Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research paper

Analysis of the determinants of urban tourism attractiveness: The case of T

Québec City and Bordeaux
Maryse Boivina, , Georges A. Tanguaya,b
⁎

a
Département d’études urbaines et touristiques, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal, Case postale 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville, Bureau:
R-4805, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8
b
Centre de Recherche sur la Ville (CRV), Montréal, Canada

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This research investigates the determinants of the attractiveness of urban tourism in two recognized tourist and
Tourism heritage cities, Québec City and Bordeaux. In an analysis based on a tripartite theoretical model of attractive-
City ness, a statistical comparative analysis was done in both cities to examine visitors’ perceptions using a ques-
Attractiveness tionnaire survey completed by about 500 visitors. This analysis produced three main findings. First, a factor
Québec City
analysis demonstrated that tourists recognize attractiveness on four levels (context, tourist belt, complementary
Bordeaux
attractions and nucleus). Second, elements linked to the tourist belt, such as public spaces and the urban en-
vironment, are viewed as the most important. Third, mean value comparisons revealed that tourists who consult
the Internet and social media have heightened sensitivity to nucleus, complementary attraction and context
levels. To stimulate tourism attractiveness, cities’ communications should thus emphasize the elements asso-
ciated with the tourist belt, and effectively utilize Internet and social media to convey its caracteristics. Because
urban public areas play an essential role in tourism attractiveness, it is also recommended that cities incorporate
tourism into their planning strategy.

1. Introduction
In 2016, nearly 55% of the world's population lived in cities (World
Bank, 2017). This percentage is expected to rise to 66% by 2050
(United Nations, 2014). Parallel to this increasing urbanization, cities
often compete to boost the number of overnight stays and become in-
creasingly sought-after as a tourism destination. As a result, urban
tourism has gained in popularity in recent years, notably in Europe,
where bed-nights increased by 14.2% between 2012 and 2016
(European Cities Marketing, 2016). This trend is also reflected in other
statistics. For example, there has been a sharp rise in the number of
beds available, particularly in urban settings (up to +10.0%), between
2012 and 2014 (Eurostat, 2016). This growing interest is most notably
driven by increased and improved flight connections, increases in lei-
sure time, changes in holiday preferences and the rise of weekend trips
(Ashworth & Page, 2011; Law, 2002; Page, 1995; Pearce, 2001).
Parallel to the expansion of urban tourism, decision-makers and
local actors have employed various strategies to make their cities more
pleasant places to live, while simultaneously cultivating their national
and international reputations (Jan & Beesau, 2010; Law, 1992). For
instance, beyond the creation and development of tourist attractions,
cities are redesigning public spaces and striving to improve urban ser-
vices via sustainable development strategies (Frey, 1999; Kenworthy,
2006; Van Aalst & van Melik, 2012). Given that these strategies for city
regenaration have likely played a role in increasing urban tourism, it is
relevant to further explore the issue of city tourism attractiveness.
Tourism attractiveness has been modeled in different contexts, but
few attempts have been made to examine the overall attractiveness of a
given city from a tourist's perspective. This research thus investigates
the elements that most strongly attract visitors, with the objective of
schematizing urban tourism attractiveness. More specifically, this re-
search aims to examine tourist recognition of different types of attrac-
tions in a city, to evaluate the degree of importance that they place on
these attractions, and to then schematize overall city attractiveness as a
result. To accomplish these objectives, a theoretical model of tourism
attractiveness developed by Gunn (1997) is applied to two important
tourist cities in North America and Europe: Québec City and Bordeaux.
This study makes three specific contributions. First, although Gunn's
model posits three levels of attractions, namely context, tourist belt and
nucleus, this study finds that the tourism attractiveness of a city com-
prises four levels. The supplemental level is related to 'complementary
attractions', and is peripheral to central attractions (nucleus). Second,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: boivin.maryse@courrier.uqam.ca (M. Boivin), tanguay.georges@uqam.ca (G.A. Tanguay).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.11.002
Received 23 December 2016; Received in revised form 30 October 2018; Accepted 3 November 2018
Available online 22 December 2018
2212-571X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
the results demonstrate that a considerable importance is placed on the
variables related to the tourist belt, which indicates that tourists mainly
assess attractiveness in the public space and urban environment. Third,
it is shown that the Internet and social media have roles to play in
attractiveness perception as information markers. Indeed, the levels of
attractiveness evaluation vary according to the information markers
used by visitors prior to their trip. Overall, the hierarchy of variables
across the four levels is similar in the two cities, despite some nuances.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. First, Section 2
presents the literature review, the problem being studied and the con-
ceptual framework. Section 3 specifies the research methodology. The
results are then stated in Section 4 and analyzed in Section 5. The final
section presents the conclusions and research perspectives.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Literature
Tourism attractiveness refers to the elements of a destination that
draw visitors away from their usual environment (Lew, 1987). The
terms attraction and attractiveness are also used to describe destination
attributes or characteristics that attract visitors or lead them to choose
that destination. Richie and Crouch maintain that tourism attractive-
ness rests on the attributes of a destination, such as geography and
climate, culture and history, activities offered, forms of entertainment,
and built or natural superstructures (Crouch, 2011; Ritchie & Crouch,
2003). In the urban tourism literature, attractiveness is determined by
primary and secondary elements (Jansen-Verbeke, 1986). Primary
elements are the main objectives for visiting a city; they thus include
the tourist resources that attract visitors such as historical buildings,
urban neighborhoods and special events. Secondary elements support
these attractions and contribute to the tourism development of a city by
offering visitors shops, convention facilities, accommodations and
transport. Additional aspects made available to tourists include parking
lots, information centers, guides and road signs.
Mostly occuring in the heart of the city and often dispersed
throughout its districts, urban tourism leads visitors and residents to
share the use of services and facilities, as well as participate in the same
cultural events. Indeed, much of the tourism experience unfolds in the
public space, which includes markets, monuments, museums, gardens,
terraces and transportation (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Given that
tourism is grounded in much broader considerations than its industry
alone, and that it is rarely isolated from the rest of the city, the need for
destination management has been acknowledged by tourists and prac-
titioners (Paskaleva-Shapira, 2007; Pearce & Schänzel, 2013; Zehrer &
Hallmann, 2015).
The literature on factors influencing tourism attractiveness affirms
that destination attractiveness is a central determinant of competi-
tiveness and success (Cracolici & Nijkamp, 2009; Enright & Newton,
2004, 2005; Mikulić, Krešić, Prebežac, Miličević & Šerić, 2016).
Tourism attractiveness has been modeled in different contexts, such as
national parks, regional areas or coastal destinations (Cracolici &
Nijkamp, 2009; Crouch, 2011). Studies of city attractiveness for tourism
have mainly sought to understand the determinants and their links to
destination competitiveness, and to identify the multiple attributes and
assets that impact urban tourism performance (Deas & Giordano, 2001;
Enright & Newton, 2004; Mikulić, Krešić, Miličević, Šerić & Ćurković,
2016; Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015). In an urban context, competitiveness
is based on functional attributes that are essential to customer-based
brand equity (Wong & Teoh, 2015). Accordingly, urban assets (the
economic, institutional, physical and social environments) are strong
predictors of a city’s competitive performance (Deas & Giordano, 2001).
Ultimately, competitiveness is known to contribute to enhancing stan-
dards of living and increasing social welfare (Hanafiah, Hemdi, &
Ahmad, 2016).
Prior research has also examined specific cultural attractions in
68
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
urban areas (Brida, Meleddu, & Pulina, 2012; Moreno Gil & Ritchie,
2008; Plaza, 2000). A study of the Guggenheim Museum clearly de-
monstrates its impact on tourist attractiveness (Plaza, 2000). Examining
whether local heritage can stimulate the attractiveness of a city in Italy,
Brida et al. (2012) found that, although museums play an important
educational role and are a source of income for a city, entrance fees
discourage repeat visits. Similarly, another study reported that mu-
seums and galleries are not considered important determinants of
tourism competitiveness (Enright & Newton, 2004). In fact, these de-
terminants can vary depending on the product mix of the destination
and the market segment targeted (Enright & Newton, 2004). For in-
stance, differences exist between residents and tourists in the image
formation process following a museum visit (Moreno Gil & Ritchie,
2008).
The attractiveness of a city is not limited to heritage considerations.
Instead, action must be taken to incorporate long-term, sustainable
assets for tourism (Lespinasse-Taraba & Leonhardt, 2011; Rigall-I-
Torrent, 2008). Indeed, as a means of developing tourism, cities seek to
improve their facilities, e.g. pedestrian areas, unifying theme, and built
environment (Matos-Wasem, 2010; Page, 1995; Plaza, 2000). Further-
more, some urban characteristics might positively or negatively affect
the image of the destination. For example, transportation appears to be
a potential dissatisfier, whereas tourist information, signage and green/
public spaces are potential satisfiers (Mikulić et al., 2016). Interest-
ingly, the absence of museums and galleries in urban landscapes could
generate dissatisfaction, regardless of whether or not they are used by
tourists (Enright & Newton, 2004). Other studies show that street noise,
urban waste and an inadequate transportation network are serious
threats to regional tourism competitiveness (Provenzano, 2015). The
quality of the urban environment and the accessibility of a city appear
to be important factors to attract visitors.
To understand influential factors in the choice of vacation destina-
tion, several studies emphasize the importance of pull and push elements
(Dann, 1981; Gnoth, 1997; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Pull factors are
external forces emanating from a destination which encourage tourists
to visit it (Crompton, 1979; Van der Merwe, Slabbert, & Saayman,
2011). Examples include leisure facilities and historical attractions
(Andreu, Bigné, & Cooper, 2001). In contrast, push factors represent
psychological forces that generate the desire to travel (Van der Merwe
et al., 2011). These elements are rooted in travelers’ intangible desires
for things like escape, relaxation or adventure (Andreu et al., 2001).
Given that the present study aims to understand the attractiveness of
urban destinations with regards to internal resources, data collection
will focus on pull factors. Indeed, the conceptual framework of this
research rests on the tripartite attraction concept (Gunn, 1997), which
depicts the spatial environment of tourism attraction by using three
concentric discs: the nucleus, the inviolate belt and the zone of closure.
Through this concept, the impact of a tourist site can be better under-
stood from the perspective of visitor perception. Thus, the original
contribution of the present research is that it evaluates the different
levels of attractiveness from Gunn’s model by measuring pull factors
based on the tourism elements of an urban destination.
For tourists to make a travel-related decision, they need informa-
tion. The motivation of travelers attracted to a destination is therefore
reinforced by various external markers present before and after their
departure and during their stay (Leiper, 1990; Richards, 2002). These
markers refer to pieces of information that nurture the creation of a
nucleus favoring tourism attractiveness (Leiper, 1990). This informa-
tion, communicated to potential visitors, pertains to the various char-
acteristics of the destination, notably with language elements and
images (Malenkina & Ivanov, 2018). Before the trip, generating markers
have a strong impact on the decision to travel, stimulating motivation
to leave home and discover a destination. The characteristics of a city
can be conveyed to potential visitors through such means as adver-
tising, Internet and word-of-mouth. In the Internet era, research shows
that smart technology used for tourism may influence travel planning
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of urban tourism attractiveness.
and satisfaction (Huang, Goo, Nam, & Yoo, 2017; Jansson, 2018). This
technical revolution has definitively changed market conditions for
tourism organizations, with tourists becoming more powerful and in-
creasingly able to 'build' their tourism product (Buhalis & Law, 2008).
Internet information sources are related to sociodemographic char-
acteristics (e.g. gender, income) and situational factors (e.g. trip pur-
pose), and this search mode impacts accomodation choice and trip
expenditure (Luo, Feng, & Cai, 2004). Some research also indicates that
social media are gaining importance in the search for online tourist
information, surpassing traditional sites (Xiang & Gretzel, 2010; Xiang,
Magnini, & Fesenmaier, 2015). The present study analyzes external
markers that influence the choice of a destination, so as to identify the
effect of these sources of information on tourists’ recognition of at-
tractiveness elements.
The following section grounds the research problem and the con-
ceptual framework of urban tourism attractiveness in the literature.
2.2. Conceptual framework
Most urban travelers have more than one reason to visit a city (Law,
2002; Pearce, 2001). However, travelers frequently summarize their
urban tourism experience as visiting, wandering around and integrating
into people’s lives (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Given that tourism rests on
the attributes and characteristics of places, and thus its offer cannot be
isolated from its environment, urban revitalization can stimulate the
tourism attractiveness of a city (Edwards, Griffin, & Hayllar, 2008; Van
den Berg & Braun, 1999). Therefore, the aim of this research is to de-
termine which attractions visitors recognize, to measure how they value
these criteria and to schematize urban tourism attractiveness accord-
ingly. To attain this objective, this analysis is based on Gunn (1997)
tripartite model of tourism attraction which provides a theoretical
framework to understand the tourism attractiveness of a city. Further-
more, pull elements and urban tourism assets are used as key variables
to test (Andreu et al., 2001; Jansen-Verbeke, 1986; Kozak, 2002). This
model is divided into three components: nucleus, inviolate belt and
zone of closure.
First, the ‘nucleus’ represents the rationale that primarily appeals to
tourists, associated with the main and specific attractions found in a
particular destination. For example, tourists may travel to visit re-
nowned monuments, famous beaches, natural areas or cultural assets.
To identify the elements that make up the nucleus of attractiveness of
urban tourism, the cultural components, entertainment aspects and
physical infrastructure of a tourist city are closely examined (Donald,
1993; Jansen-Verbeke, 1986; Kozak, 2002).
Second, the ‘inviolate belt’ zone surrounding the nucleus of attrac-
tiveness refers to the tourism setting that surrounds these places. This
69
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
second level can be described as a tourism precinct in the urban setting
(Hayllar, Griffin, & Edwards, 2008). This belt includes physical and
social facilities (Jansen-Verbeke, 1986) bordering the city’s attractions.
In other words, the inviolate belt refers to the immediate area sur-
rounding the nucleus of attractiveness and the connections between
attractions that are geographically close to one another.
The third circle, called the ‘zone of closure,’ represents the expanded
level of tourism attractiveness. Applied to the urban setting, it pertains
to the city’s overall context. This general environment incorporates
social and municipal services, along with tourist support facilities, often
recognized as secondary and additional attractions (Jansen-Verbeke,
1986). It thus refers to basic commodities that serve tourists and re-
sidents.
This conceptual background leads to the examination of visitors’
attraction recognition in a city: how can urban tourist attractiveness be
schematized and measured? The three levels of attractiveness must be
evaluated using different elements to understand this recognition and
identify the role of external markers in evaluating these levels. Fig. 1
presents the conceptual framework.
Based on this conceptual framework, two specific questions guide
this analysis. First, to understand the urban tourist attractiveness
system, tourists’ recognition and valorisation of the city's attractiveness
are examined (Q1): how do urban tourists recognize the attractiveness
levels and the elements composing them? Given that Gunn's model of
attractiveness distinguishes three levels (Gunn, 1997), it is necessary to
understand the importance that visitors place on each one of them,
namely the core attractions (nucleus), the tourist belt and the urban
context. Accordingly, it is expected that the analysis will confirm the
same three levels of attractiveness and that the nucleus will be the most
important factor. The subquestion concerns the transfer of information
on characteristics of the city prior to tourists’ urban visit (Q2): What is
the association between information markers and the importance
placed on attractions? Given that this information can partly affect
attractiveness (Leiper, 1990), the form of these markers (e.g. word-of-
mouth, Internet) is scrutinized. It is expected that some variability
among the different markers used by visitors will be observed. The sub-
question retained for this research specifically addresses tourists’ in-
terpretation of these elements.
3. Methodology
3.1. Tourist perception
To answer the research questions, quantitative data were gathered
via questionnaires in Québec City and Bordeaux. The survey adminis-
tered to visitors aimed to gather perceptions of urban tourism
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
Table 1
Population characteristics of Québec City and Bordeaux 2013.
Sources: INSEE (2013); ISQ (2014); Statistics Canada (2011).
Population
Population within the municipal boundaries (inhabitants)
Population within the metropolitan area (inhabitants)
Density within the municipal boundaries (inhabitants/km2)
Density within the metropolitan boundaries (inhabitants/km2)
attractiveness by focusing on tourists’ recognition of various criteria. It
therefore covers the salient attractions in the choice of a destination and
the information markers.
For each city, the survey was administered to a random sample of
250 and 249 urban tourists, producing a total of 499 respondents. The
margin of error of each sample was 6.2%, with a confidence level of
95%. At the tourist information center in each of the two cities, the
interviewer selected one out of five tourists until the sample size was
reached. When a family was intercepted, the head of the household
responded. The information center was selected because it enabled an
exchange with respondents early in their stay, facilitating the collection
of their initial motivations and perceptions. Given that the target po-
pulation were all tourists coming to the tourist information center
during the collection period, the exact response rate cannot be eval-
uated but, nevertheless, it is estimated that approximately 50% of those
intercepted ended up answering the entire questionnaire. The Québec
City survey ran from July 14–24, 2014, and the Bordeaux survey from
August 11–22, 2014. Collection weeks for both cities were selected to
ensure comparability, and therefore excluded dates when large festivals
and special events were scheduled. Furthermore, the surveys covered
times when the two cities had similar climates. According to re-
spondents’ preferences, the survey was either administered in a face-to-
face interview, or self-administered.
Concerning tourist attractiveness, the variables were targeted based
on prior research on the vacation destination selection (Gnoth, 1997;
Jansen-Verbeke, 1986; Van der Merwe et al., 2011; Yoon & Uysal,
2005). The importance of some determinants is notably demonstrated
by pull factors that were operationalized based on proven measurement
scales (Andreu, Kozak, Avci, & Cifter, 2005; Crompton & McKay, 1997;
Fodness, 1994; Kozak, 2002; Mutinda & Mayaka, 2012). These vari-
ables were adapted to the urban context, resulting in a list of statements
intended to measure the elements that influence the choice of a desti-
nation, corresponding to the three levels of the model of tourism at-
tractiveness proposed in the conceptual framework (Gunn, 1997).
Based on past studies:
• Six variables were selected for the nucleus: (1) museums and art
galleries; (2) monuments and historical sites; (3) theaters, concerts
and nightlife; (4) festivals and events; (5) fairs, conventions and
exhibitions; and (6) nearby excursions.
• Five variables were identified for the tourist belt: (1) architecture; (2)
public spaces, parks and gardens; (3) pedestrian-friendly places; (4)
the urban atmosphere; and (5) contact with residents.
• Five variables were distinguished for the urban context: (1) accom-
modations and restaurants; (2) tourist information; (3) shops and
commercial services; (4) access and signage; and (5) public services.
Five versions of the questionnaire were produced to randomize the
variables per category. A question about information markers was in-
spired by the work of Leiper (1990), and was empirically adapted to
represent contemporary reality (e.g. Internet and social media).
Regarding data processing, factor analysis was performed to study
the interrelations between the variables, group the variables into fac-
tors and generate composite indices. Kruskal-Wallis tests were per-
formed to compare the results of the variables between Québec City and
70
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
Québec City Bordeaux
532,354 243,626
568,026 749,595
1038 4938
1005 1296
Bordeaux, as well as between the factors for the various information
markers. This makes it possible to compare the means of attractiveness
factors as a function of the city visited or markers consulted.
3.2. Fields of study: Québec City and Bordeaux
Québec City and Bordeaux are two cities that have been designated
UNESCO World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 1985, 2007). These cities
have been sister cities since 1962, yielding cultural activities, exchanges
of experiences in the health field, university collaboration and inter-
municipal institutional cooperation in several domains, notably in
tourism (Mairie de Bordeaux, 2013). Although the cities are compar-
able in size, their urban density is quite different (Table 1). They also
differ in terms of climate, geography, history, culture and urban in-
frastructure. Moreover, the two cities have extremely different trans-
portation systems and visitor origins.
At the same time, the similarities between the two cities offer a basis
of comparison to perceive and isolate the significant differentiating
factors that may emerge from the study. Québec City and Bordeaux are
both tourism cities that present comparable nuclei of attractiveness
based on heritage and historical attractions, a distinctive urban atmo-
sphere and numerous festivals. Regarding tourism statistics, Québec
City welcomes more than 4.5 million visitors each year, compared to
5.5 million tourists in Bordeaux (OTB, 2015a; OTQ, 2014). To host
these people, 9274 rooms are available in Québec City, and the average
hotel occupancy rate is 65.8% (OTQ, 2014). By comparison, Bordeaux
has 6493 rooms and an average hotel occupancy rate of 60.3% (OTB,
2015a, 2015b). Lastly, the central districts of Québec City and Bordeaux
have undergone extensive planned urban development, as have the
banks of their respective rivers, the Saint-Laurent and the Garonne.
Although they are situated in different contexts (Canadian and French),
the similarity of the tourism attractions in the two cities strengthens the
validity of the findings.
As mentioned before, to control the research context, data were
collected in comparative periods for each city in order to neutralize the
effects of special events (e.g. festivals). Also, given that the comparative
approach may require methodological adjustments, the vocabulary
used in the research instruments was reviewed to ensure that it could be
clearly understood by respondents from various origins.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive data
Descriptive statistics are presented in Appendix A. In Québec City,
57.4% of individuals were staying for the first time, compared with
74.4% in Bordeaux. When they completed the questionnaire, most of
the people in both cities had arrived that day or the day before. Re-
garding the travel context, almost one-third of the respondents reported
the city as their main destination, while most were traveling as part of a
larger tour.
Some variables were used to capture travel characteristics and
patterns. To get to the city, most of the respondents said that they had
arrived by car (Québec City: 67.5%, Bordeaux: 65.2%). The second
most frequent transportation mode, excluding the category “other”, was
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79

airplane for Québec City (12.0%) and train for Bordeaux (15.6%). Table 2
Respondents were also asked about the motivations for their trip. The Mean and rank of importance of tourist attractions considered (Kruskal-Wallis).
main purpose of the trip was leisure tourism (Québec City: 87.7%, Indicators Québec City Bordeaux
Bordeaux: 80.0%), although some went to visit relatives or friends, or
were there for business. Visitors travelled mostly as a family or as a Mean Rank Stat. Diff. Mean Rank
couple and usually stayed in a hotel or motel (Québec City: 65.4%,
Urban atmosphere 4.10 1 * ** 3.66 4
Bordeaux: 38.6%). Further, a large number of daytrippers were ob- Urban architecture 4.10 2 NS 3.94 1
served in Bordeaux (Québec City: 5.3%, Bordeaux: 21.3%). This could Pedestrian-friendly places 4.08 3 ** 3.86 2
be partly explained by the fact that Bordeaux is approximately 60 km Monuments and historical sites 4.02 4 * ** 3.70 3
from the Atlantic Ocean, and so many people vacationing on the coast Public spaces, parks, gardens 3.93 5 * ** 3.65 5
Accommodations and restaurants 3.73 6 * ** 3.29 6
enjoy visiting the city for a day. Moreover, this high rate of people on
Public services 3.57 7 * ** 3.14 7
excursions partly explains the high proportion of first visits mentioned Tourist information 3.42 8 * ** 3.01 9
above and the difference in accommodation modes. Contact with residents 3.04 9 * ** 2.36 13
The last section of the questionnaire included socio-economic Shops, commercial services 2.97 10 * 2.72 11
Museums and art galleries 2.86 11 * ** 2.50 12
variables. Over half the sample was female (Québec City: 53.0%,
Access and signage 2.78 12 NS 2.98 10
Bordeaux: 59.0%) and the proportion of respondents aged 45 and over Excursions 2.67 13 * ** 3.08 8
was higher in Québec City (52.4%) than in Bordeaux (43.4%). Festivals and events 2.15 14 * ** 1.71 15
Regarding the origin of the respondents, Québec City mostly welcomed Theaters, concerts and night life 1.99 15 NS 1.88 14
Canadians (36.4%), followed by Americans (25.1%) and French Fairs, conventions and exhibitions 1.75 16 * ** 1.40 16

(19.4%). In contrast, visitors to Bordeaux were mostly French nationals

(59.2%), followed by other Europeans (27.2%). These proportions were
consistent with the visitor ratios of the tourist information centers
where the collection was carried out, which contributed to ensuring
that the sample was representative. Indeed, Canadian tourists, in-
cluding Quebecers, accounted for approximately 33.2% of the clientele
of the Québec City tourist information bureau in 2012, whereas French
tourists made up 65% of the visitors to the Bordeaux Tourist Board
Office (OTB, 2013; Tourisme Québec, 2015).
4.2. Ranking of variables
The importance placed on attractiveness variables during trip pre-
paration was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘not at all’ and
5 = ‘completely’). Asked to specify how important they considered
specific tourist attractions during trip preparation, visitors from both
cities rate the following the highest: urban atmosphere, urban archi-
tecture, pedestrian-friendly places, monuments and historical sites,
public spaces, parks, gardens, accommodations and restaurants, and
public services. In both cases, theaters, concerts and nightlife, festivals
and events, and fairs, conventions and exhibitions were ranked last.
Given that a comparable period for both cities was selected, a time
when festivals and other large events were not occuring, it is expected
that festival and convention variables would be less important.
Regarding theaters, concerts and nightlife, potential explanations could
be that: (1) these cities are not particularly known for these cultural
aspects; (2) tourists are mainly attracted by heritage elements since
Québec and Bordeaux are UNESCO cities; (3) outside activities are more
popular in the summertime and (4) the large number of American
visitors in Québec City do not understand French and therefore cannot
fully enjoy shows performed in this language.
Mean comparisons were conducted between Québec City and
Bordeaux respondents, based on Kruskal-Wallis tests. The majority of
the variables were rated statistically higher in Québec City than in
Bordeaux, except for three elements that had similar means (bold in
Table 2): urban architecture, access and signage as well as theaters,
concerts and night life. The only variable for which Bordeaux's results
significantly exceed Québec City's mean was ‘excursions’, which can
likely be explained by the vineyard and coastal attractions surrounding
Bordeaux.
Given that the two cities attract visitors from different countries,
mean differences can be explained by cultural elements for which there
was no control. The analysis was thus focused on the ranking of the
variables, which revealed the relative importance of each variable. The
analysis of these rankings showed a strong correlation between the two
series (Spearman's rho = 0.909). Indeed, visitors to Québec City and
Bordeaux agreed on the top seven items, out of a total of 16. These
Question 11: In preparation for this trip, on a scale of 1–5, where 1 is 'the
lowest' and 5 is 'the highest', how important did you consider the following
attractions before choosing to visit Québec City/Bordeaux?
Statistical difference significance level: p ≤ 0.01 (***), p ≤ 0.05 (**) and
p ≤ 0.10 (*); NS = no statistical difference.
similarities contributed to validating the proposed theoretical model.
Two main differences emerged between the cities. First, 'contact
with residents' was ranked 9th in Québec City (13th in Bordeaux). By
contrast, the variable “nearby excursions” was ranked 8th in Bordeaux
(13th in Québec City). The value placed on the periphery may be ex-
plained by the renown of the Bordeaux vineyards and the wine-tasting
opportunities in Châteaux.
4.3. Factor analysis
Based on these variables, a factor analysis was performed for
tourism attractiveness. To generate equivalent factors for Québec City
and Bordeaux and to allow comparative analysis, all respondents were
included. Previously, factor analyses were performed separately on
each city to verify the similarity of the results.
The initial examination of the Pearson correlation matrix in-
corporating the 16 variables of tourism attractiveness made it possible
to evaluate the internal consistency of the measurement instrument
(correlation matrix in Appendix B). The presence of moderate correla-
tions between the variables affirms the importance of looking for si-
milar elements that could make up the factors (Taylor, 1990). Fol-
lowing this observation, Bartlett's test of sphericity (significance level:
0.000) also showed that it is pertinent to seek components, and the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient (0.792) implied that the variables were
sufficiently correlated to perform factor analysis (Stafford, Bodson, &
Stafford, 2006).
The method used to extract the factors was the study of the eigen-
value of the components, representing the variance explained
(Ferguson & Takane, 1989). Four factors emerged from the factor
analysis done on the tourism attractiveness variables. In total, the
analysis explained 62% of the tourism attractiveness of the city
(Table 3). Three of the 16 elements were excluded from the factor
analysis because of the lack of correlation with the factors. The vari-
ables referring to contact with residents, accommodations and restau-
rants, and nearby excursions were thus consequently removed, which
increased the variance explained by the factors. Also, applying a var-
imax rotation highlighted the one-dimensionality of the factors.
Whereas the initial model proposed three levels of tourism attrac-
tiveness (Gunn, 1997), its application to the urban setting revealed four
factors: the three initially identified levels (tourist belt, urban context

71
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79

Table 3 Table 4
Factor analysis based on tourist attractions. Value of Cronbach's alpha by attractiveness component.
Source: (Perrien et al., 1983).
Variance explained
Components Value of α
Components and variables Coefficients Reala Internal
Context 0.773
Component 1: Tourist belt 29.1% 46.8% Belt 0.729
Urban atmosphere 0.766 Complementary attractions 0.669
Urban architecture 0.755 Nucleus 0.611
Public spaces, parks, gardens 0.738
Pedestrian-friendly places 0.737 α > 0.90 = applied research / 0.60 < α < 0.90 = fundamental
Component 2: Urban context 14.0% 22.6% research / 0.50 < α < 0.60 = exploratory research.
Access and signage 0.761
Public services (e.g. cleanliness) 0.742
Tourist information 0.741
Shops, commercial services 0.583 Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha. For all the
Component 3: Complementary 9.7% 15.6% tourism attractiveness variables, this index was 0.807, a level generally
attractions recognized as acceptable in fundamental research (DeVellis, 2012;
Festivals and events 0.817
Fairs, conventions and exhibitions 0.720
Perrien, Chéron, & Zins, 1983). Therefore, the measurement scale was
Theaters, concerts and nightlife 0.711 valid and had a good internal consistency. The index also allowed for
Component 4: Nucleus 9.3% 14.9% the examination of each of the components emerging from the factor
Monuments and historical sites 0.812 analysis, thus clarifying the validity of the measurement instrument for
Museums and art galleries 0.768
a group of statements (Stafford et al., 2006). The value of the alpha by
Total variance 62.0% 100.0%
level of tourism attractiveness is presented in Table 4. Each of the
a
Before rotation. components had a level of internal consistency accepted in fundamental
research: the value of the Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.773 (context)
and nucleus), and a fourth component called ‘complementary attrac- to 0.611 (nucleus). Although the nucleus factor, including only two
tions’ (see Fig. 2). statements, stood out from the others components in the factor analysis,
its one-dimensionality may have been reinforced by the addition of
• Tourist belt: Exhibiting the highest explanatory potential, this factor variables to the measurement instrument, such as guided tours or theme
parks (Cortina, 1993).
comprises urban atmosphere, architecture, public spaces, parks and
gardens, and pedestrian-friendly places. This component thus To interpret the importance of the different levels, means were
groups variables linked to the urban environment and urban plan- calculated for all components in the two cities (Fig. 3). In both Québec
ning elements. City and Bordeaux, the tourist belt obtained the highest score, followed
• Urban context: As the broadest sphere of tourism attractiveness, the by the nucleus of attractiveness, the urban context and complementary
attractions.
context encompasses access and signage, public services, tourist
information, and shops and commercial services. This component The urban living environment within the tourist belt thus seems to
therefore refers to urban services in general, used by both residents play an essential role in the attractiveness of the city, emerging as more
and visitors. important than the nucleus. This may seem counterintuitive given the
• Complementary attractions: Initially considered essential to urban emphasis placed on the flagship sites of the city in media commu-
nications, and it does raise questions concerning the level of investment
tourism attractiveness, these variables emerged separately to gen-
erate a fourth factor, apparently complementing the central attrac- in those facilities compared with their surrounding environments
tions. This component includes festivals and events, fairs, conven- (Enright & Newton, 2005). Indeed, to attract urban visitors it is cer-
tions and exhibitions, and theaters, concerts and nightlife. tainly essential to have strong central attractions, but it seems that an
• Nucleus: This component, representing the core of attractiveness, attractive environment is even more critical. The analysis thus under-
scores the salient role of urban lifestyles, public spaces and pedestrian
includes monuments and historic sites, and museums and art gal-
leries. Although this factor covers few core attractions, respondents areas, and sheds light on how sustainable development strategies can
nonetheless consider it highly important. add to city attractiveness by impacting those elements (Ashworth &
Page, 2011; Lespinasse-Taraba & Leonhardt, 2011; Matos-Wasem,
2010; Page, 1995; Rigall-I-Torrent, 2008). Although the factor labeled
‘nucleus’ includes only two elements, visitors nonetheless consider
them very important. Monuments, historical sites, museums and art
galleries have an obvious impact on city attractiveness that should not

Fig. 2. Factor analysis based on tourist attractions. Fig. 3. Importance placed on tourism attractiveness factors (mean values).

72
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
be overlooked (Brida et al., 2012; Moreno Gil & Ritchie, 2008; Plaza,
2000). More importantly, they should be considered supplemental to
the living environment, not the reverse.
The results also show that visitors do not neglect the urban context
when preparing for a trip. Specifically, when choosing a destination,
they carefully assess public services, tourist information and access to
the city. It is even more important to recognize the salience of this di-
mension, because some of its constituents could act as dissatisfiers
(Mikulić et al., 2016; Provenzano, 2015). High levels of attention
should be paid to functional attributes and assets, especially given that
they may enhance competitiveness and performance (Deas & Giordano,
2001; Wong & Teoh, 2015). Lastly, complementary attractions are
given very little consideration before a trip. This result may be partly
explained by the choice of a collection period outside of large festivals.
Given that these events have their own attraction power, selecting this
timeframe reduced the potential bias in the motivation expressed by
visitors. A similar study conducted during a large festival could ob-
viously change the importance of complementary attractions in the
choice of urban destination.
In addition, mean comparisons were computed based on the re-
spondent's characteristics. Older tourists (ages 55 +) placed more im-
portance on the tourist belt than other age groups, but a different result
was obtained for complementary attractions: younger visitors (under
age 34) showed more interest than other groups. Regarding the visitors’
origins, except for the tourist belt dimension, higher means were gen-
erally observed for tourists from other countries (outside of Europe,
France, Canada and the United States). These results could be explained
by the fact that distance from a destination and related cultural dif-
ferences may have an impact on the evaluation level of tourism at-
tractiveness. This confirms that different market segments value dif-
ferent attractors and that competitiveness determinants may vary
according to the product mix and segments (Enright & Newton, 2005).
4.4. Information markers and factors
External markers used by visitors to discover characteristics of the
city before their trip were also evaluated. Indeed, various sources of
information support these markers, contributing to the tourist's
knowledge of the destination. Asked to name the media consulted be-
fore choosing their vacation site, most respondents mentioned the
Internet and social media (Fig. 4). This confirms the pervasive im-
portance of these information markers on travel planning (Huang et al.,
2017; Luo et al., 2004; Malenkina & Ivanov, 2018; Xiang & Gretzel,
2010; Xiang et al., 2015). In Québec City, nearly three out of four
tourists claim to have consulted the Internet and social media, versus
two-thirds of visitors to Bordeaux. Further, word-of-mouth was used
more by visitors to Bordeaux than Québec City, as were television,
newspapers and magazines. In contrast, visitors to Québec City were
Fig. 4. Information markers consulted (percentages)*. Question: Q14 Before
coming to Bordeaux, how did you obtain information about the characteristics
of the city? * Several possible comments.
73
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
more inclined to recall past experiences or to use other markers than
those visiting Bordeaux.
Evaluation of attractiveness factors was analyzed based on external
markers that visitors claimed to have used before visiting Québec City
and Bordeaux. To this end, a Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted (sig-
nificance level equal to or greater than 90%). Table 5 presents the
elements for which significant differences were observed, highlighting
differences for the total sample and for each city (Table 5).
First, tourists who claimed that they consulted the Internet and
social media were associated with a higher sensitivity to the nucleus of
attractiveness than are those who did not use this information marker.
This difference is significant for visitors to Bordeaux, who were also
more inclined to value complementary attractions and context. This
result could be explained by the fact that destination management or-
ganizations mostly communicate about flagship attractions or special
events in their area, making it logical that Internet viewers would ac-
knowledge these aspects more. In addition to being related to accom-
modation choices and expenditure (Luo et al., 2004), the uses of In-
ternet and social media as information sources seemed to be associated
with stronger consideration of the city attractiveness elements.
Second, users of word-of-mouth in Bordeaux placed significantly
more importance on the tourist belt when choosing an urban destina-
tion for a trip than individuals who relied on other sources. Hence, it
seems that visiting Bordeaux and sharing memories of the city could
impact some people's consideration of the living environment prior to a
visit.
Third, in Québec City, people whose information derived from a
past visit evaluated the central attractions less positively. A previous
tourist experience in the city appears to lower the interest placed on the
nucleus of attractiveness, which might be explained by a greater con-
sideration of other dimensions.
5. Discussion
5.1. How do urban tourists recognize the attraction levels and the elements
composing them?
In order to sustain long-run tourism activities in cities, it appears
essential to understand the innerworkings of urban tourism attractive-
ness. With the aim of understanding tourist perception, a list of state-
ments was measured, representing the levels of the tripartite model of
tourism attractiveness (Gunn, 1997). Overall, these results show the
crucial importance of the living environment when developing tourism
in the city. Indeed, whether they visit the North-American city of
Québec or the European city of Bordeaux, the findings reveal that
visitors are specifically attracted by the urban atmosphere and archi-
tecture, pedestrian-friendly places, monuments and historical sites, and
public spaces. These results thus confirm the salience of urban en-
vironments as a competitiveness factor, as was discuss in previous work
(Balkyte & Tvaronavičiene, 2010; Enright & Newton, 2004, 2005;
Mikulić et al., 2016; Provenzano, 2015).
Factor analysis based on these variables made it possible to distin-
guish four levels of attractiveness perceived by city visitors. This di-
verges from the initial hypothesis, as confirmation was expected of the
three levels of Gunn's model (Gunn, 1997). Indeed, a complementary
attractions element emerged distinctly from the other levels previously
established in the literature. Some variables initially identified as cen-
tral proved to be different from the nucleus of attractiveness, suffi-
ciently correlated to form their own factor. These elements (festivals
and events, fairs, conventions and exhibitions, theaters, concerts and
nightlife) however played a less decisive role for visitors planning their
trip. The collection period was chosen to exclude large festivals in order
to reduce the potential bias regarding visitor motivations. With regards
to theaters, concerts and nightlife, an explanation can be found in the
particularity of these cities, mostly known for their monumental heri-
tage, encouraging outdoor activities such as walking around. Further
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
Table 5
Comparison of mean value of the factors vs Internet and social media, word-of-mouth and past experience (Kruskal-Wallis).
Type of markers Factors
Internet and social media Nucleus
Complementary attractions
Context
Word-of-mouth Belt
Past experience Nucleus
Statistical difference significance level: p ≤ 0.01 (***), p ≤ 0.05 (**) and p ≤ 0.10 (*); blank cells: no statistical difference.
research should be conducted to evaluate the salience of com-
plementary attractions in different situations.
The four levels of urban tourism attractiveness are presented in
superimposed spheres, ranging from an extended spectrum to a more
specific one (Fig. 2). First, the broadest level, the urban context, en-
compasses urban services in general, such as access and signage vari-
ables, tourism information, and shops and business services. Second,
the tourist belt comprises variables linked mainly to the urban living
environment in general, along with urban planning elements such as
urban atmosphere, architecture, public spaces, parks and gardens and
pedestrian-friendly places. Third, the factor called complementary at-
tractions includes festivals and events, fairs, conventions and exhibi-
tions, along with theaters, concerts and nightlife. Fourth, the nucleus of
attractiveness is made up of monuments and historical sites, along with
museums and art galleries. The small number of variables composing
this factor shows that few attractions are considered central, but
nonetheless they have a relatively high consideration level when tra-
velers are choosing which city they will visit.
In terms of order of importance, the tourist belt received the highest
score, followed by the nucleus of attractiveness, the urban context and
complementary attractions. Indeed, tourists paid more attention to the
living environment and to the facilities within the tourist belt. This is an
important finding since past research revealed that green spaces and
public areas could potentially enhance tourist satisfaction with a des-
tination (Mikulić et al., 2016). Strongly contributing to the attractive-
ness of the city, the importance placed on this belt even exceeded in-
terest in the nucleus dimension. This distinguishes this work from
previous studies, as nucleus aspects have often been posited by
searchers and practitioners as having primary importance (Brida et al.,
2012; Moreno Gil & Ritchie, 2008; Plaza, 2000). Instead, these results
confirm that monuments, historical sites, museums and art galleries are
significant elements of urban attractiveness, but these variables are not
as important as their contextual living environment. Cultural elements,
such as museums, remain fundamental but no longer seem sufficient to
ensure long-term success. One potential explanation is that pricing can
impede repeat visits (Brida et al., 2012; Plaza, 2000). Nonetheless,
urban destinations must ensure the maintenance of quality nucleus
elements in a city, as previous research has shown that the absence of
such facilities can bring dissatisfaction (Enright & Newton, 2004). For
urban tourism practitioners, notably in heritage cities, it must be ac-
knowledged that historical features may no longer suffice to attract
tourists in the long term, although they are considered by travelers
when choosing a holiday destination. Today's visitors expect flawless
tourist staging in a city. Indeed, Québec City and Bordeaux offer an
urban environment favorable to walking around and admiring the ar-
chitectural beauty. It can be assumed that the sustainable urban de-
velopment strategies in place probably also play a role in attracting
tourists, given that they directly affect tourist belt elements such as
public spaces, parks and gardens or pedestrian friendly areas.
74
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
Mean of factors by type of markers
Total Québec City Bordeaux
Yes: 3.37*** Yes: 3.20**
No: 3.04 No: 2.91
Yes: 1.74***
No: 1.52
Yes: 3.05*
No: 2.78
Yes: 3.89**
No: 3.65
Yes: 3.13***
No: 3.58
The urban context, the third dimension in terms of importance in
the model of attractiveness, was also considered when tourists prepared
for their trips, and deserves special attention from planners. Public
services and tourism information are salient elements of the choice to
visit a city and they should definitely be considered in the management
and planning of the urban destination. This is validated by various
studies which have shown the potential dissatisfying impact of lack of
public services (e.g. street noise, inadequate transportation) and the
positive consequences of good tourist information and signage (Mikulić
et al., 2016; Provenzano, 2015). Furthermore, the mean evaluation of
complementary attractions is similar in both cities and shows that
visitors are only slightly interested in them. This may be partly justified
by the selection of a collection period outside of festivals and major
events. These elements were therefore perceived as peripheral.
Lastly, given that three variables (contact with residents, accom-
modations and restaurants, and excursions) were excluded from the
factor analysis because of the lack of correlation with the factors, an-
other component linked to the support industry may exist. The in-
tegration of new variables into the analysis, such as theme parks or
guided tours, could test this possibility and enhance the model.
5.2. What is the association between information markers and the
importance placed on attractions?
Understanding a city's attractiveness to tourists is aided by con-
sidering the elements that may have affected the level of interest in the
different factors. Prior to tourists’ arrival at a destination, various in-
termediaries are used as sources of information concerning the char-
acteristics of the site. These external markers help attract visitors
(Leiper, 1990; Richards, 2002). The results suggest that the Internet and
social media are preferred means of procuring information for at least
two-thirds of visitors to both cities. Along with word-of-mouth and past
experience, these markers translate urban life experiences, albeit in
different ways. These experiences can be posted on a website, expressed
on social media, recounted spontaneously by a friend or relative, or
etched in the memory of a frequent visitor. The strong media impact of
unforgettable tourism experiences must be acknowledged, whether
they occur in public spaces or within tourist areas. In line with previous
work, these results confirm that the product mix of a destination, and
mostly its communication, do affect a city's tourism attractiveness
(Edwards et al., 2008; Enright & Newton, 2005; Van den Berg & Braun,
1999).
Validating the second initial hypothesis, some variability occurred
on attractiveness levels among the different markers used by visitors.
Confirming former results, technological markers were found to impact
tourism attractiveness evaluation (Jansson, 2018; Luo et al., 2004;
Malenkina & Ivanov, 2018). Indeed, people who consult the Internet
and social media showed heightened sensitivity to different levels of
attraction. Specifically, in Bordeaux, the means of the coefficients were
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
higher for complementary attractions and the nucleus of attractiveness.
Consultation of this marker therefore plays a positive role in the eva-
luation of the central attractions of that city. This is consistent with past
research showing the impact of smart tourism technologies on travel
satisfaction (Huang et al., 2017). Moreover, word-of-mouth also plays a
role in evaluations of the tourist belt. Relying on comments from friends
and relatives when choosing to visit Bordeaux therefore seemed to
change the way the living environment was considered. In Québec City,
visitors’ past experience appears to reduce the value given to the nu-
cleus. This may be explained by the fact that tourists who previously
visited the flagship sites return to Québec City mainly to discover other
aspects of the city. Cultural attractions and facilities may have a strong
impact for first-time visitors, but as showed by Brida et al. (2012) re-
peat visits are probably mostly driven by other attraction levels.
Diffusing information about the urban destination on the Internet
and social media thus seems to modify travelers’ interest in the different
levels of tourism attractiveness. The same finding is true of word-of-
mouth. However, communication efforts must give potential visitors an
idea of the destination to motivate them to choose it. Encouraging
current tourists to talk extensively of their experience in both Bordeaux
and Québec City is thus a promising way to consolidate the attrac-
tiveness of the cities. For example, a contest may be launched on social
media to encourage word-of-mouth.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This research has limitations that can be addressed in future work.
First, it was impossible to precisely explain the differences between the
results of the two cities. Even if these differences could be explained by
several factors, such as those associated with the culture or modes of
collection favored in the two cities (face-to-face or autonomously), the
explanation remains imperfect. Given this, the analysis focused on the
rank associated with the indicators and not directly on the averages.
Second, and in the same vein, even if the results obtained were ap-
plicable, at least in part, to destinations with characteristics similar to
those studied, they are not generalizable to all urban destinations. For
example, megacities like Tokyo or New York have quite distinct pecu-
liarities (e.g. transport, the amount and type of attractions). Finally,
even if the types of data used and the related statistical analysis make it
possible to establish clear correlations between the different elements,
unidirectional causal links cannot be established.
Thus, three main research avenues appear to emerge from this
paper. First, it would be an interesting possibility to evaluate destina-
tion marketing organizations’ (DMOs') strategies based on the four le-
vels of attractiveness and compare them to tourist perceptions. This
would make it possible to refine the analysis regarding the effects of
different strategies related to the four levels and eventually help DMOs
to put effective communication strategies in place to reach and attract
more tourists. Second, given that many variables used in the present
study are related to sustainability at different levels (e.g. public transit),
a pertinent research possibility would be to conduct quantitative re-
search on how variables related to sustainable development can explain
urban tourism attractiveness. For example, one could control for dif-
ferent regulations and laws. This could be done by using secondary data
on numerous cities in one “tourist country” over a given period of time.
Finally, conducting a similar study during a major festival or event
could enhance the understanding of urban tourism attractiveness.
6. Conclusion
The main objectives of this research were to distinguish the ele-
ments of attraction recognized by urban tourists, to measure the
75
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
importance placed on different criteria and to identify external markers
consulted by visitors. To meet these goals, a comparative analysis was
done of Québec City and Bordeaux, two tourist and heritage cities.
To investigate the determinants of urban tourism attractiveness, the
analysis was based on Gunn (1997) tripartite theoretical model which
was adapted to urban tourist destinations. Tourist attractiveness vari-
ables were targeted based on prior studies of the selection of a vacation
destination (Gnoth, 1997; Jansen-Verbeke, 1986; Van der Merwe et al.,
2011; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). These variables resulted in a list of state-
ments intended to measure the elements that influence the choice of a
destination, corresponding to the three levels of the model of tourism
attractiveness proposed in Gunn's model. Also, questions about in-
formation markers, such as the use of the Internet and social media,
were included. Following a questionnaire survey completed by 499
tourists, a statistical comparative analysis was done in Québec City and
Bordeaux to examine visitors’ perceptions. A factor analysis was per-
formed to study the interrelations between the variables, group the
variables into factors and generate composite indices. Statistical tests
were performed to compare the results of the attraction variables be-
tween Québec City and Bordeaux, as well as between the factors for the
various information markers.
Contributing to the urban tourism attractiveness literature, this re-
search found that tourists perceive four levels of attractiveness in a city
(context, tourist belt, complementary attractions and nucleus), even
though past research generally showed that attractions included three
levels. The results also revealed that much consideration is given to the
tourist belt elements when evaluating the attractiveness of an urban
setting (e.g. public space, urban environment). An association is also
found between information markers, notably the Internet and social
media, and the perceptions of the different attractiveness factors.
Hence, conveying some urban characteristics through the Internet and
social media may affect the evaluation of the attractiveness of a city.
From a practical standpoint, this paper adds to the knowledge of
elements that attract visitors to a city. The results indicate that some
tourists are sensitive to urban public areas, which play an essential role
in attractiveness. Like the citizens, visitors appropriate new spaces for
sociability, where they develop an original way to temporarily inhabit
the city. Urban renewal not only improves the quality of life for re-
sidents, but also revitalizes the tourism offer considerably. Addressing
city regeneration and tourism attractiveness from a sustainability per-
spective may help to avoid the drift of overtourism that cities like
Barcelona, for example, have experienced (Hughes, 2018). These con-
clusions may eventually lead urban and tourist actors to integrate
tourism into development strategies to increase the reach of the city
while ensuring the sustainability of the industry. The integration of
tourism considerations upstream from the creation of urban policy
could thus give cities several advantages in terms of tourist volume and
urban practices. For example, regarding transport, a city may wish to
offer efficient and friendly service leading to flagship points in the city,
and to different neighborhoods of interest. These elements could sup-
port decisions regarding the promotion of cities, and allow elected of-
ficials to measure the impact of their actions on the tourism industry.
To stimulate visitor interest in cities, communication should emphasize
the tourist belt, namely the urban environment.
Funding
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (Canada, #752-2013-1105) and by the Ministry of
International Relations of Québec with the General Consulate of France
in Québec (Canada, #179663).
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
Distribution of answers related to travel characteristics.
Descriptive data Québec City % Bordeaux %

Is this your first visit to Québec City/Bordeaux?

Yes 57.4 74.4
When did you arrive in the city?
Today 28.5 37.6
Yesterday 48.2 35.6
A few days ago or less recently 23.3 26.8
What statement best describes your current travel situation?
Main destination, with excursions in the area 32.5 31.6
Multi-destination trip 67.5 68.4
Which transport mode did you use to get here?
Car/motorcycle 67.5 65.2
Train 8.0 15.6
Airplane 12.0 14.8
Bus, boat, recreational vehicle (RV), etc 12.4 4.4
What is the main purpose of your trip?
Visit relatives or friends 6.4 17.2
Leisure tourism 86.7 80.0
Business and conventions, language studies or other 6.8 2.8
How are you traveling during this trip?
As a family 47.4 39.6
With friends 10.0 11.6
As a couple 33.7 41.2
Alone 4.0 6.8
In an organized group/with colleagues 4.8 0.8
In which types of establishment are you mainly staying?
Hotel/motel 65.4 38.6
Bed and breakfast/guesthouse 6.1 8.4
Youth hostel/university residence/hosting community 3.3 1.2
Rental apartment/swap/second home/boat 6.9 12.0
Camping 7.7 4.4
Staying with friends or relatives 5.3 14.1
Daytrippers 5.3 21.3
Gender
Female 53.0 59.0
Male 45.7 41.0
Prefer not to answer 1.2 0.0
Age group
Under age 24 15.3 7.2
25–34 15.3 24.9
35–44 16.9 24.5
45–54 22.6 27.7
55–64 23.8 10.4
65 and over 6.0 5.2
Country of origin
France 19.4 59.2
Canada 36.4 3.2
United States 25.1 4.4
Other European country 10.5 27.2
Other 8.5 6.0

Appendix B

See Table B1.

76
 M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay

Table B1
Spearman correlation matrix.
Spearman Rho Monuments Museums Theaters, Festivals Fairs, Excursions Urban Public Pedestrian- Urban Contact Accommodations Tourist Shops, Access Public
and and art concerts and conventions architecture spaces, friendly atmosphere with and restaurants information commercial and services
historical galleries and night events and parks, places residents services signage
sites life exhibitions gardens

Monuments and 1.000 ,434** ,097* ,100* ,101* 0.082 ,331** ,233** ,237** ,129** ,118** ,191** ,254** 0.053 ,186** ,223**
historical sites
Museums and art ,434** 1.000 ,310** ,271** ,231** ,112* ,130** ,150** 0.020 0.068 ,226** ,211** ,242** ,134** ,193** ,193**
galleries
Theaters, concerts ,097* ,310** 1.000 ,463** ,335** ,167** 0.044 0.085 − 0.013 ,101* ,199** ,141** ,127** ,177** ,117** ,099*
and night life
Festivals and ,100* ,271** ,463** 1.000 ,534** ,174** 0.004 ,108* 0.035 ,132** ,270** ,157** ,192** ,278** ,157** ,150**
events
Fairs, conventions ,101* ,231** ,335** ,534** 1.000 ,200** 0.037 ,118** 0.030 0.047 ,216** ,192** ,138** ,249** ,223** ,171**
and
exhibitions
Excursions 0.082 ,112* ,167** ,174** ,200** 1.000 0.040 0.031 − 0.004 0.013 ,116** ,189** ,182** ,154** ,181** ,093*

77
Urban architecture ,331** ,130** 0.044 0.004 0.037 0.040 1.000 ,487** ,410** ,446** ,252** ,161** ,209** ,190** ,192** ,300**
Public spaces, ,233** ,150** 0.085 ,108* ,118** 0.031 ,487** 1.000 ,530** ,393** ,274** ,155** ,206** ,196** ,174** ,288**
parks, gardens
Pedestrian- ,237** 0.020 − 0.013 0.035 0.030 − 0.004 ,410** ,530** 1.000 ,442** ,253** ,210** ,217** ,190** ,225** ,345**
friendly places
Urban atmosphere ,129** 0.068 ,101* ,132** 0.047 0.013 ,446** ,393** ,442** 1.000 ,285** ,217** ,155** ,234** ,095* ,267**
Contact with ,118** ,226** ,199** ,270** ,216** ,116** ,252** ,274** ,253** ,285** 1.000 ,102* ,249** ,267** ,234** ,250**
residents
Accommodations ,191** ,211** ,141** ,157** ,192** ,189** ,161** ,155** ,210** ,217** ,102* 1.000 ,300** ,223** ,180** ,416**
and
restaurants
Tourist ,254** ,242** ,127** ,192** ,138** ,182** ,209** ,206** ,217** ,155** ,249** ,300** 1.000 ,373** ,419** ,454**
information
Shops, commercial 0.053 ,134** ,177** ,278** ,249** ,154** ,190** ,196** ,190** ,234** ,267** ,223** ,373** 1.000 ,306** ,343**
services
Access and signage ,186** ,193** ,117** ,157** ,223** ,181** ,192** ,174** ,225** ,095* ,234** ,180** ,419** ,306** 1.000 ,482**
Public services ,223** ,193** ,099* ,150** ,171** ,093* ,300** ,288** ,345** ,267** ,250** ,416** ,454** ,343** ,482** 1.000

** Denotes significance at the 0.01 significance level (two-sided).

* Denotes significance at the 0.05 significance level (two-sided).
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
References
Andreu, L., Bigné, J. E., & Cooper, C. (2001). Projected and perceived image of Spain as a
tourist destination for British travellers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(4),
47–67.
Andreu, L., Kozak, M., Avci, N., & Cifter, N. (2005). Market segmentation by motivations
to travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(1), 1–14.
Ashworth, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current
paradoxes. Tourism Management, 32(1), 1–15.
Balkyte, A., & Tvaronavičiene, M. (2010). Perception of competitiveness in the context of
sustainable development: Facets of “sustainable competitiveness”. Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 11(2), 341–365.
Brida, J. G., Meleddu, M., & Pulina, M. (2012). Understanding urban tourism attrac-
tiveness: The case of the archaeological Ötzi museum in Bolzano. Journal of Travel
Research, 51(6), 730–741.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism manage-
ment: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet – The state of eTourism research.
Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applica-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
Cracolici, M. F., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist
destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management, 30(3),
336–344.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,
6(4), 408–424.
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425–439.
Crouch, G. (2011). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes.
Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27.
Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2),
187–219.
Deas, I., & Giordano, B. (2001). Conceptualising and measuring urban competitiveness in
major English cities: An exploratory approach. Environment and Planning A, 33(8),
1411–1429.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed. ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Donald, G. (1993). Planning for tourism business districts. Annals of Tourism Research,
20(3), 583–600.
Edwards, D., Griffin, T., & Hayllar, B. (2008). Urban tourism research: Developing an
agenda. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 1032–1052.
Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: A quantitative
approach. Tourism Management, 25(6), 777–788.
Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness
in Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and universality. Journal of Travel Research,
43(4), 339–350.
European Cities Marketing (2016). European cities marketing benchmarking report 2017.
(Retrieved from) 〈http://fr.calameo.com/read/000674014579d8e8e1384?bkcode=
000674014579d8e8e1384〉.
Eurostat (2016). Urban Europe: Statistics on cities, towns and suburbs. (Retrieved from
Luxembourg) 〈http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Urban_
Europe_%E2%80%94_statistics_on_cities,_towns_and_suburbs_%E2%80%94_tourism_
and_culture_in_cities〉.
Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th
ed. ed.). New York, NY; Montréal: McGraw-Hill.
Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3),
555–581.
Frey, H. (1999). Designing the city. London: Taylor & Francis.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(2), 283–304.
Gunn, C. A. (1997). Vacationscape: Developing tourist areas (3rd ed.). Washington, DC:
Taylor & Francis.
Hanafiah, M. H., Hemdi, M. A., & Ahmad, I. (2016). Tourism destination competitiveness.
Tourism Economics, 22(3), 629–636.
Hayllar, B., Griffin, T., & Edwards, D. (2008). City spaces-tourist places: Urban tourism
precincts (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Huang, C. D., Goo, J., Nam, K., & Yoo, C. W. (2017). Smart tourism technologies in travel
planning: The role of exploration and exploitation. Information & Management, 54(6),
757–770.
Hughes, N. (2018). ‘Tourists go home’: Anti-tourism industry protest in Barcelona. Social
Movement Studies, 17(4), 471–477.
INSEE (2013). Régions, départements et villes Délelőtt France. (Retrieved from) 〈https://
www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques〉.
ISQ (2014). Panorama des régions du Québec Édition 2014. Retrieved from Québec:
〈http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/profils/panorama-regions-2014.pdf〉.
Jan, B., & Beesau, H. (2010). Construire le tourisme à l'échelle métropolitaine: Un enjeu
majeur. In T. Lamand (Ed.). Ville, urbanisme & tourisme (pp. 107–113). Paris: Éditions
touristiques européennes.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1986). Inner-city tourism: Resources, tourists and promoters. Annals
of Tourism Research, 13(1), 79–100.
Jansson, A. (2018). Rethinking post-tourism in the age of social media. Annals of Tourism
Research, 69, 101–110.
Kenworthy, J. R. (2006). The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for
sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 67–85.
Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and desti-
nations. Tourism Management, 23(3), 221–232.
78
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
Law, C. M. (1992). Urban tourism and its contribution to economic regeneration. Urban
Studies, 29(3–4), 599–618.
Law, C. M. (2002). Urban tourism: The visitor economy and the growth of large cities (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 367–384.
Lespinasse-Taraba, C., & Leonhardt, C. (2011). En ville aussi, les clients sont sensibles à
une offre touristique durable. Cahier Espaces, 110, 70–72.
Lew, A. A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism Research,
14(4), 553–575.
Luo, M., Feng, R., & Cai, L. A. (2004). Information search behavior and tourist char-
acteristics. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2–3), 15–25.
Mairie de Bordeaux (2013). Bordeaux Québec, 51 ans Délelőtt coopération. (Retrieved from)
〈http://www.bordeaux.fr/images/ebx/fr/groupePiecesJointes/15060/5/
pieceJointeSpec/101001/file/Quebec_SYNT2013.pdf〉.
Malenkina, N., & Ivanov, S. (2018). A linguistic analysis of the official tourism websites of
the seventeen Spanish autonomous communities. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 8, 204–233.
Matos-Wasem, R. (2010). La piétonisation des espaces urbains et la marche touristique en
ville: Réflexions autour et au-delà du « Plan piétons » de la ville de Genève. In C.
Clivaz, S. Nahrath, & M. Stock (Eds.). Tourisme, urbanité, durabilité. Lausanne:
Observatoire universitaire de la Ville et du Développement durable.
Mikulić, J., Krešić, D., Miličević, K., Šerić, M., & Ćurković, B. (2016). Destination at-
tractiveness drivers among urban hostel tourists: An analysis of frustrators and de-
lighters. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1), 74–81.
Mikulić, J., Krešić, D., Prebežac, D., Miličević, K., & Šerić, M. (2016). Identifying drivers
of destination attractiveness in a competitive environment: A comparison of ap-
proaches. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(2), 154–163.
Moreno Gil, S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2008). Understanding the museum image formation
process. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 480–493.
Mutinda, R., & Mayaka, M. (2012). Application of destination choice model: Factors in-
fluencing domestic tourists destination choice among residents of Nairobi, Kenya.
Tourism Management, 33(6), 1593–1597.
OTB (2013). Rapport d'activité. Exercice 2013 Retrieved from Bordeaux:.
OTB (2015a). Dossier de presse. Bordeaux tourisme et congrès. (Retrieved from Bordeaux)
〈https://www.bordeaux-tourisme.com/Espace-Presse〉.
OTB (2015b). Évolution de la fréquentation touristique de 2001 à 2014. Bordeaux: Office du
tourisme de Bordeaux1.
OTQ (2014). Écho tourisme statistiques. (Retrieved from Québec) 〈https://static.
quebecregion.com/media/1034674/echostat-2014-12-f.pdf〉.
Page, S. (1995). Urban tourism. London: Routledge.
Paskaleva-Shapira, K. A. (2007). New paradigms in city tourism management: Redefining
destination promotion. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 108–114.
Pearce, D. G. (2001). An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28(4), 926–946.
Pearce, D. G., & Schänzel, H. A. (2013). Destination management: The tourists' per-
spective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(3), 137–145.
Perrien, J., Chéron, E. J., & Zins, M. (1983). Recherche en marketing methodes et deci-
sions. Chicoutimi: G Morin.
Plaza, B. (2000). Guggenheim museum's effectiveness to attract tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(4), 1055–1058.
Provenzano, D. (2015). A dynamic analysis of tourism determinants in Sicily. Tourism
Economics, 21(3), 441–454.
Richards, G. (2002). Tourism attraction systems: Exploring cultural behavior. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 1048–1064.
Rigall-I-Torrent, R. (2008). Sustainable development in tourism municipalities: The role
of public goods. Tourism Management, 29(5), 883–897.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism
perspective. New York, NY.: CABI Pub.
Stafford, J., Bodson, P., & Stafford, C. M.-C. (2006). L'analyse multivariée avec SPSS. Sainte-
Foy: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
Statistics Canada (2011). Profil du recensement Retrieved from 〈http://www12.statcan.
gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=F〉.
Taylor, R. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: A basic review. Journal of
Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 6(1), 35–39.
Tourisme Québec (2015). Proportion des visiteurs au Centre Infotouriste Délelőtt Québec.
UNESCO (1985). Arrondissement historique du Vieux-Québec. Retrieved from 〈http://
whc.unesco.org/fr/list/300〉.
UNESCO (2007). Bordeaux, Port de la Lune. Retrieved from 〈http://whc.unesco.org/fr/
list/1256/〉.
United Nations (2014). World's population increasingly urban with more than half living in
urban areas. (Retrieved from) 〈http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/
population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html〉.
Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of Tourism
Research, 21(4), 844–846.
Van Aalst, I., & van Melik, R. (2012). City festivals and urban development: Does place
matter? European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2), 195–206.
Van den Berg, L., & Braun, E. (1999). Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for
organising capacity. Urban Studies, 36(5/6), 987–999.
Van der Merwe, P., Slabbert, E., & Saayman, M. (2011). Travel motivations of tourists to
selected marine destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(5),
457–467.
Wong, P. P. W., & Teoh, K. (2015). The influence of destination competitiveness on
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4),
206–212.
World Bank (2017). Urban population (% of total). Retrieved from 〈http://donnees.
banquemondiale.org/indicateur/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS〉.
M. Boivin, G.A. Tanguay
Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search.
Tourism Management, 31, 179–188.
Xiang, Z., Magnini, V. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Information technology and con-
sumer behavior in travel and tourism: Insights from travel planning using the in-
ternet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22(1), 244–249.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction
on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56.
Zehrer, A., & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of
destination competitiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2),
120–126.
79
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11 (2019) 67–79
Maryse Boivin holds a PhD in Urban Studies led in co-supervision between the University
of Québec in Montreal (UQAM) and the University of Pau and Pays de l'Adour (UPPA).
Her thesis focused on the sustainable development of cities and the attractiveness of
urban tourism. As a research professional and consultant, she is also interested by the
impacts of events on a city and by different sustainability issues as mobility, green spaces,
resource management and sustainable development skills in human resources.
Georges A. Tanguay is Full Professor in the Department of Urban and Tourism Studies at
the School of Management of the University of Québec in Montreal. He is an inter-
nationally recognized expert for his research on sustainable development indicators.