Libraries and Learning Services

University of Auckland Research

Repository, ResearchSpace

Copyright Statement
The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand).

This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of
the Act and the following conditions of use:

• Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or
private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any
other person.
• Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognize the
author's right to be identified as the author of this thesis, and due
acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate.
• You will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material
from their thesis.

General copyright and disclaimer

In addition to the above conditions, authors give their consent for the digital
copy of their work to be used subject to the conditions specified on the Library
Thesis Consent Form and Deposit Licence.
The Segmentation and Satisfaction of Visitors to the World Heritage:
Comparative Analysis of two Cultural Heritage Sites in Vietnam

Nam Ky Nguyen

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Museums and Cultural Heritage
The University of Auckland, 2018
Abstract

In line with the exponential growth of global tourism, Vietnam has been an emerging
tourist attraction in recent years. Renowned as a nation with a several thousand-year
history and an abundance of cultural/heritage values, heritage tourism in Vietnam is one
of the most fast-growing and prevalent aspects of modern times. Unfortunately, few
studies taking heed of this increasingly important sector have been reported so far. This
study endeavors to fill academic gaps by scrutinizing and comparing heritage visitors at
two World Heritage Sites of Vietnam called the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the
Citadel for Ho dynasty. The fundamental objectives are to classify visitors based on
their depth of heritage experience and their cultural motives for visiting; and to measure
visitor’s satisfaction in relation to the selected heritage attributes.

Visitors to the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Ho Citadel were identified as
participants of this research. Primary data was collected through the use of self-
administered questionnaires, in total a sample of 195 respondents. Statistical analysis
was then applied to shed light on these results. The findings reveal that there were
disparities in the classification of heritage tourists, leading to the diversity of heritage
experiences. Through examining specific hypotheses, this study investigated
relationships among the satisfaction of tourists, the heritage selected attributes,
intentions to revisit, demographic characteristics and heritage tourist groups.

The research findings have implications for services for tourists at each heritage sites.
Acknowledgement of this study’s limitations and a call for future studies are noted in
the concluding chapter.

Keywords:
Cultural heritage, heritage tourism, Thang Long Citadel, Ho Citadel, segmentation,
satisfaction.

i
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere thanks to NZAID for offering me the scholarship to
pursue my Mater of Arts at the University of Auckland, and this thesis would have been
impossible without it.

I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Dr. Claudia Bell for her thoughtful and
invaluable guidance and suggestions as I undertook this study. Without her support, I
could have not overcome obstacles to get my thesis done.

I would like to acknowledge Mr. Tang for orienting, motivating and supporting my
study from scratch. During and after my fieldtrip in Vietnam I was greatly supported by
Mr. Long and other staffers at the Conservation Centre for Ho dynasty for collecting
data, many thanks for them. I also thank my colleagues’ assistance at the Thang Long -
Hanoi Conservation Centre who enthusiastically aided me while I was conducting pilot
tests from overseas. I would like to extend my gratefulness to Mrs. Minh Ly, Khanh Ha
and Phuong for giving me a hand while I was on a fieldwork.

Last but not least, I want to send the best of my thanks to my beloved family,
particularly my wife - Nguyen Hoi and my son - Tuan Lam (Dau dau), whose endless
love and care have provided me strengths, faith and aspiration in my pursuit of
knowledge.

ii
Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

1.1. Research background: global tourism .................................................................. 1

1.2. The objectives, questions and significances of research ....................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH CONTEXT .................................................................... 7

2.1. Vietnam tourism .................................................................................................. 7

2.2. Heritage tourism ................................................................................................ 11

2.2.1. World Heritage status and its implications ................................................... 12

2.2.2. Vietnam heritage tourism ............................................................................ 14

2.2.3. Glimpse of case studies as cultural tourism destinations .............................. 17

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 24

3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 24

3.2. Heritage tourism ................................................................................................ 24

3.3. Segmentation of heritage visitors ....................................................................... 29

3.4. Tourist satisfaction ............................................................................................ 38

3.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 44

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 46

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 46

4.2. The selection of the study sites .......................................................................... 46

4.3. The survey design.............................................................................................. 48

4.4. Data collection .................................................................................................. 51

4.5. Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 53

4.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 55

iii
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS .......................................................................................... 57

5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 57

5.2. Respondent features .......................................................................................... 57

5.2.1. The demographic characteristics of respondents .......................................... 57

5.2.2. Travel behaviour characteristics of respondents ........................................... 62

5.3. Tourist experience and segmentation ................................................................. 66

5.3.1. Tourist experience ....................................................................................... 66

5.3.2. Classification of heritage tourists ................................................................. 73

5.4. Tourist satisfaction ............................................................................................ 76

5.4.1. Tourist expectation and satisfaction with heritage attributes ........................ 77

5.4.2. Overall satisfaction and intention to revisit .................................................. 81

5.4.3. Hypotheses testing....................................................................................... 82

5.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 92

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION ................. 94

6.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 94

6.2. Research findings: a final summary ................................................................... 94

6.3. Implications and recommendations .................................................................... 96

6.4. Limitations and future studies ............................................................................ 99

6.5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 100

APPENDIXES ......................................................................................................... 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 107

iv
List of tables

Table 1: Number of international and domestic tourists in Vietnam from 2000

to 2017 .......................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2: International visitors by counties to Vietnam in 2017 ..................................... 10
Table 3: Definitions of heritage from diverse perspectives........................................... 25
Table 4: Definitions of heritage tourism ...................................................................... 26
Table 5: A review of existing literature on cultural/ heritage tourists ........................... 36
Table 6: The number of international visitors at the Thang Long Citadel (2016) .......... 47
Table 7: The quantity of domestic and foreign visitors at the Citadel for Ho dynasty
(2009 - 2016)............................................................................................................... 47
Table 8: Variables of the research................................................................................ 49
Table 9: KMO and Bartlett's Test at the Thang Long Citadel ....................................... 54
Table 10: KMO and Bartlett's Test at the Citadel for Ho dynasty ................................. 54
Table 11: Gender distribution ...................................................................................... 58
Table 12: The distribution of ages among respondents ................................................. 58
Table 13: The distribution of the respondents’ education level..................................... 59
Table 14: Occupation of the respondents ..................................................................... 60
Table 15: The original residence of the respondents..................................................... 61
Table 16: The frequency of visits to the two attractions ............................................... 62
Table 17: Arrangement of the respondents’ visit .......................................................... 63
Table 18: Respondents’ travel companions .................................................................. 64
Table 19: The World Heritage Site’s trip duration ....................................................... 64
Table 20: Sources of information................................................................................. 65
Table 21: List of other World Heritage Sites in Vietnam visited by the respondents..... 67
Table 22: World Heritage Sites outside Vietnam and their prevalence among the
participants (Thang Long Imperial Citadel) ................................................................. 68
Table 23: World Heritage Sites outside Vietnam and their prevalence among the
participants (Citadel for Ho dynasty) ........................................................................... 69
Table 24: The most interesting aspects of the respondents’ trip at the Thang Long
Imperial Citadel........................................................................................................... 70
Table 25: The most interesting aspects of the respondents’ trip at the Citadel for Ho
dynasty........................................................................................................................ 71

v
Table 26: Recommendations to improve the heritage site from the respondents at
the Thang Long Imperial Citadel ................................................................................. 72
Table 27: Recommendations to improve the heritage site from the respondents at
the Citadel for Ho dynasty ........................................................................................... 72
Table 28: The depth of experience among the respondents .......................................... 73
Table 29: Motives for visiting the Thang Long Imperial Citadel .................................. 74
Table 30: Motives for visiting the Citadel for Ho dynasty............................................ 75
Table 31: The results of paired T-test between the respondents’ expectation and
satisfaction with heritage attributes (Thang Long Imperial Citadel) ............................. 79
Table 32: The results of paired T-test between the respondents’ expectation and
satisfaction with heritage attributes (Ho Citadel) ......................................................... 80
Table 33: The overall satisfaction of the respondents ................................................... 81
Table 34: The respondents’ revisiting plan .................................................................. 82
Table 35: Factor analysis of the perception of attributes at the Thang Long Citadel ..... 84
Table 36: Factor analysis of the perception of attributes at the Citadel for Ho
dynasty........................................................................................................................ 85
Table 37: Correlation between the overall satisfaction and Thang Long Citadel’s
four factors .................................................................................................................. 86
Table 38: Correlation between overall satisfaction and the Citadel for Ho dynasty’s
two factors .................................................................................................................. 87
Table 39: Regression for the relationship between the tourists’ overall satisfaction
and their intentions to re-visit at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel ............................... 89
Table 40: Regression for the relationship between the tourists’ overall satisfaction
and their intentions to re-visit at the Citadel for Ho dynasty......................................... 89
Table 41: Independent T-test and One-way ANOVA results of the mean difference
between overall satisfaction and the respondents’ demographic characteristics ............ 90
Table 42: Comparison of five groups of heritage tourists with overall satisfaction at
the Thang Long Citadel ............................................................................................... 91
Table 43: Comparison of five groups of heritage tourists with overall satisfaction at
the Ho Citadel ............................................................................................................. 92

vi
List of figures

Figure 1: Model of CH (Cultural Heritage) sustainability constraints ........................... 13

Figure 2: The view of Ha Long Bay as one of the most unique heritage sites in
Vietnam ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3: A souvenir shop by the river within the confines of Hoi An Ancient Town
.................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Timeline of the Vietnam feudal regime (from the 10th to the 20th century) ... 18
Figure 5: Plan of the whole heritage site with five landmarks on the right and the
archaeological site on the left ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: A vista of the Đoan Gate as the main gate entering the ancient royal citadel,
dated back in the 15th century ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 7: The Southern gate of the Citadel for Ho dynasty.......................................... 22
Figure 8: A part of the Ho Citadel is surrounded by rice fields and rivers ................... 22
Figure 9: The framework of the research .................................................................... 24
Figure 10: Classification of heritage tourists ............................................................... 76

Glossary
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WHS/s World Heritage Site/s
VNAT Vietnam National Administration of Tourism

vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1.Research background: global tourism

Global tourism is one of the largest and the most dynamic industries of modern times,
thus creating tremendous effects on economies (Shih & Do, 2016). Living in the epoch
of mass commercial travel, the number of worldwide tourists has accelerated from only
25 million in 1950 to 1,235 million in 2016. This industry also takes up one in every 11
jobs in the world, 10% of global GDP, 7% of total world exports and 30% of all service
exports. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) predicts that
international tourism will grow in a sustainable manner during a period from 2010 to
2030, with the quantity of international tourist arrivals globally rising by 3.3% per
annum on average (as cited in Wu & Li, 2017). 2016 was the seventh consecutive year
of growth in global tourism after the 2009 global financial and economic crisis
(UNWTO as cited in Costa, 2017). The World Travel and Tourism Council expects that
worldwide tourism is more likely to surpass $10.8 trillion in tourism expenditure and
$296.2 million in occupations by 2018 (Guliling et.al, 2013). Consequently, many
countries have channelled their efforts in boosting their tourism industry to grow their
economies (Yang, Lin & Han, 2010).

Thanks to the increasingly economic globalization and cutting-edge advancements,

global tourism is an agent of converging world tastes, product choices and lifestyles
(Mowforth & Munt, 2015; Brondoni, 2016). The determining causes trace back to
higher levels of income, increase in leisure time and a reduction in travel cost and travel
time at specific destinations. The boom of mass media is believed to have raised
millions of people’s awareness about the outside world (Tisdell, 2004). Another notable
point is that the concentration of power in worldwide hospitality is more likely to rise as
big firms and corporations are conscious of shaping strategic alliances and networks.
Managing the tourism sector therefore achieves greater economies of scale, marketing
intelligence and quality control (Brondoni, 2015; Riboldazzi, 2015). Various coalitions
between international airlines and accommodation providers have been formed
substantially across the globe, thereby driving tourism up to performance indicators and
business practices (Brondoni, 2016).

1
The exponential rise of global tourism has led to many countries prioritizing the shaping
and developing of tourist destinations with distinguishing characteristics (Yang, Lin &
Han, 2010). A growing number of developing countries across the globe have taken
tourism as an economic growth engine to push other industries and the overall economy
alongside tourism’s functions to earn foreign exchange and create jobs (Zuo & Huang,
2017; Su, Wall & Xu, 2016; Holzner, 2011; Lee & Chang, 2008). To boost tourism,
massive sums of money have been poured into building more recreational facilities
including casinos, complex skyscrapers, safari parks and other amenities (Yang, Lin &
Han, 2010). Many developing nations like Cambodia and Laos have been working on
policies of promoting and improving this sector.

The Chinese government has paid special attention to cultural/ heritage tourism because
of its abundance of cultural legacy (Yang, Lin & Han, 2010). These heritage values are
considered as notable attractions to a variety of tourists (Su, Bramwell & Whalley,
2018). According to the World Heritage Committee (2017), China is ranked the second
in the world in terms of World Heritage Sites (WHS/s), just behind Italy. These cultural
and heritage sites have impacted on the international tourist arrivals to China, while
modern facilities seem to have less appeal (Yang, Lin & Han, 2010).

In the case of Thailand, being at the forefront of Asia’s tourism, diverse types of
tourism such as medical, spiritual, dark and special interest have been long developed to
meet the demands of tourists. The emergence of creative tourism has been considered an
alternative travel paradigm in the recent years (Richards, 2011; Ohridska-Olson &
Ivanov, 2010). According to Wattanacharoensil and Schuckert (2016, p. 1046), creative
tourism is defined as “not only refer[ring] to actively engaging tourists in creative
industries, but also capturing a continuum of ‘low’ to ‘high’ local creative
consumption”. Some provinces in Thailand are chosen as “creative city prototypes” like
Chiangmai (Handicrafts), Yala (Bird city), Nan (Antiques and lively city atmosphere)
and Ang Thong (Drum Making). Many tourists enjoy the opportunity to actively engage
with local people as they learn craft making, cookery and folk activities. The prevalence
of this type of tourism has strengthened and aided Thailand in keeping its high ranking
with foreign tourist’s arrivals at more than 32 million in 2016 (Thailand Tourism
Statistics, 2017).

2
The popularity of World Heritage as a dominant of global tourism is undeniable (yu
Park, 2010; Kempiak et al., 2017). Cultural/ heritage tourism is currently one of the
most widespread and crucial types of tourism, appealing to hundreds of millions of
people searching of pleasure, enjoyment, relaxation and other personal objectives
(Herbert, 2001; Timothy, 2011; Hughes, 2013, Adie & Hall, 2017). A strong desire for
travelling is expressed (Caust & Vecco, 2017) by tourists interested in memorable and
engaging experiences, not just the conventional types of holiday with sea, sun and sand
(Timothy, 2011; Bui & Lee, 2015).

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) stressed that in 2007
around 40% of all international trips were closely linked to cultural heritage sites
(Timothy, 2011), with the field of heritage tourism being known as a substantially
burgeoning niche market in many countries (Telfer & Sharpley, 2015; O'Leary,
Morrison & Alzua, 1998; Kempiak et al., 2017). According to the European Association
for Tourism and Leisure Education, the proportion of cultural/heritage tourists increased
from 17% in 1997 to around 30% in 2007 (Zbuchea, 2012).

Heritage tourism consequently makes a significant contribution to local and national

economies. In 2004, more than 10.6 million foreign tourists visited cultural events and
historical sites in the United States of America. Heritage tourism in the UK is reliant on
heritage sites and cultural events. Statistically, the United Kingdom’s heritage sector
generates £4.5 billion every year and directly creates around 100,000 full-time jobs
(Timothy, 2011). At Stonehenge (in the United Kingdom) - a WHS, there are roughly
2000 visitors per hour in the peak months of July and August (Mason, 2015). A similar
trend is seen in China when the China Tourism Academy showcased that three
cultural/heritage attractions were among the 10 most prevalent destinations for domestic
visitors in the National Day holiday and the Spring Festival holiday with regard to
online inquires and booking (as cited in Chen & Huang, 2017).

Vietnam tourism, especially heritage tourism, has proliferated in recent years.

Renowned as a country with a several thousand-year history, cultural heritage values in
Vietnam have been shaped and handed down from generation to generation, resulting in
the emergence and prosperity of heritage tourism. According to the Vietnam National

3
Administration of Tourism (VNAT), the Vietnam tourism sector’s growth is forecast to
stand at 9.6 % during the period from 2016 to 2021. Heritage tourism not only employs
a massive number of people and generates a huge amount of revenues (Hitchcock, King
& Parnwell, 2010), but it has also aided Vietnam in gaining international recognition for
its achievements (Logan, 2014).

Current academic literature has only touched upon the annual growth of Vietnam
heritage tourism (Suntikul, Butler & Airey, 2010; Hobson, Heung & Chon, 1994).
Researchers have examined political aspects of heritage tourism (Bui & Lee, 2014;
Logan, 2014), loyalty and expectation of tourists, destination image and aesthetic of the
site (Vinh & Long, 2013; Bui & Le, 2016; Trinh & Ryan, 2016), tourism and
community attachment (Adongo, Choe & Han, 2017), triangular relationship between
heritage, identity and tourism (Bui & Lee, 2015) and the role of heritage sites and
museums (Bui, Jolliffe & Nguyen, 2011).

Such an issue like why various groups of people are differently attracted to heritage
sites is of critical importance to the heritage management and policy makers. Along
with this, a question about how visitors feel fulfilled with their trips to cultural/heritage
sites in Vietnam remains unanswered. These aspects have not yet been well researched
and documented. This information would probably bolster the Vietnam tourism sector
by leading to increased sales, lower cost and higher profitability (Morgan & Pritchard,
2000). Bearing these in mind, this research will seek out to fill the perceived gap in the
existing literature of heritage tourism by examining visitors’ motivation for travelling to
heritage sites, and their satisfaction with heritage site attributes. It further aims to supply
heritage management organizations and other stakeholders with a deeper understanding
of visitors at these sites, thus assisting them in managing and promoting heritage
tourism.

1.2. The objectives, questions and significances of research

As mentioned above, there has been a shortage of studies focusing on Vietnam’s

tourism, particularly from a demand perspective. Despite the significance of heritage
sites throughout the country, little research has paid attention to the classification of
tourists or their level of satisfaction. This study endeavors to fill the gap by surveying
visitors at two different heritage sites in Vietnam, thereby contributing to the
4
understanding of heritage tourists in Vietnam as a whole. The primary objectives of the
research are:

(1) To classify visitors based on their depth of heritage experience and cultural
motives for visiting;
(2) To measure visitor’s satisfaction in relation to the selected heritage attributes.

To obtain these objectives, this research will contribute to both the existing literature
and Vietnam tourism. First, it adds to the existing literature on heritage tourism by
segmenting different groups of visitors. In addition, the research provides heritage
management boards and tourism companies with tourists’ evaluation of heritage
attributes. Hence marketing strategies as well as more appropriate tourist products could
be proposed to satisfy the increasing demands of visitors.

1.3. Thesis structure

This thesis is composed of six chapters. This opening chapter contextualizes this new
research within international and national tourism. Also, it introduces the research
objectives, questions and significances.

The second chapter outlines recent developments in Vietnam tourism by focusing on its
resources, with up-to-date statistics for tourists and primary markets. It then
concentrates its focus on heritage tourism. This section notes fundamental conditions
for the substantial growth of heritage tourism in the world, then in Vietnam, before
moving into the research case studies.

Chapter three sets up the theoretical background for this research by means of an
extensive literature review. It directly emphasizes issues connected to the research
objectives, tourist segmentation and tourist satisfaction. Analysis of the literature
highlights a research gap that requires further study.

In the fourth chapter the focus is on the methodology utilized throughout the research.
The selection of quantitative approach is measured and detailed explanations in

5
affiliation with data collection and analysis are justified. Overall data assessment is
supplied. Limitations of methodology are acknowledged.

Chapter Five conveys the research findings. Two main aspects of the visitors receive
emphasis: socio-demographic characteristics and travelling behaviors. In addition, the
classification of heritage tourists is undertaken in this chapter with the usage of
McKercher’s model. Measuring the satisfaction levels of visitors vis-à-vis the heritage
attributes is explained, together with justifying the research hypotheses through the use
of the statistical tools like factor analysis, variables correlations and ANOVA analysis.

The final chapter summarizes, discusses and correlates the research findings to previous
research. This chapter sheds light on implications deriving from the findings and
proposes recommendations for heritage management boards, stakeholders and tourism
practitioners. Acknowledgement of the results, limitations and suggestions for future
studies are included in this concluding section.

6
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH CONTEXT

2.1. Vietnam tourism

Vietnam is situated in the Indochina peninsula of Southeast Asia, bordering with China
to the north, Laos and Cambodia to the west, and adjacent to the Biển Đông (or South
China Sea) to the east. According to the General Statistics Office of Vietnam, Vietnam
has a total land area of 332,000 square kilometres, a long coastline of 3,200 kilometres
with approximately 3,000 off-shore islands and an estimated population of about 90
million (2014). Facing the Pacific Ocean in the east and having ideal conditions of the
development of seaports and airports, Vietnam lies in a strategic location, a gateway to
the region (Bui, 2009; Luong, 2005). Consequently, it has been long argued that a
growing number of international tourists are likely to visit Vietnam as a stopover on
their regional tours (Jansen - Verbeke & Go, 1995; Bui, 2009).

Vietnam seems a melange of natural and cultural values with 28 national parks, 53
natural reserves and 250 caves as well as handicrafts, food and traditional ceremonies,
all of which show great potential for sustainable tourism (Lam, 2002). Vietnam is rich
in cultural heritage with 40,000 tangible values and 60,000 intangible values throughout
the country (Bui, 2009; Phuong Chi & Nguyen, 2016; VNAT, 2017c). Vietnam has a
higher density of historical sites than any other Southeast Asian country. The
heterogeneity of 54 ethnic groups across the country leads to the fact that Vietnam
culture is characterized by diverse values from ancient, modern arts, music, folklore,
dance festivities and religious customs, all of which are strongly appealing to
international tourists (VNAT, 2017b). Vietnam has become one of the most attractive
tourism destinations in Asia because of its safety and its stunning landscapes, its well-
preserved nature and its authentic cultures.

Vietnam’s economy has exponentially bounced back and expanded by the Đổi mới (or
economic renovation) since 1986. The reform has turned Vietnam from a stagnant,
centrally-planned Soviet-style economy into a macroeconomic stability to mixed
market-oriented economy (Kokko, 1998). The growth of its economy can be split into
three different stages: a centrally planned mechanism, market mechanism and global
economic integration (Bui, 2009). The economic reform has further opened new

7
opportunities and assisted Vietnam in having greater access to the global economy with
capital, foreign investors and international tourists (Suntikul, Butler & Airey, 2010).
Despite the world economic crisis and uncertainties, Vietnam economy remained
resilient and stood at around 6% in the 2000s (World Bank, 2017).

Vietnam has a relatively young tourism industry with only 40 years of growth. It faced
with a massive number of obstacles as a severe result of the Vietnam War such as
demolished infrastructure, capitals and being embargoed by many countries in its initial
growth stages of 1970s - 1980s (VNAT, 1995). The tourism industry in Vietnam has
become one of the biggest and fastest growing industries in recent years when it comes
to foreign exchange earnings, income generation, career creation and percentage of
gross domestic product (Bui, 2009; Hampton, Jeyacheya & Long, 2017). The
government is aware of the possible societal and cultural effects of tourism, through
which has introduced legislation to assure respect for individual visitors as well as to
group tourists, and to further facilitate the growth of tourism (Lask & Herold, 2004).

Tourism management is put under the control of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and
Tourism at the national level, and is managed by regional or local departments of
culture, sports and tourism at lower levels like provinces or districts (Hildebrandt &
Isaac, 2015). The Vietnam National Administration of Tourism concentrates on
strategic planning, training and easing formalities for the tourism industry and provides
support in making “plans for the introduction of new standards and licensing policies”
(Chon, 2013, p. 160).

Together with management policies, the Vietnam government has strengthened its
international relations in the category of tourism by signing tourism agreements and
establishing relationship with travel companies around the world. Vietnam has actively
participated in the regional and international cooperation forums like the World
Tourism Organization, Sub-Mekong Region Tourism Development program, West-East
Corridor, ASEAN, thereby improving Vietnam’s international stature (Bui, 2009).

In terms of economic contribution, tourism generated about US$17.6 billion, accounting

for 6.6% of GDP in 2016, a 22-fold increase from US$809 million in 2000 (VNAT,
2017). Considering the role of tourism as a spearhead industry (Truong, 2013), a key

8
sector (Shih & Do, 2016) or a centrepiece of the economy (Gillen, 2014), the Vietnam
government has implemented a variety of policies like “socialization of tourism” (Dang,
2009) so as to strengthen and promote tourism in the long term (Truong & Le, 2016).
As a direct result of policies, Vietnam tourism has increased at one of the fastest rates in
the world and become the only country making the top ten in 2016 in Southeast Asia,
according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (VNAT, 2017). The
following data (Table 1 & Table 2) provide some of the latest information about
Vietnam tourism.

Table 1: Number of international and domestic tourists in Vietnam from 2000 to 2017

No. of international No. of domestic

Year +/-(%) +/-(%)
tourists tourists (thousand)
2000 2,140,100 11,200
2001 2,330,050 8.9 11,700 4.5
2002 2,627,988 12.8 13,000 11.1
2003 2,428,735 -7.6 13,500 3.8
2004 2,927,876 20.6 14,500 7.4
2005 3,467,757 18.4 16,100 11
2006 3,583,486 3.3 17,500 8.6
2007 4,171,564 16.4 19,200 9.7
2008 4,253,740 1.2 20,500 6.8
2009 3,772,359 -11.3 25,000 22
2010 5,049,855 33.9 28,000 12
2011 6,014,032 19.1 30,000 7.1
2012 6,847,678 13.9 32,500 8.3
2013 7,572,352 10.6 35,000 7.7
2014 7,874,312 4 38,500 10
2015 7,943,651 0.9 57,000 48.1
2016 10,012,735 26.1 62,000 8.8

2017 12,922,151 29.1%

Source: Vietnam National Administration of Tourism (2018)

9
The number of both foreign and domestic tourists in Vietnam experienced strong
growth over the period from 2000 to 2017. When it comes to foreign tourists, with a
start at around 2.1 million in 2000 tourist arrivals went up to approximately 4.2 million
eight years later, before reaching to a record of about 10 million in 2016. The quantity
of international tourists in 2003 and 2009 witnessed a rapid decrease by 7.6% and
11.3% respectively. An obvious reason was that the year 2003 saw the considerable
outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which was conducive to
the plunge of tourists. One year later, Vietnam’s attempts to attract more foreign tourists
led to favorable outcomes in return when the tourism growth rate recovered at 20.6%. .

In the year 2009, the number of tourist arrivals plummeted by 11.3%, largely due to the
world economic crisis. One year later, a record increase of tourists at 33.9% occurred
due to the government’s efforts and particularly the anniversary of 1000th year of Thang
Long - Hanoi (VNAT, 2010). Vietnam was considered one of ten countries having the
quickest growth rate after the worldwide financial crisis (Hampton, Jeyacheya & Long,
2017). In parallel with international tourists, domestic visitors also underwent an
exponential increase over the surveyed period. With the start at 11.2 million in 2000, the
figure for domestic tourists nearly doubled in the next 8 years, before setting a new
record at 62 million in the final year of the survey.

Table 2: International visitors by counties to Vietnam in 2017

Nationality No. of tourists % of total

China 4,008,253 31.02
South Korea 2,415,245 18.69
Japan 798,119 6.18
Taiwan 616,232 4.77
America 614,117 4.75
Russia 574,164 4.44
Malaysia 480,456 3.72
Australia 370,438 2.87
Thailand 301,587 2.33
Britain 283,537 2.19
Singapore 277,658 2.15

10
 France 255,369 1.98
Cambobia 222,614 1.72
Germany 199,872 1.55
Laos 141,588 1.10
Canada 138,242 1.07
Philippines 133,543 1.03
Indonesia 81,065 0.63
Holland 72,277 0.56
Spain 69,528 0.54
Italia 58,041 0.45
New Zealand 49,115 0.38
HongKong 47,721 0.37
Sweden 44,045 0.34
Denmark 34,720 0.27
Switzerland 33,123 0.26
Belgium 29,144 0.23
Norway 24,293 0.19
Other 548,045 4.24
Total 12,922,151 93.28

Source: Vietnam National Administration of Tourism (2018)

Some major markets for Vietnam tourism are China, South Korea, Japan, America and
Taiwan. In 2017, Chinese tourist arrivals to Vietnam were the largest market with
around 4 million, followed by South Korea with about 2.4 million. Other primary
markets consisting of Japan, Taiwan and America ranked as the third, fourth and fifth
biggest market with approximately 798 thousand, 616 thousand and 614 thousand
respectively. It is worth noting that China has been the largest origin of tourists to
Vietnam since 1996; however, many Chinese visitors only cross the border for a few
hours of shopping (Chan, 2006; Truong & King, 2009).

11
2.2. Heritage tourism
2.2.1. World Heritage status and its implications

The birth of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of World Natural and
Cultural Heritage has hitherto made tremendous impacts on the development and
conservation of the WHS/s. Article 5 of this Convention emphasizes that its common
goals are:
- To adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural
heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection
of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes;
- To set up with in its territories, where such services do not exist, one or
more services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural
and natural heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to
discharge their functions;
- To develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out
such operating methods as will make the state capable of counteracting the
dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage;
- To take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and
financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation,
presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage; and
- To foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres
for training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural
and natural heritage and to encourage cientific research in this field.
(UNESCO, 1972)

Following the 40th Session of World Heritage Committee in Istanbul, Turkey in July
2016, there are 1052 properties on the World Heritage List, including 814 cultural, 203
natural and 35 mixed (UNESCO, 2017). According to the criteria for selection, in order
to be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal values
and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. Being included on the World Heritage
List creates tremendous benefits for the countries and the sites such as: strong
commitments to the conservation of heritage legacy for our children and grandchildren
have quicker access to funds for conservation and preservation; attracting international
cooperation; becoming an operational framework for a comprehensive master plan;
boosting tourism and the economy as a whole (UNESCO, 2008).
12
Even though the objective of the UNESCO list is to preserve, conserve and enhance
these places, WHS/s status leads to an exponential growth in the number of visitors,
particularly foreign tourists, thus creating a strong tie between WHS list and tourism
(Breakey, 2012). The recognition of these places turns a unique attraction into a new
tourist destination and a novel experience (López-Guzmán et al., 2017). The UNESCO
designation is persistently pursued by policy makers with the purpose of bolstering
destinations in which the sites are situated, thereby generating positive overflow in the
local economy and triggering a more efficient access to the tourism industry (Ribaudo
& Figini, 2017).

WHSs are contingent upon tourists’ desire for the gaze, and a listing provides a
directory of international sites to gaze upon. The listing provides tourists with suitable
magnet and helps the site be more competitive (Leask & Fyall, 2006). At the same time,
both developed and developing countries have fiercely competed for the acquisition of
the WHS label which has undoubtedly significant effects on many aspects. The
inscription would probably trigger higher flows of tourists and create more career
opportunities for local economies (Cuccia, Guccio & Rizzo, 2016; Caust & Vecco,
2017). The figure below (Figure 1) is a particularly salient example of the triangular
relationship between UNESCO’s listing, Tourism and Cultural heritage sustainability.

UNESCO’s listing Tourism

CH Sustainability

Figure 1: Model of CH (Cultural Heritage) sustainability constraints

Source (Caust & Vecco, 2017)

Aside from its positive impacts, the inscription of WHS/s might be viewed as a double -
edged sword (Smith, 2002). The physical environment of these sites can be severely
damaged by overcrowding or huge amount of visitation, especially for those which are

13
fragile, sensitive or not well-managed (Jimura, 2011; Baral et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2013).
In the space of roughly 30 years (1984 - 2012), the number of tourists has rocketed by
130 times, causing serious environmental degradation and threats to biodiversity in
Jiuzhaigou as one of the most visited places in China by virtue of its stunning lakes and
waterfalls.

Alongside the issues of environment and biodiversity, commercialization might occur as

a direct result of enhanced publicity of a newly proclaimed WHS. The
commercialization process reflects an issue of particular relevance to heritage sites
which has resulted in long tension in many countries such as Japan, Australia and other
developed/ developing countries (Zhang, Fyall & Zheng, 2015). One example is the
rapid emergence of shop houses as one of the compulsory destinations in Malaysia once
the World Heritage Committee recognized Melaka and George Town, Penang as a
WHS. Unfortunately, many shop houses have been left unprotected or even deteriorated
because some owners only pay attention to their business, rather than to maintaining
their traditional physical features of their properties (Samadi & Yunus, 2012; Azmi,
2012).

Another implication of cultural/heritage tourism might lead to the marginalization of

certain groups of residents. A large number of local people could be coerced to convert
their houses into souvenir shops, guest houses and facilities for tourist consumption.
The imbalanced distribution between the costs and the benefits takes place among
stakeholders, which usually makes the least powerful people bear a most of the costs
(Chi, Cai & Li, 2017; Su et al., 2016). The case of Lijiang has been condemned for
being overcommercialized lately, which shows that traditional values are at risk (Bao &
Su, 2004).

2.2.2. Vietnam heritage tourism

To showcase the value of the abundance of cultural heritage, the Vietnam government
has attempted to boost heritage tourism by creating a wide range of tourism products for
the leisure market (Henderson, 2000). This is supported by favorable legislation on
culture and heritage. For instance, Henderson observes that “heritage attractions in
Vietnam and more widely remain a highly political issue and the influence of
14
government policy cannot be ignored, with recent history being used to promote a
message of unity and solidarity, directed as much at the resident population as visitors’”
(2000, p. 276). Article 34 of the 1992 Constitution of Vietnam states that “the state and
society seek to preserve and develop national cultural heritage, they take good care of
preservation and museum work; they look after the repair and maintenance of, and seek
to obtain the best effects from, historical vestiges, revolutionary relics, items of the
national heritage, artistic works and places with beautiful scenery” (as cited in Suntikul,
Butler & Airey, 2010, p. 207).

There is no doubt that seeking a marker of World Heritage status has become an
undeniable trend amongst ambitious Asian cities, wishing to achieve more favourable
positions in the global hierarchy of cities (Logan, 2014). In an interview carried out in
2007, Vietnam’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affair Nguyen Van Tho stated the five
following reasons for boosting the World Heritage program: “building an advanced
Vietnam culture with strong national identity; it promotes national pride and Vietnam’s
image in the world; it offers a global brand, and was prerequisite to developing human
resources, attracting foreign investment, especially in tourism; and it could be a good
and convincing tool to introduce Vietnam’s national identity to the world, especially its
age-old history and rich culture” ( as cited in Bui & Lee, 2014, p. 2). Suntikul, Butler
and Airey emphasize that “heritage tourism can aid in conservation, and courage the
restoration of historical sites and areas by typing economic gain to the degree of
preservation of the qualities of the physical artefacts that bind a place to its history”
(2010, p. 219).

There are eight WHS/s in Vietnam including Ha Long Bay, the Complex of Hue
monuments, Hoi An Ancient town, My Son sanctuary, the National Park of Phong Nha
- Ke Bang, the Central sector of the Imperial citadel of Thang Long - Hanoi, Citadel of
the Ho dynasty and Trang An Complex Landscape (World Heritage Centre, 2017).
Being listed on the World Heritage List is probably the most outstanding designation for
an attraction site (Hitchcock, King & Parnwell, 2010; Caust & Vecco, 2017). WHS/s
are broadly used in marketing campaigns, which grow the global visibility of
destinations and attract an astronomical number of international tourists which leads to
increasingly economic growth (Yang, Lin & Han, 2010; Adie & Hall, 2017; Adongo,
Choe & Han, 2017; Caust & Vecco, 2017).

15
Being recognized as a WHS in Vietnam normally has important ramifications on the
local and national economy. Ha Long Bay - a World Natural Heritage Site has become
one major tourist attraction in Vietnam and received approximately 4 million visitors
(50% foreigners) on a yearly basis since its inscription in 1994 (Figure 2). Fundamental
tourist activities include cave visits, sight-seeing, swimming, walking and kayaking and
experience of culture and nature (Bui & Le, 2016). Notably, Ha Long Bay - as one of
the country’s premier tourism destinations, welcomed more than 7 million tourists (2.6
million foreign tourists) in the first nine months of 2016 (Vietnam Tourism, 2016;
Hampton, Jeyacheya & Long, 2017).

Figure 2: The view of Ha Long Bay as one of the most unique heritage sites in Vietnam

© Nguyen Duc Tang

Following the similar trend, Hoi An ancient town received about 2.6 million visitors in
2017, a 19.92 % increase over the previous year (Quang Nam Newspaper, 2017). This
statistic is very high because Hoi An is a fairly small town by the riverside with just
16
12,000 estimated residents (Figure 3). This site has been widely known among domestic
and foreign visitors thanks to its original features of authentic architectural buildings,
old buildings, hand-made fabrics, living customs and intangible values (Adongo, Choe
& Han, 2017).

Figure 3: A souvenir shop by the river within the confines of Hoi An Ancient Town

2.2.3. Glimpse of case studies as cultural tourism destinations

The case studies for this research, the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for
Ho dynasty, were selected among eight sites in Vietnam as a whole. Both sites used to
be the capital city of the Vietnam feudal regime. According to the Figure 4, Thang Long
Citadel with its 1000-year history was the capital city or an important part of the Viet
people from Ly dynasty to Nguyen dynasty. The Ho Citadel was used to be the seat for
Ho dynasty in the early 15th century. Thang Long Citadel is situated in the heart of
Hanoi, Vietnam’s capital city. The latter is in Thanh Hoa province, about 150 km from
Hanoi. Each site has its own geographic and historically cultural features, thus creating
particular and unique tourist experiences.

17
 Figure 4: Timeline of the Vietnam feudal regime (from the 10th to the 20th century)

Thanh Hoa province is renowned for its tourism based on various attractions such as
stunning beaches (Sam Son, Hai Tien and Hai Hoa), a national park (Ben En), a wide
range of mountains and landscapes and historical and cultural attractions (Lam Kinh
palace) (VNAT, 2013). Recently the local authorities have been trying to bolster
heritage tourism.

As the heart of Vietnam for a long period of time, Hanoi has become an economic,
political and cultural centre of the country. There is much potential for tourism growth
in Hanoi such as nearly 5,000 historical cultural sites, Hanoi Old Quarter, traditional
villages and folk festivals. Since Vietnam’s economic reform, Hanoi tourism has grown
at a startling pace and given tourists a variety of packages. Nonetheless, Hanoi tourism
is thought to be dependent on its hand-made and old villages (Vinh & Long, 2013;
Quach, 2013). In the first seven months of 2017, around 3 million foreign visitors came
to Hanoi, an approximate 21% increase over the previous year (Hanoi Tourism, 2017).

Thang Long Imperial Citadel

Thang Long is the ancient name of Hanoi, the capital city of Vietnam founded in 1010
by the King Ly Cong Uan. He ordered to relocate the capital from Hoa Lu (Ninh Binh)
to Thang Long (Hanoi), thus marking the establishment of an independent country of
Dai Viet. Whitmore (2013) contends that the transformation of the Thang Long follows
a cyclical pattern; the city began as the provincial capital of an external power from
China, before becoming the capital city of an independent state of the Vietnamese. The
city served as a political and economic center of Vietnam from the Ly dynasty (11th
century) to the Le dynasty (18th century). During the Nguyen dynasty although the
capital city was once again relocated to Hue, the Thang Long remained its political
center in northern Vietnam.
18
In the face of colonialism, the Thang Long Citadel was demolished by the French army
and there are still remnants of French attacks on the Thang Long Citadel’s walls in the
late nineteenth century. After capturing Hanoi, the French army decided to construct
French military headquarters of colonial power for the vast region resemble of French
Indochina (present Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) (Bui & Lee, 2015). After the war
against the French (1945 - 1954), Vietnam was divided into two different entities in
1954 by another war call Kháng chiến chống Mỹ cứu nước (or a resistance war against
America) from 1954 to 1975. The Thang Long Citadel by this time was used as the
military headquarters for the Northern Vietnam.

Thanks to the preparations for the Parliament Hall, many archaeological remains were
uncovered. Subsequently the Institute of Archaeology was commissioned to conduct
excavations so as to study the site. In 2010, the Central sector of Imperial citadel of
Thang Long - Hanoi (or the Thang Long Imperial Citadel) was designated the UNESCO
World Heritage status at the 2010 World Heritage Committee in Brasilia, Brazil on its
1000th birthday. The property is composed of the Central axis and the archaeological
site covering an area of around 18,000 ha (Figure 5).

19
Figure 5: Plan of the whole heritage site with five landmarks on the right and the
archaeological site on the left
© Thang Long - Hanoi Heritage Conservation Centre

In order to be contained on the World Heritage List, the Thang Long Imperial Citadel
met requirements of the Outstanding Universal Values (OUV). These are reflected in
the criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv) in its longevity and continuity of a political power center as
mentioned in the description of the property on the World Heritage List (2017).
Concerning the criterion (ii), the citadel features cross-cultural interactions among
regional countries that led to the formation of a unique culture in the lower Red river
delta. As for criterion (iii) was justified by the almost continuous role that citadel has

20
played as the political center since the 11th century. The criterion (iv) shows the citadel,
with its political and symbolic role is directly involved to crucially cultural and
historical events that have marked the formation and growth process of an independent
country over around one thousand years, including the colonial period and the two
modern wars of national liberation and reunification (Figure 6).

Figure 6: A vista of the Đoan Gate as the main gate entering the ancient royal citadel,
dated back in the 15th century
© Thang Long - Hanoi Heritage Conservation Centre

The Citadel for Ho dynasty

Ho Citadel was constructed in 1397 by Ho Quy Ly after he relocated the capital from
Thang Long (Hanoi) to Vinh Loc (Thanh Hoa). It used to be home to the capital city of
Dai Viet state under both late Tran dynasty and Ho dynasty. In 1407 the kingdom of Dai
Viet was conquered by Chinese Ming Empire and then the political power center. The
political center was again moved back to Thang Long, the citadel remaining the
political, economic and cultural hub of the north central Vietnam region during 16th -
18th century. The citadel consists of the Inner Wall, La Thanh Outer Wall and the Nam
Giao Alter covering around 150 ha, surrounded by a buffer zone of approximately 5000
ha (Figure 7).

21
Figure 7: The Southern gate of the Citadel for Ho dynasty
© Conservation Center for Ho Citadel
The citadel is situated in accordance with geomantic principles in a beautiful landscape
between the Ma and Buoi River in Vinh Loc, Thanh Hoa province. It represents
particular architectural elements when it comes to space management and decoration for
a designated royal imperial citadel (Figure 8). The citadel is claimed as one of the best
examples of fortification in Southeast Asia for its impregnable appearance, magnificent
structure and conservation status (Garcia, 2017).

Figure 8: Part of the Ho Citadel is surrounded by rice fields and rivers

© Conservation Center for Ho Citadel
22
The citadel of Ho dynasty was designated as a WHS in 2011 at the annual meeting of
World Heritage Committee in France. The site met the criteria (ii) and (iv) to be
included on the World Heritage List. Given the criterion (ii), the heritage site truly
reflects Chinese Confucianism influence on a symbol centralized power during the
period from the late 14th century to the early 15th century. It also unveils new
developments in the architectural style in relation to technology and takes advantages of
geomantic city planning principles in the context of East Asia and Southeast Asia. The
property makes use of the natural surroundings, its incorporate numerous elements
featuring Vietnamese, East and Southeast Asia into its monuments and landscape.

The criterion (iv) reveals that the Ho Citadel is a particularly salient example of an
architectural ensemble in a landscape setting, which portrays a flowering of Neo-
Confucianism in the late 14th century in Vietnam. At that time it became widespread
across East Asia and became the primary philosophical approach of the regional
governments. The use of large blocks of stone embeds the organizational power of the
Neo-Confucian state. The change in the main axis helps differentiate the Ho Citadel
from the Chinese style.

23
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1. Introduction

The previous chapter addresses two main objectives of this research. The first target is
to identify and classify heritage tourists based on their reasons for visiting and their
depth of heritage experience. The second objective is to determine tourists’ satisfaction
with their trips to the WHS/s in Vietnam. It is important to develop an appropriate
methodology to carry out empirical research. A comprehensive study of the theoretical
background for the study is needed. A review of existing literature contextualizes the
overall project.

This chapter will highlights existing literature through the research questions. First, the
literature reviews of definitions and core concepts of cultural/ heritage and heritage
tourism are explored to gain an insight into the current state of heritage tourism.
Second, the literature pays attention to how cultural/ heritage tourists are classified
based on various criteria like motivations, depth of experience, interest, intention,
experience, behaviour and socio-demographic characteristics. Finally, tourist
satisfaction is put into a larger context by utilizing different theories and approaches
drawn from published previous studies (Figure 9).

Types of
heritage Recomm-
Heritage Market
Tourists endations
Tourism Segmentation
Satisfaction of
Heritage
tourists

Figure 9: The framework of the research

3.2. Heritage tourism

Tourists are inspired to visit heritage sites for different motives: from the fulfilment of
personal demand, to the realization of learning objectives (Trinh & Ryan, 2017). It is
24
worth considering the plethora of definitions of heritage, before defining heritage
tourism. There appears to be a consensus between academics and practitioners that it is
tricky to define heritage, despite its increasingly economic, social and cultural
importance, so there is no single viewpoint on heritage (Stupart, 2013).

The following table (Table 3) shows that heritage or cultural heritage is generally
defined as anything which is inherited from the past, consisting of tangible and
intangible values (Hewinson, 1987; Kirshenblatt - Gimblett, 1998; Dewar, 2003;
Timothy & Boyd, 2003; Lowenthal, 2005; Ren, 2016; Cambridge Dictionary, 2017).
Many countries across the globe have acknowledged economic and developmental
potential of heritage destinations, especially WHS/s (Stupart, 2013).

Table 3: Definitions of heritage from diverse perspectives

Sources Interpretation

Hewinson (1987) Heritage is defined by the transmission of past images into the
present reality.

Kirshenblatt- Heritage is the transvaluation of the obsolete, the mistaken, the

Gimblett (1998, p. outmoded, the dead, and the defunct. Heritage is created
149) through a process of exhibition (as knowledge, as performance,
as museum display). Heritage is a new mode of cultural
production in the present that has resource to the past.

Dewar (2003, p. Heritage is part of the fabric of everyday life and gives the
224) individual the idea of the past and permanency, and/or
something of importance. Heritage means ‘the property which
parents handed on to their children’. Its synonym might be
legacy: what the past gives to the present

Timothy & Boyd Heritage represents some of inheritance passed down from the
(2003) past to the present and future generations which is composed of
the tangible and intangible values.

Lowenthal (2005, Heritage denotes everything we suppose has been handed down
pp. 81 - 82) to us from the past. Heritage is uniformly desirable and is
widely viewed as a precious and irreplaceable resource,

25
 essential to personal and collective identity and necessary for
self-respect. The buildings and engineering works, arts and
crafts, languages and traditions, humans themselves have
created out of nature’s raw materials.

Prats as cited in Heritage is more of a social construction than a discovery made

Ballesteros & by specialists.
Ramírez (2007, p.
681)

UNESCO Heritage as a concept has gradually come to include new

as cited in Ung & categories such as the intangible, ethnographic or industrial
Vong, (2010, p. heritage.
159).

Ren (2016, pp. 422 Heritage is anything that is inherited, or acquired, from the past.
- 423) It includes natural resources (physical, biological, and
geological features) and cultural assets in both tangible
(artefacts, buildings, and cultural landscapes) and intangible
(oral traditions, social practices, and craftsmanship) forms.

Cambridge Heritage features belonging to the culture of

Dictionary (2017) a particular society, such as traditions, languages,
or buildings, that were created in the past and still
have historical importance.

Alongside cultural heritage, heritage tourism is judged as one of the earliest forms of
tourism when it comes to the records of explorers, sailors and traders (Timothy, 2011).
The definition of heritage tourism is a matter of dispute. There is no agreement on a

single definition amongst both researchers and institutions.

Table 4: Definitions of heritage tourism

Sources Interpretation

Yale (1991) Heritage tourism is focal point of what we have been given by
which literally means anything ranging from historic
architecture, artworks to beautiful scenery.

26
Richard (2000, p. 9) Heritage tourism is largely concerned with the cultural legacy
of the past, or the “hard” cultural resources usually contained in
old buildings, museums, monuments and landscapes or
represented and interpreted in specialized “heritage centres”.

Besculides, Lee & Cultural/ heritage tourism includes visiting historic or

McCormick (2002, archaeological sites, being involved in community festivals,
pp. 303-304) watching traditional dances or ceremonies, or merely shopping
for handcrafted art.

McCain & Ray Heritage tourism includes tourism related to what we have
(2003, p. 713) inherited. This may mean interest in our connections to
anything from history, art, science, lifestyles, architecture, to
scenery found in a community, region, population, or institution
that we regards as part of our collective lineage.

Hitchcock & King Heritage tourism might be both narrow and broad definitions.
(2003) From a narrow perspective, it looks at what sites or areas that
may be inherited. A broader definition is considered as notions
of activities in relation to ethnicity, nationalism and global
identity.

Poria, Butler & Heritage tourism is a phenomenon based on tourists’

Airey (2003) motivations and perceptions rather than on specific site
attributes.

World Tourism Heritage tourism is an immersion in the natural history, human

Organization as cited heritage, arts, philosophy and institutions of another region or
in Timothy & Boyd country.
(2003, p. 1)

Jamal & Kim (2005, Heritage tourism can be viewed similarly within the context of
p. 78) global social life today. Heritage tourism brings pasts, peoples,
places and cultures into performative contestation and dialogue.
It is a social-cultural phenomenon important to personal, local
and global social life.

Donaire & Galí Heritage tourism. This is tourism that evokes the past. In the
(2008, p. 31) words of the author ‘any act of heritage tourism is actually a

27
 way of projecting the legends of the past onto its objects.

Chen & Chen (2010) Heritage tourism like other leisure and tourism activities is
suggested as an experimental consumption.

yu Park (2010, pp. The notion of heritage tourism is inextricably linked “between
116 - 117 material (tangible) and socio-psychological (intangible)
remnants of the past”.

Timothy (2011, p. 4) Heritage tourism refers to travellers seeing or experiencing built

heritage, living culture or contemporary arts. Its resources are
tangible and intangible and are found in both rural and urban
settings. Heritage tourism encompasses a multitude of motives,
resources and experiences and is different for every individual
and every place visited.

Tourism in Australia Heritage tourism is tourists participating in at least one of the

(2015) following activities: attend theatre, concerts or performing arts;
visit museums or art galleries, visit art, craft workshops, attend
festivals, fairs or cultural events; experience aboriginal art, craft
and cultural displays; visit an aboriginal site or community; and
visit heritage buildings, sites or monuments.

Trinh & Ryan (2016) Heritage tourism is received by the public as a dynamic
process, and it is far from static.

The above table (Table 4) supplies a myriad of definitions about heritage tourism,
which can be grouped. According to Su and Wall (2011), there are currently two ways
of investigating heritage tourism: (1) through the definition and classification of
heritage properties and heritage tourism; and (2) through the affiliation between heritage
preservation and tourism development. In a similar manner, Timothy and Boyd (2003)
presume that the question of heritage tourism might be addressed through two main
approaches. The first is through the presence of tourists at places in which heritage or
historic monuments are displayed or qualified as heritage destinations. The second is
through the perception of the site in connection with the cultural heritage of visitors.

The idea of heritage tourism is defined as activities by tourists at places where artefacts
are presented (Garrod & Fyall, 2001). The relationship between the locals and heritage
28
destinations can have a tremendous impact on the indigenous people’s attitude towards
development (Uriely, Israeli & Reichel, 2002). According to researchers’ perspectives
on heritage tourism, there are some main approaches in the core of heritage sector:

First, many sites for tourism are categorised as heritage or historical places. Bryce
(2015) writes of visitors to heritage areas/sites, and Nguyen and Cheung’s example is a
classification of tourists visiting an old citadel, based on their characteristics, trip
profiles and perceptions (2014). In another example, Halewood, Chris and Kevin (2001)
refer to museums as a part of heritage tourism as they represent history. This approach
suggests that actual presence of tourists is efficient (Poria, Butler & Airey, 2003).

Second, a link between the attributes of sites and heritage tourism is emphasized. This
approach is illustrated by Strauss and Lord (2001, p. 199) “history is a popular theme
for recreational travel” and other activities associated with artefacts. The heritage sites
become a fundamental place for educational activities, and tourists can achieve many
benefits (Svels, 2015). It can be understood that history is a part of experience and is
inextricably bound up with motivations for the trip. The other approach is that heritage
tourism is regarded as a phenomenon in relation to demand rather than objects
represented (Poria, Butler & Airey, 2003).

3.3. Segmentation of heritage visitors

Considering the diverse definitions of heritage and heritage tourism regarded above, the
question of who the heritage tourist is remains highly debated. A quick explanation may
be that due to the shortage of conceptual clarity in figuring out heritage/cultural tourists
(Timothy, 2011). Garrod and Fyall (2001) believe that heritage tourists are virtually
anyone paying a visit to a heritage attraction. From another perspective, Altunel and
Erkut (2015) view a cultural/heritage tourist as a person who consumes cultural/heritage
products. Stylianou-Lambert (2011) takes a broader view about a heritage tourist as
anybody who visits cultural places such as museums, archaeological and heritage sites,
operas, theatres, festivals or architecture which are away from home. A great number of
researchers appear to accept the definition of heritage tourists as people who make a

29
visit to a heritage site (Nguyen & Cheung, 2014). However, the controversies over this
concept are still being debated (Timothy, 2017).

The segmentation of cultural/heritage tourists plays a critical role in managing various

destinations, as re-design of tourism products may seem necessary, in response to
different demands (López-Guzmánet al., 2017). Targeting certain segments of tourists
characterized by various factors such as motivation, experience and interest that truly
embodies the destination’s strengths and supports to understand the relationship
between tourists and heritage destinations, brings about competitive advantages (Chen
& Huang, 2017; Dolnicar, 2002; Bloom, 2005).

Academic writers have diverse ways of identifying and classifying heritage tourists
(Vong, 2016). One popular strategy is to identify types of heritage tourists based on
their motivations, behaviours and perceptions which are supposed to be essential
(Nguyen & Chung, 2014) because World Heritage tourists tend to visit certain places
(Adie & Hall, 2017). The literature has shifted to identify and classify heritage tourists
based on some predictors of expressed tourist behaviour for instance, the reason tourists
visit specific places and which experiences they obtain (Issac, 2008). Both tourism
practitioners and academics affirm the tourist segmentation as an efficient way for
deeper understanding of tourists to explain or even forecast their behaviour (Issac,
2008).

Heritage tourists are not a homogenous group and might be categorized by their
motivations and the experiences they seek (Alazaizeh et al., 2016). Through analysing
the profile of European cultural tourists, Richard (2004) concludes that there have not
been huge differences in the demographic features over the years. He also finds two
various groups of cultural tourists: the specific cultural tourists and the general cultural
tourists. This classification is measured by whether the frequency of cultural interaction
is habitual or occasional. Galí - Espelt (2012) supposes that cultural tourists might be
separated into two groups: tourists consuming cultural heritage because of their
motivation, and tourists considering heritage as a complement, secondary or accidental,
element.

30
While some tourists are passionately motivated to explore heritage destinations, for
others heritage might not exert any important influence in their travel decisions
(McKercher & Du Cros, 2012). Many researchers have observed that segments of
heritage tourists have different motivations and behaviours, and look for dissimilar
experience (Nguyen & Cheung, 2014; McKercher, 2002; Hughes, 2002) as heritage
destinations offer different meanings to different individuals (Park, 2014). Therefore, it
is important to search and understand heritage tourists’ typologies, motivations,
behaviours, perceptions and experience. Based on this empirical evidence, viable tourist
management plans together with appropriate marketing strategies may be created.

Given diverse segments of heritage tourists, many studies have been undertaken with
the purpose of identifying certain groups of heritage tourists, characterizing and
defining their profile (Ramires, Brandão & Sousa, 2017). Some pioneering work could
go back to Bywater (1993), Silberberg (1995) and Stebbins (1996) who uncovered
different types of heritage tourists according to their demographic characteristics,
behaviours and levels of interest.

According to International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (1993),

heritage tourists are normally classified according to the purpose of knowledge and
experience they seek. Four types of tourists are identified including scholar visitors,
general visitors, students and reluctant visitors. Scholar visitors are well-prepared and
familiar with the history of the heritage sites while general visitors come to the sites as
they accidentally hear or read about. Students are regarded as a frequent segment of
visitors. Reluctant visitors are a final segment of visitors who are taken to heritage sites
as a part of their package tour.

Silberberg (1995) found four different types of heritage tourists when it comes to
ascending level of interest in visiting heritage destinations: accidental cultural tourists,
adjunct cultural tourists, in part cultural tourists and greatly cultural tourists. Accidental
cultural tourists are composed of those who travel without intension or planning to a
cultural destination and end up by taking the cultural opportunities by chance. Adjunct
cultural tourists refer to people for whom culture is considered an adjunct motivation.
People who are keen to travel for both cultural opportunities and non-cultural

31
opportunities are regarded as in part cultural tourists. Finally, greatly cultural tourists
are linked to those who are strongly motivated for travelling due to opportunities to
enjoy cultural festivals, museums, theatres.

Poria, Butler and Airey (2001, p. 1048) also came up with the classification of heritage
tourists while giving a definition of heritage tourism. Three different types of tourists
are proposed “those visiting what they consider as a heritage site through it is
unconnected with their own heritage”; “those visiting a place that deem to be part of
their heritage, even though it may not be categorized as a heritage site” and “those
visiting a site specifically classified as a heritage place although being unaware of this
designation”.

With regard to museums, historic buildings, art galleries and theatres, Hughes (2002)
classifies visitors into 4 groups. Accordingly, four primary groups of tourists are
reported including accidental tourists, incidental tourists, multi-primary cultural
tourists and primary cultural tourists. Putting them differently, the first two groups can
be named as the culture- peripheral tourists because culture is considered as their second
reason for visiting. The remainder are called the culture-core tourists who have higher
incentives to see certain aspects or features of culture.

McKercher (2002, p. 29) pays attention to two dimensions of cultural heritage: (1) “the
importance of cultural motives in the decision to visit a destination” and (2) “depth of
experience”. In common with the researchers referred to above, he argues that cultural/
heritage tourism would be a critical reason for visiting some destinations. He
demonstrates this by showing specific data from the United Kingdom and America. The
level of engagement is judged by several factors which consist of educational level,
knowledge about the site prior to their trips, pre-conceptions of the site, interest, time
availability, meaning and competing activities. One tourist spending some hours visiting
the site is extremely dissimilar from a coach-trip tourist who just stays there for a few
minutes when it comes to experience, demand and behaviour.

Crossing two different - dimensions the depth of experience and the role of cultural
factor for visiting - McKercher gives a five-type definition of heritage tourists:

32
 (1) Purposeful heritage tourist (high centrality/ deep experience): a tourist who
posits that the main reason for visit is to learn and experience culture and
heritage and has a deep experience of heritage destinations.
(2) Sightseeing cultural tourist (high centrality/ shallow experience): a tourist who
supposes that the main reason for visit is to learn and experience culture and
heritage. However, this tourist has shallow and entertainment-oriented
experience.
(3) Casual heritage tourist (modest centrality/ shallow experience): a tourist who
suggests that understanding about a heritage destination plays a limited role in
the travel decisions. This type of tourist has a shallow interaction with heritage
site.
(4) Incidental heritage tourist (low centrality/ shallow experience): a tourist who
indicates that studying information about a heritage site occupies little or no
meaningful role in the decision-making process, but this person will take part in
cultural tourism activities and end up having a shallow experience.
(5) Serendipitous heritage tourist (low centrality/ deep experience): a tourist who
shows that cultural/ heritage tourism plays little or no role in the decision for
visiting a heritage site. Yet, this tourist will end up with engaging deeply in the
heritage tourism activities while at the heritage destination.

This model by McKercher was applied and successfully tested within the context of
Hong Kong as a case study. McKercher acknowledges that various segments of tourists
reveal different sorts of behaviour at one heritage site, although their demographic and
trip profile patterns proved to be the same. Thanks to empirical studies used this
categorization, McKercher’s model is examined to be the most comprehensive through
various cases studies carried out by various researchers like Kantanen and Tikkanen
(2006), Liu (2014), Nguyen and Cheung (2014) and Vong (2016).

Through research conducted in the monumental city of Girona, Spain, Espelt and Benito
(2006) uncover four types of tourists according to their behaviour: non-cultural tourists,
ritual tourists, interested tourists and erudite tourists. The non-cultural tourists are those
who represent very low or below average values. This group visits 1.82 nodes on
average, at a noticeable speed and over a short trip, thus justifying their superficial
relationship with the heritage site. The ritual tourists are similar to the average profile:
33
3.2 nodes in a 1.5-hour visit, spending 0.5 hour at nodes, with distance greater than
2km. Those people are guided more by a collective ritual than by distinctive experience.
The interested tourists are those who show more genuine interest in their visit.
Specifically, more nodes (4.23), a prolonged stay (2 hours), more time in the nodes (41
minutes) and slower speed are represented. Tourists are guided more by individual
experience than by universal cannons of heritage, thereby creating an actual heritage
experience. The erudite tourists are the real cultural tourists who are in search of
experience as well as knowledge. Those people show a high profile with an average of 6
nodes, an hour itinerary, at a slow speed with a contemplative attitude towards the city’s
features and itinerary.

While researching tourists to the Native American Heritage sites, Nyaupane, White and
Budruk (2006) utilize the cluster analysis which is based on motivations for
understanding cultural history. These authors uncovered three segments of tourists: (i)
culture focused, (ii) culture attentive and (iii) culture appreciative. Further to the
analysis of heritage tourists, homogenous groups of tourists based on motives are totally
different from each other according to their own behaviour and experience. Among
these three groups, culture -focused tourists were enthusiastic about learning not only
cultural heritage and human history but also scientific values and biological diversity.

Nyaupane and Andereck (2014) suggest that heritage tourists at cultural heritage sites
might be split into two big groups based on their main activities at the destinations: the
true cultural heritage tourists and the spurious cultural heritage tourists. The first
group is further divided into two subgroups, tangible and intangible heritage tourists,
who are very different in terms of demographics, various importance of cultural
attractions and motives. The latter group embodies extra motivations among heritage
tourists, including engaging with nature, sports and business activities.

With the purpose of understanding tourists’ behaviour consuming Italian cultural

resources, Di Pietro et al., (2015) attempt to investigate and identify various needs and
expectations of cultural consumers. In this context, authors picked up various criteria to
split tourists into different groups, including internal arrangement, path organization,
opening time, ticket price, informative panels, technology support, comfortable

34
environment, tourist guide, audio guide and accessibility for the disabled. Analysis of
these factors showed segmentation of visitors: the connoisseurs (or experts), the
demanding tourists, the practical tourists and the inattentive tourists. The connoisseurs
were those who were primarily interested in cultural content while the demanding
tourists were receptive to the experiential elements. The practical tourists were those
who mostly took into consideration practical aspects and logical elements. Ultimately,
the inattentive tourists deemed uninterested in any aspects of those analysed.

Unlike other researchers, Yankholmes and McKercher (2015) investigate the slavery
heritage in Ghana and divide heritage tourists into four different groups based on their
connection to slavery and the purpose of their trip. The first group is called the
connected slavery heritage tourists, people tightly linked to slavery heritage. The
connected vacationers were those who were travelling to Ghana fundamentally for their
holiday. Two other groups included the not connected bicultural tourists and the not
connected Caucasian tourists, who had no connection with the local heritage values.

Through the application of two dimensions such as culture and leisure and value for
money, Ramires, Brandão and Sousa (2017) unveil three types of heritage tourists:
conventional, spontaneous and absorptive tourists. The conventional tourist pays more
attention to “culture and leisure” aspects in the decision-making process and less to
“value to money”. Their main motivation is holiday and leisure, followed by heritage
and culture. On the contrary, the second cluster of spontaneous tourists gives the lowest
importance to culture and leisure, while making up their minds about destinations as
well as to all attributes of heritage sites in comparison with other clusters. Their
fundamental motivation is holiday and leisure. The absorptive tourists take holidays
and leisure as their main form of travel, followed by cultural purposes. This cluster
represents a greater degree of engagement in all experiences and activities than other
segments, notably nightlife and entertainment and cultural events.

In the context of Europe, Pérez emphasizes three profiles of heritage tourists:

(a) The culturally motivated are a small market segment that is attracted to a destination
due to cultural reasons or causes, which leads them to spend several nights at the place
of destination.

35
(b) The culturally inspired are enticed by cultural sites and heritage such as the
Alhambra in Granada and Venice in Italy. They want to see the same places, which
imply problems of property management. These tourists spend short periods of time in
culture destinations and are not motivated to return to the same place.

(c) The culturally inspired are those who carry out a day visit to cultural sites and
heritage but are not strictly motivated by cultural reasons (as cited in Remoaldo et al.,
2014, p. 208).
Table 5: A review of existing literature on cultural/ heritage tourists

Author (s) Time Research variables Types of cultural/ heritage

tourists
ICOMOS 1993 Knowledge, information and o Scholar visitor
experience o General visitor
o Student
o Reluctant visitor
Silberberg 1995 Visitors’ motivation for o Accidental cultural tourist
cultural/ heritage tourism o Adjunct cultural tourist
o In part cultural tourist
o Greatly cultural tourist
Poria, Butler 2001 Personal preferences o Considered as heritage
& Airey concerning heritage site site/ unconnected
o Not classified as a
heritage site
o Categorized as a heritage
site
Hughes 2002 Interest of seeing cultural/ o Accidental tourist
heritage sites o Incidental tourist
o Multi-primary cultural
tourist
o Primary cultural tourist
McKercher 2002 Importance of cultural o Purposeful cultural tourist
motives and depth of o Sightseeing cultural
experience tourist
o Casual cultural tourist
o Serendipitous cultural
tourist
o Incidental cultural tourist
Espelt & 2006 Behaviour o The non-cultural tourist
Benito o The ritual tourist
o The Interested tourist
o The erudite tourist

36
 Nyaupane, 2006 Motivations for o Culture-focused tourist
White & understanding cultural history o Culture-attentive tourist
Budruk o Culture-appreciative
tourist
Nyaupane & 2014 Experiences o The true cultural heritage
Andereck tourist
o The spurious cultural
heritage tourist
Di Pietro et 2015 Behavioural elements (ticket o The connoisseur (expert)
al. price, opening time, tour o The demanding tourist
guide, path organization, o The practical tourist
technology support, o The inattentive tourist
comfortable environment,
internal arrangement, audio
guide, informative panels and
accessibility)
Yankholmes 2015 Visitors’ connection to o Connected slavery
& McKercher slavery and trip purpose heritage tourist
o Connected vacationers
o Not connected bicultural
tourist
o Not connected Caucasian
tourist
Ramires, 2017 Culture & leisure and values o The conventional tourist
Brandão & for money o The spontaneous tourist
Sousa o The absorptive tourist

Table 5 conveys how studies on heritage tourist segmentation can be grouped into two
main trends. The first trend is based on one single segmentation variable including prior
knowledge, experiences and information (ICOMOS, 1993; Nyaupane & Andereck,
2014), travel motivation (Silberberg, 1995; Nyaupane, White & Budruk, 2006),
personal preferences (Poria, Butler & Airey, 2001), levels of interest (Hughes, 2002),
behaviour (Espelt & Benito, 2006), behavioural characteristics (Di Pietro et al., 2015),
personal connection (Yankholmes & McKercher, 2015). The other way of stratification
links to the usage of multiple variables which are proven by McKercher (2002) and
Ramires, Brandão and Sousa (2017). McKercher came up with two variables: the
centrality of cultural tourism in the decision of visiting and the depth of cultural
experience; while two different criteria such as culture and leisure and value for money
are selected for studying (Ramires, Brandão & Sousa; 2017).

37
Along with the attempts to segment heritage tourists, a number of studies have been
undertaken to investigate characteristics of these people. According to Light and
Prentice in an early study (1994, p.112) “heritage consumers tend to be from the middle
classes, well-educated, in a group without children, on holiday away from home, and
with a prior interest in history”. These findings have been justified and replicated in
recent research which seems to refer to a general heritage tourist type (Adie & Hall,
2017). For instance, Chandler and Costello (2002, p. 163) posit that “the ‘average’
respondent at each site was a middle aged (between 35 and 63) college graduate who
was employed full-time and married with older children”. Through recent research on
tourists in Hue city, Vietnam, Nguyen and Cheung (2014) reveal a similar demographic
result that for the majority of international tourists (83.2%) aged from 20 to 60, more
than two thirds of them having at least a college degree. The proportion of young and
middle tourists with high level of education is even higher with around 86.7%,
according to research conducted by Remoaldo et al., in 2014. One study in Australia
reveals that women are more likely to visit a WHS than their male counterparts - just
63% compared with females (Remoaldo et al., 2014).

These characteristics of tourists can be subject to change depending on places and

various types of heritage tourists. There is a growing trend that heritage tourists in
America are likely to be older. Serious heritage tourists are generally better educated
(Timothy, 2011). With regard to annual income, there is no doubt that heritage tourists
stay longer, spend more time at heritage destinations (Timothy, 2011; Kerstetter, Confer
& Graefe, 2001) and have a high level of income of $80,000 or higher (Huh, Uysal &
McCleary, 2006).

3.4. Tourist satisfaction

Tourist satisfaction has been scrutinized as one of the key constructs in the terms of
tourist behaviour. There is currently growing literature (He & Song, 2009; Hosany &
Witham, 2010; Lee, Kyle & Scott, 2012). This section illuminates two main issues:
definitions of tourist satisfaction and their effects on tourism; and theoretical studies on
tourist satisfaction.

38
The definition of tourist satisfaction has drawn much attention from scholars. Within the
confines of tourism, the term satisfaction has been defined as an outcome of the
experience of tourists in a specific destination in comparison with their expectations
about the visit (Pizam, Neumann & Reichel, 1978). The United Nations World Tourism
Organization (1985) advises that visitor satisfaction is a psychological concept based on
a pleasurable feeling of well-being which begins when someone’s expectations about a
site interact with the experience. Tourist satisfaction is understood based on a
customer’s estimated experiences a provider’s service which fulfils his or her
expectations (Gerpott, Rams & Schindler, 2001); or is stated as a subjective perception
made by clients depending on their experience with service (Greenwell, Fink & Pastore,
2002). It commonly refers to a feeling or a pleasure fulfilment that can be
conceptualized as a tourist’s post assessment of prior expectations and perceived
performances of the site (Oliver, 1993).

Satisfaction may be conceptualized as a consumer’s comment on whether the level of

fulfilment of expectation is pleasant or unpleasant (Palau-Saumell et al., 2013) or “a
collective evaluation of individual experiences” (Lee, Kyle & Scott, 2012, p. 756).
Satisfaction is contended as “a judgement that a product/service feature/ or the product
or service itself, provided a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment,
including levels of under - or overfulfilment” (Oliver, 2014, p. 8). The satisfaction of
tourists deems to be “as the global evaluation of a service received that a client makes in
comparison to the service expected” (López-Guzmán et al., 2017, p. 5) or a post-
purchase comment about the products offered by consumers vis-à-vis their expectations
(Antón, 2017).

Despite various definitions of tourist satisfaction, this can be broadly understood as

tourists’ evaluation about the services or products at the destinations. The satisfaction of
tourists about heritage destination’s attributes is a vital factor in judging the success of
destination’s marketing strategies and potential economic growth (Bui & Le, 2016).
Tourists take their satisfaction in their trips into account before re-visiting or
recommending the sites to others.

39
There is no definite consensus amongst researchers over definitions of customer
satisfaction. Some researchers perceive it as an outcome (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982)
while others view it to be a process (Pizam & Ellis, 1999), a cognitive evaluation
(Chadee & Mattsson, 1996), an emotional response (Westbrook, 1980) or a growing
popular view and a combination of both (Oliver, 1993; del Bosque & San Martín,
2008). Aside from the lack of consensus, there is a continuing discussion about whether
tourist satisfaction and service quality are similar constructs (Dabholkar, 1993) or two
distinctive constructs (Taylor & Baker, 1994). Recent studies have adopted the two-
structure approach, justified by Cronin and Taylor (1992) as a decision of the service
suppliers which is aimed at achieving satisfied visitors or delivering maximum levels of
perceived service quality (Agyeiwaah et al., 2016).

There appears a strong point of agreement among researchers about the role of tourist
satisfaction towards the success of tourism industry. Tourist satisfaction is said to have
had tremendous impacts on tourism managers and marketers when it comes to selecting
destinations, the consumption of goods and services, recommendations to family
members or friends and further the desire to return (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Yoon
& Uysal, 2005; Chi & Qu, 2008; Vareiro, Ribeiro & Remoaldo, 2015; Muñoz-
Fernández et al., 2017). The high level of satisfaction related to a tourism destination is
seen to be conducive to increased revenues for service suppliers (Dmitrović et al.,
2009). Therefore, the role of tourists’ expectation and motivation prior to their trips
should not be neglected in a bid to study the overall satisfaction of tourists (Yao, 2013;
Yoon & Uysal, 2005). For instance, by combing empirical and theoretical evidence at
heritage destinations, Chi and Qu (2008) unveil that “tourist overall satisfaction was
determined by destination image and attribute satisfaction, tourist attribute satisfaction
was also directly influenced by destination image” (p. 632). Both authors conclude that
destination loyalty is strongly affected by tourists’ overall satisfaction. This conclusion
is consistent with a research conducted by Yoon and Uysal (2005).

It is evident that tourist loyalty has indirect advantages such as repeat visitation and
repurchase of tourism products (Vareiro, Ribeiro & Remoaldo, 2015; Wang, 2004;
Kozak, 2001), positive word-of-mouth (Hui, Wan & Ho, 2007; Antón, Camarero &
Laguna-García, 2017); few complaints (Pizam & Milman, 1993), reduced marketing
expenditure (Özgener & İraz, 2006), strengthened company reputation and market share
40
(Song et al., 2012). These could be a vital focus for destination management boards’
marketing efforts and success strategies (Agyeiwaah et al., 2016); resulting in a
significant boost to tourism. Consequently, tourists, who are satisfied with their trips to
heritage destinations, are more likely to re-visit or to share their positive experiences,
thus making some recommendations to their family members, friends and other
networks (Vareiro, Ribeiro & Remoaldo, 2015). With all these important meanings, the
issue of figuring tourist satisfaction becomes critical for both scholars and service
suppliers as well.

Various paradigms, theories and models for comprehending and assessing tourist
satisfaction have been proposed and widely employed in social science. Included are
such concepts as perceived overall performance (Tse & Wilton, 1988), importance
performance (Martilla & James, 1977), equity (Oliver & Swan, 1989). One of the most
prevalent theories is expectancy disconfirmation, which has been used frequently and
broadly, thereby receiving the widest acceptance among researchers (Oliver, 1980),
Chen & Chen, 2010; Hsu, Chiu & Ju, 2004, Kozak, 2001; Yen & Lu, 2008; Huh, 2002;
Wang & Hsu, 2010). The expectancy disconfirmation model depicts that tourist
satisfaction might be a result of the disparity between expectations and perceived
performance (Oliver, 1980). Expectation is the pre-conceived belief of a visitor about
the nature of a product, a performance or a service (Oliver, 1987). Meanwhile,
disconfirmation is known as the post experience evaluation in comparison to
expectation (Oliver, 1980).

The expectancy disconfirmation paradigm has been criticized for supposing that tourists
have solid expectation prior to performance. It fails to recognize assessments of visitors
who are not satisfied as expected (Yuksel & Yuksel, 2001), so it does not supply a
reliable measure of satisfaction (Johns, Avcí & Karatepe, 2004). From an empirical
perspective, this model has been critiqued for the fact that requesting visitors’
expectation usually elicits high levels on expectation; they might not wish to present
low points (Teas, 1993). In addition to this, perception is not separated from
expectation, so perception would be contingent upon expectation in many cases (Huang,
Hsu & Chan, 2010). In spite of these proposed demerits, the expectancy disconfirmation
remains a focal tourism satisfaction model which has been employed in many studies.
It has also informed the later development of the cognitive - affective satisfaction theory
41
(del Bosque, San Martín & Collado, 2006; del Bosque & San Martín, 2008). Hence, the
expectancy disconfirmation theory is not totally distinctive to the cognitive affective
model from a theoretical perspective (Huang, Weiler & Assaker, 2015).

Secondly, the attribution model has been widely engaged in studies about tourist
satisfaction in diverse settings such as destination interpretation, guiding or services
(Kandampully, Mok & Sparks, 2001; Truong & King, 2009; Alegre & Garau, 2011).
This theory generally assumes that tourist satisfaction is measured by tourist assessment
of the site attributes or services. Alternatively, the theory of attribution might be limited
due to the fact that it captures more the cognitive aspects of satisfaction than the
affective ones (Huang, Weiler & Assaker, 2015).

Research undertaken by Mok, Sparks and Kadampully (2013) posits that the tourism
productis the combination of goods, activities, and services supplied to tourists in
various areas of the tourismindustry, to fulfil their travel demands. Different people
have various needs and seek dissimilar experiences orbenefits from the same services or
products. Tourists’ experiences and perceptions are heterogeneous. As a consequence,
they may be different outcomes of the level of touristsatisfaction.

According to Truong and King (2009), the primary characteristics or attributes of

tourism destinations exercise influence on tourists’ satisfaction and their visitation
repeats. Those factors have been basically grouped and listed as “the Five A’s” by Vinh
and Long (2013, p. 32):
(1) Attractions: desirable attributes which attract tourists to specific destinations
(2) Activities: available recreation and entertainment
(3) Accessibility: ease of travelling which includes visas, accommodation, perceptions
of health and safety
(4) Accommodation: standard and variety of accommodation at tourist destinations

(5) Amenity: essential facilities consisting of banking, shopping, telephone, and now
internet.

42
Both authors conclude that these features play a momentous role in luring and keeping
more tourists at the tourist attractions. Having a quite similar approach to destination’s
competitiveness, Dwyer and Kim (2003) pinpoint that price and travel cost are two
main factors which influence tourists’ decision-making processes. Apart from these, the
local’s attitudes towards tourists are a crucial social factor, which shapes part of macro-
environment and further has an impact in the prosperity of destinations.

Third, the cognitive-affective model has been explicitly and implicitly utilized in the
process of tourist satisfaction (del Bosque & San Martín, 2008; Yoon & Uysal, 2005;
Prayag, Chen, Hosany & Odeh, 2016). According to Huang, Weiler and Assaker
(2015), unlike the two above-mentioned theories, the cognitive - affective model
highlights an integrated approach which puts emphasis on both tourists’ cognition and
their emotions while examining tourist satisfaction. For instance, Prayag, Chen, Hosany
and Odeh (2016) endeavour to identify the antecedents and consequences of tourist
satisfaction based on participating in festivals.

In their study at a museum, Chen and Ryan (2012) indicate that the satisfaction of
tourists is the sensations or feelings which are made by both cognitive and emotional
dimensions of the visit experience. This experience involves the viewing of artefacts,
interpretation and the social interaction which strongly encourage tourists to make use
of “hot” and “warm” spots and to have discussions. With regards to behaviour science
perspective, this model investigates “tourist inner mind states” of satisfaction, which
results in new insights into the psychological mechanisms (Huang, Weiler & Assaker,
2015, p. 346).

Fourthly, the three-factor satisfaction theory has been used for research on tourist
satisfaction by many researchers (Deng, Kuo & Chen, 2008; Füller & Matzler, 2008;
Oh et al., 2017). The three-factor satisfaction is composed of basic factors
(dissatisfiers), excitement factors (satisfacters) and performance factors (hybrids):
(1) Basic factors: these are minimum requirements which can cause dissatisfaction
if not fulfilled but do not lead to customer satisfaction if fulfilled or exceeded.
The fulfilment of basic requirements is a necessary but not sufficient

43
 (2) Excitement factors: these factors lead to satisfaction if fulfilled or exceeded and
lead to dissatisfaction if not fulfilled. Hence, they can cause both satisfaction
and dissatisfaction
(3) Performance factors: these are the factors that increase customer satisfaction if
delivered but do not cause dissatisfaction if they are missing. (Matzler &
Sauerwein, 2002, p. 318).

This model has been applied in various research contexts of tourist satisfaction. It
segments the external factors in numerous tourism services scenarios, thus extending
the root causes of satisfaction when it comes to the relationship between customers’
inner minds and other environmental factors (Huang, Weiler & Assaker, 2015, p. 346).
In this case, the model three-factor satisfaction is identical to the attribution theory, so
researchers have proved it while applying the three-factor satisfaction (Alegre & Garau,
2011; Caber, Albayrak & Loiacono, 2013). In other words, given the emotion - evoking
delight factors, the three-factor satisfaction model represents that people interact with
the nature of tourism services more completely (Crotts & Magnini, 2011).

In line with the review of the existing literature, the hypotheses to scrutinize would be
the following:
Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between the overall tourist satisfaction and the
heritage selected attributes.
Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between tourists’ overall satisfaction and their
intentions to revisit.
Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the overall satisfaction and the participants’
demographic characteristics: gender, age, education level and occupation.
Hypothesis 4: There is no difference in overall satisfaction between heritage tourist
groups

3.5. Conclusion
This chapter has showcased existing literature related to the topic “Segmentation and
satisfaction of visitors to World Heritage: Comparative analysis of two Cultural
Heritage Sites in Vietnam”. Starting with broad definitions of cultural/heritage and
heritage tourism, this section moves on to investigate classification and satisfaction

44
among visitors at heritage sites. By examining the current literature, research gaps could
be identified and several vital issues might be considered, such as:

 Defining heritage tourists sounds a complicated task; different researchers

come up with various way of dealing with this. Each type of tourist has her/his
own preferences in relation to the heritage site. Being known as one of the
most important aspects of Vietnam tourism, little research has been done in
relation to these sites in Vietnam, so there is a pressing demand to dig into this
topic.
 To provide better services and heritage management for visitors, it is
imperative to measure tourists’ satisfaction level in accordance with the
existing heritage attributes. No scientific research has been reported so far at
either the Thang Long Citadel or the Ho Citadel; this gap shows an urgent issue
to be fixed.
This research endeavours to fill the gaps in the literature by examining the visitors to the
heritage sites in Vietnam. Based on the theoretical foundation that has been provided in
this chapter, my methodology chapter is presented in the next section.

45
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1. Introduction

The previous chapter provided a theoretical background for my research. In order to

undertake an empirical study, a reliable and valid methodology is necessary. It has been
long argued that choosing an appropriate paradigm according to the nature and
objectives of the research is considered a crucial task for researchers. In this study, both
quantitative and qualitative methods are used. According to Crewell (1994), qualitative
research is an inquiry process of comprehending a social or humankind issue, the
investigation undertaken in a natural setting. This study aims to create a complex and
holistic picture with detailed features of informants. Alternatively, quantitative method
is based on testing theoretical evidence by analysing variables. This chapter explains the
methodology employed to obtain the research objectives of this study. The chapter is
arranged first with a summary of the selection of study cases. It then discusses the
survey design process and data collection, finally dealing with the data analysis.

4.2. The selection of the study sites

Selecting case studies plays a vital role in the research process. This study is subject to
the research of cultural/ heritage visitors; consequently, heritage sites maybe the most
appropriate choice. As explained in the introduction chapter, the Thang Long Imperial
Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty have become two of the most appealing sites in
Vietnam since they were granted World Heritage status in 2010 and 2011 respectively.
Each site receives a large number of visitors annually and plays an indispensable role
for its local tourism industry. As a result, according to the Vietnam National
Administration of Tourism, in 2017 the Thang Long Imperial Citadel was selected as
one of the top seven tourist attractions in Vietnam.

46
 Table 6: The number of international visitors at the Thang Long Citadel (2016)

Country/ Region
Month Total
Japan Asia Europe Other

01/2016 1,960 661 765 330 3,716

02/2016 1,630 559 902 348 3,439
03/2016 745 2,383 636 245 4,009
04/2016 1,478 1,837 4,367 174 7,856
05/2016 1,658 1,111 1,529 84 4,382
06/2016 1,424 991 1,425 45 3,885
07/2016 2,016 1,545 1,478 616 5,655
08/2016 1,628 2,425 1,241 1,181 6,475
09/2016 1,705 2,804 1,306 2,194 8,009
10/2016 2,520 4,734 1,817 2,183 11,254
11/2016 1,115 7,683 1,426 1,421 11,645
12/2016 1,749 6,160 1,918 1,739 11,566
Total 19,628 32,893 18,810 10,560 81,891

Source: Data was supplied by the Thang Long - Hanoi Heritage Conservation Centre,
2017.
According to Table 6 and Table 7, annual quantity for tourists at the Thang Long
Citadel and the Ho Citadel stays at around 300,000 and 100,000 visitors respectively
(Thang Long - Hanoi Heritage Conservation Centre, 2017; Conservation Centre for Ho
Citadel, 2017). Regarding origins of visitors, Table 6 reveals that Japanese people are
the most prevalent group visiting the Thang Long Citadel, accounting for nearly one
fourth of the total foreign tourists in 2016. Meanwhile, Table 7 reflects a sharp contrast
in the number of domestic (104,229) and international visitors (771) to the Ho Citadel.

Table 7: The quantity of domestic and foreign visitors at the Citadel for Ho dynasty
(2009 - 2016)

Time Domestic International Total

2009 11,715 22 11,737
2010 11,673 89 11,762
2011 24,501 320 24,821
2012 55,393 668 56,061

47
 2013 53,751 490 54,241
2014 52,595 178 52,773
2015 98,680 1,320 100,000
2016 104,229 771 105,000

Source: Data was provided by the Conservation Centre for Ho Citadel, 2017

There are a few reasons explain why the Thang Long site and the Ho Citadel site are
used for this study. First, once these sites were designated as World Cultural Heritage
Sites, they attracted extensive attention from members of the public both inside and
outside Vietnam. This leads to exponential growth of heritage tourism at each site.
However, there has been no prior research concentrating on visitors to these sites. An
empirical study on the heterogeneity and experience of tourists is of critical importance.
Another point is that these two sites present different aspects of Vietnam culture, history
and traditions. While the Thang Long Citadel represents its one-thousand-year history
and is located in the crowded urban heritage site in the heart city of Vietnam, the Ho
Citadel reflects a short-standing dynasty in a rural area of Thanh Hoa province. Finally,
my employment as a researcher at the Thang Long Citadel for five years (2010-2015)
and co-launching some joint exhibitions and public-based programs with the Ho
Citadel, I am in a privileged position to understand these sites first-hand.

4.3. The survey design

Once study sites have been chosen, it is crucial to decide a method of garnering primary
data. The existing literature on tourist segmentation and satisfaction has postulated that
questionnaire surveys are one of the most commonly used methods (López-Guzmán
et.al, 2017; Ramires, Brandão & Sousa, 2017; López-Guzmán & Santa-Cruz, 2017;
Nguyen & Cheung, 2014; Liu, 2014; Vong, 2016; Molera & Pilar Albaladejo, 2007).

According to Robson (1993), the term “survey” encapsulates the collection process of
standardized information based on certain segments of population through means of a
questionnaire or interview. This method is proven to have several undoubted merits: (1)
covering a reasonable number of sample sizes and strengthening the generalisability of
result at low costs; (2) recognizing even small dissimilarities; (3) having huge

48
advantages in administering, coding, analysing and interpreting; (4) being capable of
utilizing a myriad of statistical analysis and (5) supplying a quite simple and
straightforward approach to the research on attitudes, values, beliefs and motives
(Robson, 1993; Hair, Bush & Ortinau, 2003; Malhotra, 2007). A self-completed survey
was selected for data collection, drawing on actual conditions at both sites.

Variables
The research focuses on two different World Cultural Heritage Sites in Vietnam with
cultural heritage attributes which are considered important in satisfying tourists. To
design an instrument for this study, existing literature was examined to identify and
measure various instruments used with similar purposes (Table 8). For instance, a
preliminary questionnaire was made which was based on instruments developed in
some previous studies (López-Guzmán, Gálvez & Muñoz-Fernández, 2018, López-
Guzmán et al., 2017, Remoaldo et al., 2014; Vinh & Long; 2013; Ung & Vong, 2010;
Joppe, Martin & Waalen, 2001; Huh, Uysal & McCleary, 2006; Yoon & Uysal, 2005;
Heung & Cheng, 2000).

Table 8: Variables of the research

Categories
Dependent variable The satisfaction of tourists
Independent variables Heritage attributes: interpretation, souvenirs, exhibitions,
archaeological remains, guiding, indoor facilities,
accessibility, atmosphere, architecture, landscape,
education programs, services (cafes/restaurants)
Control variables Demographic characteristics of tourists: age, gender,
level of education, occupation, origin of residence.
Travel behaviour features of tourists: trip arrangement,
companion, length of visit, sources of information.

Questionnaire development
A self-administered questionnaire was created with the purpose of accumulating
responses from tourists in terms of motivation and satisfaction when visiting the WHS/s
in Vietnam. Additional information can be obtained through questions in relation to
social and demographic features (i.e. age, occupation, level of education, nationality)

49
and trip-related characteristics (i.e.travel arrangement, travel partners, sources of
information.).

The final questionnaire (Appendix 2) is composed of 19 questions, including closed

(structured) and open-ended (unstructured) questions. Among 16 structured questions,
there are three questions using the Likert scale. These questions are subject to the
evaluation of cultural motives for visiting (1); the expectation and satisfaction of
tourists while visiting sites (2) and the overall satisfaction of visitors.

Given the large number of Vietnamese, Japanese and English-speaking tourists at the
sites, a set of questionnaire was delivered in three languages (Vietnamese, English and
Japanese). In order to attain the consistency and accuracy of the questionnaire,
translation and back-translation procedures between English, Vietnamese and Japanese
were carried out based on the first version of English.

Reviewing the academic literature provided useful inputs for building questions about
the tourists visiting the heritage sites and their expectations and satisfactions. With those
in mind, a section of the questionnaire is created based on McKercher’s model of
heritage tourists (2002), which is further examined and applied through a variety of
studies made by Liu (2013); Nguyen and Cheung (2014); Hurtado, Dowling and
Sanders (2014); Croes and Semrad (2015).

The questionnaire is designed in three A4 size pages and consists of three different
sections:
o Section A (question 1 - 10) aims to study the tourists’ pattern given their
trips including travel arrangement, sources of information, reasons for
visiting and their own experience at the site.
o Section B (question 11 - 12) seeks to rate and evaluate the tourists’
expectation, satisfaction when visiting and withdraw their overall
satisfaction.
o Section C (question 13 - 19) aspires to understand the tourists’
demographic information and their intentions to return as well as
comments and recommendations.

50
Ethical consideration
The questionnaire and other required ethics documents were submitted to the University
of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 10th May 2017 and were
subsequently approved on 28th July 2017 with the reference number 019321.
Respondents in the survey were delivered the participant information sheet, which
outlined objectives, an invitation to participate, research procedures, data storage, right
to withdraw, anonymity and confidentiality and researcher’s contact information.

4.4. Data collection

Pilot test

The study instrument was pre-tested on a small scale at both selected sites. This stage is
vital to check the validity of the research instrument and to bolster the data collection
method. The researcher was assisted in conducting pilot tests at the Thang Long
Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty from 5th to 20th August 2017.The
respondents were tourists visiting these sites. They were approached at the entrance of
the sites and briefed on the purpose of the survey before being given questionnaires

All twenty five questionnaires (response rate 100%) were collected from both sites (15
from the Ho Citadel and 10 from the Thang Long site). Apart from filling in the
questionnaires, tourists were asked to comment on the questionnaire’s clarity,
readability and ease of understanding. Feedback and comments gathered ensured that all
questions in the main study were clear and understood.

During this pioneering phase, it was observed that many Vietnamese visitors were
neither familiar with nor unwilling to participate in the survey. As a result, most of
questionnaires done by Vietnamese visitors were unfinished or just a few questions
were filled in. The results showed that quantitative self-administered questionnaire
surveys have not been widely utilized and conducted in Vietnam. Alternatively,
Vietnamese tourists were prone to being less open to share their private options about
heritage sites which they were visiting in comparison with international people. This is
reflected in the result of participants in the Thang Long Imperial Citadel.

51
Primary data collection
Data was collected and accumulated thanks to the involvement of both domestic and
international visitors at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho
dynasty. During a six-week survey, 230 questionnaires were collected, 195 were usable
(84.7% response rate). The quantity of questionnaires gathered in this study is similar to
research conducted by Poria, Reichel and Biran (2006), in which 205 interviews were
undertaken at a historic site and Yankholmes and Akyeampong’s research (2010),
where 218 questionnaires were collected as well as a study made by Remoaldo et al.,
(2014) with 276 questionnaires.

The respondents were approached and given the participant information sheet by the
researcher at the entrance to each site (Appendix 1). The visitors were then offered a
questionnaire if they agreed to take part in the survey. There was an effort made to
avoid any prejudice in the selection of participants when it came to their ethnicity or
nationality. They could fill out the questionnaire any time during their visit. In many
cases they completed the questionnaire at the end of their trip, and then placed them in
boxes at the venues. These questionnaires were later returned to the researcher.
Respondents younger than 16 years old were automatically excluded from the research.

According to Richards (2010, p. 20), “surveying all visitors enables an analysis to be

made of the relationship between visitor groups and to contrast motivations, behaviour
and background of local residents and tourists.” While I was collecting data at the study
sites, I realized that it was more difficult to approach domestic visitors than
international ones. Those people expressed their scepticism, distrust and unwillingness
by saying the fact that they were busy, they were in need a greater amount of time and
they were in a rush for instance. This is why the participation of foreign visitors
outweighed the domestic tourists at the Thang Long. The opposite trend was seen at the
Citadel for Ho dynasty.

Secondary data
Along with data gathered from the survey, secondary data was sought to provide richer
contexts for primary data. A gathering of sources like books, journals, internet,
magazines and reports from heritage management institutions were synthesized and
compiled into a contextual framework, research questions, which supported the

52
researcher in designing a set of questionnaires. Other types of documents were the
master plans, tourist arrival statistics and annual reports supplied by the Thang Long -
Hanoi Heritage Conservation Centre and the Conservation Centre for Ho Citadel. These
were of vital importance to making analysis and comparison when studying the sites.

4.5. Data analysis

Data preparation

To facilitate the data entry process, all closed questions in the survey were pre-coded.
The code for each answer was noted at the right-hand corner of the tick box. After the
survey was completed, data from the questionnaires were entered into the computer by
the researcher. Regarding the open-ended questions, every single word written by the
participant was entered into the database. Common themes were analysed and then
named as short descriptions before being coded as numbers for SPSS’s analysis

Data description
The survey data was summarized thanks to the use of descriptive functions of SPSS
version 20 (test of frequencies, means, standard deviation and range). It is interesting to
note that mean values are utilized in this research yet they are regarded as measures of
central tendency in research (Punch, 2005). For the purpose of better interpreting mean
values, standard deviations are taken as well to study the variability of the scores. These
descriptive analyses help provide an overview about the survey participants when it
comes to their personal characteristics and travel experience.

Factor analysis
In the field of heritage tourism research, factor analysis is used widely to identify the
underlying variables, forming different groups of tourists (Malhotra, 2007). The main
purpose of this method is to convert the original data into a small and easy-to-
understand number of factors based on the correlation among variables (Punch, 2005;
Robson, 1993).

It is crucial to check the suitability of data before conducting factor analysis.

Concerning this study, the study sample of the Thang Long Citadel (103) and the
Citadel for Ho dynasty (92) is 8 and 7 times higher than the quantity of variables (12).

53
The sum of observations should be at least five times the variables which need to be
analysed (Hair et al., 1998; Sharma, 1996). As shown in Table 9 and Table 10, the
Bartlett test of Sphericity was significant at both sites (p=0.000), and Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy stood at 0.805 (Thang Long Citadel) and at
0.862 (Ho Citadel) which meant that factor analysis could be applied (Hair et al., 1998;
Sharma, 1996; Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2014).

Table 9: KMO and Bartlett's Test at the Thang Long Citadel

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .805
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 498.337
df 66
Sphericity
Sig. .000

Table 10: KMO and Bartlett's Test at the Citadel for Ho dynasty

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .862

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 573.088
df 66
Sphericity
Sig. .000

The Principle Component Analysis with Varimax orthogonal rotation was utilized as the
factor extraction way. This method has been long recognized as the most relevant
technique for creating the most interpretable results (Field, 2005; Mahotra, 2007). In
regard to correlation analysis, this method was used to identify the relationship between
respondents and heritage sites. Specifically, the dependent variable as the tourists’
overall satisfaction was analyzed against factor scores of the independent variables
(heritage attributes) which were derived from the factor analysis. Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was taken to notice the differences between the respondents’ overall
satisfaction and their demographic characteristics.

The overall assessment of data

Before representing the findings it is necessary to make an overall evaluation of the data
gathered from the survey. The findings of the research need to be judged in the light of
the method’s positive and negative points. To begin with, there are some good points in
terms of the research’s methodology. The self-administered questionnaire survey was
considered appropriate to collect responses randomly from the participants. The sample
size of both sites (n = 195) was sufficient for the purpose of analysis. The thorough data
54
collected from the respondents and the usage of quantitative approach helped enable the
research to segment types of tourists and measure their levels of satisfaction as well.
With the use of statistical analysis the researcher had solid and well-structured results.

Apart from its strong points, some limitations can be withdrawn throughout the research
process. The duration from September to October was considered to be the out-of-peak
tourist season in Vietnam. Especially at the Citadel for Ho dynasty, fewer tourists go to
Thanh Hoa for their holiday in Sam Son beach, Hai Tien beach or suối Cá thần (a holy
fish spring) as local tourist attractions. Accordingly, the quantity of tourists travelling to
the Ho Citadel is considerably influenced by people who visit those sites. Ho Citadel
did not receive as many tourists as the summer time, especially foreigners. Secondly,
the questionnaire was designed in three different languages: Vietnamese, English and
Japanese, thus creating language constraints. Thirdly, some drawbacks of a self-
administered questionnaire should not be ignored in this research. For instance, failure
to clearly understand the questions results in the incompleteness of the survey. Some
participants missed ticking either their expectation or their satisfaction, thus resulting in
unfinished questionnaires. Those questionnaires were deleted afterwards.

4.6. Conclusion

This chapter represented the research’s methodology. The quantitative approach was
conducted according to the existing literature’s suggestions along with the requirements
of the research objectives. The selection of two different WHS/s was deemed to be
suitable when studying heritage sites in Vietnam. Considering the demand to
accumulate a large number of responses in limited amount of time the self-administered
questionnaire was considered the most appropriate. The questionnaire design covered
all necessary attributes and information for the purpose of this study: travel behaviour,
the reasons for visiting, the depth of cultural heritage, the expectation and satisfaction
towards heritage attributes and personal information. In spite of some weaknesses, this
study has used a relevant methodology to examine the visitors at the heritage sites of
Vietnam.

The results of the study will be showcased in next chapter, with a general description to
detailed demonstration of the visitors. The following chapter will supply an overview of
55
the respondents, concentrating on two main aspects: the respondents’ demographic
characteristics and the participants’ travel behaviour, before it presents experiences and
classifications of heritage tourists, and the analysis of respondents’ expectation and
satisfaction about heritage attributes.

56
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

5.1. Introduction

This chapter is split into three parts. The first section describes the socio-demographic
characteristics and travel behaviour of the surveyed participants. The second part
focuses on experiences and classification of heritage tourists. In order to categorize
tourists, this research uses the McKercher model (2002), based on two factors: the depth
of experience and cultural motives for visiting. The final portion pays attention to the
participants’ expectation and satisfaction with heritage attributes and justifies the
research hypotheses by utilizing factor analysis, correlation and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA).

5.2. Respondent features

The participants for the survey were tourists who had visits to either the Thang Long
Imperial Citadel or the Citadel for Ho dynasty in Vietnam from September to October
2017. The survey was undertaken within a 6-week period at these two sites. The
respondents’ socio-demographic profile is presented to achieve an overall understanding
of various sorts of tourists who visited heritage sites. The survey demographic
information includes the participants’ gender, age, education level, occupation and
nationality. Among 230 questionnaires collected, 195 were usable (84.7% response
rate). Unusable questionnaires were discarded because the respondents had missed some
sections, such as their reasons for travelling, or their experience at heritage sites. Only
fully completed questionnaires were included.

5.2.1. The demographic characteristics of respondents

There has been no prior research on types of heritage tourists at the Thang Long
Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty, so no comparisons with prior studies
are possible. My research first of all pays attention to the distribution of genders.

Gender distribution
The first feature analysed by demographic characteristics was gender distribution (Table
11). At the Citadel for Ho dynasty, there were 10.8% more female than male visitors

57
while there were just 3% more at the Thang Long Citadel. These may be viewed as
small differences; there was no prevalent group at either site. The findings of gender
distribution are in line with other studies on heritage tourists (King & Prideaux, 2010;
Remoaldo et al., 2014; Ramires, Brandão & Sousa, 2017).

Table 11: Gender distribution

Gender Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
Male 50 48.5 41 44.6
Female 53 51.5 51 55.4

Age group of respondents

Based on literature on the average age of heritage visitors (Nguyen & Cheung, 2014;
Alazaizeh et al., 2016; Ramires, Brandão & Sousa, 2017; Kempiak, Hollywood, Bolan
& McMahon-Beattie, 2017), it was expected that dominant groups of people should be
young and middle-aged. At both sites surveyed people aged from 19 to 49 accounted for
82.5% at the Thang Long site and 76.1% at the Ho Citadel (Table 12). This is consistent
with a recent study on a World Heritage City in Portugal undertaken by Ramires,
Brandão and Sousa (2017). People of 19 - 29 year old group were the most numerous at
the Thang Long site with 42.7% whereas 34.8% of visitors in their thirties were by far
the most prevalent at the Ho Citadel. Another notable point in the distribution of age is
that older people had more visitations to the Ho Citadel than Thang Long site. The
figures for the 50 - 59 year old group and the 60 - 69 year old group were only 5.8% and
4.9% respectively. By contrast, a total of 18.5% of all respondents from 50 to above 70
years old visited the Ho Citadel: 9.8% (group 50 - 59); 5.4% (group 60 - 69) and 3.3%
(group >70).
Table 12: The distribution of ages among respondents
Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel
N % N %
16 – 18 7 6.8 5 5.4
19 – 29 44 42.7 25 27.2
30 – 39 26 25.2 32 34.8
40 – 49 15 14.6 13 14.1
50 – 59 6 5.8 9 9.8
60 – 69 5 4.9 5 5.4
>70 3 3.3

58
Education level
Previous demographic analysis (Huh, Uysal & McCleary, 2006; Timothy & Boyd,
2003; Palau-Saumell et al., 2012; Remoaldo et al., 2014; Adie & Hall, 2017) has
postulated that heritage visitors have a high level of education in comparison with other
types of tourists. This proved correct when it came to the results of this research; the
vast majority of respondents achieved their bachelor degrees, with 37.9% at the Thang
Long site and 46.7% at the Ho Citadel site. Those who have completed their post-
graduate at the Thang Long site were also the most dominant group taking up 42.7%;
whereas a much smaller percentage of post-graduates visited the Ho Citadel with 3.3 %.
Also at the Ho Citadel, 20.7% of all respondents indicated that vocational school was
their highest level of education. There were more 10.8% people at the Ho Citadel who
just completed their secondary and high school than those at the Thang Long site (Table
13).

