Next Article in Journal
Creative and Happy Individuals Concerned about Climate Change: Evidence Based on the 10th Round of the European Social Survey in 22 Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
Tourism as an Opportunity or the Danger of Saturation for the Historical Coastal Towns
Previous Article in Journal
Fuzzy-Based Human Health Risk Assessment for Shallow Groundwater Well Users in Arid Regions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Gentrification in Traditional Industrial Areas Using Q Methodology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/su152215794
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

The Perception of Cultural Authenticity, Destination Attachment, and Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism Development by Local People: The Moderator Role of Cultural Sustainability

by
Fatih Uslu
1,
Ozgur Yayla
2,*,
Yigit Guven
3,
Gozde Seval Ergun
4,*,
Erdi Demir
5,
Suzan Erol
5,
Merve Nur Oklu Yıldırım
5,
Huseyin Keles
6 and
Ebru Gozen
2
1
Department of Education Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
2
Department of Recreation Management, Manavgat Tourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
3
Department of Recreation Management, Graduate Education Institute, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Ankara 06830, Türkiye
4
Department of Tourism Management, Manavgat Tourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
5
Department of Mediterranean New and Recent Era Research, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
6
Department of Tourism Guidance, Manavgat Tourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(22), 15794; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215794
Submission received: 26 September 2023 / Revised: 7 November 2023 / Accepted: 8 November 2023 / Published: 9 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resident Well-Being and Sustainable Tourism Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study was prepared to examine the effects of cultural authenticity perception by local people on destination attachment and intention to support cultural heritage tourism. The study also investigated the moderator role of cultural sustainability perception. It was conducted in Manavgat, one of the most popular touristic destinations in Turkey. According to the study results, a positive effect was detected between the perception of cultural authenticity, destination attachment, and the intention to support cultural heritage tourism. In addition, the results indicate the existence of a moderator role of cultural sustainability perception in the relationship between destination loyalty and intention to support cultural heritage tourism. As a consequence of the findings obtained, a number of theoretical and practical suggestions have been presented to sector representatives, destination management organizations, and academics working in the literature.

1. Introduction

In the literature, culture is defined as all of the values developed by societies through time, transferred to the next generations, and formed for human beings and the region they live in [1]. Humanity has spread culture through migration, trade, and art over the course of history and contributed to the formation of different cultures [2]. With the emergence of tourism, the speed of cultural expansion increases, and people make various trips to experience the cultures they are curious about [3]. Cultural tourism, which is among the recent tourism trends, has emerged as a field that allows interaction with adventure, culture, history, archeology, and local people. In this context, the conceptualization of cultural tourism has been performed in various studies in the literature [3,4,5].
The definition of cultural tourism was described by Richards [6] in his article “The Scope and Importance of Cultural Tourism”. In the article, Richards defined cultural tourism as “travel performed partly or wholly with the purpose of increasing appreciation for a cultural source”. In 1996, Stebbins [7] defined cultural tourism as “special interest tourism involves seeking and engaging in activities related to aesthetics, intellectual, new and cultural encounters”. The World Tourism Organization [8] provided a functional definition of cultural tourism: “The tourism-related pursuits of individuals when it comes to cultural attractions like heritage sites, artistic and cultural performances, as well as art and drama”. In another definition, cultural tourism is defined as tourism oriented towards the cultural heritage of the destination or region visited.
Cultural heritage used in the concept of cultural tourism is the combination of lifestyles, including traditions, practices, places, objects, and artistic expressions developed by societies and transferred from one generation to the next [9]. Furthermore, cultural heritage is categorized in the literature into three types: constructed landscape (buildings and cityscapes), habitat (rural landscapes and beaches), and artifacts (books and documents) [10]. Cultural heritage tourism is an alternative type of tourism that offers the opportunity to learn about the history of societies and experience their historical processes. Re-creating tourism experiences that are perceived as authentic representations of historical people, places, and periods is of critical importance for cultural heritage tourism. In this respect, the concept of authenticity constitutes the central theme of cultural heritage tourism [11,12].
Authenticity can primarily be expressed in terms of being real or true and the authenticity of the perceived experience [13,14,15]. Therefore, in its simplest form, the literature suggests that heritage tourism, in order to be truly authentic, must take place in its authentic historical context or location, with original objects and works of art [16]. Providing a genuine cultural heritage experience has been regarded as a significant tool for the development of tourism destinations because it can draw in tourists and generate tourism revenue for local communities [17]. It is known that the destinations with maximum business objectives for the protection and development of authentic cultural heritage will facilitate the sustainability of culture and tradition during the development process [17]. The concept of “sustainability in tourism” has been accepted at many international standards as an approach that should bring some benefits to all forms of tourism [18]. As Butler [19] and Wall [20] state in the recent definitions of tourism sustainability, the sustainability of the tourism industry relies upon the sustainability of the environment, cultures, and societies.
Cultural heritage tourism destinations, in particular, are considered to be an area that requires serious attention in terms of sustainability and conservation since they are based on historical, cultural, and traditional values [21]. The formation of local, regional, and national identities could potentially have a significant impact on the conservation and sustainability of cultural heritage tourism, and, in addition, the sense of attachment of local people, especially those residing in areas close to heritage sites, undertakes a crucial mission in the development and transfer of the region to the future [22]. It was stated that increasing the attachment of local people could increase awareness regarding the protection and development of heritage [23].
In this sense, this study has examined whether the perception of cultural authenticity influences destination attachment or not. In addition, the influence of destination attachment on supporting tourism development is among the topics that have been widely studied in the literature [24,25,26]. In this study, unlike the previous studies, the moderator role of cultural sustainability perception in the effect of destination attachment on the intention of providing support for tourism development has been analyzed. Although there is a limited number of studies determining the effects of cultural identity on tourists [27], the effects of perceived cultural sustainability by local people on these variables remain unclear. As a consequence, this research aims to fill the relevant gap in the literature by examining the extent to which perceived cultural sustainability moderates the relationship between destination attachment and support for cultural heritage tourism development.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Theoretical Framework

The research hypotheses proposed in the study can be explained by the social exchange theory, which examines the connection between tourism development and local people. Social exchange theory proposes that residents of a region are more inclined to endorse the development of tourism if they think that the perceived benefits of tourism are greater than the costs, otherwise, they are unwilling to support tourism development [26,28]. The social exchange theory is one of the predominant theories employed to comprehend the local community’s support concerning tourism development [24,29]. For example, Gursoy et al. [24] showed that the perceptions of local people about corporate social responsibility practices in hotels contribute to local people’s support for tourism development through their contentment with the community. In this context, it can be argued that the local people’s perception of cultural authenticity will support the development of cultural heritage tourism, provided that it is sustainable.

2.1.1. The Relationship between Cultural Authenticity and Attachment

The concept of authenticity has been examined by many people since MacCannell [16] examined it in their tourism studies. MacCannell [16] defined cultural authenticity as the expression of the characteristics belonging to the local culture to tourists with a view to creating an attractive experience for visitors. However, authenticity has been influenced by various perspectives. There are three perspectives of authenticity: objectivism (what is authentic and original), constructivism (socially and individually constructed), and existentialism (reflection without being authentic and real) [30]. The objectivist perspective of tourism authenticity is an objective representation of destinations that emphasizes the creation of authenticity of tourist experiences [31]. A sense of objective authenticity forms the ground for the creation of a tourism experience and is expected to evoke emotions in tourists [32]. Tourists who are under the influence of their emotions aroused by landscapes or activities will have a stronger commitment to cultural tourism. It is stated in studies that with the strengthening of commitment, belonging to the culture is also improved [23].
In contrast, constructive authenticity states that overall experience is based on beliefs and culture and is therefore socially constructed [33]. Constructive authenticity implies that tourists can still find pleasure in genuine experiences, even though they are aware that the environment is artificial and not entirely natural [33]. Bryce et al. [34] focused on the quality of tourists’ experiences and indicated that constructive authenticity can have an impact on tourists’ feelings of loyalty, which, in turn, may affect their sense of belonging.
Existential authenticity is the alternative to objective authenticity. Existential authenticity is human-centered [35] and delineates the individual experience centered on self-worth. In other words, the existential authenticity concept is articulated as a unique existential state where individuals are honest with themselves. It is both an empathetic orientation and an experiential outcome [36]. It demands that tourists gain the ability to critically examine everyday occurrences and develop a new perspective, increasing their sensitivity to new experiences. Consequently, a sense of authenticity emerges, but beyond empathy, existential understanding depends on a desire or willingness for knowledge and learning, as tourists need to comprehend the empirical reality of what they are interacting with [35]. Earlier literature has suggested that tourists can experience existential authenticity when they participate in touristic activities; they feel more real, comfortable, and independent than they normally do, and their interactions with the environment seem more real and sincere [30]. Lin [37] indicated that travelers value existential authenticity more than object-related authenticity, which indicates that existential authenticity plays a more important role in tourism. While the perception of cultural authenticity is often evaluated from the tourists’ perspective, it is believed that the cultural authenticity of the local people may also play a role in shaping destination identities.
As for the destination attachment concept, Altman and Low [38] stated that it is a cognitive or emotional connection that a tourist establishes as a result of their feelings, knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding the destination. In another definition, it was defined as the emotional attachment of an individual to a particular environment [39]. According to another definition, it refers to the emotional connection of tourists with a destination [40]. Halpenny [41] explained destination attachment as an emotional, cognitive, and functional connection to a destination. Kyle and Chick [42] stated in their research that the destinations that have cultural authenticity affect the attachment to that region.
At this juncture, the research hypotheses developed are as follows.
H1. 
Cultural authenticity has a positive effect on destination attachment.
H1a. 
Objective authenticity has a positive effect on destination attachment.
H1b. 
Constructive authenticity has a positive effect on destination attachment.
H1c. 
Existential authenticity has a positive effect on destination attachment.

2.1.2. The Connection between Destination Attachment and Cultural Heritage Tourism Development

The concept of attachment is defined in the literature as a personal, intimate connection to a place and the feeling of being at home [43] and has been widely studied in tourism literature [44,45,46,47]. It plays an important role in tourist destinations, in which places, environments, and interactions are shared with visitors. Andereck et al. [48] found a strong local awareness concerning the needs of residents for cultural heritage development. In another study, it was stated that the sense of attachment and belonging of residents living in touristic areas is a direct factor in the development of that region. Furthermore, they stated that this situation increased the value and desirability of the destination and was seen as an important determinant for the spread of culture [49]. In a different perspective, Chen and Chen [50] noted that the absence of communities residing near cultural heritage sites or the low number of people living in these sites may have a negative influence on the development of the site. The hypothesis developed based on these studies is presented as follows.
H2. 
Destination attachment has a positive effect on the support for cultural heritage tourism development.

2.1.3. The Role of Destination Attachment and Cultural Sustainability in Cultural Heritage Tourism Development

The management of tourism destinations based on sustainable principles has been indicated in the literature to enhance the long-term quality of life for local people, as well as increase their responsibilities and conservation awareness for the destination [51,52,53]. Cultural heritage tourism, compared to other tourism types, is particularly concerned with sustainability due to the presence of cultural assets, facilities, and artifacts within it. For cultural heritage tourism to develop and be passed on to future generations, it is necessary to plan and organize the area and region with sustainable policies. Cultural tourism links traditional tourism goods such as accommodation, dining, and recreation with cultural heritage goods such as visiting museums, cultural performances, gallery exhibitions, and more [1]. These assets are highly sensitive from a social and cultural perspective because they reflect the culture and historical heritage of the local people. The studies in the literature have indicated that the sense of attachment of the communities living in the region will affect their attitudes towards the area [44,48,49]. Tourism managers have argued that the efforts to promote tourist satisfaction for the sake of tourism development could harm both tangible and intangible traditional values and hinder their preservation for the future [23]. Rasoolimanesh et al. [54] stated that the development of identity and a sense of attachment in the communities with cultural heritage can foster stronger feelings of responsibility and ownership for the area, which, in turn, will support long-term conservation that future generations will experience. Payne [55] noted that cultural heritage tourism contributes to the socio-economic well-being of the destination and that the desire of communities to sustain this well-being contributes to the sustainability of the area as well.
In this respect, the following hypothesis has been developed.
H3. 
The perception of cultural sustainability has a moderator role in the effect of destination attachment on support for cultural heritage tourism development.
The hypothetical research model developed in accordance with the research objective can be found in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Instrument

The purpose of the current research is to measure the effect of cultural authenticity perception by local people on destination attachment and the effect of destination attachment on the intention to support cultural heritage tourism development. In addition, the moderator role of cultural sustainability perception in the effect of destination attachment on the intention to support cultural heritage tourism development has been examined. To test the hypothetical research model created based on the study’s objectives, one of the quantitative methods, the survey technique, has been preferred. The main reason for choosing the survey technique is its ability to reach a broad audience and sample the population. In the research, all variables of the model to be tested were created through a comprehensive literature review. Each variable contains more than two items and has been rated using a 5-point Likert scale.
Fifteen items related to cultural authenticity, which was measured in three distinct dimensions as Objective Authenticity (6), Constructive Authenticity (6), and Existential Authenticity (3), were adapted from the study of Nguyen and Cheung [56]. The items to measure destination attachment were determined with the help of previously used scales. For the mentioned variable, the study of Hallak, Assaker, and Lee [57], which consisted of 4 items, was preferred. In order to evaluate the intention to support cultural heritage tourism development, a 6-item scale created by Megeirhi et al. [58] was used. And, finally, cultural sustainability was measured with a 5-item scale created by Negrusha et al. [59]. All the scales preferred in the research questionnaire are originally in English. A pilot study was carried out with 38 residents to detect possible problems in the scales. Due to the pilot study, it was ascertained that there were no language or style problems concerning the comprehensibility of the scales. Moreover, it was found that all the Cronbach’s alpha values of the scales were above 0.70.

