Next Article in Journal
The Optimisation of Storage Conditions for Pomegranate Juice during Its Maritime Transport
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Importance of Destination Attributes of Sustainable Urban Waterfronts: Text and Data Mining of Tourists’ Online Reviews
Previous Article in Journal
The Spatiotemporal Eutrophication Status and Trends in the Paldang Reservoir, Republic of Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Process of Implementing a Place Brand Based on a Multilevel Approach: The Case of the Municipality of Masquefa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/su16010370
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Relationship between Tourist Perception and Motivation at a Museum Attraction

by
Grigore Vasile Herman
1,
Corina Florina Tătar
1,*,
Marcu Simion Stașac
1 and
Victor Lucian Cosman
2
1
Department of Geography Tourism and Territorial Planning, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania
2
Crișului Land Museum of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 370; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010370
Submission received: 4 December 2023 / Revised: 21 December 2023 / Accepted: 29 December 2023 / Published: 31 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality: Destination Decision Making and Digitization)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tourism activity represents one of the most dynamic and defining activities for today’s society. In this context, knowing the perception and motivation of potential tourists visiting a museum attraction represents an essential approach with implications for the sustainable development of tourist destinations. The research methodology used in the present study involved the complementary use of survey methods for data acquisition and multicriteria analysis to identify and establish relationships between perception and motivation. The results obtained from the present study show a synthetic picture regarding the perception and motivation of the tourists who visited the Crișului Land Museum from Oradea, Romania, on the one hand, and the relationships that were established between perception and motivation, on the other hand, thus confirming the research hypothesis that perception influences motivation. The perception of tourists after visiting the Crișului Land Museum in Oradea is determined by personal and interpersonal reasons, as well as by the way they perceive the visited site. The study originality consists in the use of mixed-method approaches to collect and analyze data, as a means to complement different data sources.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is the ability to meet people’s present needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Sustainable tourism takes full account of the current economic, social, and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the environment, and host communities [1]. Tourism can affect the three aspects of sustainability and knowing the perception and motivation of potential tourists can help to manage museum attractions to become more sustainable [2]. With good management, museum attractions can generate income and employment for local communities, but they can also cause environmental degradation and cultural erosion. Knowing what tourists value and expect from a museum attraction can help to create more satisfying and educational experiences that respect the natural and cultural heritage of the destination [3].
Tourist perception of and motivation for visiting a museum are related to the type of experience visitors seek, the emotional response they have, and the satisfaction they derive from their visit [4]. According to some studies, there are different types of visitors to museums, such as explorers, facilitators, experience seekers, professional/hobbyists, and rechargers [5]. Each type has different goals and expectations for visiting a museum and may be influenced by factors such as personal curiosity, social interaction, cultural education, sensory stimulation, wonder and discovery, entertainment, and restorative experience [6,7]. Museums can enhance their attractiveness and competitiveness by understanding the needs and preferences of their target visitors and providing them with relevant and engaging exhibits that match their motivations [8]. For example, museums can use storytelling techniques to create immersive narratives that appeal to visitors’ emotions and imagination or offer interactive activities that allow visitors to participate in the learning process [6]. By doing so, museums can increase their visitor satisfaction, loyalty, and willingness to pay more for their services [7].
Museums are multifunctional cultural, economic, social, and tourist sites particularly important for local communities and society because of the functions they serve such as: instruction and education; promotion; improving the destination image; increasing economic and social efficiency.
Over time, against the background of constantly changing needs, museums have been defined differently at the institutional and legislative levels, as well as in the specialized literature [9]. Thus, at the institutional level, the conceptual approaches of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) centered on the informative, educational role; visitors and the experience provided; and the intangible and tangible heritage of humanity [10,11,12]. In Romania, according to the current legislation, a museum is a public cultural institution that serves society with collection, conservation, research, restoration, communication, and exhibition functions for the purpose of knowledge, education and recreation, and material and spiritual testimonies of the existence and evolution of human communities, as well as the environment [13].
The Crișului Land Museum, which operates under the auspices of the Bihor County Council from Romania, is the most important cultural site in the county, and one of the most important attractions of this type in Romania. With a history of over a century (i.e., 1895, the year of the foundation of the first museum institution in Oradea), this cultural institution has constantly evolved over time in terms of size (i.e., sections, collections) and functionality (i.e., conservation services, hoarding, information, etc.) [11]. Currently, the Crișului Land Museum holds “478,735 museum items, of which 286,738 are archaeological and historical; 12,919 of art; 20,693 of ethnography and 158,385 of natural sciences” [11].
Thanks to the previously mentioned collection, the analyzed museum has a highly informative role regarding the history and evolution of the natural environment pertaining to North-West Romania and especially Bihor County, through the natural sciences collection and humans who lived within its boundaries across time (i.e., through the collections related to archeology and history, art, and ethnography). Practically through the owned artifacts, the Crișului Land Museum is the most important witness and informative source that materially and factually illustrates the coexistence of man and nature in this geographical space.
The purpose of the current study is to show the perception and motivation, as well as the relationships between the two, concerning the tourists who visited the Crișului Land Museum of Oradea, Romania. The working hypothesis from which the present study was carried out aimed to show that a high museum-related perception among potential visitors can represent motivation for making a visit to the museum and vice versa.
The research questions are: What is the perception and motivation of tourists who visited the Crișului Land Museum in Oradea, Romania?; What kind of relationships were established between the perception and motivation of tourists who visited Crișului Land Museum in Oradea, Romania?
In the specialized literature, the assessment of perception was carried out using semantic difference, on the Likert scale [14,15], and by combining quantitative and qualitative methods [16,17,18,19,20,21]. Applied to tourism, perception is the object of numerous studies that targeted the resident population [22,23,24,25], tourism and non-tourism employees [26,27], and destination image [28,29,30,31], etc. With reference to tourist motivation, there are numerous conceptual [32,33,34,35] and typological approaches [36,37]. However, motivations can be classified into two distinct categories: internal, push determined by socio-psychological and socio-cultural factors (i.e., the escape from every day and familiar environments, search and self-evaluation, relaxation, prestige, improvement of relations between relatives and friends and the strengthening of social communication, novelty, education, etc.) [38,39], and external, pull determined by features and characteristics of destinations [40,41,42].
The importance of the present study is justified by the need to know the perception and motivation for visiting the Crișului Land Museum of Oradea, Romania, as well as the relationships that are established between the two components analyzed in the context of the affirmation and expansion of tourism in Oradea city as a very dynamic emerging destination in Romania (Figure 1).
Oradea, the municipality that hosts the Crișului Land Museum was documented for the first time in 1113, under the name “Varadinum”, in the diploma of the Benedictine abbey in Zobor, Slovakia. The archaeological traces of the continuity of civilization in this space date back to the Palaeolithic [43]. Over time, in this multi-millenary living space, man under the shelter of nature developed a civilization specific to the mountain–plain contact areas. Part of these elements of civilization represent elements of spatial temporal identity and, at the same time, in the recent period characterized by the expansion of tourism, generate factors of tourist motivation. Among these, we mention the architectural sites such as the Fortress of Oradea, the Darvas-La Roche House, the Sion Neologue Synagogue, the Black Eagle Palace, etc. In addition to the anthropogenic tourist attractions, there are also those belonging to the natural environment, namely: thermal-mineral waters; the Crișul Repede River; Ciuperca Hill, where a belvedere point was set up that offers a panoramic view with an opening of more than 180° degrees over the destination of Oradea; the parks that house numerous species of plants, etc.
Tourist capitalization of the previously mentioned sites led to the emergence and development of a specific infrastructure characterized by the existence of 2211 accommodation structures with a capacity of 3610 places [44], 51 public catering facilities with a capacity of 4506 places [45], 81 tourism agencies [46], two water-based leisure parks focused on the capitalization of thermal-mineral waters, and two structures with tourist management functions (The Management Agency of the Bihor Destination, Association for the Promotion of Tourism in Oradea and the Region), etc.
The presence of tourist attractions and specific service infrastructure have led to an increase in the number of tourists visiting the destination of Oradea and their overnight stays. Thus, in the last 10 years, the number of arrivals in tourist accommodation structures increased from 110,900 in 2012 to 226,151 in 2022 [47] while the number of overnight stays increased from 153,502 in 2012 to 375,383 in 2022 [48].
Therefore, knowing the perception and motivation, as well as the relationship between the two aspects, of the people who visited the Crișului Land Museum is a premise that emerges from the need to make museum institutions more efficient, seen as defining elements for a tourist destination. Tourism represents a sustainable alternative in the development of local economies with a relatively minor impact in relation to other fields of activity (industry, agriculture, transport, etc.). Against this background, the valorization of museums represents a sustainable alternative with direct effects on the conservation and sustainable valorization of these cultural sites. They will also transmit to the next generations information about the time of their construction, on the one hand, and about the artifacts they house, facilitating in this sense the access and the right to education of the next generations.
Against this background, the present study aims to complement previously conducted research, with the objective of the study and the proposed methodology as a novelty (i.e., the studied indicators, the interviewed people, the way of evaluating the indicators regarding perception and motivation), and the results thus obtained that can be used in the management of the tourist destination Oradea, Romania.

2. Materials and Methods

The necessary data for the realization of this study were obtained in the year 2022, in June, through a survey method based on a sociological questionnaire, the respondents of which were randomly selected (from each county of Romania) from among the tourists who visited the Crișului Land Museum. The questionnaire, which included 15 questions, was constructed to investigate the relationship between the perception of and motivation for visiting the Crișului Land Museum, Romania. Questions X1 and X2 regarding the experience and X12–X15 regarding the motivation for the visit were binary (0—No, 1—Yes), while those regarding the role and usefulness of the visit (X3–X11) to the museum assumed responses in the Likert scale format (1 to 10, where 1 represents not at all, 10—to a very large extent) (Table 1).
In this research, we tried to analyze the perception and motivation of the people who visited the Crișului Land Museum of Oradea and the relationship between them, based on the answers of 100 respondents (79.4%), out of a total number of 126 people consulted. In total, 97% of them were Romanian citizens, while 3% were foreign citizens (two from Italy, one from Greece). The analysis of Romanian respondents according to their place of origin revealed that they belong to 38 counties (90.4% of Romania’s counties).
Regarding the structure of respondents by typological categories, it emerged that 44% were female, 56% male, aged between 18 and 78 years. From an ethnic point of view, most respondents were Romanian (86%), followed by Hungarian (11%) and other ethnicities (3%).
The analysis by age group showed us that the highest share of respondents was those aged between 29 and 38 years (32%), followed by those aged between 49 and 58 (24%), while at the opposite pole, there was the people in the age groups 69 and 78 years old (9%), respectively, and 18 and 28 years old (8%) (Figure 2).
In terms of the level of completed studies, the findings indicate that the majority of respondents were well educated, with postgraduate (51%), university (25%), and high school (24%) qualifications. Notably, there was an absence of respondents with primary and secondary education in the data. This fact denotes that people who visit museums are generally educated, wishing to enhance their cultural and general knowledge.
Tourist perception is a major axis with direct influences on the management of museums in their economic and social efficiency, respectively. The influencing factors analyzed in the present study relate to the experience (following a visit to the Crișului Land Museum, as well as other museums in the country and abroad), knowledge of its different roles (i.e., instructive/educational; promotion; improving the image of the tourist destination; increasing the efficiency, economic and social) and utility (i.e., social, economic, cultural and tourist), largely derived from experience. Regarding tourist motivation, curiosity, ticket price, the need for culturalization, spending free time in the most pleasant way, etc., were analyzed (Table 1).
In order to identify and know the relationships between tourist perception and motivation, a multicriteria analysis method was used [49,50], in which the criteria of tourist perception (10 variables, regarding experience, knowledge of the role and usefulness of museums) and tourist motivation (5 variables) were studied. Using the Min–Max Normalization Method or the Value Mapping Method [47], the values of each variable were standardized to obtain an aggregated value for each analyzed criterion and subcriterion [51,52].
In this sense, the following stages were completed:
(1). Extracting and processing information in order to draw up the variables necessary to know and highlight the relationship between perception and tourist motivation from the created database following the application of the previously presented questionnaire (Table 1).
The values of the variables were presented in the form of the following matrix [49,51,52]:
X = [ x i j ]   = x 11 x 12 ⋯ x 1 n x 21 x 22 … x 2 n ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ x r 1 x r 2 ⋯ x r n
where xij represents the variable value for object Oi.
Normalization of the variables was carried out according to the following formula: [51,52,53]:
Nij = (XiJ − min XiJ)/(max XiJ − min XiJ)      Xj ϵ S,      Nij = [0, …,1]
where Xij is the value of the variable j for the criterion i; Nij is the normalized value of the variable j for the criterion i; min Xij is the minimum value of value X of the variable j for the criterion i, and max Xij is the maximum value X of the variable j for the criterion i.
Thus, by using the min–max normalization method, the values of 15 indicators were evaluated and quantified: 10 for tourist perception, 5 for tourist motivation (Table 1). We note that the final result is influenced by the choice of variables and the answers given by each person interviewed. In choosing the variables, the specialized literature and the method of obtaining the data (i.e., survey method) were taken into account.
(2). Calculation of the summative value (aggregate value), following the normalization of the 15 variable indicators, for tourist perception and motivation. The values thus obtained were aggregated into a single value qj:
q j = ∑ j = 1 n N i j                           i = 1 , … r
Criterion evaluation by the variable value is carried out by the synthesis value Qi:
Q i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 n q i                           i = 1 , … r , Q i   ∈   0 , … , 1
(3). Determining the constant value k, in order to classify the interviewed visitors into value groups, depending on the perception and motivation type [51,52]:
R ( Qi ) = maxQi − minQi       k = R Q i 4
Group 1: Qi ∈ (max{xij} − k, max{xij}] − the highest level (Qi ϵ (0, …, 0.25])
Group 2: Qi ∈ (max{xij} − 2k, max{xij} − k] − an average level (Qi ϵ (0.26, …, 0.5])
Group 3: Qi ∈ (max{xij} − 3k, max{xij} − 2k] − a small level (Qi ϵ (0.51, …, 0.75])
Group 4: Qi ∈ [min{xij}, max{xij}−3k] − a very low level (Qi ϵ ([0.76, … 1])
(4). Calculation of the relationship index between tourist perception and motivation by the equation:
I =   C O E F p − C O E F m   C O E F p + C O E F m ,   where   − 1 ≤ I ≤ 1 ,
I = the relationship index between tourist perception and motivation
COEFp = the coefficient given to tourist perception
COEFm = the coefficient given to tourist motivation
(5). Determination of the constant value k, in order to classify the 100 tourists interviewed by value groups, depending on the type of relationship between tourist perception and motivation [51,52]:
R ( Qi ) = maxQi   −   minQi           k = R Q i 4
Group 1: Qi ϵ (max{xij} − k, max{xij}] − weak positive relationship (Qi ϵ (0.5, …, 1])
Group 2: Qi ϵ (max{xij} − 2k, max{xij} − k] − strong positive relationship (Qi ϵ (0, …, 0.5])
Group 3: Qi ϵ (max{xij} − 3k, max{xij} − 2k] − negative strong relationship (Qi ϵ (−0.5, …, 0])
Group 4: Qi ϵ [min{xij}, max{xij} − 3k] − negative weak relationship (Qi ϵ ([−1, … −0.5])
Groups one (between −1 and −0.5) and four (between 1 and 0.5) indicate a weak relationship based on the presence of a significant difference between the values of the tourist perception and motivation indices. The first group (between −1 and −0.5) indicates the existence of weak positive relationships, where the values of tourists’ perception are lower than those of tourist motivation, in relation to the fourth group (between 1 and 0.5) where the situation is reversed (Figure 3).
Groups II (between −0.5 and 0) and III (between 0 and 0.5) indicate a strong relationship based on the presence of an insignificant difference between the values of the tourist perception and motivation indices. Group II (between −0.5 and 0) indicates the existence of strong negative relationships, where the values of tourist perception are lower than those of tourist motivation, in relation to group III (between 0 and 0.5) where the situation is reversed (Figure 3).
Processing was carried out using Excel software (Microsoft Office 365).

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Tourist Perception

Perception is the result of the external stimuli action on the sensory organs [54] and the interpretation of reality through the filter of everyone’s personality [2,55].
The perception of tourists after visiting the Crișului Land Museum in Oradea is determined by personal and interpersonal reasons, as well as by the way they perceive the visited site [56]. From the analysis of the specialized literature, it was found that the better the perception, the higher the motivation and probability of visiting [18,57,58], while negative perceptions discourage potential visitors [59]. In this way, perception has a major impact on the formation of intentions [60,61] and decision making [62,63,64].
The analysis of the synthetic values of tourist perception revealed the existence of three categories of people: a very good perception (between 0.76 and 1; 57% of the people interviewed), good (between 0.50 and 0.75; 35% of the people interviewed), and poor (between 0.25 and 0.50; 8% of respondents) (Figure 4).
It should be noted that in the category of people with a very weak perception (between 0 and 0.25) not a single person was included, while maximum values of “1” were found only in the case of two people, (the first—number 50 from the database—from the town of Slatina, Olt county, Romania, aged 30, female, Romanian ethnicity, postgraduate studies; the second person—number 54 from the database—from Miercurea Ciuc, Harghita county, male, ethnicity Hungarian, postgraduate studies).

3.2. Tourist Motivation

The motivation for visiting the Crișului Land Museum in Oradea, Romania, is represented by the need of potential visitors to achieve desired satisfaction [2,56]. Identifying and evaluating the motivation for visiting museums is particularly important in their correct and sustainable management, seen as structural elements of tourist destinations [65].
So the motivation to visit museums can be defined as a force of impulse and conviction underpinning consumption behavior [18,32,33,66]. Visitors are motivated to fulfill their needs for culturalization, spending free time in the most pleasant way, satisfying curiosity, etc., on the basis of the existence of some attractions generated by the attributes of the museum, among which the special architectural style, the age and history of the building, and not least, the variety and importance of the artefacts housed within its premises stand out.
The analysis of tourist motivation synthetic values revealed the existence of four categories of people: those with a very good motivation (between 0.76 and 1; 49% of the interviewed people), good motivation (between 0.50 and 0.75; 30% of the interviewed people), weak motivation (between 0.25 and 0.50; 17% of respondents) and very weak motivation (between 0 and 0.25; 4% of respondents) (Figure 5).
Comparative analysis of the motivation and perception of respondents who visited the Crișului Land Museum showed the existence of direct links between the two analyzed components, links that emerge from the values of the relatively close weights of the typological categories as follows: very good, between 0.76 and 1 (motivation—49%; perception—57%); good, between 0.51 and 0.75 (motivation—30%; perception—35%); weak, between 0.25 and 0.50 (motivation—17%; perception—8%); and very weak, between 0.0 and 0.25 (motivation—4%; perception—0%) (Figure 6).

3.3. The Relationship between Tourist Perception and Motivation

Establishing the relationship types between perception and tourist motivation was completed according to the indices obtained for the 15 analyzed criteria. These indices were included in a range of values [−1; 1], which in turn, was divided into four equal categories (between −1 and −0.5, weak negative relationships; −0.51 and 0, strong negative relationships; 0.1 and 0.5, strong positive relationships; 0.51 and 1, positive weak relationships), and each person interviewed was included in one of the four categories, (Figure 3) accordingly:
(1) Weak negative relationships that are characterized by index values between [−1; −0.5] were not established in any interviewed person (Figure 3).
(2) Strong negative relationships with relationship index values between −0.51 and 0 were identified in 59% of interviewees. This type of relationship is defined by lower perception values than those specific to tourist motivation. For example, for subject number 20 in the database, (from Târgu Jiu, Gorj County, female gender, aged 72, postgraduate studies, Romanian ethnicity) the value of tourist perception was 0.452777778, while the value of tourist motivation was 1.
(3) Strong positive relationships with relationship index values between 0.1 and 0.5 were identified in 39% of interviewees. This type of relationship is defined by higher perception values than those specific to tourist motivation. For example, for person number 2 in the database, (from Bucharest, female, aged 49, university studies, Romanian ethnicity) the value of tourist perception was 0.572222222, while the value of tourist motivation was 0.25.
(4) Weak positive relationships, with values of the relationship index between 0.51 and 1 were identified in two interviewees (one from the town of Tulcea, Tulcea County, aged 35, female, Romanian ethnicity, university studies; the other from Satu Mare, Satu Mare county, aged 37, male, Romanian ethnicity, university studies). This type of relationship is defined by higher perception values than those specific to tourist motivation. Thus, in the case of the first person (person number 1 in the database), from Tulcea, the value of tourist perception was 0.861111111, while the value of tourist motivation was 0.25. In the case of the second person (person number 10 in the database), from Satu Mare, the tourist perception value was 0.916666667, while the tourist motivation value was 0.
The study’s limitations consist in the fact that there are only 100 sampled respondents; nonetheless, the study results can have implications for museum decision makers.
The obtained results represent an informational support for local decision makers in order to optimize and make cultural tourism more efficient in the destination of Oradea, Romania. The study can be continued by carrying out other research aimed at tourist satisfaction after visiting such sites of cultural interest as museums. This is necessary because although the tourist perception and motivation were good, the satisfaction after visiting the Crișului Land Museum might not be the same. Against this background, the challenge for researchers will be to identify those variables that can induce changes such as decreasing satisfaction. The quality of the experience can be a variable, an equally important concern because a good visitor experience can enhance the museum’s reputation, attract new visitors, increase loyalty, and contribute to social change.
The relationship between motivation and perception among visitors can affect how they interpret and evaluate their visit, as well as how they remember it later. The museum should try to foster a positive perception by creating a welcoming and engaging environment, providing clear and accurate information, encouraging interaction and participation, and offering feedback and follow-up [67]. Furthermore, the quality of museum-related events can positively influence the likelihood of tourists recommending the destination to others and loyalty, as highlighted in the study of Elhosiny et al. (2023) [68].
The current study covers a gap in the specialized literature concerning relationships between tourist perceptions and motivations.
Therefore, knowing the perception, motivation, and satisfaction of tourists who visit museum sites is an essential component in shaping the strategy of capitalization through tourism at museum sites, with direct effects on strengthening the image of the tourist destination.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, from the present study, it emerged that the interviewed tourists had a very good (57%) and good (35%) perception, while the motivation had relatively similar weights (very good, 49%; good, 30%). Regarding the relationships between motivation and perception among the surveyed people, strong negative relationships prevailed (59%), followed by strong positive (39%) and weak positive (2%). This confirms the working hypothesis, according to which a good perception contributes to the formation of a similar motivation among potential tourists to visit the Crișului Land Museum in Oradea, Romania. The satisfaction gained during the visit had a significant contribution, being influenced by the quality of services and the lived experience, as well as the level of expectations. Therefore, we can emphasize that the results obtained in this study can have significant managerial implications for destination management and marketing. The study can further be continued with proposals such as: (1) the development of eco-tourism and cultural tourism products that showcase the natural heritage and biodiversity of Oradea, Romania, as well as its rich history and traditions. These products could include guided tours, educational activities, workshops, festivals, and exhibitions that offer visitors an opportunity to learn more about the museum’s collections and exhibitions in an interactive and engaging way; (2) encourage feedback mechanisms for visitors who have visited or plan to visit the museum. This will include surveys, questionnaires, reviews, ratings and testimonials that allow visitors to share their opinions and experiences about their visit. This could help to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty, as well as to identify areas for improvement; (3) find measures to improve the satisfaction of a visit to a museum attraction. Furthermore, we can explore tourists’ perception and motivation based on their demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, income, and education, to understand how different kinds of tourists respond to the Crișului Land Museum and what factors influence their preferences and expectations. They could be segmented into explorers, facilitators, experience seekers, professional/hobbyists, and rechargers, as suggested by Falk (2009) [5].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.V.H. and V.L.C.; methodology, G.V.H. and V.L.C.; software, G.V.H.; validation, G.V.H., C.F.T. and M.S.S.; formal analysis, G.V.H.; investigation, M.S.S.; resources, C.F.T.; data curation, V.L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.V.H.; writing—review and editing, C.F.T. and M.S.S.; visualization, V.L.C.; supervision, G.V.H., C.F.T. and M.S.S.; project administration, M.S.S.; funding acquisition, V.L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The research has been funded with the support of the University of Oradea. The research undertaken was made possible by the equal scientific involvement of all the authors concerned.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Postma, A.; Cavagnaro, E.; Spruyt, E. Sustainable tourism 2040. J. Tour. Futures 2017, 3, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, X.; Xie, C.; Morrison, A.M.; Nguyen, T.H.H. Experiences, Motivations, Perceptions, and Attitudes Regarding Ethnic Minority Village Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Luo, J.M.; Ye, B.H. Role of generativity on tourists’ experience expectation, motivation and visit intention in museums. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 43, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vareiro, L.; Sousa, B.B.; Silva, S.S. The importance of museums in the tourist development and the motivations of their visitors: An analysis of the Costume Museum in Viana do Castelo. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 11, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Falk, J.H. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gurel, E.; Nielsen, A. Exploring the visitors’ perceptions and experiences of museums. In Tourist Behavior: An Experiential Perspective; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Preko, A.; Gyepi-Garbrah, T.F.; Arkorful, H.; Akolaa, A.A.; Quansah, F. Museum experience and satisfaction: Moderating role of visiting frequency. Int. Hosp. Rev. 2020, 34, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, C.; Xu, M.; Dong, N. Exploring the role of emotion in the relationship between museum image and tourists’ behavioral intention: The case of three museums in Xi’an. Sustainability 2019, 11, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tatlı, Z.; Çelenk, G.; Altınışık, D. Analysis of virtual museums in terms of design and perception of presence. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garrison, D.R. E-Learning in the 21st Century a Framework for Research and Practice; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dursun, Ö.Ö.; Odabaşı, H.F. Çoklu Ortam Tasarımı; Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Light, D.; Creţan, R.; Dunca, A.M. Museums and transitional justice: Assessing the impact of a memorial museum on young people in post-communist Romania. Societies 2021, 11, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Legea Muzeelor şi a Colecţiilor Publice nr. 311 din 8 Iulie 2003/The Law of Museums and Public Collections no 311 of 8th July. Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/45161 (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  14. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.B. The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. J. Travel Res. 1993, 31, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Diwakar, S.; Kolil, V.K.; Francis, S.P.; Achuthan, K. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among students for laboratory courses-Assessing the impact of virtual laboratories. Comput. Educ. 2023, 198, 104758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pike, S. Destination image analysis—A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stepchenkova, S.; Zhan, F. Visual destination images of Peru: Comparative content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 590–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Prayag, G.; Hosany, S. When Middle East meets West: Understanding the motives and perceptions of young tourists from United Arab Emirates. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, G.; Duffy, L.N.; Moore, D. Importance of residents’ perception of tourists in establishing a reciprocal resident-tourist relationship: An application of tourist attractiveness. Tour. Manag. 2023, 94, 104632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, S.; Filimonau, V.; Dickinson, J.E. Tourist perception of the value of time on holidays: Implications for the time use rebound effect and sustainable travel practice. J. Travel Res. 2023, 62, 362–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zou, Y.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Liao, J.; Xiao, H. How do tourists’ heritage spatial perceptions affect place identity? A case study of Quanzhou, China. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 55, 460–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moreira Gregori, P.E.; Roman, C.; Martín, J.C. Residents’ perception of a mature and mass tourism destination: The determinant factors in Gran Canaria. Tour. Econ. 2022, 28, 515–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. García-Buades, M.E.; García-Sastre, M.A.; Alemany-Hormaeche, M. Effects of overtourism, local government, and tourist behavior on residents’ perceptions in Alcúdia (Majorca, Spain). J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2022, 39, 100499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. González-García, R.J.; Mártínez-Rico, G.; Bañuls-Lapuerta, F.; Calabuig, F. Residents’ Perception of the Impact of Sports Tourism on Sustainable Social Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Telbisz, T.; Mari, L.; Gessert, A.; Dická, J.N.; Gruber, P. Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents and Tourists—A Comparative Study of the Twin National Parks of Aggtelek (Hungary) and Slovak Karst (Slovakia). Acta Carsologica 2022, 51, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prima, S.A. Study of Perception of the Importance of English Language Skills among Indonesian Hotel Employees. J-SHMIC J. Engl. Acad. 2022, 9, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Im, Y.; Kim, C.A. study on hotel employees’ perceptions of the fourth industrial technology. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 51, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tse, S.; Tung, V.W.S. Measuring the valence and intensity of residents’ behaviors in host–tourist interactions: Implications for destination image and destination competitiveness. J. Travel Res. 2022, 61, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chakrabarty, P.; Sadhukhan, S.K. Destination image for pilgrimage and tourism: A study in Mount Kailash region of Tibet. Folia Geogr. 2020, 62, 71–86. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhang, X.; Lu, X.; Zhou, X.; Shen, C. Reconsidering Tourism Destination Images by Exploring Similarities between Travelogue Texts and Photographs. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Herman, G.V.; Banto, N.; Caciora, T.; Ungureanu, M.; Furdui, S.; Garai, L.D.; Grama, V. The Perception of Bihor Mountain Tourist Destination from Romania. Geogr. Pol. 2021, 94, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Crompton, J.L. Motivations for pleasure vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Iso-Ahola, S.E. Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Ann. Tour. Res. 1982, 9, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fodness, D. Measuring tourist motivation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 555–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lin, Y.-H.; Lee, Y.-C.; Wang, S.-C. Analysis of motivation, travel risk, and travel satisfaction of Taiwan undergraduates on work and travel overseas programmes: Developing measurement scales. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 2–3, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, Y.; Peng, Y. Understanding travel motivations of Chinese tourists visiting Cairns, Australia. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2014, 21, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wen, J.; Meng, F.; Ying, T.; Qi, H.; Lockyer, T. Drug tourism motivation of Chinese outbound tourists: Scale development and validation. Tour. Manag. 2018, 64, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Caber, M.; Albayrak, T. Push or pull? Identifying rock climbing tourists’ motivations. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bideci, M.; Albayrak, T. Motivations of the Russian and German tourists visiting pilgrimage site of Saint Nicholas Church. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 18, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Klenosky, D. The “Pull” of Tourism Destinations: A Means-End Investigation. J. Travel Res. 2002, 40, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kulczyk-Dynowska, A.; Gaura, G. Spatial and Financial Aspects of a Protected Area Functioning—The Case of the Gorce National Park. Econ. Reg. Stud. Stud. Ekon. I Reg. 2017, 10, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Telbisz, T.; Imecs, Z.; Máthé, A.; Mari, L. Empirical investigation of the motivation and perception of tourists visiting the Apuseni nature park (Romania) and the relationship of tourism and natural resources. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muzeul Tării Crișurilor/The County Rivers’ Museum. Available online: https://www.oradea.ro/pagina/istoria-orasului-oradea (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  44. Ministerul Economiei, Antreprenoriatului și Turismului, Lista Structurilor de Primire Turistice cu Functiuni de Cazare/Ministry of Economy, Entrepreneurship and Tourism, List of -le sunt corecte. Tourist Accommodation Structures. Available online: https://turism.gov.ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Structurile-de-primire-turistice-cu-functiuni-de-cazare-clasificate-actualizare-15092023.xlsx (accessed on 10 September 2023).
  45. Ministerul Economiei, Antreprenoriatului și Turismului, Lista Structurilor de Primire Turistice cu Funcțiuni de Alimentație Publică/Ministry of Economy, Entrepreneurship and Tourism, List of Public Tourist Catering Structures. Available online: https://turism.gov.ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Structurile-de-primire-turistice-cu-functiuni-de-alimentatie-publica-clasificate-1-1.xlsx (accessed on 10 August 2023).
  46. Ministerul Economiei, Antreprenoriatului și Turismului, Lista Agențiilor de Turism Licențiate/Ministry of Economy, Entrepreneurship and Tourism, List of Licensed Travel Agencies. Available online: https://turism.gov.ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LISTA-AGENTIILOR-DE-TURISM-LICENTIATE-actualizare-18.08.2023.xlsx (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  47. INSE, TUR104E—Sosiri ale Turistilor in Structuri de Primire Turistica pe Tipuri de Structuri, pe Judete si Localitati/Arrivals of Tourists in Tourist Accommodation Structures by Types of Structures, Counties and Localities. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 25 June 2023).
  48. INSE, TUR105E—Innoptari in Structuri de Primire Turistica pe Tipuri de Structuri, Judete si Localitati/Overnight Stays in Tourist Accommodation Structures by Types of Structures, Counties and Localities. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 22 June 2023).
  49. Kiselakova, D.; Stec, M.; Grzebyk, M.; Sofrankova, B. A multidimensional evaluation of the sustainable development of European Union countries—An empirical study. J. Compet. 2020, 12, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Patro, S.G.K.; Sahu, K.K. Normalization: A preprocessing stage. Iarjset 2015, 2, 20–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Boc, E.; Filimon, A.L.; Mancia, M.-S.; Mancia, C.A.; Josan, I.; Herman, M.L.; Filimon, A.C.; Herman, G.V. Tourism and Cultural Heritage in Beius, Land, Romania. Heritage 2022, 5, 1734–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Deac, L.A.; Herman, G.V.; Gozner, M.; Bulz, G.C.; Boc, E. Relationship between Population and Ethno-Cultural Heritage—Case Study: Crișana, Romania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rymuza, K.; Bombik, A. Multidimensional analysis of social and economic development of some counties in Mazovia Voivodeship. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia 2014, 13, 81–93. Available online: https://aspe.sggw.edu.pl/article/view/486 (accessed on 25 June 2023).
  54. Goldstein, E.B. Cognitive Psychology, 3rd ed.; China Light Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lindsay, P.H.; Norman, D.A. Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology. Science 1971, 174, 683–684. [Google Scholar]
  56. Correia, A.; do Valle, P.O.; Moço, C. Modeling motivations and perceptions of Portuguese tourists. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Goodrich, J.N. A new approach to image analysis through multidimensional scaling. J. Travel Res. 1978, 16, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Woodside, A.G.; Lysonski, S. A general model of traveler destination choice. J. Travel Res. 1989, 27, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Selby, M.; Morgan, N.J. Reconstruing place image: A case study of its role in destination market research. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhu, H.; Deng, F. How to influence rural tourism intention by risk knowledge during COVID-19 containment in China: Mediating role of risk perception and attitude. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lee, H.Y.; Bonn, M.A.; Reid, E.L.; Kim, W.G. Differences in tourist ethical judgment and responsible tourism intention: An ethical scenario approach. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Çizel, B.; Kırtıl, İ.G.; Aşkun, V.; Ajanovic, E.; Karakaş, H. Symmetric and asymmetric analysis of tourist behavioral intention’s antecedents. Qual. Quant. 2022, 56, 4599–4622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Johannes, J.; Yacob, S.; Pasaribu, J.P.K. Examining the behavioral intentions of tourism destination communities: A critical approach to smart rural tourism information system. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kim, Y.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Li, G. Tourism memory, mood repair and behavioral intention. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 93, 103369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Medina-Viruel, M.J.; López-Guzmán, T.; Gálvez, J.C.P.; Jara-Alba, C. Emotional perception and tourist satisfaction in world heritage cities: The Renaissance Monumental Site of Ubeda and Baeza, Spain. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 27, 808–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Herman, G.V.; Grama, V.; Ilieș, A.; Safarov, B.; Ilieș, D.C.; Josan, I.; Buzrukova, M.; Janzakov, B.; Privitera, D.; Dehoorne, O.; et al. The Relationship between Motivation and the Role of the Night of the Museums Event: CASE Study in Oradea Municipality, Romania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Museum Planning Process. Available online: https://www.museumplanning.com/process/ (accessed on 21 December 2023).
  68. Elhosiny, S.M.; Hassan, T.H.; Josan, I.; Salem, A.E.; Abdelmoaty, M.A.; Herman, G.V.; Wendt, J.A.; Janzakov, B.; Mahmoud, H.M.E.; Abuelnasr, M.S. Oradea’s Cultural Event Management: The Impact of the ‘Night of the Museums’ on Tourist Perception and Destination Brand Identity. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00370 g001
Figure 1. Location of the Crișului Land Museum of Oradea.
Figure 1. Location of the Crișului Land Museum of Oradea.
Sustainability 16 00370 g001
Sustainability 16 00370 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of respondents by age groups.
Figure 2. Distribution of respondents by age groups.
Sustainability 16 00370 g002
Sustainability 16 00370 g003
Figure 3. I index values range.
Figure 3. I index values range.
Sustainability 16 00370 g003
Sustainability 16 00370 g004
Figure 4. The synthetic value of tourist perception.
Figure 4. The synthetic value of tourist perception.
Sustainability 16 00370 g004
Sustainability 16 00370 g005
Figure 5. The synthetic value of tourist motivation.
Figure 5. The synthetic value of tourist motivation.
Sustainability 16 00370 g005
Sustainability 16 00370 g006
Figure 6. Types of motivation and perception.
Figure 6. Types of motivation and perception.
Sustainability 16 00370 g006
Table 1. The variables selected for the studied criteria.
Table 1. The variables selected for the studied criteria.
Criterion SubcriterionVariable Data
C1-Tourists’ perceptionExperienceX1. Following the visit to the Crișului Land Museum100Quantitative
X2. After visiting other museums in the country and abroad100Quantitative
RoleX3. Educational100Quantitative
X4. Tourist promotion100Quantitative
X5. Improving the image of the tourist destination100Quantitative
X6. Increasing economic efficiency100Quantitative
X7. Increasing social efficiency100Quantitative
UtilityX8. Social100Quantitative
X9. Economic100Quantitative
X10. Cultural 100Quantitative
X11. Tourist100Quantitative
C2-Tourists’ motivationTourist
motivation		X12. Curiosity100Quantitative
X13. Ticket price100Quantitative
X14. Need for knowledge100Quantitative
X15. Spending leisure time in a pleasant manner100Quantitative
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Herman, G.V.; Tătar, C.F.; Stașac, M.S.; Cosman, V.L. Exploring the Relationship between Tourist Perception and Motivation at a Museum Attraction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010370

AMA Style

Herman GV, Tătar CF, Stașac MS, Cosman VL. Exploring the Relationship between Tourist Perception and Motivation at a Museum Attraction. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010370

Chicago/Turabian Style

Herman, Grigore Vasile, Corina Florina Tătar, Marcu Simion Stașac, and Victor Lucian Cosman. 2024. "Exploring the Relationship between Tourist Perception and Motivation at a Museum Attraction" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010370

APA Style

Herman, G. V., Tătar, C. F., Stașac, M. S., & Cosman, V. L. (2024). Exploring the Relationship between Tourist Perception and Motivation at a Museum Attraction. Sustainability, 16(1), 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010370

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop