Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

ISSN: 1476-6825 (Print) 1747-7654 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtcc20

Tour guides' interpretation of the Historic Center

of Macao as a World Cultural Heritage site

Man-U Io & Leonie Hallo

To cite this article: Man-U Io & Leonie Hallo (2011) Tour guides' interpretation of the Historic
Center of Macao as a World Cultural Heritage site, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 9:2,
140-152, DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2011.568621

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2011.568621

Published online: 09 Jun 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 947

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtcc20
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change
Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2011, 140 –152

Tour guides’ interpretation of the Historic Center of Macao

as a World Cultural Heritage site
Man-U Ioa∗ and Leonie Hallob
a
Institute for Tourism Studies, Macao SAR, People’s Republic of China; bCentre for Asian
Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
(Received 12 November 2010; final version received 23 February 2011)

Literature review suggests that little attention is paid to the interpretation of a World
Cultural Heritage (WCH) ensemble such as the Historic Center of Macao (HCM).
The present study aims to investigate tour guides’ interpretation of the HCM and how
their interpretation affects tourists’ appreciation and understanding of a visited
heritage site within the HCM, as well as tourists’ interest in other under-used HCM
sites. Methodologies include in-depth interviews with tour guides, on-site observations
of tour guides and surveys of package group tourists. The findings indicate that tour
guides tended to interpret an HCM heritage site as an independent WCH site. In turn,
this results in tourists’ misunderstanding of Macao’s WCH and a lower level of
authentic experience at the visited heritage site. It is advocated that the interpretation
of any one heritage site of the HCM should connect to the HCM ensemble and other
heritage sites within the HCM. The inter-cultural relationship among the heritage sites
should be further explored and highlighted in narratives.
Keywords: World Cultural Heritage; the Historic Center of Macao; architectural
ensemble; interpretation; tour guides; authentic experience

Background of the study

Since the inscription of the Historic Center of Macao (HCM) on the world heritage (WH)
list in 2005, the Macao SAR government has been promoting Macao as a destination for
heritage tourism. Through the promotion of the HCM, the local government also hopes
to promote other less-popular heritage sites within the HCM to tourists. However, two land-
mark heritage sites, St. Paul’s Ruins and A-MA Temple, remain the most popular heritage
attractions of Macao and thus are becoming over-used by tourists, whereas other heritage
attractions have only had a small increase in the number of visitors and thus have
become under-used heritage attractions following the inscription of the HCM (du Cros,
2007). The over-use of these two landmark attractions has caused a certain degree of diffi-
culty in their conservation. Such a phenomenon reflects the fact that the HCM is not yet
fully promoted to the public and thus there is still much room for improving its popularity
by improving tourists’ understanding of the breadth of offerings of the HCM.
According to UNESCO, WH can be divided into five categories, namely World Cultural
Heritage (WCH), World Natural Heritage, Cultural and Natural Mixed Heritage, Cultural

∗
Corresponding author. Email: iomanuyan@hotmail.com

ISSN 1476-6825 print/ISSN 1747-7654 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2011.568621
http://www.informaworld.com
 Journal of Tourism and Culture Change 141

Landscape Heritage and Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage. Each of these five
categories is assessed under different criteria of selection. In the category of WCH, there
are three subcategories defined as follows: monuments, groups of buildings and sites (Cul-
tural Affairs Bureau, 2005). Owing to the different nature and importance of the above three
subcategories, the presentation and management of heritage sites vary from one to another.
The HCM belongs to the second subcategory: groups of buildings. Unlike many other
places where the heritage sites are inscribed as an independent site on the WCH list,
such as the Great Wall in China and Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the HCM consists of
over 20 heritage buildings and eight squares (Figure 1), and its universal value and cultural
significance are reflected from a group of buildings and squares.
In addition, the interrelationship among all heritage sites of the HCM reflects the har-
monic neighborhood of the Portuguese and the Chinese in the early times in Macao’s devel-
opment. The interchange of values between these two cultures is also seen in the
architectural styles of heritage buildings and squares of the HCM. The long-lasting relation-
ship between China and Portugal has facilitated the development of today’s unique Maca-
nese culture. The HCM is actually an exceptional example of an architectural ensemble
demonstrating the fusion of western and Chinese cultures and spirits (Coimbra, 2009).
To fully reflect the significance and universal value of Macao’s WCH, any one heritage
site of the HCM should not be seen and interpreted separately.
In their study of Macao WH, Cheng and Wan (2008) revealed that tourists were least
satisfied with the Macao WH sites within the dimension of communication. Tourists
found that the information provided at most heritage sites was insufficient. This resulted
in tourists’ ambiguous understanding about why these heritage sites were inscribed on
the WCH list. Given that insufficient information is provided at the heritage site, tourists
are likely to turn to tour guides for more information. Thus, tour guides become important
for educating tourists about the significance of the heritage sites.

Figure 1. The Historic Center of Macao.

