heritage 1
DESCRIPTION
heritageTRANSCRIPT
1
The Price of Heritage: An Investigation of Hotel Prices
Abstract
This paper investigates the price premium charged by hotels to heritage tourists. A
field study shows that heritage hotels in India command a sizable price premium over
comparable, conventional hotels in India. Another field study finds that hotel rooms
facing the Niagara Falls, USA, are more expensive than hotel rooms facing the city. A
third study investigates the preferences of heritage tourists visiting India to see the
Taj-Mahal. The study finds that heritage tourists indicate higher quality perception,
purchase intentions, word-of-mouth likelihood and willingness-to-pay for a hotel
room with an ethnic room decor and overlooking the Taj-Mahal compared to a hotel
room with a modern decor and overlooking the city. Overall, this paper demonstrates a
significant "price of heritage".
Keywords: Heritage, Pricing, Hotels, Service
1. Introduction
Heritage tourism refers to “tourism centered on what we have inherited” from the past
(Ivanov, 2014; Yale 1991). Heritage tourism may be centered on travel to experience nature
(e.g. Niagara Falls, USA) or culture (e.g. Taj-Mahal, India). Many businesses and industries
such as hotels, restaurants, flourish under the umbrella of heritage tourism. In this regard,
suitably pricing hotel rooms and related services for heritage tourists becomes a crucial
issue. This is because a hotel’s price reflects an assessment of the value that heritage tourists
see and their willingness-to-pay for the hotel’s rooms and services.
This paper addresses the following issues concerning the “price of heritage” with
respect to the hotel industry engaged in heritage tourism. The first issue concerns the pricing
strategies employed by hotels serving heritage tourists. In this paper, we have investigated
2
whether the hotel industry charges heritage tourists a price premium? We have evaluated
whether hotels extract a “price of heritage” by charging higher prices for hotel rooms in
heritage settings, compared to conventional hotel rooms?
The second issue concerns consumer perceptions and willingness-to-pay for hotel
rooms in heritage versus conventional settings. In this paper, we have also investigated
whether heritage tourists have greater quality perceptions, purchase intentions and
willingness-to-pay for hotel rooms? We have analyzed these research questions with the
help of two field studies and one laboratory study.
Our first field study empirically investigated the pricing of hotel rooms in heritage
hotels located in the Indian state of Rajasthan. Rajasthan is well known for its rich cultural
heritage. Many palaces and forts built by erstwhile Rajput rulers have been converted into
hotels and are managed by modern five-star hotel chains (e.g. The Oberoi Raj Vilas, Jaipur,
India http://www.oberoihotels.com/oberoi_rajvilas/). These hotel chains also manage
conventional five-star hotels (e.g. The Oberoi, Bangalore). We empirically analyzed the
hotel prices set by heritage hotels in contrast to otherwise comparable, conventional hotels.
We estimated a regression of hotel room prices in a mixed-model framework. Our model
accounted for both fixed-effects and random-effects, controlled for unobserved
heterogeneity, and was estimated using the Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)
methodology. Our analysis revealed a significant “price of heritage” embedded in hotel
room rent among heritage hotels in Rajasthan, India.
Our second field study concerned hotel prices at Niagara Falls, located at the
American - Canadian border in North America. The world-renowned Niagara Falls reflect
3
nature at its very best. They represent an icon of North America’s rich natural heritage
(http://niagarafallstourism.com/). The falls encompass breath-taking views from the
Canadian side as well as the American side. In this study, we compared the prices of hotel
rooms at the Hilton Embassy Suites (http://www.embassysuitesniagara.com/). Strategically
located, this hotel offers heritage tourists hotel rooms with three possible views from the
room window – 1) A view of both Canadian and American Falls; 2) A view of the Canadian
Falls only; 3) No view of the falls. This setting provided us an excellent platform for
measuring the “price of heritage”. We empirically studied how the view from the room
influenced the room prices. Our regression analysis revealed that the Hilton priced rooms
with otherwise practically identical interiors differently, depending on the heritage view.
Rooms with no view were the cheapest ($187); rooms offering the Canadian-side view of
the Niagara Falls only were relatively more expensive ($213), while rooms whose windows
displayed both the American and Canadian-side view of the Niagara Falls were
comparatively the most expensive ($238). Once again, analysis of hotel room prices
indicated a significant “price of heritage” built into the room rent charged by the Hilton.
Our Niagara Falls field study differed from our Rajasthan, India field study in at
least two meaningful, supplementary ways, even though both dealt with hotel prices. First
and foremost, recall that Yale (1991) explains that heritage tourism may be to either
experience nature or culture. The two studies focused on these two aspects of heritage
tourism respectively. While our Rajasthan, India hotel study emphasized heritage tourism to
experience history and culture, our Niagara Falls hotel study presented an ideal setting to
analyze heritage tourism to experience nature. Secondly, the two field studies jointly
spanned vastly different geographies – Niagara Falls in North America and Rajasthan in
4
India, Asia. This geographic diversity enhanced the external validity of our central finding
regarding the “price of heritage”.
Our third study was an experimental survey. It concerned the hotel room preferences
of heritage tourists visiting Agra, India to see the Taj-Mahal. Built in the 17th century by the
Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan, the Taj-Mahal is a UNESCO World Heritage site
(http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/252). We explored heritage tourists’ perceptions of hotel room
quality, their likelihood of renting a hotel room, their willingness-to-pay room rent and their
likelihood of promoting a heritage hotel with positive word-of mouth. The between-subjects
survey manipulated whether the room view was conventional or whether the hotel room
balcony overlooked the Taj-Mahal, thus reflecting India’s rich cultural heritage. The survey
additionally manipulated whether the interior décor of the room was modern or whether it
was ethnic, Indian. We held all else constant across the four conditions. A standard two-way
ANOVA analysis proved insightful. We found that heritage tourists visiting Agra expressed
significantly higher quality perceptions, greater purchase likelihood, higher willingness-to-
pay and greater propensity to word-of-mouth publicity when the room overlooked the Taj-
Mahal, compared to when the view was conventional. We also found qualitatively similar
results when the room had ethnic interior décor, compared to modern décor.
These three studies offered managerial implication and research contribution. The
Taj-Mahal laboratory study suggested that tourists exhibit a greater willingness-to-pay for
hotel rooms in a heritage setting, arising from higher quality perceptions and greater
purchase intentions. The complementary Rajasthan heritage hotels study and the Niagara
Falls study offered field evidence in support of hotels charging heritage tourists a price
premium. Jointly, these studies reflected the “price of heritage” issue studied in this paper.
5
2. Literature Review
This paper is related to three streams of research – the literature on heritage tourism, hotel
pricing and the prior research on hedonic pricing. We review each strain of research in turn.
Heritage Tourism: Our heritage references our “legacy from the past”. It is what we have
inherited from our past and what we will pass on to the next generation. Our heritage – both
cultural and natural – represents an unredeemable reservoir of life and inspiration
(UNESCO).
Heritage tourism is defined as “visits by persons from outside the host community
motivated wholly or in part by interest in historical, artistic, scientific or lifestyle/heritage
offerings of a community, region, group or institution” (Silberberg 1995). For example,
millions of tourists flock to see the Niagara Falls in USA. Similarly, millions of tourists visit
Agra, India to view the Taj-Mahal, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Heritage
tourism can be thought as “tourism centered on what we have inherited” (Yale 1991). This
can include historic buildings such as the Taj-Mahal or beautiful scenery such as the
Niagara Falls. Similarly, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States
defines heritage tourism as "traveling to experience the places, artefacts and activities that
authentically represent the stories and people of the past". Government agencies such as
UNESCO’s World Heritage Center (http://whc.unesco.org/) have indicated heritage and
cultural tourism to be a significant method of regional economic development. Heritage
tourism is a source of active economic growth with relatively less investment (Strauss &
Lord 2001, Bridaa et al 2012; Huang et al. 2012). The money that it generates indirectly
helps preserve the cultural heritage and also provides financial assistance for marketing and
6
promotion. Moreover, it also promotes harmony among diverse groups of people, which in
turn helps renew tourism (Richards 1996). Our paper adds to this body of knowledge. We
investigate the extent to which hotels located at heritage sites are able to command higher
prices and generate greater revenue than hotels at conventional locations.
Pricing in the hotel industry: Our research is closely related to the prior work on pricing in
the hotel industry. Previous research has established the crucial impact of strategic pricing in
the hotel industry. Selecting a hotel room is crucially influenced by price (Hung, Shang, &
Wang, 2010; Lockyer, 2005). Yet, scholars have also made the pertinent point that price
planning is a potentially overlooked and under-studied area of research (Hoffman, Turley, &
Kelley, 2002; Rowley, 1997). A variety of factors and attributes such as the hotel location,
the service quality, the reputation of the establishment, the perceived levels of cleanliness
and security and so on, have been shown to impact consumer choice (Chu & Choi, 2000).
Similarly, prior research has evaluated the role of a large number of variables driving the
prices of hotel rooms such as the brand equity of the hotel, the hotel category and size, the
availability of restaurants, the location of the hotel relative to prominent landmarks such as
the city center, the amenities inside the hotel rooms, the availability of parking and
recreation facilities etcetera (Wu, 1999, Espinet et al., 2003). It is worth noting that any
unique feature or combination of features that is strongly significant for at least one set of
consumers can be potentially used as a basis for segmentation, targeting and positioning
segmentation (Dubé & Renaghan, 2000). In the light of the varied features on which hotels
could build their differentiation, our research focuses on how the location of the hotel
(Study 1); view from the hotel room (Studies 2 and 3) and décor of the hotel room (Study 3)
influence hotel prices paid by heritage tourists.
7
Heritage tourism includes two elements of heritage corresponding to nature and culture.
Therefore, we have selected two corresponding factors of heritage in this paper – the view
from the window of a hotel room (Study 2 and 3) and the interior décor of the hotel room
(Study 1 and 3). Indeed, prior research conducted across a variety of industries, has found a
positive correlation between differentiation and prices (Mazzeo 2002; Poria, 2013) and
enhanced market power (Dranove et al 2003). Therefore, we expect a positive correlation
between heritage and quality perceptions of hotel rooms and greater willingness-to-pay.
Hedonic Pricing and tourism: Finally, our research is also relevant to prior work on
hedonic pricing in the tourism context. A firm’s ability to price a tourism-related product or
service is crucially driven by consumers’ expected hedonic value of the experience. This is
consistent with the foundation of hedonic pricing theory. Early research in this domain
(Nuryanti, 1996; Rossen 1974) has established that the “valuation for a product or service
stems from their utility-bearing attributes”. Hedonic price analysis permits firms to analyze
different attributes valued by consumers. This influences the marketing programs designed
by firms to maximize revenue and sales and successfully target tourists. A few research
efforts have analyzed tourism from the perspective of hedonic pricing. For example, Clewer
et al (1992) measured the price competitiveness of inclusive holiday tours in Western
Europe; Sinclair et al (1990) analyze the hedonic pricing strategy of tourist resorts in
Malaga, Spain; Papatheodorou (2002) studies pricing at Mediterranean resorts. Similarly,
Espinet et al (2003), Yang et al. (2010) also study hedonic pricing in tourism context.
Our research adds to this stream of research. We study hedonic pricing of hotels in both
India and North America. We empirically characterize the hedonic price premium charged
by hotels located at heritage sites, relative to hotels at non-heritage related locations. We
8
also account for the hedonic influence of traditional room décor on consumers’ willingness-
to-pay for a hotel room at a heritage site.
3. Study 1 – An empirical field study of heritage hotel prices in India
Many heritage sites get converted into managed hotel properties. The objective of this study
was to compare the pricing strategy employed at hotels located at heritage sites with the
pricing strategy employed at conventional hotels.
3.1 Hypothesis
We study how the price of a room at a hotel located in a heritage site differs from the price
at a modern, contemporary hotel. If there is a “price of heritage”, we expect that, the hotel
room rate at heritage sites will be more than that at modern hotels, holding all else constant.
We believe that consumers are asked to pay a price-premium for the pleasure of staying in a
heritage property and experiencing the splendor and romance of the past. Therefore, we
make the following hypothesis.
H1: The average prices of hotel rooms at heritage sites are higher than the prices at
modern hotels.
3.2 Data
The state of Rajasthan in India is well-known for its rich cultural heritage, with many forts
and palaces. Many traditional palaces and forts have been converted into hotels, often
managed by hotel chains.
For example, consider The Oberoi Rajvilas, located in Jaipur, India. This is a heritage site,
built in a traditional Rajasthani fort style. It was converted into a hotel, managed by the
9
Oberoi Group. (Figure 1) It has a Rajasthani haveli (mansion) and a 280 year old Shiva
temple on the premises. The gold-leaf, hand-painted wall murals, the colorful Indian
miniature paintings and the old armory mounted on the walls, all add to the quintessentially
traditional feel of the fort. The rooms in this hotel are priced in the range Rupees 22,000–
32,900 per night (US $368 - $550). In contrast, consider the Oberoi hotel located in
Bangalore, India. It is situated on MG Road, in the heart of the business, financial and
shopping districts of Bangalore. It is an ideal venue for conferences and meetings. (Figure 2)
It is interesting to note that despite Bangalore being a significantly more expensive city than
Jaipur, the rooms in this hotel are priced in the range Rupees 12,500 – 18,000 per night (US
$210 - $302). These two hotels indicate a price premium for “heritage” among Indian hotels.
The aim of this research is to study this aspect with empirical rigor.
<Insert Figure 1 and 2>
For this project, our dataset is based on hotels located in four Indian cities (Jodhpur, Jaipur,
Udaipur, Jaisalmer) in the state of Rajasthan, similar to the hotels mentioned in the above
examples. The cities have hotels located in traditional, heritage sites, as well as conventional
modern hotels. We collected data from www.MakeMyTrip.com that aggregates hotel
availability, room prices and features.
City: It is likely that the city in which a hotel is located in will strongly influence the hotel
room prices. We used a dummy variable 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑗 to index the cities Jodhpur, Jaipur, Udaipur,
Jaisalmer, where 𝑗 ∈ {0,1,2,3}, respectively. We also indexed the hotels as 𝑘 ∈ {0,1,2, . . }.
Accordingly, the subscript 𝑗𝑘 was used to refer to hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗.
10
Heritage: We used a dummy variable 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑗𝑘 to indicate whether a hotel was a
heritage hotel. 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑗𝑘 = 1 indicated a heritage hotel (e.g. The Oberoi Rajvilas, Jaipur),
while 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑗𝑘 = 0 indicated a modern hotel. We marked a hotel as modern, if the
location and construction was unrelated to India's cultural heritage (e.g. The Oberoi,
Bangalore).
Price: We collected data in May 2014. We used 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑗𝑘 to denote the average price of a
room at a hotel. We measured 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑗𝑘, as the average of the most expensive and least
expensive room at hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗.
Star Rating: Hotel ratings are often used to classify hotels according to their quality using a
star rating, ranging from one to five star. It has a direct correlation with the price of a room.
Therefore, it is important to control for price variation because of the star rating. We used
the variable 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘 denoted the star rating of hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗.
Rooms: We recorded the total number or rooms in hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗 as 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠𝑗𝑘. We used it
as a control variable to account for the possibility that the room price set by a hotel may
depend upon the supply of available rooms.
Distance from the Airport and Railway Station: It is possible that hotels located close to
the airport are able to charge a price premium for the greater convenience and easy access.
In order to control for this alternate explanation, we recorded the distance between a given
hotel and the closest airport and station. We used the variables 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑗𝑘 and 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑘 to
denote the distance of hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗 from the closest airport and train station respectively.
11
Bar and Business Center: The amenities and facilities provided within a hotel can also
potentially influence the price of a room. To partially control for such factors, we recorded
whether a hotel had a bar and whether it had a business center. We used 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘 to denote the
presence or absence of a bar at hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗. Similarly, we used 𝐵𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑗𝑘 to
denote the presence or absence of a business center at hotel 𝑘 in city 𝑗. Table 1 shows the
summary statistics.
<Insert Table 1>
3.3 Model
We analyzed the research question using three nested models.
Model 1: We first established the effect of heritage on the price of a room in a hotel with
the simplest model we could come up with. We regressed the price on the dummy variable
for whether a hotel was a heritage hotel, as follows.
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑗𝑘 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 ∗ 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑗𝑘+∈ (1)
We estimate Model 1, using linear least squares. If there was a “price of heritage” in the
market, we expected to find 𝛼1>0 in support of hypotheses H1.
Model 2: Next, as a robustness check, we defined a detailed model accounting for seven
additional independent variables, which may also influence the variation in hotel prices. Our
revised regression model was as follows.
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑗𝑘 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 ∗ 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑗𝑘 + 𝛼2 ∗ 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑗 + 𝛼3 ∗ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘 + 𝛼4 ∗ 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠𝑗𝑘
+ 𝛼5 ∗ 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑗𝑘 + 𝛼6 ∗ 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑘 + 𝛼7 ∗ 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘 + 𝛼8 ∗ 𝐵𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑗𝑘+∈
12
(2)
We estimated Model 2, described in (2) using linear least squares. Once again, if there was
indeed a “price of heritage” in the hotel market, we expected to find 𝛼1>0 in support of
hypotheses H1.
The value of rerunning the regression with the seven additional independent variables was
that we anticipated that doing so would fit the data better. Recall that the Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC) developed by Akaike (1974) and the Bayesian Information
Criterion (BIC) developed by Schwarz (1978), represent the trade-off between the goodness
of fit of the model and the complexity of the model. If Model 2 indeed fit the data better
than Model 1, we expected the AIC and BIC of Model 2 to be less than Model 1.
Another benefit of having the seven additional regressors outlined in Model 2 was that it
helped us rule out some alternate explanations for the variation in hotel prices. For example,
it is well-known that five-star hotels are more expensive than four star hotels. Including the
star rating as a regressor, permitted us to investigate the effect of heritage on hotel pricing,
after control for price variation due to the star rating. We expected to find the coefficient for
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘 to be positive(𝛼3>0). Similarly, having a dummy variable for each city, permitted us
to control for city-wide variation in prices of hotel rooms, potentially arising out of
differences in real-estate prices and other expenses across cities.
Model 3: Next, we estimated the model in (2) using a mixed-models framework. In general,
mixed models are a type of hierarchical linear models. They assist in controlling for
unobserved heterogeneity and correlations between independent variables. The method of
Ordinary Least Squares makes the limiting assumption that the independent variables are
13
uncorrelated. When we constructed the variance-covariance matrix of the independent
variables in equation (2), we observed that the variables were correlated. To overcome this
limitation in OLS estimation, we analyzed the problem in a mixed-models framework. Such
a model-framework accounted for both fixed effects and random effects in the data.
Fixed Effects: We estimated the following independent variables as fixed effects:𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑗𝑘,
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘, 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑗𝑘 , 𝐵𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑗𝑘.
Random Effects: We estimated the remaining following variables as random effects:𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑗,
𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠𝑗𝑘, 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑗𝑘 and 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑘.
These variables were modeled as random effects for two reasons. First, for some variables,
it was difficult to predict whether the hotel prices would increase or decrease with a positive
change in these variables. For example, we estimated 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑗 as a random effect because we
could not say whether hotels in one city (e.g. Jaisalmer) should be more or less expensive
than the hotels in another city (e.g. Jodhpur). Estimating 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑗 as a random effect accounted
for the impact of each city individually. Similarly, we modeled 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑠𝑗𝑘as a random effect,
since it was hard to predict the impact of the number of rooms in a hotel on the room price
set by the hotel.
The second reason why we modeled some variables as random effects was that a
quantifiable range for these variables was not clearly known. For example, the distance
between a hotel and the airport / railway station did not have an upper-bound. Therefore, it
made sense to model 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑗𝑘 and 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑘 as random effects.
14
We estimated the mixed-effect regression model using the Restricted Maximum Likelihood
(REML) estimation method. As Smyth and Verbyla (1996) explain, REML estimators are
obtained, not from maximizing the complete likelihood function, but from maximizing only
the part invariant to the fixed effects in the linear model. REML estimators take into account
the loss of degrees of freedom in estimating the mean and therefore, produce unbiased
estimators for the variance parameters (Smyth and Verbyla 1996).
3.4 Results
Model 1: We found empirical support for H1. The average room prices at heritage hotels
were higher than the prices at modern hotels. The regression analysis using Ordinary Least
Squares yielded 𝛼1>0, with p < 0.01, as shown in Table 2.
Model 2: The analysis of Model 2 also yielded statistical support for our hypothesis H1.
Recall that Model 2 extended Model 1, by including seven additional independent variables,
as shown in equation (2). We again found that the average room prices at heritage hotels
were higher than the prices at modern hotels. This regression analysis also yielded 𝛼1>0,
with p <0.01, as shown in Table 2. As expected, we additionally observed a positive
relationship between the average hotel room prices and the hotel star ratings, 𝛼3>0, with p <
0.0001. Model 2 fit the data better than Model 1, as indicated by the AIC. The AIC of
Model 2 was less than the AIC of Model 1.
Model 3: Recall that in Model 3, we estimated equation (2) in a mixed-models framework
with fixed-effects and random-effects using Restricted Maximum Likelihood. Model 3 gave
us the same qualitative results as Model 3. We found yielded 𝛼1>0, with p < 0.01. We also
found, 𝛼3>0, with p < 0.0001. The regression output is summarized in Table 2. The crucial
15
benefit of Model 3 was that it fit the data even better than Model 2. As shown in Table 2, the
AIC in Model 3 was considerably less than the AIC in Model 2.
<Insert Table 2>
4. Study 2 – An empirical field study of Hilton hotel prices at Niagara Falls, USA
4.1 Overview
The objective of this study was to investigate the pricing strategy employed by hotels
located at heritage sites in a different locale. While Study 1 was based on the Indian hotel
industry, this study analyzed hotel prices at Niagara Falls, USA. Our goal was to compare
prices of hotels rooms with a view of the Niagara Falls, with the prices of rooms without a
view.
The Niagara Falls are a collective of three waterfalls, located on the Niagara River at
international border between Canada and the United States. The US Congress designated
Niagara Falls as a National Heritage Place in 2008, for its natural beauty and esthetic
importance. (http://www.nps.gov/nifa/index.htm). It is one of the world’s most visited
tourist heritage places, with more than 22 million tourists per year (http://buffalorising.com).
In this study, we compared the prices of hotel rooms with a ‘heritage view’ with the
prices of hotel rooms without a ‘heritage view’. Taking clues from hedonic pricing theory
(Rossen 1974, Tomkovich and Dobie 1995), we believe that consumers are asked to pay a
price-premium for the pleasure of watching a heritage view from the hotel room. If there is a
price of heritage, we expect that the hotel rooms with heritage views will be priced higher
than the hotel rooms without heritage views, after controlling for other factors. Accordingly,
we construct the following hypothesis:
16
Hypothesis H1a: The average prices of hotel rooms at heritage sites with heritage
views are higher than the prices of comparable hotel rooms without heritage views.
4.2 Data
For this study, we collected data from the Hilton hotel website
(http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/ontario/hilton-niagara-falls-fallsview-hotel-and-suites/).
This hotel is situated near Niagara Falls, at the American-Canadian border. It overlooks the
Niagara Falls and provides breath-taking views of the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls. This
hotel has three types of rooms. Some rooms provide both American and Canadian views of
the Niagara Falls, some other rooms provide just the Canadian view of the Niagara Falls,
while the remaining rooms face the city and therefore do not provide any view of the falls.
We expected that a comparison of hotel rooms with different views from the windows,
would explain the extent to which hotels charge price premiums for heritage views.
We focused on hotel rooms that had two queen-sized beds. This type of room was available
with three types of views from the window -- ‘City view’, ‘Canadian view’ and ‘American
and Canadian views’, as shown in Figure 3.The hotel also had other rooms with king-sized
beds and larger suites, which we ignored in order to restrict the scope of our data collection.
<Insert Figure 3>
Seasonality: We collected data on July 15, 2014. We recorded the price of reserving a room
in advance for future dates ranging from July 18, 2014 to Feb 27, 2015. This duration was
224 days or 32 weeks. Hotel rooms at Niagara Falls are expected to be more expensive
during the peak season at Niagara Falls (July – October) compared to the winter off-season
(November – February). Therefore, analyzing prices over 32 weeks helped us characterize
17
the price of heritage, after controlling for price variations due to seasonality and ruling out
this alternate explanation for price dispersion. A hotel room is typically more expensive
during the weekend (e.g. Saturday) compared to the price of the same hotel room during
weekdays (e.g. Wednesday). Indeed, it is quite reasonable that hotels discriminate between
consumers based on whether they rent a room during the week or during the weekend. In
order to accurately measure the “price of heritage” with respect to the view of the Niagara
Falls, it was crucial to control for price variation driven by this factor. Therefore, we
recorded hotel room prices for rooms having the three types of views described above, for
every Wednesday and Saturday, during the July 18, 2014 to Feb 27, 2015, timeframe,
thereby generating 195 data points. We used a dummy variable 𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑to indicate
whether a posted price corresponded to a weekend Saturday(𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑 = 1) or a weekday
Wednesday(𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑 = 0).
Heritage View: We used a dummy variable HeritageView to indicate whether a hotel room
offered a city view (HeritageView =0), or the room provided only a Canadian view of the
falls (HeritageView =1), or the room provided both American and Canadian views of the
Niagara Falls (HeritageView =2). In other words, we classified the views on three levels of
heritage. It was also possible that the price of heritage is higher during the weekend,
compared to a weekday. In order to research this possibility, we accounted for a possible
interaction between𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑and𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒.
Price: We used the variable Price to indicate the price of a hotel room. The prices ranged
from $135 to $575. The summary statistics for the hotel room prices, broken down by the
type of view on offer, are available in Table 3. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 3, the
average room prices were $187, $213 and $237 for each type of hotel view.
18
<Insert Table 3>
4.3 Model
In order to test Hypothesis 1a, we proposed the following model:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤 + 𝛼2 𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑 + 𝛼3 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤 ∗ 𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑+∈ (3)
We established the effect of heritage view on the price of a hotel room with the simplest
model. We regressed 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 on 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤, 𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑and an interaction between
𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤 and 𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑑.We estimated model, using linear least squares. If there was
a “price of heritage” in the market, we expected to find the coefficient of 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤 to
be positive.
4.4 Results
We found empirical support for H1a. The average room price of heritage view (American
and Canadian view) was higher than the prices of hotel room with Canadian view. Similarly
average price for the hotel room with Canadian view was higher than the price of hotel room
with City view. The regression analysis using Ordinary Least Squares yielded 𝛼1>0, with
p<0.05 as shown in Table 4. The average price of hotel room on weekend was also higher
than the price of hotel room on weekdays 𝛼2>0, with p<0.05.
<Insert Table 4>
5. Study 3 – A survey of consumer preferences for heritage hotels
19
Study 1 and Study 2 presented field evidence with external validity. However, they could
not shed light on consumer perceptions and decision making. Study 3 was designed to
address this void.
Recall that in Study 1, we found that hotels set up in converted forts and palaces of
Rajasthan, India impose a “price of heritage” on tourists visiting Rajasthan to enjoy its rich
cultural heritage. Similarly, recall that in Study 2, we found that hotels charge a price
premium for rooms with views of the Niagara Falls. Study 3 was a survey of heritage
tourists, designed to investigate tourists’ perceptions of heritage hotels. We wanted to
address whether consumer perceptions of a hotel room are higher when the hotel room
overlooks a spot of scenic beauty, rich in heritage. More specifically, are consumers’
perceptions of quality greater? Are they more likely to rent a room with a heritage view? Do
they profess a higher willingness-to-pay for a room with a view? And are they more likely
to provide word-of-mouth publicity for heritage? We felt that this should indeed be the case.
5.1 Background and Hypotheses
Quality Perceptions: Consider the drivers of consumers’ quality perceptions. Consumers
are influenced by both affective and cognitive factors while assessing the overall quality of
hotel rooms (Chan and Tsai, 2007). Further, Otto and Ritchie (1996) show that quality has
two components -- “service quality” and “experience quality”. They find that consumers use
both dimensions to make overall quality evaluations of hotel rooms, although they tend to
over-weight “experience quality”. Further reflecting on this, Chan & Baum, (2007) have
explained that four factors drive “experience quality”, namely 1) hedonics, 2) peace of
mind, 3) involvement and 4) recognition. With this background about how consumers form
20
quality perceptions, consider the preferences of heritage tourists. Such tourists are known to
look for “experiences where the destination, its buildings and surrounding have retained
their historical characters well as lodging that reflects the local culture”. In other words,
heritage tourists exhibit strong desire to experience the local culture of the tourist place
(Kezeor & Ransom 2011). We argue that heritage tourists encounter a greater extent of
hedonics, involvement and recognition, while experiencing the culture of a heritage site and
staying in a heritage hotel in the proximity. And this leads to an overall higher quality
assessment of their hotel room. In this light, we make the following hypothesis:
H2: The quality perception of a hotel room with heritage is more than the quality
perception of a modern hotel room.
Purchase Intentions: Customer purchase intentions are defined as “A decision plan to buy
a particular product or service created through a choice / decision process” (Morrison, 1979,
Sweeney, Soutar, & Johnson, 1999). Given that our paper is written in the context of the
hotel industry, purchase intentions refer to the likelihood of consumers renting a given hotel
room at the price posted by the hotel. Past studies have suggested that quality perceptions
and price are antecedents of purchase intentions (Cronin et al., 2000; Duman & Mattila,
2005).In the light of the above, we make the following hypothesis.
H3: The purchase intentions for a hotel room with heritage (likelihood of renting the
room) is more than the purchase intentions for a modern hotel room.
Willingness to Pay: Heritage tourists participate in more heritage-related activities and
experiences (17 %), compared to conventional tourists (5%), as explained by Kezeor and
21
Ransom (2011). One explanation for this difference is that heritage tourists experience
greater hedonic enjoyment by participating in activities such as culinary festivals,
appreciating local food and wines (Mandala 2009). Moreover, heritage tourists stay for
longer durations and spend more money in comparison to conventional tourists (Kezeor and
Ransom 2011). Given this past research and in the light of our findings in Study 1 and Study
2, we make the following hypothesis.
H4: The willingness to pay for a hotel room with heritage is more than the
willingness to pay for a modern hotel room
Word-of-Mouth: Past research in tourism finds that word-of-mouth is closely influenced
by the difference between consumers’ experiences and prior expectations. Specifically, if
tourists’ actual positive experiences exceed their pre-travel expectations, then they are more
likely to generate positive word-of-mouth (Reisinger & Turner, 2003). Recall that quality
has two components -- “service quality” and “experience quality” (Otto and Ritchie 1996).
Past research shows that consumers’ assessment of “experience quality” leads to feelings of
pleasure and gratification, if it is higher than their pre-travel expectations (Bignie et al 2001;
Chen, 2008; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Choi & Chu 2001; De Rojas & Camarero, 2008).
Therefore, we argue that a heritage tourist who has experienced the culture of a tourist
place, is more likely to express positive word-of-mouth than a regular tourist. A tourist’s
likelihood of generating positive word-of-mouth will be influenced by the 1) hedonics, 2)
peace of mind, 3) involvement and 4) recognition he encountered during his stay at a hotel.
And this is likely to be stronger at a heritage hotel, compared to a modern hotel. In this light,
we present the following hypothesis.
22
H5: The likelihood of word of mouth publicity of a hotel room with heritage is more
than the likelihood of word of mouth publicity of a modern hotel room.
5.2 Method
The objective of this study was to investigate how heritage influences consumers’ quality
perception, purchase likelihood, willingness-to-pay and likelihood of positive word-of-
mouth. We investigated this in the context of renting a hotel room at a popular historical
destination in India. We selected the city of Agra, which has the world-famous Taj-Mahal.
The Taj-Mahal is acknowledged as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.
We manipulated the décor of a hotel room as either traditional or modern. In one condition,
the room had an ethnic, traditional look reflecting India’s rich cultural heritage. In the other
condition, the room has a modern, western décor. We also manipulated the view from the
window of the hotel room. In one condition, the Taj-Mahal was prominently visible from
the hotel room window, once again reflecting India’s rich cultural heritage. In the other
condition, the view was a neutral one showing the skyline.
The studies employed a full factorial design, comprising of four between-subject conditions
with hotel room décor (2: heritage versus modern) and outside view from the hotel room
window (2: heritage versus neutral) as factors.
161 undergraduate students from a large engineering college voluntarily participated in
response to a request to complete a web survey. The participants were told that during their
next upcoming holidays, they are planning a three-day vacation to see the Taj-Mahal in
Agra with their friends. They were told that they planned to reserve a hotel room in advance
for, two nights. They were asked to review the photograph of a hotel room and answer
23
survey questions. The participants were divided into four groups and sent a web link
showing one of four photos of a hotel room. As can be seen in the photographs in Figures 4-
7, two rooms had a modern décor while the other two had a heritage decor. Of the two
modern and heritage décor rooms, one had a view of the Taj-Mahal (heritage view), while
the other had a view of the skyline (neutral view). Thus, each one of the four groups saw
identical stimuli with different hotel room images.
<Insert Figures 4 – 7>
Dependent Variables: The four dependent variables in our study were1) quality perception
of the hotel room; 2) purchase intentions (likelihood of renting the hotel room); 3)
willingness-to-pay (room rent); 4) likelihood of positive word-of-mouth publicity.
Manipulation Checks: We did a manipulation check by asking subjects to rate the room
décor as modern or heritage and also rate the view from the room window as modern or
heritage, on a 7-point Likert scale. We also collected some demographic information from
the subjects (age, gender, monthly income). The summary statistics are available in Table 5.
<Insert Table 5>
5.3 Results
Quality Perception: A 2 (Room Décor: Heritage, Modern) x 2 (View from the Hotel Room
Window: Heritage, Neutral) ANOVA was performed on room quality perception. Gender,
age and monthly income were entered as covariates. There was no main effect of any
covariate showing the success of the random assignment. We found a main effect of Room
Décor, F(1, 157) = 8.52, p = .004 and a main effect of the View from the Hotel Room
Window: Heritage, Neutral, F(1, 157) = 17.15, p< 0.000. The quality perception for heritage
24
rooms (mean = 6.07, SD = 1.15) was more than for moderns rooms (mean = 5.54, SD =
0.80), 95% CI [.03, 1.29], p = .0018. Among the two types of views, room quality
perception was more for a heritage view as compared to a neutral view (mean difference =
0.74, 95% CI [.02, 1.32]), p< 0.000. There was no significant interaction between Room
Décor and View from the Hotel Room Window: Heritage, Neutral (p > .5). Thus, the
ANOVA results support hypothesis H1 --the quality perception of a hotel room with
heritage is more than the quality perception of a modern hotel room.
Purchase Intention: We found a main effect of Room Décor, F (1, 157) = 14.40, p = .000,
and a main effect of View from the Hotel Room Window, F (1, 157) = 40.01, p < 0.000.
Planned post-hoc tests showed that purchase intention for the heritage room (mean = 4.92,
SD = 1.64) was more than the purchase intentions for the modern room (mean = 3.92, SD =
1.55), 95% CI [.02, 1.85], p < .001. Comparing the two types of views, purchase intention
was more for a heritage view as compared to a neutral view (mean difference = 1.49, 95%
CI [.08, 2.68]), p<0.0001. There was no significant interaction between Room Décor and
View from the Hotel Room Window (p > .5). Thus, the ANOVA results support hypothesis
H2 -- the purchase intention for a hotel room with heritage (likelihood of renting the room)
is more than the purchase intention for a modern hotel room.
Willingness-to-pay (WTP): We found a main effect of Room Décor, F (1, 157) = 14.64 p <
0.000and a main effect of View from the Hotel Room Window, F (1, 157) = 19.70, p
=0.000. Planned post-hoc tests showed that the WTP for a heritage room (mean = 4928.57,
SD = 2060.93) was more than the WTP for a modern room (mean = 3690.48, SD =
1594.92), 95% CI [916.64, 3030.51], p <0.000. Comparing the two types of views, the WTP
for a heritage view was more than the WTP for a neutral view (mean difference = 1426.53,
25
95% CI [-75.64, 2099.53]), p = .0002. There was no significant interaction between Room
Décor and View from the Hotel Room Window (p > .5). Thus, the ANOVA results support
hypothesis H3 -- the WTP for a hotel room with heritage is more than the WTP for a
modern hotel room.
Word of Mouth Publicity: We found a main effect of Room Décor, F (1, 157) = 28.95, p<
0.000and a main effect of View from the Hotel Room Window, F (1, 157) = 41.46, p<
0.000. Planned post-hoc tests showed that chances for heritage rooms publicity (mean =
5.48, SD = 1.40) were more than word of mouth publicity for moderns rooms (mean = 4.25,
SD = 1.49), 95% CI [.53, 2.18], p < 0.0001. Comparing the two types of views, the
likelihood of word of mouth publicity for a heritage view was more than that for a neutral
view (mean difference = 1.39, 95% CI [.61, 2.31], p < 0.000. There was no significant
interaction between Room Décor and View from the Hotel Room Window (p > .4). Thus,
the ANOVA results support hypothesis H4 -- the likelihood of word-of-mouth publicity of a
hotel room with heritage is more than the likelihood of word-of-mouth publicity of a
modern hotel room. The ANOVA results are summarized in Table 6.
<Insert Table 6>
6. Conclusion
This paper was motivated by the need for research that could improve our understanding of
how heritage tourism influences the pricing strategies in the hotel industry. In this paper, we
investigated the price premium charged by hotels to heritage tourists who travel to
experience nature and/or culture. We found that tourists visiting Rajasthan in India pay a
hefty “price of heritage” for staying in culturally rich forts and palaces that have been
26
converted into hotels. We found a qualitatively similar effect among hotels in North
America. We observed hotels in Niagara Falls region charging price premiums for exposing
tourists to natural heritage. We also investigated consumer preferences of heritage tourists.
They exhibit higher quality perception, greater purchase intensions, likelihood of word-of-
mouth and an increased willingness-to-pay for hotels with heritage. Overall, this paper
demonstrates a significant “price of heritage” imposed by hotels and paid by heritage
tourists.
This research has some managerial implications. We find that heritage matters. When
consumers experience heritage, it prompts an increase in quality perceptions, purchase
intentions and willingness-to-pay. It also generates positive word-of-mouth. Moreover, our
results suggest that a heritage view and heritage décor both influence consumers, although
interestingly, a heritage view influences consumers relatively more than a heritage décor.
This implies that investing in a hotel location that oversees a heritage site, visible from the
hotel rooms, can yield a high return on investment. Similarly, making the décor of a hotel
room more ethnic and consistent with the heritage of the locale can also be a useful strategy
in making a hotel more appealing to heritage tourists. Such investments will raise the
likelihood of hotel rooms to be rented and yet, allow hotels to charge heritage tourists a
higher room price. This is a potentially win-win situation. The hotel is directly better-off
since it is increasing its revenue. The heritage tourists are indirectly better-off, since their
net utility from visiting the heritage destination and staying at the hotel is also likely to
increase.
27
7. References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. Automatic Control,
IEEE Transactions on, 19(6), 716-723.
Bignie, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and
after-purchase behavior: inter-relationships. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–616.
Bridaa, Juan Gabriel, Marta Meleddub, & Manuela Pulinac. (2012). “Understanding
Urban Tourism Attractiveness.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (6): 730-41.
Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007). Eco tourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in
lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 574
590.
Chen, C.-F. (2008). Investigating structural relationships between service quality, perceived
value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers: Evidence from
Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A, 42(4), 709–717.
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115–1122.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Hospitality Management, 20,277
297.
Chu, R. K. S., & Choi, T. (2000). An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection
factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure
travelers. Tourism Management, 21(4), 363-377.
Clewer, A., Pack, A., Sinclair, M. T., Johnson, P., & Thomas, B. (1992). Price
competitiveness and inclusive tour holidays in European cities. Choice and demand
in tourism, 123-143.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.
De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction ina
heritage context: evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29,
525–537.
28
Dranove, D., Gron, A., & Mazzeo, M. J. (2003). Differentiation and competition in HMO
markets. Journal of Industrial Economics, 51(4), 433-454.
Dubé, L., & Renaghan, L. M. (2000). Creating visible customer value. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 62-72.
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise
vacation value. Tourism
Espinet, J.M., Saez, M., Coenders, G., & Fluvià, M.(2003). Effect on prices of the attributes
of holiday hotels: a hedonic prices approach. Tourism Economics, 9(2), 165-177.
Hoffman, K., Turley, L. W., & Kelley, S. W. (2002). Pricing retail services. Journal of
Business Research, 55(12), 1015-1023.
Huang, C. H., Tsaur, J. R., & Yang, C. H. (2012). Does world heritage list really induce
more tourists? Evidence from Macau. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1450-1457.
Hung, W. T., Shang, J. K., & Wang, F. C. (2010). Pricing determinants in the hotel industry:
quantile regression analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
29(3), 378-384.
Ivanov, S. (2014). Hotel Revenue Management: From Theory to Practice. Zangador.
Kezeor, J., & Ransom, E. (2011). College of Business Administration, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Lockyer, T. (2005). Understanding the dynamics of the hotel accommodation purchase
decision. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(6),
481-492.
Mandala, Laura. The Cultural and Heritage Traveler. Mandala Research. 2009. Study.
Mazzeo, M. J. (2002). Product choice and oligopoly market structure. RAND Journal of
Economics, 33(2), 221-242.
Morrison, L. V. (1979). Re-determination of the decade fluctuations in the rotation of the
Earth in the period 1861–1978. Geophysical Journal International, 58(2), 349-360.
Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of tourism research, 23(2),
249-260.
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism
Management, 17 (3), 165-174.
29
Papatheodorou, A. (2002). Civil aviation regimes and leisure tourism in Europe. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 8(6), 381-388.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2013). Tourist’s perceptions of World Heritage Site
and its designation. Tourism Management, 35, 272-274.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behavior in tourism: Concepts and
analysis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Richards, G. (1996). Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals of
tourism research, 23(2), 261-283.
Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure
Competition. Journal of Political Economy 82:34-55.
Rowley, J. (1997). Principles of price and pricing policy for the information marketplace.
Library Review, 46(3), 179-189.
Silberberg, Ted. (1995). “Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and
Heritage Sites.” Tourism Management, 16 (5): 361-65.
Sinclair, M.T. & Tsegaye, A. (1990). International Tourism and Export Instability. Journal
of Development Studies. 26(3), 487-574
Smyth, G. K., & Verbyla, A. P. (1996). A conditional likelihood approach to residual
maximum likelihood estimation in generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 565-572.
Strauss, Charles H., & Bruce E. Lord. (2001). “Economic Impacts of a Heritage Tourism
System.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8 (4): 199-204.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The role of perceived risk in the
quality value relationship: a study in a retail environment. Journal of retailing, 75(1),
77-105.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The annals of statistics, 6(2),
461-464.
Wu, L. (1999). The pricing of a brand name product: franchising in the motel services
industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(1), 87e102
Yale, Pat. (1991). From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. London: ELM
Publications.
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.
30
Table 1: Summary Statistics in Study 1
City Type
Of Hotel
N Star Price
Airport Station Rooms
Bar Busines
s
Center
Mean (S.D.)
Jodhpur Heritage 21 4.14
(0.72)
12269.04
(13921.38)
4.5
(3.35)
3.47
(2.44)
38.95
(25.9)
0.76
(0.43)
0.33
(0.48)
Modern 1 5 (0) 12000 (0) 115 (0) 115 (0) 32 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0)
Jaipur Heritage 13 4.92
(0.27)
14184.61
(10454.81)
14.96
(6.89)
9.16
(8.37)
114.38
(60.27)
1 (0) 0.92
(0.27)
Modern 15 4.4
(0.5)
8333.33
(12429.32)
13.93
(11.93)
10.13
(7.87)
108.46
(55.37)
1 (0) 0.93
(0.25)
Udaipur Heritage 15 4.66
(0.61)
13050
(7648.64)
30.73
(17.7)
12.66
(22.62)
52.8
(33.97)
1 (0) 0.86
(0.35)
Modern 7 4.71
(0.48)
5735.71
(897.54)
25.71
(3.3)
6.28
(2.69)
87.42
(72.23)
0.85
(0.37)
0.57
(0.53)
Jaisalmer Heritage 4 4.5
(0.57)
15000
(15448.84)
4 (1.22) 2.62
(0.62)
59 (42.03) 1 (0) 1 (0)
Modern 1 5 (0) 3000 (0) 9 (0) 3.5 (0) 42 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)
All Heritage 53 4.5
(0.66)
13166.03
(11407.48)
14.45
(14.99)
7.4
(13.15)
62.88
(49.33)
0.9
(0.29)
0.67
(0.47)
Modern 24 4.54
(0.5)
7506.25
(9869.52)
21.37
(22.78)
13.1
(22.69)
96.37
(60.46)
0.91
(0.28)
0.83
(0.38)
Total 77 4.51
(0.62)
11401.94
(11201.7)
16.61
(17.92)
9.18
(16.77)
73.32
(54.91)
0.9
(0.28)
0.72
(0.44)
31
Table 2: Regression Analysis in Study 1
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β SE β SE β SE
Intercept 7506.25 ** 2236.96 -31091.99 ** 9753.46 -32140.57 9263.54
Heritage 5659.79 * 2696.28 6025.79 * 2699.87 4684.67 * 2222.26
Star 8643.55 *** 2207.12 8660.66 *** 1934.97
Airport -39.84 142.04
Station 87.02 145.93
Rooms 13.49 25.79
Bar 722.37 4620.35 3292.89 3855.66
BusinessCenter -1717.79 3475.35 -2184.46 2616.40
City -1107.97 1623.81
−2LL -824.491 -814.612 -770.291
AIC 1654.983 1649.224 1560.582
32
Table 3: Summary Statistics in Study 2
View from the Hotel Room Sample (N) Price in $
Mean (SD)
City View 65 $186.69 (73.84)
Canadian View 65 $213.15 (83.27)
Canadian and US View 65 $237.77 (49.50)
All Rooms 195 $212.54 (88.41)
Table 4: Regression Analysis in Study 2
β SE t-statistics
Intercept 164.531 13.359 12.316
Heritage View 22.656* 10.348 2.190
Weekend 44.2567* 18.748 2.361
HeritageView*Weekend 5.677 14.522 0.391
33
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics in Study 3
Dependent Variables: Purchase Intentions, Quality Perceptions about Hotel Room, Willingness-to-pay and
Word of Mouth
Room Decor Purchase Int. Quality
Perception
Willing to Pay Word of
Mouth
Hotel View from Balcony Mean (SD)
Modern Neutral (N=32) 3.01 (1.37) 5.26 (0.68) 3171.88 (1516.61) 3.45 (1.26)
Taj-Mahal (N=31) 4.85 (1.11) 5.83 (0.81) 4225.81 (1515.69) 5.08 (1.25)
Total (N=63) 3.92 (1.55) 5.54 (0..80) 3690.48 (1594.92) 4.25 (1.49)
Traditional Neutral (N=41) 4.26 (1.67) 5.63 (1.08) 4048.78 (1932.63) 4.86 (1.44)
Taj-Mahal (N=57) 5.39 (1.45) 6.38 (1.10 ) 5561.40 (1927.41) 5.93 (1.20)
Total (N=98) 4.92 (1.64) 6.07 (1.15) 4928.57 (2060.93) 5.48 (1.40)
Total Neutral (N=73) 3.71 (1.66) 5.47 (0.94) 3664.38 (1804.81) 4.24 (1.53)
Taj-Mahal (N=88) 5.20 (1.36) 6.19 (1.04) 5090.91 (1896.07) 5.63 (1.28)
Total (N=161) 4.53 (1.67) 5.86 (1.05) 4444.10 (1981.95) 5.00 (1.55)
34
Table 6: Two-Way ANOVA analysis in Study 3
Quality
Perceptions
Source Type III
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 29.047 3 9.682 10.15 .000
Intercept 5061.844 1 5061.844 5307.12 .000
Room Décor 8.130 1 8.130 8.52 .004
View from Hotel Balcony 16.363 1 16.363 17.15 .000
Room Decor * View room
Hotel Balcony
.302 1 .302 .317 .574
Error 149.744 157 .954
Total 5709.889 161
Corrected Total 178.791 160
Purchase
Intention
Corrected Model 122.089 3 40.696 19.524 .000
Intercept 2915.564 1 2915.564 1398.732 .000
Room Décor 30.474 1 30.474 14.620 .000
View from Hotel Balcony 83.412 1 83.412 40.017 .000
Room Decor * View room
Hotel Balcony
4.818 1 4.818 2.312 .130
Error 327.256 157 2.084
Total 3754.750 161
Corrected Total 449.345 160
Willingness
-to-pay
(WTP)
Corrected Model 130835325.32 3 43611775.10 13.75 .000
Intercept 2743375751.89 1 2743375751.89 865.46 .000
Room Decor 46425140.920 1 46425140.92 14.64 .000
View from Hotel
Balcony 62472177.70 1 62472177.70 19.70 .000
Room Decor * View
room Hotel Balcony 1995387.23 1 1995387.23 .62 .429
Error 497661569.08 157 3169818.91
Total 3808250000.00 161
Corrected Total 628496894.41 160
Word of
Mouth
Corrected Model 126.859 3 42.286 25.405 .000
Intercept 3541.201 1 3541.201 2127.470 .000
Room Decor 48.260 1 48.260 28.994 .000
View from Hotel Balcony 69.014 1 69.014 41.462 .000
Room Decor * View room
Hotel Balcony
2.947 1 2.947 1.771 .185
Error 261.328 157 1.665
Total 4415.688 161
Corrected Total 388.187 160
35
Figure 1: The Oberoi Rajvilas in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India in Study 1
(http://www.oberoihotels.com/oberoi_rajvilas/ )
Figure 2: The Oberoi in Bangalore, India in Study 1
(http://www.oberoihotels.com/oberoi_bangalore/)
36
Figure 3: Hilton Embassy Suites, Niagara Falls, USA Rooms with three types of views – 1)
Both Canadian and US Falls; 2) Canadian Falls only; 3) No view of the falls.
(http://www.embassysuitesniagara.com/)
View Average
Price
Canadian & US Falls
$238
Canadian Falls only
$213
No view of the falls
$187
37
Figure 4: Hotel with modern décor and neutral view from the balcony (Study 3)
Figure 5: Hotel with modern décor and heritage view from the balcony (Study 3)
38
Figure 6: Hotel with heritage décor and neutral view from the balcony
Figure 7: Hotel with heritage décor and heritage view from the balcony