1

The original version of this articles can be seen at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13683500.2014.994595 Cetin, G., & Bilgihan, A. (2014). Components of cultural tourists’ experiences in destinations. Current Issues in Tourism, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.

Components of cultural tourists’ experiences in destinations

Destinations provide a combination of products and services. Using these resources,

tourists create their own experiences. Providing a pleasing tourist experience is crucial

for destinations’ long term success. Although travellers’ experiences have been subject

to extensive research, various segments might perceive them differently based on their

motivations. Despite the fact that cultural tourism is considered as an important segment

for most urban destinations, factors affecting cultural travel experiences have not been

clarified in literature so far. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to determine

the factors affecting cultural tourists’ overall travel experiences. In order to achieve this

study’s goals, we chose Istanbul as a research context. After interviewing 21 tourists

and analysis of transcribed data, 64 items were merged under five dimensions emerging

as the key constructs affecting cultural tourist experiences in a destination, namely;

social interaction, local authentic clues, service, culture/heritage and challenge.

Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Keywords: tourist experience; cultural tourism; authenticity; destination management;

phenomenology; Istanbul

Introduction

Customer experience is discussed as a significant factor affecting customer value,

loyalty and positive word of mouth (Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel,

2002) and has been one of the most important research topics in tourism (Quan &

Wang, 2004). Companies’ competitive advantages are shifting from product features

and service characteristics to the quality of experiences they offer. The danger in

standardization, homogenization and commodification of goods and services has also

been threatening the tourism industry (Boorstin, 1964; Edensor, 2001). Many

established classic tourism destinations are suffering from stagnation or decline in

visitor volume, and an increase in competition arising from alternative destinations.

Experiences are emerging as distinct economic offerings enhancing products and

services. Hence providing a unique positive customer experience can be used as a tool

for differentiation and create engagement between destinations and travellers.

Traditional ways of differentiation are becoming insufficient and it is believed that there

is a growing demand for experience products that meet travellers’ specific wants and

needs (Ritchie, Tung, & Ritchie, 2011; Wong & Wan, 2013). Tourism destinations

should provide composite experiences that meet travellers’ requirements and are aligned

with their perceptions used in their evaluation of a destination (Alan, 1987; Barnes,

Mattsson, & Sorensen, 2014; Fodness, 1990).

Despite various definitions, the shared opinion on customer experience is that they

are in sharp contrast with life’s daily routine. Experiences are specifically relevant in

the tourism industry. Tourists travel in order to experience something different and

novel (Cohen, 1972; MacCannell, 1973, Smith, 1989; Uriely, 2005). However it is very

difficult to define a core tourism product that is independent from other products,

services and context (Gordon & Goodall, 2000). Products and services in a destination

2

are dependent on each other to create the overall experience (Williams & Buswell,

2003). Based on the above and for the purpose of this study tourist experiences are

defined as memorable and enjoyable activities, events and perceptions in a destination

that engage travellers personally and positively affect their patronage behaviour.

For a better understanding of tourist behaviour; tourist motivation, satisfaction and

quality have been subject to endless research, however in-depth analysis in tourist

experiences is underdeveloped and has yet to be clarified (Cohen, 1979). A substantial

number of scholars also argued that satisfaction and loyalty are not very closely related

(e.g. Jones & Sasser, 1995) and many satisfied customers still defect. Research has

shown that these two constructs have a high positive correlation (Anderson et al., 1994;

Biong, 1993; Gassenheimer et al., 1996; Hallowell, 1996; Taylor & Baker, 1994;

Woodside, et al., 1989). However, the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is

not a direct one, but mediated by perceived quality (Bitner, 1990). It has also been

argued that the relationship between these two dimensions is non-linear (Bowen &

Chen, 2001). Because SERVQUAL and similar scales do not adequately measure

holistic, experiential and affective factors in tourism, which are important for positive

customer behaviour (Fick & Ritchie, 1991; Otto & Ritchie, 1996; Yuksel &Yuksel,

2001) additional more relevant factors measuring experiences are needed.

Tourist experiences are more general, the benefit is more symbolic, emotional and

hedonic than functional, cognitive and utilitarian (Chen & Chen, 2010; Sheng & Chen,

2012). Although experiences are critical for a destination’s success, offering a

theoretical framework on tourist experiences has been a difficult task for researchers.

From a practical perspective, creating, managing and evaluating tourist experiences

have also been a challenging objective for destination planners and travel trade. Hence

there is not a single experience, but several experiences for different market segments

(Vega, Casielles, & Martin, 1995). Although various studies have looked into

components of general tourist experiences, we have seen no empirical research

concerning the structure of cultural tourist experiences leaving a void in literature.

Current research intends to discuss cultural tourist experiences in the light of Istanbul.

Cultural tourists are considered as an important distinct market segment that is

motivated by local culture and heritage attractions rather than bodily relaxation. This

paper first conceptualizes the structure of the tourist experience metaphor. Then,

cultural tourist experiences are discussed in the framework of factors found after a

qualitative study.

Tourist Experience

The concept of tourism experience is arising as a popular subject in literature. However,

there are various approaches to study this phenomenon. First, the tourist experience is

studied from a phenomenological perspective, which focuses on the subjective

experience of a tourist (Cohen, 1979: Neumann, 1992: Ryan, 1997). It has also been

defined in terms of an escape from the daily routine; as a sacred journey (Cohen, 1972;

Dann, 1977; Graburn, 1989; Hennig, 2002; MacCannell, 1973; Uriely, 2005; Vukonic,

1996). Authenticity, exoticism, meanings and change were also used to describe tourism

experiences (MacCannell, 1973; Cohen, 1974; Redfoot, 1984; Smith, 1978).

Gunn (1988) indicates that tourism is a complex human experience, and is most

certainly not a commodity with predetermined features. The total travel experience

includes integrated clues and activities acquired from a destination (Smith, 1994).

Therefore, at a higher level, there are many components to a tourist interaction. Each

tourist can build his own experience by using different elements in the destination like

3

building a Lego (Swarbrooke, 2001). Thus, depending on the bricks customers use,

different tourist experiences may emerge. Because of the inseparability characteristics

of tourism, the customers are also a part of the product (Normann, 1985). In other

words, tourists co-create their experiences within a destination.

A tourist is physically, emotionally and intellectually involved in the experience

process (Booms & Bitner, 1981; Fitzsimmons & Sullivan, 1982; Normann, 1985;

Silkapit & Fisk, 1985). The final level of this involvement is the ‘flow’, where tourist

loses the concept of time and place and concentrate very deeply on the activity that

he/she is involved in (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Mannell et al., 1988). This perspective

also defines the tourist as a performer and the tourism destination as the stage (Edensor,

2001) and both depend on each other to create the overall experience.

The performer tourist is increasingly replacing packaged mass tourism resort

alternatives with “new tourism” destinations (Butler, 1989). Previously, large tour

operators were imposing their standardized products to the customers. However,

contemporary tourists are pushing what they want onto the market, which creates

opportunities for new products and alternative tours to emerge. The tourism product is

getting more flexible especially in the form of customization. Despite large tour

operators, diversification of the tourism product is an emerging trend (Stamboulis &

Skayannis, 2003). In the past having a charter airline was the main competitive

advantage for travel trade but nowadays it is the ability to customize, innovate and

create desired expectations.

During this post-fordist era, different categories were used to conceptualize

tourism. The most obvious distinctions are based on motivations; leisure and business

are the two main groups discussed in literature. Some researchers argue that tourism

activities should be voluntary and should not be derived from necessity (e.g. Cohen,

1979; Smith, 1989). This is why leisure is treated as the main tourism motivator as

opposed to business trips. Travelling for leisure beyond one’s regular local area also

suggests that tourists seek experiences that are not available in their regular

environment. Leisure tourism has also diversified as tourists became more demanding.

Special interest tourism, adventure tourism, alternative tourism, cultural tourism, eco-

tourism, heritage tourism are just a few emerging types that focus on smaller niches

instead of the mass market (Stamboulis & Skayannis, 2003). Common characteristics of

these allocentric travel typologies are that they are more active, enriching, engaging,

adventuresome and informative than traditional mass tourist attractions (Craik, 1997;

Zeppel & Hall, 1992). Consequently tourist experiences are shaped by their motivations

(Loureiro, 2014) and expectations (Tung & Ritchie, 2011).

One of the major experience oriented tourist class is referred to as cultural tourists

(Tighe, 1986). According to Richards (1996), cultural tourism accounts for 37% of all

trips taken and this segment is growing at a 15% rate every year. From the mid-1980s

cultural component of tourist experiences has emerged an important factor affecting

tourism demands in Istanbul (Istanbullu & Ertugral, 2003). According to Stebbins

(1996), cultural tourists’ main motivation is to obtain knowledge about the region. Arts,

music, traditions and history are the main components of culture in a destination. Food

can also be considered as a part of the local culture (Quan and Wang, 2004). McKercher

(2002) defines cultural tourists as tourists who visit or participate any cultural attraction

or event during his/her stay regardless of the main motivation for the trip.

Cultural tourists are also an attractive segment for destinations because they spend

more, respect local cultural and natural resources and are more educated (Hughes,

1987). The concept of customer experience has become an important issue for cultural

marketing (Chen & Chen, 2010; Rojas & Camarero, 2008). Travellers’ interest in

4

different cultures is increasing parallel to the developments in people’s education level.

Consequently, the cultural dimensions of tourism activity are gaining importance on the

overall travel experience as well as tourism management and destination planning

perspectives (Craik, 1997). For cultural tourists the trip means more than a bodily

nourishment and relaxation, on the contrary these travellers tend to be more active

during their visit (Jovicic, 2014). The main motivation of cultural tourists is to learn,

discover and experience more about the destination visited (Richards, 2002). Leisure

tourists also visit a variety of sites and events in the region and seek a feeling of

involvement with the place, its history and local culture (Hall & Zeppel, 1990). Even

when consumption of local culture is secondary, leisure tourists are considered as

general cultural tourists (Jovicic, 2014). Components and factors influencing cultural

tourist experiences in destinations are discussed in the next section.

Dimensions of cultural tourists’ experiences in destinations

Destinations are at the core of the tourism product. The desire to visit them is the main

motivation for most trips (Swarbrooke, 2001). In other words, destinations can be

considered as the pull factor for tourists. They include factors like attractions, facilities,

infrastructure, transportation and hospitality (Mill & Morrison, 1985). Destinations

provide the environment for tourists to fulfil their needs related to experiences

(Prebensen et al., 2012). From the experience perspective, destinations can be defined

as places that facilitate the conditions of tourism experience (Sorensen, 2004). Hence

experiential offerings are becoming main determinants for destinations’ long-term

success.

Tourist destinations can be framed as an amalgam of services and activities (e.g.

lodging, attractions) that create an overall experience of the visited area. Destinations

offer a combination of tangible and intangible clues and create the spatial experience

context for the tourists (Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Murphy et al., 2000). Therefore the

central motivation of tourism activity in a destination is the creation of experiences

(Sternberg, 1997). Tourist experiences can be so powerful that tourists might create an

emotional attachment to some destinations (Giuliani & Feldman, 1993; Hidalgo &

Hernandez, 2001).

In consumer behaviour literature Pine and Gilmore (1999) differentiated the two

dimensions of experience by identifying a level of participation and absorption-

immersion dimension. Using this type of classification, they defined the four realms of

customer experiences as aesthetics, education, entertainment and escapist dimensions.

These four items were later adapted to tourism research by Oh, Fiore and Jeong (2007)

in their study on hotel guest experiences. Carbone and Haeckel (1994) proposed

mechanics and humanics as the main dimensions of customer experiences. Mechanics

(physical environment) and humanics (social interaction) were also used by various

researchers in tourism literature as main constructs of experiences (Cetin, 2014; Walls,

2009).

Gunter (1987) found that the main motivation in leisure activities is to escape daily

routines, the feeling of intense pleasure, freedom of choice, spontaneity, timelessness,

fantasy, adventure and self-realization. According to Kleiber et al., (1986) adult leisure

trips are either relaxed (passive) or developmental (active) in nature. Otto and Ritchie

(1996) identified hedonics, peace of mind, involvement and recognition as dimensions

of quality experiences. Tourist experiences have also been conceptualized under

immersion, surprise, participation and fun (Kao, Huang, & Wu, 2008). Other studies

tried to explain tourist experiences in different settings such as attractions (e.g. Beeho &

5

Prentice, 1997), adventure activities (e.g. Arnould & Price, 1993) lodging (e.g. Cetin &

Dincer, 2014) and food (e.g. Quan & Wang, 2004).

Kim et al. (2012) also focused on travel experiences and offered seven dimensions

(hedonism, novelty, local culture, refreshment, meaningfulness, involvement and

knowledge) of tourist experiences, however they also acknowledged that their national

student sample is far from being representative of the travelling masses. Unfortunately

despite valuable contributions from different authors there is still little agreement on a

typology of tourism experiences (Ritchie et al., 2011). Therefore the constructs

proposed so far are very much subjective in nature and lack a structured direction

particularly for cultural tourism as a separate segment. The literature on general tourist

experiences has various models available but none of them used a theoretical sample for

cultural tourists, hence they do not completely address the experiences of cultural

tourists. This study aims to fill this gap by offering insights into factors that particularly

affect cultural tourists’ experiences.

Methodology

The primary purpose of this study is to offer insight into the understanding of the

factors that could affect the cultural tourists’ evaluation of travel experiences in a

destination. It also seeks to investigate underlying meanings behind these attributes. In

order to achieve the goals of the study, we chose Istanbul as the research context.

Istanbul can be considered as a good domain to study experiences; it was named the

hottest destination for 2014 by a recent TripAdvisor poll (Forgione, 2014) and served as

capital to three empires. The city is attracting more than ten million international

tourists and offers diverse products and services (e.g. heritage, cultural events, natural

attractions, shopping, night life and business). A qualitative case study approach was

used due to the exploratory nature of this study (Wang & Krakover, 2008). This

technique allows researchers to retrieve information about feelings, thoughts, intentions,

and behaviours of the study participants (Chen, 2010) and it relies on the interpretation

of the text and understanding particular situation.

In order to obtain a rich and in depth understanding of cultural tourists’ overall

tourism experiences in Istanbul, an exploratory research was required to include

different sources and types of cultural tourist experiences. A qualitative technique based

on semi-structured, one-on-one, in-depth interviews was adopted to investigate cultural

tourists’ deep perceptions and feelings about the destination. According to Kahn and

Cannell (1957) this technique can be used to collect rich empirical findings. The open-

ended questions used in the interview were created based on extensive literature review

as well as feedback from two scholars and two professional tour guides. The instrument

was then pilot tested on two tourists in order to improve the validity of questions asked.

Although interviews also explored the demographics and tripographics, the primary

focus was tourist experiences. The questions included; personal (demographics) and

tripographic information (motivation for travel) and travel experience queries.

Experiences are discussed as extraordinary events that are remembered for a long time

and shared with others. In line with previous literature, participants were asked the

following broad questions concerning their experiences in Istanbul:

1. Can you talk about your experiences during your visit to Istanbul? What

will you remember after you return? Which experiences do you think are

worth sharing with friends?

6

2. What makes your travel experience in Istanbul different than your previous

travels to other destinations?

Interviews were conducted between Sept. – Nov. 2012 for a period of eight weeks.

All interviews were digitally recorded with the participants’ consent and subsequently

transcribed verbatim right after each interview and observations (impressions,

contextual aspects, attitudes, non-verbal clues etc.) were noted (Mehmetoglu & Altinay,

2006). This whole procedure filled 89 pages in total. Transcripts and field observation

notes were then analysed multiple times independently by the authors and inferences

were discussed together to reach a consensus on overall dimensions, interrelationships

and interpretation of data acquired from interviews.

A total of 64 frequently mentioned factors were extracted from interviews before

they were grouped under main structure. Transcripts were then re-read and explored

further. Common themes and significant phrases were coded, singled out and organized

under broader content related categories (Creswell, 2007). At the end of this

categorizing process (Dey, 1998), 64 items were merged under five themes: social

interaction, local authentic clues, service, culture/heritage and challenge. This method

is referred to as qualitative content analysis and utilized to describe and explain a

phenomenon that is not extensively conceptualized in literature or when it is fragmented

(Colaizzi, 1978; Cozby, 2004). Content analysis was also proven to be a powerful

technique in tourism research (e.g. Okumus et al., 2007; Walls et al., 2011).

The data was also compared with previous literature and significant, relevant

explanations were integrated in order to validate the findings and construct the general

framework. Based on literature and collective revision of clusters by the authors, some

categories were incorporated under more exhaustive headings. For example; local food

(taste, freshness, variety, cooking style etc.) was mentioned frequently by tourists as an

important part of their experience. Although local food emerged as a major category,

after comparison with extant literature it was interpreted as a subcategory of culture

dimension. This inductive process allowed authors to interpret and create links between

findings and existing body of knowledge (Creswell, 2007) and improved the validity of

dimensions. The resulting frame of tourist experiences was based on deductive analysis

(review of literature) and categorized data derived from interview transcriptions

(inductive analysis) (Gummerson, 2000).

The purposive target sample for this study is composed of cultural tourists. The

screening criteria used for the interviewees were being above 18 years old, to have

visited at least one cultural site or joined a cultural event in the city and have stayed in

Istanbul for more than one full day. The last criterion was set to remove tourists who did

not spend enough time to explain their cultural experiences in the destination and make

sure they have accumulated enough information. The average length of stay in Istanbul

is 2.4 days. All candidates except three that were approached for the interview complied

with the criteria set. The respondents were also motivated; none of them declined the

interview request although three of them were eliminated as they did not fit in the

criteria set. The majority of tourists visiting Turkey are from Western countries and

Russian Federation, McKercher and Chow (2001) argue that the greater the cultural

distance the more interested tourists are to visit cultural attractions in the destination and

interact with locals. Authors’ explanation of high response rate is that cultural tourists

are more open to interactions with locals (interviewer) and use the opportunity when it

arises. This procedure is expected to increase homogeneity and contribute to the

external validity of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

7

Five to 25 interviews are recommended for phenomenological studies that explore

personal experiences (Polkinghorne, 1989). For this study, after interviewing 21

tourists, authors agreed on the theoretical data saturation level and that no additional

interviews would provide new findings (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Interviews took

around 45 to 80 minutes in duration and were conducted randomly at multiple well-

known cultural sights in the city centre (e.g. Topkapi Palace) as well as hotel lobbies

and two international airports. According to Clifford (1997) the site of tourism research

is the site of the encounter; different time and space would affect the quality of the

feedback. Memory of experiences might also be distorted over time. Since interviews

were conducted during travel, respondents are more likely to recall their experiences

thus the accuracy of the feedback is considered high.

Participants were considered as co-researchers rather than subjects, since their

insights about experiences establish the main context (Seamon, 1979). Although some

follow-up questions were asked to clarify respondent statements, interviewers avoided

structuring respondent feedback and waited for underlying deeper perspectives to

unfold rather than lead the conversation (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). This interactive

approach between the researcher and the researched is expected to result in a better

elaboration of data collection and analysis in tourism. Scholars are not in a position to

claim superior knowledge position than the tourist himself on subjective issues,

thoughts, knowledge and practices of tourists (Crouch et al., 2001) such as their

personal experiences. In order to create interest and remove the possibility that the

participants would think the researcher is an expert, researchers first solicited

information on general demographic background, travel motivation, past experiences,

previous trips before talking about the real issue in an idle chatter (Douglas, 1985).

Research findings are discussed in the next section.

Findings

This study attempted to comprehensively explore the cultural tourist experiences and

offers valuable insights. As mentioned earlier the interview questions also included

demographic information as well as questions related to experiences. Concerning

participant profiles; out of 21 total respondents ten were males, their ages differed

between 23 and 73. 19 of them hold a university degree and majority (67%) had more

than 15.000 Euro annual income. Participants were from 16 different nations; the

majority (ten) coming from European countries, although Americas, Africa and Asia

were also represented. They were in Istanbul for leisure purposes, cultural mainly. They

can also be considered as experienced tourists, traveling outside their home country

approximately 4.61 times on average in 2011. Respondent characteristics are listed in

Table 1.

Table 1. Respondent characteristics ˂TABLE 1. HERE˃

Based on the findings and previous research on underlying elements of customer

experience; five main dimensions emerged as key constructs affecting cultural tourist

experiences in a destination. It should also be noted that respondents were all happy

with their experiences in Istanbul and all stated either a revisit intention or willingness

8

to share them with others. For example Henry1 expressed his intention to return and

recommends as follows; “…I got more than what I expected. I will be back for sure. I

will share it as well, I am flying tomorrow and you know what, I am really sad about

returning.” Components of cultural tourism experience suggested by this study are

summarized on figure 1. These components are discussed in following sections with

quotations from interviews as well as reinforcements from literature.

˂FIGURE 1. HERE˃

Figure 1. Components of cultural tourists’ experiences

Social Interaction

The social interaction during the visit emerged as a pivotal experience attribute and is

mainly described as the characteristics of locals such as helpful, polite, friendly, social,

kind, interesting, generous, peaceful, calm, like to share, hospitality and goodwill. In

general participants were in agreement that the locals’ characteristics are the primary

factor influencing their experiences. Local people are perceived as social, helpful, kind

and generous. It was for instance surprising for tourists to receive such special care from

locals; they felt like guests even outside serviscape of touristic facilities. They also

perceived other guests as friendly and helpful.

Mary a 41-year-old mother travelling with her family stated; “The locals are very

friendly, they like tourists, every time we ask for something, they are eager and helpful,

despite language barriers they are spending a sincere effort to assist us, they even go out

of their way to help when we ask for directions. Everybody was glad to talk to us, and

was very involved. People could not be nicer.... It is not about physical things like hotel,

food, architecture... the main differentiator is the people’s attitude in Turkey.”

Crompton (1979) discusses social interactions with locals as a sought after desire

for tourists although it is not always completely achieved. Tourists are not strangers to

be avoided in Istanbul they are perceived as guests by the locals, hence comes the term

“Turkish hospitality” (Sari, 2012). Numerous articles have highlighted the importance

of connecting with locals/other tourists, hospitality and social interaction in tourism as

well (e.g. Arnould & Price 1993; Morgan and Xu, 2009; Smith, 1994; Walls et al. 2011;

Wang, 1999). For example Butler (1980) states that local contact and the use of local

facilities are major appeals for some tourists. Smith (1989) also argues that tourists seek

opportunities for meeting and becoming acquainted with their hosts. By getting to know

others we might get closer to reach our desire to get to know ourselves (McKean, 1989).

Local Authentic Clues

Local authentic clues were also discussed by the majority of cultural tourists. As for the

local authentic clues theme, guests mentioned items related to their novel and authentic

perceptions that distinctively symbolize the locality. Original and unique local clues that

are different from home and other destinations impact the tourists’ experience. In this

case, Bosporus (the waterway that divides the city into two as Europe and Asia), prayer

calls (takes around 30-90 seconds five times a day, first one before dawn), the local way

1 Respondents in this paper are given pseudonyms.

9

of doing things (e.g. Turkish tea in special glass or collective bath in hammams) can be

given as examples that constitute local authentic clues dimension.

Marco, when describing the impact of local authentic clues, commented, “...The

palaces, religious attractions, the Bosporus, history, the infusion of different people

living together, different religions and monuments are very unique very interesting. I

remember the prayer call on the first morning; I jumped from bed, there is a mosque

right across the hotel. It was very interesting, I got used to the sound; five times a day, I

even like the sound of it now... I value local culture rather than fake and touristic places.

This is why I prefer boutique hotels, they are more local and sincere, and the

relationship exchange is genuine.”

In relation to local authentic clues, Urry (1990) indicated gazing as an important

part of the tourist experience. According to him the ‘tourist gaze’ is the collection and

transformation of local ordinary objects, signs, places and experiences into sacred ones

by tourists. Nature and scenery are also a part of the tourist experience; it represents

locality and novelty (Alegre & Grau; 2010; Barnes et al., 2014; Engeset & Elvekrok,

2014; Perkins & Thorns, 2001). In line with previous research tourists mentioned their

motivation to seek authentic clues, not just typical touristic false fronts but real local

experiences. They are willing to “make brave sorties out from their hotels hoping

perhaps for an authentic experience…” (MacCannell, 1973). Tourist demand for

traditional and local products can also be linked to the quest for authenticity (Sims,

2009).

Cultural visitors have a desire to forget they are tourists and experience real life in

the region; they want to get beyond the institutionalized version of the tourist

experience (tourist bubble), touristic representation and duplication of locality. They

want to see the unseen, they want to listen to the unheard, and this is why they look for

gaps, a chance to peek into reality (MacCannel, 2001). Hence perception of authenticity

is a significant attribute in evaluation of tourist experience (e.g. Engeset & Elvekrok,

2014).

Service

Service dimension is mainly associated with tourism infrastructure and service facilities

at destination (e.g. hotel, staff, cleanliness, transportation, landscaping, and flowers).

For example, a hotel is seen as an important facility for tourists. It is the safe house they

go after a long and challenging day in an unfamiliar environment. Staff working in the

tourism industry is also perceived to be different than their colleagues abroad, they are

more helpful and social. Most respondents also appreciated public services, as the city is

perceived to be kept clean; the landscaping was rated to be exceptionally successful as

well.

George, a 67-year-old attorney travelling with his wife illustrated tourism infra-

structure as an important part of their experience; “Compared to other cities, Istanbul is

very clean, there are flowers everywhere, we did not expect this much. Especially for a

17 million people big city, it is extremely clean. The hotel and restaurants are also fine

concerning physical features. Staff is professional and friendly. It is nice to go back to

the hotel after a long day to relax and get ready for the next.”

Quan and Wang (2004) acknowledged the significance of tourism industry related

services as supporting experiences, such as lodging, transportation and food. The

overall tourism experience would be damaged if supporting experiences were not up to

a standard (McCabe, 2002). Supporting experiences can be acknowledged as hygiene

factors (see Herzberg, 1966) of the experience. Without them a positive overall

10

experience is not possible. Although tourists seek novelty and authenticity they also

want a degree of familiarity, safety and predictability in their experiences (Craik, 1997;

Dearden & Harron, 1994). Different studies have identified peace of mind (e.g. physical

comfort, hygiene and safety) as an important dimension of tourist experience (e.g.

Wong & Wan, 2013). Be it cultural tourists or non-cultural tourist, service affects how

travellers experience a destination. This also explains the success of artificial theme

parks and stresses the importance of smooth and professional service.

Culture/Heritage

The findings imply that tourists value almost everything that is a part of the local

culture. Under the culture category respondents mentioned items like heritage, art,

history, entertainment, fashion, clothing, cultural events, architecture and food. For

example Donna, a Canadian tourist, when asked about her experiences, commented;

“Istanbul is a mosaic of everything, old and modern, history, people, architecture,

culture even the traffic makes it very attractive. The heritage is very old and people live

it, own it, they are proud of their values, you can see it, old buildings are still functional,

there are Turkish national flags everywhere and the remnants are very old and represent

different cultures, civilizations and religions…Local food is exceptional; the taste,

variety, freshness, flavour and the labour, we liked it very much”

Recently cultural aspects of tourism have been attracting a growing amount of

attention (Craik, 1997). Jovicic (2014) also argues that there is a shift towards intangible

forms of culture such as entertainment, values and norms. Local culture and heritage are

perceived as an important part of the experience as suggested by other authors (e.g.

Crompton, 1979; Quan & Wang, 2004). Destination planners often neglect cultural

capital in tourism experience although there is a satisfying relationship between

strangeness and tourism activity. The resulting novelty has the potential to educate

tourist while entertaining them (Cohen, 1979). Education is also considered as an

important part of tourist experiences (Barnes et al., 2014; Biran et al., 2011; Chen &

Chen, 2010). The fun created through education for travellers is also referred to as

edutainment (Geissler, 2006). For tourism, education based experiences are usually

related to engagement with local culture and heritage.

Marriana, a retired teacher from Germany, noted “I heard it was fascinating, but to

be honest I did not expect this much. The city has something to offer on every corner.

There are so many hidden treasures on the back streets as well. …It is also a

combination of old and modern, it has an old historic feeling in one street, when you

turn around you see a group of sky scrapers in the other direction…Different

architectural styles…Mosques, churches side by side… I do not think you can have this

much diversity in any other city…The city also lives 24 hours; the locals are so

outgoing and entertaining. I am glad to be here and that you could keep it as it is for so

long.” Culture actually is an umbrella dimension that can be related to various other

items, which are mentioned under other constructs in this study.

Challenge

Participants also cited factors like shopping, traffic, noise, transportation, safety –

security, crowded, tourist traps, norms and rules, language, chaos, parking, lack of

standards, washing closets, taxi drivers, which are all considered under the challenge

dimension. These challenges, although some being clearly negative, were perceived by

tourists as a part of their experience.

11

The tourist in Istanbul is a complete stranger, the language does not resemble any

other; social norms and customs are different and can be confusing. The authors’

explanation to these challenges as being a part of the experience is that they create

feelings like fun, excitement, surprise, danger or risk. The lack of findings about

negative travel experiences in literature is also attributed to the hedonic nature of

tourism as a leisure activity (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Hosany & Gilbert, 2010).

The respondents were observed as glad to have been faced with these challenges. For

example Sabina remarked, “...you never know the real price of the item you are

considering to buy in the Grand Bazaar, it keeps changing from shop to shop on a huge

scale, deciding on a fair price is a tough job, negotiation is fun though.”

Shopping and negotiation is a challenge frequently highlighted by respondents,

besides the hectic traffic, crowded public transportation and furious taxi drivers.

Although challenges create a frustration, this chaos is also considered to be a part of the

overall experience. Without challenges experiences are indicated as incomplete by

many of the participants, tourists do not avoid them and sometimes seek the challenge.

Schneider, a Dutch tourist staying in Istanbul for four days mentioned, ‘It was like

solving a puzzle trying to use the washing closet in the Blue Mosque.’ when he was

talking about things he will remember after his trip to Istanbul (Traditional toilets in

Turkey have no toilet seats and the pan is on the floor level with a different design than

modern washing closets).

The importance of challenge dimension in tourism experience has also been

discussed by Celsi et al. (1993). They identified the paradox between safety and risk.

“…. Why would an individual purposefully seek physical and psychic risk? A paradox

seems to exist when individuals who for example, wear seatbelts, obtain the best

personal and property insurances, use condoms and seek safety and security in the work

place; spend their free time risking it all climbing granitic escarpments, hang gliding or

falling earthward at 150 miles per hour in free fall.”

A similar point was made by Lasch (1979), according to him modernity has been

rationalizing human life, and there is limited chance for “arbitrary invention and

disposition to leave things to chance” (p. 102). Leisure tourism is one way to seek the

lost ability to invent, to discover, adventure, uncertainty and risk. The traditional tourist

explanation of objective, utilitarian and functional frameworks does not really fit into

the experience concept (Otto & Ritchie, 1996). This also corroborates with Edensor

(2001), the challenge accompanying the constant physical and mental disruption,

vertigo and unreliability contains pleasure and results in memorable tourist experiences.

Hedonic and emotionally driven irrational behaviour is particular characteristic of

leisure tourism (Gnoth, 1997). Surprisingly some of these challenges experienced at the

destination (e.g. trying to figure out how to cross the street where pedestrian rights or

traffic lights are rarely a matter of concern) would be unacceptable for tourists in their

regular environment back home. Therefore tourists are willing to take more risks in the

destination than their regular environment (Chang et al., 2011).

Conclusion and discussions

Acknowledging the components of tourist experiences are crucial for destinations’ long

term success. Experiences are also becoming a key concept for cultural tourism,

heritage and cultural services (Rojas & Camarero, 2008). However factors affecting

cultural tourists’ experiences have not been clarified in literature thus far. Cultural travel

emphasizes experiencing life within a foreign culture. Cultural tourists leave their

habitat with a motivation to temporarily become a part of the culture they visit. This

12

paper proposes valuable empirical findings on what constitutes cultural tourist

experiences for destination planners, industry professionals as well as scholars for

implications and future research. The study identified key attributes that affect cultural

tourists’ perception of their experiences. After the qualitative study, five constructs were

suggested as the main determinants of cultural tourist experience in a destination. These

are social interaction, local authentic clues, service, culture/heritage and challenge.

Tourism planning has a central role in the effective design and composition of

tourist experiences (Sternberg, 1997). The study offers findings that might be used to

differentiate destinations and offer better experience to cultural tourists by focusing on

and facilitating experiential components at the destination. Destination managers and

policy makers should consider these factors when designing their itineraries. It is

important for cultural tourists to sense that they are in a unique place different than

other destinations. Destination marketers may promote culture, traditions, local people

and authenticity of the destination to create interest in attracting cultural tourists.

Facilitating local contact, using authentic facilities rather than international chain hotels,

visiting local living and entertainment quarters besides the classic touristic routes,

attractions and restaurants in the destination, using local transportation where

convenient, also organizing seminars and special activities about the locality would

result in more engaging experiences which would lead to positive behavioural

outcomes. The value of tourism product lies in the quality and quantity of the

experiences it offers (MacCannell, 1999). Various studies have established positive

relationships between customer experiences, customer value, loyalty and

recommendation (e.g. Barnes et al., 2014; Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Walls, 2009).

The findings can also be used in designing the marketing communications and

branding of the destination by travel trade in order to attract cultural tourists. Rojas and

Camarero (2008) discuss creating experiences as an important tool for the marketing of

cultural services and heritage. Rather than using images of facilities with international

standards or attractions where tourists can find in other destinations (e.g., sea, sun, sand,

the lady in bikini), practitioners should base their advertising and promotions on

distinctive experiential elements in the destination and focus on local clues, local

people, local heritage, arts and culture (see Horisont Rejser (www.horisontrejser.dk)

and Fest Travel (http://www.festtravel.com) for ideal examples).

Another contribution of this paper is that in touristic regions particularly, tourists

mentioned a lack of authenticity. Some regions of cultural tourist destinations are

becoming too touristy (Sultanahmet is one of these places when traveling to Istanbul).

For example there are no locals living in these areas anymore, all shops are catering to

tourists, the buildings are either hospitality facilities or shops targeted to tourists, which

(as tourist traps) locals do not patronize at all. Touristic spaces are becoming

increasingly isolated front stages designed for commercial tourist demands, which offer

fake authenticity if any. The danger accompanying commoditization of destinations not

only harms meanings of cultural resources (e.g. the Alarde of Fuenterrabia or Sema

ceremony of swirling dervishes) for locals (Greenwood, 1989) but also for tourists,

which is referred to as colossal deception by Cohen (1988). The promotion of cultural

tourism should also be done cautiously; destinations might cut the ground from under

their own feet and can become victims of their own commercial development (Bywater,

1993) as exemplified in Smith’s (1989) study on Eskimos. The impact on local life and

the site itself should also be managed carefully (Craik, 1997).

As many other exploratory studies this research is not free of limitations. One of

the limitations of the study to consider is the locality of where interviews were

conducted. Although Istanbul is an international destination attracting more than ten

13

million tourists per year, experiences might differ based on the characteristics of each

destination. Personal, social, cultural and geographical settings might influence tourist

experiences. It is important to point out that this exploratory study has no intention to

generalize findings and a purposive sample of cultural tourists was used. In other words

tourist experiences are context specific (Hosany & Gilbert, 2010).

Previous travel experiences might also have an impact on experience evaluations in

a destination (Weaver et al., 2007). According to Pearce’s (1988) travel career ladder

experienced tourists are more motivated with culture and history of other places and

pursue more intellectual needs rather than physical appeals (e.g. bodily relaxation).

Convenience and cost might be more important for inexperienced tourists whereas self-

actualization is more rewarding for more senior ones. Therefore the intensity of

involvement might also differ among cultural tourists. Various authors offered different

typologies of cultural tourists (e.g. McKercher & Cros, 2003; Silberberg, 1995). This

study however made no such distinction. Using one of these classifications would be an

interesting subject for a future study.

Therefore the main objective of the study was to offer some more concrete

contextual suggestions for future research about the nature of cultural tourist experience

rather than offer firm, universal and transferable conclusions about the factors affecting

cultural tourist experiences. The themes proposed in the study augment current

literature and raise intriguing questions for future research. There is still a great amount

of work that needs to be done on the subject matter. The findings of this study should be

tested in other destinations and contexts in order to enhance the generalizability of the

results. Nevertheless for scholars, this paper represents an initial conceptualization on

cultural tourist experiences conducted in a destination with diverse offerings and an

international clientele, future studies investigating various destinations and tourists with

different backgrounds might offer valuable insights in validating these findings.

References

Alan A, L. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism

Research, 14(4), 553-575. DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(87)90071-5

Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2010). Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Annals of

Tourism Research, 37(1), 52-73.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market

share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. The Journal of Marketing, 53-66.

Arnould, E., & Price, L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the

extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 24-45.

Barnes, S. J., Mattsson, J., & Sørensen, F. (2014). Destination brand experience and

visitor behavior: Testing a scale in the tourism context. Annals of Tourism

Research, 48, 121-139.

Becker, C.S. (1986). Interviewing in human science. Research Methods, 1, 101-124.

Beeho, A.J., & Prentice, R.C. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage

tourists: A case study of Lanark world heritage village. Tourism Management,

18(2), 75-87.

Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., & Haeckel, S.H. (2002). Managing the total customer

experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 1-6.

Biong, H. (1993). Satisfaction and loyalty to suppliers within the grocery trade.

European Journal of Marketing, 27(7), 21-38.

Biran, A., Poria, Y., & Oren, G. (2011). Sought experiences at (dark) heritage sites.

Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 820-841.

14

Booms, B.H., & Bitner, M.J. (1981). Marketing strategies and organizational structures

for service firms. In Donnely, J.H., W.R., George (Eds.), Marketing of services (pp.

47-51). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Boorstin, D.J. (1964). A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, NY: Harper &

Raw.

Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for

management of resources. The Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

Butler, R.W. (1989). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? World Tourism

and Leisure, Winter, 9-17.

Bywater, M. (1993). The market for cultural tourism in Europe. EIU Travel and

Tourism Analyst, 6, 30-46.

Carbone, P. L., & Haeckel, S.H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing

Management, 3(3), 8-19.

Celsi, R.L., Rose, R.L., & Leigh, T.W. (1993). An exploration of high-risk leisure

consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 1-23.

Cetin, G., & Dincer, F. I. (2014). Influence of customer experience on loyalty and word-

of-mouth in hospitality operations. Anatolia, 25(2), 181-194.

Douglas, S.M. (1985). The king of the black art: A study of the tales of a group of

Perthshire travellers in their social context. (Unpublished doctoral thesis),

University of Stirling, School of Art and Humanities, Perth.

Chen, P.J. (2010). Differences between male and female sport event tourists: A

qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 277-290.

Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in late twentieth century travel.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Chang, R. C., Kivela, J., & Mak, A. H. (2011). Attributes that influence the evaluation

of travel dining experience: When East meets West. Tourism Management, 32(2),

307-316.

Chen C-F., & Chen, F-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and

behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29-35.

Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1),

164-182.

Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist? A conceptual clarification. Sociological Review,

22(4), 527-555.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences, Sociology, 13(2), 179-201.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commodification in tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 15(3), 371-386.

Colaizzi, P.F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it.

Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology, 48-71.

Cozby, P.C. (2004). Methods in Behavioral Research, (8th

ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Craik, J. (1997). The culture of tourism. In Rojek, J., & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures:

Transformations of travel and theory (pp. 113-136). London: Routledge.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.

Crompton, J.L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,

6(4), 408-424.

Crouch, D., Aronsson, L., & Wahlstrom, L. (2001). Tourist encounters. Tourist Studies,

1(3), 253-270.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

15

Dann, G.M.S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 4(4), 184-194.

Dearden, P., & Harron, S. (1994). Alternative tourism and adaptive change. Annals of

Tourism Research, 21(1), 81-102.

Dey, I. (1998). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists.

London: Routledge.

Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59-81.

Engeset, M. G., & Elvekrok, I. (2014). Authentic concepts: Effects on tourist

satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, (ahead of print), DOI:

10.1177/0047287514522876.

Fick, G.R., & Ritchie, B.R.J. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism

industry. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 2-9.

Fitzsimmons, J.A., & Sullivan R.S. (1982). Service operations management. New York,

NY: Mc Grawhill.

Fodness, D. (1990). Consumer perceptions of tourist attractions. Journal of Travel

Research, 28(4), 3-9.

Forgione, M. (2014). TripAdvisor travelers choose Istanbul as the world's best city. LA

Times, Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-tripadvisor-

travelers-choice-20140409-story.html

Gassenheimer, J. B., Sterling, J. U., & Robicheaux, R. A. (1996). Long-term channel

member relationships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 26(5), 94-116.

Geissler, G. L., Rucks, C. T., & Edison, S. W. (2006). Understanding the role of service

convenience in art museum marketing: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality

& Leisure Marketing, 14(4), 69-87.

Giuliani, M.V., & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural

context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13(3), 267-274.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.

Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism

Research, 24(2), 283-304.

Gordon I., & Goodall B. (2000). Localities and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 2(3),

290-311.

Graburn, N.H.H. (1989). Tourism: The sacred journey. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and

guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd Ed.) (pp. 21-36). Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania.

Greenwood, D. J., & Smith, V. L. (1989). Culture by the pound: An anthropological

perspective on tourism as cultural commoditization. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and

guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd ed.) (pp. 171-185). Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania.

Gummerson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research. London: Sage.

Gunn, C. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Gunter, B.G. (1987). The leisure experience: Selected properties. Journal of Leisure

Research, 19(2), 115-130.

Hall, M., & Zeppel, H. (1990). Cultural and heritage tourism: The new grand tour?

Historic Environment, 7(3-4), 86-98.

Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and

profitability: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 7(4), 27-42.

16

Hennig, C. (2002). Tourism: Enacting modern myths. In Dann G.M.S. (Ed.), The tourist

as a metaphor of the social world (pp. 169-187). Wallingford: Cabi Publishing.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and nature of man. New York, NY: World Publishing.

Hidalgo, M.C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical

questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281.

Hirschmann, E., & Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,

methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.

Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experience towards

hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 513-526.

Hughes, H. (1987). Culture as a tourist resource: A theoretical consideration. Tourism

Management, 8(3), 205-216.

Istanbullu, F.D., & Ertugral, S.M. (2003). Economic impact of heritage tourism hotels

in Istanbul. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 23-34.

Jones, T.O., & Sasser, W.E. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business

Review, November – December, 88-99.

Jovicic, D. (2014). Cultural tourism in the context of relations between mass and

alternative tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, (ahead-of-print), 1-8.

Kaam, A.V. (1966). Existential foundations of psychology. Pittsburg: Duquesne

University Press.

Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing; Theory, technique,

and cases. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Kao, Y. F., Huang, L. S., & Wu, C. H. (2008). Effects of theatrical elements on

experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of

Tourism Research, 13(2), 163-174.

Kim, J., Ritchie, R.B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure

memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12-25.

Kleiber, D., Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1986). The experience of leisure in

adolescence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18(3), 169-176.

Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism. London: Abacus.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place

attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 40, 1-9.

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist

settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.

MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. London:

University of California Press.

MacCannel, D. (2001). Tourist agency. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 23-37.

Mannell, R.C., Larson, R., & Zuzanek, J. (1988). Leisure states and flow experiences:

Testing perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation hypotheses. Journal of Leisure

Research, 20, 289-304.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCabe, S. (2002). The tourist experience and everyday life. In G.M. Dann (Ed.), The

tourist as a metaphor of the social world (pp. 61-75). Wallingford: Cabi

Publishing.

McKean, P. F. (1989). Towards a theoretical analysis of tourism: economic dualism and

cultural involution in Bali. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology

of tourism (2nd ed.) (pp. 119-138). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

17

McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International

Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 29-38.

McKercher, B., & Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International

Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 45-58.

Mehmetoglu, M., & Altinay, L. (2006). Examination of grounded theory analysis with

an application to hospitality research. Hospitality Management, 25, 12-33.

Mill, R.C., & Morrison, A.M. (1985). The tourism system. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Morgan, M., & Xu, F. (2009). Student travel experiences: Memories and dreams.

Journal of Hospitality and Marketing Management, 18(2-3), 216-236.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact

on traveller perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43-52.

Neumann, M. (1992). The trail through experience: Finding self in the recollection of

travel. In C. Ellis, , & M.G. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on

lived experience (pp. 176-201). London: Sage.

Normann, R. (1985). Service management: Strategy and leadership in service

businesses. New York, NY: Wiley.

Oh, H., Fiore, A.M., & Jeong, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts:

Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119-132.

Okumus, B., Okumus, F., & McKercher, B. (2007). Incorporating local and

international cuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: The cases of Hong

Kong and Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(1), 253-261.

Otto, J.E., & Ritchie, J.R. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism

Management, 17(3), 165-174.

Pearce, P.L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New

York, NY: Springer Verlag.

Perkins, C. H., & Thorns, D.C. (2001). Gazing or performing, reflections on Urry’s

tourist gaze in the context of contemporary experience in the antipodes.

International Sociology, 16(2), 185-204.

Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every

business stage. Cambridge: Harward Business Press.

Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and

involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience.

Journal of Travel Research, (ahead of print), DOI: 0047287512461181.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R.S. Valle & S.

Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-

60). New York, NY: Plenum.

Redfoot, D.L. (1984). Touristic authenticity, touristic angst and modern reality.

Qualitative Sociology, 7(4), 291-309.

Richards, G. (1996). The scope and significance of cultural tourism. In G. Richards

(Ed.), Cultural Tourism in Europe (pp. 19-46). Wallingford: CABI.

Richards, G. (2002). Tourism attraction systems: Exploring cultural behavior. Annals of

Tourism Research, 29(4), 1048-1064.

Ritchie, J. B., Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, R. J. (2011). Tourism experience management

research: Emergence, evolution and future directions. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(4), 419-438.

Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An

illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297-

305.

18

Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a

heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management,

29(3), 525-537.

Ryan, C. (1997). The tourist experience: A new introduction. London: Cassell.

Sari, F.O. (2012). Socio-cultural approaches to tourism: A research on the ‘tourist’

notion of young Turkish people. Sociology Mind, 2, 200-203.

Sheng, C. W., & Chen, M. C. (2012). A study of experience expectations of museum

visitors. Tourism Management, 33(1), 53-60.

Seamon, D. (1979). Phenomenology, geography and geographical education. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 3(2), 40-50.

Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and

heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361-365.

Silkapit, P., & Fisk, R.P. (1985). Participatizing the service encounter: A theoretical

framework. In T.M. Bloch, G.D. Upah, & V.A. Zeithaml (Eds.), Services marketing

in a changing environment (pp. 117-121). Chicago: American Marketing

Association.

Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism

experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336.

Smith, S.L. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582-595.

Smith, V. L. (Ed.). (1989). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd ed.).

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Smith, V. L. (1989). Eskimo tourism: Micro-models and marginal men. In V. Smith

(Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd ed.) (pp. 55-82).

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Sorensen, F. (2004). Tourism experience innovation networks. Roskilde, DK: Center of

Service Studies.

Stamboulis, Y., & Skayannis, P. (2003). Innovation strategies and technology for

experience based tourism. Tourism Management, 24(1), 35-43.

Stebbins, R.A. (1996). Cultural tourism as a serious leisure. Annals of Tourism

Research, 23(4), 948-950.

Sternberg. E. (1997). The iconography of the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism

Research, 24(4), 951-969.

Swarbrooke, J. (2001). Key challenges for visitor attraction managers in the UK.

Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, 1(4), 318-336.

Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service

quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase

intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163-178.

Tighe, A.J. (1986). The arts/tourism partnership. Journal of Travel Research, 24(3), 2-

5.

Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. R. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism

experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367-1386.

Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism

Research, 32(1), 199-216.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.

Vukonic, B. (1996). Tourism and religion. Translated by Sanja Matesic. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Walls, A. (2009). An examination of consumer experience and relative effects on

consumer values (Unpublished doctoral thesis), University of Central Florida,

Orlando, FL.

19

Walls, A., Okumus, F., Wang, Y., & Kwun, D. (2011). Understanding customer

experience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality

Marketing and Management, 20(2), 166-197.

Wang, N (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism

Research, 26(2), 349-370.

Wang, Y. & Krakover, S. (2008). Destination marketing: Competition, cooperation or

coopetition? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,

20(2), 126 – 141.

Weaver, P., Weber, K., & McCleary, K. (2007). Destination evaluation: The role of

previous travel experience and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research,

45(3), 333-344.

Williams C., & Buswell J. (2003). Service quality in leisure and tourism. Oxon, UK:

Cabi Publishing.

Wong, I. A., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2013). A systematic approach to scale development in

tourist shopping satisfaction linking destination attributes and shopping experience.

Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 29-41.

Woodside, A. G., Frey, L. L., & Daly, R. T. (1989). Linking service quality, customer

satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9(4), 5-

17.

Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2001). The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm: A critique.

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(2), 107-131.

Zeppel, H., & Hall, M. (1992). Arts and heritage tourism. In B. Weiner, & M. Hall

(Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 47-68). London: Belhaven Press.

20

Table 1. Respondent characteristics

Gender Marital Status

Male 10

Single 5

Female 11

Married 16

Age

Income in Euros

18-34 5

0 - 14.999 7

35-54 6

15.000 - 29.999 9

55+ 10

30.000+ 5

Education

Purpose of Visit

High School 2

Leisure 16

Bachelors 12

Business 5

Masters and higher 7

Nationality

Travel Experience

Europe 10

Once a year 0

North America 6

2 - 3 times a year 6

Asia 2

4 - 7 times a year 13

Africa 2

8+ times 2 South America 1