Source: Macau Cultural Affairs Bureau.
142 M.-U. Io and L. Hallo

According to another study of the HCM by du Cros (2007), many package group tour-
ists stayed at the heritage sites for only a short time, and some of them even walked away
from the sites to seek other experiences after a brief talk by tour guides. Around 80% of
mainland Chinese tourists (over half of inbound tourists are from mainland China) under-
took joint gambling/shopping tours. A large portion of mainland tourists did not know how
to appreciate and treat heritage sites with respect. In such circumstances, the need and
importance of educating Macao visitors, especially mainland Chinese visitors, to under-
stand and appreciate the values of Macao’s WCH become more significant. Chinese visitors
from mainland China and other Asian regions account for over 85% of total visitors to
Macao (Statistics of Census Service, 2010). Their satisfaction with Macao’s WCH thus
becomes vital to Macao’s heritage tourism.
St. Paul’s Ruins and A-MA Temple are landmark heritage attractions of Macao and are
also the most popular heritage attractions for tourists in the HCM. Before the inscription of
the HCM on the WCH list, they were already popular heritage attractions to tourists. After
inscription, these two sites remain popular, especially for sightseeing package tours.
However, some under-used heritage sites of the HCM have not benefited much from the
designation of WCH. Many under-used heritage sites of the HCM remain unpopular for
sightseeing tourists. Tour guides’ interpretation of the heritage site of the HCM may be
one reason for this lack of popularity, since tour guides have a great deal of influence on
tourist experience and understanding of the visited sites (Ablett & Dyer, 2009; Poria,
Biran, & Reichel, 2009; Randalla & Rollins, 2008).
In tourism literature, tour guides’ role in heritage interpretation has been widely dis-
cussed with a focus on their importance and influence on tourist experience and authenticity
and also on site management. However, the literature review reveals that very little attention
is paid to the interpretation of a cultural heritage ensemble such as the HCM. Tour guides
are sources of information about the WH attractions of Macao, and thus, their interpretation
of the HCM plays a crucial role. Therefore, the objectives of the present study are as
follows:

(1) to investigate the practice of tour guides in interpreting any one heritage site of the
HCM;
(2) to evaluate tourists’ knowledge of and interest in the HCM ensemble and
(3) to provide implications for better interpreting the HCM-like WCH ensemble and
practical suggestions for optimal HCM marketing.

Literature review
Heritage interpretation
With the arrival of the special title of WH, heritage attractions should seem to be more
attractive to tourists. However, some researchers have argued that the WH status is not
enough for the promotion of WH sites, as the awareness of WH status does not always
appear to be a very strong influence in attracting tourists (Yan & Morrison, 2007). Compre-
hensive marketing activities and sustainable tourism development at the WH sites are
important (Beck, 2006; Gilmore, Carson, & Ascenção, 2007). Visitors’ motivation for vis-
iting WH sites is also an important consideration in promoting the WH sites (Nyaupane,
White, & Budruk, 2006).
Previous studies have widely discussed the importance and influence of interpretation
on the promotion and management of heritage attractions and tourist experience (Beeho
 Journal of Tourism and Culture Change 143

& Prentice, 1997; Moscardo, 1996). Some writers have advocated that interpretation should
be tailor-made for different tourist segments and different objects, because interpretation
should serve as a facilitator of emotional experience, rather than just as a means to gain
knowledge (Poria et al., 2009; Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2006a). Interpretations presented
in marketing tools will be important in influencing tourists’ perception and subsequent
decision to visit a particular site (Poria et al., 2006a). On-site interpretation is also impor-
tant. Some authors (Ablett & Dyer, 2009; Moylan, Brown, & Kelly, 2009) have suggested
that attention should be paid to the interaction between visitors and the site. Interpreting a
tourist site through a variety of forms and means helps to enhance tourist experience. For
example, Carr (2004) found that over half of her respondents indicated audio – visual show
or display area as their preference for interpretation medium, and her results also reveal that
on-site interpretation contributed greatly to raising visitors’ awareness of the cultural value
of the Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park. To improve tourist experience at historical sites,
Malcolm-Davies (2004) recommended costumed interpretation, as the results in her study
indicated that visitors’ top three priorities for a visit to historic sites are to learn, to feel a
sense of the past and to have fun, whereas education and entertainment are basic require-
ments for visitors to feel that their visit was worthwhile.
Today, the most important aim of the interpretation of heritage attractions should be to
provide tourists with an excellent all-round tourist experience rather than focusing on edu-
cating or entertaining them, as interpretation has much influence on the total tourist experi-
ence, and this can affect tourists’ satisfaction with heritage attractions or even with the
whole tour (Rojas & Camarero, 2008). A number of methods have been suggested to
improve or enhance tourist experience through interpretation. For example, the interpret-
ation of heritage attractions should take account of tourists’ motivations to visit heritage
attractions and also should give tourists a sense that the heritage attractions are their per-
sonal heritage (Poria et al., 2009). Similarly, others suggest that interpretation of heritage
attractions should give tourists a sense of place (Hwang, Lee, & Chen, 2005; Stewart,
Hayward, & Devlin, 1998).
Interpretation of attractions can be undertaken both verbally and non-verbally. Common
non-verbal interpretation can be seen in printed material of tourist attractions and physical
settings at the site (Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). Brochures and on-
site interpretive signs and displays are very common in both indoor and outdoor attractions,
such as museums and theme parks (Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Soper, 2007; Zeppel &
Muloin, 2008). Non-verbal interpretation can influence visitors’ understanding and
emotional experience of the visited attraction. For example, Beck (2006) examined the por-
trayal of some cultural WH sites in travel guidebooks and found that few travel guidebooks
highlighted the WH status for these sites, resulting in some practical problems in presenting
WH.
Although non-verbal interpretation plays an important role in educating visitors about
the attraction, verbal interpretation seems more direct and important in not only providing
visitors with information, but also improving their experience and meeting management
objectives in terms of tourist behavior and tourist respect toward the site (Munro, Morri-
son-Saunders, & Hughes, 2007; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). Previous research has found
that verbal interpretation by tour guides is particularly helpful in improving tourist experi-
ence in wildlife tourism (Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). Zeppel and Muloin (2008) found that
indigenous guides present the indigenous culture of the Australian wildlife in their own
way by telling their own experience and stories, which provides visitors with information
and history of the wildlife and enhances visitors’ understanding and emotional experience
of the Australian wildlife. Also, verbal interpretation of attractions can encourage
144 M.-U. Io and L. Hallo

interaction with visitors, change visitors’ behavior and attitude toward the site and answer
visitors’ questions regarding the site. Thus, it can be more powerful than non-verbal
interpretation (Munro et al., 2007).
Verbal interpretation is mostly provided by tour guides or on-site interpreters. Good
verbal interpretation should meet some requirements, such as using specific terms in
order to widen visitors’ awareness of the history of the site and to help to give a sense of
place to visitors and presenting the site and its culture through acquired knowledge and per-
sonal experience in order to enhance the level of authenticity (Zeppel & Muloin, 2008).
Tilden’s six principles of environmental interpretation (Ablett & Dyer, 2009, p. 212) also
serve as guidelines for good verbal interpretation: interpretation must relate what is dis-
played to the experience of the visitors; should be a revelation rather than information; is
a teachable art; should provoke rather than instruct; should relate parts to an underlying
whole and should provide a qualitatively different interpretive approach for children.
Importantly, good interpretation should take tourists’ motivation for their visit into
account and encourage interaction between visitors and the site (Carr, 2004; Poria et al.,
2006a). Also, verbal interpretation is used as a means to manage tourist behavior and enter-
tain and educate tourists regarding the site (Carr, 2004; Munro et al., 2007). Carr (2004)
suggests that it is better to use various media for interpretation in order to more effectively
meet both management objectives and diverse visitor preference.
Verbal and non-verbal interpretations of a site have been investigated by many scholars,
but very few studies have looked at how to interpret a group of spatially discrete sites. Some
scholars suggest that it is important to link the discrete sites together in the interpretation in
order to point out their interrelationship and make them a series of sites (Li & Lo, 2004;
Moylan et al., 2009). In particular, Moylan et al. (2009) suggested that the interpretation
of spatial representation of heritage should be set within a cultural landscape framework
to acknowledge that all parts of the landscape have inter-connected cultural histories,
associations and meanings resulting from long-term and ongoing human – environment
interactions. While previous studies provide a basic concept of how to interpret a series
of sites, questions still remain, such as how to interpret a single site of the HCM-like archi-
tectural ensemble and in what way tour guides should contribute to the communication of
the significance of the architectural ensemble.

The role of package tour guides’ presentations

The importance of the role played by tour guides has been well recognized in previous
studies. For example, Randalla and Robbins (2008) found that visitors to a natural attraction
perceived tour guides as being particularly important in five roles: instrumental, social,
interaction, motivator of responsible behavior and environmental interpreter. These
results reveal the potential of tour guides to contribute to the protection of natural attractions
by educating tourists through interpretation. Moscardo (1996) suggested that good
interpretation at heritage sites can help to create mindful visitors who are more aware of
the precious value of the heritage sites and the consequences of their bad behavior to the
sites. Tour guides are also important for facilitating tourists’ emotional experience, particu-
larly those tourists who are interested not only in gaining knowledge but also in seeking a
unique tourist experience (Poria et al., 2009; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Thus, tour guides
should be able to identify the interest of different tourists and customize their interpretation
to meet their different interests and requirements.
While what is considered as ‘heritage’ is subject to interpretation (Harrison, 2004), there
is no doubt that tour guides’ interpretation of a heritage site will have a great influence on
 Journal of Tourism and Culture Change 145

tourists’ appreciation of a heritage attraction. Some previous studies (Poria et al., 2009;
Poria et al., 2006a; Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006b) argue that it is important to customize
the interpretation of heritage to suit different tourist segments. This does not mean that tour
guides need to sacrifice the authentic significance of heritage sites to focus on entertaining
tourists, as tourists also expect to gain knowledge about the heritage sites. Varied interpret-
ations of a site aim to provide a good sense of authenticity and to improve the level of tour-
ists’ appreciation toward the sites (Malcolm-Davies, 2004; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).
Package group tourists rely on tour guides’ interpretation in order to learn how to appreciate
a heritage site: otherwise, they are likely to appreciate the site through their backgrounds
and socialization, and these are different from those of heritage experts (Harrison, 2004).
However, tour guides’ interpretations have been shown to be self-serving and conformist
narratives (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Interpretations of different tour guides of a heritage
site vary and the quality of their interpretation is subject to their knowledge and competency
skills. Ryan and Dewar (1995) found that at historic sites, interpreters’ poor competency
skills resulted in poor information recall by visitors.
In recent years, authentic tourism has become a popular trend for the development
of heritage tourism (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; Soper, 2007; Yeomana, Brass, &
McMahon-Beattie, 2006). Interpretation plays an important role in achieving a high
degree of authenticity of the heritage site, and tour guides are the inevitable factor influen-
cing the effectiveness of the interpretation. Therefore, some have suggested that tour guides
should be transformative in order to more effectively change and manage tourists’ behavior
and attitudes toward the heritage site (Christie & Mason, 2003). Transformative tour
guiding helps tourists to have a new mindset toward heritage and to be more willing to
take responsibility for their own behavior toward the heritage site. Christie & Mason,
(2003) point out that those tourists who seek the services of a tour guide to interpret the
site for them do so partially because they want to hand over responsibility to the guide
that their behavior and actions at the site can be guided and monitored by an expert.
Thus, tour guides should be responsible for teaching tourists how to behave properly
through their high-quality interpretation.

Methodology
The present study used semi-structured interviews and on-site observations with tour guides
to explore how tour guides interpret the heritage attractions within the HCM to tourists. In
addition, a survey interview with tourists was conducted to examine sightseeing tourists’
understanding of the HCM immediately after receiving the presentation by tour guides.
Regarding the interview with tour guides, a sample of 10 voluntary participants was
selected. The three largest tourist markets of Macao are Mainland China, Hong Kong
and Taiwan, and Chinese tourists represent over 85% of the total number of Macao visitors
(Statistics of Census Service, 2010). Chinese-speaking guides are the largest population of
tour guides in Macao followed by English-speaking guides (Macao Tourist Government
Office, 2010). Therefore, only English- and Chinese-speaking guides with at least 3
years of guiding experience were selected for the interview. In total, eight of the 10 partici-
pants had the experience of serving Chinese-speaking tourists from Mainland China and
other Chinese-speaking Asian regions. Four of the 10 interviewees had served English-
speaking tourists from Europe, North America, Australia and India (two guides had
served both Chinese- and English-speaking tourists). The interview was conducted
during a 3-day seminar for tour guides in Macao. The convenience sampling method
was applied, since all licensed tour guides of all languages in Macao receive their
146 M.-U. Io and L. Hallo

guiding training from the same tourism institute in Macao, and their knowledge and quali-
fication are at a similar level. Potential participants were approached and invited during the
intermissions of seminars. The interview took place after explaining the purpose of the
interview and gaining consent from potential interviewees.
The interview covered questions regarding participants’ interpretation of the HCM as
WCH, tour itineraries and tourists’ interest in the HCM and in under-used heritage sites.
Each interview took over 30 min and was conducted in Chinese. The first author inter-
viewed participants individually in a discussion style, which aimed to encourage partici-
pants to speak freely about their narrative design and interpretation of Macao’s heritage
attractions, in general, and the HCM, in particular. All answers from the respondents
were transcribed and analyzed in terms of their similarities and differences, patterns of
inter-theme consistency and contradiction.
Regarding the on-site observation, St. Paul’s Ruins, the most popular heritage attrac-
tion, was selected for observation. Convenience sampling was applied. On two Sunday
mornings in mid-September 2010, the authors went to the St. Paul’s Ruins where seven
Chinese-speaking guides and three English-speaking guides were successfully approached
and observed. After obtaining these tour guides’ consent, the authors gave a survey ques-
tionnaire to their tourists right after observing each tour guide’s presentation. A total of 105
survey questionnaires were completed and returned by the tourists at the site. The contents
of the presentations and key words used by the tour guides were transcribed. Tourists’
responses were recorded.

Findings
From the interviews and on-site observation, the findings reveal information about the
current practices of tour guides in interpreting individual heritage sites of the HCM, and
the survey for tourists has indicated tourists’ understanding and interest in the HCM
after listening to tour guides’ presentation. Tour guides’ practices and influence on tourists’
interest in the HCM and on the promotion of under-used sites of the HCM are discussed. In
addition, the discussion covers the issue of how best to interpret the individual heritage sites
of the HCM in order to fully expose the historical themes and universal values of the HCM.
In both the interview and on-site observation, Chinese- and English-speaking guides
demonstrated a similar interpretation, thus their practices are considered jointly and their
tourists were grouped together for the purposes of analysis.

Tour guides’ interpretation of a heritage site of the HCM

The interview with tour guides revealed that most tour guides believe that they are knowl-
edgeable about the history of each heritage site of the HCM, as presenting these heritage
sites to tourists is part of their job. Most respondents agreed that the inscription of the
HCM on the WCH list is an honor to Macao and contributes greatly to heritage tourism.
However, surprisingly, these tour guides had not amended their interpretation at all follow-
ing the inscription of the HCM. In the interview, respondents confessed that they seldom
mentioned the HCM and other under-used heritage sites within the HCM to tourists.
They said this was because they were not aware of the interrelationships between the
elements, and these were not covered in the anecdotes produced by Macao heritage and
tourism authorities. When they were observed, respondent guides’ narratives mainly
focused on the history and architectural features of the visited attraction, with no connection
to the HCM and other under-used heritage sites. However, the term ‘WCH’ was commonly
 Journal of Tourism and Culture Change 147

used to describe St. Paul’s Ruins. This term was used, they said, because it is the most
powerful and simplest term to highlight the significance of the site and to capture tourists’
attention in their short presentations.
In general, tour guide respondents claimed that it was sufficient to give a short presen-
tation to inform tourists of the historical stories of the visited heritage attraction, because a
long presentation could make them feel bored. The presentation given by most respondents
lasted around 5 min. This result is consistent with the results of a previous study (du Cros,
2007). After their presentation to tourists, guides freed tourists to walk around the site and
take pictures.

The marketing appeal of under-used sites of the HCM from the tour guides’
perspective
In addition to the disconnection in anecdotes among each heritage site within the HCM,
many respondents claimed that it was good enough to visit one or two representative
sites instead of the whole HCM. One of the reasons for this was that the under-used heritage
sites were essentially less attractive, compared with more popular heritage sites.
The under-used heritage sites were perceived by guides as being small and less attrac-
tive in appearance and having fewer facilities than St. Paul’s Ruins, even though they are all
standing within the HCM. Most under-used heritage sites are located in residential areas
where insufficient tourist facilities are available for package group tourists, for example,
parking for tour buses. Also, their small size causes many under-used heritage sites to
seem less grand and spectacular than other WCH attractions around the world. Therefore,
respondents claimed that visiting the two representative WCH attractions of Macao was
good enough for sightseeing tourists. They also stated that tour guides should show tourists
the best heritage attractions, reflecting the fact that tour guide respondents did not think that
the under-used heritage attractions would be worthwhile in enhancing tourists’ understand-
ing and authentic experience of the popular heritage attractions of Macao.

The design of sightseeing tours

Another reason given for not mentioning the HCM ensemble in tour guides’ narratives of
the visited heritage site concerned the itinerary design for sightseeing tours. Respondents
stated that most tours were sightseeing tours in which heritage sites are not the only attrac-
tions but there are also other modern attractions in the itinerary. The itinerary of a sightsee-
ing tour usually includes visits to casino hotels, shopping and a few modern tourist
attractions as well as visits to heritage sites. Also, the duration of most tours was around
only 1 day, and the schedule was, therefore, very tight. Package tourists usually were
given only 15 – 20 min to visit a heritage area, and this time was barely enough to visit
two heritage sites. Tourists preferred to spend time on other modern attractions such as
casino hotels, thus the two most representative heritage sites of Macao (St. Paul’s Ruins
and A-MA Temple) were selected for sightseeing tours. This also caused these two heritage
sites to be over-used, while many other heritage sites of the HCM were under-used (du
Cros, 2007). Thus, the purpose of a tour can affect tour guides’ interpretation of heritage
attractions. If the purpose of a sightseeing tour is to visit all kinds of attractions including
historical and modern ones, heritage attractions will not be the most important component
of the tour and the number of heritage attractions which can be visited will be limited. Thus,
it is understandable that tour guides were not motivated to introduce other heritage sites.
148 M.-U. Io and L. Hallo

Tour guides claimed that a sightseeing tour is different from a heritage tour which aims
to focus on heritage attractions of a destination. In a sightseeing tour around Macao, many
tourists are satisfied with visiting only the two most representative heritage sites. Respon-
dents claimed that as they were only visiting two heritage sites, it would help to impress
tourists more by describing the visited heritage attractions as WCH, but that it was not
necessary to mention the entire HCM and its other heritage sites. In this sense, tour
guides’ interpretation of the two heritage sites is likely to lead tourists to regard the
visited heritage sites as independent WCH sites without any relationship with the HCM
ensemble and to ignore other sites. Since shopping is also an important component of a
sightseeing tour, guides preferred to let tourists spend more time on this than on visiting
heritage attractions.

