Content uploaded by Gijsbert Hoogendoorn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gijsbert Hoogendoorn on Mar 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Activities as the critical link
between motivation and
destination choice
in cultural tourism
Anneli Douglas
Department of Tourism Management,
Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of Pretoria,
Hatfield, South Africa
Gijsbert Hoogendoorn
Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies,
University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, South Africa, and
Greg Richards
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands and
Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –This study aimed to determine the motivations of a select group of South Africans in terms of their
potential engagement with cultural tourism; more specifically, the study set out to show whether these
motivations influence the cultural activities that the tourists want to participate in and whether their interest in
specific cultural activities determines their destination choices. Furthermore, the mediating role of activities in
the relationship between cultural motivations and destination choice was also assessed.
Design/methodology/approach –An online panel survey collected responses from 1,530 potential cultural
tourists across South Africa. Hypotheses were tested, using structural equation modelling.
Findings –The results show that tourists’motivations for cultural tourism influence their likelihood of
participating in specific cultural activities. Cultural tourism is shown to be influenced by more than learning
and includes entertainment, relaxation, novelty and escape dimensions. There also seems to be a difference in
the activities engaged in by destination type. For example, tourists likely to take part in indigenous cultural
tourism activities are more likely to do so at hedonic destinations.
Practical implications –This paper contributes to the understanding of cultural tourism activities, aiding
destinations in attracting cultural tourists. Destinations need to develop activities that match visitor
motivations, increase satisfaction and encourage visitors to return.
Originality/value –The paper increases the understanding of cultural tourism in South Africa and
underlines the importance of communities in providing distinctive tourism activities. The study also has an
important social dimension, highlighting the role of social status in cultural tourism consumption and
destination selection.
Keywords South Africa, Motivations, Indigenous tourism, Activities, Destination choice, Cultural tourists
Paper type Research paper
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
© Anneli Douglas, Gijsbert Hoogendoorn and Greg Richards. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of
this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm
Received 18 September 2022
Revised 5 December 2022
10 February 2023
Accepted 11 February 2023
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights
Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
DOI 10.1108/JHTI-09-2022-0442
Introduction
Since the 1990s, cultural tourism has become a mass phenomenon consisting of several broad
sub-divisions such as heritage, arts, gastronomy, film and creativity (Dodds and Butler, 2019).
As a result, Richards (2018) highlights the need to understand the practice of cultural tourism,
which is directly influenced by available activities, the destinations they take place in and the
motivations of the cultural tourists. For instance, typical examples of cultural tourism
activities are: art galleries, sites of religious significance, visiting museums and cultural
festivals. These have been segmented into different clusters depending on the location/
destination (see McKercher et al., 2002). However, cultural tourism has increasingly become
activity-driven, and tourists want to participate in dancing and arts and crafts (Richards,
2020). Indeed, Artal-Tur et al. (2018) showed that cultural tourism activities play a critical role
in luring long-haul and first-time visitors to destinations. These activities will also vary
between tourists primarily motivated by culture and those secondarily motivated (Du Cros
and McKercher, 2014).
Given the different motivations present in cultural tourism, the choice of activities and
destinations becomes a complex process that is influenced by a broad range of factors
(Fr
ıas-Jamilena et al., 2019;G
omez et al., 2018;Pestana et al., 2020). In unravelling this
complexity, McKercher (2002) foregrounded motives as key to the tourist destination choice
and the desired depth of experience. Whereas Karl et al. (2015) see destination choice as based
on the outcome of internal or external decision-making processes. Internal factors relate to the
personal motivation of the tourists, and external factors involve aspects of the destination,
such as which activities are available (Konu et al., 2011). Regarding internal factors, Qiu et al.
(2018) refer to destination choice as a psychological process based on a complex interaction
between subjective and objective factors when tourists, for example, evaluate and compare
destinations. Indeed, Moscardo et al. (1996) state that motivation influences the choice of
activities and that tourists will select a destination that provides their preferred activities.
This emphasizes the importance of activities in guiding the destination choice and indicates a
direct link between travel motivation and activity.
Nevertheless, only some studies have investigated how tourists’motives influence the
cultural tourism activities they are likely to participate in and the role of these cultural
activities in cultural tourism destination choice. Examples of research that hint at the
intersections between motivations, activities and choice of destination include Kim and Lehto
(2013) and Mehmetoglu and Normann (2013), these studies investigated the relationships
between travel motives and activities, although not in the context of cultural tourism.
In contrast, Kim et al. (2008) considered motivations and activities within cultural festival
tourism, but not concerning destination choice, while Teye and Paris (2010) investigated all
three aspects (activities, motivations and destinations) in the context of cruise tourism but not
regarding the relationship between them. Only some studies have considered motivations,
activities and destination choice together, making it difficult to establish the relationships
between them (McKercher and Tolkach, 2020). Therefore, this paper responds to McKercher
and Tolkach’s (2020, p. 775) call for further research “to investigate the relationship between
travel motives, destination choices and attraction visitation in different settings”.
The setting chosen for the current study of the relationships between motivations,
activities and destination choices is South Africa. Cultural tourism is vital for South Africa’s
tourism economy, where it has been recognized as a vital economic development tool
(Mokoena, 2020). Despite the importance of cultural tourism in the global tourism industry
(Richards, 2018), it is currently a less prominent tourism product in South Africa, which has
an external image as a nature-based or a “sun, sea and sand”destination (Van Dyk et al.,
2019). The external image is despite the vast cultural resources spread across the country that
are untapped in terms of tourism potential (Saarinen and Rogerson, 2015). Studies have yet to
look at the motivations, activities and destination choices of cultural tourists in South Africa.
JHTI
This study aims to determine the motivations of a select group of South Africans in terms of
their potential engagement with cultural tourism; more specifically, the study set out to show
whether these motivations influence the cultural activities of tourists and whether theirinterest
in specific cultural activities determines their destination choices. In doing so, the study aimsto
make the following contributions: (1) to test the importance of Dann’s push-and-pull theory in
explaining the travel motivations of tourists and their destination decision-making behaviour,
with specific reference to South Africans; (2) to provide practical implications to destinations in
terms of strategies applicable to specific cultural tourism activities (pull factors) and cultural
tourism motivations (push factors) for South Africans tourists; (3) to empirically analyze the
relationship between travel motives, attraction visitation and destination choices. Thispaperis
structured into four parts, reviewing the critical literature around cultural tourism in South
Africa and the push and pull theory, followed by the methods used in this study, the results and
then a discussion on the theoretical and practical implications.
Cultural tourism in South Africa
Southern Africa is endowed with various and diverse indigenous languages, religions,
communities, rock art, rural landscapes, ethnic groups, cuisine, museums and vineyards
(Manwa et al.,2016). According to Saarinen and Rogerson (2015), the connections between local
cultures and tourism and between cultural tourism and local economic growth have yet to be
firmly established. This connection is slowly changing as tourists become more aware of the
region’s cultural resources, and policymakers recognize its importance in tourism development
(Saarinen and Rogerson, 2015). In South Africa, several tourism strategies (Department of
Tourism, 2011,2012a,b) have aimed to facilitate the growth of cultural heritage tourism.
Consequently, the country is an ideal destination for developing and promoting cultural tourism
(Manwa et al.,2016). Indeed, cultural tourism development and marketing are also viable
strategies to alleviate poverty and ensure inclusive growth and socio-economic development
(Saarinen and Rogerson, 2015). To market cultural tourism effectively, it is important to have
insight into the motivations of potential cultural tourists and how these motivations will
influence their cultural tourism activities and ultimately determine their destination choice.
Push-and-pull theory
Researchers have used several theoretical frameworks to explain tourist motivation and
destination choice, including the theory of planned behaviour and the travelcareer ladder. The
push-and-pull theory is, however, the more widely used. In cultural tourism, the theory has
been used to explore visitors’motivations and behaviours in various contexts, such as at
pilgrimage centres (Liro, 2021), African villages (Lwoga and Mtura, 2020), indigenous tourism
(Chen, 2021) and language tourism (Redondo-Carretero et al., 2017) to name a few. Push factors
motivate or spark a desire to travel (Dann, 1977) and can include relaxation, prestige,
adventure and self-exploration. Pull factors clarify why tourists want to travel and what type
of activity or experience they desire (Ryan, 1991). For example, the specific attributes or
features that draw tourists to particular destinations, such as historical monuments, sunshine
and sports facilities. Therefore, according to Klenosky (2002), the push factors determine
whether one will go, and the push factors determine where one will go. Dann (1977) states that
push factors precede pull factors in travel decisions. Therefore, tourists first realize a need for a
vacation and then proceed to decide where to go. In this study, the push-and-pull theory is used
to explain the motivations of a select group of South Africans in terms of their potential
engagement with cultural tourism. Also, whether these motivations influence the cultural
activities the tourists want to participate in, and if their interest in specific cultural activities
determines their destination choices (see Figure 1).
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Hypothesis development
Motivations for engaging in cultural tourism and types of cultural activities
According to the decision-making literature in psychology, behaviour is interpreted in terms of
plans and goals (Weber and Johnson, 2009). Motivations are high-level goals that proceed,
direct and initiate decisions (Thiene et al.,2017). In tourism, motivation is vital in explaining
travel behaviour (Xie and Ritchie, 2019). Various studies have investigated the effect of the
tourists’respective motivations on their travel behaviour, yet much less is known about the
influence of tourists’motivation on their chosen holiday activities. Uysal and Jurowski (1994)
investigated the reciprocal association between pull-and-push factors and discovered that the
appeal of pull attributes changes with motivation variations. Mehmetoglu and Normann (2013)
found a strong link between travel motivations and activities in the context of nature-based
tourism. More specifically, they found “novelty”,“prestige”and “physical activity”to be the
primary sources of motivation for participating in safaris, fishing and hiking, respectively.
In their study, McKercher et al. (2021) found motives to affect thebehaviour of tourists once they
arrive at the destination (including the activities they partake in). While Xiao et al. (2015)
showed a significant relationship between the travel motivations of students and their activity
preferences. For example, if a student is intellectually motivated, he/she will be more likely to
participate in activities that provide learning opportunities. Yun et al. (2016) confirmed the links
between the preferred activities and motivates of tourists visiting rural destinations. They
found that tourists motivated by gaining knowledge and experiencing various ways of life,
cultures and history were more probable to prefer activities such as experiencing local lifestyles
and culturesand participating in cultural and historical activities. In a cultural tourism context,
Kim et al. (2008) found that the motivations of attendees of a Korean cultural festival had a
significant effect on theimportance that they attached to activities at the festival,while Lee et al.
(2002) showed a significant link between participation in cultural activity and two push factors,
namely novelty and hedonism. The above discussion clarifies that tourists value activities at a
destination, which aligns with the motives that influenced their decision to travel to that
destination in the first place (Yun et al., 2016). Therefore, the first hypothesis is (see Figure 1):
H1. Tourists’motivations for cultural tourism influence the cultural activities they are
likely to partake.
Figure 1.
Hypothesised
relationships based
on the push-and-pull
theory
JHTI
Cultural activities and destination choice
According to Xiao et al. (2015), tourism activities are vital features of a destination and
significant components of any leisure trip. The accessibility and varietyof activities can act as a
necessary “pull”factor in the destination choice process (Yun et al., 2016). According to Ritchie
and Crouch (2003), activities and attractions can reinforce the unique nature of a destination’s
product appeal and act as the primary motivators for selecting one destination over another.
Moscardo et al.’s(1996)activity-based model of destination choice states that tourists will select
a destination that provides their preferred activities. For example, Jang and Cai (2002) found
that the activities offered at a destination influenced the destination choices of British travellers.
In addition, Yun et al. (2016) found that tourists, who were considering a leisure trip to a rural
destination, were the least likely to play golf and most likely to be interested in viewing the
beautiful scenery. Lee et al. (2002) found that tourists travelling to Asian countries were more
inclined to participate in cultural activities than tourists travelling to the United States and
Canada. Therefore, we hypothesize that (see Figure 1):
H2. The cultural activities that tourists are likely to participate in influence their
likelihood of visiting specific types of destinations.
Motivations for engaging in cultural tourism and destination choice
Travel motivation is a subjective factor that influences a tourist’s choice of destination and
behaviour (Qui et al., 2018). More specifically, the link between travel motivation and a tourist’s
choice of destination depends on the benefits a traveller seeks for in a destination (Chen et al.,
2021). According to Song and Bae (2018), the travel decision making process could potentially
be influenced by all motives, even though the importance placed on each motive might vary.
Ward (2014), for instance showed that the seniors market had numerous interests and motives
which affected their choice of destinations. Furthermore, Valea et al. (2022) found that outdoor
activities, nature, landscape and relaxation are important motivators when selecting rural
tourism destinations. In a cultural tourism context, Chang et al. (2020) showed that apart from
the desire to experience new cultures, the chance to escape from the daily food routine and gain
status among friends were two important motivations for culinary tourists to choose specific
destinations. More formally, the following is posited (see Figure 1):
H3. Tourists’motivations for cultural tourism influence their likelihood of visiting
specific types of destinations.
Cultural activities as a mediator between motivations for engaging in cultural tourism and
destination choice
Insofar we established that tourists’motivations for cultural tourism influence the cultural
activities they are likely to partake in (H1) and in turn the cultural activities that tourists are likely
to participate in influence their likelihood of visiting specific types of destinations (H2). Therefore,
it can be argued that the motivation for cultural tourism is an antecedent of cultural tourism
activities, which in turn is an antecedent of destination choice. According to Moscardo et al. (1996)
there are several lines of research that propose that activities may offer the link between
destinations and travellers. In other words, activities are vital features of a destination, which are
assessed by travellers according to their potential to meet needs. Motives can thus be viewed as
giving travellers expectations for activities, and destinations can be seen as presenting those
activities. In other words, travel motives are related through activity preferences to destination
choice (Moscardo et al.,1996). Consequently, the following is hypothesised (see Figure 1):
H4. Cultural activities mediate the relationship between tourists’motivations for cultural
tourism and their likelihood of visiting specific types of destinations.
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Methods
Data collection
Recruitment of respondents was done using the consumer panel database of a South
African market research company during September 2020. According to Cooper et al. (2006)
a panel is a group of respondents who have indicated their commitment and willingness to
participate in research studies. Approximately 40,000 individuals are included in the
database. Specific requirements can be included to recruit respondents, including
relationship status, population group, education level and age. The demographic
composition of the panel is as follows: 54% female vs 46% male, 62% black African vs
38% non-black. Half are married (50%), and 87% are between 20 and 55. For this study,
respondents were invited via email to complete a self-administered questionnaire hosted on
the market research company’s online server. Thus, a convenience sampling approach was
followed. To encourage participation and ensure confidentiality, the email provided
respondents with a direct link to the online questionnaire. Respondents could only complete
the questionnaire once since each recipient’s email address was encoded with a unique
identifier. As a screening question respondents were asked whether they had travelled for
holiday purposes in the previous 24 months, and if they answered “no”,theywerenot
allowed to continue. In total, 1,530 fully completed questionnaires were collected for further
analysis.
Instrument
The questionnaire was developed to identify the motivations of South Africans for
engaging in cultural tourism, the cultural tourism activities they were most likely to
participate in, their likelihood of engaging in cultural tourism experiences at certain
destination types and their demographic characteristics. The scale of Kay (2009) was used
to measure motivations for participating in cultural tourism and consisted of 31 items, with
a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree”(1) to “strongly agree”(5).
The likelihood of engaging in specific cultural tourism activities scale (13 items) was
developed from the literature (e.g. Croes and Semrad, 2015;Kline et al., 2016;Manwa et al.,
2016) and measured on a five-point Likert scale from “very likely”(1) to “highly unlikely”
(5). Similarly, the likelihood of visiting specific destination types (10 items) was measured
on a scale developed from the literature (e.g. Byun and Jang, 2015;Loda and Amos, 2014),
also with a five-point Likert scale from “very likely”(1) to “highly unlikely”(5).
The demographic information collected from respondents included age, gender,
relationship status and population group. Before distributing the questionnaire, a pilot
study was conducted with ten individuals from the target population. According to Leedy
and Ormrod (2015) a pilot test should include at least 6 participants. Several tourism related
studies (e.g. Kim and Hall, 2022;Labanauskait_
eet al., 2020) have used between 10 and 20
participants in their pilot studies. The ten individuals in our study were requested to
complete the questionnaire, and a short interview was held with each to assess the
questionnaire in terms of readability, clarity, flow and ambiguity. The pilot respondents
raised no significant issues.
Data analysis
After measuring the descriptive statistics, three exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were
carried out on the motivations, activities and destination-type scales to determine their
dimensions. Then, the reliability and validity of the newly identified factors were assessed.
Lastly, structural equation modelling was used to evaluate the measurement model in two
phases: (1) assessing the validity and reliability of the factors and (2) evaluating structural
relationships between the latent constructs (Chin, 2010).
JHTI
Results
Profile of respondents
Table 1 shows that the sample consisted of 51% females and 49% males. The average age of
respondents was 29 years. The population groups were as follows: 67% were black Africans,
and 33% were non-black. Respondents were single (65%), and 33% were married or living
together. The 2018 domestic tourism survey indicated that 32.5% of adults taking overnight
trips were married, 53.5% of adults taking overnight trips were female, 46.5% were male, and
60% were Black Africans (StatsSA, 2020). The responses indicate that our sample broadly
reflects the South African travelling population.
Given that cultural tourism is contextual and built on a destination’s unique features and
activities, the dimensions of cultural tourism motivations adopted from Kay (2009) were
investigated by performing EFA. Since the scales measuring cultural tourism activities and
destination types were developed from the literature, they were also subjected to EFA.
Principal axis factoring as the extraction method with Promax rotation was used, with the
criterion of factor extraction based on the eigenvalue exceeding 1.0 (Hair et al., 2010). Based on
the eigenvalue criterion, five factors were extracted from the motivation scale that together
explained 57.1% of the total variance in the data. The five cultural tourism motivation factors
were labelled: learning about the local culture, relaxation and entertainment, social status and
recognition, escape and curiosity and experience. Learning about the local culture is an
essential motivation for cultural tourism, as highlighted by Falk et al. (2012) as well as Packer
and Ballantyne (2016). Relaxation and entertainment are also consistent with other studies
(Lwoga and Maturo, 2020). Travel bragging/self-esteem is consistent with our status and
social recognition factor and has been identified as an essential motivator for cultural tourism
(
€
Ozel and Kozak, 2012). Escape and curiosity are additional factors identified before (Chiang
et al., 2015;Correia et al., 2013). The fifth factor, experience, is also similar to the existing
literature (Chiang and Jogaratnam, 2006). Three factors were extracted from the cultural
tourism activities scale, explaining 62.3% of the variance of the data. These factors were
labelled: intangible cultural tourism activities, tangible cultural tourism activities and
indigenous cultural tourism activities. Two factors were extracted from the cultural tourism
destination scale, explaining 52.3% of the data’s variance and labelled utilitarian and hedonic
destinations, following Byun and Jang (2015). At a hedonic destination, the consumption of
the tourism product can be described as fun and sensorial. In contrast, tourism consumption
is described as functional, practical and valuable at a utilitarian destination. Per EFA results,
several items (namely CTM 9, CTM 14, CTM 28, CTA3 and CTA13) were removed from
further analysis owing to either cross-loadings or low factor loading values. The four main
Demographic variable Percentage
Population group
Black African 67
Non-black 33
Gender
Female 51
Male 49
Marital status
Single 65
Married/living together 33
Divorced/widowed/separated 2
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work
Table 1.
Profile of respondents
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
hypotheses were divided into sub-hypotheses based on the results of the exploratory factor
analysis. The proposed conceptual model, based on the sub-hypotheses, is given in Figure 2.
Validity and reliability. First, the validity and reliability of the factors were tested.
Convergent validity was evaluated using composite reliability (CR) and average variance
extracted (AVE), while internal consistency (reliability) was assessed using Cronbach’s
alpha. As is evident in Table 2, the factor loadings for were between 0.321 and 0.916.
Tabachnick and Fidell (2014) suggest that factor loadings with an absolute value of less than
0.32 (representing 10% of the shared variance) should be ignored. Cronbach’s alpha scores for
most factors exceeded 0.70, and the construct CR values were above 0.7. The Cronbach’s
alpha value for the entertainment and recreation destination factor was 0.676, which
according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), is still an adequate reliability coefficient for
exploratory research. Some AVE values were smaller than the 0.5 benchmarks (Hair et al.,
2010), but Malhotra and Dash (2011) argue that AVE is often too strict, and reliability can be
established through CR alone. Therefore, the internal consistency and convergent validity of
the factors were established. Discriminant validity was evaluated using the heterotrait–
monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Henseler et al., 2015). Table 3 shows that none of the
values violated the HTMT 0.85 threshold; therefore, it is clear that discriminant validity is not
an issue between the constructs. This study used Harman’s single-factor test to detect
common method variance (Harman, 1976). A single factor should not account for more than
50% of the variance. Harman’s one-factor test found ten factors, with 24.6% of the total
variance explained by a single factor, indicating no serious common method bias.
Hypothesis testing. Second, the structural model and hypotheses were examined.
The structural model had to be evaluated before testing the hypotheses. We considered a
set of fit indices to determine if the data fit the conceptual model to test the research
hypotheses. The structural model results indicated standardized weights larger than one
between some constructs, often resulting in high multicollinearity between two or more
constructs. In this study’s model, the constructs “intangible cultural tourism activities”and
“tangible cultural tourism activities”displayed the presence of multicollinearity (correlation
of 0.92). The model is, however, still acceptable since neither standard regression coefficients
nor correlation coefficients are bound by ±1(Deegan, 1978, p. 882). One option in such a case
is to merge the constructs and treat them as a single construct if theoretically sound,
statistically reliable and valid. The researchers decided to do this, with the single construct
being “intangible and tangible cultural tourism activities”. The absolute fit of the model was
established by calculating the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the
standardized root mean square residual (as it considers discrepancies in approximation).
The Chi-square goodness-of-fit index (CMIN) was also determined (as it is the foundation
of most fit indices); however, as CMIN is affected by sample size, the comparative fit index
(CFI) and the incremental fit index (IFI) were applied to assess the model’s incremental fit
(Zeka, 2020). Threshold values suggested by Hair et al. (2010) and Kline (2010) were used to
assess the model. The RMSEA value of 0.049 is adequate (Blunch, 2008). The standardized
root means squared residual was 0.0464, below the cut-off value of 0.08. The CFI was 0.916,
and the IFI 0.916, more than the threshold value of 0.9. Furthermore, it is advised for the
CMIN/df to range between 3 and 5. Thus, the value of 4.599 is adequate. In essence, the set of
fit indices showed an adequate fit of the data to the model.
Next, the hypothesized relationships in the structural model were assessed (see Table 4)
and showed that 16 of the 24 paths were statistically significant (p< 0.05). In terms of the first
hypothesis, the results show that learning about the local culture (β50.394, p< 0.001),
relaxation and entertainment (β50.157, p< 0.05) and experience (β50.189, p< 0.05) had a
statistically significant positive influence on tourists’likelihood of engaging in tangible and
intangible cultural tourism activities, whereas status and social recognition (β50.130,
p< 0.05) had a statistically significant negative influence on tourists’likelihood to engage in
JHTI
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work
Learning about the
local culture
Relaxation and
entertainment
Status and social
recognition
Escape and
curiosity
Experience
CULTURAL TOURISM MOTIVATIONS CULTURAL TOURISM ACTIVITIES DESTINATION TYPES
Hedonic destination
Utilitarian destination
Intangible cultural
tourism activities
Tangible cultural tourism
activities
Indigenous cultural
tourism activities
H1a H1b
H1c
H1d
H1e
H1f
H1h
H1g
H1i
H1k
H1j
H1l
H1m
H1n
H1o
H3h
H3j
H3g
H3f
H3e
H3d
H3c
H3b
H3i
H3a
H2f
H2e
H2d H2c
H2b
H2a
H4c
H4b
H4a
Figure 2.
Proposed
conceptual model
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Measurement and items
Factor
loadings
Cronbach’s
alphas CR AVE
Cultural tourism motivations
Learning about the local culture 0.850 0.844 0.521
CTM 10_To meet locals 0.547
CTM 11_To learn about local culture 0.842
CTM 12_To learn about local history 0.822
CTM 13_To learn about local performing arts 0.645
CTM 15_To enjoy something unique to the destination 0.407
Relaxation and entertainment 0.839 0.836 0.391
CTM 1_To have fun 0.491
CTM 2_To be entertained by others 0.425
CTM 3_To relax physically 0.858
CTM 4_To relax mentally 0.884
CTM 5_To have thrills and excitement 0.652
CTM 7_To do something I want to do 0.475
CTM 8_To do something with my family and friends 0.426
Status and social recognition 0.821 0.817 0.530
CTM 20_To tell my friends and relatives about it 0.335
CTM 21_To enhance my social position 0.618
CTM 25_To gain the respect of others 0.835
CTM 26_To demonstrate my ability to travel 0.768
Escape and curiosity 0.810 0.848 0.526
CTM 16_To have a change from my daily routine 0.559
CTM 17_To forget about the demands of daily life 0.896
CTM 18_To escape into another world 0.855
CTM 19_To satisfy my curiosity 0.472
Experience 0.859 0.815 0.411
CTM 22_To see famous cultural places 0.595
CTM 23_To hear famous local performers/entertainers 0.750
CTM 24_To see famous local shows performed 0.694
CTM 27_To go somewhere safe 0.444
CTM 29_To have a high-quality experience 0.495
CTM 30_To buy goods and souvenirs 0.502
CTM 31_To buy food and drinks to consume at the
cultural experience
0.504
Cultural tourism activities
Intangible cultural tourism activities 0.827 0.813 0.521
CTA 1_Guided cultural-focused walking tours 0.499
CTA 4_Cultural tours 0.737
CTA 5_Visiting arts and crafts stores 0.478
CTA 6_Attending cultural festivals or events 0.648
Indigenous cultural tourism activities 0.750 0.753 0.435
CTA 2_Township/slum/favela tourism 0.415
CTA 8_Visiting traditional villages 0.351
CTA 9_Homestays 0.780
CTA 10_Medicinal plant tours 0.424
Tangible cultural tourism activities 0.788 0.786 0.552
CTA 7_Visiting museums 0.483
CTA 11_Visiting architectural and archaeological sites 0.916
CTA 12_Visiting historic or heritage sites, and
landmarks
0.673
(continued )
Table 2.
Validity and reliability
results
JHTI
tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities. In addition, learning about the local
culture (β50.510, p< 0.05), relaxation and entertainment (β50.131, p< 0.001) and status
and social recognition (β50.304, p< 0.001) had a statistically significant positive influence
on tourists’likelihood to engage in indigenous cultural tourism activities. Regarding the
second hypothesis, the results indicate that tourists’likelihood of engaging in tangible and
intangible cultural tourism activities influences their likelihood of engaging in cultural
tourism experiences when visiting utilitarian destinations (β50.558, p< 0.001) and hedonic
destinations (β50.227, p< 0.001). In addition, tourists’likelihood of engaging in indigenous
cultural tourism activities (β50.323, p< 0.001) influences their likelihood of engaging in
cultural tourism experiences when visiting hedonic destinations. For the third hypothesis the
results show that learning about the local culture (β50.303, p< 0.001), experience (β50.363,
p< 0.001) and escape and curiosity (β50.121, p< 0.10), had a statistically significant positive
influence on tourists’likelihood of engaging in cultural tourism experiences when visiting
utilitarian destinations while status and social recognition (β50.185, p< 0.001) had a
statistically significant negative effect on tourists’likelihood of engaging in cultural tourism
experiences when visiting utilitarian destinations. What is more, relaxation and
entertainment (β50.259, p< 0.001) and experience (β50.393, p< 0.001) had a
statistically significant positive influence on tourists’likelihood of engaging in cultural
tourism experiences when visiting hedonic destinations.
To analyse the mediating effect, the bias-corrected percentile method (with bootstrapping)
for the standardised indirect effect was used. A mediation effect is observed when the
confidence interval for the standardized indirect effect does not include 0, indicating
statistical significance. A complete mediation effect is evident if the confidence interval for
the standardized direct effect includes 0, if not partial mediation is evident. Table 5 shows the
mediation effect analysis of activities on all motivation paths related to utilitarian and
hedonic destinations. First, we observe the complete mediation effect of indigenous cultural
tourism activities on the relationships between learning about the local culture and hedonic
destinations; status and recognition and hedonic destinations as well as between learning
about the local culture and utilitarian destinations and partial mediator between status and
recognition and utilitarian destinations. In addition, tangible and intangible cultural tourism
activities are complete mediation variables between learning about the local culture and
hedonic destinations; status and recognition and hedonic destinations; learning about the
local culture and utilitarian destinations as well as relaxation and entertainment and
Measurement and items
Factor
loadings
Cronbach’s
alphas CR AVE
Types of destinations
Utilitarian destinations 0.795 0.804 0.409
CTD 1_Adventure 0.321
CTD 4_Countryside 0.592
CTD 5_Cultural 0.738
CTD 7_Mountains 0.692
CTD 8_Nature 0.773
CTD 8_ Wildlife 0.411
Hedonic destinations 0.676 0.700 0.411
CTD 2_City 0.712
CTD 3_Coast 0.689
CTD 8_Sport and recreation 0.430
CTD 9_Resort 0.583
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work Table 2.
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Learning
about the
local
culture
Relaxation
and
entertainment
Status and
social
recognition
Escape
and
curiosity Experience
Intangible
cultural
tourism
activities
Indigenous
cultural
tourism
activities
Tangible
cultural
tourism
activities
Utilitarian
destinations
Hedonic
destinations
Learning
about the local
culture
–– ––––––––
Relaxation and
entertainment
0.719 –––––––––
Status and
social
recognition
0.545 0.617 ––– – – – – –
Escape and
curiosity
0.613 0.677 0.542 –– – – – – –
Experience 0.705 0.758 0.743 0.732 –– – – – –
Intangible
cultural
tourism
activities
0.536 0.484 0.306 0.378 0.448 –––––
Indigenous
cultural
tourism
activities
0.560 0.500 0.497 0.348 0.459 0.813 ––– –
Tangible
cultural
tourism
activities
0.500 0.413 0.282 0.386 0.433 0.849 0.734 –– –
Utilitarian
destination
0.609 0.563 0.379 0.511 0.590 0.566 0.539 0.595 ––
Hedonic
destination
0.509 0.570 0.478 0.433 0.575 0.566 0.520 0.433 0.771 –
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work
Table 3.
Discriminant validity
of the correlations
among constructs
JHTI
utilitarian destinations. Tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities are partial
mediators between relaxation and entertainment and hedonic destinations as well as learning
about the local culture and utilitarian destinations.
Discussion and conclusions
Conclusions
Understanding the relationship between activity preference, tourist motivation, and
destination choice is critical because, with this understanding, destinations and tour
operators can develop products that best meet tourist needs (Xiao et al., 2015). Even so,
research on motivations, activities and destination choice is still in its infancy in Africa
(Filimonau and Perez, 2018). The purpose of this paper was thus to investigate how the
motives of cultural tourists influence the types of activity they are likely to participate in; and
how the cultural tourism activities, in turn, influence these tourists’choice of destination.
A link was also established between cultural tourism motivations and destination choice, and
the mediating role of cultural tourism activities was assessed.
Hypothesis
#
Factors
Standardised
regression weights Decision
H1ab Tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities ←
learning about the local culture
0.394*** Supported
H1de Tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities ←
relaxation and entertainment
0.157*** Supported
H1gh Tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities ←
social status and recognition
0.130*** Supported
H1jk Tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities ←
escape and curiosity
0.004 Rejected
H1mn Tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities ←
experience
0.189** Supported
H1c Indigenous cultural tourism activities ←learning
about the local culture
0.510*** Supported
H1f Indigenous cultural tourism activities ←relaxation
and entertainment
0.131** Supported
H1i Indigenous cultural tourism activities ←social status
and recognition
0.304*** Supported
H1l Indigenous cultural tourism activities ←escape and
curiosity
0.092 Rejected
H1o Indigenous cultural tourism activities ←experience 0.157 Rejected
H2ac Utilitarian destinations ←Tangible and intangible
cultural tourism activities
0.558*** Supported
H2bd Hedonic destinations ←Tangible and intangible
cultural tourism activities
0.227*** Supported
H2e Utilitarian destinations ←Indigenous cultural
tourism activities
0.067 Rejected
H2f Hedonic destinations ←Indigenous cultural tourism
activities
0.323*** Supported
Note(s): *Statistically significant: p≤0.10; **Statistically significant: p≤0.05; ***Statistically
significant: p≤0.01
#
As a result of multicollinearity, the factors “intangible cultural tourism activities”and “tangible cultural
tourism activities”were merged and treated as a single construct (tangible and intangible cultural tourism
activities) and the hypotheses related to these constructs were consequently restated
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work
Table 4.
Standardised
regression weights and
p-values for model
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Point
estimate
Bias corrected 95% CI
OutcomeLower Upper p
Learning→Indigenous CA
→Hedonic
Indirect
effect
0.140 0.067 0.207 0.018* CM
Direct
effect
0.060 0.240 0.084 0.391
Relaxation →Indigenous CA
→Hedonic
Indirect
effect
0.031 0.010 0.084 0.129 No
mediation
Status→Indigenous CA
→Hedonic
Indirect
effect
0.092 0.051 0.170 0.006** CM
Direct
effect
0.072 0.230 0.059 0.263
Escape→Indigenous CA
→Hedonic
Indirect
effect
0.024 0.068 0.014 0.260 No
mediation
Experience→Indigenous CA
→Hedonic
Indirect
effect
0.053 0.149 0.007 0.080 No
mediation
Learning→T&I CA →Hedonic Indirect
effect
0.085 0.048 0.147 0.007** CM
Direct
effect
0.007 0.167 0.112 0.842
Relaxation →T&I CA →Hedonic Indirect
effect
0.035 0.009 0.081 0.007** PM
Direct
effect
0.225 0.062 0.399 0.008**
Status→T&I CA →Hedonic Indirect
effect
0.025 0.049 0.000 0.044* CM
Direct
effect
0.043 0.079 0.184 0.469
Escape→T&I CA →Hedonic Indirect
effect
0.004 0.036 0.039 0.995 No
mediation
Experience→T&I CA →Hedonic Indirect
effect
0.036 0.017 0.096 0.242 No
mediation
Learning→Indigenous CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.156 0.096 0.239 0.006** CM
Direct
effect
0.148 0.014 0.315 0.066
Relaxation →Indigenous CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.034 0.004 0.095 0.081 No
mediation
Status→Indigenous CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.103 0.058 0.192 0.003** PM
Direct
effect
0.288 0.452 0.186 0.005**
Escape→Indigenous CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.027 0.079 0.016 0.317 No
mediation
Experience→Indigenous CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.059 0.155 0.006 0.072 No
mediation
Learning→T&I CA →Utilitarian Indirect
effect
0.125 0.068 0.187 0.012* PM
Direct
effect
0.179 0.048 0.328 0.010*
Relaxation →T&I CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.052 0.015 0.128 0.010* CM
Direct
effect
0.005 0.134 0.127 0.964
(continued )
Table 5.
Mediation effect
analysis
JHTI
The structural equation modelling results found support for the four main research
hypotheses. Regarding the first central hypothesis, the results show that tourists’
motivations to participate in cultural tourism influence the cultural activities they are
likely to undertake. Three of the five motivators (learning about the local culture, relaxation
and entertainment and experience) significantly influenced tourists’likelihood of engaging in
tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities. In contrast, social status and recognition
showed a negative influence. Therefore, the more important social status and recognition is
as a motivator, the less likely tourists are to engage in tangible and intangible cultural
tourism activities. Three of the five motivators (learning about the local culture, relaxation
and entertainment and social status and recognition) indicated a significant favourable
influence on tourists’likelihood of engaging in indigenous cultural tourism activities.
According to Smith et al. (2022), the importance of educational experiences has declined for
most age groups, while escapism and entertainment have become more critical in cultural
tourism experiences. Our study showed the contrary, where escapism and entertainment
showed no relationship with tourists’likelihood of engaging in cultural tourism activities.
Interestingly, the more critical social status and recognition are as a motivator, the more
likely tourists are to engage in indigenous cultural tourism activities. According to Correia
et al. (2016) the choices tourists make may be influenced by the level of status they seek. Just
as indigenous cultures worldwide have gained more attention as distinctive cultural entities,
tourists who engage with indigenous communities may also feel a sense of distinction. This
links to Abascal et al. (2016), who found that tourists engaging in indigenous tourism
activities were particularly likely to emphasize learning, authenticity and uniqueness in these
experiences (also see Genc and Genc, 2022). More specifically, destinations or attractions that
are seen as exotic, uncommon or different offer considerably more chances for travel
bragging, which allows travellers to display their perceived social status (Liu and Li, 2021).
Indeed, this speaks to indigenous cultural tourism experiences, which allows tourists to
display their quest for experiences that are exotic, different or considered unique (Wu et al.,
2020). Therefore, seeking status as a motivator for engaging in indigenous tourism activities
makes sense.
Related to the second main hypothesis, the results show that the cultural activities tourists
are likely to participate in influence their likelihood of engaging in cultural tourism
experiences when visiting specific destinations. More specifically, the results show that
tourists likely to participate in tangible and intangible cultural tourism activities are likely to
do so at any destination. In contrast, tourists who are likely to partake in indigenous cultural
Point
estimate
Bias corrected 95% CI
OutcomeLower Upper p
Status→T&I CA →Utilitarian Indirect
effect
0.037 0.068 0.000 0.045* PM
Direct
effect
0.147 0.263 0.043 0.006**
Escape→T&I CA →Utilitarian Indirect
effect
0.006 0.049 0.048 0.995 No
mediation
Experience→T&I CA
→Utilitarian
Indirect
effect
0.053 0.025 0.130 0.275 No
mediation
Note(s): Indigenous CA: Indigenous cultural activities; T&I CA: Tangible and Intangible cultural activities;
CM: Complete mediation; PM: Partial mediation; CI: Confidence interval
Source(s): Author’s own creation/work Table 5.
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
tourism activities are more likely to do so at hedonic destinations. In terms of the third main
hypothesis, the results indicate that tourists’motivations for cultural tourism influence their
likelihood of visiting specific types of destinations, supporting the results of Valea et al.
(2022),Ward (2014) and others. More specifically, our results show that experience as a
motivator had a significant influence on tourists’likelihood to visit both utilitarian and
hedonic destinations. The fourth main hypothesis is also supported, the results show that
cultural activities mediate the relationship between tourists’motivations for cultural tourism
and their likelihood of visiting specific types of destinations, thereby confirming Moscardo
et al. (1996) who postulated that activities offer the link between destinations and travellers.
These results have important theoretical and practical implications for cultural tourism
research and the development of the cultural tourism industry.
Theoretical implications
Using Dann’s (1977) push and pull theory, the study developed a conceptual model exploring
the relationships between cultural tourism motivations, cultural tourism activities and types
of destinations and more specifically the mediating effect of cultural tourism activities on
these relationships. The connection between motivations and activities has received scant
attention in the literature. Indeed, according to McKercher et al. (2021) many studies have
considered the link between motives and behaviour. However, few have examined the
association between travellers’motives and their in-destination behaviour and activities. Our
study found five cultural tourism motivations (learning about the local culture, relaxation and
entertainment, social status and recognition, escape and curiosity and experience).
Theoretically, the study thus improves our understanding of the dimensional nature of
tourists’cultural tourism motivations and how they inform tourists’behaviour. Indeed, the
results suggest that of the five motivators, “learning about the local culture”is the strongest
predictor of the likelihood of engaging in cultural tourism activities (tangible and intangible
cultural tourism activities and indigenous cultural tourism activities). Therefore, our study
adds to the body of knowledge by confirming the influence of potential cultural tourists’
motivations on their likelihood of participating in specific cultural tourism activities.
The limited literature (McKercher and Tolkach, 2020) has opposing findings regarding the
relationship between activities and destination choice. On the one hand, Crompton (1979)
argued that destination features might have little to no influence on tourists’decision to visit,
while Leiper (1990) opined that visitors might be pushed towards attractions by their
motivations rather than by the nature of the attraction. More recently, McKercher and Tolkach
(2020) began to analyze whether attractions (as the places where activities are undertaken)
attract tourists. If so, what role do they play in enticing tourists to visit a destination? Their
results suggested that attractions play a role in tourists’destination choices. In line with
McKercher and Tolkach’s(2020)work, our research provides more evidence of the relationship
between activities and destination choice—specifically in cultural tourism. Our results showed
that there seems to be a difference in terms of the activities engaged in bydestination type. For
example, respondents who were likely to participate in tangible and intangible cultural tourism
activities were more likely to do so at utilitarian destinations than hedonic destinations.
Interestingly, respondents were more likely to engage in indigenous cultural tourism activities
at hedonic destinations than utilitarian destinations.
Even though the constructs of motivation, activities and destination choice have been
studied before, the relationships between the three constructs still need to be determined. The
only study that to date had attempted to understand the relationship between the three
constructs was that of Moscardo et al. (1996). Our study contributes to the limited literature on
the link between motivation, activities and destination choice by showing significant
relationships between cultural tourism motivations and cultural tourism activities. At the
JHTI
same time, significant relationships were evident between cultural tourism activities and
types of destinations as well as between cultural tourism motivations and types of
destinations. The mediation results also showed that activities are indeed the critical link
between motivation and destination choice in cultural tourism. Most of the existing studies on
cultural tourism have been site-specific, which makes it hard to generalize the findings to
wider areas (Chen and Rahman, 2018). Our study investigates the potential demand for
cultural tourism in South Africa nationally by examining the relationships between push-
and-pull factors and destination choice and therefore has implications for the broader cultural
tourism industry beyond a specific site.
Practical implications
Our results show that motivations influence the activities tourists are likely to engage in; we
therefore propose that destination managers collect more information on the motives of their
visitors. Most destination managers know the popular attractions/activities at their
destinations. However, they often need clarification about tourists’motivations for visiting
these attractions/engaging in the activities. According to McKercher et al. (2021) departing
visitor surveys conducted by national destination marketing organizations often need more
questions on travellers’motives. Adding visitor motivations to such surveys could yield
valuable insights into visitor behaviour (McKercher et al., 2021). This finding is in line with
Srihadi et al. (2016) and others (Handler and Kawaminami, 2022;Stylidis et al., 2018) in that
our study supports the value of market segmentation based on psychographic variables
instead of solely relying on demographics. In addition, knowledge about potential cultural
tourists’motives is vital in product development and marketing. Managers must understand
the motives of their visitors so that they can develop activities that are aligned with these
motives. Promotional material should also be developed that links activities with motives.
Since our results also demonstrate that activities significantly influence destination choice,
the inclusion of specific activities in advertising campaigns should aid in attracting more
visitors to a destination.
The results showed five distinct motivations for engaging in cultural tourism activities, of
which “learning about the local culture”was the strongest predictor of tourists’likelihood to
engage in tangible and intangible and indigenous cultural tourism activities. According to
Chen and Rahman (2018), cultural tourists naturally tend to be inquisitive about other
cultures. Therefore, cultural destinations/sites should focus on increasing and improving
tourists’learning experiences. Learning could be done through the practical interpretation of
sites, guided tours, educational sessions and even live entertainment.
The finding that indigenous cultural tourism activities are a distinct type of experience is
significant. It has often been noted that indigenous cultures are viewed as a key attraction for
tourists and as an essential point of distinction for tourism destinations in an international
environment that is becoming increasingly competitive and homogenous (e.g. Fletcher et al.,
2016;Richards, 2021). While indigenous cultural tourism is a recognized segment in the
tourism industry in South Africa, in light of our findings, more should be done to make
domestic and international tourists aware of this segment. To develop a destination’s
indigenous cultural tourism offering, Pabel et al. (2017) make several suggestions, including
making indigenous experiences and artefacts more accessible and available to tourists,
creating effective promotional strategies and raising awareness of the diversity of indigenous
offerings and including some cultural content in nature-based experiences. Tourists should
be actively engaged to improve the learning experience when engaging in indigenous cultural
tourism activities. Tourists could participate in workshops where they are taught how to
make artefacts, cook traditional meals and learn traditional dances (Fan et al., 2020). Related
to this, an interesting result was that respondents were more likely to engage in indigenous
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
cultural tourism activities in hedonic destinations than in utilitarian destinations.
Destinations classified as hedonic, thus providing fun and sensorial consumption
experiences, should take note of this finding and develop more opportunities for engaging
in indigenous cultural tourism activities. The Sun City resort is an excellent example of a
hedonic destination in a South African context that has capitalized on this opportunity.
Visitors to Sun City Resort are allowed to learn about the diverse heritage and history of the
area at Segaetsho Cultural Village –which means “Our Heritage”in Setswana. The village
gives tourists an authentic African experience by exploring Batswana culture through
traditional dance, food and art, music, fashion and photography (Sun International, 2022).
Our results indicate that cultural tourists are motivated by more than just learning about
the local culture. Cultural tourism products should be developed to provide a complex travel
experience for visitors, including entertainment, relaxation, novelty and escape. Therefore,
cultural tourism providers should combine learning and hedonic-entertainment dimensions,
also known as “edutainment”(Geissler et al., 2006). ICTs, such as augmented reality, can assist
in personalizing the experience to satisfy the needs of various visitor segments (Etxeberria
et al., 2012) and make edutainment possible. As a result, ICTs can enhance theattractiveness of
cultural landmarks by helping visitors understand heritage better and enriching the
experience (Tscheu and Buhalis, 2016).
Limitations and directions for future research
There are some limitations related to this research. First, we included 13 cultural tourism
activities in our study. Even though these 13 items provide a good representation of cultural
tourism activities and an excellent foundation to work from, adding a more comprehensive
and exhaustive list of activities could yield more variance in the data, which could provide
richer results. Second, even though we expressly set out to survey potential cultural tourists,
it could be seen as a limitation of the study. Previous studies have shown that intention does
not necessarily end in behaviour. As such, it will be valuable for future studies to include
actual cultural tourists and their activities in the destination, not only potential tourists.
Third, is the use of an online survey. Pan (2010) notes three methodological issues with online
surveys, including a declining response rate, the representativeness of online surveys and
technological uncertainty. Despite these limitations, an online survey still provides several
advantages such as speed of responses, lower costs and interface advantages and was
deemed the most appropriate data collection method for this study. The study showed some
interesting results regarding the link between cultural tourism activities and destination
types. Future research could investigate whether different types of tourists are attracted to
different destinations to undertake different activities, which could hold some significant
implications for destination marketers.
References
Abascal, T.E., Fluker, M. and Jiang, M. (2016), “Domestic demand for Indigenous tourism in Australia:
understanding intention to participate”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 24 Nos 8-9,
pp. 1350-1368.
Artal-Tur, A., Briones-Pe~
nalver, A.J. and Villena-Navarro, M. (2018), “Tourism, cultural activities and
sustainability in the Spanish Mediterranean regions: a probit approach”,Tourism and
Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Blunch, N.J. (2008), Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling Using SPSS and AMOS, SAGE,
London, UK.
Byun, J. and Jang, S. (2015), “Effective destination advertising: matching effect between advertising
language and destination type”,Tourism Management, Vol. 50, pp. 31-40.
JHTI
Chang, J., Morrison, A.M., Lin, S.H.H. and Ho, C.Y. (2020), “How do food consumption motivations and
emotions affect the experiential values and well-being of foodies?”,British Food Journal,
Vol. 123 No. 2, pp. 627-648.
Chen, Y.-J. (2021), “To create the value of indigenous tourism in multicultural market based on
tourists’cultural experience”,Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 9,
pp. 1905-1921.
Chen, H. and Rahman, I. (2018), “Cultural tourism: an analysis of engagement, cultural contact,
memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty”,Tourism Management Perspectives,
Vol. 26, pp. 153-163.
Chen, L.H., Loverio, J.P. and Shen, C.C. (2021), “The role of face (mien-tzu) in Chinese tourists’
destination choice and behaviors”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 48,
pp. 500-508.
Chiang, C. and Jogaratnam, G. (2006), “Why do women travel solo for purposes of leisure?”,Journal of
Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 59-70.
Chiang, C., Wang, M., Lee, C. and Chen, Y. (2015), “Assessing travel motivations of cultural tourists:
a factor-cluster segmentation analysis”,Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 269-282.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito-Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J.J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 655-690.
Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S. and Sun, J. (2006), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill Irwin,
New York, NY.
Correia, A., Kozak, M. and Ferradeira, J. (2013), “From tourist motivations to tourist Satisfaction”,
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 411-424.
Correia, A., Kozak, M. and Reis, H. (2016), “Conspicuous consumption of the elite: social and self-
congruity in tourism choices”,Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 738-750.
Croes, R. and Semrad, K.J. (2015), “The relevance of cultural tourism as the next Frontier for small
island destinations”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 469-491.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), “Motivations for pleasure vacation”,Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 408-424.
Dann, G. (1977), “Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism”,Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 4,
pp. 184-194.
Deegan, J.R. (1978), “On the occurrence of standardized regression coefficients greater than one”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 872-888.
Department of Tourism (2011), “National tourism service strategy”, The Republic of South Africa.
Department of Tourism (2012a), “National heritage and cultural tourism strategy”, The Republic of
South Africa.
Department of Tourism (2012b), “Rural tourism strategy”, The Republic of South Africa.
Dodds, R. and Butler, R. (2019), “The phenomenon of overtourism: a review”,International Journal of
Tourism Cities, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 519-528.
Du Cros, H. and McKercher, B. (2014), Cultural Tourism, Routledge, London, UK.
Etxeberria, A.I., Asensio, M., Vicent, N. and Cuenca, J.M. (2012), “Mobile devices: a tool for tourism and
learning at archaeological sites”,International Journal of Web Based Communities (IJWBC),
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Falk, J.H., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Benckendorff, P. (2012), “Travel and learning: a neglected
tourism research area”,Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 908-927.
Fan, K.H.F., Chang, T.C. and Ng, S.L. (2020), “The Batek’s dilemma on indigenous tourism”,Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 83, p. 102948.
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Filimonau, V. and Perez, L. (2018), “National culture and tourist destination choice in the UK and
Venezuela: an exploratory and preliminary study”,Tourism Geographies, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 235-260.
Fletcher, C., Pforr, C. and Brueckner, M. (2016), “Factors influencing Indigenous engagement in
tourism development: an international perspective”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 24
Nos 8-9, pp. 1100-1120.
Fr
ıas-Jamilena, D.M., Casta~
neda-Garc
ıa, J.A. and Del Barrio-Garc
ıa, S. (2019), “Self-congruity and
motivations as antecedents of destination perceived value: the moderating effect of previous
experience”,International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
Geissler, G.L., Rucks, C.T. and Edison, S.W. (2006), “Understanding the role of service convenience in
art museum marketing: an exploratory study”,Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 69-87.
Genc, V. and Genc, S.G. (2022), “The effect of perceived authenticity in cultural heritage sites on
tourist satisfaction: the moderating role of aesthetic experience”,Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Insights. doi: 10.1108/JHTI-08-2021-0218.
G
omez, M., Imhoff, B., Mart
ın-Consuegra, D., Molina, A. and Santos-Vijande, M.L. (2018), “Language
tourism: the drivers that determine destination choice intention among US students”,Tourism
Management Perspectives, Vol. 27, pp. 125-135.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Handler, I. and Kawaminami, J. (2022), “Why do Japanese people visit hot springs during a
pandemic? A psychographic segmentation analysis”,Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism.doi:10.1016/j.jort.2022.100530.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modelling”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43, pp. 115-135.
Jang, S. and Cai, L.A. (2002), “Travel motivations and destination choice: a study of British outbound
market”,Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 111-133.
Karl, M., Reintinger, C. and Schmude, J. (2015), “Reject or select: mapping destination choice”,Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 54, pp. 48-64.
Kay, P.L. (2009), “Cultural experience tourist motives dimensionality: a cross-cultural study”,Journal
of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 329-371.
Kim, M.J. and Hall, M.C. (2022), “Is walking or riding your bike when a tourist different? Applying
VAB theory to better understand active transport behavior”,Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 311, p. 114868.
Kim, S. and Lehto, X.Y. (2013), “Travel by families with children possessing disabilities: motives and
activities”,Tourism Management, Vol. 37, pp. 13-24.
Kim, K., Sun, J. and Mahoney, E. (2008), “Roles of motivation and activity factors in predicting
satisfaction: exploring the Korean cultural festival market”,Tourism Analysis, Vol. 13,
pp. 413-425.
Klenosky, D.B. (2002), “The ‘pull’of tourism destinations: a means-end investigation”,Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 385-395.
Kline, R.B. (2010), “Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modelling in gifted research”,in
Thompson, B. and Subotnik, R.F. (Eds), Methodologies for Conducting Research on Giftedness,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 147-169.
Kline, C., Bulla, B., Rubright, H., Green, E. and Harris, E. (2016), “An exploratory study of expectation–
importance-performance analysis with cultural tourists in Havana, Cuba”,Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-34.
JHTI
Konu, H., Laukkanen, T. and Komppula, R. (2011), “Using ski destination choice to segment Finnish
ski resort customers”,Tourism Management, Vol. 32, pp. 1096-1105.
Labanauskait_
e, D., Fiore, M. and Sta
sys, R. (2020), “Use of E-marketing tools as communication
management in the tourism industry”,Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 34, p. 100652.
Lee, G., O’Leary, J.T., Lee, S.H. and Morrison, A. (2002), “Comparison and contrast of push and pull
motivational effects on trip behavior: an application of a multinomial logistic regression model”,
Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 89-104.
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2015), Practical Research. Planning and Design, 11th ed., Pearson,
Boston, MA.
Leiper, N. (1990), “Tourist attraction systems”,Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 367-384.
Liro, J. (2021), “Visitors’motivations and behaviours at pilgrimage centres: push and pull
perspectives”,Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 79-99.
Liu, H. and Li, X. (2021), “How travel earns us bragging rights: a qualitative inquiry and conceptualisation
of travel bragging rights”,Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 1635-1653.
Loda, M.D. and Amos, C. (2014), “Temporal orientation and destination selection”,Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 907-919.
Lwoga, N.B. and Maturo, E. (2020), “Motivation-based segmentation of rural tourism market in
African villages”,Development Southern Africa, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 773-790.
Malhotra, N.K. and Dash, S. (2011), Marketing Research an Applied Orientation, Pearson Publishing,
London.
Manwa, H., Moswete, N. and Saarinen, J. (2016), Cultural Tourism in Southern Africa, Channelview
Publications, Bristol, UK.
McKercher, B. (2002), “Towards a classification of cultural tourists”,International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 4, pp. 29-38.
McKercher, B. and Tolkach, D. (2020), “Influence of attractions on destination selection”,International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, pp. 767-775.
McKercher, B., Ho, P.S.Y., Du Cros, H. and So-Ming, B.C. (2002), “Activities-based segmentation of the
cultural tourist market”,Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-46.
McKercher, B., Tolkach, D., Mahadewi, N.M.E. and Byomantara, D.G.N. (2021), “The relationship
between motive and in-destination behavior”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Vol. 46, pp. 432-439.
Mehmetoglu, M. and Normann, Ø. (2013), “The link between travel motives and activities in nature-
based tourism”,Tourism Review, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 3-13.
Mokoena, L.G. (2020), “Cultural tourism: cultural presentation at the Basotho cultural village, Free
State, South Africa”,Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 470-490.
Moscardo, G., Morrison, A.M., Pearce, P.L., Lang, C. and O’Leary, J.T. (1996), “Understanding vacation
destination choice through travel motivation and activities”,Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 109-122.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”,Psychometric Theory, Vol. 3,
pp. 248-292.
€
Ozel, C.H. and Kozak, N. (2012), “Motive based Segmentation of the cultural tourism market: a study of
Turkish Domestic Tourists”,Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 165-186.
Pabel, A., Prideaux, B. and Thompson, M. (2017), “Tourists’preferences with indigenous tourism
experiences in the wet tropics of Queensland, Australia”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 31, pp. 142-151.
Packer, J. and Ballantyne, R. (2016), “Conceptualizing the visitor experience: a review of literature and
development of a multifaceted model”,Visitor Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 128-143.
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
Pan, B. (2010), “Online travel surveys and response patterns”,Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49
No. 1, pp. 121-135.
Pestana, M.H., Parreira, A. and Moutinho, L. (2020), “Motivations, emotions and satisfaction: the keys
to a tourism destination choice”,Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 16,
p. 100332.
Qiu, R.T.R., Masiero, L. and Li, G. (2018), “The psychological process of travel destination choice”,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 691-705.
Redondo-Carretero, M., Camarero-Izquierdo, C., Guti
errez-Arranz, A. and Rodr
ıguez-Pinto, J. (2017),
“Language tourism destinations: a case study of motivations, perceived value and tourists’
expenditure”,Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 155-172.
Richards, G. (2018), “Cultural tourism: a review of recent research and trends”,Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, Vol. 36, pp. 12-21.
Richards, G. (2020), “Designing creative places: the role of creative tourism”,Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 85, p. 102992.
Richards, G. (2021), Rethinking Cultural Tourism, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Ritchie, J.R.B. and Crouch, G.I. (2003), The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective,
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Ryan, C. (1991), Recreational Tourism: A Social Science Perspective, Routledge, New York, NY.
Saarinen, J. and Rogerson, C.M. (2015), “Setting cultural tourism in southern Africa”,Nordic Journal of
African Studies, Vol. 24 Nos 3 and 4, pp. 207-220.
Smith, M.K., Pinke-Sziva, I., Berezvai, Z. and Buczkowska-Goła
˛bek, K. (2022), “The changing nature of
the cultural tourist: motivations, profiles and experiences of cultural tourists in Budapest”,
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 20 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-19.
Song, H. and Bae, S. (2018), “Understanding travel motivation and patterns of international students
in Korea: using the theory of travel career pattern”,Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 133-145.
Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) (2020), “Domestic tourism survey, 2018”, available at: http://www.sta
tssa.gov.za/publications/P03521/P035212018.pdf (accessed 5 April 2022).
Srihadi, T.F., Sukandar, D. and Soehadi, A.W. (2016), “Segmentation of the tourism market for Jakarta:
classification of foreign visitors’lifestyle typologies”,Tourism Management Perspectives,
Vol. 19, pp. 32-39.
Stylidis, D., Kokho Sit, J. and Biran, A. (2018), “Residents’place image: a meaningful psychographic
variable for tourism segmentation?”,Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 715-725.
Sun International (2022), “Segaetsho cultural village”, available at: https://www.suninternational.com/
sun-city/activities/kids/segaetsho-cultural-village/ (accessed 10 November 2022).
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2014), Using Multivariate Statistics, Pearson, Harlow, ND.
Teye, V. and Paris, C.M. (2010), “Cruise line industry and Caribbean tourism: guests’motivations,
activities, and destination preference”,Tourism Review International, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Thiene, M., Swait, J. and Scarpa, R. (2017), “Choice set formation for outdoor destinations: the role of
motivations and preference discrimination in site selection for the management of public
expenditures on protected areas”,Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Vol. 81, pp. 152-173.
Tscheu, F. and Buhalis, D. (2016), “Augmented reality at cultural heritage sites”, in Inversini, A. and
Schegg, R. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, Springer, Cham,
Switzerland, pp. 607-619.
Uysal, M. and Jurowski, C. (1994), “Testing the push and pull factors”,Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 844-846.
JHTI
Van Dyk, A., Tkaczynski, A. and Slabbert, E. (2019), “Repeat tourism, destination image and
behavioural intentions: implications for sustainable development in South Africa”,Tourism
Recreation Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 392-398.
Velea, L., Gallo, A., Bojariu, R., Irimescu, A., Craciunescu, V. and Puiu, S. (2022), “Holiday climate
index: urban—application for urban and rural areas in Romania”,Atmosphere, Vol. 13, p. 1519.
Ward, A. (2014), “Segmenting the senior tourism market in Ireland based on travel motivations”,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 267-277.
Weber, E. and Johnson, E. (2009), “Mindful judgment and decision making”,Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 53-85.
Wu, T.C., Lin, Y.E., Wall, G. and Xie, P.F. (2020), “A spectrum of indigenous tourism experiences as
revealed through means-end chain analysis”,Tourism Management, Vol. 76, p. 103969.
Xiao, H., So, K.K.F. and Wang, Y. (2015), “The university student travel market: motivations and
preferences for activities”,Tourism Analysis, Vol. 20, pp. 399-412.
Xie, L. and Ritchie, B.W. (2019), “The motivation, constraint, behavior relationship: a holistic approach
for understanding international student leisure travellers”,Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 111-129.
Yun, D., Hennessy, S. and Courtney, S. (2016), “Motivations and preferred activities of tourists to rural
destinations: a comparative analysis of rural and urban residents”,Proceedings of Travel and
Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally, p. 60.
Zeka, B. (2020), “Retirement funding adequacy in black South African townships”,African Journal of
Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 573-585.
Further reading
Alegre, J., Cladera, M. and Sard, M. (2011), “Analyzing the influence of tourist motivations on tourist
expenditure at a sun-and-sand destination”,Tourism Economics, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 813-832.
Corresponding author
Greg Richards can be contacted at: g.w.richards@tilburguniversity.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Destination
choice in
cultural
tourism
