Atractiile Mostenirii Industriale

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]
On: 19 November 2014, At: 03:15

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Industrial Heritage Attractions:

Types and Tourists
a b
Deborah Kerstetter , John Confer & Kelly Bricker
b
a
Restaurant and Recreation Management (HRRM) at
The Pennsylvania State University.
b
School of HRRM.
Published online: 13 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Deborah Kerstetter , John Confer & Kelly Bricker (1998) Industrial
Heritage Attractions: Types and Tourists, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7:2,
91-104, DOI: 10.1300/J073v07n02_05
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v07n02_05
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Chicago Library] at 03:15 19 November 2014
Industrial Heritage Attractions:
Types and Tourists
Deborah Kerstetter
John Confer
Kelly Bricker
ABSTRACT. Heritage tourism has become an important sector in

the tourism industry. In fact, interest in heritage tourism among the

American public increased 16% froin 1991 to 1995. In spite of this
surge in demand for heritage tourism little is known about tourists’
visitation to “types” of heritage attractions and if their travel behav-
ior characteristics are related to their patterns of visitation. This
study examined both issues in the context of industrial heritage
tourism. The results indicated that tourists were visiting “types” of
industrial heritage attractions. In addition, there was a relationship
between the type of trip they were on, the number of people in their
travel party, when they made their decision to visit, and the total
number of trips they had taken in the last 12 months and the “type”
of industrial heritage attraction they visited. [Article copies availablefar
a fee firm 7’he Haworth Docirrnent Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail
address: getitlfo@hawor.th.com]
INTRODUCTION
Traveling to experience a unique culture or to explore one’s heritage

has long appealed to American tourists. The evidence of growth in heri-
~~~
Deborah Kerstetter is Assistant Professor at the School of Hotel, Restaurant

and Recreation Management (HRRM) at The Pennsylvania State University. John
Confer and Kelly Bricker are doctoral candidates in Leisure Studies at the School
of HRRM.
The authors would like to thank the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage
Prcservation Commission for its continuous support of The Pennsylvania State
University’s School of HRRM and the research team’s study of heritage tourism.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 7(2) 1998
0 I998 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights rescrved. 91
92 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
tage activity is beyond contention (Mason, 1993). In fact, heritage tourism

is “increasingly recognized as an identifiable sector in the tourism indus-
try, an industry which now surpasses manufacturing in terms of its value to
our economy” (Cossons, 1989, p. 192). In 1991 nearly three out of ten
households visited a historic site while traveling (National Trust for His-
toric Preservation, 1993). By 1995 the Travel Industry Association re-
ported that approximately 46% of Americans had plans to visit an historic
site in the fall, an increase of 16% over 1991.
HERITAGE TOURISM
Millar (1989), among others (Hall & Zeppel, 1990; Hardy, 1988; Tighe,
1986) has suggested that heritage tourism is “about the cultural traditions,
places and values that . . . groups throughout the world are proud to
conserve” (p. 13). Cultural traditions such as family patterns, religious
practices, folklore traditions, arts and crafts, ethnohistory, and social cus-
toms contribute to the heritage of a country (Collins, 1983). Tangible
remains of the past in the form of historic buildings, archeological sites,
monuments, or cultural artifacts arc also thought to be components of
heritage tourism (Konrad, 1982; McNulty, 1991). However, Tassell and
Tassell (1 990) argue that heritage tourism also includes natural heritage
such as gardens, wilderness areas of scenic beauty, and valued cultural
landscapes.
Iniportance of Heritage Tourism

Hcritage tourism has been found to be a “beneficial activity to incorpo-
rate within the economic structure of smaller communities and urban areas
due to the fact that. . . [it] requires a limited financial investment” (Com-
mittee on Small Business, 1990, p. 6). Heritage tourism is often cited as a
means by which urban areas can offset the effects of economic restructur-
ing (Harris, 1989; Olgethorpe, 1987; Urry, 1990), establish new tourism
markets (D’Amore, 1990; Weiler & Hall, 1992), and raise the tourist
profile of cities and regions (Ballou & Hartley-Leonard, 1993).
Although the economic value of heritage tourism is most often men-
tioned, an equally compelling argument for heritage tourism has been
proposed. Heritage tourism has been found to play a positive role in
“helping smaller and rural communities maintain a sense of identity and
civic pride” (Committee on Small Business, 1990, p. 6). This opportunity
to maintain a separate sense of identity has been reinforced by D’Amore
( 1990) who noted that heritage tourism contributes to:
Kerstetter; Coifel: and Brickel. 93
. . . both the preservation and development of the world’s cultural

heritage. [It] provides governments with the rationale of preserva-
tion of historical sites and inonuinents and the motivation for indige-
nous groups to preserve unique dimensions of heritage in the form of
dance, music and artifacts. (p. 269)
Perhaps the most compelling argument for heritage tourism, however,
has been proposed by Burton (1983) who has suggested,
We need, if we are to make any sense of the past, both to understand
the significance of the physical remains and to place thein in a social

context. . . . Such awareness of the social implications of technologi-
cal change is not merely necessary as a correction to the trend to-
wards a somewhat naively nostalgic view of the past, it is also
necessary if the past is to be seen as having any relevance to the
present and the future. (p. 10)
The Heritage Tourist
Tourists who travel to heritage areas tend to be older, wealthier, and

interested in extended family and education-oriented experiences. Fun is
secondary to learning because tourists travel to increase their knowledge
of people, places and things-to experience a sense of nostalgia for the past
(Hawley, 1990). Peterson (1990) identified four distinct groups who travel
to heritage areas: Aficionados, Casual Visitors, Event Visitors, and Tou-
rists. With the exception of “Aficionados,” a small group with particular
interests such as the civil war or architecture, the vast majority of tourists
were interested in the experiential component of the heritage area rather
than its factual history. The results of a study by The National Trust for
Historic Preservation were similar. In their study of Colonial Williainsburg
the Trust found tourists to be attracted to the destination primarily for the
“atmosphere” and ambiance associated with the site rather than the fac-
tual history (in Mawson, 1984). Makens (1987), recounting a study con-
ducted for the state of Virginia, noted that tourists travel to the state
primarily for its historic “atmosphere” and sites. A more recent study
profiling the 1992 Virginia pleasure visitor segmented the visitor market
into the “Historic Preservation” visitor and “Other” visitors (Virginia
Division of Tourism, 1992). “Historic Preservation” visitors were more
inclined than “Other” visitors to plan ahead; spend three or inore nights in
the state; and visit historic buildings, houses or sites and civil war sites.
The increasing interest in and development of historic attractions sug-
gests that the market may become very competitive (Taylor, Fletcher, &
Clabaugh, 1993). In some regions of the United States, Canada, and the
United Kingdom competition has already become the norm.
One purpose of this study was to generate typologies of industrial
heritage attractions. A second purpose was to determine whether travel
behavior characteristics of tourists are related to visitation at industrial
heritage attractions. This is especially important given that researchers
such as Prentice (1993) believe that individuals who visit heritage attrac-
tions are seeking general recreation; they are not “heritage enthusiasts”
and as such do not exhibit unique characteristics.
THE STUDY SITE
The study was conducted along the Path of Progress, a 500-mile indus-
trial heritage route that traverses throughout a nine-county region in south-
western Pennsylvania. “Trails, parks, and heritage sites on the Path of
Progress mark southwestern Pennsylvania as the first place in the country
to officially pay tribute to the role of industry in our development” (South-
western Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, 1995, p. 8). The
agency that oversees the Path of Progress, The Southwestern Pennsylva-
nia Heritage Preservation Commission (SPHPC), was established in 1987.
It’s charge was initially to: (a) develop, enhance, and interpret iron and
steel making, coal and historical transportation themes within the nine-
county region; (b) incorporate these and other industrial heritage themes
into “cooperative regional tourism promotion efforts”; and, (c) retain and
enhance the region’s quality of life.
METHOD
A systematic random sample of visitors was obtained at nine sites along

the Path of Progress National Heritage Tour Route from June through
October, 1995. Individuals were interviewed on-site and, if they agreed,
were asked to complete a follow-up questionnaire once they returned
home. Two follow-up mailings were sent to non-respondents. The re-
sponse rate for the nine sites ranged from forty-two percent to sixty-eight
percent. The overall response rate was 59% (n = 1047).
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences, SPSS. Descriptive statistics were first computed to profile the
sample. Second, a priiicipal components factor analysis with a varimax
rotation was used to determine whether individuals were visiting “types”
Kerstetfet; CotfeK and Bricker 95
of heritage sites. To confirm the results of the factor analysis, alpha coeffi-
cients were referenced. Because the investigators were interested in the
relationships between types of heritage sites and travel behavior character-
istics, multiple analysis of variance and analysis of variance (ONEWAY)
procedures were employed.
RESULTS
The travel behavior characteristics of visitors and their overall visita-

tion behavior to sites along the Path of Progress Heritage Route were
examined through a simple frequencies procedure (Tables 1 and 2). Over-
all visitation behavior was determined by visitors’ self reporting which
sites they had visited during the trip in which they were interviewed.
While individuals were only interviewed at nine sites, they could have
potentially visited 27 sites; the total number of sites located along the Path
of Progress Heritage Route. Sites that attracted less than five visitors were
eliminated from additional analysis. To determine whether individuals
were visiting “types” of sites along the Route, correlations between the
remaining 23 sites were noted. Given that there was significant correlation
between many of the sites, a factor analysis was conducted.
A principal components procedure was used to determine the relation-
ships among the 23 sites. The first step in the factor analysis, as suggested
by Gorsuch (1983), was to identify the number of factors in the data set.
The results revealed eight factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.O. When
the scree plot was referenced however, only five factors fell cleanly above
the break line. An additional principal components procedure specifying a
five factor solution was executed. The analysis yielded five factors with
eigenvalues greater than one. Four of the five factors were comprised of
two or more items and none of the items had communalities less than .40.
When four of the five factors were tested for reliability (the fifth factor
which was a one item factor could not be tested), only three factors had
standardized item alphas greater than .55; one was discarded and elimi-
nated from further analyses. The final four factors accounted for 46% of
the variance (Table 3).
The items that comprised Factor 1 represented sites that focus on a
historic flood which took place in 1889; thus, this factor dimension was
named “Flood sites.” The second factor dimension, Factor 2, was titled
“Railroad Sites”; the four items which loaded on this factor represent
destinations which commemorate the railroad industry. Battle and fort site
items fell out on Factor 3, “Battlefields & Forts.” And, the fourth factor,
“Mines,” a single item factor included “Seldom Seen Mine.” Coefficient
TABLE 1. Travel Behavior Characteristics of Visitors

_ _ _ _ _ - -
~ ___
. __._ .
Characteristics n %
Number of people
in party
1 83 8%
2 410 41
3 171 17
4 163 16
5 169 17
Trip type
Vacation 239 26%
Day trip 386 42
Short get away 250 27
Pass thru 47 5
When decision was made

to visit
Day of visit 270 26%
Week before 307 30
2 to 4 weeks before 197 19
5 to 10 weeks before 121 12
11+ weeks before 132 13
Total number of pleasure

travel trips in the last 12 months
Less than 3 170 22%
3 to 4 265 35
5 to 7 169 22
8 or more 159 21
Total number of trips to heritage

areas in the last 12 months
0-1 187 25%
2 196 26
3 to 4 193 26
5 or more 173 23 __
-.
alpha values for three of the four factors ranged from .57 to .75 (Tables 3
and 4). A description of each site is located in Table 5 .
The relationship between the industrial heritage site dimensions and
travel behavior characteristics (i.e., number in travel party, trip type, when
decision was made, overall travel behavior, and heritage travel behavior)
was tested using MANOVA. The test revealed significance between all
five independent variables and the factor dimensions.
Further examination of these relationships using one-way analysis of
Kerstettet; Corfer; and Bricker 97
TABLE 2. Site Visitation Profile

. _ _ . _ _ _. -.___
Site Number Percent

Site Name Number Visited Visited
Railroader’sMemorial Museum Site 1 241 31.O%

Allegheny Portage Railroad N.H. L. Site 2 222 28.6%
East Broad Top Railroad Site 3 98 12.6%
Johnstown Inclined Plane Site 4 220 28.3%
Friendship Hill N.H.L. Site 5 7 0.9%
Somerset Historical Center Site 6 9 1.2%
Fort Ligonier Site 7 49 6.3%

Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site 8 23 3.0%
Canoe Creek State Park Site 9 23 3.0%
Gallitzin Tunnels Site 10 191 24.6%
Pennsylvania State Park Site 11 146 18.8%
Saltsburg Canal Park Site 12 1 0.1%
Allegheny Ridge State Historical Park Site 13 2 0.3%
Lincoln Highway Heritage Park Corridor Site 14 7 0.9%
Johnstown Flood Museum Site 15 188 24.2%
Johnstown Flood Memorial Site 16 261 33.6%
Old Bedford Village Site 17 87 11.2%
Horseshoe Curve N.H.L. Site 18 456 58.7%
Guided Train Ride (Johnstown-Altoona) Site 19 24 3.1Yo
Bushy Run Battlefield Site 20 5 0.6%
West Overton Museums Site 21 2 0.3%
Cambria Iron Company Site 22 9 1.2%
Eureka Mine 40 Overlook Site 23 3 0.4%
Iron Furnaces Site 24 23 3.0%
RecreationalTrails Site 25 14 1.8%
Seldom Seen Mine Site 26 21 2.7%
National Road Heritage Park Corridor Site 27 7 0.9%
variance revealed that there was a significant difference between trip type
and overall travel behavior and Factor 1, “Flood Sites.” Individuals trav-
eling through the area on vacation and people on short get away trips were
more likely than those who were in the area on a day trip to be visiting
flood sites. In addition, respondents who reported taking three to four trips
for pleasure in the last twelve months were more likely than those who
reported taking eight or more trips to be visiting flood sites (Table 6).
With respect to Factor 2, “Railroad Sites,” four of the five independent
variables proved significant. First, individuals who were traveling for vaca-
tion were more likely than individuals who were on a day trip to have
visited railroad sites. In addition, individuals traveling alone or as a couple
were significantly more likely than individuals traveling in large groups (5+
people) to have visited railroad sites. Third, those who had made their
decision the week before their visit were less likely than individuals who
TABLE 3. Results of the Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax

Rotation
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Flood Sites Railroad Sites Battlefields Mines
Items & Forts Communalities
~-
Johnstown Inclined Plane .84 .72
Johnstown Flood Museum .81 .66
Johnstown Flood Memorial .76 61
Horseshoe Curve National

Historic Landmark .75 62

Gallitzin Tnnnels .75 56
Allegheny Portage Railroad
National Historic Landmark .61 .43
RailroadersMemorial Museum .60 .39
Bushv Run Battlefield .69 .44

FOII iiionier .66 .45
Fort Necessitv National .64 .49
Somerset Hktorical Center .63 .48
Seldom Seen Mine .91 .83
Eigenvalue 2.29 2.01 1.63 1.03

%of Common Variance 15.2% 13.4% 1O.% 6.9%
Cumulative Variance 15% 28.6% 39.5% 46.4%
Alpha .75 62 57
had made the decision more than a month ahead to be visiting railroad sites.
And, lastly, respondents who indicated that they had taken three to four
pleasure travel trips in the last 12 months were less likely than those who
reported taking five to seven trips to be visiting railroad sites (see Table 6).
There were no significant relationships between travel behavior charac-
teristics and Factors 3 (Battlefields & Forts) and 4 (Mines).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, four ‘‘types” or dimensions of industrial heritage attrac-

tions were found: flood sites, railroad sites, battlefields and forts, and
mines. Since these site dimensions were calculated from the site visitation
patterns of respondents, this finding suggests two conclusions. First, re-
spondents tended to have a predictable pattern to their site visitation.
Second, this pattern can be partially explained by the themes of the attrac-
tions. The second conclusion reinforces the suggestion that heritage attrac-
Kerstetrei; Coifei; and Bricker 99
TABLE 4. Site Visitation Index Reliability Statistics

- ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ .. .
.. .~
..____
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Alpha

mean if variance il item total multiple il item
item deleted item deleted correlation correlation deleted
._.___.__ .- -_____
Factor 1: Flood Sites
Johnstown InclinedPlane 0.554 0.569 0.622 0.395 0.608
Johnstown Flood Museum 0.593 0.622 0.578 0.351 0.663
Johnstown Flood Memorial 0.493 0.580 0.530 0.284 0.720
Alpha 0.748
Standardized item alpha 0.750
Factor 2: Rallroad Sites

Horseshoe Curve National
Historic Landmark 0.903 0.916 0.485 0.243 0.473
GallitzinTunnels 1.276 1.002 0.462 0.223 0.498
Allegheny Portage Railroad
NationalHistoric Landmark 1.239 1.091 0.314 0.123 0.603
Railroaders Memorial Museum 1.180 1.046 0.330 0.136 0.594
Alpha 0.615
Standardizeditem alpha 0.616
Factor 3: BanlelieldslForts
Bushy Run Battlefield 0.108 0.149 0.328 0.114 0.465
Forl Ligonier 0.048 0.068 0.355 0.136 0.457
Fort Necessity National Battlefield 0.085 0.104 0.394 0.163 0.340
Somerset HistoricalCenter 0.103 0.140 0.291 0.113 0.459
Alpha 0.505
Sfandardizedifem alpha 0.567
Factor 4: Mlnes
Seldom Seen Mine NA NA NA NA NA
tions “enliven, enhance and animate naturally occurring themes (Stevens,

1995, p. 194).” In trying to define markets for heritage tourism, it seems
reasonable to develop the inherent nature of a site or series of sites utiliz-
ing thematic “identifiers” (e.g., floods, railroads) visitors will easily rec-
ognize. The British government has long held the view that its investment
in heritage attractions is well placed due to the fact that they are distinct
and unique and that marketers can do well building upon the themes and
storylines created by them.
Masberg and Silverman (1996) found that individuals visiting heritage
sites vary in their recollection of experience outcomes. For some the
experience was “factual and external,” while others recalled outcomes
such as “personal learning, social benefits, and aesthetic expericnces.”
Their finding suggests that in addition to being cognizant of themes within
TABLE 5. A Description of the Industrial Heritage Sites Comprising the Four

Factor Dimensions
__ _____. .-
“Flood Sites”
Johnstown Inclined Plane
At seventy-one percent grade, the steepest vehicular railroadin theworld and the last
inclinedplane remaining in operationwas built after the great flood of 1889 to provide
both transportationand safety for residents.
Johnstown Flood Museum
The Museum presents the compelling story of the destruction of Johnstown in 1889
and its heroic rebuilding.
wn Flood Memorial
Establishedin 1964, the Memorialcommemoratesthe flood and houses the remains
of the South Fork Dam.
“Railroad Sites”
Horseshoe Curve National Historic Landmark
Completed in 1854, the curve represents an engineeringfeat.
Gallitzin Tunnels
From 1854 to 1904 the Pennsylvania Railroad bored three tunnels through the
Alleghenies.
Alleaheny P o w Railroad National Historic Landmark
Vestiges of the inclined plane system can be seen at this site.
Railroaders Memon‘a1Museum
The Museum commemorates the thousands of workers who labored for the
PennsylvaniaRailroad system.
“BattlefIeldslForts”
Blbshy Run 6
- ’ I
On August 5th, 1763, several Native American tribes attacked a relief mission. The
ensuing two-day battle, known today as “Pontiac’s War,” is interpreted on-site.
Fort Liaonier
This Fort, which repulsed French assaults in the 1750s, remained in service until
1766, as a post of passage guarding the strategic Forbes Road to Pittsburgh.
Fort Nece-
This park commemoratesthe events surroundingthe start of the Frenchand IndianWar.
Somerset HistoricalCenter
The Center focuses on the impact of industrialization and modernizationon farm
family life.
“Mines”
Seldom Seen Mine
From approximately 1910 until 1960, Seldom Seen Mine was operated by a local
family. In 1960 the Seldom Seen Coal Company purchasedthe mine and opened it
for tourists half.the
.
. day and worked it during nontourist hours. Miningceasedin 1962.
the realin of heritage tourism, more research is needed in understanding

what type of experience visitors desire. Understanding the desires of tou-
rists could influence how the theines are carried through on-site factors
such as displays, interpretive programs, the actual facility, etc.
In addition, there is an opportunity to diversify income sources by
TABLE 6. Relationship Between Travel Behavior Characteristics and Site
Dimensions Using Oneway Analysis of Variance
Factor 1 Factor 2
Flood sites Railroad sites
Type of trip
Vacation .32a .49a
Day trip .21ab .3aa
Short get away .32b .45
Pass thru .31 .42
F = 5.40"' F = 5.62"'
Number of people in party

1 .52a
2 .45b
3 .41
4 .42
5 or more .34ab
F = 4.83"
When individual made the decision to visit

Day of visit .40
Week before .37ab
2-4 weeks before .45
5-10 weeks before .49a
More than 10 weeks ahead .51b
F = 5.56'*'
Total number of trips in the last 12 months

Less than two trips .28 .43
3 to 4 trips .34a .38a
5 to 7 trips .32 .49a
8 or more trips .22a .45
F = 3.21' F = 3.53"
W:Similar superscripts indicate significant difference. For example, individuals who

were on a vacation were significantly more likely than individuals on a day trip to have
visited flood sites. And, those who were on a short get away trip were significantly more
likely than tourists on a day trip to have visited flood sites.
*'* = significant at the .001 level
**
= significant at the .01 level
= significant at the .05 level
further developing the naturally occurring visitation patterns to "types" of

attractions. With respect to this study, managers could create merchandise
around, for example, a railroad or flood theme. Promotional schemes
which require visitors to visit all the flood sites or battlefields could also
be developed. And, cooperative agreements with agencies offering a sitni-
lar service or product could be initiated resulting in discounts to visitors

and, ultimately, greater revenue to each attraction. Lastly, knowing that
there are “heritage enthusiasts” who are drawn to “types” of heritage
attractions suggests to managers that they would do well to sell their
heritage attractions as a “package” and to position their destination as, in
this instance, a mecca for railroad enthusiasts or military buffs. Ballou and
Hartlcy-Leonard (1 993) have suggested that correctly positioning heritage
tourism can serve to raise the tourism profile of cities and regions. Given
the fact that Southwestern Pennsylvania played an integral part in the
industrial revolution which has long lost its luster, heritage tourism, pack-
aged correctly, can help tourists to recognize the benefits of experiencing
heritage. They will also be able to recognize through the packaging of
“types” of heritage attractions the contribution the region made to the
industrial revolution and as such raise the tourism profile of the area.
A second purpose was to determine whether travel behavior character-
istics of tourists are related to visitation at industrial heritage attractions.
The results are not surprising given what we know about tourists in gener-
al, but do challenge Prentice’s (1993) argument that visitors to heritage
attractions are generalists and display similar behavior. For example, this
study found that the type of site visited was significantly related to amount
of previous pleasure travel experience (number of trips in the last twelve
months). This finding complements the literature on decision-making
which suggests that prior experience plays an integral role in influencing
tourists’ pleasure travel behavior.
In addition, the fact that individuals who visit railroad sites are more
likely to travel alone is intriguing. For example, do individuals who visit
railroad sites unaccompanied want a “pure” railroad experience and as
such travel by themselves so they can experience the site alone? Perhaps
this finding suggests that there are “purists” who, like Bryan’s (1977)
“specialists,” seek out experiences that match their level of knowledge
and skill. Shafer and Hammitt (1995) have explored the notion of “pur-
ism” more recently in the context of outdoor recreation, but future tour-
ism-based research should address this issue especially with respect to
tourists who visit “types” of heritage sites.
The results also suggested that people who visit railroad sites plan
ahead. This finding continues to reinforce that there may be a niche market
of very specialized heritage tourists such as railroad enthusiasts who,
perhaps because of the saliency this type of heritage has to their life,
become more involved in the planning effort attached to their trip.
This exploratory study has provided insight to industrial heritage attrac-
tions as a sector of the overall tourism industry. The results have shown us
Kcrstetlet; Corfei; and Bricker 103
that there are types of industrial heritage attractions and the travel behavior
of individuals who visit them is unique. What can we do with this infoima-
tion? We can use this type of information to generate a greater appreci-
ation of industrial heritage attractions and more effectively market thein to
individuals interested in the industrial heritage of our country.
REFERENCES
Ballou, R., & Hartley-Leonard, D. (1993). Economic growth through travel &
tourism: A plank for the Clinton Administration. (Paper presented to the Clin-
ton Administration, Travel and Tourism Industry Association).
Bryan, H. (1 977). Leisure values systems and recreational specialization: The
case of the trout fisherman. Jouriial of Leiswe Reseatrh, 9(3), 174- 187.
Burton, A. (1 983). Our indztstrialpast. London: George Philip.
Collins, R. ( 1 983). Tourism and heritage conservation-The Pacific experience.
Heritage Australia, 2(2), 58-59.
Committee on Small Business (1990). Tourism as a tool for rural development.
Report presented to the subcommittee on procurement, tourism, and rural
development of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives,
Independence, MO. ( U S Government Printing Office Serial No. 101-70).
Cossons, N. (1989). Heritage tourism-Trends and tribulations. Tourism Manage-
ment, 10, 192-196.
D’Amore, L. (1990). A global perspective: Tourism-A vital force for peace? In
The tourism connection: Linking research and marketing, (pp. 269-273). Salt
Lake City, Utah: Travel and Tourism Research Association.
Gorsuch, R. (1 983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hall, C., & Zeppel, H. (1 990). History, architecture, environment: Cultural heri-
tage and tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 29(2), 54-55.
Hardy, D. (1988). Historical geography and heritage studies. Area, 20(4),
333-338.
Harris, F. (1 989). From the industrial revolution to the heritage industry. Geo-
graphical Magazine, 61(5), 38-42.
Hawley, P. (1990). Historic preservation and tourism. In J. Ziegler (Ed.), Enhnnc-
ing rural economies through amenity resources: A national policy symposium,
pp. 22-27. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
Konrad, V. (1982). 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.
Makens, J. (1987). The importance of U S . historic sites at visitor attractions.
Journal of navel Research, 26(3), 8-12.
Masberg, B., & Silverman, L. (1996). Visitor experiences at heritage sites: A
phenomenological approach. Journal o j Travel Research, 34(4), 20-25.
Mason, P. (1993). 1993 Outlook for leisure/family vacation travel. In Travel
Industry Association (Ed.), 1993 Travel outlook foriitn, (pp. 107-109). Wash-
ington DC: Travel Industry Association.
Mawson, R. (1984). Summary report: Who visits historic houses and why. Wash-
ington, DC: National Trust for Historic Prescrvation.
McNulty, R. (199 I). Cultural tourism: New opportunities for wedding conserva-
tion to economic development. In Coiiservation and toitrisni: Second interna-
tional congress on architectural conservation and town planning, pp. 34-4 l .
London: Heritage Trust.
Millar, S. (1 989). Heritage management for heritage tourism. Tourism Manage-
ment, 10(3), 9-14.
National Trust for Historic Prescrvation (1 993). Unpublished results of the Heri-
tage Tourism Initiative.
Olgethorpe, M. (1987). Tourism and industrial Scotland. Tourism Management,
8(3),268-271.
Peterson, K. (1990). The heritage resource as seen by the tourist: The heritage
connection. In The iortrism connection: Linking research and marketing, pp.
209-2 18. Salt Lake City, UT: Travel and Tourism Research Association.
Prentice, R. (1 993). Tourism and heritage attructioiz. London: Routledge.
Shafer, C., & Hammitt, W. (1995). Purism revisited: Specifying recreational condi-
tions of concern according to resource intent. Leisure Sciences, 17, 15-30.
Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission (1995). Path of Progress
Heritage Route: The Allegheny experience, an American transformation. Hollidays-
burg, PA: Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission.
Stevens, T. (1 995). Heritage as design: A practitioner’s perspective. In Herbert, D.
(Ed.), Heritage, tourism and society, pp. 191-21 1. London: Mansell Publishing
Limited.
Tassell, C., & Tassell, M. (1 990). The Tasmanian rural landscape. Heritage Aus-
tralia, 9(4), 12-15.
Taylor, D., Fletcher, R., & Clabaugh, T. (1993). A comparison of characteristics,
regional expenditures, and economic impact of visitors to historical sites with
other recreation visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 32( l), 30-35.
Tighe, A. (1986). The arts/tourism partnership. Journal of Travel Research,
24(Winter), 2-5.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure arid travel in contemporary societies.
London: Sage.
Virginia Division of Tourism (1992). Profiles documentation, the 1992 Virginia
pleasure and visitors study. Unpublished paper. Department of Economic Devel-
opment, Division of Tourism, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
Weiler, B., & Hall, C. (1992). Special interest tourism. London: Belhaven Press.
SUBMITTED: 07/30/96
REVISION SUBMITTED: 11/01/96
REVISION SUBMITTED: 0 1/06/97
ACCEPTED: 01/13/97
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

Atractiile Mostenirii Industriale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atractiile Mostenirii Industriale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]

On: 19 November 2014, At: 03:15

Journal of Travel & Tourism

Industrial Heritage Attractions:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v07n02_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

ABSTRACT. Heritage tourism has become an important sector in

the tourism industry. In fact, interest in heritage tourism among the

Traveling to experience a unique culture or to explore one’s heritage

Deborah Kerstetter is Assistant Professor at the School of Hotel, Restaurant

tage activity is beyond contention (Mason, 1993). In fact, heritage tourism

Iniportance of Heritage Tourism

. . . both the preservation and development of the world’s cultural

the significance of the physical remains and to place thein in a social

The Heritage Tourist

Tourists who travel to heritage areas tend to be older, wealthier, and

THE STUDY SITE

A systematic random sample of visitors was obtained at nine sites along

The travel behavior characteristics of visitors and their overall visita-

TABLE 1. Travel Behavior Characteristics of Visitors

When decision was made

Total number of pleasure

Total number of trips to heritage

TABLE 2. Site Visitation Profile

Site Number Percent

Railroader’sMemorial Museum Site 1 241 31.O%

Fort Ligonier Site 7 49 6.3%

TABLE 3. Results of the Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax

Horseshoe Curve National

Historic Landmark .75 62

Bushv Run Battlefield .69 .44

Seldom Seen Mine .91 .83

Eigenvalue 2.29 2.01 1.63 1.03

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, four ‘‘types” or dimensions of industrial heritage attrac-

TABLE 4. Site Visitation Index Reliability Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Alpha

Standardized item alpha 0.750

Factor 2: Rallroad Sites

tions “enliven, enhance and animate naturally occurring themes (Stevens,

TABLE 5. A Description of the Industrial Heritage Sites Comprising the Four

the realin of heritage tourism, more research is needed in understanding

Number of people in party

When individual made the decision to visit

Total number of trips in the last 12 months

W:Similar superscripts indicate significant difference. For example, individuals who

further developing the naturally occurring visitation patterns to "types" of

lar service or product could be initiated resulting in discounts to visitors

You might also like