Past Perfect: Explorations of Heritage Tourism.

The tourism industry has grown phenomenally in the past few decades. Greater numbers of people worldwide are traveling nationally and internationally and, concomitantly, global spending on travel and tourism has more than doubled (Travel Industry Association, 1999). Coupled with the growth in tourism is a booming interest in history, heritage, and culture. In addition to a number of magazines devoted to history -- American Heritage, America's Civil War, Civil War Times, American History, American History Illustrated, Early American Life, Historic Preservation, and World War II -- publications such as Historic Traveler and Westylvania magazine, a regional magazine dedicated to the history, heritage, and culture of southwestern Pennsylvania, are gaining popularity. Given Americans' fascination with their history, it is not surprising that heritage has become a "major catalyst for the whole travel experience" (Hall & Zeppel, 1990).

What is Heritage, Tourism?

Millar (1989) and others (Hardy, 1988; Tighe, 1986) suggest that heritage tourism is "about the cultural traditions, places and values that ... groups throughout the world are proud to conserve." Cultural traditions such as family patterns, religious practices, folklore traditions, and social customs attract individuals interested in heritage (Collins, 1983; Weiler & Hall, 1992) as do monuments, museums, battlefields, historic structures, and landmarks (Konrad, 1982; McNulty, 1991). According to Tassell and Tassell (1990), heritage tourism also includes natural heritage sites -- gardens, wilderness areas of scenic beauty, and valued cultural landscapes. Regardless of the heritage attraction, Richards (1996) and Prentice (1993) argue that heritage tourism is about searching for something that links the past and the present. It is integrally tied to nostalgia. For example, a family makes a weekend vacation of traveling to and visiting their ancestral homestead.

Unfortunately, due to the attractiveness of heritage as a commodity, an increasing number of areas are being promoted as "heritage" destinations (Herbert, 1995). Essentially, in tourism, the term heritage has come to mean landscapes, natural history, buildings, artifacts, and cultural traditions that are "either literally or metaphorically passed on from one generation to the other, but those among these things which can be portrayed for promotion as tourism products" {Prentice, 1993).

Despite the loose definition of heritage tourism, its growth is beyond contention (Mason, 1993). Between 1991 and 1995 interest in heritage tourism increased 16 percent. And this interest continues to grow. Recently, TIA reported that approximately 54 million adults had visited a museum or historical site in the past year (1999). There are no indications that this trend has topped out.

The Heritage Tourist

When compared to travelers overall, individuals who travel to heritage and cultural sites (i.e., heritage tourists) are better educated and have a higher average annual income (TIA, 1997). They more often travel in couples or large groups and are twice as likely to take group tours. On average, heritage tourists spend significantly more than general travelers (TIA, 1999).

While demographic and travel behavior characteristics give us some insight, "The selective appeal of heritage places may be [best] explained by considering the ... needs and motivations of those people who visit, or who do not visit, such places ..." (Light & Prentice, 1994). Fun, according to Hawley {1990), is secondary to learning for heritage tourists because they travel to increase their knowledge of people, places and things -- to experience a sense of nostalgia for the past. Prentice and Prentice {1989) and Thomas {1989) support his contention and suggest that an interest in learning has increased among heritage tourists over the past 20 years. According to Weiler and Hall (1992), heritage tourists are motivated "more by a search for heritage experiences than by a detailed interest in factual history."

Peterson (1990) and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (in Mawson, 1994) lend support to this argument. Both found tourists to be attracted to tourism destinations primarily for the "atmosphere" and ambiance associated with the site, not for the history. Hargrove (1995), in discussing the outlook for cultural and heritage tourism in the United States, stated that the most frequent reasons for visiting historic sites were: (1) interest in history, (2) quality of exhibits, and (3) special events and programs. In addition to the appreciation of its architecture, the historic site or building itself was a strong, obvious reason for visitation.

Prentice, Witt, and Hamer (1998), studying visitors to an industrial heritage park, found that distinct segments of heritage tourists exist. For example, people in one segment were interested in local history as well as in learning more about industrial heritage. Another group was characterized by its lack of interest in nostalgia. Kerstetter, Confer, and Bricker (1998), who also studied industrial heritage tourists, found that tourists tended to visit "types" of attractions and, as a result, could be segmented into smaller subsegments of heritage tourists. For example, there were tourists who only visited railroad sites, and others who limited their visitation to battlefields and forts. These subsegments differed not only in terms of their visitation patterns but also their trip behavior characteristics.

Most if not all of the data were collected through cross-sectional surveys that, while valuable, give us only a glimpse of the heritage tourist. To determine whether a true heritage tourist exists, a longitudinal study was conducted, the results of which are described below.

Heritage Tourism in Southwestern Pennsylvania

In 1991, representatives from Pennsylvania State University's School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management began a five-year study of heritage tourism in southwestern Pennsylvania. The study, sponsored by the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation and its affiliate partners, focused on the development of a visitor profile and establishment of economic impact data. Data were collected from individuals visiting 27 different heritage attractions located along Pennsylvania's Path of Progress (POP) heritage route, formerly known as America's Industrial Heritage Project.

The results support the general profile of the heritage tourist as slightly older (average age: 48), well educated (67 percent had at least some college), with an above-average annual income (60 percent made more than $40,000). Although heritage tourists tend to travel quite a distance to visit (77 percent travel more than 60 miles), they do not necessarily plan far in advance for their trips (56 percent plan a week before or less). These visitors tend to spend almost three days in the area while visiting slightly more than five different POP sites (Confer & Kerstetter, 1996).

Analyses of trends demonstrated that there were no major changes in heritage tourists' sociodemographic profiles. However, there were significant changes in travel behavior. For example, by 1995, the percentage of respondents who were likely to make their decision the day of the visit decreased. In 1991, 42 percent made their decision the day of the visit, compared to 26 percent in 1995. This result corroborates the finding related to miles traveled to site. In 1991, respondents traveled 174 miles on average to visit a site. By 1995, this average had increased to 319. With respect to first-time visitation, 59 percent of the respondents indicated that this was their first visit in 1995, compared to 68 percent in 1991.

In an effort to fully understand heritage tourists in southwestern Pennsylvania, we also examined respondents' motivations for visiting heritage sites. Visitors were offered a number of possible motives and asked to check off those that were related to their decision to visit the site. About one-quarter of respondents indicated an interest in culture, heritage, or ethnicity as one of their primary motives for visiting. Other motives included wanting to show someone else the site and wanting to learn more. Visitors also noted the importance of the site's authenticity and historical character in their decision to visit a site.

Further, the variables that predict individuals' visitation to heritage sites changed between 1991 and 1995. The most important predictors of visitation to heritage sites in 1995 were reasons for visitation, when decision was made to visit, length of stay in the region, group size, whether this was a first-time visit, and age.

These findings suggest that there has been a progression in type of traveler.

In fact, building upon the notion of specialization (see Bryan, 1977), we found that as heritage tourism has continued to develop so too have types of heritage tourists (Kerstetter, Confer & Graefe, in press). For example, individuals who have less experience (i.e., low specialists) are more interested in the educational benefits of visiting heritage sites than are tourists with more experience and more knowledge.

Will Heritage Tourism Last?

Heritage tourists are a distinct segment of the overall tourism market and, over time, appear to become more specialized in their pursuit of heritage-based travel experiences. The extent to which tourists will stay loyal to heritage destinations, however, is not known. Will they continue to visit the same destinations, or is there a point at which they will look for new heritage-based experiences?

Silberberg (1995) suggested that tourists' interest in "heritage and culture" may in part be due to the economic realities of the '90s, which caused a shift from escapism to enrichment. He based his argument on the findings of a 1992 Lou Harris poll of frequent travelers conducted for Travel and Leisure magazine. The poll found that people in the '90s were much more inclined to consider, for example, "cultural, historical or archaeological treasures" and "understanding culture" rather than "a good night life" or "expensive food" when planning a trip. Will these findings hold true in the new millennium?

It is clear that travel has become an integral part of people's lives. Individuals plan for extended vacations, jump in their cars for a quick weekend getaway and, with a moment's notice, attend a local festival celebrating the heritage of their community. It is unlikely that this behavior will soon change. What may change, in terms of heritage tourism, is the way in which tourists approach their visits to heritage-based destinations. For example, they may begin to plan ahead, visit multiple sites with similar themes, and travel greater distances. Why is understanding heritage tourists' travel behavior important? If we understand why and how tourists travel to heritage-based destinations, we can market them more effectively. An equally compelling argument, however, is that we as a society are responsible for providing individuals with opportunities to learn about the past, both to understand the significance of physical remains and to place them in a social context. Understanding the behavior of heritage tourists will help us to do this.

Research Into Action is published monthly by the Society of Park and Recreation Educators, National Recreation and Park Association. As an accompaniment to "Research Update," its goal is to turn research findings into field action by highlighting management strategies. Founding editors are Dr. Ruth Russell and Dr. Daniel D. McLean, Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana University.

Research Into Action: History Promotes Itself

What the research tells us

Heritage tourism is a growing segment of the tourism marketplace. Several authors have suggested that heritage tourism is about cultural traditions such as "family patterns, religious practices, folklore traditions and social customs." Heritage tourism cannot be condensed into single-type attractions but includes many different types of attractions. Attractions might include monuments, battlefields, birthplaces, historic structures, landscapes, trails, wilderness areas, and many others. Clearly, heritage tourism crosses many lines and may more appropriately be seen as a target market within a destination. Heritage tourists appear to be motivated for different reasons than do traditional tourists. Some tourism destinations see heritage tourism as a promotion for tourism products, and this has been lamented.

Why the research is important

The development of heritage tourism has the potential for significant impact upon existing park, recreation, and tourism operations. Special events can have a long-term impact upon park, recreation, and tourism organizations. Take for example the anticipated 200th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The federal government, states, and communities are gearing up for this major heritage tourism experience years in advance.

Organizations aware of heritage tourism as part of their opportunities can incorporate such planning into their ongoing operations. The growth of heritage tourism suggests that it is not likely to abate in the near future.

Understanding the importance and influence of heritage tourism allows park, recreation, and tourism organizations to understand the influence of such tourism, how to plan for visitors, how to incorporate heritage tourism into existing operations, and more. As the authors suggest, "we as a society are responsible for providing individuals with opportunities to learn about the past, both to understand the significance of physical remains and to place them in a social context."

What we learn from the research

1. Heritage tourism is a growing segment of the total travel industry.

2. Heritage tourism affects more than just historical and cultural sites.

3. Heritage tourists tend to have more education and income than general travelers. They tend to travel as couples or groups and are twice as likely to take group tours.

4. Heritage tourists are more motivated "by a search for heritage experiences than by a detailed interest in factual history."

5. For heritage tourists, learning is more important than fun.

For additional information

Millar, S. 1989. "Heritage Management for Heritage Tourism." Tourism Management 10 (3): 9-14.

References

Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fisherman. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174-187.

Collins, R. (1983). Tourism and heritage conservation-The Pacific experience. Heritage Australia, 2(2), 58;-59.

Confer, J., & Kerstetter, D. (1996). Pennsylvania's Path of Progress Heritage Route 1995 Visitor Profile Study Follow-up Report: Determining Target Markets for the Path of Progress Heritage Route. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management.

Hall, C., & Zeppel, H. (1990). History, architecture, environment: Cultural heritage and tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 29(2), 54-55.

Hardy, D. (1988). Historical geography and heritage studies. Area, 20, 333-338.

Hargrove, C. (1995). Outlook for cultural and heritage tourism. Paper presented at the 1995 Travel Outlook Forum, Travel Industry National Conference, Alexandria, VA, October.

Hawley, P. (1990). Historic preservation and tourism. In J. Ziegler (Ed.), Enhancing rural economies through amenity resources: A national policy symposium. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Herbert, D. (1989). Leisure trends and the heritage market. In D. Herbert, R. Prentice, & C. Thomas, Heritage sites: Strategies for marketing and development, (pp. 1-15). Hants: Avebury.

Kerstetter, D., Confer, J., & Bricker, K. (1998). Industrial heritage attractions: Types and tourists. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(2), 91-104.

Kerstetter, D., Confer, J., & Graefe, A. (in press). An exploration of the specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Research.

Konrad, V. Historical artifacts as recreational resources. In G. Wall & J. Marsh (Eds.), Recreational land use: Perspectives on its evolution in Canada, (pp. 392-416). Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

Light, D., & Prentice, R. (1994). Who consumes the heritage; product? In G. Ashworth & P. Larkham (Eds.), Building a new heritage, (pp. 90-116). London: Routledge.

Mason, P. (1993). Outlook for leisure/family vacation travel. In Travel Industry Association (Ed.), 1993 Travel Outlook Forum, (pp. 107-109). Washington DC: Travel Industry Association.

Mawson, R. (1984). Summary report: Who visits historic houses and why. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

McNulty, R. (1991). Cultural tourism: New opportunities for wedding conservation to economic development. In Conservation and tourism: Second international congress on architectural conservation and town planning, (pp. 34-41). London: Heritage Trust.

Millar, S. (1989). Heritage management for heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 10(3),9-14.

Peterson, K. (1990). The heritage resource as

seen by the tourist: The heritage connection. In The tourism connection: Linking research and marketing, (pp. 209-218). Salt Lake City, UT: Travel and Tourism Research Association.

Prentice, M. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions. London: Routledge.

Prentice, M., & Prentice, R. (1989). The heritage market of historic sites such as education resources. In D. Herbert, R. Prentice, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Heritage sites: Strategies for marketing and development. Hants: Avebury.

Prentice, R., Witt, S., & Hamer, C. (1998). Tourism as experience: The case of heritage parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 1-24.

Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361-365.

Solomon, P., & George, W. (1977). The bicentennial traveler: A life-style analysis of the historian segment. Journal of Travel Research, 15, 14-17.

Tassell, C., & Tassell, M. (1990). The Tasmanian rural landscape. Heritage Australia, 9(4), 12-15.

Thomas, C. (1989). The roles of historic sites and reasons for visiting. In D. Herbert, R. Prentice, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Heritage sites: Strategies for marketing and development. Hants: Avebury.

Tighe, A. (1986). The arts/tourism partnership. Journal of Travel Research, 24, 2-5.

Travel Industry Association. (1997). 1997 Outlook for travel and tourism. Washington DC: Travel Industry Association.

Travel Industry Association. (1999). Fast facts. [on line] www.tia.org/press/fastfacts8.stm.

Weiler, B., & Hall, C. (1992). Special interest tourism. London: Belhaven Press.

Dr. Deborah L. Kerstetter is an associate professor of leisure studies in the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management at Pennsylvania State University. Dr. John C. Confer is an assistant professor in the department of recreation, parks, and tourism in the College of Health and Human Performance at the University of Florida.

Research Update is edited by Dr. Irma O'Dell of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and Kim L. Siegenthaler, Ph.D. of Appalachian State University.