Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value,

visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage
attractions
Stephen J. Calver*, Stephen J. Page
School of Tourism, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Poole BH12 5BB, Dorset, UK

h i g h l i g h t s

The heritage of a property does not have to be compromised to attract visitors.

Visitor knowledge does not have a major influence on enjoyment or visit behaviour.

‘Anthropogenic’ and ‘hedonic’ service values help to predict visitor behaviour.

Visitor satisfaction derives from co-creation at the heritage property.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Service provision at heritage attractions is evolving at a rapid pace, transforming management directed
Received 15 August 2012 initiatives into more creative, visitor inspired relationships. These connect the historic and natural
Accepted 26 March 2013 environmental fabric of the properties visited, directly to the enhancement of the visitor’s hedonistic
aims and behavioural dispositions. Heritage attractions have traditionally been polarised between those,
Keywords: whose main aim is to entertain and others, where conservation and issues of authenticity are pre-
Hedonic consumption
eminent. The findings described in this paper should encourage managers of heritage attractions to
Perceived value
recognise that entertainment and conservation priorities are not exclusive alternatives but are com-
Structural equation modelling
Service-dominant logic
plementary and can be reconciled with the active involvement of the visitor, creating their own serv-
Knowledge and interest icefacilitated experience.
This paper reports the findings from a survey of over 184 heritage attractions in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland and a sample population of 109,000 respondents. The critical dimensions of heritage
knowledge and interest and the evaluations of service and behaviour are measured. The study developed
and tested a structural equation model which was validated and reliably predicted levels of enjoyment
and behaviour from two latent constructs, anthropogenic service value and hedonic service value.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction subsequent effect on visitor behaviour. Behaviour in this context

The hedonistic aims of the heritage tourist are often under-
valued because there is a perceived conflict between them and the
intellectually inspired core product, which is an amalgam of his-
tory, aesthetics and the natural environment. However, hedonic
experience is one of the principal means by which visitors assess
the perceived value of their experience of heritage attractions.
While practitioners and academics have acknowledged the role of
hedonic consumption, there appears to be a paucity of literature
that investigates the relationship between service at historic at-
tractions, the visitors’ knowledge, the quest for enjoyment and the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1202 961378.
E-mail address: scalver@bournemouth.ac.uk (S.J. Calver).
refers to, the visitor’s willingness to recommend the heritage
attraction, revisit behaviour, ratings of enjoyment and value for
money.
Hall and McArthur (1998) argue ‘the visitor-heritage relation-
ship is a symbiotic one; the heritage manager needs the visitor to
help justify the way heritage is being managed, and the visitor
needs the heritage manager to look after the heritage and provide a
high-quality experience’. This relationship is by no means new.
Visiting historic houses and properties as well as their environ-
ments (for instance gardens and parkland) while currently forming
a substantial component of heritage tourism, has been popular for
over 200 years (Mandler, 1999).
It is only in recent times that an attempt has been made to
resolve the apparent conflict of managing a service orientated

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.008
24 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
visitor attraction which provides entertainment and enjoyment, in
a context that may have profound intellectual significance. Man-
aging historic properties has evolved from a curatorial role (Garrod
& Fyall, 2000) that allowed access to visitors but provided very little
scope to realise hedonistic aims, to a much more visitor focussed
approach which seeks to actively attract, entertain, inspire and in
the process perhaps inform visitors. However the tensions inherent
in the management of heritage attractions are still apparent, as a
balance is sought between conservation, authenticity, access,
visitor service and entertainment.
Service quality and satisfaction at heritage attractions have
generated an extensive literature, yet visitor based, value percep-
tions have received relatively little attention (Duman & Mattila,
2005; Taylor & Shanka, 2008). Quality and price are the common
denominators of value based consumer decision-making but it is
the affective response to the experience of tourism services which
appears to have a significant impact on subsequent behaviour.
Duman and Mattila (2005) have proposed that the consumers’ af-
fective responses are directly related to perceived value in highly
experiential service settings such as the cruise market, arguing that
satisfaction should mediate the relationship between affect and
value. The intellectual core of heritage attractions presupposes that
visitors will have a level of knowledge and interest that motivates
patronage. This knowledge may not necessarily be derived from
formal study but from the media; fictional and non-fictional rep-
resentations that provide inspiration and interest for a visit.
The research question that this paper addresses is how the
service offer at a heritage attraction relates to this knowledge and
interest of the visitor to promote visitor enjoyment. This paper
therefore investigates the relationship between service, the influ-
ence of visitor knowledge and the hedonic aims of the visitor and
the effect on subsequent behaviour. It explores the relative effects
on satisfaction of anthropogenic dimensions of service, which re-
lates to hospitality and visitor facilities that enhance comfort and
the hedonic dimensions of service which relate to how the intel-
lectual ‘capital’ of a heritage attraction is translated, principally by
property staff, for the benefit of visitors.
This paper uses the results drawn from a 12 year study of over
200 heritage properties in the United Kingdom. The study gener-
ated a database constructed from over one million questionnaires
from visitors over a 12 year period.
The discussion commences with an assessment of the current
theoretical debates associated with heritage attraction visitation,
including the experiential dimensions of service, the implications
of recent thinking on service-related issues such as knowledge,
interest, the heritage visitor and Service-Dominant Logic (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). The paper develops these themes in detail to
demonstrate the interconnections between these issues to inform
the conceptual model building which are then set out and tested in
this paper. The model is presented, the results discussed and im-
plications for the management of visitors at these attractions are
examined. The paper makes two principal contributions to the
literature; firstly, it critically evaluates the evolution of current
thinking and new ideologies of heritage management within the
UK’s largest owner of heritage attractions e the National Trust.
Secondly, it advances our understanding of an appropriate way to
view and approach the management of the visitor experience at
heritage attractions particularly the way organisations like the
National Trust engage with visitors.
The translation of the intellectual core of a heritage attraction is
of particular interest in tourism management. Most visitors are
neither likely to be equipped with extensive prior knowledge of the
humanities and the natural environment, nor will they expect their
visit to expand or furnish this knowledge. Most visitors are inter-
ested in a good day out, in an environment which is aesthetically
pleasing and intellectually stimulating but the extent of this stim-
ulation and how it relates to the other dimensions of the visit,
particularly service and perceived value, needs to be better un-
derstood in view of the competitive market for visitors. A key factor
that has encouraged the growth in demand for heritage tourism
includes consumers seeking more intellectually challenging di-
mensions of tourism experience (Richards & Wilson, 2006); this
interest may be derived from formal education but more probably
from narratives developed in film and media (Frost, 2006).
Supply-side growth has been stimulated by those responsible
for the management of historic properties understanding the
business potential of the ‘cultural capital’ in their care. The only
realistic way of conserving historic properties is not only to allow
access but also to develop a portfolio of entertainment and intel-
lectual stimulation, sensitive to visitor needs and the fabric of the
property. This presents a key research problem: as each heritage
attraction is a unique brand by virtue of its history and heritage, it is
not possible to design general guidelines for property management
and presentation. Hedonic evaluation is context dependent, and
while enjoyment may be an appropriate ambition for constructing
the visitor experience at many historic properties, others may aim
for excitement through staged events or even euphoria, if the
property has a religious or spiritual dimension.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Managing heritage attractions
The management of heritage attractions has traditionally been
polarised between those that adopted a rather restrictive curatorial
approach, driven by the credo of conservation, prioritising the
protection of the historic structures and valuable artefacts, while
others sought market appeal as a priority over authenticity and
conservation. Longleat and Woburn Abbey in the UK are good ex-
amples of historic attractions that from the outset put the pleasure
principle at the heart of the visitor experience. Continuity of
ownership and a way of life have driven the development of
commercial activity; conservation has been a desirable by-product
of this process. The owners of Longleat developed a safari park
proximate to the house, developed a night club in the stable area,
and allowed contemporary murals to be painted in the historic
heart of the property. Hypothetically this is a thoroughly authentic
approach to manage an historic building; the present owners are
possibly doing what owners of mansion houses have always done,
creating pleasure grounds and entertainment for their own and
public enjoyment, see Connell (2005) for more detail. Eighteenth
century Palladian houses are a pastiche of classical themes im-
ported by members of the aristocracy following their return from
the Grand Tour, a phenomenon discussed by Towner (1996). Many
‘authentic’ medieval buildings were demolished to create these
classical mansions, Longleat may have a safari park and a boating
lake but the fabric of the Elizabethan building is authentic in terms
of its historical derivation and form.
Polarisation in the management of heritage attractions has been
mitigated by two factors. Firstly, the realisation that culture is a
critical element of tourism demand (Chronis, 2005; Ritzer, 1999).
This implies that tourists do not necessarily need diversionary
entertainment at a heritage attraction in order to encourage visi-
tation. There is sufficient interest in the history, art and natural
environment of an historic attraction to provide the basis for visitor
enjoyment.
Secondly, the acceptance by historic attractions that adopting a
purely curatorial approach to management discouraged many vis-
itors and threatened revenue streams, compelled a new service led
approach (McArthur & Hall, 1996). The role of service in heritage
 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
attractions has moved from being a pragmatic regard for efficiency
and hospitality to a more experientially motivated approach, cen-
tred on stimulating an emotional response to the interpretation
and interaction with the story of the attraction and its collection.
The ‘curatorial approach’ traditionally adopted by those
involved with heritage tourism represented a fundamentally
different management orientation compared to other forms of
tourism (Garrod & Fyall, 2000; Leask & Goulding, 1996). However,
there have been significant changes in the management of heritage
attractions since 2000. Competition and financial stringency have
increased within the heritage tourism sector, driving improve-
ments in visitor services but more significantly changing a culture
driven by the concept of permitted access to a more generous,
welcoming policy of inclusion, accessibility and engagement. The
changes have been encouraged by a new generation of property
managers in private, public and charitable heritage attractions
recruited from other areas of the tourism industry. These new
managers have a stronger service ethos than perhaps some of the
more formidable custodians that they have replaced. However, this
commitment to visitor experience and service in managing heri-
tage attractions has been erratic and variable. The early innovation
of introducing theatre and showmanship in the management of
privately owned properties such as Longleat Palace in Wiltshire
which opened its doors to the public in 1948, Woburn Abbey in
Bedfordshire which opened in 1955 and Jamestown Festival Park,
Virginia 1957, were not wholly embraced by the public and chari-
table sectors for another 50 years in the UK.
Heritage attractions have at their core a tangled web of historic
and aesthetic narrative which must be conserved, interpreted and
subjected to on-going revision. This is in order to maintain the
fabric of the building, the integrity of the collections, the relevance
of the story and in some cases the continuity of a way of life for the
owners and communities that live near, or within the curtilage of a
heritage property. There is a continuum that extends from the locus
of the heritage attraction, imbued with cultural significance that
encompasses the social and historic life of the local community and
extends into the imaginations and aspirations of the wider popu-
lation beyond national boundaries. In addition, many of these
properties are located in areas of natural beauty and ecological
interest adding natural and environmental dimensions to many
heritage attractions.
The literature on heritage tourism has expanded rapidly since
the polemical reviews and debates in the late 1980s for instance,
Hewison (1987) and Uzzell (1989), with a growing focus on the
economic implications (Edwards & Llurdes, 1996), conservation and
sustainability (Alfrey & Putnam, 1992; Garrod & Fyall, 2000) and
interpretation (Light, 1995; Moscardo & Pearce, 1986). Even so
relatively little attention has been given to the visitor perspective in
specific contexts. McIntosh (1999) identified a need for a wider
range of study applications to smaller scale environments focussing
on specific consumer needs. Studies which have discussed these
issues include Prentice, Witt, and Hamer (1998), exploring the
visitor experience of heritage parks, Prentice and Andersen (2007)
which explored visitor interpretation needs specific to a museum
context, with Leighton (2007) investigating the role of experiential
marketing for cultural heritage, particularly the implications for
marketing and service delivery.
2.2. The experiential dimensions of service
The experiential dimensions of service have a long tradition of
study in the field of tourism, see Gilbert (1989) for a review. The
importance of the emotional aspect of the visitor experience in the
service encounter has been the subject of several studies in services
marketing (Arnould & Price, 1993; Otto & Ritchie, 1996; Robinson,
25
1994; Schmitt, 1999). In particular Arnould and Price (1993) rec-
ognised the service dimension as being essential to the delivery of
exceptional experiences. The move away from undifferentiated
service delivery systems in the heritage sector, to management
processes that address specific consumer needs, has been a feature
of development for many years. The concept of ‘constructivism’
proposed by Hein (1998) for managing visitor interactions in mu-
seums is a good example of this. This concept suggests that mu-
seums firstly, should identify the experiences that visitors bring
with them to engage with exhibits and secondly, identify the
meanings visitors make of museum exhibits. This knowledge en-
ables museum managers to provide a more interactive and mean-
ingful experience for the visitor. Other authors in different contexts
have also concluded that a new business paradigm is required
which allows individual consumers to construct their own con-
sumption experiences, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2003) refer to
the need for more consumer involvement in the management of
services generally and Mossberg (2007) proposed a more signifi-
cant role for the creative industries and visitor engagement with
tourism products. Jensen (1999) suggested that consumers do not
want to buy products, but rather stories and the experience behind
the product. This idea, translated into the context of a heritage
attraction, will involve a significant shift in management thinking
including a more dynamic relationship with the consumer. This
new relationship may take the form of visitors providing more
immediate feedback on producer led notions of quality, using
mobile technology and the Internet as illustrated by Kang and
Gretzel (2012). It may also involve engagement with the creation
of the service received including the types of interaction, stimula-
tion and scenarios that are significant to the individual visitor or
their group and not a hybrid offering for their assumed needs as
part of a hypothetical market segment.
The level of intellectual rigour and authenticity to be incorpo-
rated in the visitor experience at heritage attractions has been a
particular feature of the management dialectic. Most tourism ac-
tivity and all leisure activity is pleasure seeking (Mannell & Kleiber,
1997). The experiential service paradigm for heritage attractions
incorporates hedonic meaning in the form of enjoyment, fantasy,
fun and other emotive aspects of the consumption experience
(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). However, managers of heritage at-
tractions, particularly those with a strong conservation brief have
been sensitive to accusations of diluting the intellectual component
of the visit experience. There is often an assumption that many
visitors to heritage attractions, possessing superior knowledge or
interest of the humanities and natural environment will be disap-
pointed and evaluate their experience to a lesser degree if they are
distracted by non-authentic events, exhibitions or activities.
The difficulties of adopting an experiential, consumption based
approach in the heritage sector have been emphasised by Leighton
(2007). However, the protection of often priceless collections
makes physical visitor involvement problematic; it is the emotional
and intellectual interaction with the staff and the visitor’s personal
group, at the heritage attraction and less sensitive assets such as IT
equipment and exhibition materials which is critical to positive
visitor evaluation. A heritage attraction cannot contrive to
construct and deliver a bespoke experience to the visitor; it can
only provide stimuli in the form of exhibitions, interactive inter-
pretation and experienced staff with a story to tell. The ‘interactive
experience model’ was developed by Falk and Dierking (1992) this
model identified the importance of personal, social and physical
contexts in the learning process at museums. These visitor-centred
contexts should provide the basis for developing interpretation and
visitor experience. Other authors have also concluded that experi-
ence is internal to the observer and the outcome depends upon the
knowledge, experience and state of mind that the visitor brings to
26 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
the service interaction (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Pine & Gilmore,
1999). McDonald (2011) has proposed that heritage is only valu-
able if it is allowed to act as a conduit for beliefs, values and shared
experiences and that accusations of the ‘Disneyfication’ of heritage
fail to acknowledge the profound need for a level of understanding
and enjoyment relevant to the heritage consumer (Smith, 2006).
The evolution of informed, articulate consumers, the importance of
identity formation and the optimisation of cultural capital com-
bined with the new capabilities introduced by mobile communi-
cations have led to a new creative approach to heritage tourism
(Richards & Wilson, 2006).
Innovations in service-related research such as Shaw, Bailey, and
Williams (2011) extended the idea of a consumer-led creativity,
discussing the application of service-dominant (SD) logic (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004) in the context of the hotel industry. The speed,
versatility and interconnectedness of mobile technologies in
particular have driven this consumer-led dynamic. Technology
provides the scope for instant feedback and communication not
only just to the producer but also to other users and non-users
forcing change and innovation at a much faster pace. Previously
organisations had time to analyse and respond to market intelli-
gence based on broad segmentation strategies, a process that could
take years in a planning cycle. The co-creative (Gupta & Vajic, 2000)
aspect of the SD culture means that conventional segmentation
strategy is seriously compromised because of its lack of sensitivity
to the fluid nature of contemporary consumer demand. The
customer now acts as a resource that negotiates the production of
the product or experience, essentially a co-producer of the service
received (Auh, Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007). Michel, Brown, and
Gallan (2008) propose that SD logic improves understanding of
discontinuous innovations, which are explained as those that
change how customers co-create value and also impact upon
market share. This is an important exemplification of the unique
experience of each service encounter and the role of the visitor or
visitor group. In this respect the value perceptions of heritage
attraction visitors becomes an important feature to consider.
2.3. Value perceptions of heritage attraction visits
Perceived value is a subjective concept, it is ‘the consumers
overall assessment of the utility of a product or service, based on
what is received and what is given’ (Zeithaml, 1988). Porter (1990)
proposed that value is more complex, including criteria such as
relative quality, service and additional complementary products.
Taylor and Shanka (2008) conducted research at an Australian
heritage site and concluded that perceived value was closely
associated with the core heritage legacy of the historic property and
the interpretation and explanation of history associated with the
attraction. Tourism products have a primary or subsidiary element
of enjoyment which will influence the perceived value by the
customer. For a young visitor to the Balearics it may be a primary
consideration, for a business traveller to a North European city,
more utilitarian factors may be pre-eminent in the assessment of
the trip but enjoyment will still be a key factor. Discussion of
consumer value perceptions has acknowledged the hedonic, utili-
tarian dimensions of consumption (Holbrook, 2006; Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982) and several authors have applied these con-
cepts to tourism. Lim and Ang (2008) identified cross-cultural dif-
ferences in the perception and response to utilitarian and hedonic
promotion. These differences imply that the results obtained from
the relatively homogeneous audience sampled for this research
may not easily translate across cultures. Ryu, Han, and Jang (2010)
provided an assessment of the relationships among hedonic and
utilitarian values and behaviour, for instance repeat visits, recom-
mendation and enjoyment ratings, in the fast-casual restaurant
industry. The authors concluded that hedonic and utilitarian values
significantly influence customer satisfaction and that satisfaction
significantly influences behaviour. Martin-Ruiz, Castellanos-
Verdugo, and Oviedo-Garcia (2010) proposed a visitors’ evalua-
tion index for visits to an archaeological site in which the service
experience rather than service quality was the major contributor to
the overall visit evaluation. The authors also identified that ‘effort
sacrifices’ for instance comfort during the visit (seating and rest
areas) represented the second biggest contribution to visit evalu-
ation whereas ‘access sacrifices’ (time parking, entering) made a
weaker contribution.
In this study the perceived value of visits to heritage attractions
is measured on two dimensions, enjoyment as the affective,
hedonistic aim and value for money the more objective consider-
ation of service quality and cost measured by a construct consisting
of social, emotional, functional and conditional responses. These
dimensions are calibrated by the visitor against their understand-
ing and knowledge of the historic and aesthetic corpus of the
attraction.
Satisfaction is an evaluation of pre-visit expectations and post-
visit experiences. Past studies have proposed that perceptions of
service quality and value affect satisfaction and that satisfaction
affects loyalty which precipitates behaviour such as repeat visits
and recommendation to others (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Choi & Chu,
2001; De Rojas & Camarero, 2008). According to this premise
positive evaluations of service that enhance the hedonistic ambi-
tion of the visitor will lead to recommendation and repeat visits.
Apostolakis and Jaffrey (2005) have proposed that heritage tourism
is going through a transitional phase; from product-led develop-
ment of heritage attractions that emphasise exhibits and education,
to a more visitor-orientated development that emphasises con-
sumer preferences and quality of personal experience. The paucity
of research illuminating the experiential quality of specific tourism
participation for heritage has been identified by Chen and Chen
(2010). Other authors have identified the need to improve visi-
tors’ behavioural intentions in heritage contexts by prioritising high
quality, satisfying experiences, such as enjoyment, that visitors
perceive to be good value (Lee, Petrick, & Crompton, 2007). Chen
and Chen (2010) have summarised four models of the relation-
ships between quality, satisfaction, value and behavioural in-
tentions from previous studies (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Petrick,
2004; Petrick & Backman, 2002). The first model based on the
service value literature, suggests that value has a singular and direct
effect upon favourable outcomes. The second model proposes that
satisfaction is the primary predictor of outcome measures. The
third, inter-related model suggests that service quality influences
behavioural intentions only through the mediation of value and
satisfaction. The fourth model assumes all three variables directly
lead to favourable behavioural intentions.
It is proposed in this paper that the visitor to a heritage
attraction will have a two dimensional expectation of the service
experience reflecting studies conducted by Fick and Ritchie (1991)
and Otto and Ritchie (1996). The first dimension is directly related
to the hospitality received and the extent to which the property
accommodates personal and social needs for welcome, warmth and
the utilitarian needs for comfort and efficiency, these are the
‘anthropogenic’ dimensions of service which cannot create enjoy-
ment but their absence can impede the hedonic aims of the visitor.
Otto and Ritchie regarded these as objective measures.
The second dimension is the experiential, hedonic dimension
underpinned by service-dominant logic where service engages
with the visitor’s current understanding of the historic and
aesthetic core of the heritage attraction, providing stimulation,
fascination and pleasure, Otto and Ritchie identified these as sub-
jective, holistic/gestalt evaluations which have the capacity to
 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
create value in the experience. For instance a visitor to a heritage
site will arrive with their knowledge and understanding of the
property largely taken from derived narratives, including formal
education, legends, literary sources, film and documentary. The
extent to which the historic site can service these personal con-
structs of understanding, through interpretation media on-site, or
more importantly the staff employed at the site (Chan & Baum,
2007) will determine the level of visitor enjoyment. The conser-
vation aims of a heritage attraction and the authenticity of the
property are successful from a visitors’ perspective if they do not
interfere with their ‘understanding’ of it.
Anthropogenic and hedonic dimensions have been evolving
concepts in heritage visits; however, the management of them was
predicated originally on the basis that visitors could only enjoy
their experience if they were equipped with a formal knowledge of
the humanities. While this contention is now widely challenged the
role of visitor knowledge and understanding is still a topic of some
contention.
2.4. Knowledge, interest and the heritage visitor
Various studies have acknowledged the tendency for visitors to
heritage attractions and other cultural attractions to display higher
educational attainment than the general population (Beeho &
Prentice, 1997; Gayo-Cal, 2006; Prentice, Guerin, & McGugan,
1998; Roux, Rouanet, Savage, & Warde, 2008). Yet general educa-
tional achievement does not necessarily translate into knowledge
or interest in the humanities or heritage tourism; similarly lack of
educational attainment does not appear to be a barrier to the
enjoyment of heritage attractions.
The growth of visits to heritage attractions and heritage tourism
over the past decade has been sustained by a generation that has
seen a gradual erosion of humanities teaching in the curriculum in
the UK (Walker, 2009). Ironically as teaching of the humanities has
declined there has been a significant increase in the popularity of
media output in film, literature and television which has strong
cultural and heritage themes. Research has indicated that media
portrayals of heritage themes simultaneously reflects enthusiasm
in the general population and generates further interest in loca-
tions, people and events associated with the dramatic or docu-
mentary production (Buchmann, Moore, & Fisher, 2010; Connell,
2012; Frost, 2006; Groenendyk, 2000; Herbert, 2001; Hudson &
Ritchie, 2006; Iwashita, 2006; Ramsay, 2008; Ryan, Yanning,
Huimin, & Song, 2009; Sargent, 2007; Squire, 1988, 1993).
The personal, affective relationship that visitors have with her-
itage sites has been discussed by Poria, Butler, and Airey (2003).
Their research indicates that those who perceive a heritage site as
part of their personal heritage are the basis of heritage tourism
rather than the authentic inherited buildings and landscapes that
are conserved. This visitor-centred authenticity appears distinct
from the intellectual constraints imposed by discussions of
appropriate conservation and historic authenticity, although
Moscardo and Pearce (1986) did provide evidence that visitors to
historic theme parks in Australia believed that authenticity was an
important element of their experience. However in juxtaposition,
MacCannell (1973) argued that ‘staged authenticity’ thwarts the
tourist’s desire for authenticity.
The prevailing evidence and opinion indicates that the ‘com-
moditization’ of heritage (Cohen, 1988) does not necessarily
destroy the meaning of cultural products because consumption and
enjoyment are negotiated by the visitor according to their own
interests and understanding. This latter point was reinforced by
McIntosh and Prentice (1999) who argued that insight derived from
enjoyable, ‘mindful’ interaction, not necessarily authentic, repre-
sented a key component of beneficial experiences. Later studies
27
have proposed that there is a cultural motivation to visit and un-
derstand the corpus of a heritage attraction, where authenticity can
encourage loyalty (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). Others have proposed
critical success factors (Hughes & Carlsen, 2010) to achieve the
optimum balance of authenticity and commercial pragmatism.
Many of these success factors are concerned with interpretation
and exhibitions which can be used to provide dramatic insight into
the story and collections at the historic attraction (Weaver, 2011).
Authenticity may represent a desired quality for visitors to
a heritage attraction but Poria, Reichel, and Biran (2006) identified
other motivations to visit heritage sites to include, learning, ‘con-
necting with my heritage’, leisure pursuit, bequeathing for children
(e.g. a memory, or knowledge that will be retained) and emotional
involvement. A visitor to a heritage site is likely to arrive with in-
terest and motivation to learn, a level of knowledge obtained from
the media and formal education, a desire to entertain and inform
children and friends and the expectation of an experience which
will be stimulating and enjoyable. With this review of the literature
in mind, attention now turns to the empirical aspects of the paper.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Study context and conceptual model
The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of
service on the hedonistic aims of the visitor to heritage attractions
and to measure the predictive effect on behaviour and outcomes.
The research discussed in this paper formed a component of the
annual research programme commissioned by the National Trust,
the largest conservation charity in the UK, undertaken since 2000.
The aims of this longitudinal wider study were to identify the visit
protocols, for instance, the various stages of visit choice and pri-
orities of visitors, to over 350 heritage attractions, monuments,
gardens and countryside that the organisation manages in En-
gland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in order to improve visitor
services and strategic planning. The research provides trend data
on key performance indicators as well as helping to provide evi-
dence for specific areas of interest to the organisation.1 Since 2000
approximately 180 properties have taken part in the survey every
year, the actual number varies slightly as operational priorities
change.
The survey uses a self-completion methodology (Day, 1999;
Rogers, 1991; Vassiliadis, 2008) which was developed and validated
following two comparative studies, 2 years apart using data from
self-completion surveys and a control group (n 5000) using the
same survey, conducted face to face. Property staff were briefed in
the distribution of the questionnaires to achieve a representative
sample over the main visitor season between April and October. In
recent years some properties have remained open during the
winter months and these have also been included in the survey but
not in the data set used for this analysis. The returns from the
survey were monitored monthly and advice fed back to the prop-
erties if the sample was inadequate or skewed. For the purposes of
this research, historic attractions were the focus of the study rather
than historic houses, so that included in the study was a range of
property types from palatial houses with extensive collections to
uninhabited castles. This broad spectrum of study was important in
order to thoroughly investigate the hypothetical role of the core
elements of the heritage attraction, the natural environment and
the humanities. Heritage attractions in the sample were cat-
egorised as:
1
Due to commercial sensitivity it is not possible to identify the specific actions
and management changes implemented.
28 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
1. Mansion houses with extensive and internationally significant
collections, gardens and parkland
2. Mansion houses with collections of historic interest and value,
possibly with gardens and parkland
3. Houses without coherent collections but with significant his-
torical interest
4. Archaic buildings, castles and structures built for human
habitation or industry
5. Ancient monuments and man-made features such as Sutton
Hoo (ancient burial site) and Stonehenge
6. Gardens and parkland where these are the principal focus of
the visit.
The latter were included because their creation was deliberate
and architectural, though liberated from the utilitarian needs of
engineering for human occupation and have been the focus of
previous studies of visitation (Connell, 2005). All of the properties
included in the study had a pay barrier and entrance fee and pro-
vided visitor services which may include a restaurant, lavatories, a
shop, exhibitions and events.
3.2. Measures and data collection
The visitor experience has been a consistent feature of the
research programme since 2000. The first iterations of the survey
were derived from a review of previous studies (Bettman, Capon,
& Lutz, 1975; Bitner, 1992; Coelho and Esteves, 2006; Jenkins,
1999; Manfredo & Driver, 1996; Sherman, Mathur, & Smith,
1997). In-depth interviews with visitors and the use of dimen-
sion reduction techniques in the evaluation of the survey items
established a comprehensive database. This database was used
for the measurement of visitor experience at historic attractions
over several years with a final list of 26 items used to measure
the dimensions of visitor experience. The questionnaire was
published by Holloway (2004) and modifications and improve-
ments were evaluated over subsequent years following discus-
sions with various users. The first section of the questionnaire
was designed to measure behavioural responses including value
for money, adult and children’s enjoyment, previous visits and
frequency of visit using 5 point Likert type scales. The second
section of the questionnaire included items measuring attitudes
to key components of the visit developed from discussion groups
in previous years of the research, 5 point Likert scales were used
for these items (1 ¼ Strongly Agree to 5 ¼ Strongly Disagree). The
knowledge/interest question consisted of a 3 point scale for
rating 8 dimensions of art, history and the natural environment.
Previous surveys had used a 5 point scale for the latter but this
had proven to be problematic with evident weak scale consis-
tency. Respondents identified the difficulty of rating their
knowledge on the 5 point scale, there was also a cross-cultural
variation in response patterns, a phenomenon previously dis-
cussed by Dolnicar and Grun (2007). The satisfactory use of 3
point scales by researchers such as Munson and McQuarrie
(1988) in the field of consumer research, encouraged their use
for rating knowledge in 2009. The results demonstrated stronger
item consistency than the 5 point scale and the format was
retained for the 2010 survey.
The third section of the survey included demographic data. The
survey in 2010 generated 109,308 validated questionnaires from
180 historic properties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The size of the sample facilitated analysis for each of the six sub-
group categories of heritage attraction described previously. This
paper reports the aggregated results for all categories which
provided the framework for the later investigation of the sub-
categories.
4. Results
4.1. Reliability
Reliability analysis was used to evaluate the stability and con-
sistency of each latent construct. The corrected item-total was used
to validate the retention of items above a correlation of 0.30
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Four items were rejected at this stage,
‘Knowledge of family history and genealogy’/‘Interest in family
history and genealogy’ and ‘Knowledge of outdoor activities’/‘In-
terest in outdoor activities’. The values for Cronbach’s Alpha for
each dimension in the model are described in Table 1 with the
factor loadings, means and standard deviations for the items.
4.2. The hypothesised model
Principal axis factor analysis, which is data driven rather than a
hypothesis driven procedure, was used to explore the patterns in the
data, identifying five latent variables. The items that described the
experiential aspects of the visit including service, emotional impact,
discovery, stimulation and enjoyment gave structure to the Hedonic
Value dimension. Items that described hospitality received at the
heritage attraction gave structure to the ‘Anthropogenic Service
Value’ dimension. Knowledge and Interest in the Natural Environ-
ment and Arts/History formed two further dimensions. Perceived
Value (Adult enjoyment) and Behaviour (repeat visits, value for
money and intention to recommend) formed the fifth factor. All
factor loadings were in excess of 0.36 although Stevens (2002) has
suggested that for large samples in excess of 1000 the loadings can
be 0.162 or above (based on an alpha level of 0.01, two-tailed).
The hypothesised model (Fig. 1) developed from reliability and
factor analysis proposes two components of service value (i)
Anthropogenic Service Value and (ii) Hedonic Service Value, which
have a direct relationship with the overall value perceptions and
behaviour of the visitor. There are two proposed cognitive di-
mensions (i) Knowledge/Interest in the Natural Environment and
(ii) Knowledge/Interest in Arts and History, which have direct and
indirect effects upon overall Perceived Value and Behaviour. The
indirect effects link hedonic service components with the extent to
which the heritage attraction stimulated interest in the art, history
and the natural environment. The overall value perceptions
represent a hedonic component (enjoyment) a utilitarian compo-
nent (value for money) and two behavioural components, revisit
behaviour and willingness to recommend.
The hypothesised model (Fig. 1) was tested using Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). SEM is a technique for simultaneously
estimating the relationships between observed and latent variables
and has gained popularity in tourism and the social sciences
because it can be used to combine confirmatory factor analysis and
regression analysis to identify relationships within a data set. The
latent variables identified for this model are described in Table 2.
There have been several applications of SEM to tourism in
varying contexts in recent years, confirming the flexibility and
utility of the technique (Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Chen &
Chen, 2010; Grappi & Montanari, 2011; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Lee,
2009; Reisinger & Turner, 1999; Sparks, 2007). A recent review of
the conceptual basis of SEM and its use and weaknesses as applied
to tourism has been outlined in Nunkoo and Ramkisson (2013).
4.3. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) procedure
SEM was performed using IBM SPSS AMOS 19 software on the
22 item model. Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was used
when setting the parameters for the analysis properties. ML is
regarded as being more robust than other estimation methods such
 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36 29

Table 1
Factor Analysis (EFA) factor loadings, scale reliability, means and standard deviations.

Standardised factor loadings Cronbach’s alpha Mean SD

Hedonic value 0.83

The visit exceeded my expectations 0.765 2.55 1.32
I felt I discovered something surprising and valuable as a result of my visit 0.741 2.01 1.28
Elements of the visit had a real emotional impact on me 0.711 2.53 1.32
The property informed and stimulated my interest in history and the arts 0.599 2.18 1.45
The property informed my interest in outdoor activities (such as gardening or watching wildlife) 0.373 2.67 1.00
I felt I understood the story the property was trying to tell 0.653 1.79 0.810
The service that I received at this property really contributed to my enjoyment 0.692 2.45 1.72
The events programme at this property includes some things that really interest me 0.479 2.15 1.45
How would you rate your enjoyment of the catering facilities? 0.408 2.55 1.06
Anthropogenic service value 0.81
The whole visit felt relaxed and informal 0.688 1.75 1.32
The staff were willing and able to offer assistance when required 0.647 1.89 1.64
The people working at the property were warm friendly and helpful 0.680 2.45 1.76
It would be a great place to come with friends 0.662 2.12 1.87
It was easy to find my way around 0.615 1.55 0.962
Knowledge and interest art and history 0.76
History 0.674 2.01 0.863
Family history, genealogy 0.480 2.30 0.965
Art/Art history 0.500 2.23 0.684
Knowledge and interest natural environment 0.79
Gardening/Horticulture 0.646 2.00 0.782
Wildlife/Natural history 0.608 2.03 0.552
Outdoor activities 0.462 2.26 0.550
Perceived value and behaviour 0.82
I would recommend a visit to this property 0.522 2.05 1.8
How would you rate the cost of admission in terms of value for money? 0.482 2.68 1.24
If you have visited this property in the past 12 months How many times have you visited? 0.616 3.1 1.75
How would you rate your time that you have spent here today? 0.708 1.78 1.32

as weighted least squares or generalised least squares (Durbin and
Watson, 1951; Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999; Olsson, Foss, Troye, &
Howell, 2000). A guideline for stable ML estimation is sample size
which should have a ratio of at least 10:1 or 15:1 to the number of
observed variables (Fan et al., 1999). These conditions were met for
the 22 item model with an overall sample size of 109,308. However,
to ensure that the exceptional size of the sample did not adversely
affect the fit statistics, a cross-validation study (Ewert, Place, &
Sibthorp, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) using 10 random sam-
ples of 1% of the overall sample were compared and the average of
the partitions calculated. The model fit indices are described in
Table 3 and discussed below.
The model fit evaluation was based upon the procedure
described in Byrne (2009). The c2 goodness-of-fit test evaluates the
adequacy of the theorised model’s creation of a covariance matrix
and estimated coefficients compared to the observed covariance
matrix. However, the sample size may affect the value of c2, a large
sample size can render this test insufficient for adequately assess-
ing model fitness (Hu & Bentler, 1995). Attempts to rectify this
tendency have included the procedure of dividing the value of c2 by
the degrees of freedom (DF) (McDonald & Ho, 2002). Carmines and
McIver (1981) have proposed that any c2/DF rating of less than 5 is
favourable for a large sample. The goodness-of-fit calculation of (c2
604.6/DF 194 ¼ 3.1) for this model indicates a favourable outcome.
Other statistics such as the normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit
index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are
considered more pragmatic and effective measures of model fit and
are more generally regarded than the c2 test (Hu & Bentler, 1995).
Bentler (2007) and Bonett’s, Normed Fit Index (NFI) represents a
tried and tested measure although there is evidence to suggest that
NFI shows a tendency to underestimate fit in small samples. Bentler
revised the NFI to develop the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) to ac-
count for larger sample sizes. Values of both NFI and CFI range from
0 to 1.00 and are derived from the comparison of the hypothesised
model with the independence (or null) model. Although values of
>0.90 were originally considered representative of a well-fitting
model a revised value of 0.95 has been advised by Abrams and
Hogg (1993) and DiStefano and Motl (2009). Both values in the
AMOS output (NFI ¼ 0.967 and CFI 0.974) indicate that the model
fitted the data well. Model parsimony is measured by the parsi-
mony ratio (PRATIO) proposed by James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982),
with two further measures related to the NFI and CFI. The values for
PNFI ¼ 0.69 and PCFI ¼ 0.70 fall within the range of acceptable
values described by James et al. (1982). The root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) developed by Steiger and Lind (1980)
has been recognised as one of the most informative criteria in
assessing covariance structure models (Chen, Curran, Bollen, Kirby,
& Paxton, 2008). The RMSEA value from the AMOS output is 0.045
with the 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.041 to 0.049 which
represents a good degree of precision. The closeness of fit index
(p ¼ 0.90) is above the recommended >0.50 level and therefore
provides support for the conclusion that the initially hypothesised
model fits the data well.
While the previous statistics provide measures of goodness-of-
fit (Hoelter, 1983), Critical N (CN) provides a measure of the ade-
quacy of the sample size for the model under consideration. Hoelter
proposed that a value in excess of 200 is indicative of a model that
adequately represents the sample data at CN values of 0.01 and
0.05. The values in the AMOS output are 0.05 ¼ 396 and 0.01 ¼ 422
respectively suggesting that the sample size for the model is
satisfactory. The various measures of model fit and sample size
provide confidence in the model parameters as Byrne argued
regarding the interpretation of these values that ‘global fit indices
alone cannot possibly envelop all that needs to be known about a
model in order to judge the adequacy of fit to the sample data’.
Similarly Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) asserted that ‘Scientific
progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate
ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of
a model’. The final assessment of the model must be based on
theoretical, statistical and practical considerations.
30 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36

Fig. 1. The hypothesised model.

4.4. The structural model
The final structural model is shown in (Fig. 2) the effect of model
estimation revealed two paths that were not significant but as their
removal did not improve the model and the relationship between
them and the endogenous variable was an important part of the
overall model evaluation, the paths were included in the final
model. The significant regression paths between latent variables
were:

Anthropogenic Service Value e Perceived Value and behaviour
(standardised coefficient 0.55, c.r. 6.33)

Hedonic Service Value e Perceived Value and Behaviour
(standardised coefficient 0.35, c.r. 4.4)
The paths were both significant with Anthropogenic Service
Value representing the strongest predictor of Perceived Value and
Behaviour. As visitors experienced warm friendly helpful service,
a relaxed and informal atmosphere, which facilitated their social
needs in addition to their own, the perceived value of the visit,
represented by enjoyment and value for money, increased. The
regression path from the latent variable Hedonic Service Value, to
Perceived Value and Behaviour was also strong suggesting the
importance of a second dimension of service relating to the core
experience offered by the heritage attraction. As visitors experi-
enced intellectual stimulation or mindfulness, emotional impact,
a sense of discovery and received service that helped them
to enjoy these experiences the perceived value of the visit
increased.
 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36 31

Table 2
Definitions of latent variables in the model.

The Exogenous Variables

Anthropogenic value dimension e an affective response to human activity and the social context, the items which loaded onto this latent variable include ‘the whole visit
felt relaxed and informal’, ‘the people working at the property were warm, friendly and helpful’, ‘it would be a great place to come with friends’ and a measure of
physical accommodation, ‘It was easy to find may way around’.
Hedonic service value dimension e an affective response originating from experiential aspects of the visit including service, emotional impact, discovery, stimulation and
enjoyment of catering gave structure to the Hedonic Value dimension. The items which loaded onto this latent variable include, ‘Elements of the visit had a real
emotional impact on me’, ‘the property stimulated my interest in history and the arts’, ‘the property informed and stimulated my interest in outdoor activities’, (there is
a strong positive link between these last two items and actual knowledge in these areas) ‘I felt I discovered something surprising and valuable as a result of my visit’ ‘I
felt I understood the story the property was trying to tell. ‘the service that I received at the property contributed to my enjoyment’, ‘the events programme for the
property always includes something that interests me’.
Knowledge of the natural environment e A cognitive response originating from knowledge and understanding of gardening, horticulture, wildlife, natural history, outdoor
activities. Respondents are asked to indicate whether they have specialist knowledge, general interest or neither of these. Knowledge may be derived from formal
education, personal interest or media exposure.
Knowledge of the humanities e A cognitive response originating from knowledge and understanding of art, art history, architecture, history, local history, family history,
landscapes and architecture. The same natural environment categories are offered to respondents from which to choose.
The Endogenous Variables

Value perceptions and behaviour e the value perceptions represent the value that visitors derive from their experience of an historic property. High value is represented by
the hedonic measure of enjoyment of the experience at the property; it is undertaken for its own sake and not as a means to an end. Value for money is a utilitarian
evaluation by the visitor. Behavioural intentions are represented by the willingness to recommend and revisit the property. There is a strong positive link between adult
enjoyment and revisit behaviour.

The regression paths from the latent variables representing the
natural environment, arts and history did not support the hy-
pothesis that they would have a direct and positive effect on
Perceived Value and Behaviour. This result suggests that perceived
value and enjoyment of a heritage visitor attraction is not directly
influenced by a prior level of knowledge and interest. The signifi-
cant covariance between the error variance for knowledge and
interest observed variables and the error variance for Hedonic
Service Value observed variables, suggests that Knowledge and
Interest of the Natural Environment/History and Art are significant
to perceived value but the catalyst for an enjoyable and stimulating
experience of them is the service that underpins the construction of
an exciting and emotionally satisfying story. These results reflect
the findings of a Countryside Commission (1978) study which
investigated interpretation at 17 British countryside visitor centres
and concluded that levels of learning and enjoyment are not
necessarily linked although these findings do refer to learning at
the site and not prior learning.
Analysis of the covariance scores suggested a strong relationship
between Anthropogenic Service Value and Hedonic Service Value
(standardised coefficient 0.77, c.r. 12.7) and Knowledge and Interest
in the Natural Environment and Knowledge and Interest in Arts and
History (standardised coefficient 0.42, c.r. 5.1). Covariance between
the knowledge latent variables and the two service value latent
variables is weaker:

