Attracting divergent segments to a destination:

Abstract

The success of Macao as an international gaming hub is ironic, considering that the government has rarely promoted it as a gambling destination. Rather, government marketing and promotional efforts promote Macao as a world heritage destination, which raises questions about marketing efficiency, the effectiveness of tourist segmentation, and the allocation of marketing resources. This in-depth investigation compares visitor types by probing whether gaming visitors participate in activities similar to those undertaken by cultural heritage visitors and vice versa. The goals of this article are twofold: to assess the degree of compatibility between divergent visitor segments in a destination based on their behavior and propensity to undertake different activities, and to gauge the implications for long-term sustainable and effective tourism marketing efforts. This is in contrast with previous studies, which in general consider only segment attractiveness and focus mostly on just one unique visitor segment. In addition to the activities sought, this article examines the level of involvement and social characteristics of both gaming and cultural heritage visitors.

Keywords

Activities cultural heritage visitors gaming visitors Macao tourism segmentation

Introduction

In 2002, Macao, a special administrative region in China, underwent a transformation from a casino monopoly market to a casino liberalization market, when the Macao government announced gaming as the main industry to be developed jointly with the tourism industry. Since then, internationally branded casino hotels, such as Wynn, Galaxy StarWorld, MGM Grand, Melco Crown City of Dreams, and Venetian, have been built in Macao. Macao, previously crowned the “Monte Carlo of the Orient” (Vong, 2004), is now known as the “Las Vegas of the East.” During the period of 2002–2008, Macao’s gaming revenue recorded a compound annual growth rate of 30.3%, and in 2006, its gaming revenue surpassed that of the Las Vegas Strip (Eadington and Siu, 2007). However, despite the success of the gaming industry, the government has rarely officially promoted Macao as a gaming destination. Rather, it has promoted Macao as a world heritage destination (McCartney and Nadkarni, 2003).

The relationship between the growth in gaming revenue and the number of visitors to Macao is irrefutable. In 2002, when the Macao casino industry was liberalized, visitor arrivals were 11,530,841 (Macao Statistics and Census Service, 2003). In 2009, the figure soared to 21,752,751, with 50.5% coming from Mainland China, 30.9% coming from Hong Kong, and 5.9% coming from Taiwan (Macao Statistics and Census Service, 2010a). Furthermore, approximately 50% of those visitors reported gambling during their trips (Macao Statistics and Census Service, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2010b).

Global organizations and governments have increasingly been interested in the development of cultural heritage tourism since the end of 20th century (Du Cros, 2001), and the Macao government is no exception. Today, the gaming industry is a major driver of the Macao economy, and its role is becoming increasingly dominant (Yu, 2008). From the perspective of sustainable economic growth, overdependency on a single tourism industry is not a healthy phenomenon (Park et al., 2002) The Macao government, also concerned about this issue, keeps tourism diversity on its agenda and has listed Macao’s world heritage as one of the features. The concept of world heritage differentiates Macao from neighboring destinations, especially those with gaming facilities, such as Singapore and Malaysia. In 2005, the Historic Centre of Macao was listed as China’s 31st World Heritage Site and was described as a “unique testimony to the meeting of aesthetic, cultural, architectural and technological influences from East and West” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2010).

Previous studies on Macao’s destination image indicate that two main images are associated with the words “gaming” and “cultural heritage” (Choi et al., 2007; Hsu and Gu, 2010; Tang et al., 2011) In their examination of 61 websites reflecting image attributes of Macao, Choi et al. (2007) find that the word “casino” was the fourth and fifth most frequently used word in travel magazines and blogs, respectively, while only the 47th on the Macao Government Tourist Office (MGTO) website. In contrast, the word “museum” was the second most frequently used word on the MGTO website, 6th on travel trade sites, 25th in blogs, and 57th in magazines. These figures imply that the MGTO wants to project an image of cultural heritage, even though travel magazines and discussion blogs project an image of gaming. Tang et al. (2011) compare 121 Macao websites and 121 Hong Kong–related websites and find that cultural attractions and events are the core image categories of Macao projected on these websites. Furthermore, Lamarca (2002) indicates that Macao tourism authorities strive to promote architecture and cultural heritage as its core image. Despite these efforts, however, Macao has become the world’s leading gaming destination in terms of gaming revenue (McCartney, 2008). Finally, Hsu and Gu (2010) examine tourism cooperation among Hong Kong, Macao, and Zhuhai and conduct in-depth interviews with government officials, industry practitioners, and tourism researchers. According to their results, Macao should focus on gaming as the “dragon head” for the tourism development. In summary, divergence remains between what the Macao government wants to project (i.e. an image of cultural heritage) and what Macao has become to the outside world (i.e. a gaming industry), as evidenced by the increased flow of visitors.

Previous studies indicate that cultural heritage tourists exhibit unique characteristics compared with other types of tourist segments (Brown and Boston, 1994; Chandler and Costello, 2002; Poria et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 1993). This raises the question whether attracting cultural heritage visitors to Macao in addition to gaming visitors would be an effective strategy in both the short run and long run, given that gaming represents the most dominant form of leisure activity there. Gu (2004) also highlights the importance of examining this issue and its relevance to tourism. Also important is evaluating the appropriate mix of visitor segments and the effectiveness of tourism marketing objectives, programs, and policy. Macao’s current experience also poses broader theoretical concern: How distinct must varied tourist segments be to effectively diversify a destination’s overall visitor profile? At the same time, how compatible must varied tourist segments be to provide synergistic marketing benefits. Although diversification is an ideal tourism marketing objective, this article posits that the compatibility of visitor segments should be examined in overall efforts to diversify and that visitor segment diversification should not be undertaken without examining compatibility issues.

Addressing these questions is crucial to destination planners and policy makers in Macao, whose stated aim is to diversity and transform Macao into a dynamic destination for international and regional visitors, beyond that of a world-class gaming industry. Doing so also has important implications for tourism planners and policy makers, especially those in destinations considering legalizing gaming as a way to diversify. To date, no study has attempted to evaluate the effectiveness and compatibility of attracting gaming alongside cultural heritage visitors.

In this article, we tackle these issues by first reviewing the literature on tourist market segmentation and the characteristics and profiles of gaming and cultural heritage tourists. We then describe the results of a survey conducted to assess the relative compatibility between heritage and gaming visitors to Macao in terms of their behavioral profiles. Next, we discuss the survey’s findings and then draw implications for destination marketing and segment selection compatibility. The three research questions in this study are as follows: Are heritage and gaming visitors compatible in terms of their behavioral profiles? Do all cultural heritage visitors have similar behavioral patterns? and Do all gaming visitors have similar behavior patterns?

Literature review

Market segmentation

Market segmentation is the identification of diverse customer groups that should be treated differently (Wyner, 1995). According to Kotler (1994), the fundamental process of market segmentation includes determining segments, targeting the segments, and positioning the target segments. To determine segments, marketers first must identify customers who have homogeneous needs and buying behavior. To target the segments, they must evaluate and choose the segments on which they want to spend their resources. Finally, positioning involves the marketing mix organizations employ for each segment. Webster (1991) notes that when doing segmentation, it should be measurable and relevant to a major customer group. In addition, the segmentation should have operational relevance for marketing strategy. Through market segmentation, marketers can manage their customers in a more effective and profitable way (Sung et al., 2001). Consumer marketing studies have widely adopted segmentation criteria, such as geographical, socioeconomic, demographic, psychographic, and behavioral factors (Kotler, 1994; Swarbrooke and Horner, 2001), as have tourism studies. In considering the distinct nature of tourism, however, studies have proposed more specific segmentation criteria, including activities (Choi and Tsang, 2000; Dolnicar, 2002; McKercher et al., 2002; Sung et al., 2001; Yan et al., 2007), benefits (Loker and Perdue, 1992), family life cycle (Bojanic, 1992), motivations (Bieger and Laesser, 2002; Cha et al., 1995; Park and Yoon, 2009; Wight, 1996), involvement (Park et al., 2002), interest (Sorensen, 1993; Wight, 1996), and purpose of trip (Cai et al., 2001). No consensus exists regarding which segmentation method is the most effective, though Sung et al. (2001) contend that a combination of methods should be adopted. Nonetheless, market segmentation is a powerful tool for destination marketers that can provide valuable insights. According to many official tourism departments, the purpose of the visit is always the most important determinant of why people visit a destination. Thus, purpose-oriented segmentation may be most useful from a practical point of view.

Segment compatibility

Cooper (1993) indicates that an attractive market is one in which there is potential for growth, not many players are present, and customers have a need that other markets do not fulfill. Other researchers indicate that attractiveness factors include growth rate, accessible segment size, profit potential, ability to reach buyers, competitive position, market size, and market fit, with organizational objectives and resources (Abratt, 1993; Dibb, 1995; McDonald and Dunbar, 1995). One aspect of segmentation studies that remains understudied is the concept of segment compatibility. Hutt and Speh (1989) argue that segment compatibility, which refers to how consistent a segment is with existing marketing and business strengths, is important for market segmentation. Applied in general to a tourism marketing context and, specifically, in the case of Macao, segment compatibility demands that existing market segments, such as gaming and cultural heritage visitors, are compatible, even if they are heterogeneous. However, to date, no studies have addressed the compatibility of segments.

In developing the notion of segment compatibility, we draw on Rogers’ (1995) work in the field of innovation diffusion, in which he describes compatibility as an attribute of any innovation that is consistent with the existing values, experiences, and needs of those who may potentially adopt it. The segment compatibility is one of the five perceived characteristics (in addition to relative advantage, complexity, trialability, and observability) that influence the success of an innovation and rate with which it is adopted by the market. Defined as such, compatibility can be extended to characterizing and assessing travel segments, insofar as segments are representative of discrete tourist product-market offerings. Segment compatibility is essential in that tourist destinations seek to innovate or, more appropriately in the tourism context, to germinate new segments from their existing portfolio of visitors, rather than to attract completely dissimilar segments. For example, in a comparison of web shoppers and non–web shoppers, Karayanni (2003) determines that the lack of compatibility of the online shopping experience with direct shopping experiences was a critical factor preventing non–web shoppers from adopting online shopping.

We distinguish segment compatibility from the construct of overlapping segments (Baloglu et al., 1998; Baloglu and Uysal, 1996). Baloglu et al. (1998) fittingly argue that travelers need not be affixed to one particular segment because, in reality, people vary in their behavioral preferences over time and straddle more than one type or segment. Therefore, people should not be classified into mutually exclusive groups. This lack of discreteness is most evident in people’s motives to travel as well as destination attractiveness, in which the importance of more than one type of motive (push) or attractiveness of more than one type of destination characteristic (pull) opens up several segments into which people can be classified simultaneously. At its core, overlapping segments mean the adoption of segmentation variables, resulting in the multiple assignments of people into different groups. Li et al. (in press) adopt an overlapping scheme to segment the Chinese outbound travel market and note advantages in forming product bundles.

We define segment compatibility as a profiling rather than a segmenting construct (Karayanni, 2003) and use it to assess post hoc the quality of emergent segments. The segmentation process demands the initial use of base variables, with which discrete segments are formed, and produces assignment algorithms through analysis to classify respondents. Of equal importance is the subsequent step, in which we use descriptor variables to profile, assess, and evaluate the formed segments for strategic viability. Indeed, Piercy and Morgan (1993) maintain that despite the variety of ways buyers can be differentiated, it is more imperative that marketers consider the operational relevance of segment targets, which entails not only the market attractiveness of segments but also, and more important, the internal compatibility of segments with organizational structure and processes.

In summary, we propose that segment compatibility is a diagnostic step in the segmentation process, in which segments either defined a priori or arising after analyses using an initial set of base variables are assessed in terms of their compatibility with existing segments served and their consistency with current organizational strengths, resources, and processes. We further propose that segment compatibility complements the segment definition in an iterative and recursive process of analyses (as opposed to a one-shot analysis), which refine and reassess segments identified until an optimum portfolio of heterogeneous groups that are strategically viable and sustainable is reached.

Gaming visitors

In their profile of casino vacationers, Morrison et al. (1996) find that this group, whose main purpose is gambling, participated in few activities outside the casino during their trips. Some scholars describe gamblers’ choice of alternative activities as a factor of gambling motivation (Eadington, 1988; Turco and Riley, 1996). For example, according to Eadington (1988), gamblers motivated by winning money tend not to engage in alternative activities that do not involve potential financial gain. In contrast, gamblers motivated by fun and entertainment should experience greater trip satisfaction by participating in activities other than gambling. However, although the explicit motivation of the gamblers may not be for monetary reasons, they may still be driven implicitly by that reason. As Lee et al. (2007) show, a monetary motive exerts a direct influence on gambling severity, while avoidance and excitement motives exert influence through a monetary motive. Thus, it is not surprising that money is the primary reason for gambling (Lam, 2007; Lee et al., 2006; Neighbors et al., 2002; Platz and Millar, 2001).

In a study on the alternative activities of riverboat gamblers, Turco and Riley (1996) find that frequent gamblers have a higher propensity to seek offtrack betting experiences and visit other casinos than occasional or infrequent gamblers. In other words, frequent gaming visitors tend to restrict their time and activities to gambling in general, the only difference being where they gamble. Park et al. (2002) investigate the relationship between casino gambling involvement and participation in alternative tourist activities. Their results reveal that low-involvement gamblers did not receive enough joy from gambling and thus were more likely to seek other activities, such as a guided tour of historic houses, than their high-involvement counterparts. From this discussion, visitors who are motivated by gambling at a destination and have a higher level of involvement should show less interest in participating in other tourist activities. To investigate the distinctness of casino vacationers, Morrison et al. (1996) selected three other types of purpose-oriented vacationers—namely, beach resort vacationers, ski resort vacationers, and country resort vacationers—for comparison purposes. They found significant differences among the groups in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, trip planning characteristics, activity participation, and benefits experienced. For example, casino vacationers tended to be older, retired, and less educated; had lower incomes; and spent less time planning the vacation. They were also more likely to indicate good experiences with food and accommodations than the ski and country resort counterparts, albeit less than the beach vacationers. This finding may imply that casino vacationers were concerned about the quality of food and accommodations at the destination. Hinch and Walker (2005) recently found that visitors who claimed gambling as their primary trip activity tended to stay in hotels. Moreover, Park et al. (2002) found that high-involvement gaming visitors stayed longer at their destination.

Most of the studies on casino vacationers focus on Westerners. An exception is Kim et al. (2004), who compare Chinese casino and noncasino vacationers to Korea. Their results show that Chinese casino vacationers were younger and less educated and had higher incomes than other vacationers, which differs from Morrison et al.’s (1996) findings, as discussed previously. However, Kim et al. do not investigate other variables, such as sociodemographics, traveling partners, travel budget, past travel experience, and past casino experience. Such unexplored variables could significantly differ between Easterners and Westerners.

Cultural heritage visitors

Despite a preponderance of definitions for heritage tourism, Kaufman and Weaver (2006: 137) highlight a common thread and identify it “as the experience people seek to have at a historic site.” Poria et al. (2003) argue that visitors’ perceptions of heritage sites are paramount, which highlight the importance of research on the demand side. Many studies have profiled heritage tourists. Regarding age, some scholars have found that heritage tourists tend to be elderly (Martin et al., 2004; Silberberg, 1995), whereas other studies have derived opposite results (Balcar and Pearce, 1996; Yan et al., 2007). In addition, many studies show that the education level of heritage tourists is high (Chandler and Costello, 2002; Light et al., 1994; Yan et al., 2007). Yan et al. (2007) also find that professionals are major visitors to heritage sites in Taiwan. Finally, according to Taylor et al. (1993), when heritage tourists plan their trip, they tend to use many different sources to gather information about their destination.

According to Waitt (2000), a heritage site should not only be an environment in which people experience the past but also be a place equipped with entertainment, relaxation, or shopping. In this sense, and as McKercher et al. (2002) argue, heritage tourists tend to be active participants in other activities. By applying activity-based segmentation, Yan et al. (2007) find that heritage tourists to Taiwan were active participants, engaging in many other activities such as night markets, shopping, hot tubs, and performances. In Taylor et al.’s (1993) study, heritage tourists had a higher propensity to participate in activities such as sightseeing, wildlife watching, and pleasure driving.

Wanting to participate in alternative activities could be the result of cultural heritage visitors’ travel motivation and level of involvement in the heritage-related activity. McKercher (2002) investigates the differences in cultural tourists in Hong Kong in terms of two dimensions: the importance of cultural tourism in the decision to visit a destination and the experience sought. Those who were strongly motivated by cultural tourism and sought deep cultural experiences (i.e. purposeful cultural tourists) tended to visit as many cultural and heritage attractions as possible, including lesser known heritage sites and temples. In contrast, tourists who did not travel for cultural reasons and showed less propensity to engage in cultural experiences (i.e. incidental cultural tourists) tended to avoid visiting heritage sites, choosing instead to pursue alternative activities, such as watching films. Although cultural tourism is a broader term than heritage tourism, as visiting heritage sites is just one of the many activities of cultural tourists, arguably it has some implications for heritage tourism because both types of tourists are motivated to learn the alien culture of the destination.

Research objective

To partially address the research void regarding the compatibility between heritage and gaming visitors as concurrent target visitor segments, this study probes the extent to which gaming visitors participate in activities similar to cultural heritage visitors, and vice versa, during their visit. In essence, we aim to compare the behavioral profile of gaming and cultural heritage visitors and to assess the degree to which they are compatible. In addition, we examine variations in the level of involvement within and between gaming and cultural heritage visitors in terms of the percentage of time they spend in each of the various activities undertaken during their visit. We also examine the social and personal characteristics of both gaming and cultural heritage visitors. Overall, the study aims to analyze the Macao pleasure travel market in terms of purpose-oriented segmentation, particularly focusing on gaming and heritage tourists, and to identify the variables for which significant differences emerge between their activity sets. The study’s findings provide implications for policy and strategy evaluation, segment selection, and long-term tourism product development.

Methodology

Sample

This study used data from a survey of international visitors conducted in Macao in March 2008, in which 979 randomly selected visitors were interviewed. Interviews were conducted at various attraction sites in Macao and Taipa island, including the four most popular attraction areas in Macao (i.e. the Ruins of St. Paul’s, 19%; Grand Lisboa, 15.7%; the Napa area, 14.3%; and Cunha street in Taipa, 16%), and the major ports of entry into Macao, including the ferry terminal, 14.2%; boarder gate, 17.9%; and the Macao International Airport, 2.8%. The interviewers questioned one visitor for every five visitors they met. Each interviewer was divided into three different shifts (morning, afternoon, and evening).

Measurement

The survey instrument included a battery of questions to measure various behavioral and decision-making variables, though this study’s focus is on the activities questions. To identify the segments, we used the question “What is the main purpose of your current trip?” with the following responses: “gambling; tour internationally branded hotels/casinos; stay in internationally branded hotels; shopping; business; visit friends/relatives; to dine; visit world heritage attractions; visit or watch art, cultural, historical attractions or festivals; watch shows; spa, sauna or massage; and others: please specify.” Respondents could choose only one answer as their main purpose. We labeled respondents who chose gaming as their primary purpose to visit Macao as “gaming visitors” and those who chose visiting attractions as “cultural heritage visitors.” Because previous studies indicate that Macao is considered more of a gambling or cultural heritage city, we focused only on these two major images (Choi et al., 2007; Hsu and Gu, 2010; Tang et al., 2011). We labeled all other visitors as “others.” We developed the instrument of the activities measurements in line with previous research on tourist activities in Macao (Choi et al, 2007; Dioko and So, 2009; Kim et al, 2011; McCartney, 2003; McCartney and Nadkarni, 2003; Tang et al., 2011).

Stages of analysis

The data analysis consists of three stages. In the first stage, we identified the activities that significantly differed among the three segments (cultural heritage visitors, gaming visitors, and other visitors). Respondents were asked whether they had taken part or planned to take part in each of the activities (yes/no). We used chi-square analysis to compare the three segments. We also identified whether significant differences existed among the three segments at the involvement level. We measured involvement with the question “What is the percentage of time you spent in each of the activities.” We ran analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the differences. Finally, we identified whether significant differences existed among the three segments in terms of trip characteristics. We measured these characteristics by (a) the number of days respondents were staying in Macao during the trip, (b) the number of times they had visited Macao in the past, and (c) any important differences in hotel characteristics. On a 5-point scale, the respondents rated the following factors when choosing a hotel: (a) internationally branded hotel or hotel chain, (b) novelty (or innovativeness) of the hotel, (c) uniqueness or originality of the hotel, and (d) number of rated stars of the hotel. Again, we ran an ANOVA to determine whether any significant differences existed among the three segments.

In the second stage, we used multinomial logistic regression to model the extent to which different activities predicted overall differences in profiles among gaming visitors, cultural heritage visitors, and all other visitor segments. We entered the variables that showed significant differences among the three groups into multinomial logistic regression. The dependent variables are the three segments, and the independent variables are the activities that respondents participated in or planned to participate in, involvement level of the activities, information sources, and trip characteristics.

Multinomial logistic regression is an extension of the binary logistic regression. When analyzing unordered categories of multiple groups, multinomial logistic regression is an effective approach (Allison, 2001) because it allows simultaneous comparison of more than one contrast, that is, the log odds of three or more contrasts can be estimated simultaneously (e.g. the probability of A vs. B, A vs. C, B vs. C, etc.; Garson, 2004). Multinomial logistic analysis proceeds by analyzing the effect of covariates on the possibility of being in each of the k − 1 categories compared with a “baseline category” (Halpin, 2003).

l o g (π j / π J) = α j + β j x

This is conceptually the same as fitting k − 1 separate binary logistic models, that is, comparing category 1 with category k, category 2 with category k, and so on (Halpin, 2003). For each independent variable, there is k − 1 parameter estimates, and each estimates the effect of a one-unit change in this variable on the log odds of being in category j rather than in category m (Halpin, 2003).

In the third stage, we examined whether any significant differences existed in the gaming visitors segment and in the heritage visitor segment in terms of participation in the different activities. The objective of this stage is to help destination marketers to target each of these segments more effectively. Therefore, we further analyzed the question “What is the percentage of time you spent in Macao in doing gambling activity.” We divided respondents into three groups based on the percentage of time. We classified visitors who indicated spending 1%–33% of their time engaging in gambling activities as “light gamblers.” These gamblers treat gambling more as entertainment. We classified visitors who indicated spending 34%–66% of their time gambling as “medium gamblers.” These people tend to pay more attention to gambling. Finally, we classified visitors who indicated spending 67%–100% of their time gambling as “dedicated gamblers.” These visitors are very serious about gambling and tend to spend most of their time gambling. An analysis of the time the respondents spent on other activities, such as visiting heritage sites and shopping, should provide insights into how to promote to gaming visitors and whether all gaming visitors engage in the same activities. We ran an ANOVA to determine whether any significant differences existed among the three types of gaming visitors (light, medium, and dedicated gamblers) based on the level of involvement (percentage of time they spent gambling).

We used a similar methodology to examine the cultural heritage visitors. Again, we further analyzed the question, “What is the percentage of time you spent in Macao in doing cultural heritage activity, including visiting heritage sites and cultural sites.” We classified visitors who indicated spending 1%–33% of their time engaging in cultural heritage activities as “light cultural heritage visitors,” those spending 34%–66% as “medium cultural heritage visitors,” and those spending 67% or above as “dedicated cultural heritage visitors.” We ran an ANOVA to determine whether any significant differences existed among the three types of cultural heritage visitors (light, medium, and dedicated) based on the level of involvement (percentage of time they spent in cultural heritage–related activities).

Results

Sample characteristics

Of the respondents in the sample (Table 1), 52.6% were women, 41% were either professionals/managers or blue-collar workers, and 57% had graduate, master’s, or doctoral degrees. In addition, approximately 31% were between the ages of 21 and 30 years, and 35.5% were between the ages of 31 and 40 years. The average annual household income was Macao Pataca (MOP) 260,866. Finally, the majority of respondents were from China, followed by Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic statistics of the sample

Social demographics	Categories	Cultural heritage visitors (n = 125)	Gaming visitors (n = 137)	All other visitors (n = 717)	Total (N = 979)
Occupation	Professional/manager	24.00%	18.20%	21.40%	21.30%
	Public servant	8.80%	8.80%	13.30%	12.10%
	Trader/small business proprietor	8.80%	19.70%	7.50%	9.40%
	Office worker/administration worker	15.20%	8.00%	12.40%	12.20%
	Blue-collar worker	12.00%	26.30%	20.30%	20.00%
	Unemployed	8.80%	6.60%	6.10%	6.50%
	Others	22.40%	12.40%	19.00%	18.50%
Education	Primary school or below	3.20%	8.00%	5.70%	5.70%
	Secondary school	29.60%	48.90%	34.60%	36.00%
	University	58.40%	36.50%	47.00%	47.00%
	Master’s/doctorate	8.00%	5.80%	11.20%	10.00%
	Others	0.80%	0.70%	1.50%	1.30%
Age	<20 years	3.20%	2.90%	4.90%	4.40%
	21–30 years	35.20%	27.70%	30.80%	30.90%
	31–40 years	32.80%	43.10%	34.60%	35.50%
	41–50 years	19.20%	20.40%	21.10%	20.70%
	51–60 years	6.40%	5.80%	6.80%	6.60%
	>61 years	3.20%	0%	1.80%	1.70%
Gender	Male	46.40%	56.90%	45.70%	47.40%
Gender	Female	53.60%	43.10%	54.30%	52.60%
Nationality	Australia	4.0%	0.7%	2.0%	2.0%
	China	40.0%	67.9%	49.5%	50.9%
	Hong Kong	4.8%	7.3%	15.2%	12.8%
	Malaysia	1.6%	4.4%	2.5%	2.7%
	Other	30.4%	5.8%	9.5%	11.6%
	Philippines	3.2%	0%	2.9%	2.6%
	Singapore	2.4%	0.7%	3.2%	2.8%
	Taiwan	12.0%	11.7%	12.3%	12.2%
	United States	1.6%	1.5%	2.9%	2.6%
Average annual household income	Average annual household income in MOP	225,767	206,040	277,460	260,866

MOP: Macao Pataca.

Table 2 shows a comparison of the activities that respondents in the three segments took or planned to take during the trip. The results reveal significant differences among the gaming visitors, cultural heritage visitors, and other visitors regarding activities in gambling, touring internationally branded hotels/casinos, business, dining, visiting world heritage attractions, and visiting or watching art, cultural historical attractions, or festivals. We input the activities that were significantly different in the multinomial logistic regression as predictor variables. Note also that 55.8% of all the visitors indicated that they participated in gambling activities. In addition, no significant differences emerged among the three types of visitors in terms of shopping. That is, 58.9% of visitors participated in shopping while in Macao.

Table 2.

Comparison of planned or actual activities taken during the trip among the three segments using chi-square analysis

Planned or actual activities taken during the trip	Cultural heritage visitors (%)	Gaming visitors (%)	All other visitors (%)	Total (%)	F value	p value
Gambling	45.6	95.6	49.90	55.8	103.36	0.00
Tour internationally branded hotels/casinos	47.2	30.7	46.30	44.2	11.93	0.01
Stay in internationally branded hotels	25.6	24.8	27.9	27.2	0.73	0.70
Shopping	60.8	59.9	58.4	58.9	0.30	0.86
Business (participate in a meeting, conference, or exhibition)	3.2	5.8	12	10.0	12.10	0.00
Visit friends/relatives	12.0	19.7	18.8	18.1	3.64	0.16
To dine	62.4	63.5	52.6	55.4	8.43	0.02
Visit world heritage attractions	95.2	32.8	36.3	43.3	177.70	0.00
Visit or watch art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals	8.0	3.6%	13.5	11.4	12.75	0.00
Watch shows	4.8	2.9	6.3	5.6	2.63	0.27
Spa, sauna, or massage	4.0	2.9	2.6	2.9	0.70	0.71

Regarding the involvement level of the three different types of visitors, the results indicate that significant differences occurred in terms of average time spent engaging in activities such as gambling, touring internationally branded hotels/casinos, shopping, business, visiting friends/relatives, dining, visiting world heritage attractions, and visiting or watching art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals (Table 3). Again, we included the activities that significantly differed in terms of average time spent in the multinomial logistic regression. The data suggest that significant differences occurred in many of the activities, except watching shows; taking a spa, sauna, or massage; and staying in internationally branded hotels.

Table 3.

Involvement level: average percentage of time spent or will be spent in each activity among the three segments using ANOVA

Activities	Cultural heritage visitors (average % of time)	Gaming visitors (average % of time)	All other visitors (average % of time)	Total (average % of time)	F value	p value
Gambling	7.92	55.55	14.27	19.24	354.69	0.000
Tour internationally branded hotels/casinos	6.72	5.62	11.99	10.43	0.15	0.000
Stay in internationally branded hotels	4.60	4.20	6.07	5.62	2.16	0.116
Shopping	12.24	12.67%	21.5	19.09	20.37	0.000
Business (participate in a meeting, conference, or exhibition)	0.68	2.08	6.56	5.18	9.15	0.000
Visit friends/relatives	1.76	2.76	6.03	5.03	7.73	0.000
To dine	11.52	10.48	15.72	14.45	9.06	0.000
Visit world heritage attractions	51.12	5.11	8.76	13.65	3.70	0.000
Visit or watch art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals	2.20	0.61	4.55	3.7	7.30	0.001
Watch shows	1.04	0.37	1.24	1.09	1.46	0.234
Spa, sauna, or massage	0.52	0.33	0.73	0.64	0.58	0.559

ANOVA: analysis of variance.

Regarding trip characteristics, we found significant differences when comparing the three groups in terms of the number of days the respondents stayed in Macao and the number of times they visited Macao in the past (Table 4). However, the results show that no significant differences emerged among the three groups regarding the types of hotel preferences.

Table 4.

Trip characteristics and hotel preferences comparison using ANOVA

	Cultural heritage visitors	Gaming visitors	All other visitors	Total	F value	p value
Trip characteristics
Number of days respondent stayed in Macao during the trip	3.64	3.77	3.21	3.34	4.84	0.008
Number of times respondent visited Macao in the past	2.42	8.85	4.99	5.20	5.38	0.005
Importance of types of hotel (5-point scale, where 5 is very important and 1 is not important at all)
Internationally branded hotels or hotel chain	4.98	4.73	4.89	4.88	0.95	0.386
Novelty (or innovativeness) of the hotel	4.81	4.61	4.75	4.74	0.60	0.547
Uniqueness or originality of the hotel	4.84	4.60	4.75	4.74	0.86	0.425
Number of rated stars of the hotel	4.94	4.74	4.96	4.93	1.36	0.256

ANOVA: analysis of variance.

For information sources (Table 5), we found significant differences in terms of friends, colleagues at work, television or radio travel shows or ads, travel exhibitions or trade shows, and companies for which the respondents worked. Despite these differences, friends were ranked as the most important information sources among the three groups, followed by family members, colleagues at work, and the Internet/web, online travel guides, blogs, or news.

Table 5.

Most important information sources using chi-square analysis

Most important information sources	Cultural heritage visitors (%)	Gaming visitors (%)	All other visitors (%)	Total (%)	F value	p value
Family members	19.2	21.9	22.6	22.1	0.716	0.6990
Friends	21.6	36.5	33.3	32.3	8.001	0.0180
Colleagues at work	5.6	16.1	13.7	13.0	7.481	0.0240
Travel brochures or visitor information guides	7.2	10.9	10.7	10.3	1.51	0.4700
Travel guides or travel books	10.4	7.3	8.1	8.3	0.948	0.6220
Travel agency or tour operator	6.4	10.2	7.9	8.1	1.337	0.5130
Newspaper/magazine ads	4.8	4.4	3.8	4.0	0.363	0.8340
Television or radio travel shows or ads	6.4	9.5	4.0	5.1	7.529	0.0230
Internet/web, online travel guides, blogs, and news	16.0	8.8	10.6	11.0	4.001	0.1350
Travel exhibitions or trade shows	0.00	4.4	5.4	4.6	7.199	0.0270
Destination tourist office in your city	0.00	1.5	1.8	1.5	2.325	0.3130
Company you work for	0.8	2.9	6.0	4.9	7.51	0.0230

Results of multinomial logistic regression

The results of the multinomial logistic regression indicate that for cultural heritage visitors, the odds of visiting world heritage attraction were 6.699 times greater than the gaming visitors (Table 6). The results also show that cultural heritage visitors were less likely to spend more time gambling than gaming visitors. However, the odds of spending more time visiting world heritage attractions were 1.057 times greater than gaming visitors. For the most influential information sources, cultural heritage visitors were less likely to be affected by colleagues at work or television or radio travel shows or ads than gaming visitors. The results also indicate that no significant differences emerged in trip characteristics and demographic variables between the cultural heritage visitors and the gaming visitors.

Table 6.

Results of multinomial logistic regression

Activities respondents participated in/plan to participate	I-reference group (gaming)		II-reference group (cultural heritage)
Activities respondents participated in/plan to participate	Cultural heritage	Other visitors	Gaming	Other visitors
Gambling	0.393	0.260**	2.543	0.662
Tour internationally branded hotels/casinos	1.345	0.499	0.744	0.371*
To dine	0.660	0.126**	1.515	0.191**
Visit world heritage attractions	6.699**	0.924	0.149**	0.138**
Involvement in activities
Gambling	0.913**	0.911**	1.096**	0.998
Tour internationally branded hotels/casinos	0.980	1.019	1.021	1.040
Shopping	0.994	1.002	1.006	1.008
Business (participate in a meeting, conference, or exhibition)	0.971	0.996	1.029	1.025
Visit friends/relatives	0.971	0.998	1.029	1.028
To dine	0.990	1.025	1.010	1.036*
Visit world heritage attractions	1.057**	0.984	0.946**	0.931**
Most influence information sources
Friends	0.453	1.267	2.207	2.796**
Colleagues at work	0.226*	0.984	4.429*	4.361*
Television or radio travel shows or ads	0.100**	0.467	10.017**	4.674*
Company you work for	0.199	1.036	5.035	5.216
Trip characteristics
Number of days you stayed in Macao	1.138	0.949	0.879	0.834**
Number of times you visited Macao in the past (not including this trip)	0.955	0.999	1.047	1.045
Demographics
Education	0.895	1.257	1.117	1.405
Gender	0.767	0.762	1.304	0.994
Chi-square	817.339**

*p < .05 and **p < .01.

The cultural heritage visitors were more likely to participate in touring internationally branded hotels/casinos, dining, and visiting heritage attractions than other visitors. However, in terms of their involvement in activities, cultural heritage visitors tended to spend less time dining but more time visiting heritage attractions than other visitors. For information sources, cultural heritage visitors were less likely to be influenced by friends, colleagues at work, and television or radio travel shows or ads than other visitors. They were also more likely to stay longer in Macao than other visitors.

The gaming visitors were less likely to visit world heritage attractions than cultural heritage visitors. In terms of their involvement in activities, they were also less likely to spend more time visiting world heritage attractions but more likely to spend more time gambling than cultural heritage visitors. Finally, gaming visitors were more likely to be affected by colleagues at work and television or radio travel shows than cultural heritage visitors.

Other visitors were less likely to gamble, dine, and spend more time gambling than gaming tourists. Compared with heritage tourists, other visitors were also less likely to participate in touring internationally branded hotels/casinos, dining, and visiting world heritage attractions. However, in terms of their involvement level, they were more likely to spend more time dining but less time visiting cultural heritage attractions than cultural heritage visitors. They were also less likely to stay longer in Macao than cultural heritage visitors.

In terms of the involvement level of each activity among the gaming visitors, the data indicate that significant differences occurred among the different types of gaming visitors (Table 7). For example, light gamblers seemed to be more active in participating in different activities. On average, light gamblers spent 25% of their time gambling only and spent the rest of their time engaging in other activities, such as shopping (19%), dining (13%), touring internationally branded hotels/casinos (11%), staying in internationally branded hotels/casinos (9%), and visiting world heritage attractions (9%). Medium gamblers tended to spend more time gambling. For example, they spent an average of 51% of their time gambling, 15% of their time shopping, and 13% of their time dining. Finally, as their name suggests, dedicated gamblers spent the majority of their time gambling (82%) but only spent 5% of their time shopping and 5% dining.

Table 7.

Average percentage of time spent or will be spent in each activity among three types of gaming visitors using ANOVA

Activities	Light gamblers, n = 17 (%)	Medium gamblers, n = 80, (%)	Dedicated gamblers, n = 38 (%)	F value	p value
Gambling	25.00	51.06	81.58	30.98	0.000
Tour internationally branded hotels/casinos	11.47	5.25	3.03	5.53	0.005
Stay in internationally branded hotels	9.41	4.06	2.37	3.94	0.022
Shopping	19.12	14.85	5.26	9.67	0.000
Business (participate in a meeting, conference, or exhibition)	4.71	2.25	0.26	1.94	0.148
Visit friends/relatives	2.65	4.04	0.26	5.55	0.005
To dine	13.24	12.73	5.08	6.21	0.003
Visit world heritage attractions	9.12	4.54	2.16	5.15	0.007
Visit or watch art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals	2.35	0.41	0.00	2.42	0.093
Watch shows	1.18	0.38	0.00	1.59	0.208
Spa, sauna, or massage	1.18	0.31	0.00	1.82	0.167

ANOVA: analysis of variance.

The results also show that significant differences occurred among the three types of cultural heritage visitors (Table 8). For example, light cultural heritage visitors spent 10.48% of their time gambling, medium cultural heritage visitors spent 8.39% of their time gambling, and dedicated cultural heritage visitors spent only 2.86% of their time gambling. In general, light cultural heritage visitors also spent more time touring and staying in internationally branded hotels/casinos than the other two types of cultural heritage visitors. They also spent more time shopping (22.58%), while medium cultural heritage visitors spent only 11.61% and dedicated cultural heritage visitors spent 4% of their time shopping. Light cultural heritage visitors also spent 16.13% of their time dining, while medium cultural heritage visitors spent 13.84% and dedicated cultural heritage visitors spent only 4.57% of their time dining.

Table 8.

Average percentage of time spent or will be spent on each activity among three types of cultural heritage visitors using ANOVA

Activities	Light cultural heritage visitors, n = 31 (%)	Medium cultural heritage visitors, n = 56 (%)	Dedicated cultural heritage visitors, n = 35 (%)	F value	p value
Gambling	10.48	8.39	2.86	4.59	0.012
Tour internationally branded hotels/casinos	8.55	7.77	3.14	4.04	0.020
Stay in internationally branded hotels	10.65	3.21	1.00	8.95	0.000
Shopping	22.58	11.61	4.43	25.26	0.000
Business (participate in a meeting, conference, or exhibition)	0.81	0.89	0.29	0.30	0.739
Visit friends/relatives	2.10	2.23	0.00	2.472	0.093
To dine	16.13	13.84	4.57	12.94	0.000
Visit world heritage attractions	21.45	49.91	83.71	343.40	0.000
Visit or watch art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals	4.68	1.79	0.00	2.38	0.097
Watch shows	1.77	0.36	0.00	4.84	0.010
Spa, sauna, or massage	2.10	0.00	0.00	6.12	0.00

ANOVA: analysis of variance.

Discussion and conclusion

The results indicate that cultural heritage visitors were less likely to be involved in gambling activities but more likely to be involved in heritage activities than their gaming counterparts. They were also less likely to be affected by colleagues at work or television or radio travel shows or ads than gaming visitors. However, no significant differences in trip characteristics, types of lodging, and demographic variables emerged between cultural heritage visitors and gaming visitors in general. This finding seems to indicate that except for differences in heritage and gambling activities, these two types of visitors do not have significant differences. However, among the cultural heritage visitors, we found significant differences in the time spent staying in internationally branded hotels. Staying in internationally branded hotels seems to be a major activity for people who visit Macao, as indicated by the 27.2% of all the visitors who acknowledged doing so. A reason for this may be that many hotels in Macao were local hotels before the liberalization of the casino industry. Some visitors may stay in international hotels particularly because many are part of the new integrated resorts in Macao. The new integrated resorts in Macao usually consist of big shopping malls, hotels, restaurants, convention and meeting areas, and entertainment such as shows, theaters, and so on. This study indicates that light cultural heritage visitors tend to spend more time staying in internationally branded hotels than medium and dedicated cultural heritage visitors.

In addition, we found no significant differences among all visitors in the importance of types of lodging. According to the results, all visitors seemed to be concerned about the types of lodging, such as whether the hotel was internationally branded or a chain, whether it was innovative or unique, and whether it had a good star rating. Regarding information sources, friends were ranked the most important information sources among the three groups, followed by family members, colleagues, and the Internet/web, online travel guides, blogs, or news. This finding indicates that destination marketers can spend more money when promoting Macao as a travel destination through these channels.

This study also found that 45.6% of the cultural heritage visitors gambled or planned to gamble during their trip, while 36% of the gaming visitors visited world heritage attractions or visited or watched art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals. This finding reveals that though gaming visitors are more involved in gaming itself, they do participate in heritage site activities. This may be good news for destination marketers in Macao, because though they may prefer not to officially promote Macao as a gaming city, almost half the cultural heritage visitors do gamble during their trip. Thus, the strategy of attracting both gaming and heritage tourism works for Macao, even though the results suggest that it works better for cultural heritage visitors—45% of the cultural heritage visitors gambled, while only 36% of the gaming visitors visited heritage sites or visited or watched art, cultural, historical attractions, or festivals.

However, in terms of the involvement of the gaming and cultural heritage visitors, the results show that significant differences occurred even among the different levels of involvement. For example, light gamblers spent more time shopping, dining, and touring internationally branded hotels/casinos than medium gamblers or dedicated gamblers. In addition, light gamblers tend to spend more time visiting world heritage sites than the other two types of gaming visitors. Dedicated gamblers spent 82% of their time gaming but relatively little time engaging in other types of activities. In terms of cultural heritage visitors, light cultural heritage visitors spent more time gaming than medium and dedicated cultural heritage visitors. These results imply that even though people may indicate that they visit primarily for heritage or gaming purposes, marketers should also be aware that they also come for other purposes. Thus, it is important that destination marketers distinguish the different levels of involvement among the segments so that their promotions are more effectively targeted. Indeed, the results match the overall strategy of the Macao government to diversify the gaming and tourism industries. For example, light gamblers tend to engage more in other activities. The results also seem to match Park et al.’s (2002) study, which indicates that low-involvement gamblers are more likely to engage in other activities than high-involvement counterparts. Therefore, for more effective promotion, destination marketers should promote Macao not only as a world heritage city but also supplement this with messages highlighting shopping, dining, and touring internationally branded hotels/casinos because the majority of light and medium gamblers and cultural heritage visitors also engaged in these activities.

This study is unique in that it not only measures the activities in which the visitors participated but also examines the involvement of each type of visitors in each activity. For example, a person may state that he or she participates in heritage sites but really only spends a limited time doing so. Conversely, this study reveals that even though some visitors indicated that their primary purpose in visiting Macao was to engage in gaming or visiting heritage sites, they also participated in other activities. Thus, this study contributes to the literature by proposing and finding that segment compatibility is a diagnostic step in the segmentation process. However, although compatibility is an important issue in market segmentation, relatively little research has addressed it.

We highlight the significance of this study in terms of reappraising dominant paradigms in tourism segmentation, market targeting, and theorizing about what constitutes an ideal portfolio of visitor segments. In both theory and practice, most visitor segmentation studies begin with a priori segmentation variables or characteristics, usually of a psychographic nature, and then input them into cluster analytic algorithms that yield heterogeneous tourist segments. This almost-mechanical process is facilitated by the recent availability and ease of use of higher capacity computing, which allows even more variables of interest to be inputted. Identifying finely defined heterogeneous groups has always been the assumed goal of visitor analysis. It is alluring because of its market diversification and variety.

However, this study questions the importance of segment heterogeneity as a tourism marketing goal in itself and instead raises the notion of segment compatibility as a relevant post hoc criterion for assessing distinct groups of visitors. The study’s empirical findings lend proof that predefined visitor segments, analyzed in terms of their concrete activities and involvement, are fluid, partitioning and integrating at various points in time as they interact and share common places during the course of their visit. In other words, when visitors are situated in a destination and immersed in its various offerings, a process of self-segmentation or integration with other visitors seems to occur. If a visitor becomes integrated into other segments or “assumes” these segments’ behavioral characteristics, we can argue that segment compatibility occurs. However, because this cannot happen for all visitors, the intercompatibility of all visitors also cannot be ensured. In summary, this study suggests a further review of dominant frameworks that overly rely on predefined visitor segments. That is, this study finds that there are no heritage or gaming visitors per se because one can become the other or both in terms of their in situ activities, so long as conditions in the destination (e.g. shared hotel preferences, trip characteristics, and activities) are compatible with each group in the long run.

Limitations

As do most other studies, this study has several limitations. First, the sample sizes of the gaming and cultural heritage visitors are relatively small. Future studies could use larger samples to confirm the result that the strategy of attracting both gaming and cultural heritage visitors works in Macao. Second, this study only examines activities, source of information, trip characteristics, and hotel preferences. However, future studies could examine whether other trip characteristics, such as party composition and money spent in the destination, significantly differ among different groups. Nevertheless, this study should be treated as a preliminary study that examines the compatibility of two divergent compatibility segments in a destination. Destination marketers should use a similar activity framework to evaluate whether their segments are compatible before determining their promotion strategies.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abratt

(1993) Market segmentation practices of industrial marketers. Industrial Marketing Management 22 (2): 79–84.

Allison

(2001) Logistic Regression: Using the SAS System. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Balcar

Pearce

(1996) Heritage tourism on the West Coast of New Zealand. Tourism Management 17 (3): 203–212.

Baloglu

Uysal

(1996) Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 8 (3): 32–38.

Baloglu

Pamela

Weaver

. (1998) Overlapping product-benefit segments in the lodging industry: a canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10 (4): 159–166.

Bieger

Laesser

(2002) Market segmentation by motivation: the case of Switzerland. Journal of Travel Research 41 (1): 68–76.

Bojanic

(1992) A look at modernized family life cycle and overseas travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 1 (1): 61–79.

Brown

Boston

(1994) Comparison of visitors to Petersburg and Nauvoo in Illinois. Journal of Travel Research 5 (1): 67–84.

Cai

You

O’Leary

(2001) Profiling the U.S.-bound Chinese travelers by purpose of trip. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 7 (4): 3–17.

10.

Cha

McCleary

Uysal

(1995) Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: a factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research 34 (1): 33–39.

11.

Chandler

Costello

(2002) A profile of visitors at heritage tourism destinations in East Tennessee according to Plog’s lifestyle and activity level preferences model. Journal of Travel Research 41 (2): 161–166.

12.

Choi

Lehto

Morrison

(2007) Destination image representation on the web: content analysis of Macao travel related websites. Tourism Management 28 (1): 118–129.

13.

Choi

Tsang

CKL

(2000) Activity based segmentation on pleasure travel market of Hong Kong private housing residents. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 8 (2): 75–97.

14.

Cooper

(1993) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

15.

Dibb

(1995) Developing a decision tool for identifying operational and attractive segments. Journal of Strategic Marketing 3 (3): 189–203.

16.

Dioko

(A) (2009) Is the strategy of becoming the Las Vegas of Asia working for Macao?—a co-branding perspective. In: Proceeding for the 3rd advance in tourism marketing conference: marketing innovations for sustainable destinations: operations, interactions, experiences, Bournemouth, 6-9 September 2009.

17.

Dolnicar

(2002) Activity-based market sub-segmentation of cultural tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 9 (2): 94–105.

18.

Du Cros

(2001) A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 3 (2): 165–170.

19.

Eadington

(1988) Economic perceptions of gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies 3 (4): 264–273.

20.

Eadington

Siu

RCS

(2007) Between law and custom—examining the interaction between legislative change and the evolution of Macao’s casino industry. International Gambling Studies 7 (1): 1–28.

21.

Garson

(2004) Logistic regression. Available at: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/logistic.htm (accessed January 2011).

22.

(2004) Macao gaming: copying the Las Vegas style or creating a Macao model? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 9 (1): 89–96.

23.

Halpin

(2003) Multinomial and Ordinal Logistic Regression. Limerick: G&S, Limerick University. Available at: http://teaching.sociology.ul.ie/SSS/lugano/node73.html (accessed May 2011).

24.

Hinch

Walker

(2005) Casino markets: a study of tourist and local patrons. Tourism and Hospitality Research 6 (1): 72–87.

25.

Hsu

CHC

(2010) Ride on the gaming boom: how can Hong Kong, Macao and Zhuhai join hands to develop tourism in the region? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15 (1): 57–77.

26.

Hutt

Speh

(1989) Business Marketing Management. Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press.

27.

Karayanni

(2003) Web-shoppers and non-shoppers: compatibility, relative advantage and demographics. European Business Review 15 (3): 141–152.

28.

Kaufman

Weaver

(2006) Heritage tourism: a question of age. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 11 (2): 135–146.

29.

Kim

Cai

Jung

(2004) A profile of the Chinese casino vacationer to South Korea. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 11 (2/3): 65–79.

30.

Kim

Park

Gazzoli

. (2011) Benefit segmentation of international travelers to Macao, China. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 12 (1): 28–57.

31.

Kotler

(1994) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

32.

Lam

(2007) An exploratory study of gambling motivations and their impact on the purchase frequencies of various gambling products. Psychology & Marketing 24 (9): 815–827.

33.

Lamarca

(2002) Cultural significance and vision of Macao: are they compatible? If not, how to make them compatible? In: Paper presented at international conference of the conservation of urban heritage: Macao vision, Macao, China, 10-12 September 2002.

34.

Lee

Bernhard

. (2006) Segmenting casino gamblers by motivation: a cluster analysis of Korean gamblers. Tourism Management 27 (5): 856–866.

35.

Lee

H-S

Kim

Y-K

(2007) The five-factor gambling motivation model. Psychiatry Research 150 (1): 21–32.

36.

Meng

Uysal

. (in press) Understanding China’s long-haul outbound travel market: an overlapped segmentation approach. Journal of Business Research Available online 19 October 2011. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.019.

37.

Light

Prentice

Ashworth

. (1994) Who consumes the heritage product? Implications for European tourism. In: Ashworth

Larkham

(eds) Building New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 90–116.

38.

Loker

Perdue

(1992) A benefit-based segmentation of a nonresident summer travel market. Journal of Travel Research 31 (1): 30–35.

39.

Macao Statistics and Census Service (2003) Tourism Statistics. Macao, China: Macao Statistics and Census Service.

40.

Macao Statistics and Census Service (2009a) Visitor Expenditure Survey 1st Quarter 2009. Macao, China: Macao Statistics and Census Service.

41.

Macao Statistics and Census Service (2009b) Visitor Expenditure Survey 2nd Quarter 2009. Macao, China: Macao Statistics and Census Service.

42.

Macao Statistics and Census Service (2009c) Visitor Expenditure Survey 3 rd Quarter 2009. Macao, China: Macao Statistics and Census Service.

43.

Macao Statistics and Census Service (2010a) Tourism Statistics. Macao, China: Macao Statistics and Census Service.

44.

Macao Statistics and Census Service (2010b) Visitor Expenditure Survey 4th Quarter 2009. Macao, China: Macao Statistics and Census Service.

45.

McCartney

(2008) The CAT (Casino Tourism) and the MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, Exhibitions): key development considerations for the convention and exhibition industry in Macao. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 9 (4): 293–308.

46.

McCartney

Nadkarni

(2003) Heritage versus Gaming: odds on winning a piece of the tourist pie, Developing Cultural Tourism. In: 2nd DeHaan tourism management conference, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK, 16 December 2003. Available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&;rct=j&q=+++Heritage+versus+Gaming:+Odds+on+winning+a+piece+of+the+tourist+pie&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fttracanada-torc.ca%2Ftorc%2Fdowns1%2FGlennMcCartneyMacaoTourism.pdf&ei=Ytw8T5LSCIjQrQe14IDIBw&usg=AFQjCNG63Yn6X8BvN6teoOV685lW8QaqWg (accessed 10 January 2011).

47.

McCartney

(2003) Casinos as a tourism redevelopment strategy—the case of Macao. Journal of Macao Gaming Research Association 2 (2): 40–55.

48.

McDonald

Dunbar

(1995) Market Segmentation. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.

49.

McKercher

(2002) Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research 4 (1): 29–38.

50.

McKercher

PSY

Cros

. (2002) Activities-based segmentation of the cultural tourism market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 12 (1): 23–46.

51.

Martin

Bridges

Valliere

(2004) Research note: are cultural heritage visitors really different from other visitors? Tourism Analysis 9 (1/2): 129–134.

52.

Morrison

Braunlich

Cai

. (1996) A profile of the casino resort vacationer. Journal of Travel Research 35 (2): 55–61.

53.

Neighbors

Lostutter

Cronce

. (2002) Exploring college student motivation. Journal of Gambling Studies 18 (4): 361–370.

54.

Park

Yoon

Y-S

(2009) Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: a Korean case study. Tourism Management 30 (1): 99–108.

55.

Park

Lee

Jang

H-C

. (2002) Segmenting casino gamblers by involvement profiles: a Colorado example. Tourism Management 23 (1): 55–65.

56.

Piercy

Morgan

(1993) Strategic and operational market segmentation: a managerial analysis. Journal of Strategic Marketing 1 (2): 123–140.

57.

Platz

Millar

(2001) Gambling in the context of other recreation activity: a quantitative comparison of casual and pathological student gamblers. Journal of Leisure Research 33 (4): 383–395.

58.

Poria

Butler

Airey

(2003) The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1): 238–254.

59.

Poria

Butler

Airey

(2004) Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research 43 (1): 19–28.

60.

Rogers

(1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.

61.

Silberberg

(1995) Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism Management 16 (5): 361–365.

62.

Sorensen

(1993) The special-interest travel market. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 34 (3): 24–30.

63.

Sung

Morrison

O’Leary

(2001) Segmenting the adventure travel market by activities: from the North American industry providers’ perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 9 (4): 1–20.

64.

Swarbrooke

Horner

(2001) Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

65.

Tang

Scherer

Morrison

(2011) Web site-based destination images: a comparison of Macao and Hong Kong. Journal of China Tourism Research 7 (1): 2–19.

66.

Taylor

Fletcher

Clabaugh

(1993) A comparison of characteristics, regional expenditures, and economic impact of visitors to historical sites with other recreational visitors. Journal of Travel Research 31 (1): 30–35.

67.

Turco

Riley

(1996) Choice factors and alternative activities for riverboat gamblers. Journal of Travel Research 34 (3): 24–29.

68.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2010) Historic Centre of Macao. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1110 (accessed 13 April 2010).

69.

Vong

FCK

(2004) Gambling attitudes and gambling behavior of residents of Macao: the Monte Carlo of the orient. Journal of Travel Research 42 (3): 271–278.

70.

Waitt

(2000) Consuming heritage: perceived historical authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (4): 835–862.

71.

Webster

(1991) Industrial Marketing Strategy. New York: John Wiley.

72.

Wight

(1996) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences, and destinations. Journal of Travel Research 35 (1): 3–10.

73.

Wyner

(1995) Segmentation analysis, then and now. Marketing Research: A Magazine of Management & Applications 7 (1): 40–41.

74.

Yan

S-I

Morrison

. (2007) Activity segmentation of the international heritage tourism market to Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 12 (4): 333–347.

75.

(2008) Growth and degradation in the Orient’s “Las Vegas”: issues of environment in Macao. International Journal of Environmental Studies 65 (5): 667–683.