Tourism, Hotel and Spa in the Field of Scientific Research and Practice. Silesian University of Opava, Karvina 2014, s.193-204.

METHODS AND TOOLS FOR RESEARCHING TOURIST ATTRACTIONS

Zygmunt Kruczek

Abstract: Research on tourist attractions is of massive importance to the development of tourism, and in particular to the creation of new tourism products, as well as efficient attraction management. The article includes an overview of the methods and tools used in research on tourism attractions. Basic methods of research of visitors to attractions were discussed as well as the marketing methods used in the study of tourist attractions, research tools and examples of their use were indicated.

Key word: tourist attractions, researching, methods, tools,

Introduction

Since tourist attractions (like the whole of tourism) are part of a tourism system, they are a focus of research interest in various academic disciplines. Attractions are also not only of interest to the social sciences – being a research focus for psychologists, sociologists and educationalists – but also to the economic and spatial sciences. The article includes an overview of the methods and tools used in research on tourism attractions. Basic methods of research of visitors to attractions were discussed as well as the marketing methods used in the study of tourist attractions (eg ASEBA/SWOT Mystery Shooping), research tools and examples of their use were indicated. Overview of research on tourist attractions

Comprehensive methods for evaluating tourist attractions can be encountered

in regional studies. It is notable that, as early as the second half of the 20th century, Piperoglou (1966) was applying a three-stage attraction evaluation method entailing:

1) preliminary ideographic classification (distinguishing attraction types); 2) research on tourist preferences and evaluation of an attraction’s uniqueness 3) analysis of an attraction’s accessibility and setting. A similar principle was adopted 10 years later by Ferrario (1976), whose

comprehensive attraction evaluation method included an original tourist attraction classification system. His proposal incorporated as many as 22 attraction types. He subsequently analysed tourist preferences regarding the attraction types he had isolated. One of the stages of his research involved performing an analysis on the

content of tourist guides and using the results to assess the popularity of individual attraction types. By using an independent jury method (involving mystery clients), the accessibility of attractions and quality of service were assessed.

These studies ultimately helped him to calculate the potential of the researched attractions on the basis of the numerical values that had been assigned to them. Finally, he used a cartographic method to assign weights to attractions in separate segments in such a way that attractions occurring in higher concentrations received higher weights. In Poland this method, known as point discounting, is often employed when evaluating tourism values. The first to do this was M. I. Mileska (1963), who used the results of her research to propose the first division of the country into tourism regions which was based on academic criteria.

An interesting classification method for natural attractions such as national parks was employed in the USA . It was employed to this end in the so called “Hierarchical Analysis Process” developed by Saaty (1987). This method incorporates several stages. The first of these is the establishment of a hierarchical structure for the components of an attraction. The structure is composed of five elements: accessibility, resources, infrastructure and local community, and position in relation to other attractions. Each group is split into subgroups. Resources were sorted, for example, into “natural” and “cultural”, and then natural resources were divided into “environmental” and “landscape”, and so on. A subsequent research procedure involved the pairwise comparison of separate structural components. This operation laid the basis for the establishment of weights for all the analyses structural components. The weights were then converted into a hundred-point system recommended by the National Park Service. The next step was based on the establishment of criteria and indicators responding to individual structural components of attractions, enabling their advantages to be assessed. In the final stage, attractions were selected for analysis and points for all of the components of each attraction were computed by relating them to the previously established criteria and indicators as well as separately totaling up the points for each attraction. Finally, the researched attractions were classified into four categories on the basis of the number of points they had been assigned. Other variables employed for classifying attractions include defining characteristics of visitors, such as: number of visits to and length of stay in a city as well as one feature relating to the attraction itself – the proportion of visits made by tourists as opposed to residents (Shoval and Raveh, 2003).