3.2. Research Area, Sampling and Data Collection

The study was carried out in the Manavgat district of Antalya, which is one of the most popular destinations in Türkiye. There are three main reasons why Manavgat was chosen as the target region. The first one is the number of facilities and visitors. It is observed that the number of domestic and foreign tourists who visited the accommodation establishments in Antalya in 2022 reached 23,087,209, and, in Manavgat, this number amounted to 6,592,226 [60]. Manavgat is the town of Antalya with the highest bed capacity with 183,706 beds in 529 accommodation facilities. In this respect, it is evident that nearly 30% of the total Antalya bed capacity is within the borders of Manavgat [61]. The calculations made as a consequence of these statistics point to the high number of tourists visiting Manavgat. The second reason is that Manavgat is home to many cultural, natural, and historical attractions. In addition to its 64 km length of sandy beaches, the Manavgat River, which is one of the most steadily flowing rivers in Türkiye and divides the city in two, the Manavgat Waterfall on this river, the Alara Creek marking the city’s border with Alanya, the Köprülü Canyon National Park, and the Titreyengöl-Sorgun Ecotourism region are some of the natural beauties of Manavgat. Apart from these, Selge, Seleukia, and Side Ancient Cities, which can be considered as important historical and cultural heritage of the city, attract many tourist groups. Finally, Manavgat is the largest district of Antalya with a population of over 240 thousand and a surface area of 2283 km2. As a matter of fact, there is a population growth rate of 6% every year related to tourism [62]. In Figure 2, a map showing the natural and cultural heritage sites of Manavgat has been presented.
In order to ensure the representation of the target population in the research, it was determined that a minimum sample size of 384 was required with a 95% confidence level [63]. The data were collected through face-to-face interviews using the convenience sampling method by a team of surveyors who were familiar with the Manavgat region and consisted of three individuals. June and July 2023, when the tourism season is at its peak, were chosen as the data collection period. It was ensured that the sampled group for data collection consisted of adults aged 18 and above residing in Manavgat. On the dates specified, the three most crowded locations in Manavgat city center were determined (Sarılar, Side, and Yayla locations), and the questionnaires were collected by three researchers in total, one researcher in each location. Due to the heightened risk of common method bias in social science research, a cover page was designed for each questionnaire form, including details such as “All information gathered during the research will be kept confidential”, “There are no correct or incorrect responses in this questionnaire”, and “Participation is voluntary”. This was performed to increase the response rate [64]. Consequently, a total of 433 surveys were collected on the specified dates. Once the incomplete and incorrectly completed questionnaires were eliminated, the research analyses were conducted using 419 survey forms.

3.3. Data Analysis

The quantitative data obtained from the research were initially transferred to the SPSS program for analysis. Firstly, Mahalanobis distance was examined to identify outliers. Accordingly, 7 questionnaires were excluded from the analysis since they contained outliers (Mahalanobis’ D (28) > 0.001). Subsequently, in order to address the issue of multicollinearity, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance values were calculated. Upon reviewing the obtained results, it was observed that the VIF value was below 5, and the tolerance value was above 0.10. Therefore, it was concluded that there were no multicollinearity problems since these values fell within the accepted range [65]. Furthermore, when preparing the data set for structural equation modeling, a check for normality distribution was performed. The values for kurtosis and skewness were found to be within the range of −1.5 to +1.5. Consequently, it was determined that the data followed a normal distribution [66].
SPSS AMOS program was used to test the hypothetical research model created based on the research purpose. In this context, a two-step approach recommended in the literature was preferred [67]. According to this approach, initially, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data, and factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, and construct reliability coefficients, along with discriminant validities, were calculated. Following factor analysis, due to low factor loadings, two items from the objective authenticity dimension of the cultural authenticity scale and three items from the intention to support cultural heritage tourism development scale were not included in the analysis. Subsequently, after confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis was conducted for hypothesis testing. To measure the moderator effect mentioned in the hypotheses, Process Macro (Model 1) [68] was utilized.

4. Findings

4.1. Demographic Profile

The demographic characteristics of the participants have been presented in Table 1. When the table is analyzed, it can be seen that 52.4% of the participants are male. Nearly half of the respondents (46.8%) are in the 35–44 age range, and 62.4% of them are single. When their educational status is considered, it is observed that 36.9% of the participants have an associate degree, and 49.3% have a bachelor’s degree. Regarding the length of their stay in Manavgat, 40.5% have been living there for 1–5 years, and 34% have been living there for 6–10 years. This situation can be explained by the leap that Manavgat has made in tourism in recent years. When the ten-year data were analyzed, it was seen that the number of tourists visiting Manavgat increased from 2.5 million tourists [69] to 6.5 million tourists [70]. The studies in the literature indicate that tourism investments in and around Antalya have created various employment opportunities in many fields, especially tourism, and, as a consequence, there has been an intense migration to Antalya and its surroundings [71]. In the light of the data obtained, it can be stated that there has been an increased interest in living in Manavgat destination over the last five years. Finally, when the income status of the residents has been evaluated, it is understood that 27.9% of them have an income between TL 30,001 and TL 40,000 (approximately USD 1110–USD 1480).

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Concerning the Structural Model

In line with the research objectives, it is recommended to apply confirmatory factor analysis before testing the hypotheses [67]. Accordingly, confirmatory factor analysis was first applied in order to test whether the collected data supported the model. Hair et al. [72] stated that the factor loadings for all statements in a construct should be a minimum of 0.50, but, ideally, it should be at least 0.70. In this research, the criterion of “having a factor loading of at least 0.70” was adopted for a better model fit and construct validity. As a consequence of the evaluation, five statements in total were removed from the scale: two statements in the objective authenticity dimension (“cultural assets are authentic”; “cultural values have been verified by historians”) and three statements in the intentions to support cultural heritage tourism dimension (“I support tourism and desire it to become a significant aspect of my community”, “destination management organizations should take necessary steps to support tourism”, and “I would like to participate voluntarily in promotional activities related to cultural heritage tourism”) had factor loadings below 0.70. The remaining 25 statements had factor loadings ranging from 0.810 to 0.978, and the calculated t-values were significant at the level of p ≤ 0.001. Additionally, it was found that the fit indices of the data were at an acceptable level (χ2/df = 2.900, NFI = 0.962, RFI = 0.956, IFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.068, RMR = 0.034, and CFI = 0.975). In light of the results obtained, it was decided that the data collected within the framework of the six-factor structure supported the structural model.
In the context of reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and construct reliability values were considered. For the accepted reliability level, Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and construct reliability (CR) coefficients in each construct should be at least 0.70. The closer the coefficient is to 1, the higher the reliability [73]. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was a minimum of 0.931, and the construct reliability coefficient was a minimum of 0.943. Based on these results, it can be stated that the scale meets the reliability criteria for all constructs.
As a part of assessing convergent validity, average variance extracted (AVE) values were analyzed. AVE values are suggested to be a minimum of 0.50 for each construct [72]. As a consequence of the analysis, it was determined that the minimum AVE values were 0.771. The findings of the study indicate that all values have satisfactory results within the context of confirmatory factor analysis. The results can be found in Table 2.
Table 3 explores the discriminant validity of the model. Based on the results of the table, it was found that the root square of AVE (Average Variance Extracted) for all constructs was found to be higher than all values in the relevant row. In the direction of these results, it was determined that the construct provided discriminant validity [74].

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

After the confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis was conducted. It was determined that the fit indices obtained in the path analysis were within acceptable limits (χ2/df = 2.689, NFI = 0.966, RFI = 0.960, IFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.079, RMR = 0.033, and CFI = 0.975). According to these results, objective authenticity perception positively influences destination attachment (β = 0.25, t = 6.949, and p < 0.001). Similarly, constructive authenticity has a strong and positive effect on destination attachment (β = 0.81, t = 13.920, and p < 0.001). On the other hand, existential authenticity does not have any statistically significant effect on destination attachment. Therefore, whereas H1a and H1b hypotheses have been accepted, H1c has been rejected. Consequently, destination attachment has a strong and positive effect on the intention to support the development of cultural heritage tourism (β = 0.90, t = 27.751, and p < 0.001). Concerning this outcome, H2 has been validated.
The results of the regression model developed to examine the moderator effect determined within the scope of the research hypothesis can be found in Table 4. Upon evaluating the findings in the table, it has been revealed that the moderator role of cultural sustainability perception is significant in the effect of destination attachment on the intention to support cultural heritage tourism (β = 0.04, 95% CI [0.002, 0.085], and p < 0.05). Upon further analysis of the specifics regarding the moderator variable, the effect of destination attachment on the intention to support cultural heritage tourism is lower for residents with a low perception of cultural sustainability (β = 0.73 and 95% CI [0.686, 0.791]) and higher for those with a high perception (β = 0.81 and 95% CI [0.762, 0.864]). In the light of the result obtained, H3 has been supported. In Figure 3, the coefficients of the structural model have been presented.
Figure 4 displays the results on the details of the moderator effect.
The acceptance and rejection statuses of the research hypotheses have been presented in Table 5.

5. Discussion

Despite the existence of studies that analyze cultural authenticity from the perspective of tourists [31,32], there are very few studies in the literature that examine the cultural authenticity perception from the perspective of local people. Nevertheless, the perception of cultural authenticity by local people will have several ramifications regarding tourism.
A number of studies [30,75,76] emphasize the importance of cultural tourism destinations having the capacity to offer objective, constructive, and existential authenticity. In Kutty’s study [77], cultural authenticity is discussed as a factor that can support economic and social equality, strengthen the sustainability of a region or city, and provide a competitive advantage. As suggested by Megeirhi et al. [58], a result-oriented communication plan prepared by trusted local policymakers, cultural site managers, and marketing experts can be effective in garnering the support of the locals, who are an important stakeholder in sustainable cultural heritage tourism management. In the long run, it is thought that such a plan could contribute to the preservation and enhancement of cultural worldviews and authenticity. In the study conducted by Poort et al. [78], the importance of looking at sustainable cultural tourism development from an authenticity perspective is discussed. The studies in the literature indicate that the awareness of local people for conservation will increase with the recognition of cultural values [53]. Moreover, the findings of this study indicate that the destination attachment of local people will enhance with the increase in objective and constructive authenticity. As these two dimensions are associated with the objects themselves [79], it can be argued that the tangible elements of historical buildings increase the destination attachment of local people.
Surprisingly, there is not a significant effect of existential authenticity of local people on destination attachment. This may be due to the fact that existential authenticity is a potential situation that could be mobilized through individual activities. Existential authenticity is an activity-dependent type of authenticity [79]. In this respect, why the relationship with destination attachment has not yielded a significant result can be attributed to the fact that local people do not spend much time in cultural heritage sites. Indeed, existential authenticity connotes the authenticity perception that is activated by touristic events [80]. The results obtained revealed the preferences of local people for different authenticity perceptions and provided valuable practical implications for tourism developers, heritage managers, and other stakeholders from a demand perspective.
Destination attachment is considered as an important antecedent in its effect on the intention to support tourism development [26]. When the results of this study have been analyzed, it is observed that cultural sustainability perception has a moderator role in this relationship. When compared with the findings of this study, it can be stated that cultural authenticity perception is an important antecedent in the formation of destination attachment.
When examining the theoretical contributions of this study, it is important to note that it proposes a model that addresses the relationships between cultural authenticity, destination attachment, the development of cultural heritage tourism, and cultural sustainability within a single framework. The empirical validation of these relationships is a significant aspect of this model. This study identifies the antecedents that play a crucial role in the formation of destination attachment among the local people and in supporting the cultural heritage tourism development. Furthermore, it examines the effects of these antecedents on other variables and highlights the moderator role of cultural sustainability perception in these effects. Cultural sustainability is essential for preserving cultural heritage and diversity. It is also crucial for those who rely on them for their livelihoods and contributes to the health and well-being of the planet. This can also help in the preservation of biological diversity and ecosystems.

6. Implications

The findings of this study provide contributions to not only practical but also theoretical research by aiming to enhance existing knowledge about how residents perceive cultural authenticity, an area that has been inadequately studied. It also provides a valuable opportunity to consider the role of residents in the management and planning of cultural tourism destinations. On one hand, it sheds light on the key constraints and challenges, and, on the other hand, it offers implications for future research. Furthermore, the study provides practical and theoretical data that can be valuable for public and private organizations interested in improving destination attachment and the development of cultural heritage tourism. It offers data that can guide future improvements in these areas.
Based on the results above, this study concludes that cultural authenticity should be actively used for the development of destination attachment and cultural heritage tourism and that cultural sustainability plays a moderating role in this regard.
Based on the findings and discussions, some suggestions are presented for the development of destination attachment and cultural heritage tourism in the case of Manavgat. Similar destinations are expected to benefit from these data and implications.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

First, the appropriateness of the analysis results of the research scale used as a measurement tool for the structural model indicates that the scale can also be used in future studies. The major implications of this study for future academic research lie in understanding how cultural authenticity as perceived by local people has a direct influence on destination attachment and intention to support cultural heritage tourism development. The theoretical implications of the subject can be outlined as follows. Firstly, whereas many studies explore authenticity, attachment, and cultural heritage tourism from the perspective of tourists, this study focuses on the perception of these concepts by local people. Thus, this broadens the perspective of research and offers new insights for a comprehensive and detailed understanding of the subject from both perspectives. The local people living in a tourism destination are an integral part of that destination, and understanding their perceptions of tourism activities in the area [81] is crucial for the development of cultural heritage tourism and ensuring its sustainability [82]. In this context, the present study has sought the opinions of the local people. Secondly, in the literature, most studies have primarily focused on the effects of authenticity and destination attachment on loyalty and commitment. However, very few have investigated the relationship between authenticity and sustainable cultural tourism [78]. Therefore, this study is expected to make a significant contribution to the literature.

