A Comparison of Tourists' and Residents' Uses of the Temple of Heaven World Heritage Site, China

Abstract

World Heritage Sites are designated following evaluations of their universal values. However, their use is often shared by different user groups who may attach different meanings to the same heritage, leading to different interpretations and uses. This situation raises important questions for visitor management at World Heritage Sites, where a variety of users must be accommodated. Using Temple of Heaven as an example, the motivations, preferences and experiences are explored for three major user groups: residents, domestic and international tourists. Results show that residents and tourists exhibit different spatial and temporal patterns of use. Most local users are elderly and use the place regularly for exercise and social purposes. The historical and cultural values are widely recognized but tourists are motivated more strongly than local users to experience heritage values. Practical implications are generated to inform managers of the study site and other heritage sites shared by locals and tourists.

Exploring loyalty to specialty foods among tourists and residents

“…Lastly, the comparative results between tourist and resident suggest there are no significant differences in the relationships of experience quality, motivation, visitor satisfaction, and customer loyalty between tourists and residents, except for the link between quality and loyalty. This finding differs from past studies which report that tourists and residents have different expectations, attitudes, and behavior toward the product or service they purchase (Hsieh et al, 2010;Puczkó and Rátz, 2000;Su and Wall, 2016). The possible explanation of the similarity between tourists and residents on the relationship between the variables could be related to the need in consuming the specialty food.…”

Examining attraction loyalty formation in creative tourism

“…This comparative result (between tourist and resident) suggests that there are no significant differences in the relationships of experience quality, motivation, visitor satisfaction and customer loyalty between tourists and residents. This finding differs from past studies which report that tourists and residents have different expectations, attitudes and behaviour towards the product or service they purchase (Hsieh et al, 2016;Puczk� o and Rátz, 2000;Su and Wall, 2016). The possible explanation of the similarity between tourists and residents on the relationship between the variables could be related to the need in consuming the creative attraction performance.…”

“…As the source of business revenue, visitors are an important stakeholder of a tourism attraction; thus, it is important that attraction managers satisfy visitors with the aim to convert them to being loyal. Past studies in the tourism context report that tourists and residents have different expectations and attitudes towards the product or service they purchase (Hsieh et al, 2016;Marsh and Henshall, 1987), which results in different behaviour (Puczk� o and Rátz, 2000;Su and Wall, 2016). An example of such behaviour is that of stakeholders who are residents and familiar with the tourism attraction, who may be less inclined to revisit it unless it continually evolves.…”

Does Designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site Influence Tourist Evaluation of a Local Destination?

“…Secondly, we find that the measured effects on evaluation are relatively similar when looking at the designation of cultural and natural WHSs, with a few exceptions in the evaluation of cultural and artistic assets. This seems to strengthen the theoretical consideration that a fine-grained demarcation between cultural and natural heritage might be misleading and that the categories currently used to segment heritage might not be relevant for empirical studies (Poria, Reichel, and Biran 2006; M. M. Su and Wall 2016).…”

“…Secondly, we find that the measured effects on evaluation are relatively similar when looking at the designation of cultural and natural WHSs, with a few exceptions in the evaluation of cultural and artistic assets. This seems to strengthen the theoretical consideration that a fine-grained demarcation between cultural and natural heritage might be misleading and that the categories currently used to segment heritage might not be relevant for empirical studies (Poria et al 2006;Su and Wall 2016). Third, an interpretation of the quantitative findings, based on feedback from four WHSs HMAs and nine local destination marketing organizations corroborates the idea that destination de-marketing is an unwanted effect of WHS designation which enriches extant literature on both de-marketing (Medway et al, 2010) and the way it can be deployed to face carrying capacity issues (Getz, 1983;Kennel, 2016) that can become problematic in cultural heritage destinations (Van de Borg, 1992).…”