Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research paper

Motivation-based cluster analysis of international tourists visiting a World

Heritage City: The case of Porto, Portugal
⁎
Ana Ramiresa, , Filipa Brandãob, Ana Cristina Sousac
a
Europeia University of Portugal and GOVCOPP - Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, Portugal
b
Polytechnic Institute of Porto, University of Aveiro and GOVCOPP - Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, Portugal
c
Faculty of Arts, University of Porto and CITCEM (Transdisciplinary Culture, Space and Memory Research Centre) and GOVCOPP - Research Unit on Governance,
Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The UNESCO recognition of cultural centres as World Heritage Sites has a significant impact, both on the size of
Heritage tourists tourist flows and on the types of visitors. The classification of Porto as a World Heritage City in 1996
World Heritage Cities strengthened its international image as a cultural destination. This paper segments international tourists visiting
Motivation-based segmentation the World Heritage City of Porto based on their travel motivations relating to specific destination attributes, as
Cluster analysis
well as gauging their satisfaction with the tourist experience. Data collection was achieved with a
questionnaire survey using a convenience sample of international tourists, with a total of 1047 valid surveys.
The results clearly identify three clusters: ‘conventional cultural tourists’, ‘spontaneous cultural tourists’ and
‘absorptive cultural tourists’. It also recognises that the destination attributes that most influence satisfaction are
specific elements of tourism supply, such as gastronomy, accommodation, culture and entertainment, and
hospitality. The results provide valuable information and insights both for academics and for destination
managers, who can then adjust their marketing and management endeavours according to selected markets and
their specific needs of target groups. The results also help to uncover market opportunities as well as to identify
local elements and attractions that are most valued by visitors, thus facilitating the design and offer of integrated
tourism experiences.

1. Introduction
Heritage and cultural tourism are concepts that are frequently used
in an intertwined manner, combining one of the oldest types of travel
with one of the most widespread (Timothy & Boyd, 2006) and with the
most rapid growth rates (Pedersen, 2002). According to the World
Tourism Organisation (2004), the proportion of international cultural
tourists was 40% in 2004. Provided that this is still valid, this would
account for about 450 million international cultural trips in 2014.
As acknowledged by OECD (2008) heritage and cultural tourism are
important contributors to economic growth. As such, several European
cities and regions are promoting their cultural heritage as the basis for
tourism development. It is important to note that not only is the number
of attractions growing, but also that the cultural tourism spectrum is
broadening, since it 'is no longer regarded as purely cultural – it has
become a form of leisure as well' (Richards, 2001, p. 45). Indeed, the
boundaries between ‘culture’, ‘tourism’ and ‘everyday life’ are eroding
(Richards, 1996) and leading to the emergence of a new cultural
market, motivated, for instance, by trying the local gastronomy, or
simply gazing at the destination (Urry, 1990), engaging in new forms of
consumption. Bonetti, Simoni, and Cercola (2014) identify some of the
new tendencies observed among cultural tourists, such as increasing
interest in the everyday culture of the destination, in the intangible
forms of culture and the growth of 'omnivorous forms of cultural
consumption'. The opportunities for growth are thus very significant,
not only through the offering of traditional products, but also especially
by creating complementary new cultural products and experiences that
will attract new markets.
In order to seize the full potential of cultural tourism, it is essential
that destination managers broaden their understanding of cultural and
heritage tourists so as to develop efficient and effective marketing and
management strategies (Adie & Hall, 2016). This is necessary to enable
them to develop new products that diversify the experiences available
at the destination, and to engage in innovative processes regarding the
cultural supply that meet market demands. Market segmentation
contributes not only to increasing the satisfaction of existing tourists
but also to attracting potential new ones and to gaining a competitive
advantage which, according to Dolnicar (2008), occurs due to the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ana.santos@universidadeeuropeia.com (A. Ramires), anabrandao@esht.ipp.pt (F. Brandão), accsousa@letras.up.pt (A.C. Sousa).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.12.001
Received 25 May 2016; Received in revised form 10 December 2016; Accepted 12 December 2016
2212-571X/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Ramires, A., Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.12.001
A. Ramires et al.
reduction of competition among specialised destinations in similar
segments. Destinations can thereby concentrate their efforts on im-
proving and developing their products to meet tourists’ needs and
expectations. Marketing strategies are in this way aimed at selected
targets, thus increasing their effectiveness. Subsequently, tourists will
experience higher levels of satisfaction with their holidays, and are
more likely to repeat the visit and recommend the destination to others.
There are several studies that segment and analyse the profile of
cultural tourists, but few that focus on heritage tourists, especially those
visiting UNESCO World Heritage Cities (WHCs). Moreover, there is a
lack of studies looking at cluster segmentation based on the motivations
of tourists with respect to destination attributes, i.e. pull factors
(Crompton, 1979). According to Chang (2006) and Nyaupane, White,
and Budruk (2006), motivational variables may surpass demographic
ones when segmenting culturally motivated tourists. Bearing this in
mind, this paper identifies and characterises the segments of interna-
tional tourists visiting a WHC (Porto, Portugal) according to their
motivations relating to specific destination attributes. It goes on to
include an analysis of the overall satisfaction of each cluster based on
those attributes, and shows which attributes are predictors of overall
satisfaction. This research relies on the two fundamental concepts of
clustering and World Heritage tourism in order to identify the distinct
motivations and characteristics of different groups visiting WHCs. It
thus advances the hypotheses that tourists visiting WHCs can be
clustered according to the importance given to the destinations’
attributes; that there are differences between the segments visiting
WHCs; and that the dimensions of satisfaction with the destination
contribute differently to the overall satisfaction in each cluster.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Cultural and heritage tourism
In the last 20 years, travel for cultural motives has grown
exponentially, as cultural and heritage tourism have become the most
prosperous segment of the tourism industry (Altunel & Erkut, 2015;
Huh, Uysal, & McCleary, 2006). However, the complexity and
subjectivity surrounding the concept of culture makes it difficult to
define cultural tourism. For Altunel and Erkut (2015), a tourist
consuming a cultural product is, by definition, a cultural tourist. Two
definitions of cultural city tourism are advanced in a report by the
World Tourism Organisation and the European Travel Commission
comment on the broad range of definitions presented in scientific
studies and the difficulties that the word ‘culture’ raises, one being
conceptual and the other operational. While the first defines cultural
tourism as 'the movement of persons to cultural attractions in cities in
countries other than their normal place of residence, with the intention
to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural
needs', the second includes 'all movements of persons to specific
cultural attractions, such as heritage sites, artistic and cultural mani-
festations, arts and drama to cities outside their normal country of
residence' (UNWTO & ETC, 2005, p. 2).
The diversity of the cultural offer, in turn, attracts groups of visitors
with distinct profiles. Each destination has its own cultural products
that will necessarily appeal to different types of tourists (Tchetchik,
Fleischer, & Shoval, 2009). These factors generate the identity and
specificities of a place. Studies reveal that a large number of city visitors
do not identify themselves as cultural tourists. Their motivations differ
very significantly and the importance of culture plays different roles for
each visitor (UNWTO & ETC, 2005). Considering the significant
growth that cultural and heritage destinations have had among North
American tourists, Huh et al. (2006) have shown that the three most
valued activities in the destination are ‘shopping’ (33%), ‘outdoor
activities’ (18%) and ‘visiting museums and historical sites’ (16%).
Not all tourist attractions are appealing to all tourists (Bonetti et al.,
2014) and each destination may attract a specific type of cultural
2
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
tourist according to the particular characteristics of the place
(Tchetchik et al., 2009). Following Bonetti et al. (2014), for the purpose
of this work culture is considered to represent an ongoing dialogue
between past and present, including not only the built heritage and
museums but also factors related to the life experiences of the
inhabitants of a destination, including gastronomy and other socio-
cultural activities.
The exponential growth of visits based on heritage, history and
cultural interests in general has led to researchers distinguishing
different types of cultural tourism, with heritage tourism being under-
stood as one of them. According to Poria, Butler, and Airey (2004), the
difference lies mainly in the motivation, as they argue that, in the case
of heritage tourism, the main reason lies in the heritage related
characteristics of a place according to the perception that tourists have
in relation to their own heritage, and their willingness to engage in a
personal ‘heritage experience’. The specific attributes of a place are
important to understanding the visit, but the perception that tourists
have of a destination should also be considered. In this context, heritage
tourism should be understood as a social phenomenon. Engaging with
the ‘past’ of a place motivates tourists in different ways, such as the
desire to learn more about the history of the place, participate in a
recreational experience or the wish to be in contact with a reality that
has to do with their own heritage (Poria et al., 2004).
More than simple visits to historical sites, heritage tourism provides
a personal encounter with traditions, history and culture based on the
principle that all communities have a story to tell. Tourists look to
experience local customs, traditions, arts, histories and cultures as-
signed to a particular place. In this sense, heritage tourism plays a key
educational role for visitors and locals, and is a factor for the motivation
and involvement of communities for the protection and promotion of
local heritage (AAVV, 2010). European visitors view travel as an
opportunity to learn and experience the way of life of other peoples.
A study by the European Commission revealed that 20% of tourists
visiting Europe declared cultural purposes as a travel motivation.
Culture is said to be the main factor of attraction for 60% of
European visitors (World Tourism Organization, 2001).
Considering the specifics that it entails, World Heritage tourism
should also be studied as a particular subtype of heritage tourism. The
classification of monuments and sites on the World Heritage list has
been seen by several countries, including Portugal, as a key opportunity
to increase the visibility and the demand of a destination, thereby
stimulating revenue. In this sense it constitutes an essential factor for
economic development. The reputation and image of a city are
paramount to a high influx of international tourists. The classification
of historic city centres as UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) has a
major impact on tourist flows. The number of tourists in Porto has
grown steadily since its inclusion on the UNESCO list in 1996. du Cross
(2009) also demonstrates that since the inclusion of Macao's historic
centre in the list of WHSs in 2005, the construction of an image of the
city based on heritage and cultural dimensions has clearly rivalled
gambling. Adie and Hall (2016) understanf World Heritage tourism as a
market niche of heritage tourism. In light of the lack of research in
regard to the World Heritage tourist profile, the authors consider it
essential to identify the particular characteristics of these tourists and
distinguish them from heritage tourists. Studies have also revealed that
the World Heritage designation is particularly attractive to Europeans,
with the German, English and French tourists in the first places
statistically (Adie & Hall, 2016). The numbers show that 60% of
European tourists search for cultural discovery and about 30% of
tourism destinations are chosen by the offer of heritage sites to be
visited (Remoaldo, Ribeiro, Vareiro, & Santos, 2014).
Cultural heritage has been understood as a key potential attractor to
a territory, and as such, a factor for local development (Cristofle, 2012).
Several studies have shown that cultural tourism has been the least
affected by the economic crisis of recent years, justified both from the
demand side (short distance travel but repeated throughout the year)
A. Ramires et al.
and from the supply side, particularly in terms of quality and diversity
of information as well as the provision of diversified products involving
culture, gastronomy and various events (Bonetti et al., 2014). The
increase in tourism demand stimulates the development of local
cultural activities, favouring interventions in pre-existing cultural and
heritage assets, such as the recovery and re-use of urban buildings with
heritage value and the development of infrastructure. It also promotes
the construction of new structures and cultural activities, such as new
museums and art galleries. The art galleries along Miguel Bombarda
Street in Porto, and the impact that openings at art exhibitions have, is
a good example of the cultural transformation that this city has
experienced in recent years.
2.2. Segmenting cultural tourists
There are many studies dedicated to the analysis of cultural tourists.
However, most of them focus exclusively on the identification of their
demographic characteristics, and tend to consider all cultural tourists to
be the same (Hughes, 2002). Nonetheless, culture and heritage have
different meanings for different individuals (Park, 2014) and thus there
are specific groups of cultural tourists interested in specific experiences
(OECD, 2008). Bearing this in mind, a number studies have been
conducted with the objective of identifying distinct groups of cultural
tourists, characterising and defining their profile. Some of the first
works can be traced back to Bywater (1993), Silberberg (1995) and
Stebbins (1996) who found different segments according to tourists’
demographic characteristics, behaviour, level of interest and involve-
ment in cultural attractions. Richards (1996, 2001, 2004) also engaged
in systematic analyses of the profile of European cultural tourists and
concluded that there are not significant differences in their demo-
graphic features over the years. He found two major groups – the
‘specific’ and the ‘general’ cultural tourist – which varied according to
whether the frequency of cultural consumption was habitual or
occasional. A similar conclusion was drawn by Hughes (2002), who
classified cultural tourists as either ‘culture-core’ or ‘culture-peripheral’.
In this context the findings of McKercher (2002) are salient, as they are
widely accepted and still frequently used as a basis for cultural tourism
segmentation studies. By crossing two dimensions, the centrality of
culture as a travel purpose and the depth of experience sought, he
defined five types of cultural tourists: (i) the purposeful cultural
tourists, (ii) the sightseeing cultural tourist; (iii) the casual cultural
tourist; (iv) the incidental cultural tourist; and (v) the serendipitous
cultural tourist.
In addition to the valuable contribution of the above-mentioned
studies on cultural tourism, it is also important to broaden the knowl-
edge about tourists visiting heritage sites, distinguishing them from the
more general ‘cultural’ label. It is also essential to understand the
differences between the different types of heritage tourists by identify-
ing the existing segments. In this context, Weaver, Kaufman, and Yoon
(2001) make a distinction according to the benefits sought and define
two major segments: the ‘active benefit seekers’ and the ‘loners’. They
are both highly educated and look for an educational component from
the destination. While the first segment travels with family and friends
with the desire to escape and search for a highly social environment,
some of the ‘loners’ travel alone and tend to have little need to escape
from routine, while also showing no interest in meeting new people or
in being with family or friends. It is thus interesting to observe that a
large number of heritage tourists go beyond purely cultural motiva-
tions, to engage in social activities and mingling with the locals in the
destination.
When analysing the visitors to Native American Heritage Sites in
Arizona, Nyaupane et al. (2006) used cluster analysis based on motives
for learning cultural history, and found three segments: (i) ‘culture-
focused’, (ii) ‘culture-attentive’, and (iii) ‘culture-appreciative’ tourists,
confirming that there are heterogeneous markets within heritage
tourists, as these groups present distinct behaviour and experience.
3
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
In turn, Espelt and Benito (2006) focused on the behaviour of
tourists visiting heritage cities and concluded that four groups could be
found: (i) ‘non-cultural tourists’, who have a very short itinerary, visit
few sites, and only a superficial relationship with the visited space; (ii)
‘ritual tourists’, who they are mainly guided by a collective and
mainstream pattern; (iii) ‘interested tourists’, who engage in a longer
and richer itinerary, with a subsequently deeper experience; and (iv)
‘erudite tourists’, who are the real cultural tourists looking for an
experience and also knowledge.
More recently, Nyaupane and Andereck (2014) suggested that
tourists visiting cultural heritage attractions can be divided into two
groups according to the activities developed in the destination: the ‘true
cultural heritage tourists’ and ‘spurious cultural heritage tourists’.
While the first are focused on tangible and intangible heritage as
central elements of their travel, the later present additional motiva-
tions, such as engaging with nature, sports or business activities.
Despite the important insights provided by the above-mentioned
studies, few of them focus on tourists visiting WHSs. The exceptions are
the works of Adie and Hall (2016), Altunel and Erkut (2015), Remoaldo
et al. (2014), Shackley (2000), Tchetchik et al. (2009), all of whom
sketched the overall profile and characteristics of these visitors, but did
not distinguish between specific segments or clusters. These studies
acknowledged that cultural destinations have to manage important
dimensions of tourism development. This acquires increased signifi-
cance when considering WHSs, as they need to design and implement
conservation policies to thoroughly manage the impacts of tourism and
to assure the integration of tourism with local economic activities and
residents. The need to broaden the knowledge on the specific groups
visiting these sites is essential.
In what specifically concerns heritage tourists, Poria et al. (2004)
conclude that the relation between the perception of the attributes of a
specific site and the tourists is paramount in understanding their
motivations to visit heritage places. Despite the existing studies that
focus on the profile of heritage tourists, no empirical analysis was found
on the importance of the destination specific (pull) attributes and their
impact on destination choice.
The patterns of cultural consumption and, consequently, the
motivations and travel behaviour of heritage tourists, vary according
to location. Therefore, destination attributes have a significant role. In
their studies, Baloglu, Pekcan, Chen, and Santos (2004) and Pizam and
Milman (1993) concluded that different customer segments present
distinct satisfaction and behavioural intentions for varying destination
attributes, and thus any analysis should be conducted according to
market segments. Following this perspective, Moscardo, Morrison,
Pearce, Lang, and O’Leary (1996) suggested the destination-choice
process is closely linked to the activities tourists engage in, which in
turn are linked to their motivations. Chen and Tsai (2007) also argued
that the motivations to experience particular aspects of different
locations are closely linked to the choice of specific destinations. It is
thus important to distinguish between what Crompton (1979) proposed
as ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors affecting tourists’ motivations. While the first
are related to intrinsic preferences and the need to travel, pull factors
influence the choice of the destination as they derive from the
attractiveness that its attributes exert on tourists.
3. Methodology
The studies reviewed for this research conclude that segmentation
of tourists is crucial for destination management. Tourists present
different patterns of behaviour, activities and personal characteristics.
They also conclude that destination attributes (pull factors) play a
major role in attracting and motivating tourists towards specific places.
However, there is little research that aims at analysing the distinctive
features of groups visiting WHCs. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to
segment and characterise tourists visiting UNESCO World Heritage
cities according to their travel motivations towards the destination
A. Ramires et al.
attributes. The focus was on the historic centre of Porto, Portugal, and
relies on the hypotheses that:
(H1) Tourists visiting WHC can be clustered according to the
importance given to the destinations’ attributes.
(H2) There are differences between the segments visiting World
Heritage Cities:
(H2.1) according to their demographic variables;
(H2.2) according to their travel characteristics;
(H2.3) according to their travel behaviour;
(H2.4) according to their satisfaction;
(H2.5) according to their destination assessment and loyalty.
(H3) The dimensions of satisfaction with the destination contribute
differently to the overall satisfaction in each cluster.
3.1. Survey, sampling and data collection
Data collection was achieved using a questionnaire survey, with a
total of 24 questions in three groups aimed at characterising interna-
tional tourists according to their: (i) socio-demographic profile, (ii)
travel motivations and behaviour, and (iii) destination assessment. It
was applied by direct approach, completed by the interviewer and
using a convenience sample of international tourists over 18 years-old.
A total of 1047 valid surveys were collected in geographically dispersed
heritage sites located in the historic centre of Porto. The sampling
period was between May 1st and June 30th, 2014. A data-driven
segmentation approach was used as it relies on the analysis of the
collected data to conclude on the market structure and profile
(Dolnicar, 2008).
The selection of international tourists as the population under study
derives from the fact that Porto has received recent international
attention due to media exposure, and having won several international
tourism awards. Currently, 70% of the city's guests are foreign (INE,
2015): a segment with a growth rate of 71% between 2010 and 2014,
against 7% observed in the national market. The high number of
international tourists visiting Porto has grown rapidly and is a new
phenomenon, thus it is fundamental to broaden the knowledge about
them. Moreover, according to King and Prideaux (2010), the odds of
international tourists choosing to visit a site after classification as World
Heritage increase by a factor of 1.4.
The population of this study is defined as international tourists
visiting Porto's WHS. Despite the existence of reliable statistical
information regarding guests and overnight stays in Porto, tourists
staying at friends and relatives or in unregistered accommodation units
(such as AirBnB) are not accounted for. Thus, one might assume to be
facing an unknown population. In such cases, it is advisable to apply
Cochran's equation (Cochran, 1963) to assure the representativeness of
the sample. According to this equation, for a 95% confidence level and
5% precision, with an unknown population higher than 100,000 cases a
minimum of 400 valid surveys is considered representative. The
number of questionnaires gathered thus considered the necessary
representativeness, as did other studies about the profiles of visitors
of heritage sites, such as McKercher and du Cros (2003) based on 760
cases, Poria et al. (2006) with 205 interviews, Altunel and Erkut (2015),
where 255 usable responses were obtained, or Yankholmes and
Akyeampong (2010), who gathered 218 responses.
3.2. Data analysis
A univariate analysis is applied to characterise the sample profile. In
order to identify the structure underlying the destination's attributes
and satisfaction, an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation
and a principal component analysis were both applied. The adequacy of
data to factor analysis was performed with Bartlett's test of sphericity
and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). The
scale reliability was assured by computing the Cronbach's alpha. The
4
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
cluster analysis based on the two factor scores previously obtained was
achieved by a two-fold approach, as suggested by Hair et al. (2014).
First, a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method and the
squared Euclidian distance as a similarity measure allowed establishing
the number of groups according to the dendrogram and the agglomera-
tion coefficients. Second, a non-hierarchical k-means clustering analysis
identified the association of the cases to each cluster. In order to test the
association between the clusters and the categorical variables of
interest, chi-squared tests and contingency tables were computed. The
comparison between clusters were made with one-way ANOVA tests,
and the specific differences between clusters were found by the Games-
Howell post-hoc tests, a procedure recommended by Field (2009) when
the segments have different sizes and the homogeneity of variance
cannot be assured. Finally, three multiple regression procedures were
applied in order to verify the relation between the overall satisfaction
levels and the satisfaction dimensions for each cluster. All the hypoth-
eses were tested for a confidence interval of .05.
3.3. Porto as a cultural tourism destination
Porto is located in northern Portugal, and is the country's second
city. In recent decades it has undergone a great transformation and is
now a stylish, recognised and well-known cultural and cosmopolitan
city. The positioning of Porto as a tourism destination was confirmed in
1996 when its historic centre was declared a UNESCO WHS. This
distinction established the relevance of Porto as a cultural centre,
projecting its image internationally and motivating a set of interven-
tions aiming to preserve and regenerate its built cultural heritage. In
2001, the city was a chosen European Cultural Capital, which further
increased its international visibility. Subsequently, a process of invest-
ment in construction and the improvement of urban public spaces and
infrastructures, of cultural attractions and events and of tourism supply
began. The result was the emergence of a ‘renewed’ Porto, whose
development is strongly based on tourism growth and characterised by
the blending of tradition and authenticity with innovation and moder-
nity. One of the most significant processes that transformed Porto into a
great European capital is the revitalisation of the city centre. Until
recently this was characterised by the degradation of buildings and
public spaces, and the loss of residential and commercial functions.
However, nowadays it is acknowledged as a dynamic city that has been
acclaimed in the international media. Many old buildings whose
original function was traditional commerce that has long disappeared
were converted into modern restaurants, bars and fashionable stores.
The city centre, besides being an important tourism attraction, now
appeals to a higher number of residents as it offers a heritage setting,
culture and cosmopolitan life.
Porto is now a major European capital and a preferred tourism
destination, a position confirmed by the constant presence in the
international media and by the distinctions it has received: in 2012
and 2014 it was awarded Best European Destination, and in 2013 was
selected by Lonely Planet as one of the 10 best holiday destinations in
Europe. It also achieved second place in the ‘Travellers Choice’ awards
on TripAdvisor in the category of Emerging European Destinations in
2013. In 2014 the 170 accommodation establishments located in Porto
registered nearly 1.3 million guests, and 2.5 million overnight stays
(INE, 2015). The number of hotels increased 32.8% between 2013 and
2014, while the guest and overnight growth rates were 18.7% and
21.2%, respectively. These values confirm the relevance of Porto's
tourism dynamics, which also makes demands for adequate manage-
ment and marketing strategies. In order to achieve this, destination
managers should increase and deepen their knowledge about the new
tourism markets visiting the city.
A. Ramires et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 1 Table 2
Socio-demographic characteristics. Level of importance of destination attributes.

Variable n % Destination 1 2 3 4 5 M SD
attributesa
Gender
Male 485 46.32 World Heritage 13.94% 5.73% 21.11% 38.01% 21.20% 3.47 1.28
Female 562 53.68 Awards and 20.06% 8.21% 20.73% 32.57% 18.43% 3.21 1.38
distinctions
Country Monuments and 14.42% 7.55% 24.83% 37.92% 15.28% 3.32 1.24
Spain 232 22.16 museums
United Kingdom 154 14.71 Social and cultural 12.89% 6.88% 23.40% 4.59% 16.24% 3.40 1.22
France 125 11.94 activities
Germany 91 8.69 Douro cruises 23.30% 6.69% 16.43% 33.81% 19.77% 3.20 1.45
Brazil 61 5.83 Porto Wine cellars 12.13% 5.16% 17.96% 34.96% 29.80% 3.65 1.29
Italy 56 5.35 Gastronomy 6.59% 3.53% 12.42% 39.16% 38.30% 3.99 1.12
Netherlands 47 4.49 Price/quality 8.31% 3.15% 13.09% 47.95% 27.51% 3.83 1.12
Belgium 44 4.20 relation
Other 237 22.64 Low cost air routes 21.49% 6.88% 21.01% 28.46% 22.16% 3.23 1.43

Age a
Items classified in a five-point Likert scale from 1-not important to 5-very important.
18–25 230 21.97
26–35 334 31.90
36–45 198 18.91
46–60 203 19.39
About 84% said that their main motivation was holidays and
> 60 82 7.83
leisure, followed by culture and heritage (50%), visiting friends and
Academic degree relatives (19%) and business (8%). This dynamic is aligned with the
Elementary 27 2.60 idea that the concept of culture has been changing and embracing other
Secondary 198 18.90
dimensions related more to the overall leisure experience, than only to
BSc 88 8.40
5-year BSc 490 46.80
visiting specific cultural elements such as monuments and museums. It
MSc 203 19.40 follows the notion of erosion of the boundaries between culture,
PhD 41 3.90 tourism, leisure and daily life, as previously depicted by Richards
(1996).
Occupation
The average length of stay was 5.4 nights, which is considerably
Employed 529 50.53
Self-employed 183 17.48 longer than in other studies (Ashworth & Singh, 2004; van der Borg,
Student 188 17.96 Costa, & Gotti, 1996) and of all registered foreign guests in Portugal,
Searching for first job 28 2.67 which was 3.4 nights (INE, 2015). Naturally, the economic benefits
Unemployed 30 2.87
from heritage visitors to the city can potentially be greater than from
Managing household 12 1.15
Retired 77 7.35
other segments that have shorter stays.
The importance of a city's attributes in its selection as a travel
destination is assessed by nine items, classified in a five-point Likert
4. Empirical results and discussion scale (1-not important; 5-very important). Most of the surveyed tourists
classified all items as important or very important (Table 2). The
4.1. The importance of the destination attributes gastronomy and the price-quality relation are highlighted for register-
ing the highest average (3.99 and 3.83).
Table 1 includes the socio-demographic variables that allow build- The significant differences of the attributes’ average importance
ing an overall profile of international tourists visiting the historic centre between groups according to gender, academic degree, repetition of
of Porto. The first conclusion is that the origin of the tourists is diverse, visit and age are presented in Table 3. Women give higher importance
as the sample represents all five continents in 52 countries of residence. to Porto's classification as a WHS, to monuments and museums, to
As expected, most tourists live in Europe (85%), as previously identified socio-cultural activities, to Douro cruises and to gastronomy then men.
by United Nations World Tourism Organisation (2015), and 77% of all Individuals without a higher education degree also consider the fact of
international tourists travelled inside their region (continent) of Porto's WHS status as important in the choice of this destination, as well
residence. Within these, the majority (22%) live in Spain, followed by as the awards and distinctions, monuments and museums, socio-
the UK (15%) and France (12%) which conforms with the main cultural activities and Douro cruises. The awards and distinctions of
Portuguese tourist markets. Women are slightly more numerous than the city and its monuments and museums are important selection
men (54% against 46%) which confirms the findings of Remoaldo et al. attributes for those visiting for the first time.
(2014), King and Prideaux (2010) and Richards (2004) that women are In regard to age, all groups register differences in the importance
slightly more likely than men to visit a World Heritage Site. given to the attributes. The specific differences are identified in Table 3.
The average age of tourists visiting the historical centre of Porto is The younger tourists 18–25) are more appreciative of socio-cultural
38 years-old (M ± SD=37.79 ± 13.87) and the most-represented age activities, the price/quality ratio and the low-cost airlines operating at
group is between 26 and 35 years-old (32%), which conforms with the the destination. Those aged between 26 and 35 give higher importance
studies that define the average heritage tourist as younger than others to socio-cultural activities, while the individuals between 45 and 60
(Nguyen & Cheung, 2014; Remoaldo et al., 2014; Richards, 2004; visit the city mainly because it is classified as a WHS, but also because
Yankholmes & Akyeampong, 2010). Nearly 80% have a higher of its awards and distinctions, monuments and museums, Douro cruises
education degree and are professionally active (68%) or a student and the price/quality ratio. For these tourists and also those aged over
(18%). Indeed, several authors argue that heritage tourists are usually 60, the Port wine cellars represent an important attraction. These older
well educated, with at least a college degree (Huh et al., 2006; tourists also value the cultural heritage and the Douro cruises.
Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001; Remoaldo et al., 2014;
Silberberg, 1995; Weaver et al., 2001).

5
A. Ramires et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 3
Average importance of the destination attributes and results of t-student, One-Way ANOVA and Games-Howell post-hoc tests.

Destination attributesa

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9

Gender
Male 3.33 3.14 3.21 3.32 3.09 3.60 3.92 3.78 3.14
Female 3.59 3.27 3.42 3.48 3.30 3.69 4.05 3.88 3.31
t(p-value) −3.30(.001) NS −2.79(.005) −2.03(.043) −2.32(.021) NS −1.97(.049) NS NS

Higher education degree

No 3.64 3.42 3.58 3.63 3.51 3.68 3.96 3.71 3.34
Yes 3.42 3.15 3.25 3.34 3.12 3.64 4.00 3.86 3.20
t(p-value) 2.35(.019) 2.54(.011) 3.69( < .001) 3.28(.001) 3.75( < .001) NS NS NS NS

Travel characteristics
First time 3.53 3.33 3.41 3.40 3.24 3.70 4.02 3.84 3.21
Repeater 3.40 3.09 3.23 3.40 3.16 3.60 3.96 3.82 3.25
t(p-value) NS 2.82(.005) 2.26(.024) NS NS NS NS NS NS

Age
18–25 3.37 3.16 3.13 3.53 2.88 3.45 4.12 4.00 3.62
26–35 3.42 3.15 3.16 3.50 3.03 3.55 3.87 3.82 3.18
36–45 3.35 3.13 3.30 3.15 3.22 3.61 3.90 3.61 2.93
46–60 3.71 3.48 3.70 3.31 3.55 3.96 4.09 3.93 3.23
> 60 3.62 3.15 3.63 3.51 3.89 3.94 4.06 3.74 3.05
F(p-value) 3.10(.015) 2.47(.043) 9.34( < .001) 3.80(.004) 12.24( < .001) 5.97( < .001) 2.48(.042) 3.79(.005) 6.97( < .001)
Games-Howell test results 4 > 1,3 4>2 4 > 1,2,3; 5 > 1,2 1,2 > 3 4 > 1,2; 5 > 1,2,3 4 > 1,2,3; 5 > 1 NS 1,4 > 3 1 > 2,3,4,5

Notes: NS – Not significant (p > .05);

a
A1- World Heritage; A2 - Awards and distinctions; A3 Monuments and museums; A4 - Social and cultural activities; A5 - Douro cruises; A6 - Porto Wine cellars; A7 – Gastronomy; A8 -
Price/quality relation; A9 - Low cost air routes; Items classified in a five point Likert scale from 1-not important to 5-very important.

4.2. Segmentation of tourists based on their motivation towards the
destination attributes
The segmentation process is based on the factor scores of destina-
tion attributes resulting from factor analysis. Bartlett's test of sphericity
(χ2(36)=4169.50; p < .001) and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (MSA=.88)
demonstrate that the used sample is adequate. According to Kaiser's
criteria, two factors are identified explaining 62.47% of total variance
(see Table 4). The first is labelled as ‘culture and leisure’ and explains
50.79% of the total variance. It includes elements related to the
activities that tourists usually engage in when visiting the city, or that
are part of its image and positioning. The ‘value for money’ factor
explains 11.69% of total variance and comprises items that relate to
travel expenses and to the price/quality ratio. The internal consistency
of the ‘culture and leisure’ dimension is good (α=.89) and of ‘value for
money’ is low (α=.67), but still acceptable (Murphy & Davidsholder,
1988 cited in Maroco & Garcia-Marques, 2006).
The hierarchical cluster analysis leads to the definition of three
clusters. The k-means cluster analysis identified the association of each
member to the cluster. The one-way ANOVA was computed to test if
'tourists visiting WHC can be clustered according to the importance
given to the destinations’ attributes' (H1). Results determine the
existence of significant differences between both dimensions, demon-
strating that the hypothesis is accepted. The results of the Games-
Howell post-hoc tests reveal that both dimensions contribute signifi-
cantly to the differences between clusters. The differences of the
averages between the three segments and the importance of each
dimension are presented in Table 5. The naming of the clusters was
based on the average scores and differences between dimensions.
Cluster 1 is labelled as the ‘conventional cultural tourists’ and repre-
sents 29% of the sample. Its members attach greater value to the
‘culture and leisure’ factor (.53) and in contrast, lesser importance to
‘value for money’ (−.91). The second cluster, classified as ‘spontaneous
cultural tourists,’ includes 20% of the sample (it is the smallest cluster)
and is characterised by the lower importance of both factors (−1.57 e
−.32), and when compared with the others it stands out by giving
lower importance to ‘culture and leisure.’ Cluster 3 is designated as
‘absorptive cultural tourist.’ This is the largest cluster including 51% of
the respondents. They classify both factors positively (.30 and .64),
however, this is the group that attributes higher importance to the
‘value for money’ factor.
In order to characterise the segments according to the satisfaction

Table 4
Factor analysis results with Varimax rotation and principal component analysis results of the importance of destination attributes.

Dimension Factor meana Communalities Factor loading Eigenvalue Explained variance Cronbach's Alpha

Culture and leisure 4.57 50.79% .89

Monuments and museums 3.32 .68 .81
World Heritage 3.47 .64 .78
Port wine cellars 3.65 .65 .78
Douro cruises 3.20 .61 .78
Awards and distinctions 3.21 .64 .76
Social and cultural activities 3.40 .48 .64
Gastronomy 3.99 .55 .61
Value for money 1.05 11.69% .67
Low cost air routes 3.23 .69 .82
Price/quality relation 3.83 .68 .80

a
Items classified in a five point Likert scale from 1-not important to 5-very important.

6
A. Ramires et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 5
One-Way ANOVA and Games-Howell results of mean difference of destination attributes by the three clusters.

Total Cluster 1 Conventional Cluster 2 Spontaneous Cluster 3 Absorptive One-Way ANOVA Games-Howell test results

(N=1047) (N=305) (N=207) (N=535)

Dimensions (100%) (29.13%) (19.77%) (51.10%) F(p-value)

Culture and leisure .00 .53 −1.57 .30 7.41(.001) 1 > 2,3;3 > 2; p < .001
Value for Money .00 −.91 −.32 .64 133.85( < .001) 2 > 1;3 > 1,2; p < .001

Table 6
Factor analysis results with Varimax rotation and principal component analysis results of satisfaction levels.

Dimension Factor meana Communalities Factor loading Eigenvalue Explained variance Cronbach's Alpha

Tourism supply 5.34 29.66% .76

Gastronomy and restaurants 4.32 .63 .77
Accommodation 4.13 .53 .66
Nightlife 4.14 .45 .59
Shopping 3.90 .49 .60
Hospitality/ kindness 4.50 .50 .54
Cultural and entertainment activities 3.86 .36 .51
Natural and cultural heritage 1.49 8.30% .76
Museums 3.73 .56 .69
Nature and landscape 4.08 .64 .72
Heritage conservation 3.81 .59 .71
Outside spaces and green areas 3.90 .58 .,69
Mobility and accessibility 1.41 7.85% .60
Parking lots 3.28 .57 .72
Taxi services 3.79 .51 .65
Access to communication networks 3.62 .48 .60
Public transport networks 3.82 .45 .52
Tourism information and signage 1.08 5.98% .80
Tourism signage 3.52 .82 .88
Tourism information 3.66 .82 .88
Cleanliness and safety 1.07 5.97% .71
Safety 3.96 .73 .78
Cleanliness of the city 3.79 .70 .76

a
Items classified in a five point Likert scale from 1-Very unsatisfied to 5- Very satisfied.

with the items assessed, a factor analysis was performed (Table 6). The
adequacy of data is assured (χ2(153)=5153.78; p < .001; MSA=.87)
demonstrating that the sample used was adequate. Five factors
explained 57.75% of total variance. The first refers to the destination
tourism supply and scores the highest average level of satisfaction
(4.14). The second comprises the natural and cultural heritage and the
third the conditions of mobility and accessibility. The last two relate to
information, and to cleanliness and safety.
The analysis of the clusters’ profile and of the differences based on
destination attributes are presented in Tables 7, 8, presenting statistical
significant differences between the three clusters in the demographic
profile, travel characteristics, travel behaviour, satisfaction, destination
assessment and loyalty, while not rejecting the hypotheses H2.1, H2.2,
H2.3, H2.4 and H2.5.
Cluster 1: The conventional cultural tourist.
The first cluster, labelled the ‘conventional cultural tourist’, repre-
sents about 29% of the sample. It is gender-balanced and its members
are older than those of the other clusters, with an average age of 40
years-old. It has the largest number of senior tourists, as 11.2% are over
60. However, the majority are still professionally active (67%) and have
a higher education degree (74%), although this cluster also includes the
largest group of visitors without one (26%). This cluster gives more
importance to ‘culture and leisure’ dimension in the process of
destination selection, and less to ‘value for money.’ They are visiting
the city for the first time, and their primary motivation is holidays/
leisure (86%), followed by culture and heritage (54%). The travel
arrangements are mostly done through the Internet (56%). Nonetheless,
it includes the largest number of individuals using a travel agency to
organise the trip (40%). They travelled to the destination mostly by
plane (77%) and are distinguished from the other clusters by choosing
regular airlines (60%). In this cluster can also be found the largest
group using a bus and arriving by boat, mainly due to cruise ships,
whether via the Douro river or by sea. The majority of these ‘conven-
tional cultural tourists’ choose hotels (59%) and stay for a longer
period, with an average of 5.5 nights. Out of those staying in hotels,
most (52%) select four-star accommodation. Nearly half of these
tourists travel with family (49%) and friends (43%), an average of five
people, with the largest group of friends about seven people. Besides
visiting the city, they prefer to visit the heritage and monuments, the
Port wine cellars, to go shopping, visit museums and engage in
organised tours. They visit the city mainly on foot (80%), but also by
bus or metro. These tourists have lower satisfaction levels, with most
items being assessed between neutral and satisfied 3.3–4). The overall
satisfaction with the destination (4.0) and the price/quality ratio (3.86)
are positive, although they are the lowest among the three clusters.
Cluster 2: The spontaneous cultural tourists.
The ‘spontaneous cultural tourists’ are mainly men (56%), the
majority are between 26 and 35 years-old, with only 19% over 45. It
is the youngest group, with an average age of 35 and the cluster that has
the highest number of individuals with higher education (85%),
particularly a Master's degree. This cluster gives the lowest importance
to culture and leisure for selecting a destination, as well as to all
destination attributes when compared to the other two groups. More
than half are repeat visitors and their primary motivation is holidays/
leisure. The cluster includes the largest group travelling for professional
reasons (19%), travelling alone (19%) or with an average of eight co-
workers. They stand out as the group with the highest rate of using the
Internet to organise travel (77%). They reach the destination by
airplane (84%) and similar to the ‘absorptive cultural tourist’ they
choose low-cost airlines (44%). On average, they do not spend much on

7
A. Ramires et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 7
Chi-squared tests results of differences between clusters.

Total (N=1047) Cluster 1 (N=305) Cluster 2 (N=207) Cluster 3 (N=535) Chi-square test
(100%) (29.13%) (19.77%) (51.10%) χ2 (p-value)

Socio-demographic variables

Gender
Male 46.32 47.54 56.04a 41.87 12.31(.002)
Female 53.68 52.46 43.96 58.13a

Age
18–25 21.97 18.03 22.71 23.93 20.33(.009)
26–35 31.90 28.52 35.27 32.52
36–45 18.91 19.34 23.19 17.01
46–60 19.39 22.95 14.49 19.25
Over 60 7.83 11.15a 4.35 7.29

Academic degree
With higher education degree 78.51 74,43 85.02a 78.51 NS
Without higher education degree 21.49 25,57a 14.98 21.68

Professional situation
Active 68.00 66,89 72.95 66.73 NS
Non-active 32.00 33,11 27.05 33.27

Travel behaviour
First visitb 50.81 56.72a 46.86 48.97 6.28(.043)

b
Motivation
Holidays/Leisure 84.34 85.90 62.32 91.96a 100.08( < .001)
Culture and heritage 50.33 53.77 15.46 61.87a 130.63( < .001)
Visiting friends and relatives 18.53 19.02 17.39 18.69 NS
Business 7.93 5.90 18.84a 4.86 42.39( < .001)

How was the travel organised

Internet 67.24 56.39 77.29a 69.53 34.16( < .001)
Travel agency 30.66 40.33a 19.32 29.53
Unknown 2.10 3.28 3.38 .93

Travelling withb
Alone 12.89 11.15 19.32a 11.40 9.51(.009)
Family 47.66 49.18 36.23 51.21a 13.83(.001)
Friends 42.98 43.28 44.93 42.06 NS
Co-workers 4.87 3.93 4.83 5.42 NS

Transport to destination
Airplane 80.23 77.05 84.06 8.56 36.32( < .001)
Car 13.18 14.43 8.21 14.39
Train 3.34 3.61 5.80a 2.24
Bus 1.53 3.61a .97 .56
Camper van 1.43 .33 .97 2.24a
Boat .29 .98
Airlineb 63.69( < .001)
Regular 45.65 60.33a 40.58 39.25
Low-cost 34.67 16.72 43.48a 41.50a

Accommodation
Hotel 54.44 59.34 47.83 54.21 20.32(.009)
Hostel 22.73 20.33 24.15 23.55
Friends/relatives 13.75 12.46 16.91 13.27
Local accommodation 5.64 4.26 10.14a 4.67
Camping 3.44 3.61 .97 4.30

Activities in the destinationb

Overall visit to the city 97.80 98.69 93.24 99.07a 25.17( < .001)
Visit to Porto wine cellars 85.39 91.80a 59.90 91.59a 134.29( < .001)
Visit to heritage/monuments 85.29 94.10a 52.17 93.08a 225.74( < .001)
Shopping 84.34 90.16a 67.63 87.48a 55.54( < .001)
Museums 76.12 85.57a 35.75 86.36a 231.45( < .001)
Nightlife 74.50 68.85 60.87 82.99a 45.67( < .001)
Entertainment and cultural events 72.87 76.39 46.38 81.12a 93.84( < .001)
Organised tours 46.99 60.98a 14.49 51.59a 116.28( < .001)

Transport in the destinationb

By foot 84.15 80.00 77.78 88.97a 19.56( < .001)
Bus 49.47 51.80 41.06 51.40 7.32(.026)
Subway 56.64 50.82 45.41 64.30a 27.61( < .001)
(continued on next page)

8
A. Ramires et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 7 (continued)

Total (N=1047) Cluster 1 (N=305) Cluster 2 (N=207) Cluster 3 (N=535) Chi-square test
(100%) (29.13%) (19.77%) (51.10%) χ2 (p-value)

Taxi 31.42 29.51 28.50 33.64 NS

Own car 17.00 17.70 14.01 17.76 NS
Rental car 11.84 13.44 9.66 11.78 NS
Bicycle 5.90 6.56 2.42 6.92 NS
Intention to returnb 85.20 85.57 86.96 84.30 NS
Intention to recommendb 98.76 98.69 97.10 99.44a 6.67(.036)

Notes: NS – not significant (p > .05);

a
Statistical significant results at .05 (adjusted residuals positive and higher than 1.96);
b
Dichotomic variable – the results represent the answer ‘Yes’

transportation (an average of €24). When compared to other clusters, it
includes the largest group using the train in their trip to Porto. They
stay in hotels, but also in local accommodation units. They stay fewer
nights than the other segments (about 4.0). Concerning their experience
at the destination, they highlight visiting the city (93%), shopping
(68%) and nightlife (61%). They primarily get around on foot (78%).
They stand out as the segment with lowest spending on accommoda-
tion, meals, transports, activities, culture and leisure. The total spend-
ing per person is the lowest, at around €235. They are satisfied overall
with the destination (4.16), although the least satisfied with tourism
information. Along with Cluster 3, they are satisfied with the price/
quality ratio.
Cluster 3: The absorptive cultural tourists.
The third cluster is the ‘absorptive cultural tourists’ and comprises
more women (58%) than men. The average age is 37 years-old. It
includes the largest percentage of tourists from Spain (60%). Similar to
other clusters, most members are employed and have a higher educa-
tion degree. These tourists give higher average importance to the local
gastronomy (4.43) and to value for money as factors influencing their
choice of this destination. More than half are repeat visitors. These
tourists stand out as travelling mainly for holidays/leisure (92%) and
for cultural purposes (62%). This cluster tends to travel with family
(51%) with an average of three individuals. The majority (81%) travel
by airplane on low-cost airlines, as ‘non-cultural tourists.’ They prefer
to stay in hotels (54%) and for a long period of about 5.7 nights, the
longest of the three clusters. They present a similar pattern to the
‘conventional cultural tourists’ concerning the activities experienced in
the destination: the overall visit to the city, to heritage and monuments,
to the Port wine cellars, to museums, shopping and organised tours.
However, the members of this group present a higher level of engage-
ment in all activities and experiences than the other segments,
especially nightlife and entertainment, and cultural events.
Subsequently, this cluster presents the highest spending per person, at
about €460. It is, thus, the cluster that brings the highest economic
impact to the city. As ‘spontaneous tourists’ their satisfaction level is
high overall (4.2), as it is with the tourism supply and the natural and
cultural heritage, and they also score high in the quality/price ratio
(4.0). They are also very satisfied with safety, especially when

Table 8
Results of one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post-hoc tests for significant differences between clusters.

Total (N=1047) Cluster 1 (N=305) Cluster 2 (N=207) Cluster 3 (N=535) One-way ANOVA F Games-Howell test
(100%) (29.13%) (19.77%) (51.10%) (p-value) results

Age 37.79 40.08 35.42 37.39 7.48(.001) 1 > 2,3

Travel behaviour
Number of previous visits 3.08 3.00 3.01 3.15 NS –
Length of stay 5.41 5.58 4.38 5.70 9.17( < .001) 1,3 > 2

Size of group
Family 2.73 2.63 2.60 2.82 NS –
Friends 5.26 6.85 4.90 4.47 7.56(.001) 1>3
Co-workers 5.84 5.08 8.40 5.28 NS –
Total 3.97 4.57 3.74 3.72 NS –

Satisfaction levels (factor scores)

Tourism supply .00 −.15 .03 .08 5.15(.006) 3>1
Natural and cultural heritage .00 −.16 −.02 .10 6.47(.002) 3>1
Mobility and accessibility .00 −.06 .12 −.01 NS –
Tourism information .00 −.04 −.28 .13 12.87( < .001) 1,3 > 2; 3 > 1
Cleanliness and safety .00 −.178 −.15 .16 14.53( < .001) 3 > 1,2
Overall satisfactiona 4.16 4.01 4.16 4.18 8.64( < .001) 2,3 > 1
Price/quality ratio 3.95 3.86 4.01 3.97 4.33(.013) 2>1
assessmentb

Expenses per person (euros)

Accommodation 156.93 163.59 86.74 180.29 16.39( < .001) 1,3 > 2
Meals 93.31 97.85 59.89 103.64 11.84( < .001) 1,3 > 2
Transportation 41.98 40.22 24.30 49.83 15.40( < .001) 3 > 1;1 > 2
Activities 33.23 33.78 14.66 40.10 33.52( < .001) 1,3 > 2
Culture and leisure 32.71 32.64 15.64 39.36 28.60( < .001) 1 > 2;3 > 1
Shopping and gifts 46.48 54.11 34.02 46.95 5.35(.005) 1>2
Total 404.63 422.18 235.25 460.17 22.27( < .001) 1,3 > 2

Notes: ab
Items classified in a five point Likert scale: a
1- Very dissatisfied and 5- Very satisfied; b
1-Poor and 5- Excellent; NS – not significant (p > .05).

9
A. Ramires et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 9 For Cluster 2, the dimensions of ‘tourism supply’ and ‘natural and
Multiple regression models for the factors predicting overall satisfaction with the cultural heritage’ predict the overall satisfaction, while for Cluster 3,
destination, by cluster.
the only factor that does not predict it is ‘tourism information’. Beta
Satisfaction factors B Std. Error Beta t p-value Tolerance VIF coefficients reveal that ‘tourism supply’ has the largest weight in the
overall satisfaction for each cluster. Results of multiple regressions
Cluster 1: R2=.349; F (5, 299)=32.052; p < .001 reveal the existence of significant relations between the specific
Conventional
dimensions of satisfaction and the overall satisfaction with the destina-
Constant 4.11 .03
Tourism supply .22 .03 .36 7.73 < .001 .99 1.00 tion, without rejecting Hypothesis 3.
Cleanliness and .18 .03 .29 6.22 < .001 .98 1.02 Satisfaction results from the relationship between the expectations
safety in regard to the destination attributes and the actual experience. If there
Natural and cultural .15 .03 .24 5.11 < .001 .99 1.02 is no gap between the expected and the actual performance, a tourist
heritage
will register high satisfaction levels. Specific elements of tourism
Mobility and .11 .03 .17 3.57 < .001 .98 1.02
accessibility supply, such as gastronomy, accommodation, culture and entertain-
Tourism .09 .03 .14 2.89 .004 .98 1.03 ment, and hospitality are factors that are common to all three clusters in
information defining their levels of satisfaction. Thus, they should be a priority for
local tourism organisations and firms in terms of investment, quality
Cluster 2: R2=.252; F(5, 201)=34.325; p < .001
Spontaneous assurance and diversity of experiences while maintaining their value for
Constant 4.16 .04 money. It is worth highlighting hospitality as an important factor for
Tourism supply .28 .04 .48 7.89 < .001 1.00 1.00 satisfaction. While tangible elements can be manageable by DMOs,
Natural and cultural .10 .03 .18 2.98 .003 1.00 1.00 hospitality is an endogenous factor that must be nurtured in the
heritage
inhabitants, thus assuring that there is an amiable familiarity between
Cluster 3: R2=.361; F(5, 529)=74.907; p < .001 tourists and residents who are part of the city's World Heritage.
Absorptive Other significant elements that contribute to satisfaction relate to
Constant 4.13 .02 museums, landscape, conservation of heritage and public spaces, green
Tourism supply .23 .02 .40 11.46 < .001 1.00 1.00
areas, cleanliness, safety, tourism information and signage, and issues
Natural and cultural .21 .02 .38 10.82 < .001 1.00 1.00
heritage related to mobility and accessibility. These are mainly managed by
Mobility and .10 .02 .20 5.72 < .001 1.00 1.00 local public authorities, in contrast to the tourism supply which is
accessibility mostly under private responsibility and forms the local economic
Cleanliness and .10 .02 .18 5.27 < .001 1.00 1.00 tourism base. Thus, it may be concluded that a solid governance system
safety
including effective public services and active private organisations is
Dependent variable: Overall satisfaction crucial for strong overall satisfaction of tourists visiting WHCs.

compared to the other segments, which may explain the fact that the
majority of these tourists travel on foot or subway in the city. The high
level of satisfaction is reflected in the fact that this segment is more
likely to recommend the destination to friends and relatives (99%).
4.3. Destination attributes predictive of global satisfaction
It is recognised that satisfaction with specific destination attributes
plays an important role in influencing the overall satisfaction and,
subsequently, increasing return visits as well as the intention to
recommend. The choice of destination and consumption patterns is
strongly influenced by satisfaction (Huh et al., 2006; Ozturk & Gogtas,
2016), so identifying predictive attributes has great importance for
Destination Marketing (and Management) Organisations (DMOs) to
adjust and direct their strategies according to the selected market
target.
Multiple regression analysis is used to determine the predictors of
overall satisfaction with the destination for each motivation-based
cluster. The considered predictive variables are the following factors:
tourism supply, natural and cultural heritage, mobility and accessi-
bility, tourism information, cleanliness and safety. From the results
presented in Table 9, it can be verified that the three models are
statistically significant. The significance levels provide evidence of a
good fit to predict the overall destination satisfaction based on the
weight of the satisfaction factors. For Cluster 1, 35% of the overall
satisfaction variance is explained by the model, in Cluster 2, the value is
of 25% and in Cluster 3, it rises to 36% which, according to Cohen
(1988), constitutes a large effect size. The results also show the absence
of multicollinearity, since all tolerance values are higher than .10 and
the variance inflation factors (VIF) for all independent variables are
lower than 10 (Hair et al., 2014).
In the regression model for Cluster 1, all the satisfaction dimensions
are significant predictors of the overall satisfaction with the destination.
5. Conclusions
This research segments and characterises tourists visiting WHC
according to the destination's attributes. It also concludes about each
clusters’ satisfaction with these attributes, which has impacts on the
return and recommendation intention. Despite acknowledgement by
several studies analysing cultural tourists, there is a lack of empirical
evidence on the profiles of tourists visiting WHCs. Considering the
increased need for DMOs to manage and monitor the dynamics of
tourism in these places of prevailing popularity, it is considered to be of
foremost importance to broaden the knowledge about these types of
tourists, the attributes that motivate them and shape their travel
behaviour, and their satisfaction with the experience. This will posi-
tively contribute to the design of adequate marketing and management
strategies.
The effects of inclusion in UNESCO's World Heritage List and the
transformations that these cities have undergone in recent decades with
the subsequent increase of international tourist flows are additional
motives for the development of this study, and can be applied to cities
around the world that are experiencing a similar evolution.
When analysing the attributes that tourists value and the experi-
ences that they engage in while on holiday, it is concluded that there is
a fusion between the dynamics related to heritage as an attraction and
the dynamics of a touristic city. World Heritage historical centres
should not be seen as an isolated reality, as they are immersed in the
overall dynamics of the city tourism. Thus, it is necessary to design
integrated management strategies where both dimensions can coexist.
This is important for the classification by UNESCO as well, as it
considers heritage as an integrated social, cultural and economic
reality. The fact that the majority of tourists choose to visit a heritage
city on holiday and for leisure confirms that culture, leisure and tourism
are increasingly bound together, and their limits are blurred. These
tourists are eclectic and search for experiences above all.
This research brings to light new knowledge about the different

10
A. Ramires et al.
segments of tourists visiting WHCs according to their motivations. The
cluster analysis is based on the importance of a destination's attributes
for its selection, the characterisation of the different groups and their
subsequent satisfaction. Several implications and contributions result
from this study, where three segments are identified: the ‘conventional
cultural tourists’, the ‘spontaneous cultural tourists’, and the ‘absorptive
cultural tourists.’.
The most representative group both in terms of numbers and
economic impact are the ‘absorptive cultural tourists.’ These tourists
are characterised as independent, eclectic and explorers who, despite
visiting the usual places, move outside the ‘tourist bubble’ (Judd, 1999)
and go off the beaten track to immerse themselves in the city life that
they wish to absorb. The majority are repeat visitors and present the
highest satisfaction levels when compared to other groups. For this
reason, they may be an important source for recommending a visit to
the city, since positive word-of-mouth referrals can have a higher
impact than advertising campaigns. Therefore, DMOs should pay
special attention to the attributes beyond culture and heritage that
these tourists appreciate the most, which are value for money and local
gastronomy, and also to the elements that positively influence their
high satisfaction such as the tourism supply, the natural and cultural
heritage, mobility, accessibility, cleanliness and safety. DMOs should
maintain good work in these areas.
The ‘spontaneous cultural tourists’ are less concerned with culture
and leisure as attributes when selecting the destination. Despite this,
the city's natural and cultural heritage, along with the tourism supply,
are strong predictors of their satisfaction. This may indicate that
regardless of the fact that local heritage is not valued as a pull
motivation, it plays an important role in these tourists’ experience.
They are a younger group and also those with lower expenditures. They
present high levels of overall satisfaction, although they are the least
satisfied with tourism information. Considering that they present the
highest levels of Internet use to organise travel, it would be appropriate
to develop digital communication tools to provide tourist information
regarding the city's tourism attractions, products and events. This
segment also includes the highest portion of business travellers.
‘Conventional cultural tourists’ are characterised by being first time
visitors that value the ‘culture and leisure’ dimension and thus they
prefer to visit heritage, monuments, museums and port wine cellars.
However, contrary to the previous groups, they do this mainly in
organised tours and through travel agencies. They rely heavily on
tourism infrastructure and standardised activities, which may be
explained by the fact that they are older, travelling in groups of family
or friends, and thus search for the safety and comfort of organised
experiences. Bearing this in mind, this group demands a stronger
involvement of tour operators and other private tourism companies to
design attractive and diversified activities that respond to their
motivations. Public authorities should also encourage the emergence
of new tourism businesses and remove obstacles to their creation, in
order to respond to these tourists’ demands and needs.
The analysis of satisfaction also informs public and private organi-
sations about where to invest in order to meet these World Heritage
tourists’ expectations. While public authorities should be vigilant with
infrastructure, safety, sanitation, the requalification of public spaces
and accessibility, private-sector managers can identify business oppor-
tunities in accommodation, gastronomy and restaurants, nightlife,
shopping, cultural and entertainment activities and organised tours.
Identifying the specific features of the segments of tourists visiting a
city allows destination managers and planners to understand their
interests, behaviour and expectations, and thus to better design tourism
products and services and to advance informed (and therefore effective)
marketing and communication strategies aimed at specific targets. It
also provides a basis for destination managers to develop innovative
tourist products and services that provide integrated, wide-ranging,
fulfilling and memorable experiences at the destination. The design of
the tourism experience and destination marketing strategies should
11
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
thus highlight the attributes that visitors value the most, such as
culture, gastronomy and the price-quality relationship, but efforts
should be made in order to increase awareness and satisfaction with
elements that are less acknowledged by international visitors, according
to the identified segments. Ultimately, the implementation of these
measures will make the destination more competitive.
Practitioners should conduct further research on the specific
behavioural patterns of tourists visiting World Heritage, which is
limited at the present. Information on the number of visitors, what
they visit, how they access information, what the image of a WHC is,
how they move around the city, among other variables that help to
thoroughly characterise tourism in a WHC should be included in
systematic data collection processes developed by DMOs. This monitor-
ing process will allow defining the destination's carrying capacity, avoid
massification, identity loss and destruction of heritage, and preserve the
attributes that motivate tourists to visit the city.
5.1. Limitations and suggestions for future research
This research provides a profile of international visitors to a WHC.
As with almost every study, there are some limitations that can be
overcome with further work. First, this study makes a static analysis, in
the sense that it analyses visitors in a limited period of time. It would be
interesting to conduct similar studies during other times of the year,
assuming that there may be differences in groups that arrive in Porto in
the high or low seasons. The evolution of markets should also be
considered, and thus it is strongly suggested to undertake longitudinal
studies to analyse the diachronic dynamics of World Heritage visitors.
Any generalisation of the results should be done with the considera-
tion that the results of a study conducted in one WHC may be different
than in others. Thus, future studies on this topic should elaborate
comparative studies with other WHCs in order to identify similarities
and differences in tourists’ profiles and their impacts.
Segmentation is a powerful tool to advance deeper knowledge about
specific markets. There is a dearth of research on clusters defined by
tourists’ motivations, which led to the development of this study. All
the same, it is recommended that additional studies be done, namely
the identification of clusters of tourists according to other segmentation
concepts such as activities pursued when visiting WHCs, lifestyles, and
psychographic variables. This would further support the design and
creation of adequate and integrated tourism products and experiences.
It was also found that tourists’ behaviour patterns, especially those
demonstrated by the ‘absorptive cultural tourists’, create an unknown
dynamic that strongly links the heritage sites and the host city, and that
the WHS is not isolated. Further research on these dynamics and on the
resulting economic, social and cultural relationships is needed in order
to develop integrated management strategies that include both dimen-
sions of the city.
References
AAVV (2010). Heritage tourism handbook: A how-to-guide for Georgia Georgia: Georgia
Department of Natural Resources.
Adie, B. A., & Hall, C. M. (2016). Who visits World Heritage? A comparative analysis of
three cultural sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1743873X.2016.1151429 Advance online publication.
Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of
tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and
recommendation intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4),
213–221.
Ashworth, G. J., & Singh, T. V. (2004). Tourism and the heritage of atrocity: Managing the
heritage of South African apartheid for entertainment Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S. L., & Santos, J. (2004). The relationship between
destination performance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct
segments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(3–4), 149–165.
Bonetti, E., Simoni, M., & Cercola, R. (2014). Creative tourism and cultural heritage: a
new perspective. In: Aiello, L. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of research on management of
cultural products: E-relationship marketing and accessibility perspectives
(doi:hdl.handle.net/10400.12/133). Hershey: Business Science Reference, 367–395.
van der Borg, J., Costa, P., & Gotti, G. (1996). Tourism in European heritage cities. Annals
A. Ramires et al.
of Tourism Research, 23(2), 306–321.
Bywater, M. (1993). The market for cultural tourism in Europe. Travel and Tourism
Analyst, 6(1), 30–46.
Chang, J. (2006). Segmenting tourists to aboriginal cultural festivals: An example in the
Rukai tribal area, Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1224–1234.
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115–1122.
Cochran, W. G. (1963). Sampling techniques New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cristofle, S. (2012). Patrimoine culturel, tourisme et marketing des lieux: Nice et la Côte
d'Azur entre désirs de territoire et développement. In: Fournier, L. S., Crozat, D.,
Bernié-Boissard, C., & Chastagner, C. (Eds.). (2012). Patrimoine et valorisation des
territoires (doi:hdl.handle.net/10400.12/133). Paris: L'Harmathan, 17–36.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination
and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel
Research, 17(4), 18–23.
du Cross, H. (2009). Emerging issues for cultural tourism in Macau. Journal of Current
Chinese Affairs, 38(1), 73–99.
Dolnicar, S. (2008). Market segmentation in tourism. In: Woodside, A. G., & Martin, D.
(Eds.). (2008). Tourism management: analysis, behaviour and strategy
(doi:hdl.handle.net/10400.12/133). Cambridge: CAB International, 129–150.
Espelt, N. G., & Benito, J. A. D. (2006). Visitors behavior in heritage cities: The case of
Girona. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 442–448.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS London: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis
London: Pearson Education Limited.
Hughes, H. L. (2002). Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Managing
Leisure, 7(3), 164–175.
Huh, J., Uysal, M., & McCleary, K. (2006). Cultural/heritage destinations: Tourist
satisfaction and market segmentation. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing,
14(3), 81–99.
INE (2015). Statistical yearbook of the North Region - 2014 Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de
Estatistica.
Judd, D. R. (1999). Constructing the tourist bubble. In: Judd, D. R., & Susan, S. F. (Eds.).
(1999). The tourist city (doi:hdl.handle.net/10400.12/133). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 35–53.
Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the specialization
concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3),
267–274.
King, L. M., & Prideaux, B. (2010). Special interest tourists collecting places and
destinations: a case study of Australian World Heritage Sites. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 16(3), 235–247.
Maroco, J., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2006). Qual a fiabilidade do alpha de Cronbach?
Questões antigas e soluções modernas?. Laboratório de Psicologia, 4(1),
65–90 (doi:hdl.handle.net/10400.12/133).
McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 4(1), 29–38.
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 5(1), 45–58.
Moscardo, G., Morrison, A. M., Pearce, P. L., Lang, C. T., & O’Leary, J. T. (1996).
Understanding destination vacation choice through travel motivation and activities.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 109–122.
Nguyen, T. H. H., & Cheung, C. (2014). The classification of heritage tourists: A case of
Hue city, Vietnam. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 9(1), 35–50.
Nyaupane, G. P., & Andereck, K. L. (2014). Visitors to cultural heritage attractions: an
activity-based integrated typology. Tourism Culture & Communication, 14(1), 17–26.
Nyaupane, G. P., White, D. D., & Budruk, M. (2006). Motive-based tourist market
segmentation: An application to native American cultural heritage sites in Arizona,
USA. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(2), 81–99.
OECD (2008). The impact of culture on tourism Paris: Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD).
Ozturk, U. A., & Gogtas, H. (2016). Destination attributes, satisfaction, and the cruise
visitor's intent to revisit and recommend. Tourism Geographies, 18(2), 194–212.
Park, H. Y. (2014). Heritage tourism Oxon: Routledge.
12
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
Pedersen, A. (2002). Managing tourism at World Heritage Sites: A practical manual for
World Heritage Site managers Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to a
destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 12(2), 197–209.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for
visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28.
Remoaldo, P. C., Ribeiro, J. C., Vareiro, L., & Santos, J. F. (2014). Tourists' perceptions of
World Heritage destinations: The case of Guimarães (Portugal). Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 14(4), 206–218.
Richards, G. (Ed.) (1996). Cultural Tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CABI.
Richards, G. (Ed.) (2001). Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.
Richards, G. (2004). New directions for cultural tourism? In WTO (Ed.), Tourism Market
Trends 2003, World Overview and Tourism Topics Madrid: WTO.
Shackley, M.L. (2000). Visitor management: case studies from World Heritage sites. Oxford;
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunity for museums and
heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361–365.
Stebbins, R. (1996). Cultural tourism as serious leisure. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4),
948–950.
Tchetchik, A., Fleischer, A., & Shoval, N. (2009). Segmentation of visitors to a heritage
site using high-resolution time-space data. Journal of Travel Research, 48(2), 216–229.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued
traditions and new perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 1–16.
United Nations World Tourism Organisation (2015). Tourism highlights 2014 Madrid:
UNWTO.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies London:
Sage Publications.
UNWTO, & ETC (2005). City tourism and culture: The European experience Madrid:
World Tourism Organisation and European Travel Commission.
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.
World Tourism Organization (2001). Cultural heritage and tourism development: A report on
the International Conference on Cultural Tourism, Siem Reap, Cambodia 11-13 December
2000. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
World Tourism Organisation (2004). Tourism Market Trends. Madrid, Spain: World
Tourism Organisation.
Yankholmes, A. K. B., & Akyeampong, O. A. (2010). Tourists' perceptions of heritage
tourism development in Danish-Osu, Ghana. International Journal of Tourism Research,
12(5), 603–616.
Ana Ramires holds a PhD in Mathematics from Portucalense University (Porto) and a
Master degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the Faculty of Engineering of
the University of Porto. She is Assistant Professor in the European University of Portugal,
and a member of the Research Unit in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies of
the University of Aveiro (GOVCOPP). Her research interests are the application of
quantitative methods to social sciences, in particular to tourism.
Filipa Brandão holds a PhD in Tourism and a Master in Tourism Management and
Development, from the University of Aveiro. She is Assistant Professor in the Polytechnic
Institute of Porto and in the University of Aveiro, and member of the Research Unit in
Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies of the University of Aveiro (GOVCOPP).
Her research and scientific production focus on tourism innovation, regional develop-
ment, social network analysis, and tourism destinations’ planning and management.
Ana Cristina Sousa holds a PhD in Portuguese Art History, Master in Art History and BA
in Art History from Faculty of Arts, University of Porto. She is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Heritage Studies, Faculty of Arts of the University of Porto. She is
researcher at CITCEM (Transdisciplinary Culture, Space and Memory Research Centre),
University of Porto, and GOVCOPP - Research Unit in Governance, Competitiveness and
Public Policies, University of Aveiro. Her research interests are popular jewellery, late
medieval and Early Modern Period jewellery, iconography, applied arts and tourism.