Tourists’ knowledge and interest of the HCM

A total of 105 Chinese tourists, from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia,
completed and returned the survey questionnaires at the site of St. Paul’s Ruins. The results
show that although tour guides hardly mentioned the HCM in their presentations to tourists,
many respondents were familiar with the HCM and 60% of the respondents knew that the
HCM was a WCH site of Macao. However, in the comparison with St. Paul’s Ruins, respon-
dents said that they knew St. Paul’s Ruins better than the HCM. Over half of the respon-
dents (65.7%) knew about St. Paul’s Ruins before their visit, but less than half (42.9%)
knew about the HCM before their visit, indicating that the landmark St. Paul’s Ruins
was more popular than the HCM in their view. This is partially because St. Paul’s Ruins
has been recommended to visit in the tourism promotional campaign for overseas tourists
for several decades, whereas the HCM has only been world famous for 5 years. Almost half
of the respondents (45.7%) said that they were not aware of any relationship between St
Paul’s Ruins and the HCM. Furthermore, a large number of respondents (80%) could not
correctly state how many heritage sites composed the HCM and the names of any under-
used heritage sites of the HCM. This is no doubt due to the neglect of this detail by tour
guides in their presentations to tourists.
Since almost half of the tourist respondents (42.9%) already knew about the HCM
before their visit, many tourists were likely to answer the survey questions based on
their knowledge learnt before visiting Macao or learnt from the HCM brochures provided
at the site, rather than on the knowledge gained from tour guides. As tour guides mainly
focused on informing tourists of the anecdotes of St. Paul’s Ruins without connecting
this site to the HCM and other heritage attractions, tourists mostly responded regarding
only the interpretation of St. Paul’s Ruins.
In the survey for tourists, a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ most negative; 5 ¼ most posi-
tive) was used to assess tourists’ appreciation and understanding of the HCM after the tour
guides’ presentation. Comparatively, respondents ranked the specialness of St. Paul’s Ruins
(mean ¼ 3.43) as being higher than their knowledge of the site (mean ¼ 3.16). Interest-
ingly, respondents did not know St. Paul’s Ruins that well but did appreciate its precious-
ness. This result could be attributed to tour guides’ influence on tourists and tourists’ self-
learning through the exploration of the heritage attraction on their own. However, since the
tour guides under observation hardly mentioned the HCM in their presentations, it is not
surprising that respondents’ knowledge of the HCM (mean ¼ 2.8) was significantly less
than their knowledge of St. Paul’s Ruins (mean ¼ 3.16), and their appreciation for the spe-
cialness of the HCM (mean ¼ 3.08) was also ranked lower than that of St. Paul’s Ruins
(mean ¼ 3.43). Tourists were not all that interested in visiting other heritage sites of the
 Journal of Tourism and Culture Change 149

HCM (mean ¼ 3.26). Thus, respondents appreciated St. Paul’s Ruins more than the HCM
in its entirety and were less motivated to visit other heritage sites of the HCM. However,
given that tourists were familiar with the HCM without any information being given by
tour guides, if tour guides were to take the initiative to provide tourists with more infor-
mation and encourage some sense of the HCM, this is likely to increase tourists’ interest
in the HCM. It is advocated that tour guides should be the key persons to motivate tourists
to visit other under-used heritage sites of the HCM. They should also be the key persons to
enhance tourists’ authentic experience with the heritage sites within the HCM by connect-
ing one heritage site to others in their interpretation.

Discussion and conclusion

Tourists are no longer satisfied with just visiting a landmark heritage attraction; instead,
they hope to gain a more authentic experience by visiting more heritage attractions, under-
standing the history and civilization of the place in order to seek a new meaning in human
life and a sense of the visited place (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; Yeomana et al., 2006).
Tour guides may serve as inter-cultural mediators to facilitate tourists’ appreciation and
arouse their interest in exploring the meaning of a site by taking the initiative in interpreting
the cultural aspects of that site (Scherle & Nonnenmann, 2008).
The present study has revealed that most Chinese- and English-speaking tour guides in
Macao demonstrated a similar interpretation of a site within the HCM, in which, a single
site of the HCM is interpreted as a single WCH site and disconnected from the HCM
ensemble and other HCM sites. As a result, the historical and cultural significance of the
whole HCM and any visited HCM site cannot be fully grasped and thus tourists’ authentic
experience of the visited HCM site is diminished. Tour guides’ preference for using ‘WCH’
to describe an individual HCM site rather than connecting the visited site to the whole HCM
has become a crucial factor in giving tourists an incorrect understanding of Macao’s WCH,
and this results in a lower level of authentic experience. This common practice of incom-
plete presentation is supported by the current finding of tour guides’ lesser appreciation of
Macao’s WCH as well as their self-perceived minor role in heritage tourism. The interview
with tour guides suggested that they commonly thought that their role was more one of
entertainment and that the job of promoting the HCM was the job of the local government.
There are reasons other than our guides’ training which lead to the current findings.
First, tour guides did not introduce or mention the HCM and other under-used HCM
sites in their narrative of the visited HCM site, because they made little connection
between the landmark heritage attractions and other heritage attractions within the HCM
in their narratives. Thus, there is a problem in their narrative design. Most tour guides pre-
pared their narratives based on the anecdotes from their guiding training program and
Macao heritage and tourism authorities. Sadly, these materials seldom focus on the inter-
relationship of narratives among each single site within the HCM, though the HCM sites
are seen to be connected with each other on the map.
Secondly, tour guides assumed that most sightseeing tourists are less interested in heri-
tage tourism, so they tended to speak less about the HCM ensemble. This practice leads to a
vicious cycle in which tour guides speak less about the HCM, causing tourists to be less
interested in the HCM and, in turn, enhancing guides’ belief that sightseeing tourists are
not interested in Macao’s WCH. Tour guides do need to manipulate their narrative of a heri-
tage site to meet different needs of different tourist segments, especially of those tourists
who are not fond of heritage (Poria et al., 2009; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006), but ignoring
the interrelationship among each heritage site and the HCM can only limit the authenticity
150 M.-U. Io and L. Hallo