Knowledge of the Natural Environment e Hedonic Service
Value (standardised coefficient 0.12, c.r. 2.6) and Anthropo-
genic Service Value (standardised coefficient 0.08, c.r. 4.2)
Table 3
Model fit indices.
Indices
c2 test
c2 0.000
c2/DF 3.1 (604/194)
Absolute fit measures
RMSEA 0.045
PCLOSE 0.98
NFI 0.96
CFI 0.97
PNFI 0.69
PCFI 0.70
HOELTER 0.05/0.01 396/422

Knowledge of Arts and History e Hedonic Service Value
(standardised coefficient 0.17, c.r. 3.0) and Anthropogenic Ser-
vice Value (standardised coefficient 0.10, c.r. 2.1).
The slightly stronger relationship between arts/history and the
two service/stimulation latent variables; compared to the relation-
ship between stimulation and the gardens/natural environment
latent variables suggests that the former are disproportionately
important in the perceived value of a visit. The structural model in
(Fig. 2) has identified two latent dimensions of service value,
Anthropocentric Service Value (5 items), and Hedonic Service Value
(9 items) that directly affect Perceived Value and Behaviour (4
items). Knowledge and Interest in the Natural Environment (2
items) and Knowledge and Interest in Art and History (2 items) have
an indirect affect upon Perceived Value and Behaviour working
through the catalyst of service based interpretation at the historic
attraction. The covariance matrix used in the testing and analysis of
the hypothesised model in the structural equation model is reported
in Table 4.
5. Discussion
This study supports previous research that has proposed the
strong link between hedonics as an affective response and overall
perceived value (Duman & Mattila, 2005). It also demonstrates the
dual nature of service value and strength of anthropogenic service
value. Chen and Chen (2010) have distinguished between service
quality that refers to service performance at the attribute level and
experience quality which refers to the psychological outcome
resulting from customer participation in tourism activities. The
former is assumed to be under the control of the supplier while the
latter is assumed to be the attributes managed by the supplier plus
Criteria the attributes brought to the tourism opportunity by the visitor.
Thus, Hedonic Service Value in the context of this research refers to
P > 0.05 experience quality, while Anthropogenic Service Value refers to
<5.0 service quality. Chan and Baum (2007) from their eco-tourism
focussed research, reflected the findings described in this paper,
<0.08
>0.50 proposing that experience quality is a combination of tourists’ af-
>0.90 fective responses to their desired social-psychological needs and
>0.90 specific service transactions with the people involved with the
creation of the actual experience.
>200
The evidence of this current research also indicates that prior
levels of knowledge among heritage visitor attributes are weak,
32 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36

Fig. 2. The structural equation model.

non-significant predictors of enjoyment and other positive behav-
ioural outcomes. Stimulation and interest in history, art and the
natural environment are the result of a hedonic service culture at
the property rather than previously acquired knowledge. Hedonic
service culture does significantly influence enjoyment, repeat
visits, recommendation and value for money ratings.
Anthropogenic Service Value reflects the ease with which visi-
tors can navigate the attraction, the staff training that emphasises
hospitality and service and the provision of facilities that enable
social behaviour, such as picnic areas, adequate table sizes in res-
taurants, family menus and other supplier-led processes. The cur-
rent research demonstrates a stronger predictive power from this
value assessment compared to the hedonic. This outcome was not
anticipated; it was assumed that the hedonic value assessment
would be a stronger predictor of overall perceived value and
behaviour because it was linked more closely with the social-
psychological processes, including education, interest and
learning of the individual. This could be an evolving situation. Over
the past decade many organisations have recognised the impor-
tance of service quality and invested in staff training and improving
the efficiency of systems while paying less attention to experience
quality as a coherent offer to the tourist. However, growing confi-
dence in a new generation of heritage attraction managers, who
have seen the positive responses from visitors to forms of inter-
pretation that includes theatrically inspired presentations, may
change the relationship between the two dimensions of service
over the coming years. The historic properties included in this
study all have a strong conservation ethos, with authenticity linked
 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36 33

closely to the fabric and actual social events associated with them,

0.093 0.116 0.374 0.568

which may have influenced the balance of prediction in the model.
a2a

Heritage attractions such as Warwick Castle and even many of the

0.232 0.289 3.465

Royal Palaces are perhaps not as restrained in selecting popular
e6a

vignettes which may have a foundation of historical authenticity

0.163 0.332
e3a

but not necessarily associated with the host property. Hence re-
enactments, jousting tournaments and mediaeval fairs, provide

0.276
e3b

entertainment and stimulate interest where the lack of location

specific authenticity is not a barrier to enjoyment.

0.531
0.153
0.191
0.413
0.165
e3c

This research has identified Perceived value as an evaluation of

both Hedonic and Anthropogenic Service Value. The final model

0.563
0.202
0.113
0.142
0.371
0.149
e3m

validated from this research includes in the evaluation, overall

adult enjoyment, value for money, willingness to recommend and

0.651
0.277
0.225
0.126
0.158
0.413
0.166
e3i

repeat visit behaviour (only visitors travelling from home, living

within 50 miles of the property were included in this particular
0.759
0.307
0.275
0.224
0.126
0.157
0.411
0.165
e4a

analysis). Zeithaml (1988) explained perceived value as a trade-off

0.778
0.342
0.344
0.309
0.251
0.141
0.176
0.461
0.185
between perceived benefits and perceived costs. Overall perceived
e3k

value had strong predictive influences upon all of these variables,

0.753
0.402
0.359
0.361
0.324
0.263
0.148
0.184
0.484
0.194
the strongest being adult enjoyment, followed by revisit behaviour,
e3j

willingness to recommend and finally value for money. The find-

0.237
0.022
0.021
0.019
0.019
0.017

0.006
0.007
0.017
0.007
ings also reflect the service-dominant (SD) logic paradigm pro-
0.01
i5e

posed by Shaw et al. (2011), a concept that extends experiential and

0.189

0.025
0.024
0.021
0.021
0.019
0.011
0.006
0.008
0.019
0.008

service quality into a new visitor interactive and technologically

0.09
i5f

driven context. Three inter-related aspects reflect the development

0.015
0.013
0.253
0.241
0.215
0.216
0.194
0.158
0.088

0.289
0.116

of SD logic firstly, as a major new approach to marketing ‘in which

0.67

0.11
g1b

intangibility, exchange processes and relationships are central’

0.334
0.021
0.043
0.038
0.035
0.033
0.103

0.027
0.017
0.009
0.012
0.014
0.005
0.03

(Lusch, Vargo, & O’Brian, 2007: 88), this reflects relationship

i5c

building within the regional market and community of heritage

0.176
0.076
0.015
0.032
0.028
0.026
0.025
0.063
0.022

0.012
0.007
0.009

0.004
0.02

0.01

attractions encouraging revisit behaviour through service based

i5a

offers. Secondly, the authors have identified nine premises that

0.958
0.015

0.143
0.048
0.034

0.228
0.204
0.205
0.184
0.149
0.084
0.105
0.274
0.02

0.24

0.11
e4b

underpin competition through service which lead to the third and

related theme, in which a firm needs to consider ‘environments,
0.564
0.128
0.005
0.006
0.135
0.009
0.008
0.226
0.216
0.192
0.193
0.174
0.193
0.108
0.135
0.437
0.175
b2a

customers and partners as operant resources’.

Drawing the visitors to engage in unique ‘discontinuous in-
0.285
0.167
0.105
0.004
0.005

0.007
0.006
0.184
0.175
0.156
0.157
0.141
0.157
0.088

0.356
0.143
0.11

0.11
e1a

novations’ (Michel et al., 2008) is a parameter of Hedonic Service

Value, where the visitor is stimulated by events and interpretations
0.631
0.124
0.152
0.118

0.013
0.124
0.009
0.008
0.208
0.198
0.177
0.178
0.159
0.215
0.121

0.326
0.131
0.01

0.15
e3h

at the historic attraction to respond in a unique and innovative way

inspired by their own social-psychological processes and immedi-
0.789
0.211
0.187

0.243
0.026
0.036
0.257
0.025
0.022
0.429
0.409
0.364
0.366
0.329
0.267

0.187
0.491
0.197
0.23

0.15
e3l

ate social group. A visitor to a ruined castle in a dramatic landscape

will arrive with their own understanding derived from formal ed-
0.627
0.214
0.104
0.092
0.113
0.119
0.013
0.017
0.126
0.012
0.011

0.179

0.161
0.131
0.074
0.092
0.241
0.097
0.21

0.18
e8a

0.2

ucation and perhaps fictional accounts drawn from the media. This
0.466
0.106
0.216
0.174
0.127
0.156
0.121

0.014
0.127
0.009
0.008
0.213
0.203
0.181
0.182
0.163

0.123
0.154
0.333
0.134

understanding will form the basis of a unique experience that

0.01

0.22
Value e3d

cannot be replicated for others and temporally cannot be recreated

0.934
0.333
0.241
0.491
0.326
0.356
0.437
0.274

0.014
0.289
0.019
0.017
0.484
0.461
0.411
0.413
0.371
0.413
0.232
0.289
0.934
0.374

for the same visitor. It is a co-creational experience that is being

0.01

enhanced by the development of new mobile media, enabling the

0.103
0.014
0.014
0.017
0.036
0.013
0.005
0.006

0.076
0.103
0.021
0.043
0.038
0.035
0.033

0.027
0.017
0.009
0.012
0.014
0.005

visitor to extract meaning from a wider bibliography, in-situ, via the

0.02

0.03
0.03
Knowledge Hedonic_Value Anthropogenic Arts

Internet and to share this experience remotely with others acting as

Covariance matrix for all variables in the model (N ¼ 109,308).

a spur to their own creativity and involvement with the heritage

attraction.
0.134
0.012
0.289
0.154
0.092
0.187

0.135
0.105
0.009
0.012

0.008
0.007
0.184
0.176
0.157
0.158
0.142
0.191
0.107
0.134
0.289
0.116
0.15
0.11

0.11

6. Management implications

Managers of heritage attractions have in the past been reluctant

to implement radical changes to the presentation of their core
product, either because they do not want to dilute the entertain-
0.249
0.142
0.027
0.371
0.163
0.161
0.329
0.159
0.141
0.174
0.184

0.027
0.194
0.019
0.017
0.324
0.309
0.275
0.277
0.249
0.202
0.113
0.142
0.371
0.149
0.02

ment value of their offer with an over-zealous emphasis on his-

torical fact and interpretation, or in more conservative minded,
conservation oriented attractions a fear of being accused of
0.101
0.019
0.008
0.043
0.019
0.009
0.012
0.025
0.009
0.007
0.009
0.014
0.032
0.043
0.015
0.101

0.025
0.024
0.021
0.021
0.019
0.011
0.006
0.008
0.019
0.008

‘dumbing-down’ or ‘Disneyfication’. These concerns have led

0.09

managers to focus heavily on conventional ideas of service and

Hedonic_Value
Anthropogenic

hospitality and service to the exclusion of service related to hedonic

Knowledge

value. The evidence from this research suggests that whatever the
intellectual background of the visitor there is an evident process of
Value
Table 4

e3m
arts

e3h
e3d

g1b
e4b

e3b
b2a

e3k
e8a

e1a

e4a

e3a
e6a
a2a

co-creation, as the visitor is not a passive recipient evaluating their

e3c
e3j
e3l

i5e

e3i
i5a
i5c

i5f

experience against an abstract notion of authenticity. Visitors are

34 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
dynamically involved in the creation of their own experience from
the stimulus provided by the attraction, in order to derive enjoy-
ment for themselves and their social group. This research suggests
that heritage attractions of either orientation can facilitate visitor
enjoyment and the hedonic aims of the visitor by actively encour-
aging involvement in the heritage corpus. Authenticity is not a
primary issue, stimulation and the ability of the visitor to actively
engage their own understanding of heritage and the pursuit of the
hedonic principle, is however critical. These findings should
encourage a more ambitious approach to interpretation and visitor
engagement drawing on the full range of information technology
now available and still evolving at an extremely rapid rate.
7. Conclusion
This research is confirmation that ‘over the last two decades, the
understanding of heritage value has matured considerably, and is
still developing’ (Pearson & Sullivan, 1995). This understanding of
what the visitor requires and how they co-create value in their
visitation experiences can be further enriched by a greater dia-
logue, engagement and knowledge transfer between the heritage
sector and academia. This research is a case in point: it was devised
in collaboration with the National Trust and has created one of the
largest longitudinal primary data sets existing within the public
sector to facilitate in-depth analysis of heritage tourism across the
UK. This study has identified the value in modelling the data in a
way which progresses our understanding of primary data that can
be transformed and simplified so as to understand the hedonistic
and service aspects of heritage visits in relation to the presentation
and interpretation of the intellectual core. The latter has historically
been the focus of management, either to repudiate it due to con-
cerns of detracting from the visit experience, or over-emphasising it
to avoid accusations of trivialising high art and culture. This
research suggests that however heritage is presented service to
enhance enjoyment of the visitor’s latent interest in history, the arts
and environment will ensure the attainment of successful
outcomes.
8. Future research directions
New Grange in Northern Ireland, The Alhambra, Palace, Anda-
lucía, Knossos, Crete and Uppark House, Sussex have as a common
denominator the fact that they are all to varying degrees, re-
creations, lacking in authenticity but attracting hundreds of thou-
sands of visitors a year. It has been proposed that the enjoyment
visitors derive from these and other heritage sites is due to insight
drawn from mindful interaction (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999) rather
than authentic or even accurate representations of the past. This
current research suggests that service which enhances and in-
terprets the intellectual core of the heritage attraction, rather than
being restricted to peripheral functions, helps the visitor achieve
the hedonic aspirations for the visit. Heritage attractions are an
important component of tourism, fulfilling an almost shamanistic
role of cultural transmission. In order to retain this popularity and
improve business success, there needs to be a greater under-
standing of the constructivist potential of individual attractions and
how service encounters can improve conductivity from the intel-
lectual core to the visitor’s imagination and knowledge base.
Further research should seek to understand this phenomenon in a
context of rapidly evolving media and mobile technology.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.008.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (1993). The social context of discourse: let’s not throw out
the baby with the bath water. Philosophical Psychology, 3, 219e225.
Alfrey, J., & Putnam, T. (1992). The industrial heritage: Managing resources and uses.
London: Routledge.
Apostolakis, A., & Jaffrey, S. (2005). A choice modelling application for Greek her-
itage attractions. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 309e318.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River Magic: extraordinary experience and the
extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 24e45.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer
loyalty in financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359e370.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioural in-
tentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
Beeho, A. J., & Prentice, R. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage
tourists: a case study of New Lanark World Heritage Village. Tourism Manage-
ment, 18(2), 75e87.
Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural equation models.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 5.
Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975). Multiattribute measurement models
and multiattribute attitude theory: a test of construct validity. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 1(4), 16.
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation vari-
ables and after purchase behaviour inter-relationship. Tourism Management,
22, 607e616.
Bitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers
and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57e71.
Buchmann, A., Moore, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Experiencing film tourism. Annals of
Tourism, 37(1), 20.
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). Ottawa:
Routledge.
Carmines, E., & McIver, J. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables:
analysis of covariant structures. In G. Bomstedt, & E. Borgotta (Eds.), Social
measurement: Current issues (pp. 61e71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chan, J. K., & Baum, T. (2007). Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in
lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5),
574e590.
Chen, C., & Chen, F. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and
behavioural intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29e35.
Chen, C., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28, 1115e1122.
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical
evaluation of the use of fixed cut off points in RMSEA test statistic in structural
equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 36(4), 32.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Hospitality Management, 20, 277e297.
Chronis, A. (2005). Our Byzantine heritage: consumption of the past and its expe-
riential benefits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 213e222.
Coelho, P., & Esteves, S. P. (2006). The choice between a five point and a ten point
scale in the framework of customer satisfaction measurement. International
Journal of Market Research, 49(3), 28.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 15, 371e386.
Connell, J. (2005). Managing gardens for visitors in Great Britain: a story of conti-
nuity and change. Tourism Management, 26(2), 185e201.
Connell, J. (2012). Film tourism e evolution, progress and prospects. Tourism
Management, 33(5), 1007e1029.
Countryside Commission. (1978). Interpretation in visitor centres. Cheltenham:
Countryside Commission.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Day, G. (1999). Trainspotting: data collection from a captive audience. Tourism
Management, 20(1), 153e159.
De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a
heritage context: evidence from an interpretation centre. Tourism Management,
29, 525e537.
DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2009). Personality correlates of method effects due to
negatively worded items on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 46, 5.
Dolnicar, S., & Grun, B. (2007). Cross cultural differences in survey response pat-
terns. International Marketing Review, 24(2), 127e143.
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise
vacation value. Tourism Management, 26, 311e323.
Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares
regression. Oxford Journals on Line, 20.
Edwards, J. A., & Llurdes, J. C. (1996). Mines and quarries: industrial heritage
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 341e363.
Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an
Individual’s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27, 225e239.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC:
Whaleback Books.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods
and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 28.
 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36
Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism
industry. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 2e9.
Frost, W. (2006). Braveheart-ed Ned Kelly: historic films, heritage tourism and
destination image. Tourism Management, 27, 247e254.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism, 27(3),
682e708.
Gayo-Cal, M. (2006). Leisure participation in Britain. Cultural Trends, 15(2e3),
175e192.
Gilbert, D. (1989). Tourism marketing: its emergence and establishment. In
C. Cooper (Ed.). Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management, Vol.
1, (pp. 77e90). London: Belhaven.
Grappi, S., & Montanari, F. (2011). The role of social identification and hedonism in
affecting tourist re-patronizing behaviours: the case of an Italian Festival.
Tourism Management, 32, 1128e1140.
Groenendyk, L. L. (2000). The importance of vision: Persuasion and the picturesque.
Rhetoric Society Journal, 30(1), 9e30.
Gupta, S., & Vajic, M. (2000). The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences. In
J. Fitzsimmons, & M. Fitzsimmons (Eds.), New service development: Creating
memorable experience (pp. 33e51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, M., & McArthur, S. (1998). Integrated heritage management: Principles and
practice. London: Stationery Office.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
Herbert, D. (2001). Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28(2), 22.
Hewison, R. (1987). The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London:
Methuen.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92e101.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices.
Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 20.
Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value and subjective
personal introspection: an illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 714e725.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:
consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132e140.
Holloway, J. C. (2004). Marketing for tourism. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76e99). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2006). Film tourism and destination marketing: the
case of Captain Corelli’s Mandolin. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12, 14.
Hughes, M., & Carlsen, J. (2010). The business of cultural heritage tourism: critical
success factors. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(1), 17e32.
Iwashita, C. (2006). Media representation of the UK as a destination for Japanese
tourists: popular culture and tourism. Tourist Studies, 6(1), 20.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models
and data. London: Sage.
Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 1e15.
Jensen, R. (1999). The Dream Society: How the coming shift from information to
imagination will transform your business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kang, M., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Perceptions of museum podcast tours: effects of
consumer innovativeness, Internet familiarity and podcasting affinity on per-
formance expectancies. Tourism Management, 4, 8.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: an
oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing. Tourism Manage-
ment, 31(5), 654e664.
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ atti-
tudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 10.
Leask, A., & Goulding, P. (1996). What price our heritage? A study of the role and
contribution of revenue management in Scotland’s heritage based visitor at-
tractions. In M. Robinson, N. Evans, & P. Callaghan (Eds.), Managing cultural
resources for the tourist (pp. 239e270). Sunderland: Business Education
Publishers.
Lee, H. T. (2009). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude
and motivation affect the future behaviour of tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31, 23.
Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton, J. L. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary
constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioural intention. Journal of
Travel Research, 45(4), 402e412.
Leighton, D. (2007). ‘Step back in time and live the legend’: experiential marketing
and the heritage sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 12, 117e125.
Light, D. (1995). Visitors’ use of interpretative media at heritage sites. Leisure
Studies, 14, 132e149.
Lim, E. A., & Ang, S. H. (2008). Hedonic vs utilitarian consumption: a cross-cultural
perspective based on cultural conditioning. Journal of Business Research, 61,
225e232.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brian, M. (2007). Competing through service: insights
from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5e18.
McArthur, S., & Hall, C. M. (1996). Heritage management in Australia and New Zea-
land. The human dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: the arrangement of social space in
tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589e603.
McDonald, H. (2011). Understanding the antecedents to the public interest and
engagement with heritage. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 780e804.
35
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. (2002). Principles and practices in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64e82.
McIntosh, A. J. (1999). Into the tourist’s mind: understanding the value of the
heritage experience. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(1), 41e64.
McIntosh, A., & Prentice, R. (1999). Affirming authenticity: consuming cultural
heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589e612.
Mandler, P. (1999). The fall and rise of the stately home. Journal of British Studies,
38(2), 252e261.
Manfredo, M. J., & Driver, B. L. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: a meta-analysis
of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(3),
188e214.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing Inc.
Martin-Ruiz, D., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Oviedo-Garcia, M. (2010). A visitors’
evaluation index for a visit to an archaeological site. Tourism Management, 31,
590e596.
Michel, S., Brown, S. W., & Gallan, A. S. (2008). An expanded and strategic view of
discontinuous innovations: deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of
Marketing Science, 36, 54e66.
Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. (1986). Historic theme parks: an Australian experience in
authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 467e479.
Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59e74.
Munson, J. M., & McQuarrie, E. F. (1988). Shortening the Rokeach Value survey for
use in consumer behaviour. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 381e386.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkisson, H. (2013). Structural equation modelling and regression
analysis in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(8), 777e802.
Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., & Howell, R. D. (2000). The performance of ML,
GLS, and WLS, estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of
misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci-
plinary Journal, 7(4).
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Man-
agement, 17(3), 165e174.
Pearson, M., & Sullivan, S. (1995). Looking after heritage places: The basics of heritage
planning for managers, landowners and administrators. Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne
University Press.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value and satisfaction in predicting
cruise passengers’ behavioural intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4),
397e407.
Petrick, J. F., & Backman, L. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived
value for the prediction of golf travellers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
Research, 41(1), 38e45.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Boston, Massachusetts:
Harvard Business School Press.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of
Tourism, 30(1), 17.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site perceptions and motivations to
visit. Journal of Travel Research, 44, 10.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Macmillan Press.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 12e18.
Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2007). Interpreting heritage essentialisms: familiarity
and felt history. Tourism Management, 28, 661e676.
Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learning at a heritage attrac-
tion, a case study of discovery as a media product. Tourism Management, 19(1),
5e23.
Prentice, R., Witt, S. F., & Hamer, C. (1998). Tourism as experience the case of her-
itage parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 24.
Ramsay, A. E. (2008). Excavating television: examining the use of mass media to
foster public engagement with archaeology at the presidio of San Francisco
(California). Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences, 68(8-A).
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: appli-
cation in tourism. Tourism Management, 20, 18.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences:
a solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27,
1209e1223.
Ritzer, G. (1999). Enchanting a disenchanted world: Revolutionizing the means of
consumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Robinson, K. (1994). Selling the heritage product. In R. Harrison (Ed.), The manual of
heritage management. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Rogers, J. (1991). A non-technical perspective on data collection methodology for
travel surveys: a discussion paper. Journal of Travel Research, 29(3), 43e47.
Roux, B., Rouanet, H., Savage, M., & Warde, A. (2008). Class and cultural division in
the UK. Sociology, 42(6), 1049e1071.
Ryan, C., Yanning, Z., Huimin, G., & Song, L. (2009). Tourism, a classic novel and
television. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 16.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian
values, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in the fast-casual restaurant
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3),
416e432.
Sargent, A. (2007). The D’Arcy effect: regional tourism and costume drama. Inter-
national Journal of Heritage Studies, 4(3e4), 177e186.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15,
53e67.
36 S.J. Calver, S.J. Page / Tourism Management 39 (2013) 23e36

Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end
its implications for tourism management: examples from the hotel industry. model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2e22.
Tourism Management, 32, 207e214.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A., & Smith, R. B. (1997). Store environment and consumer
purchase behaviour: mediating role of emotions. Psychology and Marketing, 14,
361e378.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stephen J. Calver A graduate from the University of Surrey
Sobel, M. F., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1985). Use of null models in evaluating the fit of
and the Cass Business School, the author worked for
covariance structure models. In N. B. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology. San
several years in the Middle East and North Africa as an
Francisco.
Operations Analyst for Hilton International before joining
Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict
Bournemouth University. Since 1996 he has been respon-
tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28, 13.
sible for managing a wide range of research projects;
Squire, S. J. (1988). Wordsworth and the Lake District tourism: romantic reshaping
pursuing particular interests in heritage and cultural
of landscape. The Canadian Geographer, 32(3), 11.
tourism. From 1998 he assisted the National Trust in the
Squire, S. J. (1993). The cultural values of literary tourism. Annals of Tourism, 21,
development of a programme of visitor research which
103e121.
formed the basis for a national programme commencing in
Steiger, J. H., Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common
2000, possibly the most extensive longitudinal heritage
factors. In Paper presented at the Psychometric Society annual meeting. Iowa, IA.
research study undertaken in the UK.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). NY:
Pearson.
Taylor, R., & Shanka, T. (2008). Visitor value perception of a heritage tourism site: a
case study. Tourism Analysis, 13, 131e142.
Towner, J. (1996). An historical geography of recreation and tourism. Chichester: Stephen J. Page is Professor of Tourism at Bournemouth
Wiley. University. He has worked in the UK, New Zealand,
Uzzell, D. L. (1989). Heritage interpretation. London: Belhaven Press. Australia, Ireland and France and has written, edited or
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. contributed to 33 leading books on tourism. He has
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17. worked with many private and public sector tourism
Vassiliadis, C. (2008). Destination product characteristics as useful predictors for agencies in areas such as leisure strategy development,
repeat visitong and recommendation segmentation variables: a CHAID feasibility assessment and problem-solving; including
exhaustive analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(5), 439e452. high profile projects such as the Channel Tunnel and Auck-
Walker, M. (2009). Making a world that is worth living in: humanities teaching and land’s Sky Tower in New Zealand. He is a regular contrib-
the formation of practical reasoning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, utor to industry conferences and has been ranked as one of
8(3), 231e246. the top Tourism academics in the UK based on publications
Weaver, D. (2011). Contemporary tourism heritage as heritage tourism: evidence in the top three Tourism journals for the 5 year period
from Las Vegas and Gold Coast. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 249e267. 2003e2008.