How Visitors Perceive Heritage Value—A Quantitative Study on Visitors’ Perceived Value and Satisfaction of Architectural Heritage through SEM
Department of the Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 9002; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119002
Submission received: 11 May 2023
/
Revised: 23 May 2023
/
Accepted: 29 May 2023
/
Published: 2 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Abstract
:In a time when heritage conservation is coordinated with tourism and urban renewal to achieve sustainable development, value is considered as the intrinsic factor of heritage protection, utilization, and management. From the perspective of visitors, this article aims to delve into the key factors of the perceived value of architectural heritage and their relationship with the value types, via structural equation modeling (SEM). This article constructs a research model of the perceived value, perceived enjoyment, visit satisfaction, and post-visit behavioral intention of architectural heritage, based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The data for the analysis were 271 eligible questionnaires obtained from an anonymous random sample of visitors to architectural heritage sites in Guangzhou, Guangdong (Canton) Province, China. The results show that visitors’ perception of architectural heritage value does not follow the value types proposed by experts, but is based on a comprehensive assessment of personal perceptions. Meanwhile, visitors’ perceived value mainly depends on the artistic value, although the historical value is recognized by experts as dominant, and visitors prefer historical stories that are intertwined with culture. The results also reveal that, as with the perceived value, the perceived enjoyment, which was rarely considered in heritage conservation and management in the past, has a considerable positive impact on visit satisfaction, and can also improve visitors’ perceived value. The proposed theory model and research results can serve as a valuable reference for cultural heritage management and for operators of cultural heritage tourism destinations, and can also provide new ideas and methods for heritage value research.
1. Introduction
With the increasing level of urbanization, China has fully entered the stock era, and the construction direction has changed to optimize urban resources, enhance urban quality and improve cultural life. Various built heritage sites, especially architectural heritage sites, have become well-received tourist attractions and are among the core drivers of urban stock renewal and development [1].
Accordingly, in September 2021, the Opinions on Strengthening the Protection and Inheritance of History and Culture in Urban-Rural Construction (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions) was issued, emphasizing the rational utilization of the architectural heritage sites, integrating protection and inheritance into current economic and social development, ecological civilization construction, and modern life [2]. It is generally accepted that heritage conservation can be compatible with heritage consumption, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism is one of the effective strategies to balance conservation, financial support, and public access [3].
Architectural heritage not only attracts tourism and drives tourist-derived revenue, but also brings about broader economic, social, and environmental benefits. However, the future of tourism is likely to see significant development through innovative management approaches that are informed by decision making regarding heritage resource management in response to increasingly diverse and personalized needs [4].
However, the relationship between heritage and tourism has not been fully explored from a tourist’s perspective [5]. This paper employs the well-established SEM research method and develops a model of “perceived value”, “perceived enjoyment”, “visit satisfaction”, and “post-visit behavioral intention” regarding architectural heritage sites based on ACSI. The “perceived value” is further deconstructed into four dimensions: artistic, historical, cultural, and scientific values. By analyzing visitors’ responses to questionnaires, this study aims to explore their real experiences, perceived values, and expectations. This has significant theoretical implications and a wide range of practical applications.
Secondly, from the perspective of heritage conservation, value is the intrinsic reason behind, and the primary factor of, heritage protection and reuse. Value evaluation is recognized as the cornerstone of and key step in conservation and management [6]. In recent years, one of the most important changes has been the expansion from experts as authorities to the involvement of a range of stakeholders, especially community residents and visitors [7]. Mason pointed out that the diversity of value is rooted in the values of subjects [8].
However, extensive studies have continuously deepened and broadened the value connotations and types of built heritage from the perspective of experts, while little research has explored the perceived value of built heritage from the perspective of most visitors [9].
Thirdly, China’s architectural heritage faces serious challenges, such as undiversified service, conservative exhibition, isolation from public life, poor attraction, and low willingness to revisit, all of which are in urgent need of improvement [10]. On this premise, it has become imperative to understand visitors’ perception of architectural heritage sites, uncover the factors and underlying mechanisms of visitors’ perceived value and satisfaction, so as to make objective judgments and optimize strategies for the management and utilization of architectural heritage sites [11], which is also a shared requirement of numerous heritage tourism destinations worldwide.
This research aims to address the following research questions:
- How do visitors experience the value of an architectural heritage site?
- Is their perception of value affected by the value types proposed by experts?
- What type of value is most attractive to visitors?
- What is the relationship between the perceived value and the perceived enjoyment?
- Are visit satisfaction and the post-visit behavioral intention determined by the perceived value and the perceived enjoyment?
2. Literature
2.1. Visit Satisfaction
Generally speaking, satisfaction refers to the subjective evaluation of a product or service in terms of meeting customer needs and expectations [12], or the overall level of satisfaction of tourists with the tourism object and process [13]. The chain of perceived value–satisfaction–loyalty (or post-visit behavioral intention) has been repeatedly verified by a large number of studies with reference to four major international theories: the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) [14], the European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) [15], the evaluation model and the Service Quality Model (SERVQUAL) [16], and the measurement dimensions of the China Tourism Institute on Tourism Satisfaction Survey (China’s domestic research) [17].
Based on the ACSI, this article constructs a research model of the perceived value, visit satisfaction and post-visit behavioral intention regarding architectural heritage sites. Perceived value has an indirect effect on behavioral intention through the intermediary of satisfaction. Satisfaction is the result of perceived value, while post-visit behavioral intention is the final outcome variable [18].
2.2. Perceived Value
The perceived value is a combination of economic and time cost, and physical and spiritual benefit [19], which has been proved to be the crucial element in cultural heritage planning and heritage tourism management, as it strongly influences tourists’ satisfaction [20].
