Barriers and Drivers in Cultural Tourism for Five Groups in Thailand

Full text

Journal of
Tourism and
Leisure Studies
SPORTAND SO CI ETY.COMTOURISMANDLEISURESTUDIES.COM
VOLUME 2 ISSUE 3
__________________________________________________________________________
Barriers and Drivers in
Cultural Tourism for
Five Groups in Thailand
KITTICHAI KASEMSARN AND FARNAZ NICKPOUR

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
www.tourismandleisurestudies.com
ISSN: 2470-9336 (Print)
ISSN: 2470-9344 (Online)
doi:10.18848/2470-9336/CGP (Journal)
First published by Common Ground Research Networks in 2017
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First Street, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
Ph: +1-217-328-0405
www.cgnetworks.org
The Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
COPYRIGHT
© 2017(individual papers), the author(s)
© 2017 (selection and editorial matter)
Common Ground Research Networks
Some Rights Reserved.
Public Licensed Material: Available under the terms and conditions of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The use of this
material is permitted for non-commercial use provided the creator(s)
and publisher receive attribution. No derivatives of this version are
permitted. Official terms of this public license apply as indicated here:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
Common Ground Research Networks is a member of Crossref.
EDITOR
Amareswar Galla, International Institute for the
Inclusive Museum, India and Australia
MANAGING EDITOR
Caitlyn D’Aunno, Common Ground Research Networks, USA
ADVISORY BOARD
Claudia Bell, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Nimit Chowdhary, Indian Institute of Tourism and
Travel Management, India
Chris Cooper, Oxford Brookes University, UK
Raj Chintaram, African Network for Policy,
Research & Advocacy for Sustainability, Mauritius
Amareswar Galla, International Institute for the
Inclusive Museum, India and Australia
Sergio Moreno Gil, University of Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria, Spain
Vanessa Gowreesunkar, University of Technology
Mauritius, Mauritius
Angelo Presenza, University of Molise, Italy
REVIEWERS
Articles published in the Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
are peer reviewed by scholars who are active participants of the
Tourism & Leisure Studies Research Network or a thematically related
Research Network. Reviewers are acknowledged in the corresponding
volume of the journal. For a full list, of past and current Reviewers
please visit www.tourismandleisurestudies.com/journal/editors.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
The Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
publishes quarterly (March, June, September, December).
To find out more about the submission process, please visit
www.tourismandleisurestudies.com/journal/call-for-articles.
ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING
For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed,
please visit www.tourismandleisurestudies.com/journal.
RESEARCH NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
Authors in the Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
are members of the Tourism & Leisure Studies Research Network
or a thematically related Research Network. Members receive
access to journal content. To find out more, visit
www.tourismandleisurestudies.com/about/become-a-member.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
The Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies is available
in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain
access to content from the current year and the entire backlist.
Contact us at support@cgnetworks.org.
ORDERING
Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore
at www.cgscholar.com/bookstore.
HYBRID OPEN ACCESS
The Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies is Hybrid Open Access,
meaning authors can choose to make their articles open access. This
allows their work to reach an even wider audience, broadening the
dissemination of their research. To find out more, please visit
www.tourismandleisurestudies.com/journal/hybrid-open-access.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been
made in this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express
or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
Volume 2, Issue 3, 2017, www.tourismandleisurestudies.com
© Common Ground Research Networks, Kittichai Kasemsarn, Farnaz Nickpour
Some Rights Reserved, (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Permissions: support@cgnetworks.org
ISSN: 2470-9336 (Print), ISSN: 2470-9344 (Online)
http://doi.org/10.18848/2470-9336/CGP/v02i03/1-20 (Article)
Barriers and Drivers in Cultural Tourism for
Five Groups in Thailand
Kittichai Kasemsarn,
1
Brunel University, UK
Farnaz Nickpour, University of Liverpool, UK
Abstract: Cultural tourism is a niche market to which little attention has been paid, especially compared to mass tourism.
To broaden and increase the potential market, this study applies inclusive design principles, as understanding and
designing for diversity, to identify barriers and drivers in cultural tourism for five groups, including youth, people
uninterested in cultural tourism (noncultural tourists), older adults, people with disabilities, and cultural tourists. The
objective of this study is therefore to identify the barriers and drivers in cultural tourism among five groups of potential
customers, as defined above and to compare the differences between close -ended and open-ended answers seeking out
the neglected barriers and drivers within the context of Thailand’s cultural tourism. To achieve this objective, 500
questionnaires were distributed to five groups in various locations. The most common barrier cited by the five groups is
“transportation.” In addition, except for disabled people, barriers about “time” can cover four groups. However, drivers
seem to differ more between groups. Only three items—“visiting a place that I have not visited before,” “just relaxing,”
and “new experiences and different lifestyles”—are in the top five for all groups.
Keywords: Inclusive Design, Cultural Tourism, Barriers, Drivers, People with Disabilities, Older Adults
Introduction
he term “cultural tourism” refers to “movements of persons for essentially cultural
motivations such as study tours, performing arts and cultural tours, travel to festivals and
other cultural events, visits to sites and monuments” (UNWTO 2011). Studies have
illustrated that cultural tourism is important for various reasons, including economic
development or regeneration (Myerscough 1988; Bianchini and Parkinson 1993; Herrero et al.
2006; Richards 2007; Chou 2013; Webster and Ivanov 2014; Mowforth and Munt 2015),
economic and social impact (UNESCO 2003; Kim, Uysal and Sirgy 2013; Lee 2013),
establishment of an identity (UNESCO 2003; Bond and Falk 2013), preservation of cultural and
historical heritage (UNESCO 2003; Wang and Bramwell 2012), and increased quality of tourism
(Holcomb 1999; Kapodini-Dimitradi, Robinson, and Boniface 1999; Kim, Uysal and Sirgy
2013).
In a world troubled by conflicts based on misunderstandings, cultural tourism can help
improve understanding among different groups and strengthen cultural harmony. However,
cultural tourism is currently a niche market, with little attention paid to it compared to mass
tourism (UNESCO 2003). Additionally, the tourism industry tends to focus upon the 15 percent
of tourists who are already interested in cultural tourism (Silberberg 1995; Lord 1999). There is
therefore an opportunity to increase the audience for cultural tourism by appealing to other
groups of potential customers.
However, the results of lower visitor numbers in cultural destinations could lead to several
issues. First, cultural places are significant for the local economy. If there are less cultural
tourists, then the economy in the local area will not develop (Madden 2001; Stoddard et al. 2006;
Kay, Wong, and Polonsky 2009; Chou 2013; Webster and Ivanov 2014; Mowforth and Munt
2015). Second, heritage and cultural attractions can enhance community engagement in each
area. Lower visitor numbers can lead to less social engagement of people (Howard 2001; Hill
1
Corresponding Author: Kittichai Kasemsarn, Department of Design, College of Engineering, Design and Physical
Sciences, MCST 361, Brunel University, Michael Sterling Building, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, London UB8 3PH. email:
kittichai.kasemsarn@brunel.ac.uk
T

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
2004; Upright 2004; Kay, Wong, and Polonsky 2009; Kim, Uysal, and Sirgy 2013; Lee 2013).
Third, most cultural places are funded by the government to provide value for the widest range of
visitors. Low visitor numbers could result in a reduction of the budget or financial support from
the public (Brooks 2003; Lewis and Brooks 2005; Kim, Cheng, and O’Leary 2007; Kay, Wong,
and Polonsky 2009).
Competition between tourism organizations, moreover, means that effective marketing
strategies are required to attract visitors, with important strategies like segmentation, targeting,
and positioning to understand what customers really want and support them. In addition, several
tourist attractions have begun to design products and services for specific groups (Fodness 1994;
Kale, Mcintyre, and Weir 1987; Reisinger and Mavondo 2002; Hays, Page, and Buhalis 2013;
Kavoura and Katsoni 2013). To broaden and increase the potential market, this study draws upon
inclusive design principles. By researching barriers and drivers to engaging in cultural tourism
among different groups, the industry and government organizations may be better able to
recognize the significance of neglected groups and increase accessibility for these people.
Inclusive design aims to make products and services accessible to the widest range of users
possible, irrespective of impairment, age, or capability. In addition, it has been used to
investigate, understand, and meet the needs of people (British Standards Institute 2005; Langdon,
Clarkson, and Robinson 2008). This study adopts the concept of inclusive design for cultural
tourism to include and understand the barriers and drivers of all potential groups of people,
especially older adults and disabled people.
Cultural Tourism in Thailand
Cultural tourism has been considered the significant feature of the Thai economy and society. It
could be applied to develop the local economy and increase the identity of many cities. At
present, several local communities in Thailand have adopted cultural tourism to develop their
own economies and increase income by attracting more visitors through storytelling (Meekaew
and Srisontisuk 2012). Thailand, in particular, has so many stories, folk tales, arts, traditions, and
festivals that could be used as unique selling points to attract cultural tourists (George 2005;
Meekaew and Srisontisuk 2012). Moreover, Thailand is very successful in promoting itself as a
cultural country, as illustrated by the number of tourists who visit the country (George 2005;
Meekaew and Srisontisuk 2012; Nasing, Rodhetbhai, and Keeratiburana 2014).
However, currently the lack of conservation and visitors has been the main problem in
cultural tourism in Thailand. Furthermore, the architecture, buildings, and environment at
historical sites have been abandoned by local communities (Laomee 2009; Nasing, Rodhetbhai,
and Keeratiburana 2014). Many studies recommend that the tourism industry and the government
increase the accessibility and improve the environment and conveniences for tourists (Chaisorn
1993; Hiranyahat 2001; Buarapa 2006; Pakpinpet 2008). Furthermore, to increase the number of
tourists, a unique selling point for each place should be chosen, and consideration should be
given to what the tourists really need (Chantachon 2006). Nasing, Rodhetbhai, and Keeratiburana
(2014) point out that the strength of cultural sites in Thailand is their attractiveness, but the
weaknesses are information services and public conveniences.
Although cultural tourism is the main source of income for Thailand, the study of cultural
tourism from the tourist’s perspective is not enough. Oftentimes, research studies in this area are
not directly related to cultural tourism. Therefore, this study investigates the barriers and drivers
in cultural tourism of five different groups.
2

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
Research Methods
The Sample Sizes
This quantitative-causal study seeks to identify the drivers and barriers that affect the willingness
of different groups to engage in cultural tourism. It focuses on five groups of people in Bangkok,
Thailand: youth (fifteen to twenty-four years), people with disabilities, older adults (over sixty
years), established cultural tourists, and people uninterested in cultural tourism (i.e., noncultural
tourists). According to the study from Mandala Research, LLC (2013), most cultural tourists take
around 3.6 trips annually. These statistics have been reported by other studies for more than
twenty years (Mandala Research, LLC 2013). Therefore, this study uses the criteria of the
number of trips to identify cultural tourists. Tourists at the museum will be asked how many
cultural trips they make annually. If more than four trips are made a year, they will be considered
as cultural tourists. The sample sizes for the five groups were calculated using Yamane’s formula
(Yamane 1967) with an error margin of 10 percent and with a confidence coefficient of 90
percent. This study was calculated from the Bangkok population: youth (1,403,096), older adults
(800,036), and people with disabilities (65,966) (National Statistical Office 2015). To gather
information, 500 questionnaires (100 for each group) were distributed in underground train
stations, parks, and cultural and historical sites from August 1 to 30, 2015. Respondents were
asked to indicate the extent to which various barriers and drivers were important to them on a
seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neutral,
5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree and 7 = strongly agree). The time for completion of the
questionnaire varied from five to ten minutes. The questionnaire consists of three parts: Part 1
consists of eight questions concerned with a demographic profile using the “nominal scale”
(gender, age, education, marital status, type of disability, monthly income). Part 2 consists of
twenty-five questions with barriers. Part 3 consists of twenty-six questions with drivers in
cultural tourism, using the Likert scale and open-ended questions on cultural tourism.
Pre-test and Pilot Test
The pre-test and pilot test were conducted between July 1 and 30, 2015. First, a pre-test of an in-
person survey of sixteen young participants was tested in terms of 1) the flow of the
questionnaire, 2) its length, and 3) the respondent’s interest and attention. The results obtained
were developed into another version of the questionnaire, removed some unclear questions, and
improved by larger text, the addition of more graphics (facial expressions on the Likert scale),
and pictures of cultural tourism. Next, content validity was tested by three experts. Moreover,
Rovinelli and Hambleton’s (1976) Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC indexes) were
calculated from three experts. The experts were asked to consider whether the scoring criteria
addressed all aspects of barriers and drivers in cultural tourism for five groups and matched to
the objectives of this study. The experts rated the scoring criteria: 1 = item clearly match
objective; 0 = uncertain, and -1 = item clearly does not match objective. The IOC data from the
questionnaire showed that the content validity of the barriers was twenty-five out of twenty-eight
and the drivers was twenty-six out of twenty-nine. This scoring had satisfied IOC’s criteria over
0.5.
Thirty-five participants (youths, disabled people, older adults, noncultural tourists) were
tested in a pilot test in terms of these issues to help develop the final version: 1) clarity, 2) length,
3) interest, 4) problems, 5) good points, 6) bad points, and 7) change. The results indicated that
participants’ comments included: “easy to understand,” “not too long,” “it can capture the
interest throughout the time,” “after finishing this questionnaire, I am interested in cultural
tourism more than previously,” “you should have more questions about disabled people or a
separate section.” Next, a reliability test was done by using Cronbach’s Alpha. The instrument
could present a high degree of reliability if the value of Cronbach’s Alpha obtained as follows:
3

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
0.9 (excellent), > 0.8 (good), > 0.7 (acceptable), > 0.6 (questionable), > 0.5 (poor), and < 0.5
(unacceptable) (Burns and Bush 2013). From the output of reliability statistics obtained,
Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.907 > 0.900, it can be concluded that this research instrument has
very high reliability. Based on the basis of decision-making in the reliability test, it can be
concluded that this research instrument has very high reliability.
Research Question 1: What Are the Barriers and Drivers in Cultural
Tourism among Five Different Groups?
Results
Table 1: Demographic Results from Five Groups (500 Respondents)
Factor
Youth
Older
Adults
Disabled
People
Noncultural
Tourists
Established
Cultural Tourists
1. Gender
Male
37
27
66
34
41
Female
63
64
34
66
59
2. Age
15–17
31
-
1
8
4
18–22
49
-
2
28
22
23–25
20
-
2
1
27
26–34
-
-
9
31
18
35–45
-
-
13
27
25
46–59
-
-
35
5
3
60–65
-
58
18
-
1
66–75
-
36
11
-
-
76–85
-
6
6
-
-
85+
-
3
-
-
3. Education
Primary/Secondary
8
29
67
5
10
High school
32
11
7
11
8
Diploma/Certificate
5
7
9
12
7
Undergraduate
51
38
2
64
58
Post-graduate or above
2
5
1
7
16
Others
2
4
14
-
1
4. Marital Status
Single
31
53
62
74
Married
62
38
37
16
Others
6
9
1
7
5. Type of Disability*
Vision
16
Hearing
7
Mobility
74
Mental health
1
Intellectual functioning
2
Cognitive/learning
Long-term health conditions
6. Monthly income (Thai bath)
Below 5,000 bath
35
3
78
9
12
5,000–10,000 bath
24
26
3
24
17
10,001–20,000 bath
10
41
2
24
27
20,001–30,000 bath
9
9
2
12
8
30,001–50,000 bath
2
9
9
19
Above 50,000 bath
4
5
16
11
4

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
7. How many days did you
spend for “cultural tourism”?
Never
11
16
56
13
1–3 days/year
30
27
28
45
26
4–6 days/year
20
28
2
13
32
7–9 days/year
13
11
3
9
14
Above 9 days/year
25
18
10
20
28
The quantitative result indicated that: most youth (49 respondents) were aged eighteen to twenty-
two; older adults (58 respondents) were sixty to sixty-five years; disabled people (35
respondents) were forty-six to fifty-nine years; noncultural tourists (31 respondents) were
twenty-six to thirty-four years; and established cultural tourist (27 respondents) were twenty-
three to twenty-five years. The largest group of the youth (51 respondents), older adults (38
respondents), noncultural tourists (64 respondents), and established cultural tourists (58
respondents) had an undergraduate level education. However, the largest group of disabled
people (67 respondents) had a primary/secondary level education. In term of spending on cultural
tourism, the largest portion of youth (30 respondents) and noncultural tourists (45 respondents)
spent one to three days a year. Established cultural tourist (32 respondents) spent four to six days
a year. However, the most striking data are that the disabled people (56 respondents) state that
they had never travelled. Lastly, older adults (28 respondents) spent four to six days a year.
Barriers
The results obtained from the respondents regarding barriers to engaging in cultural tourism are
presented in Table 2. The scale ranges from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7), with
mean scores indicate as: 1.00–1.49 = strongly disagree, 1.50–2.49 = disagree, 2.50–3.49 =
somewhat disagree, 3.50–4.49 = neutral, 4.50–5.49 = somewhat agree, 5.50–6.49 = agree, and
6.50–7.00 = strongly agree. For youth and noncultural tourists, “a lack of time to attend” received
the highest score (4.55 = somewhat agree and 4.26 = neutral) of all barrier factors, while
“embarrassment over visible disabilities” received the lowest score (1.66 = disagree and 1.95 =
disagree). The same factors were also identified as the most and least important respectively by
established cultural tourists (scoring 4.11 = neutral and 2.05 = disagree). For older adults,
meanwhile, the item “difficult to access via public transport” recorded the highest mean value of
(4.46 = neutral) while “poor past experience” scored lowest (2.81 = disagree). For disabled
people, physical well-being was prioritized (5.41 = somewhat agree), with concerns about
“interactions of individuals and social environments” scoring the lowest mean value (2.50 =
somewhat disagree).
Table 2: Mean Scores of Barriers in Cultural Tourism for Five Groups
Barriers
Youth
Older
Adults
Disabled
People
Noncultural
Tourists
Established
Cultural
Tourists
1. Personal interest
Uncomfortable experience,
not entertaining
3.20
(SD1.694)
2.93
(SD1.500)
3.75
(SD2.359)
3.24
(SD1.685)
3.23
(SD1.855)
Not relevant or of interest;
have different interests
3.67
(SD1.627)
3.26
(SD1.535)
3.63
(SD2.312)
3.61
(SD1.820)
3.50
(SD1.806)
Old and unfashionable
2.49
(SD1.210)
2.91
(SD1.598)
2.85
(SD2.269)
2.66
(SD1.641)
2.62
(SD1.615)
2. Time
Lack of time to attend
4.55
(SD1.919)
4.30
(SD1.778)
3.95
(SD2.472)
4.26
(SD2.008)
4.11
(SD1.941)
Inconvenient opening times
4.41
4.04
3.83
3.88
4.11
5

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
and activity schedules
(SD1.818)
(SD1.504)
(SD2.353)
(SD1.903)
(SD2.013)
3. Understanding
Lack of past engagement
3.33
(SD1.505)
3.42
(SD1.441)
3.57
(SD2.273)
3.45
(SD1.817)
3.31
(SD1.689)
Poor past experience
2.48
(SD1.460)
2.86
(SD1.317)
3.22
(SD2.222)
2.57
(SD1.616)
2.61
(SD1.469)
Lack of information
where to go
4.22
(SD1.845)
3.90
(SD1.578)
4.08
(SD2.461)
3.55
(SD1.828)
3.58
(SD1.903)
4. Health
Physical well-being
2.39
(SD1.635)
3.71
(SD1.585)
5.41
(SD2.132)
2.33
(SD1.764)
2.69
(SD2.544)
Medical problems
2.06
(SD1.615)
3.38
(SD1.563)
3.79
(SD2.651)
1.99
(SD1.467)
2.27
(SD1.612)
5. Finance
Lack of concession pricing
3.37
(SD3.581)
3.28
(SD1.504)
3.95
(SD2.463)
2.79
(SD1.996)
2.94
(SD1.962)
Overall costs and
supplementary costs
3.64
(SD2.087)
3.59
(SD1.385)
3.93
(SD2.166)
3.62
(SD2.117)
3.14
(SD1.779)
6. Fear
Fear to travel alone
3.37
(SD2.126)
3.44
(SD1.661)
4.06
(SD2.632)
2.96
(SD2.020)
2.66
(SD1.805)
Fear of hassles
3.80
(SD2.025)
3.63
(SD1.481)
4.60
(SD2.470)
3.08
(SD1.785)
2.93
(SD1.789)
Embarrassing aspects of
visible disabilities
1.66
(SD1.293)
3.02
(SD1.715)
3.04
(SD2.344)
1.95
(SD1.373)
2.05
(SD1.425)
7. Communication
Interactions of individuals
and social environments
2.32
(SD1.632)
3.04
(SD1.360)
2.50
(SD2.057)
2.25
(SD1.591)
2.22
(SD1.256)
Lack of self-confidence
2.45
(SD1.763)
3.18
(SD1.495)
3.37
(SD2.432)
2.07
(SD1.451)
2.32
(SD1.447)
8. Products/Places
Poor quality offerings
3.47
(SD1.806)
3.60
(SD1.531)
3.88
(SD2.366)
3.50
(SD1.925)
3.63
(SD1.796)
Only for education and
information
3.47
(SD1.514)
3.54
(SD1.472)
3.67
(SD2.308)
3.71
(SD1.876)
3.30
(SD1.621)
Security concerns
3.69
(SD1.846)
3.89
(SD1.566)
4.56
(SD2.421)
3.98
(SD1.884)
3.48
(SD1.858)
9. Physical Access
Physically difficult to get to
4.35
(SD1.755)
4.30
(SD1.721)
5.04
(SD2.152)
4.08
(SD1.862)
3.89
(SD1.852)
Difficult to access via public
transport
4.44
(SD1.836)
4.46
(SD1.654)
5.24
(SD2.244)
4.20
(SD1.853)
3.74
(SD1.724)
Architectural barriers (e.g.,
cramped seating areas and
unwieldy doors)
3.24
(SD1.545)
4.19
(SD1.563)
5.02
(SD2.227)
3.99
(SD1.781)
3.37
(SD1.796)
10. Accommodation
Accessibility of airplanes,
hotels, and restaurants
3.39
(SD1.588)
3.90
(SD1.584)
4.77
(SD2.298)
4.02
(SD1.933)
3.48
(SD1.727)
Service of staff
3.96
(SD1.818)
3.87
(SD1.572)
4.24
(SD2.348)
3.92
(SD1.859)
3.81
(SD1.737)
6

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
Drivers
For young people, “outstanding scenery” received the highest score (5.50 = agree) while older
adults reported being motivated by the prospect of “visiting a place that I have not visited before”
(5.14 = somewhat agree). For disabled people, “prestige, pride, and patriotism” was rated highest
(5.89 = agree). Noncultural tourists indicated “spending time with family/friends” as the biggest
driver for engaging in cultural tourism (5.48 = somewhat agree) while established cultural
tourists were more interested in “increasing knowledge about foreign destinations, people, and
things” (5.69 = agree). The item “video game about cultural stories” received the lowest score
from every group (youth = 3.85 = neutral; older adults = 3.38 = somewhat disagree; disabled
people = 1.65 = disagree; noncultural tourists = 3.54 = neutral; cultural tourists = 4.34 = neutral).
Table 3: Mean Scores of Drivers in Cultural Tourism for Five Groups
Drivers
Youth
Older
Adults
Disabled
People
Noncultural
Tourists
Established
Cultural
Tourists
1. New Experience
New experiences and different
lifestyles
5.32
(SD1.663)
4.96
(SD1.555)
5.33
(SD2.045)
5.33
(SD1.798)
5.44
(SD1.773)
Meeting new and different
people
4.66
(SD1.854)
4.81
(SD1.510)
5.31
(SD2.014)
4.81
(SD1.873)
4.79
(SD1.760)
Personal rewards
4.47
(SD1.766)
4.90
(SD1.454)
5.84
(SD1.774)
4.99
(SD1.732)
4.96
(SD1.708)
2. Escaping from Daily Routine
Visiting a place that I have not
visited before
5.36
(SD1.494)
5.14
(SD1.399)
5.51
(SD2.120)
5.36
(SD1.567)
5.48
(SD1.574)
Getting away from home or
mundane environment
5.10
(SD1.583)
5.07
(SD1.325)
5.68
(SD1.792)
4.89
(SD1.705)
5.16
(SD1.754)
Seeking adventure
4.97
(SD1.638)
4.73
(SD1.403)
4.94
(SD2.226)
5.02
(SD1.614)
5.32
(SD1.606)
3. Gaining Knowledge
Increasing knowledge about
foreign destinations, people, and
things
4.93
(SD1.612)
4.81
(SD1.417)
5.59
(SD1.849)
5.29
(SD1.578)
5.69
(SD1.475)
Education/ learning
4.88
(SD1.635)
4.78
(SD1.481)
5.46
(SD1.883)
5.29
(SD1.591)
5.49
(SD1.662)
4. Relaxation
Just relaxing
5.24
(SD1.572)
5.01
(SD1.403)
5.84
(SD1.668)
5.46
(SD1.642)
5.39
(SD1.641)
Spending time with
family/friends
5.41
(SD1.583)
4.93
(SD1.529)
5.22
(SD2.082)
5.48
(SD1.547)
5.30
(SD1.712)
5. Culture
Visiting historical/cultural sites
4.89
(SD1.556)
4.76
(SD1.310)
5.49
(SD1.941)
5.26
(SD1.495)
5.30
(SD1.528)
Interesting/unique culture or
environment
5.20
(SD1.463)
4.93
(SD1.252)
5.40
(SD1.938)
5.46
(SD1.592)
5.54
(SD1.580)
6. Prestige
Prestige, pride, and patriotism
5.15
(SD1.527)
4.86
(SD1.198)
5.89
(SD1.746)
5.14
(SD1.804)
5.46
(SD1.581)
Nostalgia
4.28
(SD1.798)
4.64
(SD1.443)
4.82
(SD2.213)
4.49
(SD1.778)
4.95
(SD1.769)
7. Information
Recommendation from
friends/acquaintances
4.36
(SD1.650)
4.31
(SD1.496)
4.33
(SD2.288)
4.46
(SD1.702)
4.68
(SD1.617)
7

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
Pre-trip information
4.52
(SD1.542)
4.28
(SD1.485)
4.00
(SD2.441)
4.74
(SD1.694)
4.86
(SD1.665)
8. Advertising and Branding
Attractive and contemporary
presentation
4.85
(SD1.672)
4.31
(SD1.369)
4.51
(SD2.336)
4.65
(SD1.684)
5.23
(SD1.648)
Advertising from media
4.35
(SD1.749)
3.97
(SD1.440)
4.34
(SD2.377)
4.45
(SD1.714)
4.55
(SD1.759)
Engaging online communities
4.36
(SD1.750)
3.85
(SD1.723)
2.55
(SD2.335)
4.50
(SD1.883)
4.62
(SD1.674)
9. Destination Attractiveness
Location/accessibility/distance or
nearness
4.83
(SD1.511)
4.37
(SD1.629)
4.26
(SD2.415)
4.79
(SD1.816)
5.03
(SD1.627)
Convenience of transportation
4.86
(SD1.682)
4.46
(SD1.609)
5.55
(SD2.032)
4.88
(SD1.742)
5.31
(SD1.633)
Low cost/expenses (cheap
food/accommodation/other
facilities)
4.67
(SD1.871)
4.55
(SD1.515)
4.68
(SD2.309)
4.63
(SD1.721)
5.01
(SD1.808)
Outstanding scenery
5.50
(SD1.547)
4.78
(SD1.438)
5.09
(SD2.289)
5.20
(SD1.690)
5.60
(SD1.491)
10. Cultural Media
Online museums, applications, or
websites
4.26
(SD1.661)
4.04
(SD1.528)
2.40
(SD2.265)
4.58
(SD1.724)
4.76
(SD1.593)
Animation, VDO presentation,
short movie
4.16
(SD1.650)
3.96
(SD1.514)
2.49
(SD2.236)
4.09
(SD1.886)
4.77
(SD1.611)
Video game about cultural stories
3.85
(SD1.855)
3.38
(SD1.681)
1.65
(SD1.388)
3.54
(SD1.909)
4.34
(SD1.755)
Discussion
Barriers
This study identified some similarities between the top five barriers identified by the five groups.
For example, the items “difficult to access via public transportation” and “physically difficult to
get to” were applicable to all five groups while “lack of time to attend” applied to four. Three
groups identified “architectural barriers” as important, along with “inconvenient opening times
and activity schedules.” This means that these items can be considered as significant for all five
groups.
The most important issues accepted by all groups as significant barriers were “difficult
public transportation to access” and “physically difficult to get to.” These data reflect the
findings of a number of previous studies, including research about cultural places that are
physically difficult to reach (Tian, Crompton, and Witt 1996; Prentice, Davies, and Beeho 1997;
Kay, Wong, and Polonsky 2009; Pathak 2014) and the difficulty of accessing some historical
places via public transportation (Rentschler 2006; Garcia et al. 2013; Kantawateera et al. 2014).
The lack of public transport is a problem, for example, if tourists cannot afford their own cars.
Kay, Wong, and Polonsky (2009) suggest that such physical barriers have a significant impact,
while Prentice, Davies, and Beeho (1997) state that some tourists are unwilling to use public
transportation due to poor accessibility.
A “lack of time to attend” was identified as important by four groups, while “inconvenient
opening times and activity schedules” were an issue according to three groups. However, these
factors received lower scores from disabled people. Several other studies suggest that cultural
tourists and nonvisitors consider time constraints a critical barrier to engaging with cultural
tourism (Crawford and Godbey 1987; Henderson, Stalnaker, and Taylor 1988; Davies and
Prentice 1995; Tian, Crompton, and Witt 1996; Milner, Jago, and Deery 2004; Kay, Wong, and
8

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
Polonsky 2009; Fodness 2016). In this study, time concerns were ranked the most significant
factor by young people, noncultural tourists, and cultural tourists alike; it is generally a concern
for all visitors. Inconvenient opening times and activity schedules are also cited as a problem in
many studies (Samdahl and Jekubovich 1997; Migliorino 1998; Rentschler 2006; Kay, Wong,
and Polonsky 2009).
Three groups identified “architectural barriers (e.g., cramped seating areas and unwieldy
doors)” as significant, although this same factor received lower scores from young people and
established cultural tourists. This means that physical barriers do not affect young people and
cultural tourists as much as they do older adults, disabled people, and noncultural tourists.
Drivers
From the top five drivers identified by the five groups, the most popular motivating factors for
engaging in cultural tourism were identified as “visiting a place that I have not visited before”
and “just relaxing,” each of which was picked by four groups. The item “new experiences and
different lifestyles” was also identified as important by three groups.
Three groups (youth, older adults, and noncultural tourists) said that exposure to “new
experiences and different lifestyles” was an important driver for engaging with cultural tourism.
This finding is consistent with prior research that has identified interests, enjoyment, and
experiences as intrinsic drivers to motivate tourists to engage in tourism activities (Crompton
1979; Yau, McKercher, and Packer 2004; Kim and Ritchie 2014). This finding could imply that,
for the five groups studied, internal drivers are more important than external ones. For example,
Neulinger (1974) states that several tourism studies indicate that leisure is intrinsically motivated,
without expectation of extrinsic rewards.
Research on disabled tourism, meanwhile, confirms that disabled people have the same
intrinsic need to engage in travel activities as their nondisabled counterparts (Darcy and
Daruwalla 1999; Yau, McKercher, and Packer 2004; Wu, Chang, and Hsieh 2014; Altinay et al.
2016).
“Visiting a place that I have not visited before” was prominent in four groups. This driver is
related to a finding from Crompton (1979), who states that some tourists go on vacation to
change their environment, no matter how comfortable their environments are. This may also
explained why “just relaxing” was selected by four groups in this study, as Crompton (1979)
states that tourists mostly feel physically exhausted when they return home but that travelling can
be mentally relaxing.
Some studies also state that relaxation is the most significant motivation in tourism,
especially in the summer, regardless of the places visited and travelers’ nationalities, since people
tend to use their vacations to relax emotionally and physically (Kozak 2002; Tsephe and Obono
2013). Krippendorf (1987) further states that relaxation and getting away from routine are the top
psychological factors for travelling.
Table 4: Mean Scores for Barriers and Drivers in the
Top Five to Cultural Tourism among Five Groups
Barriers
and
Drivers
Diversity of People
Barriers
Youth
Older Adults
Disabled
People
Noncultural
Tourists
Established
Cultural Tourists
1. Lack of
time to attend
(4.55)
1. Difficult to
access via public
transport (4.46)
1. Physical
well-being
(5.41)
1. Lack of
time
to attend
(4.26)
1. Lack of time
to attend (4.11)
2. Difficult to
2. Lack of time
2. Difficult to
2. Difficult to
2. Inconvenient
9

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
access via
public
transport
(4.44)
to attend (4.30)
access via
public
transport
(5.24)
access via
public
transport
(4.20)
opening times
and activity
schedules (4.11)
3.Inconvenient
opening times
and activity
schedules
(4.41)
3. Physically
difficult to get
to (4.30)
3. Physically
difficult to get
to (5.04)
3. Physically
difficult to
get
to (4.08)
3. Physically
difficult to get
to (3.89)
4. Physically
difficult to get
to (4.35)
4. Architectural
barriers (e.g.,
cramped seating
areas and unwieldy
doors) (4.19)
4.Architectural
barriers (e.g.,
cramped
seating areas
and unwieldy
doors) (5.02)
4.
Accessibility
of airplanes,
hotels and
restaurants
(4.02)
4. Service of
staff (3.81)
5. Lack of
information
about where to
go (4.22)
5. Inconvenient
opening times and
activity schedules
(4.04)
5.Accessibility
of airplanes,
hotels and
restaurants
(4.77)
5.
Architectural
barriers (e.g.,
cramped
seating areas
and unwieldy
doors) (3.99)
5. Difficult to
access via public
transport (3.74)
Drivers
1. Outstanding
scenery (5.50)
1. Visiting a place
that I have not
visited before
(5.14)
1. Prestige,
pride and
patriotism
(5.89)
1. Spending
time with
family/friends
(5.48)
1. Increasing
knowledge about
foreign
destinations,
people and things
(5.69)
2. Spending
time with
family/friends
(5.41)
2. Getting away
from home or
mundane
environment (5.07)
2. Personal
rewards (5.84)
2. Just
relaxing
(5.46)
2. Outstanding
scenery (5.60)
3. Visiting a
place that I
have not
visited before
(5.36)
3. Just relaxing
(5.01)
3. Just
relaxing (5.84)
3.Interesting/
unique
culture or
environment
(5.46)
3.Interesting/
unique culture or
environment
(5.54)
4. New
experiences
and different
lifestyles
(5.32)
4. New experiences
and different
lifestyles (4.96)
4. Getting
away from
home or
mundane
environment
(5.68)
4. Visiting a
place that I
have not
visited before
(5.36)
4.Education/
learning (5.49)
5. Just
relaxing (5.24)
5.Interesting/unique
culture or
environment (4.93)
5. Increasing
knowledge
about foreign
destinations,
people and
things (5.59)
5. New
experiences
and different
lifestyles
(5.33)
5. Visiting a
place that I have
not
visited before
(5.48)
10

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
Research Question 2: Are There Any Differences in Answers between
Scaling and Open-ended Questions?
Although cultural tourism is significant for all groups, there is a lack of studies within the context
of Thailand’s cultural tourism. From the literature review, there was no related data about
barriers to, and drivers of, cultural tourism in Thailand. Before this stage, this study applied
barriers and drivers from other countries’ studies. Therefore, the objective of this section is to
compare the differences between close-ended and open-ended answers and to seek out the
neglected barriers and drivers within the context of Thailand’s cultural tourism. From this result,
the industry, researchers, and government organisations can recognise the neglected barrier and
driver items for five different groups in the context of Thailand. In order to design and research
effectively for Thailand, designers and researchers need to consider these barriers and drivers as
the real needs of five Thai groups.
Results
Barriers
Table 5: Open-ended Answers for Barriers to Cultural Tourism among Five Groups
Diversity
Themes
Subthemes
Number of
Mentions
Youth
Transportation
Traffic jams, difficult to go, poor public
transportation, travel cost is high, too far
from my home, and no private car
47
Weather
Too hot, poor weather
24
Social Issues
No one (friends, family) to go with,
too crowded and group tours
20
Advertising and
Presentation
Bad presentation and information, old-
fashioned, no information on where to go
12
Facilities
Poor facilities – dirty toilets, environment
9
Safety
Criminals & pickpockets, Some places
are too commercial – bad image
6
Older
Adults
Transportation
Traffic jams, difficult to go, poor
transportation, not convenient to travel,
too far)
46
Weather
It is too hot, poor weather
36
Social Issues
I do not like long holiday – too crowd,
too crowd, some tourists’ manners are
rude, service of staff
20
Facility and
Accommodation
Dirty toilets, lack of facilities, full of rubbish,
accommodation is not suitable for us
8
Advertising and
presentation
No information where to go, no staff
to explain, presentation is difficult to
understand
4
Disabled
People
Transportation
Difficult to travel, not convenient to
travel for disabled people, traffic jams
28
Weather
Too hot, poor weather
13
Disability
Problems
No disabled toilet, vision problems,
communication problems, bad service for
disabled people, no accessibility (ramp),
I cannot travel alone
13
Social Issues
No one to take me out, no one to take
care, too crowded
11
11

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
Noncultural
Tourists
Transportation
Traffic jams, difficult to get there, not
convenient on public transportation, too
far, taking too long a time
34
Weather
Too hot, poor weather
25
Social Issues
Too crowded, some tourists’ manners
16
Facilities
No parking, not enough toilets, no facilities,
dirty toilets, poor accommodation
10
Safety
Too dangerous, some cultural events are
dangerous
5
Advertising and
Presentation
Not interesting presentation, too much
text and information
5
Cultural
Tourists
Transportation
No convenient transportation, poor
transportation, traffic jams, difficult
to go there, too far
26
Weather
Too hot, poor weather
25
Advertising and
Presentation
Poor and old fashioned presentation, poor
organisation and management, some places
are too commercial, no information on
where to go, no advertising and promotion
from historical places
21
Social Issues
Bad tourists’ manners, too crowded
17
Safety
Not safe, criminals, pickpockets, taxi cheats
8
Facilities
Dirty toilets, no parking
5
Results from answers to open-ended questions were analysed by using three multiple coders to
double check the data. For youth, “transportation” (47) (traffic jams, difficult to go, poor public
transportation, travel cost is high, too far from my home, and no private car) was the most
significant barrier. This result is related to the second-ranked Likert-scale question “physical
access.” Moreover, it was found that many open-ended questions were different, compared to
close-ended questions such as: weather (24) (too hot, poor weather), social issues (20) (no friends
or family to go with, too crowded, group tours), advertising and presentation (12) (bad
presentation and information, old-fashioned, no information on where to go), facilities (9) (poor
facilities, dirty toilets, environment), and safety (6) (criminals and pickpockets, some places are
too commercial, bad image).
For older adults, the open-ended answer “transportation” (46) (traffic jams, difficult to go,
poor transportation, not convenient to travel, too far) was the most significant barrier. Moreover,
it was found that the answers to many open-ended questions were different compared to close-
ended questions such as: weather (36) (too hot, poor weather), social issues (20) (I do not like
long holidays, too crowded, some tourists’ manners are rude, service of staff), facilities and
accommodation (8) (dirty toilets, lack of facilities, full of rubbish, accommodation is not suitable
for us), and advertising and presentation (4) (no information on where to go, no staff to explain,
presentation is difficult to understand).
For disabled people, the open-ended answer “transportation” (28) (difficult to travel, not
convenient to travel for disabled people, traffic jams) was the most significant barriers.
Moreover, it was found that the answers to many open-ended questions were different compared
to close-ended questions such as: disability problems (13) (no accessible toilet, vision problems,
communication problems, bad service for disabled people, no accessibility (ramp), I cannot travel
alone), weather (12) (too hot), and social issues (11) (no one to take me out, no one to take care
of me, too crowded).
For noncultural tourists, the open-ended answer “transportation” (34) (traffic jams, difficult
to get there, not convenient on public transportation, too far, taking too long a time) was the most
significant barrier. Moreover, it was found that many open-ended questions were different
compared to close-ended questions such as: weather (25) (too hot, poor weather), social issues
12

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
(16) (too crowded, some tourists’ manners), facilities (10) (no parking, not enough toilets, no
facilities, dirty toilets, poor accommodation), safety (5) (too dangerous, some cultural events are
dangerous), and advertising and presentation (5) (not interesting presentation, too much text and
information).
For cultural tourists, the open-ended answer “transportation” (26) (no convenient
transportation, poor transportation, traffic jams, difficult to go there, too far) was the most
significant barrier. Moreover, it was found that many open-ended questions were different
compared to close-ended questions such as: weather (25) (too hot, poor weather), advertising and
presentation (21) (poor and old fashioned presentation, poor organisation and management, some
places are too commercial, no information on where to go, no advertising and promotion from
historical places), social issues (17) (bad tourists’ manners, too crowded), safety (8) (not safe,
criminals, pickpockets, taxi cheats), and facilities (5) (dirty toilets, no parking).
Drivers
Table 6: Open-ended Answers for Drivers to Cultural Tourism among Five Groups
Diversity
Themes
Subthemes
Number of
Mentions
Youth
Prestige
Learning and studying the past, doing homework
9
Financial Issues
Having money, overall costs
7
Weather
Good weather
4
Older Adults
Culture
Learning and seeing Thai cultures, nostalgia, to
preserve and promote Thai culture, seeing original
Thai culture (plays)
25
Time
Free time
11
Presentation and
Activity
Interesting presentations, exhibitions and events,
taking pictures, fun activities
9
Religion
Going to temples, to donate to temples
7
Financial Issues
Win the lottery, having money, not too expensive
5
Information
Reading from reviews
2
Disabled
People
Religion
To donate to temples, going to temples
12
Financial Issues
Win the lottery, having money
6
Accessibility
Good accessibility, ramp, toilets
2
Noncultural
Tourists
Facilities
Enough parking, Indoor exhibitions, good
food, good environment, student discount
9
Financial Issues
Having money, not too expensive
8
People
Good people, not too crowded
6
Religion
Donation to temples
5
Weather
Good weather
4
Cultural
Tourists
Prestige
Seeking identity of Thai culture, to
preserve and promote culture, seeing
real cultures, learning cultures
Presentation and
Activity
Interesting presentation, hi-technology,
interactive activity or adventure
11
Financial Issues
Reasonable price
3
Facilities
Good facilities
2
For youths, most open-ended and close-ended answers were similar. However, the item
“prestige” was similar to a close-ended answer but was different in the details, such as learning
and studying the past and doing homework. Moreover, it was found that some open-ended data
were different compared to close-ended questions such as: 1) prestige (9) (learning and studying
the past, doing homework), 2) weather (4) (good weather), and 3) financial issues (7) (having
money, overall costs).
13

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
For older adults, it was found that some open-ended questions were different compared to
close-ended questions, such as: 1) culture (25) (learning and seeing Thai culture, nostalgia, to
preserve and promote Thai culture, seeing original Thai culture (plays)), 2) time (11) (free time),
3) presentation and activity (9) (interesting presentations, exhibitions and events, taking pictures,
fun activities), 4) religion (7) (going to temples, to donate to temples), 5) financial issues (5) (win
the lottery, having money, not too expensive), and 6) information (2) (reading from reviews).
For disabled people, some open-ended questions were different compared to close-ended
questions, such as: 1) religion (12) (to donate money to temples, going to temples), 2) financial
issues (6) (win the lottery, having money), and 3) accessibility (2) (good accessibility, ramps,
toilets).
For noncultural tourists, some open-ended questions were different compared to close-ended
questions, such as: 1) facilities (9) (enough parking, indoor exhibitions, good food, good
environment, student discount), 2) financial issues (8) (having money, not too expensive), 3)
people (6) (good people, not too crowded), 4) religion (5) (donation to temples), and 5) weather
(4) (good weather).
For cultural tourists, the open-ended answer “prestige” (19) (seeking identity of Thai culture,
to preserve and promote culture, seeing real cultures, learning cultures) was the most significant
barrier. This result is related to the first rank of the close-ended questions: gaining knowledge
(5.69) (increasing knowledge about foreign destinations, people and things, education/learning).
Moreover, some open-ended questions were different compared to close-ended questions such
as: 1) presentation and activity (11) (interesting presentation, hi-technology, interactive activity
or adventure), 2) finance (3) (reasonable price), and 3) facilities (2) (good facilities).
Discussion
For open-ended barriers, the item “transportation” was the most significant barrier covered by all
groups. These data are related to close-ended answers as well. However, it was found that some
open-ended details of transportation are different from scaling data, such as traffic jams, no
convenient public transportation, not convenient travel for disable people, too far, taking too long
a time from my home, poor transportation, travel cost is high, and no private car. It could be
implied that the barrier of transportation is significant and a common barrier for both scaling and
open-ended data, but there are some different comments in the context of Thai people, especially
in the case of traffic jams and poor transportation. Therefore, the Thai government or tourism
organisations should support and develop the public transportation system.
Moreover, from the open-ended answers, the item “weather” (too hot, poor weather) can
cover all groups at a high rank. However, this factor was not collected from the literature review.
These data are quite interesting, because most foreign tourists travelling to Thailand state that
warm weather is the main factor in travelling there. Thai people consider it as the biggest barrier
stopping them from going out. This issue is a good example in explaining that sometimes
literature reviews or data from other studies cannot be directly applied to each country. In this
case, the tourism industry or the Thai government should support facilities to solve this problem
(e.g., setting up air conditioning in museums or exhibitions, setting up events or festivals in
winter).
The main open-ended barrier covered by all groups is the “social issues.” All groups stated
that these social issues (e.g., having no one (friends, family) to go with, too crowded and bad
tourists’ manners) were considered as their main barriers. It should be considered that most of
them stated that they do not like crowds of tourists, especially on holidays or at festivals.
Moreover, for the result “bad tourists’ manners,” most people stated in the detail that sometimes
foreign tourists do not know Thai traditions, especially in old temples. For this issue, cultural
places should have good management and improved systems to control the number of tourists.
Moreover, there should be information or instructions for foreign tourists to know about the
restrictions in temples or historical places in Thailand.
14

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
The last barrier that covered all five groups is “facilities” (dirty toilets, no accessible toilets,
not enough toilets, lack of facilities, full of rubbish, accommodation is not suitable for older
adults, no parking, no accessibility ramps, no facilities). Although this factor did not get high
scores, it is considered as a common barrier for all respondents. From the literature review on
close-ended questions, most studies focused on this issue for only older adults and disabled
people, such as considering accessible accommodation. However, in Thailand, all groups
considered that this factor is the most significant and most common barrier. This means that
facilities in cultural places in Thailand should be improved.
The next barrier, covered by four groups, is “advertising and presentation” (bad presentation
and information, poor and old-fashioned style, no information on where to go, no staff to explain,
presentation is difficult to understand, no advertising and promotion from historical places).
Tourism organisations or the government should develop and promote information,
presentations, and advertising to all groups to attract them to travel.
For open-ended drivers, most drivers were similar to close-ended answers. However,
“financial issues” (having money, overall costs, win the lottery, not too expensive, reasonable
price) can cover all groups. From the literature review, there are none of these drivers. This
means that Thai people considered that cultural tourism is an expensive reason for which to
travel. Therefore, tourism organisations and the government should give them the right
information because some cultural places are free to access. Moreover, an interesting driver is
“religion” (going to temples, to donate to temples). This issue is not considered as a significant
driver in other studies. However, in Thailand, most people are Buddhists. In addition, donation is
one of the popular traditions of Thailand. Older adults and disabled people answered that
donating to temples is the main activity that leads them to go out. Hence, the tourism industry
should use these data to design programmes to attract Thai tourists, especially for older adults,
disabled people, and noncultural tourists.
Conclusion
According to Table 6, the most common barrier in cultural tourism cited by the five groups
appeared to relate to “transportation” (e.g., difficult public transportation to access and physically
difficult to get to). However, except for disabled people, barriers about “time” (e.g., lack of time
to attend and inconvenient opening hours) were also important. Architecture barriers, meanwhile,
were identified as a significant barrier for three groups (older adults, disabled people, and
noncultural tourists) but not for young people and cultural tourists. However, compared to
barriers, drivers for engaging in cultural tourism seem to differ more between groups. Only three
items, “visiting a place that I have not visited before,” “just relaxing,” and “new experiences and
different lifestyles,” were included in the top five for the majority of groups. By contrast, some
barriers to cultural tourism in Thailand, such as “difficulty accessing public transportation,” sites
being “physically difficult to get to,” “lack of time,” “architectural barriers,” and “inconvenient
opening times and activity schedules,” were common to more groups.
For the open-ended section, the main objective is to seek out the neglect barriers and drivers
within the context of Thailand’s cultural tourism. From data in barriers (transportation, weather,
social factors, facilities, and advertising and presentation) and drivers (financial issues and
religion), these open-ended answers are common for five groups and different from the scaling
answer section collected from other research. This means that the Thai government, tourism
organisations, and tourism industry designers and researchers should consider these as specific
barriers and drivers in the context of Thai cultural tourism.
15

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
Implications
Marketing
From a marketing perspective, these five groups can be targeted more effectively if the tourism
industry can present and develop advertising campaigns that counter the different barriers and
reflect the various drivers of each group. However, tourism marketers must understand that
cultural tourists are not homogeneous. Therefore, marketers need to understand both the barriers
and drivers for these groups, as this study presented. Moreover, in terms of drivers, only three
drivers—“visiting a place that I have not visited before,” “just relaxing,” and “new experiences
and different lifestyles”—were common reasons for most of the groups. Therefore, the Tourism
Authority of Thailand could use these as guidelines to set up and design accessible cultural
tourist routes for walking or biking, with the concept of one district/one cultural place(s), to
provide new visitors with their drivers (visiting new places, relaxation, and new experiences).
Management
The results of this study could also contribute to management, in both government and tourism
organisations in Thailand. For example, issues related to transportation (e.g., difficulty accessing
sites via public transport) were identified by all five groups, but changing the whole system of
public transportation in Thailand is too complicated and a long-term project. This study
recommends that tourist organisations create tour routes with private transport, such as buses or
vans that can cater for wheelchair users. These could collect tourists from starting points in the
popular areas (e.g., hotels, tourist centres, or tourist spots).
Four groups also highlighted concerns about a lack of free time and inconvenient opening
hours. Therefore, the tourism industry should establish appropriate programmes and promote
these to their customers, especially to the youth. Architectural barriers were further identified as
significant by three groups (older adults, disabled people, and noncultural tourists). This study
suggests that Thailand should establish a Thai Disability Act to provide and support accessibility
for disabled people and older adults (e.g., ramps on the footpaths and building entrances).
Additionally, the Thai government and tourism organisations should consult with landscape
architects to create barrier-free access to cultural sites.
Study Limitations
This research has many limitations. It was limited to one city in Thailand, Bangkok, so the results
may not be applicable to other regions. As a result, it is difficult to generalize the findings about
barriers and drivers to other countries, which may have different cultures, perspectives, or trends.
Therefore, further research should be conducted into other cities in Thailand as well as to
compare barriers and drivers in other countries. This would help to indicate whether the barriers
and drivers identified in this research are also present in other cities or countries.
REFERENCES
Altinay, Zehra, Tulen Saner, Nesrin M. Bahçelerli, and Fahriye Altinay. 2016. “The Role of
Social Media Tools: Accessible Tourism for Disabled Citizens.” Journal of Educational
Technology & Society 19 (1): 89–99.
Bianchini, Franco, and Michael Parkinson. 1993. Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The
West European Experience. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
16

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
Bond, Nigel, and John Falk. 2013. “Tourism and Identity‐related Motivations: Why Am I Here
(and Not There)?” International Journal of Tourism Research 15 (5): 430–42.
British Standards Institute. 2005. “7000–6: Design Management Systems: Guide to Managing
Inclusive Design.” British Standards Institute, London, UK.
Brooks, Arthur C. 2003. “Public Opinion and the Role of Government Arts Funding in Spain.”
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 5 (1): 29–38.
Buarapa, T. 2006. “The Development of a Sustainable Ecological and Cultural Tourism Market
in Khon Kaen Province [in Thai].” Maha Sarakham: Research Institute of Northeastern
Art and Culture.
Burns, Alvin C., and Ronald F. Bush. 2013. Marketing Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Higher Ed.
Chaisorn, J. 1993. “Study of the Conditions of Tourist Attractions in order to Develop Tourism
in Mae Hong Son Province [in Thai].” Unpublished doctoral thesis, Srinakharinwirot
University, Thailand.
Chantachon, S. 2006. “A Comparative Study of the Development Model in Education and
Religion Management Process between Thailand and Lao PDR [in Thai].” Kalasin:
Prasan Printing.
Chou, Ming Che. 2013. “Does Tourism Development Promote Economic Growth in Transition
Countries? A Panel Data Analysis.” Economic Modelling 33: 226–32.
Crawford, Duane W., and Geoffrey Godbey. 1987. “Reconceptualizing Barriers to Family
Leisure.” Leisure Sciences 9 (2): 119–27.
Crompton, John L. 1979. “Motivations for Pleasure Vacation.” Annals of Tourism Research 6
(4): 408–24.
Darcy, Simon, and Pheroza S. Daruwalla. 1999. “The Trouble with Travel: People with
Disabilities and Tourism.” Social Alternatives 18 (1): 41–46.
Davies, Andrea, and Richard Prentice. 1995. “Conceptualizing the Latent Visitor to Heritage
Attractions.” Tourism Management 16 (7): 491–500.
Dennis, Noel, Gretchen Larsen, Michael Macaulay, Pandora L. Kay, Emma Wong, and Michael
Jay Polonsky. 2009. “Marketing Cultural Attractions: Understanding Non-attendance
and Visitation Barriers.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 27 (6): 833–54.
Fodness, Dale. 1994. “Measuring Tourist Motivation.” Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3): 555–
81.
———. 2016. “The Problematic Nature of Sustainable Tourism: Some Implications for Planners
and Managers.” Current Issues in Tourism: 1–13.
Garcia, Ander, Pieter Vansteenwegen, Olatz Arbelaitz, Wouter Souffriau, and Maria Teresa
Linaza. 2013. “Integrating Public Transportation in Personalised Electronic Tourist
Guides.” Computers & Operations Research 40 (3): 758–74.
Geissler, Gary L., Conway T. Rucks, and Steve W. Edison. 2006. “Understanding the Role of
Service Convenience in Art Museum Marketing: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 14 (4): 69–87.
George, Ellen Wanda. 2005. Commodifying Local Culture for Rural Community Tourism
Development: Theorizing the Commodification Process. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Mount Saint Vincent University.
Hays, Stephanie, Stephen John Page, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2013. “Social Media as a
Destination Marketing Tool: Its Use by National Tourism Organisations.” Current
Issues in Tourism 16 (3): 211–39.
Henderson, Karla A., Deborah Stalnaker, and Glenda Taylor. 1988. “The Relationship between
Barriers to Recreation and Gender-role Personality Traits for Women.” Journal of
Leisure Research 20 (1): 69–80.
17

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
Herrero, Luis César, José Ángel Sanz, María Devesa, Ana Bedate, and Maria José Del Barrio.
2006. “The Economic Impact of Cultural Events: A Case-Study of Salamanca 2002,
European Capital of Culture.” European Urban and Regional Studies 13 (1): 41–57.
Hill, John. 2004. “UK Film Policy, Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion.” Cultural Trends 13
(2): 29–39.
Hiranyahat, R. 2001. “Method of Development to Increase the Potential of Cultural Villages for
Tourism: A Case Study of Ban Nong Kao, Ta Muang District, Kanjanaburi Province [in
Thai].” Unpublished doctoral thesis, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand.
Holcomb, Briavel. 1999. “Marketing Cities for Tourism.” The Tourist City. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Howard, V. A. 2001. “Funding the Arts: An Investment in Global Citizenship?” Journal of
Aesthetic Education 35 (4): 83–95.
Kale, Sudhir H., Roger P. Mcintyre, and Katherine M. Weir. 1987. “Marketing Overseas Tour
Packages to the Youth Segment: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research
25 (4): 20–24.
Kantawateera, Komain, Aree Naipinit, Thongphon Promsaka Na Sakolnakorn, and Patarapong
Kroeksakul. 2014. “The Satisfaction of Tourists and Policy Guidelines for Tourism
Development in Khon Kaen, Thailand.” Asian Social Science 10 (6): 53–60.
Karpodini-Dimitriadi, Effie, M. Robinson, and P. Boniface. 1999. Developing Cultural Tourism
in Greece: Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Kavoura, Androniki, and Vicky Katsoni. 2013. “From e-Business to e-Commerce: Collaboration
and Network Creation for an e-Marketing Tourism Strategy.” Tourismos 8 (3): 113–28.
Kay, Pandora L., Emma Wong, and Michael Jay Polonsky. 2009. “Marketing Cultural
Attractions: Understanding Non-attendance and Visitation Barriers.” Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 27 (6): 833–54.
Kim, Hyounggon, Chia-Kuen Cheng, and Joseph T. O’Leary. 2007. “Understanding
Participation Patterns and Trends in Tourism Cultural Attractions.” Tourism
Management 28 (5): 1366–71.
Kim, Jong-Hyeong, and J. R. Brent Ritchie. 2014. “Cross-cultural Validation of a Memorable
Tourism Experience Scale (MTES).” Journal of Travel Research 53 (3): 323–35.
Kim, Kyungmi, Muzaffer Uysal, and M. Joseph Sirgy. 2013. “How Does Tourism in a
Community Impact the Quality of Life of Community Residents?” Tourism
Management 36: 527–40.
Kozak, Metin. 2002. “Comparative Analysis of Tourist Motivations by Nationality and
Destinations.” Tourism Management 23 (3): 221–32.
Krippendorf, J. 1987. The Holiday-makers: Understanding the Impact of Travel and Tourism.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.
Langdon, Patrick, P. John Clarkson, and Peter Robinson. 2008. Designing Inclusive Futures.
London, UK: Springer Science & Business Media.
Laomee, B. 2009. “Conservation and Restoration of Pulpits through the Participation of Phu Thai
People in Isan [in Thai].” Unpublished doctoral thesis, Mahasarakham University,
Thailand.
Latvian Estonian. 2001. “Lithuanian National Commissions for UNESCO.” Baltic cultural
tourism policy paper.
Lee, Tsung Hung. 2013. “Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable
Tourism Development.” Tourism Management 34: 37–46.
Lewis, Gregory B., and Arthur C. Brooks. 2005. “A Question of Morality: Artists’ Values and
Public Funding for the Arts.” Public Administration Review 65 (1): 8–17.
Lord, Gail Dexter. 1999. “The Power of Cultural Tourism.” Paper presented at a Keynote
Presentation presented on September 17 at the Wisconsin Heritage Tourism Conference,
Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin, USA.
18

KASEMSARN AND NICKPOUR: BARRIERS AND DRIVERS IN CULTURAL TOURISM IN THAILAND
Madden, Christopher. 2001. “Using ‘Economic’ Impact Studies in Arts and Cultural Advocacy:
A Cautionary Note.” Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy
98 (1): 161–78.
Mandala Research, LLC. 2013. “The Cultural and Heritage Traveller 2013 Edition.” Tourism
Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally 10.
Meekaew, Nattapon, and Somsak Srisontisuk. 2012. “Chiangkhan: Cultural Commodification for
Tourism and Its Impact on Local Community.” International Proceedings of Economics
Development and Research 42: 34–37.
Migliorini, Pino. 1998. “The World Is Your Audience: Case Studies in Audience Development
and Cultural Diversity.” Redfern, Sydney: Australia Council.
Milner, Laura M., Leo K. Jago, and Marg Deery. 2004. “Profiling the Special Event
Nonattendee: An Initial Investigation.” Event Management 8 (3): 141–50.
Mowforth, Martin, and Ian Munt. 2015. Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation
and New Tourism in the Third World. New York: Routledge.
Myerscough, John. 1988. The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain. London, UK: Policy
Studies Institute.
Nasing, Phra Somphop, Chamnan Rodhetbhai, and Ying Keeratiburana. 2014. “A Model for the
Management of Cultural Tourism at Temples in Bangkok, Thailand.” Asian Culture and
History 6 (2): 242–254.
National Statistical Office. 2015. “Population and Society.” Accessed April 10, 2015.
http://web.nso.go.th/en/stat_theme_socpop.htm
Neulinger, John. 1974. “The Psychology of Leisure: Research Approaches to the Study of
Leisure.” Springfield, I 11 (2): 295–306.
Pakpinpet, S. 2008. “Method for Development of Cultural Tourism among Pao Yao People
(Iewmien): A Case Study of Ban Huai Chompoo, Mueang District, Chiang Rai Province
[in Thai].” Bangkok: Rangsit University.
Pathak, Koushik Prashad. 2014. “Paradigm Shift in Tourists Behavior and Its Impact on Tourism
Area Life Cycle: A Study on Sundarbans.” DU Journal of Marketing 15: 187–206.
Prentice, Richard, Andrea Davies, and Alison Beeho. 1997. “Seeking Generic Motivations for
Visiting and Not Visiting Museums and Like Cultural Attractions.” Museum
Management and Curatorship 16 (1): 45–70.
Reisinger, Yvette, and Felix Mavondo. 2002. “Determinants of Youth Travel Markets’
Perceptions of Tourism Destinations.” Tourism Analysis 7 (1): 55–66.
Rentschler, Ruth. 2006. “Mix It Up Project Report: Building New Audiences.” Evaluation
Report, the Arts Centre, Melbourne.
Richards, Greg. 2007. Cultural Tourism: Global and local Perspectives. New York: Psychology
Press.
Rovinelli, Richard J., and Ronald K. Hambleton. 1976. “On the Use of Content Specialists in the
Assessment of Criterion-referenced Test Item Validity.” Dutch Journal of Educational
Research 2: 49–60.
Samdahl, Diane M., and Nancy J. Jekubovich. 1997. “A Critique of Leisure Constraints:
Comparative Analyses and Understandings.” Journal of Leisure Research 29 (4): 430–
452.
Silberberg, Ted. 1995. “Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and Heritage
Sites.” Tourism Management 16 (5): 361–65.
Stoddard, James, Dinesh Davé, Mike Evans, and Stephen W. Clopton. 2006. “Economic Impact
of the Arts in a Small US County.” Tourism Economics 12 (1): 101–21.
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). 2011. “International Recommendations for
Tourism Statistics Draft Compilation Guide.” Madrid, March. Statistics and Tourism
Satellite Account Programme. Accessed January, 20 2015. http://unstats.un.org/unsd
19

JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND LEISURE STUDIES
/tradeserv/egts/CG/IRTS%20compilation%20guide%207%20march%202011%20-
%20final.pdf.
Tian, Shu, John L. Crompton, and Peter A. Witt. 1996. “Integrating Constraints and Benefits to
Identify Responsive Target Markets for Museum Attractions.” Journal of Travel
Research 35 (2): 34–45.
Tsephe, N. P., and S. D. Eyono Obono. 2013. “A Theoretical Framework for Rural Tourism
Motivation Factors.” International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and
Business Engineering 7 (1): 157–62.
UNESCO. 2003. “Baltic Cultural Tourism Policy Paper.” Accessed April 19, 2015.
http://www.unesco.lt/uploads/file/failai_VEIKLA/kultura/kulturinis_turizmas/Baltic
_Culture_Tourism_Policy_Paper_Full_Document_Final_Checked.pdf.
Upright, Craig Barton. 2004. “Social Capital and Cultural Participation: Spousal Influences on
Attendance at Arts Events.” Poetics 32 (2): 129–43.
Wang, Yi, and Bill Bramwell. 2012. “Heritage Protection and Tourism Development Priorities in
Hangzhou, China: A Political Economy and Governance Perspective.” Tourism
Management 33 (4): 988–98.
Webster, Craig, and Stanislav Ivanov. 2014. “Transforming Competitiveness into Economic
Benefits: Does Tourism Stimulate Economic Growth in More Competitive
Destinations?” Tourism Management 40: 137–40.
Wu, Yen-Chun Jim, Chan-Lan Chang, and Ying-Jiun Hsieh. 2014. “Enhancing Learning
Experience of the Disabled: An Accessible Tourism Platform.” Journal of Universal
Computer Science 20 (15): 2080–95.
Yamane, Taro. 1967. Elementary Sampling Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Yau, Matthew Kwai-sang, Bob McKercher, and Tanya L. Packer. 2004. “Traveling with a
Disability: More than an Access Issue.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 946–60.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Kittichai Kasemsarn: PhD Candidate, Department of Design, College of Engineering, Design,
and Physical Sciences, Brunel University, London, UK
Dr. Farnaz Nickpour: Reader, Division of Industrial Design, School of Engineering, University
of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
20

provides a forum for wide-ranging and interdisciplinary
examination of sport, including: the history, sociology
ISSN 2470-9336
The Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies provides
an international and interdisciplinary forum for scholarly
studies in tourism and leisure studies. Articles may be
focused within disciplinary boundaries, however, many
also take an interdisciplinary approach, at times
necessarily so given the complex and expansive nature
of the questions raised.
The Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.