Next Article in Journal
How does Perceived Destination Social Responsibility Impact Revisit Intentions: The Mediating Roles of Destination Preference and Relationship Quality
Next Article in Special Issue
The Uses of Reconstructing Heritage in China: Tourism, Heritage Authorization, and Spatial Transformation of the Shaolin Temple
Previous Article in Journal
An Assessment of European Information Technology Tools to Support Industrial Symbiosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Tourist-Based Model of Authenticity of Heritage Sporting Events: The Case of Naadam
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/su11010132
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Value-Based Profiles of Visitors to a World Heritage Site: The Case of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress (in South Korea)

by
Hwasung Song
1 and
Hyun Kim
2,*
1
Department of Finance and Economy, Suwon Research Institute, Suwon 16829, Korea
2
Department of Landscape Architecture, Dankook University, Cheonan 3116, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(1), 132; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010132
Submission received: 26 November 2018 / Revised: 16 December 2018 / Accepted: 20 December 2018 / Published: 27 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Tourism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study is to evaluate the place value of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress in Korea, a mountain fortress located in natural resources with UNESCO World Heritage Site status, in order to classify visitors according to place value and to establish marketing strategies based on the characteristics of each profile. In particular, for sustainable cultural heritage development, visitors were asked to evaluate the place value of the site from various perspectives, through a presentation of government policies and business based on both the world heritage value and the inherent attractiveness of the site. Utilizing a person-centered approach, a latent profile analysis (LPA) was applied to a sample of visitors to Hwaseong Fortress (N = 656), with visitors classified by place value into four profiles: Outing Seekers (OS), Tourism Seekers (TS), Heritage Seekers (HS), and Serious Travel Seekers (SS). These profiles differed in relation to distance from the study setting from travelers’ residence, recognition of the fortress as a World Heritage site, and the degree to which the World Heritage site status influenced the decision to visit. The profiles also showed differences in visit satisfaction and intent to revisit. This study contributes a better understanding of visitors’ evaluated value of heritage sites and corresponding behaviors, in order to provide sustainable management for the heritage tourism market.

1. Introduction

Why do people visit heritage sites? Is it that only people who are emotionally immersed in the charm of heritage and have a strong desire to gain intellectual richness visit heritage sites? McKercher’s [1] classification of cultural tourists includes incidental cultural tourists and casual cultural tourists whose desire for experience is low and importance of cultural tourism is also low. This suggests that there are other types of people who visit heritage sites for various purposes besides interest in heritage. Especially as the boundary between tourism and leisure is disappearing, heritage sites can be a place for enjoying scenery, exercise, health promotion, and leisure. Also, for people living in the vicinity of a cultural heritage, a heritage site can become a place for an outing or sightseeing, and not a heritage experience. Rather than the authenticity of a heritage experience, visitors may desire a tourist-merchandised heritage experience made available by policies and projects that develop and manage the heritage site. However, existing research on cultural heritage has focused on the visitor with high levels of cultural experience and cultural motivation [2]. As Cerquetti and Ferrara [3] noted, cultural heritage is both evidence of local history and the source of change in local/regional identity. Also, cultural heritage is a place-specific asset as well as a key factor in sustainable local development. They wanted to attract more people to the culture heritage market as the conservation of cultural heritage depends on whether both residents and outsiders perceive, understand, and appreciate the value of the resource. They examined the perceptions and communications regarding cultural heritage value in the younger generations in order to improve the cultural heritage experience. Similarly, sustainable development of cultural heritage requires marketing and management of people who are highly motivated and experienced in cultural heritage, and an understanding of the diversity of visitors, including local residents, to the cultural heritage site.
As value directly and indirectly influences tourist behaviors and loyalty such as revisits or recommendations, the formation of value is an important research topic from a tourist destination management perspective. Value plays a key role in the consumer’s cognitive structure, and is a major factor in the purchase of service or goods [4]. Thus, an analysis of value is essential to increase the competitive advantage of suppliers providing tourism or tourism products [5,6,7,8,9,10].
Given that a resource is recognized as a heritage once its value is recognized over time and across circumstances, heritage sites may not have had heritage, cultural, and historical values from the start. Similarly, from a perspective of place, heritage sites can have various relations with the diverse people visiting, leading to individual place value evaluations. As cultural heritage is particularly indicative of local authenticity and history, an understanding of how visitors evaluate and perceive the site is essential [11]. However, current research on cultural heritage focuses mostly on visitor characteristics such as visiting patterns, rather than the particular characteristics of heritage sites, and thus there is a lack of research on how visitors perceive and evaluate particular sites [12].
When space is imbued with meaning through its combination with human behavior and time, it becomes a place [13]. That is, a space becomes a place through physical and environmental elements composed of landscapes, vegetation, and environments, and emotional and cognitive elements such as culture and history, as a result of human interaction with the space [14]. Several studies, starting with Brown [15], measured place value using Relph’s [14] place-building elements, and found that results differed according to site characteristics [15,16,17,18], indicating that place value of heritage sites can be assessed through various aspects. Existing research on place value evaluation has focused solely on natural resources such as forests, parks, and rivers [15,16,17,18].
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the characteristics of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress of Korea, a mountain fortress, and a UNESCO World Heritage site. First, we establish criteria for site value evaluation through an examination of the existing literature regarding cultural heritage typology research and place value evaluation. The presence or absence of values defined in previous research will be examined with regards to the characteristics of Hwaseong Fortress, reasons why it was selected as a World Heritage site, and the policies and projects of Suwon City in which the fortress is located. Second, we classify visitors by the evaluation of place value on Hwaseong Fortress. As value is a relatively more abstract concept than attitude or behavior, the person-centered approach of latent profile analysis (LPA) will be used for classification of visitors. Third, we compare and analyze the differences in the visitors’ characteristics by the profiles of visitors. Fourth, we suggest the policy and management implications for each profile for sustainable management of heritage sites.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Research Trends in Cultural Heritage Tourists

Since the late 1980s, the importance of historical and cultural factors in attracting tourists to specific places has been emphasized, and research on historical and cultural tourism has been underway [19]. Due to the quantitative growth in cultural tourism, historical and cultural tourism has become an important research topic in the field of tourism [20]. Research is being conducted on the supply and demand of cultural tourism [21], the environmental [22] and economic impacts of cultural tourism [23], the creation of competitive strategies for cultural destinations [24], and market segmentation [20].
Cultural tourists are defined as tourists whose main purpose for visiting other regions or countries is to enjoy cultural experiences such as archaeological and historic sites, religious centers, performances or festivals, or a wide range of other activities during their trip [25]. Whereas cultural tourism has been characterized by the visiting of cultural sightseeing places, Hall and Zeppel [26] defined cultural tourism as being more visual and more active in the arts and festivals, and differentiated it from heritage tourism which is more related to visiting historical sites, buildings, and monuments, etc. [27].
From the perspective of market segmentation, researchers are studying the sociodemographic, travel motivation, and travel behaviors of cultural heritage tourists, specifically focused on national and regional visitors [1,28,29,30]. According to sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, education level, and income, cultural heritage tourists are highly educated and high-income earners [31,32]. In terms of behavior, it has been shown that visitors are more likely to stay longer than regular visitors, pay more expenses, and have higher levels of visit satisfaction and be returning visitors [31,32]. In particular, McKercher [1] defines cultural tourists as people who want to visit places related to culture or directly participate in experiences, and classifies tourists according to the centrality of trip purpose and depth of experience, as shown in Figure 1.
“Purposeful Cultural Tourists” (high centrality/deep experience) pursue various cultural experiences with the main purpose of learning about other people’s cultures and heritage when visiting a destination, and have deep levels of cultural experience. “Sightseeing Cultural Tourists” (high centrality/shallow experience) visit with learning about other people’s cultures and heritage as the main reason, but pursue entertainment-based experiences. Casual Cultural Tourists” (modest centrality/shallow experience) aim to visit cultural attractions for reasons other than cultural tourism, and pursue a shallow cultural experience. “Incidental Cultural Tourists” (low centrality/shallow experience), whose participation rate in cultural tourism is lower than that of “Casual Cultural Tourists”, incidentally visit cultural tourist sites, and their depth of cultural experience is shallow. Lastly, “Serendipitous Cultural Tourists” (low centrality/deep experience) do not originally have the goal of cultural tourism, but they experience culture deeply. As stated by McKercher [1], the four previous types, excluding the “Serendipitous Cultural Tourists”, make up both of the cultural tourists. Even if tourists visited the site for the purpose of cultural tourism, when the main goal of tourism is day-to-day escape or pursuit of pleasure, “Sightseeing Cultural Tourists” are more common than “Purposeful Cultural Tourists”.
McKercher [1]’s typology of cultural tourists has been used extensively as a theoretical basis for subsequent studies, particularly, in the representative study by Alazaizeh et al. [28] in which tourists in the Jordan Petra area were classified into five groups: “Purposeful heritage tourists”, “Sightseeing heritage tourists”, “Casual heritage tourists”, “Incidental heritage tourists”, and “Serendipitous heritage tourists”. A comparison of heritage values and management actions across groups indicated that “Purposeful” and “Sightseeing” heritage tourists perceived preservation values more highly than “Incidental” and “Serendipitous” heritage tourists, and engaged more actively in direct management activities, demonstrating group differences in preservation values and direct management activities, and lack of group differences in perception of use values and indirect management activities.
Poria et al. [30] classified tourists by motivations into “heritage experience”, “learning experience”, and “recreational experience” groups. Tourists whose main motivation is heritage and leisure experiences reported feeling more a part of the heritage site, revealing differences in the perception of tourist sites according to visit motivation.
Espelt and Benito [29] found that gender and age had no effect on cultural tourist classifications in heritage cities. They classified tourists into four groups based on the following travel behaviors: number of accessible nodes (NAN), number of visited nodes (NVN), total time of visit (TTV), time spent in nodes (TSN), average time spent walking the edges (ATE), length of the itinerary (LEN), number of edges walked (NEW), percentage of the attitudes of ambulation (PAA), number of frequent edges (NFE), and number of secondary nodes visited (NSN). First, “Noncultural Tourists” is a group with a very low number of visited nodes and time spent in nodes. Second, “Ritual Tourists” show a behavioral pattern closest to averages, and often act by collective consciousness rather than for personal experience. Third, “Interested Tourists” also show a behavioral pattern close to averages, but spend more time at each node, usually acting upon heritage consumerism, individual experience, and real-life experiences in the heritage area. Finally, “Erudite Tourists” who occupy the lowest percentage of heritage tourists, are high on all behavioral indicators, especially internal coherence, and pursue knowledge, not just simple experience.
Cultural heritage tourists among cultural tourists are defined as higher-level tourists as they go emotionally deeper into the charms of cultural heritage resources, have a strong desire to gain intellectual richness, and show high interest in participating in cultural tourism activities [2]. However, according to the previous research on the classification of cultural heritage tourists, various types emerged according to behavior patterns such as visit motivation, experience intensity, time spent, and number of visiting nodes. This is because various people visit according to the value, location, and development situation (related policy, business, etc.) of cultural heritage sites, and how sites are perceived or evaluated by visitors. For example, in the case of Hwaseong Fortress in Korea, the important parts of the castle and the characteristics at the time of construction are well preserved, leading to a high valuation of its integrity and authenticity, and a designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1997 (see Figure 2).
As shown in Figure 3, Suwon City, in which Hwaseong Fortress is located, has continuously developed various performances and experience programs centered around the fortress. In addition, in 2016, the Hwaseong Fortress Tourist Trolley was introduced to increase tourist convenience and provide sightseeing [34,35]. The results of evaluating the value on Hwaseong Frotress by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)indicated that historical and cultural value (57.2%) was more perceived as important than tourism resource value (42.8%) [36]. This can be interpreted as the importance of historical and cultural value being higher than tourism resource value, but that tourism resource value cannot be overlooked.
However, previous studies have not specified the characteristics of tourism sites, and research on how visitors perceive and evaluate such sites has not been researched. In particular, depending on the characteristics of the place where the cultural heritage tourist attractions are located, various tourist attractions and benefits such as natural resources, walking tourism resources, urban tourism resources, rural tourism resources, and marine tourism resources are available, in addition to historical and cultural resources. For example, cultural tourism was not the main reason in the decision to visit a destination for the Serendipitous Cultural Tourist, Casual Cultural Tourist, and Incidental Cultural Tourist in McKercher’s [1] typology of cultural tourists, but cultural experience was still deep for the Serendipitous Cultural Tourist. Therefore, it is important to understand the characteristic of cultural heritage tourists to consider the aspects of place that are influencing tourists’ visit choices.