and the universal value of the visited site. Presentations at the landmark heritage site St
Paul’s Ruins were short in order to fit in with tourists’ perceived tastes and to suit their inter-
ests, but they did use the term ‘WCH’ as a point of interest. Tourists’ responses to the survey
in this research indicate that they realize that HCM is a WHC site and that they had pre-
viously heard of St Paul’s Ruins, but many did not know about its relationship with the
HCM ensemble and they were somewhat interested in visiting other sites but lack knowl-
edge about how many other sites there are.
Thirdly, tour guides commonly perceived the under-used HCM sites as being less attrac-
tive to tourists in terms of their appearance, small size, tourist facilities and access. They
believed that visiting the two most representative landmark heritage sites (St. Paul’s
Ruins and A-MA temple) and ignoring other under-used HCM sites are the best itinerary
designs for sightseeing tourists, saving their time and eliminating the risk of disappointing
tourists when they visit the other HCM sites. Such a notion reflects the fact that tour guides
tend to judge the level of attractiveness and values of the HCM sites based on their market-
ing appeal instead of their cultural and historical significance. The WCH status is seen as a
device only to enhance the marketing appeal of the two landmark heritage sites, rather than
as worldwide recognition of the universal values of the entire heritage group.
Finally, tourist heritage attractions were not the core component of a sightseeing tour,
and thus, tour guides did not think that it was necessary to spend more time and give a
more detailed explanation of the heritage sites, but they thought that they should concen-
trate on other modern tourist attractions such as the casino hotels of Macao. Thus, tour
guides tended to focus on entertaining tourists instead of educating them in how to appreci-
ate Macao’s WCH attractions. Many tour guides showed little willingness to change tour-
ists’ attitudes and behaviors toward the heritage attractions by facilitating their appreciation
and leading them to explore the meaning and understand the universal values of the heritage
site. Tour guides perceived that their role is minor in heritage tourism. If introducing other
under-used HCM sites is not entertaining for tourists, then there is no point in mentioning
them. Tour guides supposed that explaining the interrelationship between the visited heri-
tage site and the HCM is not a useful means to improve tourists’ authentic experience, but
rather a means of promoting Macao’s heritage tourism and this is supposed to be undertaken
by local tourism authorities. Most tour guides provide tourists with a sense of authenticity
by telling the historical and architectural features of the visited heritage site and emphasiz-
ing its WCH status, and they did not appreciate that explaining the interrelationship among
the sites would enhance tourists’ authentic experience.
Acknowledging the inter-connected cultural histories of the discrete sites in order to
form a series of attractions (Li & Lo, 2004; Moylan et al., 2009) is a basic concept for inter-
preting an architectural ensemble. In addition, interpreting a heritage site through learned
knowledge and personal experience is a requirement for good verbal interpretation. More-
over, personal experience and emotional connection with the heritage sites are the best
sources of information for interpretation (Zeppel & Muloin, 2008), as such interpretation
is more spiritual and likely to have a deeper impact on tourists’ emotional experience
with the heritage site. Based on these notions and this analysis of tour guides’ interpretation
of a single site of the HCM, we advocate that tour guides should first fully understand the
historical and cultural significance of the HCM ensemble and that they should personally
appreciate it and develop an emotional bond with it. Only then can they effectively commu-
nicate the values of the HCM as WCH to tourists and improve tourists’ authentic experience
and sense of care toward the visited heritage attractions and the HCM and arouse tourists’
interest in other under-used heritage sites within the HCM. Although sightseeing tourists
may not be as enthusiastic as heritage tourists about heritage tourism, cultural and authentic
 Journal of Tourism and Culture Change 151

experience-seeking is common for all tourists who visit a heritage attraction. The findings
of the present study indicate that sightseeing tourists do have some interest in heritage
tourism, even though they are very limited in their knowledge of the HCM. Tour guides
thus should amend their narratives by acknowledging the inter-connected histories of the
HCM sites and connecting the visited heritage attraction to the HCM ensemble in order
to better facilitate tourists’ learning of Macao’s WCH and improve their authentic experi-
ence. Training at tourism schools for tour guides should reflect this imperative.
In addition, tourism authorities should enhance the reflection of the interrelationship
among all HCM heritage sites in their literature by exploring more of their inter-connected
historical stories. This would not only facilitate tour guides’ narrative design for the HCM,
but also help tourists, especially independent tourists, to better understand the universal
value of the HCM and, in turn, would encourage them to visit under-used heritage attrac-
tions in Macao.
The findings and discussion of the present study should assist in improving tour guides’
verbal interpretations of other HCM-like architectural ensembles. Further research should
examine tour guides’ competencies in interpreting HCM-like WCH attractions. Tourists’
experiences and perceptions of the HCM-like heritage settings should also be assessed
and monitored. Engaging interpretation strategies are needed to enhance understanding
of ensemble sites, and tour guides have a critical role in this important area. Appropriate
narratives will assist package tourists to understand authentic history in such sites, and
this understanding will assist in maintaining these treasured sites.

References
Ablett, P.G., & Dyer, P.K. (2009). Heritage and hermeneutics: Towards a broader interpretation of
interpretation. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 209–233.
Beck, W. (2006). Narratives of world heritage in travel guidebooks. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 12(6), 521–535.
Beeho, A.J., & Prentice, R.C. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage tourists. Tourism
Management, 18(2), 75–87.
Carr, A. (2004). Mountain places, cultural spaces: The interpretation of culturally significant land-
scapes. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(5), 432–459.
Cheng, E.I.M., & Wan, P.Y.K. (2008). Enhancing quality tourist experience in macao world heritage
site. Journal of Macao Studies, 45(4), 1–33.
Christie, M.F., & Mason, P.A. (2003). Transformative tour guiding: Training tour guides to be criti-
cally reflective practitioners. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 1–16.
Coimbra, D. (2009). The outstanding universal value of the Historic Center of Macao world heritage
site, Sunday Times, p. 11. Macao: Macao Daily Times.
du Cros, H. (2007). Too much of a good thing? Visitor congestion management issues for popular
world heritage tourist attractions. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(3), 225–237.
Cultural Affairs Bureau. (2005). Macau World Heritage. Macao: Cultural Affairs Bureau of Macau.
Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://edocs.icm.gov.mo/Heritage/MWHC2.pdf.
Gilmore, A., Carson, D., & Ascenção, M. (2007). Sustainable tourism marketing at a world heritage
site. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15, 253–264.
Harrison, D. (2004). Introduction contested narratives in the domain of world heritage. Current Issues
in Tourism, 7(4 & 5), 281–290.
Hwang, S.-N., Lee, C., & Chen, H.-J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place
attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks. Tourism Management,
26, 143–156.
Li, Y., & Lo, R.L.B. (2004). Applicability of the market appeal – robusticity matrix: A case study of
heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 25, 789–800.
Macao Government Tourist Office. (2010). Licensed tour guides. Retrieved January 2, 2011, from
http://industry.macautourism.gov.mo/en/tourGuide/index.php?page_id=89&language=%E8%8B%
B1%E8%AA%9E
152 M.-U. Io and L. Hallo

Malcolm-Davies, J. (2004). Borrowed robes: The educational value of costumed interpretation at

historic sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(3), 277–293.
McIntosh, A.J., & Prentice, R.C. (1999). Affirming authenticity consuming cultural heritage. Annals
of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589–612.
Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2),
376–397.
Moylan, E., Brown, S., & Kelly, C. (2009). Toward a cultural landscape atlas: Representing all the
landscape as cultural. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(5), 447–466.
Munro, J.K., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Hughes, M. (2007). Environmental interpretation evaluation
in natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 7(1), 1–14.
Nyaupane, G.P., White, D.D., & Budruk, M. (2006). Motive-based tourist market segmentation: An
application to native American Cultural Heritage sites in Arizona, USA. Journal of Heritage
Tourism, 1(2), 81–97.
Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at heritage sites.
Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 92–105.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2006a). Tourist perceptions of heritage exhibits: A comparative
study from Israel. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 51–71.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006b). Heritage site management motivations and expectations.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 162–178.
Randalla, C., & Rollins, R.B. (2008). Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 357–374.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualising interpretation: The role of tour guides in
authentic tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6), 481–498.
Rojas, C.D., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context:
Evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29, 525–537.
Ryan, C., & Dewar, K. (1995). Evaluating the communication process between interpreter and visitor.
Tourism Management, 16(4), 295–303.
Scherle, N., & Nonnenmann, A. (2008). Swimming in cultural flows: Conceptualising tour guides as
intercultural mediators and cosmopolitans. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 6(2),
120–137.
Soper, A.K. (2007). Developing Mauritianness: National identity, cultural heritage values and
tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(2), 94–109.
Statistics and Census Bureau. (2010). Visitor arrivals of 2010 November. Retrieved January 2, 2011,
from http://www.dsec.gov.mo/getAttachment/3a4a9a15-a3b5-46b8-9b44-23694bb9c625/C_MV_
FR_2010_M11.aspx
Stewart, E.J., Hayward, B.M., & Devlin, P.J. (1998). The ‘place’ of interpretation: A new approach to
the evaluation of interpretation. Tourism Management, 19(3), 257–266.
Yan, C., & Morrison, A. (2007). The influence of visitors’ awareness of world heritage listings: A case
study of Huangshan, Xidi and Hongcun in Southern Anhui, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism,
2(3), 187–195.
Yeomana, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2006). Current issue in tourism: The authentic
tourist. Tourism Management, 28, 1128–1138.
Zeppel, H., & Muloin, S. (2008). Aboriginal interpretation in Australian Wildlife tourism. Journal of
Ecotourism, 7(2 & 3), 111–131.