هسته گردشگری میراث فرهنگی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|146||2003||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10181 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 238–254
The paper challenges the idea that heritage tourism is simply represented by tourists at heritage attractions and suggests rather that perceptions more properly lie at its core. Relationships among four groups of variables (personal characteristics, site attributes, awareness, perceptions) and behavior (before, during, and after) are investigated. The results indicate that the perception of a place as part of personal heritage is associated with the visitation patterns. In particular those who view a place as bound up with their own heritage are likely to behave significantly differently from others. Understanding this is useful for the study of tourists’ behavior and for the management of sites.
This paper investigates the links between tourists and the heritage presented at destinations, in order to understand better what is termed heritage tourism. The research draws upon a bigger study, which investigated a number of locations. This paper deals with one of these, with the specific purpose of investigating whether the relationship between the tourists and their perceptions is linked to their visitation patterns. It argues that the understanding and management of heritage tourism as a social phenomenon should not be based solely on an arbitrary factor: the presence of tourists. It is suggested that elements more subjective in nature and relating to the actual relationship between the space and the individual lie at the core of this phenomenon. The research presented challenges the perception that all those who visit a place come only to “gaze”, be educated or to enjoy themselves. For some, it is argued this is an emotional experience, that people come to “feel” rather than to “gaze” (Urry 1990).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The results of this study indicate clearly that motivations, (potential) behavior, and perceptions are all linked to perceptions of the site. These relationships are at the core of this research. It is suggested that those who perceive a site as a part of their personal heritage are the basis of the phenomenon called heritage tourism, and they are distinguished from others by their behavior. It follows that “heritage tourism” as explored here should not include those who are visiting a place “just because it is there”, nor those who are primarily motivated by a wish to learn. Based on this study such tourism is not simply being in spaces which are declared by “experts” or other stakeholders to be “heritage sites”. Instead, it is suggested that a definition of this type of tourism can be: “a subgroup, in which the main motivation for visiting is based on the characteristics of the place according to the tourists’ perception of their own heritage”. This contrasts with the existing approach of “tourism centered on what we have inherited, which can mean anything from historic buildings, to art works, to beautiful scenery” (Yale 1997:32). The differences between the two definitions are presented in Figure 1. The existing approach includes all who visit (Group I, II, III, IV). The approach in this research is to include only those in group IV. Although this reduces the scale, it leads to a better understanding (Poria, Butler and Airey 2001a), by helping researchers to differentiate between this and other groups. It also minimizes the line of thought that heritage tourism “can be rather a heterogeneous phenomenon” (Balcar and Pearce 1996:211) and prevents the rather haphazard classification of things and elements as “heritage” because people are not quite sure exactly what this title covers (Glen 1991). At this stage it is important to emphasize that, although this study identified differences among those visiting, it is not argued that any of the groups have or do not have their own valid needs and expectations. Further, no attempt is made to suggest that an attraction can be a “satisfying tourism experience only to tourists who consider it to be part of their own heritage” (Garrod and Fyall 2001:1051). Nevertheless, it is argued that such groups may be different in various ways, and those who manage sites could usefully be aware that there are differences between heritage tourists and tourists at heritage places. It is important to understand that environments in which heritage is presented are places which “function not only to draw tourists…from those wishing to experience the past, but also to provide a setting for entertainment, relaxation, or shopping” (Waitt 2000:836). For some, such an attraction is actually a space to which they relate on a personal level and this differentiates them from others who come to “gaze”. This study supports the literature which suggests that understanding behavior must include understanding the relationship between individuals and the artifact or space (Boniface and Fowler, 1993 and Timothy, 1997). The principal conclusion of the research is that heritage tourism stems from the relationship between the supply and the demand. It is not so much the attributes themselves, but the perceptions of them which is critical. As in all research, this study has a number of limitations. Prominent among these is the limited number of locations used. An attempt to deal with this was made by ensuring a diversity of tourists, but it is recognized that a future study could improve this by including a greater diversity of sites. Other potential limitations are associated with the actual location of the survey. The fieldwork in this case was carried out in a place strongly associated with the Holy Books and the Jewish faith. As a result, this study was related to religion. It can be argued that this limitation could apply in many other circumstances. For example, if the sites investigated were in England, the heritage explored would most likely be related to a particular type of tourist and associated with a sense of Englishness. One way to overcome this limitation would be to select a wider range from more than one country. In order to confirm the main findings and to provide a better basis for generalization, it would have been useful to test this approach in different kinds of locations. Examples could be “global must see” attractions that present historic features (such as the Acropolis, the Pyramids, and the Great Wall of China). Some perceive them as part of their heritage, some as historic sites with a high level of awareness of their history, while others may have a low level of awareness of their historic attributes. Findings from such research could sharpen the understanding of the relationship presented here. The study supports the idea that visitation patterns have to do with participants’ personal characteristics, their views, and the meanings they attach to different spaces. This suggests that a reflection about the tourists’ characteristics could be made in reverse. Research could be conducted on the level of the individual and the level of societies, and could involve, for example, identifying groups and changes over time by investigating behavior patterns. A possible area to conduct such research could be a former conflict zone. For example, one could examine whether Turks who go to Turkish-Greek conflict areas (such as Cyprus) have different attitudes towards this history from those who do not do so. More research is also in order about the perceptions of the experience (Poria, Butler and Airey 2002). This research found that some people who perceived a site as part of their own background were motivated by a feeling of obligation. It may be useful to explore whether or not they identify themselves as tourists despite this sense of obligation. In such a situation, the question is whether they view this as a tourist experience. This may clarify whether they are participating in a social obligation rather than a leisure experience. The research contributes to the tourism literature by suggesting that some subgroups could be reconsidered and challenged based on the relationships between perceptions and behavior (Poria et al 2001b). This suggests that other named subgroups may not exist as unique and separate. For example, is there a real substantial difference between mountain tourism (East 1996), rural tourism (Kastenholz, Duane and Gordon 1999), or farm tourism (Clarke 1999)? This study argues that there should be a strong theoretical background for establishing sub groups, rather than just the presence of people in certain spaces, involvement in a certain activity, or common sociodemographic characteristics (Poria et al 2001b). Such classifications may be useful for marketing purposes; but, at the same time, they may lead to confusion in the theoretical understanding by highlighting relationships that may not be at the core of the behavior. Investigating and attempting to clarify such subgroups would lead to a better understanding. This also supports the line of thought that the clarification of their experience should be “‘grounded’ in the realities that tourists themselves describe” (Prentice, Witt and Hamer 1996:2). The exploration as presented here can be helpful for the management of places. As suggested, these have different meanings for different people. Understanding the tourists’ profiles in relation to what is presented should lead to better management (Poria et al 2001a). The recognition and the identification of these differences can lead to managers making changes to the marketing process, the pricing system, and the interpretation provided (Poria, 2001b and Poria, 2001c). Marketing research (Kotler et al., 1999 and Teo and Yeoh, 1995) suggests that these differences should have implications for the marketing process in general and for advertising in particular. As suggested in the present study, differences in perceptions in relation to personal heritage were linked to motivation. Hence those responsible for such places need to be aware of two markets: those who come to see historic artifacts to be educated or for enjoyment (well-known motivations for visiting, Crang 1996), and those who come to be emotionally involved in an experience. This information could have implications in advertising, especially if the relationship between tourists and that which is wanted is associated with personal characteristics. For example, brochures are commonly available in different languages, but the context is the same in each translation. In certain attractions, there may be a place for providing different interpretations linked to perceptions and expectations. In summary, this research contributes in three important ways to the body of theory. First, it suggests a new working definition for possible use by other researchers, emphasizing the relationships between perception of a site and its heritage attributes. Second, it argues that there are differences between tourists based upon their perceptions and that these lead to differences in behavior. Third, the research identifies the obligatory nature of some tourism. This makes a contribution to the theoretical background in that it provides a distinction between the individual’s view of their experience as a recreation/non-recreation activity conducted in a leisure/non-leisure time frame. This may prove to be helpful to the development of theory and relationships with disciplines such as leisure, recreation, geography, and psychology.