<%BANNER%>

Relationship of motivations, decision making, and satisfaction in museum visitor behavior

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110109_AAAAXI INGEST_TIME 2011-01-09T16:22:45Z PACKAGE UFE0000679_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 3688 DFID F20110109_AABTJR ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH england_b_Page_119thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d578ad07a51f209cc2649f05cd8fc9ea
SHA-1
cac5a755a769e0e1beaf53eb992fda7235c82298
2265 F20110109_AABSHE england_b_Page_063.txt
6ba8dcf66ec745dbaec5636ed6c5d063
a264da94d3fd9f08b5e95e38b6f000237b303d88
50392 F20110109_AABSGP england_b_Page_042.pro
dda36e1147446bd77e2af093ced1ec32
fb2b3f73616db1f4ddae92a2ab8c6a23debfbc9f
5386 F20110109_AABSGQ england_b_Page_004thm.jpg
d70df440f52d00fa22c67b211b77f096
9aa330cae58a5aa1ca7530bd23d17e110d082ca4
1759 F20110109_AABSHF england_b_Page_064.txt
8d656b1decea3612a892b35ae4240bfb
30fc53c682b1610d3f4c2d4231d42c0080b80107
98296 F20110109_AABSGR england_b_Page_014.jp2
df01062749df186ce01cfb56be4f6261
6c23b214fe468a305f5792cf15a1f141a5f94ca8
2199 F20110109_AABSHG england_b_Page_055.txt
25fcd658e547300140acf9b13894ab01
ef1935ad0035265534c3b1869ac9c96dfa2a0d3e
58261 F20110109_AABSGS england_b_Page_116.pro
00d76dc20abd33bbf1ac95c0378aaeaa
95d40f1703cd8698dea33db688f10ea5aca829b8
25271604 F20110109_AABSHH england_b_Page_008.tif
295493d00566c423ba2a4197e1b18251
61c17b30830bc1be9b1abb567d01dfe6b61f0c67
86057 F20110109_AABSGT england_b_Page_083.jp2
1b7fc228ad45d03c6227e569dc46dad5
21c5512db991be67f796ed4a59ba112830bafd70
2225 F20110109_AABSHI england_b_Page_115.txt
b497f12260acc2aa74dd53f9d6c499dc
1ebf2754e91c8900a43662703f4f98124e0c8d96
85863 F20110109_AABSGU england_b_Page_112.jpg
5a866aea3f96ab2eec0e9fdb51937ed6
d92fa34729d5d16fa5fc0c7d52d29486ccc2634a
1929 F20110109_AABSHJ england_b_Page_016.txt
e5e6bfdfb8660a6960fc0f717565e8bf
6cb0de1510f56e41544cf18310c2d57b0cecc963
23264 F20110109_AABSGV england_b_Page_014.QC.jpg
1525f709a0493995f01ff835328b138e
0d51d1f8642be6f498d2fe55c19b9f9342a5ab08
7200 F20110109_AABSHK england_b_Page_001.QC.jpg
55c19389bbae1fe75f0e9b7ce1d6a2ad
4ebde6cb861d897b83d9d28fa2fe57622ffa4c69
2124 F20110109_AABSGW england_b_Page_045.txt
65f08e9a7bdc34644a9f32e0ae4002d3
fd5c4921f97f205b1dc41fc70386c2a776f72d48
1899 F20110109_AABSHL england_b_Page_093.txt
34c605a61f60f07c80d9f66ab8e46c8d
0cd59720fb08b7dd479eab3dc6b9945803a8bc6a
84066 F20110109_AABSGX england_b_Page_069.jpg
13b791bc6400de833507b3b0bffe8e39
c6e8e1adf5cde730cb2796b237f89bebbcb70209
1053954 F20110109_AABSIA england_b_Page_057.tif
d7e900c9d4d2bdfee8b371b424825189
4735e1e4fa13ec08e78c0ef964e62714885886b9
24529 F20110109_AABSHM england_b_Page_016.QC.jpg
cd83ebe3a5e77a734227b387002131cd
ff93277c7e64f79a81bac6340dfea1d66e2bddb1
6127 F20110109_AABSGY england_b_Page_081thm.jpg
434e1af20d9278c023faf111354840bb
7c57fca8dec39b51cacb49f2770d7636ddfdea16
58936 F20110109_AABSIB england_b_Page_092.jpg
0d819cf1684ed22a27d9ac82ae2aee61
dbce4bbf346eeeb641a08796b3756659e14fca36
2027 F20110109_AABSHN england_b_Page_018.txt
98cc1c03a3229db195728a25a7e0a82a
45a7fe01f1f073c2b46bc175a1619851426b2530
14955 F20110109_AABSGZ england_b_Page_011.pro
c2b83e36b7458e748d1aefe23bc82005
553e8b6231c6a7bc72db42c700a70b718286d418
F20110109_AABSIC england_b_Page_086.tif
939198850444ee937f71b1a1e4e78433
0e8dabedd74132cdc602e49d76c9fecc56c128be
78148 F20110109_AABSHO england_b_Page_091.jpg
59f018b93031bd51625d9e57ecb931ed
ca51ab283495275e30ec04a5d077ba07ec69aa7d
77918 F20110109_AABSID england_b_Page_056.jpg
3c7f888ff3fc060d1fa5af2c7c7eea0e
09dc8189e88771c48e2583e9f2fa361f2290c4fc
5799 F20110109_AABSHP england_b_Page_015thm.jpg
efebfc4474163163ed3c85a1aa09af0a
37770dd5155aef713e74ad404f8296c2c1fc75c7
6030 F20110109_AABSIE england_b_Page_016thm.jpg
f9e0e4ca23ff0f288460928a3f6a2171
06ca5c2fc8bbd0c4bff8086d4d09f5aac0cf3333
110264 F20110109_AABSHQ england_b_Page_073.jp2
877c75c175864ccb2f2d2e34e44d7e21
f85d1fdb219778bc45b6683fb2b220a1f3a6940e
50372 F20110109_AABSIF england_b_Page_038.pro
69a24a93ffa98584ef10eacb7aa715d9
1f1e5e4d7179065db6b2f2598bb1e8ac32bab85c
47764 F20110109_AABSHR england_b_Page_093.pro
a680b88a9a71c68b27a666c9d0c54864
2344b485b8a8103298e03c4ed695ee322ae9233c
109818 F20110109_AABSHS england_b_Page_079.jp2
24fb00aba33387890fcde2fe9bbcd543
40305625528c97ea6097f47e9b7193badbd7b0f2
1207 F20110109_AABSIG england_b_Page_109.pro
0f05942597068c3926971775186d0703
8a4a3469bc56c5d7aebec352bde6824f71e7bf9a
F20110109_AABSHT england_b_Page_076.tif
9b9c56e79167d010f4c234c8e685fae7
c2e018f591df9bd0738ad55e302927b642df2399
114299 F20110109_AABSIH england_b_Page_045.jp2
efd4f2e0fecc5f260d3056bec53e8616
8c944659a50c0749c6c66f75ea1ae564b18550c7
85914 F20110109_AABSHU england_b_Page_043.jpg
73fdf6c411054b383b6971051e89846f
49ec718e1e9289907b09a80326f22ba27bbb68f5
6244 F20110109_AABSII england_b_Page_040thm.jpg
a6c30885ef7e6eebdef5e907f0c8ac51
8e46e2786d062ba8d3657577217c20afb0b08498
86967 F20110109_AABSHV england_b_Page_087.jpg
ee37b1525881383fdba7631002e8e8af
c78c920a94f5d3b51524d7e527f707b9e3b44021
F20110109_AABSIJ england_b_Page_084.tif
2bb5054afb4b876d6741a6b7893f5f89
5ee96bc94cc1d34eddc2406877524f9d2d69c995
25676 F20110109_AABSHW england_b_Page_038.QC.jpg
a46cde3aec1de63f3064828dfe94f7a8
e8862104318b261cb0dad286afaaf9901323e4ed
4524 F20110109_AABSIK england_b_Page_010thm.jpg
98c96f9f67d7ae23bd252aab96f839e9
5b80747c7ee557bc7102a75094d413d9060032f2
1999 F20110109_AABSHX england_b_Page_095.txt
3edca56b58588e0ce386e868d092e0e9
2645ae2ad90d5013dd9d99669c6e1724ecb46e9b
5793 F20110109_AABSJA england_b_Page_118.pro
cbd61e82a250483de8b945db03750d87
cf40c1c95cea0ea9c3869dce3ece586f0d5e1dd8
7645 F20110109_AABSIL england_b_Page_011.QC.jpg
13853e947178b1cf44f00c8ecfc03b4c
c3b48fa8b12cc0d43965f20c8d977be5eb94732b
F20110109_AABSHY england_b_Page_113.tif
d42808d1d536b695e5bb65cdb41c1cf7
e8f08e1574ef1c8c94ca2833737ffe4edd25a207
2092 F20110109_AABSJB england_b_Page_039.txt
46d7637f8d2d2c70c1c33299c63a3d8d
b80a1b12749b11aed04ae573716e8133c7fafb7a
34624 F20110109_AABSIM england_b_Page_062.pro
a540b8e06f0f40ff907d3f85858d5d91
e64217c0514de120955c95fc40655cc60d0a21b4
102003 F20110109_AABSHZ england_b_Page_015.jp2
9bb8a1bdd0674f2bd7fb939320d0f418
270f685594145b7f621acf31d6fd784fc013ee54
1984 F20110109_AABSJC england_b_Page_068.txt
aea985788bff19ab691903a46158f072
172755e6fd99d56de4702a13c0fa90544502d05a
1521 F20110109_AABSIN england_b_Page_002.QC.jpg
241e39a59d7d76975624c562a2f3b167
f9c2edc6f16b64d9c82711b70d8a2f9d4e9bdda2
83261 F20110109_AABSJD england_b_Page_041.jpg
0b7a410a53609789d6f2d03cde4aac71
f626d137895686307125d00420fc9b2adf1dd5b7
F20110109_AABSIO england_b_Page_036.tif
ec51d101514e923c9322220a3f05f908
068b1cf9ac2bcddb7b73b46fa9917a5f9a6931b1
89439 F20110109_AABSJE england_b_Page_022.jp2
8d447e0a9aad36f356142ff924afa8f2
c6ad3394cabb1714d3124bdf09b4eef4fbd0b129
25860 F20110109_AABSIP england_b_Page_085.QC.jpg
f00c25ca5feadacefdd6e357bb27d5d8
0584c521e300a0149cfc50fdd469001f50f9c028
51113 F20110109_AABSJF england_b_Page_035.pro
50d03f06e28b14a931269620661e19f8
91148b47a126dbaffd3b5c1d5b4952dc1ce492c9
86418 F20110109_AABSIQ england_b_Page_036.jpg
200460dea6b62c289dfd1693e0b01028
7a1209d866952af9c247dfc021f125ba419f9a54
40122 F20110109_AABSJG england_b_Page_083.pro
686b1cfbc417e0af17ea59db70faf36d
63f190043ba89001b62011b7b977b7763f04e8a8
59201 F20110109_AABSIR england_b_Page_067.pro
a9464645fa443c31f0a87eb24866a6d6
28c78ea53cd5522ccb086cb7cac8f10999d4ddc1
20436 F20110109_AABSIS england_b_Page_090.QC.jpg
2ed54b4d00d4bc7d9c508dfc9d141126
7a23ec0fab52a7110e8e730adf189f0185f2e4e6
551 F20110109_AABSJH england_b_Page_002thm.jpg
c9944f682c8aabef8a8d62d2ef7a01c1
9b2e4859c40a19e3da3bb3a268922c758ca6b589
26279 F20110109_AABSIT england_b_Page_095.QC.jpg
3b58a06b82e9291006d4baee16ebb4df
54c27f66cd532fad2d9f5b1f370f1ec3262407f7
6097 F20110109_AABSJI england_b_Page_030thm.jpg
67447ef509c7c2f4bbebe3cf3c4ddddf
74ca1e001d17ea960a9cccff0de7d32832882116
6693 F20110109_AABSIU england_b_Page_106thm.jpg
1b029fa9c5347278b39e4b09a1a7507c
943a0e10424461d10913b0889f57fae6249d8336
2084 F20110109_AABSJJ england_b_Page_071.txt
6de63a9d2269e76e0abc8b700b6365a6
ec177d46455626fc4278e450a61921143df6c759
470 F20110109_AABSIV england_b_Page_109thm.jpg
7c17ceeeda7acf547db84b2f483c684f
050c719337c470db0701b8524900f0db1825f8f8
6099 F20110109_AABSJK england_b_Page_056thm.jpg
a8ec89f8fd5032134590046a1b776b29
27f8d488882f6d1367449065874adb42b6e335ae
84383 F20110109_AABSIW england_b_Page_052.jpg
2deaa644a007e29a8726bc85972c4e20
e6043649bc3afab14f1bf54de3b107704f9fdf05
80076 F20110109_AABSKA england_b_Page_029.jpg
81b801b994b0e393476f7799f7dcb673
9868de1c0db74c5c03c8c47920cec137e142a241
6146 F20110109_AABSJL england_b_Page_039thm.jpg
7c7e11465b44b9668c0e0f9dc6ff1c3b
1e3fa77f7feb0ae5aa10ac823bbb7a90414c9fa5
87524 F20110109_AABSIX england_b_Page_034.jpg
b65e9fabad3a8c05636765ad0e0670fe
898df2ddbd2f93d50e57e225f4fbf58cc6316512
26970 F20110109_AABSJM england_b_Page_036.QC.jpg
6a37e6660ebba8dafacc15340b0d1374
1348369ae922bceb98fac9dc742c6761724edb6f
581 F20110109_AABSIY england_b_Page_005.txt
0b4cf7879776adfb66695dfd720990f7
6fd44110e8ada32dad6f1c53eff697143c64170b
47579 F20110109_AABSKB england_b_Page_100.pro
d8314570c5805d6d230c747e2740f175
94a1fba07adbcf7c1a6ca6cd98971a9d683afc25
64573 F20110109_AABSJN england_b_Page_090.jpg
028a7fb6effd840de2ad62f7b95d050b
ae6dc6d148f148486f3e61f341fce7d903c2dfa7
25791 F20110109_AABSIZ england_b_Page_044.QC.jpg
aa81bf6fc889fb893a9471da8f0b8f12
784d56d8590b9ee0371d349a79607054fb802f18
50301 F20110109_AABSKC england_b_Page_028.pro
dc97d0915a5fbdbd60ebf2fc61be75d1
8596c5601921aa9d9f3cd20deb5dc0ca0cee5c0b
52669 F20110109_AABSJO england_b_Page_047.pro
c0baa24a171635c29496321ccecfd0fb
0964d62ccc9901c3651c89c6fb63c8458428a598
24181 F20110109_AABSKD england_b_Page_113.QC.jpg
0caaa9c6de0183730e7c6f633623c5db
c4da9e8ddbf469c6e219001a07c010168a03284f
52480 F20110109_AABSJP england_b_Page_009.pro
5180b45646b57fcbb230ee198c2bf741
0fa46c773c064789d5a2c3eb1852a9d55ae58883
F20110109_AABSKE england_b_Page_081.tif
5b820baf1e407bb984d70f8a2f672ef9
a33c8c12f57b5549ddea36ad90467dfaa6f9526b
77258 F20110109_AABSJQ england_b_Page_062.jp2
f331721630b1c64913e4337bee9ad104
1ac3291339c7765689342ca92b40a035a34383ea
F20110109_AABSKF england_b_Page_116.tif
31d62028e1db622f42d1b7b3d5bf1e15
cc5323f977d1be658f07743c406f23d089eeac75
51045 F20110109_AABSJR england_b_Page_050.pro
ff4a895e012d4fc78269e77d54417605
55c14fe3c23c2b71e6cc95ba2f75bcd3ec71a750
915 F20110109_AABSKG england_b_Page_089.txt
1b71ad9bb09afb9245aad839d59c7faf
5b5096240b0bb366545b936507418cb3f4e2e7ac
95362 F20110109_AABSJS england_b_Page_088.jp2
ef6e140bf767593439dcc48eb6c9a58c
47e4e81ed026b0f228bbbac121ff821289cfe892
91389 F20110109_AABSKH england_b_Page_013.jp2
075a04b226655af0d50f8c52219af34e
e0214dffd201f7f7c3473af2e7497b2a52f5c2d0
F20110109_AABSJT england_b_Page_089.tif
026acc3bdeb0a459c27e8deeebeb7778
51b1f80a7b57cd80d12f9ce59406573a670a5689
2683 F20110109_AABSJU england_b_Page_067.txt
d2a19383da14c5d2c9dca2cff75f9c40
987dfbcb7ac50904302b24bb1b33f53fb9510420
F20110109_AABSKI england_b_Page_064.tif
2a195b853971ec3c5482561e4b15f991
790c062ff661929ece6b325ac2d3dc3fe8173ab1
70234 F20110109_AABSJV england_b_Page_013.jpg
bef015b9a78f4b28636d3473db6f474e
2c5025f14274f2292e61c74f27bb710eb11f7bfb
58632 F20110109_AABSKJ england_b_Page_062.jpg
ed4a6f71c0849ac0e40344b09db8d0aa
e9acc77683dba7089a731e76db5b603ca9cc4056
86402 F20110109_AABSJW england_b_Page_059.jpg
22958ceb03fc698851473d4a37a231a5
6db8496134a2cafe223aef62759be8971b8ccb85
60485 F20110109_AABSKK england_b_Page_098.jpg
aaeafb9100350c58fff77bb622b8178d
3b5fd3247ef5004f6141312a3cccbc535495c6e3
27434 F20110109_AABSJX england_b_Page_005.jpg
ef3d75bf138707ed4b19798a46901874
dbcc77914a050903f98544731299ea6bb56396c9
1051972 F20110109_AABSLA england_b_Page_009.jp2
b002b88f10c341f045913ebc33a1e34d
a00756c6454f038c068e04292b32a482e1aa7e27
F20110109_AABSKL england_b_Page_051.tif
9249229258f07616989f8fc30f0496b7
0e308def897f03267f25721ebfb4016537e807dc
50720 F20110109_AABSJY england_b_Page_095.pro
bcb2eb40efca676d85c44e9210ff074d
0e643677613382d84658db994be2eb238c9f0fd1
2014 F20110109_AABSLB england_b_Page_050.txt
dbbdcfb8b8f60e572edd87dfaa73fb61
434b43d77d4ce6a54e1c816e4ef91bf2bcc00171
49286 F20110109_AABSKM england_b_Page_110.jpg
97cddba851432240234aa3de2093ba83
1ed5d21a4064ef8d1bba0977fa2fdc5939ae8024
102642 F20110109_AABSJZ england_b_Page_007.pro
db3d2c237cf040903830b700bcce09d6
8a86be36b59d0000133d2935c2f4e6dea08b4396
89804 F20110109_AABSLC england_b_Page_066.jp2
e86ec363f36f32ba7e89189faeb2b9c5
ebb5731c2f8edee1c6163b4cf9cccb855750cf25
F20110109_AABSKN england_b_Page_013.tif
5f3f50e5975d5ea209fbd19de8a27813
f4a1625f1fa6a4efd6fc523bf1b85801763c4749
75736 F20110109_AABSLD england_b_Page_106.pro
5e6d43a00bc8eaa6104227a0f3775620
ccab152466d77176ace982be1b6412e667f3692e
1945 F20110109_AABSKO england_b_Page_029.txt
bdb4d4417c8672bee6b5d6d92abc8cc0
145f2400fc5b8d6ed65f4091de52dcd884f77587
1879 F20110109_AABSLE england_b_Page_026.txt
95e194591a93d78877461ee199b402ee
5539e81dabbc4047e309617f8a85ee68a62706be
52050 F20110109_AABSKP england_b_Page_033.pro
144c0f1d49f17f5bc816e5bc4e5b6048
9d059bc8a750e56c4f484493a761f793e9134a5e
26645 F20110109_AABSLF england_b_Page_043.QC.jpg
3b9cc1814171e516a47181743bc40a44
46c4716f0e4202ddc610bbaadd5927592829a256
21267 F20110109_AABSKQ england_b_Page_022.QC.jpg
2717137b126f9972466e27351177a8cf
2325c51a233bfe2f00d9d397f1b925feea690cd2
6324 F20110109_AABSLG england_b_Page_085thm.jpg
642828bcbc4a758fdd38ba8a1fc0b524
298034e88d017db7aeb77b53eb5613c125ceb89c
4742 F20110109_AABSKR england_b_Page_109.jpg
6bd2fa627f012d3dec825429a1b3dba0
3731bfbfa987ee620e6c0149614ebbcfc5075836
128734 F20110109_AABSLH england_b_Page_117.jp2
73e76c8f236bfc2b29afbd647eedece5
aec1c4b83fba5ab04da4b14f66e945ccbe681d50
802 F20110109_AABSKS england_b_Page_097.txt
431b165a9bbc7b8f896dc0585e55d178
66dc6db858246432fb6d1a2c361bfde16525b55e
97244 F20110109_AABSLI england_b_Page_082.jp2
3db20bc3ce07ec45094eb3b722f992d8
35f060edf63c95ef44c1486935d31f2597b8c8e6
8423998 F20110109_AABSKT england_b_Page_105.tif
e3a7dee15f30096c5f09b17f1ac0acb9
c3d683b83d0188bd58f3537e0bc54ab524345eab
82194 F20110109_AABSKU england_b_Page_030.jpg
bbdb93fd5c11df397712ff7021e2e554
bac5aae1f98fa218cf51be5ec4424708c96da5d2
52590 F20110109_AABSLJ england_b_Page_039.pro
14952bf1aacf4a8dba05fca40ae05226
36cc47ea86eba09c087b0abd9b8bbdd887c380f6
27181 F20110109_AABSKV england_b_Page_072.QC.jpg
70a03672f151f9a1f400e3bc9716d491
f1c88dfead2c668fda8a6c988a50e20a215b135a
6260 F20110109_AABSLK england_b_Page_052thm.jpg
7908fd6bdc93f3c8d9bf89b947cf9feb
bb57a443042ec7a28305b66f3dd8eb0b1067ca65
1915 F20110109_AABSKW england_b_Page_037.txt
b5c00dfbefeafcdf124ab74b3d9d3655
1f662c7cb0f4967dbdb292a0b5bbf57a9c94f991
111919 F20110109_AABSMA england_b_Page_107.jpg
f50963439b9e7218139e12c7e156d835
ebd7a6dc675427ec487d3a103746bef5ba971038
F20110109_AABSLL england_b_Page_004.tif
d53f60b58f306e318a3eef0415900cd3
1753611440c217bd315ef3c93c318f3a341dea2c
59980 F20110109_AABSKX england_b_Page_117.pro
abc580f347a5af34ea5e93719d9f682c
2bc5b6c2eb17a43d6bf915a24192d86107063894
F20110109_AABSMB england_b_Page_043.tif
1e8b121fc372ba89a3c3675ffdb98ff2
8a17c9f01ffbb1a5c5ed9e49ba7d49d919414a37
25705 F20110109_AABSLM england_b_Page_041.QC.jpg
4de689c8088e3d4193c56b227598de03
19302aa2de54edd1a047299e65f93a309c80fb08
24845 F20110109_AABSKY england_b_Page_029.QC.jpg
2f306b177e6a0fc8328b7335fe3a910a
5ab22db02beddd09f2cb1159004de5e77a86493d
82864 F20110109_AABSMC england_b_Page_028.jpg
79bfa7beffd12a3910bf647cdec5e2fd
1b862a18e3a74c55bcf8aab2ec718e07a7108716
111318 F20110109_AABSLN england_b_Page_043.jp2
2456d99679ae69358546abe1c7ec5d37
eca991365c67e98299b7e3e4dac0b6aa486d82bb
30901 F20110109_AABSKZ england_b_Page_107.QC.jpg
ed1668b7cc3cb6f6539b60d44480d4d7
b843c7aa8d2ab70f53bc1ad39f5b98d44aac3835
102519 F20110109_AABSMD england_b_Page_069.jp2
180b376a3479f01077e9434f240ff0e3
6ad1df6154b25799a86fa5662144d1147c3b7c04
118175 F20110109_AABSLO england_b_Page_007.jpg
7576aa1314b144a99a95afcb4cd3e477
022ca8a719d1ebaf4b31c50cd8c536b5677615ad
F20110109_AABSME england_b_Page_087.tif
a23e3701617cb1a5539f9640fa3c8877
4825d141b97e5d97f6bbf549167856175ba784f8
2722 F20110109_AABSLP england_b_Page_103thm.jpg
f7b6ef31a954edb410b99d13cd59b6d0
05c0add83e4a2e2c7fbc36f6ff037811f2c978a2
40910 F20110109_AABSMF england_b_Page_022.pro
aca4e2a46127a25091a34cf449f8a99e
119b507450361288d080d188119d3ee22f4b9077
51368 F20110109_AABSLQ england_b_Page_041.pro
40833b1111289a8b15b4ad6cd641db6c
e5dbdbe82ec257aad504da4f1dd5de0d43dfad53
F20110109_AABSMG england_b_Page_077.txt
b0e5792d7afa05f146c333fb37d65b1e
ab5f428669217f62f77f2ff1773c1dfdbfe5f7b8
F20110109_AABSLR england_b_Page_059.tif
f29cc094316ae32996ef7380917f7893
4d7e5ef0fbcb78f00a7a79a24d5224b8693c598c
94292 F20110109_AABSMH england_b_Page_084.jp2
80dc5c6ccddf006e6f2899ad70efcb30
9eb4c3790709201dcfd9fbeee43148fe974e3179
48159 F20110109_AABSLS england_b_Page_063.jpg
feb0916b3a6215591f14a4c846050d54
82e49e7ca689fb07fb5e7052e6cdaf8e952ed752
5790 F20110109_AABSMI england_b_Page_101thm.jpg
2aabf8600f91e1956206c5fc50df45b5
8c5f4726744a1f3e1670066055b7d0f41283d96d
F20110109_AABSLT england_b_Page_119.tif
a53295feae5d270f953200fdbfb3200a
3a9b392b7d41d4b6958ff2c5823cab434683358c
16282 F20110109_AABSMJ england_b_Page_108.QC.jpg
8555548ea8bd3eaff3f8e96c79d9234a
a57f19707d6df65a9dc6f92eb82fd3d645889ab8
110376 F20110109_AABSLU england_b_Page_050.jp2
f4de940fce9930e77977e549f77ce0dd
8bd919607ef9724561f0dc7889642d9dd486fd77
F20110109_AABSLV england_b_Page_108.tif
b71bb32c99e7fa1a9add49a56e46eb5f
17ad995af2fd1ee02540bcbbcbd8eb78255ff8d2
82771 F20110109_AABSMK england_b_Page_050.jpg
37baaaed2ef35dc0999e8df6b178f5ff
56e65c8f14100e5cac66e61698ff334cb12829a6
84433 F20110109_AABSLW england_b_Page_031.jpg
3afaf9f7cd012bae4f071477db52660c
909c18efe0f2c95c804b26907015431dc84504e4
26099 F20110109_AABSML england_b_Page_079.QC.jpg
1e807019d4f5dd648b4d0c8351493d98
431a3439f2ded34e02cb121fe2d159a248d4b73c
28648 F20110109_AABSLX england_b_Page_061.jpg
19a6f867b40e9ad1cbf53842d4acda1b
f211f453c5694fff138cc7f106ef0c7dc55cfc42
24601 F20110109_AABSNA england_b_Page_037.QC.jpg
42f833552494ad87693bf1d091770e1c
e932ed76284edbde2ac161378ee46011617630b1
97852 F20110109_AABSMM england_b_Page_055.jp2
2beb18763f3f8cb23f4c364e2c6778f1
39f7b72c3650947bb4f6a04a5ae9163dbad608f0
27722 F20110109_AABSLY england_b_Page_092.pro
c6c48f50ff90949d7c2e644f7870d459
541337ce66d7b947865bdd6b7a8b345247277019
123141 F20110109_AABSNB england_b_Page_115.jp2
c4946941fe8c6b7afbc783cf23b8d0a3
f7d8d8b8df04c468c1f00d152f5847c09033e530
25634 F20110109_AABSMN england_b_Page_042.QC.jpg
94e3a9270aee55e2fe1e55bf0a7e56d0
210e4f2bb7897d175044a0e9fc05090c4b07afb3
103129 F20110109_AABSLZ england_b_Page_100.jp2
b33eae98b0226ca7dc863e59ed225ee3
dc777178ad9fce4f7e88b429c29c14bc43241253
84034 F20110109_AABSNC england_b_Page_025.jpg
71d008162971f657babc9e6f90d03fc4
ced86c9832668b5b35b6105247f49689332c4298
59814 F20110109_AABSMO england_b_Page_075.pro
88d172575e3abd8e46cba8ebedd6625e
449b08b32d5f519b093443649bba3112acc3eb13
5058 F20110109_AABSND england_b_Page_098thm.jpg
8e0d83bb8cfafb0418d8b4e67e0de487
06dad2e91e919fe985fa470a6e8e7f2d2f81cd1b
F20110109_AABSMP england_b_Page_079.tif
ef34a76ab021c2b4dbcc4a0aa638a65b
a8a14c78a78ef11809eec6ed9ae21563998d7d29
22530 F20110109_AABSNE england_b_Page_082.QC.jpg
a04795fe3e9e10224cae86e107ff22bd
f929861a5a168d260d8755ed9332684364ab942c
85984 F20110109_AABSMQ england_b_Page_095.jpg
5b02754af5734ae91280f0d66f3dd027
24f8d251e3ded73f227585b996b168f7557fe5df
40746 F20110109_AABSNF england_b_Page_057.pro
5185a1dfec4574b1b098929f50253d56
d3f0f88cc8a0c611f621a096e8c9551582d44d09
105963 F20110109_AABSMR england_b_Page_102.jp2
a0c6530def33c8b74d6208a80c21ba4f
db5551442d52b6d61819446be4256dce00022ec1
F20110109_AABSNG england_b_Page_002.tif
a9dd73d423b6a8a091c494768698449e
d438c434861c9b51481504252446a7eb969c0e11
636 F20110109_AABSMS england_b_Page_011.txt
b6eb625e25ba4f02d2870c74c0cff8d7
d2c3fbec5ef2f71a347885221e69e4a7fe51200f
50827 F20110109_AABSNH england_b_Page_040.pro
741d4fb7c95ac9ae3eaafdd12ced9a36
9fb478101f1b22783227c601c4c5bd9c45856f1f
44084 F20110109_AABSMT england_b_Page_064.pro
eccc54d6c8bae51196637fbfe8dd452c
e929bfd2f8ba078a530cf04a8fdc4f0bbdb98b41
24126 F20110109_AABSNI england_b_Page_084.QC.jpg
fbdcc2de64d675a69276770b61db7c73
d598e9e22679b42120ef801eb5b834b36534b645
F20110109_AABSMU england_b_Page_056.tif
7ac84cb170146f9f4913b9fd65b08cba
f76abe02ea70b9f09d6ec866ce1a9647efd703b4
F20110109_AABSNJ england_b_Page_092.tif
be33999ef92ac4750b095030f2e02a09
25e9a5877d9e763353121a43e0132624fc8abd0c
53985 F20110109_AABSMV england_b_Page_074.pro
a7f001628013e612e646e5e16245360d
9dbfacbae9c32bcd19bca65fa9bfbd0fefe2b2b1
26114 F20110109_AABSNK england_b_Page_001.jp2
ab699ef0cd00a538485d45d63c829cf7
c48d62bffe6aac401047b28d1760e7aee2a890ef
2101 F20110109_AABSMW england_b_Page_036.txt
b74e23ef9a62b1f697cc5e55a8536475
4dbba7155e9183d4fa0d880601490c27420085fc
22753 F20110109_AABSMX england_b_Page_058.QC.jpg
5eefc244966f1f20b000fec5ad5b4f3c
84b72f9139389256e539e752a38e25f42cd7bf31
F20110109_AABSOA england_b_Page_082.tif
d4f9a4edd5de227cfe02973ea8566d7e
d759e279d9288f81dcc3b9fc1aac5de3f0cbcfdd
1554 F20110109_AABSNL england_b_Page_012.txt
c21b715134b574a937ac3616af13870c
0cf88603b602006648f6687e3528b8322d285757
F20110109_AABSMY england_b_Page_066.tif
234a6c7117d7fce66f22a00185d94f20
720701a20271bd95256dc3c00ffcf003412e53bf
6434 F20110109_AABSOB england_b_Page_048thm.jpg
10312abf7a482daa4a1216eb1dd71447
192a3440d630dd65aabc14c9f5efba8587b9d483
43130 F20110109_AABSNM england_b_Page_103.jp2
d707fbe54993b9916088d3c149a4a4c2
b0b83c38316223a3cacb0345dedba70952506fbd
50318 F20110109_AABSOC england_b_Page_087.pro
995f252a3e9b1a90f2f7a591dad4f3c4
7895ef09c3afa540de663ca90cdfa8679fb345ff
103192 F20110109_AABSNN england_b_Page_071.jp2
da907e7af46caca39dcf93eee0e14c14
9c0041780398bdb5e7ad01c1aeb2c76ab229e73e
6285 F20110109_AABSMZ england_b_Page_041thm.jpg
dd7095942b13a8270f2628948c5bc7a7
e738847bd816f7be1135eac58fe2368e98702034
6268 F20110109_AABSOD england_b_Page_047thm.jpg
63a2cc2bc37e17bd25e22a1a90370100
4c2204813c18b71d7963080007ec51dae9587eb1
2061 F20110109_AABSNO england_b_Page_049.txt
8b39977a0727753616002946cff74f4d
d06e4f43bf30d96566697f380401881fd4ff29b6
40270 F20110109_AABSOE england_b_Page_096.pro
dbc0351fb88911174959914931a8b15d
c12c1ce5ebdce4f78d67d649c25f946a7999c686
1650 F20110109_AABSNP england_b_Page_010.txt
0dcc17fdc68147ccd8eabbc50d7486b4
b9e8914baaf71e9bd5e19175f547204caa0d677e
F20110109_AABSOF england_b_Page_102.tif
1e1cac73d96ffbea677d360301298edb
a505534897bf0c86fccf4139d19f6762c71e0833
1051965 F20110109_AABSNQ england_b_Page_007.jp2
d5d4bfb12547190a74a5614633eb050c
08d0d7c9091d3a5b59390af96af1de4fa4629a17
1966 F20110109_AABSOG england_b_Page_044.txt
a5de1b5673ef0ebfad1b7e86d3f347a9
2918a7111187bb5d9b63cd81c6e7bfbed7125462
957 F20110109_AABSNR england_b_Page_003thm.jpg
83da7ae2f0540cfe7bd56acf3855e74d
4102d0ee73138527a8a06958c5d0a4e376b377b3
23998 F20110109_AABSOH england_b_Page_080.QC.jpg
c121ba2d4c47a8a1091e67d800699582
b3bb06abae29da1bdfdb307ba75c082a4e69cd9d
F20110109_AABSNS england_b_Page_078.tif
f8d8cf6405c278ec35abc01f35aa0e25
975180c9706ed8e295a90a028ab910dec4e56705
2673 F20110109_AABSOI england_b_Page_073.txt
31239c22c9ffaada4e1c2023f086f050
6aedc8aa25761f144042eef2dbda4084ee731c0c
108503 F20110109_AABSNT england_b_Page_042.jp2
5192ff52be4cdbd4a372d82fc02f157f
6ec892159fb6e89db5043047781de6ad7dfb6c77
F20110109_AABSOJ england_b_Page_003.tif
348308e55caeb089b9f9c0dc2ef76ef5
cd159e0ea6cef87ea44bb5e4c0b8cadb2e293fab
105739 F20110109_AABSNU england_b_Page_016.jp2
5c2317f32ca79a6445258aeeb9be810c
06c1b207b759eaa8142e914cdf79ed4ebcaa7ede
54044 F20110109_AABSOK england_b_Page_045.pro
dc995728c651753250aaa7470af32d1b
bda43383a16bc24b2cc8945258f7c5b9933dbdd4
107617 F20110109_AABSNV england_b_Page_030.jp2
fff0d3161d587128758188131a6a4906
a50fa9f639d2ea35ac3d43d8bd18772bed710caa
110771 F20110109_AABSOL england_b_Page_072.jp2
5b7a0e5c3fddfe962a9a659e89dcda21
2d43c59e26accb4a5d92cae3e987332e04510a16
24884 F20110109_AABSNW england_b_Page_032.QC.jpg
19a3ec891116380824d7940468264d2a
87bf47c4eaea2744a80d5f8456bdf7403e1f2713
81079 F20110109_AABSNX england_b_Page_006.pro
7c95dbe05d8944741c8fb142157cacea
3b0527ba0773dd08e2844778de27a896b7dadf45
21890 F20110109_AABSPA england_b_Page_099.QC.jpg
56e192c2b4ddf9dff9bcc6d2d67b731d
950b1a4f19a5d01a1f51b9bfb24e52ecbae58e44
1051885 F20110109_AABSOM england_b_Page_111.jp2
c6b0c568d559b69a8c5c84251f3ef67a
229acca5d8f93f443e64e1ea81664c4ed23b0396
928 F20110109_AABSNY england_b_Page_023.txt
6a2475078bef6bc752475211c112a919
9d8654075e1f60585124343c0c7418e9055223bf
6252 F20110109_AABSPB england_b_Page_034thm.jpg
36cc8c2ebaa8716dfadcc9918d3f7ec2
1be8293b92f75253da3a007bcbbe70c02e64f3dd
1996 F20110109_AABSON england_b_Page_030.txt
b7d5aa028339ca532a4254e101918de7
0b3804cb5e0f435c5e467a2bd9e2226525c2cd2e
45943 F20110109_AABSNZ england_b_Page_055.pro
c6f047d798d607a97339abbacf79c81d
e9e9ddbb929f2c4065dc032afadfa90031566d3d
48065 F20110109_AABSPC england_b_Page_017.pro
2e5ed07427531ada257268b18d669892
f3f5112809d8f5c8d53840ceb9be9617081131b2
F20110109_AABSOO england_b_Page_114.tif
ab8edeecd94663d2c7689471a123f379
e9e198c57bfe232f69aecb7458b50567fb8f0aea
3335 F20110109_AABSPD england_b_Page_006.txt
42f01acaf6a3cab5260215d3bc449235
a2c491d4acc1505e0d03ca50ff553199b55d31ac
1783 F20110109_AABSOP england_b_Page_110.txt
1be9235fe4be1293459ce0cb4a695667
657b559470669279946697e91c5da769faccf357
F20110109_AABSPE england_b_Page_032.tif
25aa8aa11dc3b13c4e21d0cdc16ed218
9d32b43653227eafbc9857fdeccc8532fc3c7561
F20110109_AABSOQ england_b_Page_009.tif
e167172b7a7901e9ab9d5d1b797729e0
a138f28f2e43a52f7e44aa7546cd59404195b143
F20110109_AABSPF england_b_Page_030.tif
e0122008fc3dd1561afc9d066d0fa231
d60efa14fbe775e69c34898b6b8d37b16986ce4b
81764 F20110109_AABSOR england_b_Page_085.jpg
c4ea4b8e94c1adb9ba905179d083dbe4
5ae8bf9c643b1e9d4b5e9a3366873dfdf0111898
6280 F20110109_AABSPG england_b_Page_115thm.jpg
388d86278ca3d6b4e1e00e8c22c2dc28
1120f5f21bc2ef288f5f71d2efb629eadb582614
109056 F20110109_AABSOS england_b_Page_027.jp2
b8a1ef1dae8bcd41bccaf070a0712677
a0c590b57e22fa05ce9ffb35984c216c2064a26d
2080 F20110109_AABSPH england_b_Page_048.txt
57d7b4187588b256a32c5ddd8b470e91
26bd6fb76c87a910d5e7bbe7ea8443872656ff88
F20110109_AABSOT england_b_Page_101.tif
45e2cb4ef6ab4c8f3880f8c4752dc253
86e699e6c2abc35d9ed4074c585a2373f83a1f39
121 F20110109_AABSPI england_b_Page_002.txt
3b896fdf66f1311e5e1401a1cee6181d
323e12510d535dd59b4a03f8847f57916f2534c8
24304 F20110109_AABSOU england_b_Page_017.QC.jpg
d05ce7dd6f8a959ebe978d46eaed92b6
4d0d53062415301a67399b1f78cb244c13feea09
118733 F20110109_AABSPJ england_b_Page_078.jp2
c8e5f2b88306cece3476b954e89c260e
0d0bf8acccac611353453783634226d4280bc49d
81449 F20110109_AABSOV england_b_Page_060.jpg
e2444de4199574bfeed5627eabcc4e5c
74e0adcd087b37bcb92bd6eee0f0412e8b3d56f8
1614 F20110109_AABSPK england_b_Page_096.txt
ca3aa6751d6f92e530fe2edf4dd43a7f
74a2018b6ff2dc54c4beaf603729962e6f7ff766
5983 F20110109_AABSOW england_b_Page_102thm.jpg
648841fa1a2f5021fda174a4f941cb46
8772eb6f314f8ab5d66ea9e6d33f6aae9739d2f9
6337 F20110109_AABSPL england_b_Page_071thm.jpg
5b6863fa520535c6e132975afbe6ca94
2703b25e48ba57c7fdd9d2d079849aee966ab2ad
26287 F20110109_AABSOX england_b_Page_035.QC.jpg
005278d82db1dbf626c63c1bed00d9d8
394aa4c94cd4d655a8d9e12c3689858fe97d564d
F20110109_AABSQA england_b_Page_098.tif
2c3fa1867c49114bdb0715c786e5a923
2f2e49e3472c5064f5d87cfdd0ee8c5451019fe1
F20110109_AABSPM england_b_Page_099.tif
146cffbc5677f71a504f5a67f0dfe1df
632d559393d6e8a95e4a222e5fce3dd09af47418
824249 F20110109_AABSOY england_b_Page_104.jp2
8b3cffe58ea9c596fc35e4bd4fb8f814
82d8dff192797d010307e8bbb7a0b9c8acc7afbb
3622 F20110109_AABSQB england_b_Page_006thm.jpg
e650b22295c397db1d21a3a7f83c492b
d936e238367513d9e1d1dc2dc376fc46034ca310
98354 F20110109_AABSOZ england_b_Page_075.jpg
6e821d1045b478c10393cf10a5282f79
f88999dabc4ff50c80084243fd0b28b3da153829
6605 F20110109_AABSQC england_b_Page_073thm.jpg
538da90573f75dd417e28b6d4fb37c22
a8275dfb451e93ac563203d69b065aba993a9e45
25896 F20110109_AABSPN england_b_Page_115.QC.jpg
395899b185d961e4e3b7826a83ed877d
66f68bd2e49415dfe9cd0a7edbe40178dc5072d5
106004 F20110109_AABSQD england_b_Page_029.jp2
caa793e45a843a05043c9942e33c792b
ffba11759fefd10c1ac5ea6d93832284e2f161b3
2040 F20110109_AABSPO england_b_Page_108.txt
762aba2da1eca3cbc06228cb9d702dd9
1b9822d2c63c87e51328862e0850cc8f26a5727f
76324 F20110109_AABSQE england_b_Page_055.jpg
6b8cf95ad53e3d8aaa89b096fefd8f34
8b4e0feecaec0073d798502fe3693ad571cfd363
25735 F20110109_AABSPP england_b_Page_119.pro
44425ef5906a6f93ecff8933a227b55e
3354717b40be1ce496483b4f5867662d2f07556f
80283 F20110109_AABSQF england_b_Page_037.jpg
1823a2bdfe3b358fa05476957c32542e
82ba4c76bbe35eb88740d02a849a23cb5d5a754f
25662 F20110109_AABSPQ england_b_Page_086.QC.jpg
f7d1f2c511ff10a2244332c3402b9d87
f3ab9b623365e4c170fac4a3cd7e94d9ba041a38
F20110109_AABSQG england_b_Page_035.tif
c8a4ae24885527cfc0d5b3430027ee48
cf3f1bf9f9104abd6d4020c78fe57ac63e11eb1f
80851 F20110109_AABSPR england_b_Page_026.jpg
eb05017c0fbd5d99e635b1394f0ca3d8
371e50430459f7ba8c96dbec42fa7ce959aaead9
1725 F20110109_AABSQH england_b_Page_022.txt
61e72590ceba79e5f82aea08eac8bbc0
cda65e16b53a2552eb81dd6cff30a0942985d83a
76923 F20110109_AABSPS england_b_Page_088.jpg
ffe2fe719b35968e9e1857e2702b1602
a59eded2c9f28c2e663e13dc61038b38533b9aab
F20110109_AABSQI england_b_Page_052.tif
ba22dbbd6325076c09c09b4b5ed97e28
4bbe88fc55edb36158825c86a0c15088634844d3
96785 F20110109_AABSPT england_b_Page_056.jp2
322ea9f696949fbf8253c05280845d55
555be57abeaf1f687064dbefe17f46cb9419ff70
5699 F20110109_AABSQJ england_b_Page_064thm.jpg
5fd59da5a3ed1adc790f1d69cc336829
5a2eeb09e61732964d515a61aa494a4fb5431ab3
15063 F20110109_AABSPU england_b_Page_104.QC.jpg
29955bd36fba1f19bc793c127d5d5805
5c0dc807912b58c2d2941ca405bec82d24f4ea43
90302 F20110109_AABSQK england_b_Page_074.jpg
f7954a0cc1a7013b618f398c641f0e37
751889caee406f3877657e97a064a2cc64133dbc
110448 F20110109_AABSPV england_b_Page_040.jp2
041d83000b50a250433c39faf810b051
b20d534c2b37867e0d0e15f198e1165aae5087f3
41073 F20110109_AABSQL england_b_Page_063.pro
44b062c7c20ff1d42bfb7b9017813724
02d1741ca7da88d26513b20b91b60d477edf5f4c
4408 F20110109_AABSPW england_b_Page_104thm.jpg
05338032b05ba75f951475132aa7265b
b26253ec45afcea7d31399cd56bc18eb8d5728ef
44184 F20110109_AABSRA england_b_Page_088.pro
956fd6c054b224287307b896201f981f
a663e6136b9f90a3608efa9f098c366aa689078a
2520 F20110109_AABSQM england_b_Page_078.txt
7efbe67230816c2a310f627a696861be
ad1f80fa4b4aa1d4b11319e6673bbf5729befc7c
103642 F20110109_AABSPX england_b_Page_017.jp2
71e97c60a6ba50181154bc5d724b5ee4
ac1d258798db4582e186c1a66b68500b71c7da35
5917 F20110109_AABSRB england_b_Page_088thm.jpg
8c3c31b60f2e368a678f674c1af280b6
e0857cd0c2776fbab13170e5644f8de525d9e39a
21664 F20110109_AABSQN england_b_Page_089.pro
7fa3eb265ceeaf8752939d542b8789fb
bd3cbc3efdb3acf8f1514a1ec137180219289402
F20110109_AABSPY england_b_Page_023.tif
370a0c0609ecf49dc5f84fbee89a08dc
7b7e175ab36143d8929fe4ee90c0bb373f75a61b
44723 F20110109_AABSRC england_b_Page_084.pro
f2f5685debb09e48e4316d01aeffbac1
6558b4cf8da637a5ef29d9957130318dd22f68f8
6093 F20110109_AABSPZ england_b_Page_113thm.jpg
836b7aee066beba596ab1ef846052e65
ad432e6636cb48e3e9c31b3e43a6f83e0ab245dd
6694 F20110109_AABSRD england_b_Page_087thm.jpg
25b4d6743ac595010a65021b50e4081f
b01d80dd970292c547a28de38d5ab759ad1d1265
69054 F20110109_AABSQO england_b_Page_022.jpg
72381f5c8590189745a5beda92e41d04
e4aeff3593c7807066ae404792a849843c05d9cb
102329 F20110109_AABSRE england_b_Page_091.jp2
7bb2baeab6224b3cdf4472858d685af1
3904876b68cec3456d398ca5ea9742ffdd9a5fad
84979 F20110109_AABSQP england_b_Page_008.jpg
9819143b2507e2026923673e612cfe28
cd893d70c13a2d9e596bd5234cdc98d64171503a
100956 F20110109_AABSRF england_b_Page_080.jp2
11a3d9891d85cdfbf3ae56d2b092db2a
1d94f0e19a491c1f5784dc996ac08a62757b7620
F20110109_AABSQQ england_b_Page_062.tif
3033aeb9a393bd548291aaebfd6ab104
1d258e62a6711ab6fb2e39bbe68c8c7ca5c9a577
1717 F20110109_AABSRG england_b_Page_083.txt
dcb2c69c4b235c73bce73dba43b5839c
a3d67e64d920cb78026e54a45d3827e1f795aac6
78253 F20110109_AABSQR england_b_Page_081.jpg
7fe79f04653d4ad402e550167a95e89b
bec2b96f5a415c51ec908fc6c8e9dca5fe20c030
25670 F20110109_AABSRH england_b_Page_050.QC.jpg
8d9c0c054e411157e6b6ef77fd97b386
3231863f6c402e9fd9692d993a8ab856eb5ac6a6
83045 F20110109_AABSQS england_b_Page_038.jpg
956691cac72202f97bc746320ec263d2
13e09f88ed755a6d41be351843abc15d15a95e7d
23051 F20110109_AABSRI england_b_Page_105.QC.jpg
5c2c8d79add1dae027948f3078c123c5
5cf798f479a0d60b35acd21c4d2233a595d4b58e
23265 F20110109_AABSQT england_b_Page_101.QC.jpg
700a6656c1b9ee7049689e86de33a6ca
0be861b990a6ca7f2fc41cb965d9db06b16dfddc
107846 F20110109_AABSRJ england_b_Page_031.jp2
e02f11209f5f80720d9393e0686e46ef
31acbed6dba7adce1ae6bd7c06b082abfd3b0ac7
8570 F20110109_AABSQU england_b_Page_005.QC.jpg
364bdf83aae87c0b99d6f3935e8003f8
8117d8d245242d996661df8208ebf54752c02a1a
25192 F20110109_AABSRK england_b_Page_030.QC.jpg
8d75ba5782c824a8c54c99630e8b7d42
06092623156c1c093080f46130b13ba5541dd152
5618 F20110109_AABSQV england_b_Page_112thm.jpg
02cd50d873f936a46aae58a754a3260a
a273b916337479a53a6638ba3d2de0ab96fe45d9
3128 F20110109_AABSRL england_b_Page_023thm.jpg
4c6a60bf26f18a38b47d9fbbc5458792
47a2bb35ee4cb0a30e756be950ecc8bef2b0e6e6
42669 F20110109_AABSQW england_b_Page_099.pro
2e4e1203ff49d09d306afb801017ee1b
ee72f7c0c5d0805750a8ee69ca192db8d9f7c89d
F20110109_AABSRM england_b_Page_025.tif
e6403cd09d6f6c320a1e61f241a43bfa
1cb6f69886273eb2010ec39b3e53bcc52c5ac9f7
68546 F20110109_AABSQX england_b_Page_004.jpg
a95ac6f35d55960b1d0d09c43c9f50af
bc8e9e41e2039992d4ce51c100d420b815932126
113057 F20110109_AABSSA england_b_Page_048.jp2
95ab60ef5bca276feb16ec3e1f3fa84d
e3b39109f201c9ccd27b52aa0b32211eccfb93fb
2103 F20110109_AABSRN england_b_Page_085.txt
c385142b767b63a8aa0e224ce87565ed
9e84fe7c7b4697ad15c6a33803e13467d0639f51
F20110109_AABSQY england_b_Page_077.tif
6b4c64296f0a44d6186c273759222462
98ceb920f5e9cd77754559a3d851a38696396944
F20110109_AABSSB england_b_Page_096.tif
a765b7d3d79eb53febaf68810dca68c8
9f4611899bcbf22e6502248aa5da138ae59f976b
5765 F20110109_AABSRO england_b_Page_020thm.jpg
12d8a89288913cee7eec5d0f09d8fb81
a56043fb73847dec27b327ae9b4f4fc4925f4b6b
F20110109_AABSQZ england_b_Page_016.tif
05f452e0a8c028a1813a5357e4823fed
5bc67f57249da6fc75ebc3859a13e030bce35af1
23493 F20110109_AABSSC england_b_Page_065.QC.jpg
9607c93360934d20c4effc31011197a0
c4abb960c2ad2365d2cb9bb1558e3277cb814410
1870 F20110109_AABSSD england_b_Page_057.txt
986d66a8669c4841531763f2d4d842db
e53ebb7ce84b1e0e54e79b67b10a45148d6d2a56
47006 F20110109_AABSRP england_b_Page_101.pro
f8ec2e7900ad08e43037dbc13f36a3a6
34029571aa206e71d83a5d04f1e7c15939e8f40e
4873 F20110109_AABSSE england_b_Page_090thm.jpg
864c2ae0849176820edb54516a61a58c
e501be0faadb42e4610cb67997a2beb2d8459464
69416 F20110109_AABSRQ england_b_Page_066.jpg
48c3277ff660b7609c1c683501826132
b52db7526043467ad47714a9bdd3decdf4a9f64d
85242 F20110109_AABSSF england_b_Page_048.jpg
1b86abce3943b3b01f56ecc79f4b30c7
71310dbe487c68896371e382acd1637e9cd64bfb
52204 F20110109_AABSRR england_b_Page_080.pro
0fbdbc33feeaa3111dfee3578acc89be
524983261abda4099bbadb52ec680a5efdc54157
5571 F20110109_AABSSG england_b_Page_077thm.jpg
fbaea8333ba96d31df3851d7f3a13cdf
cc58b13c01241578b939ba582fb11daa9e9c25e5
27783 F20110109_AABSRS england_b_Page_078.QC.jpg
364a1cf22fb51b585156c628406976e6
d92fad72642698e207d317bf8aae0a9f1d56e750
2294 F20110109_AABSSH england_b_Page_080.txt
655bf3d069428e42772ad0703c3f1fee
a23ded473ac18eb371f6607dd06d25c865a73a87
25640 F20110109_AABSRT england_b_Page_027.QC.jpg
9c036f8b20884e3cb2f700886add3e43
fb9df6a2fb1e933a3425a72ab901769a2ca8091f
81310 F20110109_AABSSI england_b_Page_009.jpg
ab87d4d1e782d71f38f8dd4037bf2660
00e724d8479946bb3f52a136cee407dd420364ba
6401 F20110109_AABSRU england_b_Page_094thm.jpg
6d78e21a7d50e684d56b521333d496e0
e5e4dbf93a8e67ef895990bb09235ecfd2fb00a9
F20110109_AABSSJ england_b_Page_011.tif
5bdf4bb92fcc3f843fea6e8c113d5297
7d419e2768ddce4b7b903af0c2eeeeacab27d369
F20110109_AABSRV england_b_Page_106.tif
ee2117ff29abfbfa1e87606b51e37bb6
e8c062f03bef4a5da0eef0688a29e9ffba7cd7c8
6472 F20110109_AABSSK england_b_Page_095thm.jpg
137b9fcb237a4063d6adc8917c1354c8
6898a2b06ab66f4de99fe4c37bd26afb645a7381
1902 F20110109_AABSSL england_b_Page_021.txt
467ea6c57a6ba6035ed22cdf04673b6f
42ca990cf0720da41195e6cd727398723365fe26
F20110109_AABSRW england_b_Page_001.tif
0ba29df0b8f3beaa9f0de1fa6c1072c2
8665dae3dbbd3788cc6cecd9c57cd239650bc52a
77336 F20110109_AABSTA england_b_Page_021.jpg
4087a03eb408f143aba3a55016157163
39fad5dbbcf9674e4c2e136a2b4c99fdb5e840eb
138488 F20110109_AABSSM UFE0000679_00001.mets FULL
648df649b7bb7b52a12c256b0319fab6
2594d3dfa451f7e4f9102f0245c5518330a41409
89436 F20110109_AABSRX england_b_Page_067.jpg
98e576084883e28cd579680ffdd98b2c
87c787a6d3f2ff945db1c0e5ef6080f21c6d2bec
39652 F20110109_AABSTB england_b_Page_023.jpg
1f7e4904bea2cc1b7a0fbad9f42c0ba6
f3048a07979ae06a737553f079b9acc86a14da82
46122 F20110109_AABSRY england_b_Page_014.pro
352b226627437f47b9b2ab9c0c099770
e170ee72667598c5a954598bcb783bc81ae2b9e9
63521 F20110109_AABSTC england_b_Page_024.jpg
980110ac765a9696a630081c97ba09ed
9ed20216476251e77bac0fcd2f3894c7536b37fb
49996 F20110109_AABSRZ england_b_Page_046.pro
c89af787e764d0dd82f30aa2b96f0161
9419b104e1d086e37c9258d10bd1ebc046e808fe
82018 F20110109_AABSTD england_b_Page_027.jpg
963261fe8cb9832b537d22d56c1479e9
035ecc299839f277f1f4b67ec525c6f6a4f510b9
23658 F20110109_AABSSP england_b_Page_001.jpg
d5aca874f9ee4b61db7f2bb0c7bce5c0
29de4d01ee05d3bc34745b876fa9cd708e0f5228
85630 F20110109_AABSTE england_b_Page_033.jpg
97dd61bca8c57c401674262c294aaa09
cfc7b4a4972085891091b693e1660e81a98f19c1
85883 F20110109_AABSTF england_b_Page_039.jpg
d94dbb9cd3c91872ba2ede1c8f7382fd
189c8a931c4f78b16c574cbabfa8d36818ee8ebe
4556 F20110109_AABSSQ england_b_Page_002.jpg
01d8a4236a0ff8e55ed18fee96c563e9
a8eca266efe8a2f46be551e3e5571f6834b5644d
83753 F20110109_AABSTG england_b_Page_042.jpg
52bb2e4e0e195120ba786319551b2974
120074f5e9e2107c516593af684c823acab2b701
10782 F20110109_AABSSR england_b_Page_003.jpg
b9f3aee47cf3c86defd788173dbc26b6
f27cd7e0de304c747ffccb463d8ae4ed017a00af
82815 F20110109_AABSTH england_b_Page_046.jpg
569a0f3088ce9b31e4200cab56b75f5f
6dc9db9c45775a651f5688a92b1eca51b175a306
70776 F20110109_AABSSS england_b_Page_006.jpg
5a04da773a56da22b11092204b3fab55
a7fde35527d5a1f575af0bb326706f0be3a07c9d
85688 F20110109_AABSTI england_b_Page_047.jpg
40b739caf1aa007efdb461be25976513
18b3afe0bce8f250304a81bed9c28d28c22b07f8
69712 F20110109_AABSST england_b_Page_010.jpg
7bb69ce26a8b62d0ed0cbeee104d7b44
a94a362c53c71d189920d05564e83ed7455647c9
86188 F20110109_AABSTJ england_b_Page_049.jpg
f1d83efef97e55c08399220857ec9431
4680f7788c8b8bc0f5cae3e463755c75199008cb
25515 F20110109_AABSSU england_b_Page_011.jpg
f4f1357979fe12616938ef552100a272
37cb66c8b02b2ff06f83b8cd195d4e84e073f8ba
81744 F20110109_AABSTK england_b_Page_051.jpg
7707cb44fcc8a69311f2b6c7cfcb2ab7
17dd243e6ae51839a7f7aeea4e715ad888d43b01
60907 F20110109_AABSSV england_b_Page_012.jpg
4fcd860c318295b4e7c1f432073bcfc2
c2dae787ce9c5d84c73ffc037c72c8987136f99c
84133 F20110109_AABSTL england_b_Page_053.jpg
aa27c92496f1915496cd2cdf3b26dbfc
eb2222e7edf5bfc14812cecf961e1ed7c07e10f4
75802 F20110109_AABSSW england_b_Page_014.jpg
a393e2937deb024dc46181f422d200fe
6cef309ff45e7fbe354cf392468ce82947a80bff
62473 F20110109_AABSTM england_b_Page_054.jpg
8507a88d67813b5fe585fa0919e97d7f
36e0db8ff5cf78e695a264f5e0275bbae706e27a
76942 F20110109_AABSSX england_b_Page_015.jpg
d64543bdee70e16028e16ff8d0f97963
021a82b9cf9a7f13d181970bbb1346b5d3777686
77395 F20110109_AABSUA england_b_Page_084.jpg
edef73dab67921984c562da98871c3e4
08747bcc4dcc34d627a1b844adb665b1ab499103
68277 F20110109_AABSTN england_b_Page_057.jpg
9d6f3548e0102af767ceacd511e5adbd
d1f16479531d0917bfcbf5faa2e09df023af4153
79574 F20110109_AABSSY england_b_Page_016.jpg
b84d73129bc22373afe98afdf41a184c
7338c28681e8252e28bd3736a436deb382361bd0
85742 F20110109_AABSUB england_b_Page_086.jpg
63f127e6ebb7baedd5ea8d2c2c687d74
fc0600eadf6e250f5427840e5d3326d8ac362511
69985 F20110109_AABSTO england_b_Page_058.jpg
bcf519a0f5e365a9c745430fce1af0ee
379474a2bbf76bf43740b3c863bc719cf4d9d885
69018 F20110109_AABSSZ england_b_Page_020.jpg
73bade4c32986e88fb94f63143323f6a
5a4bc25fe4bac972d5d05a24be87af9c137a0ab1
37938 F20110109_AABSUC england_b_Page_089.jpg
5c7cfabf5182da9672011e4451b0937d
9747e46be45d3200da39447168e4dda09d94367e
75852 F20110109_AABSTP england_b_Page_064.jpg
05b5d80c4325f8a31c31e0405cf8905d
5d6b0a91ed17c49391418d302af582636712155c
79322 F20110109_AABSUD england_b_Page_093.jpg
b10cc2b8945aed9b3235b90d7104acbe
a82bcda2713c7bd910cbb3b734b0c414a01d22da
83227 F20110109_AABSTQ england_b_Page_068.jpg
e0b5523f09896772681fc92859150864
23f0a0b325075bb037d44bd0bc6e209b196b39b2
88757 F20110109_AABSUE england_b_Page_094.jpg
fecefabbf3303a2543c85000fd6e1cc5
58f6ecb712c9f1d1ab683f248d636c8c68f42080
68463 F20110109_AABSUF england_b_Page_096.jpg
ce3699295626e4c575ec4cd0c9c6384e
431048c9e5d29323736cc17f72c7c21c880e4a50
68637 F20110109_AABSTR england_b_Page_070.jpg
a213292ac594f4350ed2493e7dc0986b
63161300ad693e9232f339f08770e2846ee2c811
50625 F20110109_AABTAA england_b_Page_018.pro
630be890a863305c41e70cfc3ce0b27a
d5bc3489863e7acb33d76e0a0e793471677b6607
50879 F20110109_AABSUG england_b_Page_097.jpg
2b914fa6b35378e353cb866630bdc827
37c13ab2494d726ddadd213a500caa7973482148
85243 F20110109_AABSTS england_b_Page_072.jpg
9f50e7e66196a4e0d13b4d63b38a422c
67bedc38aaa3e42e6a9dd10605be639ceca2c535
46519 F20110109_AABTAB england_b_Page_019.pro
5af1dd26a40019a8248eb6fda3a70cf8
77548ce7b92801472c8f715caf42698c9f842acc
70981 F20110109_AABSUH england_b_Page_099.jpg
790f947593566ccd78dc80f711721902
0e5d31d751d7f0e42c25a10debe254ef9b094a41
87665 F20110109_AABSTT england_b_Page_073.jpg
e5fd04a82fe4146164621ef0b0913c82
1b504ffc55c99098aa0ba34779add3afc6d680f7
33538 F20110109_AABTAC england_b_Page_020.pro
cd642fdce8bfd1e7851bec4286c7316e
0fdfbf590b3a31bad595cc7a0aa1b8d0ab8c4c5b
77482 F20110109_AABSUI england_b_Page_100.jpg
b5fcde9c421480bac4aed33bc049d407
4ae593dec6827c899940e89020e8af9eee3badb0
79304 F20110109_AABSTU england_b_Page_076.jpg
0053e6cfaf5c7f9b4c6b52a39e16900c
33158b0491d1b3066140cb7f14f37c31e3b59e21
22340 F20110109_AABTAD england_b_Page_023.pro
49a74c44855a3cfa1f96fbdb7f86efe3
fa802f1a491f0723857b1a554d5745d182c63820
80560 F20110109_AABSUJ england_b_Page_102.jpg
92013e97a681ab14289d47197cb98b05
8ac9e8d756e72bb530eaf6342f0eece10a42bfa6
78117 F20110109_AABSTV england_b_Page_077.jpg
ee87226cddf8300f3c0c4bba16ff2c93
54bdccb4aa2ac0e5c1784b9dc5362dafe896d6b1
38566 F20110109_AABTAE england_b_Page_024.pro
92d84d3efe4538d5bddda78d252144aa
71f9e8f464c5013be7eb3f179e6c0988b28a5e39
83136 F20110109_AABSUK england_b_Page_105.jpg
d1dd423c4b33e49e5941d27af82bfb04
ca1872abaf7a3baa5762321790dcbb83fdc4436d
95881 F20110109_AABSTW england_b_Page_078.jpg
411accb4a212d86949af942b9bc998f2
3da9e22b234dd87ab57c44c88972f41e89e564fd
50894 F20110109_AABTAF england_b_Page_025.pro
61e06bc8788d053c28b2b511b077c155
d07322d1654c9ba82e185a6fbb420b1d5a5433d2
98742 F20110109_AABSUL england_b_Page_106.jpg
72a05c629419d3919b7c45cec515609b
774a90a1c01cd8dfbd2059d0b40cca2c80f51012
85418 F20110109_AABSTX england_b_Page_079.jpg
ab62af7bed71dbfcd664d1c69bcabef9
75ebe2b1094b91a043421c0e16a5496c61e7f47a
47493 F20110109_AABTAG england_b_Page_026.pro
81ac2fd557489e6d854c9f4e0eb95447
f98b202a021da964ed95c838996dc348a0dfba62
108468 F20110109_AABSVA england_b_Page_018.jp2
fd99fd46ca84a03b0d63962f7901867f
b90e2b58cbdf01d608d9361bc6aae9e4ebf186ff
53725 F20110109_AABSUM england_b_Page_108.jpg
d82932abd0a2c96dea5eb5783d86d6df
9844ffc4b08a4293d8ee69a6d53ef761ec81fe17
78982 F20110109_AABSTY england_b_Page_080.jpg
4f3fb00aff96e02792684450d4eda9cf
f749ae99065c4a7ae26be8cb082412455d7bb84d
50127 F20110109_AABTAH england_b_Page_027.pro
73be8a0c103bb123c91ac7de8afee991
55585edf69cf5f2a31df99d76271205c02ea178f
101103 F20110109_AABSVB england_b_Page_019.jp2
f7429c6e3cb70d53d80dfefa8bb2a5b7
63108b535e325df165ddce29574a11d47b838741
68226 F20110109_AABSUN england_b_Page_111.jpg
3280001beeb2705e582f9dea2104f805
60e3874b837675b446861d34506748639baf4558
69267 F20110109_AABSTZ england_b_Page_083.jpg
33d4e3b6c2d694692e29d581a9fd8c45
0f93dea00c16e3c2b220d12a5de5b03758c8dc66
49360 F20110109_AABTAI england_b_Page_029.pro
4fd32c432ff1946e655de50a0d9e9377
205da792c3b610cd9535661795ca02146f353048
86839 F20110109_AABSVC england_b_Page_020.jp2
118e98b649157cce8ea986259dbaed62
f830aa33f9caf4f6b116039343d5840b68c1bf7e
85196 F20110109_AABSUO england_b_Page_113.jpg
74db9db2810b46ef13f4e3d2636de5d7
56ca6736e330eae2ee0a5107c951d80f490a10a6
50704 F20110109_AABTAJ england_b_Page_030.pro
079cdb97d29d66225f8e09665350a11e
de3a31d44227b66d00801480e65e98fe6d085e8d
99433 F20110109_AABSVD england_b_Page_021.jp2
44dd74b604a30d2a02fdb2b2fd8f705f
a76d961f706c57a9b28ca5aef9cddd1611eb6ca9
101937 F20110109_AABSUP england_b_Page_114.jpg
e377b94174adee9a0c0f0c84ae51eab0
bea56809dcde11891c5901c405bb61421b392d68
51173 F20110109_AABTAK england_b_Page_031.pro
053eb9e17c6212c5c2a26d63ae09d8a3
da91f48b0ba0deda9056947992f474250d1fb268
51074 F20110109_AABSVE england_b_Page_023.jp2
25bb9a3ce221986dd8ea4ef0f5475d01
e2050e8d6e3cbe8f99f5e1835a325281148d85eb
94642 F20110109_AABSUQ england_b_Page_115.jpg
239b2ee488fb2b5346cb41feceb5ac4a
ab72b32316c90b3c8175883811f66e4d03e769ac
53599 F20110109_AABTAL england_b_Page_036.pro
f3692b276929aae826403518db999331
b80326e82060eea885bfa2327bf780ab73ae0543
83054 F20110109_AABSVF england_b_Page_024.jp2
2dd61024b6dfdfd2b9838770e0f32d02
8253fdcb201c0f050abe34c1cd3a073d50f711d5
90277 F20110109_AABSUR england_b_Page_116.jpg
544a647b61ae4b4c739dd678723fbfa2
1a4e8b51bf40f2563f8c9d2ef7e989225a509143
48595 F20110109_AABTAM england_b_Page_037.pro
938929f44cca785be828f4c8f8d9978b
23c4cfb0091c78d0ec86fbe895e973cf0fab786a
109624 F20110109_AABSVG england_b_Page_025.jp2
9fa165edbf2ee268fb08b0afa9192591
16e16899862adb81d0d638be449dcb0427c5374b
50323 F20110109_AABTBA england_b_Page_068.pro
f71ab8d19eb3b19886310d433c6fba60
a2d1cb217fa192b882e1094f2f1a09e57aad74ac
52018 F20110109_AABTAN england_b_Page_043.pro
9901bdc3a5f90d7839f813206d0c51b0
f9c7ed46f53857ae3131d4734b27c130e5015e2c
109321 F20110109_AABSVH england_b_Page_028.jp2
a583057d05170066db284f76d0fc1680
532c96cb9bac36aa40b18da306aeb72b336ffb85
97391 F20110109_AABSUS england_b_Page_117.jpg
f70be928a736cbffa3769e470190d16b
650bc84dbf707bd47c47c81f96b2df45fd77f9ad
54349 F20110109_AABTBB england_b_Page_069.pro
ceab4fac3283f7355e3cd6376e98d72b
d3816f05b8aeb7383c37534f293967e1fad324f7
49916 F20110109_AABTAO england_b_Page_044.pro
96dadf27f31e6bc3dcf7a947deb9fbd4
6e062a435493f7433011cf88a61565a50b886130
111447 F20110109_AABSVI england_b_Page_033.jp2
2ec0dbe887d2ca208b2c996552c16f54
dacbaf90f246ad3bb6232c53fc7372f3e20439c8
12066 F20110109_AABSUT england_b_Page_118.jpg
d361276307ee6db7c9ef77f0092b730c
869f79ef82e435ebb93c91a208385746431c7b7b
48887 F20110109_AABTBC england_b_Page_071.pro
061f47a8659373a55c155e1f9acdbda1
98a5465125a7c3b07a9306e863564696e39a8350
53067 F20110109_AABTAP england_b_Page_048.pro
d81b0f20b3ece9ab8fc6424a77a4c7d5
b1c7608d5a31a80c79e046c58f83bb522f4b0fa5
115083 F20110109_AABSVJ england_b_Page_034.jp2
84d2f7955ea2d2b14396e4438a152781
012c00e9e42dbcab1981e45c2576224b7fc220a8
6023 F20110109_AABSUU england_b_Page_002.jp2
f561f80d37df050da80134cfa40342c9
eb574c6f3dfc56eb9a97d019ad92a38bb3404cdc
51381 F20110109_AABTBD england_b_Page_072.pro
45614704ebe6d28614be2b55e19fe13e
1783478621459aa75642e1a12f25fee1e6b5653a
52371 F20110109_AABTAQ england_b_Page_049.pro
c21f54a2cfd763790c13c6c130e5154c
7801e013de5468371ca80d779d61d14781d41464
109361 F20110109_AABSVK england_b_Page_035.jp2
888d3b3b39db4c345672f6add8c6b09b
b55205ec4f72960e8d4dec8ac5f89854537d4946
87399 F20110109_AABSUV england_b_Page_004.jp2
0fbd9bc1712cf2612ac5d54c9ca9e50b
22bd6967497a8c364a0549731a2c6f9a08126166
56161 F20110109_AABTBE england_b_Page_073.pro
f1ec7b6226e80d5c4708ddd2e6972e04
3bc8c8d00f588f182f397f55852a05ab357cb3bb
50875 F20110109_AABTAR england_b_Page_051.pro
47f13194ae2bd73dd4b95671281cc91e
fb5857c44cfcd58e03f484e79e83722801a8ea04
113019 F20110109_AABSVL england_b_Page_036.jp2
0b39b4ec8676c72354bd622e0b1f744b
fb9d403341cf1ac17bcdad27601487e2e2661d2e
1051985 F20110109_AABSUW england_b_Page_006.jp2
57a576c41de013bcbf5bd734931645b4
13eed0f373bbf19263e7127159dcf50f26b17247
46997 F20110109_AABTBF england_b_Page_076.pro
9a1c87c3865528a8a6644c0b0e708988
7498fbd288a8ea45d056c2200c5ff0294f4453a2
105615 F20110109_AABSWA england_b_Page_060.jp2
81e8d61a910f9c7d656e48d1b01afe12
4fa7a996ad43b8d69bc767508bec80d3ff83c4f2
51545 F20110109_AABTAS england_b_Page_052.pro
ab776165c52715505ba4a6f77c4b7ef4
3effe63106ac4b5d9854d7832ed01e9a80387cb3
104970 F20110109_AABSVM england_b_Page_037.jp2
ff3bbdcb3bdb47aee27f82fe904aee51
a527098563b59c8284106ded51cb61b264c33820
1051944 F20110109_AABSUX england_b_Page_008.jp2
c914e42372ae99e46d953c4007b1cd41
cc34e75d154d3a8465b14c5897b7786b46a06d16
46668 F20110109_AABTBG england_b_Page_077.pro
a8473df4673864e1b50ea262cf6f8e2f
2aefe70068b6b92d0ec1ff4e20fea4f9686528d4
37171 F20110109_AABSWB england_b_Page_061.jp2
a1bf0f670b679842214ff4e2b0e821db
9d3ae734cfb391c2929f41d25ae26fef23eb36e4
51395 F20110109_AABTAT england_b_Page_053.pro
0ee81eac7c9e58aab6a28846fd604fd7
9b98849ddd649e39074ab60604dfa5b57639137b
108198 F20110109_AABSVN england_b_Page_038.jp2
762f403aac592d7b0d4d5969546156e6
fa6b80e17d7ce283b771fa50d8136e35ca54d783
562889 F20110109_AABSUY england_b_Page_011.jp2
a0e5a5726f1f09cc3544c754316b9919
b33c54cdd68a6b3f817efe794381fb3d39274426
52046 F20110109_AABTBH england_b_Page_079.pro
686e614d65a2efebc49d2ca87ddf2f6c
9fbe25f1266476be4335a1b5e1dd956cf951df3c
98177 F20110109_AABSWC england_b_Page_064.jp2
1170f286b73520d5eb5de653b4bf5baa
811e013de78098354448fbf346fcfa67cd1494d3
36764 F20110109_AABTAU england_b_Page_054.pro
6e6c216a240f6dca7ea13601f010b37f
c2924b3dbd8afe15085521367d39d36479718624
112318 F20110109_AABSVO england_b_Page_039.jp2
b236309be61c2109e333803377360d6b
0fd8d92ff39dde6463493b514961e247f05bfb97
76370 F20110109_AABSUZ england_b_Page_012.jp2
1fadfedc896dd4391503e8567b626072
0fda220ffe701cbea343d66427dcd5abf0470490
51028 F20110109_AABTBI england_b_Page_081.pro
150e86873cb0edc049dc3527d0029b62
4cc370d2229150763bd048cd12a4dfeaee867576
91942 F20110109_AABSWD england_b_Page_065.jp2
4eea416f4341f5de3740885bd98c1f81
7085ff6afeddce24665b011631cb7707162d57b5
43152 F20110109_AABTAV england_b_Page_056.pro
b73a774eaea57dc405c7a136fe7638e9
8a5febe9d053d2d226e01022f13f211eba94a5e7
110047 F20110109_AABSVP england_b_Page_041.jp2
b3ddf67492ef31ebd641ee9e827acaf0
7cb9293007d5eb58f16b282904ff1bf2c80c7070
48575 F20110109_AABTBJ england_b_Page_085.pro
e0cf45d80b0d4a2bec41cf416ad1cc64
f896d2afd0d5f60134d077e79d489ab70ca9b458
114239 F20110109_AABSWE england_b_Page_067.jp2
5615fa8ae503d97aaea90a9e869d0614
ca043b7f9b1837ee3741bb1e0532d3169c389425
38324 F20110109_AABTAW england_b_Page_058.pro
b1c301f04138483092630a9d305c13e2
1ee45fe0df075babe283ebc6a4b87a920fbd02bd
107705 F20110109_AABSVQ england_b_Page_044.jp2
dc88aedcb456842c063b698148942a16
de6a5d9af8a75b56b2874e891b4314ec5b97ba4f
38808 F20110109_AABTBK england_b_Page_090.pro
be84a2faac214734426cc912d96b766e
08353ed467d69bb4baad54c130f656256d66e00f
108474 F20110109_AABSWF england_b_Page_068.jp2
45c8ccf030b6646806221f3b5150e46b
4a55437a4e867b62f442d5dad71697934d1f55f1
51295 F20110109_AABTAX england_b_Page_059.pro
4c3b07543f1d7cba8b7f9273ad6c3ff2
e89aef5520051de32d388156b2010f03b207a761
110100 F20110109_AABSVR england_b_Page_046.jp2
21333f8a6e6f2cd26d22eafb10146238
0d70f956a497531d07c3bc734a1676eca25fea7e
46251 F20110109_AABTBL england_b_Page_091.pro
c1e6fc0609d6f300a2d59841a162da9f
32ca14538ae303762a637755e936dac69fcf8fec
87272 F20110109_AABSWG england_b_Page_070.jp2
42392a10027ae763ab37c3938d3e6128
72891cde710ca483814d6e9c256eea0ccfd7323e
48824 F20110109_AABTAY england_b_Page_060.pro
1a24a3dc4cb9e17797719b7bc8cfa5c0
6991067a28d4403077b64329197ed7d215deae90
112399 F20110109_AABSVS england_b_Page_047.jp2
73f49aeaacb19b41212e2afb522895e9
8280acf02268b183bfa1e5fe1ddc2a8f50156006
1644 F20110109_AABTCA england_b_Page_004.txt
6cadfd636097433acc015426697177ad
4cf199ac141e28fab80bc838ba968bc26098eaa5
52267 F20110109_AABTBM england_b_Page_094.pro
bda8e72c24a56e092395e24c81c69620
5b49de043161d882e0a3553d097a4109fa4f3260
114387 F20110109_AABSWH england_b_Page_074.jp2
92750acbfe3200f84c3e5f317bf3d42d
7090a1af0576d11118ea7ae3a05fb6f9ef38b540
39763 F20110109_AABTAZ england_b_Page_065.pro
b4e6349d04a5360b924eaec0c243323a
bae44b4d26c09cc23bbf5246a253f915b46a1f02
4257 F20110109_AABTCB england_b_Page_007.txt
9a97aad49e2ae84e163660a867d534c3
bbc497cdf8092a583008a4adbd558baee06dcf93
18888 F20110109_AABTBN england_b_Page_097.pro
98dea4eaa4caaa56bc9f814a7a903784
9d159ef7fac8b3f3ac0c3edd406b87eed16e339c
99713 F20110109_AABSWI england_b_Page_076.jp2
552be90b5de6b57a89edcde187de950d
445c5c12fb9407f557f1e552a35bfa55748eb8b6
113648 F20110109_AABSVT england_b_Page_049.jp2
a470d5937d0501db6556c3ab3e39e7e5
925fc77c740af9b7661107eb14f5a39ef86a10d5
2927 F20110109_AABTCC england_b_Page_008.txt
95feb572dfe62f19be965a03fc307a5b
609eeba51b2b16bbbb8c9eca96e871b55468d6d5
49945 F20110109_AABTBO england_b_Page_102.pro
a28153ef7ad4d31165715ea9f6bc178f
a54dba04b153601dc89f732cd1de53b94bbb7311
99182 F20110109_AABSWJ england_b_Page_077.jp2
a597f1182a4437ae7a35cb211a6970bf
134c19967e3357229d0ce92f167c2a004f74e50b
107922 F20110109_AABSVU england_b_Page_051.jp2
196ed2ecee1f6d5b9e6c18d29ea126ac
ce6af81c24a98009c34897b21d7198ff2a674d4a
2085 F20110109_AABTCD england_b_Page_009.txt
3fc6cb4f16336f7befc65760b8a22db3
954d78d43e7361b5f75f9aaeea657231f7166edf
9329 F20110109_AABTBP england_b_Page_104.pro
562beb68c2977b50a4e8b01f2b645ce3
e24ac24fa1878136e61b0963e53c7e7e3550f696
99942 F20110109_AABSWK england_b_Page_081.jp2
186c439be40c12dcd7c010395d8d514b
6f235fb25e47bb1d4345239b9524b610d1cf2a22
111477 F20110109_AABSVV england_b_Page_052.jp2
a1e1cfb925b26d583eece03b2f246dd1
f5c5d4d378d380621bffd88e747ed606742577bd
1678 F20110109_AABTCE england_b_Page_013.txt
b41979f699247a0ada6e315768899d42
45986643c75be64d610345075d6c992ec29400b7
59856 F20110109_AABTBQ england_b_Page_105.pro
d9f6feef33bb6b0b8f714b1ca51c56b3
ece78b1be19d2d0739e44a3d763846acf87b7eca
102644 F20110109_AABSWL england_b_Page_085.jp2
cbdb1233689e60bbb6083778a314ebdb
460dbd764b0e6d81de76ea59b500f95452c3e868
110215 F20110109_AABSVW england_b_Page_053.jp2
fa79337911579b3fee4219ae0e455714
fffa8c31674c53c529d96a59e7b34d31bdede3ea
1889 F20110109_AABTCF england_b_Page_014.txt
e35e863848b4cf27ef3abb86ed46bd40
04b345cfb6a91421a66c8e5c63ebc1d286b8b721
83940 F20110109_AABTBR england_b_Page_107.pro
88898e0c6b8fc68687a84a61003f087a
1e95e884c1f1eed03dfb22bcd3ac0073dc93ba5c
106347 F20110109_AABSWM england_b_Page_086.jp2
16c1f9976526c853852fa075c3ed082b
275e7aee1667ffd68e729ec597b72a5988e1f343
81565 F20110109_AABSVX england_b_Page_054.jp2
37da079a8f2846662f002a1f44ec11d5
21d8d89ee45cd8b2f2c100e2fccb0a70269bab8e
1900 F20110109_AABTCG england_b_Page_017.txt
09ad2f9375e8aa82aa6e8553ea4bda66
59808ca04ee40b2d28740e8859a9d12268c1e360
F20110109_AABSXA england_b_Page_109.jp2
72c7fd88e50f9b91d92d9c1341a0ca28
70c288b0e8f84b6b894bf944260e07bf8bc1ff65
43243 F20110109_AABTBS england_b_Page_108.pro
5824aabf470f8fe3d2d2f2f7074b2712
f331db77adbcf96a335e37e351737582192b7029
103910 F20110109_AABSWN england_b_Page_087.jp2
3d52c2c83757f8041675f7c0ecb57bfb
d2582ffb6f3265d68e769a781de95350ecdd6178
86892 F20110109_AABSVY england_b_Page_057.jp2
d7867b9914afc2a4bc8501dd7cc856a2
43c48709a3cefcace938fb423452a5466113dcde
1865 F20110109_AABTCH england_b_Page_019.txt
d4d93245e03ac3b8fbe8d5bc16b2b1ee
5c2f86f929736df31048c306294676f7a4b664fa
958056 F20110109_AABSXB england_b_Page_110.jp2
a61c750258ca8890b21378231de149ad
cf65887711a81aee274f6f8ca4407fb3863296b7
41755 F20110109_AABTBT england_b_Page_110.pro
ad606358c396a0238fc9887c57f69735
ee9ae08db5326c8e1002aa929f57186d79465a3f
50998 F20110109_AABSWO england_b_Page_089.jp2
326383b1b1d9afd91109b158b1ad8c05
5a9803c8c891f7035b4c88f497eb43ef7263c8bb
111029 F20110109_AABSVZ england_b_Page_059.jp2
65ed47152d5228f934a28532a6391277
b1c62c6fe4362f2d338336aa30be9f262ad99805
1384 F20110109_AABTCI england_b_Page_020.txt
e26900e03789be234019e83e2ed5a11d
6d3224667a29c3af422544dee3e0389e6d37cf4a
110114 F20110109_AABSXC england_b_Page_112.jp2
3f49c7ddc1044f03903409cdb34261a2
3298868eaa8587dd46c127615fc30a210ea41891
49617 F20110109_AABTBU england_b_Page_112.pro
c6317109644262e3896b5c701f81f578
7152697e026c0db2388166fd9b658865ee749451
84292 F20110109_AABSWP england_b_Page_090.jp2
15df28d574b591f3f65f52e0aab1c84b
da1b641b2261e0259ce4b0de33ec0d248ea4f2d2
1634 F20110109_AABTCJ england_b_Page_024.txt
cc709160f7f38598e2348d2e2c91f6f2
89b2333432852198401892be29380fe8f8c34a9a
113542 F20110109_AABSXD england_b_Page_113.jp2
a68326f285d55bb5d82c8f76c33c50ce
4e3ae52437f4ba017bef66ab5eef8dac4e3989fb
51612 F20110109_AABTBV england_b_Page_113.pro
1d5832f17200c2443287a236b38a5913
e6ab96d5e380deea0a302ff689beb0716c3192ea
75027 F20110109_AABSWQ england_b_Page_092.jp2
912b7529231fdef27c0b92469ed6e14c
3a848f67415355c5ae9813b68e15090b2c44f220
1973 F20110109_AABTCK england_b_Page_027.txt
0d640cb56d5f5b2be4e9f76054804aee
f737285cd2601053c0ba0a2efb8215db5ba48cb1
131735 F20110109_AABSXE england_b_Page_114.jp2
3daafef139045345469132074abce48d
5e86fd0b17d3a1599ac7d0215576aefefd876716
60753 F20110109_AABTBW england_b_Page_114.pro
dc4e952420783bab0c643f88ae639988
beecab3556efb70d861e2cc6e16d6ac2a94b26cb
102400 F20110109_AABSWR england_b_Page_093.jp2
395a22b505afbd8f062ed3a339b6bd91
3844aa4a6b575d505f0e42af9cc9f0feaf08092d
1980 F20110109_AABTCL england_b_Page_028.txt
8b145babf3636867a9a7140e16b23dc3
8d5c49f9fb1abab36668513e3d17c0026f561003
124953 F20110109_AABSXF england_b_Page_116.jp2
21e9b487fa15adcf2dd652e8eb32f3ff
17b1feebd23a6bbbcfe9f15cbe850830b922cf00
54718 F20110109_AABTBX england_b_Page_115.pro
1f8a15cf39d3b3c1480c9fa55b84623b
b5728cf22eaed658df889654d704a77d63c7b522
112454 F20110109_AABSWS england_b_Page_094.jp2
e89869bebb5db5798106f2e89e0945d9
958adb2324c00bf89325f8b7fd36e105bf06353a
1705 F20110109_AABTDA england_b_Page_058.txt
f1b0f00005298a2573ca5601e2e8b90a
d21fc662a35f0521be0a1080164480a56c8f193e
2052 F20110109_AABTCM england_b_Page_031.txt
82a78c657f7dea49a6a5f7471d2b8394
b9e075186cc441fbba444300d712c3232760e2ee
F20110109_AABSXG england_b_Page_005.tif
1c1cc0fbf8b6c25550d5912ea463faa2
3602be354f7ac61f9e1905e49ffafa10ee676822
473 F20110109_AABTBY england_b_Page_001.txt
8658a5e50fe4cbf6709b75fdc978754b
31a40192d4d0d5ae78a22884b68f4ed682775900
109648 F20110109_AABSWT england_b_Page_095.jp2
82a23587c0229051856145f54da42699
2696bb4de3d412ca487b81ed53bcd21b070b79f6
2016 F20110109_AABTDB england_b_Page_059.txt
bc70445b0f68bfa997ca3f0ca543dbbe
ffa60d4eb00279ad53366a4e356fe3b85891163d
1933 F20110109_AABTCN england_b_Page_032.txt
5ef1fa9fec3c58b9fbfcff3cc248aef6
d45bdefffd3fcdda70ad87022b5f13c161e85c6a
F20110109_AABSXH england_b_Page_006.tif
bfa27fc672e588dcdc67772b7dc0218e
76c7fbff9518201bf1e188697bf6a1ce2e0efadc
235 F20110109_AABTBZ england_b_Page_003.txt
e8930eab646fc2326e357bfe64517263
ee5b15a1cbfe9d55908bd6715b3732a3822faebb
1511 F20110109_AABTDC england_b_Page_062.txt
9338993b5778e1534360b73c1979f08f
1577a580b15c825964b816da081205ad6cf40bdf
2048 F20110109_AABTCO england_b_Page_033.txt
cd4c8d9482d775f5fe6073c35fea3c7e
9b63437d47060fab2fe950f37efae95baea2bdc3
F20110109_AABSXI england_b_Page_007.tif
20bb4dbde35d866a65f9869f6479c9c5
a963bad21b175aa35735015ebd0f86da46b5fdd4
1715 F20110109_AABTDD england_b_Page_065.txt
68bc75eb73e6d6bc551521ffd0cf3832
a475ee75a8a194026f86f83893c19b3567977942
2138 F20110109_AABTCP england_b_Page_034.txt
ad2c8a0ec36a3f46247227ee94feb7d5
e7e9c44f5f8aa3eff6075010183a60cd5edb291a
F20110109_AABSXJ england_b_Page_010.tif
f75580f1af59d02ca871ee7a3a948bdd
6418e7be0fa32367c409392cf8ce5d69ce0a67dd
87936 F20110109_AABSWU england_b_Page_096.jp2
086e9e0b656ab968a38c2ccb39c90367
0f20623402cb80d512e2acb12afe865d7c65b842
2216 F20110109_AABTDE england_b_Page_066.txt
9b7a06518f112005d9bbb227bbd7e048
d0fde4e7c6d7c080e829489f9842f3d43f3e3bc0
2011 F20110109_AABTCQ england_b_Page_035.txt
d18222954afb4228858d8c961257a96b
586b6233bb45d71e54e47d5e13a187c3a99786a2
F20110109_AABSXK england_b_Page_012.tif
239d24c196bdbfacd6f2ec569c6ca39f
d2588fe3d5cd249a5d79f29792f852ac34f4894c
64029 F20110109_AABSWV england_b_Page_097.jp2
81574b5b5c1920308c6b0f0f385e2d25
8c011f8f920788e3890213b1249b14131866565a
2470 F20110109_AABTDF england_b_Page_069.txt
a4080e1692a325d8e09eb4c8ceeec36d
620aa33b9a70461f4439c26d2e273cc742bf5c29
1983 F20110109_AABTCR england_b_Page_038.txt
164153449679f43728aa0fd5d8511818
963eb5c178ab75a75093b2418306641785914b81
F20110109_AABSXL england_b_Page_014.tif
7824e85c82daf1486898feb5aa7b29ce
4044f9c180932f04e080fc7f436bed7172721afd
94108 F20110109_AABSWW england_b_Page_099.jp2
70e920424e0dd54004b351a2346ef9de
c78ee9075d6b74cee9afa4ca0f046380e67bed57
1714 F20110109_AABTDG england_b_Page_070.txt
2e1d0113e40d32a4c0ae4389f6520330
929eebcc099d5f87dcaee01d00421733d01041e8
F20110109_AABSYA england_b_Page_039.tif
253166cee821da30e8fb4b6e153ec659
f22c50ed28152020df739122c41853b9209d5c33
1995 F20110109_AABTCS england_b_Page_040.txt
4ce93ba02e5f662f4082f524ce2e9e2c
089e20ccdae9377bf81e54c280d093825f99e451
F20110109_AABSXM england_b_Page_015.tif
b44478afddf0cc69d02ae09d9d28b099
9c25cd32248c6f91ba556ec190cae45315c4f64f
101794 F20110109_AABSWX england_b_Page_101.jp2
962962439586fde7175056527e887c3d
c4aa7386ee8ad94166d3e60c54a50ae8f26614d1
2041 F20110109_AABTDH england_b_Page_072.txt
453b118cd13cee8c1816a8bb181292b4
9010adc5ba62261dd97f8e0b67983e73218e455a
F20110109_AABSYB england_b_Page_040.tif
65ed33a3cbc28b63d0142b4856279944
2c815b1407aa8acbb488f7ec940f80771e50c07a
2025 F20110109_AABTCT england_b_Page_041.txt
f8b3e1e7577f712f040c1d0dad7de167
0c25f6e3a7c0bac311968aaf28c1c6906ef3a489
F20110109_AABSXN england_b_Page_017.tif
8a40f58cf5b3919d980c53994f6f3550
8e61f54e4805c03c70a93bab65b80a332e648a07
1051951 F20110109_AABSWY england_b_Page_105.jp2
b1b4995c1d3d2cd69cd65860e7f6e3af
4bda2588306fd652dbaa68c105540caa834dec28
2251 F20110109_AABTDI england_b_Page_074.txt
0d78f964e0a6c9640cc7b1defc49aaa9
f9df8f8bf87c62a84d341e5935730335d23dcfe5
F20110109_AABSYC england_b_Page_041.tif
2bc8c4b07feed4cabbca909dc9c29e2d
7f18bb8deed923c8d8d2cb5c37ee3135fdc99157
1982 F20110109_AABTCU england_b_Page_042.txt
4e2dd827aee95a9b58b98e073e2db2c7
3c7fe47deeabb4d2350530d16ad8a70777ed7309
F20110109_AABSXO england_b_Page_018.tif
c640b39bdb634356339be230c62c7281
dd1c87071f8bd6d84af8104fcf8d5170ae2a7501
762256 F20110109_AABSWZ england_b_Page_108.jp2
eefda7f943c0bbad089f338ba2e01171
3bc49927d462002b70ab8af76924e2148517ec5c
1992 F20110109_AABTDJ england_b_Page_076.txt
ecd1d8b0dca24044d84c73e9351c2b88
954a247f2820d46bac7a856e0c4464ab8ce696c5
F20110109_AABSYD england_b_Page_042.tif
4981a8f02c28c9657aaa5b458ed7d2d1
2ebf3a68dc033dad5c9cb2b9d080e63ef9543314
2046 F20110109_AABTCV england_b_Page_043.txt
83f43692aa2eb27115096e9d75322175
56cca7419f2fcc266abc4b7d2aa7b88050d45db2
F20110109_AABSXP england_b_Page_019.tif
b9311c1b7ff4761926296b295844b776
25599ca2be50cd59f0b3aa85f9b47cd05215ecc1
2196 F20110109_AABTDK england_b_Page_079.txt
45e46768bb6ca27168f075947e500442
15a81d5d6706f623ad9fe0db7917b6258daa9d11
F20110109_AABSYE england_b_Page_044.tif
307000d69d546de2366897007babde4c
fdf984630280e5edb5fbab4c67aeb08a86a85734
1969 F20110109_AABTCW england_b_Page_046.txt
09c3703bb3aa1a09f428a0da5ea46e3c
6db39539f4b2b4fb023e7fc08624b09505d6d6bd
F20110109_AABSXQ england_b_Page_020.tif
18b2b3d47b901c6f3c9943b88567f71a
61827ed5e7d087f758db4d187499dfe2cb6e318f
2337 F20110109_AABTDL england_b_Page_081.txt
eb299c35cb490b1820dbea6898eb592e
c97802a3e3de5d6822bf9cb29a02f9ad669bddd9
F20110109_AABSYF england_b_Page_045.tif
f4dcd0bf3df12c006723d29e7ae6018d
da01718787e2d3cbcb326ead8a2cfe3ae2426325
2002 F20110109_AABTCX england_b_Page_051.txt
42e85a9217c42fa2521c8f6c276c8279
8f5923bc71eb47d8c15120472bcfaa814b3253bc
F20110109_AABSXR england_b_Page_022.tif
b4b8287337298ee8c11caf819ee0287d
d91ae1ecee59bfcffad67c11baf88e080317d428
2513 F20110109_AABTEA england_b_Page_105.txt
17539ad07084c65dd3856399edefcccf
35f70947166339ce30d54e68dea47687bc52f144
1998 F20110109_AABTDM england_b_Page_084.txt
d6b47b1cc9e6af3df8c8158a2ff4252c
9216e553a1178e5e7081b3cf165431cdef24a904
F20110109_AABSYG england_b_Page_046.tif
4e2bc26bedcd6af4845e71686ccf7154
4d6a2c9928bb723b814bc3affbdfd9e86279c482
1607 F20110109_AABTCY england_b_Page_054.txt
951046225ecbd34d1e60026bc5f7039f
f98c3c5c763f60398084133b131a7bf4c35a0217
F20110109_AABSXS england_b_Page_024.tif
01b3b45998f5a3ec501f0ca2c904ccfe
7e83ac3df7cb085e55e47a163b5f1dfedb0b684c
2370 F20110109_AABTDN england_b_Page_086.txt
478b35aa5952d8e44a18cfb980f769b4
22f010a1b4021621d64ddef34cf8d03ff95dc213
F20110109_AABSYH england_b_Page_047.tif
bd7b80f0a8e8bc9fa90bc707c89020d3
7d7a5b800db99d72a7196bfdbd6c917b61c44fdf
1749 F20110109_AABTCZ england_b_Page_056.txt
0e6269907d93e9c43d1514fe891a9b4f
40f8e0a652191c4d9994b423f5f66bba3ec75722
F20110109_AABSXT england_b_Page_026.tif
ef05a52f902ceddf7070c32cb64c5713
5659cfdba99443783ac537c3355d2e75bb5fc7bb
4075 F20110109_AABTEB england_b_Page_107.txt
888f59a0245324b3f6a2ae0796c06213
b4dc33b656c6ada4f4d533012b583d1b98741f1a
2417 F20110109_AABTDO england_b_Page_087.txt
d9f7c6f1f27b40fdae69bc222533871e
ec35e08e2a4542dbd7602102bd160243e763200e
F20110109_AABSYI england_b_Page_048.tif
85a4889e90f69a6bdef20fbf73ff5e2f
1e25739a7fcd7cef2df94c95fdf3a6b2fc1030d3
F20110109_AABSXU england_b_Page_027.tif
5d8e808456d5f7673d16c00d70d19e75
8a5d21c11b86e912ca0fd927c5674bcc6d210e57
72 F20110109_AABTEC england_b_Page_109.txt
9643541fcbf3154c50e010afeb68a351
d44e51187b7c52ac7357381534b87b888ba30930
2118 F20110109_AABTDP england_b_Page_088.txt
88ee23e4ea6087a6121127943806e888
535e3bd9ab353f30742195feec569651c1b53bfa
F20110109_AABSYJ england_b_Page_049.tif
bdfd537414357f5825b4d67df590a635
309f43e65d2fef3845957b58833e2ee2bf234e30
2398 F20110109_AABTED england_b_Page_111.txt
b56d92e14d5ccf9a001b369c35e165ba
75ce74d318a419812b1aa959c90ad6f515d55aca
1648 F20110109_AABTDQ england_b_Page_090.txt
41b54f0be4278a33d967ec31626fa6db
834d8d5c35b4f4cfe8040de7a835b2332f08db24
F20110109_AABSYK england_b_Page_050.tif
732630a4e68c4866e51d20aab6163fe0
4a457f82482233e35e08dac55a58c3dec0418579
F20110109_AABSXV england_b_Page_029.tif
fe216d8c1c1592256310f621e47e6192
e2f541048a5025331e8a44171f4ab436cf111dd4
2022 F20110109_AABTEE england_b_Page_112.txt
bc68a3a4be084cd7678ee429cd89c58f
8c32d943e89b4dadb5bbd4afa63b6057e7af37c6
F20110109_AABSYL england_b_Page_053.tif
8eec0bd7284abf46b1954946413346fc
38ef4278d5e0e5ba3a41d980a8b7eec89c2c91be
F20110109_AABSXW england_b_Page_031.tif
7e8379c97e25f814f5d89355ad92030c
bdecc5d9be7774685c4c05f6873ce5d18001a440
2157 F20110109_AABTEF england_b_Page_113.txt
1ec083654e7e024d058ad766e6173d8b
214009c748268af804036ad762028c15c3df312b
1857 F20110109_AABTDR england_b_Page_091.txt
fd7dbf434baefbc529a2b0b0cd8486ec
8ff479191323c9152728a01276902dbb450fa55e
F20110109_AABSYM england_b_Page_054.tif
8c1d28d9c81e0db5119a20fcb1d7f494
2b83aa8714d68090e1fda918296eb8e38ec37b15
F20110109_AABSXX england_b_Page_034.tif
981555107b1fa152044e89fb4e1fdeb7
b08c0664a96c3f5114468cf7f55bbd88e75df60d
2452 F20110109_AABTEG england_b_Page_114.txt
26a6ad075dadc33bc5998066e2ac0360
f0dd6f69c428af0e6ae971aacf9a6dd1f018c886
F20110109_AABSZA england_b_Page_074.tif
de9496a9e3ac06a2327fffa543779b12
c8d25921ba5044971fbb18f7eeb0cccb519ea852
1102 F20110109_AABTDS england_b_Page_092.txt
59337dd4c4601854be03a104aa02cdc5
d510ca1ca949620999c3e2d3fd7dcaab0e246495
F20110109_AABSYN england_b_Page_055.tif
8b76608583e4ecab4bf39e1b2f0289bc
70d7bcc50d2988fa50914aec17858c32a7365cc9
F20110109_AABSXY england_b_Page_037.tif
5e1ddbc0e6666d689672f6bd46df5041
a1c2ba1e1278ddfb308ca01224f15d28c0c61a7a
2414 F20110109_AABTEH england_b_Page_116.txt
24573a38f42761dc2a5453cb6b376ce1
782caccf38f1aaa0084ccc9855e1c256b9921be9
F20110109_AABSZB england_b_Page_075.tif
1620b9a1f0779ef9e06225558a9e9b42
ca8490a4a81b4f96262870c85ed5a423347ea939
2066 F20110109_AABTDT england_b_Page_094.txt
22d3f3e5cd9e10ef26a851b0a446fb52
90aab03e90efa396062a3a48cc97eaf6b891511a
F20110109_AABSYO england_b_Page_058.tif
8870b535a7273b93aa59954e41071776
d28ed321b0fdacf911d0426da6b58c787d4ae1ba
F20110109_AABSXZ england_b_Page_038.tif
bc79c7936f7a4751d10837a5f997e471
ce5c056a553e51be4289a80b8cd53cf41d6eff2a
2432 F20110109_AABTEI england_b_Page_117.txt
cc68dc322d3044be57e57b26e453dfed
8fdfbe77939bb8c867ee4cea1d0743632638522b
F20110109_AABSZC england_b_Page_080.tif
ce893567b05ffc4dc6750493d3a63609
52685d746810f033ab7734cbe841436e0e5f796d
1251 F20110109_AABTDU england_b_Page_098.txt
754ce11179650f97fbe29cc5c049afcc
f7b6514b0ee945a989a5ad3bf659afe15343bb67
F20110109_AABSYP england_b_Page_060.tif
e9612b36b22a99f77148e7ed0f7c1a4e
478c00f4c4e61b9f53490cc456ceb683a54365e9
282 F20110109_AABTEJ england_b_Page_118.txt
a7262aa3906522adf82ad7c83421489b
bb50496b5fe50ce7bd4e30dff7f3640acdbaf466
F20110109_AABSZD england_b_Page_083.tif
09ef25a8bd442e58764abe10fbd67517
5bad18d112a7c589fe5f8fd33c2c8addafd42e95
1750 F20110109_AABTDV england_b_Page_099.txt
8d3f818c6b21ad6d1ea4ed4164940d75
2118f1ba5a9ca6863d52e2ad9d9afa09658a3299
F20110109_AABSYQ england_b_Page_061.tif
bdbde9caf721b0dc2d1eb48f59884772
15f8a682ba96f6077bcc322e0593254e72973ab6
1070 F20110109_AABTEK england_b_Page_119.txt
df02c90cb2af3703f2f5f5431fb4e4c4
ce25c87f4bb1c2d851d8ffc151e31c72ff6ff63d
F20110109_AABSZE england_b_Page_088.tif
8b1f75281c2c6fb77e7e4bc2a149d737
8dc3fbc814ff577d14315c33355c01861e75ca04
1883 F20110109_AABTDW england_b_Page_100.txt
0ffa5d4f2d98fce9387be1b36d78a256
c3c8d54e4642545f46d52f391eb63d2fff2a9792
F20110109_AABSYR england_b_Page_063.tif
6c7c0953a418130afdc1a89c6ff77e9b
38f7474408a1ec63b46922133a8f15cdb351a032
2290 F20110109_AABTFA england_b_Page_061thm.jpg
bd9ac335a4cd42ee4e9a4dda04d60bfd
c452e148326ec040750bb06c709095a54a7423f7
10614 F20110109_AABTEL england_b_Page_103.QC.jpg
01427d49d16be00688c6ac94a50bb5c5
22e1f1d930af6a3d0827b2dff2ef4e51014bf0a4
F20110109_AABSZF england_b_Page_090.tif
aab17c1aee5c3e77c54d840ec280fa2d
529ac983a96eb48e387ad64428237439e14cb6e6
1858 F20110109_AABTDX england_b_Page_101.txt
866336da144834f54a1f3bef117a0d6c
5766477d923bab3053e0d996a33adad33b22541a
F20110109_AABSYS england_b_Page_065.tif
d70dbfaaa34c0cccfeaa1fef00843041
26b6476e1f1b895137f2a21cc458133f7faa1644
4898 F20110109_AABTFB england_b_Page_024thm.jpg
f358d225c527f94b2be49a46483d5c56
5b3f9970e0a2fe227a6155d3b322a78292d8a860
26084 F20110109_AABTEM england_b_Page_073.QC.jpg
19cd286cd426265558e2846cce204eaf
99170cee22c5304ade0a59b531faa4aaec4a6ec3
F20110109_AABSZG england_b_Page_094.tif
408fd57dd88f25e43f66b61d8bb6b9ef
69f1e787b7a4d860b64b44c52b9b61f5ae52f85c
F20110109_AABTDY england_b_Page_102.txt
5f499eca09a7eb4502d81b84590f83d7
b67e1ffa2be8d67131c6579bbfb74d67b5293cac
F20110109_AABSYT england_b_Page_067.tif
38d64ab2877c01aa7d6e35d3db19cb35
157453292611870d181cf6b2652dd0702f6789d1
23216 F20110109_AABTEN england_b_Page_009.QC.jpg
9ce8fa00bb92de3a588b0c8a7f64e4e6
b11ce202678d3c52920477cad92c8094f75dad82
F20110109_AABSZH england_b_Page_097.tif
dd5508d401315f5c463062b7f4c2be6b
356cccc3a725d544ba06e20165d53c46476f4763
504 F20110109_AABTDZ england_b_Page_104.txt
0d98f5ea9417a76987541bfc76001693
0b901fc5791feae57e41ea4f7cce8217523ca140
F20110109_AABSYU england_b_Page_068.tif
9d2606565cf119753bfb8b412135da06
b8c0745f74aed0e090b4ac0a050f0e462d08ee68
6367 F20110109_AABTFC england_b_Page_025thm.jpg
f85e6adf3e3cd041347cebe90d026a61
9d66ef41234710d052fbc3d98a261a8f86fe5a0e
6198 F20110109_AABTEO england_b_Page_050thm.jpg
09a6b8355c9bf5dd67ecfe0d4a70af2d
5206af08a0712b6568d6417041dc7239a51cd32f
F20110109_AABSZI england_b_Page_100.tif
ad477c3a4436373986ea5acd4c2d0dcc
4da2169eb443c9eb15e2eedcf50b2400e2a7d708
F20110109_AABSYV england_b_Page_069.tif
2645a704484048c954beb7d4cfedf31d
bfc6ab7e0a62fc7387ef1bd6f1263f2e81349e3d
17507 F20110109_AABTFD england_b_Page_012.QC.jpg
77b3c9d4a24b0f55d8c3ef6959ed189f
2716861245695b220b34331b566946671e03ac16
6419 F20110109_AABTEP england_b_Page_049thm.jpg
65568addcfe266c2026ff479e3a89716
f71f1cbedf2eb60c82407288befa3a552151f66c
F20110109_AABSZJ england_b_Page_103.tif
669f3e0eaa7d87a7751a0332ce2019ec
1704c213c3e389020eb2e4db5882b24a663a92e9
6169 F20110109_AABTFE england_b_Page_042thm.jpg
4e65d2404da769d3cdd4d08d22542722
e4ca1f19a6ca73c113787df3c3a60509232f8cef
6071 F20110109_AABTEQ england_b_Page_046thm.jpg
038487557517b23fbf31c5f68a7ad860
1cf46a7e75f7d2a8a8d792adf909cdf1ddabd40b
F20110109_AABSZK england_b_Page_104.tif
b55a0146af5bfaa1d3174a51f756d211
f31f4ba3665e0fe63a38bb4ff5730baee6bb891b
F20110109_AABSYW england_b_Page_070.tif
4954ca1a1fb65e1f6461ae478e930b33
a4c53c888fad6e4d6cfd455ba2c6ace57908523f
15315 F20110109_AABTFF england_b_Page_006.QC.jpg
ba0dfc941d5ce96e1db949b58bfddd2f
8451f6630de6dc6f0f50e6e00b40055378287912
4570 F20110109_AABTER england_b_Page_062thm.jpg
2f8316aaf6c503b2196b30cc27eb0058
0f35325ecfb3705959d0f50a821b39170b2f757f
F20110109_AABSZL england_b_Page_107.tif
f9cc1bacb322264594f2e61f013aec12
98e30e9a82f0d90090fa931aff760de5dc65b6c2
F20110109_AABSYX england_b_Page_071.tif
cd397cbef056c71306f4bcf163769f93
cfe1482ab08a94a16a458be7b0bc6b1ff6e6cc4d
5697 F20110109_AABTFG england_b_Page_014thm.jpg
44a2bae3147e32173352a272f666a39a
598e0fa994b9cdb93ab562052134ab52f1bed00b
12194 F20110109_AABTES england_b_Page_110.QC.jpg
9b340b651f31f633c9ea98b526c0a012
0659b941ba96fb27edfde5174fc563d412d788a7
F20110109_AABSZM england_b_Page_109.tif
fb70ff589d13138dfc2c37c778460ed4
5e30d8309b431eab125ffbf45366636e8694f777
F20110109_AABSYY england_b_Page_072.tif
39fcfca2ff12ebe929e77dbf1d9e5b3b
c5ff029666c3dcba8c5e139d05b9c1b7dae59428
5803 F20110109_AABTFH england_b_Page_058thm.jpg
8dbaa6f3357a8ebc5472a71649937db5
102b7e799bea5cad4ab2be948902a7911065a5f6
16761 F20110109_AABTET england_b_Page_097.QC.jpg
7e50c5f9cf04908eed1c4e49c816d5f5
2be7234e71591359e619098dabb92b7279af634c
F20110109_AABSZN england_b_Page_110.tif
2db0d24f67e2a367d488bc1a81587bb7
1d7e4701a763e689414d1e5568016badcc41b155
F20110109_AABSYZ england_b_Page_073.tif
83247e8e9f43fc40c6851a03cd9462f4
f3630b8c9a6ce0f22ddac31e4ede15d01e55c364
25639 F20110109_AABTFI england_b_Page_060.QC.jpg
a9df170d9364997b83045d6569ac0f67
ea7b85df4a95d1f9069d047352cc767d2962fe0f
19449 F20110109_AABTEU england_b_Page_098.QC.jpg
7da1af4df0ed364b198a87c005104174
7b14722feb9f6f4844867b34016cc2a6b19056fe
F20110109_AABSZO england_b_Page_111.tif
ccce4e5fb45a90c293460ceb85274b96
f9fdcfd002fd46918961193cc9a7418e9d54e76e
6476 F20110109_AABTFJ england_b_Page_072thm.jpg
19637adddb62568c89b6b460ca69b5f6
616d827719d80b82254a169021e6c119ee640695
6406 F20110109_AABTEV england_b_Page_043thm.jpg
5e8260ce09fe390e9616feee4c0b91d5
313e9236d02bce59803158829d980d5f50ebdd6a
F20110109_AABSZP england_b_Page_112.tif
420ff586986ba4db64f6a42ac99f857a
1b182caebec2f6f779c626d6fbe6d97603de1fe9
4446 F20110109_AABTFK england_b_Page_012thm.jpg
0954dc90de5ad6da6a039528cf6bcc14
f9ee290802694d1a7cffab25ef95d0c5b6e96376
5976 F20110109_AABTEW england_b_Page_069thm.jpg
cfafbd3ae38fb1a33bf327bda22f1544
8eecb8fea55f844e8fcd3395f45f2126b683fe9d
F20110109_AABSZQ england_b_Page_115.tif
c6ef858dcc104af98256ef40c0236f75
4fe63b00d9e7be15cc4d5094493a7674fd5fe111
25391 F20110109_AABTFL england_b_Page_046.QC.jpg
6285728a5ca2952e01a1526d3ee81695
43c56579860042056bd18a591711a05bfb548f23
6101 F20110109_AABTEX england_b_Page_053thm.jpg
d59801133a8bed69fa4b645fdb0ccc95
4fd37462d4612d6ec55ba955c5226d922c6bc8d3
F20110109_AABSZR england_b_Page_117.tif
c230a1bb9e53970dc2ca83dfe4ad6eb2
71900a5a0a5e86827627a41b29e01eaf1a0a52d2
21316 F20110109_AABTGA england_b_Page_004.QC.jpg
34f0e2246d719c135504b36235cc040e
80eda554f6bd04a993555c33f2eb22213b6ccdb4
6145 F20110109_AABTFM england_b_Page_084thm.jpg
aecaca6c8dd73967c6f78a0bc7bc718d
df2fd3a8594fe04cc6eedc5c5de7a78a9541543d
5970 F20110109_AABTEY england_b_Page_017thm.jpg
f5d4736ebea2c77fb5a25d5c7bb8c69e
a93ae36e225573273b5d4e05ce2b7d9ccf80a376
F20110109_AABSZS england_b_Page_118.tif
f00cb44715dd12cb24f030658295581b
c7b174cb6210e16cfe46cf0b3f2c74103050e527
2412 F20110109_AABTGB england_b_Page_005thm.jpg
631787b4498a5cb587eed102ee30314e
a20e4f8595c30a849a421377f4697b21017bfc87
17886 F20110109_AABTFN england_b_Page_062.QC.jpg
0a76a6ba35ad6e8831b91079093a1974
e75554146d68fc0b6b923c297ea02f7511c12d69
6076 F20110109_AABTEZ england_b_Page_032thm.jpg
5aecf16f66d41d746be69a79b7afdf61
0618443c24aa784940d001b137c35681c9b1d9d2
4613 F20110109_AABSZT england_b_Page_003.pro
ea23e3691eb18b4fb8c3a93bb59d4405
1a8ab3dcaa9d8d55241d9317323738ec9df49fc1
20235 F20110109_AABTGC england_b_Page_008.QC.jpg
ee2a73d744e0f0d60c12e00121541a4b
bc5aea03593894da4697cf2de7efb9feedcf30b3
25133 F20110109_AABTFO england_b_Page_069.QC.jpg
f900764c5f8581d7127e1a1d7752d055
7932c9e95dee69edde639b564dcd7358ce508c8c
70044 F20110109_AABSZU england_b_Page_008.pro
47ff84d2ca55835d713a428b27bb1ccc
d11c40d00110fa3dedee32755d63a9ace006d4d9
23823 F20110109_AABTFP england_b_Page_021.QC.jpg
b4d1f1c5def6a02f6a89241dd0995c48
b31299f4f499d651e48eed1b3f748da9b943208f
41559 F20110109_AABSZV england_b_Page_010.pro
73a5a66ecc3f7c4eb413a118687770cc
c276432a3eab7f34a0a9b80baa586f77af9db737
4879 F20110109_AABTGD england_b_Page_008thm.jpg
ac6144f0e3119d73e3102cb913aae343
62813eef1a6f14e181cb1283bb8fc79a10c85916
26535 F20110109_AABTFQ england_b_Page_018.QC.jpg
ec4fdf64887394d217db91807bbf43a9
ab1bf0bc1903c8ff3bd02aebf8d532e705116c75
34363 F20110109_AABSZW england_b_Page_012.pro
75cc1b8f97ab9982feee186952d5002e
bfbbe18bc3a454f5b24130948da96d258299f70d
5378 F20110109_AABTGE england_b_Page_009thm.jpg
0105d18e2a2608f7cc7c9fcdc151af69
44cdb3a8abf57676402e4109427ac05f11293280
6211 F20110109_AABTFR england_b_Page_027thm.jpg
59d892133dfb1b085197fb088eecb0d2
7ee4ce0694e250af458d84e71aa100149d5d0f8e
19382 F20110109_AABTGF england_b_Page_010.QC.jpg
19d8446c242f5e313eca9683446638d9
70eb991bc9bf023334a491059d1060b8e9aa6eb0
6172 F20110109_AABTFS england_b_Page_026thm.jpg
1c65119f40fa4d580a439031dd6c7973
36c61794419de4d3484763c03083130628164af5
41885 F20110109_AABSZX england_b_Page_013.pro
b395e0fa85093e758615a004489408b5
8c6b0f6646d98c21d0652dab114c011ce9bef647
F20110109_AABTGG england_b_Page_011thm.jpg
a4b962e407621e8cd87704e2004c9c3c
8f9a95fdac683370e6e2dec6547d84972e0ff827
5059 F20110109_AABTFT england_b_Page_092thm.jpg
8c8e4dce0847bd99bc3510f88bea6b79
c831ef9b3a2103aa46a87ea6787fac1bca40e166
46765 F20110109_AABSZY england_b_Page_015.pro
2629466a7557853ab43b55be81395238
f86af041ed0608fce80420d6b5115ab6023115ad
5186 F20110109_AABTGH england_b_Page_013thm.jpg
8966e2e532e9e1c32f7be15b12fcc370
55ceb9c80e167848f40eaa45eed9553b1168b34a
22070 F20110109_AABTFU england_b_Page_020.QC.jpg
251f0896db17e731a87cc248815e8f32
71ea34edbbf7111c69eb44eff26e2ed88d1f2c7e
48057 F20110109_AABSZZ england_b_Page_016.pro
460d401d74c1550e3a1828c37656ba35
0f14379c198f7672b7019dc5ce24670325516050
23731 F20110109_AABTGI england_b_Page_015.QC.jpg
534004fe2fcbb52c90925f3d9f2bb9dc
ac0bb59e879395ea2112ccf7a54a34d2403bba79
6074 F20110109_AABTFV england_b_Page_065thm.jpg
2cc9f20136dea0f78768dcc898a14d5a
878918f5c69b26e93a744c5dfd7545ab7802e060
6325 F20110109_AABTGJ england_b_Page_018thm.jpg
9d86afec9d612444518c877021ba9aeb
3e1d99546c607f5510d76cc52d25780625550ec0
5837 F20110109_AABTFW england_b_Page_007thm.jpg
d3ebf12dc6a2699aad4fe3274218a2b7
c5fe3ef71380761682c10ff0b87059fbe6dc1b4c
23847 F20110109_AABTGK england_b_Page_019.QC.jpg
1a7d37307701229f694c442156889b26
5d03b7b30054ab0bd750fb8e394c71bee4f0f654
179512 F20110109_AABTFX UFE0000679_00001.xml
0ebf737f555ff5ff321c018fac3667f8
150ffb6b900e917f3777b9b3f8c74c9b2d2c90e6
26281 F20110109_AABTHA england_b_Page_040.QC.jpg
6a83fb5a63470fcaf106b8a2962faf7a
661ab314d060c1937a02a4953b99dbb2da24850b
6085 F20110109_AABTGL england_b_Page_019thm.jpg
21f6f5b58579b9468da441a87ace08c4
b8969b0c6c4a335d7611febc83cb37f8a7e72690
1728 F20110109_AABTFY england_b_Page_001thm.jpg
82ec0a5dfc14d6f979feaae0ec428797
7c80f8e51508279414b41beb80d6c285792a3448
6441 F20110109_AABTHB england_b_Page_044thm.jpg
54e44006e9f133455343b2c0b5b6691e
dd0b15abe5719b2a95aa512a17720abe68c7d473
5968 F20110109_AABTGM england_b_Page_021thm.jpg
f8b485dd0e4e798060d96ca9361c00d7
fa0e50946743c27fc131191f1eda9be80fa1adef
2608 F20110109_AABTFZ england_b_Page_003.QC.jpg
d1da6547e760edb682123ba40a0ff969
aaedb1b9788e90bfa3d542ec6bb0d1b1bc183cc3
2060 F20110109_AABSEA england_b_Page_053.txt
cb8b5a563c92df17fda128f961d0c86c
492524585224d3b5c4a31b900737428c0a4937f8
6665 F20110109_AABTHC england_b_Page_045thm.jpg
51eafe88e5419fad55fd94e8161393d7
964f7c291ee84743fd8d54cca26949a421773b36
12442 F20110109_AABTGN england_b_Page_023.QC.jpg
05cc9ea85a9703b56a500dc4c3bdf647
a73dfc7238d5a77582f20949e9a6cf7952dcb800
30586 F20110109_AABSEB england_b_Page_098.pro
8a3f87e07236bdb5c32505169529e0a9
b01cd73adc46ccb7174e1d021125ac66a8e4e5d4
26583 F20110109_AABTHD england_b_Page_047.QC.jpg
3bd5fa8450432436084036f130179464
9bc237de623075a1e27ec36e44bc8054af30bb8b
5075 F20110109_AABSDM england_b_Page_022thm.jpg
ba4bb1360dff28cc4ac09773fff928d9
ccc5d9acd09d3eba9412e80e61ed432bf40a77b3
20094 F20110109_AABTGO england_b_Page_024.QC.jpg
134988149561a2caa6960aa944d560a1
dc516919ee3c0c25b4986309532b79de8f622704
57173 F20110109_AABSDN england_b_Page_078.pro
bde28ffb4a589394ca5de5b6e3f313c0
7b26d999759abf5687d10ab6eb5905d7c1a3ff14
26338 F20110109_AABTGP england_b_Page_025.QC.jpg
734a6480cb4824983361d1b59ace6381
a83ae7ae49c273509631041d3543c3cce5eed140
12433 F20110109_AABSEC england_b_Page_003.jp2
a9498ebd44d49ea71907fe16f2d17413
9bf59f5296a8a3e974b094c65246043fee39977d
26314 F20110109_AABTHE england_b_Page_048.QC.jpg
c561f0d953872d9370751109bd5cccd8
96b3278ff50ae838f63710a747120508ed162e10
84439 F20110109_AABSDO england_b_Page_040.jpg
57e5c476047dd7ff00e593bac72d772f
fd1e28c3601f35547f76eaccd40bd085c975ea74
25009 F20110109_AABTGQ england_b_Page_026.QC.jpg
f8224836685bec73441d92a24b324436
602ef94aecd13f711201ec023a8c1ba076a52181
22758 F20110109_AABSED england_b_Page_055.QC.jpg
c82b52fa33f0d0600a05d40811af582f
dc8f9147381429facbbd97b6a706e0bd8e9cd8a5
26556 F20110109_AABTHF england_b_Page_049.QC.jpg
12d4c1a4d9a1d09b9fa7c3ed453770dd
f71655a608068f5fd4b9f536326eb1705cb747ca
6208 F20110109_AABSDP england_b_Page_060thm.jpg
72d8be6a5194a8fb623c686fe75380c1
93b9f4f47d1817b5821846dd3ed91511d5dc386c
6269 F20110109_AABTGR england_b_Page_028thm.jpg
cb3b214d5734ddfa8eed1c62f1d8b8ea
c8d1ca8fc94c56ec81a6be3bed70237886c2cd66
F20110109_AABSEE england_b_Page_021.tif
2d2db78350a864739ece92c618ba01a3
cd616c73a9588bf858ed67ac9dacde7fdead2733
25875 F20110109_AABTHG england_b_Page_051.QC.jpg
38bff6771f03f7b16d0d35d5db79f447
1a8ea8d47666caecde3e121d0cdf7d8617122da1
33741 F20110109_AABSDQ england_b_Page_103.jpg
5f93c9cfdd933bf04dc5d47f275c5d44
cb4fc10acf81823cfb3d4d8f8df008a128c060c2
6032 F20110109_AABTGS england_b_Page_029thm.jpg
0676313c37c94480302c31acfbbb1938
6b8fe1bad97addc163c0fdc17f8fc04f20f64773
2581 F20110109_AABSEF england_b_Page_075.txt
0baa1242f3e11d1538af5a82367f99f5
99d899a70b5233c8b66403d752e2a0a6b13a849d
6454 F20110109_AABTHH england_b_Page_051thm.jpg
88fa755091f56794740effd1da2f66a2
d7c3d8a29b11bf9c98a8f98f6ce059c61b5c89c7
25885 F20110109_AABSDR england_b_Page_007.QC.jpg
ce32cadf55ecf6e6e4a7f60096c81922
7ccc564c11cc33e1666a1fc743c33143912fac8f
26981 F20110109_AABTGT england_b_Page_031.QC.jpg
680b56fe6c14a3b6a3876907591e0b66
ff544a2edecdce0dfe356e7cfa9c0236adba4cf1
82933 F20110109_AABSEG england_b_Page_044.jpg
2d1abf70fa242ea6d13f686a696d3eb1
79993886ce2431d94ed53ec28ff7af2b76130765
25990 F20110109_AABTHI england_b_Page_052.QC.jpg
17a0da67adef2d99f644b8585ca8cf7b
607fb7383a284dfd82fd6aaeb79b4e480545446e
654 F20110109_AABSDS england_b_Page_061.txt
f59f0421701e032ac3ec022575a4527b
ae8954ea2879d6c4687fd16332c9faf3e6071dac
6139 F20110109_AABTGU england_b_Page_031thm.jpg
9a201de30ece0c3c4ab081f28100660a
6e1dd17b09efd5e8f6f52ff55dd416fe63d4d8a3
53734 F20110109_AABSEH england_b_Page_034.pro
cd9547c500836dacfddd16111adc4771
f37ec0412f8765261405497415a8e20e02f84693
F20110109_AABTHJ england_b_Page_054thm.jpg
6a5e4117ba22b5c7bace6a422660471a
175ed78ab3a52e179c56e4577b3ab220b92ee4f4
61777 F20110109_AABSDT england_b_Page_063.jp2
259ccd8f46c7a694d4044aea42ed2815
8923b6d8aa4ca7b38826da265cde1be85a026d7d
26512 F20110109_AABTGV england_b_Page_033.QC.jpg
e0e273507d69697e4eee5f034a2d48d3
b15ac4dc1769a5da6cb341ee9fbf7d4863350a73
6490 F20110109_AABSEI england_b_Page_036thm.jpg
fe06d0ea48916f6d217849070f5b60ac
4abc3386d31a3d986af89e2100b4aa7fbdc3f1d3
24275 F20110109_AABTHK england_b_Page_056.QC.jpg
ceb02ae6284ea24012640e111d04b166
113d974eb6f9c1a86b9ff7e3f99d196b3bd5ae65
84141 F20110109_AABSDU england_b_Page_035.jpg
75bf2a7576d13d4ba9c66a12f7a373cf
5347156bdae7f458443a287b564445e5459570ba
6381 F20110109_AABTGW england_b_Page_033thm.jpg
c2d8f2f6ee408daab73d1d6114b56d4c
013748a8f8dd4e86bee1d831495f7bd491c42352
28758 F20110109_AABTIA england_b_Page_075.QC.jpg
eb40b3acd2a38a6dc82d4f6d473b7eca
81e023fb5b73475f13a3ebfbb9dd30c90b630f1e
1988 F20110109_AABSEJ england_b_Page_060.txt
9d14213b9819a4b74cc276894de25284
9d300079af2d8c3cad1f46baed3ec189c8a52281
27299 F20110109_AABTHL england_b_Page_059.QC.jpg
2d1a1bcd64a1926236026e4350df623b
33370bd0c50c012715f32ba17cacda96697b0e2e
25525 F20110109_AABSDV england_b_Page_028.QC.jpg
acfc8e392ea879e35736d96a7a1a8e2b
c3011be0dd69abc9e2dd202774d18f9621d8804e
28011 F20110109_AABTGX england_b_Page_034.QC.jpg
a1d25cc13760ae42df4f5bd74d8177c0
2b7fc6a76ed9908748c7e12d4bf1f40711ddd339
6840 F20110109_AABTIB england_b_Page_075thm.jpg
d8592d3ab9d08d600deab4e8d3e6c195
2debb383d9e3ae0611ff05123392e1e85e6f5486
77586 F20110109_AABSEK england_b_Page_101.jpg
ff24aec0e577404e226a0540eeb1e211
bc711b8b82617d016e7d35ca9e6176571d51d5cb
6450 F20110109_AABTHM england_b_Page_059thm.jpg
898147143ac498c31063866daa9e737d
90f07cadb9543252531df056d0952d67cbdf8318
F20110109_AABSDW england_b_Page_037thm.jpg
c430876d6f4a131db2f872dbe93f997b
5b33e803f15d90971063c4795ba90cfeb26f5a7b
6433 F20110109_AABTGY england_b_Page_035thm.jpg
dd40a2f200f894e0853616243d37cb4d
6e37f549c59c710152cc48a4e1785076e4693b77
23573 F20110109_AABTIC england_b_Page_076.QC.jpg
1334dbace7f8c6b0cdbe5f2c9c7960b7
2069cf84be740248fe4f0a2c5c0a2af790c86305
40732 F20110109_AABSFA england_b_Page_070.pro
bbb741d13714a2c52eb106b2854a25ae
15271de19fbac96d1cce421db48f185581ca9b85
34728 F20110109_AABSEL england_b_Page_005.jp2
3536e8b12680eb9f5dc150dd6fcd65a8
6582905ac05f6391499b622c659ab618f7776a62
9505 F20110109_AABTHN england_b_Page_061.QC.jpg
034bf97cf34b171c193cd2fbbf6a0380
7f63ef563e84adfeec1454b67e57f615fd2ed927
F20110109_AABSDX england_b_Page_085.tif
abb986e6f4298a073914bc9e9f10d438
b339dc880ecb1e993e52cc15f61c9b961c0d18be
6218 F20110109_AABTGZ england_b_Page_038thm.jpg
7efe6ee1404ff1aa4644289a01df7e3b
ef143eac47f3d69b857e438b3ea5b72c8d953b2f
5680 F20110109_AABTID england_b_Page_076thm.jpg
63b753fa130772f8d4c35640d2624a4c
45c4a550a216fab7bc6f55bc9d3f84e195db12e9
5643 F20110109_AABSFB england_b_Page_055thm.jpg
aeb7c1524b7ac6091efb0394e7751439
c3d88b6335a986eb3fa45c0eb7fbda85dd0aec80
123033 F20110109_AABSEM england_b_Page_075.jp2
305515ec0061a363eb72def2d1f4dc11
a9d00d0596036e658c834474394d1c6cba5469af
15001 F20110109_AABTHO england_b_Page_063.QC.jpg
7f4cfdecd80a83494a43ecbf03c3f5da
302b1e784bdc41d3f8aa38551c423e6db5e6d89f
105784 F20110109_AABSDY england_b_Page_026.jp2
17c13ca6d8a16f0484a9efabf64353b5
afd765dc19cbb79e40337fdd187b4cb3813c732a
22915 F20110109_AABTIE england_b_Page_077.QC.jpg
d098d8312eb84cc695f7fbdd3a7fad03
8e64f3d8caf362d1604b8d5fe8736d49a1ab99aa
12217 F20110109_AABSFC england_b_Page_089.QC.jpg
d8b718bcf31d4daf11916a7cd3e0db4d
a327443d30f0ee1524a056477780933bc5b207d2
5067 F20110109_AABSEN england_b_Page_057thm.jpg
225125422c3b842d398ce92a07a7b99a
71a0a0995f5a6d4fb8d7188e697d3aa777b5a55e
3778 F20110109_AABTHP england_b_Page_063thm.jpg
e05d6ec891e9f5d274f730d31b01f94b
991578e520a5b3d88f67f0dec4bab90c1e811213
3749 F20110109_AABSDZ england_b_Page_106.txt
9e7f3ffde269ec53f1c801de112d1853
ec025a07eacc217223ba7e13378ffcd41a6df352
48789 F20110109_AABSEO england_b_Page_032.pro
df77ff99dcc57be41441f04326ae9c11
8a543d69f6788ca2c7144b18d9fa40171aa6daaa
24000 F20110109_AABTHQ england_b_Page_064.QC.jpg
ecf6a05ed4c5d2d0a5bca46a142fa8c1
9ff74b311e1d900395f2913947278a99fa4f89ed
6825 F20110109_AABTIF england_b_Page_078thm.jpg
04ddfff6cec912dfb9ec56fa870f9b24
dc5d582a6cf53d3f0f6c7e87bba0f47489529ea0
F20110109_AABSEP england_b_Page_095.tif
d79a97b1e44ee52942a8f0ff5946f5be
11ce14d17dbe55a3fda76196bd4dac2fe3206eb8
21450 F20110109_AABTHR england_b_Page_066.QC.jpg
d45c9fbac47da930a70a25dfda796947
2f180410f48137695b5237d7211c0944cc37b673
83471 F20110109_AABSFD england_b_Page_018.jpg
0e77ba69c57a05b4790523a0ce1c983c
0006f84acf20d92f391eda47a5be4f9585aba24a
6178 F20110109_AABTIG england_b_Page_079thm.jpg
14fb622e16b6314391e101042d2fe9b0
76dc28a8ec5c38760ba625459d0c346c342c6787
5297 F20110109_AABTHS england_b_Page_066thm.jpg
18d03ec29cf4bf61bbda76987f5500b3
2291d81322a2b634be831114aade1dcf48d41df2
18966 F20110109_AABSEQ england_b_Page_103.pro
eed6bcd2b5344b7c1d6f078cc6f7de8a
c599b87df9e0c5e93859f2ba2f4ba1b6e7251ad4
79302 F20110109_AABSFE england_b_Page_032.jpg
77d24c0dbec118ac6b2575562a61081f
ecf5fb051604247de1530241135320cdcc29e357
5893 F20110109_AABTIH england_b_Page_080thm.jpg
4d625dd6608d80c28ce48e7c05e2f3cc
cf4ac449f94d2f99172ccd5d76342daa27d84f89
6672 F20110109_AABTHT england_b_Page_067thm.jpg
39c8c6e0026e298a4d8fa20f19fc70d9
c5deee59643fe1b0e89cd0fffb567e758ecda3ff
6442 F20110109_AABSER england_b_Page_068thm.jpg
4bde973e71ebad2b66e1d4b83e706fcf
58c6664aa3dda25d0116d210bc37c86ecaf19c3d
104462 F20110109_AABSFF england_b_Page_032.jp2
ae3f80055a17f18f2e91fbf50736cd49
50524d5c79bdaf9d9151cb7ba40000a508a02e26
25107 F20110109_AABTII england_b_Page_081.QC.jpg
cebb3c9f8398f001cc35afe7fbc1f4db
055576d160e02b388b9b505bcf4a1aa49758cbcf
26370 F20110109_AABTHU england_b_Page_068.QC.jpg
074f43ec51e50df681a10cdd3145a3c6
6decc531763d03ee41f5508ad2eb7cdb5691a63b
70649 F20110109_AABSES england_b_Page_065.jpg
ca3d2a15cfb3946e296755449baebe95
2799ea087fbe1f716199d1a4b23b36613403e97f
76783 F20110109_AABSFG england_b_Page_082.jpg
1d128e56ee139f6c597e7de9ffc23660
0f0be13e578b3526b5559d3a6ec67c3b6c3673d6
5855 F20110109_AABTIJ england_b_Page_082thm.jpg
010a72bb5a79c544b1b0185051fce10f
abf45fcb4b5563b7dab7bf3c6bf2deac6d072c50
21777 F20110109_AABTHV england_b_Page_070.QC.jpg
a90e89f225a6adab4c7036de52e18285
2b8a0a3bd68a1b24ff5535c311f14246795c9c24
F20110109_AABSET england_b_Page_033.tif
8d75be16c3adc15878f01e93a0ae41b2
bb7126f9ebc7607d9065a5f1e1f8752b336f94b3
58934 F20110109_AABSFH england_b_Page_119.jp2
935238db9fcaef11fdd6e06b41de196a
5cacdc7f5e601fc23fc14ead2d0a9fb4978e4ecd
21203 F20110109_AABTIK england_b_Page_083.QC.jpg
8ec8980f3dd37797551664f36c6eb425
99dc18c0cbb0f83764b552615b46be97c81b0974
5403 F20110109_AABTHW england_b_Page_070thm.jpg
7e5be2de43ddd7e6565913ea6f08beef
2d358a79efc4ec91f7c0797b670056733d07314f
1051954 F20110109_AABSEU england_b_Page_106.jp2
d649a31277461fad94a8fdd4e9f76eb4
1cab87b2f03f697c5743463a64ca84ced4175b99
F20110109_AABSFI england_b_Page_091.tif
6b2c8e6c223209c18173dce91e8b741d
e97cf6e8274ce705764a8cd1597ad8efc60b1866
5716 F20110109_AABTJA england_b_Page_105thm.jpg
16d60ae0b066db06ed55915634f6c05d
8c7aaf08e6b6db0f03eb7aa2e853e9ab33323f02
5453 F20110109_AABTIL england_b_Page_083thm.jpg
f82c494136cdeeea8513588d8b89762f
eab782c34c1a50530331042d6f518ee160cda58d
26055 F20110109_AABTHX england_b_Page_071.QC.jpg
aef150b8abdf66167c269d114614b244
567aa4f26db11db976c8037f005e37b934e8cd4f
46890 F20110109_AABSEV england_b_Page_021.pro
23b29d5cc9926f5955eae0a02ac8bf9e
ed2248043c2ffb332b8525a5bfeb02a961659dd7
90400 F20110109_AABSFJ england_b_Page_058.jp2
82ae3253915728412144dbe35dc5b78f
447f628b718098873a7d120035797a3bcd09a2c6
27356 F20110109_AABTJB england_b_Page_106.QC.jpg
0f0c9d96ed016e15fa677866aa089ff5
840a96f45d024c28cd41ad0c6292b62dbfb63925
F20110109_AABTIM england_b_Page_086thm.jpg
b3fbfa8505de67edfa00bb9761be340a
4dfd790112d4aea79bb62680bc225308657c5012
26448 F20110109_AABTHY england_b_Page_074.QC.jpg
3ab4d4ef93cdf00c229b8d5ec04bc990
c59c7fc599cc0511715ffb1d14231e56b5d54370
1997 F20110109_AABSEW england_b_Page_025.txt
ea8ba058c3609007b94c2ef40bd0dfe3
f3f3415628dc89faad2c705990573f1d1ccd4730
27424 F20110109_AABSFK england_b_Page_045.QC.jpg
65fb29974d2cd6f75c3ff9d232d7d5dd
de6635f862ec4ca7124d39be73c0f28ab25ed370
7564 F20110109_AABTJC england_b_Page_107thm.jpg
c2f4e04ce61d1e325f48301722676bad
906dff61f8439dee28f54b7409b9c322a574d64a
25995 F20110109_AABTIN england_b_Page_087.QC.jpg
19b9c06165aa1dcbf3e2057dcdf572be
b814f8a0164ba77e7afe472403da936dffdc0976
6368 F20110109_AABTHZ england_b_Page_074thm.jpg
cdbf835b5dc8b71e139b1bcfa8de2852
0fa8ae7ff696e22d3c76bd5592c9f39c9e75ea48
2420 F20110109_AABSEX england_b_Page_082.txt
f798aa724231b3dcd857ad0959743ccf
aa24cb16e32316da2b9b48c69a4dc6ce5e6dc691
51822 F20110109_AABSGA england_b_Page_086.pro
95bccf8f86608c92e41ed8a71bb6b0bf
e953193bc8d15ee5d8a30df33030fa2d1b4e40e7
1051969 F20110109_AABSFL england_b_Page_107.jp2
05f23718af66ea49c2e132843280e707
6d39a8b8c8a9dcf1e342c567474616695d22a5b3
4237 F20110109_AABTJD england_b_Page_108thm.jpg
802f55cd394d524870a6e38c8d2d33ec
426e93922dc0d042e7967824dece91c099844bc5
23482 F20110109_AABTIO england_b_Page_088.QC.jpg
4820709192442e63556d8f3654717176
5641d7f13e030916110bb86b1160e69270c8d8f0
46237 F20110109_AABSEY england_b_Page_119.jpg
f3b920cba959aa121d2398d088bb3b5c
c92fb99135d67e7c2690424f58e548dcce54cd55
1856 F20110109_AABSGB england_b_Page_015.txt
99ebba49a37ab273786dbddcb4ceb994
cb5c7cc780d5959704ad63bee8a45396614df7da
26589 F20110109_AABSFM england_b_Page_053.QC.jpg
8309490d720219a54e9dc7eb61344915
a8ff4c1876477a05218640b506c22d385b4edc1c
1598 F20110109_AABTJE england_b_Page_109.QC.jpg
cc3cddb1d88eb86fc8474d47e0f7ef29
e78f951eda4e6fdc3e486856b04047e8ddb91c67
24593 F20110109_AABTIP england_b_Page_091.QC.jpg
738b22677c233868327bac432d36c65d
ec9d5bdb829afd2dc9ec93d279aa3a529a96c3e6
19744 F20110109_AABSEZ england_b_Page_057.QC.jpg
384a5647ef13181901805e6424c94103
271feb4eab655c18cd2c354821a28fbfbaa80fc9
23982 F20110109_AABSGC england_b_Page_100.QC.jpg
17a7d2192609ed1b7d0a45594ebbce1b
684a55c61c9b3abc2ed0f53e4d091c10dc3006e2
761 F20110109_AABSFN england_b_Page_103.txt
5dd8da7b5342313f1d891c695fd2bb04
1da1b72c3dfe5047802c6d9634284b240af2ce63
3138 F20110109_AABTJF england_b_Page_110thm.jpg
91065ee03be1f8c1e07b6ceb184d19fa
4333571ffaebdd2a665f641c093db47a93c8bad1
6250 F20110109_AABTIQ england_b_Page_091thm.jpg
06de798600ae4c958889f81e19777d79
a41a8e6ea6433f67176a1b81a10e63ea45b984a7
40408 F20110109_AABSGD england_b_Page_004.pro
f8016d04a254dadd12f9d7d630b66336
98e86049b312a13ff1b57d24e73f127861ae4c26
26941 F20110109_AABSFO england_b_Page_039.QC.jpg
82672c69dacc38d90f4812da1d22aee9
4bb869b3b2c6c0974332f8634f65bd16908e4810
19606 F20110109_AABTIR england_b_Page_092.QC.jpg
ed4b5584bf498cfc65456d9d0e45d2b1
108a7c902420050c084b032d0a63c1818922b67f
15330 F20110109_AABSFP england_b_Page_061.pro
bccbe977e715a83cf966b202c4ca8198
83d1445b0bfaf9a06c4b881fd34a6c500114d1d9
16540 F20110109_AABTJG england_b_Page_111.QC.jpg
59c078da88526a7ebf98e02ad7a807c4
1a1ffe85744827d721618c0e72e6b65b6502266e
24971 F20110109_AABTIS england_b_Page_093.QC.jpg
332138cf8c11b7adb32113fc241fcab6
19d81d6533dc64396ea752c71ff2deeb869b3e7e
F20110109_AABSGE england_b_Page_093.tif
9c935e85066d4d5b3303c58b5974064d
749d4057a66fba58c4c38d6230856289071b49a4
47860 F20110109_AABSFQ england_b_Page_066.pro
ed87ab4617f779ec7e907dc7e2e60eaa
3ad046971378d17f25a037c854207ec63f01d0af
3788 F20110109_AABTJH england_b_Page_111thm.jpg
beb968f5431cf419cae2e096e9b164fa
f894920ce5cfb9a452d228baf8b127af13faa27f
F20110109_AABTIT england_b_Page_093thm.jpg
a2ff9759fe79b2ef709643127f46dc37
3013f7fcc50e2e3aaa183c4582b192ff61f7d967
2097 F20110109_AABSGF england_b_Page_047.txt
6d436b14150f91935de1bd212a3ff92f
fe8f84ff7fb0cde4a6b62c09a320f7e2a33082e6
23110 F20110109_AABSFR england_b_Page_112.QC.jpg
21a3361b40b4dab8557f541d9c19bfee
c56ac126da4d7ad0d269362b66ebf7417f069fbf
27677 F20110109_AABTJI england_b_Page_114.QC.jpg
8fc4a6c71b0e6f4e16031ad09c98f588
b5e85cdbb03c00cfd645d93233be04efb5d9a346
27184 F20110109_AABTIU england_b_Page_094.QC.jpg
bc78b4e3e6ddd5274dc433bc4106d0de
4e0b251d397b6c28c2c7d9f0f25535e35fc98de1
15674 F20110109_AABSGG england_b_Page_118.jp2
26cf2f44283bdf10c904021f2745b826
f36d76ffcd78d45aa4520a50908e9629372520b3
77257 F20110109_AABSFS england_b_Page_098.jp2
fbf2499bbb5cf8a8fd75af68657b7a94
330d188cd41603ecece8b67bc53d6dfbb308a988
6500 F20110109_AABTJJ england_b_Page_114thm.jpg
63d773d552e55c68e23d508a7aeb3664
75f7c1f69369a71d43b3502201b60416aa451b23
5336 F20110109_AABTIV england_b_Page_096thm.jpg
e3e3e2ead2e603cdb47d77ae4174eb4e
58a6182b0cb84347ac72e0f5ee0086215066bc61
26497 F20110109_AABSGH england_b_Page_067.QC.jpg
a9dc7cf832d32afa5c180e10c98d5081
449ad2d753da7c1a286a010897b0faa9e7702830
87927 F20110109_AABSFT england_b_Page_045.jpg
cf5b8fdb70c56220a4d641914f732235
2424f3adbbb97f97c234ec3f4ec8f379ba4f122f
26003 F20110109_AABTJK england_b_Page_116.QC.jpg
0caf26580f9f5b8099e5b24a897fe396
7cdfa28fc07f8354fe84736509067c64744759df
4327 F20110109_AABTIW england_b_Page_097thm.jpg
d22bdb8b730524b1598b47b969d3a6dd
fcff20122626c270d1d963902fb84c1c77007999
52742 F20110109_AABSGI england_b_Page_111.pro
09fcd89c1f8bb4dda1229b4618433aae
0da8335e34c8b90b2d71f5e0aeafb13ffd84613a
79931 F20110109_AABSFU england_b_Page_017.jpg
f8af11ea33d5cf0298e6220d8f141bf1
c034dcf321a2cbaf6935e49a49f72f43cee26515
6455 F20110109_AABTJL england_b_Page_116thm.jpg
77ea2699fa692617318c5afe3fe9b72d
6a9e211e0a946ef15d305cdca719b846d5876c20
5385 F20110109_AABTIX england_b_Page_099thm.jpg
6c93c062077f4400e7b888e17447ac2c
77e9d9f45566c151d009f61297a0a9601242ba62
14244 F20110109_AABSGJ england_b_Page_005.pro
8ba53db2a5190158dcd7d9f89cafb1f9
4a8ba8f354386f4a2e4941f565cb0fa369cad6d8
52067 F20110109_AABSFV england_b_Page_082.pro
a07ead193976d121ead823d825467677
80c7ece2b8e6bb702dd16de087ed083f254314da
27037 F20110109_AABTJM england_b_Page_117.QC.jpg
6460f8c4c5e874a2a0441bed6ae21a43
aabed0e89c0dd984d3db44055432f43eccc030f7
5541 F20110109_AABTIY england_b_Page_100thm.jpg
61d50ad2fac9ac1ce1fa36461f9694c6
551f5d92251112f7588dc3bccc82a4f628f02d11
19763 F20110109_AABSGK england_b_Page_054.QC.jpg
94d89048206691d2ca8ecd85824eca0d
fff68868fcc010852dbe3aa41bcc16966c8afa5c
21386 F20110109_AABSFW england_b_Page_096.QC.jpg
a040f00a4906ee9a7cd90974790731a1
e9afdcf436d4be299ebea328676293a2cce98218
6535 F20110109_AABTJN england_b_Page_117thm.jpg
1398ac968541132d4d7dfb9c29eb29fa
be2a6eb71b8666541144d263243677594ad31c17
25336 F20110109_AABTIZ england_b_Page_102.QC.jpg
5f00f54686eca7226b6724680f7c4e8d
14693d25500d45d70b0815ce44cc014238ea717e
2101863 F20110109_AABSHA england_b.pdf
1d08f41a1c08a0d5f5b1cad5ffac9a6f
528e0066b68e0eeb66a20843b8bac062c4261e5d
22244 F20110109_AABSGL england_b_Page_013.QC.jpg
8a276415696f4cd5bbfeea8568c684fc
d205351c5fe5987cf2c93278e64e4fb348d8cd13
F20110109_AABSFX england_b_Page_028.tif
7ddce1e03c17d6608e31eb0b24afe27f
b0e1d81960eee0e8cb53b304858e45b217077ac9
3842 F20110109_AABTJO england_b_Page_118.QC.jpg
5aba65ceeb774c65fbbb82e096ed7362
7e05c5c77723819e223672a346be2a89427cc240
76151 F20110109_AABSHB england_b_Page_019.jpg
1a6faa8490649384cd15e44328ae5e35
d9950cc04f064cba5bdadee0fefa96689382b9ea
2911 F20110109_AABSGM england_b_Page_089thm.jpg
8e10864134295769ca7e97be438ca9e8
2439a093527725a925f22c82253f0c021e368815
9086 F20110109_AABSFY england_b_Page_001.pro
b506dd399520aec09312dce5f524bf7b
605164d0aec24ef8fa84f107f3be83530cdad0c2
1106 F20110109_AABTJP england_b_Page_118thm.jpg
f6a04ed425c0e021adfa4baff7765450
32d53b6506d642a3772864821c96dcf0ec4757d5
1300 F20110109_AABSHC england_b_Page_002.pro
c9a87bcf1ca060b53424b7ce7c79ae1e
db8398062c0f3d888d2e3f17632f48068a0c8932
48060 F20110109_AABSGN england_b_Page_104.jpg
d4944d0b430286c38b0bd86952c3592d
b8644b898bb36c230246105dff89fa03980c47e7
1051979 F20110109_AABSFZ england_b_Page_010.jp2
0de8ff28e8460c051018a0d1bfacf404
521514c1ef365fb24c338b7ca10942f046f57579
14377 F20110109_AABTJQ england_b_Page_119.QC.jpg
c9ad821c0a18c2d017880e8acacbf27a
b8e35ec6403a9055b4252f254ad5b00b419b88a3
2029 F20110109_AABSHD england_b_Page_052.txt
2e3747ac66d3c564f2a6556ad47fb014
3bb7ecfbeadb19fb70a3341080691adb413aab57
84772 F20110109_AABSGO england_b_Page_071.jpg
3c62cf73f6cf93ae48167d65f591dd6d
8b53093cfd3e4e262e882d430a1201b753378b65



PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP OF MOTIVATIONS, DECISION MAKING, AND SATISFACTION IN MUSEUM VISITOR BEHAVIOR By BETHANY LYNN ENGLAND A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RECREATIONAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Bethany Lynn England

PAGE 3

I would like to dedicate this project to my parents, Chet and Carol England, who have been pillars of constant support, faith and love thr oughout all of my endeavors.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have always said that I have been blesse d with more than I could ever fathom or deserve, particularly in the area of family. I would like to thank my mother, Carol who has taught me to never doubt myself and has been an exam ple of grace and strength throughout this process, while still keeping a sense of humo r and perspective. I would also like to thank my father, Chet, who has endured numerous requests for funding and has always been there to offer support and advice. My brother Chris, and soon-to-be sister-in-law Diane, have cheered me on as we ll and kept me believing that all of this is worth it; and I must also thank Jeff, Am y, and Allison for the long hours on the phone, believing that I could do this and helping me keep my sanity, they are the most truly amazing friends ever. I would also very much like to thank my supervisory committee who have provided me with generous support and guidance (and a lot of patience!) througho ut this process. Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray has helped me furt her explore the role of museums in tourism and been a source of encouragement, teaching me to stay true to my ideas; Dr. John Confer has revealed to me the whole new worl d of statistics with pa tience and a sense of humor; and Dr. Glenn Willumson has shown me that the museum profession is still the coolest one around. I also would like to thank the staff and vol unteers at the Florid a Museum of Natural History for allowing me to work with them a nd collect the data necessary for this study.

PAGE 5

v Special thanks go to Dr. Betty Camp and Paul Ramey without whose assistance and patience, this project might not have come about. Last, but certainly not least, I would lik e to thank God for giving me strength and carrying me through each day. I truly can do all things through Ch rist who strengthens me. “Find rest, O my soul, in God alone; My hope comes from Him. He alone is my rock and my salvation; He is my fortress, I will not be shaken. My salvation and my honor depend on God; He is my mighty rock, my refuge.” ~Psalm 62:5-7

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Museum Studies............................................................................................................3 Traveling Exhibitions...................................................................................................5 Motivations and Push/Pull Factors...............................................................................6 Purpose of Study...........................................................................................................7 Research Problem and Questions.................................................................................8 Research Problem..................................................................................................8 Research Questions...............................................................................................8 Delimitations.................................................................................................................9 Definitions.................................................................................................................... 9 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................11 Museum Literature......................................................................................................11 Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................18 Motivations.................................................................................................................21 Decision Making.........................................................................................................26 Satisfaction.................................................................................................................34 Summary.....................................................................................................................40 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................41 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................41 Discussion of the Variables........................................................................................41 Push and Pull Motivations...................................................................................41 Motivations..........................................................................................................42 Decision Making.................................................................................................43 Satisfaction..........................................................................................................44

PAGE 7

vii Sampling Procedures/Sel ection of Subjects...............................................................45 Site Description: Alachua County and the Greater Gainesville Area.........................45 Greater Gainesvill e Area History........................................................................45 Attractions of the Great er Gainesville Area........................................................46 Data Collection...........................................................................................................47 Data Treatment and Analysis......................................................................................47 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................49 Visitor Profile.............................................................................................................49 Gender.................................................................................................................51 County Residency and Length of Stay................................................................51 Education Level...................................................................................................51 Ethnic Identity.....................................................................................................51 Average Income Level........................................................................................52 Age......................................................................................................................52 Analysis of Motivations..............................................................................................52 Analysis of Motivation Statements.....................................................................54 Question 1: Are There Distinct Mo tivational Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?........................................................................55 Factor 1Education and exploration............................................................55 Factor 2Friends and family........................................................................56 Factor 3Rest and relaxation.......................................................................57 Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to Traveling Exhibits in the Museum?.................................................................................57 Question 3: Are There Differences in Motivations Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors?................................................................................58 Analysis of Decision Making and Reported Satisfaction...........................................59 Question 4: Is There a Re lationship Between Motivations to Visit Museums and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?.....59 Question 5: Are There Distinct Satis faction Related Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?........................................................................67 Identifying the factors..........................................................................................68 Factor 1Museum........................................................................................68 Factor 2Information...................................................................................69 Question 6: Is There a Re lationship Between Motives to Visit Museums and Satisfaction in Museum Visito rs to Traveling Exhibits?.................................70 Question 7: Are There Differences in Satisfaction Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors?................................................................................71 Question 8: Is There a Relati onship Between Motives and Socio-Demographics of Museum Vi sitors to Traveling Exhibits?..................72 Summary.....................................................................................................................76 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................77 Summary of Methods.................................................................................................77 Discussion of Findings...............................................................................................78

PAGE 8

viii Visitor Profile......................................................................................................78 Research Question 1: Are There Distinct Motivational Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?........................................................................78 Research Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to Traveling Exhibits in the Museum?.................................................................80 Research Question 3: Are There Diff erences in Motivations Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors?..........................................................80 Research Question 4: Is There a Relationship Between Motivations to Visit Museums and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?..........................................................................................................81 Research Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfaction Related Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?.........................................................82 Research Question 6: Is There a Relationship Between Motives to Visit Museums and Satisfaction in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?..........83 Research Question 7: Are There Diff erences in Satisfaction Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors?..........................................................85 Research Question 8: Is There a Relationship Between Motives and Demographics of Museum Visito rs to Traveling Exhibits?............................86 Implications................................................................................................................86 Motivations..........................................................................................................87 Decision Making.................................................................................................87 Satisfaction..........................................................................................................88 Summary..............................................................................................................88 Suggestions for Further Research...............................................................................89 APPENDIX A MAP OF FLORIDA...................................................................................................91 B SURVEY INSTRUMENT..........................................................................................92 C IRB AND INFORMED CONSENT...........................................................................96 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................106

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. The Factors of Travel Moti vations Among Museum Visitors...................................42 3-2. Travel Decision Making Among Museum Visitors...................................................43 3-3. Travel Satisfaction Fact ors Among Museum Visitors...............................................44 4-1. Visitor Profile for the “A T.Rex Named Sue” Exhibition...........................................50 4-2. Age of Respondents of the “Sue’ Survey...................................................................52 4-3. Mean and Standard Devi ation for Motivation Items..................................................53 4-4. Frequency of Motivati on Items (in Percentages).......................................................54 4-5 Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements......................................................56 4-6. Paired T-Test Re sults of Motivations.........................................................................57 4-7. Residency Means and Standard De viations with Motivation Factors........................58 4-8. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Motivation Factors..........................58 4-9. Frequency of DecisionMakers (in percentages)........................................................60 4-10. New Frequency of Decisi on-Makers (in percentages).............................................60 4-11. ANOVA of When to Come to the Museum and the Motivation Factors.................61 4-12. ANOVA of Who to Bring to the Museum and Motivation Factors.........................62 4-13. ANOVA of Whether to Come to the Mu seum At All and Motivation factors........62 4-14. ANOVA of Whether to Buy a “Su e” Souvenir and Motivation Factors..................63 4-15. ANOVA of How Long to Stay at th e Museum and Motivation Factors..................64 4-16. ANOVA of to Stay Overni ght and Motivation Factors............................................65 4-17. ANOVA of How Much to Spend on the Trip and Motivation Factors....................65

PAGE 10

x 4-18. ANOVA of Details on How to Visit the Museum and Motivation Factors.............66 4-19. Mean and Standard Devia tion for Satisfaction Items...............................................67 4-20. Frequency of Satisfacti on Items (in Percentages)....................................................68 4-21. Satisfaction Factor Analysis.....................................................................................69 4-22. Overall Satisfaction..................................................................................................70 4-23. Correlations Between Motivation and Sa tisfaction Factors with Pearson’s R.........71 4-24. Residency Means with Satisfaction Factors.............................................................71 4-25. Independent Sample TTest of Residency with Satisfaction Factors.......................72 4-26. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender and Motivation Factors......................72 4-27. Independent Sample T-Test of Gender with Motivation Factors.............................73 4-28. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Education............73 4-29. Means and Standard Deviations for th e Motivation Factors and Ethnic Identity....74 4-30. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Average Annual Income......................................................................................................................74 4-31. ANOVA of Education and Exploration with Ethnicity, Education and Income......75 4-32. ANOVA of Friends and Family with Ethnicity, Education and Income..................75 4-33. ANOVA of Rest and Relaxation with Ethnicity, Education and Income................75

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. The Factors of Motivati on Among Museum Visitors..................................................7 3-1. Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction.........................45 5-1. The New Factors of Motivation Among Museum Visitors........................................79 5-2. Motivation Factors and Their Relati onships with Satisfaction Factors......................84 5-3 Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction..........................85

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Recreational Studies RELATIONSHIP OF MOTIVATIONS, DE CISION MAKING, AN D SATISFACTION IN MUSEUM VISITOR BEHAVIOR By Bethany Lynn England May 2003 Chair: Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray Major Department: Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Previous research has not focused on the ch aracteristics of visitors to traveling exhibitions in museums. Since these exhi bitions are brought to the host institution to increase visitor numbers, it is important to be familiar with the factors that motivate museum visits. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of museum visitors to a traveling exhibition and the characteristics that they all have in common. More specifically, these characterist ics include their motivations to visit the exhibition, the influences in their decision making process, an d their satisfaction with the destination and exhibition after arriving. The data for this study were colle cted in conjunction with the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition at the Florida Museum of Natu ral History in Gainesvi lle, FL. A total of 414 survey questionnaires were collected du ring the months of February through May 2002.

PAGE 13

xiii This study found that thes e visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition have a definite visitor profile and fit into one of three distinct motivation domains, which included education and exploration, friends and family, and rest and relaxation. The results showed that an overwhelming majority of the decisions made by museum visitors to this exhibition were shared among a numbe r of different partie s. Two satisfaction domains were revealed which included sati sfaction with the info rmation given and the museum itself. This exhibition also ha d a profound economic impact on the Greater Gainesville Area and Alachua County. The fact that museum visitors are pr imarily motivated to attend traveling exhibitions for education and exploration or iented reasons as well as the fact that museum exhibitions are a place where people ar e motivated to go for friends and family reasons is encouraging news to the museum. This study also demonstrated that people go to the museum for rest and relaxation, a nd that while they were not the primary motivation, this factor was sti ll prevalent in these visitors. The decision making analysis resulted in overwhelming shared decisions, which is helpful for museums to better understand their visitors and for marketing reasons as well as in the process of formation of partnerships with other area attract ions. The satisfaction levels of the museum visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition were very high which indicated that traveling exhibits are in deed a popular draw of visitors to a museum and that they deserve further investigation.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Tourism has been an industry that has been vital to the economy of the United States, particularly in the State of Florida. One major aspect of tourism that was often overlooked and unrecognized was that of he ritage tourism, which included vacation destinations such as historic houses, districts, parks, ba ttlefields, zoos, aquariums, archeological sites, and many others. Heritage tourism has been traditionally viewed as, “tourism centered on what we have inherited, which could mean anything from historic buildings, to art works, to beautiful scen ery” (Yale 1991). According to the Travel Industry Association of America, historic and cultural minded tourists took part in more activities and ended up staying longer, hence they spent more money than any other type of tourist (The Historic /Cultural Traveler, 2001). There were many ways in which heritage tourism provided a multitude of benefits to the millions of tourists that visited herita ge attractions every year. Swarbrooke (1994) agreed that these could vary depending on th e destination, but most included benefits such as: “. . an inexpensive family day out, an opportunity to learn something new, relaxation, nostalgia, being awe-inspired, a nd entertainment,” (p. 224) among others. He went on to say that, “Heritage has only been marketed as a tourism asset on any real scale in recent years as the tourism industry has rea lised that the packaging of heritage can be lucrative and as public sector bodies have realised that heritage can be used to attract tourists, so that the economi c benefits can be enjoyed by the community” (p. 224). Last year more than 65 million Americans attended a historic site, museum, music, arts or

PAGE 15

2 other cultural event (Miller, 1997). Following September 11th, 2001, patriotism surged in the United States and tourists took to locat ions which symbolize America (Mason, 2001). Museums have existed in some form in th e United States since the early 1800s, and have awed people with a wealth of informa tion, special events as well as exhibits and collections. Tourists travelled to museums a nd historic sites for several reasons including an interest in history, quality of exhibits and special events or programs (Confer & Kerstetter, 2000). These and othe r factors contributed to the d ecisions of tourists to visit a particular location. In Kotler and Kotler’s Museum Strategy and Marketing (1998), the stages of decision making process in choosing a museum was explored. So me of the factors included: cultural and ethnic, social status, life cycle, lifestyle, reference groups, socialization and social trends. Poria, Butle r, and Airey (2001) asse rted that heritage tourism should be defined by two concepts: the motivations of tourists and the tourist’s perceptions of the site. They went on to s uggest that more research should be done in these areas. This study sought to research these two concepts as well as investigated the decision making process involved in museum visitors. This study also sought to explore the differences between residents and tourists to the museum, a facet not previously explored in museum research. The need fo r more information on why visitors attend museums was a compelling reason for the necessity of this study. In short, the theories of motivation, satisfaction and decision maki ng coupled with demographic information provided the information necessary to answer the problems and research questions of this study.

PAGE 16

3 Museum Studies Museum professionals and their staff ha ve for many years feared the tourism industry for several reasons. The primary reason stemmed from the general feeling among professionals that, as a part of tour ism industry, they woul d be persuaded into presenting a more nostalgic view of history, as opposed to a realistic view. In other words, they feared that authenticity would be compromised, and what was once a legitimate accredited museum w ould appear more like a theme park (Swarbrooke, 1994). In recent years, many museums have str uggled to keep audiences coming to their institutions. Due to an increasing interest in theme parks and other entertainment venues, competition for the museums has risen (MacD onald & Alsford, 1995). As a result, marketing has become a strategy where museum s are investing more and more of their limited dollars and time. While museum vis itor characteristics (s uch as demographic information) began as the initial focus of this paper, it became rapidly apparent museum visitors have a multifaceted profile and that there were many reasons why people visit museums. The original questions expanded to include decision making as well as the motivations and satisfaction of both resident and tourist museum visitors with their experiences. Museums were often attractive because of their content and the history that they protected, and saved for future generations. For example, in Denmark, the focus of museums has progressed towards the preser vation of their Viking heritage through exhibits, village reconstructions trading fairs, and reenactmen ts or living history societies (Halewood & Hannam, 2001). It has been the no stalgia and an increasing attachment to heritage that has caused the focus of the museums to shift towards one common time period.

PAGE 17

4 Museums have long been places evoking in terest and curiosity, however in some cases they have also been seen as eli tist and uninviting. Many museums have been attempting to overcome that stigma and offer visitors a better experience, however to do that, the museums must understand visitors, their wants and needs, as well as the behaviors they exhibit. Ha rrison (1997) investigated this phenomenon and sought to understand tourist’s expectations, what makes the museum attractive, and what tourists want when they visit museums. She asserted that many times tourists attend museums in order to obtain a brief history and “condens ed interpretations of natural and cultural heritage” (pg. 25) with regard s to the museum’s location. She performed this study at a museum in Hawaii and utilized visitor’s per ceptions of what is “traditionally Hawaiian” in order to gain answers to her questions. Another recent study that attempted to bette r understand the role of museums in the tourism industry was Prideaux and Kininmont (1999) who explored how to achieve maximum tourism visitation in rural museums in Queensland, Australia. The goal of their study was to find out what type of info rmation sources were used by visitors who drove to the museum, what a dvertising mix was needed to attract more of these drivevisitors, and to develop a checklist that ru ral museums could use to develop marketing plans and increase attendance. They found that generally, vis itors lacked current detailed information about museums in the area and t hus did not visit. Prideaux and Kininmont suggested that rural museums should use signa ge as well as up-to-date brochures to provide visitors with information. Unde rstanding the tourist’s motivations and expectations, was crucial in raising attendance and awareness for museums.

PAGE 18

5 Stephen (2001) investigated leisure as an added function of the contemporary museum in society and the roles the museum fulfills within its own community. This study discussed the museum as an institution at tracting residents, but did not explore the role of tourists. Traveling Exhibitions One of the areas that has traditionally set museums apart from other attractions are traveling exhibitions. Traveling exhibitions, th e largest of which are termed blockbuster, have long been an area that museums have excelled in presenting. Blockbuster exhibitions such as, “Titanic: The Artifact E xhibit,” “Splendors of Ancient Egypt,” and “Monet, Renoir, and the Impressionist Lands cape,” have not only drawn large crowds, but also intrigued and inspir ed those who attended them. Blockbuster exhibitions have been defined as, “ a popular, high profile e xhibition on display for a limited period, that attracts the general public who are prepared to both stand in line and pay a fee in order to partake in the exhibition” (pg. 1). It was up for debate as to whether or not the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition could be considered bl ockbuster (the “high profile” portion of the definition was the portion in question), but whether it was or not, the effects of blockbuster exhibitions and trave ling exhibitions were the same. These traveling exhibitions not only cont ributed in the educational role of museums, but they attracted an audience th at would not normally attend the museum. According to Scherer (2001) the Carnegie Mu seum of Art and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History have seen an increase in firs t-time and repeat visi tation as a result of these types of exhibitions. This phenome non also helped in boosting resources for museums from private support (in spons orships and donors), admission fees, and merchandise sales through gift shops and caf es (Calzavera, 2002). One point should be

PAGE 19

6 made that these exhibitions have been traditionally very costly for the museums as hosting institutions, and that th ey do not always mean that these hosting institutions make a profit. It did mean however, that the mu seum received more e xposure to its community and hopefully attracted a more expansive audi ence, thus giving them the opportunity to fulfill a larger educational role in their communities. Motivations and Push/Pull Factors The comprehension and understanding of the theory of motivations among tourists was vital to providing a quality experience for the visitor. There were many facets of the theory of motivation that sought to explain what it was that caused t ourists to travel and what influenced their behavior. The Push /Pull Theory of Motivation (Dann, 1977) was the theoretical framework for which this particular study was based. Push and pull factors were motivational influences, which dr ove the behavior of the individual tourist (Dann, 1977). Push factors were those that we re described as internal, and were present to satisfy assorted psychological needs. Pu ll factors were those that were external and showcased the beneficial attributes of a particular destination. These factors decided the “who, what, where and when” decisions of vacation planning (Dann, 1977;Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Using the literature, the researchers in this study developed a model to help illustrate the factors of motivation among museum visitors and how they could potentially effect the decision being made. The model on the follo wing page illustrates motivation and four component s that might influence a pe rson’s decision to travel (Fig.1). These four components were Friends & Family, Education, Exploration and Rest & Relaxation.

PAGE 20

7 Figure 1-1. The Factors of Motiv ation Among Museum Visitors Purpose of Study In recent years, many museums have been struggling to keep audiences. Much of this struggle has come from competing venues such as theme parks and other entertainment sites (MacDonald & Alsford, 1995). Marketing has become a profession that museums are investing more and more of their limited dollars and time in, in order to “keep up” with other for profit venues. Muse ums would benefit greatly from the research done by this project because they could sp end less time and money on finding out what, who and where to market their institution. They would also be able to utilize the information from this study to give their vi sitors, both residents and tourists, the best experience possible and continue de veloping audiences for the future. Traveling exhibitions not only contributed in the educational role of museums, but they attracted an audience that would not normally attend the museum. They not only attracted people from their community who don’t normally visit the museum, but they also served as attractions for tourists that are in the area. This meant that the museum received more exposure to its community as well as the surrounding areas and hopefully Motivations Friends & Family Education Exploration Rest & Relaxation

PAGE 21

8 attracted a more diverse audience, thus givi ng them the opportunity to fulfill a larger educational role in their communities. Research Problem and Questions Research Problem The problem of this study was to gain in formation regarding the characteristics of the motivations, decision making processes a nd the satisfaction of tourist and resident museum visitors and the impact of a majo r exhibition on the museum it hosts. After reviewing the literature, there was little in formation available regarding tourists and residents in museums, and the characteristic s they have in common. The little information that was available regarding museum visito rs failed to explain the motivations and decision making processes as well as satisfac tion. There was also little information written about these processes in regards to traveling exhibitions whose primary purpose was to serve as a draw for visitors to muse ums. Without this information, it would be extremely difficult for museums to provide th e best possible experience for the visitor. Research Questions 1. Are there distinct motivational domains fo r museum visitors to traveling exhibits? 2. Which motive is the most important to visi tors to traveling exhibits in the museum? 3. Are there differences in motivations betw een resident and tourist museum visitors? 4. What is the relationship between motives to visit museums and visitor decision making in museum visitors to traveling exhibits? 5. Are there distinct satisfaction related do mains for museum visitors to traveling exhibits? 6. What is the relationship between motives to visit museums and satisfaction in museum visitors to traveling exhibits? 7. Are there differences in satisfaction betw een resident and tourist museum visitors?

PAGE 22

9 8. What is the relationship between motives and demographics of museum visitors to traveling exhibits? Delimitations There were delimitations to this study, just as there were for every research project. This study was delimited to the vacation de stination of museum s in the Greater Gainesville area because of th e opportunities that made them selves available concerning the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. One delimita tion of this study was that it dealt only with the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. The survey instrument was also delimited to questions that yiel ded quantitative data because it made for easier analysis using statistics. Definitions Decision Making refers to “. . a selection of one particular set of expectations and values over others” (Kotler and Kotler, 1998, p. 105). For the purposes of this study, decision making was defined as the process of coming to a deci sion revolving around the details of a museum visit. Demographic Information for the purpose of this st udy, refers to the variables age, gender, and income, which were included on the survey questionnaire. A Museum is “. . an organized and permanent nonprofit institution, essentially educational or aesthetic in purpose, with professional sta ff, which owns and utilizes tangible objects, cares for them, and exhibits them to the public on some regular schedule” (American Association of Museums accreditation definition). Motivation comprised of push and pull factors, was the theory that explains what causes tourists to travel (Dann, 1977).

PAGE 23

10 Museum visitors for the purposes of this study, a museum visitor was defined as one who attends a museum, either resident or tourist. Nonprofit refers to having 501c3-tax exemption status. Resident is one who lives in the county where the research was taking place. Satisfaction is a psychological reaction to an experience, product or service that was dependent to some extent upon expectations (Jenkins, 1987). Tourist is one who travels away from home fo r business, pleasure, personal affairs, or any other purpose except to commute to work (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1984). For the purposes of this study, congruent with research by the Center for Tourism Research at the University of Florida, a tourist is defi ned as a person coming from outside the home county of the site of research. Units of analysis refers to the individual tourist.

PAGE 24

11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The problem of this study was to gain in formation regarding the characteristics of the motivations, decision making processes a nd the satisfaction of tourist and resident museum visitors and the impact of a majo r exhibition on the museum it hosts. More specifically, these characterist ics included their motivations to travel to a traveling exhibition, the influences in their decision ma king process, and their satisfaction with the destination after arrivi ng. This chapter sought to revi ew the literature relevant to motivations, decision making and satisfaction, as well as the tour ist destination of museums. The review of literature was structured in this manner regarding their influences on tourist visitation: Museum Literature Motivation Decision Making Satisfaction Museum Literature The information written on audiences, visi tors to museums, and ways to best manage these attractions, was for the most pa rt, very recent. Bunch, Jacobs, Luksetich, and Lange (1988) looked at whether traveling exhibitions influence museum attendance, using two anonymous museums over a two-year period. Each had a different value of the traveling exhibits, one had a mean value of $204,000 and the other had a mean value of $97,500. The authors focused primarily on two e ffects of the traveling exhibit: museum attendance and the financial effects of th e exhibit on the museum. The data were

PAGE 25

12 gathered from Museum A for 45 weeks and Museum B for 72 weeks looking at the popularity, value and availability of each of the temporary exhibitions on display. Using a least squares statistic al regression analysis separately on each museum, they found that the number of visitors to e xhibitions dwindled the longer a particular exhibit was on display. They also found that there was no relationship between the number of objects on display and attendance to the exhibition, how ever there was a significant relationship between the value of the collec tion and museum attendance. In short, these researchers found that “differences in insured value of traveling exhibits are related to [museum] attendance,” (pg.135) and that these may be a possible indicator of the popularity of the exhibition. It also made sense that they found that museums will incur positive financial impacts such as, new memberships and added gift shop sales from successful traveling exhibitions. Tian, Compton, and Witt (1996) performed a study in the historic district of Galveston, Texas with the help of the Ga lveston Historical Foundation in order to identify “target markets” for maximum sp ending and marketing strategy. Their study asked three questions: 1) “What benefits did mu seum-goers seek from their visits?” 2) “What were the major constraints that inhibited museum-goers from visiting the Galveston museums?” 3) “Can these constraint s and benefits be mean ingfully integrated to identify target groups that ar e likely to be either more or less responsive to investments in marketing efforts directed at them?” Some of the benefit domains that they included were bonding, relaxation, social recognition, se lf-esteem, and educational entertainment. Results revealed four priority target markets for their marketing strategies. They ranked them based on the established benefit domai ns. The four markets were called Child-

PAGE 26

13 Centered Adults who are Unconstrained Matu re Enthusiasts, Child-Centered Adults who are Committed Localites, Extensive-Benefit Seekers who are Committed Localites, and Extensive Benefit Seekers who are Cost Consci ous Visitors. They suggested that these four markets could be extremel y beneficial in segmenting th e visitors surveyed in the current study. Harrison (1997) examined the relationsh ip between museums and tourism through studying tourists who visited the Bernice Paua hi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, HI. She asserted that while museums have always been interested in gather ing information about their visitors, they fail to u tilize this information effectiv ely. Specifically, insights on details of what tourist’s experience, what makes a museum an attraction, and what tourists look for when they visit a museum are usually omitted. Harrison surveyed 200 visitors to the Bishop Museum, of whom were given a “slightly elaborated” questionnaire in effort to gain better understanding of their perceptions regard ing Hawaii. In this survey, respondents were given a list of wo rds and were asked to identify which ones they associated with Hawaii before coming to the museum. The list of words was in three groups and came from tourism brochures informed writings of the culture and history of Hawaii, and lite rature written by native Hawaiians. The frequency of association for the first group of words averaged around 70%, while the frequency of Group 2 averaged around 50% and Group 3, av eraged 27%. From the survey the researchers found that the museum enhanced or enriched what they already knew about Hawaii. In Kotler and Kotler’s Museum Strategy and Marketing (1998), they explored the stages of the decision making process in choos ing a museum visit. They began by saying

PAGE 27

14 that museum audiences are comprised of tour ists and local visitors, and that museum visits were usually planned rather than accide ntal. They asserted that there were five stages to the process of decision making, which included: the need for arousal, information gathering, decision evalua tion, decision execution, and post-decision assessment and action. After explaining th ese factors in dept h, Kotler and Kotler discussed the factors that influence museumgoing behavior. Some of the factors they mention included: cultural and ethnic, social cl ass, life cycle, lifestyle, reference groups, socialization and social trends. Tufts and Milne (1999) asserted that th e educationally and culturally driven mandates of museums are changing. Museum managers are realizing the economic impact and influence on tourism of muse ums. Tufts and Milne (1999) examined museums from a supply-side perspective and asserted that museums are essential to understanding a particular time and place, a nd are of key importance to the tourism industry. In looking at museums in Montreal, Canada, they examined a shift in the search for revenue, new technologies labor practices, and netw ork development. These researchers indicated a focus for museums whic h relates to its public mandate as well as its ability to contribute to the tourism industry and enha nce the visitor experience. Garrod and Fyall (2000) invest igated museums as a com ponent of the management of heritage tourism destina tions in the United Kingdom. They suggested that although museums and other heritage tourism destinatio ns account for a substa ntial percentage of areas (generates an estimated 28% of all tourism expenditure in the UK every year) attended by tourists, of ten times they are overlooked and not viewed as being part of the “tourism business.” Possibly this was because of their non-profit status and educational

PAGE 28

15 mission. However, Garrod and Fyall indicate d, heritage tourism destinations face many challenges both internally and externally, wi th one of the greate st challenges being competition for the time of the tourist. Not only was there competition between heritage tourism destinations (internal), but competiti on also existed between these destinations and other leisure venues such as theme parks, shopping malls, and multimedia entertainment complexes such as movie theaters and arcades. In their study, on a list of fourteen challenges, “increas ed competition from other leisure activities” were ranked third by heritage tourism professionals in the UK. Plaza (2000) investigated the degree to which the Guggenheim Museum attracted tourists in Bilbao, Spain by an alyzing the number of visitors and overnight stays between January 1994 and July 1999. The data were an alyzed using regression analysis and it was found that the Guggenheim Bilbao was indeed a tourist attraction in that area, and therefore had a positive economic impact on the city of Bilbao. Some of the different motivations listed for visitors to the Guggenhe im Bilbao included th e desire to see the building itself, special exhibitions, the a ssociations with the Guggenheim name, and publicity through advertising. Cunnell and Prentice (2000) sought to esta blish the museum as a service provider and in doing so, suggested a threefold foci fo r the museum in order to establish the best quality experience for their visitors. This threefold foci consisted of a consumer experience focus, a facility focus and a research defined focus. They suggested that the designers of the museum define the facilities the researchers define the measurement and the visitors define the e xperience and that by better understanding these foci, the museums would be better service providers. They surveyed visitors to the Royal Mile in

PAGE 29

16 Edinburgh, which North American visitors and English visitors. Th e results indicated that both the American and the English visito rs yielded similar results in their views of quality. Cunnell and Prentice explored the museum as a service provider for their visitors, both residents and t ourists, and established that en glish speaking visitors to international museums and attractions have similar expectations and interests when visiting. Kerstetter, Confer, and Graefe (2001) assert ed that not only was heritage tourism a popular type of tourism, but al so that tourists could be categorized on a specialization continuum based on their motivations, vi sitation behavior, socio-demographic characteristics, and perceptions of the site and its authenticity. In th eir study, visitors to Pennsylvania’s Path of Progress, were interv iewed on site and given a follow up survey via mail. Their responses were then placed on a Heritage Tourism Specialization Index and several statistical analysis were performed to determine the results. These results showed tourists within the he ritage tourism sector could in fact be organized along a specialization continuum and th at travel behavior, motivatio ns, and overall satisfaction were indicators of specializati on. Each of these indicators were being analyzed in the current study in the hopes that the motivations travel behavior and satisfaction could be further established amon g heritage tourists. Stephen (2001) explored th e role of the museum in its community and the added function of the museum as an opportunity fo r recreation. Stephen asserted that the museum, a symbol of community pride, ha s the primary function of collecting and preserving objects, which symbolize a signifi cant portion of histor y in the community where it resides. An added function of the museum included the opportunities for

PAGE 30

17 recreation, according to Stephen, given the museum ’s role within society. In addition to providing stimulation and empowerment in learning for their visitors, Stephen encourages museum professionals to not negl ect the opportunities to reach new audiences within their communities thr ough recreation opportunities. While this article greatly discussed the functions of th e museum in the community where it resides, the tourist visitors still seemed to be neglected in museum research. Prentice (2001) investigated the role of museums as attractions in experiential cultural tourism and what marketing concepts are being used. He asserted that the phenomenon of experiential cultural tourism is all about the search for authenticity in the experience that a visitor has. According to Prentice, museums either needed to invest in new marketing strategies and face their compe tition, or be left behind in the race for the time and attention of the tourist. Prentice sp ent the remainder of the article discussing authenticity as a draw for tourists to the museum. This study covered tourists to the museum in a very in depth manner, however failed to account for the residents in the communities where museums reside. Museums and other venues of historic pr eservation, which comprised the heritage tourism sector, were vital components to the t ourism industry, and played a pivotal role in the economy, particularly in Florida. McLe ndon and Klein (2003) reported that historic preservation “activities” contributed appr oximately $4.2 billion to Florida’s economy annually, which included jobs, generated inco me, taxes and many other variables. The results of the economic impact study pres ented six overall conclusions about the significance of historic preser vation venues, museums included. First, they found that historic preservation created jobs in Florida, based on th e 123,000+ jobs generated, which

PAGE 31

18 meant $2.7 billion in income to Floridians in the year 2000. They also found that historic preservation venues signifi cantly contributed to state and local taxes, and more importantly, that heritage tourism generated bi llions of dollars in local spending. They reported that the direct economic benefits of the heritage tourism sector of historic preservation equaled $3.72 bill ion overall. In their study, according to a Visit Florida survey in 2002, six in ten of those surveyed re ported that they had participated in historybased activities while vacationing in Florida in the past year. Other conclusions that McLendon and Klein found were that historic gran ts create local wealth and jobs and that these grants were of the utmost importance in the restoration and revitalization of many of Florida’s most visited communities in cluding Key West and Miami’s Art Deco district. They also determined that Florid a’s Main Street Program had been successful and promoted community growth, and in that growth, they found that historic preservation maintained pr operty values in Florida. There were no studies present in the museum literature, which explored and differentiated the role of resi dents and tourists in museum attendance. Nor are their studies that differentiated re sidents and tourists in thei r motivations, decision making process and satisfaction with mu seums and traveling exhibitions. Therefore, it was important to better unders tand the visitors to museums, and in turn, the traveling exhibitions that they host, in order to fully understand the community’s role in museum programs and provi de the best experience possible. Theoretical Framework The primary theory utiliz ed in this study was Dann’s (1977) “Push and Pull factors” of motivations. Dann first introduced push and pull factors in the late 70’s, and as described before incorporated internal and external influe nces on visitor behavior. He

PAGE 32

19 defined the push factors as in corporating things like escape and nostalgia, which gave the tourist the desire to travel. He defined the pull factors as be ing those factors, which make certain locations more appealing than others like the sunshine or the ocean. Fodness (1994) described push factors in mo tivation as those inte rnal factors that predispose an individual touris t to travel. The theory of push and full factors basically asserted that when tourists vi sit a particular destination, they had certain expectations and needs for stimulation that should be met by th eir leisure experience (Kim & Lee, 2002) Pull factors were the forces that draw th e tourists to visit a particular vacation destination. Pull factors were c onsidered to be the attractions themselves, such as special events or exhibits, information received about the destination advertisements, location of destination and the bundle of attractions in a destinati on (Kim & Lee, 2002). For example, pull factors for a tourist would include a special exhibit at a museum, a new ride opening at a theme park, or ne w trails opening at an outdoor park. The pull factors were those qualities that appeared attractive to the tourist once the decision to travel has been made (influenced by the push factors). These push and pull factors we re directly related to motivations and the decision making process, which were investigated further in this study. Uysal and Jurowski (1994) later propos ed that recognition and understanding of these factors could be useful information in helping marketers a nd tourism destination developers originate ideas for vacation spots. They postulated that tourists travel because of internal factors that pushed them into making certain decisions and external factors that pulled them towards certain f eatures of a specific destination.

PAGE 33

20 The hierarchy of needs developed by Ma slow in the 1950’s coupled with these expectations that visitors have are considered push factors. These factors pushed tourists to visit a specific location in order to fulfill their need for leisure. Examples of push factors included motivations th at are intrinsic, such as the need for relaxation, escape from stress, social interaction, adventure, a nd rest. Each of th ese factors were basic needs that humans had according to Maslow and had a significant influence on the decision to travel for leisure accord ing to Uysal and Jurowski (1994). Bradford, Baloglu, and Uysal (1996) believed that much of the research had been done on the concept of push and pull factor s, oddly enough, few had looked at these as factors of motivations in tour ists. These researchers desc ribed push and pull factors as forces of motivation that pus hed individuals into making tr avel decisions and pulled the same individuals to a specific destination area, and through travel, tourists sought to satisfy many needs at the same time. The goal of their study was to gain a better understanding of push and pull factors, there by helping marketers and travel developers create better “tourism product bundles” th rough the understanding of German pleasure travelers. The data were collected th rough in-home interviews throughout West Germany, and the respondents were those 18 years and older who had taken a vacation trip of four nights or longer by plane outside of Europe and the Mediterranean in the past three years, or were planni ng a similar trip within the next two years. Their study involved a questionnaire c ontaining 30 push and 50 pull items, which the respondents were asked to rate on a 4 point Likert scal e. The data were an alyzed using canonical correlation analysis, which included MANOVA. The results of their study yielded four pairings of product bundles base d on the ratings by the respondents. The first pair was

PAGE 34

21 primarily sport related, and had a relation to beach–resort items. The second pair involved novelty with motiva tions including the desires to learn new things, see and experience foreign destinations, and experien ce new and different lifestyles, which were matched with destinations that provide wa ys to increase knowledge. The third pair consists of urban life experien ce and contained such attributes as high quality restaurants, historical sites, guided tours, as well as museums and art galleries and focused on safety, cleanliness, and warm hospitality. The fourth pair were the beach-resort destinations and were more adventurous motivations includi ng, being daring and adve nturesome, finding thrills and excitement, and getting away from everyday life. Based on these four pairs, market segments were formed. The overall find ings of this study showed that there is a significant relationship between motivations and specific attri butes of destinations. It also showed that matching push and pull item s can be a successful marketing strategy. Motivations In the motivation literature, many authors delved into the field of psychology and combined that with leisure. One such study that helped in explai ning motivations for the purpose of this project was Crompton’s 1979 study. He began by gleaning data from thirty-nine unstructured two hour interviews about motivations for pleasure vacations. He found that the vacation process began with a desire to break from a routine and from there, the respondents had to de cide whether to go on a pleasure vacation, stay at home, or go on a non-pleasure vacation. Nine motivat ions were derived from these interviews and fit into two categories: socio-psychologi cal and cultural. Th e socio-psychological motives were escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship relationships, and facilitation of social interac tion. The cultural motives were novelty and education. The

PAGE 35

22 cultural motives were aroused by the qualities a particular destination offered, while the socio-psychological motives were present de spite the destination. Crompton called for further research in this area to determine th e role of tourist motivation’s in the tourism industry. In 1983, Beard and Ragheb found four prim ary motives for leisure. The first component was an intellectual component, defi ned as, “the extent to which individuals are motivated to engage in such leisure ac tivities, which involve substantial mental activities such as lear ning, exploring, discovering, crea ting, or imagining.” The second component labeled as the “social component,” was, “the extent to which individuals are motivated to engage in such leisure activities for social reasons,” this included both the need for friendship and the need for the prai se of others. The third component was the competence mastery component, which they defi ned as an assessment of “…the extent to which individuals engage in leisure activities in order to master, challenge, and compete; usually physical in nature.” The fourth and final component found by Beard and Ragheb was the stimulus-avoidance component, which th ey defined as an assessment of the drive to escape and get away from over-st imulating life situations” (1983, p. 225) Iso-Ahola later (1989) defined motivation theo ry as, “an internal factor that arouses and directs human behavior.” His basis for st udying motivation theory within the field of leisure was that it could predict some le isure behaviors and be applied by leisure providers in assessing what kinds of leisure experiences to of fer tourists. He used this basis for study to develop the S-O-R model of motives for leisure. This S-O-R model, which asserts that the organism’s (O) emo tions and thought proce sses are connected and work together in responding (R) to a stimulus (S). He found that a lack of motivation in a

PAGE 36

23 person’s leisure time led to boredom and apathy. For example, if a person was not motivated to go see an exhibit or visit a mu seum, they would not do so. Overall, IsoAhola’s findings were that motivation was a n ecessary part of the le isure experience and that people feel a need for le isure in their lives, which was th e basis for this current study that motivations played a role in what activ ities people took part in and where they went. Fodness (1994) agreed that understanding th e theory of motiva tion and its driving factors was essential in marketing tourism des tinations and services effectively, and even went so far as to say it was the “driving force behind all behavior.” His article discussed three different studies on motivation in leisur e travel, which explaine d that people travel for leisure because they had th e psychological need to do so, and leisure travel fulfilled those needs. The first study dealt with a functiona l approach to leisure tr avel motivation. The study was performed using qualitative in terviews in three different stages. Multidimensional Scaling Solutions (MDS) were then applied and a list of vacation themes were developed from the interviews. Four primary dimensions were established: the knowledge function of leisure travel, the ut ilitarian function of leisure travel, the social-adjustive function of le isure travel, and the value-e xpressive function of leisure travel. The second study in Fodness’s res earch involved measuring tourist motivation. The data was collected quantitatively through a mail-out survey to individuals who had recently requested a Florida Visitor’s Guide. A factor analysis was performed and several of the same functions found as in th e previous study. The third study performed was a market segmentation study performed in a similar manner to that of study two. This study tested three hypothe sis developed by Fodness. They were able to develop several variables related to tr aveling party, trip planning, trip behavior, and expenditure.

PAGE 37

24 He postulated that all of these variables would be useful to marketers and tourism development personnel in creating an ideal tourism destination. Fodness felt that the understanding of tourist motiva tions and these variables coul d also assist marketers in product development, quality evaluation of goods and services, and promotional activities. Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996) e xplored motivation in leisure through a meta-analysis of 36 studies that had used the Recreation Preference Scales (REP) method. REP scales have been defined as, “. . psychometric scaling that could be used to measure the dimensions of people’s recrea tion experience” (p.188). Data for this study derived from 36 studies that had used the RE P scales to measure motivation in leisure between the mid to late 70s. Correlation and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that 108 of the 328 items in the REP scale item pool showed correlations and remained for further analysis. Some of these scales include achievement/stimulation, family togetherness, similar people, learning, nosta lgia, creativity, and escape personal-social pressures. The results of the study concl uded that the REP scales were reliable and should be used in further research. They called specifically for further use of the REP scales in leisure studies not pertaining to outdoor recreation specifi cally to see if the validity scores would stay the same. Gnoth (1997) introduced the model of tourism motivation and expectation formation as a way to better understand the relationship between motivations and satisfaction. He asserted that visitors develop expectati ons based on their motivations and that those expectations help to determine the satisfaction of the visitor on the destination. Through a review of literature including motivations, performance, and

PAGE 38

25 expectations, Gnoth proposed a model, which began with the urge (also termed push or drive) to visit, followed by the objective situation, which was influenced by the perceptions and values. This then lead to the subjective situation (also termed pull), which in turn lead to the attitudes and expectations in the actual event and those following the event. Gnoth called for further research to be done using this model in studying the motivations of tourists. In their book about learning in museums, Falk and Dierking (2000) related the Conceptual Model of Learning to museum vis itors and explained that many times visitors to museums are motivated to form, expand upon or relive their own personal experiences. They gain more knowledge about themselves their experiences, and the world around them through the exhibitions and settings pres ented. These visitors gained a sense of fulfillment in reminiscing about the past and learn more of themselves as they were presented with their own feelings regarding past events and histor y. Also, according to Falk and Dierking, “One action that can, and fo r many people does, flow from interest is the decision to attend a selected museum or pa y selective attention to specific exhibitions or exhibit elements once inside a museum” (pg. 23). These served as motivations for these visitors to attend a particular museum or exhibition and a ll occured within the personal context of the Con ceptual Model of Learning. Jewell and Crotts (2002) explored the me thodology of the Hierarchical Map Value technique (HVM) in attempts to identify possi ble motivations for vis itors of a historic house heritage tourism attract ion in South Carolina. The HVM technique was one in which sought to identify “both higher and lower values and their conn ections via a series of probing questions,” such as “why.” It wa s typically diagrammed as a ladder structure

PAGE 39

26 and from this, attributes and consequences we re identified. Attributes were features or components specific to the attraction, whereas consequences, also termed core values, were the desirable outcomes of the attraction vi sit. In their study, the core values were the motivations that were derived from the respondent’s interviews. The researchers followed the traditional HVM sample size of 30 participants and gave each participant a 20 minute interview following th eir visit to the h ouse. From the 30 interviews, eleven attributes were identified and from those, four lines of consequences were found, which led them to the “Satisfying experience/pleasur e” end. Some of the consequences were identified as “knowledge/understanding, relaxatio n, and connection to th e past/nostalgia.” This method was considered for this current study, however due to the small sample size and time required for the interviews, in additi on to the question of reliability, it was the opinion of this researcher that the push/ pull framework was a better measure for the purposes of the current study. Decision Making In the decision making literature, many di mensions of the decision making process existed. Jenkins (1978) investigated family d ecision making as it relates to vacations. He sought to determine the subdecision areas, meas ure the family role and influence each member had in the decision, and determine what criteria were important to families in choosing a destination. The data were collec ted from two focus gr oup interview sessions with five couples who took a vacation in 1976. From these focus groups, a final questionnaire was developed and then sent to 105 couples in the Columbus, Ohio area. The results revealed that the following serv ed as subdecisions: collection of information, whether to take the children, how long to sta y, the exact time of year or actual date, the type of transportation, amount of money to spend, kind of ac tivities to participate in,

PAGE 40

27 commercial lodging facilities to use, and destination points of interest. The results showed that the dominance of decision ma king was based entirely upon what decision was being made. It was found that children ha d considerable influence on the decisions made, particularly in the areas of the activities to participat e in and where they would go. They found the collection of information happe ned anywhere from one to three months before the scheduled vacation. The determination of date was primarily husband dominated, whereas the transportation decisi on was joint by the husband and wife. The decision of how much to spend was viewed as being primarily the husbands decision by the wives, and an equal decision by the husba nds. The selection of commercial lodging was a joint decision between the husbands and wives with considerable influence by the children. Jenkins (1978) asserted that unders tanding the decision making process as it related to family vacation des tinations was of vital importanc e to the tourism industry and recreation providers. Ritchie and Filiatrault (1980) sought to re plicate and expand and improve an earlier study done on family decision making. They interviewed husband and wife couples from vacation-taking families, using a questionnair e. Using the constant sum method, the couples were asked to allocate 100 points in proportion to each of the members of the family on the basis of their perceived im portance in determining the outcome of a particular subdecision. There were 17 subdecisions included on the survey, of which 10 dealt with the vacation itself, while the remaining seven revolved around the lodging where the family was staying. Using MANO VA to compile the results, Ritchie and Filiatrault found that on average, husbands were perceived to have greater influence than wives, and in none of the subdecisions were the wives or children perceived as having

PAGE 41

28 more influence than the husbands. They also found that influence in the decision process varied with the subdecision under consideration. Children have very little influence in lodging decisions, however, they did have some influence in other factors. Children exerted the highest degree of influence on decisions concerning when to go on vacation, where to go, the type of vacation, an d whether to go on vacation at all. They also investigated lodging criteria and found that family vacationers placed more importance on factors including swi mming pools, attractiveness of grounds, room layout, credit card acceptance, television in room s, on site restaurant, and special rates for children than couple vacationers. Couple vaca tioners placed more importance on factors such as personal safety from theft, recrea tion/entertainment facilities in hotel, and published information about the hotel. Th ey found that “chain” lodgers had great importance attached to; exte rnal appearance, swimming pool attractiveness of grounds, room layout, credit card acceptance, ease of making reservations, hotel/motel that looks like one at home, television in rooms, on site restaurant, level of personalized service, special rates for children, recreation and entertai nment facilities in hotel, quality of meals, and proximity to main travel route. Wh ereas, independent lodgers attached more importance to the price of the rooms. Overa ll, they found that the findings of this study were consistent with those of previous st udies surrounding the infl uence of the family structure in decision making, how ever, there needs to be better scales developed for measuring lodging choice criteria. Crompton (1981) investigated an individual’ s selection of a part icular destination and if social groups had any influence on that individual’s decision. He sought to find out if this influence existed, who might be the influencers, and do these influences

PAGE 42

29 enhance the satisfaction of the destination in th e eyes of the individual. The data for this study came from 39 unstructured two hour intervie ws concerning leisure. He found that other individuals may directly influence a person to visit a particular destination, that they may mold an individual’s opinion and image of a destination, that they may acquire stereotypes from long term socialization about a particular destination, and that social influences from other individuals can come from those living far away from the individual decision-maker. The composition of these social influences included the family unit, friends, and children. The ro les of these groups in enhancing pleasure vacations included components such as the sa ving of money by trave ling with others, the presence of companions and reduction of lonliness, the stimulation and added perspectives by others, and finally, the abil ity to share experiences and occurrences. In 1988, Carr and Woodside sought to analy ze the effect of ma rketing strategies geared toward tourists and what guided thei r decision to visit the vacation destination they visited. They began w ith the hypothesis that destina tion awareness, preference, and choice were all related in a positive manner in the decision making process. The study was performed using empirical analysis. Firs t destination awareness was measured using the unaided awareness method. Preference was measured using the constant sum scale, and choice was measured using the conjoint analysis method. The authors concluded that marketing strategies could be influential on t ourists, and that vacationing tourists can be categorized by these decision making variables. The article also suggested that more research should be done on this topic, and went on to say that marketing departments should consider annual surveys ut ilizing the three methods that were used in this study.

PAGE 43

30 Nichols and Snepenger (1988) investig ated family decision making and the behavior and attitudes toward tourism. They compared three decision making models that had come from previous literature: husbanddominant, wife-dominant, and husbandwife joint decision making. The data came from one individual from each family that filled out a 1983 survey for the Alaska State Division of Tourism. The results revealed that joint decision-makers tended to plan thei r vacation earlier and th ey tended to consult their friends more often than the other groups It was apparent that husband-dominant groups spent more than the other groups a nd wife-dominant groups tended to spend the least amount of time in leisure activities. The joint decision making groups tended to visit family members, camp/hike or visit national parks more so than the other two groups. The implications for this study were that marketers and tourism providers would better understand who to market to, ie. the person who makes the decision. Howard and Madrigal (1990) investigated the role of parents and children in the decision making process when selecting a recrea tion experience. They wanted to find the degree to which parents and children influen ce recreation choice, the effects of older versus younger children in the decision ma king process, and the perceived level of influence by children on recreat ion purchase. The data for this study were collected through a four-page questionnaire of parents registering their ch ildren in recreation programs. The influence of family member s was measured by a constant sum method, which allocated 100 points to the decision infl uencer in proportion to their perceived involvement in the decision. The results reve aled that the mothers and child have more influence on the recreation choice than do the fathers, perhaps because the mothers were taking full responsibility in the search for th eir child’s recreation. Children were very

PAGE 44

31 rarely found to make an independent decision. The results were unclear as to whether the lack of the paternal involvement was due to ambivalence, or whether it was a matter of convenience to the mother as the primary caretaker. Fodness (1992) sought to explore the role that the family played in the vacation decision making process, and whether or not it ’s position in the family life cycle also had an impact on the decision being made. He came up with a two-part hypothesis, which thought that the patterns of vacation informati on being sought and the patterns of the final decision made would depend upon the family’s stage in the family life cycle. They “focused on the stages of the vacation d ecision making process which were available from the secondary data-information search and final decision.” The results attained from this study supported the original hypot hesis, and it also discovered some new information. They found that the family does move through a cycl e over time and where they are in the cycle has a great influence on where they decide to vacation. Also, the study showed that wives are more likely to gather information regarding a vacation destination than are husbands. From this th ey inferred that the role of decision-maker also changes over time. Madrigal (1993) again investigated the pa rent’s perceptions of family member’s influence in vacation decision making. The data were collected from forty-eight married partners with children currently living in th e home. A 100-point constant sum scale was used to determine the relative influence of each person on the vacation decision made. The results showed that husbands were percei ved as having the majority of the decision in deciding where to go, and how much w ould be spent on the trip. Wives were percieved to have had greater influence in decisions relating to gathering information

PAGE 45

32 about the trip and choosing where to stay. Older children were perceived as having more influence than were younger children by the pa rents. The conclusions of this study were that while the decisions to take a vacation were for the most part jo int decisions, both the husband and wife still assumed certain roles as decision-makers in specific decisions. Gitelson and Kerstetter (1994) explored th e degree to which friends and relatives influence the travel decision making process. The thought that friends and relatives could have as much, if not more influence than childre n, this needed to be pursued further. The data for this study was collected through a one-page questionnaire and a follow up questionnaire of visitors to th ree heritage sites in Southwes tern Pennsylvania. Using the constant sum method, respondents were asked to allocate who had made the decisions in the following areas: which sites to visit, what to do in the area, how long to stay in the area, where to eat, who was responsible for getting trip-related information, and where to stay if the trip lasted for more than a day. Re sults indicated that all of the travel decisions were influenced by friends and/ or relatives, and in approxima tely one third of the groups, friends and relatives dominated the decisions ma de in at least four of the six decisions made. Gitelson and Kerstetter suggested that further research be done in this area. In 1995, Millman and Pizam conducted a study of awareness and familiarity with the region of Central Florida as a site for pot ential vacations. They initially hypothesized that those persons that were familiar with Central Florida and aware of it as a tourist destination would be more likely to visit a nd have a more positive image of it than those who were not familiar with it would. Using focus groups and sample surveys by means of telephone calls, they questioned persons 18 years and older from many regions of the United States. They found that there were st ages to familiarity with a destination, and

PAGE 46

33 that just because people are aware of an area as a touris t destination, they might not choose to visit this area. According to Sirakaya, McLellan, and Uysal (1996), the decision making process can be categorized into two groups: structur al (the relationship between stimulus and response) and process (the complete process) This article discussed the factors that influence vacation destination choice. The au thors created a model comprised of three assumptions. These three assumptions were 1) the “assessment of the factors affecting a person’s choice,” 2) “Brunswik’s suggestion that most decision-makers employ a few criteria when making their de cisions,” and 3) most consumers “process information additively.” The authors reali zed that the decisions made by the subjects were individual specific. As well, students tended not to demonstrate good in sight into their decisions. They concluded that individuals make decisions specific to themselves is helpful in this study, because it decreases the amount of constraining factors that need to be considered when formulating the methods and procedures section. Kerstetter and Pennington-Gray (1999) studied the decision making roles and attitudes of university -educated women who enjoyed trave lling for pleasure. One of the primary goals of this study was to find out whether generation had a significant influence on the decision making process and outcome of that process. A sample of 1,000 women representing four generations were randomly chosen from the alumni list of a large university in the northeast. These women received a mail-back questionnaire with cover letter explaining the study and a prepaid self addressed envelope for convenience. From the 49% response rate, respondents were categ orized into five categories based on percentage allocation: 1) sole decision-m aker (these made 100% of the decision to

PAGE 47

34 travel), 2) dominant influence (greater than 50% of the decision to travel), 3) equal influence (50% of the decision to travel), 4) lesser influence (l ess than 50% of the decision to travel), and 5) no influence (0% of the decision to travel). They were questioned on five types of trav el decisions: 1) what to do, 2) who to travel with, 3) how to travel, 4) when to travel, and 5) where to travel. There was a fair ly even distribution of generations involved in decisi on making and the results showed that overall, the “equal role” decision maker was the most common t ype. Also, significance was found in three of the five types of decisions being made: 1) what to do, 2) who to travel with, and 3) how to travel. This study also showed th at the “decision making role of women changed when controlled for income.” The measures of the percentage allocation of the decision making role and type of decision being made pr oved to be valid and reliable in measuring what they set out to measure. This study wa s also significant because it showed that the decision making process can be the result of many different types of people with many different types of decisions. Satisfaction Satisfaction was a concept that was esse ntial in understand ing and evaluating tourists and exploring their be haviors. Measuring satisfactio n can be somewhat difficult in that the questions being asked must be va lid measures of satisfa ction. Satisfaction in tourism stemmed from the expectations a visitor had, combined with their overall experience (Pizam, 1978). After initial inte rviews and survey que stionnaires study of tourists vacationing in the Cape Cod area of Massachusetts factor analysis was used to break the original thirty-two factors into se veral domains that coul d comprise satisfaction in the tourism industry. The results yielded eight different domains of satisfaction that the original thirty two fell into in this fi rst study: beach opportunities, cost, hospitality,

PAGE 48

35 eating and drinking facilities, accommoda tion facilities, campground facilities, environment, and the extent of civilization. Obviously some of th ese factors were not applicable to all areas of tourism as beach es are not plentiful ev erywhere, however the methods employed to discover these domains are valid and could be applied to other areas where other domains should be identified (such as museums). Beard and Ragheb (1980) sought to develop a suitable measure for satisfaction in leisure in the hopes of providi ng better leisure experiences and therefore contributing to the “pursuit of happiness ” of recreationists. It was th eir belief that not only those participants of recreation related activities would benefit from this research, but also those decision-makers, planners, and managers th at provide recreation and leisure. They defined satisfaction in leisure as, “…the pos itive perceptions or feelings, which an individual forms, elicits, or gains as a result of engaging in leisure act ivities and choices.” In attempts to better understa nd how this occurs in the in dividual, they developed the Leisure Satisfaction Scale (LSS), whose prim ary purpose was to measure the degree to which individuals are satisfied with and th rough their leisure activities. This scale allowed respondents to mark the extent of the truth of statements relating to six different areas in their life and leisure activities, usi ng a five point Likert scale. The truth statements included words like almost never, seldom, sometimes, often, or almost always true. The six different areas, derived from previous psychology lit erature included areas such as psychological, educational, social, relaxational, physiologica l, and aesthetic. After a series of field tests, which include d a mailed questionnaire, the results indicated that four of the six areas we re clearly discernable. They found that respondents often confused relaxation with recreation and the physiological areas became more clear after

PAGE 49

36 several rotations in factor anal ysis. The reliability and va lidity of these factors were consistent at the time of the study, but furt her research and development was necessary. Maddox (1985) discussed another method of measuring satisfaction, the MultitraitMultimethod (MTMM) approach, where several factors aimed to measure the same construct. For example, in this current study, there were three f actors of satisfaction being tested as well as the ove rall satisfaction: information, se rvices, and facilities. Each of these three factors had variables that the pa rticipant had to address. For example, in order to test the participant’s satisfaction with the information available, they are asked to rate their satisfaction on a 5 poi nt Likert scale with such it ems as the information about the exhibit, what to do in Greater Gainesv ille, and in trip planning. Each of these variables helped the participant and research er to evaluate the satisfaction with the information available, as Ma ddox suggested in the MTMM method. Satisfaction was a crucial theo ry to tourism, not only because as service providers satisfied customers were essential, but also because if customers were dissatisfied, then they may not be repeat visitors The quality of the service provided was key to the degree of satisfaction that the visitor will experi ence (Quinn & Gagnon, 1986). To illustrate this, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1988) developed SERVQUAL as a measure of customer satisfaction in relati on to issues of quality in serv ice agencies. This measure was designed to analyze the vi sitor’s perceptions of their expectations or importance levels and the perceived performance of each di fferent item. They began with ten service dimensions, each with two statements measuri ng the perceived performance. From this, five service dimensions were then derive d: tangibles, reliab ility, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The SERVQUAL model of measurement was designed to be

PAGE 50

37 applied to a broad spectrum of service agencies, and therefor e has been challenged in its effectiveness in the recr eation/tourism industries. MacKay and Crompton (1988) took this quali ty of services provided theory and applied it to the fields of r ecreation and park management. They investigated service quality as the result of what happens when expectations meet perceived performance using the five dimensions found by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1988). Mannell (1989) suggested the satisfaction can be analyzed through two dimensions, motivations and specificity level in attempts to better understand satis faction as it relates to leisure. He asserted that satisfaction is based on human needs and that it is a comparison of the expectations visitors have (based on their motivations) to the actual experience that they have at their respective destination. Specificity level he asserted could be measured through three approaches : molar, molecular and molecular-molar. The molar approach referred to an overall level of satisfaction whereas the molecular approach referred to more specific items that contribute to the overall experience. The molecular-molar approach was a combination of the two, similar to the measure used in this current study. From this, a global sati sfaction score was derived, which showed the researcher the level of satisfaction present in a certain visitor. Chadee and Mattson (1995) measured custom er satisfaction within four distinct tourist settings among college students. Following the idea that an indication of the quality of service was the measure of the gap between expectati ons and perception of service by the customer, these researchers an alyzed college student s in four “tourist” settings: eating out, hotel stays, car rentals, and sightseeing tours. They gave each of the students one set of four pictures showing each of these locations and asked them to rate

PAGE 51

38 how satisfied they would be with each location, using a five-point Like rt scale. In each picture, one quality variable was reflected in a negative manner from a standard generally positive picture. This allowed the researchers to determine which factor was of more importance to the students at each of the f our locations. For example, at the hotel, the facilities were the most important factor, whil e at the rental car f acility the pickup and delivery services were most im portant. Cost was only the most important variable at the restaurant, whereas at the sight seeing tour, the edu cational value of the tour was ranked most important to the students. While this study was helpful to serv ice providers in the tourism industry, further research us ing the model was difficult to find. Reed and Hall (1997) studied customer satis faction and defined it as a relationship between a customer, the product/service, a nd the provider. They also found that satisfaction was the result of the visitor’s feel ings as to whether or not their needs and expectations had been met. One key con cept that was important to tourism service providers was that satisfaction was not fixed and that it was influe nced and manipulated over time. If the visitor perceived a poor qua lity service, then th ey were much more likely be dissatisfied with that service, a nd as a result not return to that particular attraction. Bramwell (1998) introduced the framework of ‘place marketing’ into a study that he performed in the United Kingdom aimed to gain a better unders tanding of customer satisfaction with tourism produc ts and services in a city setting in order to improve planning for those same facilities elsewhere. ‘P lace marketing’ in this context referred to the fact that the marketing and development of products should be focused on the target users and what their needs and wants are and how they should meet those needs and

PAGE 52

39 wants. This study was performed in Sheffi eld, England using face to face questionnaires with separate ones for visitors and resident s. Respondents were selected randomly and approximately 390 visitors and 191 resident s were interviewed at several tourist destinations in the city. A statistical test was applied and satisfacti on ratings of different services and tourist destinations were accumulated from the surveys. Bramwell made an interesting point in that he stated it wa s wasteful when products and services are developed and promoted and the intended user s are not satisfied w ith these products and services. Bramwell felt that situations lik e these could be avoided if marketers and development personnel better understood sa tisfaction and performance quality. Absher (1998) reduced the dimensions of satisfaction from the five earlier researched by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) and proposed that there are three dimensions of satisfaction found among vis itors to National Forests: information, services and facilities. Ab sher asserted that the simp ler the measure, the more information could be gleaned rega rding the visitor’s satisfaction. Baker and Crompton (2000) asserted that one of the most important factors for marketing professionals to master is that of customer satisfact ion. This is evident in their study of satisfaction at a festiv al destination, which investigated the roles of performance quality and degrees of satisfaction in the tourism industry. Here, performance quality was described as a measure of the service or product of the provider, and satisfaction was devoted to measuring the tourist’s outcome This study was performed at an outdoor festival held in a community’s downtown hist oric district and in cluded many attractions from living history demonstra tions to carnival rides. Respondents were given a mailback questionnaire with a pr epaid postage envelope and asked to return it.

PAGE 53

40 Approximately 73% were returned and fact or analysis was performed in order to establish different variables measuring qualit y, satisfaction, and beha vioral intentions. They found that perceptions of quality had a significant imp act on visitor behavior and also that satisfaction had a significant effect. Baker a nd Crompton suggested that the festival planners and the tourism indus try concentrate on enhancing perceived performance quality and degrees of satisfaction of the tourists that visit their destinations. Burns (2000) stated that there were com ponents to service organizations and that each of these components came together to fo rm an overall whole of satisfaction. These components were facilities, se rvices, information, and experi ence. Three of these four components were addressed in the current st udy: facilities, servi ces, and information. Experience was addressed in that the survey questionnaire was inqui ring after the overall experience instead of experience in each area of the exhibition. Summary In short, the theories of motivation, d ecision making, and satisfaction coupled with demographic information all surrounding a we ll-respected traveling exhibition provided the information necessary to answer the res earch questions of this study. Each of the studies discussed in the review of the literature were utilized in creating the most effective study possible and have aided in the development of a model to illustrate their involvement in this study. Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 illustrated the four factors of motivations as tested on the survey questionn aire, and Figure 3-1 showed their projected effects on the components of decision making and satisfaction. The researcher of this study asserted that the motivations of the museum visitors had an influence on the decision making process and on the satisfaction that the museum visitor felt with regards to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition.

PAGE 54

41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The problem of this study was to gain in formation regarding the characteristics of the motivations, decision making processes a nd the satisfaction of tourist and resident museum visitors and the impact of a majo r exhibition on the museum it hosts. This chapter explained the methods and procedures used to collect data and the analysis necessary to interpret the data in hopes of solving the research problem and successfully answering the research questions. Instrumentation The research design selected for this particular study involved a 3 pagequestionnaire. This questionnaire consiste d of close-ended questions, and seven openended questions. It was self-administered, a nd approximately 20 questions in length (see Appendix B). The survey had questions to determine the economic impact of “Sue” on Gainesville, and also measures of satisf action, motivation and decision making among the visitors to the exhibit at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Discussion of the Variables Push and Pull Motivations This study set out to investigate the mo tivations, decision making process, and satisfaction of museum visitors as they rela te to a traveling exhibit. The researcher sought to specify motivations even furthe r by defining them as push and pull-type motivations. Unfortunately the portion the su rvey instrument included as a measure of

PAGE 55

42 this did not have an adequate number of responses for analysis, and would yield only speculation. Motivations For the purposes of this study, motivati ons were operationaliz ed using the REP (Recreation Experience Preference) scales co mmonly used in the motivation in leisure literature (Manfredo, Driver, a nd Tarrant, 1996). These scales were originally developed to measure psychological dimensions of thos e pursuing outdoor recreation experiences. Some of the dimensions previously explored through the REP scales include: learning, nostalgia, achievement/stimulation, family t ogetherness, similar people, creativity, and escape personal-social pressures. Table 3-1. The Factors of Travel Motivations Among Museum Visitors Motivation Factors Motivation Items 1. Friends and Family 1. To be with friends and family 2. To bring my family closer together 3. To do something with my family 4. To spend more time with my family 2. Exploration 1. To explore 2. To experience new and different things 3. To get to know something different 4. To gain an appreciation of history 3. Education 1. To develop my general knowledge 2. To learn new things 3. To seek an educational experience 4. To seek intellectual enrichment 4. Rest & Relaxation 1. To rest and relax 2. To take it easy 3. To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do 4. To get away from it all *All domains and items adapted from Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996) While outdoor recreation experiences were not what this study was about, based on the results, this measure seemed to be the be st fit for what we want ed to explore in the museum context. Table 3-1 showed the f our domains of travel motivations being

PAGE 56

43 explored in the survey questionnaire, as well as the sixteen items that correspond to each of the domains. Decision Making The decision making process was operati onalized using the c onstant sum method. This method was selected because it was be tter adapted for measuring the degree of influence, and also avoided inte rpretive problems with adject ives that would come from a Likert type scale (Jenki ns, 1978, Ritchie & Filitrault, 1980; Carr & Woodside, 1988; Howard & Madrigal, 1990, Madrigal, 1993). This method consisted of having the respondent allocate 100 points between those who were involved in the decision making process on the basis of the proportion of thei r involvement. Combining what was studied in previous literature regarding leisure a nd tourism, this study defined decision making parties as including: Myself, Spouse/Partner, Friends/R elatives, Children, and Other. Table 3-2 showed the factors being analyzed on decision making as they appear on the survey questionnaire, which came from Kerstetter and Pennington-Gray 1994. Table 3-2. Travel Decision Making Among Museum Visitors On this trip to the museum who in your travel party made the following decisions: Type of decision Myself Spouse/ Friends/ Child(ren) Other (if not applicable leave blank) Partner Relatives (explain) Q14a When to come to museum _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14b Who to bring to museum _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14c Whether to come at all _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14d Whether to buy a “Sue” souvenir _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14e How long you stayed at museum _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14f To stay overnight _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14g How much was spent on trip _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ Q14h Details on how to visit the museum _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ *Adapted from Pennington and Kerstetter (1994)

PAGE 57

44 Satisfaction Satisfaction, in this stud y, was operationalized after th e four components proposed to encompass overall satisfaction in leisur e: Facilities, Services, Information and Experience (Burns, 2000). Facilities, services and information were given to the museum visitor in the form of a table with twelve it ems, four items measur ing each of the three components. They were asked to rate thes e items on a Likert scale of one to five, indicating the extent to which they were sati sfied with each of the items. Experience was measured using a separate question that asked the visitor to rate their overall experience on a Likert scale of one to ten. Table 3-3 showed the three domains of travel satisfaction hypothesized, and the twelve items that correspond to those doma ins as seen on the survey questionnaire. Again, these domains were adapted from Burns (2000) to fit the museum and this study. Table 3-3. Travel Satisfaction Factors Among Museum Visitors Satisfaction Factors Satisfaction Items 1. Information 1. Ability to get tickets or book group package 2. Information about the exhibit 3. Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 4. Information in planning my trip to see “Sue” 2. Services 1. Staff availability 2. Staff friendliness 3. Staff helpfulness 3. Facilities 1. Ability to see the exhibit up close 2. Cleanliness of the exhibit area 3. Exhibit itself 4. Physical layout of exhibit area 5. Variety of things to do in exhibit area *All domains and items adapted from Burns (2000)

PAGE 58

45 Figure 3-1, on the next page, illustrated the effects of different factors of motivations as tested on the survey questionn aire and their effects on the decision making process and the satisfaction of the museum visitors. Figure 3-1. Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction Sampling Procedures/Selection of Subjects The sample consisted of tourists and re sidents in the Gainesville area of North Central Florida. For the purposes of this study, a tourist was de fined as, a person who was traveling from outside the county where the research was taking place and a resident was defined as a person living in or traveli ng from the county where the research took place. Therefore, the sampling frame incl uded the random selection of males and females of age 18 or older. Both residents a nd tourists were included in the final sample. Site Description: Alachua County and the Greater Gainesville Area Greater Gainesville Area History To more clearly understand the geogra phic parameters around this study, background information on the setting was necessary. Alachua County was founded in 1824, and named for a ranch that had been ther e in the late 1600’s. The name Alachua comes from the Spanish word “La” meani ng “the” and the Seminole word “Luchuwa” meaning jug, and was most commonly thought to refer to a large si nkhole southeast of Motivations Satisfaction Decision Making

PAGE 59

46 Gainesville (www.floridanet link.com). Alachua County, also termed the Greater Gainesville Area, not only includes Gaines ville, but also the communities of Alachua, High Springs, Hawthorne, Newberry, Archer and Waldo. In addition to the University of Florida, Alachua County is the home of Sa nta Fe Community College. The estimated population of the county is 191,000, which incl udes the more than 40,000 students who attended the University of Florida. Alachua County is located on Interstate 75 and US Route 441. The Gainesville Regional Airpor t assists in making this county very accessible to tourists (www.co.alachua.fl.us). Attractions of the Grea ter Gainesville Area The Greater Gainesville Area boasts many attractions including museums, theater, and nature based attractions such as pa rks, which focused on nature and culture (www.visitgainesville.net). Ou tdoor recreation activities su ch as hiking, biking, canoeing and golf are popular things to do in this area of Florida. Sporting events held at the University of Florida including Gator Footba ll and Basketball games serve as attractions for visitors from all over the State of Flor ida. Many special events are held throughout the year including the Hoggetowne Medieval Fa ire in February, Gatornationals and the Alachua County Youth Fair in March, the Spri ng Arts Festival in April as well as Railroad Days and Pioneer Days in May, to name a few (www.co.alachua.fl.us). A map showing the location of Alachua C ounty is included as Appendix A. The study was conducted at the Florida Museum of Natural History, a major attraction in the Gainesville area, which hosted a special traveling exhibition, from January 26th through May 19, 2002. The museum was chosen as a host for the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. This exhibition came out of the Field Museum of Chicago, and had the Florida Museum of Natural History as being the only museum south of Atlanta,

PAGE 60

47 GA that had the opportunity to host the exhibit through the year 2003. The museum continues to be located on the campus of the University of Florida. Data Collection Data collection for this study included th e researcher asking potential respondents to participate in this study on days that were randomly sele cted by a computer program. The respondents in the sample were accessed fr om the exit of the exhibition, given a brief introduction to the study and asked to use ten minutes of their time to fill out the survey. Problems that were encountered in collecting this data included the unwillingness of the potential respondent to participate and the le ngth of the survey questionnaire. In the cases where it was found that potential respond ents were unwilling to participate, they were pleasantly thanked and allowed to go on their way. Overall, 414 questionnaires were collected from this location, with 401 useab le (due to 13 surveys that were filled out by children of approached pot ential respondents) which was sufficient to solve the problems presented. Of those, 226 were to urists and 175 were residents of Alachua County, 4 respondents did not indicate the coun ty of their residence. The study was conducted during the early months (February, March, April, and May) of the year 2002, the time that the “Sue” exhibition was hosted in Gainesville. Data Treatment and Analysis Descriptive statistics including frequencie s, as well as factor analysis, ANOVA’s, and Independent sample T-Test analyses we re employed for this study. The data were entered and analyzed using SPSS (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 10.0). Each of the research questions in th is study explored the possibilities of the existence of relationships between motiv ation, decision making, and satisfaction in museum visitors.

PAGE 61

48 Each of the seven research questions we re statistically anal yzed. To answer question 1, exploratory factor analysis was utilized, while question 2 compared the means of factors found in question 1 using a paired T-Test. Question 3 used Independent Sample T-Tests and Question 4 included ANOV A analyses as well as some recoding. Question 5a utilized factor analysis and question 5b used ANOVA to look at the differences in means. Question 6 used an I ndependent Sample T-Test similar to question 3. Finally, question 7 used ANOVA analys es, in a similar manner to question 3.

PAGE 62

49 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The traveling exhibition, “A T.Rex Named Sue,” provided many insights concerning the motivations, decision making pro cess, and satisfaction levels of museum visitors as they related to a traveling exhi bition in a natural hist ory museum. Well over 400 survey questionnaires were dispersed and of those, 401 were useable for analysis (13 were filled out by children of the persons who volunteered and therefore not useable). The socio-demographic information provide d by the respondents was also extremely helpful in determining what makes museum visitors attend these exhibitions and their basic characteristics. Other information, in cluding the economic impact of the exhibition, were also taken from the surveys, but were not included as part of the research questions. There were five major sections cove red in this chapter, which include: Visitor Profile Analysis of Motivations Analysis of Decision Making Analysis of Satisfaction Analysis of Socio-Demographic Comparison Visitor Profile The demographic characteristics of the visi tors that filled out the surveys were somewhat varied. The demographic variables analyzed included age, gender, residency, education level, ethnic identity, as well as a nnual average income. The results are given in Table 4-1.

PAGE 63

50 Table 4-1. Visitor Profile for the “A T.Rex Named Sue” Exhibition Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Valid Percentage Gender (N=400) Female 227 56.7 Male 173 43.3 Residency (N=401) Other County Resident 226 56.4 Alachua County Resident 175 43.6 Education (N=369) High School 38 10.3 Some College 41 11.1 Associate Degree 88 23.8 Bachelor’s Degree 82 22.2 Some graduate school 36 9.8 Masters Degree 55 14.9 Doctorate Degree 29 7.9 Ethnic Identity (N=401) Euro American/White 337 84.0 Latino American 16 4.0 African American 15 3.7 Asian American 12 3.0 Native American 12 3.0 Other 9 2.2 Annual Average Income Level (N=335) Less than $25,000 80 23.9 $25,001 $50,000 91 27.2 $50,001 $75,000 70 20.9 $75,001 $100,000 40 11.9 $100,001 $125,000 21 6.3 $125,001 $150,000 12 3.6 Greater than $150,001 21 6.3 The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding

PAGE 64

51 Gender The frequency of visitors to the exhi bit was 56.8% female, which accounted for 227 of the 401 respondents. This was compar ed to 43.3% (173 actual respondents) who were male. One limitation of this study was the fact that often, the potential male respondents approached about the survey replie d that they would, in fact, fill it out and then proceeded to hand it to thei r wives and told them to do it. County Residency and Length of Stay Of the “Sue” visitors surveyed, 226 of the 401 (56.4%) were residents from other counties both in the state of Florida and in ot her states as far away as Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Alachua county residents accounte d for the other 43.6% of visitors to the “Sue” exhibition. Education Level The highest level of education was varied. Just over 10% of vis itors indicated that they had graduated from high school, but not pur sued college. Slightly less than one quarter (23.8%) of visitors indicated that they had completed some college, but not attained any kind of degree. More than one tenth (11.1%) of visitors indicat ed that they had attained an Associate’s Degree, while 22.2% of visitors indicated that they had completed the requirements for a Bachelor’s De gree. Under 10% of th e visitors surveyed indicated that they had attended graduate school, and 14.9% claimed they had a Masters Degree, while 7.9% received their Doctorate Degree. Ethnic Identity The majority of visitors to the “Sue” e xhibit were Euro American/White (84.0%). The next largest ethnic group were of Latin American background (4.0%), followed by 3.7% who reported being African American, 3.0% who reported being Asian American,

PAGE 65

52 and 3.0% indicating a Native American bac kground. Only 2.2% indicated some other ethnic identity, some of which included It alian American, Irish American, Polish and Jamaican. Average Income Level The reported average annual income levels of the “Sue” visitors surveyed ranged from $25,000 and below to $150,000 and above. Th e majority of visitors reported an income level between $25,001 and $50,000 (actual 27.2%), while almost 25% of the visitors reported an average income of $25,000 or less (actual 23.9%). Only 28.0% of visitors surveyed reported an average income of $75,000 or more. Over half (51.1%) of the respondents indicated th at they had an average income of $50,000 or less. Age One other demographic item that this survey gleaned was the ages of the respondents who filled out the surveys. This did not reflect the ages that visited the exhibit because children were not intervie wed and it was estimated that almost 40,000 of the overall 90,529 visitors were children (J ones, 2002). However, a breakdown of the adults surveyed is shown in Table 4-2, wh ich shows the average age of respondents was 41. Table 4-2. Age of Respondents of the “Sue’ Survey MeanMedianModeStandard Deviation Minimum Maximum Age of participants surveyed 41.3 40.5 22 15.2 18 80 (N=358) Analysis of Motivations The motivation statements were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale ranged from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongl y Agree,” and responde nts were asked to

PAGE 66

53 rate how the given statements made them feel. The motivational statements which respondents indicated that they “least agreed with” included: “to take it easy,” “to spend more time with my family,” “to get away from it all,” and “to reduce the feeling of having too many things to do.” The motivatio nal statements which respondents indicated that they agreed most with included: “to s eek an educational experience,” “to explore,” “to experience new and different things,” and “to take it easy.” The means and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Mean and Standard Deviation for Motivation Items Motivation Items Mean Standard Deviation To seek an educational experience 4.4 3.09 To experience new and different things 4.3 0.88 To learn new things 4.2 0.91 To explore 4.2 0.91 To seek intellectual enrichment 4.2 0.94 To gain an appreciation of history 4.2 0.92 To get to know something different 4.1 0.97 To develop my knowledge of things here 4.1 0.93 To do something with my family 3.9 1.29 To be with friends and family 3.7 1.34 To spend more time with my family 3.6 1.31 To rest and relax 3.4 1.20 To take it easy 3.4 1.21 To bring my family closer together 3.3 1.30 To get away from it all 3.2 1.30 To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do 2.7 1.30 (n=290) The frequency of the motivational statemen ts rated by the respondents are shown in Table 4-4 in percentages. Th e bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating app lied by the respondents.

PAGE 67

54 Table 4-4. Frequency of Motiva tion Items (in Percentages) Motivation Items 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree To be with friends and family 12.4 5.6 17.7 28.6 35.7 To bring my family closer together 14.6 7.9 32.9 22 22.6 To develop my knowledge of things here3.2 1.4 13.5 44.1 37.8 To do something with my family 11.3 2.7 14 31.8 40.2 To experience new and different things 3.4 0.6 5.4 45.5 45.2 To explore 3.2 1.4 10.7 41.2 43.5 To gain an appreciation of history 1.7 3.7 12.7 40.1 41.8 To get away from it all 13.8 16.9 30.2 20.6 18.5 To get to know something different 3.8 2.4 10 43.5 40.3 To learn new things 2.9 2 9.1 42.3 43.7 To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do 22.6 22.3 27.8 16.5 10.7 To rest and relax 10 12.4 26.4 32.1 19.1 To seek an educational experience 2.3 1.1 9.3 43.5 43.8 To seek intellectual enrichment 3.8 1.5 11.9 41.3 41.6 To spend more time with my family 11.8 6.3 19.6 31.1 31.1 To take it easy 11 10.4 29 29.9 19.7 Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses Analysis of Motivation Statements The motivation statements were analyzed using Factor analysis in SPSS, v10. Factor analysis has been recognized as an accepted and useful test for grouping multiple variables together into factors to identify commonality. Varimax rotation was included because it explained the largest degree of va riance among the multiple variables, and also allowed for a more even distribution of the variables into the factors that resulted. According to Jeffreys, Massoni, & Odonnell (1 997), “…varimax rotation is the best way of determining the appropriate number of commo n factors to retain based on an analysis of the eigenvalues of the adjusted correlation matrix.” The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) was also in cluded to determine if indeed factor analysis was the most appropriate method of analysis for the research questions pertaining to motivations. According to Jeffreys, Massoni, & Odonnell (1997), the KMO

PAGE 68

55 was an index, which compared the magnitudes of the observed correlation coefficients to the magnitudes of the partial correlation co efficients. A small KMO (less than 0.50) suggested that perhaps a fact or analysis was not a suitable approach, whereas a higher value indicates the appropriateness of factor analysis. The KMO found in these questions was 0.87; which proved factor analysis was an appropriate test for these questions. One limitation of this study was the sample size, which was rather small for this type of analysis, however it was still manageable. Question 1: Are There Distinct Motivationa l Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? The final outcomes of the factor analysis test showed three factors (or domains) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explained 67.7% of the total variance. Grounded in prior research, items with f actor loading scores of at least 0.40 were drawn for each factor. Fifteen of sixteen mo tivation statements loaded into one of three factors. The results of this factor analysis are shown in Table 4-5 on the next page. Factor 1Education and exploration Initially Factor 1, now titled “Education and Exploration,” was proposed as two separate motivational domains, however the fact or analysis indicated that they are indeed one factor. The motivation statements include d in this factor were “to explore,” “to experience new and different things,” “to get to know something different,” “to gain an appreciation of history,” “t o develop my general knowledge,” “to learn new things,” and “to seek intellectual enrichment.” The statem ent “to seek an educational experience” also loaded onto this factor, but was dropped becau se its loading number (0.29) was less than the accepted 0.50. The Education and Explor ation factor had a mean of 4.2 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.92 after removing the above dropped factor. If the “to seek an

PAGE 69

56 educational experience” factor had not been removed the Cronbach alpha would have been 0.76. This factor had an eigenvalue of 6.19 and accounted for 29.6% percent of the variance. Table 4-5 Factor Analysis Resu lts of Motivation Statements Motivation Statements Factor 1Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1Education and Exploration To develop my general knowledge 0.686 0.260 0.051 To learn new things 0.881 0.009 0.010 To seek intellectual enrichment 0.804 0.095 0.146 To get to know something new and different 0.806 0.111 0.216 To explore 0.788 0.056 0.145 To experience new and different things 0.783 0.248 0.051 To gain an appreciation of history 0.824 0.008 0.118 Factor 2Friends and Family To be with friends and family 0.063 0.823 0.125 To bring my family closer together 0.146 0.860 0.136 To do something with my family 0.271 0.851 0.044 To spend more time with my family 0.170 0.879 0.201 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation To rest and relax 0.1650.131 0.818 To take it easy 0.1280.312 0.784 To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do -0.0120.047 0.839 To get away from it all 0.1730.052 0.823 Eigenvalues 6.122.61 2.10 Cronbach Alpha 0.920.91 0.85 Factor Means 4.193.65 3.17 Percentage of variance explained 29.620.1 18.0 Cumulative variance explained 29.649.7 67.7 Factor 2Friends and family The second factor, now titled “Friends and Family,” was one of the initial proposed domains included in museum visitor’s motivations to visit a special exhibit. This factor included four motivation statements: “to spend more time with my family,” “to bring my family closer together,” “to do something with my family,” and “to be with friends and family.” Factor 2 had a factor mean of 3.7 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.91, which showed

PAGE 70

57 this factor is also highly re liable. This factor had an ei genvalue of 2.61 and accounted for 20.1% of the variance. Factor 3Rest and relaxation The third factor, “Rest and Relaxation,” contained many items pertaining to rest and relaxation including: “ to relax,” “to get away from it all,” “to take it easy,” and “to reduce the feeling of having too many things to do.” This factor had a mean of 3.2 and a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.85, which showed good reliability. The eigenvalue for this factor was 2.10 and it accounted for th e remaining 17.9% of the variance. Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Import ant to Visitors to Traveling Exhibits in the Museum? The three factors were then run through a paired t-test (Factor 1 with Factor 2, Factor 2 with Factor 3, and Factor 1 with Factor 3), which served to negate the assumption of independence on the part of the museum visitor regarding how they recorded their feelings in res ponse to each of the motivations. The results of this paired ttest are shown in Table 4-6, wh ich revealed that the relations hips between each of these pairs were equally significant. Table 4-6. Paired T-Test Results of Motivations Factors Mean Std. Deviation Sig.N Education/Exploration & Friends/Family .511 1.10 .000348 Friends/Family and Rest/Relaxation .486 1.27 .000337 Education/Exploration & Rest/Relaxation .999 1.10 .000341 The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses The Sig. indicates signifi cance at the <.001 level.

PAGE 71

58 Overall, the most important motivational f actor to visitors was the Education and Exploration factor with a mean of 4.2, follo wed by Friends and Family with a mean of 3.6, and Rest and Relaxation with a mean of 3.2. Question 3: Are There Differences in Mo tivations Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors? The visitors to the “A. T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition were asked if they were a resident of Alachua County, and if not, what county were they from. The purpose of this question was to see if there were differences in the motivations of the residents and tourists. The means and standard deviati ons for these factors and the residents and tourists are shown in Table 4-7. Table 4-7. Residency Means and Standard Deviations with Motivation Factors Education & ExplorationFriends & Family Rest & Relaxation Residency Mean St.DeviationN MeanSt.DeviationN Mean St.DeviationN Alachua Resident 4.2 0.77 1553.5 1.19 151 3.2 1.14 146 Tourist 4.2 0.80 2103.8 1.15 199 3.2 1.01 196 Number (N) may vary due to missing values An Independent Sample T-Test was run to determine if there was a significant difference between the residents and tourists and the results are shown in Table 4-8. Table 4-8. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Motivation Factors T Sig. N Residency with Education/Exploration -.083 .405 365 Residency with Friends/Family -1.99 .048 350 Residency with Rest/Relaxation -.076 .940 342 Significance is 2-tailed at the 0.05 level Number (N) may vary due to missing values These results indicated that there was one significant difference between the motivations of residents and those of touris ts to the exhibition. The difference between residents and tourists was with the Friends and Family motivation, which was consistent

PAGE 72

59 with other analyses in this study, which found this same motivation to be significant. This means that tourists were more motivated to travel to the museum for friends and family than were residents. Analysis of Decision Making and Reported Satisfaction The decision making questions were analyzed using a series of one-way analysis of variances (ANOVA). It seemed apparent th at many of the respondents did not answer every question in this portion for whatever reason, therefore sample sizes varied. The researcher ran a post hoc analysis using the LSD test, however these were not successful in all of the analyses because at least one of the groups had fewer than 2 cases. When entering the data, each of the percenta ges were entered as they were written on the surveys by the respondents. To make the analysis more ma nageable, the answers were then recoded into a point s system. For example, a one meant that “myself” made 100% of the decision, a two meant that the “spouse/partner” was responsible for the decision, a three indicated that “friends or family” made the decision and a four indicated that “child(ren)” were left with the decision. There was one survey returned that indicated a principal of the school group they were with made the decision, but because it was a school group, the decision making portion of the survey was not used for analysis. In the cases where the respondent indicated there were multiple persons responsible for making the decision, they were given a fi ve indicating the decision was shared. Question 4: Is There a Relationship Betw een Motivations to Visit Museums and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? The frequencies (in percentages) of each of these responses are shown in Table 4-9, which showed that in all of the decisions made by the respondents of this survey, the primary decision-maker was a combination of two or more in a shared decision.

PAGE 73

60 Table 4-9. Frequency of Decisi on-Makers (in percentages) Decision Items 1 Myself 2 Spouse/ Partner 3 Friends/ Relatives 4 Child(ren) 5 Shared Decision When to come to the museum 25.6 8.3 9.3 1.3 55.6 Who to bring to the museum 27.8 0 15.0 1.9 55.3 Whether to come to the museum at all28.5 8.6 6.8 1.0 55.0 Whether to buy a “Sue” souvenir 35.8 6.0 3.6 6.0 48.7 How long you stayed at the museum 20.3 4.2 6.3 3.9 65.3 To stay overnight 20.9 3.4 5.7 1.3 68.7 How much money was spent on the trip 20.5 3.8 6.1 0 69.6 Details on how to visit the museum 17.5 5.3 5.3 0.8 71.2 The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses, Percents may not equal 100% due to rounding Table 4-9 shows the frequency percenta ges for each of the “decision-maker” variables. Each of the three middle gr oups, Spouse/Partner, Friends/Relatives, and Children all had very low percentages of influence in the decision making process individually. Because of this, these three variables were compressed and recoded into one group variable, which was termed “other.” The “myself” and the “shared” decision variables were left as they appear above in Table 4-9. This is shown in Table 4-10. Table 4-10. New Frequency of Deci sion-Makers (in percentages) Decision Items 1 Myself 2 Others 3 Shared Decision When to come to the museum 25.6 18.8 55.6 Who to bring to the museum 27.8 16.8 55.3 Whether to come to the museum at all 28.5 16.5 55.0 Whether to buy a “Sue” souvenir 35.8 15.5 48.7 How long you stayed at the museum 20.3 14.5 65.3 To stay overnight 20.9 10.4 68.7 How much money was spent on the trip 20.5 9.9 69.6 Details on how to visit the museum 17.5 11.3 71.2 Percents may not equal 100% due to rounding Determining which was the independent variable and which was the dependent variable may seem a simple task at first, howev er in this set of anal yses, it proved slightly

PAGE 74

61 more complex. The line of reasoning for choosing the motivational factors as the independent variables was that in the leisure literature, motivations of participants were always studied and regarded as the principa l beginning of the leisur e process (Iso-Ahola, 1989; Fodness, 1994), whereas decision making always seemed to be regarded as secondary. The premise of this study then, was that museum visitors were motivated by one of the three factors and then made the decisions to go to the museum to fulfill those motivations. Tables 4-11 through 4-18 each show the one -way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the motivation factors and the eight decision categories. The results indicated that there were some significant relationships between some of th e motivational factors and the decisions made by the museum visito rs. Significance was determined by “Sig.” figures less than or equal to the .05 leve l as was congruent with the literature. Table 4-11. ANOVA of When to Come to the Museum and the Motivation Factors When to come to the museum Myself Others Shared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.17 4.07 4.24 1.23 .294 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.24a 3.79b 3.82b 8.75 .000 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.03 3.29 3.19 1.24 .291 Significant at the <.001 level Note: Superscripts indicate significant differe nces utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were significantly different in their responses than the “others” and the “s hared” decisions, but “o thers” and “shared” were not significantly different from each other. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-11 reports the results of a oneway ANOVA between the decision of when to come to the museum and the three motivatio nal factors. The results indicated that a significant relationship did exist between the Friends and Family motive and the decision about when to come to the museum. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “shared”

PAGE 75

62 decisions were the highest. The post hoc analysis shows that there was a significant difference between the “myself” decision-make rs and the “others” and “shared” decisionmakers, but that the latter two groups were not significantly different from each other. Table 4-12. ANOVA of Who to Bring to the Museum and Motivation Factors Who to bring to the museum Myself Others Shared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.20 4.06 4.26 2.89 .211 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.41 a 3.70 3.84 b .546 .014 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.10 3.23 3.22 .135 .626 *Significant at the 0.05 level Note: Superscripts indicate significant differe nces utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were significantly different in their responses than th e “shared” decisions. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-12 reports the results of an ANOV A between the decision of who to bring to the museum and the three motivational fact ors. The results suggested that there was one significant relationship be tween the Friends and Family motivation and the decision made by museum visitors of who to bring to th e exhibit. Post hoc analysis also revealed that there was a significant difference betw een the “myself” and “shared” decisions. Table 4-13. ANOVA of Whether to Come to the Museum At All and Motivation factors Whether to come to the museum at all Myself Others Shared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.19 4.02 4.24 1.79 .168 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.38a 3.80 b 3.79b 4.55 .011 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.15 3.25 3.16 .178 .837 Significant at the 0.05 level Note: Superscripts indicate si gnificant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were signif icantly different in their responses than the “shared” and “others” decisions but “others” and “shared” were not significantly different from each other. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-13 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of whether to come to the museum at all and th e three motivational fact ors. Once again, the

PAGE 76

63 results suggested that one significant rela tionship did exist between the Friends and Family motivation factor and the decisions ma de by museum visitors of whether to come to the exhibit at all. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “others” decisions were the highest. The post hoc an alysis revealed a signifi cant relationship between the “myself” and the “shared” and “others” decisions. Table 4-14. ANOVA of Whether to Buy a “Sue” Souvenir and Motivation Factors Whether to buy a "Sue" souvenir Myself OthersShared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.19 4.13 4.22 .269 .764 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.32a 3.97b 3.92b 10.0 .000 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.19 3.37 3.15 .736 .480 *Significant at the <.001 level Note: Superscripts indicate significant differe nces utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were signif icantly different in their responses than the “others” and the “s hared” decisions but “o thers” and “shared” were not significantly different from each other. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-14 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of whether to buy a “Sue” souvenir and the th ree motivational factors. These results suggested that a significant relationship did exist betw een the Friends and Family motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of whether or not to buy a “Sue” souvenir. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “others” decisions were the highest. Again, the post hoc analysis showed ther e was a significant difference between the “myself” decision-makers and the “others” and “shared” decision-makers, but that the latter two groups were not signifi cantly different from each other.

PAGE 77

64 Table 4-15. ANOVA of How Long to Stay at the Museum and Motivation Factors How long to stay at the museum Myself OthersShared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.01a 4.19 4.24 b 2.16 .117 Factor 2Friends and Family* 2.93a 3.73b 3.89b 20.1 .000 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.00 3.24 3.21 1.14 .321 *Significant at the <.001 level Note: Superscripts indicate si gnificant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were signif icantly different in their responses than the “others” and the “s hared” decisions but “o thers” and “shared” were not significantly different from each other. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-15 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of how long to stay at the museum and the three motivational factors. These results also suggested that a significant relationship did exist betw een the Friends and Family motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of how long to stay at the museum. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “shared” decisions were the highest. The post hoc analysis here illustrated that there was a significant difference between the “myself” decision-makers and the “others” and “shared” decision-makers, but that the latter two groups were not signifi cantly different from each other. A significant relationship also appeared between the Education and Exploration motivation and the decision of how long to stay at the museum. The post hoc analysis in this case illustrated there was a significant difference between the “myself” decisionmakers and the “shared” decision-makers, but that the other two groups were not significantly different from each other.

PAGE 78

65 Table 4-16. ANOVA of to Stay Ov ernight and Motivation Factors To Stay Overnight Myself OthersShared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.12 4.16 4.21 .340 .712 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.36a 4.01b 3.68 3.29 .039 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.16 3.35 3.19 .369 .692 *Significant at the 0.05 level Note: Superscripts indicate significant differe nces utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were signif icantly different in their responses than th e “shared” decisions. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-16 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of whether to stay overnight in Gainesville and the three motivational factors. These results suggested that a significant relationship did exist betw een the Friends and Family motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of whether or not to stay overnight in Gainesville. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “others” decisions were the highest. Again, the post hoc analys is revealed a significant relationship between the “myself” and the “shared” decisions. Table 4-17. ANOVA of How Much to Spe nd on the Trip and Motivation Factors How much was spent on the trip Myself Others Shared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.07 4.09 4.25 1.64 .197 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.31a 3.95b 3.76b 4.90 .008 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.13 3.31 3.18 .306 .737 *Significant at the 0.01 level Note: Superscripts indicate significant differe nces utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were signif icantly different in their responses than the “others” and the “s hared” decisions, but “o thers” and “shared” were not significantly different from each other. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-17 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of how much money to spend on the trip and the thr ee motivational factors. These results again suggested that a significant relationship did exist betw een the Friends and Family

PAGE 79

66 motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of how much money to spend on the trip. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “others” decisions were the highest. Here as well, the post hoc analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the “myself” decision-makers and th e “others” and “shared” decision-makers, but that the latter two groups were not significantly different from each other. Table 4-18. ANOVA of Details on How to Vi sit the Museum and Motivation Factors Details on how to visit the museum Myself OthersShared F Sig. Factor 1Education and Exploration 4.23 4.08 4.19 .551 .577 Factor 2Friends and Family* 3.35a 3.97b 3.69b 3.96 .020 Factor 3Rest and Relaxation 3.07 3.20 3.19 .328 .720 *Significant at the 0.05 level Note: Superscripts indicate significant differe nces utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For, example those who indicated the decisions were “myself,” were signif icantly different in their responses than the “shared” and “others” decisions. The number (N) may vary due to missing values Table 4-18 reported the results of a on e-way ANOVA between the decision of any other details on how to visit the museum a nd the motivation factors. The results once again indicated that there was a significant relationship between the decision of any other details on how to visit the museum and the Fr iends and Family motivation factor. Within the Friends and Family motive, the “others” decisions were the highest. The post hoc analysis here also revealed a significan t relationship between the “myself” and the “shared” decisions. Overall, the results showed that there we re a few significant relationships in this analysis. These relationships existed between being motivated by friends and familial time together and the decisions made by museum visitors on when to come to the exhibition, whether to come to the exhibition at all, whet her to buy a souvenir, how long

PAGE 80

67 they stayed in the exhibition, how much m oney they spent on thei r trip, and any other details on how to visit the museum. Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfacti on Related Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? The satisfaction items were analyzed using Factor analysis in SPSS, v10 in order to effectively analyze twelve satisfaction statemen ts on one scale, in the same manner as the motivation statements. The satisfaction statem ents were measured on a five-point Likert scale. This scale ranged from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree,” and respondents were asked to rate their degree of satisfac tion with each of the areas the statements represented. The satisfaction areas which res pondents indicated they were least satisfied with included: “physical layout of exhibit area,” “var iety of things to do in exhibit area,” and “information about what to do in Greater Gainesville.” The satisfaction areas, which respondents indicated they were most satisfied with were: “cleanliness of exhibit area,” the “exhibit itself,” “staff friendliness,” and “staff helpfulness.” Table 4-19. Mean and Standard De viation for Satisfaction Items Satisfaction Items Mean Standard Deviation Cleanliness of the exhibit area 4.7 0.65 Ability to see the exhibit up close 4.6 0.76 Exhibit itself 4.6 0.82 Information about the exhibit 4.5 0.75 Staff friendliness 4.4 0.82 Staff helpfulness 4.4 0.81 Staff availability 4.4 0.79 Physical layout of exhibit area 4.3 0.84 Variety of things to do in the exhibit area 4.3 0.84 Ability to get tickets or book group package 4.2 0.92 Information in planning my trip to see "Sue" 3.8 0.96 Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 3.6 0.95 The number (N) may vary due to missing values

PAGE 81

68 The means and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 419 and the frequencies are shown in Table 4-20. Table 4-20. Frequency of Satisf action Items (in Percentages) Satisfaction Items 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree Ability to get tickets or book group package 1.6 0.9 20.8 25.9 50.8 Ability to see the exhibit up close 1.7 0.8 3.9 23.6 70.0 Cleanliness of the exhibit area 1.4 0.0 1.9 23.6 73.1 Exhibit itself 2.5 0.8 3.3 26.2 67.1 Information about the exhibit 1.4 0.3 6.3 34.0 58.0 Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 3.3 1.3 50.8 23.4 21.1 Information in planning my trip to see "Sue" 2.9 1.6 34.9 33.2 27.4 Physical layout of exhibit area 2.0 1.7 7.4 42.9 46.0 Staff availability 1.4 0.0 11.3 35.5 51.7 Staff friendliness 1.7 0.8 8.5 29.9 59.2 Staff helpfulness 1.4 0.6 10.0 29.5 58.5 Variety of things to do in exhibit area 1.5 1.8 10.6 39.1 47.1 The number (N) may vary due to missing values The frequencies shown in Table 4-20 i ndicated that the visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition “strongly agreed” with all of the satisfaction items except for “information about what to do in the Greater Gainesville Area.” The final outcomes of the factor analysis test showed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explaine d 69.3% of the total variance. All tw elve satisfaction statements loaded into one of two factors. The KMO found in thes e particular questions was .91. The results are shown in Table 4-21. Identifying the factors Factor 1Museum Initially, satisfaction was proposed as havi ng four different domains, however the factor analysis in this study indicated that most of the satisfaction items grouped together

PAGE 82

69 into this factor 1. The satisfaction statements included in this factor were “Ability to get tickets or book group package,” “A bility to see the exhibit up close,” “Cleanliness of the exhibit area,” “Exhibit itself,” “Informati on about the exhibit,” “Physical layout of exhibit area,” “Staff availability,” “Staff frie ndliness,” “Staff helpfulness,” and “Variety of things to do in exhibit area.” This Mu seum factor had a mean of 4.4 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.94. This factor had an eigenva lue of 7.03 and accounted for 58.6% percent of the variance. Table 4-21. Satisfaction Factor Analysis Satisfaction Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1Museum Staff friendliness 0.835 0.202 Cleanliness of the exhibit 0.826 0.155 Information about the exhibit 0.818 0.235 Staff helpfulness 0.809 0.222 Staff availability 0.808 0.271 Exhibit itself 0.807 0.177 Ability to see the exhibit up close 0.787 -0.096 Physical layout of exhibit area 0.736 0.334 Variety of things to do in the exhibit area 0.643 0.392 Ability to get tickets or book group package 0.590 0.297 Factor 2Information Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 0.163 0.929 Information about planning my trip to see Sue 0.275 0.882 Eigenvalues 7.03 1.28 Cronbach Alpha 0.94 0.88 Factor Means 4.42 3.68 Percentage of variance explained 58.56 10.69 Cumulative variance explained 58.56 69.25 The number (N) may vary due to missing values Factor 2Information This factor, entitled “Information,” in cluded only two items which both included the information provided by the museum. The motivation statements included in this factor “information about what to do in Greater Gainesville” and “information in

PAGE 83

70 planning my trip to see Sue.” The Information factor had a mean of 3.7 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.88. This factor had an eigenvalu e of 1.28 and accounted for 10.7% percent of the variance. There were no items on the satisf action scale that did not fit into a factor, however the distribution of these items was different than initially proposed. Question 6: Is There a Relationship Be tween Motives to Visit Museums and Satisfaction in Museum Visi tors to Traveling Exhibits? This survey also inquired as to the overal l satisfaction of the museum visitors with the exhibition on a scale of one to ten, one meaning the visitor was not satisfied and ten meaning the exhibition couldn’t have been bett er. These results are shown in Table 4-22. Table 4-22. Overall Satisfaction Minimum MaximumMeanMedianModeSt. Deviation Variance Overall Satisfaction 1 10 9.0 9.5 10 1.37 1.87 (N=277) The high degree of the mean (the average of all the responses) and the mode (the most frequently occurring answ er) indicated that the museum visitors who were surveyed were certainly very satisfied with the exhibition. In SPSS, correlation analyses were then run to determine if there were any significant relationships between the motivation factors, the satisfaction factors, and the overall satisfaction with the exhibit. The results of the bivariate correlation analyses using Pearson’s R, with the satisfaction f actors, the motivation factors, and overall satisfaction are show n in Table 4-23.

PAGE 84

71 Table 4-23. Correlations Between Motivation and Satisfaction Factors with Pearson’s R Factor 1-Museum Factor 2-Information Pearson's R N Pearson's R N Factor 1Education & Exploration .229** 345 .182** 300 Factor 2 Friends & Family .142** 334 .182** 297 Factor 3Rest & Relaxation .093 324 .161** 292 Overall Satisfaction .415** 275 .266** 239 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level and is 2-tailed. The correlation analyses revealed that there were several significant relationships at the accepted .01 level. In fact, the only rela tionship that did not s how as significant was between Rest and Relaxation and Museum satisfaction. Question 7: Are There Differences in Sati sfaction Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors? Again, it was necessary to see if there were significant differences in satisfaction between the residents and the tourists to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. The means and standard deviations for these fact ors and the residents and tourists are shown in Table 4-24. Table 4-24. Residency Means with Satisfaction Factors Museum Information Residency Mean St.DeviationN MeanSt.DeviationN Alachua Resident 4.4 0.55 161 3.7 0.87 136 Tourist 4.4 0.81 204 3.7 0.98 179 Number (N) may vary due to missing values An Independent Sample T-Test was then run to determine if there were any significant differences between sa tisfaction of residents and t ourists, those results are in Table 4-25. These results indicated that there were no significant diffe rences between the satisfaction of residents and thos e of tourists to the exhibition.

PAGE 85

72 Table 4-25. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Satisfaction Factors T Sig. N Residency with Museum 0.242 .809 365 Residency with Information 0.344 .731 315 Number (N) may vary due to missing values Question 8: Is There a Relationship Betw een Motives and Socio-Demographics of Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? Many of the socio-demographic informati on given to us by the “Sue” respondents were compared to our theoretical dimensions to determine whether or not the theoretical dimensions had an impact on those who were coming to this travelling exhibition. More specifically, it was interesti ng to see how the motives ra ted by the “Sue” respondents compared to the socio-demographic information given to see if a rela tionship did, in fact exist. This question of whether or not a relati onship existed between motives to visit travelling exhibitions and the socio-demogr aphic information given by the respondents was explored in this section. Socio-dem ographic variables including gender, highest level of education attained, average annual income and re ported ethnic identity were analyzed with the motivational factors to de termine if any relationships existed between these variables. Table 4-26. Means and Standard Deviati ons for Gender and Motivation Factors Education and ExplorationFriends and FamilyRest and Relaxation Gender Mean St. Deviation Mean St. DeviationMean St. Deviation Males 4.2 0.73 3.6 1.13 3.2 1.07 Females 4.2 0.83 3.7 1.20 3.2 1.06 Total 4.2 0.79 3.7 1.20 3.2 1.06 The number (N) may vary due to missing values The socio-demographic variables of inco me, education level and reported ethnic identity were compared with each of the motivation factors in a series of one way

PAGE 86

73 ANOVA tests, while gender was compared w ith these factors using an independent sample T-Test. The outcomes of the Inde pendent Sample T-Test are in Table 4-27. Table 4-27. Independent Sample T-Te st of Gender with Motivation Factors Gender with Factors T Sig. N Gender and Education/Exploration 0.512 .609 364 Gender and Friends/Family -0.635 .526 350 Gender and Rest/Relaxation -0.245 .806 342 The number (N) may vary due to missing values This Independent Sample T-Test seemed to reveal that there were no significant relationships between gender and the three fa ctors, as was indicated by the significance statistic in the second column. Each of the other socio-demographic vari ables such as education, average income, and ethnic identity were run through analysis with the motivational factors using a series of one-way ANOVAs. The means and standard deviations for the highest level of education attained with the motiva tion factors are shown in Table 4-28. Table 4-28. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Education Education & Exploration Friends & Family Rest & Relaxation Education N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation High School 35 4.3 0.66 34 3.9 1.16 34 3.4 1.13 Associate Degree 39 4.3 0.93 35 3.6 1.05 32 3.4 1.02 Some College 82 4.1 0.86 80 3.6 1.21 78 3.1 1.10 Bachelor's Degree 80 4.1 0.81 77 3.6 1.15 77 3.2 1.08 Some graduate school 34 4.2 0.70 35 3.4 1.17 34 3.1 1.02 Masters Degree 51 4.3 0.64 49 3.7 1.18 47 3.1 1.12 Doctorate Degree 27 4.1 0.67 26 3.8 1.14 26 3.0 0.87 Number (N) may vary due to missing values Due to a low occurrence of respondents repo rting ethnic identitie s other than Euro American/White, these were grouped into tw o groupings for more manageable analysis,

PAGE 87

74 Euro American/White and Non-Euro American/White. The means and standard deviations for the new reported ethnic identi ties with the motivation factors are shown in Table 4-29. Table 4-29. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Ethnic Identity Education & Exploration Friends & Family Rest & Relaxation Ethnic Identity N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation Non-Euro American/White 61 4.2 0.56 61 3.9 0.99 61 3.2 0.96 Euro American/White 304 4.2 0.83 2893.6 1.20 281 3.2 1.08 Number (N) may vary due to missing values Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting annual average incomes in categories higher than $100,001, the latter options were combined into one category for more manageable analysis annual average income gr eater than $100,001. The means and standard deviations for the new reported annual average income variable with the motivation factors are shown in Table 4-30. Table 4-30. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Average Annual Income Education & Exploration Friends & Family Rest & Relaxation Average Income N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation N Mean Standard Deviation less than $25,000 77 4.1 0.67 753.4 1.23 75 3.4 1.11 $25,001 $50,000 87 4.2 0.84 873.8 1.17 84 3.1 1.03 $50,001 $75,000 65 4.2 0.85 603.6 1.06 61 3.1 1.04 $75,001 $100,000 38 4.3 0.67 374.0 0.81 35 3.3 0.90 greater than $100,001 50 4.2 0.74 493.5 1.27 48 3.0 1.13 Number (N) may vary due to missing values The results of the one-way ANOVA tests of the Education and Exploration factor compared with reported ethnicity, education and average income we re shown in Table 431.

PAGE 88

75 Table 4-31. ANOVA of Education and Exploration with Ethnic ity, Education and Income Education & Exploration Mean F Significance Reported Ethnicity 4.2 0.120 0.729 Education Level 4.2 0.596 0.734 Average Annual Income 4.2 0.168 0.955 The number (N) may vary due to missing values This ANOVA showed that there were no significant relationships between the motivators of Education and E xploration and the socio-demogr aphic variables of reported ethnicity, education and averag e income. The results of the one way ANOVA tests of the Friends and Family factor compared with reported ethnicity, e ducation and average income are shown in Table 4-32. Table 4-32. ANOVA of Friends and Family with Ethnicity, Education and Income Friends & Family Mean F Significance Reported Ethnicity 3.6 4.013 0.046 Education Level 3.7 0.676 0.669 Average Annual Income 3.6 2.614 0.035 The number (N) may vary due to missing values This ANOVA showed there were two si gnificant relationships between the motivators of Friends and Family and the socio-demographic variables of reported average income and reported ethnicity. The results of the one-way ANOVA tests of the Rest and Relaxation factor compared with reported ethnicity, e ducation and average income are shown in Table 4-33. Table 4-33. ANOVA of Rest a nd Relaxation with Ethnicit y, Education and Income Rest & Relaxation Mean F Significance Reported Ethnicity 3.2 0.011 0.918 Education Level 3.2 0.723 0.631 Average Annual Income 3.2 1.311 0.266 The number (N) may vary due to missing values

PAGE 89

76 This ANOVA revealed that again there we re no significant relationships between the motivators of Rest and Relaxation and the socio-demographic variables of reported ethnicity, education and average income. E ssentially these analyses showed that the socio-demographic variables were not affect ed by different motivations; that who a person was, what they knew or how much they earned a year did not make a difference in regards to their motivations. Summary In short, the visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition that were surveyed were very multifaceted in the dimensions of demographic information, motivations, decision making, and satisfaction. They provi ded a fascinating array of invaluable information that will no doubt aid museums in the future in considering and planning their traveling exhibitions.

PAGE 90

77 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The problem of this study was to gain in formation regarding the characteristics of the motivations, decision making processes a nd the satisfaction of tourist and resident museum visitors and the impact of a majo r exhibition on the museum it hosts. More specifically, these characteri stics included their motivations to travel, the primary influence in their decision making process, a nd their satisfaction with the destination after arriving. This chapter sought to discuss the results a nd their relevance regarding motivations, decision making and satisfac tion, as well as the impact of the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition on the Greater Gainesvi lle Area in the following sections of this chapter: Summary of Methods Discussion of Findings Implications Suggestions for Further Research Summary of Methods The data for this study were collected at the Florida Museum of Natural History, the state natural history museum, in Gainesville, Florida outside the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. The respondents of this study were approached upon exiting the exhibit, by the researcher and asked to voluntarily pa rticipate in a 15-minute survey. A total of 414 surveys were collected during the time between February and May, 2002. The survey instrument consisted of a thr ee page questionnaire with a total of 25 multi-level questions that investigated th eir spending patterns, motivations, decision

PAGE 91

78 making process, satisfaction of the visitors to the exhibit as well as their sociodemographic information. This questionnaire to ok an average of 15 minutes to complete and was completed upon immedi ately exiting the exhibit. Discussion of Findings Visitor Profile The visitor profile for the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition at the Florida Museum of Natural History provides many insights in to the multifaceted museum visitor. The respondents of this survey were predominan tly female (56.7%), although the percentages were close. The majority of the visitors to see Sue at the Florida Museum of Natural History came from outside Alachua county ( 56.4%), and were Euro American/White in ethnic identity. Perhaps, two of the mo st interesting components of the sociodemographic information collected were annual average income and education level. It had long been a stigma against the museum that they are only in ex istence for the very wealthy and extremely educated (Virshup, 1988). The results of this study seemed to indicate the opposite, that the majority of respondents made between $25,001 and $50,000 annually (27.2%) and had taken some co llege courses, and had completed an Associate’s Degree (23.8%). Research Question 1: Are There Distin ct Motivational Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? Pulling from Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996), it was proposed in chapter one that motivations in museum visitors would fall into four domains: Education, Exploration, Friends and Family, and Rest and Relaxation. The factor analysis in chapter four revealed that there were only three domains, and that Education and Exploration melded into one. It made sense that thes e two motivations would be grouped as one.

PAGE 92

79 This was very interesting in that the most r ecent trends in museum literature had been to explain the possibilities that the two exist t ogether, specifically in the natural history museum setting (Falk and Dierking, 2000). This suggested that in the museum visito r’s desire to explore, they were also desiring to expand their mind through education. The fact that Rest and Relaxation had the lowest mean also substantiates this claim (3.2). It was clearly evident that the most prominent motivation among museum visitors w ho attend traveling exhibitions is not to rest and relax. While this mean was stil l above average, which indicates that the motivation was still present, it was not the primary motivation. The motivation encompassing Friends and Family had a higher mean (3.7) than did Rest and Relaxation; however, it did not reach the mean of 4.2 th at Education and E xploration achieved. According to this, the model found in chapte r one, looked more like the one below. Figure 5-1. The New Factors of Mo tivation Among Museum Visitors Motivations Friends & Family Education & Exploration Rest & Relaxation

PAGE 93

80 The three factors of motivation are shown in this model to help illustrate motivation among museum visitors and how they effect the decision being made. The model on the preceeding page illustrates motivation and four components that might influence a person’s decision to travel. Research Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to Traveling Exhibits in the Museum? As explained in answering research ques tion 1, the mean scores of each of the motivations were the determining number that told us, which was the most important to the museum visitor. The results were i ndicative that the most important motive to museum visitors attending a traveling exhibiti on similar to “Sue,” was that of Education and Exploration. This coincided with prior research done on the learning process in the museum setting relating to exhibits (Fal k & Dierking, 2000) and supported the museum as a crucial provider of the educatio nal opportunities in the tourism industry. Research Question 3: Are There Differences in Motivations Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors? The results indicated that there was one significant difference be tween the resident museum visitors and the tourist museum visito rs in their motivations. While both types of museum visitors were the same in their motivations with the Education and Exploration and Rest and Re laxation factors, a signifi cant difference was revealed between the two groups in their motivation wi th the Friends and Family factor. The mean score would indicate that the resident s were less motivated with the Friends and Family factor, than were the tourists. This c ould be attributed to the fact that tourists typically travel with friends and family, whereas residents may have come without them, however this was merely speculation.

PAGE 94

81 Research Question 4: Is There a Relationship Between Motivations to Visit Museums and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? The proportion of decisions made by S pouse/Partner, Friends/Relatives, and Children were so small that these three were lumped into one category. Data were recoded to represent three new categories of decision-m akers in the decision making process: (1) those who made the decision th emselves, (2) those whom others made the decisions, or (3) those who made shared decisi ons. The group that made shared decisions were by far the largest group in the decision maki ng process. This was significant in that no one person was responsible for any of the eight decisions made. As far as relationships between motiv ations and decision making, there were several significant relationships that became a pparent through analysis. In the decision of when to come to the museum, for example, there was a significant relationship between the Friends and Family motivation and that pa rticular decision. This meant that those who were motivated to spend time with Fr iends and Family, included them in the decision making process. The analysis of the decision of whether to come to the museum at all and the decision of who to bring each revealed one significant relationship, again between the Friends and Family motivation a nd the decision. This was not surprising in that if the decision maker was motivated by Fr iends and Family to attend the exhibition, then the decision should no doubt be shared with Friends and Family as the high mean in the “others” category suggests. Also the analysis of the decision of whet her to buy a “sue” souvenir revealed one significant relationship, again between the Friends and Family motivation and the decision. In this result, others were more likely to make th e decision. This highest mean in this analysis was the “others” category which includes children, and thereby supports

PAGE 95

82 this notion. This made particular sense in that it was common for children to have influence on their parents when it came to purchasing souvenirs. Some of the other decisions which found the same results included: how long to stay at the museum, to stay overnight, how much to spend on the trip, as well as other details on how to visit the museum. Each of the significant relationships we re between the decisions made and the Friends and Family motivation. This makes sense however, because the decisions that were available for the visitors to report on we re logistical in natu re, and if someone was at the exhibit with their friends and famil y, then chances were, those decisions were going to be made by more than one person. This was evident in that all of the decisions were reported as being “shared” by most of the respondents. This was also congruent with decision making literature (Jenkins, 1978; Crompton, 1981; Nichols and Snepenger, 1988; Howard and Madrigal, 1990;Fodness, 199 2; Gitelson and Kerstetter, 1994), which found that family and friends had profound impact on travel decisions. Research Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfaction Related Domains for Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? According to Burns (2000), four domains of satisfaction were used: Facilities, Services, Information, and Experience. E xperience was measured on an overall scale separate from the satisfaction index, so that left three domai ns for analysis. The factor analysis showed that only two domains existe d among these museum visitors to traveling exhibitions. Information and another termed “Museum,” which included facilities and services. The reason for this may very likely be that the four domains from Burns (2000), were originally intended for outdoor recreation settings and not museums. This study of outdoor recreation settings also included a performance an alysis in recreation type

PAGE 96

83 activities, which was not present in the museum exhibit. It was not possible for museum visitors to determine their satisfaction base d on how they performed in the exhibition as there was no performance necessary. Interestingly enough, there were two satis faction items that ended up in the Information factor: (1) information about wh at to do in Greater Gainesville and (2) information about planning my trip to see Su e. Both of these items surrounded planning the trip process before arrival, whereas the items which fit into the museum factor (including information about the exhibit) were all items that would have been noted upon arrival or while in the exhibit. Research Question 6: Is There a Relation ship Between Motives to Visit Museums and Satisfaction in Museum Vi sitors to Traveling Exhibits? ANOVAs were run to determine if any relationships exist between motivations to visit the “Sue” exhibition and satisfaction in the museum visitors to the exhibition. The results of these analyses determined that th ere were two significan t relationships between the motivation factors to visit the exhibit and the satisfaction factors with the exhibit. These significant relationships existed be tween the Education and Exploration and Friends and Family motives and the satisfac tion factor 2 Information. The Rest and Relaxation motivation factor ha d no significant relationships with either the Information satisfaction factor or the Museum satisfac tion factor. This was illustrated through the model on the following page.

PAGE 97

84 * Figure 5-2. Motivation Factors and Their Re lationships with Satisfaction Factors The asterisks showed the signi ficant relationships of the motivation factors with the satisfaction factors. The lack of a signifi cant relationship between Rest and Relaxation was noted by the absence of asterisks. This relationship could be missing because the majority of visitors to the exhi bition did not see this as a rest ful or relaxing trip and were not primarily motivated to go to the exhi bition for reasons of rest and relaxation. After this discussion, it was apparent that si gnificant relationships did in fact exist between motivations, decision making and sa tisfaction among museum visitors to a traveling exhibition. Education & Ex p loration Friends & Family Rest & Relaxation Museum Satisfaction Information Satisfaction

PAGE 98

85 Figure 5-3 Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction This model illustrated the effects of different factors of motivations on the survey questionnaire and their effects on the decisi on making process and the satisfaction of the museum visitors in relation to a traveling exhibition. Research Question 7: Are There Differences in Satisfaction Between Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors? The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the satisfaction of tourist and reside nt museum visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. This was good news to the museum in that it indicated that all visitors to the museum, in this study, whether tourist or reside nt, were satisfied with their experience at a traveling exhibition by the sa me factors. Therefore, the museum did not have to concern itself with more than one group of museum visitors, they could simply work at creating the best experience for all of the visitors through thei r doors. This concurs with Cunnell and Prentice (2000) who found that en glish speaking visitors to international museums have similar interests and expectations. Motivations Satisfaction Decision Making

PAGE 99

86 Research Question 8: Is There a Relation ship Between Motives and Demographics of Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? Socio-demographic information was the fi nal section on the survey, which sought to determine a visitor profile of the visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition. Previous research in the museum literature s eemed to have neglected the area of sociodemographic variables and their relations hips to motivations decision making and satisfaction. Socio-demographic variables in cluding gender, highest level of education attained, average annual income and reported ethnic identity were analyzed with the motivational factors to determine if any relationships exist between these variables. The results of the analysis between gende r and the motivational factors revealed that there were no significant relationship s existing between these variables. This essentially meant that gender was not relate d to motivations to visit the exhibition. The results of the analysis between re ported ethnicity, income and education revealed that there were tw o significant relationships be tween the motivational factors and these variables. These two relationships occurred between the reported ethnicity and average income and the Friends and Family motivation. This meant that the education level of the respondents of the survey were not related to motivations to visit the exhibition. Implications So what does all this analysis mean? Mu seum visitors were certainly of the multifaceted variety, when it comes to motivati ons, decision making and even satisfaction regarding traveling exhibitions.

PAGE 100

87 Motivations The fact that museum visitors were primarily motivated to attend traveling exhibitions for education and exploration orie nted reasons is encouraging news to the museum industry. One of the primary mandates of any museum has always been to educate their communities based on their mission, whatever content was the focus of their particular institution. Also, the fact that museum exhibitions were also a place where people were motivated to go for Friends and Family or iented reasons, was also good news to the museum. This study indicated that, at least natural history museums, were places that families can go and have “quality time” togeth er and also learn at the same time in an exploratory driven environment. Even the f act that people went to the museum for Rest and Relaxation reasons, while they weren’t th e primary motivation, this factor was still prevalent in these visitors. This was indica tive that museum visitors were seeking to escape the stresses of day to day activities, and they saw the museum as an institution where this was possible. These findings were congruent with Swarbrooke (1994) who cited such benefits as a pric e-conscious family day, which could be not only educational and inspirational, but also re laxing. This was wonderful news for museums in that they could use this information to more accurately tailor their special events, camps, and other programming to their communities. Decision Making The decision making analysis revealed th at the majority of the decisions among those who were surveyed were shared decisi ons. This was very important for museums and other similar institutions to understand for several reasons. First of all, as providers of educational programming, museums must not cater to one specific group of the

PAGE 101

88 community more so than any others. Programs should involve multiple parties, for example, children’s activities in addition to “bring a friend” day or couples events are very important to the success of an institu tion. Additionally, it was always helpful for museums to better understand their visito rs and the decision making process for marketing reasons as well as in the process of formation of partnerships with other area attractions. Another implication of th is study on museum visitor decision making was in the areas of marketing and vacation packaging. Now that it was better understood the groups that travel to museum exhibitions, perhaps it would be easier for museums to provide more enticing packages or coupons, thus conserving their already scarce resources. Satisfaction The satisfaction levels of the museum visitors to the “A T. Rex Named Sue” exhibition were very high. The analysis that showed the significant relationships between the motivations to visit museums and the satisfaction levels with the exhibition was good news for the museum. It showed th at the museum was su ccessful in satisfying the motivations of the museum visitors with this traveling exhibit. This also showed that traveling exhibits were indeed a popular draw of visitors to a museum and that they deserved further investigation. Summary Admittedly, the fact that Sue was a Tyrannosaurus Rex combined with the popularity of dinosaurs among families (particu larly those with small children), were reasons that could be construe d as the primary successes of this particular exhibit and in turn this particular study. The facts that the Florida Museum of Natural History was recognized as a first class in stitution, or the fact that Murphy Catton exhibit design

PAGE 102

89 company put together a first class exhibition for the Field Museum of Chicago, were also reasons that could be attributed for the su ccesses of the exhibit in Gainesville, FL. However, it was the feeling of this researcher that these were growing trends among the museum industry and would be found similarly at other institutions with other exhibitions across the United States a nd quite possibly the world. Suggestions for Further Research The suggestions for future research ba sed on this study could go any number of directions, and they most likel y will. Of course it was suggested that this study be replicated at museums hosting traveling exhi bitions, however it would be interesting to see this expanded to other countries other than the United States as a more diverse sample population would no doubt be found. It would also be interesting to see the results of a study like this at art and history museums as we ll as the natural history institutions. Zoos, arboretums and aquariums would also be interesting settings in which to conduct a study such as this. As a researcher who was primarily museum trained and beginning to learn about the tourism industry, it would be interesting to perform this study as a comparison at a theme park attraction, be it a ride or an e xhibition. Museums have long been trying to compete with theme parks for their visitors and the competition has not always been successful. The feelings of this researcher were that museums and theme parks do not need to compete for their visitors, but that they actually catered to the different motivations of the same visitor. Clearly it was more difficult for a tourist to visit a theme park as often as they could visit a museum for reasons including location, time, and not the least of which would be financial. Theme parks had the greater ability to fulfill the fantasy and “themed”

PAGE 103

90 motivations of visitors whereas museums were institutions that incorporated fun into learning. If these institutions could find a wa y to partner, be it tourism product packages or what not, then perhaps they would both be more successful. In times when it has become more appare nt the degree of impor tance that tourism holds in the economy of not only states such as Florida, but also on the United States, it was important to understand as much as possibl e the wants and needs of tourists, in order to maintain the success of an institution. Understanding these wants and needs allowed tourism providers more information with wh ich to provide the products available to tourists to satisfy their needs for leisure.

PAGE 104

91 APPENDIX A MAP OF FLORIDA The Greater Gainesville Area is located in Alachua County, which is located in north central Florida. map courtesy of www.FloridaNetLink.com

PAGE 105

92 APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT The entire survey was three pages, here it appears different to adhere to University of Florida Graduate School Thesis guidel ines, with the highlighted percentages and means of answers by the respondents. The decision making portion of the survey questionnaire included an “other” category in stead of the shared; however, there were no responses that indicated “other,” so for da ta presentation purposes, it appears here as shared. Florida Museum of Natural History – A T-Rex Named Sue Hello, my name is Bethany England. I am from the University of Florida’s department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, and am conducting a survey of visitors to the “Sue” Exhibit as part of a research project for my MS thesis. Only a sample of visitors will be used so your input is very important. Your responses will be completely anonymous, confidential and the findings will never discuss individual responses. This survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Your responses will be very important in helping the FLMNH meet your future needs. Ther e are no anticipated risks, compensa tion or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this study. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may di scontinue your participation at any time without consequence. Will you participate in this study? SECTION I: TRAVEL PATTERNS Q1. Male 43. 3% Female 56.8% Q2. Are you a resident of Alachua County? Yes 43.6% If No 56.4%, What county do you live in? Q3.Is your visit today A day trip 76.8% An overnight visit 23.2% Q4. If a day trip, how many total hours are you planning to stay in the Gainesville area? 67, 338 mean Q5. If an overnight visit, how many ni ghts in total are you planning or have you stayed in the Gainesville area?__ 2.6 mean__ nights Q6. What type(s) of accommodations have you used or are you planning to use while staying in the area? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Hotel/motel 10.3% Campground 2.3% Bed and Breakfast 0. 5% Friends or relatives home 22.1% Q7. How many people are in your group today? _4.5 mean Q8. Are you part of a school group? No 96.7% Yes 3.3% If yes, name of school homeschool

PAGE 106

93 Q9. How did you hear/see about the exhibit at the museum? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) An article from a magazine or newspaper 46.3% Television 24.3% Billboard 16.3% Movie theatre 2.0% The Greater Gainesville Area VCB 1.0% Radio 13.5% Internet web site 7.8% Ad from Magazine or Newspaper 22.2% Other……………………………………. 17.0% Word of mouth 44.3% Q10. Is this your first time to the FLMNH ? Yes 53.6% No 46.4% Q11. If no, how many times have you been to the FLMNH in the past 12 months? ___0.8 mean ____ Q12. Are you a member of the FLMNH? Yes 2.3% No 97.7% Q13. Did you come specifically to the museum to see “Sue”? Yes 93.0% No 7.0% Q14. Please estimate the total of how much money you and your travel party spent (including cash and credit cards) during your entire trip away from home. (If your vaca tion only included the Greater Gainesville Area, then please fill in the Greater Gainesville Area column only). Entire Trip In Greater Gainesville Area Lodging/Camping/Bed & Breakfasts $_42.8 mean $_24.0 mean Meals and food $_51.4 mean $_28.8 mean Entertainment and recr eation $_26.6 mean $_8.4 mean Shopping $_27.6 mean $_21.0 mean Transportation (incl. fuel) $_38.9 mean $_19.4 mean Other $_21.5 mean $_5.5 mean SECTION 11: TRAVEL MOTIVATIONS Q15. Please check on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is st rongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree each reason why you came to the “Sue” Exhibit at the Museum of Natural History Motivation 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly agree To be with friends and family 12.4% 5.6% 17.7% 28.6% 35.7% To bring my family close together 14.6% 7.9% 32.9% 22.0% 22.6% To develop my knowledge of things here 3.2% 1.4% 13.5% 44.1 37.8% To do something with my family 11.3% 2.7% 14.0% 31.8% 40.2% To experience new and different things 3.4% 0.6% 5.4% 45.5% 45.2% To explore 3.2% 1.4% 10.7% 41.2% 43.5% To gain an appreciation of history 1.7% 3.7% 12.7% 40.1% 41.8% To get away from it all 13.8% 16.9% 30.2% 20.6% 18.5% To get to know something different 3.8% 2.4% 10.0% 43.5% 40.3% To learn new things 2.9% 2.0% 9.1% 42.3% 43.7% To reduce feeling of having too many things to do 22.6% 22.3% 27.8% 16.5% 10.7% To rest and relax 10.0% 12.4% 26.4% 32.1% 19.1% To seek an educational experience 2.3% 1.1% 9.3% 43.5% 43.8% To seek intellectual enrichment 3.8% 1.5% 11.9% 41.3% 41.6% To spend more time with my family 11.8% 6.3% 19.6% 31.1% 31.1% To take it easy 11.0% 10.4% 29.0% 29.9% 19.7%

PAGE 107

94 SECTION 1I1: TRAVEL DECISION MAKING Q16. The following information will help us better understand who makes certain types of decisions concerning your trip to the museum. For each deci sion, please assign a percentage as to the influence of each member of the travel group. Fo r example, if you made the decision alone, put 100% in the space under "myself." If more than one person helped make a particular decision, then assign the percentage that represents each person's influence. Each row should total 100%. On this trip to the museum who in your travel party made the following decisions: Type of decision Myself Spouse/ Friends/ Child(ren) Shared (if not applicable leave blank) Partner Relatives Q16a When to come to museum _25.6_ _8.3_ _9.3_ _1.3 55.6_ =100% Q16b Who to bring to museum _27.8_ _0__ _15.0 1.9_ 55.3 =100% Q16c Whether to come at all _28.5 _8.6_ _6.8_ _1.0 55.0 =100% Q16d Whether to buy a “Sue” souvenir _35.8 _6.0 _3.6 _6.0 48.7 =100% Q16e How long you stay ed at museum _20.3 _4.2 _6.3 _3.9 _65.3 =100% Q16f To stay overnight _20.9 _3.4 _5.7 _1.3 _68.7 =100% Q16g How much was spent on trip _20.5 _3.8 _6.1 __0 __ _69.6 =100% Q16h Details on how to visit the museum_17.5 _5.3 _5.3 _0.8 _71.2 =100% Q17. Please indicate on a scale of 1-5 how strongly y ou agree that the following were factors in your decision to come see “Sue” A T-Rex here at the Museum of Natural History: (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree) Reasons for seeing “Sue” 1 2 3 4 5 We stopped because the advertisements intrigued us 22.3% 9.3% 14.0% 18.3% 36.0% We stopped because it was conveniently located off I-75 48.5% 13.1% 20.9% 10.1% 7.5% We visited “Sue” because it was part of many things we did while we were in the Greater Gainesville Area 23.5% 9.8% 17.9% 20.4% 28.4% Other SECTION IV: SATISFACTION Q18. Please check on the following scale of 1-5, where 1= highly unsatisfied and 5=highly satisfied, how satisfied you were with certain aspects of the “Sue” Exhibit. Attributes 1 Highly Unsatisfied 2 Unsatisfied 3 Neutral 4 Satisfied 5 Highly Satisfied Ability to get tickets or book group package 1.6% 0.9% 20.8% 25.9% 50.8% Ability to see the exhibit up close 1.7% 0.8% 3.9% 23.6% 70.0% Cleanliness of the exhibit area 1.4% 0 1.9% 23.6% 73.1% Exhibit itself 2.5% 0.8% 3.3% 26.2% 67.1% Information about the exhibit 1.4% 0.3% 6.3% 34.0% 58.0% Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 3.3% 1.3% 50.8% 23.4% 21.1% Information in planning my trip to see “Sue” 2.9% 1.6% 34.9% 33.2% 27.4% Physical layout of exhibit area 2.0% 1.7% 7.4% 42.9% 46.0% Staff availability 1.4% 0 11.3% 35.5% 51.7% Staff friendliness 1.7% 0.8% 8.5% 29.9% 59.2% Staff helpfulness 1.4% 0.6% 10.0% 29.5% 58.5% Variety of things to do in exhibit area 1.5% 1.8% 10.6% 39.1% 47.1%

PAGE 108

95 On a Scale of 1-10 (10=very satisfied), How satisfied were you with your experience today? 9.0 mean SECTION V: DEMOGRAPHICS Please take a moment to tell us who you are. Th is information will be kept in the strictest confidence and used for st atistical purposes only. Q19. Are you married? (please ) Yes 63.0% No 37.0% Q20. How many children 18 years of age or younger are in your household? ___3.5 mean ___ Q21. What is your age, your spouse's age, and/or any others living in your household? Your age _varies Spouse's age _varies Age of other adults in household _varies Age of children living in household _varies Q22. Please indicate the highest leve l of education you have completed. (please one) High School graduate or less 10.3% Some graduate school 9.8% Associate/Jr/Technical college 11.1% Master's degree 14.9% Some college 23.8% Doctoral degree 7.9% Bachelor's degree 22.2% Q23. Of which ethnic or racial group(s) are you a member? (please all that apply) African American 3.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4.0% Euro American/White 84.0% American Indian 3.0% Asian American 3.0% Other ___________ 2.2% Q24. Which statement best describes your total 2001 annual household income (from all sources and before taxes)? (please one) $25,000 or less 23.9% $100,001 $125,000 6.3% $25,001 $50,000 27.2% $125,001 $150,000 3.6% $50,001 $75,000 20.9% $150,001 or more 6.3% $75,001 $100,000 11.9% Q25. What is your zip code? ____________ varies Thank you for your time!

PAGE 109

APPENDIX C IRB AND INFORMED CONSENT

PAGE 110

97

PAGE 111

98

PAGE 112

99 LIST OF REFERENCES Absher, J.D. (1998). Customer service m easures for national forest recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 16 (3), 31-42. Alachua County Florida. (2001). Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Retrieved January 31, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.co.alachua.fl.us Augustyn, M., & Ho, S. (1998). Service quality and tourism. Journal of Travel Research 37 (1), 71-75. Australasian Science and Technology Exhib itors Network. (1998). Fo cus on Issues. The blockbuster phenomenon: Trends in Aust ralia and overseas. D. McLaughlin. Retrieved February 8, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.astenetwork.net/issu es/blockbuster_phenomenon.html Australian Museum Online (2002). Uncover: Abstract 20: The Significance of art blockbuster exhibitions in the 21st century museum world, 2002. B. Calzavara. Retrieved on February 8, 2003, on the World Wide Web: http://www.amonline.net.au/unc over/abstracts/abstract20.htm Beard, J.C., & Ragheb, M.G. (1980). Measuring leisure satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research,12 (1), 20-33. Beard, J.C., & Ragheb, M.G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research,15 (3), 219-228. Bradford, Baloglu, S. &, Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 8 (3), 32-38. Bramwell, B. (1998). User satisfaction a nd product development in urban tourism. Tourism Management 19 (1) 35-47. Bunch, S. Jacobs, P. Luksetich, W., & Lange, M. (1988). Do traveling exhibits influence museum attendance? Curator 131136. Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh (2001). Carnegine Magazine: Attendance on the Rise. (2001). Danielle S. Retrieved on Fe bruary 8, 2003 on the World Wide Web: http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2001/novedec/mem3.htm

PAGE 113

100 Carr, J. A., & Woodside, A. G. (1988) Consumer decision making and competitive marketing strategies: Applica tions for tourism planning. Journal of Travel Research 28 (4), 2-7. Carroll, B., & Alexandris, K. (1997). Per ception of constraints and strength of motivation: their relationship to recrea tional sport participation in Greece. Journal of Leisure Research 29 (3), 279-299. Confer, J., & Kerstetter, D. (2000). Past perf ect: explorations of heritage tourism. Parks and Recreation 35 28-34. Crawford, D., Jackson, E., & Godbey, G. ( 1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 13 309-320. Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (4), 408-424. Crompton, J. (1981). Dimensions of the so cial group role in pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism Research 8 (4), 550567. Crompton, J., & Baker, D. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3), 785-804. Crompton,J., & MacKay, K. (1991). User’s pe rceptions of the re lative importance of service quality dimensions in sel ected public recreation programs. Leisure Sciences 11 367-375. Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement, and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4 (4), 184-194. Dann, G. (1981). Tourist motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8 (2), 187-219. Falk, J. & Dierking, L. (2000) The personal context, In Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning : Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Florida Netlink Alachua County. (date unknown). Information on Alachua County. Author unknown. Retrieved January 31, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.floridanetlink.com/alachua.htm Fodness, D. (1992). The Impact of family life cycle on the va cation decision making process. Journal of Travel Research 31 (2), 8-17. Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3), 555-581.

PAGE 114

101 Fridgen, J. (1996) Psychological dimensi ons: motivation, personality, values, and learning, In Dimensions of Tourism (p. 53-76). East Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association. Gainesville/Alachua County Visitors a nd Convention Bureau. (date unknown). Gainesville/Alachua County Visitors and Convention Bureau. Retrieved January 31, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.visitgainesville.net Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3), 682-708. Gitelson, R., & Kerstetter, D. (1994). The in fluence of friends and relatives in travel decision making. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 3 (3), 59-68. Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivat ion and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 283-302. Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viki ng heritage tourism: authenticity and commodification, Annals of Tourism Research 28 (3), 565-580. Harrison, J. (1997). Museums a nd touristic expectations. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (1), 23-40. Howard, D., & Madrigal, R. (1990). Who make s the decision: The pa rent or the child? The perceived influence of parents a nd children on the purch ase of recreation services. Journal of Leisure Research 22 (3), 244-258. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1989). Motivation for Leisure. In E.L. Jackson & T.L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (p. 247-279). State College: R.A. Venture Publishing. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2), 364-375. Jeffreys, M., Massoni, M., & O’Donnell, M. (O ct. 1997). Student evaluation of courses: Determining the reliability and validity of three survey instruments. Journal of Nursing Education 36 397-400. Jenkins, R. (Spring 1978). Family vacation decision making. Journal of Travel Research 2-7. Jewell, B., & Crotts, J. (2002). Adding ps ychological value to heritage tourism experiences. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 11 (4), 13-28. Jones, D. (2002, December 8). Museums make good cents. The Gainesville Sun Kerstetter, D., Confer, J., & Graefe, A. ( 2001). An exploration of the specialization within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Research 39 267-274.

PAGE 115

102 Kerstetter, D., & PenningtonGray, L. (1999) Decision making Roles Adopted By University-Educated Women W ho Travel for Pleasure. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 6 (3), 23-39. Kim, S.-S., & Choong-Ki, L. (2002) Push and Pull Relationships. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 257-260. Kinsey, B. Jr. (2002, May 14). The economic impact of museums and cultural attractions: Another benefit for the community. Presented at the American Association of Museum s Annual Meeting, 1-6. Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (1998) Understanding museum audiences. In Museum Strategy and Marketing (p. 99-122). San Francisc o: Jossey-Bass Publishers MacDonald, G., & Alsford, S. (1995). Museum s and theme parks: Worlds in collision? Museum Management and Curatorship 14 (2), 129-147. MacKay, K., & Crompton, J. (1988). A con ceptual model of consumer evaluation of recreation service quality. Leisure Studies 7 41-49. Maddox, R.N. (1985, Winter). Measuri ng satisfaction with tourism. Journal of Travel Research 2 Madrigal, R. (1993). Parent’s perceptions of family member’s relative influence in vacation decision making. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 2 (4), pp. 3957. Manfredo, M., Driver, B., & Tarrant, M. (199 6). Measuring leisure motivation: A metaanalysis of the recreation e xperience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research 28 (3), 188-213. Mansfield, Y. (1992). From mo tivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research 19 399-419. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality New York: Harper. Mason, M, (2001, October 17). Terror-wary to urists taking to parks. NewsDay.com (online). As retrieved on May 20, 2002: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw orld/nation/wire/sns-ap-attacksparks1017oct17.story Mayo, E., & Jarvis, L. (1981). Motivation: Why people travel In The psychology of leisure travel: Effective marketi ng and selling of travel services (p.145-177). Boston: CBI Publishing Co. McIntosh, R. & Goeldner, C. (1984) Tourism: principles, practices, and philosophies (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Grid Publishing, Inc.

PAGE 116

103 McLendon, T., & Klein, J. (2003, Winter). Th e benefits of historic preservation. Florida History and the Arts 11 (1), 12-15. Miller, J. (1997). Cultural tourism worthy of note. Hotel and Motel Management 212, 7 Millman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination. Journal of Travel Research 33 (3), 21-35. Neal, J., Sirgy, M., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life. Journal of Business Research 44 153-163. Nichols, C. & Snepenger, D. (1988, Spri ng). Family decision making and tourism behavior and attitudes. Journal of Travel Research 2-5. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1 994). Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service qua lity: Implications for further research. Journal of Marketing 58 111-124. Peleggi, M. (1996). National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2), 432-448. Pennington, L. (1994). The impact of socio-demographic and travel behavior variables on benefits sought by college-educat ed women who travel for pleasure Unpublished master’s thesis, Pe nnsylvania State University. Pizam, A., Neumann, Y, & Reichel, A. (1978, Ju ly/September). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a destination area. Annals of Tourism Research 5 (3), 314. Plaza, B. (2000). Guggenheim museum’s effectiveness to attract tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (4), 1055-1058. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2 001). Clarifying heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), 1047-1049. Prentice, R. (1993). Motivations of the heritage consumer in the leisure market: An application of the ManningHaas Demand Hierarchy. Leisure Sciences 15 273290. Prentice, R. (2001). Experien tial cultural tourism: Museum s and the marketing of the new romanticism of evoked authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship 19 (1), 5-26. Prideaux, B.R., & Kininmont, L.J. (1999). T ourism and heritage are not strangers: A study of opportunities for rura l heritage museums to maximize tourism visitation. Journal of Travel Research 37 (3), 299-303.

PAGE 117

104 Ragheb, M., & Tate, R. (1993). A behavioural model of leisure pa rticipation, based on leisure attitude, motivation, and satisfaction. Leisure Studies 12 61-70. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & V onEye, A. (1993). Nature and Process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences 15 99-113. Reed, J.H., & Hall, N.P. (1997). Methods fo r measuring customer satisfaction. Paper presented at the 1997 Energy Eval uation Conference, Chicago, IL. Ritchie, J., & Filiatrault, P. (1980, Spring) Family decision making-A replication and extension. Journal of Travel Research 3-13 Ryan, C. (1991). The psychological determinants of demand, In Recreational tourism: a social science perspective (p. 25-34). New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman, & Hall, Inc. Seal, K. (1997). Cultural tourism enriches room sales. Hotel and Motel Management 212 28. Shaw, S.M., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J.F. (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of Leisure Research 2 286-300. Shultz, K., Morton, K., & Weckerle, J. (1998) The influence of push and pull factors on voluntary and involuntary early retirees’ retirement decision and adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 53, 45-57. Sirakaya, E., McLellan, Robert W., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacation destination decisions: A behavioral approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5 (1/2), 57-75. Stephen, A. (2001). The contemporary muse um and leisure: Recreation as a museum function. Museum Management and Curatorship 19 (3), 297-308. Swarbrooke, J. (1994). The future of the past: Heritage tourism into the 21st century. In Seaton (Ed). Tourism: State of the art (p. 222-229). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Tian, S., Compton, J.L. & Witt, P.A. (1996). Integrating constraints and benefits to identify responsive target markets for museum attractions. Journal of Travel Research 35 (2), 34-49. Travel Industry Association of America. (2002). The Hist oric/Cultural Traveler, 2001 edition. Retrieved on August 26th, 2002, on the World Wide Web: http://www.tia.org/travel/summculture01.asp Tufts, S., & Milne, S. (1999). Mu seums: A supply-side perspective Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3), 613-631.

PAGE 118

105 Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the Push and Pull Factors. Annals of Tourism Research 21 844-846. Yale, P. (1991). From tourist attractions to heritage tourism Huntingdon: Elm Publications. 21.

PAGE 119

106 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Bethany England was born in Mahopac, New York, in 1979, and moved to Miami, Florida, in 1987. Growing up with a steadfa st interest in the geological and earth sciences, she began her college career as a freshman at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, as a geology major, and delved into the wonders of the earth and its science. During her study at Baylor, she soon becam e enamored with presentation and preservation of the fossils and rocks she had been collecting, through an introductory museum studies course. This fascination pr ompted her to obtain her B.A. in museum studies and earth science and was the start of her interest in museums, which she continues to pursue at the Univ ersity of Florida. Betha ny is now graduating with her Master of Science in Recreational Studies degree from the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, with an emphasis in co mmercial recreation/ tourism and museum studies through the department of Museum Studies.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000679/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship of motivations, decision making, and satisfaction in museum visitor behavior
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: England, Bethany Lynn ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000679:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000679/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship of motivations, decision making, and satisfaction in museum visitor behavior
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: England, Bethany Lynn ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000679:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












RELATIONSHIP OF MOTIVATIONS,
DECISION MAKING, AND SATISFACTION IN MUSEUM
VISITOR BEHAVIOR















By

BETHANY LYNN ENGLAND


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RECREATIONAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003

































Copyright 2003

by

Bethany Lynn England

































I would like to dedicate this project to my parents, Chet and Carol England, who have
been pillars of constant support, faith and love throughout all of my endeavors.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have always said that I have been blessed with more than I could ever fathom or

deserve, particularly in the area of family. I would like to thank my mother, Carol who

has taught me to never doubt myself and has been an example of grace and strength

throughout this process, while still keeping a sense of humor and perspective. I would

also like to thank my father, Chet, who has endured numerous requests for funding and

has always been there to offer support and advice. My brother Chris, and soon-to-be

sister-in-law Diane, have cheered me on as well and kept me believing that all of this is

worth it; and I must also thank Jeff, Amy, and Allison for the long hours on the phone,

believing that I could do this and helping me keep my sanity, they are the most truly

amazing friends ever.

I would also very much like to thank my supervisory committee who have provided

me with generous support and guidance (and a lot of patience!) throughout this process.

Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray has helped me further explore the role of museums in tourism

and been a source of encouragement, teaching me to stay true to my ideas; Dr. John

Confer has revealed to me the whole new world of statistics with patience and a sense of

humor; and Dr. Glenn Willumson has shown me that the museum profession is still the

coolest one around.

I also would like to thank the staff and volunteers at the Florida Museum of Natural

History for allowing me to work with them and collect the data necessary for this study.









Special thanks go to Dr. Betty Camp and Paul Ramey without whose assistance and

patience, this project might not have come about.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank God for giving me strength and

carrying me through each day. I truly can do all things through Christ who strengthens

me.

"Find rest, O my soul, in God alone; My hope comes from Him. He alone is my

rock and my salvation; He is my fortress, I will not be shaken. My salvation and my

honor depend on God; He is my mighty rock, my refuge." -Psalm 62:5-7
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

L IST O F TA B LE S ..................... .... ................................... ...... .. .. ... .... ..... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....... .................... .......... ....... ............ xi

ABSTRACT .............. .............................................. xii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ............................................................. .. ......... ...... .....

M u seum Studies................................................ 3
Traveling Exhibitions ....................... .......................................... ........
M otivations and Push/Pull Factors ...................................................... .... ........... 6
P u rp o se of Study .................................................................. ............................ . 7
R research Problem and Questions ............................................ ........................... 8
R e search P rob lem .................................................................................. 8
R research Questions ............................................................. ....... 8
D elim stations .................................................... ................... ........... ......9
D definition s ......................................................................... . 9

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................................11

M museum Literature .................. ................................ .. ........................ .. 11
T heoretical F ram ew ork .............................................. ....................................... 18
M motivations ..................................................................................................... .......2 1
D decision M making ........................ ............................ .. .... ........ ........26
S a tisfa c tio n ............................................................................................................ 3 4
S u m m a ry ................................................................................................................ 4 0

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................. ................... 4 1

Instrumentation ............. ..... ......... ... ...............41
D discussion of the V ariables ......... ................. .......................................................4 1
Push and Pull Motivations ........... ..................................... 41
Motivations ............... ......... ........................42
D decision M making ........................... ........... .. ..... ......... ... 43
S satisfaction ........................................................................44









Sam pling Procedures/Selection of Subjects .......................................... ......... ......45
Site Description: Alachua County and the Greater Gainesville Area.......................45
Greater Gainesville Area H history ............................................. ............... 45
Attractions of the Greater Gainesville Area .............................. .............46
D ata C o lle ctio n ..................................................................................................... 4 7
D ata Treatm ent and A nalysis........................................................... ............... 47

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................4 9

V visitor P profile ....................................................... 4 9
Gender ............................ ...............................51
County Residency and Length of Stay ...................................... ............. ..51
Education Level ......... .... ...................... ......... 51
E th n ic Id e n tity ............................................................................................... 5 1
A average Incom e Level ......................................................... 52
A g e ............................................................5 2
Analysis of Motivations............................ ........ 52
Analysis of M motivation Statem ents ................................... ................ ......54
Question 1: Are There Distinct Motivational Domains for Museum
V visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ................................................... ......... 55
Factor 1- Education and exploration ................. ................. ............55
Factor 2- Friends and family ........................................... 56
Factor 3- R est and relaxation ............................. ...... .................. ... 57
Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to Traveling
Exhibits in the M museum ? ................... .... ......................................57
Question 3: Are There Differences in Motivations Between Resident and
Tourist Museum Visitors?............................... ........... ........58
Analysis of Decision Making and Reported Satisfaction ....................................59
Question 4: Is There a Relationship Between Motivations to Visit Museums
and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? .....59
Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfaction Related Domains for Museum
V visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ............................................. ............... 67
Identifying the factors......... ......... .................. ............... ............... 68
Factor M museum ............. ..................... ....................................... 68
Factor 2- Inform action ........................ ............ .... .... ...............69
Question 6: Is There a Relationship Between Motives to Visit Museums and
Satisfaction in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ................................ 70
Question 7: Are There Differences in Satisfaction Between Resident and
Tourist M useum Visitors?.................... ... .. ....... .....................71
Question 8: Is There a Relationship Between Motives and
Socio-Demographics of Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ..................72
S u m m ary .........................................................................................................7 6

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................................................. 77

Sum m ary of M methods .................................. ...........................................77
D discussion of Findings ............. ..................... .......................................... 78









V visitor P profile ....................................... ..... ............ ..... ...................... 7 8
Research Question 1: Are There Distinct Motivational Domains for Museum
V visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ............................................................ .... 78
Research Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to
Traveling Exhibits in the M useum ?............. .................... ......... ............... 80
Research Question 3: Are There Differences in Motivations Between
Resident and Tourist Museum Visitors? ......... ........... .................... 80
Research Question 4: Is There a Relationship Between Motivations to Visit
Museums and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling
E x hib its? ............. .. .... ........ ... ........................................................ 8 1
Research Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfaction Related Domains for
M useum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ...................... ........................... 82
Research Question 6: Is There a Relationship Between Motives to Visit
Museums and Satisfaction in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?.......... 83
Research Question 7: Are There Differences in Satisfaction Between
Resident and Tourist M useum Visitors?.......................................................85
Research Question 8: Is There a Relationship Between Motives and
Demographics of Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits? ............................86
Im p location s ........................................................................... 86
M motivations ............... ... ........................................ .... ..... 87
D decision M making ......................... ............................ .. ........ .... ...... ...... 87
S atisfactio n ................................................................8 8
Summary .............................................. .................... 88
Suggestions for Further R esearch.................................................... .......... ........89

APPENDIX

A M A P O F F L O R ID A ......................................................................... ....................9 1

B SU R V E Y IN STR U M EN T ............................................................... .....................92

C IRB AND INFORMED CONSENT...................................... ......................... 96

LIST OF REFEREN CES ..................................................................... ............... 99

BIO GR A PH ICA L SK ETCH .................................... ........... ......................................106
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1. The Factors of Travel Motivations Among Museum Visitors .................................42

3-2. Travel Decision Making Among Museum Visitors ............................................. 43

3-3. Travel Satisfaction Factors Among Museum Visitors ............................................44

4-1. Visitor Profile for the "A T.Rex Named Sue" Exhibition.............. ............. 50

4-2. Age of Respondents of the "Sue' Survey ...........................................................52

4-3. Mean and Standard Deviation for Motivation Items...............................................53

4-4. Frequency of Motivation Items (in Percentages) .................. ...............54

4-5 Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements....................................................56

4-6. Paired T-Test Results of Motivations........... .................................... 57

4-7. Residency Means and Standard Deviations with Motivation Factors.......................58

4-8. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Motivation Factors..........................58

4-9. Frequency of Decision-Makers (in percentages).................. ...............60

4-10. New Frequency of Decision-Makers (in percentages) ......................... ..........60

4-11. ANOVA of When to Come to the Museum and the Motivation Factors ...............61

4-12. ANOVA of Who to Bring to the Museum and Motivation Factors.........................62

4-13. ANOVA of Whether to Come to the Museum At All and Motivation factors ........62

4-14. ANOVA of Whether to Buy a "Sue" Souvenir and Motivation Factors..................63

4-15. ANOVA of How Long to Stay at the Museum and Motivation Factors.................. 64

4-16. ANOVA of to Stay Overnight and Motivation Factors..........................................65

4-17. ANOVA of How Much to Spend on the Trip and Motivation Factors ..................65









4-18. ANOVA of Details on How to Visit the Museum and Motivation Factors ............66

4-19. Mean and Standard Deviation for Satisfaction Items.......... .. ........ ............... 67

4-20. Frequency of Satisfaction Items (in Percentages) ......................................... 68

4-21. Satisfaction Factor Analysis ................................ .......... .................. 69

4-22. O overall Satisfaction .......................................... ............... .... ....... 70

4-23. Correlations Between Motivation and Satisfaction Factors with Pearson's R.........71

4-24. Residency Means with Satisfaction Factors........ .. .......... .. ..... .............71

4-25. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Satisfaction Factors....................72

4-26. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender and Motivation Factors ....................72

4-27. Independent Sample T-Test of Gender with Motivation Factors..........................73

4-28. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Education ............73

4-29. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Ethnic Identity ....74

4-30. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Average Annual
Incom e ................ .... ....... .............. ............................74

4-31. ANOVA of Education and Exploration with Ethnicity, Education and Income......75

4-32. ANOVA of Friends and Family with Ethnicity, Education and Income..................75

4-33. ANOVA of Rest and Relaxation with Ethnicity, Education and Income ................75
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1. The Factors of Motivation Among Museum Visitors ...............................................7

3-1. Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction .......................45

5-1. The New Factors of Motivation Among Museum Visitors.......................................79

5-2. Motivation Factors and Their Relationships with Satisfaction Factors....................84

5-3 Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction ..........................85
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Recreational Studies

RELATIONSHIP OF MOTIVATIONS, DECISION MAKING, AND SATISFACTION
IN MUSEUM VISITOR BEHAVIOR

By

Bethany Lynn England

May 2003

Chair: Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray
Major Department: Recreation, Parks, and Tourism

Previous research has not focused on the characteristics of visitors to traveling

exhibitions in museums. Since these exhibitions are brought to the host institution to

increase visitor numbers, it is important to be familiar with the factors that motivate

museum visits. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of museum visitors

to a traveling exhibition and the characteristics that they all have in common. More

specifically, these characteristics include their motivations to visit the exhibition, the

influences in their decision making process, and their satisfaction with the destination and

exhibition after arriving.

The data for this study were collected in conjunction with the "A T. Rex Named

Sue" exhibition at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, FL. A total of

414 survey questionnaires were collected during the months of February through May

2002.









This study found that these visitors to the "A T. Rex Named Sue" exhibition have a

definite visitor profile and fit into one of three distinct motivation domains, which

included education and exploration, friends and family, and rest and relaxation. The

results showed that an overwhelming majority of the decisions made by museum visitors

to this exhibition were shared among a number of different parties. Two satisfaction

domains were revealed which included satisfaction with the information given and the

museum itself. This exhibition also had a profound economic impact on the Greater

Gainesville Area and Alachua County.

The fact that museum visitors are primarily motivated to attend traveling

exhibitions for education and exploration oriented reasons as well as the fact that

museum exhibitions are a place where people are motivated to go for friends and family

reasons is encouraging news to the museum. This study also demonstrated that people go

to the museum for rest and relaxation, and that while they were not the primary

motivation, this factor was still prevalent in these visitors.

The decision making analysis resulted in overwhelming shared decisions, which is

helpful for museums to better understand their visitors and for marketing reasons as well

as in the process of formation of partnerships with other area attractions. The satisfaction

levels of the museum visitors to the "A T. Rex Named Sue" exhibition were very high

which indicated that traveling exhibits are indeed a popular draw of visitors to a museum

and that they deserve further investigation.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Tourism has been an industry that has been vital to the economy of the United

States, particularly in the State of Florida. One major aspect of tourism that was often

overlooked and unrecognized was that of heritage tourism, which included vacation

destinations such as historic houses, districts, parks, battlefields, zoos, aquariums,

archeological sites, and many others. Heritage tourism has been traditionally viewed as,

"tourism centered on what we have inherited, which could mean anything from historic

buildings, to art works, to beautiful scenery" (Yale 1991). According to the Travel

Industry Association of America, historic and cultural minded tourists took part in more

activities and ended up staying longer, hence they spent more money than any other type

of tourist (The Historic/Cultural Traveler, 2001).

There were many ways in which heritage tourism provided a multitude of benefits

to the millions of tourists that visited heritage attractions every year. Swarbrooke (1994)

agreed that these could vary depending on the destination, but most included benefits

such as: ... an inexpensive family day out, an opportunity to learn something new,

relaxation, nostalgia, being awe-inspired, and entertainment," (p. 224) among others. He

went on to say that, "Heritage has only been marketed as a tourism asset on any real scale

in recent years as the tourism industry has realized that the packaging of heritage can be

lucrative and as public sector bodies have realized that heritage can be used to attract

tourists, so that the economic benefits can be enjoyed by the community" (p. 224). Last

year more than 65 million Americans attended a historic site, museum, music, arts or









other cultural event (Miller, 1997). Following September 11th, 2001, patriotism surged in

the United States and tourists took to locations which symbolize America (Mason, 2001).

Museums have existed in some form in the United States since the early 1800s, and

have awed people with a wealth of information, special events as well as exhibits and

collections. Tourists travelled to museums and historic sites for several reasons including

an interest in history, quality of exhibits, and special events or programs (Confer &

Kerstetter, 2000). These and other factors contributed to the decisions of tourists to visit

a particular location.

In Kotler and Kotler's Museum Strategy andMarketing (1998), the stages of

decision making process in choosing a museum was explored. Some of the factors

included: cultural and ethnic, social status, life cycle, lifestyle, reference groups,

socialization and social trends. Poria, Butler, and Airey (2001) asserted that heritage

tourism should be defined by two concepts: the motivations of tourists and the tourist's

perceptions of the site. They went on to suggest that more research should be done in

these areas.

This study sought to research these two concepts as well as investigated the

decision making process involved in museum visitors. This study also sought to explore

the differences between residents and tourists to the museum, a facet not previously

explored in museum research. The need for more information on why visitors attend

museums was a compelling reason for the necessity of this study. In short, the theories of

motivation, satisfaction and decision making coupled with demographic information

provided the information necessary to answer the problems and research questions of this

study.









Museum Studies

Museum professionals and their staff have for many years feared the tourism

industry for several reasons. The primary reason stemmed from the general feeling

among professionals that, as a part of tourism industry, they would be persuaded into

presenting a more nostalgic view of history, as opposed to a realistic view. In other

words, they feared that authenticity would be compromised, and what was once a

legitimate accredited museum would appear more like a theme park (Swarbrooke, 1994).

In recent years, many museums have struggled to keep audiences coming to their

institutions. Due to an increasing interest in theme parks and other entertainment venues,

competition for the museums has risen (MacDonald & Alsford, 1995). As a result,

marketing has become a strategy where museums are investing more and more of their

limited dollars and time. While museum visitor characteristics (such as demographic

information) began as the initial focus of this paper, it became rapidly apparent museum

visitors have a multifaceted profile and that there were many reasons why people visit

museums. The original questions expanded to include decision making as well as the

motivations and satisfaction of both resident and tourist museum visitors with their

experiences.

Museums were often attractive because of their content and the history that they

protected, and saved for future generations. For example, in Denmark, the focus of

museums has progressed towards the preservation of their Viking heritage through

exhibits, village reconstructions, trading fairs, and reenactments or living history societies

(Halewood & Hannam, 2001). It has been the nostalgia and an increasing attachment to

heritage that has caused the focus of the museums to shift towards one common time

period.









Museums have long been places evoking interest and curiosity, however in some

cases they have also been seen as elitist and uninviting. Many museums have been

attempting to overcome that stigma and offer visitors a better experience, however to do

that, the museums must understand visitors, their wants and needs, as well as the

behaviors they exhibit. Harrison (1997) investigated this phenomenon and sought to

understand tourist's expectations, what makes the museum attractive, and what tourists

want when they visit museums. She asserted that many times tourists attend museums in

order to obtain a brief history and "condensed interpretations of natural and cultural

heritage" (pg. 25) with regards to the museum's location. She performed this study at a

museum in Hawaii and utilized visitor's perceptions of what is "traditionally Hawaiian"

in order to gain answers to her questions.

Another recent study that attempted to better understand the role of museums in the

tourism industry was Prideaux and Kininmont (1999) who explored how to achieve

maximum tourism visitation in rural museums in Queensland, Australia. The goal of

their study was to find out what type of information sources were used by visitors who

drove to the museum, what advertising mix was needed to attract more of these drive-

visitors, and to develop a checklist that rural museums could use to develop marketing

plans and increase attendance. They found that generally, visitors lacked current detailed

information about museums in the area and thus did not visit. Prideaux and Kininmont

suggested that rural museums should use signage as well as up-to-date brochures to

provide visitors with information. Understanding the tourist's motivations and

expectations, was crucial in raising attendance and awareness for museums.









Stephen (2001) investigated leisure as an added function of the contemporary

museum in society and the roles the museum fulfills within its own community. This

study discussed the museum as an institution attracting residents, but did not explore the

role of tourists.

Traveling Exhibitions

One of the areas that has traditionally set museums apart from other attractions are

traveling exhibitions. Traveling exhibitions, the largest of which are termed blockbuster,

have long been an area that museums have excelled in presenting. Blockbuster

exhibitions such as, "Titanic: The Artifact Exhibit," "Splendors of Ancient Egypt," and

"Monet, Renoir, and the Impressionist Landscape," have not only drawn large crowds,

but also intrigued and inspired those who attended them. Blockbuster exhibitions have

been defined as, a popular, high profile exhibition on display for a limited period, that

attracts the general public who are prepared to both stand in line and pay a fee in order to

partake in the exhibition" (pg. 1). It was up for debate as to whether or not the "A T. Rex

Named Sue" exhibition could be considered blockbuster (the "high profile" portion of the

definition was the portion in question), but whether it was or not, the effects of

blockbuster exhibitions and traveling exhibitions were the same.

These traveling exhibitions not only contributed in the educational role of

museums, but they attracted an audience that would not normally attend the museum.

According to Scherer (2001) the Carnegie Museum of Art and the Carnegie Museum of

Natural History have seen an increase in first-time and repeat visitation as a result of

these types of exhibitions. This phenomenon also helped in boosting resources for

museums from private support (in sponsorships and donors), admission fees, and

merchandise sales through gift shops and cafes (Calzavera, 2002). One point should be









made that these exhibitions have been traditionally very costly for the museums as

hosting institutions, and that they do not always mean that these hosting institutions make

a profit. It did mean however, that the museum received more exposure to its community

and hopefully attracted a more expansive audience, thus giving them the opportunity to

fulfill a larger educational role in their communities.

Motivations and Push/Pull Factors

The comprehension and understanding of the theory of motivations among tourists

was vital to providing a quality experience for the visitor. There were many facets of the

theory of motivation that sought to explain what it was that caused tourists to travel and

what influenced their behavior. The Push/Pull Theory of Motivation (Dann, 1977) was

the theoretical framework for which this particular study was based. Push and pull

factors were motivational influences, which drove the behavior of the individual tourist

(Dann, 1977). Push factors were those that were described as internal, and were present

to satisfy assorted psychological needs. Pull factors were those that were external and

showcased the beneficial attributes of a particular destination. These factors decided the

"who, what, where and when" decisions of vacation planning (Dann, 1977;Uysal &

Jurowski, 1994).

Using the literature, the researchers in this study developed a model to help

illustrate the factors of motivation among museum visitors and how they could

potentially effect the decision being made. The model on the following page illustrates

motivation and four components that might influence a person's decision to travel

(Fig. 1). These four components were Friends & Family, Education, Exploration and Rest

& Relaxation.
























Figure 1-1. The Factors of Motivation Among Museum Visitors

Purpose of Study

In recent years, many museums have been struggling to keep audiences. Much of

this struggle has come from competing venues such as theme parks and other

entertainment sites (MacDonald & Alsford, 1995). Marketing has become a profession

that museums are investing more and more of their limited dollars and time in, in order to

"keep up" with other for profit venues. Museums would benefit greatly from the research

done by this project because they could spend less time and money on finding out what,

who and where to market their institution. They would also be able to utilize the

information from this study to give their visitors, both residents and tourists, the best

experience possible and continue developing audiences for the future.

Traveling exhibitions not only contributed in the educational role of museums, but

they attracted an audience that would not normally attend the museum. They not only

attracted people from their community who don't normally visit the museum, but they

also served as attractions for tourists that are in the area. This meant that the museum

received more exposure to its community as well as the surrounding areas and hopefully









attracted a more diverse audience, thus giving them the opportunity to fulfill a larger

educational role in their communities.

Research Problem and Questions

Research Problem

The problem of this study was to gain information regarding the characteristics of

the motivations, decision making processes and the satisfaction of tourist and resident

museum visitors and the impact of a major exhibition on the museum it hosts. After

reviewing the literature, there was little information available regarding tourists and

residents in museums, and the characteristics they have in common. The little information

that was available regarding museum visitors failed to explain the motivations and

decision making processes as well as satisfaction. There was also little information

written about these processes in regards to traveling exhibitions, whose primary purpose

was to serve as a draw for visitors to museums. Without this information, it would be

extremely difficult for museums to provide the best possible experience for the visitor.

Research Questions

1. Are there distinct motivational domains for museum visitors to traveling exhibits?

2. Which motive is the most important to visitors to traveling exhibits in the museum?

3. Are there differences in motivations between resident and tourist museum visitors?

4. What is the relationship between motives to visit museums and visitor decision
making in museum visitors to traveling exhibits?

5. Are there distinct satisfaction related domains for museum visitors to traveling
exhibits?

6. What is the relationship between motives to visit museums and satisfaction in
museum visitors to traveling exhibits?

7. Are there differences in satisfaction between resident and tourist museum visitors?









8. What is the relationship between motives and demographics of museum visitors to
traveling exhibits?

Delimitations

There were delimitations to this study, just as there were for every research project.

This study was delimited to the vacation destination of museums in the Greater

Gainesville area because of the opportunities that made themselves available concerning

the "A T Rex Named Sue" exhibition. One delimitation of this study was that it dealt

only with the "A T. Rex Named Sue" exhibition. The survey instrument was also

delimited to questions that yielded quantitative data because it made for easier analysis

using statistics.

Definitions

Decision Making refers to "... a selection of one particular set of expectations

and values over others" (Kotler and Kotler, 1998, p. 105). For the purposes of this study,

decision making was defined as the process of coming to a decision revolving around the

details of a museum visit.

Demographic Information, for the purpose of this study, refers to the variables

age, gender, and income, which were included on the survey questionnaire.

A Museum is ". .. an organized and permanent nonprofit institution, essentially

educational or aesthetic in purpose, with professional staff, which owns and utilizes

tangible objects, cares for them, and exhibits them to the public on some regular

schedule" (American Association of Museums accreditation definition).

Motivation, comprised of push and pull factors, was the theory that explains what

causes tourists to travel (Dann, 1977).









Museum visitors, for the purposes of this study, a museum visitor was defined as

one who attends a museum, either resident or tourist.

Nonprofit refers to having 501c3-tax exemption status.

Resident is one who lives in the county where the research was taking place.

Satisfaction is a psychological reaction to an experience, product or service that

was dependent to some extent upon expectations (Jenkins, 1987).

Tourist is one who travels away from home for business, pleasure, personal affairs,

or any other purpose except to commute to work (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1984). For the

purposes of this study, congruent with research by the Center for Tourism Research at the

University of Florida, a tourist is defined as a person coming from outside the home

county of the site of research.

Units of analysis refers to the individual tourist.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The problem of this study was to gain information regarding the characteristics of

the motivations, decision making processes and the satisfaction of tourist and resident

museum visitors and the impact of a major exhibition on the museum it hosts. More

specifically, these characteristics included their motivations to travel to a traveling

exhibition, the influences in their decision making process, and their satisfaction with the

destination after arriving. This chapter sought to review the literature relevant to

motivations, decision making and satisfaction, as well as the tourist destination of

museums. The review of literature was structured in this manner regarding their

influences on tourist visitation:

* Museum Literature
* Motivation
* Decision Making
* Satisfaction

Museum Literature

The information written on audiences, visitors to museums, and ways to best

manage these attractions, was for the most part, very recent. Bunch, Jacobs, Luksetich,

and Lange (1988) looked at whether traveling exhibitions influence museum attendance,

using two anonymous museums over a two-year period. Each had a different value of the

traveling exhibits, one had a mean value of $204,000 and the other had a mean value of

$97,500. The authors focused primarily on two effects of the traveling exhibit: museum

attendance and the financial effects of the exhibit on the museum. The data were









gathered from Museum A for 45 weeks and Museum B for 72 weeks looking at the

popularity, value and availability of each of the temporary exhibitions on display. Using

a least squares statistical regression analysis separately on each museum, they found that

the number of visitors to exhibitions dwindled the longer a particular exhibit was on

display. They also found that there was no relationship between the number of objects on

display and attendance to the exhibition, however there was a significant relationship

between the value of the collection and museum attendance. In short, these researchers

found that "differences in insured value of traveling exhibits are related to [museum]

attendance," (pg.135) and that these may be a possible indicator of the popularity of the

exhibition. It also made sense that they found that museums will incur positive financial

impacts such as, new memberships and added gift shop sales from successful traveling

exhibitions.

Tian, Compton, and Witt (1996) performed a study in the historic district of

Galveston, Texas with the help of the Galveston Historical Foundation in order to

identify "target markets" for maximum spending and marketing strategy. Their study

asked three questions: 1) "What benefits did museum-goers seek from their visits?" 2)

"What were the major constraints that inhibited museum-goers from visiting the

Galveston museums?" 3) "Can these constraints and benefits be meaningfully integrated

to identify target groups that are likely to be either more or less responsive to investments

in marketing efforts directed at them?" Some of the benefit domains that they included

were bonding, relaxation, social recognition, self-esteem, and educational entertainment.

Results revealed four priority target markets for their marketing strategies. They ranked

them based on the established benefit domains. The four markets were called Child-









Centered Adults who are Unconstrained Mature Enthusiasts, Child-Centered Adults who

are Committed Localites, Extensive-Benefit Seekers who are Committed Localites, and

Extensive Benefit Seekers who are Cost Conscious Visitors. They suggested that these

four markets could be extremely beneficial in segmenting the visitors surveyed in the

current study.

Harrison (1997) examined the relationship between museums and tourism through

studying tourists who visited the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, HI. She

asserted that while museums have always been interested in gathering information about

their visitors, they fail to utilize this information effectively. Specifically, insights on

details of what tourist's experience, what makes a museum an attraction, and what

tourists look for when they visit a museum are usually omitted. Harrison surveyed 200

visitors to the Bishop Museum, of whom were given a "slightly elaborated" questionnaire

in effort to gain better understanding of their perceptions regarding Hawaii. In this

survey, respondents were given a list of words and were asked to identify which ones

they associated with Hawaii before coming to the museum. The list of words was in

three groups and came from tourism brochures, informed writings of the culture and

history of Hawaii, and literature written by native Hawaiians. The frequency of

association for the first group of words averaged around 70%, while the frequency of

Group 2 averaged around 50% and Group 3, averaged 27%. From the survey the

researchers found that the museum enhanced or enriched what they already knew about

Hawaii.

In Kotler and Kotler's Museum Strategy andMarketing (1998), they explored the

stages of the decision making process in choosing a museum visit. They began by saying









that museum audiences are comprised of tourists and local visitors, and that museum

visits were usually planned rather than accidental. They asserted that there were five

stages to the process of decision making, which included: the need for arousal,

information gathering, decision evaluation, decision execution, and post-decision

assessment and action. After explaining these factors in depth, Kotler and Kotler

discussed the factors that influence museum-going behavior. Some of the factors they

mention included: cultural and ethnic, social class, life cycle, lifestyle, reference groups,

socialization and social trends.

Tufts and Milne (1999) asserted that the educationally and culturally driven

mandates of museums are changing. Museum managers are realizing the economic

impact and influence on tourism of museums. Tufts and Milne (1999) examined

museums from a supply-side perspective and asserted that museums are essential to

understanding a particular time and place, and are of key importance to the tourism

industry. In looking at museums in Montreal, Canada, they examined a shift in the search

for revenue, new technologies, labor practices, and network development. These

researchers indicated a focus for museums which relates to its public mandate as well as

its ability to contribute to the tourism industry and enhance the visitor experience.

Garrod and Fyall (2000) investigated museums as a component of the management

of heritage tourism destinations in the United Kingdom. They suggested that although

museums and other heritage tourism destinations account for a substantial percentage of

areas (generates an estimated 28% of all tourism expenditure in the UK every year)

attended by tourists, often times they are overlooked and not viewed as being part of the

"tourism business." Possibly this was because of their non-profit status and educational









mission. However, Garrod and Fyall indicated, heritage tourism destinations face many

challenges both internally and externally, with one of the greatest challenges being

competition for the time of the tourist. Not only was there competition between heritage

tourism destinations (internal), but competition also existed between these destinations

and other leisure venues such as theme parks, shopping malls, and multimedia

entertainment complexes such as movie theaters and arcades. In their study, on a list of

fourteen challenges, "increased competition from other leisure activities" were ranked

third by heritage tourism professionals in the UK.

Plaza (2000) investigated the degree to which the Guggenheim Museum attracted

tourists in Bilbao, Spain by analyzing the number of visitors and overnight stays between

January 1994 and July 1999. The data were analyzed using regression analysis and it was

found that the Guggenheim Bilbao was indeed a tourist attraction in that area, and

therefore had a positive economic impact on the city of Bilbao. Some of the different

motivations listed for visitors to the Guggenheim Bilbao included the desire to see the

building itself, special exhibitions, the associations with the Guggenheim name, and

publicity through advertising.

Cunnell and Prentice (2000) sought to establish the museum as a service provider

and in doing so, suggested a threefold foci for the museum in order to establish the best

quality experience for their visitors. This threefold foci consisted of a consumer

experience focus, a facility focus and a research defined focus. They suggested that the

designers of the museum define the facilities, the researchers define the measurement and

the visitors define the experience and that by better understanding these foci, the

museums would be better service providers. They surveyed visitors to the Royal Mile in









Edinburgh, which North American visitors and English visitors. The results indicated

that both the American and the English visitors yielded similar results in their views of

quality. Cunnell and Prentice explored the museum as a service provider for their

visitors, both residents and tourists, and established that english speaking visitors to

international museums and attractions have similar expectations and interests when

visiting.

Kerstetter, Confer, and Graefe (2001) asserted that not only was heritage tourism a

popular type of tourism, but also that tourists could be categorized on a specialization

continuum based on their motivations, visitation behavior, socio-demographic

characteristics, and perceptions of the site and its authenticity. In their study, visitors to

Pennsylvania's Path of Progress, were interviewed on site and given a follow up survey

via mail. Their responses were then placed on a Heritage Tourism Specialization Index

and several statistical analysis were performed to determine the results. These results

showed tourists within the heritage tourism sector could in fact be organized along a

specialization continuum and that travel behavior, motivations, and overall satisfaction

were indicators of specialization. Each of these indicators were being analyzed in the

current study in the hopes that the motivations, travel behavior and satisfaction could be

further established among heritage tourists.

Stephen (2001) explored the role of the museum in its community and the added

function of the museum as an opportunity for recreation. Stephen asserted that the

museum, a symbol of community pride, has the primary function of collecting and

preserving objects, which symbolize a significant portion of history in the community

where it resides. An added function of the museum included the opportunities for









recreation, according to Stephen, given the museum's role within society. In addition to

providing stimulation and empowerment in learning for their visitors, Stephen

encourages museum professionals to not neglect the opportunities to reach new audiences

within their communities through recreation opportunities. While this article greatly

discussed the functions of the museum in the community where it resides, the tourist

visitors still seemed to be neglected in museum research.

Prentice (2001) investigated the role of museums as attractions in experiential

cultural tourism and what marketing concepts are being used. He asserted that the

phenomenon of experiential cultural tourism is all about the search for authenticity in the

experience that a visitor has. According to Prentice, museums either needed to invest in

new marketing strategies and face their competition, or be left behind in the race for the

time and attention of the tourist. Prentice spent the remainder of the article discussing

authenticity as a draw for tourists to the museum. This study covered tourists to the

museum in a very in depth manner, however failed to account for the residents in the

communities where museums reside.

Museums and other venues of historic preservation, which comprised the heritage

tourism sector, were vital components to the tourism industry, and played a pivotal role in

the economy, particularly in Florida. McLendon and Klein (2003) reported that historic

preservation "activities" contributed approximately $4.2 billion to Florida's economy

annually, which included jobs, generated income, taxes and many other variables. The

results of the economic impact study presented six overall conclusions about the

significance of historic preservation venues, museums included. First, they found that

historic preservation created jobs in Florida, based on the 123,000+ jobs generated, which









meant $2.7 billion in income to Floridians in the year 2000. They also found that historic

preservation venues significantly contributed to state and local taxes, and more

importantly, that heritage tourism generated billions of dollars in local spending. They

reported that the direct economic benefits of the heritage tourism sector of historic

preservation equaled $3.72 billion overall. In their study, according to a Visit Florida

survey in 2002, six in ten of those surveyed reported that they had participated in history-

based activities while vacationing in Florida in the past year. Other conclusions that

McLendon and Klein found were that historic grants create local wealth and jobs and that

these grants were of the utmost importance in the restoration and revitalization of many

of Florida's most visited communities including Key West and Miami's Art Deco

district. They also determined that Florida's Main Street Program had been successful

and promoted community growth, and in that growth, they found that historic

preservation maintained property values in Florida.

There were no studies present in the museum literature, which explored and

differentiated the role of residents and tourists in museum attendance. Nor are their

studies that differentiated residents and tourists in their motivations, decision making

process and satisfaction with museums and traveling exhibitions.

Therefore, it was important to better understand the visitors to museums, and in

turn, the traveling exhibitions that they host, in order to fully understand the community's

role in museum programs and provide the best experience possible.

Theoretical Framework

The primary theory utilized in this study was Dann's (1977) "Push and Pull

factors" of motivations. Dann first introduced push and pull factors in the late 70's, and

as described before incorporated internal and external influences on visitor behavior. He









defined the push factors as incorporating things like escape and nostalgia, which gave the

tourist the desire to travel. He defined the pull factors as being those factors, which make

certain locations more appealing than others like the sunshine or the ocean.

Fodness (1994) described push factors in motivation as those internal factors that

predispose an individual tourist to travel. The theory of push and full factors basically

asserted that when tourists visit a particular destination, they had certain expectations and

needs for stimulation that should be met by their leisure experience (Kim & Lee, 2002)

Pull factors were the forces that draw the tourists to visit a particular vacation

destination. Pull factors were considered to be the attractions themselves, such as special

events or exhibits, information received about the destination advertisements, location of

destination and the bundle of attractions in a destination (Kim & Lee, 2002). For

example, pull factors for a tourist would include a special exhibit at a museum, a new ride

opening at a theme park, or new trails opening at an outdoor park. The pull factors were

those qualities that appeared attractive to the tourist once the decision to travel has been

made (influenced by the push factors). These push and pull factors were directly related

to motivations and the decision making process, which were investigated further in this

study.

Uysal and Jurowski (1994) later proposed that recognition and understanding of

these factors could be useful information in helping marketers and tourism destination

developers originate ideas for vacation spots. They postulated that tourists travel because

of internal factors that pushed them into making certain decisions and external factors

that pulled them towards certain features of a specific destination.









The hierarchy of needs developed by Maslow in the 1950's coupled with these

expectations that visitors have are considered push factors. These factors pushed tourists

to visit a specific location in order to fulfill their need for leisure. Examples of push

factors included motivations that are intrinsic, such as the need for relaxation, escape

from stress, social interaction, adventure, and rest. Each of these factors were basic

needs that humans had according to Maslow, and had a significant influence on the

decision to travel for leisure according to Uysal and Jurowski (1994).

Bradford, Baloglu, and Uysal (1996) believed that much of the research had been

done on the concept of push and pull factors, oddly enough, few had looked at these as

factors of motivations in tourists. These researchers described push and pull factors as

forces of motivation that pushed individuals into making travel decisions and pulled the

same individuals to a specific destination area, and through travel, tourists sought to

satisfy many needs at the same time. The goal of their study was to gain a better

understanding of push and pull factors, thereby helping marketers and travel developers

create better "tourism product bundles" through the understanding of German pleasure

travelers. The data were collected through in-home interviews throughout West

Germany, and the respondents were those 18 years and older who had taken a vacation

trip of four nights or longer by plane outside of Europe and the Mediterranean in the past

three years, or were planning a similar trip within the next two years. Their study

involved a questionnaire containing 30 push and 50 pull items, which the respondents

were asked to rate on a 4 point Likert scale. The data were analyzed using canonical

correlation analysis, which included MANOVA. The results of their study yielded four

pairings of product bundles based on the ratings by the respondents. The first pair was









primarily sport related, and had a relation to beach-resort items. The second pair

involved novelty with motivations including the desires to learn new things, see and

experience foreign destinations, and experience new and different lifestyles, which were

matched with destinations that provide ways to increase knowledge. The third pair

consists of urban life experience and contained such attributes as high quality restaurants,

historical sites, guided tours, as well as museums and art galleries and focused on safety,

cleanliness, and warm hospitality. The fourth pair were the beach-resort destinations and

were more adventurous motivations including, being daring and adventuresome, finding

thrills and excitement, and getting away from everyday life. Based on these four pairs,

market segments were formed. The overall findings of this study showed that there is a

significant relationship between motivations and specific attributes of destinations. It

also showed that matching push and pull items can be a successful marketing strategy.

Motivations

In the motivation literature, many authors delved into the field of psychology and

combined that with leisure. One such study that helped in explaining motivations for the

purpose of this project was Crompton's 1979 study. He began by gleaning data from

thirty-nine unstructured two hour interviews about motivations for pleasure vacations.

He found that the vacation process began with a desire to break from a routine and from

there, the respondents had to decide whether to go on a pleasure vacation, stay at home,

or go on a non-pleasure vacation. Nine motivations were derived from these interviews

and fit into two categories: socio-psychological and cultural. The socio-psychological

motives were escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation

of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship relationships, and

facilitation of social interaction. The cultural motives were novelty and education. The









cultural motives were aroused by the qualities a particular destination offered, while the

socio-psychological motives were present despite the destination. Crompton called for

further research in this area to determine the role of tourist motivation's in the tourism

industry.

In 1983, Beard and Ragheb found four primary motives for leisure. The first

component was an intellectual component, defined as, "the extent to which individuals

are motivated to engage in such leisure activities, which involve substantial mental

activities such as learning, exploring, discovering, creating, or imagining." The second

component labeled as the "social component," was, "the extent to which individuals are

motivated to engage in such leisure activities for social reasons," this included both the

need for friendship and the need for the praise of others. The third component was the

competence mastery component, which they defined as an assessment of"...the extent to

which individuals engage in leisure activities in order to master, challenge, and compete;

usually physical in nature." The fourth and final component found by Beard and Ragheb

was the stimulus-avoidance component, which they defined as an assessment of the drive

to escape and get away from over-stimulating life situations" (1983, p. 225)

Iso-Ahola later (1989) defined motivation theory as, "an internal factor that arouses

and directs human behavior." His basis for studying motivation theory within the field of

leisure was that it could predict some leisure behaviors and be applied by leisure

providers in assessing what kinds of leisure experiences to offer tourists. He used this

basis for study to develop the S-O-R model of motives for leisure. This S-O-R model,

which asserts that the organism's (0) emotions and thought processes are connected and

work together in responding (R) to a stimulus (S). He found that a lack of motivation in a









person's leisure time led to boredom and apathy. For example, if a person was not

motivated to go see an exhibit or visit a museum, they would not do so. Overall, Iso-

Ahola's findings were that motivation was a necessary part of the leisure experience and

that people feel a need for leisure in their lives, which was the basis for this current study

that motivations played a role in what activities people took part in and where they went.

Fodness (1994) agreed that understanding the theory of motivation and its driving

factors was essential in marketing tourism destinations and services effectively, and even

went so far as to say it was the "driving force behind all behavior." His article discussed

three different studies on motivation in leisure travel, which explained that people travel

for leisure because they had the psychological need to do so, and leisure travel fulfilled

those needs. The first study dealt with a functional approach to leisure travel motivation.

The study was performed using qualitative interviews in three different stages.

Multidimensional Scaling Solutions (MDS) were then applied and a list of vacation

themes were developed from the interviews. Four primary dimensions were established:

the knowledge function of leisure travel, the utilitarian function of leisure travel, the

social-adjustive function of leisure travel, and the value-expressive function of leisure

travel. The second study in Fodness's research involved measuring tourist motivation.

The data was collected quantitatively through a mail-out survey to individuals who had

recently requested a Florida Visitor's Guide. A factor analysis was performed and

several of the same functions found as in the previous study. The third study performed

was a market segmentation study performed in a similar manner to that of study two.

This study tested three hypothesis developed by Fodness. They were able to develop

several variables related to traveling party, trip planning, trip behavior, and expenditure.









He postulated that all of these variables would be useful to marketers and tourism

development personnel in creating an ideal tourism destination. Fodness felt that the

understanding of tourist motivations and these variables could also assist marketers in

product development, quality evaluation of goods and services, and promotional

activities.

Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996) explored motivation in leisure through a

meta-analysis of 36 studies that had used the Recreation Preference Scales (REP)

method. REP scales have been defined as, "... psychometric scaling that could be used

to measure the dimensions of people's recreation experience" (p. 188). Data for this study

derived from 36 studies that had used the REP scales to measure motivation in leisure

between the mid to late 70s. Correlation and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that

108 of the 328 items in the REP scale item pool showed correlations and remained for

further analysis. Some of these scales include achievement/stimulation, family

togetherness, similar people, learning, nostalgia, creativity, and escape personal-social

pressures. The results of the study concluded that the REP scales were reliable and

should be used in further research. They called specifically for further use of the REP

scales in leisure studies not pertaining to outdoor recreation specifically to see if the

validity scores would stay the same.

Gnoth (1997) introduced the model of tourism motivation and expectation

formation as a way to better understand the relationship between motivations and

satisfaction. He asserted that visitors develop expectations based on their motivations

and that those expectations help to determine the satisfaction of the visitor on the

destination. Through a review of literature including motivations, performance, and









expectations, Gnoth proposed a model, which began with the urge (also termed push or

drive) to visit, followed by the objective situation, which was influenced by the

perceptions and values. This then lead to the subjective situation (also termed pull),

which in turn lead to the attitudes and expectations in the actual event and those

following the event. Gnoth called for further research to be done using this model in

studying the motivations of tourists.

In their book about learning in museums, Falk and Dierking (2000) related the

Conceptual Model of Learning to museum visitors and explained that many times visitors

to museums are motivated to form, expand upon or relive their own personal experiences.

They gain more knowledge about themselves, their experiences, and the world around

them through the exhibitions and settings presented. These visitors gained a sense of

fulfillment in reminiscing about the past and learn more of themselves as they were

presented with their own feelings regarding past events and history. Also, according to

Falk and Dierking, "One action that can, and for many people does, flow from interest is

the decision to attend a selected museum or pay selective attention to specific exhibitions

or exhibit elements once inside a museum" (pg. 23). These served as motivations for

these visitors to attend a particular museum or exhibition and all occurred within the

personal context of the Conceptual Model of Learning.

Jewell and Crotts (2002) explored the methodology of the Hierarchical Map Value

technique (HVM) in attempts to identify possible motivations for visitors of a historic

house heritage tourism attraction in South Carolina. The HVM technique was one in

which sought to identify "both higher and lower values and their connections via a series

of probing questions," such as "why." It was typically diagrammed as a ladder structure









and from this, attributes and consequences were identified. Attributes were features or

components specific to the attraction, whereas consequences, also termed core values,

were the desirable outcomes of the attraction visit. In their study, the core values were

the motivations that were derived from the respondent's interviews. The researchers

followed the traditional HVM sample size of 30 participants and gave each participant a

20 minute interview following their visit to the house. From the 30 interviews, eleven

attributes were identified and from those, four lines of consequences were found, which

led them to the "Satisfying experience/pleasure" end. Some of the consequences were

identified as "knowledge/understanding, relaxation, and connection to the past/nostalgia."

This method was considered for this current study, however due to the small sample size

and time required for the interviews, in addition to the question of reliability, it was the

opinion of this researcher that the push/pull framework was a better measure for the

purposes of the current study.

Decision Making

In the decision making literature, many dimensions of the decision making process

existed. Jenkins (1978) investigated family decision making as it relates to vacations. He

sought to determine the subdecision areas, measure the family role and influence each

member had in the decision, and determine what criteria were important to families in

choosing a destination. The data were collected from two focus group interview sessions

with five couples who took a vacation in 1976. From these focus groups, a final

questionnaire was developed and then sent to 105 couples in the Columbus, Ohio area.

The results revealed that the following served as subdecisions: collection of information,

whether to take the children, how long to stay, the exact time of year or actual date, the

type of transportation, amount of money to spend, kind of activities to participate in,









commercial lodging facilities to use, and destination points of interest. The results

showed that the dominance of decision making was based entirely upon what decision

was being made. It was found that children had considerable influence on the decisions

made, particularly in the areas of the activities to participate in and where they would go.

They found the collection of information happened anywhere from one to three months

before the scheduled vacation. The determination of date was primarily husband

dominated, whereas the transportation decision was joint by the husband and wife. The

decision of how much to spend was viewed as being primarily the husbands decision by

the wives, and an equal decision by the husbands. The selection of commercial lodging

was a joint decision between the husbands and wives with considerable influence by the

children. Jenkins (1978) asserted that understanding the decision making process as it

related to family vacation destinations was of vital importance to the tourism industry and

recreation providers.

Ritchie and Filiatrault (1980) sought to replicate and expand and improve an earlier

study done on family decision making. They interviewed husband and wife couples from

vacation-taking families, using a questionnaire. Using the constant sum method, the

couples were asked to allocate 100 points in proportion to each of the members of the

family on the basis of their perceived importance in determining the outcome of a

particular subdecision. There were 17 subdecisions included on the survey, of which 10

dealt with the vacation itself, while the remaining seven revolved around the lodging

where the family was staying. Using MANOVA to compile the results, Ritchie and

Filiatrault found that on average, husbands were perceived to have greater influence than

wives, and in none of the subdecisions were the wives or children perceived as having









more influence than the husbands. They also found that influence in the decision process

varied with the subdecision under consideration. Children have very little influence in

lodging decisions, however, they did have some influence in other factors. Children

exerted the highest degree of influence on decisions concerning when to go on vacation,

where to go, the type of vacation, and whether to go on vacation at all.

They also investigated lodging criteria and found that family vacationers placed

more importance on factors including swimming pools, attractiveness of grounds, room

layout, credit card acceptance, television in rooms, on site restaurant, and special rates for

children than couple vacationers. Couple vacationers placed more importance on factors

such as personal safety from theft, recreation/entertainment facilities in hotel, and

published information about the hotel. They found that "chain" lodgers had great

importance attached to; external appearance, swimming pool, attractiveness of grounds,

room layout, credit card acceptance, ease of making reservations, hotel/motel that looks

like one at home, television in rooms, on site restaurant, level of personalized service,

special rates for children, recreation and entertainment facilities in hotel, quality of meals,

and proximity to main travel route. Whereas, independent lodgers attached more

importance to the price of the rooms. Overall, they found that the findings of this study

were consistent with those of previous studies surrounding the influence of the family

structure in decision making, however, there needs to be better scales developed for

measuring lodging choice criteria.

Crompton (1981) investigated an individual's selection of a particular destination

and if social groups had any influence on that individual's decision. He sought to find

out if this influence existed, who might be the influencers, and do these influences









enhance the satisfaction of the destination in the eyes of the individual. The data for this

study came from 39 unstructured two hour interviews concerning leisure. He found that

other individuals may directly influence a person to visit a particular destination, that they

may mold an individual's opinion and image of a destination, that they may acquire

stereotypes from long term socialization about a particular destination, and that social

influences from other individuals can come from those living far away from the

individual decision-maker. The composition of these social influences included the

family unit, friends, and children. The roles of these groups in enhancing pleasure

vacations included components such as the saving of money by traveling with others, the

presence of companions and reduction of lonliness, the stimulation and added

perspectives by others, and finally, the ability to share experiences and occurrences.

In 1988, Carr and Woodside sought to analyze the effect of marketing strategies

geared toward tourists and what guided their decision to visit the vacation destination

they visited. They began with the hypothesis that destination awareness, preference, and

choice were all related in a positive manner in the decision making process. The study

was performed using empirical analysis. First destination awareness was measured using

the unaided awareness method. Preference was measured using the constant sum scale,

and choice was measured using the conjoint analysis method. The authors concluded that

marketing strategies could be influential on tourists, and that vacationing tourists can be

categorized by these decision making variables. The article also suggested that more

research should be done on this topic, and went on to say that marketing departments

should consider annual surveys utilizing the three methods that were used in this study.









Nichols and Snepenger (1988) investigated family decision making and the

behavior and attitudes toward tourism. They compared three decision making models

that had come from previous literature: husband- dominant, wife-dominant, and husband-

wife joint decision making. The data came from one individual from each family that

filled out a 1983 survey for the Alaska State Division of Tourism. The results revealed

that joint decision-makers tended to plan their vacation earlier and they tended to consult

their friends more often than the other groups. It was apparent that husband-dominant

groups spent more than the other groups and wife-dominant groups tended to spend the

least amount of time in leisure activities. The joint decision making groups tended to

visit family members, camp/hike or visit national parks more so than the other two

groups. The implications for this study were that marketers and tourism providers would

better understand who to market to, ie. the person who makes the decision.

Howard and Madrigal (1990) investigated the role of parents and children in the

decision making process when selecting a recreation experience. They wanted to find the

degree to which parents and children influence recreation choice, the effects of older

versus younger children in the decision making process, and the perceived level of

influence by children on recreation purchase. The data for this study were collected

through a four-page questionnaire of parents registering their children in recreation

programs. The influence of family members was measured by a constant sum method,

which allocated 100 points to the decision influence in proportion to their perceived

involvement in the decision. The results revealed that the mothers and child have more

influence on the recreation choice than do the fathers, perhaps because the mothers were

taking full responsibility in the search for their child's recreation. Children were very









rarely found to make an independent decision. The results were unclear as to whether the

lack of the paternal involvement was due to ambivalence, or whether it was a matter of

convenience to the mother as the primary caretaker.

Fodness (1992) sought to explore the role that the family played in the vacation

decision making process, and whether or not it's position in the family life cycle also had

an impact on the decision being made. He came up with a two-part hypothesis, which

thought that the patterns of vacation information being sought and the patterns of the final

decision made would depend upon the family's stage in the family life cycle. They

"focused on the stages of the vacation decision making process which were available

from the secondary data-information search and final decision." The results attained

from this study supported the original hypothesis, and it also discovered some new

information. They found that the family does move through a cycle over time and where

they are in the cycle has a great influence on where they decide to vacation. Also, the

study showed that wives are more likely to gather information regarding a vacation

destination than are husbands. From this they inferred that the role of decision-maker

also changes over time.

Madrigal (1993) again investigated the parent's perceptions of family member's

influence in vacation decision making. The data were collected from forty-eight married

partners with children currently living in the home. A 100-point constant sum scale was

used to determine the relative influence of each person on the vacation decision made.

The results showed that husbands were perceived as having the majority of the decision

in deciding where to go, and how much would be spent on the trip. Wives were

percieved to have had greater influence in decisions relating to gathering information









about the trip and choosing where to stay. Older children were perceived as having more

influence than were younger children by the parents. The conclusions of this study were

that while the decisions to take a vacation were for the most part joint decisions, both the

husband and wife still assumed certain roles as decision-makers in specific decisions.

Gitelson and Kerstetter (1994) explored the degree to which friends and relatives

influence the travel decision making process. The thought that friends and relatives could

have as much, if not more influence than children, this needed to be pursued further. The

data for this study was collected through a one-page questionnaire and a follow up

questionnaire of visitors to three heritage sites in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Using the

constant sum method, respondents were asked to allocate who had made the decisions in

the following areas: which sites to visit, what to do in the area, how long to stay in the

area, where to eat, who was responsible for getting trip-related information, and where to

stay if the trip lasted for more than a day. Results indicated that all of the travel decisions

were influenced by friends and/or relatives, and in approximately one third of the groups,

friends and relatives dominated the decisions made in at least four of the six decisions

made. Gitelson and Kerstetter suggested that further research be done in this area.

In 1995, Millman and Pizam conducted a study of awareness and familiarity with

the region of Central Florida as a site for potential vacations. They initially hypothesized

that those persons that were familiar with Central Florida and aware of it as a tourist

destination would be more likely to visit and have a more positive image of it than those

who were not familiar with it would. Using focus groups and sample surveys by means

of telephone calls, they questioned persons 18 years and older from many regions of the

United States. They found that there were stages to familiarity with a destination, and









that just because people are aware of an area as a tourist destination, they might not

choose to visit this area.

According to Sirakaya, McLellan, and Uysal (1996), the decision making process

can be categorized into two groups: structural (the relationship between stimulus and

response) and process (the complete process). This article discussed the factors that

influence vacation destination choice. The authors created a model comprised of three

assumptions. These three assumptions were 1) the "assessment of the factors affecting a

person's choice," 2) "Brunswik's suggestion that most decision-makers employ a few

criteria when making their decisions," and 3) most consumers "process information

additively." The authors realized that the decisions made by the subjects were individual

specific. As well, students tended not to demonstrate good insight into their decisions.

They concluded that individuals make decisions specific to themselves is helpful in this

study, because it decreases the amount of constraining factors that need to be considered

when formulating the methods and procedures section.

Kerstetter and Pennington-Gray (1999) studied the decision making roles and

attitudes of university-educated women who enjoyed travelling for pleasure. One of the

primary goals of this study was to find out whether generation had a significant influence

on the decision making process and outcome of that process. A sample of 1,000 women

representing four generations were randomly chosen from the alumni list of a large

university in the northeast. These women received a mail-back questionnaire with cover

letter explaining the study and a prepaid self addressed envelope for convenience. From

the 49% response rate, respondents were categorized into five categories based on

percentage allocation: 1) sole decision-maker (these made 100% of the decision to









travel), 2) dominant influence (greater than 50% of the decision to travel), 3) equal

influence (50% of the decision to travel), 4) lesser influence (less than 50% of the

decision to travel), and 5) no influence (0% of the decision to travel). They were

questioned on five types of travel decisions: 1) what to do, 2) who to travel with, 3) how

to travel, 4) when to travel, and 5) where to travel. There was a fairly even distribution of

generations involved in decision making and the results showed that overall, the "equal

role" decision maker was the most common type. Also, significance was found in three

of the five types of decisions being made: 1) what to do, 2) who to travel with, and 3)

how to travel. This study also showed that the "decision making role of women changed

when controlled for income." The measures of the percentage allocation of the decision

making role and type of decision being made proved to be valid and reliable in measuring

what they set out to measure. This study was also significant because it showed that the

decision making process can be the result of many different types of people with many

different types of decisions.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction was a concept that was essential in understanding and evaluating

tourists and exploring their behaviors. Measuring satisfaction can be somewhat difficult

in that the questions being asked must be valid measures of satisfaction. Satisfaction in

tourism stemmed from the expectations a visitor had, combined with their overall

experience (Pizam, 1978). After initial interviews and survey questionnaires study of

tourists vacationing in the Cape Cod area of Massachusetts, factor analysis was used to

break the original thirty-two factors into several domains that could comprise satisfaction

in the tourism industry. The results yielded eight different domains of satisfaction that

the original thirty two fell into in this first study: beach opportunities, cost, hospitality,









eating and drinking facilities, accommodation facilities, campground facilities,

environment, and the extent of civilization. Obviously some of these factors were not

applicable to all areas of tourism as beaches are not plentiful everywhere, however the

methods employed to discover these domains are valid and could be applied to other

areas where other domains should be identified (such as museums).

Beard and Ragheb (1980) sought to develop a suitable measure for satisfaction in

leisure in the hopes of providing better leisure experiences and therefore contributing to

the "pursuit of happiness" of recreationists. It was their belief that not only those

participants of recreation related activities would benefit from this research, but also

those decision-makers, planners, and managers that provide recreation and leisure. They

defined satisfaction in leisure as, "...the positive perceptions or feelings, which an

individual forms, elicits, or gains as a result of engaging in leisure activities and choices."

In attempts to better understand how this occurs in the individual, they developed the

Leisure Satisfaction Scale (LSS), whose primary purpose was to measure the degree to

which individuals are satisfied with and through their leisure activities. This scale

allowed respondents to mark the extent of the truth of statements relating to six different

areas in their life and leisure activities, using a five point Likert scale. The truth

statements included words like almost never, seldom, sometimes, often, or almost always

true. The six different areas, derived from previous psychology literature included areas

such as psychological, educational, social, relaxational, physiological, and aesthetic.

After a series of field tests, which included a mailed questionnaire, the results indicated

that four of the six areas were clearly discernable. They found that respondents often

confused relaxation with recreation and the physiological areas became more clear after









several rotations in factor analysis. The reliability and validity of these factors were

consistent at the time of the study, but further research and development was necessary.

Maddox (1985) discussed another method of measuring satisfaction, the Multitrait-

Multimethod (MTMM) approach, where several factors aimed to measure the same

construct. For example, in this current study, there were three factors of satisfaction

being tested as well as the overall satisfaction: information, services, and facilities. Each

of these three factors had variables that the participant had to address. For example, in

order to test the participant's satisfaction with the information available, they are asked to

rate their satisfaction on a 5 point Likert scale with such items as the information about

the exhibit, what to do in Greater Gainesville, and in trip planning. Each of these

variables helped the participant and researcher to evaluate the satisfaction with the

information available, as Maddox suggested in the MTMM method.

Satisfaction was a crucial theory to tourism, not only because as service providers

satisfied customers were essential, but also because if customers were dissatisfied, then

they may not be repeat visitors. The quality of the service provided was key to the degree

of satisfaction that the visitor will experience (Quinn & Gagnon, 1986). To illustrate this,

Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1988) developed SERVQUAL as a measure of

customer satisfaction in relation to issues of quality in service agencies. This measure

was designed to analyze the visitor's perceptions of their expectations or importance

levels and the perceived performance of each different item. They began with ten service

dimensions, each with two statements measuring the perceived performance. From this,

five service dimensions were then derived: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,

assurance and empathy. The SERVQUAL model of measurement was designed to be









applied to a broad spectrum of service agencies, and therefore has been challenged in its

effectiveness in the recreation/tourism industries.

MacKay and Crompton (1988) took this quality of services provided theory and

applied it to the fields of recreation and park management. They investigated service

quality as the result of what happens when expectations meet perceived performance

using the five dimensions found by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1988).

Mannell (1989) suggested the satisfaction can be analyzed through two dimensions,

motivations and specificity level in attempts to better understand satisfaction as it relates

to leisure. He asserted that satisfaction is based on human needs and that it is a

comparison of the expectations visitors have (based on their motivations) to the actual

experience that they have at their respective destination. Specificity level he asserted

could be measured through three approaches: molar, molecular and molecular-molar.

The molar approach referred to an overall level of satisfaction whereas the molecular

approach referred to more specific items that contribute to the overall experience. The

molecular-molar approach was a combination of the two, similar to the measure used in

this current study. From this, a global satisfaction score was derived, which showed the

researcher the level of satisfaction present in a certain visitor.

Chadee and Mattson (1995) measured customer satisfaction within four distinct

tourist settings among college students. Following the idea that an indication of the

quality of service was the measure of the gap between expectations and perception of

service by the customer, these researchers analyzed college students in four "tourist"

settings: eating out, hotel stays, car rentals, and sightseeing tours. They gave each of the

students one set of four pictures showing each of these locations and asked them to rate









how satisfied they would be with each location, using a five-point Likert scale. In each

picture, one quality variable was reflected in a negative manner from a standard generally

positive picture. This allowed the researchers to determine which factor was of more

importance to the students at each of the four locations. For example, at the hotel, the

facilities were the most important factor, while at the rental car facility the pickup and

delivery services were most important. Cost was only the most important variable at the

restaurant, whereas at the sightseeing tour, the educational value of the tour was ranked

most important to the students. While this study was helpful to service providers in the

tourism industry, further research using the model was difficult to find.

Reed and Hall (1997) studied customer satisfaction and defined it as a relationship

between a customer, the product/service, and the provider. They also found that

satisfaction was the result of the visitor's feelings as to whether or not their needs and

expectations had been met. One key concept that was important to tourism service

providers was that satisfaction was not fixed and that it was influenced and manipulated

over time. If the visitor perceived a poor quality service, then they were much more

likely be dissatisfied with that service, and as a result not return to that particular

attraction.

Bramwell (1998) introduced the framework of 'place marketing' into a study that

he performed in the United Kingdom aimed to gain a better understanding of customer

satisfaction with tourism products and services in a city setting in order to improve

planning for those same facilities elsewhere. 'Place marketing' in this context referred to

the fact that the marketing and development of products should be focused on the target

users and what their needs and wants are and how they should meet those needs and









wants. This study was performed in Sheffield, England using face to face questionnaires

with separate ones for visitors and residents. Respondents were selected randomly and

approximately 390 visitors and 191 residents were interviewed at several tourist

destinations in the city. A statistical test was applied and satisfaction ratings of different

services and tourist destinations were accumulated from the surveys. Bramwell made an

interesting point in that he stated it was wasteful when products and services are

developed and promoted and the intended users are not satisfied with these products and

services. Bramwell felt that situations like these could be avoided if marketers and

development personnel better understood satisfaction and performance quality.

Absher (1998) reduced the dimensions of satisfaction from the five earlier

researched by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) and proposed that there are three

dimensions of satisfaction found among visitors to National Forests: information,

services and facilities. Absher asserted that the simpler the measure, the more

information could be gleaned regarding the visitor's satisfaction.

Baker and Crompton (2000) asserted that one of the most important factors for

marketing professionals to master is that of customer satisfaction. This is evident in their

study of satisfaction at a festival destination, which investigated the roles of performance

quality and degrees of satisfaction in the tourism industry. Here, performance quality

was described as a measure of the service or product of the provider, and satisfaction was

devoted to measuring the tourist's outcome. This study was performed at an outdoor

festival held in a community's downtown historic district and included many attractions

from living history demonstrations to carnival rides. Respondents were given a mail-

back questionnaire with a prepaid postage envelope and asked to return it.









Approximately 73% were returned and factor analysis was performed in order to

establish different variables measuring quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions.

They found that perceptions of quality had a significant impact on visitor behavior and

also that satisfaction had a significant effect. Baker and Crompton suggested that the

festival planners and the tourism industry concentrate on enhancing perceived

performance quality and degrees of satisfaction of the tourists that visit their destinations.

Burns (2000) stated that there were components to service organizations and that

each of these components came together to form an overall whole of satisfaction. These

components were facilities, services, information, and experience. Three of these four

components were addressed in the current study: facilities, services, and information.

Experience was addressed in that the survey questionnaire was inquiring after the overall

experience instead of experience in each area of the exhibition.

Summary

In short, the theories of motivation, decision making, and satisfaction coupled with

demographic information all surrounding a well-respected traveling exhibition provided

the information necessary to answer the research questions of this study. Each of the

studies discussed in the review of the literature were utilized in creating the most

effective study possible and have aided in the development of a model to illustrate their

involvement in this study. Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 illustrated the four factors of

motivations as tested on the survey questionnaire, and Figure 3-1 showed their projected

effects on the components of decision making and satisfaction. The researcher of this

study asserted that the motivations of the museum visitors had an influence on the

decision making process and on the satisfaction that the museum visitor felt with regards

to the "A T. Rex Named Sue" exhibition.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The problem of this study was to gain information regarding the characteristics of

the motivations, decision making processes and the satisfaction of tourist and resident

museum visitors and the impact of a major exhibition on the museum it hosts. This

chapter explained the methods and procedures used to collect data and the analysis

necessary to interpret the data in hopes of solving the research problem and successfully

answering the research questions.

Instrumentation

The research design selected for this particular study involved a 3 page-

questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of close-ended questions, and seven open-

ended questions. It was self-administered, and approximately 20 questions in length (see

Appendix B). The survey had questions to determine the economic impact of "Sue" on

Gainesville, and also measures of satisfaction, motivation and decision making among

the visitors to the exhibit at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Discussion of the Variables

Push and Pull Motivations

This study set out to investigate the motivations, decision making process, and

satisfaction of museum visitors as they relate to a traveling exhibit. The researcher

sought to specify motivations even further by defining them as push and pull-type

motivations. Unfortunately the portion the survey instrument included as a measure of









this did not have an adequate number of responses for analysis, and would yield only

speculation.

Motivations

For the purposes of this study, motivations were operationalized using the REP

(Recreation Experience Preference) scales commonly used in the motivation in leisure

literature (Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant, 1996). These scales were originally developed

to measure psychological dimensions of those pursuing outdoor recreation experiences.

Some of the dimensions previously explored through the REP scales include: learning,

nostalgia, achievement/stimulation, family togetherness, similar people, creativity, and

escape personal-social pressures.

Table 3-1. The Factors of Travel Motivations Among Museum Visitors
Motivation Factors Motivation Items
1. Friends and Family 1. To be with friends and family
2. To bring my family closer together
3. To do something with my family
4. To spend more time with my family
2. Exploration 1. To explore
2. To experience new and different things
3. To get to know something different
4. To gain an appreciation of history
3. Education 1. To develop my general knowledge
2. To learn new things
3. To seek an educational experience
4. To seek intellectual enrichment
4. Rest & Relaxation 1. To rest and relax
2. To take it easy
3. To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do
4. To get away from it all
*All domains and items adapted from Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996)

While outdoor recreation experiences were not what this study was about, based on

the results, this measure seemed to be the best fit for what we wanted to explore in the

museum context. Table 3-1 showed the four domains of travel motivations being









explored in the survey questionnaire, as well as the sixteen items that correspond to each

of the domains.

Decision Making

The decision making process was operationalized using the constant sum method.

This method was selected because it was better adapted for measuring the degree of

influence, and also avoided interpretive problems with adjectives that would come from a

Likert type scale (Jenkins, 1978, Ritchie & Filitrault, 1980; Carr & Woodside, 1988;

Howard & Madrigal, 1990, Madrigal, 1993). This method consisted of having the

respondent allocate 100 points between those who were involved in the decision making

process on the basis of the proportion of their involvement. Combining what was studied

in previous literature regarding leisure and tourism, this study defined decision making

parties as including: Myself, Spouse/Partner, Friends/Relatives, Children, and Other.

Table 3-2 showed the factors being analyzed on decision making as they appear on the

survey questionnaire, which came from Kerstetter and Pennington-Gray 1994.

Table 3-2. Travel Decision Making Among Museum Visitors
On this trip to the museum who in your travel party made the following decisions:

Type of decision Myself Spouse/ Friends/ Child(ren) Other
(if not applicable leave blank) Partner Relatives (explain)

Q14a When to come to museum
Q14b Who to bring to museum
Q14c Whether to come at all
Q14d Whether to buy a "Sue"
souvenir
Q14e How long you stayed at
museum
Q14f To stay overnight
Q14g How much was spent on trip
Q14h Details on how to visit the
museum
*Adapted from Pennington and Kerstetter (1994)









Satisfaction

Satisfaction, in this study, was operationalized after the four components proposed

to encompass overall satisfaction in leisure: Facilities, Services, Information and

Experience (Burns, 2000). Facilities, services and information were given to the museum

visitor in the form of a table with twelve items, four items measuring each of the three

components. They were asked to rate these items on a Likert scale of one to five,

indicating the extent to which they were satisfied with each of the items. Experience was

measured using a separate question that asked the visitor to rate their overall experience

on a Likert scale of one to ten.

Table 3-3 showed the three domains of travel satisfaction hypothesized, and the

twelve items that correspond to those domains as seen on the survey questionnaire.

Again, these domains were adapted from Bums (2000) to fit the museum and this study.

Table 3-3. Travel Satisfaction Factors Among Museum Visitors
Satisfaction Factors Satisfaction Items
1. Information 1. Ability to get tickets or book group package
2. Information about the exhibit
3. Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville
4. Information in planning my trip to see "Sue"
2. Services 1. Staff availability
2. Staff friendliness
3. Staff helpfulness
3. Facilities 1. Ability to see the exhibit up close
2. Cleanliness of the exhibit area
3. Exhibit itself
4. Physical layout of exhibit area
5. Variety of things to do in exhibit area
*All domains and items adapted from Bums (2000)









Figure 3-1, on the next page, illustrated the effects of different factors of

motivations as tested on the survey questionnaire and their effects on the decision making

process and the satisfaction of the museum visitors.



Decision Making


Motivations D s t



Satisfaction


Figure 3-1. Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction

Sampling Procedures/Selection of Subjects

The sample consisted of tourists and residents in the Gainesville area of North

Central Florida. For the purposes of this study, a tourist was defined as, a person who

was traveling from outside the county where the research was taking place and a resident

was defined as a person living in or traveling from the county where the research took

place. Therefore, the sampling frame included the random selection of males and

females of age 18 or older. Both residents and tourists were included in the final sample.

Site Description: Alachua County and the Greater Gainesville Area

Greater Gainesville Area History

To more clearly understand the geographic parameters around this study,

background information on the setting was necessary. Alachua County was founded in

1824, and named for a ranch that had been there in the late 1600's. The name Alachua

comes from the Spanish word "La" meaning "the" and the Seminole word "Luchuwa"

meaning jug, and was most commonly thought to refer to a large sinkhole southeast of









Gainesville (www.floridanetlink.com). Alachua County, also termed the Greater

Gainesville Area, not only includes Gainesville, but also the communities of Alachua,

High Springs, Hawthorne, Newberry, Archer and Waldo. In addition to the University of

Florida, Alachua County is the home of Santa Fe Community College. The estimated

population of the county is 191,000, which includes the more than 40,000 students who

attended the University of Florida. Alachua County is located on Interstate 75 and US

Route 441. The Gainesville Regional Airport assists in making this county very

accessible to tourists (www.co.alachua.fl.us).

Attractions of the Greater Gainesville Area

The Greater Gainesville Area boasts many attractions including museums, theater,

and nature based attractions such as parks, which focused on nature and culture

(www.visitgainesville.net). Outdoor recreation activities such as hiking, biking, canoeing

and golf are popular things to do in this area of Florida. Sporting events held at the

University of Florida including Gator Football and Basketball games serve as attractions

for visitors from all over the State of Florida. Many special events are held throughout

the year including the Hoggetowne Medieval Faire in February, Gatornationals and the

Alachua County Youth Fair in March, the Spring Arts Festival in April as well as

Railroad Days and Pioneer Days in May, to name a few (www.co.alachua.fl.us). A map

showing the location of Alachua County is included as Appendix A.

The study was conducted at the Florida Museum of Natural History, a major

attraction in the Gainesville area, which hosted a special traveling exhibition, from

January 26th through May 19, 2002. The museum was chosen as a host for the "A T. Rex

Named Sue" exhibition. This exhibition came out of the Field Museum of Chicago, and

had the Florida Museum of Natural History as being the only museum south of Atlanta,









GA that had the opportunity to host the exhibit through the year 2003. The museum

continues to be located on the campus of the University of Florida.

Data Collection

Data collection for this study included the researcher asking potential respondents

to participate in this study on days that were randomly selected by a computer program.

The respondents in the sample were accessed from the exit of the exhibition, given a brief

introduction to the study and asked to use ten minutes of their time to fill out the survey.

Problems that were encountered in collecting this data included the unwillingness of the

potential respondent to participate and the length of the survey questionnaire. In the

cases where it was found that potential respondents were unwilling to participate, they

were pleasantly thanked and allowed to go on their way. Overall, 414 questionnaires

were collected from this location, with 401 useable (due to 13 surveys that were filled out

by children of approached potential respondents) which was sufficient to solve the

problems presented. Of those, 226 were tourists and 175 were residents of Alachua

County, 4 respondents did not indicate the county of their residence. The study was

conducted during the early months (February, March, April, and May) of the year 2002,

the time that the "Sue" exhibition was hosted in Gainesville.

Data Treatment and Analysis

Descriptive statistics including frequencies, as well as factor analysis, ANOVA's,

and Independent sample T-Test analyses were employed for this study. The data were

entered and analyzed using SPSS (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version

10.0). Each of the research questions in this study explored the possibilities of the

existence of relationships between motivation, decision making, and satisfaction in

museum visitors.






48


Each of the seven research questions were statistically analyzed. To answer

question 1, exploratory factor analysis was utilized, while question 2 compared the means

of factors found in question 1 using a paired T-Test. Question 3 used Independent

Sample T-Tests and Question 4 included ANOVA analyses as well as some recoding.

Question 5a utilized factor analysis and question 5b used ANOVA to look at the

differences in means. Question 6 used an Independent Sample T-Test similar to question

3. Finally, question 7 used ANOVA analyses, in a similar manner to question 3.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The traveling exhibition, "A T.Rex Named Sue," provided many insights

concerning the motivations, decision making process, and satisfaction levels of museum

visitors as they related to a traveling exhibition in a natural history museum. Well over

400 survey questionnaires were dispersed and of those, 401 were useable for analysis (13

were filled out by children of the persons who volunteered and therefore not useable).

The socio-demographic information provided by the respondents was also extremely

helpful in determining what makes museum visitors attend these exhibitions and their

basic characteristics. Other information, including the economic impact of the exhibition,

were also taken from the surveys, but were not included as part of the research questions.

There were five major sections covered in this chapter, which include:

* Visitor Profile
* Analysis of Motivations
* Analysis of Decision Making
* Analysis of Satisfaction
* Analysis of Socio-Demographic Comparison

Visitor Profile

The demographic characteristics of the visitors that filled out the surveys were

somewhat varied. The demographic variables analyzed included age, gender, residency,

education level, ethnic identity, as well as annual average income. The results are given

in Table 4-1.









Table 4-1. Visitor Profile for the "A T.Rex Named Sue" Exhibition
Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Valid
Percentage

Gender (N=400)
Female 227 56.7
Male 173 43.3

Residency (N=401)
Other County Resident 226 56.4

Alachua County Resident 175 43.6

Education (N=369)
High School 38 10.3
Some College 41 11.1
Associate Degree 88 23.8
Bachelor's Degree 82 22.2
Some graduate school 36 9.8
Masters Degree 55 14.9
Doctorate Degree 29 7.9

Ethnic Identity (N=401)
Euro American/White 337 84.0
Latino American 16 4.0
African American 15 3.7
Asian American 12 3.0
Native American 12 3.0
Other 9 2.2

Annual Average Income Level (N=335)
Less than $25,000 80 23.9
$25,001 $50,000 91 27.2
$50,001 $75,000 70 20.9
$75,001 $100,000 40 11.9
$100,001 $125,000 21 6.3
$125,001- $150,000 12 3.6
Greater than $150,001 21 6.3

The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding









Gender

The frequency of visitors to the exhibit was 56.8% female, which accounted for

227 of the 401 respondents. This was compared to 43.3% (173 actual respondents) who

were male. One limitation of this study was the fact that often, the potential male

respondents approached about the survey replied that they would, in fact, fill it out and

then proceeded to hand it to their wives and told them to do it.

County Residency and Length of Stay

Of the "Sue" visitors surveyed, 226 of the 401 (56.4%) were residents from other

counties both in the state of Florida and in other states as far away as Wisconsin and New

Hampshire. Alachua county residents accounted for the other 43.6% of visitors to the

"Sue" exhibition.

Education Level

The highest level of education was varied. Just over 10% of visitors indicated that

they had graduated from high school, but not pursued college. Slightly less than one

quarter (23.8%) of visitors indicated that they had completed some college, but not

attained any kind of degree. More than one tenth (11.1%) of visitors indicated that they

had attained an Associate's Degree, while 22.2% of visitors indicated that they had

completed the requirements for a Bachelor's Degree. Under 10% of the visitors surveyed

indicated that they had attended graduate school, and 14.9% claimed they had a Masters

Degree, while 7.9% received their Doctorate Degree.

Ethnic Identity

The majority of visitors to the "Sue" exhibit were Euro American/White (84.0%).

The next largest ethnic group were of Latin American background (4.0%), followed by

3.7% who reported being African American, 3.0% who reported being Asian American,









and 3.0% indicating a Native American background. Only 2.2% indicated some other

ethnic identity, some of which included Italian American, Irish American, Polish and

Jamaican.

Average Income Level

The reported average annual income levels of the "Sue" visitors surveyed ranged

from $25,000 and below to $150,000 and above. The majority of visitors reported an

income level between $25,001 and $50,000 (actual 27.2%), while almost 25% of the

visitors reported an average income of $25,000 or less (actual 23.9%). Only 28.0% of

visitors surveyed reported an average income of $75,000 or more. Over half (51.1%) of

the respondents indicated that they had an average income of $50,000 or less.

Age

One other demographic item that this survey gleaned was the ages of the

respondents who filled out the surveys. This did not reflect the ages that visited the

exhibit because children were not interviewed and it was estimated that almost 40,000 of

the overall 90,529 visitors were children (Jones, 2002). However, a breakdown of the

adults surveyed is shown in Table 4-2, which shows the average age of respondents was

41.

Table 4-2. Age of Respondents of the "Sue' Survey
Mean Median Mode Standard Minimum Maximum
Deviation
Age of participants
surveyed 41.3 40.5 22 15.2 18 80

(N=358)
Analysis of Motivations

The motivation statements were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale

ranged from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," and respondents were asked to









rate how the given statements made them feel. The motivational statements which

respondents indicated that they "least agreed with" included: "to take it easy," "to spend

more time with my family," "to get away from it all," and "to reduce the feeling of

having too many things to do." The motivational statements which respondents indicated

that they agreed most with included: "to seek an educational experience," "to explore,"

"to experience new and different things," and "to take it easy." The means and standard

deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Mean and Standard Deviation for Motivation Items
Motivation Items Mean Standard Deviation

To seek an educational experience 4.4 3.09
To experience new and different things 4.3 0.88
To learn new things 4.2 0.91
To explore 4.2 0.91
To seek intellectual enrichment 4.2 0.94
To gain an appreciation of history 4.2 0.92
To get to know something different 4.1 0.97
To develop my knowledge of things here 4.1 0.93
To do something with my family 3.9 1.29
To be with friends and family 3.7 1.34
To spend more time with my family 3.6 1.31
To rest and relax 3.4 1.20
To take it easy 3.4 1.21
To bring my family closer together 3.3 1.30
To get away from it all 3.2 1.30
To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do 2.7 1.30
(n=290)

The frequency of the motivational statements rated by the respondents are shown in

Table 4-4 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the

most common rating applied by the respondents.









Table 4-4. Frequency of Motivation Items (in Percentages)
Motivation Items 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
To be with friends and family 12.4 5.6 17.7 28.6 35.7
To bring my family closer together 14.6 7.9 32.9 22 22.6
To develop my knowledge of things here 3.2 1.4 13.5 44.1 37.8
To do something with my family 11.3 2.7 14 31.8 40.2
To experience new and different things 3.4 0.6 5.4 45.5 45.2
To explore 3.2 1.4 10.7 41.2 43.5
To gain an appreciation of history 1.7 3.7 12.7 40.1 41.8
To get away from it all 13.8 16.9 30.2 20.6 18.5
To get to know something different 3.8 2.4 10 43.5 40.3
To learn new things 2.9 2 9.1 42.3 43.7
To reduce the feeling of 22.6 22.3 27.8 16.5 10.7
having too many things to do
To rest and relax 10 12.4 26.4 32.1 19.1
To seek an educational experience 2.3 1.1 9.3 43.5 43.8
To seek intellectual enrichment 3.8 1.5 11.9 41.3 41.6
To spend more time with my family 11.8 6.3 19.6 31.1 31.1
To take it easy 11 10.4 29 29.9 19.7
Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses

Analysis of Motivation Statements

The motivation statements were analyzed using Factor analysis in SPSS, v10.

Factor analysis has been recognized as an accepted and useful test for grouping multiple

variables together into factors to identify commonality. Varimax rotation was included

because it explained the largest degree of variance among the multiple variables, and also

allowed for a more even distribution of the variables into the factors that resulted.

According to Jeffreys, Massoni, & Odonnell (1997), "...varimax rotation is the best way

of determining the appropriate number of common factors to retain based on an analysis

of the eigenvalues of the adjusted correlation matrix."

The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) was also included to determine if indeed factor

analysis was the most appropriate method of analysis for the research questions

pertaining to motivations. According to Jeffreys, Massoni, & Odonnell (1997), the KMO









was an index, which compared the magnitudes of the observed correlation coefficients to

the magnitudes of the partial correlation coefficients. A small KMO (less than 0.50)

suggested that perhaps a factor analysis was not a suitable approach, whereas a higher

value indicates the appropriateness of factor analysis. The KMO found in these questions

was 0.87; which proved factor analysis was an appropriate test for these questions. One

limitation of this study was the sample size, which was rather small for this type of

analysis, however it was still manageable.

Question 1: Are There Distinct Motivational Domains for Museum Visitors to
Traveling Exhibits?

The final outcomes of the factor analysis test showed three factors (or domains)

with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explained 67.7% of the total variance. Grounded in

prior research, items with factor loading scores of at least 0.40 were drawn for each

factor. Fifteen of sixteen motivation statements loaded into one of three factors. The

results of this factor analysis are shown in Table 4-5 on the next page.

Factor 1- Education and exploration

Initially Factor 1, now titled "Education and Exploration," was proposed as two

separate motivational domains, however the factor analysis indicated that they are indeed

one factor. The motivation statements included in this factor were "to explore," "to

experience new and different things," "to get to know something different," "to gain an

appreciation of history," "to develop my general knowledge," "to learn new things," and

"to seek intellectual enrichment." The statement "to seek an educational experience" also

loaded onto this factor, but was dropped because its loading number (0.29) was less than

the accepted 0.50. The Education and Exploration factor had a mean of 4.2 and a

Cronbach Alpha of 0.92 after removing the above dropped factor. If the "to seek an









educational experience" factor had not been removed the Cronbach alpha would have

been 0.76. This factor had an eigenvalue of 6.19 and accounted for 29.6% percent of the

variance.

Table 4-5 Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements
Motivation Statements Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3


Factor 1- Education and Exploration
To develop my general knowledge 0.686 0.260 0.051
To learn new things 0.881 0.009 0.010
To seek intellectual enrichment 0.804 0.095 0.146
To get to know something new and different 0.806 0.111 0.216
To explore 0.788 0.056 0.145
To experience new and different things 0.783 0.248 0.051
To gain an appreciation of history 0.824 0.008 0.118
Factor 2- Friends and Family
To be with friends and family 0.063 0.823 0.125
To bring my family closer together 0.146 0.860 0.136
To do something with my family 0.271 0.851 0.044
To spend more time with my family 0.170 0.879 0.201
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation
To rest and relax 0.165 0.131 0.818
To take it easy 0.128 0.312 0.784
To reduce the feeling of having too many things to do -0.012 0.047 0.839
To get away from it all 0.173 0.052 0.823

Eigenvalues 6.12 2.61 2.10
Cronbach Alpha 0.92 0.91 0.85
Factor Means 4.19 3.65 3.17
Percentage of variance explained 29.6 20.1 18.0
Cumulative variance explained 29.6 49.7 67.7


Factor 2- Friends and family

The second factor, now titled "Friends and Family," was one of the initial proposed

domains included in museum visitor's motivations to visit a special exhibit. This factor

included four motivation statements: "to spend more time with my family," "to bring my

family closer together," "to do something with my family," and "to be with friends and

family." Factor 2 had a factor mean of 3.7 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.91, which showed









this factor is also highly reliable. This factor had an eigenvalue of 2.61 and accounted for

20.1% of the variance.

Factor 3- Rest and relaxation

The third factor, "Rest and Relaxation," contained many items pertaining to rest

and relaxation including: to relax," "to get away from it all," "to take it easy," and "to

reduce the feeling of having too many things to do." This factor had a mean of 3.2 and a

Cronbach Alpha score of 0.85, which showed good reliability. The eigenvalue for this

factor was 2.10 and it accounted for the remaining 17.9% of the variance.

Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to Traveling Exhibits in
the Museum?

The three factors were then run through a paired t-test (Factor 1 with Factor 2,

Factor 2 with Factor 3, and Factor 1 with Factor 3), which served to negate the

assumption of independence on the part of the museum visitor regarding how they

recorded their feelings in response to each of the motivations. The results of this paired t-

test are shown in Table 4-6, which revealed that the relationships between each of these

pairs were equally significant.

Table 4-6. Paired T-Test Results of Motivations
Factors Mean Std. Sig. N
Deviation
Education/Exploration & .511 1.10 .000 348
Friends/Family
Friends/Family and .486 1.27 .000 337
Rest/Relaxation
Education/Exploration & .999 1.10 .000 341
Rest/Relaxation
The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses
The Sig. indicates significance at the <.001 level.









Overall, the most important motivational factor to visitors was the Education and

Exploration factor with a mean of 4.2, followed by Friends and Family with a mean of

3.6, and Rest and Relaxation with a mean of 3.2.

Question 3: Are There Differences in Motivations Between Resident and Tourist
Museum Visitors?

The visitors to the "A. T Rex Named Sue" exhibition were asked if they were a

resident of Alachua County, and if not, what county were they from. The purpose of this

question was to see if there were differences in the motivations of the residents and

tourists. The means and standard deviations for these factors and the residents and

tourists are shown in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7. Residency Means and Standard Deviations with Motivation Factors
Education & Exploration Friends & Family Rest & Relaxation
Residency Mean St.Deviation N Mean St.Deviation N Mean St.Deviation N
Alachua Resident 4.2 0.77 155 3.5 1.19 151 3.2 1.14 146
Tourist 4.2 0.80 210 3.8 1.15 199 3.2 1.01 196
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

An Independent Sample T-Test was run to determine if there was a significant

difference between the residents and tourists, and the results are shown in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Motivation Factors
T Sig. N
Residency with Education/Exploration -.083 .405 365
Residency with Friends/Family -1.99 .048 350
Residency with Rest/Relaxation -.076 .940 342
* Significance is 2-tailed at the 0.05 level
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

These results indicated that there was one significant difference between the

motivations of residents and those of tourists to the exhibition. The difference between

residents and tourists was with the Friends and Family motivation, which was consistent









with other analyses in this study, which found this same motivation to be significant.

This means that tourists were more motivated to travel to the museum for friends and

family than were residents.

Analysis of Decision Making and Reported Satisfaction

The decision making questions were analyzed using a series of one-way analysis of

variances (ANOVA). It seemed apparent that many of the respondents did not answer

every question in this portion for whatever reason, therefore sample sizes varied. The

researcher ran a post hoc analysis using the LSD test, however these were not successful

in all of the analyses because at least one of the groups had fewer than 2 cases.

When entering the data, each of the percentages were entered as they were written

on the surveys by the respondents. To make the analysis more manageable, the answers

were then recorded into a points system. For example, a one meant that "myself" made

100% of the decision, a two meant that the "spouse/partner" was responsible for the

decision, a three indicated that "friends or family" made the decision and a four indicated

that childrenen" were left with the decision. There was one survey returned that

indicated a principal of the school group they were with made the decision, but because it

was a school group, the decision making portion of the survey was not used for analysis.

In the cases where the respondent indicated there were multiple persons responsible for

making the decision, they were given a five indicating the decision was shared.

Question 4: Is There a Relationship Between Motivations to Visit Museums and
Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

The frequencies (in percentages) of each of these responses are shown in Table 4-9,

which showed that in all of the decisions made by the respondents of this survey, the

primary decision-maker was a combination of two or more in a shared decision.









Table 4-9. Frequency of Decision-Makers (in percentages)
1 2 3 4 5
Decision Items Myself Spouse/ Friends/ Child(ren) Shared
Partner Relatives Decision
When to come to the museum 25.6 8.3 9.3 1.3 55.6
Who to bring to the museum 27.8 0 15.0 1.9 55.3
Whether to come to the museum at all 28.5 8.6 6.8 1.0 55.0
Whether to buy a "Sue" souvenir 35.8 6.0 3.6 6.0 48.7
How long you stayed at the museum 20.3 4.2 6.3 3.9 65.3
To stay overnight 20.9 3.4 5.7 1.3 68.7
How much money was spent on the 20.5 3.8 6.1 0 69.6
trip
Details on how to visit the museum 17.5 5.3 5.3 0.8 71.2
The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses,
Percent may not equal 100% due to rounding

Table 4-9 shows the frequency percentages for each of the "decision-maker"

variables. Each of the three middle groups, Spouse/Partner, Friends/Relatives, and

Children all had very low percentages of influence in the decision making process

individually. Because of this, these three variables were compressed and recorded into

one group variable, which was termed "other." The "myself' and the "shared" decision

variables were left as they appear above in Table 4-9. This is shown in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10. New Frequency of Decision-Makers (in percentages)
1 2 3
Decision Items Myself Others Shared
Decision
When to come to the museum 25.6 18.8 55.6
Who to bring to the museum 27.8 16.8 55.3
Whether to come to the museum at all 28.5 16.5 55.0
Whether to buy a "Sue" souvenir 35.8 15.5 48.7
How long you stayed at the museum 20.3 14.5 65.3
To stay overnight 20.9 10.4 68.7
How much money was spent on the trip 20.5 9.9 69.6
Details on how to visit the museum 17.5 11.3 71.2
Percent may not equal 100% due to rounding

Determining which was the independent variable and which was the dependent

variable may seem a simple task at first, however in this set of analyses, it proved slightly









more complex. The line of reasoning for choosing the motivational factors as the

independent variables was that in the leisure literature, motivations of participants were

always studied and regarded as the principal beginning of the leisure process (Iso-Ahola,

1989; Fodness, 1994), whereas decision making always seemed to be regarded as

secondary. The premise of this study then, was that museum visitors were motivated by

one of the three factors and then made the decisions to go to the museum to fulfill those

motivations.

Tables 4-11 through 4-18 each show the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

between the motivation factors and the eight decision categories. The results indicated

that there were some significant relationships between some of the motivational factors

and the decisions made by the museum visitors. Significance was determined by "Sig."

figures less than or equal to the .05 level as was congruent with the literature.

Table 4-11. ANOVA of When to Come to the Museum and the Motivation Factors
When to come to the museum
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.17 4.07 4.24 1.23 .294
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.24a 3.79b 3.82b 8.75 .000
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.03 3.29 3.19 1.24 .291
* Significant at the <.001 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "others" and the "shared" decisions, but "others" and "shared"
were not significantly different from each other.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-11 reports the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of when

to come to the museum and the three motivational factors. The results indicated that a

significant relationship did exist between the Friends and Family motive and the decision

about when to come to the museum. Within the Friends and Family motive, the "shared"









decisions were the highest. The post hoc analysis shows that there was a significant

difference between the "myself" decision-makers and the "others" and "shared" decision-

makers, but that the latter two groups were not significantly different from each other.

Table 4-12. ANOVA of Who to Bring to the Museum and Motivation Factors
Who to bring to the museum
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.20 4.06 4.26 2.89 .211
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.41 a 3.70 3.84 b .546 .014
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.10 3.23 3.22 .135 .626
*Significant at the 0.05 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "shared" decisions.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-12 reports the results of an ANOVA between the decision of who to bring

to the museum and the three motivational factors. The results suggested that there was

one significant relationship between the Friends and Family motivation and the decision

made by museum visitors of who to bring to the exhibit. Post hoc analysis also revealed

that there was a significant difference between the "myself" and "shared" decisions.

Table 4-13. ANOVA of Whether to Come to the Museum At All and Motivation factors
Whether to come to the museum at all
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.19 4.02 4.24 1.79 .168
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.38a 3.80 b 3.79b 4.55 .011
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.15 3.25 3.16 .178 .837
* Significant at the 0.05 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "shared" and "others" decisions but "others" and "shared" were
not significantly different from each other.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-13 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of

whether to come to the museum at all and the three motivational factors. Once again, the









results suggested that one significant relationship did exist between the Friends and

Family motivation factor and the decisions made by museum visitors of whether to come

to the exhibit at all. Within the Friends and Family motive, the "others" decisions were

the highest. The post hoc analysis revealed a significant relationship between the

"myself' and the "shared" and "others" decisions.

Table 4-14. ANOVA of Whether to Buy a "Sue" Souvenir and Motivation Factors
Whether to buy a "Sue" souvenir
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.19 4.13 4.22 .269 .764
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.32a 3.97b 3.92b 10.0 .000
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.19 3.37 3.15 .736 .480
*Significant at the <.001 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "others" and the "shared" decisions but "others" and "shared"
were not significantly different from each other.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-14 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of

whether to buy a "Sue" souvenir and the three motivational factors. These results

suggested that a significant relationship did exist between the Friends and Family

motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of whether or not to buy a "Sue"

souvenir. Within the Friends and Family motive, the "others" decisions were the highest.

Again, the post hoc analysis showed there was a significant difference between the

"myself' decision-makers and the "others" and "shared" decision-makers, but that the

latter two groups were not significantly different from each other.









Table 4-15. ANOVA of How Long to Stay at the Museum and Motivation Factors
How long to stay at the museum
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.01a 4.19 4.24 b 2.16 .117
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 2.93a 3.73b 3.89b 20.1 .000
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.00 3.24 3.21 1.14 .321
*Significant at the <.001 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "others" and the "shared" decisions but "others" and "shared"
were not significantly different from each other.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-15 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of how

long to stay at the museum and the three motivational factors. These results also

suggested that a significant relationship did exist between the Friends and Family

motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of how long to stay at the

museum. Within the Friends and Family motive, the "shared" decisions were the highest.

The post hoc analysis here illustrated that there was a significant difference between the

"myself" decision-makers and the "others" and "shared" decision-makers, but that the

latter two groups were not significantly different from each other.

A significant relationship also appeared between the Education and Exploration

motivation and the decision of how long to stay at the museum. The post hoc analysis in

this case illustrated there was a significant difference between the "myself" decision-

makers and the "shared" decision-makers, but that the other two groups were not

significantly different from each other.









Table 4-16. ANOVA of to Stay Overnight and Motivation Factors
To Stay Overnight
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.12 4.16 4.21 .340 .712
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.36a 4.01b 3.68 3.29 .039
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.16 3.35 3.19 .369 .692
*Significant at the 0.05 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "shared" decisions.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-16 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of

whether to stay overnight in Gainesville and the three motivational factors. These results

suggested that a significant relationship did exist between the Friends and Family

motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of whether or not to stay

overnight in Gainesville. Within the Friends and Family motive, the "others" decisions

were the highest. Again, the post hoc analysis revealed a significant relationship between

the "myself" and the "shared" decisions.

Table 4-17. ANOVA of How Much to Spend on the Trip and Motivation Factors
How much was spent on the trip
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.07 4.09 4.25 1.64 .197
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.31a 3.95b 3.76b 4.90 .008
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.13 3.31 3.18 .306 .737
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "others" and the "shared" decisions, but "others" and "shared"
were not significantly different from each other.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-17 showed the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of how

much money to spend on the trip and the three motivational factors. These results again

suggested that a significant relationship did exist between the Friends and Family









motivation and the decisions made by museum visitors of how much money to spend on

the trip. Within the Friends and Family motive, the "others" decisions were the highest.

Here as well, the post hoc analysis showed that there was a significant difference

between the "myself' decision-makers and the "others" and "shared" decision-makers,

but that the latter two groups were not significantly different from each other.

Table 4-18. ANOVA of Details on How to Visit the Museum and Motivation Factors
Details on how to visit the museum
Myself Others Shared F Sig.
Factor 1- Education and Exploration 4.23 4.08 4.19 .551 .577
Factor 2- Friends and Family* 3.35a 3.97b 3.69b 3.96 .020
Factor 3- Rest and Relaxation 3.07 3.20 3.19 .328 .720
*Significant at the 0.05 level
Note: Superscripts indicate significant differences utilizing LSD post hoc analysis. For,
example those who indicated the decisions were "myself," were significantly different in
their responses than the "shared" and "others" decisions.
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Table 4-18 reported the results of a one-way ANOVA between the decision of any

other details on how to visit the museum and the motivation factors. The results once

again indicated that there was a significant relationship between the decision of any other

details on how to visit the museum and the Friends and Family motivation factor. Within

the Friends and Family motive, the "others" decisions were the highest. The post hoc

analysis here also revealed a significant relationship between the "myself' and the

"shared" decisions.

Overall, the results showed that there were a few significant relationships in this

analysis. These relationships existed between being motivated by friends and familial

time together and the decisions made by museum visitors on when to come to the

exhibition, whether to come to the exhibition at all, whether to buy a souvenir, how long









they stayed in the exhibition, how much money they spent on their trip, and any other

details on how to visit the museum.

Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfaction Related Domains for Museum Visitors
to Traveling Exhibits?

The satisfaction items were analyzed using Factor analysis in SPSS, v10 in order to

effectively analyze twelve satisfaction statements on one scale, in the same manner as the

motivation statements. The satisfaction statements were measured on a five-point Likert

scale. This scale ranged from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," and respondents

were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction with each of the areas the statements

represented. The satisfaction areas which respondents indicated they were least satisfied

with included: "physical layout of exhibit area," "variety of things to do in exhibit area,"

and "information about what to do in Greater Gainesville." The satisfaction areas, which

respondents indicated they were most satisfied with were: "cleanliness of exhibit area,"

the "exhibit itself," "staff friendliness," and "staff helpfulness."

Table 4-19. Mean and Standard Deviation for Satisfaction Items
Satisfaction Items Mean Standard Deviation
Cleanliness of the exhibit area 4.7 0.65
Ability to see the exhibit up close 4.6 0.76
Exhibit itself 4.6 0.82
Information about the exhibit 4.5 0.75
Staff friendliness 4.4 0.82
Staff helpfulness 4.4 0.81
Staff availability 4.4 0.79
Physical layout of exhibit area 4.3 0.84
Variety of things to do in the exhibit area 4.3 0.84
Ability to get tickets or book group package 4.2 0.92
Information in planning my trip to see "Sue" 3.8 0.96
Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 3.6 0.95
The number (N) may vary due to missing values









The means and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-

19 and the frequencies are shown in Table 4-20.

Table 4-20. Frequency of Satisfaction Items (in Percentages)
1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction Items Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Ability to get tickets or book group 1.6 0.9 20.8 25.9 50.8
package
Ability to see the exhibit up close 1.7 0.8 3.9 23.6 70.0
Cleanliness of the exhibit area 1.4 0.0 1.9 23.6 73.1
Exhibit itself 2.5 0.8 3.3 26.2 67.1
Information about the exhibit 1.4 0.3 6.3 34.0 58.0
Information about what to do in Greater 3.3 1.3 50.8 23.4 21.1
Gainesville
Information in planning my trip to see 2.9 1.6 34.9 33.2 27.4
"Sue"
Physical layout of exhibit area 2.0 1.7 7.4 42.9 46.0
Staff availability 1.4 0.0 11.3 35.5 51.7
Staff friendliness 1.7 0.8 8.5 29.9 59.2
Staff helpfulness 1.4 0.6 10.0 29.5 58.5
Variety of things to do in exhibit area 1.5 1.8 10.6 39.1 47.1
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

The frequencies shown in Table 4-20 indicated that the visitors to the "A T. Rex

Named Sue" exhibition "strongly agreed" with all of the satisfaction items except for

"information about what to do in the Greater Gainesville Area."

The final outcomes of the factor analysis test showed two factors with eigenvalues

greater than 1.0 and explained 69.3% of the total variance. All twelve satisfaction

statements loaded into one of two factors. The KMO found in these particular questions

was .91. The results are shown in Table 4-21.

Identifying the factors

Factor 1- Museum

Initially, satisfaction was proposed as having four different domains, however the

factor analysis in this study indicated that most of the satisfaction items grouped together









into this factor 1. The satisfaction statements included in this factor were "Ability to get

tickets or book group package," "Ability to see the exhibit up close," "Cleanliness of the

exhibit area," "Exhibit itself," "Information about the exhibit," "Physical layout of

exhibit area," "Staff availability," "Staff friendliness," "Staff helpfulness," and "Variety

of things to do in exhibit area." This Museum factor had a mean of 4.4 and a Cronbach

Alpha of 0.94. This factor had an eigenvalue of 7.03 and accounted for 58.6% percent of

the variance.

Table 4-21. Satisfaction Factor Analysis
Satisfaction Factor 1 Factor 2

Factor 1- Museum
Staff friendliness 0.835 0.202
Cleanliness of the exhibit 0.826 0.155
Information about the exhibit 0.818 0.235
Staff helpfulness 0.809 0.222
Staff availability 0.808 0.271
Exhibit itself 0.807 0.177
Ability to see the exhibit up close 0.787 -0.096
Physical layout of exhibit area 0.736 0.334
Variety of things to do in the exhibit area 0.643 0.392
Ability to get tickets or book group package 0.590 0.297
Factor 2- Information
Information about what to do in Greater Gainesville 0.163 0.929
Information about planning my trip to see Sue 0.275 0.882

Eigenvalues 7.03 1.28
Cronbach Alpha 0.94 0.88
Factor Means 4.42 3.68
Percentage of variance explained 58.56 10.69
Cumulative variance explained 58.56 69.25
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

Factor 2- Information

This factor, entitled "Information," included only two items which both included

the information provided by the museum. The motivation statements included in this

factor "information about what to do in Greater Gainesville" and "information in









planning my trip to see Sue." The Information factor had a mean of 3.7 and a Cronbach

Alpha of 0.88. This factor had an eigenvalue of 1.28 and accounted for 10.7% percent of

the variance. There were no items on the satisfaction scale that did not fit into a factor,

however the distribution of these items was different than initially proposed.

Question 6: Is There a Relationship Between Motives to Visit Museums and
Satisfaction in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

This survey also inquired as to the overall satisfaction of the museum visitors with

the exhibition on a scale of one to ten, one meaning the visitor was not satisfied and ten

meaning the exhibition couldn't have been better. These results are shown in Table 4-22.

Table 4-22. Overall Satisfaction
Minimum Maximum Mean Median Mode St. Variance
Deviation
Overall 1 10 9.0 9.5 10 1.37 1.87


Satisfaction


(N=277)


The high degree of the mean (the average of all the responses) and the mode (the

most frequently occurring answer) indicated that the museum visitors who were surveyed

were certainly very satisfied with the exhibition.

In SPSS, correlation analyses were then run to determine if there were any

significant relationships between the motivation factors, the satisfaction factors, and the

overall satisfaction with the exhibit. The results of the bivariate correlation analyses

using Pearson's R, with the satisfaction factors, the motivation factors, and overall

satisfaction are shown in Table 4-23.









Table 4-23. Correlations Between Motivation and Satisfaction Factors with Pearson's R
Factor 1-Museum Factor 2-Information
Pearson's R N Pearson's R N
Factor 1- Education & Exploration .229** 345 .182** 300
Factor 2- Friends & Family .142** 334 .182** 297
Factor 3- Rest & Relaxation .093 324 .161** 292
Overall Satisfaction .415** 275 .266** 239
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level and is 2-tailed.

The correlation analyses revealed that there were several significant relationships at

the accepted .01 level. In fact, the only relationship that did not show as significant was

between Rest and Relaxation and Museum satisfaction.

Question 7: Are There Differences in Satisfaction Between Resident and Tourist
Museum Visitors?

Again, it was necessary to see if there were significant differences in satisfaction

between the residents and the tourists to the "A T. Rex Named Sue" exhibition. The

means and standard deviations for these factors and the residents and tourists are shown

in Table 4-24.

Table 4-24. Residency Means with Satisfaction Factors
Museum Information
Residency Mean St.Deviation N Mean St.Deviation N
Alachua Resident 4.4 0.55 161 3.7 0.87 136
Tourist 4.4 0.81 204 3.7 0.98 179
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

An Independent Sample T-Test was then run to determine if there were any

significant differences between satisfaction of residents and tourists, those results are in

Table 4-25.

These results indicated that there were no significant differences between the

satisfaction of residents and those of tourists to the exhibition.









Table 4-25. Independent Sample T-Test of Residency with Satisfaction Factors
T Sig. N
Residency with Museum 0.242 .809 365
Residency with Information 0.344 .731 315
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

Question 8: Is There a Relationship Between Motives and Socio-Demographics of
Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

Many of the socio-demographic information given to us by the "Sue" respondents

were compared to our theoretical dimensions to determine whether or not the theoretical

dimensions had an impact on those who were coming to this travelling exhibition. More

specifically, it was interesting to see how the motives rated by the "Sue" respondents

compared to the socio-demographic information given to see if a relationship did, in fact

exist.

This question of whether or not a relationship existed between motives to visit

travelling exhibitions and the socio-demographic information given by the respondents

was explored in this section. Socio-demographic variables including gender, highest

level of education attained, average annual income and reported ethnic identity were

analyzed with the motivational factors to determine if any relationships existed between

these variables.

Table 4-26. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender and Motivation Factors
Education and Exploration Friends and Family Rest and Relaxation
Gender Mean St. Deviation Mean St. Deviation Mean St. Deviation
Males 4.2 0.73 3.6 1.13 3.2 1.07
Females 4.2 0.83 3.7 1.20 3.2 1.06
Total 4.2 0.79 3.7 1.20 3.2 1.06
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

The socio-demographic variables of income, education level and reported ethnic

identity were compared with each of the motivation factors in a series of one way









ANOVA tests, while gender was compared with these factors using an independent

sample T-Test. The outcomes of the Independent Sample T-Test are in Table 4-27.



Table 4-27. Independent Sample T-Test of Gender with Motivation Factors
Gender with Factors T Sig. N
Gender and Education/Exploration 0.512 .609 364
Gender and Friends/Family -0.635 .526 350
Gender and Rest/Relaxation -0.245 .806 342
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

This Independent Sample T-Test seemed to reveal that there were no significant

relationships between gender and the three factors, as was indicated by the significance

statistic in the second column.

Each of the other socio-demographic variables such as education, average income,

and ethnic identity were run through analysis with the motivational factors using a series

of one-way ANOVAs. The means and standard deviations for the highest level of

education attained with the motivation factors are shown in Table 4-28.

Table 4-28. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Education
Education & Friends Rest &
Exploration & Family Relaxation
Standard Standard Standard
Education N Mean a N Mean N Mean a
Deviation Deviation Deviation
High School 35 4.3 0.66 34 3.9 1.16 34 3.4 1.13
Associate Degree 39 4.3 0.93 35 3.6 1.05 32 3.4 1.02
Some College 82 4.1 0.86 80 3.6 1.21 78 3.1 1.10
Bachelor's Degree 80 4.1 0.81 77 3.6 1.15 77 3.2 1.08
Some graduate school 34 4.2 0.70 35 3.4 1.17 34 3.1 1.02
Masters Degree 51 4.3 0.64 49 3.7 1.18 47 3.1 1.12
Doctorate Degree 27 4.1 0.67 26 3.8 1.14 26 3.0 0.87
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting ethnic identities other than Euro

American/White, these were grouped into two groupings for more manageable analysis,









Euro American/White and Non-Euro American/White. The means and standard

deviations for the new reported ethnic identities with the motivation factors are shown in

Table 4-29.

Table 4-29. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Ethnic
Identity
Education & Friends & Rest &
Exploration Family Relaxation
Standard Standard Standard
Ethnic Identity N Mean Standard N Mean dard N Mean dard
Deviation Deviation Deviation
Non-Euro
American/White 61 4.2 0.56 61 3.9 0.99 61 3.2 0.96
EuroAmerican/White 304 4.2 0.83 289 3.6 1.20 281 3.2 1.08
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

Due to a low occurrence of respondents reporting annual average incomes in

categories higher than $100,001, the latter options were combined into one category for

more manageable analysis, annual average income greater than $100,001. The means

and standard deviations for the new reported annual average income variable with the

motivation factors are shown in Table 4-30.

Table 4-30. Means and Standard Deviations for the Motivation Factors and Average
Annual Income
Education & Friends Rest &
Exploration & Family Relaxation
Standard Standard Standard
Average Income N Mean nation N Mean nation N Mean Deviat
Deviation Deviation Deviation
less than $25,000 77 4.1 0.67 75 3.4 1.23 75 3.4 1.11
$25,001 $50,000 87 4.2 0.84 87 3.8 1.17 84 3.1 1.03
$50,001 $75,000 65 4.2 0.85 60 3.6 1.06 61 3.1 1.04
$75,001 $100,000 38 4.3 0.67 37 4.0 0.81 35 3.3 0.90
greater than $100,001 50 4.2 0.74 49 3.5 1.27 48 3.0 1.13
Number (N) may vary due to missing values

The results of the one-way ANOVA tests of the Education and Exploration factor

compared with reported ethnicity, education and average income were shown in Table 4-

31.









Table 4-31. ANOVA of Education and Exploration with Ethnicity, Education and Income
Education & Exploration
Mean F Significance
Reported Ethnicity 4.2 0.120 0.729
Education Level 4.2 0.596 0.734
Average Annual Income 4.2 0.168 0.955
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

This ANOVA showed that there were no significant relationships between the

motivators of Education and Exploration and the socio-demographic variables of reported

ethnicity, education and average income. The results of the one way ANOVA tests of the

Friends and Family factor compared with reported ethnicity, education and average

income are shown in Table 4-32.

Table 4-32. ANOVA of Friends and Family with Ethnicity, Education and Income
Friends & Family
Mean F Significance
Reported Ethnicity 3.6 4.013 0.046
Education Level 3.7 0.676 0.669
Average Annual Income 3.6 2.614 0.035
The number (N) may vary due to missing values

This ANOVA showed there were two significant relationships between the

motivators of Friends and Family and the socio-demographic variables of reported

average income and reported ethnicity. The results of the one-way ANOVA tests of the

Rest and Relaxation factor compared with reported ethnicity, education and average

income are shown in Table 4-33.

Table 4-33. ANOVA of Rest and Relaxation with Ethnicity, Education and Income
Rest & Relaxation
Mean F Significance
Reported Ethnicity 3.2 0.011 0.918
Education Level 3.2 0.723 0.631
Average Annual Income 3.2 1.311 0.266
The number (N) may vary due to missing values









This ANOVA revealed that again there were no significant relationships between

the motivators of Rest and Relaxation and the socio-demographic variables of reported

ethnicity, education and average income. Essentially these analyses showed that the

socio-demographic variables were not affected by different motivations; that who a

person was, what they knew or how much they earned a year did not make a difference in

regards to their motivations.

Summary

In short, the visitors to the "A T. Rex Named Sue" exhibition that were surveyed

were very multifaceted in the dimensions of demographic information, motivations,

decision making, and satisfaction. They provided a fascinating array of invaluable

information that will no doubt aid museums in the future in considering and planning

their traveling exhibitions.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The problem of this study was to gain information regarding the characteristics of

the motivations, decision making processes and the satisfaction of tourist and resident

museum visitors and the impact of a major exhibition on the museum it hosts. More

specifically, these characteristics included their motivations to travel, the primary

influence in their decision making process, and their satisfaction with the destination after

arriving. This chapter sought to discuss the results and their relevance regarding

motivations, decision making and satisfaction, as well as the impact of the "A T. Rex

Named Sue" exhibition on the Greater Gainesville Area in the following sections of this

chapter:

* Summary of Methods
* Discussion of Findings
* Implications
* Suggestions for Further Research

Summary of Methods

The data for this study were collected at the Florida Museum of Natural History,

the state natural history museum, in Gainesville, Florida outside the "A T. Rex Named

Sue" exhibition. The respondents of this study were approached upon exiting the exhibit,

by the researcher and asked to voluntarily participate in a 15-minute survey. A total of

414 surveys were collected during the time between February and May, 2002.

The survey instrument consisted of a three page questionnaire with a total of 25

multi-level questions that investigated their spending patterns, motivations, decision









making process, satisfaction of the visitors to the exhibit as well as their socio-

demographic information. This questionnaire took an average of 15 minutes to complete

and was completed upon immediately exiting the exhibit.

Discussion of Findings

Visitor Profile

The visitor profile for the "A T Rex Named Sue" exhibition at the Florida Museum

of Natural History provides many insights into the multifaceted museum visitor. The

respondents of this survey were predominantly female (56.7%), although the percentages

were close. The majority of the visitors to see Sue at the Florida Museum of Natural

History came from outside Alachua county (56.4%), and were Euro American/White in

ethnic identity. Perhaps, two of the most interesting components of the socio-

demographic information collected were annual average income and education level. It

had long been a stigma against the museum that they are only in existence for the very

wealthy and extremely educated (Virshup, 1988). The results of this study seemed to

indicate the opposite, that the majority of respondents made between $25,001 and

$50,000 annually (27.2%) and had taken some college courses, and had completed an

Associate's Degree (23.8%).

Research Question 1: Are There Distinct Motivational Domains for Museum
Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

Pulling from Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996), it was proposed in chapter one

that motivations in museum visitors would fall into four domains: Education,

Exploration, Friends and Family, and Rest and Relaxation. The factor analysis in chapter

four revealed that there were only three domains, and that Education and Exploration

melded into one. It made sense that these two motivations would be grouped as one.









This was very interesting in that the most recent trends in museum literature had been to

explain the possibilities that the two exist together, specifically in the natural history

museum setting (Falk and Dierking, 2000).

This suggested that in the museum visitor's desire to explore, they were also

desiring to expand their mind through education. The fact that Rest and Relaxation had

the lowest mean also substantiates this claim (3.2). It was clearly evident that the most

prominent motivation among museum visitors who attend traveling exhibitions is not to

rest and relax. While this mean was still above average, which indicates that the

motivation was still present, it was not the primary motivation. The motivation

encompassing Friends and Family had a higher mean (3.7) than did Rest and Relaxation;

however, it did not reach the mean of 4.2 that Education and Exploration achieved.

According to this, the model found in chapter one, looked more like the one below.


Figure 5-1. The New Factors of Motivation Among Museum Visitors









The three factors of motivation are shown in this model to help illustrate motivation

among museum visitors and how they effect the decision being made. The model on the

proceeding page illustrates motivation and four components that might influence a

person's decision to travel.

Research Question 2: Which Motive is the Most Important to Visitors to Traveling
Exhibits in the Museum?

As explained in answering research question 1, the mean scores of each of the

motivations were the determining number that told us, which was the most important to

the museum visitor. The results were indicative that the most important motive to

museum visitors attending a traveling exhibition similar to "Sue," was that of Education

and Exploration. This coincided with prior research done on the learning process in the

museum setting relating to exhibits (Falk & Dierking, 2000) and supported the museum

as a crucial provider of the educational opportunities in the tourism industry.

Research Question 3: Are There Differences in Motivations Between Resident and
Tourist Museum Visitors?

The results indicated that there was one significant difference between the resident

museum visitors and the tourist museum visitors in their motivations. While both types

of museum visitors were the same in their motivations with the Education and

Exploration and Rest and Relaxation factors, a significant difference was revealed

between the two groups in their motivation with the Friends and Family factor. The

mean score would indicate that the residents were less motivated with the Friends and

Family factor, than were the tourists. This could be attributed to the fact that tourists

typically travel with friends and family, whereas residents may have come without them,

however this was merely speculation.









Research Question 4: Is There a Relationship Between Motivations to Visit
Museums and Visitor Decision Making in Museum Visitors to Traveling
Exhibits?

The proportion of decisions made by Spouse/Partner, Friends/Relatives, and

Children were so small that these three were lumped into one category. Data were

recorded to represent three new categories of decision-makers in the decision making

process: (1) those who made the decision themselves, (2) those whom others made the

decisions, or (3) those who made shared decisions. The group that made shared decisions

were by far the largest group in the decision making process. This was significant in that

no one person was responsible for any of the eight decisions made.

As far as relationships between motivations and decision making, there were

several significant relationships that became apparent through analysis. In the decision of

when to come to the museum, for example, there was a significant relationship between

the Friends and Family motivation and that particular decision. This meant that those

who were motivated to spend time with Friends and Family, included them in the

decision making process. The analysis of the decision of whether to come to the museum

at all and the decision of who to bring each revealed one significant relationship, again

between the Friends and Family motivation and the decision. This was not surprising in

that if the decision maker was motivated by Friends and Family to attend the exhibition,

then the decision should no doubt be shared with Friends and Family as the high mean in

the "others" category suggests.

Also the analysis of the decision of whether to buy a "sue" souvenir revealed one

significant relationship, again between the Friends and Family motivation and the

decision. In this result, others were more likely to make the decision. This highest mean

in this analysis was the "others" category which includes children, and thereby supports









this notion. This made particular sense in that it was common for children to have

influence on their parents when it came to purchasing souvenirs. Some of the other

decisions which found the same results included: how long to stay at the museum, to stay

overnight, how much to spend on the trip, as well as other details on how to visit the

museum.

Each of the significant relationships were between the decisions made and the

Friends and Family motivation. This makes sense however, because the decisions that

were available for the visitors to report on were logistical in nature, and if someone was

at the exhibit with their friends and family, then chances were, those decisions were

going to be made by more than one person. This was evident in that all of the decisions

were reported as being "shared" by most of the respondents. This was also congruent

with decision making literature (Jenkins, 1978; Crompton, 1981; Nichols and Snepenger,

1988; Howard and Madrigal, 1990;Fodness, 1992; Gitelson and Kerstetter, 1994), which

found that family and friends had profound impact on travel decisions.

Research Question 5: Are There Distinct Satisfaction Related Domains for Museum
Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

According to Burns (2000), four domains of satisfaction were used: Facilities,

Services, Information, and Experience. Experience was measured on an overall scale

separate from the satisfaction index, so that left three domains for analysis. The factor

analysis showed that only two domains existed among these museum visitors to traveling

exhibitions. Information and another termed "Museum," which included facilities and

services. The reason for this may very likely be that the four domains from Burns (2000),

were originally intended for outdoor recreation settings and not museums. This study of

outdoor recreation settings also included a performance analysis in recreation type









activities, which was not present in the museum exhibit. It was not possible for museum

visitors to determine their satisfaction based on how they performed in the exhibition as

there was no performance necessary.

Interestingly enough, there were two satisfaction items that ended up in the

Information factor: (1) information about what to do in Greater Gainesville and (2)

information about planning my trip to see Sue. Both of these items surrounded planning

the trip process before arrival, whereas the items which fit into the museum factor

(including information about the exhibit) were all items that would have been noted upon

arrival or while in the exhibit.

Research Question 6: Is There a Relationship Between Motives to Visit Museums
and Satisfaction in Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

ANOVAs were run to determine if any relationships exist between motivations to

visit the "Sue" exhibition and satisfaction in the museum visitors to the exhibition. The

results of these analyses determined that there were two significant relationships between

the motivation factors to visit the exhibit and the satisfaction factors with the exhibit.

These significant relationships existed between the Education and Exploration and

Friends and Family motives and the satisfaction factor 2 Information. The Rest and

Relaxation motivation factor had no significant relationships with either the Information

satisfaction factor or the Museum satisfaction factor. This was illustrated through the

model on the following page.




























Figure 5-2. Motivation Factors and Their Relationships with Satisfaction Factors

The asterisks showed the significant relationships of the motivation factors with the

satisfaction factors. The lack of a significant relationship between Rest and Relaxation

was noted by the absence of asterisks. This relationship could be missing because the

majority of visitors to the exhibition did not see this as a restful or relaxing trip and were

not primarily motivated to go to the exhibition for reasons of rest and relaxation.

After this discussion, it was apparent that significant relationships did in fact exist

between motivations, decision making and satisfaction among museum visitors to a

traveling exhibition.

























Figure 5-3 Motivations and Their Effect on Decision Making and Satisfaction

This model illustrated the effects of different factors of motivations on the survey

questionnaire and their effects on the decision making process and the satisfaction of the

museum visitors in relation to a traveling exhibition.

Research Question 7: Are There Differences in Satisfaction Between Resident and
Tourist Museum Visitors?

The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the

satisfaction of tourist and resident museum visitors to the "A T. Rex Named Sue"

exhibition. This was good news to the museum in that it indicated that all visitors to the

museum, in this study, whether tourist or resident, were satisfied with their experience at

a traveling exhibition by the same factors. Therefore, the museum did not have to

concern itself with more than one group of museum visitors, they could simply work at

creating the best experience for all of the visitors through their doors. This concurs with

Cunnell and Prentice (2000) who found that english speaking visitors to international

museums have similar interests and expectations.









Research Question 8: Is There a Relationship Between Motives and Demographics
of Museum Visitors to Traveling Exhibits?

Socio-demographic information was the final section on the survey, which sought

to determine a visitor profile of the visitors to the "A T Rex Named Sue" exhibition.

Previous research in the museum literature seemed to have neglected the area of socio-

demographic variables and their relationships to motivations, decision making and

satisfaction. Socio-demographic variables including gender, highest level of education

attained, average annual income and reported ethnic identity were analyzed with the

motivational factors to determine if any relationships exist between these variables.

The results of the analysis between gender and the motivational factors revealed

that there were no significant relationships existing between these variables. This

essentially meant that gender was not related to motivations to visit the exhibition.

The results of the analysis between reported ethnicity, income and education

revealed that there were two significant relationships between the motivational factors

and these variables. These two relationships occurred between the reported ethnicity and

average income and the Friends and Family motivation. This meant that the education

level of the respondents of the survey were not related to motivations to visit the

exhibition.

Implications

So what does all this analysis mean? Museum visitors were certainly of the multi-

faceted variety, when it comes to motivations, decision making and even satisfaction

regarding traveling exhibitions.









Motivations

The fact that museum visitors were primarily motivated to attend traveling

exhibitions for education and exploration oriented reasons is encouraging news to the

museum industry. One of the primary mandates of any museum has always been to

educate their communities based on their mission, whatever content was the focus of their

particular institution.

Also, the fact that museum exhibitions were also a place where people were

motivated to go for Friends and Family oriented reasons, was also good news to the

museum. This study indicated that, at least natural history museums, were places that

families can go and have "quality time" together and also learn at the same time in an

exploratory driven environment. Even the fact that people went to the museum for Rest

and Relaxation reasons, while they weren't the primary motivation, this factor was still

prevalent in these visitors. This was indicative that museum visitors were seeking to

escape the stresses of day to day activities, and they saw the museum as an institution

where this was possible. These findings were congruent with Swarbrooke (1994) who

cited such benefits as a price-conscious family day, which could be not only educational

and inspirational, but also relaxing. This was wonderful news for museums in that they

could use this information to more accurately tailor their special events, camps, and other

programming to their communities.

Decision Making

The decision making analysis revealed that the majority of the decisions among

those who were surveyed were shared decisions. This was very important for museums

and other similar institutions to understand for several reasons. First of all, as providers

of educational programming, museums must not cater to one specific group of the