Impacts of UNESCO-listed tangible and intangible heritages on tourism

ABSTRACT

We empirically examine whether the inscription of heritages on the UNESCO Lists attracts more international tourists. We suggest two main points. One is the use of a logit model in change variables. The other point is to differentiate the impacts of tangible and intangible heritages on tourism. The empirical results reveal that the UNESCO-listed Heritages significantly promote international tourism because the inscription guarantees the value of the heritages. These results imply that the inscription of heritages on the UNESCO Lists reduces the information gap between the heritage providers and the tourism consumers and therefore attracts more international tourists.

KEYWORDS:

• UNESCO World Heritage
• intangible cultural heritage
• tangible heritage
• heritage tourism
• information asymmetry
• nonlinear relation
• logit model
• change variables

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. If the functional form is linear, the regressions in level variables have the same coefficients as the regressions in change variables; the regression in change variables is simply the first-differenced form of a regression in level variables. Thus, Arellano and Bond (1991) and Garin-Munoz (2006) estimate linear dynamic panel data models after transforming the models in level variables into the ones in change variables. However, since the functional form used in this study is not linear, as explained below, the estimation results of the level-variable models will be different from the ones of the change-variable models.

2. Among the two Lists (Representative List, List for Urgent Safeguarding) and one Register (Register of Good Safeguarding practices) under 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, we are focusing on the Representative List, which is most relevant to tourism.

3. Yang et al. (2010, footnote 6) also note that a more appropriate strategy is to examine the change in tourism demand for a site before and after its being listed as a World Heritage Site.

4. To account for the difference in country size, Yang and Lin (2014) add an explanatory variable about the size of destination country (measured by the population size, POP). For this approach to be valid, however, the dependent variable (Y) and a size-control variable POP should be in the logarithmic form because the logarithmic value of per capita quantity, log(Y/POP), becomes log(Y)−log(POP) as in Yang et al. (2010) and Huang et al. (2012). In addition, use of log(POP) as a control variable is based on a strong assumption that the functional form is linear, which receives little support in the literature. Alternatively, this study uses change and change-rate variables to control for the country heterogeneity not only in size but also in other aspects.

5. Two widely used measures of tourism demand are the number of foreign tourist arrivals and the monetary receipts from tourist visits. Since the focus of this study is whether the UNESCO listing attracts more tourists, we employ the number of tourist arrivals for a measure of tourism demand, as in Yang et al. (2010), Huang et al. (2012), Su and Lin (2014), and Yang and Lin (2014). The tourism receipts reflect not only the arrivals but also the increased prices of tourism-related goods and services, especially in the up-markets of developed countries. Thus, the tourism receipts are more appropriate for analyzing the contribution of tourism to economic growth; examples are Fayissa, Nsiah, and Tadesse (2011), Figini and Vici (2010), Hye and Khan (2013), and Min et al. (2015), among others.

6. Yang et al. (2010) use the inflow of foreign capital to control for the business tourism.

7. Prior to the current inscription system, the selection of “Masterpieces” was made for three times (in years 2001, 2003, and 2005), and those selected “Masterpieces” were transferred to the Representative List in 2008, when the inscription system of the new Lists and Register started.

8. Since we are interested in the significance of the cumulative effects but not in their estimates, we may exclude the multiplying factor of the probability density function.

9. One more category is a combined heritage containing both cultural and natural attributes. Since five countries have one such combined heritage and four countries have two, we decided to report the results without including such combined heritages.

10. Oral traditions and expressions; performing arts; social practices, rituals, and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; traditional craftsmanship.

11. Group I (Western European and North American States), Group II (Eastern European States), Group III (Latin-American and Caribbean States), Group IV (Asian and Pacific States), Group V (a) (African States), Group V (b) (Arab States).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund.