the role of interpretation as determines of willingness to ... · structure of the presentation...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Role of Interpretation as Determines of
Willingness to Pay for Preservation
The case of Auschwitz- Birkenau
13 April 2011
Gila Oren | College of Management Academic Studies, Israel.
Avital Biran | University of Surrey, United Kingdom.
Yaniv Poria | Ben- Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.
Research in Progress
College of Management Academic Studies
Structure of The Presentation
Introduction
Conceptual framework
The site- Auschwitz Birkenau
Research Objectives
Methodology
Findings
Discussion and Conclusion
Managerial Implications
Limitations and future research
Introduction- The Preservation Of Auschwitz
The relics of Auschwitz extermination camp are in danger of disintegration.
Poland established (January 2010) an international fund hoping to raise 120 million Euro.
3
44
5
Conceptual framework | WTP, preservation and
heritage sites WTP towards preservation is investigated in the context of natural
heritage, ignoring cultural heritage sites (Kim et al. 2007; Tuan & Navrud 2008).
Studies highlight the importance of understanding people’s WTP for the management of heritage preservation (Reynisdottir et al. 2008).
Visitors vs. Non visitors
Use value vs. Non Use (i.e. Optional, Bequest) (Togiridou et al. 2006).
Clarifying attitudes towards preservation requires an understanding of the meanings assigned to heritage sites (Lowenthal 1998)
Dissonant heritage (Tunbridge & Ashworth 1996), heritagization (Poria & Ashworth 2009).
)
6
Conceptual framework | Preservation and
Interpretation
The roles of heritage interpretation
Constructing the visitor experience (Moscardo & Ballantyne 2008)
Encouraging preservation through education (Timothy & Boyd
2003)
A political resource in the heritagization process (Buzinde &
Santos 2008; Poria & Ashworth 2009)
A source of revenue (Muzaini et al. 2007)
Studies dealing with heritage construction and heritage tourism support the notion that individuals, and organizations are interested in
different on-site interpretation (Wight & Lennon 2007).
7
The site | Auschwitz- Birkenau
“A universal symbol of evil" (Miles 2002: 1175).
A popular visitor attraction, 1.38 million visitors in 2010 (Auschwitz-Birkenau, 2010).
A must see tourist attraction (Limor 2010).
A World Heritage Site (Since 1979).
Research Objectives
WTP/ WTV
Universal symbol
of atrocities
WTP/ WTV The story of all
Auschwitz victims
WTP- willingness
to pay
WTV – willingness
to visit
WTP/ WTV The story of the
Jewish victims
Reasons for preservation
Attitudes towards the
preservation
Benefits from the Visit
Who is reasonable
for the
preservation
A
B
C
D
EH
I
G F
Perception ofthe site as
personal heritage(PSOH)
9
Research methodology
Exploratory stage: Literature review, semi-structured
interviews with individuals (n=30) and experts (n=10).
Main study: Structured questionnaire (English, Hebrew,
Polish and German) completed through face-to-face
interviews.
Sampling strategy: Convenience sampling.
Location: Major cities in Israel, Poland, Germany and UK.
Population: Citizens over the age of 15 (Apter et al. 1998).
Feasibility study: March 2010.
Main data collection: Starting April 2010.
10
Findings | Sample characteristics
Current sample size: 319 participants
Nationality: Polish 40.6%, German 32.8%, Israelis 26.3%
Gender: 53.8% female, 46.2% male
Age: 21-30 (12.5%), 31-40 (29.2%), 41-50 (26%)
Education: 46.7% academic education
Religious affiliation: 63.4% Christian, 28.7% Jewish
Previous visits: 51.1% visited Auschwitz before
11
Findings | Perception of Auschwitz as personal
heritage Perception of the site was measured using the PSOH scale
(1=Disagree, 7=Agree)
Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.784
Cluster Analysis:
Group 1
Low
(n = 49)
Group 2
Middle
(n = 135)
Group 3
High
(n = 126)
One Way
ANOVA
PSOH 1.87 4.09 6.16F = 831.5
p<0.01
Group 1: Low perception of the site as personal heritage
Group 2: Middle perception of the site as personal heritage
Group 3: High perception of the site as personal heritage
12
Findings | Three stories
The story of the Jewish victims
The interpretation will highlight the murder of the Jews in Auschwitz.
The story of all Auschwitz victims
The interpretation will dedicate equal attention to each group of Auschwitz victims.
Universal symbol of atrocities
The site’s interpretation will refer to acts of genocide which occurred in different times and places around the world (e.g. Darfur, Rwanda, and the genocide of the Armenian people).
14.3$7.65$2.79 $2.79 $ 14.3$7.65$
2.95
1.81
5.64
4.67
5.88
4.83
13.62$4.20$
9.71$
5.22
4.06
9.78$
5.22
4.06
9.78$
9.71$
low(n = 49)
Findings | PSOH & willingness to payMiddle
(n = 135)High
(n=126)
Overall
Mean
Jewish victims
Willingness to visit 4.74 4.82
Willingness to donate 3.34 3.64
Amount ($)
Diversity of Auschwitz’s victims
Willingness to visit 3.67 5.17
Willingness to donate 2.59 3.88
Amount ($) $7.98
Universal symbol
Willingness to visit 3.44 5.08 5.43 4.97
Willingness to donate 2.44 3.55 4.30 3.65
Amount ($) 3.29$ 8.23$ 11.9$ 9.02$
Willingness to donate: 1= disagree, 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$,
4.20$ $7.98 13.62$
• Willingness to visit/donate: 1= disagree to 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$
• Significant differences were found between the groups in all cases.
14.3$7.65$2.79 $
2.95
1.81
5.64
4.67
5.88
4.83
13.62$4.20$
9.71$
5.22
4.06
9.78$
low(n = 49)
Findings | PSOH & willingness to payMiddle
(n = 135)High
(n=126)
Overall
Mean
Jewish victims
Willingness to visit 4.74 4.82
Willingness to donate 3.34 3.64
Amount ($)
Diversity of Auschwitz’s victims
Willingness to visit 3.67 5.17
Willingness to donate 2.59 3.88
Amount ($) $7.98
Universal symbol
Willingness to visit 3.44 5.08 5.43 4.97
Willingness to donate 2.44 3.55 4.30 3.65
Amount ($) 3.29$ 8.23$ 11.9$ 9.02$
Willingness to donate: 1= disagree, 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$
14.3$
5.64
4.67
5.88
4.83
13.62$
High
(n=126)
5.43
4.30
11.9$
2.79 $
2.95
1.81
4.20$
low(n = 49)
3.67
2.59
• Willingness to visit/donate: 1= disagree to 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$
• Significant differences were found between the groups in all cases.
9.71$
5.22
4.06
9.78$
low(n = 49)
Findings | PSOH & willingness to payMiddle
(n = 135)High
(n=126)
Overall
Mean
Jewish victims
Willingness to visit 2.95 4.74 5.64 4.82
Willingness to donate 1.81 3.34 4.67 3.64
Amount ($) 2.79 $ 7.65$ 14.3$
Diversity of Auschwitz’s victims
Willingness to visit 3.67 5.17 5.88
Willingness to donate 2.59 3.88 4.83
Amount ($) 4.20$ $7.98 13.62$
Universal symbol
Willingness to visit 3.44 5.08 5.43 4.97
Willingness to donate 2.44 3.55 4.30 3.65
Amount ($) 3.29$ 8.23$ 11.9$ 9.02$
Willingness to donate: 1= disagree, 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$
2.95 4.74
1.81 3.34
2.79 $ 7.65$
• Willingness to visit/donate: 1= disagree to 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$
• Significant differences were found between the groups in all cases.
16
Discussion and Conclusion
The relevancy of the experientially based approach
in the conceptualisation of heritage tourism
(Apostolakis 2003).
Those perceiving the site as personal heritage,
present higher WTV and WTP for the site
preservation.
The data highlight the economic role of
interpretation.
The findings challenge the WHS concept
17
Managerial Implications
The need to recognize the role of interpretation as
a source of revenue for preservation.
The need for mass customisation of interpretation
to increase WTP for site preservation.
The findings emphasizes the importance of making
heritage sites relevant for wide audience in order
to increase WTV and WTP
Ethical issues.
18
Limitations & Future Research
Limitations:
An Iconic site.
The study centers on one site only.
This study explores intentional behavior.
Future research:
This study is a “snapshot”- a qualitative research in each of the countries may further explore the relationships between sense of heritage ownership and financial support.
Integration of site management perspectives (e.g. ethical and ideological issues).
19
Thank you !