Table 13: The distribution of the respondents’ education level

Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
Primary School 1 1.1
Secondary School 6 5.8 11 12.0
High School 12 11.7 15 16.3
Vocational School 1 1.0 19 20.7
Tertiary 39 37.9 43 46.7
Post-graduate 44 42.7 3 3.3
Other 1 1.0

Occupation of the respondents

Along with these similarities in the educational background, both sites witnessed a huge
percentage of respondents claiming themselves as employees or self-employed 70.9%
(Thang Long site) and 49% (Ho Citadel) (Table 14). These results correspond with a
recent study conducted by Adie and Hall (2017, p. 75) reckoning that the respondents’
jobs might be explained as “a logical response rate due to the fact that the majority of
tourism-based leisure activities require at least some basic form of capital, either for
entrance fees…transport to the location, or other various items necessary to complete
the experience”. Another notable feature is that approximately 10% of the respondents
considered as housewife/man at both sites. At the Ho Citadel, there was a higher

59
percentage of civil servants than the counterpart 25% versus 7.8%. This probably relates
to the fact that a high proportion of Vietnamese people work as public servants in the
government. Lastly, the figures for retired, unemployed and student comprised a small
proportion.
Table 14: Occupation of the respondents

Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
Employee 61 59.2 34 37.0
Self-employed 12 11.7 11 12.0
Retired 1 1.0 4 4.3
Civil servant 8 7.8 23 25.0
Unemployed 3 2.9 2 2.2
Housewife/man 11 10.7 11 12.0
Student 7 6.8 7 7.6

The residence of the respondents

With regard to the residence of the respondents, there is a strong contrast between the
Thang Long Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty (Table 15). In contrast to the
dominance of the foreign tourists at the Thang Long site (more than 90%), the biggest
percentage of respondent at the Ho Citadel was Vietnamese, taking up 92.4%. During
the field trip, it was more challenging to persuade domestic visitors in taking part in the
survey than international visitors at the Thang Long site. An unknown middle aged man
said: “I am very busy and cannot fill the survey right now. I am in need of more time to
think and read it out”. Another reason is that as a cultural and political capital of
Vietnam, Hanoi hosted around 5 million international visitors in the year 2017 (VNAT,
2018). Meanwhile, the Ho Citadel, due to its geographic location, international tourists
find it more difficult to reach, so Vietnamese visitors were by far the most prevalent.
There were small percentages of foreigners (under 9% of the respondents) including
Japanese, French, Australian, American, German and Filipino who visited the site.

60
 Table 15: The original residence of the respondents

Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

Category
N % N %
Japanese 15 14.6 2 2.2
French 10 9.7 1 1.1
Australian 9 8.7 1 1.1
Vietnamese 7 6.8 85 92.4
Polish 5 4.9
British 5 4.9
American 5 4.9 1 1.1
New Zealander 4 3.9
Singaporean 4 3.9
Spanish 4 3.9
German 4 3.9 1 1.1
Indian 3 2.9
Irish 3 2.9
Belgian 3 2.9
Czech 3 2.9
Korean 3 2.9
Dutch 2 1.9
Bangladeshi 2 1.9
Italian 2 1.9
Canadian 2 1.9
Filipino 2 1.9 1 1.1
Other 6 5.8

As presented in the above table, Japanese, French and Australian are the top three
nationalities of the respondents at the Thang Long site. To be specific, 14.6% of
respondents indicated their nationalities as Japanese, followed by French (9.7%) and
then Australian having the percentage at 11.7%. The attendance of Vietnamese was
ranked the fourth position with 6.8%, followed by Polish, British and American with
4.9% each. American visitors represented 4.9% and other nationalities including New
Zealander, Singaporean, Spanish and German constituted the same figure at 3.9%.
Other nationalities consisted of Indian, Irish, Belgian and Czech, each having 2.9%,
followed by Dutch (1.9%), Bangladeshi (1.9%), Italian (1.9%), Canadian (1.9%) and
Filipino (1.9%). The rest of nationalities with only 6 respondents took up 5.8% of the
total respondents.

61
Whilst dominant in the statistics of international arrivals to Vietnam in recent years,
Asian nationalities including Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Thai and Malaysian were
under-represented in the figure (VNAT, 2017). This finding is consistent with what
represented in the Introduction chapter. There were a large number of Chinese people
who crossed the border for a few hours shopping, who were counted in the total foreign
arrivals to Vietnam. Japan was the only Asian country recorded and the proportion is
the highest (14.6%) of all the respondents. It is probably related to the fact that a version
of questionnaire is designed in Japanese, therefore convenient for Japanese tourists to
complete the survey. Europeans (except French and British) and Australasian people
were more numerous in comparison with total annual international tourists to Vietnam.
The lack of some Asian nationalities in the research could be linked to the language
barrier. Through my observation, Chinese people who visited the Thang Long Imperial
Citadel were unable to take part in the research because of language barrier.
Questionnaires were available in English, Japanese and Vietnamese, which would have
excluded non-English speakers.

5.2.2. Travel behaviour characteristics of respondents

With the respondent’ socio-demographic background described, I can now turn to the
travel behavior characteristics of the participants. This section concentrates on domestic
and foreign tourists in terms of mode of travelling, companion, length of visitation and
their sources of information, thus providing a broad description of the respondents’
behavior features.

Table 16: The frequency of visits to the two attractions

Frequency Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
First time 101 98.1 72 78.3
Second 2 1.9 14 15.2
Third 4 4.3
Fourth 1 1.1
Fifth 1 1.1

Table 16 reveals that most respondents were visiting to either the Thang Long or the Ho
Citadel for the first time. It should be noted that 98.1% of the Thang Long respondents
stated that this was their first visit. This result shows an analogous pattern published by
the Vietnam visitor statistics, which shows that a majority of foreign tourists to Vietnam
62
were there for the first time (Pham, 2006). Only 1.9% visitors visited for the second
time. Likewise, a large number of tourists came to the Ho Citadel for the first time as
well (78.3%). The number of returnees at the Ho Citadel was much higher than those at
the Thang Long site. The second-time visitors accounted for 15.2%, followed by the
third-time tourists with 4.3%. There were notably some tourists supposing their fourth
or fifth time with 1.1% for each.

Table 17: Arrangement of the respondents’ visit

Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
Part of a package tour 8 7.8 4 4.3
Self-organized 83 80.6 52 56.6
Taken by friends/ relatives 8 7.8 16 17.4
Private tour 2 1.9 16 17.4
Others 2 1.9 4 4.3

Table 17 highlights that 80.6% of tourists visited the Thang Long Imperial Citadel were
self-organized, 24% higher than those visiting the Ho Citadel. This is easily explained:
the Thang Long site is situated in the central part of Hanoi close to other tourist
attractions such as the Hanoi Old Quarter, the Temple of Literature, the Ho Chi Minh
Mausoleum and Museum. The figure for people whose tours were part of the package
tour or taken by friends or relatives was 7.8%. Private tours and other arrangements
were 1.9% each. The figures for those who visited the Ho Citadel thanks to their friends
or relative were similar to those who booked private tours, accounting for 17.4% each.
Just 4.3% of the respondents were on their trips as a part of a package tour. The
remainder had other travelling arrangements. Research by Kempiak et al., (2017) found
that a relatively small percentage of visitors to six heritage sites across Northern Ireland
travelled as part of package tours, private tours or organized tours, meaning the majority
were independent travellers. These results are consistent with research by Gaffar,
Wetprasit and Setiyorini (2011) and Ashworth (2004), who highlighted that the
independent visitors constituted a large proportion of tourists at heritage sites.

63
 Table 18: Respondents’ travel companions

Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
Alone 12 11.7 10 10.9
Friends 28 27.2 25 27.2
Partner 41 39.8 21 22.8
Family/relatives 18 17.5 24 26.1
Colleagues 4 3.9 10 10.9
Other 2 2.1

The majority of tourists at both sites travelled in groups with their friends, partners or
family/relatives (Table 18). These findings correspond with Adie and Hall’s research
(2017) showing that a large number of tourists at all sites travelled in groups comprising
between two and five members. Travelling to the Thang Long Imperial Citadel with
their partners was the most prevalent among tourists (39.8%), followed by people with
their friends (27.2%). Those who went with their family or relatives comprised of
17.5%, whilst travelling alone involved 11.7%. Having a visit the site with colleagues
was the least popular choice among international tourists, with only 3.9%. Considering
the visitors at the Ho Citadel, the quantity of respondents travelled to the site together
with their friends were the biggest with 27.2 %, followed by those who were with their
family or relatives making up 26.1%, and 22.8% of respondents visited the sites with
their partners. It would appear that the quantity of visitors travelling alone was exactly
the same as visitors going with colleagues (10.9%). “Other” was the least noted among
visitors with 2.1% only.

Table 19: The World Heritage Site’s trip duration

Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

N % N %
1 - 2 hours 92 89.3 71 77.2
3 - 5 hours 9 8.7 18 19.6
½ day 1 1.0 3 3.2
1 day 1 1.0

As illustrated, spending from one to two hours on their visitation was the most favoured
choice amongst the majority of respondents 89.3% at the Thang Long Citadel and
77.2% at the Ho Citadel (Table 19). These findings could be because of the links
between sites, such as four different gates (North, South, East and West gate), Nam
64
Giao Open Worship place and adjacent temples that are not well connected at the Ho
Citadel. Though my observation, many tourist groups only visited the south gate of the
Ho Citadel and exhibition hall for a short period of time. At the Thang Long site, due to
a limited number of attractions tourists visited for short period of time and then left. The
quantity of visitors spending 3 - 5 hours at the Ho Citadel roughly doubled those at the
Thang Long site 19.6% versus 8.7%. Tourists who allocated half day or a day for
visiting were negligible. These results are in line with a research conducted by Kempiak
et al., (2017) that the cross tabulation presented nearly 90% of respondents who spent
less than one hour at attraction site.

Table 20: Sources of information

Category Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

Family/Relatives 6 22
Other travellers 9 8
Friends 11 22
Internet 48 47
Newspaper and Magazines 1 5
Travel guidebooks 54 6
Movies about the Vietnam World
2 7
Heritage Sites
TV channels 11
Travel agents 1 1
Accommodation provider 1

There were similarities and differences in the sources of information which visitors
obtained before visiting (Table 20). The internet was the prevalent source of
information for tourists at both the Thang Long site (48) and the Ho Citadel (47). The
internet was also ranked the first position among the Ho Citadel respondents.
Meanwhile, travel guidebooks were the most dominant for visitors at the Thang Long
site (54). This can be attributed to the travelling habit of foreigners using travel
guidebooks as a reliable source of information before exploring new destinations.
Vietnamese people sought information on the internet for their trips. In addition, friends
and family/relatives were judged as popular sources among the respondents with 22
times each at the Ho Citadel. These sources were less popular with only 11 (friends) and
6 (family/relatives) at the Thang Long site. Other sources of information including
movies about Vietnam WHS/s, Travel agents and Accommodation providers made up
only a small percentage.
65
5.3. Tourist experience and segmentation

The emphasis in this section is on tourists’ prior experiences, to classify heritage

tourists. Tourist experiences focus on the participants’ overall experiences at some other
WHS/s both inside and outside Vietnam, before they nominate their most interesting
experiences and their recommendations. This part attempts to divide tourists into
different groups based on their responses, combining two main aspects: the depth of
experience and cultural motives of visits, as explained by McKercher (2002).

5.3.1. Tourist experience

World Heritage Sites in Vietnam

Table 21 showcases other WHS/s in Vietnam and their prevalence among the
respondents. As can be seen, apart from visiting either the Thang Long Imperial Citadel
or the Citadel for Ho dynasty, the respondents were interested in seeing other WHS/s in
Vietnam. Ha Long Bay was the most visited place amongst the respondents with 49.5%
(Thang Long site) and 59.8% (Ho Citadel). Also, there were a huge number of
respondents who planned to visit this destination with 42.7% (Thang Long site) and
28.3% (Ho Citadel). The popularity of Ha Long Bay is inextricably linked to its history
and its widely applauded unique beauty. This site has been designated as WHS status
since 1994.

The second famous destination was the Hoi An ancient town which is located in the
central coast of Vietnam visited by 34% (Thang Long site) and 44.6% (Ho Citadel) and
to be visited by 22.3% (Thang Long site) and 28.3% (Ho Citadel) of the respondents.
The Complex of Hue Monument was ranked the third among the respondents from both
the Thang Long Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty. These three sites are situated in
or close to main tourist attractions in Vietnam, therefore easily accessible to a large
number of tourists. Other sites were less visited or to be visited largely due to their less
convenient locations.

66
 Table 21: List of other World Heritage Sites in Vietnam visited by the respondents

Visited To be visited

Sites Thang Long Ho Citadel Thang Long Ho

Citadel Citadel Citadel

% % % %
N N N N
(n =103) (n=92) (n =103) (n=92)
Ha Long Bay 51 49.5 55 59.8 44 42.7 26 28.3
Trang An
Landscape 8 7.8 43 46.7 12 11.7 15 16.3
Complex
Phong Nha - Ke
Bang National 3 2.9 28 30.4 9 8.7 18 19.6
Park
Complex of Hue
13 12.6 38 41.3 21 20.4 25 27.2
Monuments
Hoi An Ancient
35 34.0 41 44.6 23 22.3 26 28.3
Town
My Son Sanctuary 15 14.6 28 30.4 15 14.6 26 28.3

World Heritage Sites outside Vietnam

After reporting their experiences of WHS/s in Vietnam, respondents could note their
visits to any WHS/s globally. This question was left open, to enable any global WHS to
be mentioned. Participants were asked to name sites they had visited over the past two
or three years. A broad range of answers was gathered and scrutinized.

67
 Table 22: World Heritage Sites outside Vietnam and their prevalence among
the participants (Thang Long Imperial Citadel)

Site Respondents % (n =103)

Angkor Wat (Cambodia) 12 11.7
Great Wall (China) 9 8.7
Historic Monuments of Ancient
Nara(Japan) 9 8.7
Forbidden City (China) 7 6.8
Taj Mahal (India) 6 5.8
Anuradpurta (Sri Lanka) 5 4.9
Kinabalu (Malaysia) 3 2.9
Acropolis, Athens (Greece) 11 10.7
Cologne Cathedral (Germany) 8 7.8
Auscwitz (Germany) 8 7.8
Vantican city (Vantican city State) 7 6.8
Stonehenge (England) 6 5.8
Iguazu Fall (Brazil) 4 3.9
Machu Picchu (Peru) 3 2.9
City of Cuzo (Peru) 4 3.9

Comparing Table 22 with Table 23, overall more respondents who visited the Thang
Long Imperial Citadel were interested in seeing other sites in Asia, Europe and America
than those visited the Citadel for Ho dynasty (102 responses versus 37 responses).
Another striking feature was the dominance of Asian attractions which were by far the
most prevalent among tourists’ choices (7 sites). Concerning the Thang Long Citadel’s
tourists, a number of responses to sites in Asia, Europe and America were 51, 40 and 11
respectively. Likewise, the figures at the Citadel for Ho dynasty were overwhelmed by
Asian sites with 32 responses, followed by European sites (3 responses) and American
sites (2 responses).

68
 Table 23: World Heritage Sites outside Vietnam and their prevalence among
the participants (Citadel for Ho dynasty)

Sites Respondents % (n=92)

Luang Prabang (Laos) 7 7.6
Great Wall (China) 6 6.5
Angkor Wat (Cambodia) 5 5.4
Watphu (Laos) 5 5.4
Forbidden City (China) 4 4.3
George Town (Malaysia) 3 3.3
Borobudur (Indonesia) 2 3.3
Stonehenge (England) 3 2.2
Macchu Picchu (Peru) 2 2.2

It is notable that Asian sites achieved popularity among the respondents: Angkor Wat -
Cambodia with 11.7% (Thang Long site) and 5.4% (Ho Citadel); Great Wall - China
with 8.7% (Thang Long site) and 6.5% (Ho Citadel); Historic Monuments of Ancient
Nara - Japan with 8.7% (Thang Long site); Luang Prabang - Laos with 7.6 % (Ho
Citadel); Forbidden City - China with 6.8% (Thang Long site) and 4.3% (Ho Citadel);
Taj Mahal - India with 5.8% (Thang Long site). Other WHS/s in Asia occupied smaller
percentages including Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka), George Town (Malaysia), and
Borobudur (Indonesia). Together with the prevalence of Asian sites, some European
destinations had been visited by the respondents, especially for those who visited the
Thang Long site: Acropolis - Greece (10.7%); Cologne Cathedral (7.8%); Auschwitz -
Germany (7.8%); Vatican City - Vatican City State (6.8%) and Stonehenge - England
(5.8%). The popularity of Asian and European sites might be bound up with the large
proportion of European visitors of the total sample. Conversely, a quantity of
respondents had been to American sites, accounting for a mall percentage ranging from
2 to 3% each.

‘The most interesting experience’

This section highlights the most interesting experiences among the respondents when
they visited either the Thang Long or the Citadel for Ho dynasty. As shown on Table 24
and Table 25, the participants offered varied responses, comprising both tangible and
intangible aspects. Regarding similarities, the original architecture of the Thang Long

69
Citadel and Ho Citadel stood out as the most interesting features in the respondents’
trip: 14.6% (Thang Long site) and 13 % (Ho Citadel). An Australian middle -aged
woman said: “The Thang Long Citadel was amazing. Its architecture showcased
continuous dynasties in Vietnam’s history. I enjoyed walking and watching through
different ages in here”. Several respondents said they found the history of citadel very
interesting, accounting for 6.8% (Thang Long site) and 9.8% (Ho Citadel). Having a
chance to see archaeological remains and relics was another standout for some tourists
with 4.9% at the Thang Long site and 9.8% at the Ho Citadel noting this. Photography
was considered as an exciting activity at both sites.

Table 24: The most interesting aspects of the respondents’ trip at

the Thang Long Imperial Citadel
Aspects No of Respondents % of responses
(N=103)
Unique architecture of the citadel 15 14.6
The history of Hanoi 7 6.8
The existing and demolished buildings 7 6.8
Military bunkers and objects in relation to 6 5.8
the American war in Vietnam
Plants and gardens 5 4.9
Royal gates 5 4.9
The archaeological relics and remains 5 4.9
Exhibitions about old photos, archaelogical 4 3.9
artefacts, Hanoi citadel's history
Taking photos 4 3.9
Ceramic objects 3 2.9
Cultural stratigraphy 3 2.9
The tranquillity of the Thang Long site 2 1.9

Apart from these similarities, some differences were noted by the respondents. At the
Thang Long Citadel, tourists were interested in stories behind the existing and
demolished buildings (6.8%). 5.8% of all visitors were impressed by the military
bunkers and objects relating to the American War in Vietnam. Others were fascinated
by plants and gardens (4.9%. The Royal Gates were appreciated by the same number.
Exhibitions about old photos, archaeological artefacts and Hanoi citadel’s history;
ceramic objects; cultural stratigraphy and the tranquillity of the site were enjoyed by
smaller percentages of visitors, ranging from 1.9% to 3.9%. Participants at the Ho
Citadel were interested in how people in former times constructed such an amazing
70
citadel (12%), followed by a stated pleasure in the natural landscape (6.5%). The figure
for those who were keen on the structure and technique of building stone gates was
consistent with those intrigued by historical significances of the site (5.4%). Finally,
some visitors were the most excited about the Ho Citadel’s recent discoveries of
archaeology (3.3%).

Table 25: The most interesting aspects of the respondents’ trip at the
Citadel for Ho dynasty
Aspect No of respondents % (N=92)
The original architecture of Ho Citadel and its
building time 12 13.0
How the old people built such an amazing
citadel 11 12.0
The history of the Ho Citadel 9 9.8
Remaining artefacts 9 9.8
Natural landscape 6 6.5
Photo taking 6 6.5
Structure and technique of building stone
gates 5 5.4
Historical significances 5 5.4
The recent discoveries of archaeology 3 3.3

Recommendations
As to recommendations to improve the heritage site’s attributes, tourists at the Thang
Long Citadel and Ho Citadel made suggestions and recommendations (Table 26 and
Table 27). Visitors were interested in improving facilities and landscapes at these sites:
13.6% (Thang Long site) and 9.8% (Ho Citadel). In other words, some differences in
recommendation were reported in line with each heritage site. Concerning the Thang
Long Citadel, a large proportion of tourists were not satisfied with guiding and
marketing (24.3%). They would have preferred more signage, guides, and water taps
(11.7%), followed by a simpler and easier-to-understand plan of the citadel (9.7%).
More English directions and write-ups were suggested by 7.8% of the visitors. The
information about objects should be made more specific, and a need for installation of

71
power outlets throughout the site were expressed by 5.8% and 3.9% of the visitors
respectively.

Table 26: Recommendations to improve the heritage site from the respondents at the
Thang Long Imperial Citadel
No of % (N =
Aspects
Respodents 103)
Guiding and marketing activities should be further
25 24.3
enhanced.
More money should be allocated to improve the heritage's
facilities to serve more international visitors in the coming 14 13.6
years
More signage, guides and water tap should be deployed 12 11.7
The plan of the citadel should be simplified and made
10 9.7
easier to understand
More English directions and write-ups 8 7.8
Objects’ information need to be specific 6 5.8
More power points/ outlets should be made throughout the
4 3.9
site

With regard to the Ho Citadel, a large number of tourists (16.3%) were not entirely
pleased with their tours. They demanded a comprehensive tour with stone citadels and
worship alters (Table 27). They expressed their preference for better services such as
accommodation and souvenirs (14.1%). 12% of the visitors suggested that more
exhibitions and more frequent community-based programs. 9.8% of tourists at the Ho
Citadel (9.8) were not happy about the cost of entrance ticket, they wanted it reduced.
The same figure (7.6%) said that that the entrance reception could be improved and the
inner citadel should be excavated very soon to satisfy the demand of public.

Table 27: Recommendations to improve the heritage site from the respondents at the
Citadel for Ho dynasty
No of % (N =
Aspects respondents 92)
Different relics such as stone citadels, Nam Giao
worship alter should be combined in a 15 16.3
comprehensive tour
Services such as accommodation, souvenirs have
13 14.1
to be strengthened and diversified
More exhibitions and community-based activities 11 12.0
72
The ticket fee should be reduced 9 9.8
The infrastructure and landscape should be
9 9.8
improved
The entrance reception needs to be made more
7 7.6
good looking
The inner circle of citadel needs excavating and
7 7.6
studying in the coming years

5.3.2. Classification of heritage tourists

Regarding the heritage classification, a set of questions were constructed and delivered
to the participants. First, the depth of experience of heritage tourists was measured by a
four-point scale question ranging from 1 (mostly sightseeing/photography or seeing
interesting an unusual sites) to 4 (a chance to develop a deep understanding of the
WHS).

Table 28: The depth of experience among the respondents

Categories Thang Long site Ho site

N % N %
Mostly sightseeing/ photography or
27 26.2 20 21.7
seeing interesting and unusual sites
An opportunity to learn a little bit
43 41.7 14 15.2
about this WHS
An opportunity to learn a lot about
17 16.5 26 28.3
this WHS
A chance to develop a deep
16 15.5 32 34.8
understanding of this WHS
Total 103 100.0 92 100.0

Table 28 shows that tourists at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel had different
experiences from those at the Citadel for Ho dynasty. Concerning the Thang Long
Imperial Citadel, the biggest group was those who had an opportunity to learn a little bit
about the heritage site, accounting for 41.7%, followed by people who considered their
trips as mostly sightseeing/photography or seeing interesting and unusual sites (26.2%).
The figures for those who claimed their visit as an opportunity to learn a lot or a change
to develop deep understanding of the Thang Long site were smaller than previous
groups, taking up 16.5% and 15.5% respectively. Based on these statistics, it can be

73
concluded that tourists at the Thang Long site generally had sought shallow heritage
experiences.

Conversely, the largest group of tourists presented their deep understanding of the
heritage site (34.8%), and the runners-up were those who had an opportunity to learn a
lot via their visitation making up 28.3%. The quantity of tourists who suggested their
trip as mostly sightseeing/photography or seeing interesting and unusual sites,
constituted 21.7%. Finally, the group of respondents who had an opportunity to learn a
little bit about the heritage site was the least (15.2%). Consequently, the Ho Citadel’s
tourists had deeper heritage experiences than the Thang Long Citadel’s visitors. This
result is inextricably linked to the socio-demographic analysis with the prevalence of
Vietnamese visitors. Those people had a deep connection to their heritage site and
considered the Ho Citadel as their own heritage or precious treasure.

Table 29: Motives for visiting the Thang Long Imperial Citadel
Not Un- Neutral Important Very Sum
important important Important
at all
Culture/ N 13 11 8 26 45 103
Heritage
values % 12.6 10.7 7.8 25.2 43.7 100
Nature/ N 2 8 31 43 17 101
Landscape
% 2.0 7.9 30.7 42.6 16.8 100
Included in N 33 11 7 10 4 65
the tour
% 50.8 16.9 10.8 15.4 6.2 100

Apart from the depth of experience, McKercher’s model (2002) also identified cultural
motives in the decision of tourists who visited either the Thang Long Imperial Citadel
or the Citadel for Ho dynasty (Table 29 & Table 30). In this study, this is represented
through a five-point Likert scale question from “Unimportant” coded as 1 to “Very
important” coded as 5, regarding rationales for visiting the Thang Long Citadel or the
Citadel for Ho dynasty. Accordingly, culture/ heritage value was considered the most
prevalent at both site, accounting for 68.9% at the Thang Long site and 64.1% at the Ho
Citadel. Selecting nature or landscapes as a reason for visiting was the second popular
choice with 59.4% at the Thang Long site and 64.3% at the Ho Citadel. These figures
are consistent with the fact that both aforementioned sites are well-known for their
74
cultural heritage values which attract a large number of tourists each year. Apart from
heritage values, these sites are famous for their own nature/landscape attractions,
especially the Thang Long site is considered as opposite to the nearby bustling and
hustling environment. By contrast, just a small quantity of respondents 21.6% (Thang
Long site) and 30.3% (Ho site) claimed their visit as it was included in the tour.

Table 30: Motives for visiting the Citadel for Ho dynasty

Not Un- Neutral Important Very Sum

important important Important
at all
Culture/ N 9 12 12 30 29 92
Heritage
values % 9.8 13 13 32.6 31.5 100
Nature/ N 4 26 35 19 84
Landscape
% 4.8 31.0 41.7 22.6 100
Included in N 25 5 9 12 5 56
the tour % 44.6 8.9 16.1 21.4 8.9 100

According to McKercher’s classification of heritage tourists (2002), purposeful heritage

tourists are those who suppose that heritage played a strong role in their final decision to
visit (4 or 5) and had a deep heritage experience (3 or 4). Sightseeing heritage tourists
are those who claim that heritage played a strong role in their final decision to visit (4 or
5), but their heritage experiences were quite shallow (1 or 2). Casual heritage tourists
are those who were claimed to be at the mid-point in the motivation (3) and they had
shallow experiences (1 or 2). Incidental heritage tourists are those who indicate that
heritage tourism played a little or no role in their visit (1 or 2) and ended up with
shallow experiences. Serendipitous heritage tourists are those who assert that heritage
just played a little role in their final decisions to visit (1 or 2), but they ended up with
having deep experiences (3 or 4).

By applying McKercher’s model to this study (2002), five types of heritage tourists
were identified at each site. Generally speaking, both the Thang Long Imperial Citadel
and the Citadel for Ho dynasty witnessed the same trend that the majority of tourists
were either sightseeing heritage tourists or purposeful heritage tourists, accounting for
68.9% (Thang Long Citadel) and 69.5% (Ho Citadel). Meanwhile, the figures for

75
 incidental heritage tourists, casual heritage tourists and serendipitous heritage tourists
were much lower. Specifically, the percentage of casual, incidental and serendipitous
were 7.8%, 10.7% and 12.6% respectively (Thang Long Citadel) and the figures for Ho
Citadel were 12%, 6.5% and 12% respectively (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Classification of heritage tourists

Deep Serendipitous heritage tourist Purposeful heritage

12.6% (Thang Long) tourist
12.0% (Ho Citadel) 19.4 % (Thang Long)
46.7% (Ho Citadel)

Experience
sought
Incidental heritage Casual Sightseeing heritage
tourist heritage tourist tourist
10.7% (Thang Long) 7.8% (Thang 49.5% (Thang Long)
6.5% (Ho Citadel) Long) 22.8% (Ho Citadel)
12.0% (Ho
Citadel)

Shallow High
Low
Importance of cultural feature in the decision to visit

5.4. Tourist satisfaction

This section pays attention to tourist satisfaction in relation to their trips at the Thang
Long Imperial Citadel or the Citadel for Ho dynasty. It begins with the results of the
participants’ expectation and satisfaction with heritage attributes. Then this part
represents the results of research hypotheses by using factor analysis, correlation
analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), T-test and one-way ANOVA.

76
5.4.1. Tourist expectation and satisfaction with heritage attributes

The two tables (Table 31 & Table 32) represent 12 different attributes which are split
into satisfaction, indifference and dissatisfaction categories. It seems apparent that
heritage tourists were satisfied with 10 attributes (Thang Long site) and with 8 attributes
(Ho site). Meanwhile there were two attributes at the Thang Long Citadel and three
attributes at the Ho Citadel that tourists were unhappy. Visitors were also neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with one heritage attribute at the Ho Citadel.

Satisfaction
In this research, satisfying attributes are measured by the fact that scores of satisfaction
exceed expectation scores and t-value significance is at the 0.5 level. As a result,
heritage visitors to the Thang Long site expressed their highest degree of satisfaction
with “interpretation” (0.75), followed by “archaeological remains” (0.5). They had
lower expectation levels with heritage attributes: “accessibility”, “education programs”,
“exhibitions”, “landscape”, “atmosphere”, “indoor facilities”, “architecture” and
“services (cafés and restaurants)”, which spanned from 0.48 to 0.34.

With regard to the Ho Citadel, tourists were by far the most impressed with
“archaeological remains” (0.63) in comparison with other attributes. The satisfaction
levels of tourists with “landscape”, “interpretation”, “accessibility”, “architecture”,
“atmosphere”, “education programs”, and “guiding” ranged from 0.54 to 0.43. The
satisfactions of the respondents with heritage attributes were positively disconfirmed
with their expectations, resulting in various levels of satisfaction in line with those
attributes.

Indifference
Indifferent attributes were in principle defined as those heritage attributes with a non-
significant t-Value (p ≥ 0.05), irrespective of a positive or negative median difference.
Looking at the table, only heritage tourists to the Citadel for Ho dynasty felt neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with “exhibitions” (t-value = - 0.288). This represents that the
satisfaction of the respondents was consistent with their expectations, which was
conducive to neutral feelings or indifference related to this attribute.

77
Dissatisfaction
The attributes of dissatisfaction were considered as those attributes with expectation
levels exceeding satisfaction scores, regardless of a significant or non-significant t-
Value at the level of .05 or below. Both tables reveal that heritage visitors were unhappy
with two attributes at the Thang Long site and with three ones at the Ho Citadel.
Specifically, the Thang Long visitors were dissatisfied with “guiding” (Mean difference
= -0.84), closely followed by “souvenirs” (Mean difference = - 0.9). Meanwhile,
“indoors facilities” at the Ho Citadel were considered as the least satisfying (Mean
difference = -1.59), “services (cafés and restaurants)” ranking the second (Mean
difference = - 1.48) and finally “souvenirs” (Mean difference = -0.43). Therefore, the
satisfactions of respondents in relation with these attributes were negatively
disconfirmed with their expectations, causing their dissatisfaction.

78
 Table 31: The results of paired T-test between the respondents’ expectation and
satisfaction with heritage attributes (Thang Long Imperial Citadel)

Attributes Expectation Satisfaction Mean t– Sig. (2-

difference Value tailed)
Mean SD Mean SD
Satisfaction
Interpretation 4.32 1.203 5.07 1.285 0.75 -6.186 0
Archaeological
4.8 1.430 5.3 1.282 0.5 -3.459 0.001
remains
Accessibility 4.61 1.490 5.09 1.314 0.48 -3.351 0.001
Education
4.28 1.417 4.71 1.594 0.43 -2.566 0.012
programs
Exhibitions 4.52 1.290 4.94 1.282 0.42 -3.146 0.002
Landscape 4.87 1.304 5.29 1.250 0.42 -3.291 0.001
Atmosphere 5.05 1.070 5.44 1.226 0.39 -2.9 0.005
Indoor facilities 4.41 1.224 4.79 1.355 0.38 -2.603 0.011
Architecture 5.29 1.218 5.65 1.126 0.36 -3.184 0.002
Services (cafés/
4.15 1.517 4.49 1.680 0.34 -2.123 0.036
restaurants)
Dissatisfaction
Guiding 3.9 1.575 3.06 1.342 -0.84 4.566 0
Souvenirs 3.62 1.573 2.72 1.115 -0.9 5.087 0

79
 Table 32: The results of paired T-test between the respondents’ expectation and
satisfaction with heritage attributes (Ho Citadel)

Attributes Expectation Satisfaction Mean t– Value Sig. (2-

Mean SD Mean SD differ tailed)
ence
Satisfaction
Archaeological
4.8 1.400 5.43 1.252 0.63 -3.775 0
remains
Landscape 5.12 1.436 5.66 1.225 0.54 -3.581 0.001
Interpretation 4.49 1.387 5.02 1.467 0.53 -3.603 0.001
Accessibility 4.72 1.252 5.25 1.450 0.53 -3.221 0.002
Architecture 5.22 1.333 5.73 1.159 0.51 -3.575 0.001
Atmosphere 5.03 1.235 5.54 1.226 0.51 -2.962 0.004
Education
4.66 1.424 5.16 1.535 0.5 -2.611 0.011
programs
Guiding 4.62 1.466 5.05 1.626 0.43 -2.597 0.011
Indifference
Exhibitions 4.62 1.459 4.67 1.018 0.05 -0.288 0.774
Dissatisfaction
Souvenirs 4.03 1.478 3.6 1.059 -0.43 2.513 0.014
Services (cafés/
4.28 1.401 2.8 1.141 -1.48 7.325 0
restaurants)
Indoor facilities 4.58 1.328 2.99 1.074 -1.59 8.932 0

Note: Means of satisfaction range from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied)

Means of expectation run from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)
*p<0.05
SD: Standard Deviations

80
5.4.2. Overall satisfaction and intention to revisit

As part of the questionnaire, the respondents were further asked about their overall
satisfaction concerning their trips to either the Thang Long Citadel or the Citadel for Ho
dynasty. Table 33 reveals that more the Thang Long Citadel’s respondents felt satisfied
than those visiting the Ho Citadel (88.4% versus 78.2%). The figures for those who felt
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied were 5.8% (the Thang Long Citadel) and 17.4% (the
Ho Citadel). One notable figure was that only 5.8% of all respondents were little
dissatisfied with their trips at the Thang Long site, whereas the number of visitors felt
extremely dissatisfied and very dissatisfied, sharing the same proportion at 1.1% and
just 2.2% respondents felt a bit dissatisfied at the Ho Citadel.

Table 33: The overall satisfaction of the respondents

Categories Thang Long site Ho site

Frequency % (N = 103) Frequency % (N = 92)
Extremely
0 0 1 1.1
Unsatisfied
Very Dissatisfied 0 0 1 1.1
Little Dissatisfied 6 5.8 2 2.2
Neutral 6 5.8 16 17.4
Satisfied 46 44.7 33 35.9
Very Satisfied 38 36.9 32 34.8
Extremely
7 6.8 7 7.6
Satisfied
Mean 5.33 5.21
SD 0.912 1.075
Range 4 6

Note: overall satisfaction is measured based on a 7 point Likert scale from 1 (extremely
dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied)
SD: Standard Deviations

The results also reflected that the range of overall satisfaction for respondents at the
Thang Long site and the Ho Citadel was 4% and 6% respectively. In addition, the mean
value of the respondents’ satisfaction at the Thang Long was fairly higher than that at
the Ho Citadel (5.33 versus 5.21). Based on the overall satisfaction scale these mean
values were towards the high end, suggesting that visitors at both the Thang Long

81
Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty had generally satisfactory experiences with their
visits.

Table 34: The respondents’ revisiting plan

Categories Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

Frequency % Frequency %
Yes 24 23.3 72 78.3
No 25 24.3 4 4.3
No idea 54 52.4 16 17.4
Total 103 100.0 92 100.0

According to Table 34, there are two main opposite streams in the respondents’
intention to revisit the Thang Long or the Ho Citadel. At the Thang Long Citadel, a
majority of visitors had no clear idea (52.4%), followed by those who were not going to
visit again (24.3%). Only 23.3% of all respondents agreed that they intended to come
back to the site. By contrast, nearly 80% of all participants indicated that they would
revisit the Ho Citadel in the future. Those who had no idea or were not interested to
come back accounted for around one fifth of the tourists. The results could be explained
due to the difficulties of long-haul trips among the tourists who visited the Thang Long
site as foreigners. Besides, many tourist attraction sites in Vietnam are not so attractive,
thus around 80% international visitors do not return to Vietnam (Zing, 2017).

5.4.3. Hypotheses testing

According to the objectives of this research, four hypotheses were proposed. Every
hypothesis is reiterated and the results of statistical analysis are showcased in the
following.

Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between the overall tourist satisfaction and

the heritage selected attributes

Factor analysis
As presented in the methodology chapter, data of this research was justified to be
relevant for factor analysis in order to extend the comprehension of respondents’
expectation of the heritage sites. The objective of factor analysis was to uncover the

82
possible interdependence between original variables and the factor (Hair et al., 1998).
However, it is vital to figure out the quantity of factors to extract. High loadings create
the variable representatives of the factor, and the result of loadings from 0.5 is
considered relevant and significant.

The principal component factor method with varimax rotation was used to generate the
underlying dimensions. The factors with eigenvalue equal to or more than 1.0 were used
and reported (Sharma, 1996; Hair et al., 1998). Eigenvalue showcases the sum of
standardized variance taken up by a factor. The quantity of eigenvalues is the proportion
of variance made up. Therefore, four different factors at Thang Long site, including
“General attraction”, “Natural features”, “Cultural features” and “Maintenance factors”
were measured and selected which reflect 70.23% of the total variance.

In the next step, in order to test reliability and internal consistency of each factor, the
Cronbach’s alpha was run. The result confirms that variables within each factor ranged
from 0.677 to 0.770. The result was considered more than consistent; because, α > 0.50
is the minimum value accepted as an indication of reliability in basic research
(Nunnally, 1967; Hair et al., 1998; as cited in Mehmetoglu, 2005). The communality of
every variable was from 0.465 to 0.796.

Table 35 depicts the results from the factor analysis at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel.
Fours factors were labelled according to its common characteristics. The first factor,
“General attraction”, was composed of four items which were “Services (cafés and
restaurants), the items accounting this factor had the highest loadings, which
represented a strong connection with the factor. Furthermore, variables within this
factor were significantly linked to each other since α = 0.759. With an eigenvalue of
4.892, this factor made up the largest proportion of variance explained (40.768%).

The second factor labelled “Natural features” consisted of three various variables
“Atmosphere”, “Architecture” and “Landscape”. The reliability alpha of this factor was
0.770, thus showing a strong tie between variables under it. With eigenvalue of 1.367,
this factor constituted 11.393% of total variance.

83
The third factor called “Cultural features” was composed of three attributes
“Exhibitions”, “Interpretation” and “Archaeological remains”. The reliability alpha of
this factor was 0.699 which showed a reasonable correlation between variables. The
eigenvalue of this factor was 1.167; and it occupied 9.725% of total variance.

The final factor “Maintenance factors” was generated by two different attributes
“Accessibility” and “Indoor facility”. With eigenvalue of 1.001, this factor represented
8.344 of all variance. Two variables within this factor were reasonably connected to
each other with a reliability alpha of 0.677.

Table 35: Factor analysis of the perception of attributes at the Thang Long Citadel

Categories Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Communality

General Attraction
Services (cafés and 0.796
0.846
restaurants)
Education 0.714
0.730
programs
Guiding 0.568 0.759
Souvenirs 0.538 0.465
Natural features
Atmosphere 0.741 0.758
Architecture 0.739 0.705
Landscape 0.676 0.706
Cultural features
Exhibitions 0.801 0.724
Interpretation 0.724 0.679
Archaeological 0.513 0.579
remains
Maintenance
factors
Accessibility 0.780 0.767
Indoor facilities 0.739 0.777

Eigenvalue 4.892 1.367 1.167 1.001

Variance (%) 40.768 11.393 9.725 8.344
Cumulative 40.768 52.161 61.886 70.230
variance (%)
Reliability 0.759 0.770 0.699 0.677
coefficient

84
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) = 0.805
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: p = 0.000 (x2 = 498.337, df = 66)

The same methodology was utilized to analyse factors at the Citadel for Dynasty; there
were only two factors more than 1.0 extracted at the Ho Citadel: “General attraction”
and “Natural features”, which explain 60.31% of the total variance (Table 36). The
Cronbach’s alpha of each factor was measured. The results showed the alpha
coefficients were 0.887 and 0.854 which were more significant and reliable compared to
the standard value of 0.5. The communality of variables fluctuated between 0.443 and
0.774.

The first factor “General attractions” included 9 variables “Guiding”, “Interpretation”,

“Indoor facilities”, “Souvenirs”, “Exhibitions”, “Archaeological remains”, “Education
programs”, “Accessibility”, “Services (café and restaurants). This factor accounted for
the largest proportion of variance explained (49.640%), with an eigenvalue of 5.957.
Variables within this factor were substantially linked to each other because since α =
0.887.

The second factor titled “Natural Features” loaded with three various variables
“Atmosphere”, “Architecture” and “Landscape”. This result accounted for 10.670% of
all variance, with an eigenvalue of 1.280 and a reliability of 0.854, thereby presenting a
strong link among attributes.

Table 36: Factor analysis of the perception of attributes at the Citadel for Ho dynasty

Categories Factor 1 Factor 2 Communality

General attraction
Guiding 0.801 0.642
Interpretation 0.736 0.639
Indoor facilities 0.719 0.595
Souvenirs 0.713 0.555
Exhibitions 0.657 0.568
Archaeological remains 0.606 0.443
Education programs 0.578 0.608

85
 Accessibility 0.564 0.469
Services (café and restaurants) 0.463
0.533

Natural features
Landscape 0.853 0.774
Atmosphere 0.831 0.767
Architecture 0.823 0.714

Eigenvalue 5.957 1.280

Variance (%) 49.640 10.670
Cumulative variance (%) 49.640 60.310
Reliability coefficient 0.887 0.854

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) = 0.862
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: p = 0.000 (x2 = 573.088, df = 66)

Correlation Analysis
Table 37: Correlation between the overall satisfaction and Thang Long
citadel’s four factors
F1 F3 F2 F4 Overall
Satisfaction
Pearson
1 .460** .480** .504** .190
Correlation
F1 Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .054
tailed)
N 103 103 103 103 103
Pearson ** ** **
.460 1 .491 .538 .292**
Correlation
F3 Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .003
tailed)
N 103 103 103 103 103
Pearson
.480** .491** 1 .484** .321**
Correlation
F2 Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .001
tailed)
N 103 103 103 103 103
Pearson
.504** .538** .484** 1 .187
Correlation
F4 Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .059
tailed)
N 103 103 103 103 103

86
 Pearson
.190 .292** .321** .187 1
Correlation
Overall
Sig. (2-
Satisfaction .054 .003 .001 .059
tailed)
N 103 103 103 103 103
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 37 presents the correlation coefficient which identified the strength of linear
between variables. Correlation analysis sought the link between the overall satisfaction
and four different factors namely General attraction, Natural features, Cultural features
and Maintenance factors at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel. The correlation between
these variables is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). According to the result, the
correlation between the overall satisfaction and the General attraction (F1) was 0.190 (p
= 0.54); the correlation between the overall satisfaction and the Natural features (F2)
was 0.321 (p = 0.01). The link between overall satisfaction and the Cultural features
(F3) was 0.292 (p = 0.03) and finally the correlation between the overall satisfaction
and the Maintenance factors (F4) was 0.187 (p = 0.59). Generally, the connection
between the overall satisfaction and the Natural features or the Cultural features was
better than that between the overall satisfaction and the General attraction or the
Maintenance factors.

Table 38: Correlation between overall satisfaction and the Citadel for
Ho dynasty’s two factors
F1 F2 Overall
Satisfaction
Pearson
1 .621** .194
Correlation
F1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .063
N 92 92 92
Pearson
.621** 1 .209*
Correlation
F2
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .046
N 92 92 92
Pearson
.194 .209* 1
Overall Correlation
Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .063 .046
N 92 92 92
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

87
Given the Citadel for Ho dynasty’s case, Table 38 represents the correlation between the
overall satisfaction and the two various factors called General attraction and Natural
features. The correlation analysis is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) and at the 0.05
level (2-tailed). As seen in the table, the correlation between the overall satisfaction and
the General attraction (F1) was 0.194 (p = 0.63) and the relationship between the overall
satisfaction and the Natural features was 0.209 (p = 0.46). The study, therefore, justifies
that the correlation between the overall satisfaction and the natural feature was higher
than that between the overall satisfaction and the General attraction. It can be
summarized that the correlation between the overall satisfaction and the heritage
selected attributes at the Thang Long site was stronger than that at the Citadel for Ho
dynasty. These results reveal that there is a moderate degree of correlation between the
overall satisfaction and heritage sites’ selected attributes.

Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between tourists’ overall satisfaction and

their intentions to revisit

With the aim of assessing the influence of loyalty as independent variable on the
dependent variable as the overall satisfaction, the multiple correlation (R), coefficient of
determination (R2) and F ratio were identified. According to Table 39, it represents the
results of the multiple regression analysis of respondents at the Thang Long Imperial
Citadel. Accordingly, R2 reflecting that just under 20% of the variance in technical
quality was described by the regression analysis. The F ratio which showcased whether
the results would have taken place by chance was 1.715 (p = 0.193). The standardized
coefficient beta (B) was -0.129, p = 0.193, F = 1.715 which was considered
insignificant. Consequently, the results justified that there was no relationship between
the tourists’ overall satisfaction and their intentions to re-visit at the Thang Long site.

88
 Table 39: Regression for the relationship between the tourists’ overall satisfaction and
their intentions to re-visit at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig

Coefficients Coefficients
B Std.Error Beta
Overall Satisfaction
5.658 .266 21.297 .000
(Constant)
Loyalty -.143 .019 -.129 -1.310 .193
R2/ Adjusted R2 .017/007
F/Sig 1.715/ 0.193

In the case of the Citadel for Ho dynasty, the regression model was also applied to
understand the link between the tourists’ overall satisfaction and their intentions for
revisiting. Accordingly, the tourist’ loyalty was judged as the independent variable and
the tourists’ overall satisfaction as the dependent variable. Table 40 reveals that the
standardized coefficient beta (B) was 0.320 (p≤0.01). The F statistic of 1.715 was
regarded as significant at the p = 0.000 level of significance. Furthermore, R2 revealed
more than 30% of the variation of tourists’ overall satisfaction was depicted in the
study. The p-value of the t-test was less than 0.01, showing that beta coefficient was
significant. With the results in mind, there is a positive relationship between the tourist
overall satisfaction and their intentions for repeat trips at the Citadel for Ho dynasty.
Consequently, so the hypothesis was rejected for the Ho Citadel’s case and was
accepted for the Thang Long Citadel.

Table 40: Regression for the relationship between the tourists’ overall satisfaction and
their intentions to re-visit at the citadel for Ho dynasty

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig

Coefficients Coefficients
B Std.Error Beta
Overall Satisfaction
5.502 .231 23.819 .000
(Constant)
Loyalty .412 .120 .320 1.310 .000
R2/ Adjusted R2 .037/ 412
F/Sig 1.715/ 0.00

89
Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the overall satisfaction and the
participants’ demographic characteristics: gender, age, education level and
occupation

By using two tailed independent t-test and one-way ANOVA, Table 41 depicts the
mean differences between overall satisfaction and the respondents’ demographic
characteristics. The results illustrate that no significant difference in the overall
satisfaction of the participants such as gender, age, education level and occupation was
reported. The only substantial difference in the overall satisfaction of the visitors was
uncovered by gender (t= 24.195 and t = 23.157, p<0.05): more females were satisfied
than males at these heritage sites. Therefore, the hypothesis can be only rejected in
terms of gender.

Table 41: Independent T-test and One-way ANOVA results of the mean difference
between overall satisfaction and the respondents’ demographic characteristics

Variables Thang Long Citadel Ho Citadel

Frequency Mean Frequency Mean
Gender T = 24.195 T= 23.157
Male 50 5.30 41 4.93
Female 53 5.36 51 5.43
Age F= 1.194 F= 2.611
16 – 18 7 5 5.40
19 – 29 44 5.41 25 5.48
30 – 39 26 5.04 32 4.84
40 – 49 15 5.33 13 5.47
50 – 59 6 5.50 9 5.67
60 – 69 5 6.00 5 3.67
>70 3 5.33
Education level F=0.792 F= 1.459
Primary School 1 6.00
Secondary School 6 5.17 11 5.55
High School 12 5.58 15 5.33
Vocational School 1 6.00 19 4.74
Tertiary 39 5.36 43 5.21
Post-graduate 44 5.27 3 6.00
Other 1 4.00
Occupation F= 0.320 F=0.695
Employee 61 5.26 34 5.26
Self-employed 12 5.25 11 5.67
Retired 1 6.00 4 4.50
90
 Civil servant 8 5.38 23 5.17
Unemployed 3 5.50 2 5.33
Housewife/man 11 5.55 11 5.19
Student 7 6.00 7 4.50

Hypothesis 4: There is no difference in overall satisfaction between heritage tourist

groups

Table 42 shows that five groups of heritage tourists at the Thang Long Citadel had
different levels of satisfaction. The serendipitous heritage tourists who expressed their
highest overall satisfaction were “satisfied”, “very satisfied” or even “extremely
satisfied” (98%) compared to 85% of casual heritage tourists, 81.8% of purposeful
heritage tourists, 75% of incidental heritage tourists and 62.5% of sightseeing heritage
tourists.

Table 42: Comparison of five groups of heritage tourists with overall satisfaction at
the Thang Long Citadel
Casual Incidental Sightseeing Purposeful Serendipitous
heritage heritage heritage heritage heritage
Categories
tourists tourists tourists tourists tourists
N=8 N = 11 N = 51 N=20 N=12
Extremely Unsatisfied 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Very Dissatisfied 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Little Dissatisfied 10.0 8.3 12.5 18.2 0.0
Neutral 5.0 16.7 25 0.0 2.0
Satisfied 25.0 8.3 37.5 45.5 49.0
Very Satisfied 45.0 58.3 12.5 27.3 47.1
Extremely Satisfied 15.0 8.3 12.5 9.0 2.0

Similarly, Table 43 shows the differences between heritage tourists groups in relation to
their overall satisfaction at the Citadel for Ho dynasty. Accordingly, the serendipitous
heritage tourists had the highest level of satisfaction, accounting for 85.7%, in
comparison with the purposeful heritage tourists (84.9%), casual heritage tourists
(83.5%), incidental heritage tourists (63.6%) and sightseeing heritage tourists (54.5%).
91
The results from this research have indicated that the hypothesis be rejected.

Table 43: Comparison of five groups of heritage tourists with overall satisfaction at
the Ho Citadel
Casual Incidental Sightseeing Purposeful Serendipitous
heritage heritage heritage heritage heritage
Categories
tourists tourists tourists tourists tourists
N = 11 N=6 N = 21 N = 43 N = 11
Extremely Unsatisfied 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Very Dissatisfied 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Little Dissatisfied 5.0 0.0 9.1 2.7 0.0
Neutral 9.3 27.3 36.4 12.4 14.3
Satisfied 27.9 18.2 9.1 14.7 28.6
Very Satisfied 53.5 27.3 45.5 53.5 52.4
Extremely Satisfied 2.0 18.2 0.0 16.7 4.8

5.5. Conclusion

This chapter firstly featured the social demographic characteristics and travel behaviour
of the respondents. Visitors to the Thang Long Citadel and the Ho Citadel were
composed of both males and females, yet there were more female visitors than male
ones. Those people were considered young and middle aged and well-educated. The
majority of the respondents at these sites were first-time tourists who were independent
in their visit arrangements, largely travelling in groups and spending a short time
visiting. Subsequently, this chapter depicted the tourist experience and classification of
heritage tourists. Regarding tourists’ experience at other WHS/s outside Vietnam, the
findings showed that more tourists at the Thang Long Citadel visited these sites than
visitors at the Ho Citadel. Additionally, the majority of visitors said that they were
impressed with architecture, history and ancient remains revealed through excavations.
Through the survey, the respondents offered many recommendations such as guiding,
entrance ticket fees, signage and other amenities which they thought should be urgently
need to be fixed or improved.

Using McKercher model (2002), it was found that purposeful heritage tourists were the
largest group of visitors at the Ho Citadel. In contrast, the Thang Long Citadel
witnessed the dominance of sightseeing heritage tourists. Every type of heritage tourists
has her/his own depth of experience and cultural motives for visiting. Accordingly,

92
heritage tourists at the Thang Long have shallow experience and heritage plays an
important role in their trip motives. Results also proved that a majority of respondent
were foreigners, most of whom visited the heritage site for the very first time, and were
seeking to learn about the citadel. Nonetheless, their experience was shallow and
entertainment- oriented rather than concentrated on a deep understanding of the site. In
comparison, heritage tourists at the Citadel for Ho dynasty had a deep heritage
experience. The search for heritage played a crucial role in their visitation. Those people
aspired to learn more about the heritage site and gained substantial insights. Finally, this
chapter illuminated the relationship between tourists’ satisfaction and the heritage
selected attributes. Based on the analysis between tourists’ expectation and tourists’
satisfaction, it can be argued that tourists had different levels of satisfaction over the
heritage attributes.

93
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

6.1. Introduction

Through reviewing the existing literature, little research has touched upon the Vietnam
tourism industry, especially heritage tourism and WHS/s’ contributions. Accordingly,
this thesis has sought to focus on visitors, thus aiming to achieve insights into various
segments of tourists and their levels of enjoyment is in relation to heritage tourism. The
results are believed to have assisted tourism managers and organizations in the better
managing the tourist services and further improving the heritage attributes.

With regard to the methodology of research, a quantitative questionnaire survey was

utilized to gather primary data from international and domestic visitors at two WHS/s in
Vietnam: the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty. Statistical
analysis tools such as factor analysis, correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis,
independent T-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were employed to test the
hypotheses of this study.

Analysis of the results in the last chapter showed that despite some similarities, heritage
tourists have substantial differences in terms of socio-demographic characteristics and
travel behavior features. Various types of heritage tourists noted diverse levels of
satisfaction. Therefore, it would be critical to group these findings in a bid to supply a
clearer and brighter picture of visitors to the heritage sites in Vietnam.

Starting with a summary of the research’s primary findings, this chapter endeavors to
propose some implications for Vietnam national tourism organizations, heritage
management boards and tour operators, before discussing with limitations and potentials
for future studies. A few concluding remarks are placed at the end of this chapter.

6.2. Research findings: a final summary

The research findings reveal that over 70% of all tourists visiting either the Thang Long
Imperial Citadel or the Citadel for Ho dynasty tended to be young and middle-aged.
Most of them had a high level of education and were as employees or were self-

94
employed. In the category of original residence of tourists, while most tourists at the
Thang Long Citadel were foreigners with Japanese taking the first position, domestic
visitors were the most dominant at the Ho Citadel.

Travel behavior features of visitors saw that a majority of people who visited the
heritage sites were in Vietnam for the first time. These people mostly organized their
trip by themselves and travelled along with their friends, partners, family/relatives or
colleagues. Most of tourists only spent from 1 to 2 hours seeing the heritage site. There
was a sharp difference in terms of the respondents’ sources of information. Internet and
travel guide books were the most utilized sources of information for those who visited
the Thang Long Citadel. Tourists at the Ho Citadel selected internet, family/relatives
and friends as their preferences.

Tourist experiences such as their favorite thing and their recommendations were
highlighted. Generally speaking, visitors at the Thang Long site were claimed as mostly
foreigners who had more experiences with Vietnam and worldwide heritage sites than
visitors at the Ho Citadel. A majority of visitors were interested in architecture, history
and archaeological remains.

Considering the classification of heritage tourists, five groups were identified, called
purposeful heritage tourists, sightseeing heritage tourists, casual heritage tourists,
incidental heritage tourists and serendipitous heritage tourists (McKercher, 2002). The
results showed that the purposeful heritage tourists and the sightseeing heritage tourists
were by far the most prevalent compared to other groups of visitors. This explained that
cultural/heritage motive played a critical role in tourists’ visitation. Besides, a difference
in distribution of these two most popular groups at two heritage sites was reported. At
the Thang Long site, the sightseeing heritage tourists were the most popular, followed
by the purposeful heritage tourists while the opposite was true at the case of the Ho
Citadel.

Through scrutinizing the hypothesis, it could be supposed that various groups of visitors
had different levels of satisfaction towards the heritage attributes. Indeed, the
serendipitous heritage tourists and the purposeful heritage tourists offered their highest
evaluation of attributes. This could be possibly linked to their main motivations and

95
desire while visiting. Through the classification, it could be believed that the Ho
Citadel’s tourists as mostly domestic people had deeper and more engaging heritage
experience than its counterpart. The segmentation of visitors highlights that not all kinds
of tourists were highly interested in heritage sites in Vietnam. As a result, evaluation of
heritage attraction sites in Vietnam for both international and domestic visitors is
necessary to create a comprehensive tourism development strategy.

In addition to the segmentation of heritage tourists, this chapter measured the visitors’
satisfaction and the selected heritage attributes at the Thang Long site and the Ho
Citadel site. The research compared the tourists’ satisfaction to the 12 heritage
attributes, through which categorized into satisfied attributes, indifferent attributes and
dissatisfied attributes. A majority of attributes were listed as satisfied attributes, the
remainders were split into indifferent attributes and dissatisfied attributes.

Given the overall satisfaction among the participants, hypotheses were presented and
tested to justify how visitors felt fulfilled with their trips. Firstly, factor analysis of the
12 heritage attributes were performed in order to understand the underlying dimensions
of the attributes and then correlation analysis was conducted to figure out the
relationship between the tourists’ level of satisfaction in relation to the heritage
attributes. The findings showed that visitors at the Thang Long site had different levels
of satisfaction compared to the Ho Citadel. Moreover, by examining the hypotheses,
there was a correlation between tourists’ overall satisfaction and heritage attributes. The
correlation between tourists’ overall satisfaction and their intentions to revisit was true
in the case of the Ho Citadel. The relationship between tourist overall satisfaction and
demographic characteristic was true in terms of gender only. Ultimately, there were
huge differences between the overall satisfaction of tourists and heritage tourist groups.

6.3. Implications and recommendations

This part focuses on the implications and recommendations for heritage practitioners at
all levels including the Vietnam national tourism organizations and heritage
management boards. In the meantime, it provides some advice as well as
recommendations for each practitioner to strengthen marketing strategies and improve
tourism products and services.

96
Implications and recommendations for the Vietnam tourism organizations
Through the findings at the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho
dynasty, cultural/heritage tourism is generally one of the best tourist attractions of the
Vietnam tourism. The cultural/heritage sites could become the leading tourism products,
so marketing and promotion program should be made in response to the fast growing of
this sector. It is consistent with existing studies that culture, history and natural
landscape are the most prevalent tourist attractions in Vietnam. Vietnam is privileged to
possess a variety of landscapes, sceneries, long history and unique cultures throughout
the country, thereby shaping massive tourist attractions. As a result, these important
values should be stressed in marketing strategies and in enhancing the image of country
globally. Sites should also be interpreted a manner that is informative as well as appeals
to visitors, whilst maintaining the integrity of the attraction itself. Unfortunately, the
quality of tourism products and services as well as infrastructure should be taken into
account. These are reasons why repeat visitors to Vietnam are much lower than
neighboring countries such as Thailand and Malaysia. In order to bolster the image of
Vietnam tourism, providing better services and products and investment into
fundamental infrastructure are highly recommended.

The second implication for the Vietnam national tourism organizations is the
assumption that visitors to WHS/s are heterogeneous. Given the application of
Mckercher’s model (2002), five different heritage tourists were measured at the Thang
Long site and the Ho site, namely purposeful heritage tourists, sightseeing heritage
tourists, casual heritage tourists, incidental heritage tourists and serendipitous heritage
tourists. These heritage tourists were grouped based on two factors: the role of
cultural/heritage in their visitation and the depth of their experience. The majority of the
respondents were the purposeful heritage tourists and the sightseeing heritage tourists,
reflecting that cultural/heritage was the main reason for their visitation. Regarding the
nature of these types of tourists, the purposeful heritage tourists have a deep heritage
experience and heritage motive plays a vital role in their trips. Meanwhile, the
sightseeing heritage tourists have a shallow heritage experience and heritage plays an
important role in their visit. Therefore, any changes or improvements in heritage
management and tourism products should be carefully examined, informed by this new
insight into heritage tourists.

97
Implications for the heritage management boards
Through comments made by visitors at the Thang Long Citadel and the Ho site, some
implications and recommendations are noted. All visitors to these sites are in need of
cultural/heritage information, so it is vital to supply tourists with accessible information
about each site. Regardless of their visit motivation and their heritage experience,
providing brochures, leaflets and guidebooks might assist tourists in enriching their
knowledge of heritage site. Besides, diverse sources of information aid tourists in
avoiding one-sided stories which are judged as propaganda (Le, 2009).

Several specific suggestions could be made for each site given its individual
characteristics. At the Thang Long site, the heritage management board might take
guiding into account because not many tourists had the opportunity to be guided
throughout their trips, largely due to the lack of guides. Given the huge number of
Japanese at the Thang Long site, and the lack of Japanese guiding offered by the Thang
Long management board so far, guides in Japanese would be useful. This may also
apply to Korean and Chinese guiding needs.

More signage, guide, water taps and power outlets could be deployed as basic amenities
for visitors. At the Ho Citadel, a more comprehensive tour including various sites
should be made so visitors can see the whole heritage site, not just parts of it. In
addition to this, investment into accommodation, souvenirs and exhibitions are required
to meet the increasing demands of visitors. Finally, more excavations to clarify the
ancient structures of the Ho Citadel are highly recommended. These recommendations
were suggested for the Thang Long site and the Ho Citadel in particular. Generally, they
can be applied to other sites which share similar characteristics and functions in
Vietnam such as Hue citadel or My Son sanctuary.

Based on the expectation-satisfaction analysis, some suggestions could be made for the
heritage management boards. At both sites, some attributes indicated high satisfaction
amongst visitors such as archaeological remains, landscapes which need to be
maintained. In contrast, some attributes such as guiding and souvenirs (Thang Long
site) and souvenirs, services (café and restaurants) and indoor facilities (Ho Citadel) did
not really interest visitors, so they need to be changed or improved. This is somewhat
consistent with a research made by Huang, Weiler and Assaker (2015) supposing that

98
heritage tourism managers need to take heed of guiding as a useful tool for delivering
and satisfying tourist experiences.

Globally, heritage tourism management is stepping into a more visitor-oriented

approach which consists of concerns about tourists’ preferences and the quality of their
experiences as well (Apostolakis & Jaffry, 2005). It is undeniable that once visitors
have a sense of complacency, they might be more likely to support the philosophy of
the site’s management plans; therefore the site will be easier to manage (Alazaizeh et
al., 2016; Hall & McArthur, 1996). Based on this research’s findings, the majority of
tourists as foreigners at the Thang Long site seek to achieve a shallow entertainment-
oriented experience such as wandering, taking photos, enjoying their time and learning a
little bit. By bearing these in mind, managers should supply them with appropriate
interpretation materials and on-site activities, which combine education and
entertainment. By contrast, comprehensive materials and wide-ranging activities could
be provided for tourists at the Ho Citadel as they are keen to seek deeper understanding
of the heritage site. Involving tourists’ suggestions and recommendations in
management plans and decision-making plans will undoubtedly ensure the growth and
sustainability of the heritage site.

6.4. Limitations and future studies

Limitations
In this study, several limitations have been recorded. First, the survey was only
conducted within a short period of time, so there was no chance to obtain longitudinal
data but seasonal responses. The author’s circumstances as an international student
meant that the survey was undertaken in during the off-peak period of international and
domestic tourists. This could cause the limitation of diversity of sample sizes. Second,
the selected attributes as independent variables could be another weakness of this study,
because other attributes which were not used could affect the views and attitudes of
tourists. Next, both the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty
were not representative of all WHS/s in Vietnam. Research at all sites would be more
comprehensive and advisable. The final limitation could be due to the differentiation
between expectation and satisfaction. Some respondents replied to both things in a
similar manner, making total clarity less certain. However, it is believed that these
limitations could make the way for additional directions and future studies.

99
Future research
Given the above-mentioned limitations, some issues have occurred demanding further
investigation. Firstly, the study sites may have affected the research findings. If this
study had used one site in Vietnam and one site in another country or one cultural
heritage site versus one natural heritage site, the final results could have been different.
Therefore, it would be interesting to make a comparison with sites in Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia and Malaysia. Secondly, this research used only one way to classify heritage
tourists and identify the satisfaction of the respondents. If more approaches had been
applied, there may have been diverse results. Future researches could take advantage of
different viewpoints to achieve a greater range of findings.

6.5. Conclusion

This research has created not only a theoretical contribution to tourism literature but
also a practical account of heritage tourism in Vietnam. Some key conclusions were
made from this study. First, classification of heritage tourists proves that these visitors
are not heterogeneous. Sightseeing heritage tourists and serendipitous heritage tourists
are by far the most numerous. Accordingly, appropriate marketing and tourism products
are of vital importance to targeting potential visitors. Second, tourists have different
satisfaction levels of the heritage attributes and they were mostly satisfied with their
trips. However, from the tourists’ perspective, heritage management boards should
further improve the existing attributes to attract more visitors. If managed well, these
sites can have greater impacts on the conservation and promotion of Vietnam cultural
heritage. This strategy is likely to enable Vietnam to continue its growth as a country
that attracts tourists.

100
APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Participant Information Sheet

Faculty of Arts
Level 9, 10 Symonds Street
Telephone 64 9 373 7599 ext.88614
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

The segmentation and satisfaction of visitors to the World Heritage: Comparative

analysis of two Cultural Heritage sites in Vietnam

Name of researcher: Nam Nguyen Ky

Supervisor: Dr. Claudia Bell
Researcher Introduction
I am Nguyen Ky Nam and I am a student in the University of Auckland, Faculty of
Arts, School of Humanities. My supervisor is Dr. Claudia Bell.
This Project
Rationale: The reason that I am doing this research is that there has been little research
focusing on the segmentation and satisfaction of visitors at the World Heritage Sites in
Vietnam including the Thang Long Imperial Citadel and the Citadel for Ho dynasty.
Aims: The research attempts to identify and analyze the different groups of visitors and
their satisfaction so that recommendations might be created to better respond to visitors
and to further improve the quality of heritage tourism products in Vietnam.
Duration: This project will be conducted from August to October 2017
Invitation to participate
You are invited participated in this research because you are a visitor travelling to this
heritage site. Your participation is voluntary and you may decline this invitation to
participate without penalty. I would highly appreciate any assistance you can offer me
Project Procedures
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to answer questions in the questionnaire.
The expected time commitment from you for this will be around 12 – 15 minutes. You
can choose to withdraw from participation at any time.

101
Data storage, Retention, Destruction and Future Use
I will collect data by delivering questionnaires to visitors. The data will be stored in my
filing cabinet. The data will be stored for a minimum of 6 years. After the minimum
storage time has elapsed, the data will be destroyed by shredding or deleting.
Right to withdraw from participation
You have the right to withdraw as participants only up to the point where you submit
the questionnaire.
Anonymity and Confidentiality
If the information you provide is reported/published, this will be done in a way that
does not identify you as its source. A copy of the research findings will be made
available to you, if you wish by contacting me at my University of Auckland email
address.

CONTACT DETAILS AND APPROVAL

Researcher name and Supervisor name and Head of Department/School

contact details contact details name and contact details
Nam Nguyen Ky Dr. Claudia Bell Assoc-Prof Steve Matthewman
Master in Museums and School of Humanities Sool of Humanities
Cultural Heritage The University of The University of Auckland,
School of Humanities Auckland, New New Zealand
The University of Auckland, Zealand Email:
New Zealand Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

For any queries regarding ethical concerns you may contact the Chair, The University of
Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, The University of Auckland, Research
Office, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142. Telephone 09 373-7599 ext. 83711.
Email: [email protected].

Approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on

28/07/2016 for three years. Reference Number 019321.

102
Appendix 2: Self-administered questionnaires
QUESTIONNAIRES
---------- ----------
Please tick in the box; and circle the number that most applies to you and fill in the
lines.

A. Your trip to the World Heritage Site (WHS)

1. Is this your first trip to this WHS? Yes1 No2

If not, how many times have you been to this site previously? 1b

2. How did you arrange your travel to this site?

It was a part of your package tour Bought a private tour to the

1 4
in Vietnam site
Made by yourself 2
Taken by your friend/ relatives 3 Other (Please specify)----------- 5

3. Who are you travelling with to this WHS?

Alone 1 Family and/or relatives 4

Friends 2 Colleagues 5
Partner 3 Other (Please specify)------------- 6

4. How long do you spend in this WHS?

1- 2 hours 1 1 day 4
3 - 5 hours 2 Other (Please specify)------------- 5
½ day 3

5. What are your sources of information about this WHS?

Family/relatives Movies about the Vietnam

1 7
World Heritage Sites
Other travellers 2 TV channels 8
Friends 3 Travel agents 9
Internet 4 Transportation providers 10
Newspapers and magazines 5 Accommodation providers 11
Travel guidebooks 6 Other (Please specify)------------- 12

103
6. Please rate the following reasons for your trip to this WHS

Not Un-important Neutral Important Very

Important at all Important
Culture/ 1 2 3 4 5
Heritage values
Nature/ 1 2 3 4 5
Landscapes
It was included
1 2 3 4 5
in the tour

7. Please select only ONE option that you experienced most at this WHS

Mostly sightseeing/ photography or seeing interesting and unusual

1
sites
An opportunity to learn a little bit about this WHS 2
An opportunity to learn a lot about this WHS 3
A chance to develop a deep understanding of this WHS 4

8. What did you find the most interesting about your trip to this WHS?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

9. What other World Heritage Sites in Vietnam have you visited or are you going to see
on this trip?

Have visited Are going to visit

1 Ha Long Bay 1 2
2 Trang An Landscape Complex 1 2
3 Phong Nha - Ke Bang National Park 1 2
4 Complex of Hue Monuments 1 2
5 Hoi An Ancient Town 1 2
6 My Son Sanctuary 1 2

10.What other World Heritage Sites in the world have you

visited over the past 2 or 3 years? Yes 1 No 2

If yes, please specify:……………………………………………………………….........

104
 B. Expectation and Satisfaction
11. Please rate your expectation and satisfaction of following heritage attributes

Attributes Expectation Satisfaction

Very low Very high Very unsatisfied Very satisfied
1 Interpretation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 Souvenirs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Exhibitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Archaeologic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
al remains
5 Guiding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Indoor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
facilities
7 Accessibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Atmosphere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Architecture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Landscape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 Education 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
programs
12 Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(cafés/
restaurants)

12. Please rate your overall satisfaction at this WHS

Extremely Very Little Very Extremely

Neutral Satisfied
Unsatisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C. Personal details

13. What is your gender? Male 1 Female 2

14. Which age group are you in?

16 - 18 1 30 - 39 3 50 - 59 5 >70 7
19 - 29 2 40 - 49 4 60 - 69 6

105
15. Which is the highest level of education you have completed?

Primary School 1 Vocational School 4

Secondary School 2 Tertiary 5
High School 3 Post graduate 6
Other (Please specify)-------------------- 7

16. What do you do?

Employee 1 Housewife/man 6
Self-Employed 2 Student 7
Retired 3 No answer 8
Civil servant 4 Other (Please specify)-------------------- 9
Unemployed 5

17. What is your nationality?

Vietnamese 1 Japanese 7
American 2 Chinese 8
British 3 Korean 9
French 4 Thai 10
Australian 5 Malay 11
German 6 Other (please specify)------------------- 12

18. Will you return to this WHS? Yes 1 No 2 No idea 3

19. Are there some comments/suggestions that you would like to make?

……………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………..

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION!

106
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adie, B. A., & Hall, C. M. (2017). Who visits World Heritage? A comparative
analysis of three cultural sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 12(1), 67-80.
Adongo, R., Choe, J. Y., & Han, H. (2017). Tourism in Hoi An, Vietnam:
impacts, perceived benefits, community attachment and support for tourism
development. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 17(2), 86-106.
Agyeiwaah, E., Adongo, R., Dimache, A., & Wondirad, A. (2016). Make a
customer, not a sale: Tourist satisfaction in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 57, 68-
79.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour.
Alazaizeh, M. M., Hallo, J. C., Backman, S. J., Norman, W. C., & Vogel, M. A.
(2016). Crowding standards at Petra Archaeological Park: a comparative study of
McKercher's five types of heritage tourists. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 11(4), 364-
381.
Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2011). The factor structure of tourist satisfaction at sun
and sand destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 78-86.
Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation
effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement
and recommendation intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4),
213-221.
Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Laguna-García, M. (2017). Towards a new approach
of destination loyalty drivers: Satisfaction, visit intensity and tourist
motivations. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(3), 238-260.
Apostolakis, A., & Jaffry, S. (2005). A choice modeling application for Greek
heritage attractions. Journal of travel research, 43(3), 309-318.
Ashworth, G. J. (2004). The blue-grey transition: heritage in the reinvention of the
tourism resort. Internet site: http://www. thebestinheritage.
com/files/pdf/the_bluegrey_transition. pdf (accessed September 20, 2010).
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015, Arts and Culture in Australia: A Statistical
Overview. Retrieved from http://www.thetourismnews.com.au/wp-om
content/uploads/abs.culturaltouristsspendtwiceasmuch.pdf.
Azmi, I. M. (2012). Tragedy of the commons: commercialization of cultural
heritage in Malaysia. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2(1), 66-78.
Ballesteros, E. R., & Ramírez, M. H. (2007). Identity and community—
Reflections on the development of mining heritage tourism in Southern Spain. Tourism
management, 28(3), 677-687.
BAO, J., & SU, X. (2004). Studies on Tourism Commercialization in Historic
Towns [J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 3, 014.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents' perceptions of
the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of tourism research, 29(2), 303-319.
Bloom, J. Z. (2005). Market segmentation: A neural network application. Annals
of tourism research, 32(1), 93-111.

107
 Brondoni, S. M. (2015). Global Networks, Outside-In Capabilities and Smart
Innovation. Symphonya, (1), 6.
Brondoni, S. M. (2016). Global Tourism Management. Mass, Experience and
Sensations Tourism. Symphonya, (1), 7.
Bui, D. T. (2009). Tourism industry responses to the rise of sustainable tourism
and related environmental policy initiatives: The case of Hue city, Vietnam (Doctoral
dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).
Bui, H. T., & Le, T. A. (2016). Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Image of
Vietnam's Ha Long Bay. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(7), 795-810.
Bui, H. T., & Lee, T. J. (2015). Commodification and Politicization of Heritage:
Implications for Heritage Tourism at the Imperial Citadel of Thang Long, Hanoi
(Vietnam). Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(2), 187.
Bui, H. T., Jolliffe, L., & Nguyen, A. M. (2011). Heritage and aspect of nation:
Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh Museum. Tourism and national identity: An international
perspective, 164-175.
Bui, H., & Lee, T. (2014). UNESCO World Heritage Sites and tourism
development-the case of Vietnam. CAUTHE 2014: Tourism and Hospitality in the
Contemporary World: Trends, Changes and Complexity, 767.
Bywater, M. (1993). The market for cultural tourism in Europe. Travel and
Tourism
Caber, M., Albayrak, T., & Loiacono, E. T. (2013). The classification of extranet
attributes in terms of their asymmetric influences on overall user satisfaction: an
introduction to asymmetric impact-performance analysis. Journal of Travel
Research, 52(1), 106-116.
Castro, C. B., Armario, E. M., & Ruiz, D. M. (2007). The influence of market
heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination's image and tourists’ future
behaviour. Tourism management, 28(1), 175-187.
Caust, J., & Vecco, M. (2017). Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing
or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. Journal of Cultural Heritage.
Chadee, D. D., & Mattsson, J. (1996). An empirical assessment of customer
satisfaction in tourism. Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 305-320.
Chandler, J. A., & Costello, C. A. (2002). A profile of visitors at heritage tourism
destinations in East Tennessee according to Plog’s lifestyle and activity level
preferences model. Journal of Travel Research, 41(2), 161-166.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism management, 31(1),
29-35.
Chen, G., & Huang, S. (2017). Understanding Chinese cultural tourists: typology
and profile. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1-16.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of
destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated
approach. Tourism management, 29(4), 624-636.
Chi, C. G. Q., Cai, R., & Li, Y. (2017). Factors influencing residents’ subjective
well-being at World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 63, 209-222.

108
 Chon, K. S. (2013). Tourism in Southeast Asia: A new direction. Routledge.
Churchill Jr, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the
determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of marketing research, 491-504.
Costa, J. (2017). How are companies and destinations “surfing the wave” of
global tourism?-Strategic question overview. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism
Themes.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Sage Publications, Inc.
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-
examination and extension. The journal of marketing, 55-68.
Crotts, J. C., & Magnini, V. P. (2011). The customer delight construct: is surprise
essential?. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 719-722.
Cuccia, T., Guccio, C., & Rizzo, I. (2016). The effects of UNESCO World
Heritage List inscription on tourism destinations performance in Italian
regions. Economic Modelling, 53, 494-508.
Dabholkar, A. (1993). Customer satisfaction and service quality: two constructs or
one? In D. Cravens, & P. Dickson (Eds.), Enhancing knowledge development in
marketing (pp. 10 - 18). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Dang, L. H. (2009). Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Development:
An Illustration of Foreign NGOs in Vietnam (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University).
del Bosque, I. A. R., San Martín, H., & Collado, J. (2006). The role of
expectations in the consumer satisfaction formation process: Empirical evidence in the
travel agency sector. Tourism Management, 27(3), 410-419.
del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-
affective model. Annals of tourism research, 35(2), 551-573.
Deng, W. J., Kuo, Y. F., & Chen, W. C. (2008). Revised importance–performance
analysis: three-factor theory and benchmarking. The Service Industries Journal, 28(1),
37-51.
Dewar, K. 2003. “Heritage.” In Encyclopedia of Leisure and Outdoor Recreation,
edited by J. M. Jenkins and J. J. Pigram, 224–25. London: Routledge
Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti Mugion, R., Mattia, G., & Renzi, M. F. (2015).
Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: A survey on Italian cultural visitors. Journal
of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 61-81.
Dmitrović, T., Knežević Cvelbar, L., Kolar, T., Makovec Brenčič, M.,
Ograjenšek, I., & Žabkar, V. (2009). Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the
destination level. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 3(2), 116-126.
Dolnicar, S. (2002). A review of data-driven market segmentation in
tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(1), 1-22.
Donaire, J. A., & Galí, N. (2008). Modeling tourist itineraries in heritage cities.
Routes around the Old District of Girona. COMITÉ EDITORIAL DIRECTOR: Agustín
Santana Talavera, 6, 435.
Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: determinants and
indicators. Current issues in tourism, 6(5), 369-414.

109
 Espelt, N. G., & Benito, J. A. D. (2006). Visitors' behavior in heritage cities: The
case of Girona. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 442-448.
Füller, J., & Matzler, K. (2008). Customer delight and market segmentation: An
application of the three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style
groups. Tourism management, 29(1), 116-126.
Gaffar, V., Wetprasit, P., & Setiyorini, D. (2011). Comparative study of tourist
characteristics on cultural heritage tourism sites: survey on tourist in Indonesia and
Thailand heritage sites. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 3(3), 53-68.
Galí-Espelt, N. (2012). Identifying cultural tourism: a theoretical methodological
proposal. Journal of heritage Tourism, 7(1), 45-58.
Garcia, V. L. P. (2017). South-East Asian Fortified Stone Walls: Angkor Thom
(Cambodia), Ho Citadel (Vietnam) and Ratu Boko (Indonesia). Humaniora, 28(3), 121-
136.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2001). Heritage tourism: A question of definition. Annals
of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1049-1052.
General Statistics Office of Vietnam (2014).
http://www.gso.gov.vn/default.aspx?tabid=422&ItemID=14204. Accessed on 5th
September 2017.
Gerpott, T. J., Rams, W., & Schindler, A. (2001). Customer retention, loyalty, and
satisfaction in the German mobile cellular telecommunications
market. Telecommunications policy, 25(4), 249-269.
Gillen, J. (2014). Tourism and nation building at the war remnants museum in Ho
Chi Minh city, Vietnam. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(6),
1307-1321.
Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., & Pastore, D. L. (2002). Assessing the influence of
the physical sports facility on customer satisfaction within the context of the service
experience. Sport Management Review, 5(2), 129-148.
Guliling, H., Aziz, Y. A., Bojei, J., & Sambasivan, M. (2013). Conceptualizing
image, satisfaction and loyalty of heritage destination. Paper presented at the
International conference on business and economic research (4th ICBER 2013),
Bandung, Indonesia.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate
data analysis. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice hall.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2003). Marketing Research within a
changing information environment. (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (1996). The human dimension of heritage
management: different values, different interests, different issues. Heritage management
in Australia and New Zealand: The human dimension, 2-21.
Hampton, M. P., Jeyacheya, J., & Long, P. H. (2017). Can Tourism Promote
Inclusive Growth? Supply Chains, Ownership and Employment in Ha Long Bay,
Vietnam. The Journal of Development Studies, 1-18.

110
 Hanoi Tourism. (2017). The number of visitors to Hanoi in the first 08 months of
2017. http://hanoitourism.gov.vn/index.php/item/1431. Accessed on 4th September
2017.
He, Y., & Song, H. (2009). A mediation model of tourists' repurchase intentions
for packaged tour services. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 317-331.
Henderson, J. C. (2000). War as a tourist attraction: the case of Vietnam. The
International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(4), 269.
Herbert, D. (2001). Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of
tourism research, 28(2), 312-333
Heung, V. C., & Cheng, E. (2000). Assessing tourists’ satisfaction with shopping
in the Hong Kong special administrative region of China. Journal of Travel
Research, 38(4), 396-404.
Hildebrandt, T., & Isaac, R. (2015). The tourism structures in central Vietnam:
Towards a destination management organisation. Tourism Planning &
Development, 12(4), 463-478.
Hitchcock, M., & King, V. T. (2003). Discourses with the past: tourism and
heritage in South-East Asia. Indonesia and the Malay World, 31(89), 3-15.
Hitchcock, M., T King, V., & Parnwell, M. (2010). Heritage tourism in southeast
Asia. NIAS Press.
Hobson, J. P., Heung, V. C., & Chon, K. S. (1994). Vietnam's tourism industry:
can it be kept afloat?. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 35(5), 42-49.
Holzner, M. (2011). Tourism and economic development: The beach
disease?. Tourism Management, 32(4), 922-933.
Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences,
satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351-364.
Hsu, M. H., Chiu, C. M., & Ju, T. L. (2004). Determinants of continued use of the
WWW: an integration of two theoretical models. Industrial management & data
systems, 104(9), 766-775.
Huang, S., Hsu, C. H., & Chan, A. (2010). Tour guide performance and tourist
satisfaction: A study of the package tours in Shanghai. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 34(1), 3-33.
Huang, S., Weiler, B., & Assaker, G. (2015). Effects of interpretive guiding
outcomes on tourist satisfaction and behavioral intention. Journal of Travel
Research, 54(3), 344-358.
Hughes, H. (2013). Arts, entertainment and tourism. Taylor & Francis.
Hughes, H. L. (2002). Culture and tourism: a framework for further
analysis. Managing leisure, 7(3), 164-175.
Huh, J. (2002). Tourist satisfaction with cultural/heritage sites: The Virginia
historic triangle (Master Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).
Huh, J., Uysal, M., & McCleary, K. (2006). Cultural/heritage destinations: Tourist
satisfaction and market segmentation. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure
Marketing, 14(3), 81-99.

111
 Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and
revisiting Singapore. Tourism management, 28(4), 965-975.
ICOMOS, & WTO. (1993). Cultural tourism – tourism at world heritage sites:
The site manager’s handbook (2nd ed.). Madrid: UN.
Isaac, R. K. I. (2008). Understanding the behaviour of cultural tourists: towards a
classification of Dutch cultural tourists (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Groningen).
Jamal, T., & Kim, H. (2005). Bridging the interdisciplinary divide: Towards an
integrated framework for heritage tourism research. Tourist Studies, 5(1), 55-83.
Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Go, F. (1995). Tourism development in Vietnam. Tourism
Management, 16(4), 315-321.
Johns, N., Avcí, T., & Karatepe, O. M. (2004). Measuring service quality of travel
agents: evidence from Northern Cyprus. The Service Industries Journal, 24(3), 82-100.
Joppe, M., Martin, D. W., & Waalen, J. (2001). Toronto’s image as a destination:
a comparative importance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor. Journal of travel
research, 39(3), 252-260.
Kantanen, T., & Tikkanen, I. (2006). Advertising in low and high involvement
cultural tourism attractions: Four cases. Tourism and hospitality research, 6(2), 99-110.
Kempiak, J., Hollywood, L., Bolan, P., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2017). The
heritage tourist: an understanding of the visitor experience at heritage
attractions. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(4), 375-392.
Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the
specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(3), 267-274.
King, L. M., & Prideaux, B. (2010). Special interest tourists collecting places and
destinations: A case study of Australian World Heritage sites. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 16(3), 235-247.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination culture: Tourism, museums, and
heritage. Univ of California Press.
Kokko, A. (1998). Vietnam: Ready for Doi Moi II?.ASEAN Economic Bulletin,
319-327.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters' behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of
tourism research, 28(3), 784-807.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain,
as an off-season holiday destination. Journal of travel research, 38(3), 260-269.
Lam, T. D. (2002). Strategic Planning and Standard for Sustainable Tourism
Development in Vietnam. Paper presented at the 6th ADRF General Meeting, 2002
Bangkok, Thailand.
Lask, T., & Herold, S. (2004). An observation station for culture and tourism in
Vietnam: A forum for World Heritage and public participation. Current Issues in
Tourism, 7(4-5), 399-411.
Le, D. T. T. (2009). Segmenting Visitors to Battlefield sites: International Visitors
to the former DMZ in Vietnam.
Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (2006). Managing world heritage sites. Routledge

112
 Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2008). Tourism development and economic growth:
A closer look at panels. Tourism management, 29(1), 180-192.
Lee, J. S., Lee, C. K., & Choi, Y. (2011). Examining the role of emotional and
functional values in festival evaluation. Journal of Travel Research, 50(6), 685-696.
Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating effect of place attachment on
the relationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting
destination. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 754-767.
Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism development of World Heritage Sites
in China: A geographic perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308-319.
Light, D., & Prentice, R. C. (1994). Who consumes the heritage product?
Implications for European heritage tourism. Building a new heritage: tourism, culture
and identity in the New Europe., 90-116.
Liu, Y. D. (2014). Image-based segmentation of cultural tourism market: The
perceptions of Taiwan's inbound visitors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 19(8), 971-987.
Logan, W. (2014). Making the most of heritage in Hanoi, Vietnam. Historic
Environment, 26(3), 62.
López-Guzmán, T., & Santa-Cruz, F. G. (2017). Visitors’ experiences with
Intangible Cultural Heritage: a case study from Córdoba, Spain. Journal of Heritage
Tourism, 12(4), 410-415.
López-Guzmán, T., Gálvez, J. C. P., & Muñoz-Fernández, G. A. (2018).
Satisfaction, motivation, loyalty and segmentation of tourists in World Heritage
cities. Pasos: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 16(1).
López-Guzmán, T., Torres Naranjo, M., Pérez Gálvez, J. C., &Carvache Franco,
W. (2017). Segmentation and motivation of foreign tourists in world heritage sites. A
case study, Quito (Ecuador). Current Issues in Tourism, 1-20.
Lowenthal, D. (2005). Natural and cultural heritage. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 11(1), 81-92.
Luong, P. T. (2005). Vietnam tourism: current status and development orientation.
In Workshop on ‘Mekong Tourism: Learning Across Border’ held by Social Research
Institute, Chiang Mai University on (Vol. 24).
Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing Research - An applied orientation. (5th ed.).
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. The
journal of marketing, 77-79.
Mason, P. (2015). Tourism impacts, planning and management. Routledge.
Matzler, K., & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The factor structure of customer
satisfaction: An empirical test of the importance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast
analysis. International journal of service industry management, 13(4), 314-332.
McCain, G., & Ray, N. M. (2003). Legacy tourism: The search for personal
meaning in heritage travel. Tourism Management, 24(6), 713-717.
McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International
journal of tourism research, 4(1), 29-38.

113
 McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2012). Cultural tourism: The partnership between
tourism and cultural heritage management. Routledge.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2005). A case study of nature-based tourists: Specialists versus
generalists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(4), 357-369.
Mok, C., Sparks, B., & Kadampully, J. (2013). Service quality management in
hospitality, tourism, and leisure. Routledge.
Molera, L., & Pilar Albaladejo, I. (2007). Profiling segments of tourists in rural
areas of South-Eastern Spain. Tourism Management, 28(3), 757-767
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2000). Advertising in tourism and leisure.
Routledge.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2015). Tourism and sustainability: Development,
globalisation and new tourism in the third world. Routledge.
Muñoz-Fernández, G. A., López-Guzmán, T., López Molina, D., & Pérez Gálvez,
J. C. (2017). Heritage tourism in the Andes: the case of Cuenca, Ecuador. Anatolia, 1-
11.
News. Zing (2017). Why do a few international visitors return to Vietnam?
https://news.zing.vn/vi-sao-80-khach-du-lich-khong-quay-tro-lai-viet-nam-
post775547.html. Accessed on 20th April 2018.
Nguyen, T. H. H., & Cheung, C. (2014). The classification of heritage tourists: a
case of Hue City, Vietnam. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 9(1), 35-50.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). McGraw-Hill series in psychology. Psychometric
theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nyaupane, G. P., & Andereck, K. L. (2014). Visitors to cultural heritage
attractions: An activity-based integrated typology. Tourism Culture &
Communication, 14(1), 17-26.
Nyaupane, G. P., White, D. D., & Budruk, M. (2006). Motive-based tourist
market segmentation: An application to Native American cultural heritage sites in
Arizona, USA. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(2), 81-99.
Oh, H., Oh, H., Kim, K., & Kim, K. (2017). Customer satisfaction, service
quality, and customer value: years 2000-2015. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 29(1), 2-29.
Ohridska-Olson, R. V., & Ivanov, S. H. (2010). Creative tourism business model
and its application in Bulgaria. In Proceedings of the Black Sea Tourism Forum
‘Cultural Tourism –the Future of Bulgaria’, Varna, Bulgaria.
O'Leary, J. T., Morrison, A. M., & Alzua, A. (1998). Cultural and heritage
tourism: Identifying niches for international travelers. Journal of tourism studies, 9(2),
2.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 460-469.
Oliver, R. L. (1987). An investigation of the interrelationship between consumer
(dis) satisfaction and complaint reports. ACR North American Advances.
Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer.
Routledge.

114
 Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity
and satisfaction in transactions: a field survey approach. The Journal of Marketing, 21-
35.
Özgener, Ş., & İraz, R. (2006). Customer relationship management in small–
medium enterprises: The case of Turkish tourism industry. Tourism Management, 27(6),
1356-1363.
Palau-Saumell, R., Forgas-Coll, S., Sánchez-García, J., & Prats-Planagumà, L.
(2013). Tourist behavior intentions and the moderator effect of knowledge of UNESCO
world heritage sites: The case of La Sagrada Familia. Journal of Travel
Research, 52(3), 364-376.
Phuong Chi, N., & Nguyen, N., (2016). Van Mieu, Van Tu and Van Chi in the
course of National History. Vietnam Social Sciences, (1), 82.
Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in
hospitality enterprises. International journal of contemporary hospitality
management, 11(7), 326-339.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors
to a destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 12(2), 197-209.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimentions of tourist satisfaction
with a destination area. Annals of tourism Research, 5(3), 314-322.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2001). Clarifying heritage tourism. Annals of
tourism research, 28(4), 1047-1049.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site management: Motivations
and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 162-178.
Prayag, G., Chen, N. C., Hosany, S., & Odeh, K. (2016). The Cognitive-Affective
Relationship of Tourists to a Heritage Site: The Case of Petra.
Quach, P. G. (2013). Examining international tourists' satisfaction with Hanoi
tourism (Master's thesis, University of Lapland|).
Quang Nam Newspaper (2017). Hoi An Tourism - one year of challenges.
http://baoquangnam.vn/du-lich/201701/du-lich-hoi-an-mot-nam-nhieu-thach-thuc-
716806/. Accessed on 4th September 2017.
Rakthammachat, J. (1993). Tourism (in Vietnam): Savior or Spoiler? Contour,
6(1), 35– 38.
Ramires, A., Brandão, F., & Sousa, A. C. (2017). Motivation-based cluster
analysis of international tourists visiting a World Heritage City: The case of Porto,
Portugal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management.
Remoaldo, P. C., Ribeiro, J. C., Vareiro, L., & Santos, J. F. (2014). Tourists’
perceptions of world heritage destinations: The case of Guimarães (Portugal). Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 14(4), 206-218.
Remoaldo, P. C., Vareiro, L., Ribeiro, J. C., & Santos, J. F. (2014). Does gender
affect visiting a world heritage site?. Visitor Studies, 17(1), 89-106.
Ren, C. B. (2016). Encyclopedia of Tourism. In Springer Publishing Company.

115
 Ribaudo, G., & Figini, P. (2017). The Puzzle of Tourism Demand at Destinations
Hosting UNESCO World Heritage Sites: An Analysis of Tourism Flows for
Italy. Journal of Travel Research, 56(4), 521-542.
Riboldazzi, S. (2015). R & D and Product Engineering in Global Pharmaceutical
Companies. Symphonya, (2), 57.
Richards, G. (2000). Tourism and the world of culture and heritage. Tourism
recreation research, 25(1), 9-17.
Richards, G. (2004). New directions for cultural tourism? In WTO (Ed.), Tourism
Market
Trends 2003, World Overview and Tourism Topics Madrid: WTO
Richards, G. (2010). The Traditional Quantitative Approach Surveying Cultural
Tourists: Lessons From the ATLAS Cultural Tourism Research Project. Cultural
tourism research methods, 13-32.
Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of
tourism research, 38(4), 1225-1253.
Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and
practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Samadi, Z., & Yunus, R. M. (2012). Conflict of image and identity in heritage
commercialization. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 675-684.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. USA: John Willey & Sons.
Shih, W.R., Do, N.T.H. (2016), Impact of tourism on long-run economic growth
of Vietnam. Modern Economy, 7, 371-376.
Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums
and heritage sites. Tourism management, 16(5), 361-365.
Song, H., Van der Veen, R., Li, G., & Chen, J. L. (2012). The Hong Kong tourist
satisfaction index. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 459-479.
Stupart, C. (2013). The development of dark/cultural heritage as attractions in
Falmouth, Jamaica, West Indies.
Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2011). Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art
museums. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 403-421.
Su, M. M., & Wall, G. (2011). Chinese research on world heritage tourism. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(1), 75-88.
Su, M. M., Wall, G., & Xu, K. (2016). Heritage tourism and livelihood
sustainability of a resettled rural community: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site,
China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(5), 735-757.
Su, R., Bramwell, B., & Whalley, P. A. (2018). Cultural political economy and
urban heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 68, 30-40.
Suntikul, W., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2010). Vietnam’s heritage attractions in
transition. Heritage tourism in Southeast Asia, 202-220.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between
service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase
intentions. Journal of retailing, 70(2), 163-178.
Teas, R. K. (1993). Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived
service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8(2), 33-54.

116
 Telfer, D. J., & Sharpley, R. (2015). Tourism and development in the developing
world. Routledge.
Thailand Tourism Statistics. (2017). http://www.thaiwebsites.com/tourism.asp
The World Bank. (2017).
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/overview. Accessed on 5/9/2017.
Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction (Vol. 4).
Channel View Publications.
Timothy, D. J. (Ed.). (2017). The heritage tourist experience: Critical essays,
volume two. Routledge.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2003). Heritage tourism. Pearson Education.
Tisdell, C. A. (2004). Tourism development as a dimension of globalisation:
experiences and policies of China and Australia. University of Queensland, School of
Economics.
Trinh, T. T., & Ryan, C. (2016). Heritage and cultural tourism: the role of the
aesthetic when visiting Mỹ Sơn and Cham Museum, Vietnam. Current Issues in
Tourism, 19(6), 564-589.
Trinh, T. T., & Ryan, C. (2017). Visitors to Heritage Sites: Motives and
Involvement—A Model and Textual Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 67-
80.
Truong, T. H., & King, B. (2009). An evaluation of satisfaction levels among
Chinese tourists in Vietnam. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(6), 521-
535.
Truong, V. D. (2013). Tourism policy development in Vietnam: A pro-poor
perspective. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 5(1), 28-45.
Truong, V. D., & Le, A. (2016). The Evolution of Tourism Policy in Vietnam,
1960–2015. The Routledge Handbook of Tourism in Asia.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation:
An extension. Journal of marketing research, 204-212.
Ung, A., & Vong, T. N. (2010). Tourist experience of heritage tourism in Macau
SAR, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(2), 157-168.
UNWTO. (1985). Identification and evaluation of those components of tourism
services which have a bearing on tourist satisfaction and which can be regulated, and
state measures to ensure adequate quality of tourism services. Madrid: World Tourism
Organization.
Vareiro, L., Ribeiro, J. C., & Remoaldo, P (2015). Destination attributes and
tourist’s satisfaction in a cultural destination. International Conference on Regional
Science: Innovation and Geographical spillovers: new approaches and evidence.
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism (2017). The leading tourism
enterprise won Vietnam Tourism Award 2017.
http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/index.php/items/11938. Accessed on 22nd August
2017.
Vietnam Tourism. (2016). The quantity of foreign visitors came to Ha Long Bay.
http://www.vietnamtourism.com/index.php/news/items/17662. Accessed on 23rd August
2017.

117
 Vinh, N. Q., & Long, N. L. (2013). The relationship among expectation,
satisfaction and loyalty of international visitor to Hanoi, Vietnam. Journal of Global
Management, 5(1), 30-43.
VNAT. (2010). A new record of foreign visitors to Vietnam.
http://www.vietnamtourism.com/index.php/news/items/3741, 2010. Accessed on 5th
September 2017.
VNAT. (2013). Thanh Hoa as a tourist place.
http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/index.php/items/18189. Accessed on on 3rd September
2017.
VNAT. (2017). The world fastest-growing tourism destination in 2016.
http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/index.php/items/24191. Accessed on 4th September 2017.
VNAT. (2017b). Heritage and its sustainable development.
http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/index.php/items/22949. Accessed on 3rd September 2017.
VNAT. (2017c). Vietnam explores cultural-religious heritage tourism. Accessed
st
on 1 January 2018. http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/index.php/items/11846
VNAT. (2018). Hanoi tourism needs to strive more as the lead. Accessed on 25st
of March 2018. http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/index.php/items/25708
VNAT. (2018). International visitors to Vietnam in December and 12 months of
2017. http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/index.php/items/12453. Accessed on 18th
January 2018.
Vong, F. (2016). Application of cultural tourist typology in a gaming destination–
Macao. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(9), 949-965.
Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). The relationships of destination image,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: An integrated model. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 829-843.
Wang, D. (2004). Tourist behaviour and repeat visitation to Hong Kong. Tourism
Geographies, 6(1), 99-118.
Wattanacharoensil, W., & Schuckert, M. (2016). Reviewing Thailand's master
plans and policies: implications for creative tourism?. Current Issues in
Tourism, 19(10), 1045-1070.
Westbrook, R. A. (1980). Intrapersonal affective influences on consumer
satisfaction with products. Journal of consumer research, 7(1), 49-54.
World Heritage Centre. (2017). World Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list.
Accessed on 4th September 2017. World Heritage Committee. (2017).
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/?search=china&id_sites=&id_states=&id_search_region=
&id_search_by_synergy_protection=&id_search_by_synergy_element=&search_yearin
scribed=&themes=&criteria_restrication=&id_keywords=&type=&media=&order=cou
ntry&description=
Wu, H. C., & Li, T. (2017). A study of experiential quality, perceived value,
heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage
tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(8), 904-944.
Yale, P. (1991). From tourist attractions to heritage tourism. ELM publications.

118
 Yang, C. H., Lin, H. L., & Han, C. C. (2010). Analysis of international tourist
arrivals in China: The role of World Heritage Sites. Tourism management, 31(6), 827-
837.
Yankholmes, A. K., & Akyeampong, O. A. (2010). Tourists' perceptions of
heritage tourism development in Danish‐Osu, Ghana. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 12(5), 603-616.
Yankholmes, A., & McKercher, B. (2015). Understanding visitors to slavery
heritage sites in Ghana. Tourism Management, 51, 22-32.
Yao, Y. (2013). Assessing Tourist Experience Satisfaction with a Heritage
Destination.
Yen, C. H., & Lu, H. P. (2008). Effects of e-service quality on loyalty intention:
an empirical study in online auction. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 18(2), 127-146.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism management, 26(1), 45-
56.
yu Park, H. (2010). Heritage tourism: Emotional journeys into nationhood. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(1), 116-135.
Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2001). Measurement and management issues in
customer satisfaction research: Review, critique and research agenda: Part one. Journal
of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 10(4), 47-80.
Zbuchea, A. (2012). Cultural interests while on holidays. An exploratory
investigation. Journal of Tourism Challenges and Trends, 5(3), 53.
Zhang, C., Fyall, A., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Heritage and tourism conflict within
world heritage sites in China: a longitudinal study. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(2),
110-136.
Zuo, B., & Huang, S. (2017). Revisiting the Tourism-Led Economic Growth
Hypothesis: The Case of China. Journal of Travel Research, 0047287516686725.

119