itself including one‟s prior experience, the iii is complied with through importance of the context in which the possibility to purchase the frankincense trade in the antiquity and the product was communicated (e.g. salespeople) Oasis of Shisr as well as and Al- and individual characteristics of the consumer Baleed are significant examples medieval (e.g. persuasibility or personal distortion). As fortified settlements which fulfills already mentioned, Oliver‟s approach to requirements of criterion iv. Furthermore, the measuring satisfaction has been adopted by size of the sites is sufficient and represent all many researchers in the field of service quality features which are important to indicate (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Lewis & Booms, significance. Attributes are in good condition 1983; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1988). and functions are fully maintained. The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm Development has not affected the properties assesses satisfaction by relating the perceived and no threats are observed by UNESCO due quality to initial expectations against which it to its appropriate protection by the government is either confirmed when meeting the with the Royal Decree No. 6/80 and Royal expectations, negatively disconfirmed if the Decree No. 16/2001. Additionally, buffer customer is disappointed or positively zones and fencing requirements have been disconfirmed when expectations have been respected. These factors together with the fact exceeded (Baker & Crompton, 2000). Oliver that the archaeological sites had no inhabitants defines satisfaction as “a function of an initial in centuries lead to the conclusion that “the standard and some perceived discrepancy from authenticity of the property is not open to the initial reference point” and states that questions” (UNESCO n.D.-b). A management “satisfaction soon decays into one‟s overall plan is in place which has led to further attitude toward purchasing products” (1980, p. protection of the sites against interventions by 460). Chon and Olsen (1991) discovered a visitors for example by access paths that have solid correlation between tourists‟ expectations introduced. A visitor interpretation center is and their satisfaction with the destination and available in Khor Rori and Al-Baleed also Pizam and Milman (1993) provided

23 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig research with the result of disconfirmations agreed with this opinion and stated that quality being relatively good predictors of overall can be measured in terms of attribute satisfaction. performance. In their study on a resort destination, Meng et al. (2008) noted that the To understand what makes an experience most important indicator for satisfaction was valuable, Otto and Ritchie (1996) developed the evaluation of attribute performance. an experience quality scale with the factors Furthermore, Chi and Qu concluded that “it hedonics (affective responses), peace of mind can be said that tourists‟ overall satisfaction (physical and psychological safety), was determined by destination image and involvement (being able to choose and control attribute satisfaction” (2008, p. 632). offers) and recognition as in the sense of feeling important to the service providers. Significant variance in number and nature of Kao, Huang and Wu (2008) followed this attributes that are considered relevant for example for a study on theme parks and sparking satisfaction among tourists at likewise conceived experiential quality by four destinations can be found in literature of the factors. Immersion relates to involvement tourism field (Dorfman, 1979; Pearce, 1982). which lets the consumer to perceive time as Attribute satisfaction is “the consumer‟s passing quickly while surprise refers to the subjective judgment resulting from uniqueness of the offer. Participation touches observations of attribute performance and upon the interaction between consumer and the information satisfaction the “subjective product and fun simply implies happiness and satisfaction judgment of the information used enjoyment. In addition, Kao, Huang and Wu in choosing a product” (Spreng et al. 1996, p. were able to establish the result of a positive 17 & 18). A variety of researchers have found relationship between the experiential quality that it is important to measure satisfaction with and satisfaction which furthermore influences each of the attributes because (dis)satisfaction behavioural intentions positively (Chen & with one of them leads to (dis)satisfaction Chen, 2010) which was again confirmed by overall (Pizam et al., 1978; Rust, Zahorik & Yang and Lin (2014) for WHSs. Therfore, the Keininghan, 1996; Kozak & Rimmington, first hypothesis for this study can be 2000). In consideration of these findings and formulated as follows: in the context of heritage tourism, it is essential that the presentation of the heritage H1: There is a positive and significant product stimulates the interest and relationship between “Experience Quality” involvement of the visitor. De Rojas and and “Satisfaction” Camarero (2008) list location, internal distribution, walkways, lighting and To get a sufficient knowledge of the tourists‟ informative panels as examples. According to behaviour and their satisfaction towards the Trinh & Ryan, tourists are becoming more and destination or a set of attributes is essential for more concerned with “not just being there, but managers to promoting the destination (Yoon with participating, learning and experiencing & Uysal, 2005). The critical role of attribute the „there‟ they visit” (2013, p. 241) and Poria performance in determining satisfaction has et al., (2009) highlight the importance of received wide attention in various studies acknowledging interpretation as a key factor of (Pizam et al., 1978; Kozak & Rimmington, the overall experience. 2000; Chi & Qu, 2008; Meng, Tepanon &

Uysal, 2008). Churchill and Surprenant (1982)

24 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

Attributes with high influence of satisfaction al., 2013). In the context of the Alta Museum are specific elements of tourism supply such as in Norway which is associated with a gastronomy, accommodation, culture and UNESCO World Heritage Site, Johanson and entertainment and hospitality (Ramires et al., Olsen (2010) noted that location is an 2016) whereas others are more generic (Kozak important attribute and that visitors spent more & Rimmington, 2000). These specific time on activities such as relaxing in the café attributes of tourism supply have been and browsing through the gift shop than recognized as important to tourists in large looking at the exhibits. Furthermore, Poria, parts and should be paid special attention to. Reichel and Cohen (2013) concluded that As Pavesi, Gartner and Guillet (2015) as well visitors do not require a site to be attributed as as Ramires et al. (2016) argue, also other antique but rather significant to human culture. attributes going beyond the supply of culture and heritage such as mobility, accessibility, Based on above discussed literature, the cleanliness and safety as well as hospitality are following hypotheses are formulated: well-worth highlighting as important satisfaction factors (Ramires et al., 2016). H1a: There is a positive and significant Timothy and Boyd (2003) emphasize that relationship between the dimension “Facilities establishing shopping facilities creates and employees” and overall “Satisfaction” motivation for tourists to spend money and can act as a main contributor to revenues at H1b: There is a positive and significant heritage sites. On the Isle of Man, Prentice relationship between the dimension “Physical (1993) observed that meals, snacks and gifts appearance and maintenance” and overall summed up into one-fifth of tourists‟ “Satisfaction” expenditure and although it is important to not disturb the heritage aspect, Timothy and Boyd H1c: There is a positive and significant (2003) confirm this discovery and state that relationship between the dimension shopping makes up 20-50% of total on-site “Accessibility” and overall “Satisfaction” expenditure and hence is one of the main activities that tourists undertake when H1d: There is a positive and significant travelling. Furthermore, a positive shopping relationship between the dimension experience can also add to an increase of “Interpretation” and overall “Satisfaction” overall satisfaction. What has to be noted is that all the discussed attributes fall in the Something most studies with the topic of category of controllable elements. customer satisfaction have in common, Uncontrollable attributes such as scenery and regardless of which theory was followed, is the weather are not taken into consideration since recognized relationship between the taking influence is not possible even if they experience, satisfaction and behavioural lead to dissatisfaction (Kozak & Rimmington, intention (e.g. Olsen, 2002; Chen & Tsai, 2000). In the study on the historic city of 2007; Chen & Chen, 2010; Palau-Saumell et Melaka in Malaysia which was designated a al., 2013). Palau-Saumell et al. (2013) UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008, it was demonstrated in their study that influence of that due to the constant arrival of tourists, satisfaction towards tourists‟ behavioural infrastructure played a crucial role in order to intentions exist, similar to Baker and make the site attractive for tourists (Jusoh et Crompton (2000) who state that a direct

25 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig relationship between the quality of the H4: Visitors who spent more money on-site experience and user satisfaction often has been were significantly more satisfied with their found when included in the model (e.g. visit Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Tse & Wilton, 1988). Furthermore, the authors concluded that H4a: Visitors who spent more time on-site satisfaction is a useful predictor of the were significantly more satisfied with their behavioural intentions. Accordingly, we visit formulated the following hypothesis: Furthermore, analysis is conducted to identify H2: There is a positive and significant if satisfaction decreases when the UNESCO relationship between “Satisfaction” and label is the main reason to visit the site due to Behavioural Intention specific attributes that might be demanded and

To acknowledge that heritage sites are unique connected with the designation. and that naturally, different results can be Correspondingly, it is also tested whether the achieved for each of the WHSs which are part level of satisfaction is influenced when visitors of this study, hypotheses are introduced that already have experienced other UNESCO sites refer to significant differences between them. on the globe The relationships of H1 and H2 will be tested H4b: Visitors whose main reason to visit the for each site respectively: site was the UNESCO label were significantly

less satisfied with their visit H3: There is a significant difference in

“Experience Quality” between the analysed H4c: Visitors who have visited other UNESCO UNESCO sites sites before were significantly less satisfied

with their visit H3a: There is a significant difference in

“Satisfaction” between the analysed UNESCO At last, hypotheses five and six are proposed sites to gain knowledge on how spending on-site

can be increased. For managerial purposes, the H3b: There is a significant difference in relationship between the duration of the visit “Behavioural Intention” between the analysed and the amount of money that was spent on- UNESCO sites site. Additionally, it is tested whether the Due to the intention of this study to give travel type (cruise, travel package, self- insight on other factors that can have an organized, business or other) influences the influence on customer satisfaction, additional spending behaviour of the tourist while hypotheses are introduced that have not been visiting the World Heritage Site. In that effect, widely discussed in previous literature. two more hypotheses are tested for the purpose However, they connect to the general of this study: discussion of heritage tourists and their travel behaviour. H4 and H4a are used to find out H5: There is a significant relationship between whether satisfaction is influenced by the way the time and money spent on-site the visitor shapes his stay at the site. H6: There is a significant relationship between the nature of the visitor’s trip and the money spent

26 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

Conceptual model of the study. Considering the discussion of the relationships and differences between expectations, experiences and satisfaction and the models presented, a conceptual model for the study of tourist satisfaction at two UNESCO WHSs in Oman is proposed (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Conceptual Model.

3. Methodology Oasis of Bahla in the Dakhiliya Governorate, approximately 200 kilometres from the capital In order to achieve the objective of gaining Muscat and the Land of Frankincense, a information on visitor satisfaction at UNESCO UNESCO site located in the south of the sites in Oman, data have been gathered country in . Here, the through the distribution of questionnaires. study has been conducted at the archaeological Results have been analysed to test and confirm site of Al-Baleed with the associated on-site or disconfirm previous hypotheses. The museum. Al-Baleed has been considered the heritage sites chosen for the conduction of the best option to reach as many visitors as cross-sectional study had to fulfil three main possible due to the fact that a clear entrance criteria: (i) to be designated a UNESCO World and exit exist and a large number of tourist Heritage Site, (ii) made accessible to the groups will visit this place. However, for the general public with clear entrances and exits purpose of the study, the official name Land of and therefore open for tourism and (iii) be Frankincense has been used which includes under management what implies that also the other sites namely Wadi Dawkah, the employees are on-site which was crucial for Caravan Oasis of Shisr, the port of Khor Rori the distribution of the questionnaires. Four and Al Baleed. UNESCO sites exist in the Sultanate of Oman but only two of them met all requirements: the

27 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

Oasis of Bahla and Land of Frankincense has not been encountered or was simply not qualified as study objects since they were existent on-site. awarded the UNESCO label and are managed Participants of the study were asked to as a touristic attraction. evaluate their experience at the World Since the aim of the study was to measure Heritage Site based on a pool of 20 destination visitor satisfaction at Omani UNESCO sites, attributes. As mentioned before, these the target population was not restricted to attributes were clustered into four dimensions tourists but included Omani residents as well. which were not stated on the questionnaire but The recruitment of voluntary participants of used for the purpose of analysis. As described this target group was carried out randomly, by Timothy and Boyd (2003), facilities (e.g. hence a convenience sample was gathered toilets, visitor center etc.) play a major role in without a designation of visitors to certain tourism and hence were included for the groups (e.g. test group). The participants were survey. Furthermore, the visitor was asked to informed that the survey was anonymous, and state his or her level of agreement with results would be used for research purposes statements referring to the contact with the only. Respondents had to be at least 18 years employees and the local community. of age and no incentive apart from the Cleanliness, safety and entertainment factor academic contribution that was supported by for children were part of the second the visitor‟s participation was given. dimensions while the third evaluated the experience of travelling to the site. Both To test the six hypotheses derived from the dimensions have been considered important by literature review, a questionnaire was several authors (e.g. Ramires, 2016; Jusoh et developed consisting of five main sections. al., 2013) and therefore were added to this These sections include general “Demographic study. The fourth dimension which was information”, “Travel pattern and further included for the evaluation of the experience information”, “Experience Quality”, quality targeted the perception of visitors “Satisfaction” and “Behavioural Intention”. regarding the provided information and The latter three sections (“Experience interpretation at the site. The importance of Quality”, “Satisfaction” and “Behavioural these items for satisfaction have been Intention”) are the variables used in the study. highlighted in previous literature (e.g. Lee, To ensure validity and reliability, sections, Petrick & Crompton, 2007; De Rojas & items and attributes were generated in Camarero, 2008) and thus, visitors were asked accordance with the reviewed literature and to evaluate the quality of information panels, adapted for the purpose of this study. A 5- brochures and guides. The fifth item of the point Likert-scale was applied for the study dimension “Interpretation” was included to which has widely been used in similar research identify whether the visitor has learned why on customer and visitor satisfaction (e.g. De the heritage sites is considered to be of Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Trinh & Ryan, universal cultural value. The evaluation of this 2013; Vareiro et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; question ought to shed light on the emphasis Palau-Saumell et al., 2015) and ranged from that is put on explaining for which reasons the “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. Here, site was awarded the UNESCO label. the option “Not applicable” was given and explained to be chosen if the assessed attribute

28 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

The fourth section (“Satisfaction”) aimed at statistics, differential analysis, correlation assessing the visitors‟ satisfaction with their analysis and cross tabulation. Demographics visit to the World Heritage Site. Items referred and travel pattern were presented through to satisfaction with provided information, descriptive analysis and sections and service, the management‟s effort to make the dimensions evaluated by employing site interesting and enjoyable and a concluding descriptive statistics. Differential analysis was evaluation of overall satisfaction. After used to analyse differences between the two “Experience Quality” this section represented UNESCO sites whereas correlation analysis the second part of the theoretical model of this provided results to test hypotheses dealing study. As the last section of the questionnaire with significance of relationships between and third part of the model, “Behavioural sections and dimensions. In order to test Intention” of the visitors was surveyed. Instead relationships between individual items and of the intention to return to the site, the items gain knowledge on connections between asked referred to the intention to recommend certain types of behaviour, Cross tabulation and visit other UNESCO sites in Oman based and Pearson Chi-Square Test were utilized. on the experience made. These items have The basic descriptive analysis was conducted been proven to be better indicators for future to gain information about the chosen sample behaviour in the tourism context (McIntosh and the travel behaviour. Furthermore, 2004; Moscardo & Pearce 1999; Prentice differences between the UNESCO sites were 1993). At last, visitors should state their identified. Frequencies and percentages willingness to pay a higher entrance fee to together with mean score and standard enter the site as it has been done in previous deviation were examined through descriptive studies (e.g. Chen & Tsai 2007; Oppermann statistics. Mean scores were analysed to make 2000). This item was included to provide basic statements regarding the perceived experience information for future calculation of prices. quality, satisfaction and behavioural intention. 350 questionnaires were prepared and 250 This process was followed for each heritage filled in adequately and considered valid site individually. Correlation analysis was used (N=250; response rate of 71.4%). 60% to test hypotheses 1 and 2. The Pearson

(Na=150) were completed in Oasis of Bahla coefficient of relationships between sections and 40% (Nb=100) for Land of Frankincense. and dimensions indicated significance and In Bahla, the questionnaires were distributed provided evidence to draw conclusions. to the visitors during regular opening hours Differences between the analysed UNESCO and by the cashier after their visit. Time to fill sites in terms of mean scores were identified in the questionnaire ranged between 5 and 10 through differential analysis. The resulting minutes and respondents were free to choose Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)-tables with where to complete it. the associated p-values provided the requested information for the testing of H3 and H4.

Hypotheses 5 and 6 were tested by utilizing 4. Results cross tabulation and the Pearson Chi-square 4.1 Methods of data analysis test which provided information about In terms of software, IBM Statistical Package relationships between scale measures. for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 was Sections, dimensions, attributes or items were used for analysis. Statistical tools that were considered to be equal in importance and used are descriptive analysis, descriptive therefore not weighted.

29 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

4.2 Demographic profile of respondents. Table 1: Results for the analysis of demographics Table 1 summarizes the demographic (frequencies and percentages) of the study sample information gained from the survey. A Demographics F. % relatively even gender distribution was found with a share of 47.2% female and 52.8% male Gender Female 118 47.2 respondents. The strongest representation in Male 132 52.8 terms of age was found in the group of 25-34 Age years with 28.8%. The following groups 18-24 19 7.6 showed a balanced outcome with 15.6% for 25-34 72 28.8 35-44 years and respectively 16.8% of the age 35-44 39 15.6 45-54 42 16.8 between 45-54 and 55-64. The two ends of the 55-64 42 16.8 spectrum are 7.6% of young adults between 18 65 and over 36 14.4 and 24 and 14.4% senior citizens of the age of Education 65 and older. The sample mainly consisted of Basic 29 11.6 visitors with academic background. University 82 32.8 Graduate 118 47.2 Combining the positive responses to the PhD 21 8.4 options “University” (32.8%), “Graduate” Residency (47.2%) and “PhD” (8.4%) leads to a total of A resident of 24 9.6 88.4%. 11.6% of the visitors answered that Oman An International they have received basic education which 226 90.4 Tourist includes all possibilities outside university education. To have an approximate idea of the 4.3 Descriptive statistics for the Oasis of journey that the visitor made, the question of Bahla residency was asked. 90.4% respondent to be an international tourist and accordingly, 9.6% The descriptive statistics present the visitor are residents in the Sultanate of Oman. This ratings of the dimensions and attributes as well does not mean that these visitors are born in as the overall satisfaction and post-visit Oman but that they are not in a situation of behavioural intentions of the tourist for each of only visiting the country and most probably the analysed UNESCO sites. The results permanently live and work there. The question indicated that in the perception of the of residence also was the only one with respondents, two of the dimensions were noticeable differences between Oasis of Bahla satisfactory, one was measured as indifferent and Land of Frankincense. In Bahla, 17% and one of them had to be considered stated to be Omani residents (83% unsatisfactory. In terms of the 20 attributes, international tourists) and in Land of nine were found to be satisfactory, six as Frankincense, only 4.7% are residents (95.3% indifferent and five as dissatisfactory (See international tourists). All other demographical Table 2). questions showed very similar answers and The mean score for the dimension “Physical distributions for both UNESCO sites. appearance and maintenance” consisting of

four attributes was 4.0600. Therefore, it is

slightly above the “Agree”-level and can be

30 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig considered satisfactory as perceived by the The drivers of this result are the dimensions of visitors. In terms of the dimension physical appearance and accessibility. In terms “Accessibility” provided the highest of satisfaction (mean: 3.3383), the results satisfaction for visitors in Oasis of Bahla with show a balanced picture with means ranging a mean score of 4.3967. The dimension of from 2.8200 to 3.7600. Despite of this mix of “Facilities and employees” scored a mean of opinions for satisfaction, over 80% of 3.333 but the mean for the attributes range respondents made clear that they would from 2.7467 to 4.0800. The dimension recommend other people to visit the site “Interpretation” was marginally rated as (mean: 4.2067) and 61.3% would visit other dissatisfactory by the respondents with a mean UNESCO sites in Oman based on their visit to of 2.9187”. This score is very close to being Oasis of Bahla. An increased entrance fee considered indifferent; however, single would also be accepted by over 45% of the attributes show a clearer tendency. The overall sample for Bahla and refused by 20.7% experience including all dimensions and leaving 34% of visitors who did not have an attributes resulted in a mean of 3.6772 which opinion on this matter. shows a clear tendency towards satisfaction.

4.4 Descriptive statistics for the Land of Frankincense

In case of the UNESCO site of Land of and Employees” achieved a mean (3.5833) Frankincense, all four dimensions have been close to the middle of the scale. Also the identified as satisfactory for visitors mean score 3.5120 of “Interpretation” did not according to categories that have been conclude strong opinions. The dimension established for the means (See Table 3). with the second highest mean was found to However, two of the dimensions were very be “Accessibility” (3.9350). A mean of close to being considered as indifferent and 3.7832 was calculated for the satisfaction also six attributes did not achieve a with all the attributes combined (“Experience satisfactory level but have been perceived as Quality”). This is similar to the result indifferent by the respondents. Accordingly, discovered for Oasis of Bahla. However, a the remaining fourteen attributes are above considerably higher mean was found for the the mean of 3.5. The dimension “Facilities overall satisfaction of the respondents.

31 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

32 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

33 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

The result of 3.9675 let the author conclude rejection of hypotheses H3, H3a and H3b that most of the visitors left the site with a which involve significant differences between feeling for satisfaction. This is also indicated the two UNESCO sites in terms of experience by the individual means for the four different (H3), satisfaction (H3a) and behavioural attributes. 70% were satisfied with the intention (H3b) and general assumptions information provided on-site and 12% did not regarding the relationship between travel receive as much information as they would pattern and satisfaction (H4; H4a; H4b; H4c). have liked. 37% agreed to be satisfied with the At last, relationships within the travel pattern received services and 28% even strongly are being assessed by utilizing Cross agreed. 4% could not agree and 31% neither tabulation and the Pearson Chi-Square Test to agreed nor disagreed. 74 out of 100 visitors indicate if the results are significant. agreed (42) and strongly agreed (32) to be Hypothesis 5 alleges that a connection satisfied with the management‟s effort to make between the time spent on-site and the amount the site interesting and enjoyable. The positive of money that was spent (H5) exists while behavioural intentions of the visitors were hypothesis 6 relates the nature of the visitor‟s slightly weaker than in Oasis of Bahla with a trip to the spending (H6) to explore if for mean of 3.7733. Nonetheless, 83% of example cruise passengers are willing to spend respondents would recommend the UNESCO more than visitors on self-organized holidays. site to other people and 4% would refrain from doing so. 6% will not visit other UNESCO Hypothesis 1 sites in Oman based on their visit to Land of H1: There is a positive and significant Frankincense though 72% agree or strongly relationship between “Experience Quality” agree to visit one or more of the remaining and “Satisfaction” WHSs in Oman. 28% stated that they cannot support an increase of entrance fees and 36% For the WHS of Oasis of Bahla (ρ=.735**) as did not have an opinion on the matter. The well as for Land of Frankincense (ρ=.561**) residuary percentage (36%) would be willing and the overall analysis of both sites combined to pay more to enter the UNESCO site. (ρ=.667**) a positive and significant relationship has been found (See Table 4). 4.5 Testing of hypotheses This means that if the perceived quality of the experience is high, the satisfaction will be high Purposively for this study, six major and an increase in perceived experience hypotheses are being proposed and tested quality triggers an increase in satisfaction. The whereas H1 includes four, H3 two and H4 coefficient is higher for Oasis of Bahla which three sub-hypotheses. For the first part and indicates that visitors to the site connected through correlation analysis (Pearson their experience even more strongly to their Correlation), the relationship between overall satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 is confirmed experience and satisfaction (H1), the four and can be accepted. dimensions and satisfaction (H1a; H1b; H1c;

H1d) as well as the relationship between satisfaction and behavioural intention (H2) are tested for significance. Secondly, differential analysis with Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is employed to find evidence for the support or

34 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

appearance and maintenance” and overall “Satisfaction” The physical appearance of the Oasis of Bahla World Heritage Site reveals a strong relationship between its perception by the visitor and his or her satisfaction (ρ=.493**). For Land of Frankincense a similar finding was made with a PCC of ρ=.310**). Overall the correlation analysis results in a significance coefficient of ρ=.411**. Generally, the coefficient is lower than for the first dimensions (“Facilities and employees”) but nonetheless the relationship is highly significant in all cases and therefore H1b is supported by the findings.

Figure 2: Scatter-diagram of the relationship between Hypothesis 1c Experience and Satisfaction for the entire sample. H1c: There is a positive and significant Hypothesis 1a relationship between the dimension “Accessibility” and overall “Satisfaction” H1a: There is a positive and significant Although still a positive and significant relationship between the dimension “Facilities correlation, the relationship between and employees” and overall “Satisfaction” “Accessibility” and “Satisfaction” shows the

Hypothesis 1a is supported by the findings and lowest coefficients for Oasis of Bahla can be accepted since a positive and (ρ=.378**), Land of Frankincense (ρ =.321**) significant relationship exists between and for both sides in total (ρ=.210**). “Facilities and employees” and “Satisfaction”. Although the means of transportation can be Again, the strongest relationship was found for considered different for the two UNESCO Oasis of Bahla with a PCC of ρ=.711**. For sites (Oasis of Bahla often reached by car Land of Frankincense, the coefficient amounts whereas in Frankincense buses are used in the to ρ=.521** and overall to ρ=.672**. The majority of cases), the results show that it is coefficients indicate that the satisfaction with not the most important factor for the visitor the facilities on-site plays an important role for and that other dimensions have a stronger the overall satisfaction and that changes made relationship with the overall satisfaction. for the attributes in this dimension have an However, significance is recognized and also effect on the customer‟s overall evaluation of Hypothesis 1c is accepted due to its support the visit. from the findings.

Hypothesis 1b Hypothesis 1d H1b: There is a positive and significant H1d: There is a positive and significant relationship between the dimension “Physical relationship between the dimension “Interpretation” and overall “Satisfaction”

35 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

For hypothesis 1d, findings likewise provide Land of Frankincense ρ=.523** which support for the acceptance. For the overall indicates that interpretation and learning on- analysis and individually for Land of site is essential for the visitor and strongly Frankincense, the Pearson Correlation influences the satisfaction. For Oasis of Bahla Coefficients let conclude that “Interpretation” the relationship is highly significant has the strongest relationship with (ρ=.707**) but not as strong as between the “Satisfaction” when comparing the perceived quality of facilities and overall relationships between the other dimensions satisfaction. and “Satisfaction”. Overall ρ=.692** and for

Hypothesis 2 H2: There is a positive and significant relationship between “Satisfaction” and “Behavioural Intention”

It was proven that the perceived quality of the significant relationship with the “Behavioural entire experience influences the overall Intention” of the visitor post-visit. The Pearson satisfaction of the visitor. As a second step, it Correlation clearly gives evidence that this is analysed whether the relationship continues, relationship exists in a strong form for each and “Satisfaction” also has a positive and case.

17 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 16, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

For Oasis of Bahla the PCC is ρ=.563** and findings. However, Table 5 also provides for Land of Frankincense ρ=.754** which is information for each site individually and the strongest relationship overall that has been important differences are mentioned. It was found out of the relationships analysed for this decided to declare differences as significant site. Assessing the relationship for both WHS when a p-value of ≤0.05 has been identified together results in ρ=.579** which is also resulting in a percentage of confidence of 95% highly significant. With the findings discussed, which leaves a 5% mistake chance. In general, H2 is supported and therefore accepted as only dimensions and attributes that fit this confirmed. categorization are being mentioned.

4.6 Differential analysis Hypothesis 3 For two reasons, a differential analysis has H3: There is a significant difference in been conducted. First of all, it was important “Experience Quality” between the analysed to gain knowledge on the significant UNESCO sites differences between the dimensions and ANOVA results states a probability value of attributes of the two UNESCO sites .112 for the overall experience that visitors had (hypotheses 3-5). In order to identify at the sites. This shows that there is no significance, the means for Oasis of Bahla and significant difference in the overall experience Land of Frankincense have been compared of the visitor when including all four with the attributes in the dependent list. The dimensions (“Facilities and employees”, resulting ANOVA-table showed the “Physical appearance and maintenance”, comparison of attributes and dimensions of the “Accessibility” and “Interpretation”). experience as well as differences in overall However, significance can be found in three of satisfaction and behavioural intention. What the four dimensions and 13 of the 20 has to be kept in mind is the already attributes. mentioned influence of the middle answer “Facilities and employees” with a p-value of “Neither agree nor disagree” which was the .001 clearly demonstrates significant intended option for the respondents when the differences. In terms of attributes, the ratings specific attribute was not available on-site. for washrooms (.012), the souvenir shop (.000) Secondly, connections between travel and the visitor centre (.000) likewise are behaviour and satisfaction were to be assessed significantly different between the sites. A (hypothesis 6-6c) for the purpose of logical explanation for the differences of the identifying patterns that help to understand if latter named attributes is the lack of them at certain factors also have influence on Oasis of Bahla. A souvenir shop is not existent satisfaction. Here, the entire sample has been and neither a visitor centre is available on-site. used to assess the overall significance, but all A 100% significance was also computed in tests have been conducted again for each regard to signposting and directions indicating individual site. Only when significant entrance, exit and general points of interest. differences between the sites were identified, Here, Land of Frankincense reaches they were mentioned below. In the following, considerably higher means for two reasons. hypotheses 3 to 6c are being tested with Again, direction or supportive signposting is respect to the relationship between means and not available at the WHS of Oasis of Bahla the calculated significance. Confirmation or except for a sign leading to the washrooms. dismissal of the hypotheses is based on these

37 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

Some of the rooms of the fort have names on of the WHS and include materials that were them but due to the size of the fort, those not common at the point of emergence. plates cannot be seen from most places. Land Furthermore, connected to the nature of the of Frankincense, although also comprised of a UNESCO sites might be the significant large area does not face the same problem difference in the perception of suitability for since the path along the site is easily children. At Oasis of Bahla, children seem to recognizable and the museum can be seen be more entertained than in Land of from anywhere on-site. However, the survey Frankincense what can be connected to the results also indicated that visitors are not mentioned lack of barriers which allows the completely satisfied with the arrangement and visitor to explore almost the entire fort. therefore improvements are needed at both WHSs. Another significant difference (.012) “Accessibility” reveals 100% significance for was identified for the perceived knowledge of both included attributes and therefore for the employees. Visitors were more satisfied with whole dimension (.000). Road condition and the knowledge provided at Land of easiness in finding the particular site from the Frankincense, however, it is not clear whether main road have been perceived positive for visitors also based this evaluation on their tour Land of Frankincense but extraordinarily high guides which have been employed means were achieved for Oasis of Bahla. considerably more frequently in Land of Although both sites are located close to main Frankincense, although they are not part of the roads, Bahla provokes attention through its WHS. Furthermore, Bahla has fewer size and can be seen from kilometres away. employees and usually the cashier providing Another assumption to explain the difference the tickets is the only human source of is the usage of transport to reach the sites. information. This is why it has to be While most of the visitors use cars to visit considered that many visitors did have less Oasis of Bahla, it was recognized that often contact with employees in Bahla which large groups arrive to Land of Frankincense degrades the mean although it is still clearly with coaches or smaller groups and families pending in the positive range. with taxis and therefore probably have no perception and are indifferent of these Although the dimension “Physical appearance attributes. The assumption is also supported by and maintenance” does not show significance, the significant higher amount of cruise ship two of the attributes have been perceived passengers in Land of Frankincense who are differently by respondents. Even though driven to the site and therefore do not have to visitors acknowledged a sufficient level of find the WHS on their own. safety at both sites, a p-value of .000 was For five out of six attributes of the identified. Reasons for this significance of “Interpretation” dimension a significance level 100% can lie in the nature of the two sites. of 100% has been computed which also While Land of Frankincense is easy to explore, applies for the overall result. Information Oasis of Bahla consists of many individual panels are nearly not to be found in Oasis of rooms connected by stairs which let the visitor Bahla whereas Land of Frankincense provides walk on different levels of the fort. Certainly, information especially in the museums on-site. this holds more risks to fall and cause an This led to a significant difference in injury but at the same time, a large array of satisfaction for the visitor. The same applies security barriers would change the appearance for tourists guides since most visitors visited

38 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

Oasis of Bahla without a guide and therefore in Land of Frankincense showed a higher were indifferent about the quality. Usually, satisfaction level in overall terms which was to larger groups of visitors were taken through be expected considering the significance of the the premises of Land of Frankincense which previous items. In both cases, visitors were justifies an opinion regarding satisfaction with thoroughly satisfied but the availability of the service. A higher satisfaction level was certain facilities and interpretation on-site was reached in terms of provided brochures in decisive for the general view. Land of Frankincense with a p-level of .000 in comparison to Oasis of Bahla where brochures Hypothesis 3b are not provided. H3b: There is a significant difference in

“Behavioural Intention” between the analysed Although significant differences have been UNESCO sites found for a variety of attributes and three out The differential analysis showed no of four dimensions, the overall experience at significance between stated behavioural the two WHS has not been perceived intentions at Oasis of Bahla and Land of significantly different. This means that Frankincense. Although various attributes hypothesis 3 is not supported by the findings have been rated significantly different, in each of the survey and has to be rejected. case the results give evidence (with an over

90% conformity) that visitors value the WHSs Hypothesis 3a enough in order to confidently recommend it H3a: There is a significant difference in to other people. An increase of entrance fees “Satisfaction” between the analysed UNESCO was not dismissed for either of the sites and sites for a large part of the respondents a visit to Difference in satisfaction was expected to be another UNESCO site in Oman is possible found in the comparison between Oasis of based on the experience in Bahla or Land of Bahla and Land of Frankincense. This Frankincense. Accordingly, hypothesis 3b has hypothesis is support by the p-level (.000) not been supported by the research and has to computed. The information received in Oasis be rejected. of Bahla have not been perceived as satisfying for most of the visitors. Interpretation was not Hypothesis 4 sufficient, and visitors did not feel like they H4: Visitors who spent more money on-site learned enough from the visit. A higher level were significantly more satisfied with their of satisfaction was achieved for Land of visit Frankincense. Service is perceived As can be identified from the significance significantly different between the sites coefficient in Table 6, in the cases of Oasis of although in neither of the cases visitors were Bahla (p-value: .001) and the overall sample generally dissatisfied. The same applies to the (p-value: .000), significant differences in statement that the management‟s effort to satisfaction can be found among visitors who make the site entertaining and enjoyable was spent “less than 1 OMR”, “1 to 5 OMR”, “6 to satisfying. The conclusive statement regarding 10 OMR”, “10 to 15 OMR” and “more than 15 the overall satisfaction shows a p-level of .003 OMR”. Apart from “more than 15 OMR”, the and therefore also has been perceived mean of satisfaction rises in each category significantly different in comparison. Visitors indicating a higher satisfaction with the visit

39 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig when more money was spent on-site up to a Table 5: Results of the analysis of significant certain point. Although it was not the case for differences between Oasis of Bahla and Land of Frankincense Land of Frankincense, the findings show that visitors do not feel less satisfied when they Hypothesis 4a spend more money. In contrast, their satisfaction increases from purchasing food H4a: Visitors who spent more time on-site and beverages for relaxation and regaining were significantly more satisfied with their energy. Also wondering around the souvenir visit shop including buying something to remember The duration of the overall visit does not seem the visit seems to satisfy the respondent. to be an influencing factor towards Considering these findings and the emphasis satisfaction. In none of the cases a significance of the whole sample, hypothesis 4 can be coefficient equal or lower .05 was identified. accepted. Although means of satisfaction are also increasing in each duration category of the entire sample (“less than 1 hour”, 1-2 hours”, “more than 2 hours”), the rise cannot be considered significant, and hence hypothesis 4a is disconfirmed.

Hypothesis 4b H4b: Visitors whose main reason to visit the site was the UNESCO label were significantly less satisfied with their visit. Hypothesis 4b has to be rejected due to non-significance. The assumption was made to assess whether visitors expect highly developed sites when visiting because of the UNESCO label. This is not supported by the results and therefore satisfaction level is not dependent on the UNESCO label as main driver to visit the heritage site.

Hypothesis 4c H4c: Visitors who have visited other UNESCO sites before were significantly less satisfied with their visit The p-value of .353 reveal that experienced UNESCO World Heritage Site visitors do not have a significantly different satisfaction level than visitors who set foot on a designated site for the first time in the Sultanate of Oman. Therefore, having seen other UNESCO sites before and being able to compare does not

40 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig influence one‟s satisfaction when visiting another WHS. Accordingly, hypothesis 4c has to be rejected.

Hypothesis 5 Especially cruise passengers and visitors who visited the sites as part of a travel package H5: There is a significant relationship between spent more money than self-organizers and the time and money spent on-site business travellers. According to the Chi-square presented in

Table 7, the duration of the visit is not This might be due to a larger budget for these connected to the amount of money that is visitor types who are usually older than being spent. Visitors who inspect the site for a visitors who organize trips on their own or longer time do not tend to spend more money travel because of business. The Chi-square and therefore a significant relationship is not (not listed in Table 7 since not part of the found and hypothesis 5 rejected. hypotheses) confirms this assumption with a

100% significance between age-group and Hypothesis 6 nature of the trip. Correspondingly, the H6: There is a significant relationship between assumed relationship between trip nature and the nature of the visitor’s trip and the money spending exists and is significant which leads spent to the acceptance of hypothesis 6.

Different types of travellers have spent different amounts of money according to an asymptotic significance of .000 seen in Table 13.

41 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

Discussion of Key Findings factor for children. Visitors with kids were Experience quality and satisfaction. Timothy unsatisfied with the age restriction of the and Boyd stated in 2003 that the actual museum in Land of Frankincense since they heritage experience is the centre of the were not able to enter without leaving one discussion of satisfaction. In the case of this parent with the child. For Oasis of Bahla it was study, visitors perceived the quality of the remarked that children enjoyed the stay, but overall experience to be valuable what had a safety measures have to be improved. positive and highly significant relationship “Accessibility” had the weakest relationship with the overall satisfaction proven by the use with satisfaction but was still highly of correlation analysis. Therefore the first part significant. Also, Jusoh et al. (2013) identified of the model that refers to this relationship has infrastructure to play an important role to been confirmed what is align with the findings make the site attractive for visitors. Roads of De Rojas and Camarero (2008) who pointed leading to Oasis of Bahla were perceived as out that visitor satisfaction often is determined well-developed while visitors in Land of by the entire experience obtained. Frankincense were mostly indifferent about the quality. Dimensions and satisfaction. All hypotheses stating that positive and significant “Interpretation” was specifically interesting relationships between the individual since the strongest relationship with dimensions of the experience with their satisfaction was identified for the overall associated attributes and satisfaction exist have sample and for Land of Frankincense. This is been supported by the findings of this study. in agreement with the findings from several Moreover, the relationships were all identified authors (Poria et al., 2004; Poria et al. 2006; to be at .01-level and therefore are highly Yankholmes & Akyeampong, 2010; Goh significant. This process is in accordance with 2010; Chen & Chen, 2010) who concluded the publication of Pizam et al. (1978) who that the main motivation of visitors visiting were among the first researchers to introduce heritage sites is education and the strong the idea to measure satisfaction based on willingness to learn is one of the most different dimensions of destination significant indicators of heritage tourists. In performance which was supported by this study, the importance of interpretation was Churchill and Surprenant (1982) who stated identified in each part of the executed analysis. that quality can be measured with attribute Especially for Oasis of Bahla, where almost no performance. In the case of the dimension interpretation is provided, visitors were “Facilities and employees”, findings provided dissatisfied with the situation which resulted in evidence that certain facilities are important to a mean of 2.8200 and multiple mention in the increase customer satisfaction. Ramires et al. suggestion part of the questionnaire and in (2016) names mobility, cleanliness and safety reviews on TripAdvisor. Especially brochures as other attributes of this category. These have were referred to as the fastest, easiest and been included in the dimension “Physical cheapest way to provide visitors with appearance and maintenance” and referred to information. The findings confirm the by multiple visitors and reviewers. Especially discoveries of other authors and make clear the cleanliness of both UNESCO sites has that visitors that come to heritage sites are been highly appreciated. What has to be highly interested in learning about the history improved in both cases is the entertainment of the place through information panels,

42 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig brochures, guides and all other tools of visit similar sites in the future and agreeing on education. De Rojas and Camarero (2008) also an increase of entrance fee (Chen & Tsai, list interpretation as an important determinant 2007; Oppermann, 2000) were more favorable of overall satisfaction and argue that it to assess in this study. increases the strength of the relationship between site and visitor and results longer 5. Recommendations and Managerial duration of the visit with an increase in Implications monetary spending on-site. As the last part of interpretation, the communication of the value From the findings of the study, of the WHS has been assessed. The universal recommendations can be made for three cultural value as the main reason for a site to different levels of authority. Starting with be designated as UNESCO World Heritage UNESCO, the primarily responsible Site was not made explicit to all visitors. 34% organisation for WHSs, comments on the of them stated to be fully informed at Oasis of questionnaire as well as reviews on Bahla while 51% confirm the same for Land of TripAdvisor have shown how much visitors Frankincense. Poria et al. (2013, p. 273) found appreciated for example the restoration efforts out that visitors link the UNESCO label to at the Oasis of Bahla, but at the same time “culturally famous” sites with a major heavily criticized the lack of information that significance to humankind. The quality of has been provided. Although UNESCO is not information provided about the universal in charge of developing the site for tourism, cultural value needs to be in accordance with the organization does state in its convention this image in order to give a meaning to the that appreciation of the place should be label besides the requirements for protection strengthened by implementing educational and and conservation. information programs to inform the public and communicate the OUV of the site. The Satisfaction and behavioural intention. The outcomes of this and other studies indicate that second part of the model that suggests a this objective has not been achieved which positive and significant relationship between consequently means that it would be visitor satisfaction and behavioural intention recommendable for UNESCO to get more post-visit has been confirmed through involved in the tourism at WHSs. correlation analysis in all cases measured (Oasis of Bahla, Land of Frankincense and Also, on the national level improvements can both sites combined). For Land of be made. In the case of Oman, it became Frankincense it was the strongest relationship evident that the structure of ministries is very of the entire study. This relationship also has complex which can lead to confusion and been confirmed by several other studies (e.g. inefficiency. The collaboration between the Olsen, 2002; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chen & different authorities involved in protecting and Chen, 2010; Palau-Saumell et al., 2013) developing WHSs needs revision and the stating that satisfaction is a useful predictor of handover of responsibilities must be clearly tourist behaviour after the visit. Hereby, the regulated and made transparent. Here, it could intention to revisit the site is not the best be efficient to establish an Omani UNESCO indicator for heritage sites as discussed by commission which is in charge of only the Trinh and Ryan (2013). Therefore, the UNESCO sites and therefore would unburden intention to recommend the place to others, the other ministries and develop the WHS

43 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig more efficiently. Furthermore, the government used by the government since providing must live up to the statements that have been information and spending opportunities would made in the tourism strategy for 2040 which mean an increase not only in revenue but also states that the WHS are main tangible assets visitor satisfaction which heavily depends on which means that a lot more must be done to attributes beyond culture and heritage as promote these sites. The designation of the results have shown. UNESCO label should have a purpose. If it is solely emotional, the current status is 6. Limitations and Future Research sufficient since the places are under protection. However, if the purpose is to use the sites for Naturally, the presented study implicates tourism, efforts should be made to limitations. First, it makes a static analysis, in communicate its existence to the potential the sense that it was conducted over a certain visitors through online representations which period of time. Therefore, only an excerpt of include all necessary information, develop on- visitor opinions can be shown and results site facilities and provide interpretation. At the might have been different at another point of same time, the balance between tourism time. Also, questionnaires have only been infrastructure with an increase in revenue and handed out in English (and German in Land of authenticity has to remain through smart Frankincense) which excluded visitors who are growth and a focus on sustainability. This is not able to speak either language. especially important since Oman needs to protect its Unique Selling Point (USP) which For future work on this topic it would be is the authentic Arabian experience with its interesting to conduct similar studies during heritage and alive community traditions. other periods of the year and compare the Hereby, the government can learn from other results to identify whether the findings of this mature tourism destinations to avoid mistakes study are representative for visitors throughout that have been made in this field already. the entire year or only show specific opinions. Finally, the management of the WHSs is the Longitudinal studies would provide the most executive authority on location. The results of well-grounded and useful results and give the study have made clear that visitors missed information on the dynamics of World informative interpretation of the heritage site Heritage visitor demographics, travel patterns that was visited. The review of literature has and attribute satisfaction. Especially when the shown that heritage tourists are eager to learn, level of interpretation and facilities has been and this wish should be fulfilled through improved, a new satisfaction study that information panels, brochures, guides and compares results to the one at-hand could other tools of education. Another characteristic provide evidence for the assumption that of heritage tourists that has become evident is satisfaction significantly increases. the willingness to spend money during the visit. Silberberg described this phenomenon 7. References  Adie, B. A., Hall, C. M. (2016). Who visits already in 1995 and in the Omani case, World Heritage? A comparative analysis of visitors‟ satisfaction increased with higher three cultural sites. Journal of Heritage spending and possibilities to buy food, Tourism, 12(1), 67-80. beverages and souvenirs. These opportunities  Altunel, M. C., Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural were often either missed or perceived as tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of improvable. This is a chance that should be tourist experience and satisfaction on the

44 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

relationship between involvement and longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), recommendation intention. Journal of 139–173. Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4),  De Rojas, C., Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors‟ 213–221. Experience, Mood and Satisfaction in a  Apostolakis, A., Jaffry, S. (2005). A choice Heritage Context: Evidence from an modeling application for Greek heritage Interpretation Center. Tourism Management, attractions. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 29(3), 525-37. 309–318.  Dorfman, P. W. (1979). Measurement and  Atkins. (n.D.). Bahla Fort and Oasis World Meaning of Recreation Satisfaction: A Case Heritage Site. Retrieved from Study in Camping. Environment and http://www.atkinsglobal.com/en- Behavior,11(4), 483-510. gb/projects/bahla-fort-and-oasis-world-  Garrod, B., Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage-site heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,  Babakus, E., Boller, W. G. (1992). An 27(3), 682–708. Empirical Assessment of the Servqual Scale.  Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., Turnbridge, J. E. Journal of Business Research 24(3), 253-268. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power,  Baker, D. A., Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold. satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals  Hall, C. M., Piggin, R. (2003). WHSs: of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804. Managing the brand. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod,  Bianchi, R. V. (2002). The Contested & A. Leask (Eds.), Managing visitor Landscape of World Heritage on a Tourist attractions: New directions (pp. 203– Island: The Case of Garajonay National Park, 219). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. La Gomera. International Journal of Heritage  Huh, J., Uysal, M., McCleary, K. (2006). Studies, 8(2), 81-97. Cultural / Heritage Destinations: Tourist  Bowes, R.G. (1989). Tourism and heritage: a Satisfaction and Market Segmentation. Journal new approach to the product. Recreation of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 14(3), Research Review, 14(4), 35-40. 81–99.  Chen, C., Chen, F. (2010). Experience quality,  Johanson, L. B., Olsen, K. (2010). Alta perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral museum as a tourist attraction: The importance intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism of location. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(1), Management, 31(1), 29–35. 1-16.  Chen, J. S. (1998). Travel Motivation of  Jusoh, J., Masron, T., Hamid, N. F. A., & Heritage Tourists. Tourism Analysis, 2(3-4): Shahrin, N. (2013). Tourist Expectation and 213-15. Satisfaction towards Physical Infrastructure  Chi, C.G.-Q., Qu, H. (2008). Examining the and Heritage Elements in Melaka UNESCO structural relationship of destination image, World Heritage Site. Academic Journal of tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(8), 733-739. integrated approach, Tourism  Kao, Y.-F., Huang, L.-S., Wu, C.-H. (2008). Management, 29(4), 624-636. Effects of theatrical elements on experiential  Chon, K.-S., Olson, M. D. (1991) Functional quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. and symbolic congruity approaches to Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction in 13(2), 163–174. consumerism. Journal of the International  Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., Graefe, A. R. Academy of Hospitality Research, 1, 2-23. (2001). An exploration of the specialization  Churchill, G. R., Surprenant, C. (1982). An concept within the context of heritage tourism. Investigation into Determinants of Customer Journal of Travel Research, 39, 267– Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 274. 19, 491-504.  King, L. M., Prideaux, B. (2010). Special  Dabholkar, P. A., Shepherd, C. D., Thorpe, D. interest tourists collecting places and I. (2000). A comprehensive framework for destinations: A case study of Australian WHSs. service quality: An investigation of critical Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(3), 235– conceptual and measurement issues through a 247.

45 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

 Kozak, M., Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an Off- 5(3), 314–322. Season Holiday Destination. Journal of Travel  Poria, Y., Butler, R., Airey, D. (2003). The Research, 38(3), 260–269. Core of Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism  Marcotte, P., Bourdeau, L. (2006). Tourists‟ Research, 30(1), 238–54. Knowledge of the UNESCO Designation of  Poria, Y., Reichel, A., Cohen, R. (2013). WHSs: The Case of Visitors to Quebec City. Tourists‟ perceptions of World HeritageSite International Journal of Arts Management, and its designation. Tourism Management, 35, 8(2), 4-13. 272–274  McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a  Prentice, R.C. (1993) Tourism and Heritage classification of cultural tourists. International Attractions. London: Routledge Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 29-38.  Ramires, A., Brandão, F., Sousa, A. C. (2016).  McKercher, B., Ho, P. S.Y., du Cros, H. Motivation-based cluster analysis of (2005). Relationship between tourism and international tourists visiting a World Heritage cultural heritage management: Evidence from City: The case of Porto, Portugal. Journal of Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 26(4), Destination Marketing and Management, 539–548. (May), 1–12.  Meng, F., Tepanon, Y., Uysal, M. (2008).  Remoaldo, P. C., Ribeiro, J. C., Vareiro, L., Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and Santos, J. F. (2014). Tourists‟ perceptions motivation: The case of a nature-based resort. of world heritage destinations: The case of Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(1), Guimaraes (Portugal). Tourism and 41-56. Hospitality Research, 14(4), 206–218.  OECD. (2009). The impact of culture on  Richards, G. (1996). Production and tourism. Paris: Author Consumption of European Cultural Tourism.  Oliver, Richard L. (1980). A Cognitive Model Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 261-283 of the Antecedents and Consequences of  Richards, G. (1997). The social context of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing cultural tourism. In: Richards G. (ed.) Cultural Research, 17(November), 460-69. Tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CAB  Otto, J. E., Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). The service International experience in tourism. Tourism Management,  Ritchie B., Inkari, M. (2006) Host community 17(3), 165–174. attitudes toward tourism and cultural tourism  Palau-Saumell, R., Forgas-Coll, S., Sánchez- development: the case of the Lewes District, García, J., Prats-Planagumà, L. (2013). Southern England. International Journal of Tourist Behavior Intentions and the Moderator Tourism Research, 8(1), 27–44. Effect of Knowledge of UNESCO WHSs:  Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., Keiningham, T. L. The Case of La Sagrada Família. Journal of (1996). Service Marketing. New York: Travel Research, 52(3), 364–376. HarperCollins.  Pavesi, A., Gartner, W. C., Denizci Guillet, B.  Shackley, M. (Ed.). (1998). Visitor (2016). The Effects of a Negative Travel management: Case studies from World Experience on Tourists‟ Decisional Behavior. Heritage Sites. (pp. 46–65). Oxford: International Journal of Tourism Research, Butterworth-Heinemann. 18(5), 423–433.  Smith, S. L. J. (1988). Defining tourism: a  Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived Changes in supply-side view. Annals of Tourism Research, Holiday Destinations. Annals of Tourism 18, 312-318. Research, 9, 145–164.  Teas, R.K. (1994). Expectations as a  Pizam, A., Milman, A. (1993). Predicting Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Satisfaction Among First Time Visitors to a Quality: An Assessment of a Reassessment, Destination by Using the Expectancy Journal of Marketing 58(1), 132- 139. Disconfirmation Theory. International Journal  Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and of Hospitality Management, 12, 197-209. tourism: An introduction. Bristol: Channel  Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., Reichel, A. (1978). View Publications. Dimentions of tourist satisfaction with a

46 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)

Visitor Satisfaction at UNESCO World Heritage Sites Heba Aziz , Philipp Herzig

 Timothy, D. J., Nyaupane, G. P. (2009). shan, Xidi, and Hongcun in Southern Heritage tourism in the developing world: Anhui, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism, Reflections and ramifications. In Cultural 2(3), 184-95. Heritage and Tourism in the Developing  Yang, C. H., Lin, H. L., Han, C. C. (2010). World: Routledge. Analysis of international tourist arrivals in  Timothy, D.J., Boyd, S.W. (2003). Heritage China: The role of WHSs. Tourism tourism. Harlow, England, New York: Pearson Management, 31(6), 827–837. Education  Yang, C. H., Lin, H. Y. (2014). Revisiting the  Trinh, T. T., Ryan, C. (2013). Museums, relationship between World Heritage Sites and exhibits and visitor satisfaction: a study of the tourism. Tourism Economics, 20(1), 73–86. Cham Museum, Danang, Vietnam. Journal of  Yankholmes, A. K. B., Akyeampong, O. A. Tourism and Cultural Change, 11(4), (2010). Tourists‟ perceptions of heritage 239–263. tourism development in Danish-Osu, Ghana.  Tse, D. K., Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of International Journal of Tourism Research, consumer satisfaction formation: an extension. 12, 603-616 Journal of Marketing, 25(May), 204–212  Yoon, Y., Uysal, M. (2005). An Examination  UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction Protection of the World Cultural and Natural on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model. Heritage. General Conference Seventeenth Tourism Management 26, 45–56. Session, 1(November), 135–145.  Zhang, C., Fyall, A., Zheng, Y. (2014).  UNESCO. (n.D.-a). World Heritage List Heritage and tourism conflict within world Nominations.Retrievedfrom:http://whc.unesco. heritage sites in China: a longitudinal study. org/en/nominations/ Current Issues in Tourism, 18(July 2014), 1–  UNESCO. (n.D.-b). Land of Frankincense. 27. Retrieved from:http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/10  UNWTO, & ETC (2005). City tourism and culture: The European experience Madrid: World Tourism Organisation and European Travel Commission.  Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Wall, G., Xu, X., Han, F., Du, X., Liu, Q. (2015). Is it better for a tourist destination to be a world heritage site? Visitors‟ perspectives on the inscription of Kanas on the World Heritage List in China. Journal for Nature Conservation, 23, 19–26.  Weaver, P., Kaufman, T. J., Yoon, Y. (2001). A market segmentation study based on benefits sought by visitors at heritage sites. Tourism Analysis, 6(3–4), 213– 222.  Wigle, R. (1994). Making history seem tempting: marketing an historic site as a visitor attraction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(2), 95-101.  Williams, K. (2005). The Meaning and Effectiveness of World Heritage Designation in the USA. in: The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation, edited by D. Harrison and M. Hitchcock. Clevedon, UK: Channel View, pp. 132-36.  Yan, Ch., Morrison, A. M. (2007). The Influence of Visitors‟ Awareness of World Heritage Listings: A Case Study of Huang-

47 Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Vol. 26, Issue 1 (2019)