2.2. Place Value

Value is a more inclusive concept than opinions, beliefs, and attitudes, and is the ultimate goal wanted in life or the most preferred destination in existence and life [4]. Value is a component that engenders attitude formation and is described as affecting behavior. Thus, it is considered to be an important variable from a marketing perspective in which is measured and applied to product and market development through market segmentation [7]. The approach based on attitudes and behavior has poor predictive power due to the mismatch between time of measurement and time of purchase, but because value does not change in the short term, and acts as an inner standard of self-action and justifies action, it has the advantage of being closely related to actual behavior [4,40].
From a place perspective, the value given to a place is named place value. If space is a physical entity such as distance, direction, or location, then place is where the meaning of the combination of space and human behavioral outcomes is created [41]. Place works with time, moves beyond physical space, develops into a social space with its own unique meaning, and generates place value [13]. From the viewpoint of leisure and tourism, place is evaluated as a function of the degree of attractiveness as a leisure and tourism destination [15]. In the field of tourism, place value is mostly measured as the psychological value of a place, that is, the value of the visitor’s perception of a place. For example, a number of studies that have applied the positive causal relations between the three concepts in the Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) model by Homer and Kahale [6] to tourism sites, particularly cultural heritage tourism sites, have found that as value perception increases, visitors form positive attitudes and show higher intent to revisit and recommend [5,6,8,9,10]. Therefore, there is a growing trend to include items related to value in the survey measures of visitors in Korea, not only in the United States [42,43].
Meanwhile, given that when a space is given meaning based on user behaviors, it becomes a place, there have been efforts to identify the formation factors, characteristics, and values of places, in terms of the relation between place and user experience [15,16,17,18]. This is typology research based on value perception or evaluation from a market segmentation perspective. Since Relph [13] divided the factors of place formation into physical and environmental elements composed of landscapes, vegetation, and environments, and emotional and cognitive elements such as culture and history that occur through human interaction with space, starting with Brwon’s [15] place value typology, many studies, depending on the research participants and settings, have used the influence and subdivisions of each element differently [15,16,17,18,44,45].
Table 1 summarizes the preliminary research on place value measurement and evaluation, which indicates that items measuring place value depend on the characteristics of the study site. Research on the place value of natural resources such as national parks, forests, and lakes measured mainly ecological values including places of flora and fauna, ecological environments, etc., psychological values such as spiritual value and intrinsic value, and utility values such as attractiveness of a place, recreation, and health promotion [15,16,17,18]. In a place value study of a historical and cultural site, local cultural values such as friends and relatives’ residence and participation in local activities were also measured [44].
It can also be confirmed that perceived place value differs by the research participants. Studies on national parks and leisure tourist destinations found that local residents perceived the aesthetic value of the degree of attractiveness (scenery/smells/sounds) as more important than other value elements, and that visitors have different values perceived as most important according to each destination [15,16,17,18]. In particular, a study on the Namhansanseong Fortress, a UNESCO World Heritage site, did not find significant differences in therapeutic, existence, and aesthetic/scenic values, and local residents reported higher values for biological diversity and wilderness values in comparison to visitors [44].
The research presented in Table 1 is meaningful in that it identifies place value components by paying attention to the characteristics of the place itself [15], and shows there are differences in perceived place value according to visit destination or participants [15,16,17,18,44]. However, there is the limitation of dividing place users as local residents and outsiders. As the reduction in working hours has led to an increase in leisure time but not income, time-intensive leisure that enhances the utility of leisure activities at low cost is gaining attention as a rising trend. This leads to a transformation of the tourism paradigm, wherein the place of local residents develops into a space for foreign visitors, and tourist areas marketed towards foreigners becomes a place of leisure for local residents living in the area. In particular, the present study goes beyond a dual-perspective approach of outsiders and local residents, and aims to integrate leisure place and tourism place by segmenting visitors according to place value recognition.
Classification of groups based on place value has been done by simply distinguishing groups according to the degree of perception [46] or by an exploratory approach in grouping by place meaning using qualitative methods [47,48,49]. However, such classification has the limitation of standardizing the locality variable in advance, which increases the risk that the results will be affected by values that have undue influence on the average. For example, Kalrenborn [46] classified high-, middle- and low-place value groups according to the sense of place index ranking in Norway’s Svalbard population. The limitation of this method is that it overlooks the various aspects of place value by group. In addition, whereas qualitative research has the advantage of showing various relations between place and users, it relies too heavily on subjective evaluation. The present study aims to classify users according to place value evaluation by applying a latent profile analysis (LPA), which uses a person-centered approach to find similar profiles across various indicators and identifies individual similarities and differences by profile.

2.3. Place Value of Hwaseong Fortress

The subject of the present study is Suwon Hwaseong Fortress, which is a representative historical and cultural sightseeing spot in Korea listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. Hwaseong Fortress is a place sought out by not only outsiders but also local residents. It forms the place value of physical and environmental factors, emotional and cognitive factors, and historical and symbolic factors based on ecological and environmental resources and historical and cultural tourism resources. The purpose of this study is to identify the place value of Hwaseong Fortress based on the elements of place value proposed by Brwon [15].
Suwon Hwaseong Fortress is located in Suwon City and it was registered as a UNESCO World Heritage site in December, 1997, in recognition of its authenticity and integrity as well as its historical and artistic value. It is recognized as a place with high architectural value, a specimen of architecture with fortified aspects such as angle towers to prevent enemy invasion, and mud hills built to the height of fortress walls to block bombs [19]. If one looks at the historical value of Suwon Hwaseong, it is possible to restore it to its original form even if it is completely destroyed, because the “Completion Report for Hwaseong Fortress” remains intact. As shown in Figure 4, parts of the buildings that were destroyed during the Korean War were rebuilt and restored to its original form. Along with the building of the fortress, the completion report left behind a great footprint in the architectural history of Korea, and simultaneously, has historical value as a record and high value in its own right [50].
In terms of artistic value, Hwaseong (meaning “beautiful castle”) is regarded as a castle with a beautiful appearance that befits its name. As you can see from the outside of the fortress, there are many traces of significant effort put into its aesthetic aspects (see Figure 5). Instead of military reasons, Hwaseong Fortress was built for political and economic purposes, as well as devotion to parents. The castle itself contains the oriental philosophy of “Hyo” (filial piety), and it is said that it also possesses spiritual and philosophical values [19]. Hwaseong Fortress incorporates ecological, recreational, and educational values as well as historical and artistic values. As of 2017, Suwon City, where Hwaseong Fortress is located, is carrying out a “Four Seasons Healing through Walking in Forests” experience at the fortress. The program, led by a forest commentator, aims to relieve stress and to enhance one’s positive emotions towards life through outdoor physical activities such as walking and thinking about the importance of nature and life. It provides ecological value using natural resources, as well as learning and educational values [50]. In addition, the Hwaseong Fortress Trail, which lines the periphery of the fortress, utilizes a natural ecological resource based on historical culture as a tourist resource, and imbues it with place value that promotes mental and physical health and wellness. Walking along the 3.17-mile Seonggwak Road, one can feel the charm of the surrounding scenery and sounds [35,53], as shown in Figure 5.
Suwon City designated 2016 as the “Year to Visit Suwon Hwaseong Fortress” to commemorate the 220th anniversary of the construction of the fortress. In order to increase and share its historical meaning and value, the development and exhibition of tourism products and various projects such as program operation were selected and carried out, increasing educational and learning values. Learning value was also provided through academic conversations and lectures that were held to establish the identity of the fortress, educational value was provided through exhibitions to help spread the established identity, and recreational place value was provided through field experiences and sightseeing programs for local residents [34]. As such, Hwaseong Fortress not only has architectural value but also historical, artistic, cultural, ecological, and educational values, and the efforts of managers to increase these values are ongoing. Research on Hwaseong Fortress has been limited to authenticity value [56] and the authenticity-based economic value [53]. As mentioned above, the cultural, artistic, historical, and ecological values of the fortress are very important factors, in addition to its architectural and local heritage values. The present study aims to highlight the various factors of place value in the value evaluation of the fortress, and classify visitors including local residents according to their perceived values.

3. Method

3.1. Data Collection and Sampling

The sample was obtained from visitors of Hwaseong Fortress from May 5 (Saturday) to May 20 (Sunday), 2018. We conducted personal interviews using a structured questionnaire. By using a stratified sampling technique for obtaining a representative sample, pre-trained researchers surveyed the main points of the fortress, considering the hourly flow of visitors based on the characteristics of the points. According to the classification criteria of visitor survey in Korea [57,58], the sample was defined as men and women aged 15 years or older who visited Hwaseong Fortress during the survey period because middle school was judged to be the age at which visitors can express their perceptions of the site without difficulty. Residents living within Hwaseong Fortress were excluded in order to obtain a sample of participants who visited Hwaseong Fortress for leisure or sightseeing purposes, thus including Suwon residents in the surrounding areas of the fortress. Data from 656 participants who completed the survey were analyzed for this study (80% response rate).

