Development and management of heritage tourism attractions pose several challenges, such as conserving heritage under limited financial resources. Heritage sites or attractions often include numerous attributes (e.g., education, guided tours) that can be provided at various levels. However, the financial constraints of heritage tourism sites inhibit the ability to implement every preference of visitors and potential visitors. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare the preferences of visitors and non-visitors for the improvement of management programs and services of the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor using a choice experiment (CE). Users and non-users indicated some different preferences for the development options. As agencies seek to develop programs and services that will increase total visitation, both groups are important to assess to satisfy current visitors so they will be repeat visitors, as well as implement programs and services that offer the best opportunity to convert non-visitors to visitors

Draper, Jason, PhD

Harril, Rich, PhD

Oh, Chi-Ok, PhD

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

University of Massachusetts AmherstScholarWorks@UMass AmherstTravel and Tourism Research Association:Advancing Tourism Research Globally 2011 ttra International ConferenceUnderstanding Public Preferences forDevelopment of a Heritage Tourism Corridor: AChoice Experiment ApproachJason Draper PhDConrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of HoustonChi-Ok Oh PhDDepartment of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State UniversityRich Harril PhDCollege of Hospitality, Retail & Sport Management, University of South CarolinaFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttraThis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Travel and Tourism ResearchAssociation: Advancing Tourism Research Globally by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, pleasecontact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.Draper, Jason PhD; Oh, Chi-Ok PhD; and Harril, Rich PhD, "Understanding Public Preferences for Development of a HeritageTourism Corridor: A Choice Experiment Approach" (2016). Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism ResearchGlobally. 77.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2011/Oral/77 Understanding Public Preferences for Development of a Heritage Tourism Corridor: A Choice Experiment Approach  Jason Draper, Ph.D. Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management University of Houston  Chi-Ok Oh, Ph. D. Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies Michigan State University  and  Rich Harrill, Ph.D. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Travel & Tourism Industry Center; College of Hospitality, Retail, & Sport Management University of South Carolina  ABSTRACT  Development and management of heritage tourism attractions pose several challenges, such as conserving heritage under limited financial resources.  Heritage sites or attractions often include numerous attributes (e.g., education, guided tours) that can be provided at various levels.  However, the financial constraints of heritage tourism sites inhibit the ability to implement every preference of visitors and potential visitors.  The purpose of this study is to identify and compare the preferences of visitors and non-visitors for the improvement of management programs and services of the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor using a choice experiment (CE).  Users and non-users indicated some different preferences for the development options.  As agencies seek to develop programs and services that will increase total visitation, both groups are important to assess to satisfy current visitors so they will be repeat visitors, as well as implement programs and services that offer the best opportunity to convert non-visitors to visitors.  Keywords: tourism development, heritage tourism  INTRODUCTION  Tourism products and services should meet the needs of tourists, be marketable on a cost efficient basis, and developed to capitalize on the cultural and natural resources of the destination (Smith, 1994).  Making this more complex is tourism products are composed of a number of attributes, including services and facilities.  In addition, tourism organizations responsible for developing and offering such programs and services often face financial challenges that inhibit their ability to implement every preference of visitors and potential visitors.  As a result, management agencies benefit from a comprehensive understanding of the preferences of their   current and potential visitors to identify feasible development options.  