Heritage Tourists’ Motivation: The Case of Hagia Sophia
100
Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science in Tourism Management Heritage Tourists’ Motivation: The Case of Hagia Sophia by Umut Kadir Oguz School of Hospitality and Tourism Management University of Surrey September 2014 Word count: 16.250 ©Umut Kadir Oguz
Transcript of Heritage Tourists’ Motivation: The Case of Hagia Sophia
Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science
in Tourism Management
Heritage Tourists’ Motivation: The Case of Hagia Sophia
by
Umut Kadir Oguz
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management
University of Surrey
September 2014
Word count: 16.250
©Umut Kadir Oguz
i
ABSTRACT
This research aimed to identify tourists’ motivations to visit heritage places. Previous
studies have shown that there are different reasons for visiting a heritage site, such as
education, recreation or heritage experience. Besides, recent studies suggest that the
relationship between heritage displayed at the site and tourists’ perceptions of the site is
central for the understanding of heritage tourism. In this research, the relationship between
tourists’ perceptions and heritage site’s attributes will be investigated in the context of
heritage tourism. To do this, the relationship between two variables (tourists’ personal
characteristics and tourists’ perceptions of the site as part of their own heritage) and
tourists’ visitation patterns (tourists’ motivation, heritage site attributes, tourists’
experience and future intentions) are explored based on the theoretical context.
This research adopts a positivist approach to achieve its objectives. Furthermore, a
questionnaire survey method was used in order to obtain data from a large sample frame.
Data was collected in two steps. Firstly, a site survey was carried out to gather as much
respondents as possible at the heritage site. The research took place in Hagia Sophia, in
Turkey, in a ten day period. During the field study research, a total of 205 questionnaires
were collected. In the second step, as the researcher was not satisfied with the number of
responses, an online questionnaire followed up the field study research. In order to gather
some more responses the social web site Facebook was used and finally 61 Turkish visitors
took part in the survey. The questionnaire form was distributed in four languages (Greek,
Turkish, English and French). The questionnaire form was distributed in four languages:
Greek, Turkish, English and French, as it would have made the data collection process
easier for the researcher and for the respondents as well. For analysis purposes, tourists
were grouped into four main groups based on their countries of origins which are
respectively Turkish, Greeks, Europeans and Others.
The findings of this study demonstrate that there is a link between individuals’ perceptions
of the site as part of their own heritage and tourists’ personal characteristics. There might
be differences between tourists based on their country of birth, religion and strength of
religious belief. Moreover, this may affect their motivation, perceptions of the site
attributes, their experience and future behaviour. In addition to this, there are three main
factors that motivate heritage tourists to historic sites; “Heritage / Emotional” factors,
“Cultural / Educational” factors and “Recreational factors”. To conclude, this study
ii
confirms that visitors’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage are the core to the
understanding of the phenomenon.
Besides contributing to academic research in the field of heritage tourism, the study might
have some managerial implications as well. Managers may utilize the findings of this
research in order to understand tourists’ perception of the heritage sites to improve their
offer. As some tourists link the heritage site with their personal heritage, it might be useful
organising some events or meting to target specific tourists. In addition to this, from the
managerial perspective, it is very helpful to understand how tourists’ perceive the heritage
site since it has influences on tourists’ level of satisfaction.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Alkmini Gkritzali for her guidance at every step of
this research.
I also would like to express my thanks to Professor Yaniv Poria for his help and advice to
my research.
Lastly, I would like to thank The Ministry of National Education of Turkey that sponsored
for me and gave me the opportunity to study in the UK.
iv
Declaration of originality
"I hereby declare that this thesis has been composed by myself and has not been presented
or accepted in any previous application for a degree. The work, of which this is a record,
has been carried out by myself unless otherwise stated and where the work is mine, it
reflects personal views and values. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation
marks and all sources of information have been acknowledged by means of references
including those of the Internet. I agree that the University has the right to submit my
work to the plagiarism detection sources for originality checks."
Author's signature, full name and date.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. xiii
1 Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1Background of the Study .................................................................................................. 1
1.2Objectives of the study ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3Structure of the study ........................................................................................................ 2
2 Chapter II: Heritage Tourism ..................................................................................... 4
2.1Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2Defining Heritage ............................................................................................................. 4
2.3Defining Heritage Tourism ............................................................................................... 5
2.4Heritage Tourists .............................................................................................................. 6
2.5Characteristics of Heritage Tourists ................................................................................. 6
2.5.1Demographic Characteristics of Heritage Tourists ................................................ 6
2.5.2Geographic Characteristics of Heritage Tourists ................................................... 7
2.6Categorization of Heritage Tourists ................................................................................. 8
2.7Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 11
3 Chapter III: Heritage Tourists’ Motivation ............................................................ 12
3.1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12
3.2Motivation in Tourism .................................................................................................... 12
3.3Heritage Tourists’ Motivation to Heritage Sites ............................................................ 15
3.4Summary ......................................................................................................................... 16
vi
4 Chapter IV: The Case Study: Hagia Sophia ............................................................ 17
4.1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17
4.2General Background of Hagia Sophia ............................................................................ 17
4.3Tourism in Hagia Sophia ................................................................................................ 17
4.4Summary ......................................................................................................................... 18
5 Chapter V: Methodology ........................................................................................... 19
5.1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 19
5.2Research aim and objectives........................................................................................... 19
5.3Research Philosophy and research approach .................................................................. 20
5.4Research Strategy ........................................................................................................... 21
5.5Research Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 21
5.5.1Hypothesis related to the relationships between tourists’ personal characteristics
and their perception of the site as part of their own heritage. ...................................... 21
5.5.2Hypothesis which clarify relationship between tourists’ visitation patterns and
tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage. ....................................... 22
5.5.3Hypothesis which clarify tourist’ personal characteristics and their visitation
patterns to the heritage site. .......................................................................................... 22
5.6Research Method ............................................................................................................ 22
5.7Sampling Design and Data Collection ........................................................................... 23
5.8Questionnaire design ...................................................................................................... 24
5.9Pilot Test ......................................................................................................................... 26
5.10Data Analysis Strategy ................................................................................................. 27
5.11Research Ethics............................................................................................................. 27
6 Chapter VI: Findings ................................................................................................. 28
6.1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 28
6.2Sample ............................................................................................................................ 28
6.3Demographic results ....................................................................................................... 28
6.4Results of visitation frequencies ..................................................................................... 30
vii
6.5Mean scores of tourists’ visitation patterns .................................................................... 32
6.6Hypotheses related to the relationships between tourists’ personal characteristics and
their perception of the site as part of their own heritage. .................................................... 33
6.6.1Test of Normality ................................................................................................. 33
6.6.2Test of Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) ............................................................ 35
6.6.2.1 Influence of country of birth ...................................................................... 35
6.6.2.2 Influence of religion ................................................................................... 35
6.6.2.3 Influence of strength of religious belief ..................................................... 36
6.7Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................... 37
6.8Hypothesis regarding tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage and
their visitation patterns ........................................................................................................ 38
6.8.1Test of Correlation between tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own
heritage and their visitation patterns ............................................................................ 38
6.8.1.1 Motivation .................................................................................................. 38
6.8.1.2 Experience ................................................................................................. 39
6.8.1.3 About the site ............................................................................................. 40
6.8.1.4 Future Intention .......................................................................................... 41
6.8.2Test of Analysis of Variances .............................................................................. 41
6.8.2.1 Motivation .................................................................................................. 41
6.8.2.2 About Experience ...................................................................................... 42
6.8.2.3 About the Site ............................................................................................ 43
6.8.2.4 Future Behaviour ....................................................................................... 44
6.9Hypothesis related to tourists’ personal characteristics and their visitation patterns ..... 45
6.9.1Test of Analysis of Variances .............................................................................. 45
6.9.1.1 Place of Birth ............................................................................................. 45
6.9.1.1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................ 45
6.9.1.1.2 Experience ............................................................................................ 46
6.9.1.1.3 About the site ....................................................................................... 47
viii
6.9.1.1.4 Future Intention .................................................................................... 48
6.9.1.2 Religion ...................................................................................................... 49
6.9.1.2.1 Motivation ............................................................................................ 49
6.9.1.2.2 Experience ............................................................................................ 50
6.9.1.2.3 About the site ....................................................................................... 51
6.9.1.2.4 Future Intention .................................................................................... 52
6.9.1.3 The strength of religious belief .................................................................. 53
6.9.1.3.1 Motivation ............................................................................................ 53
6.9.1.3.2 Heritage Experience ............................................................................. 53
6.9.1.3.3 About the site ....................................................................................... 54
6.9.1.3.4 Future Intention .................................................................................... 55
6.10Summary ....................................................................................................................... 56
7 Chapter VII: Discussion ............................................................................................ 57
7.1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 57
7.2Heritage visitors profile .................................................................................................. 57
7.3Tourist Motivation .......................................................................................................... 58
7.4Summary ......................................................................................................................... 59
8 Chapter VIII: Conclusion, Limitations and Future Recommendations ............... 60
8.1Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 60
8.2Future recommendations ................................................................................................ 61
8.3Limitations of the study .................................................................................................. 62
References ........................................................................................................................... 63
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix i: The list of nationalities ................................................................................ 70
Appendix ii: Mean scores for the motivation .................................................................. 72
Appendix iii: Mean scores for the tourists’ experience at the site.................................... 74
Appendix iv: Mean scores related to heritage site attributes ............................................ 75
ix
Appendix v: Mean scores of tourists’ future behaviours ................................................. 76
Appendix vi: Factor analysis of tourists’ motivation items .............................................. 77
Appendix vii: Questionnaire form (English version) ........................................................ 78
Appendix viii: Questionnaire form (French version) ......................................................... 80
Appendix ix: Questionnaire form (Greek version) ........................................................... 82
Appendix x: Questionnaire form (Turkish version) ........................................................ 84
Appendix xi: Ethical issues in Research .......................................................................... 86
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of heritage / Cultural tourist categorisation ........................................ 11
Table 5-1 Objectives of the study ........................................................................................ 19
Table 5-2: Purposes of pilot study ....................................................................................... 26
Table 5-3: Statistical methods used in the research ............................................................. 27
Table 6-1: Presentation of demographics ............................................................................ 30
Table 6-2: Respondents’ visitation frequencies................................................................... 31
Table 6-3: Test of Normality ............................................................................................... 34
Table 6-4: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their perception of the site as
part of their own heritage..................................................................................................... 35
Table 6-5: Differences between tourists’ religion and their perception of the site as part of
their own heritage ................................................................................................................ 36
Table 6-6: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their perception of
the site as part of their own heritage .................................................................................... 37
Table 6-7: Correlation analysis between tourists’ motivation factors and tourists’
perceptions of the site in relation to their own heritage ...................................................... 39
Table 6-8: Correlation analysis between tourists’ experience at the heritage site and their
perception of the site in relation to their own heritage ........................................................ 40
Table 6-9: Correlation analysis between tourists’ perception of the heritage site and tourists
perception of the site in relation to their own heritage ........................................................ 41
Table 6-10: Correlation analysis between tourists future intentions towards the heritage site
and Tourists perception of the site in relation to their own heritage ................................... 41
Table 6-11: Differences between tourists’ perception of the heritage site as part of their
own heritage and tourists’ motivation to Hagia Sophia ...................................................... 42
Table 6-12: Differences between tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own
heritage and their experience at the site............................................................................... 43
Table 6-13: Differences between tourists’ perception of the site their own heritage and
their perception of the heritage site ..................................................................................... 44
Table 6-14: Differences between tourists’ perceptions of the heritage site as part of their
own heritage and tourists’ future intention towards the heritage site. ................................. 45
Table 6-15: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their motivation to the site . 46
Table 6-16: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their experience of the
heritage site .......................................................................................................................... 47
xi
Table 6-17: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their perception of the site . 48
Table 6-18: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their future intention .......... 49
Table 6-19: Differences between tourists’ religion and their motivation to the heritage site.
............................................................................................................................................. 50
Table 6-20: Differences between tourists’ religion and their perception of the heritage site
experience ............................................................................................................................ 51
Table 6-21: Differences between tourists’ religion and their perception of the heritage site
............................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 6-22 Differences between tourists’ religion and their future intention ..................... 52
Table 6-23: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their motivation
to the heritage site ................................................................................................................ 53
Table 6-24: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their perception
of the heritage site experience ............................................................................................. 54
Table 6-25: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their perception
of the heritage site................................................................................................................ 55
Table 6-26: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their future
intention ............................................................................................................................... 56
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Cultural tourist categorisation. ........................................................................... 9
Figure 2-2 Classification of heritage cultural tourists ......................................................... 10
Figure 3-1: Travel Career Ladder ........................................................................................ 14
Figure 4-1: The number of visitors to Hagia Sophia (2007-2013) ...................................... 18
Figure 6-1: Research sample ............................................................................................... 28
Figure 6-2: Respondents’ answers distribution ................................................................... 34
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA One-way Analysis of Variance
WOM Word of Mouth
1
1 Chapter I: Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Often, the word “heritage” is linked with the term “inheritance” that is something is passed
through from the previous generation to a new generation (Nuryanti, 1996). Park (2014,
p.22) concluded that heritage can be defined as transferring both tangible and intangible
outcomes of the past from one to another generation. These outcomes stimulate millions of
international or domestic tourists to other places to experience heritage. In the context of
tourism, the term “heritage” is not associated with only landscapes, historic buildings,
cultural traditions and artefacts, but those things which can be represented for promotion as
a tourism product (Prentice, 1993).
On the other hand, tourists’ interest in the landscapes, historical monuments and artefacts
and cultural traditions can be seen as the supply side of the heritage tourism. Tourists’
motivations, preferences and attitudes, therefore, can be used as a measure of heritage
presented at the destination (Prentice, 1993, p.6). The studies of heritage tourism based on
the demand side are centred upon tourists’ experiences at the heritage sites (Poria et al.,
2004 and Timothy, 1997). However, Pearce (1987) stated that tourist’s motivation and
demand to heritage have been receiving the least attention from the researchers to date.
Heritage tourists are the subject to understand heritage tourism from the demand side.
Heritage tourist is defined conceptually as the tourists who visit cultural and heritage sites
(Garrod and Fyall, 2001) and experiences heritage (Pierce, 1993). Besides this, the linkage
between tourist and heritage is also crucial for understanding heritage tourists. A definition
of Poria et al. (2001) which sees heritage tourists who visit a heritage site because of
tourists’ perception of the heritage place as part of their personal heritage can be illustrated
for this linkage. All the definitions regarding heritage tourists show that the definition of
heritage is subjective and there is a little agreement on it (Goh, 2010).
1.2 Objectives of the study
The aim of this research is to better understand of tourists’ motivation to visit the heritage
sites. This research is based on the research of Poria et al. (2001, 2004), who argues that
there is a link between the tourist perception of heritage place as part of their personal
heritage and their motivation to visit the site. To do this, specific objectives were
determined as below;
2
Whether the tourists’ perceptions of the site as part of the their own heritage is
associated with the tourist’s personal characteristics
What are the motivating factors that influence tourists’ motivation for visiting a
heritage site?
Whether the visitation patterns at the site is associated with the travellers’
perception of the site as part of their own heritage.
To achieve the objectives, several elements were added to the research. First, the heritage
site was determined by taking into consideration of the tourists’ perception. Thus, Hagia
Sophia, which is an important heritage site for both Greek and Turkish tourists, was chosen
to conduct the research. Second, Greek and Turkish tourists were involved in the research
as well as other international tourists. Finally, the high season was determined as the data
collection period since the number of tourists is higher during the summer period.
1.3 Structure of the study
This research consists of 8 chapters. The details of the each chapter are presented as below;
Chapter 1 is the introduction. It involves the background of the heritage tourism and
research objectives determined by the researcher. Finally, it presents the general structure
of the study.
Chapter 2 is the literature review regarding heritage tourism. This chapter involves the
definitions of the heritage, heritage tourism and heritage tourists. Further, the
characteristics of heritage tourists and categorisation of heritage tourists can be found in
this part.
Chapter 3 starts with the presentation of general motivation theories in the context of
tourism. Then, the heritage tourists’ motivation is discussed in its broad meaning within
this chapter.
Chapter 4 introduces the heritage site Hagia Sophia. It involves the history of the site and
its importance as a heritage site for the tourists.
Chapter 5 introduces the methodology that was used to conduct this research. It involves
research approach, research method, hypotheses, questionnaire design, data collection and
pilot study of the research.
3
Chapter 6 presents the main findings of the research. In this chapter, it can be seen the
statistical methods that were applied in order to test hypotheses for this research.
Chapter 7 is the part for discussion of the findings. In this chapter, the comparison of the
findings of this study was done with the previous studies in the literature.
Chapter 8 involves the conclusion, limitation and recommendations of this research.
4
2 Chapter II: Heritage Tourism
2.1 Introduction
Heritage tourism is regarded as one of the oldest types of tourism, which dates back to
historical periods of soldiers, explorers or traders (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Today,
heritage tourism is one of the most common and widespread of tourism types that attracts
millions of tourists to heritage sites (Timothy, 2011).
This chapter aims to provide some fundamental information regarding heritage tourism. It
first starts by giving the some basic definitions of heritage, heritage tourism and heritage
tourist. Then, it underlines heritage tourists’ characteristics and types of heritage tourists.
Finally, it ends with the categorisation of heritage tourists made by different researchers.
2.2 Defining Heritage
Heritage, which is literally defined as “anything has been or may be inherited from the
past” (OED, 1989), has been seen an important tourism product by many researcher (Yale,
1991, Prince, 1993). Nuryanti (1996) defined the term heritage in its broader meaning
which is related to “inheritance” and it means something passed down from one generation
to another. In other words, it is how we use the history in present-day (Boyd, 2008,
Ashwoorth, 2003). From the above explanations, It can be drawn the meaning of heritage
is linked to the history and anything from the past transferred to current and future
generations such as cultural traditions and physical objects. However, Howard (2003)
argued that heritage can be considered anything that someone wants to transfer from past
to future. Similarly, Sharpley (1993, 132) mentioned the term heritage is what we wanted
to inherit from our past and heritage is linked with everything regarding a nation’s history
such as culture, nature, environment. Additionally, Boyd (2008) claims that heritage is
what we wish to keep from our past and it is selective based on a cultural value that is
given by community and economic value which is given by the tourist.
Timothy and Boyd (2003) attempted to classify the heritage as tangible and intangible
resources. Furthermore, they divided tangible resources into two which are tangible
immovable resources such as historic buildings, rivers and other natural resources and
movable resources such as objects presented in museums and other documents in the
archives. Intangible heritage is considered the culture, values and customs of the countries.
After heritage became closely associated with tourism, the variety of heritage sites has
increased (Herbert, 1995). To illustrate this, Prentice (1993, p.5) asserted “ Essentially in
5
tourism, the term “heritage” has come to mean not only landscapes, natural or historical
buildings, artefacts, cultural traditions and the like which are literally or metaphorically
passed on from one generation to the other, but those among these things which can be
portrayed for promotion as tourism product”.
2.3 Defining Heritage Tourism
Heritage tourism received a great deal of attention from many researchers (Garrod and
Fyall, 1998; Herbert 2001; Poria et al., 2001, Chhabra et al., 2003) and has been one of the
fastest growing areas to study (Yankholmes and Akyeampong, 2010, Boyd, 2008,
Timothy, 1997). However, it is agreed that defining heritage tourism is a complex
phenomenon and there is not settled definition of it (Chhabra, 2010; Howard, 2003;
Prentice, 1993). In general, academics attempted to define the heritage tourism from the
supply and demand sides.
From the supply side, heritage tourism may be defined as representing the tangible and
intangible culture and heritage remains (Garrod and Fyall, 2001; Nuryanti, 1996). A broad
definition was made by Yale (1991) who suggest that heritage tourism is tourism-based
activity on what we have inherited from the history. As Timothy and Boyd (2003) refers
these tangible remains might be historic buildings, heritage sites, artefacts while intangible
remains may be considered traditions and cultures of the countries. Similarly, heritage
tourism is defined by Bonn et al. (2007) as visiting different cultural or heritage involved
areas including museums, heritage sites, cities, archaeological areas, monuments and
castles. Another approach was taken by Swarbrooke (1994) and heritage tourism was
defined as tourism type where heritage is the core of the tourism product and heritage is the
main motivator of the tourists. In addition to this, According to Swarbrooke (1994)
heritage tourism includes these elements
Historic structures and memorials,
Significant historic event sites battle sites
Traditional sceneries and native wildlife
Arts and Literature
Cultural events and Folklore perform
Traditional food, drink and sport activities.
6
On the other hand, from the demand side, heritage tourism is based on the consumer
perception, motivation and experiences and how they consume heritage resources
(Chhabra, 2010; Moscardo, 2001, Poria et al., 2001). For instance, Poria et al. (2001)
proposed a definition for heritage tourism which is “heritage tourism is a subgroup of
tourism, in which the main motivation for visiting a site is based on the place’s heritage
characteristics according to the tourist’s perception of their own heritage”. Another
demand-side definition was made by Zeppel and Hall (1992, 78), who claims that heritage
tourism is a specialty travel based on past and nostalgia and it is a wish to practice culture.
Chhabra et al., (2003, 703) claim that “In terms of demand, heritage tourism is
representative of many contemporary visitors’ desire to directly experience and consume
diverse past and present cultural landscapes, performances, foods, handicrafts, and
participatory activities”.
2.4 Heritage Tourists
Today, there are limited research on understanding the characteristics of heritage tourists
and there is a need for wider field research to grasp better of heritage tourists’ profiles
(Prentice, 1993). A general definition was made by Garrod and Fyall (2001) who claims
that heritage tourists are the tourist who visit cultural and heritage sites. However, more
specific definition was made by Poria et al. (2001) who argue that heritage tourists should
be defined the tourist who visit the heritage sites that are associated with their own
heritage. This definition was highly criticized by Garrod and Fyall (2001) because it does
not consider the tourist who visit heritage sites that are associated with someone else’s
heritage. In the literature, heritage tourists are grouped according to their demographic and
geographic characteristics (Timothy and Boyd, 2003).
2.5 Characteristics of Heritage Tourists
2.5.1 Demographic Characteristics of Heritage Tourists
According to some research relevant to heritage tourism, heritage tourist are likely to have
a higher education level than other type of tourists (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). For
instance, a research conducted by Richards (1996) shows that the majority of the heritage
tourists in Europe have a higher education level. However, Huh, Uysal and McClearly
(2006) found in their research which was conducted with 200 heritage visitors, although
one third of the participants had graduate degrees, the majority of the participants had
college degrees.
7
Similarly, Chen (1998) found in his research in a heritage park shows that heritage tourists
are more likely to have a college degree. A possible reason for this can be that the
education level of heritage tourists might differ according to countries Similarly,
Kersletter, Confer and Greafe (2001) attempted to identify heritage tourist types and they
found that heritage tourists are generally well-educated. Likewise Kersletter et al. (2001),
Poria, Butler and Airey (2003) found that almost 70% of the visitors who visit a heritage
site in Israel had an undergraduate or graduate level education. To sum up these findings, it
can be drawn that heritage tourists are more likely to study a higher degree at the
university.
In terms of gender, there are different findings. For example Huh, Uysal and McClearly
(2006) found that there is a similar amount of gender visiting heritage sites. However, the
general perception is there are more female visitors than male visitors to heritage sites
(Timothy and Boyd, 2003). However, there is also research that shows that the male
visitors are more than female visitors to heritage sites (Kersletter et al. 2001). This
different findings show that gender differences may change from heritage site to heritage
site.
Some research show that visitors of the heritage sites are relatively older than other type of
tourists. For example, Kersletter et al. (2001) found in their study that American tourist
who visit a heritage site in Pennsylvania, USA are relatively older. Similarly, Huh et al.
(2006) examined the tourist satisfaction from a historic site in Virginia and the revealed
that dominant group who visit the site was 38-47 years old and older ages. On the other
hand, Poria, Brand and Reichel (2007) investigated the tourist motivation of visiting a
multi-heritage capital city, Jerusalem, and they found that the mode age group was 20-29
years old which accounts for 27% of all 213 interviewers.
2.5.2 Geographic Characteristics of Heritage Tourists
The scale of a heritage site determines the geographic characteristic of a visitors, whether
they are domestic or international (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). While places which are
famous worldwide would draw higher numbers of tourists’ attention, smaller regional
heritage areas would bring more domestic tourists and local visitors. Perhaps, one reason
for this is that they are close to heritage sites already (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Robinson
et al. (1994) divided heritage tourists into several groups based on their places of origin.
The first group is “the local residents” who are living very close to heritage sites and who
8
make generally daily trips to sites. The second group is “the domestic tourists” who spend
an overnight at the destination and visit the heritage sites. The last group is “the
international tourists” who originally come from other countries. According to the survey
which was conducted by Richards (1996) international tourists are dominant group who
visit heritage sites in Europe. According to this research, the percentage of heritage tourists
visiting the heritage sites is 57, while domestic tourists account for 28% in the same
research. However, this percentage may differ the places where heritage site is located. In
addition to this, research may deliberately ignore the local tourist and only include the
research international tourist. To illustrate this, Poria et al. (2006) conducted their research
only among international tourists who visit a heritage site in Israel.
2.6 Categorization of Heritage Tourists
Tourist classification might become a useful tool to grasp heritage tourists, and explain
their behaviour (Isaac, 2008). Furthermore, some research revealed that heritage tourists
possess different motivations, behaviours and experiences (McKercher, 2002, Prentice,
1993). As there are similarities between heritage and cultural tourists, the classification of
cultural tourists is also included in this research.
Silberberg (1995) categorised cultural tourist into four groups according to their level of
interest to visit the heritage sites. These are accidental cultural tourist, adjunct cultural
tourist, in part cultural tourist and greatly cultural tourist. According to Silberberg (1995)
accidental cultural tourists are the people who visit a heritage site, although initially there
was not any intention or plan to visit this site. So, maybe they came across the site
accidentally. The second type of cultural tourists is adjunct cultural tourist for whom
culture is an “adjunct” motivation (Nguyen and Cheung, 2014). A tourist who visits a
destination for both cultural reasons and other reasons such as leisure or business are
considered as in part cultural tourists. Finally, the tourist who visits a heritage site for
cultural reasons such as visiting museums, heritage sites or cultural activities, which means
that “culture” is the main motivation, are considered as greatly cultural tourists.
9
Figure 2-1: Cultural tourist categorisation (Silberberg, 1995)
Other research shows that heritage tourists may be classified into three types based on the
significance of heritage tourism in their selections of visits (Shifflet and Associates, 1999).
The categorisation of tourists was formed based on the level of importance that were rated
by the heritage tourists who visited Pennsylvania. The first group is “core heritage
traveller” those who are most dedicated heritage tourists. It might be considered that the
motivation of this tourist to heritage site is highest among other groups. The second group
is called “moderate heritage traveller” those who decide to visit a heritage site for the
heritage itself as well as other reasons. The last group is “low heritage travellers” those
who choose to visit the heritage site’s destination for other reasons and they are least
dedicated tourist types to visit heritage sites. In other words, they are non-heritage tourists.
McKercher (2002) uses two dimensions in order to classify heritage tourists. The first
dimension is the importance of cultural motives for tourist who are willing to visit a
specific destination. The second dimension is the depth of information or the level or
engagement with the attraction (McKercher, 2002). Similar to other researchers Shifflet
and Associates (1999) and Silberberg (1995), McKercher (2002) argues that cultural or
heritage tourism can be the main motivation factor for tourists who visit a cultural or
heritage site. On the other hand, the level of commitment to the heritage site can be based
on some factors such as level of education, awareness of site, interest in the site, the special
10
meaning of heritage sites to tourists and time availability to visit the site (McKercher,
2002). Based on the two dimensions, 5 categories were formed by McKercher (2002) in
order to group the heritage tourists. The first group is “purposeful cultural tourists” who
have profound cultural or heritage tourism experience and their main reason to visit a
heritage site is to learn regarding culture or heritage. The second group is “sightseeing
cultural tourists who visit a heritage site for leisure. Another group is “casual heritage
visitors” for whom the heritage is a limited motivating factor to visit the destination.
Similarly, “incidental cultural tourists” visit a cultural or heritage site while their primary
reason is not heritage. The last group “serendipitous cultural tourists” who initially visit a
destination for another reason, but they have deep knowledge and interest in the heritage
itself. This model was employed by Nguyen and Cheun (2014) in a study in Vietnam. It
was found that while the majority of the international tourists were “sightseeing cultural
visitors”, domestic tourists were grouped in “purposeful heritage visitors”.
Figure 2-2 Classification of heritage cultural tourists (McKercher, 2002)
When Poria, Butler and Airey (2001) tried to define heritage tourism in terms of the
demand side, they identified three different tourists: “those visiting what they consider as a
heritage site though it is unconnected with their own heritage”; “those visiting a place they
deem to be part of their heritage, even though it may not be categorized as a heritage site”
11
and “those visiting a site specifically classified as a heritage place despite being unaware of
this designation”.
Table 2-1 Summary of heritage / Cultural tourist categorisation
Author(s) (year) Criteria Tourists categories
Silberberg (1995) The level of interest in
visiting cultural heritage sites
Accidental cultural tourists
Adjunct cultural tourists
In part cultural tourists
Greatly cultural tourists
Shifflet and Associates
(1999)
The importance of heritage
tourism in their choice of visit
Core heritage traveller
Moderate heritage traveller
Low heritage traveller
McKercher (2002) The importance of cultural
motives and the depth of
information
Purposeful cultural tourist
Sightseeing cultural tourist
Casual cultural tourist
Incidental cultural tourist
Serendipitous cultural tourist
Poria et al. (2001) Official categorization/
personal perspective toward a
heritage site
Considered as heritage site/
unconnected
Not categorized as a heritage
site/ their own heritage
Classified as a heritage site /
unaware
Table derived from Nguyen and Cheung (2014)
2.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter summarises basic definitions of the some important terms related to heritage
tourism. First of all, it should be noted that heritage tourism complex and ambiguous and
there is not a common definition for heritage tourism (Gordon, 2004). However, it can be
concluded that heritage tourism means basically to present remains from nations’ own
history. Furthermore, heritage tourists can be defined as tourists who visit cultural and
heritage sites. As it is summarised by Silberberg (1995) cultural/heritage tourists are likely
to earn more money. They are also supposed to have a generally higher education and they
are in older age groups comparing to other types of tourists.
12
3 Chapter III: Heritage Tourists’ Motivation
3.1 Introduction
This chapter starts with the explanation of the general tourist motivation theories and lists the
studies related to those theories. Many authors applied motivation theories to better understand
tourists’ motivation factors for visiting a specific destination. Then, it can be found that heritage
tourists’ motivation for visiting heritage sites. Understanding the heritage or cultural tourists’
motives is important for destination managers.
3.2 Motivation in Tourism
Most of the discussions in the tourism literature are related to “push” “pull” factor theory
which was proposed by Dann (1977) and employed by other academics (Baloglu and
Uysal, 1996, Crompton, 1979 and Kim and Lee, 2002). Basically, Dann (1977) attempted
to answer the question what makes people travel. Two types of factors were identified by
Dann (1977) which are push factors that makes people leave home and “pull” factors that
features of the destination that attract people to visit a destination. After having
interviewed of 422 people, Dann (1977) concluded two push factors which are anomie and
ego-enhancement, which were related to social interaction and social recognition. Baloglu
and Uysal (1996) suggested that push factors are intangible desires or wishes of tourists
while pull factors are more associated with the tangible attributes of the destination.
Similarly, Crompton (1979) adopted the same theory and identified 9 motivation factors
and grouped them into two. According to Crompton (1979), there are seven push factors in
the first group which are escaping from the perceived mundane environment, exploration
and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship
relationships and facilitation of social interaction. In the second group, two motivation
factors exist which are novelty and education.
Another research conducted by Yuan and McDonald (1990) examined the tourists’
motivations to overseas destinations by applying the concept of push and pull factors. The
data were collected from four different countries, namely United Kingdom, Japan, France
and Germany. The results show that there are 5 push factors which includes escape,
novelty, prestige, enhancement of kinship relations and relaxation/hobbies. Among these
motivational factors, novelty was chosen as the most important motivational factor.
Furthermore, Yuan and McDonald (1990) identified 7 pull factors: budget, culture and
history, wilderness, ease to travel, cosmopolitan environment, facilities and hunting.
13
Iso-Ahola (1982) proposed another tourist motivation theory that involves two elements:
seeking and escaping. Seeking can be considered to wish to leave the ordinary atmosphere
while escaping is to desire to gain psychological rewards by travelling to a new location.
According to Iso-Ahola (1982) “whether a person chooses and accepts the former or latter
force or both as his primary reason or goal travelling determines the selection of specific
plans and behaviours for achieving the goal”. Furthermore, Iso-Ahola (1982) subdivided
these 2 elements into two which are personal and interpersonal. Thus, a tourist may be
motivated from escaping from the personal world (such as problems, troubles or failures)
or interpersonal world (co-workers, family and relatives). Moreover, tourist may be
motivated from seeking a personal rewards (such as learning about other cultures,
relaxation) and interpersonal rewards (social interaction, such as interaction with new
people or other tourists in the group).
Dunn and Iso-Ahola (1991) conducted a survey among 225 tourists who took a bus trip in
Washington DC. The study aimed to understand motivation and satisfaction dimensions of
sightseeing tourists in USA. The results indicated that there are six motivational
dimensions which include: general knowledge, social interaction, escape, impulsive
decision, specific knowledge and shopping for souvenirs. Their research concluded that
seeking dimensions (Knowledge seeking and social interaction) are very important
motivational factors for sightseeing tourists.
In the tourism literature Maslow’s (1954) “hierarchy of needs” has been adopted by many
researchers to understand tourist motivation (Pearce, 1988, 1991 and 1993, Pearce and
Caltabiano, 1983). According to this theory, it was developed a “travel career ladder” that
include five stages of tourist motivation. These stages are relaxation needs, safety/security
needs, relationship needs, self-esteem and development needs and self-
actualization/fulfilment needs (Pearce, 1988). Holden (2005) explains each stage of the
travel career ladder. The first step is the physiological needs of tourist and it is the need of
the relaxation and rest. Then, tourists may seek to travel safety areas and where they feel
themselves in a secure environment. In addition to this, tourists may develop new
relationships and interactions with other people during the holiday. Besides these stages,
tourist may build self-esteem through participating travel activities and organisations.
Finally, the last level of the career ladder, self-actualisation, can be realised by leisure
environment during the holiday and travel. It should be noted that tourists are not regarded
to have only one stage of motivations, but some of the stages in the career ladder may be
14
dominant motivation factors (Pearce and Lee, 2005). It is also argued that the motivation of
the tourist may change with their travel experiences (Pearce and Lee, 2005).
Figure 3-1: Travel Career Ladder
Source: Pierce (1993)
Several empirical studies show that the travel career ladder can be a useful tool in
understanding the tourist motivation to the destination (Kim, 1997, Loker-Murphy, 1997
and Pearce and Lee, 2005, Paris and Teye, 2010). Kim (1997) used the concept travel
career ladder to understand Korean tourists’ motivation to visit Australia. Kim (1997)
confirmed that the travel career ladder model is an appropriate theory to understand
tourists’ motivation. Loker-Murphy, (1998) investigated travel motivations of backpackers
based on the Pearce’s Travel career ladder theory and he found that backpackers were
primarily motivated by the need for excitement, adventure and meeting the local people.
Another similar research was conducted by Paris and Teye (2010) among the backpackers
and they found that there are six dimensions of backpackers’ motivations. Four of them are
personal/social growth, experience, budget travel and independence, which are in relation
to travel experience. Two of the motivations which are cultural knowledge and relaxation,
were found as important travel motivations of the backpackers. Pearce and Caltabiano
(1983) also found that tourists, who follow a travel career and are more experienced, need
a higher level of needs. However, Pearce (1988) “travel career ladder” model also received
15
criticism from other researchers. For example, Ryan (1997) argued that the travel career
model is very simplistic in its understanding tourist’s motivation.
3.3 Heritage Tourists’ Motivation to Heritage Sites
There are some studies which try to understand heritage tourists’ motivation (Chen, 1998,
Confer and Kersttetter, 2000, Richards, 2001). To illustrate this, Chen (1998) found that
heritage tourists possess two different motivation factors, namely searching for knowledge
and individual benefits. In the study of Chen (1998), participants expressed that learning
about a new culture and nature as well as increasing personal knowledge were primary
reasons to visit heritage sites. Another research carried out by Confer and Kerstetter (2000)
shows that heritage tourists are interested in culture, heritage and ethnicity as one of their
travel motivations to heritage sites. These researches indicate that pursuing to new
knowledge and satisfying curiosity about heritage sites can be considered the important
motivational factors for heritage tourists (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). The second
motivation factor of Chen (1998) study is individual benefits which include a variety of
motivations. According to Chen (1998) tourists may intend to visit a specific heritage site
because they perceive some health benefits, they want to relax, they believe that they may
acquire some spiritual rewards and they enjoy sightseeing of the heritage sites. Richards
(2001) study shows similar results as well as difference between local tourists’ motivation
and other tourists. For example, while some tourists visit a heritage site because of
relaxation or learning new things reasons, local tourists are motivated to visit a heritage
site by business.
Research in the context of heritage tourism shows that heritage tourists are motivated by
different factors (Ashworth, 2001). Prentice (1993) suggested six different motivations in
his study of heritage tourists. These are pleasure of viewing, education, information,
relaxation, entertainment and exercise. However, it was argued that these motivations can
be useful to understand cultural tourism and it is not associated with heritage presented
which is considered as important for heritage tourism. It is argued that most of the research
to understand heritage tourists’ motivation are descriptive and non-empirical (Poria et al.,
2006). Poria et al. (2006) summarised the review of the heritage tourism motivation studies
(Ashworth, 2001 and Timothy, 1997) and argued that there are two types of heritage
tourism motivations. The first category is linked with individuals (such as to learn new
things or to be involved in a recreation activity with other people) while second category
involves with the attributes of the heritage site (such as location). Kersletter, Confer and
16
Graefe (2001) listed several motives which include learning (education), experiencing,
authentic features, historically important people, curiosity in heritage, culture or ethnicity
and visiting other sites in the area. However, Moscardo (1996) combined these different
motives in three main groups which are educational motives, entertainment motives and
social motives.
Another research conducted by Poria et al. (2006) identified 5 main drives for a visit to a
heritage site: learning, connecting with my own heritage, leisure pursuit, bequeathing for
children and emotional involvement. Similar to Prentice (1993), Poria et al. (2006) also
found that education is the main motivation factor for heritage tourists. This shows that the
findings of the research are congruent with other research. However, two motivations
identified by Poria et al. (2006) namely bequeathing the children and emotional
involvement have not been identified in the previous research. This might be the way of
approaching to study, which is considered that visiting the heritage sites is a recreational
activity (Poria et al., 2006). In another research it was found that as well as the heritage
site attributes play a crucial role in heritage tourists’ motivation, the perception of heritage
sites as tourists’ own heritage is the central to understand tourists’ motivation to heritage
sites (Poria, 2001a, 2001b; Poria et al., 2001a, 2001b). Their research is consistent with
previous research (Poria, Butler and Airey, 2000, 2001, 2003). This shows that the
meaning of the heritage site is central to heritage tourists’ motivation. In addition to this,
Poria et al. (2004) found also tourists seek to enhance their knowledge when they visit a
heritage site and recreational reasons play the least important role.
3.4 Summary
To sum up, motivation in the tourism literature received a great deal of attention from the
academics. However, there is not any agreement on tourists’ motivation to visit a specific
place. In the context of the heritage tourism, the tourists’ motivation is complex and
ambiguous. However, the general perception that tourists desire to learn and have a
recreation, so they visit a heritage site. However, the significance of the heritage site
attributes should not be disregarded to understand the phenomena.
17
4 Chapter IV: The Case Study: Hagia Sophia
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a general background regarding the heritage site’s history. It also
involves why this heritage site is important for visitors. Finally, it can be found the visitor
numbers on the heritage site.
4.2 General Background of Hagia Sophia
Today, Hagia Sophia is an important place for both Christians and Muslims because of its
historical background. The church’s history dates back to The Eastern Roman Empire.
First, the site was built as the biggest Church by The Eastern Roman Empire in the name of
Megale Ekklesia in Constantinople (Istanbul) by Emperor Konstantios in 360. (Emre,
2014). However, the first church was destroyed in 404 and rebuilt in 415. After the second
church was built, the name of the church was changed to Hagia Sophia which literally
means Holy Wisdom (Emre, 2014). The church was again ruined by the riot (Nika revolts)
which organised in the fifth year of emperor Justinianos’ reign (527-565). Finally, emperor
Justinianos ordered the reconstruction of the Hagia Sophia in 532 and construction was
completed in five years and Hagia Sophia was inaugurated in 537 with the ceremony. The
current structure was constructed by Isidoros and Anthemios who are the famous architect
of their time (Ayasofya Muzesi, 2014).
Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque after Fatih Sultan Mehmed’s conquer in 1453
(Ayasofya Muzesi, 2014). The structure remained as a mosque till the collapse of The
Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. During the management of The
Ottoman Empire, the structure was preserved well and added new minarets by Mimar
Sinan in order to use as a mosque. However, after the fall of The Ottoman Empire, Hagia
Sophia was renovated into a museum. After Hagia Sophia was converted into a museum,
original Christian mosaics were restored and Christian and Islamic remains were started to
be displayed in the museum (Ayasofya Muzesi, 2014).
4.3 Tourism in Hagia Sophia
Hagia Sophia plays an important role in attracting tourists. According to visitor
information given by the museum administration, there were 3,326,591 tourists who visit
Hagia Sophia in 2013 (Ayasofya Muzesi, 2014). Moreover, the information involves the
monthly visitor numbers which is higher during the spring and summer season between
18
the months April and October. This is significant since, Hagia Sophia ranks the second
tourism attraction in terms of visitor numbers.
Figure 4-1: The number of visitors to Hagia Sophia (2007-2013)
Source: www.ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr (2014)
4.4 Summary
To sum up, Hagia Sophia is believed as an appropriate heritage site because of its history
and visitor numbers. It is also believed that the research will provide usable information
regarding heritage tourism. From the tourist perspective, the perception of the tourists
about heritage site can contribute to tourism literature.
19
5 Chapter V: Methodology
5.1 Introduction
This section aims to provide a detailed explanation of the methodology that used for
carrying out the research. In order to do this, it starts by giving information regarding the
research aims and objectives with the research philosophy and research approach. It can
also be found research’s questions which are going to be dealt with and hypotheses that
will be tested in the following chapter. Finally, the data collection period and research
instruments will be explained in detail at the end of this chapter.
5.2 Research aim and objectives
The main aim of this research is to investigate motivating factors of tourists to visiting a
heritage site. Research questions were formed by using existing theory. Raimond (1993)
argued that for most research it is important that the problems within the research are
capable of being linked to the theory. Gill and Johnson (2002) defined the theory as a
formulation two or more variables’ relationships which can be tested or not. Poria et al.
(2003) claim that the tourist perception of the heritage presented on the site is linked to
their visitation patterns. This research attempts to explore whether relationship they
identified can be found in another site where heritage plays a significant role in stimulating
tourists. In this research, research objectives were determined as above;
Table 5-1 Objectives of the study
Objective 1 To identify whether the tourists’ perceptions of the site as part of
their own heritage are associated with the tourist’s personal
characteristics
Objective 2 To capture the motivation factors that influence tourists to
visiting the heritage sites
Objective 3 To identify whether the visitation patterns at the site are
associated with the tourists’ perception of the site as part of their
own heritage
With the first objective, it is aimed to be discovered that tourists’ personal characteristics
such as place of birth, religion and the strength of religious belief may have an effect on
visitors’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage. To achieve this objective, two
nationalities namely Greek and Turkish were also included in the sample as well as other
20
nationalities (see Appendix 1). The history of heritage site shows us that the site was
initially a Christian church. After taking over by The Ottoman Empire, it had been used as
a Mosque for a long time. Taking consideration of this information, it is aimed to obtain
information regarding the participants’ religion. Thus, it can be investigated whether the
travellers’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage is linked to tourists’ religion.
The purpose of second objective is to understand the factors which motivate tourists to
visit a heritage site. Poria et al. (2004) argued that there are two most common reasons in
the literature that motivate tourists to visit a heritage site. These are educational reasons
(e.g. learning new things and increasing personal knowledge) and entertainment reasons
(e.g. the tourists’ willingness to be entertained and day out). Several questions were asked
in the survey in order to learn to what extent these factors motivate tourists to visit the
heritage site Hagia Sophia.
Last objective aims to identify if there is a relationship between tourists who perceive the
heritage site as part of their own heritage and their visitation patterns. Questions designed
to clarify the reasons for visiting the heritage sites. To do that, there are 26 six items
related to understand of tourists’ visitation patterns (motivation, experience, heritage site
attributes and future intentions). Furthermore, tourists are asked to what extent they
consider the heritage site as part of their own heritage. This can give us a more detail
information the relationship between the variables.
5.3 Research Philosophy and research approach
Research philosophy is imperative in conducting a research as it demonstrates how the
researcher perceive the world (Easterby-Smith and et al., 2009). This research adopts a
positivist approach to understand tourists’ motivation to the heritage sites. Positivism is “a
framework of research, similar to that adopted by natural scientists, in which the
researcher sees the people as phenomena to be studied from the outside, with behaviour to
be explained on the basis of facts and observations gathered by the researcher, using
theories and models developed by the researcher” (Veal, 2006:37). Furthermore, in the
positivist approach, the researcher needs the quantifiable observations that can be
statistically analysed (Saunders et al., 2009). In this research, it is also aimed to collect a
large amount of sample to generalise the results. The features of the positivist approach
show that it is a suitable approach to understand tourists’ motivation.
21
In this research, besides choosing positivism as a research philosophy, deductive approach
will be employed for the study by the researcher. Deductive is a research approach in order
to test theories and hypothesis that developed from existing literature and facts (Saunders
et al., 2009). Robson (2002) argued 5 stages of deductive research progress: (1) deducing a
hypothesis which derived from existing theory, (2) stating the hypothesis in an operational
terms that suggest a relationship between two variables, (3) testing the hypothesis, (4)
examining the results of the test and (5) if it is possible, modifying the theory with the new
findings. It is believed that deductive approach will help to understand the hypothesis
developed to understand tourists’ motivation factors.
5.4 Research Strategy
Research strategy is the plan of action to attain the purpose of the study and it enables
researcher answer his or her research questions (Saunders et al., 2012, p.173).
Furthermore, it is the methodological connection between research philosophy and the way
of data gathering and analysing (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). A single case study was
employed in this research. As Saunders et al. (2012, p. 179) stated “A case study explores
a research topic or phenomenon within its context, or within a number of real life context.
Additionally, a single case study is used when it exemplifies a critical case or extreme or
unique case (Saunders et al., 2009, p.179). While the weakness of the case study is to find
the accurate context to analyse (Yin, 2003), the strength of the case study is it gives the
rich understanding of the context (Saunders et al., 2009, p.179). Considering the advantage
of this strategy, case study strategy was found suitable for this research.
5.5 Research Hypotheses
After formulating the research questions, next step is to formulate the research hypotheses
that will be tested in order to understand tourists’ motivation to visit a heritage site.
Furthermore, hypotheses were formed in order to understand if there is a relationship
between tourists’ perception of a site as part of their own heritage and tourists’ visitation
patterns.
5.5.1 Hypothesis related to the relationships between tourists’ personal
characteristics and their perception of the site as part of their own
heritage.
Three hypotheses were developed to understand the relationships between tourists’
personal characteristics and perception of the site as part of their own heritage.
22
H1: Tourists’ country of birth significantly influences tourists’ perception of the site as
part of their own heritage
H2: Tourists’ religion significantly influences the tourists’ perception of the site as part of
their own heritage
H3: Tourists’ strength of religious belief significantly influences the tourists’ perception of
the site as part of their own heritage
5.5.2 Hypothesis which clarify relationship between tourists’ visitation
patterns and tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage.
In this section, the hypothesis were formed to understand if there is a significant
relationship between tourists’ visitation patterns and visitors’ perception of the site as part
of their own heritage
H1: Tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage is positively associated
with their visitation patterns.
5.5.3 Hypothesis which clarify tourist’ personal characteristics and their
visitation patterns to the heritage site.
The hypothesis formed for this section involves tourists’ personal characteristics such as
place of birth, religion or strength of religious belief and their visitation patterns.
H1: Tourists’ personal characteristics are associated with tourists’ visitation patterns to
the site.
5.6 Research Method
In order to carry out the research, survey method was employed to gather data. According
to Saunders at al. (2009) survey method is a kind of deductive research and it is useful to
collect large amounts of data from a specific population and it is the most popular method
used in management and business research. The survey was conducted on the site which
Veal (2006) calls this type of survey as “site survey” or “visitor survey”. Further, it
explains this type of survey method as the survey, which is carried out at the site or tourism
facility. In this research, survey method was thought as the most appropriate way of
understanding factors that motivate tourists to visit a heritage site because it depends on
participants’ own accounts of their manners, attitudes and purposes (Veal, 2006).
23
5.7 Sampling Design and Data Collection
There are two different types of sampling techniques, namely probability sampling and
non-probability sampling (Saunders et al., 2009). In probability sampling technique, each
subject in the whole population has an equal chance of being chosen for inclusion in the
sample (Brotherton, 2008). Moreover, this type of sampling is associated mostly with
quantitative research (Brotherton, 2008) and site surveys in tourism-related studies (Veal,
2006). It is also believed that this sampling technique is simple and convenient since it is
impossible to survey all the populations of the research (Saunders et al., 2006). On the
other hand, non-probability sample technique means that the items are not selected
randomly, generally they are chosen purposely (Clark et al., 1998). In addition to this, the
probability sampling technique enables researcher to choose subjects according to their
personal judgement (Saunders, 20009). In order to choose any type of sampling method, it
is important to identify the research questions.
In this research, non-probability sampling technique was applied in order to collect the data
for the research. According to Saunders et al. (2009), there are 5 types of non-probability
sampling techniques which are quota sampling, purposive sampling, snowball sampling,
self-selective sampling and convenience sampling. Because of the nature of this research,
two non-probability sampling methods were employed in order to collect sufficient data.
The first method was the purposive sampling method which gives the opportunity to
researcher chooses the participants according to their judgements (Saunders et al., 2009).
This enables research to receive greater diversity in responses. According to this sampling
technique, international tourists were chosen according to their age, gender and
nationalities and they were asked whether they visited Hagia Sophia or not. However, it
was understood that the balance of the respondents were not successful because some
participant rejected to attend to the survey. The second non-probability sampling method
chosen for this research is the convenience method. An electronic form of the
questionnaire was distributed in a popular social website “Facebook”. Online surveys
enable researchers the opportunity to receive a large sample, in a short period of time and
in a cost-effective way (Evans and Mathur, 2005). Furthermore, online surveys minimize
the researchers’ bias (Triantafillidou and Siomkos, 2013). However, it should be noted that
there is a low rate of generalisation possibility in using the non-probability techniques
(Saunders et al., 2009).
24
There are two stages of this research. The first stage of this research was undertaken in a
heritage site where visitors visit between 09:00 am and 18:00pm. Tourists were asked to
take part in the survey randomly in front of the heritage site. It took around 7 minutes to
complete one questionnaire form. Moreover, questionnaires were self-administrated which
means that participant filled the form up themselves (Saunders et al., 2009). The data
collection period took 12 days between the 25th of June and 6th of July in Istanbul where
the heritage site takes place. Hagia Sophia, the heritage site, is in Sultanahmet where most
of the international tourists visit the area because of it’s a touristy characteristic. In order to
range the sample according to their age, gender and nationalities, the emphasis on the data
collection was given to choosing different tourists accordingly their demographic
characteristics. In addition to this, it was not possible to collect data on the 30th of June
because Hagia Sophia was closed during that day. In total, 205 questionnaire forms were
collected during the data collection period. However, 16 of them were excluded from the
all data because they were incomplete and ineligible for the research. In total, 189
questionnaires were collected on the heritage site. This number means that the sample
cannot be considered as representative for the all population who visit Hagia Sophia. In the
second stage, the electronic form of the questionnaire was sent to Turkish visitors who
visited Hagia Sophia before. By conducting the research online, 62 questionnaire forms
were collected. However, 4 questionnaire forms were removed from data, since the
questionnaire forms were incomplete. This means, there are going to be 247 questionnaire
forms which will be analysed in the research.
5.8 Questionnaire design
The questionnaire which was used in this research was adapted from the doctoral thesis of
Poria (2001). The reason why this questionnaire was chosen as a research instrument is
twofold. First, the aim of Poria (2001)’s research is similar to current research. In his
research, Poria investigated that if the tourists’ visit a heritage site because they perceive
this site as part of their own heritage. Similarly, in the current study, it is also aimed to find
whether tourists are motivated to visit a heritage site because they believe the heritage site
is part of their own heritage. Second, this research has proved its validity. After deciding to
use the questionnaire form from the study of Poria (2001), the questions were adjusted
according to current study. To illustrate this, some of the questions were removed from the
survey and some questions were re-written based on the new heritage site.
25
There are six sections in the questionnaire forms that ask questions regarding tourists’
motivation to visit the heritage site, the tourists’ experience from the visit, about the
heritage site, future intentions of tourists, information on their previous visit to Istanbul
and Hagia Sophia and demographic questions of tourists who visit the heritage site. In
total, there are 38 questions in the questionnaire forms. These questions target to collect
three types of data variables which are opinion, behaviour and attribute. The first, second
and third parts of the questionnaire forms aim to collect opinion variables from the
respondents. These questions involve opinion, feelings and thoughts of the respondents
(Saunders et al., 2009). Fourth and 5th parts of the questionnaire forms involve
behavioural intentions of the respondents such as a future re-visit of the site and questions
their past visits to Istanbul and Hagia Sophia. In the last part of the questionnaire form,
respondents are asked to reply to questions regarding demographic segments such as age,
gender, nationality, religion, the extent of the religion and education level.
In order to obtain a high rate of responses, different types of questions were asked to obtain
responses. For instance, in the first three parts, rating questions were asked to understand
the level of agreement of the respondents. In these questions, Likert type of question was
included in the questionnaire forms. Participants were requested to mention the level of
agreement with the statements by choosing 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= Neutral,
4= agree and 5= strongly agree. In addition to this, in the 5th part of the questionnaire form,
there are also some rating questions in order to understand to what extent tourists consider
the heritage site as part of their own heritage and to what extend they are familiar with the
heritage site. In addition to these types of questions, category questions were added in
order to understand how many times tourists’ visited Istanbul.
Another issue related to the survey was the languages of the questionnaire. The
questionnaire forms were prepared in four different languages namely, English, French,
Greek and Turkish (see appendix 7,8,9,10) Since, international tourists are not able to read
and write English at a high level, other languages were also used to obtain better results.
Saunders et al. (2012, p.442) argues that translating the language of the questionnaire
form should be done carefully in order to have the same meaning to all participants of the
survey. The translation of the questionnaire form was done by an official translator and
translated questionnaire forms were controlled by native participants if there is a difference
in the meaning of the questions in the survey.
26
5.9 Pilot Test
Before starting to data collection, it is advised doing a pilot test. There are many reasons
why pilot test is significant for the researcher. Table 5.2 shows the purposes of the doing a
pilot test before embarking on the main data collection. However, one of the critical
reason of doing a pilot test is it enables researcher refine the questionnaire form in case
respondents argue that there are some questions which are difficult to understand
(Saunders et al. 2009).
Table 5-2: Purposes of pilot study
a. Test questionnaire wording
b. Test question sequencing
c. Test questionnaire layout
d. Familiarity with respondents
e. Test fieldwork arrangements
f. Train and test fieldworkers
g. Estimate response rate
h. Estimate interview, etc. time
i Test analysis procedures
Source: Veal (2006)
In this research, a pilot test was employed in the first and second day of the data collection
period. During the first day, 10 people were interviewed and asked their opinions about
the questionnaire form. At the end of the first day, the question regarding the level of
income was removed because of the respondents’ complaints. Additionally, it was
understood that it took around 7 minutes to fill a questionnaire form, so the estimated time
written in the introduction of the questionnaire form was changed from 5 to 7 minutes.
During the second day of the pilot study, the order of the some questions has been changed
in order to ensure the fluency of the questionnaire forms. While in the first draft of the
questionnaire form the question “Have you ever visited Hagia Sophia? If the answer is
YES, please indicate how many times you have been to Hagia Sophia” and “How many
times have you visited Hagia Sophia” were changed the order with the questions “Is it your
first visit to Istanbul” and how many times you have visited Turkey before”.
27
5.10 Data Analysis Strategy
In this research, SPSS (21) were employed in order to analyse data collected through
survey in the heritage site. SPSS is one of the common statistics program for social
sciences and it is used for quantitative data because it enables you to obtain wide variety of
statistics calculation. In addition to this, SPSS presents the results in tables and graphs
which are easy way of understanding the results.
Table 5-3: Statistical methods used in the research
Statistical Method Reason to use
One-way Analysis of Variance In order to detect if there is a significant
difference between 2 or more groups
Correlation To describe the strength and direction of
the linear relationship between two
variables
Factor Analysis To reduce a large set of variables to a
smaller set of factors
5.11 Research Ethics
Saunders et al. (2012, 226) attempted to define ethics in the context of research as “the
standards of behaviour that guide your conduct in relation to the rights of those who
became the subject of your work, or are affected by it”. This research conducted with the
attention of ethics regarding to participants. All the ethical issues were taken into
consideration and in line with the University of Surrey’s Code on Good Research Practice.
Besides this, confidentiality and anonymity of the primary data will be ensured by the
researcher during the all stages of the study. In order to not misinterpretation of the data,
researcher will act objectively to the research process.
28
6 Chapter VI: Findings
6.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a detailed information on the findings of this study. Several
statistical methods were used to test hypotheses to obtain the results. The findings are
presented in the tables where it is necessary.
6.2 Sample
The pie chart shows the percentages of respondents in the sample. In total, 263
questionnaire forms were collected. The number of on-site survey includes 189 complete
questionnaire forms which accounts for 71.8 percentage of the sample. In addition to this,
there are 16 questionnaire forms (%6.1) which are incomplete. Finally the number of
internet-administrated questionnaire forms are 58 which accounts for 22.1 percent of the
sample. After eliminating the incomplete questionnaire forms, there are 247 questionnaire
forms that wil be used in this research.
Figure 6-1: Research sample
6.3 Demographic results
Table 6.1 indicates the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender,
nationality, religion and level of education. According to this table majority of the
respondents were female, which accounts for %63.2 (n=156). Male participants of this
research remained only 36.2 (n=91). One possible reason why female respondents are
29
much greater number than male respondents is that the female visitors might be more
willing to fill the questionnaire forms than male visitors.
Second demographic variable in the research is the age distribution of the respondents. It
can be seen from the table 6.1 that visitors who are between 18-27 years are composed the
majority group. The percentage of this group is 44.1. In this research, tourists who are
between 28-37 years old are composed second biggest group and their percentage is 25.5
among all samples. This may be concluded that young age group and middle age group are
major tourist groups visiting to Turkey. The other age groups 38-47 years, 48-57 years and
more than 58 years poses similar numbers and percentages which are %10.2 (n=25) , 11.8
(n=29) and %9.4 (n=23) respectively.
Another demographic variable in this research is the respondents’ countries of birth. It
should be noted that there are two non-probability sampling methods that used in this
research. With the purposive sampling method, 189 questionnaires were collected. This
involves 71 (%29 of the all sample) tourists from Europe, 66 (27 of the all sample) tourists
from other countries, 46 (%24.3 of the all sample) Greek tourists and 3 (%1.5 of the all
sample) Turkish tourists. With the convenience sampling method, 58 Turkish tourists were
included in the research by conducting an online questionnaire form. A total of 247
participants took part in the survey.
In terms of religion, the majority of the people who visit Hagia Sophia is Christian with the
number of 124 which accounts for %52.5 of the sample. The reason for this result is that
Hagia Sophia was a Christian church during the Byzantine Empire, so Christians may be
willing to this heritage site. Muslim tourists are the second biggest group who visit the
heritage site. The number of Muslim tourists who visited Hagia Sophia is 64 with the
percentage of 26.2. A possible explanation for this can be that Hagia Sophia was used as a
mosque during the Ottoman Empire. This shows that tourists who belong the either
Christianity or Islam religions tend to visit Hagia Sophia. In this research, there are only 3
Jewish tourists and a great deal number of tourists who believe other religions or atheists.
Their number is 49 which composes %20.1 percentage of the sample. It can be concluded
that although tourists who belong to other religions or atheists visit the heritage site
because of its significance.
This research shows that tourists who visit Hagia Sophia has mostly a higher education
level. The percentage of the tourists who has a postgraduate level of education is 55.1
30
(n=135). The number of tourists who have an undergraduate level of education is 83
(%33.9). Results indicate that the education level of the tourists is generally high.
Table 6-1: Presentation of demographics
Profile Frequency Percent*
Gender
Male 91 36.8
Female 156 63.2
Age
18-27 108 44.1
28-37 60 24.5
38-47 25 10.2
48-57 29 11.8
More than 58 23 9.4
Nationality
Turkish 61 25
Greek 46 18.9
Europe 71 29
Others 66 27
Choice of Religion
Muslim 64 26.2
Christian
Jewish
Others
128
3
49
52.5
1.2
20.1
Level of Education
Primary School 1 0.4
Secondary School 4 1.6
High School 22 9
Undergraduate 83 33.9
Postgraduate 135 55.1
*Percentages were calculated after eliminating the missing values.
6.4 Results of visitation frequencies
According to table 6.2, tourists who visit Istanbul first time is more than repeated tourists’
numbers (n1= 143 and n2= 104). This is possible since every year many new tourists visit
31
Turkey. This can be understood from the tourists’ numbers last 10 years (Ministry of
Culture, 2014). The second figure in the table indicates the frequencies of visits of tourists
who visited Turkey before. According to this results, the majority of the tourists who
visited Turkey 5 times or more before with the percentage of 44.9 (n=48). Second, tourists
who visited Turkey 1-2 times accounts for %33.6 (n=36). Finally, tourists who visited
Turkey 3-4 times accounts for %21.5 (n=23). Another result shows that majority of the
tourists who visited Istanbul before visited also Hagia Sophia at least 1-2 times. With the
percentage of 69.6, tourists who visited Turkey 1 or 2 times are the majority among the
frequencies of tourists who visit Hagia Sophia. The other groups 3-4 times and 5 times and
more account for 23.1 and 7.1 respectively. They are also believed that Turkish tourists
who are able to visit the heritage site more often.
Table 6-2: Respondents’ visitation frequencies
Profile Frequency Percentage*
Is it your first time in
Istanbul?
Yes
No
143
104
57.9
42.1
How many times have you
visited Turkey?
1-2 times
3-4 time
5 times and more
36
23
48
33.6
21.5
44.9
Have you ever visited Hagia
Sophia
Yes
No
73
37
66.4
33.6
How many times have you
visited Hagia Sophia?
1-2 times
3-4 times
5 times and more
48
16
5
69.5
23.1
7.1
*Percentages were calculated after eliminating the missing values.
32
6.5 Mean scores of tourists’ visitation patterns
Appendix 2 shows the overall mean scores of the questions which are related tourists’ mo-
tivation for visiting the heritage site. It can be seen from the table that the main reason why
tourists visited Hagia Sophia is its historical background (mean=4.54). This indicates that
tourists are interested in the heritage site’s historical background and they are familiar with
its history. The second highest score was achieved in the item which is that “You visited
the site because it is a must-see attraction” (mean=4.36). Tourists who visit Hagia Sophia
believe that the heritage site is one of the most important place to visit at the destination.
Another important item which has a high mean score is “You visited the site because you
wanted to learn about the site history” (mean=4.11). On the other hand, table shows that
the least factor that motivate tourists to visit the heritage site is “You visited the site be-
cause it was on the way of another site” (mean=2.07). Another interesting result is that
tourists scored a very low mean in the item “You visited the site because you wanted to
relax. Another item which received low score is “You visited the site because you felt
sense of belonging to the site” (mean=2.43).
Findings regarding tourists’ experience show that tourists are highly satisfied with their
visit to the heritage site. (Mean= 4.25). In addition to this, they perceive that their visit to
the site contributed to their education (mean=3.60). However, it can be concluded that their
overall experience with their visit to the heritage site is moderate. This can be understood
with the mean scores that range between 3 and 4. For example, the item “the visit to the
site made you feel proud” was marked only 3.08 which can be considered as moderate lev-
el. This is due to the large amount of tourists who are from the countries that does not per-
ceive the heritage site as part of their own heritage. (Except from Turkey and Greece). The
details can be seen in the appendix 3 that shows the whole table.
Interestingly, results regarding the heritage site received relatively low scores from the re-
spondents. This means that tourists’ perception of the site attributes overall weak. The
highest score in this section was marked with the item “You are aware of the history of the
site” (mean=3.97). As it was mentioned before, tourists are aware of the Hagia Sophia’s
history before their visit. Moreover, the item “it is only a tourist attraction” received very
low score, which is 2.16. However, this means that tourists believe Hagia Sophia plays an
important role in the history and they believe that it is more than a simple tourist attraction.
Other items related to the perception of the site received a moderate level of marks ranging
between 2.7 and 3.1. (See full table in appendix 4).
33
One of the important results is the visitors’ intention to recommend the heritage site to
their friends to visit in the future. This is important since positive WOM (Word of Mouth)
will help destinations increase their visitor numbers. In addition to this, visitors are more
likely to visit the heritage site in the future (mean=3.72). Appendix 5 shows the full details
of the mean scores regarding future intentions of the tourists.
6.6 Hypotheses related to the relationships between tourists’ personal
characteristics and their perception of the site as part of their own
heritage.
In this section, hypothesis were established in order to understand if there is a significant
difference between nationalities in relation to their perception of the site as part of their
own heritage. The analysis starts with the test of normality. After that, ANOVA (Analysis
of variance) test will be employed in all the hypothesis in this section. The results of the
statistical tests will be represented in the last section of this part.
6.6.1 Test of Normality
Before starting to analyse, the test of normality should be applied in order decide whether
research will apply parametric tests or non-parametric tests (Saunders et al., 2009). It is
important that parametric tests required the normality of the data which means that the
scores in the dependent variable are distributed normally (Pallant, 2013). On the other
hand, in the case when the data are not distributed normally, the non-parametric tests can
be used for the analysis (Pallant, 2013). In an ideal world, the data would be distributed
systematically around the centre of the scores (Field, 2009) and the data can be plotted as a
bell-shaped curve (Saunders et al. 2009). The result of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is
shown by the test of normality. The normality of the distribution of the scores can be
assessed through the result of this test and the significant value which is more than 0.05
indicates that the data is normally distributed (Pallant, 2013). After applying the test of
normality to the data, there are two different methods to assess the results, namely numeric
and graphical method (Saunders et al., 2009). While the numeric method involves
assessing the skewness and kurtosis values, graphic method attempt to interpret the graph
that obtained through analysing of frequencies. Saunders et al. (2009) explains the
skewness of the data by saying that if the diagram shows a bouncing to the left with the
long tail to the right side, it means that the data are positively skewed and if the converse is
shown in the diagram, the data are negatively skewed.
34
Table 6.3 and Figure 6.2 show the result of normality test and the histogram that shows the
skewness for the question “To what extent do you consider the heritage site as part of your
own heritage?” .The results indicate that the distribution of the responses is non-normal
and there is a tendency for skewness in some of the respondents. This can be understood
by looking at the Table 6.3 which shows the skewness score is -.117. However, Gravetter
and Wallnau (2000) argued that parametric tests are robust, especially with larger sample
sizes and small violations of normality do not cause significant problems in the results.
Moreover, Bulmer (1967) supports the idea by stating that the skewness score may become
between -1 and +1 which is believed appropriate skewness scores for the normality test.
On the other hand, the histogram shows that the distribution of the responses is normal,
which has a bell-shaped curve on the histogram. Consequently, this research will apply
parametric tests because of their ability to detect significant results.
Table 6-3: Test of Normality
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Skewness
To what extent do you
consider the heritage site as
part of your own heritage?
.168 243 .000 .864 243 .000 -.117
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Figure 6-2: Respondents’ answers distribution
35
6.6.2 Test of Analysis of Variances (ANOVA)
6.6.2.1 Influence of country of birth
In order to understand the differences between tourists’ places of birth in relation to their
perception of the site as part of their own heritage, One-way ANOVA test was employed
by using SPSS program. ANOVA is a statistical method that compares mean scores of an
independent variable (Pallant, 2013). According to the results of ANOVA test, significant
results were found between countries, namely Turkish, Greek, Europe and Others. (Welch
test, sig. 0.000) However, no significant results found between Europe and Others in
relation to their perception of the site as part of their own heritage. One possible reason
why there was a significant difference between nationalities is the heritage site, Hagia
Sophia, plays preliminary important role in the history of Turkish and Greek visitors.
However, the group “others” include visitors all around the world and mostly overseas
visitors from US and Far East countries, so they may not be familiar with the heritage site
itself. Results indicate that Greek visitors’ perception of the site is highest (mean=4.80)
comparing to other nationalities. Other nationalities Turkish, Europe and Others mean
scores are 3.83, 2.20 and 2.27 respectively.
Table 6-4: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their perception of the site as
part of their own heritage
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
To what extent do you consider the
heritage site as part of your own
heritage?
Turkish 3.83 Greeks 4.80 0.000*
Turkish 3.83 Europe 2.20 0.000*
Turkish 3.83 Others 2.27 0.000*
Greeks 4.80 European 2.20 0.000*
Greeks 4.80 Others 2.27 0.000*
Europe 2.20 Others 2.27 1.000
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.6.2.2 Influence of religion
Table 6.5 shows the difference of visitors’ religion in relation to their perception of the site
as part of their own heritage. Despite of given four different choices in the questionnaire
forms, religions were grouped into three which are Christianity, Islam and Others. Since
36
there were only 3 Jewish visitors who participated to survey, they were added into
“others”. Results of ANOVA test indicates that there is a significant results (welch test,
sig.0.000) between religions of visitors in relation to their perception of the site as part of
their own heritage. According to table 6.5, there is a significant difference between
Christianity-Islam, Christianity-Others and Islam-Others. A possible explanation of this
results can be the religious importance of the heritage site. As Hagia Sophia was used as a
Christian Church and Islamic Mosque in the past, visitors those religions are Christianity
and Islam may wish to visit this site. The mean score for Christianity is 3.81 which is
highest among the religion groups. The mean score for visitors whose religion is Islam is
3.24 and Others’ score is 1.92 which is the lowest score among all religions.
Table 6-5: Differences between tourists’ religion and their perception of the site as part of
their own heritage
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
To what extent do you consider the
heritage site as part of your own
heritage?
Christian 3.24 Islam 3.81 0.08*
Christian 3.24 Others 1.92 0.000*
Islam 3.81 Others 1.92 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p<0.05
6.6.2.3 Influence of strength of religious belief
Table 6.6 indicates the differences between visitors’ strengths of religions in relation to
their perception of the site as part of their own heritage. Strengths of religions were
grouped into three groups which are “Little Religious”, “Somewhat Religious” and “Very
Religious”. The results of the ANOVA test shows that there are significant differences
(Tukey test, sig. 0.000) between “Little Religious” and “Somewhat Religious”, “Very
Religious”, and “Somewhat Religious” and “Little Religious”. However, no significant
difference was found between “Very Religious” and “Somewhat Religious”. The results
show that visitors whose are more religious perceive the site as part of their own heritage
than less religious visitors. Moreover, the table 6.6 shows that there is a significant
difference in the mean scores of the Strentgs of Religions. (Little Religious, 2.42,
Somewhat Religious, 3.36 and Very Religious, 3.82).
37
Table 6-6: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their perception of
the site as part of their own heritage
Hagia
Sophia
Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
Little Religious 2.42 Somewhat Religious 3.36 0.000*
Little Religious 2.42 Very Religious 3.82 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p<0.05
6.7 Factor Analysis
The aim of factor analysis is to reduce a large set of amount and form a new “reduced” or
“summarised” set of variables or components (Pallant, 2010). The 14 items of the
motivating factors in the scale were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) using
SPSS version 21. Tests results show that data is suitable for the factor analysis since there
are many coefficients of 0.3 or above in the correlation matrix. The Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin
value was .698 which is above than recommended value .60 (Kaiser, 1970) and Barlett’s
Test of Sprecity (Barlett, 1954) is significant (p < 0.05).
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of three components with eigenvalues
exceeding %24.1, %15 and %10.8 of the variance respectively. In total, three components
explain %50 of the variance. Oblimin rotation was performed in order to aid in the
interpretation of three components. This shows a number of strong loading and almost all
variables loading substantially on only one component (Item “You visited the site because
of historical background loaded both Recreational and Cultural / Educational components).
The first component namely Heritage/Emotional Experience involves five items which are
“You visited the site because you felt sense of belonging to the site” (.823), “You visited
the site because you wanted to feel emotionally involved” (.751) , “ You visited the site
because of it is part of your own heritage”(.704) “You visited the site because of religious
characteristics (.691) and “You visited the site because you felt you should visit the
site”(.488). The second component, Recreational Experience, involves three items which
are (1) “You visited the site because you wanted to have some entertainment” (.803), (2)
“You visited the site because you wanted to relax” (.782), (3) “You visited the site because
it was on the way of another site” (.595). The third component, Cultural / Educational
38
Experience, contains six items related to visitors willing to learn the culture and site
history. These six items are (1) “You visited the site because of its architecture” (.806), (2)
“You visited the site because you wanted to learn about the site history” (.630), (3) “You
visited the site because of its historical background” (.553), (4) “You visited the site
because you thought it was important to visit the site” (.553), (5) “You visited the site
because it is a must-see attraction” (.549), (6) “You visited the site because of the physical
nature of the site” (.534). The details of the factor analysis can be found in the appendix 6.
Factor analysis revealed that there are three factors which are the core for Tourists to visit a
heritage site. The first factor “Heritage / Emotional Experience” shows that tourists may be
willing to visit heritage sites that believe part of their own heritage. The second factor,
“Recreational Experience” indicates that tourists’ purpose to visit a heritage site is
basically to have a day out. Finally, the third factor shows that besides Heritage Experience
and Recreation Experience, heritage visitors are willing to learn history and increase their
knowledge regarding heritage sites. Further investigation includes reliability of the scale
items (Factors). According to the test of reliability, the Cronbach Alpha for the first factor
“Heritage / Emotional Experience” is .752 which is higher than 0.7 and appropriate for
analysis (DeVellis, 2012). However, the reliability score for the factor 2 “Recreation
Experience” is 0.620 which is slightly below than expected score 0.7. Similarly, the
reliability score for the factor 3 Cultural / Educational Experience is 0.687 which can be
considered a moderate level of reliability. Although, the Cronbach’s Alpha numbers for the
factor 2 and 3 are less than threshold, they will not be excluded from the research because
of their significant contribution to the results.
6.8 Hypothesis regarding tourists’ perception of the site as part of their
own heritage and their visitation patterns
6.8.1 Test of Correlation between tourists’ perception of the site as part of
their own heritage and their visitation patterns
H1: Tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage is positively associated
with their visitation patterns.
6.8.1.1 Motivation
In order to understand the strength of relationship between factors that motivate tourists
and tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage, Pearson-product moment
correlation coefficient analysis was employed for the data. The strength of the relationship
can be understood from the Pearson-correlation(r) score which ranges between -1 and +1.
39
Cohen (1988) suggests the strength of the relationship of the variables ,the “r” score as .10
to .29 small, .30 to .49 medium and .50 or larger. In addition to this, the sig. number is
expected to be significant at the level .01 or .05.
Table 6.7 shows the result of the Pearson-correlation test. According to this table, there is a
positive and strong relationship between Heritage / emotional factors and tourist perception
of the site as part of their own heritage (r = 0.578, sig.0.000). This shows that there is a
direct link between tourists’ perception of the site and their motivation to visit the heritage
site. Besides this, there is also a positive, but weak correlation between tourists’ perception
of the site as part of their own heritage and their Education / Cultural motivations (r =
0.132, and sig. 0.044).
Table 6-7: Correlation analysis between tourists’ motivation factors and tourists’
perceptions of the site in relation to their own heritage
Tourists’ perception of Hagia Sophia in relation to their own heritage
Number Pearson-
Correlation
Sig.
Heritage / Emotional motivations 231 .578** .000
Cultural / Educational motivations 232 .132** .044
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
6.8.1.2 Experience
Table 6.8 presents the results that have been found associated with the individuals’
perception of the site and their experience at the heritage site. It can be seen in the table 6.8
that the tourists’ perception of their own heritage was display during the visit is positively
associated with the tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage. (Pearson-
Correlation=0.746 and sig. 0.000). Similarly, there is a strong and positive association
between tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage and the item “the visit
to the site made you feel proud”. (0.626, sig. 0.000).On the other hand, there is a weak
correlation between tourists’ satisfaction from the visit and their perception of the site as
part of their own heritage.
40
Table 6-8: Correlation analysis between tourists’ experience at the heritage site and their
perception of the site in relation to their own heritage
Tourists’ perception of Hagia Sophia in relation to their own heritage
Number Pearson-
Correlation
Sig.
The visit to the site moved you emotionally 243 .411** .000
During the visit you felt that a part of your own
heritage was displayed
243 .746** .003
The visit made you feel proud 243 .626** .000
I am satisfied with my visit to the heritage site 243 .169** .008
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
6.8.1.3 About the site
Table 6.9 shows that there is a strong and positive correlation between tourists’ perception
of the site as part of their own heritage and the items related to heritage site characteristics.
To illustrate this, the item “the site presents something which relates to your own identity
is positively associated with the tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage
(Pearson-correlation=0.623, sig. 0.000). Similarly, a positive and strong correlation was
found between the items “The site has symbolic meaning for you” and tourists’ perception
of the site as part of their own heritage (Pearson-correlation=0.575, sig. 0.003). On the
other hand, it can be concluded that there is a weak correlation between tourists’ awareness
of the site history and their perception of the site as part of their own heritage. (Pearson-
correlation=0.312, sig. 0.000).
41
Table 6-9: Correlation analysis between tourists’ perception of the heritage site and tourists
perception of the site in relation to their own heritage
Tourists’ perception of Hagia Sophia in relation to their own heritage
Number Pearson-
Correlation
Sig.
The site presents something which relates to your own
identity
239 .623** .000
The site has symbolic meaning for you 240 .575** .003
The site generates a sense of belonging for you 239 .600** .000
You are aware of the history of the site 240 .312** .000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
6.8.1.4 Future Intention
By looking at the table 6.10 which relate to correlation between tourists’ future intention
towards the heritage site and their perception of the site as part of their own heritage, it can
be seen that there is a weak correlation between tourists’ intention to visit the heritage site
again and their perception of the site as part of their own heritage (Pearson-
correlation=0.366, sig. 0.000).
Table 6-10: Correlation analysis between tourists future intentions towards the heritage site
and Tourists perception of the site in relation to their own heritage
Tourists’ perception of Hagia Sophia in relation to their own heritage
Number Pearson-
Correlation
Sig.
You will re-visit the site in the future 240 .366** .000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
6.8.2 Test of Analysis of Variances
6.8.2.1 Motivation
Table 6.11 indicates the significant differences between visitors’ perception of the site as
part of their own heritage and their motivation to the heritage site. Before starting to this
analysis, tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own heritage were grouped into
three. The first group is “those who does not consider the heritage site as part of their own
heritage” (answered 1 and 2in the questionnaire). Second group is “those who consider the
42
heritage site somewhat their own heritage (answered 3 in the questionnaire). And the third
group consists of the participants “who consider the heritage site their own heritage”
(answered 4 and 5 in the questionnaire form). One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
has revealed that there is a significant difference between tourists who consider the
heritage site as part of their own heritage (mean= 3.62) and those who consider somewhat
their own heritage (mean=2.79) or those who does not consider their own heritage
(mean=2.48)
Table 6-11: Differences between tourists’ perception of the heritage site as part of their
own heritage and tourists’ motivation to Hagia Sophia
Motivations Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
Heritage / emotional
Motivations
My own
heritage
3.62 Somewhat my own
heritage
2.79 0.000*
My own
heritage
3.62 Not my own
heritage
2.48 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.8.2.2 About Experience
ANOVA test applied to detect the significant differences between the tourists’ perception
of the site as part of their own heritage in relation to their experience. Analysis revealed
that there is a significant difference between tourists who consider the heritage site as part
of their own heritage and tourists who consider the heritage site somewhat their own
heritage or who does not consider the heritage site their own heritage. The table 6.12 can
be interpreted that perception of the site as part of own heritage is associated with tourists’
experience on the site. This result is significant in order to understand heritage tourists’
experience.
43
Table 6-12: Differences between tourists’ perception of the site as part of their own
heritage and their experience at the site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The visit to the site moved
you emotionally
My own heritage 4.03 Somewhat my
own heritage
3.16 0.000*
My own heritage 4.03 Not my own
heritage
2.95 0.000*
During the visit you felt that
a part of your own heritage
was displayed
My own
heritage
4.32 Somewhat my
own heritage
3.23 0.000*
My own
heritage
4.32 Not my own
heritage
1.90 0.000*
Somewhat my
own heritage
3.23 Not my own
heritage
1.90 0.000*
The visit to the site made
you feel proud
My own
heritage
4.00 Somewhat my
own heritage
3.04 0.000*
My own
heritage
4.00 Not my own
heritage
1.98 0.000*
Somewhat my
own heritage
3.04 Not my own
heritage
1.98 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.8.2.3 About the Site
ANOVA test illustrates the significant differences between the tourists’ perception of the
site in relation to their perception of the heritage site’s attributes. Results can be interpreted
as that the tourists who consider the heritage site as part of their own heritage has greater
score on the attributes of the heritage site which means that their perception of the site is
associated with the heritage site’s attributes. Main findings can be summarised as that the
tourists who consider the heritage site part of their own heritage are aware of the history of
the site and they connect the heritage site with their own heritage.
44
Table 6-13: Differences between tourists’ perception of the site their own heritage and
their perception of the heritage site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mea
n
Sig.
The site represents
something which relates to
your own identity
My own heritage 3.66 Somewhat my
own heritage
2.97 0.003*
My own heritage 3.66 Not my own
heritage
1.89 0.000*
Somewhat my
own heritage
2.97 Not my own
heritage
1.89 0.000*
The site has symbolic
meaning for you
My own
heritage
3.88 Somewhat my
own heritage
3.11 0.004*
My own
heritage
3.88 Not my own
heritage
2.28 0.000*
Somewhat my
own heritage
3.11 Not my own
heritage
2.28 0.002*
The site generates sense of
belonging for you
My own
heritage
3.46 Somewhat my
own heritage
2.80 0.004*
My own
heritage
3.46 Not my own
heritage
1.74 0.000*
Somewhat my
own heritage
2.80 Not my own
heritage
1.74 0.000*
You are aware of the history
of the site
My own
heritage
4.26 Not my own
heritage
3.65 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.8.2.4 Future Behaviour
The main finding of the ANOVA test which was applied in order to understand the
significant difference between tourists in relation to their re-visit intention in the future is
that tourists who consider the heritage site their own heritage are more likely to visit the
heritage site in the future.
45
Table 6-14: Differences between tourists’ perceptions of the heritage site as part of their
own heritage and tourists’ future intention towards the heritage site.
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
You will revisit the
site again in the future
My own heritage 4.14 Somewhat my own
heritage
3.52 0.007*
My own heritage 4.14 Not my own heritage 3.28 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9 Hypothesis related to tourists’ personal characteristics and their
visitation patterns
6.9.1 Test of Analysis of Variances
6.9.1.1 Place of Birth
H1: There is a significant difference between tourists’ place of birth in relation to their
visitation patterns.
6.9.1.1.1 Motivation
Factor analysis revealed three main factors that motivate tourists to visit a heritage site,
namely Heritage / emotional experience, Recreational experience and Cultural /
Educational experience. Table 6.15 presents ANOVA (One-way Analysis of Variance)
which tests whether there is a significant difference between tourists’ place of birth in
relation to their motivation to the heritage site. Results suggest that there is a significant
difference between Turkish and Greeks tourists, Turkish and European tourists, Greeks and
European tourists, Greeks and Others. The mean score was achieved highest among Greeks
tourists in the heritage / Emotional experience (4.17). This might prove that Greek tourists
are motivated more for heritage experience which means that they linked the heritage site
as part of their own heritage. However, tests revealed that there is also a significant
difference between tourists’ place of birth in relation their recreational motivations.
Turkish tourists are motivated more recreational comparing to other groups. (Mean
score=2.86).
46
Table 6-15: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their motivation to the site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
Heritage / Emotional Experience Turkish 3.08 Greeks 4.17 0.000*
Turkish 3.08 European 2.52 0.001*
Greeks 4.17 European 2.52 0.000*
Greeks 4.17 Others 2.86 0.000*
Recreation Experience Turkish 2.86 Greeks 1.59 0.000*
Turkish 2.86 European 2.17 0.000*
Turkish 2.86 Others 2.29 0.001*
Greeks 1.59 European 2.17 0.005*
Greeks 1.59 Others 4.23 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.1.2 Experience
Table 6.16 presents significant differences revealed by ANOVA analysis between tourists’
places of birth in relation to their perception of their experience of the visit. One surprising
result was obtained with the item “The visit contributed to your education”. The ANOVA
test revealed that there are significant differences between Turkish-Others and Europe-
Others. It can be seen from the table that items related to heritage / emotion experiences
received higher scores for the Turkish and Greek tourists who link the heritage site with
their own heritage. Furthermore, these tourists are more satisfied with their visit to the
heritage site comparing to visitors from Europe and Others. (Mean scores; Turkish: 4.41,
Greek: 4.43, Europe: 3.97, Others: 4.27).
47
Table 6-16: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their experience of the
heritage site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The visit contributed to your
education
Turkish 3.29 Others 4.13 0.000*
European 3.50 Others 4.13 0.001*
The visit to the site moved you
emotionally
Turkish 3.47 Greeks 4.48 0.000*
Turkish 3.47 European 2.92 0.041*
Greeks 4.48 European 2.92 0.000*
Greeks 4.48 Others 3.37 0.000*
During the visit you felt that a
part of your own heritage was
displayed
Turkish 4.08 Europe 2.05 0.000*
Turkish 4.08 Others 2.75 0.000*
Greeks 4.50 European 2.05 0.000*
Greeks 4.50 Others 2.75 0.000*
European 2.05 Others 2.75 0.014*
The visit to the site made you
feel proud
Turkish 3.53 Greek 4.28 0.021*
Turkish 3.53 European 2.16 0.000*
Turkish 3.53 Others 2.80 0.011*
Greek 4.28 European 2.16 0.000*
Greek 4.28 Others 2.80 0.000*
European 2.16 Others 2.80 0.027*
I am satisfied with my visit to
the heritage site
Turkish 4.41 European 3.97 0.000*
Greeks 4.43 Europe 3.97 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05
6.9.1.1.3 About the site
There are several differences between tourists’ places of birth in relation their perception
of the site. Generally, it can be said that the mean scores for the items related to site
48
characteristics are achieved highest among Greek visitors. This means that Greek visitors
link the heritage site with their own heritage and they are familiar with the history of the
site. One of the important result was obtained with the item “the site represents something
which relates to your own identity”. In this item, significant results were found among
Greeks and Turkish, Europe and Others’. Details can be seen in table 6.17.
Table 6-17: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their perception of the site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The site represents something
which relates to your identity
Turkish 3.15 Greeks 4.16 0.000*
Turkish 3.15 European 2.11 0.000*
Greeks 4.16 European 2.11 0.000*
Greeks 4.16 Others 2.57 0.000*
The site has symbolic meaning
for you
Turkish 3.28 Greeks 4.43 0.000*
Turkish 3.28 European 2.45 0.002*
Greeks 4.43 European 2.45 0.000*
Greeks 4.43 Others 2.87 0.000*
The site generates a sense of
belonging for you
Turkish 3.13 European 1.91 0.000*
Greeks 3.58 European 1.91 0.000*
Greeks 3.58 Others 2.53 0.001*
Europe 1.91 Others 2.53 0.019*
You are aware of the history of
the site
Greeks 4.68 Turkish 3.93 0.000*
Greeks 4.68 Europe 3.59 0.000*
Greeks 4.68 Others 3.93 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.1.4 Future Intention
Statistical tests show that tourists’ places of birth has a significant influence on tourists’ re-
visit intention in the future and their recommendations of the heritage site. It can be seen in
the table 6.18 that Turkish and Greek visitors are more likely to visit the heritage site in the
future. Perhaps, this is due to their perception the heritage site as part of their own heritage.
49
Also, Greek tourists are more likely to recommend the heritage site to their friends to visit
the site. This is important, since it shows that tourists who perceive the heritage site as part
of their own heritage may bring positive advantageous to heritage site in terms of positive
word of mouth (WOM).
Table 6-18: Differences between tourists’ places of birth and their future intention
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
You will re-visit the site in the
future
Turkish 4.16 European 3.29 0.000*
Turkish 4.16 Others 3.45 0.002*
Greeks 4.15 European 3.29 0.001*
Greeks 4.15 Others 3.45 0.016*
You will recommend your
friends to visit the site
Greeks 4.73 European 4.32 0.024*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.2 Religion
H1: There is a significant difference between tourists’ choice of religion in relation to their
visitation patterns
6.9.1.2.1 Motivation
In order to understand whether there is a statistically significant difference between
tourists’’ religion in relation to their motivation to heritage site, ANOVA analysis was used
in this section. It can be seen from the table 6.19 that there is a significantly difference
between Christian-Others and Islam-Others in relation to their heritage / Emotional
experience. It can be concluded that Christian and Muslim tourists are more motivated for
Heritage experience comparing to other religion groups and non-religious groups. Besides
this, significant results were received tourists’ recreational experiences, which shows that
Muslim tourists are more motivated recreationally than Christian and others.
50
Table 6-19: Differences between tourists’ religion and their motivation to the heritage site.
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
Heritage / Emotional
Experience
Christian 3.21 Others 2.41 0.000*
Islam 3.16 Others 2.41 0.000*
Recreational Experience Islam 2.79 Christian 2.09 0.000*
Islam 2.79 Others 2.09 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.2.2 Experience
One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed in order to grasp if there is a
statistically different between the tourists’ religion in relation to their perception of the
experience with the heritage site visit. Significant differences were revealed in all items
related to tourists’ experience with the heritage site visit. To illustrate this, There is a
significant difference between Islam-Others and Christian-Others in relation to the visit
moved them emotionally. It can be said that the visitors whose religions are Islam and
Christianity are moved emotionally more than other religion groups and non-religious
visitors. Similarly, these tourists believe also that during the visit their own heritage was
displayed in the heritage site.
51
Table 6-20: Differences between tourists’ religion and their perception of the heritage site
experience
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The visit contributed to your
education
Islam 3.34 Others 3.94 0.031*
The visit moved you
emotionally
Other 3.00 Islam 3.57 0.038*
Other 3.00 Christian 3.63 0.006*
During the visit a part of your
own heritage was displayed
Christian 3.24 Islam 4.03 0.000*
Christian 3.24 Others 2.07 0.000*
Islam 4.03 Others 2.07 0.000*
The visit made you feel proud Other 2.23 Islam 3.48 0.000
Other 2.23 Christian 3.29 0.000
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.2.3 About the site
Similar to other results mentioned above, several significant differences were found
between tourists’ religion in relation to their perception of the heritage site. For instance,
Christian and Muslims perceive that the heritage site presents something which relates to
their own heritage. Similarly, results show that the heritage site has a symbolic meaning for
the visitors who are Christian and Muslim while visitors who are not religious and belong
to other religions does not perceive any symbolic meaning.
52
Table 6-21: Differences between tourists’ religion and their perception of the heritage site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The site represents something
which relates to your own
identity
Other 1.96 Christian 3.01 0.000*
Other 1.96 Islam 3.32 0.000*
The site has symbolic
meaning for you
Other 2.09 Christian 3.38 0.000*
Other 2.09 Islam 3.48 0.000*
The site generates sense of
belonging to you
Other 1.98 Christian 2.73 0.001*
Other 1.98 Islam 3.18 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.2.4 Future Intention
The analysis revealed that there is a significant difference in the intention of visitors to re-
visit the heritage in the future. Tourists who are Muslim are more likely to repeat the visit
in the future (Mean score for Islam: 4.17, Christianity: 3.65 and Others: 3.32).
Table 6-22 Differences between tourists’ religion and their future intention
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
You will re-visit the site in
the future
Islam 4.17 Christian 3.65 0.006*
Islam 4.17 Other 3.32
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
53
6.9.1.3 The strength of religious belief
H1: There is a significant difference between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their
perception of the site as part of their own heritage.
6.9.1.3.1 Motivation
In this section, ANOVA test used in order to understand if there is a statistically significant
difference between strengths of visitors in relation to their motivation to visit the heritage
site. According to table 26, there is a significant difference between tourists who consider
themselves little religious (mean=2.61) and Somewhat Religious (mean=3.18) and Very
Religious (mean=3.52) in relation their heritage / emotional motivational factors. It can be
concluded that tourists who are more religious are more interested in heritage experience
than tourists who consider them non-religious and little religious.
Table 6-23: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their motivation
to the heritage site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
Heritage / Emotional
Experience
Little
Religious
2.61 Somewhat
Religious
3.18 0.000*
Little
Religious
2.61 Very
Religious
3.52 0.000*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.3.2 Heritage Experience
ANOVA (One-way Analysis of Variance) test results indicates that there is a significant
difference between strengths of religion in relation to their heritage experience. In general,
the difference is between “little religious” and “very religious” visitors. A significant result
in this section is that the more religious visitors perceive that during the visit some part of
their own heritage was displayed. (Mean=3.60). On the other hand, although there is a
significant difference between strengths of religions in relation to their satisfaction with the
heritage site, mean scores show that visitors are highly satisfied in general.
54
Table 6-24: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their perception
of the heritage site experience
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The visit to the site moved
you emotionally
Little
Religious
3.10 Somewhat
Religious
3.49 0.041*
Little
Religious
3.10 Very
Religious
3.90 0.000*
During the visit you felt that a
part of your own heritage was
displayed
Little
Religious
2.57 Somewhat
religious
3.60 0.000*
Little
Religious
2.57 Very
Religious
3.76 0.000*
The visit to the site made you
feel proud
Little
Religious
2.52 Somewhat
religious
3.39 0.001*
Little
Religious
2.52 Very
religious
3.55 0.000*
I am satisfied with my visit Little
Religious
4.09 Very
Religious
4.47 0.028*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.3.3 About the site
One-way Analysis of Variance test was applied in order to understand whether there is a
significant difference between visitor’s strength of religious beliefs in relation to their
perception of the site. It can be observed from the table 6.24 that the most important result
was obtained in the item “You are aware of the history of the site”. This can be interpreted
as that strengths of religions can be determinant of to what extent tourists are aware of the
history of the site.
55
Table 6-25: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their perception
of the heritage site
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
The site represents something
which relates to your own
identity
Little
Religious
2.40 Somewhat
Religious
3.09 0.003*
Little
Religious
2.40 Very
Religious
3.31 0.000*
The site has symbolic
meaning for you
Little
Religious
2.57 Somewhat
religious
3.36 0.001*
Little
Religious
2.57 Very
Religious
3.69 0.000*
The site generates sense of
belonging for you
Little
Religious
2.25 Somewhat
religious
2.91 0.005*
Little
Religious
2.25 Very
religious
3.09 0.000*
You are aware of the history
of the site
Very Religious 4.36 Little
Religious
3.76 0.000*
Very religious 4.36 Somewhat
Religious
3.85 0.010*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.9.1.3.4 Future Intention
In order to understand future intention of visitors, One-way Analysis of variance test
applied to the data. Although it shows there is a significant difference between little
religious and somewhat religious people in relation to their re-visit intention, the mean
scores of both group shows that they are similar and both group intend to visit heritage site
in the future again.
56
Table 6-26: Differences between tourists’ strength of religious belief and their future
intention
Hagia Sophia Group I Mean Group II Mean Sig.
You will re-visit the heritage
site in the future
Little
Religious
3.46 Somewhat
Religious
3.96 0.018*
Significant difference at the level p0.05,
6.10 Summary
To sum up, statistical tests revealed that the tourist perception of the site as part of their
own heritage influences tourist motivations, behaviours and experience and future
intentions of the tourists. Also, the tourists’ perception of the site as part of own heritage
associates with the tourists’ personal characteristics. This means that tourists’ place of
birth, religion and the extent of the religion are the important determinants of the tourists’
perception.
57
7 Chapter VII: Discussion
7.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the discussion of the findings with other previous research in the
tourism literature. It is divided into two groups as the heritage visitors’ profile and tourist’
motivation to heritage site. In the first part, heritage tourists’ characteristics such as age,
gender, and the level of education have been compared with the previous studies. Then,
factors that motivate heritage tourists to Hagia Sophia were compared with the literature.
7.2 Heritage visitors profile
This research has revealed some similarities and differences related to heritage visitors’
profile described by previous researchers. This research is consistent with the result of
Timothy and Boyd (2003), Richards (1996) and Poria, Butler and Airey (2003) that is
heritage tourists have mostly a higher education level. Likewise, Kersletter, Confer and
Grafe (2001) stated that heritage tourists are well-educated. This can be explained by that
heritage tourists are motivated from the educational reasons (Prentice, 1993). One possible
reason why the education level is high among the tourists is that they come from mainly
Europe and USA where education level is relatively higher than other countries.
In the heritage tourism literature, different findings were found in terms of visitors’ age
distribution. While, Huh, Uysal and McClearly (2006) found that there are similar amount
of both male and female visitors, Kersletter et al. (2001) found that there are more male
visitors who visit the heritage sites. However, the number of female participants is higher
in this research which is consistent with the result of Timothy and Boyd (2003). The main
reason for this result can be explained by the willingness of the female heritage tourists to
take a part in the survey. As the participation was not compulsory, there were male
heritage visitors who did not want to fill the questionnaire forms.
On the other hand, this research has also differences than other research conducted on
heritage tourism. First of all, general perception regarding to heritage tourists is that they
are relatively older than other type of tourists (Kersletter, 2001 and Huh et al. 2006).
Conversely, the heritage tourists who visit Hagia Sophia can be considered as tourists who
belong to a young age group. This research revealed that almost half of the heritage tourists
are between 20-29 years old. (n=108). This result is in line with the research of Poria,
Brand and Reichel (2007) that sows the mode age group was the tourist group between 20-
29 years old.
58
Geographic characteristics of this research show that international tourists are dominant in
the sample. In the first step of this research, where data collected in front of the heritage
site, almost all of the tourists come from other countries and there were only 3 Turkish
tourists. This result justifies the view of Timothy and Boyd (2003) that says worldwide
famous hallmark of the countries draw more attention of international tourists while
regional heritage site would bring more local or domestic tourists. If Turkey is considered
as part of Europe, then Richards (1996)’ view which is international tourists are dominant
in the European countries might be true.
7.3 Tourist Motivation
Previous research (Poria, 2001a, 2001b, Poria et al., 2001a, 200b, and 2003) suggested that
understanding of tourists’ experience at the heritage site should be based on the
relationship between the heritage tourists and heritage presented at the site. A distinctive
suggestion given by Poria (2001a, 2001b) is that the tourists’ perception of the site is the
central to understand this phenomenon. However, it should be noted that their study based
on only one heritage site. This study was conducted with the same line of ideas which
based on the investigation of the tourists’ visitation patterns and their perception of the site
in a different heritage site.
This research supports previous studies which suggest that tourists’ perception of the site
as part of their own heritage is the core of the heritage tourists’ experience and behaviour
(Poria et al., 2004a). The findings show that perception of the heritage site’s attributes is a
key issue in the heritage tourism context. This study is consistent with the suggestion of
Poria et al. (2004b) that is the “past” presented at the heritage site motivates heritage
tourists in different areas. Similar to the findings of the study of Poria et al. (2004b), this
study also revealed that tourists wish to visit a heritage site to learn the history of the site
and for recreational reasons. However, besides these reasons, the most important reason
why tourists visit a heritage site is that they link the heritage presented at the site to their
own heritage.
This research concludes that there are three main motivation factors to visiting a heritage
site. These are Heritage / Emotion motivations, Recreation motivations and Culture /
Learning motivations. Some of the motivations are consistent with some previous research
(Kersletter et al., 2001, Prentice, 2003, Poria et al. 2004b and 2006) that emphasises
Education, Learning and Heritage are the main motivations for visiting. However, Poria et
59
al. (2006) added another motives bequeathing children which has not been found from
another research in the literature.
7.4 Summary
To sum up, the findings were compared and contrasted with other findings of the studies. It
can be concluded that tourists’ motivation is linked to the tourists’ perception of the site as
part of their own heritage.
60
8 Chapter VIII: Conclusion, Limitations and Future
Recommendations
8.1 Conclusion
This research attempted to understand tourist motivations for visiting a heritage site.
Furthermore, this research was based on the belief that there was a link between the
tourists’ perceptions and their behaviours. As it was suggested by Timothy (1997) that
understanding behaviours of the tourists should include also understanding the heritage
artefacts or spaces. This research supports the argument that heritage tourism represents
the relationship between the supply and demand of the heritage (Poria et al., 2003).
Furthermore, observations of tourists’ behaviours during the visit at heritage sites show
that tourists differ in their attitudes according to heritage site (Poria, 2001). While some
enjoy visiting a heritage artefacts, others involve themselves emotionally with the heritage
presented at the site. This is the idea that forms the basis of this research.
The main findings of this research support the argument that tourists’ perception of the site
as part of their own heritage is associated with the tourists’ personal characteristics such as
their nationality, religion and the strength of religious belief (Poria, 2001). To illustrate
this, Greek and Turkish tourists perceive the heritage site as part of their own heritage,
while other nationalities do not. In addition to this, heritage site is perceived as part of their
own heritage by Muslim and Christian tourists. Moreover, the strength of their religious
beliefs of tourists may determine the visitors’ perception of the site as part of their own
heritage or not.
This research also revealed that there are three main motivations of the heritage tourists,
namely Heritage / Emotional experience, Recreational motivations and Cultural /
Educational motivations (Poria et al., 2004). It shows that while some tourists are
motivated by the heritage site attributes, others are motivated by their perception of the
site. This research shows that some tourists connect their own heritage with the past
presented by the heritage site. However, besides, this research revealed that educational
motives (Richards, 2001; Chen, 1998) and recreational motives (Timothy and Boyd, 2003;
Prentice, 1993) are the other motivating factors that motivate heritage tourists.
The contribution of this research to the heritage tourism literature is that it confirms that
there is a link between visitors’ perception of the site and their motivation to the heritage
site as it is tested in a different heritage setting. This research supports this argument by
61
finding the relationship between travellers’ perception of the site and the heritage site
attributes based on the different grounds such as different nationality, religion and the
strength of religious belief. Also, results show that there is a relationship between tourists’
satisfaction and their perception of the site as part of their own heritage. This is significant
to understand tourists’ behaviours in the context of heritage tourism. Furthermore, this
research attempted to add new knowledge to the literature of heritage tourism and heritage
tourist.
8.2 Future recommendations
This study adopts a quantitative approach to understand tourists’ motivations and their
perceptions of the site as part of their own heritage. However, future research may also
take a qualitative approach in order to obtain in depth information regarding tourists’
perception. Furthermore, as this research includes only motivations, further research may
investigate tourists’ expectations of the heritage site. This would help to understand of the
tourists’ behaviours before the visit. Also, the interpretation of the heritage to the visitors
could be another factor that affect tourists’ perception of the site and their behaviours. This
research disregarded the interpretation of the heritage by the heritage site management and
tour guides, so it is believed that it is worthy to understand the relationship between
travellers’ perception of the site and its interpretation to the tourists. Although, this
research involves many elements to understand travellers’ perception of the site as part of
their own heritage, it is difficult to measure it. Maybe, a research may be conducted in a
different heritage site where the heritage presented on the site is perceived by many tourists
as part of their own heritage.
This research has some practical implications as well as academic recommendations. First
of all, from the heritage site management’s perspective, it is important, how tourists’
perceive the heritage site. To illustrate this, understanding that some tourists perceive the
heritage site as part of their own heritage means that heritage site managers may develop
specific services such as events, or meetings to those tourists. This would increase WOM
and tourists’ satisfaction. Besides this, the result of this research may help managers to
segment their visitors based on the personal characteristics, perceptions and motivations. It
should be noted that this research showed the importance of the visitors’ perception of the
site. Thus, managers should be aware of the history which is presented on the site and
emphasize it to the visitors.
62
8.3 Limitations of the study
It should be noted that this research has some limitations. First of all, one of the difficulties
faced by the researcher is the time restrictions in the data collection period. Data was
gathered in Istanbul, Turkey in a ten day period.. While it seems that it is a long period to
collect data, there were only 205 participants in the survey. The first reason for this is that
the participants were not willing to stop and participate the questionnaire because they
might be with a group so they wanted to follow the group. Also, because many visitors
came with a cruise ship for 1 or 2 days, they also had time limitations and they did not
want to spend their time to fill a questionnaire form. This information was received from
the visitors during the research period. In addition to this, this study was conducted on only
one heritage site, thus the data received is limited. Further research may involve more than
one heritage site that would allow a fair comparison of the findings.
63
References
1989. The Oxford English Dictionary (20 Volume Set) (Vol 1-20). 2 Edition. Oxford
University Press.
Ashworth, G. J. (2001). “Heritage, Tourism and Cities: A Review”, In Wall, G. (eds.)
Contemporary Perspectives on Tourism, Department of Geography, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, pp. 143-80.
Ashworth, G., J. (2003) “Heritage identity and places: for tourists and host communities”,
In Singh, S., Timothy, D. J. and Dowling, R. (eds.) Tourism in Destination Communities,
CABI, pp. 79-97
Ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr, (2014). İstatistikler. [online] Available at:
http://ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/content/istatistikler [Accessed 24 Sep. 2014].
Ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr, (2014). History. [online] Available at:
http://ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/en/history [Accessed 28 Sep. 2014].
Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996) “Market segments of push and pull motivations: A
canonical correlation approach”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 8(3), pp.32--38.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954) “A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square
approximations”, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296-298.
Bonn, M., Joseph-Mathews, S., Dai, M., Hayes, S. and Cave, J. (2007) “Heritage/cultural
attraction atmospherics: Creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor”,
Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), pp.345--354.
Boyd, S., W. (2008) marketing Challenges and Opportunities for Heritage Tourism. In
Fyall, A., Garrod, B., Leask A. and Wanhill, S. (eds.) “Managing Visitor Attractions: New
Directions “(2nd edn), Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 283-294.
Brotherton, B. (2008) Researching hospitality and tourism. 1st ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Bulmer, M.G. (1967) Tests of significance. In Principles of Statistics. 2nd edn. Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd.
Chen, S., J. (1998) “Travel Motivation of Heritage Tourists”, Tourism Analysis, 2, pp. 211-
233.
64
Chhabra, D. (2010) “Sustainable marketing of cultural and heritage tourism”, 1st ed.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Chhabra, D., Healy, R. and Sills, E. (2003). “Staged authenticity and heritage
tourism. Annals of tourism research”, 30(3), pp.702--719.
Clark, M., Riley, M., Wood, R. C. and Wilkie, E. (1998) “Researching and Writing
Dissertations in Hospitality and Tourism”, London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd edn.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Confer, J., & Kerstetter, D. (2000) “Past perfect: Explorations of heritage tourism”, Parks
and Recreation, 35(2), 28-33.
Crompton, J. (1979) “Motivations for pleasure vacation”, Annals of tourism research, 6(4),
pp.408--424.
Dann, G. (1977) “Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism”, Annals of tourism research,
4(4), pp.184--194.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd
edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
DeVellis,R. F. (2012) Scale development: Theory and applications, 3rd. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications
Dunn Ross, E. and Iso-Ahola, S. (1991) “Sightseeing tourists' motivation and satisfaction”,
Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), pp.226--237.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, P. and Jackson, P.R. (2008) Management Research 3rd edn.
Los Angeles, Calif.; London:Sage.
Emre, N. Y. (2014). Church of Divine Wisdom: Hagia Sophia. Turk Neurosurg, 24(3),
pp.297--301.
Evans, J. and Mathur, A. (2005) “The value of online surveys” Internet Research, 15(2),
pp.195-219.
Field, A.P. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
65
Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (1998) “Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?”, Tourism
management, 19(3), pp.199--212.
Garrod, B., and Fyall, A. (2001) “Heritage Tourism: A Question of Definition”, Annals of
tourism research, 28 (4) pp.1049-1052.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002) Research methods for managers. 3rd edn. London: Sage
Gordon, A. (2004) “Heritage and authenticity: the case of Ontario's Sainte-Marie-among-
the-Hurons” Canadian Historical Review, 85(3), pp.507--532.
Gravetter, F. J. and Wallnau, L. B. (2000) Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. 5th edn.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Herbert, D. (2001) “Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience”, Annals of
tourism research, 28(2), pp.312--333.
Herbert, D. T. (1995) Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Mansell.
Holden, A. (2005) Tourism studies and the social sciences. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Howard, P. (2003) Heritage. 1st ed. London: Continuum.
Huh, J., Uysal, M. and McCleary, K. (2006) “Cultural/heritage destinations: Tourist
satisfaction and market segmentation” Journal of Hospitality \& Leisure Marketing, 14(3),
pp.81--99.
Isaac, R. (2008) Understanding the behaviour of cultural tourists – towards a
classification of Dutch cultural Tourists. Groningen, the Netherlands: Science Guide.
Iso-Ahola, S., (1982) “Toward a social psychological theory of tourism: A rejoinder”,
Annals of Tourism Research. 9(2) pp. 256-261.
Kaiser, H.F. (1970). “A second generation Little Jiffy”, Psychometrika, 35, pp. 401-415.
Kerstetter, D., Confer, J. and Graefe, A. (2001) “An exploration of the specialization
concept within the context of heritage tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), pp.267-
-274.
Kim, E. (1997) “Korean outbound tourism: Pre-visit expectations of Australia”, Journal of
Travel \& Tourism Marketing, 6(1), pp.11--19.
66
Kim, S. S. and Lee, C. K., (2002) “Push and pull relationships” Annals of tourism
research. 29(1) pp.317-322.
Loker-Murphy, L. (1997) “Backpackers in Australia: A motivation-based segmentation
study”, Journal of Travel \& Tourism Marketing, 5(4), pp.23--45.
Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McKercher, B. (2002) “Towards a classification of cultural tourists”, International journal
of tourism research, 4(1), pp.29--38.
Moscardo, G. (1996) “Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism” Annals of Tourism
Research, 23(2), pp. 376-397
Moscardo, G. (2001) Cultural and Heritage Tourism: the great debates. In Faulkner, B.,
Moscardo G. and Laws, E. (eds), Tourism into the Twenty First Century: Reflections on
Experience, Casssel, pp. 3-17
Nguyen, T. and Cheung, C. (2014) “The classification of heritage tourists: a case of Hue
City, Vietnam”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 9(1), pp.35--50.
Nuryanti, W. (1996) “Heritage and postmodern tourism”, Annals of tourism research,
23(2), pp.249--260.
Pallant, J. (2010) SPSS survival manual. 1st ed. Maidenhead: Open University
Press/McGraw-Hill.
Pallant, J. (2013) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
SPSS Program 5th edn. Australia: Allen & Unwin
Paris, C. M., and Teye, V. (2010) “Backpacker Motivations: A Travel Career Approach”,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19:3, 244-259.
Park, H. Y. (2014) Heritage Tourism, 1st (edn.) New York, Routledge
Pearce, P. and Lee, U. (2005) “Developing the travel career approach to tourist
motivation”, Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), pp.226--237.
Pearce, P. L. (1987) Psychological studies of tourist behaviour and experience. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 39(2), pp.173-182
67
Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Pearce, P. L. (1991). “Dream world: A Report on Public Reactions to Dreamworld and
Proposed Developments at Dream world.” In A Report to Ernst and Young on Behalf of the
IOOF in Conjunction with Brian Dermott and Associates. Townsville, Australia:
Department of Tourism, James Cook University.
Pearce, P. L. (1993). “Fundamentals of Tourist Motivation.” In Pearce, D. and Butler, R.
(eds) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
pp. 85-105.
Pearce, P. L., and M. L. Caltabiano (1983). “Inferring Travel Motivation from Travellers’
Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research, 22 (2): 16-20.
Poria, Y. (2001a). Clarifying heritage tourism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School
of Management Studies for the Service Sector, University of Surrey, Guildford.
Poria, Y. (2001b) “The Show Must Not Go On”, Tourism and Hospitality Research 3, pp.
115–119
Poria, Y., Biran, A. and Reichel, A. (2007) “Different Jerusalem for different tourists:
Capital cities-the management of multi-heritage site cities”, Journal of Travel \& Tourism
Marketing, 22(3-4), pp.121--138.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2000) “Clarifying heritage tourism: A distinction
between heritage tourism and tourism in historic places”, Annals of Tourism Research
28(4) pp.1047-49.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., and Airey, D. (2001) “Clarifying Heritage Tourism” Annals of
Tourism Research, 28 (4) 1047-1049.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., and Airey, D. (2003) “The core of heritage tourism: Distinguishing
heritage tourists from the tourists in heritage places” Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1)
pp.238-54.
Poria, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey (2001b) “Tourism Sub-Groups: Do They Exist?”
Tourism Today, 1 (1): 14-22.
68
Poria, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey (2004) “Links between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons
for Visiting Heritage Sites.” Journal of Travel Research, 43: 19-28.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Biran, A. (2006) “Heritage site perceptions and motivations to
visit”, Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), pp.318--326.
Prentice, R. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Raimond, P. (1993) Management Projects. London: Chapman & Hall. Research, 24, (3),
751-754.
Richards, G (1996) Cultural Tourism in Europe, Wallingford, CAB International.
Richards, G. (2001). Cultural attractions and European tourism. Wallingford: CAB
International.
Robinson, R., Wertheim, M. and Senior, G. (1994) “Selling the heritage product”, In
Harrison, R. (ed.), Manual of Heritage Management, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford,
381-99.
Robson, C., (2002) Real world research, 2nd, Blackwell, Oxford
Ryan, C. (1997) The Tourist Experience: A New Approach. London:Cassell.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for Business Students.
6th ed. England, Pearson.
Saunders, M., Thornhill, A. and Lewis, P. (2009) Research methods for business students.
5th edn. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.
Seaton, A. (1994) Tourism. 1st ed. Chichester [England]: John Wiley & Sons.
Sharpley, R. (1993) Tourism and Leisure in the Countryside, ELM Publications,
Huntington.
Shifflet, D. K., & Associates. (1999) Pennsylvania heritage tourism study. Retrieved 15
June, 2014, from
http://www.chinaup.com:8080/memberbook/information/6/Pennsylvania%20Heritage%20
TourismStudyfinalreport.pdf
Silberberg, T. (1995) “Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and
heritage sites” Tourism management, 16(5), pp.361--365.
69
Swarbrooke, J. (1994) “The future of the past: heritage tourism into the 21st century”, in
A.V. Seaton (ed.), Tourism: the state of the art, Wiley, Chichester, 222-9.
Timothy (2011) Cultural Heritage and Tourism. An introduction. Bristol: Channel View
Publications.
Timothy, D. and Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. 1st ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
Timothy, D. J. (1997) “Tourism and the personal heritage experience” Annals of Tourism
Research 24(3), pp.751-754
Triantafillidou, A. and Siomkos, G. (2013) “Summer camping: An extraordinary,
nostalgic, and interpersonal experience”, Journal of Vocation Marketing. 19 (3), pp.197-
208.
Veal, A., J. (2006) Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide. 3th edn.
Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Weiler, B. and Hall, C. (1992) Special interest tourism. 1st ed. London: Belhaven Press.
Yale, P. (1991) From tourist attractions to heritage tourism. 1st ed. Huntingdon: Elm.
Yankholmes, A. and Akyeampong, O. (2010) “Tourists' perceptions of heritage tourism
development in Danish-Osu, Ghana”, International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(5),
pp.603--616.
Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edition. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications
Yuan, S., & McDonald, C. (1990) “Motivational determinants of international pleasure
time” Journal of Travel Research, 24(1): 42-44.
Zeppel, H. and Hall, C. M. (1992) “Arts and heritage tourism”, in Weiler, B. and Hall, C.
M.(eds.), Special Interest Tourism, Belhaven, London, 47-68.
70
Appendices
Appendix i: The list of nationalities
Frequency Valid Percent
Turkish 61 25.0
Greek 46 18.9
English 12 4.9
French 8 3.3
Australian 10 4.1
South African 4 1.6
Uruguay 1 .4
Indian 4 1.6
Russian 7 2.9
German 13 5.3
Italy 5 2.0
Dutch 3 1.2
USA 20 8.2
Poland 4 1.6
Argentina 1 .4
Iranian 1 .4
Swedish 2 .8
Serbian 2 .8
South Korean 3 1.2
Spain 6 2.5
Irish 2 .8
Finland 1 .4
Syria 1 .4
Switzerland 2 .8
Bosnia 1 .4
Czech 1 .4
Bulgarian 3 1.2
Norway 1 .4
Austria 4 1.6
Brazil 5 2.0
Canada 1 .4
New Zealand 1 .4
Lebanon 1 .4
Ukraine 1 .4
Chile 1 .4
71
Colombia 1 .4
Kurdish 1 .4
Romania 3 1.2
Total 244 100.0
Miss-
ing System 3
Total 247
72
Appendix ii: Mean scores for the motivation
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
You visited the site
because of its religious
characteristics
247 1.00 5.00 3.3968 1.41294
You visited the site
because of its historical
background
246 1.00 5.00 4.5407 .88316
You visited the site
because it was on the way
of another site
241 1.00 5.00 2.0705 1.28095
You visited the site
because of physical nature
of the site
243 1.00 5.00 3.6091 1.26272
You visited the site
because you wanted to
learn about the site history
244 1.00 5.00 4.1107 1.00208
You visited the site
because you felt you
should visit the site
240 1.00 5.00 3.6875 1.24686
You visited the site
because it is part of your
own heritage
245 1.00 5.00 3.0286 1.61550
You visited the site
because you wanted to
have some entertainment
237 1.00 5.00 2.6962 1.33106
You visited the site
because it is a must-see
attraction
244 1.00 5.00 4.3689 .94019
You visited the site
because you wanted to feel
emotionally involved
240 1.00 5.00 2.7958 1.44204
You visited the site
because you felt sense of
belonging to the site
242 1.00 5.00 2.4339 1.38072
You visited the site
because you thought it was
important to visit the site
244 1.00 5.00 4.2459 .92795
You visited the site
because you wanted to
relax
240 1.00 5.00 2.1292 1.14438
73
You visited the site
because of its architecture
244 1.00 5.00 4.2910 .94790
Valid N (listwise) 227
74
Appendix iii: Mean scores for the tourists’ experience at the site
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
The visit contributed to your
education
245 1.00 5.00 3.6735 1.27053
the visit to the site moved
you emotionally
246 1.00 5.00 3.4797 1.27998
During the visit you felt that
a part of your own heritage
was displayed
243 1.00 5.00 3.2058 1.53433
the visit to the site made
you feel proud
246 1.00 5.00 3.0854 1.51349
l am satisfied with my visit
to heritage site
246 1.00 5.00 4.2520 .95271
Valid N (listwise) 242
75
Appendix iv: Mean scores related to heritage site attributes
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
The site represents some-
thing which relates to your
own identitiy
243 1.00 5.00 2.8683 1.42844
The site has symbolic mean-
ing for you 244 1.00 5.00 3.1352 1.44378
The site generates a sense
of belonging for you 243 1.00 5.00 2.6914 1.36644
You are aware of the history
of the site 244 1.00 5.00 3.9795 1.04014
It is only a tourist attraction 242 1.00 5.00 2.1694 1.30440
Valid N (listwise) 240
76
Appendix v: Mean scores of tourists’ future behaviours
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
You will re-visit the site in
the future 244 1.00 5.00 3.7254 1.15221
You will recommend your
friends to visit the site 245 1.00 5.00 4.5184 .74429
Valid N (listwise) 244
77
Appendix vi: Factor analysis of tourists’ motivation items
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
You visited the site because you felt sense of be-
longing to the site .823
You visited the site because you wanted to feel
emotionally involved .751
You visited the site because it is part of your own
heritage .704
You visited the site because of its religious charac-
teristics .691
You visited the site because you felt you should vis-
it the site .488
You visited the site because you wanted to have
some entertainment .803
You visited the site because you wanted to relax .782
You visited the site because it was on the way of
another site .595
You visited the site because of its architecture .806
You visited the site because you wanted to learn
about the site history .630
You visited the site because of its historical back-
ground -.307 .553
You visited the site because you thought it was im-
portant to visit the site .553
You visited the site because it is a must-see attrac-
tion .549
You visited the site because of physical nature of
the site .534
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
78
Appendix vii: Questionnaire form (English version)
Dear Sir / Madam
My name is Umut Kadir OGUZ and I am a post-graduate student studying Tourism Management at the
University of Surrey in the United Kingdom. As part of my study, l am writing a dissertation regarding
heritage tourism in Hagia Sophia.
This questionnaire is designed to better understand the tourists’ perception of Hagia Sophia as a heritage site.
It will provide important data for my study and management of the site. The information will be treated as
anonymous and confidential. Participation is optional and/or voluntary.
The questionnaire will take around 7 minutes to complete.
Thank you very much!
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements (1=strongly disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4= Agree and 5=Strongly Agree)
Part I - WHY DID YOU VISIT THE SITE?
You visited the site;
1)because of its religious characteristics 1 2 3 4 5
2)because of its historical background 1 2 3 4 5
3)because it was on the way of another site 1 2 3 4 5
4)because of the physical nature of the site 1 2 3 4 5
5)because you wanted to learn about the site history 1 2 3 4 5
6)because you felt you should visit the site 1 2 3 4 5
7)because it is part of your own heritage 1 2 3 4 5
8)because you wanted to have some entertainment 1 2 3 4 5
9)because it is a must-see attraction 1 2 3 4 5
10)because you wanted to feel emotionally involved 1 2 3 4 5
11)because you felt sense of belonging to the site 1 2 3 4 5
12)because you thought it was important to visit the site 1 2 3 4 5
13)because you wanted to relax 1 2 3 4 5
14)because of its architecture 1 2 3 4 5
Part II - ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE
15)The visit contributed to your education 1 2 3 4 5
16)The visit to the site moved you emotionally 1 2 3 4 5
17)During the visit you felt that a part of your own heritage was displayed 1 2 3 4 5
18)The visit to the site made you feel proud 1 2 3 4 5
19) I am satisfied with my visit to heritage site 1 2 3 4 5
Part III - ABOUT THE SITE
20)The site represents something which relates to your identity 1 2 3 4 5
21)The site has symbolic meaning for you 1 2 3 4 5
22)The site generates a sense of belonging for you 1 2 3 4 5
23)You are aware of the history of the site 1 2 3 4 5
24)It is only a tourist attraction 1 2 3 4 5
Part IV - ABOUT THE FUTURE
25)You will re-visit the site in the future 1 2 3 4 5
26)You will recommend your friends to visit the site 1 2 3 4 5
79
27) Is it your first visit to Istanbul? (If the answer is YES, please DO NOT answer the following two
questions)
a) Yes b) No
28) If NO, please indicate how many times you have visited Turkey before
a) 1-2 times b) 3-4 times c) 5 times or more
29) Have you ever visited Hagia Sophia? If the answer is YES, please indicate how many times you
have been to Hagia Sophia.
a) Yes b) No __________ time(s)
30) Before your visit, have you ever heard of Hagia Sophia?
a) Yes b) No
31) If you knew the site before, how much did you know about it?
a) Very little b) Little c) Somewhat d) Well e) Very well
32) To what extent do you consider the heritage site as part of your own heritage? (1= not at all 3=
Neutral 5= Very important my own heritage)
a) Very little b) Little c) Somewhat d) Well e) Very well
Personal Details
1) Gender
a) Male b) Female
2) Age
a) 18-27 b) 28-37 c) 38-47 d) 48-57 e) 58 and more
3) Nationality ________________________________
4) What is your religion?
a) Christianity b) Islam c) Judaism d) Others____________________
5) To what extent do you consider yourself as religious? (1= Not at all religious, 5= Very
religious)
a) Very little b) Little c) Somewhat d) Well e) Very well
6) Level of Education
a) Primary School b) Secondary School c)High-School d) Undergraduate e) Postgraduate
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
80
Appendix viii: Questionnaire form (French version)
Monsieur, Madame,
Je m'appelle Umut Kadir OGUZ et je suis étudiant en Master Gestion du Tourisme à l'Université de
Surrey au Royaume-Uni.
Dans le cadre de mes études, j’écris mon mémoire sur le tourisme patrimonial à la Sainte-Sophie
d’Istanbul. Ce questionnaire vise à mieux comprendre la perception des touristes de Sainte-Sophie
en tant qu’un site patrimonial. Ce questionnaire va me permettre de rassembler des données
importantes pour mon étude et la gestion du site. Je vous prie de noter que vos réponses seront
traitées de manière strictement anonyme et confidentielle. Votre participation est facultative.
Merci de prendre quelques minutes pour compléter ce questionnaire.
Je vous remercie pour votre collaboration.
Veuillez indiquer dans quelle mesure vous êtes ou n'êtes pas d'accord avec les énoncés suivants (1
= Fortement en désaccord, 3 = Neutre et 5 = Tout à fait d'accord)
Partie I – Pourquoi avez-vous visité ce site patrimonial?
Vous avez visité le site 1) parce que ses éléments religieux vous intéressaient 1 2 3 4 5
2) parce que son contexte historique vous intéressait 1 2 3 4 5
3) parce qu’il se trouvait près d’une autre attraction touristique 1 2 3 4 5
4) en raison de sa nature physique 1 2 3 4 5
5) afin d’en apprendre plus sur l'histoire du site 1 2 3 4 5
6) puisque vous avez pensé qu’il faudrait le visiter 1 2 3 4 5
7) parce qu’il fait partie de votre propre patrimoine 1 2 3 4 5
8) parce que vous aviez l’intention de vous amuser 1 2 3 4 5
9) parce qu’il est une attraction touristique à ne pas rater 1 2 3 4 5
10) parce que vous vous êtes senti(e) plus impliqué(e) sur le plan émotionnel 1 2 3 4 5
11) parce que vous aviez un sentiment d'appartenance à ce site 1 2 3 4 5
12) parce que vous pensiez qu’il était important de le visiter 1 2 3 4 5
13) afin de vous détendre 1 2 3 4 5
14) parce que son architecture vous attirait 1 2 3 4 5
Partie II – A propos de votre expérience 15) Le site a fait une contribution à votre éducation 1 2 3 4 5
16) Cette visite vous a ému 1 2 3 4 5
17) Pendant votre visite vous avez vu une exposition de votre propre patrimoine 1 2 3 4 5
18) Durant votre visite vous vous êtes senti très fier/fière 1 2 3 4 5
19) Je suis satisfait(e) d’avoir visité ce site 1 2 3 4 5
Partie III – A propos du site 20) Le site est une représentation de quelque chose qui a trait à votre identité 1 2 3 4 5
21) Le site a un sens symbolique pour vous 1 2 3 4 5
22) Vous croyez que vous appartenez à ce site culturel 1 2 3 4 5
23) Vous êtes bien informé(e) de l’histoire du site 1 2 3 4 5
24) C’est seulement une attraction touristique 1 2 3 4 5
Partie IV – A propos d’avenir 25) Vous visiterez le site encore une fois à l’avenir 1 2 3 4 5
26) Vous recommanderez le site à vos amis 1 2 3 4 5
81
27) Est-ce votre première visite en Istanbul? (Si votre réponse est OUI, veuillez NE PAS répondre aux deux
questions suivantes)
a) Oui b) Non
28) Si NON, veuillez indiquer combien de fois vous avez été en Istanbul.
a) 1-2 fois b) 3-4 fois c) 5 fois et plus
29) Avez-vous déjà visité la basilique Sainte-Sophie? Si votre réponse est OUI, veuillez indiquer combien de
fois vous y êtes déjà allé(e)s.
a) Oui b) Non __________ fois
30) Avant votre visite, aviez-vous déjà entendu parler de la Sainte-Sophie?
a) Oui b) Non
31) Si vous aviez une connaissance de ce site culturel avant la visite, comment était votre connaissance?
a) Très peu b) Un peu c) Assez d) Bonne e) Très bonne
32) Dans quelle mesure pensez-vous que ce site patrimonial fait partie de votre propre patrimoine? (1= pas
du tout 3= neutre 5= très important/mon propre patrimoine)
a) Très peu b) Un peu c) Assez d) Bonne e) Très bonne
Informations personnelles
1) Sexe
a) Masculin b) Féminin
2) Âge
a) 18-27 b) 28-37 c) 38-47 d) 48-57 e) 58 et plus
3) Nationalité ________________________________
4) Quelle est votre religion?
a) Christianisme b) Islam c) Judaïsme d) Autres ____________________
5) Dans quelle mesure vous considérez-vous comme religieux/euse? (1= pas du tout, 5= trop)
a) Très peu b) Un peu c) Assez d) Bonne e) Très bonne
6) Niveau d'éducation
a) Ecole primaire b) Collège c) Lycée d) Licence e) Master
MERCI BEAUCOUP!!!
82
Appendix ix: Questionnaire form (Greek version)
Αγαπητέ Κύριε, Αγαπητή Κυρία,
Με λένε Umut Kadir Oguz και είμαι ένας μεταπτυχιακός φοιτητής που σπουδάζει διαχείριση
τουρισμού στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Σάρρεϋ (Surrey) στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο.
Στο γενικότερο πλαίσιο της μελέτης μου, γράφω μια διατριβή για την τουριστική κληρονομιά της
Αγίας Σοφίας. Αυτό το ερωτηματολόγιο έχει σχεδιαστεί για να κατανοήσουμε καλύτερα την
αντίληψη των τουριστών της Αγίας Σοφίας που είναι ένα μνημείο πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς. Το
ερωτηματολόγιο αυτό παίζει σπουδαίο ρόλο για τη μελέτη μου και την διαχείριση του χώρου.
Όλες οι πληροφορίες μπορούν να παρέχονται ανώνυμα και θα αντιμετωπίζονται με απόλυτη
εμπιστευτικότητα. Η συμμετοχή είναι προαιρετική και εθελοντική.
Το ερωτηματολόγιο θα πάρει περίπου 7 λεπτά για να ολοκληρωθεί.
Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ!
Παρακαλείστε να αναφέρετε σε ποιο βαθμό συμφωνείτε ή διαφωνείτε με τις ακόλουθες δηλώσεις (1=
Διαφωνώ απόλυτα, 3= Ουδέτερος και 5= Συμφωνώ απόλυτα).
Μέρος 1 - Γιατί επισκεφτήκατε το χώρο;
Eπισκεφτήκατε την τοποθεσία 1) λόγω της θρησκευτικής σημασίας της 1 2 3 4 5
2) λόγω του ιστορικού πλαισίου της 1 2 3 4 5
3) επειδή βρίσκεται κοντά σε άλλο αξιοθέατο 1 2 3 4 5
4) λόγω της φυσικής ομορφιάς της 1 2 3 4 5
5) γιατί θέλατε να μάθετε για την ιστορία της 1 2 3 4 5
6) επειδή αισθανθήκατε ότι έπρεπε να την επισκεφθείτε 1 2 3 4 5
7) διότι είναι ένα μέρος της δικής σας κληρονομιάς 1 2 3 4 5
8) για διασκέδαση 1 2 3 4 5
9) γιατί είναι ένα αξιοθέατο που αξίζει να το δεις 1 2 3 4 5
10) γιατί εμπλέκεστε συναισθηματικά με το χώρο 1 2 3 4 5
11) διότι αισθανθήκατε σαν στο σπίτι σας 1 2 3 4 5
12) γιατί πιστέψατε ότι είναι σημαντικό να κάνετε επίσκεψη 1 2 3 4 5
13) επειδή θέλατε να χαλαρώσετε 1 2 3 4 5
14) γιατί η αρχιτεκτονική της σας ενδιαφέρει 1 2 3 4 5
Μέρος 2 – Eμπειρία σας 15) Η τοποθεσία συνέβαλε στην εκπαίδευσή σας 1 2 3 4 5
16) Συγκινηθήκατε από αυτή την επίσκεψη 1 2 3 4 5
17) Κατά τη διάρκεια της επίσκεψης, νιώσατε οως ανακαλύψατε ένα μέρος της δικής
σας κληρονομιάς 1 2 3 4 5
18) Η επίσκεψη αυτή σας προκάλεσε αίσθημα υπερηφάνειας 1 2 3 4 5
19) Είστε ικανοποιημένος/η με την επίσκεψή σας σε αυτή την τοποθεσία 1 2 3 4 5
Μέρος 3 - Ο χώρος 20) Η τοποθεσία αντιπροσωπεύει κάτι το οποίο σχετίζεται με την ταυτότητά σας 1 2 3 4 5
21) Ο χώρος έχει συμβολική σημασία για εσάς 1 2 3 4 5
22) Η τοποθεσία σας έκανε να αισθάνεστε ότι ανήκετε εκεί.. 1 2 3 4 5
23) Συνειδητοποιείτε την ιστορία του χώρου 1 2 3 4 5
24) Είναι μόνο ένα αξιοθέατο. 1 2 3 4 5
Μέρος 4 - Σχετικά με το μέλλον 25) Θα επισκεφθείτε την τοποθεσία ξανά στο μέλλον 1 2 3 4 5
26) Θα συστήσετε στους φίλους σας να επισκεφθούν το αξιοθέατο 1 2 3 4 5
83
27) Είναι η πρώτη σας φορά στην istanbul; (Αν η απάντηση σας είναι NAI, παρακαλώ ΜΗΝ
απαντήσετε σε ερωτήσεις 28 και 29.)
α) Ναι β) Όχι
28) Εάν OXI, παρακαλείστε να αναφέρετε πόσες φορές έχετε επισκεφθεί την Istanbul πριν;
α) 1-2 φορές β) 3-4 φορές γ) 5 και περισσότερες φορές
29) Έχετε επισκεφθεί ποτέ την Αγία Σοφία; Αν η απάντηση σας είναι ΝΑΙ, παρακαλείστε να αναφέρετε
πόσες φορές έχετε πάει στην Αγία Σοφία.
α) Ναι β) Όχι __________ φορά / φορές
30) Πριν από την επίσκεψή σας, είχατε ποτέ ακούσει για την Αγία Σοφία;
α) Ναι β) Όχι
31) Εάν ξέρατε το μέρος από πριν, πόσα ξέρεις γι'αυτό;
α) Πολύ λίγο β) Λίγο γ) Κάπως δ) Καλά ε) Πολύ Καλά
32) Σε ποιο βαθμό θεωρείτε αυτό το μνημείο πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς ως μέρος της δικής σας
κληρονομιάς; (1 = καθόλου 3 = ουδέτερος 5 = πάρα πολύ σημαντική/δική μου κληρονομιά)
α) Πολύ λίγο β) Λίγο γ) Κάπως δ) Καλά ε) Πολύ Καλά
Προσωπικές πληροφορίες
1) Φύλο
α) Αρσενικός β) Θηλυκός
2) Hλικία
α) 18-27 β) 28-37 γ) 38-47 δ) 48-57 ε) 58 και πάνω
3) Ιθαγένεια _________________________
4) Ποια είναι η θρησκεία σας;
α) Χριστιανισμός β) Ισλάμ γ) Ιουδαϊσμός δ) Άλλη ____________________
5) Σε ποιο βαθμό είστε θρησκευτικός/ή; (1 = καθόλου 5 = πάρα πολύ)
α) Πολύ λίγο β) Λίγο γ) Κάπως δ) Καλά ε) Πολύ Καλά
6) Επίπεδο Εκπαίδευσης
α) Δημοτικό β) Γυμνάσιο γ) Λύκειο δ) Προπτυχιακό ε) Μεταπτυχιακό/Διδακτορικό
ΣΑΣ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΏ ΠΑΡΑ ΠΟΛΎ!!!
84
Appendix x: Questionnaire form (Turkish version)
Sayın Katılımcı,
Ben Umut Kadir Oğuz. İngiltere’deki Surrey Üniversitesi’nde Turizm İşletmeciliği alanında
yüksek lisans yapmaktayım. Yüksek lisans tezimi “Ayasofya’yi ziyaret eden turistlerin
motivasyonu” konusu uzerine yazmaktayim.
Bu anket Ayasofya’yı ziyaret eden turistlerin Ayasofya’yı algılayışlarını daha iyi görebilmemiz
için hazırlanmıştır. Bu çalışma tezim için önemli bir veri kaynağı teşkil edecektir. Bu araştırmada
belirteceğiniz görüş ve değerlendirmeleriniz ve kişisel bilgileriniz araştırmanın
gerçekleştirilmesinde temel kaynak olup herhangi bir şekilde herhangi bir üçüncü şahıs ve/veya
kurumlarla paylaşılmayacak gizli tutulacaktır. Ankete katılımınız zorunlu değildir.
Bu anket formunu doldurmak için 5 dakikanızı ayırırsanız sevinirim.
Şimdiden çok teşekkür ederim!
Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelere ne ölçüde katılıp katılmadığınızı bir rakamı (1’den 5’e kadar) işaretleyerek
gösteriniz (1=Kesinlikle katılmıyorum, 2=Katilmiyorum 3=Fikrim yok, 4=Katiliyorum ve 5=Kesinlikle
katılıyorum)
Kısım 1 – Neden Ayasofya’yı ziyaret ettiniz?
Ayasofya’yi; 1) dini ozelliklerinden dolayi ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
2) tarihi gecmisinden dolayi ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
3) baska bir tarihi esere yakin oldugu icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
4) fiziki yapisindan dolayi ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
5) tarihi hakkinda bilgi edinmek icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
6) ziyaret etme gerekliligini hissettigim icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
7) kendi kulturel mirasimdan bir parca oldugundan dolayi ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
8) keyifli vakit gecirmek icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
9) gorulmesi gereken bir eser oldugu icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
10) burasi ile duygusal bir bag kurdugum icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
11) kendimi oraya ait hissettigim icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
12) onemli bir yer oldugunu dusundugum icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
13) rahatlamak icin ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
14) mimarisinden dolayi ziyaret ettim 1 2 3 4 5
Kısım 2 – Deneyiminiz Hakkında 15)Bu tarihi eser egitiminize katkida bulundu 1 2 3 4 5
16)Bu ziyaret beni duygusal bakimdan etkiledi 1 2 3 4 5
17)Ziyaret suresince sizin kulturel mirasinizdan bir parcanin sergilendigine tanik
oldunuz 1 2 3 4 5
18)Bu ziyaret beni gururlandirdi 1 2 3 4 5
19)Burayi ziyaret ettigim icin cok memnunum 1 2 3 4 5
Kısım 3 – Eser Hakkında 20) Bu eski eser sizin kimliginizle baglantili bir seyi temsil etmektedir 1 2 3 4 5
21) Bu eski eserin sizin icin sembolik bir anlami vardir 1 2 3 4 5
22) Bu yapi size buraya ait oldugunuzu hissettirmektedir 1 2 3 4 5
23) Bu eserin tarihini biliyorsunuz 1 2 3 4 5
24) Burasi sadece gezilip gorulecek bir yer 1 2 3 4 5
Kısım 4 – Gelecek Hakkında 25) Gelecekte burayı tekrar ziyaret edeceksiniz. 1 2 3 4 5
26) Arkadaşlarınıza burayı ziyaret etmelerini önereceksiniz. 1 2 3 4 5
85
27) Bu “Istanbul”’a ilk gelişiniz mi? (Eğer cevabınız EVET ise, 28. ve 29. sorulara cevap vermeyiniz.)
a) Evet b) Hayır
28) Cevabınız HAYIR ise, lütfen Istanbula’a daha önce kaç defa geldiğinizi aşağıda belirtiniz
a) 1-2 defa b) 3-4 defa c) 5 veya daha cok
29) Ayasofya’yı hiç ziyaret ettiniz mi? Ettiyseniz, lütfen kaç defa ziyarette bulunduğunuzu aşağıdaki
boşluğa yazınız.
a) Evet b) Hayır __________ defa
30) Ziyaretinizden önce Ayasofya’yı hiç duymuş muydunuz?
a) Evet b) Hayır
31). Cevabiniz EVET ise, Ayasofya hakkında ne derecede bilgi sahibiydiniz?
a) Çok az b) Az c) Orta d) İyi e) Çok iyi
32) Bu kültür mirasını ne ölçüde kendi mirasınızın bir parçası olarak görüyorsunuz?
a) Çok az b) Az c) Orta d) İyi e) Çok iyi
Kişisel Bilgiler
1) Cinsiyetiniz
a) Erkek b) Kadın
2) Yaşınız
a) 18-27 b) 28-37 c) 38-47 d) 48-57 e) 58 ve üzeri
3) Uyruğunuz ________________________________
4) Hangi dine mensupsunuz?
a) Hristiyanlık b) Müslümanlık c) Yahudilik d)
Diğerleri_____________
5) Kendinizi ne ölçüde dindar bir kişi olarak görmektesiniz?
a) Çok az b) Az c) Orta d) İyi e) Çok iyi
6) Öğrenim Durumunuz:
a) İlkokul b) Ortaokul c)Lise d) Lisans e) Lisansüstü
ÇOK TEŞEKKÜRLER!!!
86
Appendix xi: Ethical issues in Research