6.2. Practical Implications

The findings firstly suggest that to gain long-term competitive advantage and ensure the sustainability of cultural heritage tourism, it is necessary and of great importance to continue to preserve the cultural authenticity that will yield beneficial outcomes. In the study, it has been found that the effect of destination attachment on the intention to support cultural heritage tourism is lower in residents with a low perception of cultural sustainability, whereas it is higher in individuals with a high perception of cultural sustainability. There seems to be a direct relationship between the two situations. As the local people’s perception of cultural sustainability increases, it is thought that the influence of destination attachment on supporting cultural heritage will also increase. To achieve this, it is important for the local community to:
  • Preserve traditional knowledge and wisdom.
  • Encourage and use traditional expressions in the spoken language.
  • Protect and promote traditional artistic elements specific to the region, which play a significant role in expressing cultural identities.
  • Additionally, it is essential for the locals to be willing to preserve traditions. One way to achieve this is by facilitating intergenerational learning and passing on traditional knowledge and skills. This can be performed through methods such as creating photographic records or digital archives.
It is essential to secure the support of the state and other institutions concerning cultural sustainability. Laws and regulations aimed at preserving cultural heritage can be made more functional, and policies that encourage the utilization of traditional knowledge and practices should be formulated. In the development of cultural heritage tourism, travel businesses should also prioritize the emphasis on cultural authenticity. This approach significantly influences the formation of destination attachment.
Constructive authenticity is an element that directly affects loyalty [83]. Thus, governments and operators should use authenticity in the construction of attractions in tourist destinations to ensure that tourists and locals understand that the environment in Manavgat and similar tourist destinations are real as an inherent feature. This practice will positively affect the creation of a sense of attachment to the destination. Regarding structural authenticity, which considers authenticity construction as a social process, tourism authorities should include references to places, symbols, and nature that can be visited by the local people in promotional campaigns. Moreover, there should be an emphasis on practices that increase interactions between locals and tourists. This will not only enhance intercultural interactions but also contribute positively to the development of cultural heritage tourism. Furthermore, in order to strengthen the existential authenticity perception of local people, it may be suggested to organize various activities and make announcements that will attract residents to cultural heritage sites. Thus, local people will discover the privileges of being a part of cultural heritage while living in it.
Ensuring cultural sustainability can be challenging when people are not aware of its relevance to their lives. Therefore, it is recommended to raise awareness among the local population about the aspects of cultural sustainability that relate to their livelihoods. In this regard, educating the locals about the importance of cultural sustainability and why it matters, as well as supporting and financing organizations and companies that promote cultural sustainability, can contribute to positive outcomes. Awareness of cultural sustainability should also be raised through the media and other channels.
Academicians studying about cultural tourism should also focus on cultural authenticity and destination attachment perceptions, investigate the current situation of other destinations, and give importance to cultural sustainability perceptions regarding the destination.
Whenever a new touristic product or service is to be developed, the local people ought to be involved in the process and how they perceive their own culture from the perspective of authenticity needs to be understood. This is also a method of protecting sustainable development in social and cultural terms for touristic destinations [78].

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

The limitations of this study are primarily related to its measurements. In particular, variables such as cultural authenticity and destination attachment are rather abstract concepts. The measurements used in the study may not represent these concepts in the best possible way. As the data were obtained through a self-report method, the validity of the responses is closely related to the honesty and self-awareness of the participants. Therefore, there may be some possible measurement errors. This situation may impose a limitation on the objectivity of the data. Additionally, this study employed a quantitative method, which can be considered as another limitation. Future research could be designed with qualitative or mixed methods to further develop the knowledge in this field. Furthermore, the study is limited to assessing the effect of cultural authenticity on destination attachment and cultural heritage tourism development in addition to examining the moderating role of cultural sustainability in this interaction. Nevertheless, there are other factors that can contribute to destination attachment and cultural heritage tourism development. Future research could consider these additional elements. In future studies, exploring various factors beyond cultural authenticity can yield new results. Additionally, the research model can be expanded to include other moderator variables along with cultural sustainability. In addition, it should be noted that the research sample in this study is specific to Manavgat, and the results may be influenced by the unique characteristics of this locality. The sample of the study has been limited to the Manavgat region due to the fact that it is home to a rich cultural heritage resource, has not lost its authentic part and cultural values, and has been able to preserve them until today. In addition, the fact that it is a destination with a high level of tourism development in general, as well as providing time, cost, and accessibility advantages, also contributed to this limitation. This situation limits the generalization of the findings of the study. Conducting comprehensive research across different countries and regions, allowing for comparisons, is necessary to generalize the findings. Another limitation of the study is the sample size. It would be beneficial to evaluate the results over a numerically larger sample in future studies.

7. Conclusions

The principal conclusions of this study could be summarized as follows: firstly, this study reveals that cultural authenticity can positively support destination attachment and cultural heritage tourism development, and it demonstrates the significance of the moderator role of cultural sustainability perception in this support. The findings show that “objective authenticity” and “constructive authenticity” perceptions, which constitute cultural authenticity, positively affect destination attachment. In other words, it can be concluded that the participants with a higher perception of objective and structural authenticity have a higher level of destination attachment. Su and Wall [23] stated that with the increase in the attachment of local people to a destination, awareness regarding the protection and development of cultural heritage will also increase. In this sense, with the development of authenticity perception in local people, it may be possible to develop awareness towards the formation of attitudes and behaviors for the protection of cultural heritage. As stated in Rickly Boyd’s [84] study, objective authenticity primarily focuses on the authenticity of objects, artifacts, structures, and other similar things. Likewise, the local people who participated in the study live in close proximity to many real historical and cultural artifacts in Manavgat district. Therefore, it is possible to evaluate Manavgat as a destination that encompasses historical and cultural features as unique through an objective approach. Accordingly, it can be stated that the objective authenticity perceptions of the participants are higher. Nevertheless, the influence of existential authenticity on destination attachment is not statistically significant. In line with this, Bryce et al. [34] emphasized in their study that constructive authenticity could influence attachment, and Kolar and Zabkar [32], in their examination of the authenticity concept in connection with cultural tourism, stated that the strengthening of the objective reality sense would enhance commitment and, consequently, the development of cultural attachment. In the study carried out by Domínguez-Quintero et al. [85], it is suggested that the objective dimension of authenticity positively influences the existential dimension, and, in the context of cultural tourism, a high perception of objective authenticity is also considered to have a positive effect on existential authenticity perception. Approaching the situation from this perspective, based on the data obtained as a result of the study that there is no significant relationship between existential authenticity and destination attachment, it can be assumed that objective authenticity, which has a positive relationship with destination attachment, can also positively affect the existential authenticity perception of local people participating in the study. Existential authenticity, on the other hand, requires individuals to understand the reality of what they interact with, necessitating a desire for knowledge and learning. The lack of any impact of existential authenticity on the perception of destination attachment among the local community participants in the study may be attributed to a lack of interest in or demand for knowledge and learning related to existential authenticity. In addition, MacCannel [16] stated that people can become estranged from their environment over time and have the misconception that authenticity is outside their own region. For this reason, based on the possibility that the local people participating in the study may be partially alienated from the authenticity of the region they live in, it may have been concluded that their existential authenticity perceptions do not have an effect on their attachment to the destination. Regarding existential authenticity, Dağ et al. [86] consider authenticity as being in contact with one’s own self, knowing oneself and one’s own identity, and then living in harmony with their own self. In this respect, it can be stated that the lack of a significant effect between existential authenticity perception and destination attachment may be due to the fact that the local people participating in the study do not evaluate the historical and cultural objects in the region with objective reality due to the nature of existential authenticity but perceive them in a relative way by focusing on their own experience.
Another result obtained indicates that destination attachment supports cultural heritage tourism development. The effect of destination attachment on supporting tourism development has been examined in various studies [24,25,26]. As Lak et al. [22] also pointed out, the sense of attachment of local people, especially those residing in the areas near cultural heritage sites, plays a significant role in the region’s development. Furthermore, the study by Su and Wall [23] suggests that an increase in local people’s attachment can enhance awareness of the preservation and development of cultural heritage. Finally, it was concluded that the perceived cultural authenticity by the local community has an effect on destination attachment, and this effect is moderated by cultural sustainability, with the perception of cultural sustainability being lower among participants, leading to a lower impact of destination attachment on the intention to support cultural heritage tourism development. This result suggests that raising the perception of cultural sustainability can influence destination attachment, potentially leading to the formation of an intention to support the development of cultural heritage tourism. In general, cultural authenticity has an influence on the development of cultural heritage tourism. This aligns with the studies emphasizing that authenticity constitutes a key theme in cultural heritage tourism [11,12]. Moreover, testing these relationships with the current study provides a better understanding of how the variables used interact with the perception of local people regarding a cultural heritage tourism destination.

Author Contributions

This research paper has been agreed upon by all of the authors and carried out collaboratively, but each one of the authors has made contributions to the paper individually. H.K. and Y.G., provided project management and language supervision. O.Y. performed the analyses and focused on the process of testing the hypotheses and the scales of the article. S.E., G.S.E. and E.D. conducted an extensive literature review, contributed to the original draft, and formulated the research hypotheses. M.N.O.Y., E.G. and F.U. contributed to the completion of the discussion, implications, limitations, and conclusion chapters. In addition, the authors used an internal audit system during the preparation phase and monitored each other for any potential setbacks. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the following ethics committees: Akdeniz University—Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethical Committee (Ref: 16/404).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the research.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed during this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kroeber, A.L.; Kluckhohn, C. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol. Harv. Univ. 1952, 47, 223. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1953-07119-001 (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  2. Hofstede, G. Culture and Organizations. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 1980, 10, 15–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bonink, C.; Richards, G. 1992’Cuhural Tourism in Europe. ATLAS Research Report; University of North London: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bywater, M. The market for cultural tourism. Travel Tour. Anal. 1993, 6, 30–46. [Google Scholar]
  5. Schouten, F. Improving Visitor Care in Heritage Attractions. Tour. Manag. 1995, 16, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Richards, G. Cultural Tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CABI. 1994. Available online: https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=xroeAQAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=6.%09Richards,+G.+Cultural+Tourism+in+Europe.+Cult.+Tour.+Eur.+1994,+99+%E2%80%93115.&ots=TMSvk6rnrd&sig=FdJ9Q-bI8awR4QVDR_ox-nT-A0Y&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  7. Stebbins, R.A. Cultural Tourism as Serious Leisure. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 948–950. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-16724-001 (accessed on 25 September 2023). [CrossRef]
  8. World Tourism Organization (WTO). Tourism 2000: Building a Sustainable Future for Asia-Pacific; Final Report; WTO: Madrid, Spain, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  9. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  10. Joshi, M.P.V. Planning Cultural-Heritage Tourism for Sustainable Development. 2012. Available online: https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Planning_Cultural_Heritage_Tourism_for_Sustainable_Development_/661778 (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  11. Chhabra, D. Defining Authenticity and Its Determinants: Toward an Authenticity Flow Model. J. Travel Res. 2005, 44, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Park, E.; Choi, B.-K.; Lee, T.J. The Role and Dimensions of Authenticity in Heritage Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2019, 74, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abarca, M.E. Authentic or Not, It’s Original. Food Foodways 2004, 12, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Steiner, C.J.; Reisinger, Y. Understanding Existential Authenticity. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 299–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brida, J.G.; Disegna, M.; Osti, L. The Effect of Authenticity on Visitors’ Expenditure at Cultural Events. Curr. Issues Tour. 2013, 16, 266–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. MacCannell, D. Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 79, 589–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wight, P. Environmentally Responsible Marketing of Tourism. Ecotour. Sustain. Option 1994, 9, 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lozano-Oyola, M.; Blancas, F.J.; González, M.; Caballero, R. Sustainable Tourism Indicators as Planning Tools in Cultural Destinations. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 659–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Butler, R.W. Sustainable Tourism: A State-of-the-art Review. Tour. Geogr. 1999, 1, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wall, G. Is Ecotourism Sustainable? Environ. Manag. 1997, 21, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Gnoth, J.; Matteucci, X. A Phenomenological View of the Behavioural Tourism Research Literature. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2014, 8, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D.J. Urban Regeneration through Heritage Tourism: Cultural Policies and Strategic Management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020, 18, 386–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Su, M.M.; Wall, G. Community Involvement at Great Wall World Heritage Sites, Beijing, China. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gursoy, D.; Boğan, E.; Dedeoğlu, B.B.; Çalışkan, C. Residents’ Perceptions of Hotels’ Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives and Its Impact on Residents’ Sentiments to Community and Support for Additional Tourism Development. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 39, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Keleş, H. Turizmin Yerel Halkın Yaşam Kalitesi, Memnuniyeti ve Turizme Desteği Üzerindeki Etkileri: Manavgat Örneği. 2021. Available online: https://acikerisim.erbakan.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/20.500.12452/8129 (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  26. Yayla, Ö.; Koç, B.; Dimanche, F. Residents’ Support for Tourism Development: Investigating Quality-of-Life, Community Commitment, and Communication. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2023, 33, 3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, G.; Chen, X.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Sustainability of Heritage Tourism: A Structural Perspective from Cultural Identity and Consumption Intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, B.; Tuou, Y.; Liu, J. How Does Destination Social Responsibility Impact Residents’ pro-Tourism Behaviors? The Mediating Role of Place Attachment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Residents’ Satisfaction with Community Attributes and Support for Tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2011, 35, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, N. Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Tour. Crit. Concepts Soc. Sci. 2004, 2, 210–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chow, K.; Healey, M. Place Attachment and Place Identity: First-Year Undergraduates Making the Transition from Home to University. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. 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]
  33. Cohen, E. Traditions in the Qualitative Sociology of Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1988, 15, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bryce, D.; Curran, R.; O’Gorman, K.; Taheri, B. Visitors’ Engagement and Authenticity: Japanese Heritage Consumption. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Handler, R. Authenticity. Anthropol. Today 1986, 2, 2–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cole, S. Beyond Authenticity and Commodification. Ann. Tour. Res. 2007, 34, 943–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lin, Y.C. The Willingness of Heritage Tourists to Pay for Perceived Authenticity in Pingxi, Taiwan. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 1044–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Altman, I.; Low, S.M. Place Attachment; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1992; Volume 262. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernandez, B. Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kyle, G.T.; Mowen, A.J.; Tarrant, M. Linking Place Preferences with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship between Place Motivation and Place Attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 439–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Halpenny, E.A. Environmental Behaviour, Place Attachment and Park Visitation: A Case Study of Visitors to Point Pelee National Park. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kyle, G.; Chick, G. The Social Construction of a Sense of Place. Leis. Sci. 2007, 29, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yuval-Davis, N. Theorizing Identity: Beyond the ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ Dichotomy. Patterns Prejud. 2010, 44, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kerstetter, D.; Bricker, K. Exploring Fijian’s Sense of Place after Exposure to Tourism Development. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 691–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Carter, J.; Dyer, P.; Sharma, B. Dis-Placed Voices: Sense of Place and Place-Identity on the Sunshine Coast. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2007, 8, 755–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomson, R. A Biographical Perspective. 2007. Available online: https://oro.open.ac.uk/11706/ (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  47. Antonsich, M. Searching for Belonging—An Analytical Framework: Searching for Belonging. Geogr. Compass 2010, 4, 644–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 1056–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Buzinde, C.N.; Manuel-Navarrete, D. The Social Production of Space in Tourism Enclaves: Mayan Children’s Perceptions of Tourism Boundaries. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 482–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, C.F.; Chen, P.C. Attitudes Locales Face Au Développement du Tourisme: Témoignaged’une Ville Patrimoine de Taiwan. Tour. Geogr. 2010, 12, 525–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Sustainable Tourism: An Evolving Global Approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 1993, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Choi, H.C.; Sirakaya, E. Sustainability Indicators for Managing Community Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1274–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cole, S.; Stable, M.J. Tourism & Sustainability: Principles to Practice; Biddles Ltd.: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Jaafar, M.; Ahmad, A.G.; Barghi, R. Community Participation in World Heritage Site Conservation and Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. 2017, 58, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Payne, R. Sustainable Tourism: Suggested Indicators and Monitoring Techniques. Dep. Geogr. Publ. Ser. Univ. Waterloo 1999, 52, 355–360. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nguyen, T.H.H.; Cheung, C. Chinese Heritage Tourists to Heritage Sites: What Are the Effects of Heritage Motivation and Perceived Authenticity on Satisfaction? Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, 1155–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hallak, R.; Assaker, G.; Lee, C. Tourism Entrepreneurship Performance: The Effects of Place Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Gender. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Megeirhi, H.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Ramkissoon, H.; Denley, T.J. Employing a Value-Belief-Norm Framework to Gauge Carthage Residents’ Intentions to Support Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1351–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Negruşa, A.L.; Toader, V.; Rus, R.V.; Cosma, S.A. Study of Perceptions on Cultural Events’ Sustainability. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ministry of Culture and Tourism-Turkey. Business (Ministry) Certified Facility Accommodation Statistics in 2022. Available online: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-201120/konaklama-istatistikleri.html (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  61. AKTOB. Mediterranean Touristic Hoteliers & Investors Association, Antalya/Manavgat Bed Capacity. 2022. Available online: https://aktob.org.tr/news (accessed on 30 January 2023).
  62. Turkish Statistical Institute. Population Rates of Districts. 2021. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=nufus-ve-demografi-109&dil=1 (accessed on 12 April 2021).
  63. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods Forbusiness Students. Financial Times, 31 January 2023. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cooper, B.; Eva, N.; Fazlelahi, F.Z.; Newman, A.; Lee, A.; Obschonka, M. Addressing Common Method Variance and Endogeneity in Vocational Behavior Research: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 121, 103472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kleinbaum, D.G.; Kupper, L.L.; Muller, K.E. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods (PWS); Kent Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  67. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ministry of Culture and Tourism-Turkey. Annual Provincial-District Accommodation Tables. 2019. Available online: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-208783/yillik-il-ilce-konaklama-tablolari.html (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  70. Ministry of Culture and Tourism-Turkey. Number of Foreign Visitors. 2022. Available online: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-249702/sinir-istatistikleri.html (accessed on 2 February 2023).
  71. Şevket, I.; Zoğal, V. Turizm Kentleşmesi Kavrami: Antalya Örneği. Ege Coğrafya Derg. 2017, 26, 71–94. [Google Scholar]
  72. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis (Vol. 6). 2006. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Multivariate-Data-Analysis-Joseph-Hair/dp/0138132631 (accessed on 12 April 2021).
  73. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  74. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. McKercher, B.; Ho, P.S. Assessing the Tourism Potential of Smaller Cultural and Heritage Attractions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14, 473–488. [Google Scholar]
  76. Alberts, H.C.; Hazen, H.D. Maintaining Authenticity and Integrity at Cultural World Heritage Sites. Geogr. Rev. 2010, 100, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kutty, N.K. Cultural Authenticity and Regional Development. 2008. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1117279 (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  78. Poort, M.E.; Persson-Fischier, U.; Martinsson-Wallin, H.; Elf Donaldson, E.; Schaub, M. “Authenticity” as a Pathway to Sustainable Cultural Tourism? The Cases of Gotland and Rapa Nui. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, N. Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sağıroğlu, M. Turistik mekânda gerçekliğin algısal değişimi: Modern ve post-modern turizm deneyimlerinde özgünlük. J. Plan. 2019, 29, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chauma, E.C.; Ngwira, C. Managing a World Heritage Site in Malawi: Do Residents’ Sentiments Matter? J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chami, M.F. Community Involvement and Sustainable Tourism Development in Heritage Management: Amboni Limestone Caves, Tanzania. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2018, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  83. Tian, D.; Wang, Q.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Influence of Cultural Identity on Tourists’ Authenticity Perception, Tourist Satisfaction, and Traveler Loyalty. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rickly-Boyd, J.M. Authenticity & Aura: A Benjaminian Approach to Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 269–289. [Google Scholar]
  85. Domínguez-Quintero, A.M.; González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Paddison, B. The Mediating Role of Experience Quality on Authenticity and Satisfaction in the Context of Cultural-Heritage Tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dağ, K.; Çavuşoğlu, S.; Demirağ, B. yavaş turizm bağlamında özgünlük, mekânsal bağlılık ve davranışsal niyet arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Halfeti örneği. Int. J. Manag. Econ. Bus. 2022, 18, 683–708. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 15794 g001
Figure 1. Hypothetical research model.
Figure 1. Hypothetical research model.
Sustainability 15 15794 g001
Sustainability 15 15794 g002
Figure 2. Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites/Manavgat.
Figure 2. Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites/Manavgat.
Sustainability 15 15794 g002
Sustainability 15 15794 g003
Figure 3. Structural Model Coefficients. * p < 0.001; ** p < 0.05; N.S. No significant.
Figure 3. Structural Model Coefficients. * p < 0.001; ** p < 0.05; N.S. No significant.
Sustainability 15 15794 g003
Sustainability 15 15794 g004
Figure 4. CS moderator to DA-ISCHT (CS: Cultural Sustainability; DA: Destination Attachment; and ISCHT: Intentions to Support Cultural Heritage Tourism).
Figure 4. CS moderator to DA-ISCHT (CS: Cultural Sustainability; DA: Destination Attachment; and ISCHT: Intentions to Support Cultural Heritage Tourism).
Sustainability 15 15794 g004
Table 1. Description of the Participants (n = 412).
Table 1. Description of the Participants (n = 412).
VariablesFrequencyPercentage (%)
Gender
Male21652.4
Female19647.6
Age
18–244510.9
25–3410826.2
35–4419346.8
45–545513.3
55 or more112.7
Marial Status
Married15537.6
Single25762.4
Education Status
Primary education112.7
Secondary education286.8
Associate degree15236.9
Undergraduate20349.3
Postgraduate184.4
Length of stay in the destination
Less than 1 year235.6
1–5 years16740.5
6–10 years14034.0
11–15 years5012.1
16 years and more327.8
Income
11.500 TL and less7718.7
11.501–20.000 TL9322.6
20.001–30.000 TL7919.2
30.001–40.000 TL11527.9
40.001 TL and more4811.7
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results regarding the Structural Model.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results regarding the Structural Model.
Factors/ItemsStandard Loadingt-ValueR2CRAVECA
Perceived Authenticity
Objective Authenticity 0.9650.8880.962
Cultural assets represent the history of Manavgat.0.90236.38 *0.81
Cultural values have been preserved from the actual period.0.93643.32 *0.87
Cultural values have a documented history.0.96451.51 *0.92
Cultural assets are in an old and ancient structure.0.967 0.73
Constructive Authenticity 0.9820.9220.976
Old structures reflect traces from the local culture’s life.0.95841.83 *0.91
Old structures are still used for their original purpose.0.96743.91 *0.93
Old structures represent the identity of the local culture.0.95541.31 *0.91
Old structures explain local lifestyles.0.97846.55 *0.95
Old structures are consistent with the current state of the local culture.0.96944.18 *0.93
Old buildings provide an opportunity to experience the local culture.0.936 0.87
Existential Authenticity 0.9660.9050.959
Cultural structures provide a calm and peaceful atmosphere.0.958 0.79
Cultural assets offer an enjoyable experience.0.96642.14 *0.93
Cultural values help me relax in my life.0.93041.55 *0.86
Destination Attachment 0.9800.9300.973
Many things in this destination remind me of my past.0.95949.38 *0.91
I cannot imagine living in a different city because I would have to give up too much of myself.0.96049.68 *0.92
I have had so many experiences here that I have become very attached to this city.0.97656.34 *0.85
I know this destination so well that I can easily recognize any photograph of it.0.963 0.84
Intentions to support cultural heritage tourism 0.9520.8790.969
It is important to develop plans to preserve historical sites and manage the growth of tourism.0.953 0.90
I support the promotion of various historical tourist attractions in the destination.0.88233.29 *0.76
Tourists should be provided with cultural information to enhance their experiences.0.97651.30 *0.85
Cultural Sustainability 0.9430.7710.931
The promotion of local culture and identity should be encouraged.0.845 0.71
The cultural life of the city should be fostered.0.81020.58 *0.65
The educational and cultural development of the community should be ensured.0.96628.24 *0.93
The foreign language skills of the region’s residents should be improved, and the cultural heritage should be promoted by the local community.0.88223.83 *0.77
The emergence/development of a sense of pride in “being from Manavgat” should be encouraged.0.88223.84 *0.77
* p < 0.001.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Results.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Results.
Factor123456
1. OA0.942 a
2. CA0.9220.960 a
3. EA0.8470.8200.951 a
4. DA0.8400.8590.8770.964 a
5. ISCHT0.9000.8270.7770.8980.938 a
6. CS0.2230.2010.1990.1870.2100.878 a
OA: Objective Authenticity, CA: Constructive Authenticity, EA: Existential Authenticity, DA: Destination Attachment, ISCHT: Intentions to Support Cultural Heritage Tourism, and CS: Cultural Sustainability. a Square root of the AVE.
Table 4. Moderated Effect Results.
Table 4. Moderated Effect Results.
Intentions to Support Cultural Heritage Tourism
βConfidence Interval
H3 Min.Max.
Destination Attachment (X) 0.69 *0.6130.781
Cultural Sustainability (W) 0.18 *0.3110.491
X.W (Interaction) 0.04 **0.0020.085
R2 0.71
Cultural SustainabilityβS.E.tLLCIULCI
Low:0.73 *0.0327.910.6860.791
Middle:0.75 *0.0234.730.7120.798
High:0.81 *0.0331.240.7620.864
* p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05.
Table 5. The Acceptance/Rejection Status of Hypothesis Testing.
Table 5. The Acceptance/Rejection Status of Hypothesis Testing.
Hypothesis NoHypothesisAcceptance/Rejection
H1aObjective AuthenticitySustainability 15 15794 i001Destination AttachmentAccepted
H1bConstructive AuthenticitySustainability 15 15794 i002Destination AttachmentAccepted
H1cExistential AuthenticitySustainability 15 15794 i003Destination AttachmentRejected
H2Destination AttachmentSustainability 15 15794 i004Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism DevelopmentAccepted
H3Destination AttachmentSustainability 15 15794 i005Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism Development * Cultural SustainabilityAccepted
*: The interaction term between two variables.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Uslu, F.; Yayla, O.; Guven, Y.; Ergun, G.S.; Demir, E.; Erol, S.; Yıldırım, M.N.O.; Keles, H.; Gozen, E. The Perception of Cultural Authenticity, Destination Attachment, and Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism Development by Local People: The Moderator Role of Cultural Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215794

AMA Style

Uslu F, Yayla O, Guven Y, Ergun GS, Demir E, Erol S, Yıldırım MNO, Keles H, Gozen E. The Perception of Cultural Authenticity, Destination Attachment, and Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism Development by Local People: The Moderator Role of Cultural Sustainability. Sustainability. 2023; 15(22):15794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215794

Chicago/Turabian Style

Uslu, Fatih, Ozgur Yayla, Yigit Guven, Gozde Seval Ergun, Erdi Demir, Suzan Erol, Merve Nur Oklu Yıldırım, Huseyin Keles, and Ebru Gozen. 2023. "The Perception of Cultural Authenticity, Destination Attachment, and Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism Development by Local People: The Moderator Role of Cultural Sustainability" Sustainability 15, no. 22: 15794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215794

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