In order to respond to these needs, the purpose of this study is to identify and compare the preferences of visitors and non-visitors for the improvement of management programs and services of a heritage corridor located in South Carolina (i.e., the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor: SCNHC) using a choice experiment (CE).  LITERATURE  Smith (1994) indicates that “product development is a prerequisite for satisfying tourists’ changing demands and insuring the long-term profitability of the industry” (p. 582).  Inherently, this requires agencies that develop and manage tourism products and services to have a comprehensive understanding of both actual and potential visitors’ preferences for different aspects of the tourism product.  As Jamieson (1998) points out, however, product development related to heritage tourism can be challenging given the multifaceted nature of the heritage tourism experience.  In other words, heritage tourism may not only include both development and preservation, but is comprised of many elements, such as education and recreation experiences (Garrod & Fyall, 2000), to name a few.  To add to the complexity and challenges faced by heritage tourism organizations, Garrod and Fyall (2000) suggest the ultimate goal of heritage sites is to conserve heritage sites and attractions with limited financial resources.  Given these challenges in developing and managing heritage tourism sites, organizations involved in such efforts would benefit from a comprehensive assessment of the programs and services current and potential visitors prefer.  As a result, it is important to assess the preferences for development to enable management agencies the best opportunity for success.  The CE approach, as a joint preference evaluation method, enables researchers to identify the relative importance of different trip attributes and levels included, making it a better approach for understanding tourists’ holistic preferences (Louviere, Hensher, & Swait, 2000).  Alexandros and Jaffry (2005) suggest such a joint evaluation approach is useful for policymakers to understand how visitors make tradeoffs among various trip characteristics, such as a trip to a heritage site that includes numerous attributes or characteristics that affect the trip decision.  METHODS  The multi-attribute nature of heritage tourism validates the use of the CE method.  There are four primary steps using the CE method as represented in Figure 1.  The first step is to identify the attributes and appropriate levels for each.  The attributes and levels are then used to generate choice sets which respondents are asked to consider and indicate which trip they would prefer by making tradeoffs between the trip choices.  Data were analyzed using a conditional logit model with a discrete choice for the dependent variable.    Figure 1: The Process of the Choice Experiment Method  Five trip attributes were carefully identified for this study after extensive literature review and discussions with managers: local shopping, tour programs, education/interpretation, benefits of the Corridor Cruiser program, and cultural experience (Table 1).  Each attribute had three levels (e.g., low, medium, and high) and respondents answered three choice sets.  The detailed descriptions were provided in the questionnaire to help respondents understand their choice tasks (i.e., choose their preferred trip alternatives).                         Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Identify Management Attributes and Levels  Generate Choice Sets Using Experimental Design Present Choice Sets / Collect Responses Step 4 Analyze the Data Using Discrete Choice Analysis   Table 1: Proposed Attributes and Levels Used for the Choice Experiments Attribute Description Level Local Shopping  The overall shopping opportunities to buy local products (e.g., peach, apple, strawberry, tea, etc.) 1. Low: Sparse availability of local farms and/or stores  2. Medium: Some availability of local farms and/or stores* 3. High: Ample availability of local farms and/or stores  Tour Programs The types of heritage tour programs guided by trained local residents available 1. Self-guided tour: No tour programs available  2. Half-day guided tour: Half-day group tour programs available* 3. One-day guided tour: One-day group tour programs available Education/ Interpretation The types of education and interpretation materials available to visitors at Discovery Centers 1. Low: Brochures and signs only 2. Medium: Audio-visual (AV) materials in addition to brochures and signs* 3. High: Trained interpreters in addition to audio-visual (AV) materials, and brochures and signs  Benefits of Corridor Cruiser The types of benefits offered to Corridor Cruiser members (individual membership: $30/family membership: $60) 1. Current benefits: free admission or a free gift at designated sites, special invitations to events, etc. 2. Upgraded benefits: 15 % discount for designated shopping, restaurants and lodging in addition to the current benefits* 3. Extensive benefits: 30% discount for designated shopping, restaurants and lodging in addition to the current benefits Cultural Experience The overall opportunities to experience local communities and cultures (folk arts, indigenous festivals, etc.) at or near SCNHC 1. Sparse opportunities 2. Some opportunities* 3. Ample opportunities Note: * represents the base level for each attribute for model estimation  Each choice set differed on at least one attribute, requiring respondents to consider tradeoffs between the trips offered in each choice set.  A “no trip” option was included to simulate real market choice behavior.  An example choice set is displayed in Figure 2.          Suppose that you could only choose from the trips below (Trip A, Trip B or I would not choose either trip).  Which would you prefer?  TRIP A ATTRIBUTES TRIP BHigh  Local Shopping Opportunities Low One-day guided tour  Tour Program Half-day guided tour Medium  Education / Interpretation Low Upgraded benefits  Benefits of Corridor Cruiser Upgraded benefits Some opportunities  Cultural Experience Ample opportunities  Given these choices, I would choose… (Please check only one)  TRIP A   I WOULD NOT CHOOSE EITHER TRIP  TRIP B Figure 2: Example of a Choice Set for the SCNHC Trip Participation  The sample for this study included visitors to the two Discovery Centers along the SCNHC, attendees on the SCNHC’s Ambassador Tours, and residents in the counties where the Discovery Centers are located and bordering counties as potential visitors.  Email and mail procedures were utilized to disseminate the questionnaire using a modified Dillman (2007) procedure.  The sampling strategy provided both users and non-users of the SCNHC.  Of 1,701 questionnaires sent, 388 (71.4% Users and 28.6% Non-Users) were completed for an effective response rate of 25.7%.  Once incomplete choice sets were deleted, there were 791 paired choice set observations.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  The average age of respondents was almost 58 (57.9) years of age.  Close to 50% (47.5%) of respondents were 60 years of age or older.  The gender of respondents was very evenly split with 49.7% female and 50.3% male.  Over one-fourth (28.7%) reported a household income of $100,000 or greater.  Respondents were fairly well educated with 31.4% being a college graduate and 36.3% who completed post graduate school.  There were no significant differences between SCNHC Users and Non-Users for age and household income.  However, there was a significant difference between SCNHC Users and Non-Users for education, with Users being more educated.  The alternative specific constant (ASC) measured the utility shift of “no trip” to that of choosing a trip (Bennett& Adamowicz, 2001).  The ASC was significant in the user model only, indicating that users were more interested in taking a trip to the SCNHC under current conditions (Table 2).  The two groups show some different patterns of preferences for the proposed attributes.  In particular, the significant coefficients of the two levels for the attribute of Education/Interpretation imply that respondents who visited the SCNHC were more interested in   having different types of heritage and cultural education and interpretation.  These coefficients were not significant for Non-Users, signifying that respondents who had not visited the SCNHC in the past five years did not give much weight to education/interpretation opportunities available during a trip to the SCNHC.  The negative coefficient for the ‘low’ level for the Local Shopping attribute for both groups indicates that respondents did not prefer the option of sparse availability of local farms and/or stores during a trip to SCNHC compared to the base option of the ‘medium’ level (some availability of local farms and/or stores).  The coefficient for high level of local shopping opportunities was significant and positive for SCNHC Users, indicating they preferred to have additional local shopping opportunities available.  Both groups opposed lower levels of cultural experience than the base option as indicated by the significant and negative coefficients for each group.   Table 2: Results of Conditional Logit Models (SCNHC User Vs. Non-User)   SCNHC User  Non-User Attributes Levels Coefficients Coefficients ASC   0.4458** (0.100) -0.1577 (0.131) Local Shopping Low -0.3385** (0.092) -0.3514** (0.142) High 0.1480* (0.086) 0.0192 (0.132) Tour Programs Self-guided tour -0.0512 (0.089) 0.0697 (0.133) One-day guided tour -0.0076 (0.095) -0.3408** (0.149) Education/ Interpretation Low -0.3134** (0.092) -0.1876 (0.140) High 0.1710* (0.094) 0.2380 (0.148) Benefits of Corridor Cruiser Current benefits 0.0651 (0.083) -0.0176 (0.134) Extensive benefits -0.0586 (0.088) -0.0993 (0.141) Cultural Experience Sparse opportunities -0.3244** (0.087) -0.3184** (0.140) Ample opportunities 0.0828 0.088) 0.1672 (0.134) Log Likelihood  -598.7 -271.4 **indicates significance at the 0.05 level; *indicates significance at the 0.10 level   Standard errors in parentheses  To better identify the optimal design of the management programs to maximize visitor satisfaction or utility, the CE enables decision makers to generate and evaluate feasible combinations of available options.  Five Scenarios were created to identify utility gain or loss resulting from changes in the model attributes.  Scenario 1 is the base option with low site development and programs and Scenario 5 includes the most extensive levels of development   and programs.  The other three scenarios were added with trip options between these two extreme ones.  Table 3 indicates both the SCNHC User and Non-User group least preferred Scenario 1, as the base scenario consisting of the lowest levels of each trip attribute.  However, each group most preferred a different Scenario.  Those who visited the SCNHC in the past five years preferred Scenario 5 which included the highest levels of each trip attribute, while non-users preferred Scenario 4, with moderate or medium levels of most attributes.  Table 3: Predicted Probabilities of Proposed Scenarios (SCNHC User Vs. Non-User)  Local Shopping Tour Programs Education/ InterpretationBenefits of Corridor Cruiser Cultural Experience User Prob. (%) Non-User Prob.  (%) S.1 Low Self-guided tour Low Current benefits Sparse opportunities 8.14% 10.06% S.2 Low Self-guided tour Medium Current benefits Some opportunities 15.41% 16.69% S.3 Medium Half-day guided tour Medium Upgraded benefits Some opportunities 21.32% 22.52% S.4 Medium Half-day guided tour High Upgraded benefits Some opportunities 25.30% 28.56% S.5 High One-day guided tour High Extensive benefits Ample opportunities 29.82% 22.16%  CONCLUSION  To reflect heterogeneous preferences, the two segmented groups were identified based on their prior trip experience to SCNHC: those who had visited the SCNHC (SCNHC User) and who had not visited the SCNHC (Non-User) in the past 5 years.  The results generally corresponded with our prior expectations as SCNHC Users were more interested in taking heritage and cultural trips to SCNHC than Non-Users under the present conditions.  Further, SCNHC Users seemed to be more interested in various programs proposed such as additional opportunities to buy local products, to have education and interpretation materials and sessions, and to experience local communities and cultures than Non-Users.   In conclusion, agencies responsible for the development and management of heritage tourism areas can benefit from a comprehensive assessment of the preferences of visitors, as well as non-visitors they hope get to visit.  Information such as attitudes toward and preferences for tourism services and resources provide an understanding of the heritage corridor’s competitive advantages, provide a valuable tool to better address shortcomings and guide the corridor’s tourism development.  As this study showed, users and non-users may have different preferences for the development of development options.  As agencies seek to develop programs and services   that will increase total visitation, both groups are important to assess in order to satisfy current visitors so they will be repeat visitors, as well as implement programs and services that offer the best opportunity to convert non-visitors to visitors.  REFERENCES  Alexandros, A., & Jaffry, S. (2005). Stated preferences for two Cretan heritage attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 985-1005. Bennett, J., & Adamowicz, V. (2001). Some fundamentals of environmental choice modeling. In J. Bennett & R. Blamey (Eds.), The choice modeling approach to environmental evaluation (pp. 37-69). U.K.: Edward Elgar. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 682-708. Gelbman, A., & Ron, A. S. (2009). Heritage and cultural tourism: The present and the future of the past. Tourism Geographies, 11(1), 127-129. Jamieson, W. (1998). Cultural heritage tourism planning and development: Defining the field and its challenges. APT Bulletin, 29(3/4), 65-67. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and Application. U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Smith, S. L. J. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582-595. 

Understanding Public Preferences for Development of a Heritage Tourism Corridor: A Choice Experiment Approach

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1702&context=ttra

Understanding Public Preferences for Development of a Heritage Tourism Corridor: A Choice Experiment Approach

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst