Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to develop an all-encompassing model to analyse various aspects of atmospherics, including components of the museum space and its physical surroundings. Moreover, it evaluates whether the identified attributes of the “museumscape” affect the positive word of mouth of museum visitors.
Design/methodology/approach
This exploratory study adopts a quantitative methodology. Data were collected through direct interviews with visitors at three Italian art museums and through a structured questionnaire. All dimensions were measured with multiple items on a five-point Likert scale. To assess the influence of the museumscape attributes on positive word of mouth, a structural equation model is performed adopting the two-stage testing procedure estimating the measurement model in the first stage and running a confirmatory factor analysis to assess reliability and demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity for all multi-item measures.
Findings
Six attributes of the museumscape are delineated (ambient conditions; facilities and convenience; signs and signage; staff behaviour; art gallery quality; exhibition space aesthetics). The latter three positively influence visitors' positive word of mouth.
Research limitations/implications
The study expands frameworks from previous service museum marketing research in general and service museum research on atmospherics in particular. The framework developed here identifies the direct predictive power of museumscape cues on positive museum visitor's word of mouth, thus increasing knowledge of the customer service experience and service quality and atmospherics management.
Practical implications
The constructs discovered here may help museum managers to carefully design and manage the museumscape to enhance visitors' satisfaction and loyalty.
Originality/value
This study is the first application of servicescape theory in the museum context; previous applications focus on for-profit sectors.
Keywords
Citation
Conti, E., Vesci, M., Castellani, P. and Rossato, C. (2024), "The role of the museumscape on positive word of mouth: examining Italian museums", The TQM Journal, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1823-1844. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0306
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
Museums are important organisations in society because they are required to pursue three goals (Chong, 2002; Kotler and Kotler, 1998; Boylan, 2004): to preserve aesthetic integrity and excellence of cultural proposal; to increase and acculturate visitors; and to achieve economic and financial balance and social consensus. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) recognises the cultural and social role of museums in society and in 2007 redefined the term museum as “a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment” (ICOM, 2007, Article 3, Section 1).
The mission of museums also includes preserving cultural heritage over time, revealing aesthetic values and protecting community interests (Zan, 2003). Further, museums play a strategic role in the national economy because arts and culture are the major components of cultural tourism and represent an important income source for many developed countries, including Italy (Banca d'Italia, 2018), which houses the largest number of heritage sites according to the World Heritage List of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Italy has 55 such heritage sites and over 4,000 museums (ISTAT, 2019).
Over time, museums have evolved from collection-care and research centres into public service institutions (Kotler and Kotler, 1998; Zan, 2003). Museum offerings currently include visitor guides, events and facilities such as bookshops, cafes and restaurants. Therefore, the preservation of aesthetic quality and the improvement of service quality and interactions between museum staff and all types of public have become central management practices (Solima, 2016; Black, 2018) that are fundamental to maximising value creation for visitors, the museum and the community (Di Pietro et al., 2015; Pencarelli et al., 2017).
For these reasons, many scholars have offered more profound and varied perspectives of service management in museums. For example, some studies have examined the dimensions of service quality in museums (i.e. Su and Teng, 2018; Fargas-Coll et al., 2017; Wu and Li, 2015), while others have focussed on visitor satisfaction (i.e. Del Chiappa et al., 2014; Elottol and Bahauddin, 2011; Harrison and Shaw, 2004) or service experience (Ruiz-Alba et al., 2019), in some cases hypothesising the relevance of various service delivery options such as hours of operation, location and tour guides (Geissler et al., 2006). In a recent study, Correia Loureiro (2019) demonstrates the mediated relevance of atmospheric cues to consumption-focussed self-expression word of mouth. Also reported in the museum context is the relevance of “the conscious designing of a space to create certain buyer effects” (Kotler, 1973, p. 50). Despite the large number of scientific studies in this area, to the authors' knowledge, no studies have proposed an all-encompassing model to analyse the various aspects of atmospherics including components of museum space and museum physical surroundings. Further, very few empirical studies have adopted an all-encompassing model to scrutinise the relationship between relevant museum services and physical surroundings and visitor behavioural intentions in terms of word of mouth.
This study aims to address these identified gaps in the literature. To fill the first gap, this study proposes to employ Bitner's theory of the servicescape (Bitner, 1992) – which enables the conceptualisation of the “museumscape” – to identify a service model in the museum field that analyses both services and physical surrounding cues while also exploring the attributes included in the museumscape. Given that the servicescape model (Bitner, 1992) focusses on three main elements (ambient conditions; spatial layout and functionality; signs, symbols and artefacts) and that it has been extensively adopted in different service contexts, it seems quite intuitive from theoretical and practical perspectives to apply Bitner's (1992) theory to the museum context where ambient and aesthetic conditions together with the quality of services offered play a strategic role with regard to visitors' word of mouth.
To address the second gap, this study tests whether the identified attributes of the museumscape affect the positive word of mouth of museum visitors. We explore what attributes the museumscape includes and test our theoretical contentions by surveying visitors at three Italian art museums that have a significant impact on tourism. The survey data are analysed via an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation model (SEM).
From a theoretical point of view, the present study is the first to develop a model that assesses both service quality and physical surrounding cues in the museum context. From a practical perspective, developing a model in which the service quality and the quality of the space in which the service is provided offer a new perspective in managing museums; in particular, for deciding how to allocate scarce resources among the identified attributes. This study is significant as allocation issues have become urgent in recent years because of the increasingly limited public resources available; growing competition among museums and other cultural organisations; and ever more sophisticated and demanding visitors.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, it reviews the servicescape literature and extends it to the museum context to derive museumscape attributes and explain the model components and their effects on customer loyalty (i.e. positive word of mouth). This theoretical analysis supports the formulation of hypotheses tested through the exploratory survey. The development of the research design and a description of results are then presented and discussed. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications, conclusions, limits and future research directions are outlined.
2. Literature review
2.1 The servicescape theory
The servicescape is described as “the physical surrounding or the physical facility where the service is produced, delivered and consumed” (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003, p. 306); it influences customer perceptions of the service experience (Reimer and Kuehn, 2005). By focussing attention on the ways in which the physical environment stimulates consumers to formulate approach–avoidance decisions, the servicescape bridges marketing and environmental psychology concepts (Rosenbaum, 2005).
Bitner (1992) provides an important contribution to the literature by extending the discussion of environmental psychology to the field of service marketing research. According to Bitner (1992, p. 65), the servicescape “comprises all of the objective physical factors that can be controlled by the firm to enhance (or constrain) employee and customer actions”. The servicescape is further defined by Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) as the physical space where customers and firms interact and service is delivered.
In Bitner's study (1992), the servicescape includes three important dimensions: ambient conditions; spatial layout and functionality; and signs, symbols and artefacts. Further, it influences the nature and quality of interactions between customers and employees.
Ambient conditions take into account variables that affect “perceptions of and human responses to the environment” (Bitner, 1992, p. 65). This dimension includes the background characteristics of the environment, such as temperature, lighting, noise, music and scent, which stimulate the five human senses and consequently affect mood states and behaviours (Bitner, 1992).
According to Bitner (1992, p. 66), “Spatial layout refers to the way in which the furnishings and equipment are arranged and the spatial relationships among them” while “Functionality refers to the ability of these items to facilitate performance and the accomplishment of goals” of customers and employees. A well-conceived layout minimises crowding and waiting times and thus allows visitors to enjoy the core service experience (Kwortnik, 2008; Lucas, 2003). A sophisticated design positively influences the level of customer satisfaction and involvement and, consequently, their fidelity in terms of repurchase intention (Wakefield and Baker, 1998).
Signs, symbols and artefacts displayed in the exterior or interior environment can play an important role in communicating symbolic meaning, firm image and rules of behaviour, creating an overall aesthetic impression. This has been shown to reduce perceived crowding and stress in a jail lobby setting (Bitner, 1992). Effective signage creates positive perceptions of the servicescape among customers, influencing their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours (Cockrill et al., 2008; Newman, 2007).
The importance of physical surroundings (i.e. the servicescape) has been considered extensively in studies examining customer behaviours across many contexts and cultures, because customers experience service quality not only through their interactions with employees but also via their impressions of the physical surrounding (Bitner, 1990, 1992; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994, 1996). Settings investigated include sports stadiums (e.g. Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999), casinos (e.g. Lucas, 2003), banks (e.g. Reimer and Kuehn, 2005), retail settings (e.g. Wirtz et al., 2007), airport terminals, universities, hospitals (e.g. Newman, 2007), restaurants, bars (e.g. Kim and Moon, 2009), hospitality companies (Kim and Hardin, 2010), local festivals (e.g. Vesci and Botti, 2019), wineries (Quintal et al., 2015), theatres (Jobst and Boerner, 2015) and hotels (Lockwood and Pyun, 2019).
Some scholars have extended the servicescape framework to include specific contexts (e.g. cruise ships, festivals and hotels) when developing specific servicescape scales (see Table 1).
2.2 From servicescape to museumscape
The museumscape represents the physical space and the general atmosphere experienced by museum visitors during their whole museum visiting experience. The current study conceptualises the museumscape adopting a micro-approach that focusses on the environment at a specific museum. This allows us to pay attention to museum visitors' experience in a specific museum service environment and define parameters for conceptual and operational definitions of the museumscape. In addition, it enables a focus on museumscape attributes, making it possible to organise empirical studies.
The identification of museumscape attributes is based on servicescape theory (Bitner, 1992) and its three original categories: ambient conditions; spatial layout and functionality; and signs, symbols and artefacts. The literature emphasises that the relevance and perception of environmental cues may vary across types of service organisation (Baker, 1986). Thus, mentioning the entire list of museumscape attributes is a difficult if not impossible mission. However, in the remainder of this section, based on a review of the literature in the museum context, we define the most relevant attributes.
Ambient conditions represent one of the relevant attributes used to assess a museum's service environment. Goulding (2000, p. 261) states that “as with many services, the museum product is delivered in a physical environment or site which encompasses the land or building area, shape, lighting, means of orienting the visitor, queues, waiting, crowding and methods of stimulating interest and engagement”.
In the same vein, the literature recognises the relevance of interior elements of the environment such as temperature, interior colours, cleanliness of the building, flooring, lighting, ambient scents and sounds, to experiencing a museum (Forrest, 2013; Kottasz, 2006).
Another relevant attribute investigated in the museum context, and to which the servicescape literature draws attention, is represented by staff quality and employee behaviour (Lee et al., 2008; Grappi and Montanari, 2011; Bruwer, 2014; Quintal et al., 2015; Harris and Ezeh, 2008). In fact, it is noted that the knowledge and courteousness of staff (Forrest, 2013), staff service (Zhang et al., 2018), employees' interaction with visitors (Cheng and Wan, 2012), staff personal appearance, friendliness, empathy and knowledge (Correia Loureiro, 2019) all contribute to customer satisfaction (Yucelt, 2001), the provision of positive word of mouth and the loyalty intention (Hsieh et al., 2015).
Other investigations assessing quality in the museum context consider facilities and collateral services such as an efficient ticket office and audio guides, tour guides, rest areas and cloakrooms (Geissler et al., 2006). It is recognised that this kind of service delivery option influences the level of satisfaction (Phaswana-Mafuya and Haydam, 2005), contributing to improve the visitors' experience and their perception of a museum space and functionality. Scholars underline the relevance, when assessing the museum service environment, of the reputation of exhibited artworks (and more generally, the quality of the museum's permanent collection) and the aesthetic aspects of exhibition spaces (Goulding, 2000; Correia Loureiro, 2019; Forrest, 2013; Zhang et al., 2018). The quality of a permanent collection contributes to an art museum's brand image (Geissler et al., 2006; Cheng and Wan, 2012). Similarly, the nature of a museum's physical environment in terms of the pleasure or harmony offered by its interior ambience “can either enhance the experience, or detract from it” (Goulding, 2000, p. 270).
Finally, in assessments of museum quality, signs and signage – meaning interpretive signage, object labels and signs complementing the exhibition (Kottasz, 2006; Forrest, 2013) as well as directional signage and signs facilitating museum accessibility (Geissler et al., 2006; Forrest, 2013) – have been shown to affect the visitor experience (Cheng and Wan, 2012; Kottasz, 2006).
This brief review of previous studies on major components of atmospheric and surrounding attributes discussed in the museum context has identified the following characteristics that appear to be relevant cues influencing the museum visitor experience: ambient conditions, staff behaviour; facilities and convenience; art gallery quality; exhibition space aesthetics; signs and signage.
2.3 The influence of museumscape dimensions on positive word of mouth and hypothesis development
Word of mouth is considered a consequence of environmental perceptions and customer attitude/satisfaction (Okzul et al., 2020). Positive environmental perceptions may generate the spread of positive information, which may include providing recommendations about a service provider, passing along positive comments about specific aspects of a service and, in particular, encouraging friends and family to purchase from a provider whose offering is intangible and experience-based (Ng et al., 2011). Since positive word of mouth is one of the most important factors in the success of a service enterprise, this study aims to identify the effects of environmental cues – in particular museumscape attributes – on positive word-of-mouth behaviour.
Bitner (1992) stresses that a service enterprise's environment plays an important role in influencing customers' approach behaviours. The effects of the ambient conditions of the servicescape in particular on positive word of mouth have been studied in various contexts including hotel casinos (Lucas, 2003) and hedonic and leisure services (Uhrich and Benkenstein, 2012; Wu et al., 2015).
Studies on the components of ambient conditions reveal their influence on consumer behaviour. Baker and Cameron (1996) suggest in their psychological research that overly high and low temperatures have negative effects. Ryu et al. (2012), in the restaurant context, demonstrate the relevance of ambient conditions in determining customer-perceived value and customer satisfaction and in turn behavioural intention (both word of mouth and revisiting). Su and Teng (2018), studying museum service failures, pinpoint the relationship between servicescape and temperature/smell and word of mouth. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Ambient conditions have a positive influence on museum visitors' word of mouth.
Abubakar and Mavondo (2014, p. 843) state that “the willingness of employees to provide explanations of service performance, their persuasive comments to facilitate a sale, their offers to help or make up for service failures, providing helpful suggestions, and reassuring customers after purchase, are clearly likely to positively influence customer satisfaction and their willingness to provide positive word of mouth”.
Yucelt (2001), in his study on museum sites in Pennsylvania, underlines the relevance of personnel in terms of helpfulness, courtesy and knowledge to marketing mix strategies, hypothesising a direct relationship with word of mouth. A similar conviction was arrived at recently by Zanibellato et al. (2018), who recognise a direct relationship between visitor dissatisfaction with museum staff and negative electronic word of mouth. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Staff behaviour has a positive influence on museum visitors' word of mouth.
Facilities and convenience, and more generally complementary services, are components of the servicescape that scholars have related to satisfaction or attitude and in turn loyalty in terms of revisiting intention and word of mouth (Yoon et al., 2010; Quintal et al., 2015; Anil, 2012; Huo and Miller, 2007). Su and Teng (2018) observe that a very common service failure in the museum context is related to the convenience dimension determining negative word of mouth and compliance from visitors' reviews. More generally, in the museum context, relationships between a number of facilities and peripheral services – such as audio guides, guides, bars and restaurants – and word of mouth are proposed (Zanibellato et al., 2018; Yucelt, 2001). Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced:
Collateral services and facilities (convenience) have a positive influence on museum visitors' word of mouth.
Investigating the servicescape in different fields, scholars have related the quality of core service to satisfaction or attitude and, in turn, loyalty in terms of revisiting intention and word of mouth (Yoon et al., 2010; Quintal et al., 2015; Anil, 2012; Huo and Miller, 2007). Traditionally, museums have paid strong attention to the reputation and perceived quality of their permanent collections (Harrison and Shaw, 2004), which contribute to an art museum's image (Geissler et al., 2006). While Yucelt (2001) hypothesises a relationship between museum collections and word of mouth, Zanibellato et al. (2018, p. 83) recently highlight that “the quality of the museum's collection and its architecture can trigger both positive and negative eWOM [electronic word of mouth]”. Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced:
Art gallery quality has a positive influence on museum visitors' word of mouth.
The physical environment, interior ambience and, more generally, aesthetic facilities and aesthetics of service spaces are considered to influence attitudes and in turn behavioural intention, as well as directly influencing word of mouth in different service contexts (Ryu et al., 2012; Quintal et al., 2015; Heung and Gu, 2012). In the museum context, the aesthetic dimension plays a key role in shaping visitors' attitudes and word of mouth. In fact, the influence of exhibition space aesthetics on word of mouth is underlined (Radder and Han, 2015; Radder et al., 2011). On this basis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Exhibition space aesthetics have a positive influence on museum visitors' word of mouth.
Signs and signage as components of the servicescape in a specific context (e.g. a festivalscape or winescape) are widely considered to influence attitudes and in turn behavioural intentions regarding both revisiting and recommending (Lee et al., 2008; Quintal et al., 2015; Yoon et al., 2010). Bonn et al. (2007, p. 352), in their study on the atmospherics of cultural heritage, assert that, “the availability of proper signage and general information all assist in ensuring the return of current visitors and positive word-of-mouth evaluations to others about their experience”. Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced:
Signs and signage have a positive influence on museum visitors' word of mouth.
3. Methods
3.1 Study context
A survey was conducted on visitors to three Italian art museums: the Ducal Palace in Mantua (http://www.mantovaducale.beniculturali.it), the National Gallery of the Marche in Urbino (http://www.gallerianazionaledellemarche.it) and the National Museum of Capodimonte in Naples (http://www.museocapodimonte.beniculturali.it). The business cases investigated are highly prestigious art museums hosted in beautiful and historical buildings. They are heterogeneously distributed in Italy: the palace, gallery and museum are in northern, central and southern Italy, respectively. They belong to 32 Italian public museums and institutions which obtained a special status, are considered of national and international interest and generate a significant proportion of the country museum visitors' income (Banca d'Italia, 2019). In particular, in 2019, the Ducal Palace in Mantua recorded 346,000 visitors, the National Gallery of the Marche 267,000 visitors and the National Museum of Capodimonte 253,000 visitors (www.beniculturali.it).
3.2 Measures and survey design method
Following Churchill (1979) and Kline (2005), all dimensions in this study were measured with multiple items generally adapted from previous studies. Since “museumscape” is a multifaceted concept, an initial pool of measurement items of its attributes was generated from a review of the perceptions of the quality of a museum experience as well as validated measurement scales developed on Bitner's (1992) approach in various tourism contexts (e.g. festivals, wine tourism and the hotel industry). In particular, we adapted items for assessing (1) ambient conditions from Lockwood and Pyun (2019), (2) staff behaviour and (3) facilities and convenience from Lee et al. (2008) and Grappi and Montanari (2011), (4) signs and signage from Quintal et al. (2015) and Lee et al. (2008), (5) art gallery quality from Quintal et al. (2015) and (6) exhibition space aesthetics from Radder and Han (2015).
Moreover, a review panel of three professionals, who were directors of Italian national museums, examined the initial list of items, provided comments, reworded some unclear and vague items and deleted lengthy and irrelevant items. At the end of this procedure, 37 items remained (see Table 3, item 1–37). The professional panel did not suggest the addition of any other items.
Word of mouth was measured by adopting three items from the literature (Lockwood and Pyun, 2019; Goyette et al., 2010).
The survey takes the form of a structured questionnaire consisting of two sections. The first section sought to capture a visitor's museumscape perception and its effect on visitor's intention to recommend to other people that they visit the museum (i.e. friends, family and colleagues), while the second captured the respondent's profile.
Interviewees were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement/disagreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale or to rate the quality of each museum characteristic on a scale of 1–5, where 1 represented low quality and 5 represented high quality.
In addition to the analysed variables, the following set of socio-demographic characteristics were collected (Table 2): gender, age (considering the age classes “up to 24 years”, “25–34 years”, “35–44 years”, “45–54 years” and “55 years and above”), nationality, education (from primary school to post-graduate degree), employment (office clerk, freelancer/entrepreneur, educator, student, unemployed, retired or other employment in general terms), annual frequency of visits to museums and the number of previous museum visits.
3.3 Data collection
Data were collected via direct interviews in the period 5–12 July 2019 in the three selected Italian art museums. Face-to-face interviews with the museum visitors, each lasting about 20 min, were based on surveys asking closed-ended questions. The intervention of the interviewer, who played a strategic role in ensuring the correct interpretation of the questions, was focussed on listening to avoid potential misunderstanding and was reduced to the minimum required.
The interviews were conducted at the three aforementioned museums.
A convenience sampling method was adopted. Researchers approached and intercepted museum visitors as they exited the museum to seek their responses to the survey. This allowed respondents to reflect directly on the museum experience while it was still fresh in their minds. To reduce implicit sample bias, we extracted a series of random numbers; adopting the method currently accepted in service marketing (Brewer and Kelley, 2015; Brewer, 2014; Brewer and Sigala, 2016), we applied said numbers by counting people as they were exiting the museum and asking those who matched our pre-selected number to complete the questionnaire. If a selected person refused to fill out the questionnaire, the researchers moved on to people matching the next random number.
3.4 Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated and an EFA was performed prior to further analysis to explore the underlying dimensions of the museumscape and to purify the set of initial items. A principal components analysis was conducted at the extraction stage with varimax rotation. Kaiser's (1960) eigenvalue rule (i.e. retention of factors with eigenvalues >1) was primarily used to determine the appropriate number of factors. Three criteria, namely a high factor loading (>0.5), low cross-loading (≤0.3) and high communality (>0.6) (Costello and Osborne, 2005) were taken into account in deciding to retain an item.
The influence of the museumscape dimensions on positive word of mouth was assessed by implementing a SEM in Amos 22.0. Following the recommendation by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this study adopted the two-stage testing procedure, estimating the measurement model in the first stage; running a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the reliability and demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity of all multi-item measures; and examining in the second stage the structural relationships among endogenous and exogenous variables for model assessment and research hypothesis testing.
4. Results
4.1 Respondent profiles
Table 2 presents summary statistics for the respondent sample used in the analysis. The sample consists of 512 respondents, 56.3% of whom were females. The most respondents were middle-aged (39.8% were 35–44 years old), and almost all were frequent museum visitors, as demonstrated by their number of museum visits per year (3–5, 52.3%; >5, 34.0%). Similarly, most respondents were well educated and held a graduate (bachelor or master degree, 42.0%) or post-graduate (18.9%) degree. The respondents belonged to a variety of occupational groups: 23.8% were office clerks, 17.6% educators and 10.9% freelancers/entrepreneurs. Around one-fifth (20.3%) were students. The majority of respondents were from Italy; slightly less than 40% were from all other countries.
4.2 Descriptive statistics
All items (excluding four, namely “audio guides”, “tour guides”, “technology” and “bar”) had a mean score greater than 3.5, which indicated that participants had a positive experience from their museum visit (Table 3)
Normality of the data was examined through skewness and kurtosis values. All but three kurtosis values were lower than the cut-off value of 3.0 (Chou and Bentler, 1995). The exceptions were audio guides, tour guides and bars; in addition, their mean score was less than 3.5: after careful consideration, it was decided to eliminate these items from the subsequent analysis. Therefore, 34 items related to the museumscape attribute remained.
4.3 Exploratory factor analysis
An EFA using a varimax rotation was employed to examine 34 items to assess the latent dimensions of the museumscape. The final solution, with 20 items, explained 75.6% of the variance, with a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.853 and a Bartlett's test of sphericity of 0.000. The factor structures identified six museumscape attributes, which were labelled staff behaviour; art gallery quality; exhibition space aesthetics; signs and signage; facilities and convenience; and ambient conditions. All but the latter two contributed similarly to explain the total variance in the phenomenon. Staff behaviour, art gallery quality, exhibition space aesthetics and signs and signage between them explained slightly less than 60% of the total variance (Table 4).
4.4 Measurement validity
A CFA was implemented to definitively assess reliability and demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity for all multi-item measures. Several commonly used fit indices demonstrated that the model adequately reproduced the covariance matrix (χ2 = 422.988, df = 187, χ2/df = 2.262, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.954, GFI = 0.933, SRMR = 0.0514 and RMSEA = 0.050, with p-close = 0.522). Thus, it was considered acceptable for evaluating validity and reliability of the scales adopted in this study. Table 5 presents very high standardised factor loadings, and excellent t-test results and p-values for each indicator included in the analysis. All Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR, see Table 6) values were well above the threshold of 0.7, indicating excellent reliability for each construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Only convenience provided Cronbach's alpha (0.675) and CR (0.695) very slightly lower than the minimum criterion, although such values are acceptable in the case of exploratory studies.
As shown in Table 6, each average variance extracted (AVE) and CR values were close to or above the minimum criterion of 0.5 (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Hair et al., 2010), indicating that convergent validity was well satisfied. For testing discriminant validity, we adopted criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), demonstrating in Table 6 that the square root of each construct's AVE had a greater value than their correlations with other latent constructs. This means that the AVE from each construct was greater than the variance shared between it and the other constructs and that a latent construct explained the variance in its own indicator better than the variance in other latent constructs. Therefore, the measurement scale of this study exhibited sufficient discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
4.5 Hypothesis testing
The relationships among constructs were assessed by running the overall structural model. The goodness of fit of the model was judged by evaluating several fit indices against their thresholds (χ2 = 422.988, df = 187, χ2/df = 2.262, p < 0.000, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.954, GFI = 0.933, SRMR = 0.514, RMSEA = 050 and p-close = 0.522). This indicated a statistically acceptable model for hypothesis testing. Maximum likelihood standardised estimates for various parameters, with associated t-values, and the overall fit of the proposed model are provided in Figure 1.
According to the study results, three of the six proposed hypotheses are supported. In particular, staff behaviour (path coefficient = 0.119; t = 2.640; p < 0.01), art gallery quality (path coefficient = 0.25; t = 4.132; p < 0.001) and exhibition space aesthetics (path coefficient = 0.423; t = 6.032; p < 0.001) played an important role in influencing the positive word of mouth of the museum visitors. Conversely, the relationships between facilities and convenience (t = −1.569; p = 0.117), ambient conditions (t = 0.157; p = 0.875) and signs and signage (t = −0.896; p = 0.370) and positive word of mouth were not statistically significant.
Moreover, the proposed model explained a substantial amount of the variance in positive word of mouth, as revealed by a squared multiple correlation value of 0.387.
5. Discussion
The aim of the current study was twofold. First, it conceptualised the museumscape by identifying its attributes. In doing so, it theorised a micro-approach that directed attention to supply-related attributes of the museumscape that might be specifically measured. Second, it aimed to analyse the effect of the identified attributes on visitor loyalty, in particular on their positive word of mouth which represents an important measure of museum visitors' behaviour and loyalty. This provided a framework for directly predicting museum visitors' positive word of mouth. Testing the research hypotheses by conducting a survey across three Italian national art museums (localised in the north, centre and south of the Italian Peninsula) accomplished these goals and addressed two research gaps detected in the museum marketing literature.
The combination of two streams of literature – the servicescape and museum marketing – offered solid theoretical arguments for the derivation of six components of the museumscape: ambient conditions, staff behaviour, facilities and convenience, art gallery quality, exhibition space aesthetics, signs and signage. These attributes are strictly related to the environmental features of Bitner's (1992) servicescape and are in line with previous studies on customer satisfaction in the museum context.
The findings highlight the museumscape attributes that most strongly influenced the museum visitors' positive word of mouth. Exhibition space aesthetics and art gallery quality had significant positive effects and the highest path coefficient for positive word of mouth. In this sense, this study identifies these as the two most critical museumscape attributes (followed by staff behaviour) influencing museum visitors' intention to recommend. As a consequence, this exploratory study is in line with previous literature in other settings which underlines the relevance of the relationship between the quality of certain atmospheric characteristics and word of mouth (Quintal et al., 2015; Huo and Miller, 2007; Ryu et al., 2012; Heung and Gu, 2012). Moreover, it confirms that the quality of works of art and of aesthetic conditions plays a strategic role with regard to visitors' word of mouth as hypothesised in the museum context from scholars (Zanibellato et al., 2018; Radder and Han, 2015)
Conversely, facilities and convenience, ambient conditions and signs and signage did not appear to have a significant influence on museum visitors' positive word of mouth. However, the average scores for these three museumscape attributes were above the scale mid-point of 3, suggesting positive perceptions for museum visitors regarding these attributes. A potential explanation for these findings is as follows. The literature on service marketing demonstrates a direct influence of ambient conditions, facilities and convenience and signs and signage on satisfaction or attitude (Ryu et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2010; Quintal et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2008). The direct effect of these three attributes on word of mouth in the museum context has been only hypothesised at this stage from previous literature (Bonn et al., 2007; Zanibellato et al., 2018; Yucelt, 2001; Su and Teng, 2018). Hence, the current findings are acceptable suggesting the need for a deeper understanding via the development of models with more than one dependent variable and possibly with the integration of mediating variables.
6. Theoretical implications
From a theoretical point of view, this study contributes to the deepening of the marketing literature on the servicescape in general and of the museum marketing literature in particular. The study introduces theoretical foundations by integrating the servicescape theory with service marketing and museum marketing literature (Goulding, 2000; Forrest, 2013; Kottasz, 2006; Cheng and Wan, 2012; Correia Loureiro, 2019; Geissler et al., 2006) and provides the basis for the conceptualised framework which contains the museum environment and surrounding attributes. The study further develops frameworks from previous service museum marketing research in general and service museum research on atmospherics in particular (Correia Loureiro, 2019; Forrest, 2013; Kottasz, 2006) by integrating relevant servicescape elements into an all-encompassing model to predict museum visitors' positive word of mouth. Moreover, by integrating the literature in the context of the servicescape and museum marketing, this work may help in the development of a museumscape scale that is universally accepted and utilised. This addresses the first research gap identified earlier in this paper.
Further, the study tests the direct influence of museumscape attributes on visitors' positive word of mouth. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first research model to test an all-encompassing framework based on servicescape theory in the museum context. More precisely, the framework investigates the direct predictive power of museumscape cues on museum visitors’ word of mouth. This responds to the second research gap identified earlier. The findings add to the body of empirical museum marketing and servicescape research (Kottasz, 2006; Forrest, 2013; Correia Lourero, 2019; Cheng and Wan, 2012) and expand knowledge about which museumscape components are most important in determining museum visitors’ positive word of mouth.
7. Managerial implications
This study has several preliminary managerial implications. At a museum level, it identifies attributes in the museumscape that have the strongest effects on museum visitor loyalty; therefore, it can assist in the allocation of scarce resources for short- and long-term projects. In particular, the findings suggest that managers could manage effectively to improve the quality of exhibition space aesthetics and of the art gallery, together with the behaviour of museum staff as these have the strongest effects on visitors' positive word of mouth. With reference to the quality of exhibition spaces, it is recommended that managers improve the quality of the physical environment and interior ambience, generating a sense of harmony via the surroundings. Regarding art gallery quality, managers could preserve and valorise their permanent collections of works of art by buying new and important artworks and establishing important temporary exhibitions. They might also invest in the preservation and restoration of the architectural features of the beautiful and historical buildings that host museums. Finally, to be efficient and satisfy the desires of visitors, museum personnel require continuous training and incentives. All these strategic actions will contribute to ensure visitors’ positive word of mouth and, as a consequence, museum success.
This study also has implications for governments. In this regard, considering that the attributes of the museumscape that most strongly promote positive word of mouth are the quality of the art gallery, exhibition spaces aesthetics and staff behaviour, policymakers might direct financial resources devoted to public state museum to investing in the acquisition of new artworks, improving exhibition spaces and training museum staff.
8. Conclusions, limitations and future research directions
This study provides a unique perspective that conceptualises the museumscape and evaluates the willingness of museum visitors to recommend the museum itself. Although the results are consistent with the museum marketing literature (Correia Loureiro, 2019; Zanibellato et al., 2018; Radder and Han, 2015) and are similar to those of most studies that adopt Bitner's (1992) theory (albeit in different contexts; Lee et al., 2008; Quintal et al., 2015), they should be interpreted with caution because of some limitations of the study.
It should be emphasised that the sample adopted in this study was composed of museum visitors in only one country. Further research such as a cross-cultural study comparing among countries would contribute to generalisation of the results to a wider population and improve the external validity of the study. An additional concern about the study sample is the use of convenience sampling, which further reduces the generalisability of the emergent findings. However, the absence of previous exploratory studies on the subject constrained this first step of study. Moreover, the use of convenience sampling given the multiple studies and the large number of respondents required is appropriate when SEM is adopted. Replicating the museumscape scale and testing its psychometric properties across a variety of museums at different levels of development cross-nationally and even cross-culturally would add rigour to the proposed measure.
In addition, this study observed that to define a list of all dimensions of the attributes relating to museumscape is difficult if not impossible task. So, other dimensions could be included in the framework to be tested in different studies. In this way, future research trajectories could be identified in making comparison among the new developed frameworks and the different museum typologies (public and private).
Finally, the proposed “museumscape” and the findings of this research broaden the study perspective and identify promising new research areas focussed on the mediating effect of some dimensions on behavioural intention and word of mouth. In particular, further research could deepen understanding of attitude and customer satisfaction as mediators of the influence of museumscape dimensions on behavioural intention and word of mouth.
Figures
Figure 1
Results of the path analysis
Servicescape scales in specific service context
| Authors | Service Context and scale name | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|
| Kwortnik (2008) | Cruise context Shipscale | (1) the natural environment (i.e. the sea) |
| (2) ambient conditions (i.e. scents, sounds, cleanliness and lighting) | ||
| (3) design factors (i.e. decor, colour schemes, furnishings and layout) | ||
| (4) social factors (i.e. crowds, queuing and service staff interactions) | ||
| Lee et al. (2008) | Festivals context Festivalscape | (1) program content |
| (2) staff interactions (i.e. kindness, quick responsiveness, willingness to help, knowledge about the festival and courtesy) | ||
| (3) facilities of the festival | ||
| (4) food (i.e. quality, price, traditional and variety) | ||
| (5) souvenirs | ||
| (6) convenience (i.e. restroom, parking lot and rest area) | ||
| (7) information (i.e. signboards installed and pamphlets prepared) | ||
| Thomas et al. (2010a, b, 2011), Quintal et al. (2015) | Wine tourism context Winescape | (1) setting |
| (2) atmospherics | ||
| (3) wine quality | ||
| (4) wine value | ||
| (5) availability of complementary products | ||
| (6) signage | ||
| (7) service staff quality | ||
| Lockwood and Pyun (2019) | Hotels context Hotel Servicescape | (1) aesthetic quality |
| (2) functionality | ||
| (3) atmosphere | ||
| (4) spaciousness | ||
| (5) physiological conditions |
Respondents' profile
| Description | N | % | Description | N | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 224 | 43.8 | Employment | Student | 104 | 20.3 |
| Female | 288 | 56.3 | Office clerk | 122 | 23.8 | ||
| Total | 512 | 100.00 | Educator | 90 | 17.6 | ||
| Freelancer/entrepreneur | 56 | 10.9 | |||||
| Age (years) | Below 24 | 102 | 19.9 | Unemployed | 3 | 0.6 | |
| 25–34 | 53 | 10.4 | Retired | 67 | 13.1 | ||
| 35–44 | 61 | 11.9 | Other | 70 | 13.7 | ||
| 45–54 | 143 | 27.9 | Total | 512 | 100.00 | ||
| 55 and above | 153 | 29.9 | |||||
| Total | 512 | 100.00 | Number of respondents | Ducal Palace Mantua | 240 | 46.9 | |
| Marche National Gallery | 160 | 31.3 | |||||
| Education | Primary/middle school | 42 | 8.2 | National Museum Capodimonte | 112 | 21.9 | |
| Secondary school | 158 | 30.9 | Total | 512 | 100.00 | ||
| Bachelor's/master's degree | 215 | 42.0 | |||||
| Post-graduate | 97 | 18.9 | Nationality | Italy | 316 | 61.7 | |
| Total | 512 | 100.00 | Rest of the worlda | 196 | 38.3 | ||
| Total | 512 | 100.00 | |||||
| Number of annual museum visits | 0–2 | 70 | 13.7 | ||||
| 3–5 | 268 | 52.3 | |||||
| Above 5 | 174 | 34.0 | |||||
| Total | 512 | 100.00 | |||||
Note(s): aDistribution among countries is available upon request
Descriptive statistics
| Items | M | SD | Kurtosis | Skewness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – Temperature | 3.77 | 0.965 | –0.452 | –0.334 |
| 2 – Humidity | 3.65 | 1.011 | –0.294 | –0.580 |
| 3 – Noise level | 4.26 | 1.037 | −1.289 | 0.615 |
| 4 – Natural light | 3.97 | 0.951 | –0.845 | 0.484 |
| 5 – Artificial light | 3.84 | 0.952 | –0.632 | 0.020 |
| 6 – The space between museum objects | 4.29 | 0.802 | –0.861 | –0.049 |
| 7 – The practicality of the building | 4.10 | 0.913 | –0.880 | 0.372 |
| 8 – The feeling of spaciousness | 4.38 | 0.828 | −1.209 | 0.796 |
| 9 – Layout | 4.06 | 0.851 | –0.666 | 0.035 |
| 10 – Ticket office | 3.93 | 1.004 | –0.609 | –0.376 |
| 11 – Audio guides | 3.09 | 0.505 | 1.071 | 8.938 |
| 12 – Tour guides | 3.13 | 0.521 | 1.737 | 6.917 |
| 13 – Technology | 3.19 | 0.933 | 0.079 | –0.304 |
| 14 – Bookshop | 3.71 | 0.690 | –0.160 | 0.108 |
| 15 – Rest area | 3.80 | 0.887 | –0.580 | 0.268 |
| 16 – Cloakroom | 3.63 | 0.820 | –0.092 | –0.201 |
| 17 – Bar | 3.07 | 0.430 | 2.008 | 12.930 |
| 18 – Toilet | 3.65 | 0.873 | –0.170 | –0.403 |
| 19 – Directional signage to the museum (from outside) | 3.94 | 0.996 | –0.796 | 0.080 |
| 20 – There is an adequate signage | 3.84 | 0.982 | –0.645 | –0.075 |
| 21 – Installed signboard | 3.91 | 0.937 | –0.589 | –0.239 |
| 22 – Prepared pamphlets | 3.54 | 0.978 | –0.183 | –0.244 |
| 23 – A sense of harmony with my surroundings | 4.26 | 0.771 | –0.680 | –0.358 |
| 24 – Pleasing physical environment | 4.37 | 0.737 | –0.943 | 0.279 |
| 25 – Pleasing interior ambience | 4.30 | 0.771 | –0.883 | 0.328 |
| 26 – The style of architectural decorations | 4.39 | 0.751 | –0.975 | 0.117 |
| 27 – The rooms design | 4.29 | 0.827 | –0.936 | 0.275 |
| 28 – Pleasing exhibitions | 4.32 | 0.760 | –0.772 | –0.329 |
| 29 – Appreciating diverse cultures | 3.99 | 0.899 | –0.687 | 0.229 |
| 30 – The museum has reputable artworks | 4.45 | 0.695 | –0.990 | 0.113 |
| 31 – The museum exhibits artworks for which the region is renowned | 4.40 | 0.715 | –0.858 | –0.208 |
| 32 – The quality of the art gallery is high | 4.35 | 0.734 | –0.842 | –0.036 |
| 33 – Kind guides and staff | 4.13 | 0.907 | –0.742 | –0.169 |
| 34 – Quick responsiveness on request | 3.95 | 0.883 | –0.184 | −1.042 |
| 35 – Willingness to help | 4.03 | 0.898 | –0.396 | –0.802 |
| 36 – Enough knowledge about the museum | 3.86 | 0.816 | 0.025 | –0.917 |
| 37 – Courteous guides and staff | 4.06 | 0.874 | –0.581 | –0.162 |
| 38 – I will recommend this museum to friends, family and/or colleagues | 4.48 | 0.745 | −1.556 | 2.604 |
| 39 – I will say positive things about this museum | 4.52 | 0.659 | −1.254 | 1.209 |
| 40 – I am proud to say to others that I have visited this museum | 4.34 | 0.833 | −1.247 | 1.325 |
Exploratory factor analysis
| Attribute | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Staff behaviour | Art gallery quality | Exhibition space aesthetics | Signs and signage | Facilities and convenience | Ambient conditions |
| 35 – Willingness to help | 0.887 | |||||
| 34 – Quick responsiveness on request | 0.862 | |||||
| 33 – Kind guides and staff | 0.840 | |||||
| 37 – Courteous guides and staff | 0.809 | |||||
| 31 – The museum exhibits artwork for which the region is renowned | 0.846 | |||||
| 32 – The quality of the art gallery is high | 0.812 | |||||
| 30 – The museum has reputable artworks | 0.741 | |||||
| 26 – The style of architectural decorations | 0.691 | |||||
| 24 – Pleasing physical environment | 0.869 | |||||
| 25 – Pleasing interior ambience | 0.753 | |||||
| 28 – Pleasing exhibitions | 0.745 | |||||
| 23 – A sense of harmony with my surroundings | 0.678 | |||||
| 20 – There is an adequate signage | 0.883 | |||||
| 19 – Directional signage to the museum (from outside) | 0.839 | |||||
| 21 – Installed signboard | 0.796 | |||||
| 1 – Temperature | 0.886 | |||||
| 2 – Humidity | 0.884 | |||||
| 16 – Cloakroom | 0.873 | |||||
| 15 – Rest area | 0.827 | |||||
| % of explained variance | 16.429 | 14.634 | 14.623 | 12.887 | 8.901 | 8.108 |
Note(s): Extraction method: principal component analysis
Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalisation
“KMO=0.853 - Bartlett’s test=0.000”
Results of confirmatory factor analysis
| Latent dimension | Code | Indicator (item) | Standardised estimate | t-value | p-value significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staff behaviour | 33 | Kind guides and staff | 0.738 | – | |
| 34 | Quick responsiveness on request | 0.897 | 19.852 | *** | |
| 35 | Willingness to help | 0.901 | 19.886 | *** | |
| 37 | Courteous guides and staff | 0.696 | 22.542 | *** | |
| Exhibition space aesthetics | 23 | A sense of harmony with my surroundings | 0.726 | – | |
| 24 | Pleasing physical environment | 0.833 | 17.701 | *** | |
| 25 | Pleasing interior ambience | 0.777 | 16.585 | *** | |
| 28 | Pleasing exhibitions | 0.790 | 16.853 | *** | |
| Art gallery quality | 30 | The museum has reputable artworks | 0.739 | – | |
| 31 | The museum exhibits artworks for which the region is renowned | 0.781 | 16.394 | *** | |
| 32 | The quality of the art gallery is high | 0.785 | 16.466 | *** | |
| 26 | The style of architectural decorations | 0.717 | 15.131 | *** | |
| Signs and signage | 19 | Directional signage to the museum (from outside) | 0.835 | – | |
| 20 | There is an adequate signage | 0.969 | 26.563 | *** | |
| 21 | Installed signboard | 0.778 | 21.035 | *** | |
| Facilities and convenience | 15 | Rest area | 0.842 | – | |
| 16 | Cloakroom | 0.607 | 5.934 | *** | |
| Ambient conditions | 1 | Temperature | 0.803 | – | |
| 2 | Humidity | 0.820 | 8.499 | *** | |
| Positive word of mouth | 38 | I will recommend this museum to friends, family and/or colleagues | 0.875 | – | |
| 39 | I will say positive things about this museum | 0.914 | 26.788 | *** | |
| 40 | I am proud to say to others that I have visited this museum | 0.805 | 22.634 | *** |
Note(s): ***p < 0.001
Correlation matrix for latent constructs – discriminant validity* and relevant descriptive statistics
| M | SD | Cronb α | CR | AVE | Amb cond | Staff behav | Art gall qual | Exhib space aest | Signs and sign | Fac and conv | WOM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amb cond | 3.713 | 0.899 | 0.793 | 0.794 | 0.659 | 0.812 | ||||||
| Staff behav | 4.040 | 0.779 | 0.899 | 0.885 | 0.661 | 0.237 | 0.813 | |||||
| Art gall qual | 4.399 | 0.595 | 0.840 | 0.863 | 0.612 | 0.370 | 0.322 | 0.782 | ||||
| Exhib space aest | 4.311 | 0.637 | 0.859 | 0.842 | 0.572 | 0.253 | 0.308 | 0.630 | 0.756 | |||
| Signs and sign | 3.898 | 0.879 | 0.889 | 0.898 | 0.747 | 0.235 | 0.334 | 0.552 | 0.419 | 0.864 | ||
| Fac and conv | 3.714 | 0.742 | 0.675 | 0.695 | 0.539 | 0.210 | 0.180 | 0.293 | 0.247 | 0.345 | 0.734 | |
| WOM | 4.446 | 0.679 | 0.891 | 0.900 | 0.750 | 0.228 | 0.305 | 0.573 | 0.517 | 0.306 | 0.113 | 0.866 |
Note(s): *Italicised diagonal reports the square root of AVE. Non-diagonal elements represent the correlation among latent variables. Amb cond: Ambient conditions; Staff behav: Staff behaviour; Exhib space aest: Exhibition space aesthetics; Art gall qual: Art gallery quality; Signs and sign: Sign and signage; Fac and Conv: Facilities and convenience; WOM: Positive word of mouth
References
Abubakar, B. and Mavondo, F. (2014), “Tourism destinations: antecedents to customer satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 833-864.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Anil, N.K. (2012), “Festival visitors' satisfaction and loyalty: an example of small, local, and municipality organized festival”, Tourism, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 255-271.
Baker, J.A. (1986), “The role of environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective”, in Czpeil, J.A., Congam, C. and Shanaham, J. (Eds), The Services Marketing Challenge: Integrated for Competitive Advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 79-84.
Baker, J. and Cameron, M. (1996), “The effect of service environment on affect and consumer perception of waiting time: an integrative review and research propositions”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 338-349.
Banca d'Italia (2018), “Turismo in Italia. Numeri e potenziale di sviluppo”, Workshop and Conferences, No. 23, pp. 1-108.
Banca d'Italia (2019), “Turismo in Italia: numeri e potenziale di sviluppo”, Questioni di Economia e Finanza, No. 505, pp. 53-67.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Black, G. (2018), “Meeting the audience challenge in the ‘age of participation’”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 302-319.
Bonn, M.A., Sacha, J.M., Dai, M., Hayes, S. and Cave, J. (2007), “Heritage/cultural attraction atmospherics: creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 345-354, doi: 10.1177/0047287506295947.
Boylan, P. (2004), Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook, ICOM, Paris.
Bruwer, J. (2014), “Service quality perception and satisfaction: buying behaviour prediction in an Australian festivalscape”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 76-86.
Bruwer, J. and Kelley, K. (2015), “Service performance quality evaluation and satisfaction in a USA wine festivalscape”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 18-38.
Bruwer, J. and Sigala, M. (2016), “Winescape conceptualisation using a ‘Back-to-Basics’ freeform approach to tourism destination image (TDI) perception of wine tourists”, Marketing in a Post-Disciplinary Era, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference - ANZMAC 2016, 5-7 December, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Cheng, I.M. and Wan, Y.K.P. (2012), “Service quality of Macao museums”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 37-60, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2012.643188.
Chong, D. (2002), Arts Management, Routledge, New York, NY.
Chou, C.P. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 37-55.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Cockrill, A., Goode, M. and Emberson, D. (2008), “Servicescape matters - or does it? The special case of betting shops”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 189-206.
Correia Loureiro, S.M.C. (2019), “Exploring the role of atmospheric cues and authentic pride on perceived authenticity assessment of museum visitors”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 413-426, doi: 10.1002/jtr.2265.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.
Del Chiappa, G., Andreu, L. and Gallarza, M.G. (2014), “Emotions and visitors' satisfaction at a museum”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 420-431.
Di Pietro, L., Guglielmetti Mugion, R., Mattia, G. and Renzi, M.F. (2015), “Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: a survey on Italian cultural visitors”, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Elottol, R.M.A. and Bahauddin, A. (2011), “The relationship between interior space design and visitors' satisfaction: a case study of Malaysian museums (interior circulation scheme)”, International Journal of Organizational Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 158-179.
Fargas-Coll, S., Palau-Saumell, R., Matute, J. and Tárrega, S. (2017), “How do service quality, experiences and enduring involvement influence tourists' behavior? An empirical study in the picasso and miró museums in barcelona”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 246-256.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Forrest, R. (2013), “Museum atmospherics: the role of the exhibition environment in the visitor experience”, Visitor Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 201-216, doi: 10.1080/10645578.2013.827023.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The differential roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Geissler, G.L., Rucks, C.T. and Edison, S.W. (2006) “Understanding the role of service convenience in art museum marketing: an exploratory study”, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 69-87, doi: 10.1300/J150v14n04.
Goulding, C. (2000), “Museum environment visitor experience”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 3-4, pp. 261-278.
Goyette, I., Ricard, L., Bergeron, J. and Marticotte, F. (2010), “E-WOM scale: word-of-mouth measurement scale for e-services context”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Grappi, S. and Montanari, F. (2011), “The role of social identification and hedonism in affecting tourist re-patronizing behaviours: the case of an Italian festival”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1128-1140.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harris, L.C. and Ezeh, C. (2008), “Servicescape and loyalty intentions: an empirical investigation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3-4, pp. 390-422.
Harrison, P. and Shaw, R. (2004), “Customer satisfaction and post-purchase intentions: an explorative study of museum visitors”, International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 23-32.
Heung, V.C.S. and Gu, T. (2012), “Influence of restaurant atmospherics on patron satisfaction and behavioral intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No 4, pp. 1167-1177, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.004.
Hsieh, C.M., Park, S.H. and Hitchcock, M. (2015), “Examining the relationships among motivation, service quality and loyalty: the case of the national museum of natural science”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1505-1526.
Huo, Y. and Miller, D. (2007), “Satisfaction measurement of small tourism sector (Museum): Samoa”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 103-117, doi: 10.1080/10941660701243331.
ICOM (2007), “ICOM statutes”, Vienna, available at: http//icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Status/statutes_eng.pdf (accessed 24 August 2007).
ISTAT (2019), “I musei, le aree archeologiche e i monumenti in Italia”, Report Statistiche Istat, available at: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/12/Report-Musei.pdf.
Jobst, J. and Boerner, S. (2015), “The impact of primary service and servicescape on customer satisfaction in a leisure service setting: an empirical investigation among theatergoers”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 238-255.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960), “The application of electronic computers to factor analysis”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, pp. 141-151.
Kim, J. and Hardin, A. (2010), “The impact of virtual worlds on word-of-mouth: improving social networking and servicescape in the hospitality industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 735-753.
Kim, W.C. and Moon, V.J. (2009), “Customers cognitive emotional and actionable response to the servicescape: a test of the moderating effect of the restaurant type”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 144-156.
Kline, R. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kotler, P. (1973), “Atmospherics as a marketing tool”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 48-64.
Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. (1998), Museum Strategy and Marketing. Designing Missions Building Audiences Generating Revenue and Resource, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Kottasz, R. (2006), “Understanding the influences of atmospheric cues on the emotional responses and behaviours of museum visitors”, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 16 Nos 1-2, pp. 95-121, doi: 10.1300/J054v16n01.
Kwortnik, R.J. (2008), “Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-311.
Lee, Y.K., Lee, C.K., Lee, S.K. and Babin, B.J. (2008), “Festivalscape and patrons' emotions, satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-64.
Lockwood, A. and Pyun, K. (2019), “How do customers respond to the hotel servicescape?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 82, pp. 231-241.
Lucas, A.F. (2003), “The determinants and effects of slot servicescape satisfaction in a las vegas hotel casino”, UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Newman, A.J. (2007), “Uncovering dimensionality in the servicescape: towards legibility”, Services Industry Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Ng, S., David, M.E. and Dagger, T.S. (2011), “Generating positive word-of-mouth in the service experience”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 133-151.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Okzul, E., Boz, H., Bilgili, B. and Koc, E. (2020), “What colour and light do in service atmospherics: a Neuro-Marketing perspective”, in Volgger, M. and Pfister, D. (Ed.), Atmosferic Turn in Culture and Turism. Place, Design and Process Impacts on Customer Behaviour, Marketing and Branding, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 223-244.
Pencarelli, T., Conti, E. and Splendiani, S. (2017), “The experiential offering system of museums: evidence from Italy”, Journal of Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 430-448.
Phaswana-Mafuya, N. and Haydam, N. (2005), “Tourists' expectations and perceptions of the Robben Island Museum - a world heritage site”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 149-169, doi: 10.1016/j.musmancur.2005.02.001.
Quintal, A.V., Thomas, B. and Phau, I. (2015), “Incorporating the winescape into the theory of planned behaviour: examining ‘new world’ wineries”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 596-609.
Radder, L. and Han, X. (2015), “An examination of the museum experience based on Pine and Gilmore's experience economy realms”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 455-470, doi: 10.19030/jabr.v31i2.9129.
Radder, L., Han, X. and Hou, Y. (2011), “An integrated evaluation of the heritage museum visit: a disconfirmation approach”, The International Journal of Management Cases, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 315-326.
Reimer, A. and Kuehn, R. (2005), “The impact of servicescape on quality perception”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 783-308.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S. and Jain, A.K. (1994), “Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 28-36.
Rosenbaum, M.S. (2005), “The symbolic servicescape: your kind is welcomed here”, Journal of Consumer Behavior. International Research and Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 257-267.
Ruiz-Alba, J.L., Nazarian, A., Rodríguez-Molina, M.A. and Andreu, L. (2019), “Museum visitors’ heterogeneity and experience processing”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 78, pp. 131-141.
Ryu, K., Lee, H.R. and Kim, W.G. (2012), “The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 200-223.
Solima, L. (2016), “Smart Museums. Sul prossimo avvento della Internet of Things e del dialogo tra gli oggetti nei luoghi della cultura”, Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 99, pp. 263-283.
Su, Y. and Teng, W. (2018), “Contemplating museums' service failure: extracting the service quality dimensions of museums from negative on-line reviews”, Tourism Management, Vol. 69, pp. 214-222.
Thomas, B., Quintal, V.A. and Phau, I. (2010a), “Developing a scale that measures the winescape”, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Proceedings, November 29, 2009, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Christchurch.
Thomas, B., Quintal, V.A. and Phau, I. (2010b), “Predictors of attitudes and intention to revisit a winescape”, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Proceedings, November 29, 2009, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Christchurch.
Thomas, B., Quintal, V.A. and Phau, I. (2011), “Testing the winescape scale in Western Australia's wine country”, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Proceeding, November 28, 2010, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Perth.
Uhrich, S. and Benkenstein, M. (2012), “Physical and social atmospheric effects in hedonic service consumption: customers' roles at sporting events”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1741-1757.
Vesci, M. and Botti, A. (2019), “Festival quality, theory of planned behavior and revisiting intention: evidence from local and small Italian culinary festivals”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 38, pp. 5-15.
Wakefield, K.L. and Baker, J. (1998), “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 515-539.
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1994), “The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1996), “The effect of servicescapes on customers' behavioral intentions in leisure service settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 45-61.
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1999), “Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A. and Tan, R. (2007), “The role of arousal congruency in influencing consumers' satisfaction evaluations and in-score behaviours”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-24.
Wu, H.C. and Li, T. (2015), “An empirical study of the effects of service quality, visitor satisfaction, and emotions on behavioral intentions of visitors to the museums of Macau”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 80-102.
Wu, S.H., Huang, C.T. and Chen, Y.F. (2015), “Leisure-service quality and hedonic experiences: singing at a karaoke house as a form of theatre”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 26 Nos 3-4, pp. 298-311.
Yoon, Y.S., Lee, J.S. and Lee, C.K. (2010), “Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors' satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 335-342, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.002.
Yucelt, U. (2001), “Marketing museums: an empirical investigation among museum visitors”, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 3-13.
Zan, L. (2003), Economia dei musei e retorica del management, Electa per le Belle arti, Mondadori Electa, Milano.
Zanibellato, F., Rosin, U. and Casarin, F. (2018), “How the attributes of a museum experience influence electronic word-of-mouth valence: an analysis of online museum reviews”, International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 76-90.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Zhang, H., Chang, P.C. and Tsai, M.F. (2018), “How physical environment impacts visitors' behavior in learning-based tourism-the example of technology museum”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 11, 3880, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.3390/su10113880.
Acknowledgements
The Authors thank very much Peter Aufreiter, director of the National Gallery of the Marche (Urbino), Peter Assmann, director of the Ducal Palace in Mantua and Sylvain Bellenger, director of the Museum of Capodimonte (Naples) for their precious availability in supporting this study. The authors also thank the museum staff for their kind welcome and competence in promoting data collection activities.