dr. lisa m. king senior research fellow curtin ... - curtin...

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

Communicating World Heritage:

Dr. Lisa M. King

Senior Research Fellow

Curtin University Malaysia

[email protected]

Case studies from Australia, the United States and Asia

Presentation Overview

Review the basics of a brand

Background about World Heritage

Study aims and objectives

Review study highlights from Australia, the United States and

Malaysia with findings from each location

List three strategies that work in helping communicate the World Heritage brand to the public

Every brand consists of:

Brand Identity

Tangible elements

Intangible elements

Brand name Brand mark/logo Emotions, thoughts, feelings

Everything a person knows about the brand

(Keller, 1993)

The tangible elements of the WH brand

World Heritage

WH emblem WH symbol

Brand Marks

Logos

Brand Name

World Heritage

Represent places so valuable to all of mankind that they should be

preserved intact in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy and learn from.

Represent the ‘best of the best’ (Luly & Valentine, 1998) based on the ten

criteria identified by World Heritage Convention.

State Parties to the World Heritage Convention are encouraged to

raise awareness of the need to preserve World Heritage. In particular, they

should ensure that World Heritage status is adequately marked and

promoted on-site (P 217, Operational Guidelines)

Protected Area

Brands have a variety

of roles & functions

Visitors

Communities

Governments

Entrepreneurs

Park management

(Adapted from King, 2011 )

The Roles of Protected Area Brands

• ID’s brand category & site specific name

• Communicates property is protected

• Indicates site quality

• Evokes specific behaviors & emotions

• Bestows site with unique associations

• Signals availability for certain recreational & educational uses

• Risk reducer in site choice

For the Visitor

(Taken from King, 2011)

Great

Barrier

Reef

The Roles of Protected Area Brands

• Means of site identification

• Signals how site will be managed

• Visitor & staff attractor

• Evokes behaviors & emotions beneficial to park objectives

• Provides competitive advantage & leverage among agencies for funding

• Fosters research

• Means to encourage best practice

For Park Managers

(Adapted from King, 2011)

Fraser

Island

Study aims and objectives

Aims: to investigate how WHAs presented the WH brand on-site to the

public and determine visitor awareness of the brand when on-site.

Objectives:

to photo document on-site signage within WH study sites to determine

how the WH brand was conveyed to the visitor;

To use a standardized survey instrument to identify the level of visitor

awareness of the WH brand while visiting a study site;

To determine the challenges agencies faced in conveying the WH brand to the visitor; and,

To develop strategies to heighten awareness and knowledge of the

WH brand on-site.

Keller’s (1993) Model of the Dimensions of Brand Knowledge


Literature review

The literature suggested that visitors generally have a low

awareness of the World Heritage brand during a site visit.

Hall & Piggin (2001); Smith(2002); Bentrupperbaumer &

Reser (2002), Beck (2006). Hergersell (2006); Leask (2006).

Dewer et al (2011); Portia et al (2010) suggested slightly

higher brand awareness at cultural sites.

Methodology

• 5 WHAs

• Monthly data collection across all 5 sites for a 4 month period in 2008

• 1,827 valid questionnaires

• Photo documentation

• Visitor observations

• Based on Bentrupperbäumer (2002) and others.

Gondwana Rainforests of Australia

Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public – Erratic

Fraser Island Australia

Great Barrier Reef Australia

Wet Tropics of Australia

Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public – Highly erratic

Australian Fossil Mammal Sites Riversleigh, Australia

Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public – Effective

Visitor awareness of the name of the WHA they were visiting


Gondwana: Out of 599 surveys – 0 respondents knew the correct name for

the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia WHA. 1.6 knew it as the Central

Eastern Rainforest Reserve.

Fraser Island: Of 466 respondents, 54% gave the correct response

Great Barrier Reef: Of 312 respondents, 55.2% of respondents gave the

correct name or were close

Wet Tropics: 1.9% of 279 respondents knew the correct name or were close. 51.4 knew Mossman Gorge

.Australian Fossil Mammal Sites: 0% of 171 knew the correct name, while

2.9% came close. 66% knew it as Riversleigh plus another 16.7% wrote

Riversleigh-related responses

Percentage of respondents aware they were visiting a WH site with a cue


Visitor awareness of WH status

Variable R DS FI GBR GRA WT Total %

Top of mind awareness after

at least 1/2 hour on-site 47.1 35.3 23.2 24.8 28.2 290 30.3

Awareness of WH status with

a cue 81.5 67.3 61.6 46.0 61.5 1067 61.5

Aware of WH status prior to

visit 65.9 68.7 60.5 45.6 56.3 1031 57.5

Total 171 466 312 599 279 1827 100


Comparison between the World Heritage & National Park brands on decision to visit


Challenges to conveying the WH brand


The size of some WHAs allows for hundreds of access points. This

situation makes it impossible for management agencies to communicate to

a visitor that they are entering a WHA at all possible points of entry.

The fragmented nature of some WHAs makes it difficult and costly for management to make effective visitor contact across numerous properties;

and, for visitors to understand the relationship between distinctly separate

sites encircled within a single WH brand name.

Some WHAs cross state/national boundaries adding additional layers of coordination and bureaucracy between agencies.

Some properties are prone to damage in weather events such as

cyclones, seasonal flooding, etc. making it difficult to maintain the visitor

infrastructure already in place or justify the need for additional infrastructure.



Working with the agencies that control road sign installation and/or

modification can be a long-term, politically time-consuming task; thus,

hampering WH branding efforts.

A lack of agency personnel trained in marketing and branding has led to ineffective branding exercises.

Low visitor numbers at some WH sites allow cash strapped agencies to

justify channeling funds elsewhere.

Changes in Federal and state governments often lead to changing

agency priorities over time that affect communicating the WH message to

the public.

Multinational visitation makes it challenging to present the brand in a manner that visitors will understand.



The lack of understanding by agency personnel that branding can be a

pro-active visitor management tool, aiding the overall goals and objectives

of an agency charged with managing a WH property has led to a number

of missed opportunities to better articulate and transfer the WH message

to the public.

The lack of emphasis placed by marketers in conveying a consistent

World Heritage message in effective formats has created, in some

instances, weak linkages between the public and specific WH site names.

The lack of accurate up-to-date visitor data has led to best guesses by

management agencies when developing long term brand strategies.

The lack of long term, comprehensive brand strategies has lead to the

uneven presentation of the WH brand within individual sites and across sites managed by the same agency.

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

Hawaii Volcanoes Nation Park USA

Facts about Hawaii Volcanoes NP

About 1,480,000 visitors

annually

Protects about 439,220 acres

of land

78% is designated wilderness.

Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public – Minimal


Data for Hawaii Volcanoes

(Taken from King, 2011, unpublished data)

712 visitor questionnaires over a nine month period in 2009/2010

Only 4.6% of respondents recognized the WH symbol and only 0.8

correctly recalled what the WH symbol represented

Approximately 13.2% knew it was World Heritage site prior to their visit

However, 18.2% knew the site was World Heritage after spending ½ hour

on site…

.

.


More challenges to

conveying the WH brand

(Taken from King, 2011 unpublished data)

Governments promoting their own national protected area brands

often lack the political desire or need to promote the World Heritage brand

to its citizens, frequently allowing the WH designation to become more or

less invisible.

Agencies prefer to show their independence and use their own

branding protocols instead of being dictated to by UNESCO’s guidelines

on how to convey the World Heritage brand.

.

Gunung Mulu National Park Malaysia

http://www.8thingstodo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Mulu-Caves-Malaysia.jpg

Quick Facts about Gunung Mulu

• Inscribed as WH in 2000

• 52,864-ha park

• Over 90 % is wilderness

• Receives @ 23,000 visitors annually

• Park management is outsourced to a private company

• “One of the best presented World Heritage sites in Asia” (King, 2013 forthcoming)

Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public - Exceptional

First sign a visitor sees inside the park

Visitor reception and registration area

Create exceptional visitor experiences to emotionally connect visitors to the WH brand

Tree top canopy walk

Outstanding Boardwalks and Trails

Gunung Mulu Visitor Data n=200

(Taken from King, 2013 in preparation)

Top of mind (uncued) awareness that they site was

WH after ½ hour on-site: 89.3%

Awareness that site was WH prior to visit: 70%

Awareness site was WH after ½ hour on-site: 100% with a cue

Recognized the World Heritage symbol 41%

Recalling what the WH symbol represented 26.7%

Three strategies that work to

(Taken from King, 2010 & 2011)

Build brand awareness by prominently, consistently and repeatedly

display the WH brand.

Teach brand meaning by explaining what World Heritage means in

several locations throughout the park

Grow positive brand equity over time by designing a variety of

meaningful experiences for the visitor to engage in

Avoided brand clutter

References • Keller, K. (1993). Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-

based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

• King, L. (2010). Communicating the World Heritage brand: A general overview of usage of the World Heritage brand across Australia. Report prepared for the Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee. 2nd draft.

• King, L. (2011). Investigating the role of the World Heritage brand in attracting visitors to protected areas in Queensland, Australia. PhD thesis. James Cook University, Cairns..

• King, L. (2013). Communicating the World Heritage brand: Building appreciation & commitment to the World Heritage concept. (Figgis, P., Leverington, A., Mackay, R., Maclean, A., Valentine, P., Eds.). Keeping the outstanding exceptional: The future of World Heritage in Australia. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney, pp. 192-197.

• King, L. (2013, forthcoming). Gunung Mulu National Park: A best practice case study in communicating World Heritage to visitors. In Yu-Fai Leung, G. Hvenegaard, Anna Spenceley (Eds.). IUCN Best Practice Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

• Luly, G. & Valentine, P. (1998). On the outstanding universal value of the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte) World Heritage Area : A report to the World Heritage Unit, DEST. Townsville, Qld. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University.

dr. lisa m. king senior research fellow curtin ... - curtin...

Documents