Also deserving of attention is the system of studying and evaluating attractions in Australia, which is based on taking inventories of attractions’ resources using a special questionnaire targeted at attraction administrators, as well as interviews and other research procedures. An original method for planning the development of attractions, the Futures Wheel, was employed (Benckendorfer 2004). Research on tourist attractions can be carried out on two scales:

a) on a macro scale; this entails the systematization, comparison or assessment of the appeal of a place, destination, country or international region;

b) on an individual attraction scale; the undertaking of research aimed at improving the quality of attractions and the tourism product bound up with them or fine-tuning offers. Another way of grouping researches on attractions has been proposed by Lew

(1987). The criteria for grouping are three research perspectives:

a) ideographic, b) organizational, c) cognitive. The ideographic perspective is basically the description of tourist attractions,

which makes it possible to classify them while taking into account various criteria displaying their similarities or differences (e.g. origin, history, setting, environmental attributes and tourist facility development). The organizational perspective allows the analysis of attractions based on their size (small – large), location in tourist space (destination or transit), tourist capacity (resistant – susceptible) or period of operation (permanent – seasonal). The cognitive perspective focuses on research on the reception (or perception) of attractions and the impressions of tourists visiting them. This allows the researcher to differentiate between attractions that are, for example, safe or unsafe, authentic or inauthentic, or relaxing or stimulating.

The research perspectives proposed by Lew can be meaningfully applied in the classification and segmentation of tourist attractions. Various methods are applied in research on tourist attractions. The most widespread are different kinds of attempt at evaluating them by creating ranking lists. In the geographical sciences, analyses of attraction distribution are employed. Attractions are the focus of marketing research (e.g. market research on tourist attractions, quality assessment of attractions as nuclei of a tourism product) as well as behavioral research (attraction reception, analysis of impressions associated with visiting attractions).

In research on attractions, various kinds of tool are used, e.g. the Likert scale, the Scottish Visitor Attractions Survey, the Australian Questionnaire, knowledge tests, quizzes, polls, observation schemes, and so on. Increasingly, modern electronic tools (multimedia kiosks, panels) are being turned to. The observation of visitors is aided through their behaviour being recorded on camera or video.

The identification of tourist’s opinions about attractions is facilitated by questionnaire based surveys, which are usually applied research tools. Creating a good questionnaire is no simple task. Above all, the questions need to be framed in language that is clear and comprehensible to any potential respondent. The questions need to be just as lucid as their character (open, closed, filtering, testing) and the order in which they appear. The organization of research is accompanied by many problems, the first of these being selection of a representative sample. In field studies, the researcher does not have a so-called sampling frame at his disposal and the selection of people for the studies is often dictated by chance or the good will of those tourists who are willing to devote time to the completion of a questionnaire.

It need not be added that the primary factors influencing the results of these studies are the site at which they are conducted and the time they are carried out at a given locality. The site chosen for the interview process should ensure a level of comfort that allows the respondents to calmly respond to the questions posed by the questioner. Attempting to catch respondents who are in the process of sightseeing most often ends in their refusal to give an interview. The circumstances surrounding the conduction of an interview undoubtedly influence response results, as was evident during the conduction of research on tourists in Małopolska.

The surveys of tourist traffic carried out by the Institute of Tourism were supplemented interviews at tourist attractions. One of the research aims was to create a ranking list of places the respondents considered to be most appealing and also a popularity ranking of cultural, sport and other events in which those interviewed in the field research had participated.

The tourists were asked about their preferences when choosing tourist attractions and also the quality of services enhancing the tourism product offered by individual attractions. Based on the respondents’ opinions, a ranking list was drawn up of the most attractive places in Małopolska. These ranking lists of appealing places, resorts and objects made it possible to assess the roles played by location and proximity in the perception of components of Małopolska’s image, differentiated into isolated segments (Kruczek 2012b). Surveys of People Visiting Tourist Attractions

Surveys of this kind aim to obtain information about people visiting attractions: their socio-demographic and psychographic attributes, motivations, impressions, activity levels, attitudes, any knowledge and other benefits gained, and ways in which they spend their leisure time. Also essential for attraction management personnel is information about the people who for some reason do not visit attractions, their socio-demographic attributes and above all the cause of their inertia.

Many surveys relate to the acquisition of knowledge during the course of visiting attractions. As early as the 1970s, research of this kind was being carried out by Mikułowski-Pomorski (1970) at an exhibition at Łańcuch Castle. His research related to perceptions of the content of the guides’ commentary and revealed that this was generally negatively received, allowing him to propose the thesis that the guides were receiving ineffective instruction. For the most important content acquirable by a tourist at the museum was only caught by 15% of tourists travelling on their own and barely 3% of tourists taking part in group excursions. Research outcomes are often used to construct various models of effective learning at attractions, e.g. the “attentive visitor” model (Moscardo, 1996) or the constructivist model (Hein, 2004). Growth of knowledge and changes of attitude are most often studied using tests carried out both before and after the visit (Linn, 1980; Diamond, 1999). One of the ways of testing the knowledge acquired about the attraction is to assess the possessed level of knowledge (parainformation) from the questions visitors ask or their responses to a question made known to them before the visit (Prentice et al., 1998; Nowacki, 2003). In some surveys, quiz questions are rejected in favour of visitors’ opinions on their acquired knowledge (Nowacki, 2007). As a result of the research conducted on learning

conditions at attractions, it has been found that favourable conditions are created by exhibitions which facilitate active knowledge acquisition, offer a snapshot of the problem being interpreted from various points of view, enable visitors to understand the issues posed by an exhibition, make use of visitors’ experiences, offer a diverse range of activities, deliver new experiences and allow visitors to conduct experiments, formulate their own ideas and reach their own conclusions. It was also found that knowledge acquisition is dependent on the type of excursion and composition of the tour group. Those participating on trips lasting several days learn more when visiting the same attraction than day trippers; visitors in family groups or with friends learn less than those visiting on their own; and visitors with just one companion learn most of all (Light, 1995).

The Semantic Differential Test

This method (often applied in marketing research) helps to construct semantic profiles and is employed when we wish to obtain the opinions of consumers/tourists on product features. It is based on choices involving extreme adjective pairs, e.g.: pretty–ugly, comfortable–uncomfortable, clean–dirty, safe–dangerous, attractive–unattractive, cheap–expensive, distant–close, and so on. Respondents choose positions on a fixed scale between two extremes which correspond to their feelings towards products. This method is also employed to assess tourists’ opinions about a tourism product, as well as regions, cities and objects. A semantic profile can also be constructed on the basis of an assessment of the various characteristics of a given tourism product, such as size and standard of accommodation, recreational infrastructure diversity, quality of customer service staff, the local population’s attitude to tourists, etc. When the scale is applied in such a case, information can be obtained about the feelings of tourists (e.g. of different nationalities) or tourists and experts towards the standard of service provision. On the basis of this, a product’s image and options for improving its path of development can be evaluated (Kruczek, Walas, 2010).

The semantic differential test has been used in satisfaction studies completed on tourists visiting tourist attractions, e.g. the Wieliczka Salt mine. Similar studies have been organised at the Museum of Urban Engineering in Krakow (Kruczek, Litwicka, 2010). A semantic profile for the dominant characteristics, i.e. the most frequently appearing responses, was factored into these. Satisfaction Studies

According to experts, attraction providers are advised to measure visitor satisfaction as well as conducting a detailed analysis of their expectations and impressions. In Norway (Vitterso et al. 2000) research was undertaken on the experiences of tourists and attendant satisfaction levels. This was based on what is known as an “instrumental” perspective. Satisfaction is conceived as the result of comparing what we expect with what we encounter. Satisfaction is a cognitive process leading to a certain emotional state which may result from the product itself and the experiencing of it. However there are problems associated with measuring satisfaction, e.g. ways of eliminating the emotions which have an influence on the assessment of a

given attraction. For this reason, various dissonance strategies are used to lessen negative differences which have arisen between expectations and the ultimate result. According to Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory (1972), two contradictory cognitive elements will cause discomfort and motivate people to restore a sense of harmony.

In a satisfaction study a variety of options should be used depending on the journey stage: pre-departure processes, arrival at the place of stay, post-trip. Many authors also indicate that Csikszentmihaly’s “flow” theory (1986) is very useful when identifying impressions taken from touristic and recreational activities. The notion of “impression” denotes the whole spectrum of subjective experiences felt by a tourist, including evaluation, preferences, moods and emotions. The method of studying the satisfaction of people visiting tourist attractions called the flow-simplex method was developed and employed for the first time in Norway in relation to six of this country’s tourist attractions (comprised of exhibitions, museums and a writer’s home). Evaluations of Impressions and Benefits Taken from Attractions

Research on impressions makes use of the so-called Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). This is a sequence of consecutive events which mutually determine each other: an activity executed under specific conditions during which definite impressions are experienced and which results in the achievement of definite benefits. Impressions mentioned by the authors of this research include: enjoying nature, escaping physical stressors, learning, sharing common values and creativity. Other benefits they mention include “mood” impressions. In M. Nowacki’s research (2003), a phenomenological approach was selected as an preliminary method. Phenomenology does not possess any research tools as they are traditionally understood. Phenomenological research is based on uncovering a phenomenon’s structure by studying it from the perspective of an individual experiencing this phenomenon.

A phenomenological approach seeks the meaning of events rather than their causes. The research was of a qualitative nature, and its initial task was to identify types of impressions accompanying visits to tourist attractions. It employed an interview method (based on a structured plan). The research subjects were asked the following questions: “Which attraction did you recently visit? Describe the sensations you experienced when visiting this attraction.” In the final part of the interview, the research subjects were asked whether their impressions were authentic.

Following analysis of the research subjects’ utterances, it was possible to differentiate 11 groups of sensations experienced when visiting tourist attractions: sensations that were educational, aesthetic, romantic and emotional, retrospective or relaxing and those involving social interaction, fun, active recreation, introspection and contemplation, a sense of escape, and also those connected with shopping, gathering souvenirs and exploring unknown terrain. Market Research on Attraction Quality Segmentation of Tourist Attraction Users

One way of researching people visiting tourist attractions is grouping them into segments with similar traits. Most often the segmentation is performed as a preliminary stage for other marketing research. Such research is conducted to direct activities towards those segments of customers which will require bespoke products or a distinct marketing mix (Kotler, 1994). Market segmentation operates on the assumption that demand for goods or services is rarely distributed among a population in a random or unified manner. Identifying and reaching segments of the market extremely likely to purchase products and benefit from tourism services has immense significance for the effectiveness of marketing activities. If possible, attempts should be made to reach the best segments, i.e. those most heavily involved in the realisation of the marketing aims. The conducting of research among tourists is of considerable assistance in the identification of segments. Some of them are broadly defined, while others constitute a market niche. The most frequently encountered segmentation techniques rely on the division of a target group on the basis of one trait or several co-existing traits.

The simplest divisions are made on the basis of the following traits: demographic (gender, age, household size), socio-occupational (education, occupation, income per household member) and geographical (place of abode: urban–rural, country). The segmentation criterion may be lifestyle or even cost. A region or city can have several tourism products whose commercial significance varies depending on the buyers’ market. In this case, the simplest divisions would be as follows: close to home (for weekend tourism and second homes), regional or national (for site-specific tourism), foreign (near or far) and specialist (dependent on the specific nature of the product rather than accessibility, e.g. hunting or sailing holidays). Due to strong competition, the major tourism entrepreneurs are increasingly introducing new products onto the market that are tailored to the needs of an identified segment.

So packages are appearing for newly-weds and Valentine’s Day, as well as cruises and stays at monasteries. Air carriers have recently constructed a product based on low cost regional flights, while hoteliers have extended their traditional accommodation services to incorporate conference or spa-type biological renewal services. The detailed listing of segments allows strategic decisions to be taken relating to priority markets and the applied instruments of the marketing mix. The problem facing the majority of National Tourist Boards is that they neither own nor manage tourism products. They therefore have no direct influence on prices, availability or quality. Finally, basing their activities on the support of local products may lead to the selected segment interfering with priority planning principles.

The segmentation process should be based on a certain method. First of all, consumers’ needs, requirements and characteristics should be determined. The next stage is to analyse the similarities and differences appearing between various consumers. This enables the isolation of segments during the next step. The final stage is the choice of suitable segments. Various matrices can be used to standardise this process.

A tourist attraction, if it is to meet the expectations of tourists, should give the impression of being a place which can provide them with experiences of both a cultural and recreational nature. A search for emotionally-charged sensations not

infrequently containing an element of risk can be provided by either a museum visit or a few days spent exploring a national park. This quest may also take the form of an encounter with the unknown, like in the case of a visit to a zoological garden, a functioning farming centre or the site of an archaeological dig. Everything depends on the organisers and the people who manage a given attraction. Nevertheless, it is vital that experiences encountered during a visit to a tourist attraction are combined with a guarantee of complete safety no matter how dangerous, and hence thrilling, the actual adventure appears to be. The ASEB/SWOT Analysis

The ASEB/SWOT method of analysis proposed by Prentice (1995) builds on the traditional SWOT analysis (an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats). It was developed to stimulate the development and promotion of managed tourist attractions. Being a tool supposed to serve as an aid in the management of a client-oriented entity, it concentrates on the needs, motivations, impressions and satisfaction of visitors, factors which cause a visit to an attraction to be experienced as successful enough to trigger the desire for a return visit. The classic SWOT analysis has been supplemented by an additional dimension – demand hierarchy levels. This extension of the analysis aims to highlight the needs of a person visiting an attraction.

Following on from the assumption that people take concrete action to satisfy their needs and achieve certain aims, four hierarchical levels of expectation regarding leisure activities were identified. Here are the levels: 1) a form of concrete activity (identified with the anticipated benefits of a trip to a museum, i.e. various forms of activity at the attraction and specific motives which dictate that it should be visited, and also perceptions of satisfaction which may result from visitors participating in this activity); 2) location of this activity (denotes the environmental, social and organizational context within which the activity in question takes place as well as the expectations of visitors with regard to the activity location itself); 3) sensations and impressions resulting from the activity and associated with its location (experiences bound up with what a tourist feels when carrying out a specific activity at the location in question, i.e. thoughts, impressions, feelings, reactions and other sensations); 4) benefits accruing from this activity (various psychological or social benefits gained as a result of participating in the activity in question). Exposition Evaluation and Forms of Interpretation

Expositions at a tourist attraction can be evaluated at different stages of its development. The conception of an exposition viewed in terms of the functionality of an entire exhibition can be subjected to evaluation, as can the merits of individual design components and their contexts. The following are most frequently evaluated:

• the manner of visiting an exhibition • length of time visitors spend viewing an exhibition,

• viewed elements (boards, panels, paintings, display cabinets, dioramas, interactive kiosks etc.), • visitor reaction to the content of an exposition. In the literature we encounter two indicators characterising exhibitions (Kotler

and Kotler, 1998; Melton, 1972). The first of these is called “attracting power”, i.e. the ability of an exhibition to attract the attention of visitors, and the second is “holding power”, which denotes the ability to keep visitors at the exhibition. The former can be measured by the amount of visitors who have become interested in the exhibition, and the latter by the time spent at the exhibition (Nowacki, 2007).

On review of the undertaken research, interrelationships can be established between features of expositions and visitor perception of these. It has been proved that greater interest is shown in dynamic expositions with animation effects. Traditional text-based expositions are less popular and worse received than those based on multisensory transmission (text, photographs, models and exhibits). People visiting attractions prefer exhibitions which present cause and effect. Visitor attention is focused on interactive computer devices and modern electronic information transfer techniques. Such forms of interpretation enjoy huge popularity among young people. Older people are more interested in interpretative panels and the actual exhibits (Prince, 1983; Moscardo & Pearce, 1986; Economou, 1998). A presentation, if it is to attract the attention of visitors, should be modern, dynamic and less tiring for them. Visitors’ attention is also attracted by content which is based on sequential successions of events and forcibly engages their imagination (Light, 1995). Analysis of visitor interest in various forms of interpretation has revealed that the greatest interest is shown in models of human figures (56% of visitors), images (38%) and fragrances (35%) (Prentice and McCannell, 1997). A number of factors have also been identified which can effect a change in visitors’ attitudes. These are: the credibility of the knowledge source (experience, honesty, appeal), form of knowledge transmission (clarity of transmission, intelligibility, sequence of arguments), kind of media employed in the transmission, and also traits of the visitors themselves.

The methods used in visitor research are: scanning visitor traffic in separate exhibition halls or around an object (recording routes taken by visitors, measuring the complete length of the visit and the amount of time devoted to particular expositions), observing and recording visitor behaviour on special forms, and photometric methods (photographs taken at set intervals and CCTV).

One drawback of this research is that it fails to answer the following questions: why visitors behave one way rather than another, what the motives for their behaviour are, why they stop at some expositions and not others and what induces them to stop for a longer or shorter period? In order to answer these questions, additional surveys need to be employed. Text-reading tests are used to assess interpretative boards and panels or folders and guides to attractions. These are based on the estimation of average syllable length in expressions and the number of expressions in each sentence. The most popular tests are the Gunning’s for evaluating potential interest in a text. In these the amount of expressions used in a text which have “personal connotations for the reader” are totalled up.

Emploing Mystery Shopping Methodology in Research Quality of Tourist Attractions

In tourism, quality is an integral component of the process of creating a tourism product that ensures that tourists’ needs and expectations are met. In the case of tourist attractions (ATs), we are dealing with a product which is a mixture of service and object. A large role in this is played by product intangibles, i.e.: services at the reception (or ticket office) by the attraction’s entrance, in the exposition area (guide services, staff watching over exhibitions, live interpretation, etc.), in catering areas (sales, waiters), in souvenir shops, and so on. Undoubtedly, these elements have an enormous infl uence on the quality of impressions and satisfaction level of AT visitors. Also of great importance are product tangibles, i.e. promotional materials, AT accessibility and car parks, external appearance, internal décor, but above all the core element in every attraction, i.e. the exhibits, their quality and importance and the manner in which they are presented and interpreted.

The Mystery Shopping (MS) method, which is employed in market research and designed to measure customer service quality, enables the measurement of both qualitative and quantitative components. It can also be successfully employed in assessing the quality of an attraction’s tourism product. This is evident from the results achieved in the research on the tourism product of Krakow’s museums. The high level of objectivity in theMS method ensures the selection of appropriate auditors, clear defi nition of the objective content of the test and its script and the recording of several measurements.

The MS method has turned out to be a good research tool serving to improve the quality of services provided in the tourist attraction sector, because its use entails the study of the serviceprovided by an attraction, this service’s consistency with the institution’s founding principles, its quality and its compliance with the prevailing internal standards. MS is a discrete and professional form of evaluating service interactions between customer and staff. The mystery customer is duty bound to objectively conduct research without attracting attention or compelling staff to treat him differently or specially compared to other customers.

The development of a high quality tourism product in museums must rely on the conduction of systematic research on needs and interests relating to leisure time cultural pursuits and the analysis of trends and tendencies in this area, in other words an analysis of demand. Also of importance is research on the supply of tourism services provided by museums. In this case, the Mystery Shopping method can be successfully employed and adapted to the specifi c requirements of research on tourist attractions. This thesis has been confirmed by the results of the research conducted by the author at Krakow’s museums Kruczek 2012a). Selected Research Tools and Techniques The Scottish Attraction Evaluation Form

These studies rely on participant observation. The results of the observations are recorded in the form of coded assessments on a specially prepared evaluation form. The tourist attraction evaluation form proposed by the Scottish Tourist Board9 is very extensive and contains 40 elements grouped into six main parts. These are:

approach, entry, exposition, eating and drinking facilities, shops and toilets. The latest evaluation scheme incorporates not only material components but also non-material aspects such as “visitor understanding”, “visitor interest” or “quality of experience”. Elements are assessed on an eleven-point scale from 0 to 10. Averages are calculated for each of the main parts. The final assessment value granted to a tourist attraction is based on an averaging of the assessments of the six main parts. In the final step the assessments of each attraction are granted a category. The Servqual Questionnaire

Servqual is a service quality measurement scale developed by Parasuraman (1985) in which the assumption is adopted that service quality satisfaction is the difference between the client’s expectations with respect to service quality and the way it is actually perceived. Consumers’ expectations are shaped by verbal information, personal needs, their experiences and commercial information. Such an understanding of quality served as a point of departure for the development of the SERVQUAL quality service measurement questionnaire. It consists of 22 items constituting 5 factors: reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness (Parasuraman at al., 1985). The research subjects first assess their expectations with respect to 22 abstract service components, and then assess their actual perception of these components, but now at a particular attraction. The service quality value is a weighted average taken from the gaps between respondents’ perception and expectations.

The creators of the scale identify a number of gaps (or inconsistencies) in the chain of relations between consumer and service provider. These scales were used to evaluate hotel services, travel agencies and regions. One of the criticisms levelled at this method is that both the expectation and perception studies were carried out after using a service, which ultimately affected the assessment of expectations.

Weakness of SERVQUAL as a research method is its focus on functional service attributes and denial of the holistic component of experiences relating to tourism services. This method also has limited application as an indicator of ways of improving service quality, i.e. it is of little use from the perspective of attraction managers’ needs (Nowacki, 2007). Tourist Attraction Research Questionnaire (the Australian model)

This questionnaire was one of the tools for evaluating tourist attractions in Australia. (Benckendorff 2004). It contains several dozen questions grouped into such sections as: characteristics of attraction, characteristics of setting, planning system, financial characteristics. The questionnaire was addressed to attraction managers and sent out by mail, but in some States contact was made via the Internet. The database of Australian tourist attractions contains 2000 objects. The next stage was the selection and grouping of the returned questionnaires. After filtering for correctly completed questionnaires, 1665 attractions were used for the analysis. Individual attractions were subjected to further study using other tools. References

[1]. BENCKENDORFFER’S P. J., 2004, Planning for the Future. A Profi le of Australian Tourist Attractions, James Cook University, doctoral thesis.

[2]. CSIKSZENTMIHALYI M., 1996, Przepływ. Psychologia optymalnego doświadczenia, Studio Emka, Warszawa, ISBN 83-85-881-52-2.

[3]. DIAMOND J., 1999, Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and Other Informal Educational Settings, Altamira Press, p. 192, ISBN 9780761989400.

[4]. ECONOMOU M., 1998, The Evaluation of Museum Multimedia Applications: Lessons from Research, Museum Management and Curatorship 17 (2), pp. 173–187, ISSN 0964-7775.

[5]. FERRARIO F., 1976, The Tourist Landscape: A Method of Evaluating Tourist Potential and its Application to South Africa, PhD dissertation, Departament of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.

[6]. KOTLER N., KOTLER PH., 1998, Museum Strategy and Marketing. Designing Missions Building Audiences. Generating Revenue and Resources, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, ISBN 0787996912.

[7]. KRUCZEK Z., 2011, Atrakcje turystyczne. Fenomen, typologia, metody badań, Monografi a 10, Proksenia, p. 200, ISBN 978-83-60789-36-0.

[8]. KRUCZEK Z., LITWICKA P., 2010, Ocena atrakcyjności turystycznej Muzeum Inżynierii Miejskiej w Krakowie, [in:] Turystyka kulturowa a regiony turystyczne Polski, D. Orłowski, E. Puchnarewicz (eds.), Wyższa Szkoła Turystyki i Języków Obcych, Warszawa, ISBN 978-83-62196-07-4.

[9]. KRUCZEK Z., WALAS B., 2010, Promocja i informacja w turystyce, Proksenia, Kraków, p. 320, ISBN 83-60789-19-3.

[10]. KRUCZEK Z., 2012a, Employing the Mystery Shopping Method in Tourist Attraction Quality Assessment. An Elaboration on Research Conducted at Krakow’s Museums. Matej Bela University, Banská Bystrica, Faculty of Economics. Habilitation Thesis, Banská Bystrica ,

[11]. KRUCZEK Z., 2012b, Kultura jako cel podróży do Małopolski w świetle badań ankietowych turystów w 2011 r. „Kultura i turystyka – wspólne korzenie”, Łódź 2012. s. 243-258,ISBN 978-83-61001-09-6.

[12]. LIGHT D., 1995, Heritage as Informal Education, [in:] Heritage, Tourism and Society, D. Herbert (ed.), London Mansel, pp. 117–145, ISBN 978-0-582-369-70-0.

[13]. LEW A., 1987, A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research, “Annals of Tourism Research”, 14, pp. 553–575, ISSN 0160-7383.

[14]. LINN M., 1980, Free Choice Experiences: How Do They Help Children Learn?, “Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 64, pp. 237–248, ISSN 1098-2736.

[15].MELTON A., 1972, Visitor Behavior in Museums: Some Early Research in Environmental Design, Human Factors 14 (5), pp. 393–403, ISSN 0013-9165.

[16]. MIKUŁOWSKI-POMORSKI J., 1971, Zamek w Łańcucie. Studium socjologiczne, Muzeum w Łańcucie, p.163.

[17]. MILESKA M. I., 1960, Regiony turystyczne Polski. Stan obecny i potencjalne warunki rozwoju, PWN, Warszawa, p. 156.

[18]. MCCANNELL D.,1996, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, New York Schoken Books.

[19]. MOSCARDO G. M., PEARCE P. L., 1986, Visitor Centres and Environmental interpretation; an exploration of the relationships among visitor enjoyment,

understanding and mindfulness, “Journal of Environmental Psychology”, 6, pp. 89–108, ISSN 0272-4944.

[20]. MOSCARDO G. M., 1996, Mindful Visitors. Heritage and Tourism, “Annals of Tourism Research”, 23(2), pp. 376–397, ISSN 1476-6825.

[21]. NOWACKI M., 2003, Wrażenia osób zwiedzających atrakcje turystyczne, “Folia Turistica”, No. 14, pp. 117–132, ISNN 0967-3888.

[22]. NOWACKI M., 2007, Metody i kierunki badań atrakcji turystycznych, “Problemy turystyki”, No. 1–4, Instytut Turystyki, Warszawa, ISSN 0138-04778.

[23]. PARASURAMAN A., ZEITHAML V., BERRY L., 1985, A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research, “Journal of Marketing”, 49, pp. 41–50, ISNN 00222429.

[24]. PIPEROGLOU J., 1966, Identifi cation and Defi nition of Regions in Greek Tourist Planning, Papers, Regional Science Association 18, pp. 169–176.

[25]. PRENTICE R. C., 1995, Evaluating the Experiences and Benefi ts Gained by Tourists Visiting a Socio-Industrial Heritage Museum, An Application of ASEB Grid Analysis to Blists Hill Open Air Museum, The Ironbridge Gorge Museum, United Kingdom, “Museum Management and Curatorship”, 14 (4), pp. 229–251, ISSN0964-7775 .

[26]. PRINCE D. R., 1983, Behavioral consistency and Visitor Attraction, International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship 2, pp. 235–247, ISSN 1479-8360.

[27]. SAATY R. W., 1987, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: What It Is And How It Is Used, “Mathematical Modeling”, 9, Issuse 3–5, pp. 161–176.

[28]. SHOVAL N., RAVEH A., 2003, Categorization of Tourist Attractions and the Modeling of Tourist Cities: Based on the Co-plot Method of Multivariate Analysis, “Tourism Management”, 25, pp. 741–750, ISSN 0261-5177.

[29].Visitor Attractions Inspection Scheme. Criteria and Application Form, 1995, Edinburgh Scottish Tourist Board..

[30]. VITTERSO J., VORKINN M., VISTAD O. I., VAAGLAND J., 2000, Tourist Expreriences and Attractions, “Annals of Tourism Research”, Vol. 27, No. 2, ISSN 1476-6825.

Kontaktni adresa autora:

ZYGMUNT KRUCZEK, dr hab, Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego w Krakowie, Wydział Turystyki I Rekreacji, 31-571 Kraków Al. Jana Pawła II, zygmunt.kruczek@awf.krakow.pl