3.2. Measures

The purpose of the present study is to examine the classification of cultural heritage tourists according to place value perception, and the characteristics by classification group. Previous place value research was mainly focused on natural resources such as national park, forest, and lake. Thus, there is a lack of explanation and interpretation of historic value, cultural value, and heritage value in place value measurement. In this sense, the questionnaire was revised on the attractiveness, uniqueness, learning and experiences of heritage which was used as a classification standard in the previous heritage classification studies [1,29,30,31]. As a result, the place values of Hwaseong Fortress visitors included 11 items measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all valuable, 3 = moderately valuable, 5 = very valuable): aesthetic scenery/fragrance/sounds, various historical cultural experience programs, historical value of relics and architecture, historical value of architectural styles, traditional beauty of atmosphere and impression, physical/mental health promotion, giving good impression to companions, acquiring national culture and traditional knowledge, environmental and nature education, providing enjoyment, and providing a lot of benefits compared to expenditure.
The items used to examine differences in characteristics between groups included recognition of World Heritage status, World Heritage status as a visit factor, satisfaction with the visit, intent to return, and residence. Participants answered yes or no as to whether they recognized the fortress as a World Heritage site, and rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all influenced, 3 = moderately influenced, 5 = strongly influenced) whether the World Heritage status influenced their decision to visit. Both the visit satisfaction (1 = not at all satisfied, 3 = moderately satisfied, 5 = very satisfied) and intent to return (1 = will not visit again, 3 = may visit again, 5 = definitely will visit again) scales were measured using five-point Likert scales. For the residence variable, participants provided their address and time it took to travel to Hwaseong Fortress. Sociodemographic items included gender, birth year, education, and average monthly income.

3.3. Analysis

In the present study, based on the value recognition measure of Hwaseong Fortress, we classified the types of value recognition of the users using latent profile analysis (LPA). LPA is a useful method as it does not make statistical assumptions such as the normality of data or homogeneity of variance, and instead distinguishes groups based on the variables of interest and the characteristics of the sample [59]. In particular, unlike regression analysis which assumes linear correlations, LPA can identify variability within groups, and unlike factor analysis which classifies types based only on the relations between variables, LPA has the advantage of being able to simultaneously capture the relations between variables and participants [60]. LPA is also evaluated as useful in describing the implications of each group by classifying the influence variables of each group along with group characteristics. In fact, LPA is widely used in the leisure/tourism field, to examine cultural tourists [61,62], park visitors [45,63], local residents of tourist destinations [64], and international students [65].
In the present study, LPA was used to classify groups according to the perceived place value of a leisure and tourism resource in Suwon. The optimal model of the latent profiles obtained through LPA is selected based on the fit indices, entropy, and statistical significance. The BIC (Baysian information criteria) and AIC (Akaike information criteria) are used to evaluate the model’s explanatory power and interpretation, with lower values indicating more optimal models [66]. The quality of the latent profile classification is evaluated based on entropy, a value between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1 indicative of a more accurate classification. However, statistical numerical values such as the BIC, AIC, entropy, and p-value are not absolute criteria to determine the final model, and factors such as model parsimony, theoretical and practical interpretability, and presentation of various patterns all need to be taken into consideration [67].
The purpose of the present study is to classify groups according to perceived place value, and to examine group differences in sociodemographic and world heritage site variables (recognition as a World Heritage site, World Heritage status as a visit factor, satisfaction with the visit, intent to return, and residence). Though SPSS 21. 0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) cross tabulation analysis and one-way ANOVAs were also performed after the LPA using Mplus 6.0 (Mplus, Los Angeles, CA, USA).

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

Of all 656 respondents, demographic characteristics of the sample included more women (n = 375, 57.2%) than men (n = 281, 42.8%). The average age of participants was 42.3 years (SD = 14.88). More visitors older than 50 (n = 214, 32.6%) than those in their 40s (n = 184, 28%) or 30s (n = 107, 16.3%). Residents from the Suwon area (i.e., within 30 min; n = 218, 33.2%) and the Gyeonggi Southern Province (i.e., 30 min to 1 h; n = 198, 30.2%) accounted for more than half of the sample (63.4%), indicating that visit rate was highest among residents within 1 h travel time. College attendance/graduation was the most common educational level (n = 381, 58.1%) and household income was more than 6 thousand dollars a month (n = 244, 37.2%), which indicated a high proportion of highly educated and high-income visitors.

4.2. Selection of the Latent Profile Model

LPA was conducted including 11 perceived value items in order to obtain perceived place value classifications. Table 2 presents the two- to four-class models, and the AIC, BIC, entropy, and p-values for each model. Whereas the two-class model was the most significant, the entropy was the lowest, the AIC and BIC were the highest, and the classes had a linear relationship, and thus was not optimal. The three-class model also showed a linear pattern and thus was not chosen. Although four-class model had the highest p-value, it had the lowest AIC and BIC, had an entropy closest to 1, and the classes were diverse indicating the potential for varying interpretations by group. The four-class model was thus chosen for Hwaseong Fortress visitors.

4.3. Characteristics of the Profiles

Table 3 and Figure 6 show the latent profiles of perceived place value of 656 visitors from Hwaseong Fortress derived from the LPA. It shows the average scores of the 11 items of place value rated on five-point scales. For a clear comparison of the differences between profiles, the results were converted to t-scores, which were standardized by items and presented in Figure 2. The first profile, which accounted for 8.8% of the sample, was generally lower than the average, and scored lower on historical value of relics, architecture, and architectural styles, and scored relatively higher on aesthetic scenery/fragrance/sounds, physical/mental health promotion, and providing enjoyment values. Although Hwaseong Fortress is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site based on its architectural history, the first group perceived such architectural and history value as low, and rather perceived the Hwaseong Fortress as a place for light walking and recreation. They were labeled the “Outing Seekers” (OS).
The second group had the largest number of visitors (38.0% of the sample) and showed a similar pattern to the “Outing Seekers,” with lower-than-average scores, and the lowest scores for historical value of relics, architecture, and architectural styles of the groups. This group was labeled the “Tourism Seekers” (TS) as visitors who want to see more various aspects of the place compared to the “Outing Seekers.”
The third group accounted for 23.0% of the sample, with a pattern similar to “Tourism Seekers,” but had the highest scores for historic value of relics, architecture, and architectural styles. This group was called the “Heritage Seekers” (HS) for those visitors who place high value on historical relics and architecture.
The last group, which accounted for 30.2% of the sample, scored the highest on all perceived place value items, especially historical cultural experience programs, acquiring traditional knowledge, and environmental and nature education. Although the distinction between Tourist and Traveler is not clear, tourism is about seeing every “must see” destination without an in-depth interest in the culture and customs of the destination, whereas travelers seek to recognize, respect, and experience the local culture and its customs. The fourth group was thus labeled the “Serious Travel Seekers” (SS).

4.4. Comparisons of Latent Profiles

More than half of the visitors in each latest profile recognized that Hwaseong Fortress was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The results are presented in Table 4. Specifically, the Heritage Seekers (90.7%) had the highest level of recognition, followed by Serious Travel Seekers (87.4%), Tourism Seekers (81.9%), and Outing Seekers (62.1%).
Table 5 shows the group comparisons of the degree to which the UNESCO World Heritage status of Hwaseong Fortress influenced the decision to visit. The results indicated that for all four groups, the average score was below 4, suggesting that the status did not have large influence on the decision to visit. By group, the Serious Travel Seekers (M = 3.39) had the highest average, followed by Tourism Seekers (M = 3.13), Heritage Seekers (M = 3.12), and Outing Seekers (M = 2.36).
Differences in behaviors measured as visit satisfaction and intent to revisit across groups are shown in Table 6. First, Serious Travel Seekers who scored highly on all items of place value, showed the highest satisfaction, and the Outing Seekers showed the lowest satisfaction. Similarly, the intent to revisit was scored higher in the groups that perceived the historical value of the fortress as higher.
Finally, as presented in Table 7, the time spent in travel to the Hwaseong fortress across groups indicated “within 30 min” as the most common in all four groups: Outing Seekers (34.5%), Tourism Seekers (33.7%), Heritage Seekers (35.8%), and Serious Travel Seekers (30.3%). For Outing Seekers, travel time was in descending order for “30 min–1 h,” “more than 2 h,” and “1–2 h.” The percentage of more than 2 h travel time was highest for this group. For Tourism Seekers, travel time was in descending order for “30 min–1 h,” “1–2 h,” and “more than 2 h,” suggesting that longer travel duration was related to lower visit rates. The order for Heritage Seekers was “1–2 h,” “30 min–1 h,” and “more than 2 h,” with the highest percentage of “30 min–1 h” of all groups. Serious Travel Seekers reported traveling in the order of “1–2 h,” “30 min–1 h,” and “more than 2 h,” with the highest percentage for “1–2 h”.

5. Discussion

The main goal of the present study was to examine the characteristics of visitors to a cultural heritage site based on an evaluation of place value, and not a visitor-centered classification that focuses on socio-demographic, travel motivation, and travel behaviors. In particular, this study extends the current literature on place value research by examining the value of a cultural heritage site not previously included.
Our findings and implications are discussed as follows. First, Hwaseong Fortress did have the physical and environmental factors including landscapes, vegetation, and environments, as well as the emotional and cognitive factors such as culture and history, which are the well-established place value formation factors proposed by Relph [13]. As the majority of place value research is conducted on natural resources such as national parks, forests, and lakes [15,16,17,18], an examination of the historic, cultural, and heritage values in place value formation has been lacking. Thus, the present study evaluated the place value of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress, a representative cultural heritage with UNESCO World Heritage status, and a natural resource built on a mountain, and extended place value research by fully identifying factors of place value formation including physical/environmental and emotional/cognitive factors. In particular, items on the historic, cultural, heritage, and learning values were modified to better fit with heritage cultural sites based on the charm and uniqueness of heritage, learning, and experience used in previous classifications of heritage tourists [1,28,29,30]. This enabled an evaluation of visitors’ place value.
Second, LPA was used to classify visitors into Outing Seekers (OS), Tourism Seekers (TS), Heritage Seekers (HS), and Serious Travel Seekers (SS). Previous place value research averaged place formation factors and classified visitors into high, middle, and low groups [46], or used an exploratory place Q methodology for classification [47,48,49], the limitations of which are the overlooking of various aspects of place value, and the subjective evaluation of qualitative research.
Third, cultural heritage tourists were classified according to the place value of a tourist destination instead of sociodemographic variables, travel motivation, and travel behaviors, allowing a more varied evaluation of cultural heritage sites [1,28,29,30]. For example, whereas OS scored low on the architectural and historical value of Hwaseong Fortress, and their value for aesthetic scenery/fragrance/sounds, physical/mental health promotion, and enjoyment provision with regards to the charms of nature were high, the HS gave high value to the historical value of relics, building, and architectural styles. TS perceived architectural/historical values higher than OS, and gave uneven but usually average levels of value to the fortress, whereas SS scored high on all values. These results suggest that even for a UNESCO World Heritage site, the visitor can evaluate other values more highly than the site’s historical/architectural value. Yet, visit satisfaction was highest in the order of the groups that most highly valued the historical value and charm of Hwaseong Fortress such as the historical value of architectural styles, traditional beauty of atmosphere and impression, and historical value of relics and architecture. The finding that perceived value affects satisfaction [8] suggests that when the representative value of a place is evaluated as high, satisfaction is also high, even when various values of a place are evaluated.
Fourth, a comparison of visit satisfaction and intent to revisit across groups showed that the average value for intent to revisit was higher than for visit satisfaction in all groups. This finding supports a previous finding that visit satisfaction may influence intent to revisit, but not always [8]. Also, this finding suggests that Hwaseong Fortress is attractive as a tourist destination, separate from visit satisfaction. According to a Suwon Visitor Survey [58], whereas 54.2% of visitors to Suwon went to Hwaseong Fortress, the number of visitors decreased to 21.3% in 2017. This may be due to the tourism policy of Suwon City in which the fortress is located, which is targeting the periphery instead of the center of the fortress. Efforts to revitalize the overall tourism of Suwon City were carried out by designating 2016 as the “Year to Visit Suwon Hwaseong Fortress” and included the dispersion of festivals, programs, and experiences related to the fortress to the surrounding areas.
Fifth, the present study differs from previous place value research that classifies visitors into local residents and outsiders [16,18] by classifying groups according to place value. An examination of the differences in residence by group revealed that the proportion for the following travel times from Hwaseong Fortress was highest in the following groups: OS were more than two hours, TS were within thirty minutes, HS were thirty minutes to one hour, and SS were one to two hours of the fortress. This supports previous findings that aspects of residence do not affect the classification of cultural tourists [29,47].

6. Conclusions

With recent developments in transportation and changes in the tourism paradigm, the distinction between local residents and tourists is becoming blurred when considering visitors. Even local residents in a tourist area can first be consumers before tourism providers. A daily place can become a non-daily place for local residents, with the best tourist spots being places of which local residents are satisfied and proud [35]. Suwon Hwaseong Fortress located in Suwon City can be a tourist destination for outsiders as a UNESCO World Heritage site, but also a place of leisure activities for Suwon residents. In this sense, this study goes beyond the dual-perspective approach of outsiders and local residents, and aims to integrate leisure and tourism places by segmenting visitors according to place value, and examining group differences in value evaluation of the World Heritage site. In particular, this study sought to expand the scope of the cultural heritage market that focuses on visitors with high levels of experience in cultural heritage, by also including local residents in the visitors that were asked to evaluate the place value of the site. Four latent profiles were obtained through LPA of place evaluation: Outing Seekers (OS), Tourism Seekers (TS), Heritage Seekers (HS), and Serious Travel Seekers (SS). The groups showed differences in time spent, and the effect of World Heritage sites on visitation, satisfaction, and intention to revisit. The classification based on place value of cultural heritage site visitors, and the relations between the obtained groups and variables derived from existing cultural heritage tourist studies, provide the following marketing strategies for each group.
First, OS have similar characteristics with the “recreational experience” group [30] that seek to escape through visiting famous destinations, “noncultural tourists” [29], and “incidental heritage tourists” [1,28]. Based on the characteristics of these groups, the OS do not have a high average number of visit nodes, and are generally not expected to visit many nodes. Thus, the provision of content that allows OS to engage lightly in cultural heritage programs are needed, instead of historical and cultural content.
Second, TS had relatively higher Suwon residents with a typical travel time of within 30 min, and although they showed many similarities with the OS, their historical value for relics, architecture, and architectural styles were lowest of the groups, and their value for attributes of content such as culture and history programs and storytelling was highest. Thus, in comparison to OS, TS seek various enjoyable activities and experiences. TS are similar to the “learning experience” group [30], “interested tourists” [29], and “serendipitous heritage tourists” who have low motivation yet desire a variety of experiences [1,28]. Even if cultural heritage or cultural tourism were not major factors in their travel decision making, they visited on average 4.23 nodes for approximately 2 h, thus suitable programs and performances are required for this group.
Third, HS reside 30 min to 1 h from Hwaseong Fortress, have the highest percentage of recognition of the fortress as a World Heritage site, and give high value to the architectural and traditional aesthetics of the fortress. This group is therefore similar to the “heritage experience” group that participates deeply in cultural heritage [30], “ritual tourists” [29], and “purposeful heritage tourists” whose main goal of visiting is to learn about and experience heritage [1,28]. TS have a strong desire to experience cultural heritage and to learn about other people and local cultures. Their interests in history and culture, and pursuit of high-quality experiences to satisfy intellectual needs, point to the need to provide a small number of historical and cultural exploration programs utilizing resources within Hwaseong Fortress that have not been opened to the public. The invitation of academic experts as an interpreter who can bring new perspectives and insights would be particularly important.
Finally, SS reside within 1 to 2 h of the fortress, and had the highest proportion of visitors who reported the World Heritage status as an important reason for visiting. This group emerged as the group of loyal visitors, as indicated by their evaluation of most place value items as high, and higher visit satisfaction and intent to revisit. Such characteristics indicate similarities with “erudite tourists” [29], and “sightseeing heritage tourists” [1,28], found in past studies. Although the main reason for visiting is to learn about other people’s culture and heritage, the high pursuit of entertaining experiences, and spending an average of 3 h and covering more than 2.49 miles, implies the necessity of having a flexible attitude that can easily switch to a loyal visitor market with the SS as the primary target.
With the onset of the fourth industrial revolution, mobile devices such as smartphones have made being online 24/7 and exploring information across on/offline boundaries possible. As routes to information access has become varied, the amount of information obtained has increased, which then further complicates and diversifies the needs of visitors to destination sites. Due to the nature of cultural heritage tourism that allows various experiences based on cultural heritage knowledge, the discussion of how to properly recognize and evaluate the place value of sites will continue. As Cerquetti and Ferrara [3] emphasized the importance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a part of sustainable cultural heritage development, research is needed to enable more visitors to enjoy the cultural heritage experience. From this perspective, this study makes a meaningful contribution to cultural heritage market segmentation research by classifying visitors according to an evaluation of place value of a cultural heritage site, rather than placing focus on cultural heritage tourists. It is of note that historical, cultural, and heritage values, which were not included in past place value research, was prominently demonstrated in an evaluation of place value at a cultural heritage site. Whereas the present study evaluated the place value of a mountain fortress that combines natural ecological resources with cultural history resources, future studies should examine the value of just cultural heritage resources for a better understanding of cultural heritage site characteristics. There are several resources listed as UNESCO World Heritage sites in Korea. A comparison analysis of these sites according to listing date and visitors’ place value will enrich the research literature on place evaluation.
The limitations of the present study are as follows. This study expanded the scope of the cultural heritage market by measuring the place value of a world heritage site from more diverse perspectives. However, like two-faced Janus, the emphasis placed on measuring diversity precluded a full explanation of each of the remaining place values. For example, the aesthetic value was only described as traditional beauty of atmosphere and impression, and attractive scenery, fragrances, and sounds. Kirillova et al. [68] examined dimensions of aesthetic judgment by paying attention to aesthetic properties of a place such as scale, presence/absence of people, time, condition, sound, balance, diversity, novelty, shape, and uniqueness. The name Hwaseong means “beautiful castle.” In addition, as a fortress located in the mountain, both local and outsider visitors enjoy the beauty of the castle that is in harmony with the four seasons. It is therefore necessary to focus on the aesthetic aspects in future studies, in order to provide implications for related projects and policies based on visitors’ needs.

Author Contributions

Project administration and funding acquisition, H.S. Conceptualization, Modeling and Survey Review, all authors; Survey and Data Collection, H.S. Methodology and Data Analysis on Latent Profile Analysis, H.S.; Overall guidance on heritage and sustainability aspect, H.K.; Writing—original draft preparation H.S.; Writing—review and editing, all authors. All authors read and approved.

Funding

This research was funded by 2018 Basic Research of Suwon Research Institute, SRI-basic-2018-07.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McKercher, B. Towards a classification of cultural tourists. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2002, 4, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Poria, Y. Clarifying Heritage Tourism: Distinguishing Heritage Tourists from Tourists in Heritage Places. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cerquetti, M.; Ferrara, C. Marketing research for cultural heritage conservation and sustainability: Lessons from the field. Sustainability 2018, 10, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Assael, H. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action; South-Western College Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buonincontri, P.; Marasco, A.; Ramkissoon, H. Visitors’ experience, place attachment and sustainable behaviour at cultural heritage sites: A conceptual framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gallarza, M.G.; Saura, I.G. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pandža Bajs, I. Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2889–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Yoon, Y.S.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, C.K. Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, H.; Cho, T.; Wang, H.; Ge, Q. The influence of cross-cultural awareness and tourist experience on authenticity, tourist satisfaction and acculturation in World Cultural Heritage Sites of Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schmutz, V.; Elliott, M.A. Tourism and sustainability in the evaluation of World Heritage Sites, 1980–2010. Sustainability 2016, 8, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Relph, E. Place and Placelessness; Pion: London, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  14. Relph, E. Geographical Experiences and Being-in-the-World: The Phenomenological Origins of Geography. In Place and Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, G. Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brown, G.; Raymond, C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beverly, J.L.; Uto, K.; Wilkes, J.; Bothwell, P. Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: An internet-based participatory mapping approach. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhu, X.; Pfueller, S.; Whitelaw, P.; Winter, C. Spatial differentiation of landscape values in the Murray River region of Victoria, Australia. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 896–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. UNESCO World Heritage Portal. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/817 (accessed on 25 November 2018).
  20. Özel, Ç.H.; Kozak, N. Motive based segmentation of the cultural tourism market: A study of Turkish domestic tourists. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2012, 13, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pearce, P.L. Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes; Channel View: Clevedon, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chang, L.Y.; Liu, W. Temple fairs in Taiwan: Environmental strategies and competitive advantage for cultural tourism. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 900–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hausmann, A. Cultural tourism: Marketing challenges and opportunities for German cultural heritage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2007, 13, 170–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rudan, E. Possibilities for developing cultural tourism in the municipality of moscenicka draga: The case of historical trails. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 13, 515–522. [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, Y.D. Cultural events and cultural tourism development: Lessons from the European Capitals of Culture. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 498–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hall, M.; Zeppel, H. Cultural and heritage tourism: The new grand tour. Hist. Environ. 1990, 7, 86. [Google Scholar]
  27. Formica, S.; Uysal, M. Market segmentation of an international cultural-historical event in Italy. J. Travel Res. 1998, 36, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alazaizeh, M.M.; Hallo, J.C.; Backman, S.J.; Norman, W.C.; Vogel, M.A. Value orientations and heritage tourism management at Petra Archaeological Park, Jordan. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Espelt, N.G.; Benito, J.A. Visitors’ behavior in heritage cities: The case of Girona. J. Travel Res. 2006, 44, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage sites. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kerstetter, D.L.; Confer, J.J.; Graefe, A.R. An exploration of the specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. J. Travel Res. 2001, 39, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Teo, C.B.; Khan, N.R.; Rahim, F.H. Understanding cultural heritage visitor behavior: The case of Melaka as world heritage city. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 130, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Hwaseong Fortress: General Information. Available online: http://www.swcf.or.kr/?p=58 (accessed on 16 December 2018).
  34. Kang, Y. The Assessment of Visit Year 2016 Suwon Hwaseong; Suwon Research Institute: Suwon, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Song, H. The Usage Pattern and Improvement Plan of the Trail in Suwon Hwaseong Fortress; Suwon Research Institute: Suwon, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  36. Song, H. The Suwon Development Plan for Tourism City of the Year 2018; Suwon Research Institute: Suwon, Korea, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Hwaseong Fortress: Night Tour in Heritage Sites. Available online: http://www.swcf.or.kr/?p=207 (accessed on 16 December 2018).
  38. Suwon Cultural Foundation. King Jeongjo Tomb Parade. Available online: http://www.swcf.or.kr/?p=244 (accessed on 16 December 2018).
  39. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Tourism Events, Experience, Activities in Hwaseong Fortress. Available online: http://www.swcf.or.kr/?p=74 (accessed on 16 December 2018).
  40. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tuan, Y.F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience; University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MCST). International and Domestic Visitor Survey. 2017. Available online: https://www.kcti.re.kr/03_3.dmw?method=view&dataSeq=694&dataId=1 (accessed on 25 November 2018).
  43. Mowen, A.; Graefe, A.; Ferguson, M.; Graefe, D. Pennsylvania State Forest/Park Visitor Use Monitoring (VUM) Study; Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, PA, USA, 2013.
  44. Kim, Y.; Kim, H.; Paek, N. Comparison between hiker and non-hiker’s sense of place value at Namhan sanseong provincial park. J. Korean Soc. Rural Plan. 2015, 21, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Park, C.; Song, H. Visitors’ perceived place value and the willingness to pay in an urban lake park. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kaltenborn, B.P. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts: A study among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic. Appl. Geogr. 1998, 18, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hutson, G.; Montgomery, D.; Caneday, L. Perceptions of outdoor recreation professionals toward place meanings in natural environments: A Q-method inquiry. J. Leis. Res. 2010, 42, 417–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hutson, G.; Montgomery, D. Demonstrating the value of extending qualitative research strategies into Q. Operant Subj. 2011, 34, 234–246. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, I.B. Person-Place Engagement among Recreation Visitors: A Q-Method Inquiry. Doctoral Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  50. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Available online: http://english.swcf.or.kr/?p=34&mode=view&idx=55&rIdx=99999837 (accessed on 25 November 2018).
  51. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Hwaseong Fortress: Facility Information, Namsumun. Available online: www.swcf.or.kr/?p=59&listGubun=list&page=5&viewMode=view&idx=3 (accessed on 15 December 2018).
  52. Suwon Photo Bank. The Blueprint of Namsumun in the Hwaseong Songyouk Eugye. Available online: http://photo.suwon.go.kr/photoDetail.asp?photo_id=P000000160&page=1 (accessed on 15 December 2018).
  53. Kim, H.; Oh, C.; Lee, S.; Lee, S. Assessing the economic values of World Heritage Sites and the effects of perceived authenticity on their values. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Hwaseong Fortress: Facility Information, Banghwasuryujeong Pavilion. Available online: www.swcf.or.kr/?p=59&listGubun=list&page=1&viewMode=view&idx=40 (accessed on 15 December 2018).
  55. Suwon Cultural Foundation. Hwaseong Fortress: Facility Information, Eastern Command Post. Available online: www.swcf.or.kr/?p=59&listGubun=list&page=2&viewMode=view&idx=28 (accessed on 15 December 2018).
  56. Han, S. Tourism management plan for conserving the authenticity at heritage sites. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2015, 29, 33–43. [Google Scholar]
  57. Song, H. A Research on Improvement of Tourism Statistics in Suwon; Suwon Research Institute: Suwon, Korea, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  58. Song, H. 2017 Suwon Visitor Survey and Trend Report; Suwon Research Institute: Suwon, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bergman, L.R.; Trost, K. The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer Q. 2006, 52, 601–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cohen, S.; Neira, L. Measuring preference for product benefits across countries. In Proceedings of the ESOMAR 2003 Latin America Conference, Punta del Este, Uruguay, May 2003. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pulido-Fernández, J.I.; Sánchez-Rivero, M. Attitudes of the cultural tourist: A latent segmentation approach. J. Cult. Econ. 2010, 34, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Van der Ark, L.A.; Richards, G. Attractiveness of cultural activities in European cities: A latent class approach. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1408–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kemperman, A.D.; Timmermans, H.J. Latent class analysis of leisure activity patterns: Segments and their covariates. In Proceedings of the 86th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 21–25 January 2007. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ven, S. Residents’ participation, perceived impacts, and support for community-based ecotourism in Cambodia: A latent profile analysis. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, 836–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Song, H.; Bae, S.Y. Understanding the travel motivation and patterns of international students in Korea: Using the theory of travel career pattern. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nylund, K.L.; Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B.O. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct. Equ. Model. 2007, 14, 535–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Magidson, J.; Vermunt, J. Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means. Can. J. Mark. Res. 2002, 20, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kirillova, K.; Fu, X.; Lehto, X.; Cai, L. What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 00132 g001 550
Figure 1. Cultural Tourist Classification Model (Source: McKercher [1]. p. 32.).
Figure 1. Cultural Tourist Classification Model (Source: McKercher [1]. p. 32.).
Sustainability 11 00132 g001
Sustainability 11 00132 g002 550
Figure 2. The integrity and authenticity of Hwaseong Fortress [33]. (a) The Blueprint of Hwaseong fortress; (b) panoramic view of the part of Hwaseong Fortress.
Figure 2. The integrity and authenticity of Hwaseong Fortress [33]. (a) The Blueprint of Hwaseong fortress; (b) panoramic view of the part of Hwaseong Fortress.
Sustainability 11 00132 g002
Sustainability 11 00132 g003 550
Figure 3. Various performance, experience programs, and tourism attractions in Hwaseong Fortress. (a) Traditional martial art [37]; (b) Night tour [37]; (c) King Jeongjo tomb parade [38]; (d) Flying Suwom (i.e., hot air-balloon experience) [39]; (e) Hwaseong Fortress tourist trolley [39].
Figure 3. Various performance, experience programs, and tourism attractions in Hwaseong Fortress. (a) Traditional martial art [37]; (b) Night tour [37]; (c) King Jeongjo tomb parade [38]; (d) Flying Suwom (i.e., hot air-balloon experience) [39]; (e) Hwaseong Fortress tourist trolley [39].
Sustainability 11 00132 g003
Sustainability 11 00132 g004 550
Figure 4. The restoration of Hwaseong Fortress: (a) Namsumun (water gate), restored in 2012 [51]; (b) the blueprint of Namsumun in the Hwaseong Songyouk Eugye [52].
Figure 4. The restoration of Hwaseong Fortress: (a) Namsumun (water gate), restored in 2012 [51]; (b) the blueprint of Namsumun in the Hwaseong Songyouk Eugye [52].
Sustainability 11 00132 g004
Sustainability 11 00132 g005 550
Figure 5. Images of UNESCO World Heritage Hwaseong Fortress: (a) Banghwasuryujeong Pavilion [54], (b) Eastern Command Post and Hwaseong Fortress Trail [55].
Figure 5. Images of UNESCO World Heritage Hwaseong Fortress: (a) Banghwasuryujeong Pavilion [54], (b) Eastern Command Post and Hwaseong Fortress Trail [55].
Sustainability 11 00132 g005
Sustainability 11 00132 g006 550
Figure 6. T-scores of place value for each profile.
Figure 6. T-scores of place value for each profile.
Sustainability 11 00132 g006
Table
Table 1. Measurement of place value in natural resource sites.
Table 1. Measurement of place value in natural resource sites.
Site and SampleBrown [12]Brown and Raymond [13]Beverly et al. [14]Zhu et al. [15]Kim et al. [34]
Measurement Value Resident (R)Resident (R), Visitor (V)Resident (R)Resident (R), Visitor (V)Resident (R), Visitor (V)
Aesthetic/Scenic value (a)◎◎◎◎◎
Economic value (b)◎◎◎◎
Recreation value (c)◎◎◎◎◎
Life sustaining value (d)◎◎ ◎
Learning value (e)◎◎◎◎◎
Biological diversity value (f)◎◎◎◎◎
Spiritual value (g)◎◎◎◎◎
Intrinsic value (h)◎◎ ◎◎
Historic value (i)◎ ◎
Future value (j)◎◎ ◎
Subsistence value (k)◎ ◎
Therapeutic value (l)◎◎ ◎◎
Cultural value (m)◎
Wilderness value (n)◎◎◎◎◎
Heritage value (o) ◎ ◎◎
Existence value (p) ◎
Social bonding value(q) ◎
Local activity value (r) ◎
Source: Reorganization of previous research findings; Note: ◎ means “Included”.
Table
Table 2. Latent profile model fit indices.
Table 2. Latent profile model fit indices.
Number of Profiles (k)AICBICEntropyLMR LRT p ValueAdjusted LMR LRT p Value
214,663.12814,815.6580.9060.0000.000
313,931.94014,138.3030.9190.0210.021
413,012.31313,272.5110.9610.0710.071
Notes: Boldface type indicates the selected model; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin; LRT = Likelihood Radio. Test (comparison with a (k − 1) class model).
Table
Table 3. Sample characteristics by latent profile.
Table 3. Sample characteristics by latent profile.
Place ValueOuting Seekers; OS (8.8%)Tourism Seekers; TS (38.0%)Heritage Seekers; HS (23.0%)Serious Travel Seekers; SS (30.2%)
Aesthetic scenery/fragrance/sounds3.24(1.00)3.72(0.66)4.01(0.72)4.65(0.59)
Various historical cultural experience programs2.93(0.90)3.43(0.69)3.30(0.73)4.37(0.67)
Historical value of relics and building3.45(0.96)4.10(0.45)4.87(0.36)4.94(0.28)
Historical value of architectural styles2.86(0.40)4.00(0.00)5.00(0.00)5.00(0.00)
Traditional beauty of atmosphere and impression3.36(0.74)3.91(0.52)4.46(0.69)4.89(0.33)
Physical/mental health promotion3.47(0.75)3.90(0.57)3.98(0.63)4.78(0.43)
Giving good impression to companions3.40(0.82)3.84(0.64)3.95(0.64)4.76(0.46)
Acquiring national culture and traditional knowledge3.14(0.91)3.63(0.59)3.68(0.70)4.76(0.45)
Environmental and nature education3.29(0.92)3.64(0.62)3.52(0.76)4.62(0.56)
Providing enjoyment3.52(0.88)3.93(0.60)4.17(0.57)4.85(0.38)
Providing a lot of benefits compared to expenditure3.24(0.98)3.68(0.76)3.79(0.87)4.60(0.66)
Average3.263.804.074.75
N58249151198
The standard deviations are in parenthesis.
Table
Table 4. Recognition of Hwaseong Fortress as a World Heritage site by latent profile.
Table 4. Recognition of Hwaseong Fortress as a World Heritage site by latent profile.
Latent ProfileChi Square
OSTSHSSS
Yes62.1%81.9%90.7%87.4%28.078 *
No37.9%18.1%9.3%12.6%
* p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. World Heritage status as a visit factor by latent profile.
Table 5. World Heritage status as a visit factor by latent profile.
Latent ProfileF
OSTSHSSS
World Heritage status as a visit factor 12.36 (1.15)3.13 (1.12)3.12 (1.21)3.39 (1.29)7.595 *
1 Rated on a five-point scale from 1 (not at all influenced) to 5 (strongly influenced); * p < 0.001. The standard deviations are in parenthesis.
Table
Table 6. Behavioral differences by latent profile.
Table 6. Behavioral differences by latent profile.
Latent ProfileF
OSTSHSSS
Visit satisfaction 13.48 (0.68)3.81 (0.55)3.99 (0.55)4.52 (0.57)80.085 *
Intent to revisit 23.74 (0.74)3.99 (0.64)4.15 (0.62)4.57 (0.53)44.049 *
1 Rated on a five-point scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied); 2 Rated on a five-point scale from 1 (will not visit again) to 5 (definitely will visit again); * p < 0.001, The standard deviations are in parenthesis.
Table
Table 7. Time spent in travel to Hwaseong Fortress.
Table 7. Time spent in travel to Hwaseong Fortress.
Travel DurationLatent ProfileChi Square
OSTSHSSS
Within 30 min34.5%33.7%35.8%30.3%16.478 *
30 min–1 h32.8%29.7%36.4%25.3%
1 h–2 h13.8%25.3%15.9%28.3%
More than 2 h19.0%11.2%11.9%16.2%
Total100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
* p < 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Song, H.; Kim, H. Value-Based Profiles of Visitors to a World Heritage Site: The Case of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress (in South Korea). Sustainability 2019, 11, 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010132

AMA Style

Song H, Kim H. Value-Based Profiles of Visitors to a World Heritage Site: The Case of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress (in South Korea). Sustainability. 2019; 11(1):132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010132

Chicago/Turabian Style

Song, Hwasung, and Hyun Kim. 2019. "Value-Based Profiles of Visitors to a World Heritage Site: The Case of Suwon Hwaseong Fortress (in South Korea)" Sustainability 11, no. 1: 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010132

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop