Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Testing Activities in Tourist-Residents Social Contact. Measures for more Socially Sustainable Tourism

Altmetrics

Downloads

43

Views

28

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

19 October 2024

Posted:

28 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The actual types of activities which foster social contact between the tourist-resident and their impact on tourists' or residents' perceptions have received less attention. This study addresses this critical topic by assessing tourists’ impression on the locals through examination of a tourist-resident social contact axis proposed by the authors from a selection of frequent tourist activities. The goal is to evaluate the nature and frequency of tourists’ activities and their impact on their 'image' through five contact scenarios as constructs of social contact. An empirical survey-based study in Kashan, and data from the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews from 165 travelers, we assumed that travelers' experience is heavily influenced by sociocultural practices of wayfinding, eating, shopping, and contact with locals. The results indicate a strong tendency among travelers to communicate directly with the locals on all constructs of their travel behavior. There is also a mutual reflection on behavior and manner.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Tourism, Leisure, Sport and Hospitality

1. Introduction

Tourism impacts change by regions, economies, people, and individuals. Tourism impacts can be positive or negative; from economic, environmental and sociocultural perspectives (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2014). Tourism can improve community services, creates jobs and generates incomes. It can also lead to destination crowdedness, soaring property prices, increasing living costs and environmental damage. Among the less tangible perspectives, are sociocultural, which studies residents’ perception towards tourism, tourist-host social contact, and its impacts on tourists’ travel attitudes and behaviors, interactions between residents and tourists, and their contribution to eithers experience and perception of one another and etc. Residents can show acceptance to tourists on some aspects and intolerance on others. Tourists on the other hand can chose to either come back to the destination or travel to another destination based on their image and perception of the destination and its residents.
Less studied in the extensive studies on tourist-residents contact and resident perception on tourism, are the actual types and classifications of interactions between tourists and residents and their impact on residents’ or more important tourists’ perceptions. Where do tourists experience contact with the locals? What types of tourist activities e.g., shopping, wayfinding, etc. form opportunities of contact with residents? What are the extends of contact with locals? Which activities contribute more to tourists’ perception of a particular destination and its residents?
It is therefore necessary to examine tourist-residents contact through those activities which are more likely to increase social contact between the two groups. This study addresses this critical topic by assessing tourists’ impression on the locals through examination of a tourist-resident social contact axis proposed by the authors from a selection of frequent tourist activities. The goal is to evaluate the nature and frequency of tourists’ activities and their impact on their ’image’ through five contact scenarios as constructs of social contact.
Based on the dynamic nature of tourist-resident social contact, the novelty of this study is that it seeks to explore residents’ attitudes from tourists’ perspective and consequently tourists’ perceptions towards locals on the following assumptions of relationship for those individual tourists who tend to get involved in the local society and have direct contact with the locals. The study uses established theories in tourism studies as a basis for constructing and its conceptual framework. The statistical analysis on hypotheses in the case study are tested and presented to be discussed and tested in the future studies.

2. Social Contact and Its Measurement in Tourism

Social contact is defined as direct interaction between people from different social and cultural backgrounds (Daisey, 2017; Yu & Lee, 2014). Contact among different groups in society can enhance mutual understanding and stop prejudice and stereotypes (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998; Kawakami et al., 2000; Binder et al., 2009; Kirillova et al., 2015). Bochner (1982) calls measures that define types of social contact such as purpose and extent of interaction, the frequency of contact and type of involvement. The purposes of social contact can explain the extent and intensity of social contact (Kirillova et al., 2015; Huang & Hsu, 2010).
Social contact happens in different scenarios and with different parties. There are tourist-resident, tourist-service employees, and tourist-tourist (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2004; Pearce, 2005; Rihova et al., 2015; Wu, 2007). According to Cohen’s (1972) tourist typology, the extent and variety of social contact are significant indicators to evaluate the impact of social interactions between tourists and locals. Therefore, tourists’ contact with residents and consequently perception of their destination and its residents varies significantly based on the extend, frequency and intensity of their contact, and either directly or through the tour agents and service providers such as tour guides and hotel staff (Fan et al., 2017).
Several studies have measure activities of social contact and contact frequency as the primary measure of social contact (Rothman, 1978; Mo et al., 1993; Reisinger & Turner (2002); Woosnam & Aleshinloye, 2013), and quality and frequency of tourist-host social contact as indicators of residents’ attitude to tourism development (Akis et al., 1996). However, only some studies examine visitors’ perception and contact with locals in actual dimensions. Islam and Hewstone (1993) tested significance of the number of contact points, contact frequency, and contact quality. Berscheid et al. (1989) tested the relationship between frequency, activity, and intensity of social contact with interpersonal relationships.
In a more recent study, Fan et al. (2017) argued that both the quantity (frequency and intensity) and quality (activity, power and influence) of social contact should be considered to measure social contact and their impacts on tourists’ perceptions.
In conclusion, the interaction between residents and tourists determines social distance, (Joo et al., 2018), or place attachment (Aleshinloye et al., 2019). An increased contact and interaction quality with residents will generate favorable tourist perceptions of the destination and a higher degree of destination loyalty.
The travel experience of tourists is incomplete without social interactions (Fan, Buhalis & Lin, 2019). Pleasant social contact with tourists could increase residents’ positive attitude towards tourists and tourism development, perception changes, improving destination image (Carneiro et al., 2018, Fan et al. 2017, Aleshinloye et al., 2020, Tsaur et al., 2018), while a bad contact experience may and lead to social intolerance and resentment of the destination society (Pizam et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2017).
From a resident viewpoint, frequent social contact with tourists could enhance their perceived impacts of tourism (Carneiro et al., 2018; Eusébio et al., 2018) and reduce the social distance from tourists (Joo et al., 2018; Aleshinloye et al., 2020; Yilmaz & Tasci, 2015). When contact exceeds to the point that residents see that their public resources are declined and their environment damaged, they show resentment towards tourists which can lead to conflict (Zhang et al., 2017).

3. Methodology

This study continues the previous studies further on the relational exploration between social contact and tourists’ attitude towards destinations to investigate the tourist-host social contact from tourists’ perspectives. Most studies only employed one group for investigations and ignored paired and interrelated nature of social contact (Tsaur et al., 2018). It is necessary to study the tourist-resident relationship from both groups to obtain a comprehensive perspective since participant groups hold different benefits and expectations. The novelty of this research is that it employs constructs to explore the mutual perception of tourists and locals through the eyes of the tourists. Through hypothetical scenarios of tourist-local social contact, an empirical survey-based study in Kashan, and data from the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, we assumed that travelers’ experience is heavily influenced by sociocultural practices of wayfinding, eating, shopping, and contact with locals. The authors carried out a preliminary qualitative analysis. Respondents were selected from travelers who stayed more than two nights in a historical house accommodation in the historical district of Kashan from the beginning of the Persian New Year 1401 until the end of the second month of the Persian Calendar (21st of March-21st May 2023) during the high travel season to the city of Kashan.
The questionnaire consisted of forty-two questions and was divided into five sections. The first section included eight questions about the socio-demographic profile of the residents. Indicators include experiences, various forms of social encounters, and functional interactions to connections. Tourists’ mental image of the residents’ openness and tolerance of the local population of them is explored through four exploratory constructs of wayfinding, connections, cultural awareness, food, social contacts, and souvenirs.

4. Case Study: Kashan, Iran

Kashan has become an important tourist city within the national network of leisure and travel nodes in recent years in Iran. According to the statistics from 2017 show a steady growth in tourist visits (2018: 24%; 2019 19%; 2020: -77%; 2021: 325%; 2022:58%) and accommodation except during the COVID pandemic travel restrictions (2018: 7%; 2019 -31%; 2020: -94%; 2021: -26%; 2022:1800%). For tourist visit data, UNESCO World Heritage Fin Garden is a benchmark. With the historical city and its services economy geared increasingly towards tourist-generated earnings, infrastructure and businesses have upgraded rapidly. The historical city center has received an increasing number of visitors due to the walkability of most attractions. The high-rise restricted area in the historical center preserves vistas, historic houses, the bazaar, and walkable routes for travelers to explore the historic quarter. Many of these historic houses have turned into new guest houses accommodating the flow of tourists.

5. Data Analysis and Discussion

5.1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis

A higher percentage of respondents were female. Most are between 25 and 35 years old, mainly bachelors, self-employed, and living in a metropolis. A higher percentage of the respondents stated that tourism was their purpose for visiting Kashan. Most of them have traveled to Kashan for the second time. A higher percentage of the respondents traveled to Kashan by bus, mostly with their families (Table 1).

5.2. Confirming the Average Distribution Data

Based on the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirinov test, since the significance level for the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs is greater than the error value of 0.05 (sig > 0.05), the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs have a normal distribution. In order to check the research hypotheses, parametric tests were used since the research variables have a normal distribution (Table 2).

5.3. Testing Research Hypotheses

In all variables, since the significance level value is equal to 0.000 and is smaller than the error value of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is confirmed. The measure of Pearson’s correlation coefficient indicates a positive and direct relationship between the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs (Table 3).
That is, the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the gender of the respondents (Table 4).
The variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the age of the respondents (Table 5).
The variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the level of education (Table 6).
In order to compare research variables based on respondents’ marital status, the independent t-test is used. The variables of cultural communication and familiarity, food, and souvenirs do not differ based on the respondents’ marital status. While the value of the significance level for the variables of wayfinding and social communication is smaller than or equal to the error value of 0.05, and the absolute value of the t-statistic is greater than the table value of 1.96. Therefore, the wayfinding and social connection variables differ based on the marital status of the respondents. Moreover, according to the average and the upper and lower limits, the average wayfinding and social communication in married people is more than that of single people (Table 7).
Variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the number of children (Table 8).
The variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the occupation of the respondents (Table 9).
The variables of cultural communication and familiarity and social communication do not differ based on the place of residence. While the value of the significance level for the variables of wayfinding, food, and souvenirs is smaller than the error value of 0.05, therefore the alternative hypothesis is confirmed; that is, the variables of wayfinding, food, and souvenirs differ based on the respondents’ place of residence. LSD test is used to compare the difference between the wayfinding, food, and souvenirs based on the place of residence (Table 10).
There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live in a metropolis, city, or county in terms of the variable of wayfinding. However, the average of metropolitan respondents is higher than that of rural respondents and lower than that of foreign respondents. The average of city respondents is higher than the average of village respondents. The average of the respondents of the county is higher than the average of the respondents of the village. There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live in a city, country, or abroad regarding the wayfinding variable. The average of respondents from abroad is higher than those from cities and villages (Table 11).
There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live in a metropolis, city, and village regarding the food variable. However, the average of metropolitan respondents in the food variable is lower than that of city and foreign respondents (Table 12).
The average of city respondents in the food variable is lower than that of county and foreign respondents. The average of the city respondents in the food variable is higher than that of the respondents of a metropolis, city, or village.
There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live outside the country and in the city regarding the food. The average of foreign respondents in the food variable is higher than that of the metropolis, city, and village respondents.
There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live in the metropolis, city, village, and abroad regarding the souvenir variable. However, the average of the metropolitan respondents in the souvenir variable is lower than that of the city respondents. The average of city respondents in the souvenir variable is lower than the average of county respondents. The average of the county respondents in the souvenir variable is higher than that of the metropolis, city, and village respondents (Table 13).
There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live abroad and, in the metropolis, city, county, and village regarding the souvenir variable
There is no difference between the average of the respondents who live in the metropolis, city, village, and abroad regarding the souvenir variable. However, the average of the metropolitan respondents in the souvenir variable is lower than that of the city respondents. The average of city respondents in the souvenir variable is lower than the average of county respondents. The average of the county respondents in the souvenir variable is higher than that of the metropolis, city, and village respondents. There is also no difference between the average of the respondents who live abroad and, in the metropolis, city, county, and village regarding the souvenir variable (Table 14).
The average wayfinding variable of the respondents whose travel intention was tourism is higher than those who intended to rest. There is no difference between the other groups regarding the wayfinding variable (Table 15).
The average of the cultural communication and familiarity variable of the respondents who travel for tourism is higher than those whose intention was to rest and work. Regarding cultural communication and familiarity variables, there is no difference between the respondents who travel for work and those who travel to rest (Table 16).
The value of the significance level for the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs is greater than the error value of 0.05, therefore the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the way the respondents got acquainted with the trip to Kashan (Table 17).
The variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on the number of times the respondents visited Kashan (Table 18).
The variables of wayfinding, communication and familiarity Culture, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ according to the means of transportation (Table 19).
The variables of wayfinding, communication and cultural familiarities, food, social communication, and souvenirs do not differ based on respondents’ companions in their trip to Kashan (Table 20).

5.1.1. Additional Findings

Except for the ones with no asterisks, the rest of the wayfinding questions are related to the variables of cultural communication and familiarity, food, social communication, and souvenirs (Table 21).
Except for the ones with no asterisks, the rest of the cultural communication and familiarity questions have a relationship with the variables of wayfinding, food, social communication, and souvenirs (Table 22).
Except for the ones with no asterisks, the rest of the food questions have a relationship with the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, social communication, and souvenirs (Table 23).
4- Except for ones with no asterisks, the rest of the social communication questions have a relationship with the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication, familiarity, food, and souvenirs (Table 24).
Except for ones with no asterisks, the rest of the souvenir questions have a relationship with the variables of wayfinding, cultural communication and familiarity, food, and social communication (Table 25).

7. Conclusions

For Wayfinding items, those who used signs and asked help from shopkeepers and other travelers scored higher in items in Food Construct items. Travelers prefer finding their eating spot by asking the locals than using applications. Respondents seeking help from bazaar tenants and other travelers for direction scored higher in Food and Souvenir items.
For Culture and Communication items, those wary of the local customs or their attention towards themselves have a higher response rate to the items in Social Communication Construct.
For Food items, those who ask other travelers or follow restaurant signs responded higher in Wayfinding, Culture and Communication, and Souvenir Constructs. Those who ask other travelers, locals, and shopkeepers for places to eat correlate with Wayfinding, Social Communication, and Souvenir Constructs. Additionally, those respondents stated that shopkeepers, locals, and bazaar tenants guided them to eating places. They also responded higher in Wayfinding, Social Communication, and Souvenir Constructs.
For Social Communication items, communication with other travelers, locals, and shopkeepers correlates with Culture and Communication, Wayfinding, and Food items.
For Souvenir items, those respondents who stated they ask locals or shopkeepers or follow the signs scored higher in Wayfinding and Food items.
The results indicate a strong tendency among travelers to communicate directly with the locals on all constructs of their travel behavior. There is also a mutual reflection on behavior and manner (mainly clothing). In the case of Kashan, and Iran in general, a strong tendency for verbal communication is still evident as interaction with the locals is the main exercise in travel behavior in Kashan. Using travel applications is yet to be shared among travelers, which can be either the reason or the result of a tendency from tourists towards verbal communication with the locals or a lack of technological infrastructure.
Therefore, to cultivate a pleasant tourists social experience, in the case of Kashan, keeping the already strong community perception and welcoming attitude towards tourists and educating them on negative aspects of possible hostility towards those not acceptable by the locals is necessary. Tourists also need to be informed about local culture and social norms to prevent negative perceptions of the locals.

Limitations and Future Studies

While limited in scope and results, this study provides a new perspective for future studies to construct a practical basis for tourist-local contact studies. Tourism studies must go beyond the local perception, focus on the nature and intensity of tourist activities, and relate them with tourism development and local perception and support for tourism.

References

  1. Allport, W. Gordon. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison Wesley.
  2. Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481–494.
  3. Akis, S.; Peristianis, N.; Warner, J. Residents’ attitude to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aleshinloye, K.D., Fu, X., Ribeiro, M.A., Woosnam, K.M., & Tasci, A.D. (2020). The influence of place attachment on social distance: Examining mediating effects of emotional solidarity and the moderating role of interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 59(5), 828–849.
  5. Aleshinloye, K.D., X. Fu, M.A. Ribeiro, K.M. Woosnam, & A.D. Tasci. (2019). "The Influence of Place Attachment on Social Distance: Examining Mediating Effects of Emotional Solidarity and the Moderating Role of Interaction." Journal of Travel Research: Available Online.
  6. Barthes, R. (1973). Mythologies. London: Paladin.
  7. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory - Assessing the Closeness of Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792-807.
  8. Binder, J. et al. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice, or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843-856.
  9. Carneiro, M.J., Eusébio, C., & Caldeira, A. (2018). The influence of social contact in residents’ perceptions of the tourism impact on their quality of life: A structural equation model. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 19(1), 1-30.
  10. Choi, H.S.C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of travel research, 43(4), 380-394.
  11. Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1), 164–182.
  12. Comprehensive Report on Traditional Guesthouses in Kashan County (2017-2022), Tourist Establishments Evaluation, Data and Statistics Webpage, Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Heritage and Handicrafts.
  13. Cusher, K. & Brislin (1996). Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88–102. 8.
  15. Eusébio, C., Vieira, A.L., & Lima, S. (2018). Place attachment, host–tourist interactions, and residents’ attitudes towards tourism development: The case of Boa Vista Island in Cape Verde. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(6), 890-909.
  16. Fan, D.X., Buhalis, D., & Lin, B. (2019). A tourist typology of online and face-to-face social contact: Destination immersion and tourism encapsulation/decapsulation. Annals of Tourism Research, 78, 102757.
  17. Fan, D.X., Zhang, H.Q., Jenkins, C.L., & Tavitiyaman, P. (2017). Tourist typology in social contact: An addition to existing theories. Tourism Management, 60, 357-366.
  18. Fridgen, J.D. (1991). Dimensions of tourism. Michigan: The Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association.
  19. General Report on Specific Destinations (2017-2022), Tourist Establishments Evaluation, Data and Statistics Webpage, Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Heritage and Handicrafts.
  20. Huang, J., & Hsu, C.H.C. (2010). The impact of customer-to-customer interaction on cruise experience and vacation satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(1), 79-92.
  21. Hudson, M., & N. Hawkins. (2006). "A tale of two cities: A commentary on historical and current marketing strategies used by the Liverpool and Glasgow regions." Place Branding 2: pp. 155–176.
  22. Islam, M.R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude - An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 700–710.
  23. Joo, D., A.D. Tasci, K.M. Woosnam, N.U. Maruyama, C.R. Hollas, and K.D. Aleshinloye. (2018). "Residents’ attitude towards domestic tourists explained by contact, emotional solidarity and social distance." Tourism Management 64: pp. 245–257.
  24. Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J.F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 871–888.
  25. Kirillova, K., X. Lehto, and L. Cai. 2015. "Volunteer Tourism and Intercultural Sensitivity: The Role of Interaction with Host Communities." Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 32 (4): 382–400.
  26. Li, Y.Q., & Liu, C.H. (2020). Impact of cultural contact on satisfaction and attachment: mediating roles of creative experiences and cultural memories. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(2), 221-245.
  27. Lovelock, C.H., & Wirtz, J. (2004). Service Marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  28. Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
  29. Mo, C.M., Howard, D.R. & Havitz, M.E. (1993). Testing an international tourist role typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 20 (2), 319-335.
  30. Nash, D. (1989). Tourism as a form of imperialism. In V. L. Smith Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (pp. 37–52). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  31. Pearce, P.L. (2005). Tourist behavior: Themes and conceptual schemes. Channel View Publications.
  32. Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
  33. Pizam, A., Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). The intensity of tourist–host social relationship and its effects on satisfaction and change of attitudes: The case of working tourists in Israel. Tourism Management, 21(4), 395–406.
  34. Plog, S.C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 55–58.
  35. Plog, S.C. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: An update of a Cornell Quarterly Classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (3), 13–24.
  36. Rasoolimanesh, S., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 335-345.
  37. Reisinger, Y. & Turner, L.W. (2002a). Cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts, Part 1. Journal of Travel Research, 40 (3), 295-315.
  38. Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Gouthro, M.B. (2015). Conceptualizing customer-to customer value co-creation in tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(4), 356– 363.
  39. Rothman, R.A. (1978). Residents and transients: community reaction to seasonal visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 16(3), 8-13.
  40. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
  41. Stylidis, D., & Terzidou, M. (2014). Tourism and the economic crisis in Kavala, Greece. Annals of Tourism Research, 44(1), 210–226.
  42. Tsaur, S.H., Yen, C.H., & Teng, H.Y. (2018). Tourist–resident conflict: A scale development and empirical study. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 10, 152-163.
  43. Tung, V.W.S. (2020). Reducing Tourist Stereotyping: Effectiveness of Communication Messages. Journal of Travel Research, 0047287519900002.
  44. Woosnam, K.M., D. Stylidis, and M. Ivkov. 2020. "Explaining conative destination image through cognitive and affective destination image and emotional solidarity with residents." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28 (6): 917-935.
  45. Wu, C.H.J. (2007). The impact of customer-to-customer interaction and customer homogeneity on customer satisfaction in tourism service—the service encounter prospective. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1518–1528.
  46. Ye, B.H., Zhang, H.Q., & Yuen, P.P. (2013). Cultural conflicts or cultural cushions? Annals of Tourism Research, pp. 43, 321–349.
  47. Yu, J. & Lee, T.J. (2014). Impact of tourists’ intercultural interactions. Journal of Travel Research, 53 (2), 225– 238.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Respondents (n=85).
Table 1. Characteristics of the Respondents (n=85).
Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 79 47/9
Female 86 52/1
Age 24-18 35 21/2
34-25 88 53/3
44-35 27 16/4
54-45 5 3
64-55 8 4/8
65 and above 2 1/2
Education High School or below 15 9/1
Bachelorette 91 55/2
Masters 49 29/7
PhD, MD or similar 10 6/1
Marital Status
 Single 86 52/1
Married 79 47/9
no. of Children none 133 80/6
1 15 9/1
2 15 9/1
3 or more 2 1/2
Occupation Manufacturing 11 6/7
Administrative 48 29/1
Service Industry 13 7/9
Freelance 76 46/1
Research, Student etc. 17 10/3
Origin Metropolis 100 60/6
Urban 33 20
County 26 15/8
Country 2 1/2
Abroad 4 2/4
Purpose of Visit Tourism 151 91/5
Rest 12 7/3
Job 2 1/2
Learning about Kashan Friends 84 50/9
Family 33 20
Media 20 12/1
Internet 27 16/4
Books and Magazines 1 0/6
Frequency of Visit 1st 64 38/8
2nd 76 46/1
Once a year 15 9/1
Several times a year 10 6/1
Means of Travel Car 125 75/8
Bus 26 15/8
Train 10 6/1
others 4 2/4
Travel Companion Family 95 57/6
Friends 69 41/8
alone 1 0/6
Table 2. Testing normal distribution of Data.
Table 2. Testing normal distribution of Data.
Variant Kolmogorov Z Sig. Level
Wayfinding 1/263 0/082
Cultural Communication and Familiarity 0/965 0/309
Food 1/102 0/176
Social Communication 1/228 0/098
Souvenirs 1/048 0/222
Table 3. Pearson Correlation Test between the Variants.
Table 3. Pearson Correlation Test between the Variants.
Wayfinding Cultural Communication and Familiarity Food Social Communication Souvenirs
Wayfinding 1
Cultural Communication and Familiarity 0/364* 1
Food 0/549* 0/435* 1
Social Communication 0/336* 0/363* 0/454* 1
Souvenirs 0/431* 0/266* 0/602* 0/357* 1
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 4. T test for Respondents Gender.
Table 4. T test for Respondents Gender.
Variable Gender Mean T-Value Degree of Freedom Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Wayfinding Male 3/11 -1/137 163 0/257 -0/24 0/07
Female 3/19
Cultural Communication and Familiarity Male 3/26 -1/614 163 0/109 -0/25 0/03
Female 3/38
Food Male 2/91 0/020 163 0/984 -0/20 0/20
Female 2/91
Social Communication Male 2/93 1/867 163 0/062 -0/01 0/45
Female 2/8
Souvenirs Male 2/8 -0/465 163 0/642 -0/26 0/16
Female 2/85
Table 5. ANOVA Test for the respondents Age.
Table 5. ANOVA Test for the respondents Age.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 1/419 3 0/473 1/895 0/132
Wayfinding intra-group 40/173 161 0/250
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 0/464 3 0/155 0/754 0/521
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 33/044 161
0/205
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 0/386 3 0/129 0/312 0/817
Food intra-group 66/462 161 0/413
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 0/595 3 0/198 0/345 0/793
Social Communication intra-group 92/562 161 0/575
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 1/375 3 0/458 1/015 0/388
Souvenirs intra-group 73/720 161 0/452
Total 74/095 164
Table 6. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the education of the respondents.
Table 6. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the education of the respondents.
Variant Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square F-Value Level of Significance
Wayfinding intra-group 1/402
40/191
41/592		 5
159
164		 0/280
0/253
 1/109
 0/358
inter-group
Total
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 1/125
32/383
33/508		 5
159
164		 0/225
0/204
 1/105
 0/360
inter-group
Total
Food intra-group 2/360
64/488
66/848		 5
159
164		 0/472
0/406
 1/164
 0/329
inter-group
Total
Social Communication intra-group 1/267
91/890
93/157		 5
159
164		 0/253
0/578
 0/439
 0/821
inter-group
Total
Souvenirs intra-group 3/556
70/539
74/095		 5
159
164		 0/711
0/444
 1/603
 0/162
inter-group
Total
Table 7. Independent t-test results to check the difference of the variables based on respondents’ marital status.
Table 7. Independent t-test results to check the difference of the variables based on respondents’ marital status.
T-statistic Degree of Freedom Level of Significance Confidence Interval 95%
Variable gender Mean Lower Limit Upper Limit
wayfinding Single 3/08 -1/976 163 0/050* -0/31 -0/0001
married 3/23
Cultural communication
 Single 3/28 -1/404 156/991 0/162 -0/24 0/04
married 3/36
Food
 Single 2/84 -1/402 163 0/163 -0/33 0/06
married 2/98
Social communication
 Single 2/91 -2/251 163 0/026* -0/49 -0/03
married 3/17
Souvenir Single 2/75 -1/524 147/821 0/130 -0/37 0/05
Married 2/91
Table 8. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the number of respondents’ children.
Table 8. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the number of respondents’ children.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 0/371 3 0/124 0/483 0/695
Wayfinding intra-group 41/221 161 0/256
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 1/171 3 0/390 1/943 0/125
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 32/337 161 0/201
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 0/718 3 0/239 0/583 0/627
Food intra-group 66/131 161 0/411
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 0/882 3 0/294 0/513 0/674
Social Communication intra-group 92/275 161 0/573
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 2/225 3 0/752 1/684 0/172
Souvenirs intra-group 71/840 161 0/446
Total 74/095 164
Table 9. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the occupation of the respondents.
Table 9. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the occupation of the respondents.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 0/377 3 0/094 0/366 0/833
Wayfinding intra-group 41/215 161 0/258
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 0/455 3 0/114 0/551 0/699
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 33/053 161 0/207
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 2/138 3 0/535 1/322 0/264
Food intra-group 64/710 161 0/404
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 0/574 3 0/143 0/248 0/911
Social Communication intra-group 92/583 161 0/579
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 3/350 3 0/838 1/894 0/114
Souvenirs intra-group 70/744 161 0/442
Total 74/095 164
Table 10. Results of ANOVA test to compare variables based on respondents’ place of residence.
Table 10. Results of ANOVA test to compare variables based on respondents’ place of residence.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 2/732 4 0/683 2/813 0/027*
Wayfinding intra-group 38/860 160 0/243
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 1/401 4 0/350 1/745 0/143
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 32/107 160 0/201
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 6/223 4 1/556 4/106 0/003*
Food intra-group 60/625 160 0/379
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 3/363 4 0/841 1/498 0/205
Social Communication intra-group 89/794 160 0/561
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 8/291 4 2/073 5/040 0/001*
Souvenirs intra-group 65/804 160 0/411
Total 74/095 164
Table 11. Multiple comparison of LSD test in the wayfinding variable based on place of residence.
Table 11. Multiple comparison of LSD test in the wayfinding variable based on place of residence.
Place of Residence (J) Place of Residence (I) Mean difference (I-J) Significance Level Lower Limit Upper Limit
City -0/06 0/513 -0/26 0/13
metropolis County -0/08 0/479 -0/29 0/14
Village 0/82 0/021* 0/13 1/52
Abroad -0/55 0/029* -1/05 -0/06
metropolis 0/06 0/513 -0/13 0/26
City County -0/01 0/925 -0/27 0/24
Village 0/89 0/014* 0/18 1/6
Abroad -0/49 0/064 -1/002 0/05
metropolis 0/08 0/479 -0/14 0/29
County City 0/01 0/925 -0/24 0/27
Village 0/9 0/014* 0/19 1/61
Abroad -0/48 0/075 -1/00 0/05
metropolis -0/82 0/021* -1/52 -0/13
Village City -0/89 0/014* -1/6 -0/18
County -0/9 0/014* -1/61 -0/19
Abroad -1/38 0/002* -2/22 -0/53
metropolis 0/55 0/029* 0/06 1/05
Abroad City 0/49 0/064 -0/03 1/002
County 0/48 0/075 -0/05 1/00
Village 1/38 0/002* 0/53 2/22
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 12. Multiple comparison of LSD test in food variable based on place of residence.
Table 12. Multiple comparison of LSD test in food variable based on place of residence.
Place of Residence (J) Place of Residence (I) Mean Difference (I-J) Significance level Lower Limit Upper Limit
City 0/06 0/636 -0/19 0/3
metropolis County -0/43 0/002* -0/69 -0/16
Village 0/49 0/267 -0/38 1/36
Abroad -0/64 0/044* -1/26 -0/02
metropolis -0/06 0/636 -0/3 0/19
City County -0/48 0/003* -0/8 -0/17
Village 0/43 0/338 -0/45 1/31
Abroad -0/69 0/035* -1/34 -0/03
metropolis 0/43 0/002* 0/16 0/69
County City 0/48 0/003* 0/17 0/8
Village 0/91 0/044* 0/02 1/81
Abroad -0/21 0/526 -0/86 0/44
metropolis -0/49 0/267 -1/36 0/38
Village City -0/43 0/338 -1/32 0/45
County -0/91 0/044* -1/81 -0/02
Abroad -1/13 0/036* -2/18 -0/07
metropolis 0/64 0/044* 0/02 1/26
Abroad City 0/69 0/035* 0/05 1/34
County 0/21 0/526 -0/44 0/86
Village 1/13 0/036* 0/07 2/18
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 13. Multiple comparison of LSD test in souvenir variable based on place of residence.
Table 13. Multiple comparison of LSD test in souvenir variable based on place of residence.
. Place of Residence (I) Mean Difference (I-J) Significance Level Lower Limit Upper Limit
City 0/47 0/179 -0/08 0/43
metropolis County -0/5 0/001* -0/77 -0/22
Village 0/7 0/128 -0/2 1/6
Abroad -0/23 0/489 -0/87 0/42
metropolis -0/17 0/179 -0/43 0/08
City County -0/67 0/000* -1/001 -0/34
Village 0/53 0/261 -0/4 1/45
Abroad -0/4 0/240 -1/07 0/27
metropolis 0/5 0/001* 0/22 0/77
County City 0/67 0/000* 0/34 1/001
Village 1/2 0/012* 0/27 2/12
Abroad 0/27 0/437 -0/41 0/95
metropolis -0/7 0/128 -1/6 0/2
Village City -0/53 0/261 -1/45 0/4
County -1/2 0/012* -2/12 -0/27
Abroad 0/93 0/097 -2/02 0/17
metropolis 0/23 0/498 -0/42 0/87
Abroad City 0/4 0/240 -0/27 1/07
County -0/27 0/437 -0/95 0/41
Village 0/93 0/097 -0/17 2/02
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 14. ANOVA test results to compare variables based on respondents’ intention to travel to Kashan.
Table 14. ANOVA test results to compare variables based on respondents’ intention to travel to Kashan.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 2/195 2 1/098 4/514 0/027*
Wayfinding intra-group 39/397 162 0/243
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 3/086 2 1/543 8/216 0/000*
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 30/423 162 0/188
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 1/780 2 0/890 2/215 0/112
Food intra-group 65/069 162 0/402
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 1/313 2 0/656 1/158 0/317
Social Communication intra-group 91/844 162 0/567
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 2/083 2 1/042 2/344 0/099
Souvenirs intra-group 72/012 162 0/445
Total 74/095 164
Table 15. Multiple comparison of the LSD test in the variable of navigation based on the intention of the respondents to travel to Kashan.
Table 15. Multiple comparison of the LSD test in the variable of navigation based on the intention of the respondents to travel to Kashan.
Intention (J) Intention (I) Mean Difference (I-J) Significance Level Lower Limit Upper Limit
Tourism Rest 0/26 0/086 -0/04 0/55
Work 0/88 0/013* 0/19 1/57
Leisure Tourism -0/26 0/086 -0/54 0/04
Work 0/63 0/099 -0/12 1/37
Work Tourism -0/88 0/013* -1/57 -0/18
Rest -0/63 0/099 -1/37 0/12
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 16. Multiple comparison of the LSD test in the variable of communication and cultural familiarity based on the intention of the respondents to travel to Kashan.
Table 16. Multiple comparison of the LSD test in the variable of communication and cultural familiarity based on the intention of the respondents to travel to Kashan.
Intention (J) Intention (I) Mean Difference (I-J) Significance Level Lower Limit Upper Limit
Tourism Rest 0/4 0/002* 0/15 0/66
Work 0/84 0/007* 0/23 1/45
Rest Tourism -0/4 0/002* -0/66 -0/15
Work 0/43 0/191 -0/22 1/09
Work Tourism -0/84 0/007* -1/45 -0/23
Rest -0/43 0/191 -1/09 0/22
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 17. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the respondents’ way of getting acquainted with the trip to Kashan.
Table 17. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the respondents’ way of getting acquainted with the trip to Kashan.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 0/489 4 0/122 0/476 0/754
Wayfinding intra-group 41/103 160 0/257
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 0/616 4 0/154 0/749 0/560
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 32/892 160 0/206
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 1/094 4 0/274 0/666 0/617
Food intra-group 65/754 160 0/411
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 2/776 4 0/694 1/228 0/301
Social Communication intra-group 90/381 160 0/565
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 1/441 4 0/360 0/794 0/531
Souvenirs intra-group 72/654 160 0/454
Total 74/095 164
Table 18. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the number of times the respondents have visited Kashan.
Table 18. ANOVA test results to compare the variables based on the number of times the respondents have visited Kashan.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 1/046 3 0/349 1/385 0/249
Wayfinding intra-group 40/546 161 0/252
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 0/244 3 0/081 0/393 0/758
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 33/265 161 0/207
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 0/489 3 0/163 0/395 0/756
Food intra-group 66/359 161 0/412
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 1/269 3 0/423 0/741 0/529
Social Communication intra-group 91/888 161 0/571
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 2/301 3 0/767 1/720 0/165
Souvenirs intra-group 71/794 161 0/446
Total 74/095 164
Table 19. The results of ANOVA test to compare the variables based on the respondents’ means of transportation.
Table 19. The results of ANOVA test to compare the variables based on the respondents’ means of transportation.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 1/228 3 0/409 1/632 0/184
Wayfinding intra-group 40/365 161 0/251
Total 51/592 164
inter-group 0/362 3 0/121 0/586 0/625
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 33/147 161 0/206
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 0/053 3 0/018 0/043 0/988
Food intra-group 66/795 161 0/415
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 0/833 3 0/278 0/484 0/694
Social Communication intra-group 92/324 161 0/573
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 0/614 3 0/205 0/448 0/719
Souvenirs intra-group 73/481 161 0/456
Total 74/095 164
Table 20. The results of ANOVA test to compare the variables based on the respondents’ companions in their trip to Kashan.
Table 20. The results of ANOVA test to compare the variables based on the respondents’ companions in their trip to Kashan.
Variable Index Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Squared F-Statistic Level of Significance
inter-group 1/414 2 0/707 2/850 0/061
Wayfinding intra-group 40/178 162 0/248
Total 41/592 164
inter-group 0/158 2 0/079 0/383 0/683
Cultural Communication and Familiarity intra-group 33/351 162 0/206
Total 33/508 164
inter-group 0/661 2 0/330 0/809 0/447
Food intra-group 66/188 162 0/409
Total 66/848 164
inter-group 0/335 2 0/167 0/292 0/747
Social Communication intra-group 92/822 162 0/573
Total 93/157 164
inter-group 2/488 2 1/244 2/815 0/063
Souvenirs intra-group 71/607 162 0/442
Total 74/095 164
Table 21. Pearson’s correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of wayfinding and other variables.
Table 21. Pearson’s correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of wayfinding and other variables.
Wayfinding Questions Cultural Communication and Familiarity Food Social Communication Souvenirs
1. I use signs to find places. 0/212* 0/300* 0/172* 0/213*
2. I use an application 0/166* 0/111 0/026 0/055
3. I get help from other travelers. 0/268* 0/346* 0/222* 0/252*
4. I get help from passersby. 0/094 0/266* 0/207* 0/233*
5. I get help from shopkeepers. 0/169* 0/390* 0/158* 0/211*
6. I get help from Bazaar tenants. 0/165* 0/422* 0/294* 0/330*
7. Other travelers help me find the places. 0/254* 0/424* 0/289* 0/304*
8. Locals help me find the places. 0/191* 0/179* 0/080 0/252*
9. Shopkeepers help me find the places. 0/266* 0/279* 0/206* 0/265*
10. Bazaar tenants help me find the places. 0/249* 0/321* 0/268* 0/322*
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 22. Pearson’s correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of cultural communication and familiarity with the other variables.
Table 22. Pearson’s correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of cultural communication and familiarity with the other variables.
Cultural Communication and Familiarity Questions Wayfinding Food Social Communication
Souvenirs
1. I have asked friends and acquaintances about culture and customs in Kashan. 0/066 0/267* 0/163* 0/210*
2. I heard about culture and customs in Kashan on TV or radio. 0/285* 0/311* 0/081 0/216*
3. I read about culture and customs in Kashan on the internet. 0/140 0/326* 0/078 0/247*
4. I go to the tourist spots on foot. 0/366* 0/234* 0/195* 0/107
5. I drive to the spots. -0/023 0/050 -0/112 0/144
6. I directly go to the tourist spots and do not visit anywhere else. 0/050 -0/027 -0/003 0/142
7. If I see a place along the way that I did not intend to visit, I stop and look. 0/073 0/264* 0/224* 0/104
8. I only visit the tourist places that I have in mind. -0/047 *-0/172 *-0/269 0/004
9. I pay attention to recommendations while visiting tourist spots. 0/163* 0/211* 0/183* 0/166*
10. I pay attention to the lifestyle of the locals. 0/154* 0/263* 0/369* 0/136
11. I pay attention to the clothing pattern of the people. 0/222* 0/192* 0/167* 0/095
12. I pay attention to the shops. 0/285* 0/225* 0/248* 0/145
13. I pay attention to the shops in the Bazaar. 0/289* 0/320* 0/353* 0/225*
14. The locals pay attention to my behavior. 0/173* 0/195* 0/138 0/097
15. The locals pay attention to my clothes. 0/137 0/118 0/154* 0/002
16. Shopkeepers pay attention to my behavior. 0/149 0/190* 0/263* 0/065
17. Bazaar tenants pay attention to my behavior. 0/240* 0/241* 0/319* 0/088
18. Shopkeepers pay attention to my clothes. 0/128 0/174* 0/241* 0/026
19. Bazaar tenants pay attention to my clothes. 0/136 0/167* 0/222* -0/027
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 23. Pearson correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of food and other variables.
Table 23. Pearson correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of food and other variables.
Food Questions Wayfinding Communication and Familiarity Social Communication Souvenirs
1. I have asked friends and acquaintances about the local food of Kashan. 0/239* 0/217* 0/138 0/279*
2. I have heard about local food in Kashan from TV and radio. 0/233* 0/233* 0/072 0/341*
3. I have read about the local food in Kashan on the internet. 0/195* 0/226* 0/173* 0/320*
4. I have asked other travelers about local food in Kashan. 0/322* 0/309* 0/236* 0/399*
5. I follow the signs to find the restaurants. 0/316* 0/306* 0/135 0/296*
6. I use applications to find restaurants. 0/079 0/312* 0/038 0/064
7. I get help from other travelers to find restaurants. 0/483* 0/329* 0/409* 0/445*
8. I get help from passers-by to find restaurants. 0/452* 0/190* 0/368* 0/415*
9. I get help from shopkeepers to find restaurants. 0/427* 0/222* 0/392* 0/425*
10. I get help from Bazaar tenants to find restaurants. 0/419* 0/265* 0/363* 0/408*
11. Other passengers help me find the restaurant. 0/201* 0/220* 0/324* 0/362*
12. Passers-by help me find restaurants. 0/372* 0/240* 0/322* 0/405*
13. Shopkeepers help me find restaurants. 0/359* 0/195* 0/428* 0/362*
14. Bazaar tenants help me find restaurants. 0/421* 0/235* 0/447* 0/436*
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 24. Pearson correlation test results to investigate the relationship between questions of the variable of social communication and other variables.
Table 24. Pearson correlation test results to investigate the relationship between questions of the variable of social communication and other variables.

Social Communication Questions		 Wayfinding Communication and Familiarity Food
Souvenirs
1. I like to communicate with other travelers. 0/096 0/281* 0/242* 0/138
2. Other travelers communicate with me. 0/170* 0/411* 0/267* 0/136
3. I like to communicate with locals. 0/153* 0/209* 0/339* 0/144
4. Locals communicate with me. 0/315* 0/174* 0/438* 0/338*
5. I like to communicate with shopkeepers. 0/310* 0/265* 0/362* 0/353*
6. Shopkeepers communicate with me. 0/332* 0/378* 0/411* 0/443*
7. I like to communicate with Bazaar tenants. 0/330* 0/193* 0/343* 0/283*
8. Bazaar tenants communicate with me. 0/316* 0/290* 0/335* 0/313*
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
Table 25. Pearson correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of souvenir and other variables.
Table 25. Pearson correlation test results to investigate the relationship between the questions of the variable of souvenir and other variables.
Souvenirs Questions Wayfinding Communication and Familiarity Food Social Communication
1. I have asked friends and acquaintances about Kashan souvenirs. 0/122 0/045 0/249* 0/135
2. I learned about Kashan souvenirs from TV and radio. 0/116 0/091 0/185* 0/028
3. I have read about Kashan souvenirs on the internet. 0/033 0/122 0/303* 0/135
4. I have asked other travelers about Kashan souvenirs. 0/273* 0/235* 0/517* 0/338*
5. I follow the signs to learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/371* 0/301* 0/445* 0/166*
6. I use applications to learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/123 0/119 0/322* 0/182*
7. I get help from other travelers to learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/299* 0/126 0/523* 0/359*
8. I get help from passers-by to learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/368* 0/154* 0/503* 0/345*
9. I get help from shopkeepers to learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/368* 0/148 0/413* 0/160*
10. I get help from Bazaar tenants to learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/362* 0/299* 0/426* 0/147
11. Other travelers help me learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/224* 0/117 0/359* 0/339*
12. Passers-by help me learn about Kashan souvenirs. 0/319* 0/137 0/386* 0/346*
13. Shopkeepers help me learn with Kashan souvenirs. 0/409* 0/235* 0/410* 0/290*
14. Bazaar tenants help me learn with Kashan souvenirs. 0/365* 0/209* 0/332* 0/299*
15. I follow the signs to find a place to buy Kashan souvenirs. 0/415* 0/341* 0/452* 0/214*
16. I use applications to find places to buy souvenirs. 0/106 0/044 0/194* 0/051
17. I get help from other travelers to find a place to buy souvenirs. 0/292* 0/214* 0/445* 0/242*
18. I get help from passers-by to find a place to buy souvenirs. 0/324* 0/077 0/444* 0/209*
19. I get help from shopkeepers to find a place to buy souvenirs. 0/264* 0/189* 0/309* 0/165*
20. I get help from Bazaar tenants to find a place to buy souvenirs. 0/357* 0/190* 0/394* 0/216*
21. Other travelers help me find the place to buy souvenirs. 0/205* 0/134 0/331* 0/327*
22. Passers-by help me find the place to buy souvenirs. 0/254* 0/118 0/338* 0/231*
23. Shopkeepers help me find places to buy souvenirs. 0/228* 0/191* 0/302* 0/225*
24. Bazaar tenants help me find the place to buy souvenirs. 0/197* 0/114 0/215* 0/186*
* s i g < 0 / 05 .
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.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated