cultural tourists: “an attempt to classify them”
TRANSCRIPT
Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Tourism Management Perspectives
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / tmp
Cultural tourists: “An attempt to classify them”
Agata Niemczyk ⁎Department of Tourism, Faculty of Management at the Cracow University of Economics, 27 Rakowicka Street, 31-510 Cracow, Poland
⁎ Tel.: +48 12 2935 692; fax: +48 12 2935 045.E-mail address: [email protected].
2211-9736/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.09.006
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 24 July 2012Accepted 25 September 2012
Keywords:CulturalTouristProductMcKercher/Du Cros typologySegment
This paper suggests a classification of cultural tourism participants by building on the McKercher–Du Crostypology in a Polish context. Based on a sample of 600 tourists arriving in Cracow to visit monuments andmuseums, participate in cultural events, and experience the cultural milieu, the study identified five mainclusters. These were the ‘Purposeful’, ‘Serendipitous’, ‘Sightseeing’, ‘Incidental’ and ‘Casual.’ It was alsofound that motives for participation in cultural tourism are based on two dimensions, the importance of cul-ture to the visitor and presentation of culture at the destination. The ‘Purposeful’ tourist proved the mostnumerous, thereby indicating the importance of the cultural motive as a determinant to travel within thissample.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Cultural tourism is nowadays recognised as one of the most im-portant forms of tourist traffic in the world, particularly in Europe,and UNWTO forecasts that, by 2020, cultural tourism will becomeone of its main forms of focus (e.g. Boyd, 2002; Frangialli, 2002;Light & Prentice, 1994). This suggests a potential growth in the levelof demand for tourist products, based on cultural values.
In light of the above, there is justification for a deeper interest intothe subject matter of cultural tourism and its participants. The pur-pose of this article is to depict the classification of cultural tourists,as presented in specialised literature, with particular considerationto the works of McKercher and Du Cros (2002, pp. 139–140,144–150) which, on completion of modification, was applied to Pol-ish conditions.
This paper examines the following hypotheses:
(1). The variety of local resources of a cultural nature constitutes thecomponents of a core territorial product and determines theheterogeneity of motives for cultural tourists to travel.
(2). The motives for participation in cultural tourism differentiate theimportance of culture in decisions to travel to a given touristic area.
(3). The motives for participation in cultural tourism differentiate thelevel of cultural acceptance in a given touristic area.
2. Related literature
A variety of institutions, organisations and researchers haveexpressed their views on cultural tourism (WTO, 1995, 2005; Fyall
rights reserved.
& Garrod, 1998; Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2001; Picard, 1987; vonRohrscheidt, 2008; Gaworecki, 2007). The given, wide-ranging defini-tions of cultural tourism suggest that the focus of this work shouldconcentrate on those applicable to this paper.
According to Richards, for example, the definition of cultural tourismentails not only the consumption of a cultural past, historical product,but also those which include the contemporary, cultural way of life ofthe people and/or region. Cultural tourism can therefore be regardedas covering both bheritage tourism> and barts tourism> (Richards,2001, p. 7). Niemczyk (2008, 2010, 2011a) interprets cultural tourismas a form of travel, which is connected with the voluntary departurefrom one's place of residence, during one's time off work, for a continu-ous period of not more than 12 months without any break. This in-volves the participant being aware, to a lesser or greater degree of theplace where he or she is visiting; in which culture (the core elementof the tourist product) plays a significant role when planning a journey.This is oriented towards: becoming acquainted with new places, theircommunities, cultures, their interest in art, architecture and history,participation in cultural and artistic events, a “return to one's routes”,and contact with the sacrum; duringwhich a tourist experiences the re-ception and cultural wealth of a given location. Hence, personal contactwith the local environment — in particular, the cultural environmentas well as its natural surroundings, plays a key role in becomingacquainted with the culture of the target place. This in turn satisfies awide spectrum of needs. Moreover, Niemczyk also highlights that cul-tural tourism is often practiced together with other forms of tourism.This is also emphasised in other literature (Boyd, 2002; McKercher &Du Cros, 2002; Silberberg, 1995). Furthermore, one may coin the thesisthat a tourist oriented towards becoming acquaintedwith the culture ofa given place should make use of every possible opportunity during thetravel to connect with the culture. This could include e.g. business trips,which are more and more often accompanied by becoming acquainted
Serendipitous cultural touristPurposeful cultural
tourist
Incidental cultural tourist
Casual cultural tourist
Sightseeing cultural tourist
The importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination
highlow
Exp
erie
nce
soug
ht
shallow
deep
Fig. 1. Matrix of cultural tourist types by McKercher and Du Cros.
1 Cracow is a typical example of a territorial cultural tourism product. It is enough tomention that the Royal Capital City of Cracow was designated the European Capital ofCulture in 2000 under decision of the European Council. [More: (Mika, 2011)].
2 The highest index of responses is gained by the researchers who decide to go forpersonal contact with the respondent embracing both the moment of handing downthe questionnaire and its receipt. It is then possible to control the measuring instru-ment in terms of correctness of fulfilling it.
3 The final version of the questionnaire was preceded by a pilot survey.4 The questionnaire included questions which were used in a much larger research
result of which is successively published. Up till now the article entitled Single personsand their tourism behaviour concern cultural tourism — selected problems was published.Subsequently three were accepted for publishing after receiving positive reviews, theseare: “Film and its impact on the development of tourism movement”, “Domestic andforeign tourists and their tourism behaviour concern cultural tourism” and “The impactof income on the behaviour of cultural tourism participants — selected problems”, alsothe monograph “Differentiation of consumer behaviour on the cultural tourism market.”
25A. Niemczyk / Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
with the culture of a chosen location (Niemczyk, 2011b), or visits tofamily and/or friends, etc.
The above considerations permit one to conclude that culturaltourism is complex in its nature. This fact is also borne out by themultiplicity of forms, which are provided in great detail in specialisedliterature (Jätzold, 1993; Kosiński, 2004; Buczkowska, 2008).
Consequently, it could be stated that the product of cultural tourismintegrates the components, which, above all, attract tourists with a cer-tain uniqueness and exceptionality of anthropogenic features (each ofthem meeting a different sub-group of needs to experience the cul-ture). This also enables a satisfaction of requirements connected withthe travel and stay in a certain area. In other words, it is a cluster of us-ability, creating a set of goods and services and thus facilitating traveltaken for cultural purposes. The most important components, whichattract tourists with uniqueness and exceptionality, are the culturalasset resources of a chosen place. These are assets created by humanskills, being of objective, historic and artistic value. They may haveboth tangible and intangible dimensions, concerning both past andcontemporary life. These are the features of historic monuments,museums, architecture, folklore, legends and tales connectedwith a re-gion, and the lifestyle of inhabitants, to name a few. They constitute themajor force attracting tourists oriented towards ‘contact’ (getting toknow and getting involved) with the culture of the area. A culturaltourism product is very much differentiated in terms of both the bene-fits offered and to whom they are addressed. As a result, a heteroge-neous cluster of cultural tourists occurs and this could be referred toas a mega product, satisfying the needs of many recipients. This megaproduct is composed of many sub-products out of which each is iden-tified through a prism of personal benefit together with the wholematerial-service, tourist infrastructure. This is the way to single outvarious sub-products of cultural tourism. What makes them differentare the components fulfilling themain need for travel, which constitutethe cores of each of them. Taking into account the interest in contem-porary, post-industrial society in forms of cultural tourism as well asthe status of a given catalogue ranges in response to demand, theauthor of this paper specifies the following sub-products: a) culturalheritage tourism, b)museum tourism, c) industrial tourism, d) culturalevents tourism, e) historical-military tourism, f) religious-pilgrimagetourism and g) culinary tourism. The attention herein shall be paid tosome of their recipients.
The diversity among forms of cultural tourism and the sub-productsthat satisfy consumer needs provides incentives to formulate a thesisbased on a heterogeneous cluster ofmotives for pursuing cultural tour-ism. This will confirm the stability of the first hypothesis and it will alsoprove in how far a cultural tourist group is differentiated. They are themain subjects of this contribution.