Research on perceived value can usually be separated into various variables corresponding to the characteristics of products and services [21]. For example, it can be considered as all or a few of the following variables: efficiency, excellence, status, esteem, play, aesthetics, ethics, and spirituality [22]. It can also be separated into two variables: utilitarian value and hedonic value [23]. The Global Visitor Perceived Value Scale includes six variables: facility functional value, professional skills of travel agency personnel, package tourism product quality, functional value, emotional value, and social value [24]. In terms of built heritage, Chinese scholars have also designed various “perceived value” dimensions (see Table 1).
According to the value characteristics of architectural heritage, this research aims to explore the “function” and “entertainment” variables in the “perceived value”, as well as the influencing mechanism on satisfaction and post-visit behavioral intention. In order to distinguish it from the following architectural heritage value, this study named the two variables of “function” and “entertainment” as “perceived value” and “perceived enjoyment”, respectively.
Table 1.
List of second-order variables of perceived value (Chinese study).
| Research Object | Author | Elements of Perceived Value |
|---|---|---|
| Countryside tour | Zhang [25] | Cultural value, natural value, basic adjustment, product characteristics, personnel service, and cognitive cost |
| Countryside tour | Cai [26] | Management and service value, facility value, landscape value, project value, social value, spiritual value, cost value |
| Cultural heritage | Sui, Li and Cheng [27] | Quality value, efficiency value, service value, cost value, social value and hedonic value |
| Traditional villages | Li and Zhang [28] | Social value, emotional value, cognitive value, functional value |
| Traditional villages | Li [29] | Emotional value, tourism resources perception, cognitive value, social value, perception of non-economic costs, perception of tour guide service, perception of economic cost, perception of community service |
2.3. Value Types of Architectural Heritage
Over the past few decades, heritage value has become one of the paramount issues in discussions on conservation and restoration, within a multicultural context [30]. Mason has proposed a vivid analogy, that is, these value typologies tend to describe the same pie sliced in different ways to depict the diversity of heritage value typologies constructed by various scholars and organizations over time and across different cultures [31]. This article defines the perceived value as the set of perceptual value of all the attributes encountered throughout the visit [32].
On the one hand, unlike most existing tourism-based research, this article aims to establish a more direct connection between the value characteristics of architectural heritage and the variable of “perceived value”, and to reveal visitors’ perceptions of popular heritage value types and their contributions to visitors’ overall perceived value through quantitative analysis. Scholars have many definitions of the same or different types of value, among which the most popular ones are recognized artistic (aesthetic) value, historical value, cultural value, and scientific (technical) value [33].
On the other hand, these four types of value are the main elements of visitors’ consumption and experience. Meanwhile, the value types should be distinguished clearly and be simple enough to avoid obscuring the connotations of general visitor questionnaires. For example, we chose cultural value and excluded social value because there is too much overlap between them, and also because economic value is too difficult for laypersons to evaluate, while emotional value can easily lead to different understandings.
3. Materials and Methodology
There are three steps in this study. The first step was to construct a theoretical framework (structural equation model) based on the fully validated ACSI model and to propose hypotheses. The second step was to process the qualified questionnaire and analyze the data through SPSS 19 and AMOS 23. The third step was to verify the theoretical model through AMOS 23 and analyze the key influencing factors.
3.1. Theoretical Framework
The structural equation model (SEM) is a statistical research method, which is widely used to analyze linear relationships between observed and latent variables, or between latent variables. It has been widely applied in tourism research to investigate constructs such as value, satisfaction, and post-trip behavior intention, yielding substantial empirical support [5,6,18]. In terms of product and service satisfaction, a research model is built by extending the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) according to the characteristics of heritage tourism [23]. The ACSI is flexible enough to be applied to different research objectives, so it is widely used in extensive fields, including heritage tourism and management [34]. The research model of this study is as follows (see Figure 1).
3.2. Hypotheses
Based on the literature review and interviews with five experts on architectural heritage conservation and management from South China University of Technology, hypotheses are proposed in this paper. Figure 1 shows all assumed path coefficients and their correlations. The details of these hypotheses are explained as follows.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Perceived value (PV) has a significant positive impact on visit satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Perceived enjoyment (PE) has a significant positive impact on visit satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Visit satisfaction (VS) has a significant positive impact on post-visit behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Perceived enjoyment (PE) has a significant positive impact on post-visit behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Perceived enjoyment (PE) has a significant positive impact on perceived value.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Artistic value (AV) has a significant positive impact on perceived value.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Historical value (HV) has a significant positive impact on perceived value.
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
Cultural value (CV) has a significant positive impact on perceived value.
Hypothesis 9 (H9).
Scientific value (SV) has a significant positive impact on perceived value.
3.3. Questionnaire Design
For built heritage, questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis are recognized as the most effective quantitative methods to study the perception and experience of a large number of individuals, and also to more reliably verify the proposed hypotheses [35]. Accordingly, a questionnaire was designed to identify latent variables that contribute to the overall satisfaction with the heritage visit.
The questionnaire consists of two parts: basic demographic information and latent variables. The demographic part includes names and order scales with 5 items: gender (BD1), age (BD2), education level (BD3), residential area (BD4), and monthly household income (BD5). The latent variables contain (1) artistic value; (2) historical value; (3) cultural value; (4) scientific value; (5) perceived value; (6) perceived enjoyment; (7) visit satisfaction; (8) post-visit behavioral intention. Most of the questions on each variable are adapted from well-validated scales, and the expression of the questions has been appropriately adjusted according to the research content (see Table 2). For example, the questions about the perceived value are adapted from studies by Wang [36] and Boo, Busser and Baloglu [37]. For this part, respondents use a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to express their agreement or disagreement.
To confirm the standardization and validity of the questionnaire and each item, we first consulted 5 related experts in the field of architectural heritage from South China University of Technology, and then conducted a pilot survey of 50 visitors in the Guangzhou Guangxiao Temple. Based on the analysis of the reliability and validity of the pre-survey, the questionnaire was revised until all measurement items performed well and reached acceptable levels (Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.8, KMO > 0.75) [38].
Table 2.
The source of variable items.
| Elements | Items | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Artistic value | AV1. This architectural heritage site is visually attractive. AV2. This architectural heritage brings me aesthetic pleasure. AV3. This architectural heritage represents a model of local architectural art in a certain period. | Yan [39] |
| Historical value | HV1. This architectural heritage reflects local historical background. HV2. This architectural heritage can show one or more important stages in local history. HV3. This architectural heritage is worth experiencing the historical space. | Yan [39]; Chang et al. [40] |
| Cultural value | CV1. This architectural heritage allows me to better understand local culture. CV2. This architectural heritage is a concrete manifestation of the development of local culture. CV3. This architectural heritage can enhance my cultural literacy. | Yan [39]; Žabkar, Brenčič, and Dmitrović [41] |
| Scientific value | SV1. This architectural heritage can show the wisdom of predecessors. SV2. This architectural heritage can be used as a model of similar architectural design. SV3. This architectural heritage is exquisite in craftsmanship. | Yan [39]; Chang et al. [40] |
| Perceived value | PV1. I think the overall value of this architectural heritage is very high. PV2. I think visiting this architectural heritage is worth the price. PV3. It makes me feel very good to visit this architectural heritage. | Wang [36]; Boo, Busser and Baloglu [37] |
| Perceived entertaining | PE1. I relaxed during the visit. PE2. I think the process of visiting this architectural heritage is very interesting. PE3. This visit left me with pleasant memories. | Zhou [42]; Assaker, Vinzi and O’Connor [43] |
| Visit satisfaction | TS1. Generally speaking, I enjoyed my time spent in this architectural heritage. TS2. Generally speaking, I think this architectural heritage is worth a visit. TS3. Generally speaking, I like this architectural heritage very much. | Dou [44]; Xue, Hu and Bai [45] |
| Post-visit behavioral intention | BI1. If given the opportunity, I will choose to revisit the architectural heritage. BI2. I would recommend my relatives and friends to visit here. BI3. I will introduce the architectural heritage to others. | Zhou [42]; Liu and Chen [46] |
3.4. Data Collection
To test the hypotheses, Guangzhou (Guangdong/Canton province, China) was selected as the research area. Guangzhou was identified as one of the first batch of national historical and cultural cities, with a rich architectural heritage. At the same time, Guangzhou is one of the most economically developed cities in China, and ranks among the top in China, in terms of heritage management, revitalization, and tourism (see Figure 2).
This study selected four architectural heritage sites for investigation: Guangzhou Guangxiao Temple, Chen Clan Ancestral Hall, Sacred Heart Cathedral, and Shamian Architectural Complex, all of which are located in the old town of Guangzhou and have been identified as national cultural relic protection units in China. They respectively correspond to the mainstream architectural heritage site types in China: the traditional temple, traditional ancestral hall, colonial architecture, and architectural complex.
The survey took place on 1 October, 6 October, 17 October, and 26 October 2019, at the exit of the sites. The investigators were trained second- and third-grade undergraduates majoring in architecture. The data collection method was simple random sampling, face-to-face interviews, and on-site completion of surveys. Respondents were visitors aged 12 and above, and the number of them was determined by the size and internal homogeneity of visitors when they arrived.
The ratio of observed variables (all latent variable items) to the number of questionnaires in the model is generally 1:10–1:15 [47]. Since there are 24 observed variables in the research model, the valid questionnaire sample must be more than 240. In this study, 360 questionnaires were distributed and 360 were returned, of which 271 were valid and the rest were excluded. The quantity of questionnaires met the requirements of SEM analysis. The demographic characteristics of the visitor sample are shown in Table 3.
It is worth noting that (1) the survey was conducted in 2019, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) due to the significant differences between architectural heritage tourism sites and general tourism sites, such as the former being more informative than entertaining, there are distinct demographic characteristics of surveyed groups that differ from those of ordinary tourists. For instance, the visitors surveyed tended to be younger, with 57.6 percent aged between 15 and 25. This is partly due to the higher non-response rate among older visitors, while younger individuals were more likely to participate in the survey; (3) out of 271 questionnaires, only two were completed by foreign visitors. Despite being an international city with a large number of foreign visitors, Guangzhou also has a particularly high ratio of Chinese to foreign visitors. According to the Guangzhou Yearbook (2015), there were 3,002,600 foreign tourists in 2014 out of a total of 162 million tourists, accounting for only 1.9% [48].
Table 3.
Demographic characteristics of the sample statistics (unit: %).
| Variables | Items | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| BD1 Gender | Male | 39.9 |
| Female | 60.1 | |
| BD2 Age | Under 15 | 0.0 |
| 15–24 years old | 57.6 | |
| 25–34 years old | 25.5 | |
| 35–44 years old | 9.2 | |
| 45–54 years old | 6.6 | |
| 55–64 years old | 0.7 | |
| 65 years old and above | 0.4 | |
| BD3 Education | Junior high school and below | 2.2 |
| High school and technical secondary school, vocational school | 16.6 | |
| Junior college | 20.3 | |
| Undergraduate | 53.5 | |
| Master degree and above | 7.4 | |
| BD4 Residential area | Guangzhou | 41.7 |
| Other cities in Guangdong Province | 30.3 | |
| Other provinces of China | 27.3 | |
| Foreign country | 0.7 | |
| BD5 Monthly household income | Below 6000 RMB | 19.6 |
| 6001–9000 RMB | 29.5 | |
| 9001–12,000 RMB | 16.6 | |
| 12,001–15,000 RMB | 9.6 | |
| 15,001–18,000 RMB | 6.6 | |
| 18,001–21,000 RMB | 5.2 | |
| 21,001 or more RMB | 12.9 | |
| BD6 Visit companion | Tour with family | 24.4 |
| Tour with friends | 62.4 | |
| Travel alone | 9.6 | |
| Other | 3.7 |
4. Analysis and Results
The SEM analysis consisted of three steps: (1) the reliability and validity verification; (2) the fitness assessment of the research model; (3) the analysis of key factors and path of the structural model [49].
4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
The SEM studies should validate the variables and items of the research model before conducting the analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a recognized method to verify reliability and validity. Therefore, this study started with CFA analysis of all variables and items.
The eight variables of the SEM are shown in Table 4.
The factor loading (Std.) of all items is between 0.6 and 0.9, except for the AV3 item of the artistic value variable, and the factor loading of AV3 is also above 0.5. Therefore, the factor loadings of each item in this research model met the standards. Secondly, the composition reliability (CR) of each item is between 0.7 and 0.9, indicating that they had sufficient internal consistency. Thirdly, the convergence validity (AVE) of each item is greater than 0.5, which proves that the convergence validity among the items met the requirements [14,47].
Table 4.
Reliability and validity analysis.
| Variable | Item | Parameter Significance Estimation | Factor Loading | Item Reliability | Composition Reliability | Convergence Validity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstd. | S.E. | t-Value | p | Std. | SMC | CR | AVE | ||
| Perceived value | PV3 | 1.000 | 0.684 | 0.468 | 0.849 | 0.655 | |||
| PV2 | 1.287 | 0.110 | 11.723 | *** | 0.847 | 0.717 | |||
| PV1 | 1.362 | 0.117 | 11.676 | *** | 0.883 | 0.780 | |||
| Perceived enjoyment | PE1 | 1.000 | 0.752 | 0.566 | 0.863 | 0.678 | |||
| PE2 | 1.241 | 0.094 | 13.248 | *** | 0.859 | 0.738 | |||
| PE3 | 1.147 | 0.087 | 13.236 | *** | 0.855 | 0.731 | |||
| Visit satisfaction | TS1 | 1.000 | 0.835 | 0.697 | 0.874 | 0.699 | |||
| TS2 | 1.110 | 0.072 | 15.505 | *** | 0.908 | 0.824 | |||
| TS3 | 1.021 | 0.074 | 13.785 | *** | 0.759 | 0.576 | |||
| Post-visit behavioral intention | BI1 | 1.000 | 0.763 | 0.582 | 0.852 | 0.658 | |||
| BI2 | 0.898 | 0.070 | 12.846 | *** | 0.876 | 0.767 | |||
| BI3 | 0.855 | 0.068 | 12.524 | *** | 0.790 | 0.624 | |||
| Artistic value | AV1 | 1.000 | 0.758 | 0.575 | 0.765 | 0.529 | |||
| AV2 | 1.053 | 0.126 | 8.324 | *** | 0.851 | 0.724 | |||
| AV3 | 0.842 | 0.108 | 7.805 | *** | 0.537 | 0.288 | |||
| Historical value | HV1 | 1.000 | 0.789 | 0.623 | 0.839 | 0.635 | |||
| HV2 | 0.981 | 0.080 | 12.250 | *** | 0.817 | 0.667 | |||
| HV3 | 0.977 | 0.081 | 12.080 | *** | 0.784 | 0.615 | |||
| Cultural value | CV3 | 1.000 | 0.618 | 0.382 | 0.787 | 0.555 | |||
| CV2 | 1.176 | 0.131 | 8.984 | *** | 0.772 | 0.596 | |||
| CV1 | 1.276 | 0.145 | 8.803 | *** | 0.829 | 0.687 | |||
| Sand technological value | SV3 | 1.000 | 0.754 | 0.569 | 0.796 | 0.571 | |||
| SV2 | 1.357 | 0.139 | 9.779 | *** | 0.875 | 0.766 | |||
| SV1 | 0.827 | 0.089 | 9.260 | *** | 0.615 | 0.378 | |||
Note: *** represent p < 0.01.
4.2. Fitness Analysis of Research Model
The fitness assessment of the research model is an inevitable process of SEM analysis. The higher the fit degree is, the closer the model matrix is to the sample matrix. In reference to the research results of the studies of McDonald and Ho [50], and Jackson, Gilasyp and Stephenson [51], several key indicators were used to evaluate the overall fitness of the research model, including the chi-square (χ2), the ratio of chi-square/df (degree of freedom), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit (GFI), the adjusted fit index (AGFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).
As shown in Table 5, the ratio of chi-square degrees (χ2) of freedom (df) is 2.778, which is less than 3, indicating that the fit of the model to the sample data was adequate. The goodness-of-fit (GFI) is 0.838 and the comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.890, both greater than 0.8. The adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) is 0.795, slightly less than 0.8. The RMSEA demonstrates a difference of 0.081 between the variance–covariance matrix acquired from the sample data and the variance–covariance matrix composed of the theoretical model [38], which is slightly higher than the ideal index of 0.08.
Nevertheless, Bentler and Chou noted that it is arduous for all indicators to fully meet the generally good fitness with a multivariate model [52]. This paper further deconstructed the perceived value variables into the artistic value, historical value, cultural value, and scientific value of the architectural heritage, so as to connect visitors’ perceived value more deeply and directly with the architectural heritage value types, and improve the practical significance of the research findings. However, the fitness index of a second-order model must be lower than that of the first-order model [51], so an RMSEA of 0.081 is acceptable. Therefore, the overall fitness of the research model is acceptable.
This study verifies the hypothesized variable relationships by examining the path coefficients between the latent variables and combining the p value to determine whether the hypotheses hold. The model standardization path is shown in Figure 3, and the hypothesis test results are displayed in Table 6.
As can be seen from Table 6, the parameter estimates of H1, H2, H3, H5, and H6 in the research model reached the significance level of p < 0.01, and the parameter estimate of H8 is 0.012, also having reached a significant level of p < 0.05, indicating that these hypotheses were supported by the sample data. The parameter estimates of H4, H7, and H9 did not reach the significant level of p < 0.05, which proves that these hypotheses were not supported by the sample data.
Table 5.
Overall model fitting analysis and measurement index.
| Statistic Test | The Standard of Fitting or Critical Value | Result |
|---|---|---|
| χ2/df | <3.0 | 2.778 |
| GFI | >0.8 | 0.838 |
| CFI | >0.8 | 0.890 |
| AGFI | >0.8 | 0.795 |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.081 |
Table 6.
Hypotheses testing of the research model.
| Hypothesis | Path | C.R. | p | β (Standard) | Test Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Visit satisfaction | ← | Perceived value | 8.271 | *** | 0.510 | Support |
| H2 | Visit satisfaction | ← | Perceived enjoyment | 8.575 | *** | 0.536 | Support |
| H3 | Post-visit behavioral intention | ← | Visit satisfaction | 7.804 | *** | 0.681 | Support |
| H4 | Post-visit behavioral intention | ← | Perceived enjoyment | 1.799 | 0.072 | 0.138 | Refuse |
| H5 | Perceived value | ← | Perceived enjoyment | 4.166 | *** | 0.231 | Support |
| H6 | Perceived value | ← | Artistic value | 4.046 | *** | 0.397 | Support |
| H7 | Perceived value | ← | Historical value | 0.503 | 0.615 | 0.057 | Refuse |
| H8 | Perceived value | ← | Cultural value | 2.501 | 0.012 ** | 0.280 | Support |
| H9 | Perceived value | ← | Scientific value | 1.747 | 0.081 | 0.155 | Refuse |
Note: *** represent p < 0.01, ** represent p < 0.05. β: path coefficient in structural equation model; C.R: critical value in structural equation model.
4.3. Key Factor and Path Analysis
As shown in Figure 4, the path analysis results among variables in the research model indicate the key factors influencing visitors’ perceived value, satisfaction, and post-visit behavioral intention of the architectural heritage:
- Perceived enjoyment (β = 0.536|p < 0.01) significantly influence the visit satisfaction;
- Perceived value (β = 0.510|p < 0.01) is the second most important factor that influences the visit satisfaction, slightly lower than the perceived enjoyment;
- Visit satisfaction (β = 0.681|p < 0.01) has a significant impact on post-visit behavioral intention, including revisit and word-of-mouth communication;
- The standardized path coefficient of perceived enjoyment on behavioral intention is 0.138, p = 0.072 > 0.05, indicating that the perceived enjoyment has no obvious influence on post-visit behavioral intention, and there is no direct relationship between the two;
- Artistic value (β = 0.397|p < 0.01) has a significant effect on the perceived value;
- Cultural value ((β = 0.280|p = 0.012 < 0.05) is the second most important factor that positively influences the perceived value;
- Perceived enjoyment (β = 0.231|p < 0.01) is the third most important factor that effects the perceived value;
- The standardized path coefficient of historical value to perceived value is 0.057, p = 0.615 > 0.05, indicating that the historical value of architectural heritage has no significant influence on the perceived value of visitors;
- The standardized path coefficient of scientific value to perceived value is 0.155, p = 0.081 > 0.05, showing that the scientific value of architectural heritage does not have a significant impact on the perceived value.
4.4. Correlation Test among Variables of Heritage Value Types
It is undeniable that the definitions and boundaries of the various value types of heritage are ambiguous and overlapping to some extent, which is more likely to cause different understandings of non-experts [31]. However, it is also an important task for this paper to explore the cognition of non-experts on the value types of heritage.
As shown in Table 7, the correlation tests among the variables of heritage value types are as follows:
- There is a significant correlation between the four variables of architectural heritage value types (artistic, historical, cultural, and scientific value);
- The standardized correlation coefficient between artistic value and scientific value is the highest (0.663), followed by that with historical value (0.576);
- The standardized correlation coefficient between historical value and cultural value is the highest (0.77), followed by that with scientific value (0.536);
- The standardized correlation coefficient between cultural value and historical value is the highest (0.77), followed by that with scientific value (0.525).
Table 7.
Correlation coefficients among the value variables.
| Path | S.E. | C.R. | p | β (Standard) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artistic value | ↔ | Historical value | 0.045 | 6.319 | *** | 0.576 |
| Artistic value | ↔ | Cultural value | 0.041 | 5.411 | *** | 0.513 |
| Artistic value | ↔ | Scientific value | 0.044 | 6.762 | *** | 0.663 |
| Historical value | ↔ | Cultural value | 0.061 | 7.007 | *** | 0.770 |
| Historical value | ↔ | Scientific value | 0.051 | 6.089 | *** | 0.536 |
| Cultural value | ↔ | Scientific value | 0.048 | 5.568 | *** | 0.525 |
Note: *** represent p < 0.01.
4.5. Analysis Based on Demographic Characteristics
Since the validity of the combination of items and variables in the research model has been verified, Pearson correlation analysis was performed for demographic items and the first item of each variable through SPSS 19.0. The results are shown in Table 8.
- BD1 has a correlation with SV1 (0.135|p < 0.05), indicating that females perceive the scientific value of architectural heritage sites as better than males;
- BD2 has a correlation with both HV1 (0.143|p < 0.05) and CV1 (0.153|p < 0.05), revealing a significant positive effect of visitors’ age on the perception of the historical and cultural value of architectural heritage sites. Furthermore, BD2 has correlations with PE1 (0.167|p < 0.01), TS1 (0.186|p < 0.01) and BI1 (0.277|p < 0.01), indicating a significant positive correlation between visitors’ age and perceived enjoyment, satisfaction and post-visit behavioral intention;
- BD3 has a correlation with PE1 (−0.138|p < 0.05), demonstrating that visitors’ education level has a significant negative correlation with their perceived enjoyment. Moreover, BD3 has a correlation with BI1 (−0.183|p < 0.01), explaining that visitors’ education level also has a significant negative impact to the post-visit behavioral intention;
- BD5 has a correlation with HV1 (−0.137|p < 0.05), demonstrating a significant negative correlation between visitors’ monthly household income and their perception of the historical value;
- BD4 has no correlation with the variables in the research model.
Table 8.
Correlation analysis based on demographic characteristics.
| BD1 | BD2 | BD3 | BD4 | BD5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AV1 | Pearson correlation | 0.089 | 0.011 | −0.040 | −0.020 | −0.031 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.144 | 0.856 | 0.510 | 0.743 | 0.615 | |
| HV1 | Pearson correlation | 0.074 | 0.143 * | −0.091 | 0.091 | −0.137 * |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.223 | 0.018 | 0.136 | 0.135 | 0.024 | |
| CV1 | Pearson correlation | 0.090 | 0.153 * | −0.073 | 0.115 | −0.073 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.141 | 0.012 | 0.228 | 0.059 | 0.230 | |
| SV1 | Pearson correlation | 0.135 * | −0.011 | 0.031 | −0.041 | −0.035 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.027 | 0.857 | 0.612 | 0.504 | 0.566 | |
| PV1 | Pearson correlation | −0.005 | 0.109 | 0.035 | −0.113 | 0.073 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.938 | 0.073 | 0.567 | 0.062 | 0.231 | |
| PE1 | Pearson correlation | 0.017 | 0.167 ** | −0.138 * | −0.040 | 0.044 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.777 | 0.006 | 0.024 | 0.514 | 0.474 | |
| TS1 | Pearson correlation | −0.033 | 0.186 ** | −0.096 | 0.002 | 0.117 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.594 | 0.002 | 0.116 | 0.971 | 0.055 | |
| BI1 | Pearson correlation | 0.097 | 0.277 ** | −0.183 ** | −0.044 | 0.041 |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.113 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.467 | 0.504 | |
| N | 271 | 271 | 271 | 271 | 271 | |
Note: ** Significantly correlated at the 0.01 level (bilateral). * Significantly correlated at the 0.05 level (bilateral).
5. Discussion
5.1. Perceived Value and Value Types
For one thing, the Burra Charter advocates a value-oriented dynamic process of change management for cultural heritage, and the China’s Opinions Charter also explicitly takes the value-oriented as the most basic working principle of urban and rural heritage conservation. In a quantitative way, this study again verifies that perceived value is a key factor that significantly affects visit satisfaction and post-visit intention.
For another, in the sphere of built heritage conservation, experts usually use value types for value evaluations, which can be traced back to the studies of the ICOMOS Bara Charter of Australia [53], and it has become the most popular method in the 21st century [54]. However, a growing number of scholars are reflecting and questioning the value type groups and the Authorized Heritage Discourse led by experts. They point out that, in marked contrast to experts, non-experts do not perceive heritage value through value types “designed” by experts, but rather, tend to perceive heritage value through emotional experiences [55]. The statistical analysis results in this article found similar phenomena:
- The significant correlation between the artistic, historical, cultural, scientific values indicates that most visitors are not sensitive to the types of architectural heritage value types set by experts. In other words, they do not perceive the value of architectural heritage sites according to the value types, but tend to assess them with their overall feelings;
- The artistic value is the first factor that has a significant positive impact on the perceived value, revealing that visitors’ perception of the architectural heritage value of a site mainly depends on its artistic value, that is, the artistry, excellence, and innovation of architectural design and construction;
- The standardized correlation coefficient between the artistic value and the scientific value is 0.663, which means that for visitors, the perceived scientific value still belongs to artistic value to a large extent;
- Cultural value is the second significant factor influencing the perceived value, with a standard path coefficient of 0.280, while the standard path coefficient of historical value to perceived value is only 0.057. Meanwhile, the standard correlation coefficient between cultural value and historical value is 0.770.
These results illustrate that although historical value has been recognized by experts as the most important value of architectural heritage sites from the very beginning, non-experts are not sensitive to the “pure” historical value, and they prefer historical information intertwined with culture, such as historical stories.
5.2. Perceived Enjoyment
In plenty of expert-led architectural heritage conservation projects, the physical situation of architectural heritage sites is usually the core, while visitors’ perceived enjoyment in the heritage experience is often neglected or underestimated. However, the research results prove that both the perceived enjoyment and perceived value have a significant positive impact on visit satisfaction, and the standardized path coefficients of perceived enjoyment is even slightly higher, which are 0.536 and 0.510, respectively. This demonstrates that the entertainment experience is as important as the perception of heritage value, both of which are indispensable to visit satisfaction.
More importantly, the perceived enjoyment also has a significant positive effect on the perceived value, with a path coefficient of 0.231, which indicates that entertainment experiences can promote deeper perceptions of heritage value. Therefore, architectural heritage conservation planning and management should not only focus on the restoration of the physical elements, but also fully consider the psychological needs of people in current society and communities, and their entertainment experience of the heritage visit.
5.3. Analysis Results Based on Demographic Characteristics
Two noteworthy phenomena are derived from the analysis results based on the demographic characteristics of the questionnaires:
- Age has a significant positive correlation with the historical value, cultural value, perceived enjoyment, visit satisfaction, and post-visit behavioral intention. The standardized correlation coefficients are 0.143, 0.153, 0.167, 0.186, and 0.277, respectively. However, most of the visitors are young, with 83.1% of them aged 15 to 34. This indicates that in the current architectural heritage projects, there is a lack of lively, cutting-edge, and interesting displays and facilities for display that appeal to young people. As young people have become the main visitors to the architectural heritage sites, there is an urgent need for both conservation practitioners and government officials to be more proactive in considering their market and making targeted adjustments.
- The visitors’ level of education has a significant negative correlation to the perceived enjoyment and post-visit behavioral intention. The standardized correlation coefficients are −0.138 and −0.183, respectively. Among the visitors, the proportion with an undergraduate degree is the highest, accounting for 53.5%, followed by college degree (20.3%), and 81.2% of the respondents have a college degree or above. This shows that the current display and management methods of architectural heritage sites still need to be improved—targeting young people with a higher level of education, adopting more innovative and interactive ways of display, and enhancing the entertaining experience of the visiting process and the display content should focus more on the artistic and cultural value.
6. Conclusions
Multi-party participation in heritage protection and management has become a basic working principle at home and abroad. Heritage conservation experts, managers, and practitioners should provide more access to professional knowledge to laypersons, and grasp how laypersons actually perceive heritage values and how they are satisfied with their heritage visit.
From the perspective of visitors, this article constructs a research model of the perceived value, perceived enjoyment, visit satisfaction, and post-visit behavioral intention regarding architectural heritage sites, based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Through the analysis of 271 eligible questionnaires, this study has revealed fascinating insights into the behavior of visitors and their perceptions of heritage sites.
Artistic and cultural values are of greater significance than scientific and historical ones. The latter, however, are commonly cited as the primary reason for designating such sites as heritage sites worldwide. This implies that visitors to heritage sites are more interested in being “impressed” and “shocked” than “educated”. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the artistic and cultural value of cultural heritage sites, as well as to build strong emotional connections between contemporary visitors and heritage sites in order to effectively protect and utilize them.
The findings also suggest that the perceived enjoyment, which was previously overlooked in heritage conservation and management, has a significant positive impact on visitor satisfaction and even the perceived value.
The results presented in this paper can serve as a valuable reference for cultural heritage management and for operators of cultural heritage tourism destinations to creatively and positively respond to the feelings and expectations of visitors and facilitate the realization of heritage tourism benefits and sustainable development.
7. Limitations and Future Research
Despite the theoretical and practical contributions, there are some limitations in this paper. Firstly, in terms of sample group characteristics, 83.1% of visitors were 34 years old or younger. On the one hand, this is because of the uniqueness of architectural heritage tourism displays, such as low entertainment and high information. On the other hand, this is also because older people are more likely to reject the questionnaire. For example, some older people declined the questionnaire because they could not see clearly or had trouble reading. Some middle-aged people rejected the survey, saying they were in a hurry. Young people, by contrast, tended to be more interested in questionnaires and academic research and were more willing to participate. In the future, we will also need to diversify research methods to make them more age-friendly to include older people into study groups.
Secondly, this article deconstructs the perceived value variables into four second-order variables of architectural heritage, thus simplifying the research model. However, simplifying the behavior of architectural heritage visiting also has some shortcomings; for example, the model fitting index will be relatively low.
Finally, the four cases selected in this article cannot fully cover all types of architectural heritage, and meanwhile, the four architectural heritage sites are all in Guangzhou, China. With continuous advancements of economy and urban renewal, architectural heritage sites will not only be regarded as popular tourist attractions, but also important places for leisure, entertainment, and cultural life in cities. Therefore, the expectation, behavior, and satisfaction mechanisms of architecture, urban, landscape, and other built heritage sites still need to be explored in a more in-depth and comprehensive way in China and other cultures and areas.
Funding
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52108007); Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of Guangdong Province (No. GD21YYS04).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
Author sincerely thanks the editors of this journal for their rigorous process and the anonymous reviewers for their important contribution, which allowed this article to be better.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
- Wang, G.; Liu, S. Research on the Complex Adaptability of Urban Architectural Heritage in the Age of Stock—Taking Harbin as an example. Mod. City Res. 2020, 8, 108–114. [Google Scholar]
- The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Strengthening the Protection and Inheritance of History and Culture in Urban-Rural Construction. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-09/03/content_5635308.htm (accessed on 7 September 2021).
- Zhang, Y.; Lee, T.J.; Xiong, Y. A conflict resolution model for sustainable heritage tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 478–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, S.J. Heritage protection and tourism income: The tourism heritage Kuznets curve. Tour. Rev. 2022, 77, 1455–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyo Dan, C. Relationship between tourism and heritage from a tourist perspective: Synergy, complementarity and antagonism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 1557–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özçakır, Ö.; Bilgin Altınöz, A.G.; Mignosa, A. A tool for identifying post-Intervention value shifts in urban heritage places: The Heritage Value Circle. J. Archit. Conserv. 2022, 28, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patiwael, P.R.; Groote, P.; Vanclay, F. The influence of framing on the legitimacy of impact assessment: Examining the heritage impact assessments conducted for the Liverpool Waters project. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2020, 38, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De la Torre, M. (Ed.) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/values_cultural_heritage (accessed on 11 September 2021).
- Kou, H.; Chalana, M.; Zhou, J. Diverse approaches to the preservation of built vernacular heritage: Case study of post-disaster reconstruction of the Xijie Historic District in Dujiangyan City, China. J. Archit. Conserv. 2020, 26, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, Y.; Zhang, X. Research on the Mechanism of Chinese Architectural Heritage from the Perspective of Comparison of Architectural Heritage between China and Japan. Mod. Urban Res. 2013, 11, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; You, E.S.; Lee, T.J.; Li, X. The influence of historical nostalgia on a heritage destination’s brand authenticity, brand attachment, and brand equity Historical nostalgia on a heritage destination’s brand authenticity. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 23, 1176–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eck, T.; Zhang, Y.; An, S. A Study on the Effect of Authenticity on Heritage Tourists’ Mindful Tourism Experience: The Case of the Forbidden City. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ueltschy, L.C.; Laroche, M.; Eggert, A.; Bindl, U. Service quality and satisfaction: An international comparison of professional services perceptions. J. Serv. Mark. 2007, 21, 410–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 24, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lopes, H.E.G.; Pereira, C.C.d.P.; Vieira, A.F.S. Comparação entre os modelos norte-americano (ACSI) e europeu (ECSI) de satisfação do cliente: Um estudo no setor de serviços. RAM. Rev. De Adm. Mackenzie 2009, 10, 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12–40. [Google Scholar]
- Hutchinson, J.; Lai, F.; Wang, Y. Understanding the relationships of quality, value, equity, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallarza, M.G.; Gil Saura, I. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambler, T.; Styles, C. Brand Development Versus New Product Development: Toward a Process Model of Extension Decisions: Tim Ambler and Chris Styles. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 1997, 4, 222–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hede, A.-M.; Garma, R.; Josiassen, A.; Thyne, M. Perceived authenticity of the visitor experience in museums. Eur. J. Mark. 2014, 48, 1395–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. Varieties of value in the consumption satisfaction response. Adv. Consum. Res. 1996, 23, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
- Holbrook, M.B. Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research; Routledge: London, UK, 1999; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
- Chandon, P.; Wansink, B.; Laurent, G. A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness. J. Mark. 2000, 64, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dai, T.; Zheng, X.; Yan, J. Contradictory or aligned? The nexus between authenticity in heritage conservation and heritage tourism, and its impact on satisfaction. Habitat Int. 2021, 107, 102307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D. A Study on the Perceived Value of Rural Tourism Tourists; Zhejiang University: Hangzhou, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, W. A study on tourists’ perceived value and willingness to Re-visit in rural tourism destinations: A case study of Sansheng Township, Chengdu. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. (Humanit. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2015, 36, 134–138. [Google Scholar]
- Sui, L.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Cheng, W. Study on Customer value Difference between Chinese and Western cultural Heritage Tourists: A case study of Western Tourists. Tour. Trib. 2010, 25, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Zhang, H. A conceptual model and empirical study of tourists’ perceived value in ancient villages: A case study of Zhangguying Village. Tour. Sci. 2010, 24, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W. Study on tourist loyalty model of ancient Village—Based on tourists’ perceived value and dimension perspective. Geogr. Res. 2011, 30, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Johnson, M.; Anderson, E.W.; Cha, J.; Bryant, B.E. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, D.; Li, J. Process-led value elicitation within built heritage management: A systematic literature review between 2010 and 2020. J. Archit. Conserv. 2021, 27, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, X.; Fu, X.; Yu, L.; Jiang, L. Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: The moderation effect of postmodern authenticity. Tour. Manag. 2018, 67, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J. Re-understanding of the Value System of Architectural Heritage. Famous Cities China 2018, 4, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
- Monteiro, V.; Painho, M.; Vaz, E. Is the heritage really important? A theoretical framework for heritage reputation using citizen sensing. Habitat Int. 2015, 45, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atzeni, M.; Del Chiappa, G.; Pung, J.M. Enhancing visit intention in heritage tourism: The role of object-based and existential authenticity in non-immersive virtual reality heritage experiences. Int. J. Tour Res. 2022, 24, 240–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J. The impact of tourist participation on service quality and tourist satisfaction of travel agencies: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. Areal Res. Dev. 2012, 31, 117–123. [Google Scholar]
- Boo, S.; Busser, J.; Baloglu, S. A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Tour Manag. 2009, 30, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, H.; Han, L.; Wu, H.; Zeng, X. What affects the “house-for-pension” scheme consumption behavior of land-lost farmers in China? Habitat Int. 2021, 116, 102415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, H. The perceived value of cultural heritage influences the willing price. Outdoor Recreat. Res. 2013, 26, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, Q.; Tianyi, J.; Chenand, C.; Yingchun, L. Cognition of basic issues of architectural heritage. Archit. Herit. 2016, 44–61. [Google Scholar]
- Žabkar, V.; Brenčič, M.M.; Dmitrović, T. Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C. A Study on the Influence of Tourists’ Perceived Value on Their Willingness to Revisit Historical Sites. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Assaker, G.; Vinzi, V.E.; O’Connor, P. Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 890–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dou, L. Tourists’ perceived value, satisfaction and environmentally responsible behavior. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2016, 30, 197–202. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, Y.; Hu, Y.; Bai, X. Tourist cognition, perceived value and brand Loyalty of Nature recreation Brand. Bus. Res. 2017, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, L.; Chen, H. Analysis on the influence of the perceived image of hot spring tourist destination on tourist experience and behavior. Areal Res. Dev. 2015, 34, 110–115. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guangzhou Yearbook. 2015. Available online: https://www.dfz.gd.gov.cn (accessed on 21 May 2023).
- Giglio, C.; De Maio, A. A structural equation model for analysing the determinants of crowdshipping adoption in the last-mile delivery within university cities. Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 2022, 15, 117–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.-H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, D.L.; Gillaspy, J.A.; Purc-Stephenson, R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2009, 14, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentler, P.M.; Chou, C.-P. Practical issues in structural modelling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1987, 16, 78–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ICOMOS. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Burra Charter. 2013. Available online: https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2017).
- Fredheim, H.; Khalaf, M. The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2016, 22, 466–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolar, T.; Zabkar, V. A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tour Manag. 2010, 31, 652–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Research model of this study.
Figure 2.
The investigation site: Guangzhou, Guangdong (Canton) Province, China (from National Platform for Common Geospatial Information Services, http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/, accessed on 21 May 2023).
Figure 2.
The investigation site: Guangzhou, Guangdong (Canton) Province, China (from National Platform for Common Geospatial Information Services, http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/, accessed on 21 May 2023).
Figure 3.
Standardized model path diagram.
Figure 4.
Structural equation model of perceived value and satisfaction of architectural heritage. Note: *** represent p < 0.01; ** represent p < 0.05.
Figure 4.
Structural equation model of perceived value and satisfaction of architectural heritage. Note: *** represent p < 0.01; ** represent p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chen, D. How Visitors Perceive Heritage Value—A Quantitative Study on Visitors’ Perceived Value and Satisfaction of Architectural Heritage through SEM. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119002
AMA Style
Chen D. How Visitors Perceive Heritage Value—A Quantitative Study on Visitors’ Perceived Value and Satisfaction of Architectural Heritage through SEM. Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):9002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119002
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Dan. 2023. "How Visitors Perceive Heritage Value—A Quantitative Study on Visitors’ Perceived Value and Satisfaction of Architectural Heritage through SEM" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 9002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119002
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