Specialised literature has for a long time attempted to classifytourists on the basis of their forms of activity. Among these thepublication shall select those, which specify tourists focused on cog-nizance and culture in the place of reception in the general senseof the word (Lohmann, 1999, pp. 63–65; Richards, 1996, pp. 19–46;Nahrstedt, 1997, pp. 105–110; Silberberg, 1995, pp. 361–365;Timothy, 1997, pp. 751–754; McIntosh, Prentice, 1999, pp. 589–612;Prentice, 2001, pp. 5–26; Swarbrooke, Horner, 1999; Cohen, 1972,pp. 64–82). Of key importance, in terms of the purpose of this publica-tion, is the classification proposed by that of McKercher and Du Cros(2002, 2003, pp. 45–58) (described also by Richards, 2007, pp. 26-28).Bearing in mind the importance of culture in the decision to visit a des-tination and the experience sought, thiswork distinguishesfive types oftourists (see Fig. 1). The first one is the purposeful cultural tourist forwhom the acquisition of knowledge of another nation's culture is themain reason for travelling to a given place; and the level of reception tothe contents to which they are exposed is high. The second— incidental,for whom focusing on cultural matters is not of particular importancewhen planning to travel, but during the stay the tourist engages insome form of cultural activity, where cognitive significance plays little
importance. The third — serendipitous, for whom in effect focuses oncultural matters and which is of no importance at all when planningto travel, yet they gladly take up some form of cultural activity duringthe stay such that the level of reception to contents is high. For thefourth— casual, focuses on cultural matters andwhich is of little impor-tance when planning to travel, and the travel itself, even in the event ofencountering culture, is rather shallow in terms of its cognitive impact.The fifth and final element, sightseeing, refers to travel with the desireto gain knowledge about a culture of another nation, but visiting is ofa rather loose nature, focused on entertainment.
The distinguished types of tourists became the basis for the author'sown research described below.
3. Method
The research was carried out in Cracow,1 Poland between May andSeptember 2010. The purpose was to conduct a classification of culturaltourists. The empirical data was gathered by means of personal inter-view.2 The research tool used was the author's questionnaire survey3
consisting of several dozen content-related questions—multi-chotomousand open-endedwith ten questions identifying the socio-economic statusof the interviewee.4
The research covered six hundred tourists visiting monuments andmuseums in Cracow (first group of respondents), getting involved inhigh cultural events (theatre plays, festivals, music shows, concerts,etc.) (second group), and experiencing sacrum (that is to take part inreligious services, get in contact with religious art, places of worship,etc.) (third group). Consequently, three groups of tourists were identi-fied, depending on theirmotive for participation in tourist travel, that iscultural heritage-oriented tourist (the so-calledmonuments segment),tourists taking part in high culture events (the so-called events seg-ment) and the religious-pilgrimage-oriented tourist (the so-called
Table 1Components defining the importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination.
Ranks Components and their variables Points
The main reason for visiting a tourist destination2 Visiting monuments and museums 5
Participating in cultural events 5Participating in theatre performances, operatic events, etc. 5Travel of a religious nature 5Business 2Visiting relatives and friends 2Other 1
Factors determining the choice of a tourist destination1 Landscape/architecture 5
Monuments 5Museums/galleries 5Cultural events 5Religious cult 5Local environment (inhabitants) 5Local atmosphere 4Travel 3Local communication 4Accommodation 4Catering services 4Recreation–sports–entertainment 1Local costs/prices 3
The importance of cultural assets when planning a travel to a tourist destination3 Very important 5
Important 4Not particularly important 1Irrelevant 0
Pre-travel preparations2 Learning about the traditions and history of the location 5
Learning a few words of the local language 3Looking for information on the destination's prices 1Other (finding out about the destination, searching forinformation about related attractions)
2
No preparation 0
Table 2Components defining the level of reception of culture at the destination.
Ranks Components and their variables Points
Assessment of a city's touristic product elements2 Landscape/architecture Assessment of each of the city's
tourist product elements constitutedthe average of assessments given byeach respondent; these assessmentswere given the following points:very good— 5, good — 4, mediocre — 3,bad, very bad — 0
MonumentsMuseum offer, galleriesCultural events offerReligious cult placesThe atmosphere of the placeLocal communicationAccommodation offerCatering services offer
Assessment of impressions based on the reception of aspects of culture3 Evokes wonder 5
Like it, but doesn't evokewonder
3
Makes no impression 0
Compliance with expectations2 The travel clearly exceeds
expectations5
The travel complies withexpectations
3
Expectations concerning thetourist trip were greater
0
Intention to return to the destination2 Yes 5
No 0Unknown 1
26 A. Niemczyk / Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
religion segment). Within the matter of choosing the trial, quota sam-pling was used (Babbie, 2004, pp. 206; Brzeziński, 2003, pp. 234–235;Nowak, 2007, pp. 301), equal in terms of number for all surveyedgroups, which were singled out respectively to the motive for partici-pation in cultural tourism. Respondents were chosen on a randombasis in specified places in Cracow. All respondents were over fifteenyears old. Moreover, if a family was surveyed, only one member wasinterviewed, and in the case of an organised group, not more than tworepresentatives were covered (this approach was aimed at preventingthe over-representation of information).
What was proposed in order to realise the assumed research problemwas the author's version of the modified McKercher and Du Cros matrix(compare Fig. 1). The proposed matrix is based on the two dimensions:
1. The importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination.2. The level of reception of culture at the destination.
Both dimensions of the matrix were described through the prismof certain components. And so it was accepted that the first dimen-sion of the proposed matrix constitutes a function of the followingcomponents:
• The main reason for visiting a tourist destination,• Factors determining the choice of a tourist destination,• The importance of cultural assets when planning a travel to a touristdestination,
• Actions taken within the framework of travel preparation.
Whereas, the second dimension of the matrix includes compo-nents such as:
• Assessment of a city's touristic product elements,• Assessment of impressions based on the reception of cultural as-pects,
• Compliance with expectations,• Intention to return to the destination.
Each specified component was described with the use of somevariables collected on the basis of the research questionnaire, andtheir detailed specification is shown on Tables 1 and 2.
What must be emphasised is the difficulty of the undertaking,which is expressed by the fact that the variables accepted for researchwere of a qualitative nature. As a consequence, in order to qualify therespondents to one of the groups of tourists, the above, given variableswere assigned points ranging from 1 to 5 on a linear scale (see Tables 1and 2), assuming that the highest values signified the greatest impactof a given variable from the respective component. That is, on the impor-tance of culture in thedecision to travel to a tourist destination— Table 1as well as on the level of cultural reception at a tourist destination —
Table 2. It was decided that the intensity of a variable impact is greater;themore it is linked to the cultural aspect of tourist travel. For example,among the factors determining the choice of a tourist destination (it isone of the components describing the first dimension) the followingcould be found:
a) Landscape/architecture, monuments, museum offer, galleries, cul-tural events offer, places of worship, and local environment —
assessed at level five and treated as factors forming the core of acultural tourism product;
b) The ambience of the place — level four (the atmosphere of a givenplace is often created by cultural asset resources);
c) Local communication, accommodation and catering,which are com-plementary constituents of a product are frequently characterisedby pro-cultural aspects e.g. castle hotel, regional cuisine or transportexclusive to a given place — assessed at level four;
d) The travel and costs of the stay as product have no significant con-nection with culture, but necessary for the consumption of the cul-tural tourism product — assessed at level three;
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
The importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
The
leve
l of r
ecep
tion
of c
ultu
re a
t the
des
tinat
ion 150
13212631
161
Serendipitous cultural tourist Purposeful cultural tourist
Sightseeing cultural tourist
Casual cultural tourist
Incidental cultural tourist
Fig. 2. Division of cultural tourists — matrix approach.
27A. Niemczyk / Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
e) The provision of sports, recreation and entertainment is not connectedwith culture, but satisfies tourist free time— assessed at level one.It must be emphasised that a zero value was assigned to insignificantvariables, having no direct relevance to the analysed phenomenon.Moreover, it was observed that within the given dimension of thematrix not all specified components are equally, substantively signifi-cant. As a result they were assigned values from 1 to 3, where thehighest levels had the greatest importance in this range.5
All variables singled out, within the components, were normalisedin order to bring them on to a mutual type of comparability. The pro-cedure of unitarisation was applied (using the appropriate formulafor stimulants) (Strahl, 1998; Mynarski, 1992; Grabiński, Wydymus,Zeliaś 1978; Pawełek, 2008; Nowak, 2007; Malina & Zeliaś, 1998;Cieślak, 1997). It must be added that the conditions for comparabilityand uniformity of preferences were fulfilled. A variable used to iden-tify the values for both dimensions of the matrix (the importance ofculture in the decision to visit a destination and the level of receptionof culture at the destination) for each cultural tourist individually,was the so-called synthetic variable, enabling the replacement of afew components by one aggregated variable. The process of creatingthis was conducted according to the following formula:
z ′ri ¼1n
Xn
j¼1
wjzrj ð1Þ
where:
zri′ synthetic variable of each i component for each r tourist,r 1,2,…,600 (number of tourists),i number of components describing a given dimension of the
matrix.n number of variables constituting the component of a particu-
lar dimension of the matrix,wj weight of each variable j,j 1,2,…,n (number of variables constituting the component of
a particular dimension of the matrix),
5 The evaluation was performed from a cultural tourist's perspective.
zrj normalised value of each variable j comprising the compo-nents of a given dimension of the matrix for each r tourist.
The value of a synthetic variable of a given dimension of thematrix for each tourist was created on the basis of partial syntheticvariables describing its respective components (each dimension wasdescribed with four components). Consequently, the aggregated var-iable was specified with the following formula:
z ′r ¼14
X4
i¼1
z ′ri ð2Þ
where:
zr′ synthetic variable of a given dimension of the matrix foreach r tourist.
r 1,2,…,600 (number of tourists),i number of components,zri′ synthetic variable of each i component for each r tourist,
The above algorithm of proceedings allowed the gathering ofextreme matrix points, which were included in the numerical range[0, 1]. What was also significant was the division of the surveyedgroup into five sub-groups (sectors) of cultural tourism participants,which are casual, sightseeing, incidental, serendipitous and also pur-poseful tourists whose characteristics were presented above. Thelimits for each sector were set by the points settled on the basis ofobservations made (the delimitation of cultural tourists on the basisof observation of the distribution of cases according to the author isright, considering the spatial and subject matter scope of the research.It should be assumed that the cut-off points dividing cultural touristtypes in other destinations should be different.). First of all, settingthe cut-off points was determined by clearly marked concentrationsof tourists (compare Fig. 2). The groupings of individuals researchedallowed for the determination of clear cut-off points on the Y-axis(0.77) and the X-axis (0.53). A matter of decision was the markingof the second cut-off point on the X-axis, which would enable sectordifferentiation of casual tourists from those sightseeing (see Fig. 2).
28 A. Niemczyk / Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
The median (0.77) was accepted as a cut-off point, which divided theentire population into two equal parts. As a result, it was decided thatthe values on the Y-axis ranging from 0 to 0.77 and, at the same time,on the X-axis from 0 to 0.53 classify tourists to the group of incidentaltourists, values from 0.53 to 0.77 — to casual tourists, and values over0.77 — to sightseeing tourists. The values on the Y-axis from 0.77 to 1and at the same time, on the X-axis from 0 to 0.77, however, classifytourists as “purposeful.” The matrix cut-off points determined in thisway became a pattern for the classification of both the entirety ofcultural tourists and tourists belonging to the following segments:monuments, events and religion.
4. Result and discussion
The research permitted the distinction of five cultural tourist types(see Fig. 1), bearing in mind the importance of culture in the decisionto visit a destination and the level of reception of culture at a givenplace. The purpose of the research was to obtain an answer as tothe following question: Which of the distinguished types of tourists dothe surveyed respondents represent? The analysis of Fig. 2 allows usto identify, that the most numerous group of respondents surveyedare the “purposeful” tourists. The representatives of this group showboth a significant (the largest compared to other types of tourists)contribution of culture in their decisions to visit a destination and a
Monuments
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
The importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
The
leve
l of r
ecep
tion
of c
ultu
re a
t the
des
tinat
ion
50
9 38 57
46
The
leve
l of r
ecep
tion
of c
ultu
re a
t the
des
tinat
ion
R
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
The importance of culture
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
The
leve
l of r
ecep
tion
of c
ultu
re a
t the
des
tinat
ion
71
13
Fig. 3. Division of cultural tourists into the following segm
high level of cultural reception. These are genuine cultural tourists,actually oriented towards becoming familiar with the culture of theplace of reception and fascinated by it. The highest percentage ofthese particular types of tourists constitutes 42.2% and representsthose that belong to the “events” segment (see Fig. 3).
A slightly smaller segment in contrast to the “purposeful” touristsis that of the “serendipitous” tourists' segment. This is representedby individuals who are analogically distinguished from the above bya high level of cultural reception at a given destination, and whatmakes them different plays less of a ‘power’ importance on the cul-tural front in their decision to visit a destination. It must be, however,emphasised that this ‘power’ –within the segment – is relatively high(most individuals are concentrated closer to the cut-off point whichequals 0.77 on the OX axis). Among the segments researched for cul-tural tourists, the largest number of “serendipitous” tourists can beobserved in the “religious” segment (see Fig. 3).
Another group concerns those categorised as “sightseeing” tourists.Characteristic for these types is the vital contribution of culture in theirdecision to travel to a reception of culture, although this is rather casualin nature and also with an approach towards entertainment (see Fig. 2).The largest segment – 43.2% – of this group is the “monuments” segment(see Fig. 3).
The “incidental” tourist clearly differs from the above-mentionedtypes of cultural tourists. This type of tourist is characterised by a low
Events
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
The importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0 29 68
9 41 53
eligion
0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
in the decision to visit a destination
47
47 22
ents: monuments, events, religion — matrix approach.
0,78 0,800,74
Monuments Events Religion0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
The
impo
rtan
ce o
f cul
ture
in th
ede
cisi
on to
vis
it a
dest
inat
ion
Median25%-75%Min-Max
Fig. 4. Importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination according to segment(box-and-whisker plot).
0,77 0,76 0,81
Monuments Events Religion0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
The
leve
l of r
ecep
tion
of c
ultu
re a
tth
e de
stin
atio
n
Median25%-75%Min-Max
Fig. 5. The level of reception of culture at the destination according to segment(box-and-whisker plot).
29A. Niemczyk / Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
level of cultural importance in their decisions to visit a given place ofreception, aswell as a low level of cultural reception. This segment con-stitutes only 31% of the researched individuals and, among these, it isthe “religious” segment that dominates (see Fig. 3). It must be notedthat even if culture is not a priority for “incidental” tourists in thedecision-making process (see Fig. 3), the level of reception for mostof them is relatively high (about 0.70 on the OY axis).
The segment of “casual” tourists is similar to the one above whenit comes to the level of cultural reception for a given destination.However, distinguishing them is the relatively larger impact of cul-tural importance in their decisions to travel. Similarly, as above, thehighest percentage (37.3%) of these types of tourists belongs to the“religious” segment (see Fig. 3).
In light of the aforementioned considerations, it must be statedthat the surveyed “cultural” tourists are mostly those people whoare truly oriented towards becoming acquainted with the culture ofa chosen place and fully or partially fascinated by it. It can be addedthat those people who are not fully attracted towards the role of cul-ture in a given place, show fascination by it.
This research allowed us to observe that, within the “events” seg-ment especially, the relation between theweight of cultural importancein the decision to visit a destination and the level of cultural reception isapparent. This conclusion is formed on the basis of diffusion analysisacross those individuals belonging to this segment (see Fig. 3), and inwhich individuals in their relation to, for example, the “monuments”segment are more concentrated around each other (this link is alsoconfirmed by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, which forthe “events” segment equals r=0.252). It is worth highlighting thatthe largest group of “purposeful” tourists constitutes the “events” seg-ment. On the other hand, the “monuments” segment is represented bythe two most numerous extreme groups of “cultural” tourists (seeFig. 3). These are classified as the “sightseeing” tourists and thosewho want to become more culturally knowledgeable of a given place,but the reception of which is of a rather lax nature, and “serendipitous”tourists — who show a low/moderate willingness to become awareof destination culture is of significant importance for them (thisemphasises the fact of the individuals being scattered within onesegment) (in relation to this segment the Spearman rank correlationcoefficient does not apply). When referring to the “religious” segment,it can be confirmed that “serendipitous” tourists dominate it. Thisresults from the specificity of tourists themselves and the product‘consumed.’ The weight of cultural impact is ‘ruled’ by different regula-tions than is the case in reference to the two former segments. Thedesire to be connected with the sacrum — either directly participatingin services or just by visiting churches, shrines and/or other sacredstructures, which is inclined by the need to go through a spiritual expe-rience or cognition, is intensified by significant religiously-connectedevents, such as the beatification of the Pope John Paul II. This resultsin strong impressions and experiences from the reception of a widelyunderstood culture (Spearman rank correlation coefficient for religionsegment is r=0.173).
In context of the above, given the results an attempt was made toanswer the following question: “Does attachment to a given segmentinfluence the importance of culture in the decision to visit a destination,in a similar way as it does to the level of reception of culture at a partic-ularly given place?” TheKruskal–Wallis testwas used to solve this prob-lem. On the basis of this test one may assume that the average levelof importance of culture in the decision to travel to a given destinationdiffers essentially in given segments [on the basis of the Kruskal–Wallistest (p=0.00), there was a rejection of the zero hypothesis concerningthe lack of differences as to the importance of culture in the decisionto visit a destination between segments] (see Fig. 4). Thus, this allowsus to positively verify the second hypothesis as formulated in theIntroduction.Moreover, it was observed that the average level of impor-tance of culture in the decision to visit a destination is the highest inthe “events” segment, which was slightly lower in the “monuments”
segment and much lower in the “religious” segment [on the basis oftest carried out on the occurrence of statistically important differenceswas found in the range of the weight of importance of culture in thedecision to visit a destination between the “religious” and “events”segments (p=0.00), religion and monuments (p=0.02) and monu-ments and events (p=0.03)]. On the other hand, no significant differ-ence was found between the surveyed segments, as far as the averagelevel of cultural importance for a chosen destination is concerned[on the basis of the Kruskal–Wallis test (p=0.43) — thus, there wasno basis to reject the zero hypothesis given the absence of differencesin the scope of the level of cultural reception for a chosen destination].Therefore, the third hypothesis was rejected. This is further confirmedin Fig. 5.
5. Conclusion
The research aimed at conducting the classification of culturaltourists by means of the McKercher and Du Cros typology andwhich were adapted to Polish conditions. As a consequence, fivetypes were identified. Among these, the most numerous proved to bethe “purposeful” tourists' group as well as “incidental” cultural tourists.Furthermore, it should be noted that the importance of culture in thedecision to travel is differentiated by the motive for participation incultural tourism (belonging to a segment); the weight of cultural im-portance is the lowest in the “religious” segment (see Fig. 4). Further-more, it was also observed that the level of cultural reception for achosen destination is not differentiated by themotive for participationin cultural tourism. This regularity emerges from rich and attractivelocal resources of a cultural nature which allow each tourist to experi-ence a full array of impressions.
To sum up, the similarity of tourists belonging to the “monuments”and “events” segments is emphasisedwhen it comes to the participation
30 A. Niemczyk / Tourism Management Perspectives 5 (2013) 24–30
of culture in their decision to visit a destination,while the importance ofculture in the decision to travel is the most significant among thosetourists involved in high cultural events.
The result of the research is useful for tourism policy as well as forthe marketing of cities, which are rich in cultural resources. This couldhelp them to identify the participants of cultural tourism, in order tocreate the necessary incentives to motivate them and to attract themto cities, while improving their needs at the same time. It would cer-tainly be interesting to perform similar research in other locations. AsRichards (2007) stated, it would be interesting to repeat the researchcarried out by McKercher and Du Cros in other tourist attraction loca-tions, in order to check the observations made by these authors. De-spite the fact that the presented research is not identical to thosepresented by McKercher and Du Cros, it does however seem to pro-vide us with a useful type of comparative picture.
Considerations presented herein are based on discussion voiced onthe attempt to classify cultural tourists, vastly presented in specialisedliterature. An endeavour was made to prove these facts in this article.
References
Babbie, E. (2004). Social research in practice. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Boyd, S. (2002). Cultural and heritage tourism in Canada: Opportunities, principles and
challenges. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(3), 211–233.Brzeziński, J. (2003). Methodology of psychological research. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN.Buczkowska, K. (2008). Cultural tourism. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Akademii Wychowania
Fizycznego w Poznaniu.Cieślak, M. (Ed.). (1997). Economic forecasting. Methods and application. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1),
64–82.Frangialli, F. (2002). Speech by Francesco Frangialli, Secretary-General of the World Tourism
Organisation. (Retrieved 2002, from www.world-tourism.org)Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (1998). Heritage tourism: At what price? Managing Leisure, 3(4),
213–228.Gaworecki, W. W. (2007). Tourism. Warsaw: PWE.Grabiński, T., Wydymus, S., & Zeliaś, A. (1978). Econometric models in the forecasting
process. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.Jätzold, R. (1993). DifferenzierungsUndFörderungsmöglichkeiten desKulturtourismus und
die Erfassung seiner Potentiale am Beispiel des Ardennen Eifel-Saar-Moselraumes. InCh. Becker, & A. Steinecke (Eds.), Kulturtourismus in Europa: Wachstum ohne Grenzen?Trier: Europäisches Tourismus Institut an der Universität Trier.
Kosiński, W. (2004). Cultural tourism. Cultural landscape. Interpersonal culture. FoliaTuristica, 15, 9–23.
Light, D., & Prentice, R. (1994). Market-based product development in heritage tourism.Tourism Management, 15(1), 27–36.
Lohmann, M. (1999). Kulturtouristen oder die touristische Nachfrage nachKulturangeboten. In T. Heinze (Ed.), Kulturtourismus: Grundlagen, Trends undFallstudien (pp. 63–65). München-Wien: Oldenbourg.
Malina, A., & Zeliaś, A. (1998). Taxonomic analysis of spatial differentiation of standards ofliving in Poland in 1994 and 1995. Chrzanów: Wydawnictwo Wyższej SzkołyPrzedsiębiorczości i Marketingu w Chrzanowie.
McIntosh, A. J., & Prentice, R. R. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming culturalheritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589–612.
McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourismand cultural heritage management. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, 5(1), 45–58.
Mika, M. (Ed.). (2011). Cracow as a tourist centre. Cracow: Wydawnictwo InstytutuGeografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Mynarski, S. (Ed.). (1992). Market and consumption spatial research. Warsaw:Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Nahrstedt, W. (1997). Kultur Tourismus. Hagen: FernUniversität in Hagen.Niemczyk, A. (2008). The cultural offer as an element accompanying sports events in
the context of Euro 2012. In W. W. Gaworecki, & Z. Mroczyński (Eds.), Tourismand sport for everyone in the promotion of a healthy lifestyle (pp. 356–364). Gdańsk:Wyższa Szkoła Turystyki i Hotelarstwa w Gdańsku.
Niemczyk, A. (2010). Urban tourism in Poland under tourist market globalisation con-ditions. In J. Sala (Ed.), The competitiveness of cities and regions on the global touristmarket (pp. 497). Warsaw: PWE.
Niemczyk, A. (2011a). Cultural tourism and its functions. In D. Orłowski i, & J. Wyleżałek(Eds.), Connections between Polish cultural heritage and tourism (pp. 35–56). Warsaw:Wyższa Szkoła Turystyki i Języków Obcych w Warszawie.
Niemczyk, A. (2011b). Partnership of museums and tourism organisers on the Cracowmarket. In A. Rapacz (Ed.), The tourist economy in the region. The enterprise.Self-government. cooperation (pp. 481–492). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo UniwersytetuEkonomicznego we Wrocławiu.
Nowak, S. (2007). Methodology of social research. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Pawełek, B. (2008). Methods for standardising variables in comparative studies of com-
plex economic phenomena. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznegow Krakowie.
Picard, M. (1987). From "cultural tourism" to "tourist culture". Problemy Turystyki,2(36), 43.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2001). Clarifying heritage tourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 28(4), 1047.
Prentice, R. (2001). Experiential cultural tourism: Museums and the marketing of thenew romanticism of evoked authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship,19(1), 5–26.
Richards, G. (1996). The Scope and Significance of Cultural Tourism. In G. Richards(Ed.), Cultural Tourism in Europe (pp. 19–46). Oxon, UK: CAB Internationa.
Richards, G. (2001). The development of cultural tourism in Europe. In G. Richards(Ed.), Cultural attraction and European tourism (pp. 7). Cambridge: CABI.
Richards, G. (Ed.). (2007). Cultural tourism. Global and local perspectives. New York: TheHaworth Hospitality Press.
von Rohrscheidt, A. M. (2008). Cultural tourism. The phenomenon, potential, prospects.Gniezno: Gnieźnieńska Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczno-Menedżerska Milenium.
Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums andheritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361–365.
Strahl, D. (Ed.). (1998). The taxonomy of structure in regional studies. Wrocław:Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu.
Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour in tourism. Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.
Timothy, D. J. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of TourismResearch, 24(3), 751–754.
WTO (1995). Report of the Secretary General Programme of the Work for the Period1984–1985, Madrid.
WTO (2005). City Tourism and Culture. The European experience. A report of the WorldTourism Organization and the Research Group of the European Travel Commission,Madrid.
Agata Niemczyk Ph.D., Cracow University of Economics,Department of Tourism, Faculty ofManagement at the CracowUniversity of Economics (27 Rakowicka Street, 31–510Cracow, Poland. Tel.: +48-12-2935-692, fax: +48-12-2935-045; e-mail: [email protected]).My research interests include consumer behaviour on thetourist market, tourism consumption, cultural tourism andits forms, business tourism, marketing tourism, territorialmarketing, and co-author of an annual study titled: “Industrymeeting in Cracow”.